National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Program Center

Fort Collins, Colorado

Vital Signs Monitoring Plan for the

Southern Colorado Plateau Network

Natural Resource Report NPS/SCPN/NRR-2006/002
ON THE COVER

Pinyon-juniper woodlands, slickrock, and sandstone cliffs characterize the

landscape overlooking Betatakin Canyon at Navajo National Monument.

Photo by Chris Lauver, NPS
Vital Signs Monitoring Plan for the 

Southern Colorado Plateau Network 

Natural Resource Report NPS/SCPN/NRR-2006/002

Lisa P. Thomas, Marguerite N. Hendrie (editor), 

Chris L. Lauver, Stephen A. Monroe, Nicole J. Tancreto, 

Steven L. Garman1, Mark E. Miller2

National Park Service, Southern Colorado Plateau Network, 

Northern Arizona University, P.O. Box 5765, Flagstaff, AZ 86011

1National Park Service, Northern Colorado Plateau Network, 

P.O. Box 848, Moab, UT 84532

2United States Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center,

c/o Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument

190 E. Center St., Kanab, UT 84741

October 2006

U.S. Department of Interior

National Park Service

Natural Resource Program Center

Fort Collins, Colorado
ii

The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and applicability

to a broad readership in the National Park Service and

to others in the management of natural resources,

including the scientific community, the public, and the

NPS conservation and environmental constituencies.

Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate,

appropriately written for the intended audience, and is

designed and published in a professional manner.

The Natural Resources Technical Reports series is used to

disseminate the peer-reviewed results of scientific studies

in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both

the advancement of science and the achievement of the

National Park Service’s mission. The reports provide contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data

that are often deleted from journals because of page

limitations. Current examples of such reports include

the results of research that addresses natural resource

management issues; natural resource inventory and

monitoring activities; resource assessment reports; scientific literature reviews; and peer reviewed proceedings of

technical workshops, conferences, or symposia.

Views and conclusions in this report are those of the

authors and do not necessarily reflect policies of the

National Park Service. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or

recommendation for use by the National Park Service.

Printed copies of reports in these series may be produced in a limited quantity and they are only available

as long as the supply lasts. This report is also available

from the Southern Colorado Plateau website

(http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/units/SCPN) on the

internet, or by sending a request to: 

Southern Colorado Plateau Network

Northern Arizona University

P.O. Box 5765

Flagstaff, AZ 86011

Please cite this publication as:

Thomas, L.P., M.N. Hendrie (editor), C.L. Lauver, 

S.A. Monroe, N.J. Tancreto, S.L. Garman, and M.E. Miller.

2006. Vital Signs Monitoring Plan for the Southern

Colorado Plateau Network. Natural Resource Report

NPS/SCPN/NRR-2006/002. National Park Service, Fort

Collins, Colorado.

NPS D-46, October 2006
iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

KNOWING THE CONDITION of natural resources in national

parks is fundamental to the Service’s ability to manage

park resources “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future

generations”. The National Park Service has implemented a strategy to improve its science information base so

that parks with significant natural resources possess the

resource information needed for effective decision-making

and resource protection. Vital signs monitoring is a key

element of that strategy. The approximately 270 park

units with significant natural resources have been

grouped into 32 monitoring networks linked by geography and natural resource characteristics. The network

organization will facilitate collaboration, information

sharing, and economies of scale in natural resource

monitoring. Parks within each of the 32 networks collaborate with shared funding and professional staff to

design and implement long-term monitoring. The

Southern Colorado Plateau Network (SCPN) is composed of 19 National Park Service units located in

northern Arizona, northwestern New Mexico, southwestern Colorado, and southern Utah. 

Developing an ecological monitoring strategy requires

a front-end investment in planning and design to

ensure that monitoring will meet the most critical

information needs and produce ecologically relevant

and scientifically credible data that are readily accessible to managers. The SCPN monitoring program is

being developed over a five-year timeframe with specific objectives and reporting requirements at each of

three planning milestones. This is the final report that

documents that process. 

The first planning steps involved compiling and organizing relevant science information and conducting

detailed park scoping to identify the most important

resources and issues for each park. A second step was

to collaborate with regional scientists to develop conceptual ecological models of the predominant Colorado

Plateau ecosystems. The network then held a series of

workshops in 2004 to identify and evaluate vital signs

for long-term monitoring. During seven topical workshops park managers and scientists, collaborators from

the scientific community, and SCPN staff identified and

evaluated resources and potential indicators as candidates for monitoring. Following those workshops, the

SCPN Technical and Science Advisory Committees met

to make the final selection of network vital signs. 

Over the next five years, network staff and collaborators

will develop 13 monitoring protocols to address the core

vital signs for the SCPN. These monitoring protocols will

provide detailed study plans that explain how data are to

be collected, managed, analyzed, and reported and will

serve as a key component of quality assurance for vital

signs monitoring. 

A key partner in these planning activities is the Northern

Colorado Plateau Network (NCPN), our neighboring

network composed of 16 parks in Utah, Colorado, and

Wyoming. NPS units across the Colorado Plateau share

ecosystems and a long-history of working together on

natural resource science and stewardship. The two

networks have been tasked by Colorado Plateau park

managers to identify common monitoring needs and

work together as much as possible to design and

implement ecological monitoring. The two networks

collaborated on developing conceptual ecological models for Colorado Plateau ecosystems and are currently

collaborating to develop monitoring protocols. 
iv

Developing sampling designs for long-term monitoring is

essential to ensure that the data collected are representative of the target populations and sufficient to draw

defensible conclusions about the resources of interest.

The sampling design chapter describes how sampling

locations are chosen for each vital sign and how the sampling effort will be rotated through time among locations. 

In order to be useful to park managers over the long term,

monitoring data must be well-maintained and regularly

reported. The data management chapter describes our

standards and procedures to ensure the quality, security,

longevity, and availability of monitoring data and associated information products. SCPN staff will use appropriate

computer information technology tools and will provide

high quality data stewardship at every step of the monitoring process, from protocol development and data

collection through analysis, reporting, and archiving. 

In the data analysis and reporting chapter, we present

an overview of how data collected by the network will

be analyzed and how we will effectively share the monitoring results with park managers, scientists, and the

general public. 

The network relies on three groups to provide program

oversight and guidance. The Board of Directors, composed

of five SCPN superintendents, oversees network administration and provides program guidance and advocacy. The

Technical Advisory Committee, made up of park natural

resource managers, advises the network regarding scientific

and technical planning aspects, park-based logistic support,

and resource management applications of monitoring results.

The scientific panel comprises six academic scientists with

regional and/or discipline expertise. They advise us on improving the scientific relevance and credibility of the program. 

The network was initially funded for vital signs monitoring

in FY 2002 and currently receives $1,209,000 from the

NPS I&M Program on an annual basis. The NPS-Water

Resources Division annually contributes an additional

$124,000 for water quality monitoring. 

The SCPN staff is based in Flagstaff, Arizona on the campus of Northern Arizona University. The program manager

is supervised by the Colorado Plateau Cooperative

Ecosystem Studies Unit (CP-CESU) Research Coordinator.

In addition to the program manager, the network’s permanent staff will include four scientists, a three-person data

management team, and a half-time program assistant. The

network will also rely on its cooperative relationship with

Northern Arizona University to meet the need for seasonal

monitoring crews and will use CP-CESU agreements to

accomplish some monitoring projects. 

SCPN core vital signs organized within the NPS Ecological Monitoring Framework
v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

MANY PEOPLE CONTRIBUTED THEIR IDEAS and hard work

toward the development of the Southern Colorado

Plateau Network (SCPN) and the preparation of

this report.

Thanks to contributors to the Phase III Report, including

Rebecca Harms and Megan Swan, NAU-SCPN Research

Technicians; Anne Cully, SCPN Vegetation Ecologist;

Robert Bennetts, Greater Yellowstone Network

Quantitative Ecologist; and Julianne Brown and Kirby

Wynn, USGS Water Resources Division. Thanks to all

who contributed to preparing earlier versions of this

report, especially Jodi Whittier and Julie Atkins for their

work on the Phase I report. Thanks also to the park staff

and many subject matter experts who participated in

the 2004 workshops. 

The resource managers of the Southern Colorado

Plateau parks understood the importance of establishing

a long-term monitoring capacity before funding or

positions were in place. They contributed their time

and efforts, through the SCPN Technical Advisory

Committee, to laying the groundwork for the monitoring program. We thank Karen Beppler-Dorn, Cole

Crocker-Bedford, Stephen Fettig, Brian Jacobs, Elaine

Leslie, Mike Medrano, Steve Mitchelson, George San

Miguel, Brad Shattuck, John Spence, Pat Thompson,

and Paul Whitefield for their contributions.

Ron Hiebert, Colorado Plateau CESU Research

Coordinator, provided early guidance and oversight for

the program, building awareness and support among

superintendents, establishing the Science Advisory

Committee, and hiring positions. We thank him for his

long-standing advocacy to improve the scientific information base of NPS and his common-sense approach

to building partnerships. 

We thank the SCPN Board of Directors (Scott Travis,

Dennis Carruth, Larry Wiese and Palma Wilson) for their

continued support, advice and advocacy. We trust that

through their involvement, the program will grow to

be integrated into park management and relevant to

resource-related decisions. Thanks also to former board

members John Lujan, Kate Cannon, and Bill Pierce. 

Thanks to the SCPN Science Advisory Committee (Craig

Allen, Jim Gosz, Dave Lime, Barry Noon, Jack Schmidt

and Tom Sisk) for their excellent advice. Thanks also to

former Science Advisory Committee member Charles

Van Riper III, a long-time advocate for science in parks. 

Thanks to Thom O’Dell, Angie Evenden, Steve Garman,

and the staff of the Northern Colorado Plateau Network

(NCPN) for ‘going first’. Collaboration between the two

Colorado Plateau networks will strengthen our monitoring programs and provide a broader understanding of the

condition of Colorado Plateau ecosystems. Thanks also to

Jayne Belnap, USGS, Southwest Biological Science Center,

for including SCPN in prototype monitoring efforts. 

We thank Northern Arizona University for hosting the

SCPN. Thanks especially to Rod Parnell, Director, CP-CESU,

and Gary Nabhan, Director, Center for Sustainable

Environments, and their staffs for facilitating our interactions with the university and making us feel at home.

Thanks to Bruce Bingham, Intermountain Region I&M

Coordinator, for guiding IMR networks over the last few

years. You have given us sound advice, facilitated our

work, sought opportunities for collaboration, and provided an encouraging voice. Thanks also to IMR staff for

administrative support. 

And finally, we greatly appreciate the leadership provided

by Steve Fancy, NPS National Monitoring Leader; Gary

Williams, NPS Inventory & Monitoring Program Manager;

and Abby Miller, former Deputy Associate Director for

Natural Resources Stewardship and Science. Your determination and advocacy have made this program possible. 

© Illustrations by Zackery Zdinak
vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

List of Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

List of Supporting Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

List of Supplements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Network Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Purpose of Network Vital Signs 

Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.3 Monitoring Goals and Vital Signs Selection

Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.4 Ecological Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1.5 Natural Resources, Resource Concerns, 

and Issues of SCPN Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1.6 Summary of Past and Current Monitoring. . . 24

1.7 SCPN Core Vital Signs and Monitoring

Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Chapter 2: Conceptual Ecological Models . . . . . . . . 31

2.1 The Use of Models in Designing an 

Ecological Monitoring Program . . . . . . . . . . . 31

2.2 Dryland Ecosystems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2.3 Montane and Subalpine Ecosystems . . . . . . . 37

2.4 Riparian and Aquatic Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . 41

2.5 Springs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Chapter 3: Vital Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

3.1 Identification and Selection of Vital Signs . . . 49

3.2 Southern Colorado Plateau Network 

Vital Signs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

3.3 Rationale for Selection of Vital Signs 

and Linkage to Conceptual Models. . . . . . . . 53

Chapter 4: Sampling Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4.2 Sampling Concepts and Definitions. . . . . . . . 57

4.3 Sample Selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

4.4 Spatial Allocation and Factors 

Influencing Sample Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

4.5 Grid-Based Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

4.6 Linear-Based Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

4.7 List-Based Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

4.8 Index Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

4.9 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Chapter 5: Monitoring Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

5.1 Protocol Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

5.2 Steps Toward an Integrated Monitoring 

Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Chapter 6: Data Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

6.1 Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

6.2 Sources of Natural Resource Data . . . . . . . . . 84

6.3 Roles and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

6.4 Infrastructure and System Architecture . . . . . 85

6.5 Data Management Process and Workflow . . 85

6.6 Water Quality Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

6.7 Data Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

6.8 Data Acquisition and Quality Control . . . . . . 87

6.9 Quality Assurance, Data Summarization, 

and Export for Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

6.10 Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

6.11 Access and Archiving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Chapter 7: Data Analysis and Reporting. . . . . . . . . . 89

7.1 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

7.2 Data Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Chapter 8: Program Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

8.1 Network Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

8.2 Staffing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

8.3 Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

8.4 Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

8.5 Review Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Chapter 9: Schedule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

9.1 Protocol Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

9.2 Sampling Season and Monitoring 

Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Chapter 10: Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Chapter 11: Literature Cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 Establishment purpose and size of 

SCPN park units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Table 1-2. GPRA goals for SCPN parks.. . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 1-3. Management objectives relating to 

ecosystem integrity and associated 

ecosystem characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 1-4. Current and past air quality 

monitoring in SCPN parks.. . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 1-5. Impaired waters included on Section 

303(d) list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Table 1-6. Average pre-European fire 

frequencies in southwestern 

biotic communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Table 1-7. Summary of natural resource inventory 

or monitoring activities in SCPN 

park units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 1-8. Core vital signs for monitoring in 

SCPN parks.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 1-9. Monitoring objectives for core 

SCPN vital signs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Table 2-1. Timetable for completing ecosystem 

specific conceptual models. . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Table 2-2. Key degradation processes and 

stressors, their ecosystem effects, 

and potential measures for dryland 

ecosystems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table 2-3. Key degradation processes and 

stressors, their ecosystem effects, 

and potential measures for montane 

and subalpine ecosystems.. . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 2-4. Key degradation processes and 

stressors, their ecosystem effects 

and potential measures for riparian 

and aquatic ecosystems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 2-5. Key degradation processes and 

stressors, their ecosystem effects 

and potential measures for springs 

ecosystems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Table 3-1. SCPN topical workshops held in 

2004 to identify and evaluate candidate 

vital signs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Table 3-2. Criteria used to evaluate candidate 

SCPN vital signs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Table 3-3. Criteria considered by workshop 

participants during selection of 

vital sign sets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Table 3-4. SCPN vital signs organized within the 

NPS Ecological Monitoring Framework. . . 53

Table 3-5. Key ecosystem characteristics, 

implications for monitoring, and 

related vital signs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Table 4-1. Tabular and notational representation 

of three example revisit designs. . . . . . . . 58

Table 4-2. Summary of sampling design, spatial 

allocation of samples, and revisit plan 

for monitoring of SCPN vital signs. . . . . . 59

Table 4-3. Proposed rotation designs for 

monitoring upland vital signs in (a) small, 

(b) medium, and (c) large size parks. . . . . 63

Table 4-4. Preliminary list of perennial (P) and 

intermittent (I) rivers and streams 

selected for monitoring riparian 

and aquatic vital signs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Table 4-5. Water quality sample types and 

parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Table 4-6. A preliminary list of springs (S) and 

tinajas (T) selected for monitoring 

four vital signs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Table 5-1. Vital signs, protocols and current 

cooperators for the SCPN . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Table 5-2. SCPN core vital signs, monitoring 

location, justification and objectives. . . . . 75

Table 5-3. Spatial scale, replication effort, 

and measurement effort for the 

SCPN core vital signs.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Table 6-1. Roles of SCPN network staff and 

cooperators working on monitoring 

projects.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Table 6.2. SCPN infrastructure service or 

support providers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Table 6-3. Repositories for SCPN information 

products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Table 7-1. Categories of analysis for SCPN 

vital signs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Table 7-2. Summary of proposed analyses for 

SCPN vital signs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Table 8-1. Board of Directors membership and 

responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Table 8-2. Technical Advisory Committee 

membership and responsibilities. . . . . . . . 98

Table 8-3. Roles and responsibilities of 

network staff positions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Table 8-4. Monitoring program review. . . . . . . . . . 101
viii

Table 9-1. Timeframe for implementing the 

SCPN monitoring program. . . . . . . . . . . 104

Table 9-2. Index period and general revisit plan 

for vital signs monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Table 10-1.SCPN Budget for FY 2008.. . . . . . . . . . . 108

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Overview of Southern Colorado Plateau

Network park unit locations. . . . . . . . . . . 1

Figure 1-2. Relationships between vital signs 

monitoring, the resulting science 

information base, and the park 

planning/ management.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Figure 1-3. Relationships among societal goals, 

endpoints, and scientific measures in 

ecological assessment and monitoring . . . 7

Figure 1-4. Flow-chart of SCPN workplan to select 

and monitor vital signs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 1-5. Map of SCPN park units and 

corresponding ecoregion subunits.. . . . . 12

Figure 1-6. Map of average annual precipitation 

for SCPN park units.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 1-7. Map of land ownership across the 

Southern Colorado Plateau. . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 2-1. Illustration of the Jenny-Chapin

model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 2-2. Herarchical conceptual model 

scheme used in the vital signs 

planning process.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figure 2-3. Summary conceptual model for 

dryland ecosystems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Figure 2-4. Summary conceptual model for 

montane and subalpine ecosystems. . . . 38

Figure 2-5. Summary conceptual model for riparian 

and aquatic ecosystems. . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Figure 2-6. Summary conceptual model for 

spring ecosystems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Figure 4-1. Spatial data layers used to create an 

accessible and spatially balanced 

random sample (GRTS) for monitoring

upland vital signs in Wupatki National

Monument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Figure 4-2. Example of the sampling design for 

monitoring riparian and aquatic 

vital signs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Figure 4-3. Map of proposed water quality 

monitoring sites at index springs, 

streams, and rivers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Figure 5-1. Example of integrated monitoring 

questions relating to SCPN upland 

ecosystems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Figure 6-1. Data management activities within 

the context of a monitoring project. . . . 86

Figure 8-1. SCPN organization chart. . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Summary of Laws, Policy, and Guidance

Appendix B Air Quality Monitoring

Appendix C SCPN Water Resources (Park Narrative 

Section CD only)

Appendix D Detailed Natural Resource Information 

(CD only)

Appendix E SCPN Park Narratives (CD only)

Appendix F Adjacent Lands Monitoring

Appendix G Topical Workshop Summaries (CD only)

Appendix H Park-Specific Vital Signs

Appendix I Water Quality Sampling Site Selection 

and Maps

Appendix J Protocol Development Summaries

Appendix K SCPN Charter

Appendix L Operational Staffing Plan

Appendix M Glossary

LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 

(CD ONLY)

Supporting Document A Resource Issues and Vital 

Signs Selection Databases

Supoorting Document B Superintendent Interview 

Summary

Supporting Document C Data Mining Summary

LIST OF SUPPLEMENTS 

(CD ONLY)

Supplement I Dryland Ecosystems Conceptual Model

Supplement II Montane Ecosystems Conceptual 

Model

Supplement III Riparian and Aquatic Ecosystems 

Conceptual Model

Supplement IV Springs Ecosystem Conceptual Model

Supplement V SCPN Data Management Plan
The Southern Colorado Plateau

Network (SCPN) is one of 32

National Park Service inventory and

monitoring networks developing

Vital Signs Monitoring Plans to assess

the condition of park ecosystems.

The network approach facilitates

collaboration, information sharing,

and economies of scale in natural

resource monitoring and will provide

parks with a basic monitoring infrastructure that can be built upon in

the future. This document describes

the development process and implementation plan for Vital Signs

Monitoring in the SCPN. 

1.1 NETWORK OVERVIEW

The SCPN is composed of 19 parks

located in northern Arizona, northwestern New Mexico, southwestern

Colorado, and southern Utah (Figure

1-1). Most of the park units lie within the southern Colorado Plateau

ecoregion, but a few are allied with

the Arizona-New Mexico Mountains

and Southern Rocky Mountains

ecoregions. The parks range in size

from 14 to more than 500,000

hectares (Table 1-1), with more than

750,000 hectares within the network

designated or proposed as wilderness. While several park designations

include language to protect the associated natural resources (Table 1-1),

the majority of the SCPN parks

were designated primarily to protect

cultural resources. Three of the

eighteen UNESCO World Heritage

Sites in the United States are SCPN

parks—Chaco Culture and Aztec

Ruins as one unit, Grand Canyon,

and Mesa Verde (UNESCO 2002). 

1

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

CHAPTER 1

FIGURE 1-1. Overview of Southern Colorado Plateau Network park unit locations.
1.2 PURPOSE OF NETWORK

VITAL SIGNS MONITORING

1.2.1 Justification and Role of

Monitoring

Knowing the condition of natural

resources is fundamental to the

National Park Service’s ability to

manage park resources. National

Park managers across the country are

confronted with increasingly complex

and challenging issues that require

broad-based understanding of the

status and trends of park resources

as a foundation for making decisions,

working with other agencies, and

communicating with the public to

protect park natural systems and

native species. 

Monitoring data help to define the

normal limits of natural variation in

park resources and provide a basis

for understanding observed changes

and possible management connections. Understanding the dynamic

nature of park ecosystems and the

consequences of human activities is

essential for natural resource management decision-making (Figure 1-2). 

The intent of ecological monitoring

is to track, through time, changes in

the condition of particular resources

or in the status of indicators of ecological integrity. This involves first

establishing lengthy baselines in

order to understand the normal limits of natural variation. Over the long

term, monitoring data will describe

trends in resource condition, provide

a basis for judging what constitutes

impairment, identify when corrective

management actions may be

required, and help evaluate their

effectiveness. In order to achieve the

2

Table 1-1. Establishment purpose and size of SCPN park units.

* Glen Canyon NRA was established to “...provide for public outdoor recreation use of Lake Powell...” and to “...preserve the scenic,

scientific, and historic features...of the area”.

** Recently approved boundary addition to Petrified Forest NP will bring the total area to 88,439 ha pending additional funding.
3

FIGURE 1-2. Relationships between vital signs monitoring, the resulting science information base, and park planning/manageme

selecting vital signs, such as completing literature reviews and developing conceptual ecosystem models, are also useful for developing 

long-term monitoring will feed back into management at several stages within the planning/management process. Black boxes and ar

boxes and arrows indicate park planning/management; dotted arrows indicate information that will be supplied through multiple so
temporal replication necessary to

measure trends through time, monitoring efforts are generally limited in

scope (selected resources or indicators) and spatial extent (selected

ecosystems or management areas). 

“Vital signs” are selected physical,

chemical, and biological elements

or processes of park ecosystems

that represent the overall health or

condition of the park, known or

hypothesized effects of stressors, or

elements that have important human

values. Vital signs monitoring is a key

component in the Service’s strategy to

provide scientific data and information

needed for management decisionmaking and education. Vital signs

monitoring also contributes information needed to understand and to

measure performance regarding the

condition of watersheds, landscapes,

and biological communities. 

The Vital Signs Monitoring Program

is critical to achieving Mission Goals

IA and IB of the National Park Service

(NPS) Strategic Plan for FY2005-

FY2008: 

Mission Goal Ia

Natural and cultural resources and

associated values are protected,

restored, and maintained in good

condition and managed within

their broader ecosystem and cultural context.

Mission Goal Ib

The National Park Service contributes to knowledge about

natural and cultural resources and

associated values; management

decisions about resources and

visitors are based on adequate

scholarly and scientific information.

The monitoring program’s emphasis

on integration and coordination

across programs and agencies, and

the development of modern information systems and practices to

build institutional knowledge and

to make the resulting information

more available and useful will have

a major effect on the Service’s ability

to meet its mission and serve future

generations. The monitoring program will also contribute to the

DOI goals for management excellence by implementing practices that

promote efficiency, collaboration

among programs and agencies, and

accountability.

1.2.2 LEGISLATION, POLICY

AND GUIDANCE

National Park managers are directed

by federal law and National Park

Service policies and guidance to know

the status and trends in the condition

of natural resources under their stewardship in order to fulfill the NPS

mission of leaving these resources

“unimpaired for the enjoyment of

future generations” (National Park

Service Organic Act, 1916). Congress

strengthened the National Park

Service’s protective function and provided language important to recent

decisions about resource impairment

when it amended the Organic Act in

1978 to state that “the protection,

management, and administration of

these areas shall be conducted in

light of the high public value and

integrity of the National Park System

and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for

which these various areas have been

established...”. 

More recently, the National Parks

Omnibus Management Act of 1998

established the framework for fully

integrating natural resource monitoring and other science activities into

the management processes of the

National Park System. Section 5934

of the Act requires the Secretary of

the Interior to develop a program of

“inventory and monitoring of

National Park System resources to

establish baseline information and to

provide information on the long-term

trends in the condition of National

Park System resources”. The Act

charges the Secretary of the Interior

to “assure the full and proper utilization of the results of scientific studies

for park management decisions”. A

summary of federal legislation and

policy related to the inventory and

monitoring efforts can be found in

Appendix A.

The 2001 NPS Management Policies

updated previous policy and specifically directed that “natural systems

in the National Park System, and the

human influences upon them, will

be monitored to detect change. The

Service will use the results of monitoring and research to understand

the detected change and to develop

appropriate management actions”.

Along with national legislation, policy, and guidance, a park’s enabling

legislation provides justification and,

in some cases, specific guidance for

the direction and emphasis of

resource management programs

including inventory and monitoring

(Appendix A). 

The Government Performance and

Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) mandates that all federal agencies use

Performance Management (i.e.,

measurable, results-oriented, goaldriven planning and management)

to accomplish their missions. To

implement this management system,

the Results Act requires all agencies

to develop long-range Strategic

Plans, Annual Performance Plans,

and Annual Performance Reports.

In addition to the national strategic

goals, each park unit has a five-year

plan that includes specific park GPRA

goals (Table 1-2). Many of these

park-specific goals are directly related

to natural resource monitoring

needs. The I&M program reports

directly to two strategic planning

goals (Goal 1b3A, Vital Signs

Identification, and Goal 1b3B, Vital

Signs Implementation), and provides

4
5

Table 1-2. GPRA goals for SCPN parks. Only natural resource-related goals are included.
data and information systems needed

to report to several other Department

of Interior (DOI) goals. In FY2004,

land health goals relating to the

condition of wetlands, riparian areas,

upland areas, marine and coastal

areas, and mined lands were added

to the national strategic goals. Vital

signs monitoring of selected resources,

in combination with resource assessments based on the best available

scientific information, will be used to

report to these goals. 

1.3 MONITORING GOALS

AND VITAL SIGNS

SELECTION PROCESS

1.3.1 Introduction

Designing a long-term ecological

monitoring program to meet park

needs requires consideration of

diverse perspectives on the value and

condition of park natural resources

and on potential threats to their continued preservation. Park managers

need to know the status and trends

associated with key resources, understand effectiveness of management

actions, and be given early warning

of impending resource threats. They

also realize that many resource concerns can only be addressed through

cooperative action with park neighbors, local communities, and other

land management agencies. Timely

access to credible, relevant data is

key to successfully working outside

of park boundaries. Scientists may

value parks for research and as relatively pristine reference sites that

are useful as points of comparison

to more altered sites. Finally, park

visitors bring a wide range of expectations and values that challenge park

managers to simultaneously meet

varied recreational needs while preserving opportunities for viewing

wildlife, exploring biodiversity, experiencing solitude, or journeying into

wilderness. Each of these groups

has a role to play in the effective

stewardship of park natural

resources. Consequently, their perspectives are important in defining

the goals, objectives, and long-term

vision for ecological monitoring. 

While setting monitoring goals and

objectives is dependent upon a consideration of environmental values,

the process of identifying cost-efficient

and reliable measures to meet stated

objectives is a scientific exercise

(Barber 1994, Harwell et al. 1999;

Figure 1-3). In fact, inadequate

grounding in ecological theory is

often cited as a reason for failure of

past environmental monitoring programs (Noon et al. 1999). 

We anticipate that the process of

developing a monitoring program

will be iterative with successive

rounds of setting and prioritizing

objectives, defining relevant ecosystem attributes, modeling relationships

between resources and stressors,

and identifying appropriate measures. We are seeking assistance from

the scientific community to develop

a firm ecological foundation for

monitoring and to identify relevant

and efficient monitoring measures.

A dialogue between park managers,

agency scientists, and the wider scientific community is critical to the

success of this endeavor. It is the

role of park managers and agency

scientists to create clearly stated

monitoring goals and objectives that

reflect both the environmental values

underlying the NPS mission and our

more proximate resource management concerns. 

1.3.2 Vital Signs Monitoring

Program Goals

The goals and objectives for monitoring that we define frame our

expectations and drive subsequent

steps in the conceptual design and

protocol development process.

Ultimately, monitoring data are

intended to detect long-term environmental change, provide insights

into the ecological consequences of

change, and help decision-makers

determine if observed change indicates that a correction to

management practices is needed

(Noon et al. 1999).

Servicewide Monitoring Goals 

The Servicewide I & M Program has

developed the following long-term

goals to comply with legal requirements, fully implement NPS policy,

and provide park managers with the

data they need to understand and

manage park resources:

1. Determine status and trends in

selected indicators of park ecosystem conditions allowing managers

to make better-informed decisions

and work more effectively with

other agencies and individuals for

the benefit of park resources. 

2. Provide early warning of abnormal

conditions of selected resources to

help develop effective mitigation

measures and reduce costs of

management. 

3. Provide data that clarify the

dynamic nature and condition of

park ecosystems and provide reference points for comparisons with

other altered environments. 

4. Provide data to meet certain legal

and Congressional mandates related to natural resource protection

and visitor enjoyment. 

5. Provide a means of measuring

progress towards performance

goals. 

By adopting the Servicewide monitoring goals, certain aspects of the

SCPN program scope and direction

become apparent. The program

will include retrospective or effectsoriented monitoring to detect

changes in the status or condition

of selected resources, predictive or

6
7

monitoring efforts. We have adapted

a suite of ecosystem characteristics

developed by Harwell and others

(1999) as a means to link the ecological goal of restoring and

maintaining ecosystem integrity to

structural and functional ecosystem

attributes. Most of these characteristics also relate directly to specific

park management objectives (e.g.,

restoring disturbed lands, controlling

invasive non-native species, maintaining sustainable populations of

at-risk species; Table 1-3). By identifying ecosystem attributes during the

development of goals and objectives,

we explicitly acknowledge that their

selection reflects both ecological

importance and societal value (Figure

1-3). A synthetic consideration of

these characteristics will provide an

overall assessment of the condition

of park resources. 

phy, biotic interactions, energetics,

nutrient cycling) expected from natural ecosystems of the region (Karr and

Dudley 1981, Karr 1991, 1996). An

ecosystem approach requires full consideration of the geophysical template

that supports the biota. Thus, abiotic

components (e.g., soil resources) and

processes (e.g., hydrology) of ecosystems also are encompassed within

our definition of ecosystem integrity.

Our use of the concept of ecological

integrity as an ecological goal is also

consistent with the draft DOI strategic

planning goals of ‘improving the

health of watersheds, landscapes and

marine resources’ and ‘sustaining

biological communities’ (U.S.

Department of Interior 2003). 

The SCPN has adopted monitoring to

assess ecological integrity as the

overarching theme of our long-term

stress-oriented monitoring to meet

certain legal mandates (e.g., Clean

Water Act), and effectiveness monitoring to measure progress toward

meeting performance goals (National

Research Council 1995, Noon et al.

1999). The Servicewide goals also

acknowledge the importance of

seeking an understanding of inherent ecosystem variability in order to

interpret human-caused change and

recognize the potential role of NPS

ecosystems as reference sites for

more impaired systems. Given the

long history of human use of

Colorado Plateau landscapes, the

lingering effects of past land use on

current resource conditions, the

paucity of long-term monitoring data

in SCPN parks, and the strong role of

climate as a driver of ecosystem

dynamics, the SCPN will emphasize

goals 1 and 3 in developing Vital

Signs monitoring. 

1.3.3 Ecological and Societal

Goals for Monitoring

The Servicewide goals described

above begin to define the scope of

the monitoring program and its

potential role within the larger realm

of natural resource management

activities. Together they represent the

network’s program goals. A second,

but perhaps equally important step is

to define ecological and societal goals

for monitoring (Barber 1994, Harwell

et al. 1999, Gentile et al. 2001).

Assessment of Ecological

Integrity 

The concept of ecological integrity

provides an appropriate foundation

for assessing the state of ecological

systems (Karr 1991, 1996, De Leo

and Levin 1997, Noon 2003). A system with integrity may be defined as

having the capacity to support and

maintain a balanced, integrated, and

adaptive community of organisms

having the full range of biotic components (genes, species, assemblages)

and processes (mutation, demograFIGURE 1-3. Relationships among societal goals, endpoints, and scientific

measures in ecological assessment and monitoring (modified from Harwell 

et al. 1999).
8

would severely limit the ability of

parks to monitor more than a few

indicators. A key efficiency of the

network approach is identification

and monitoring of a core set of vital

signs across a group of parks. In

addition to increased efficiency,

applying standard monitoring

approaches across an ecoregion may

also result in greater potential for

comparison and explanatory potential in the resulting datasets. NPS

adopted the strategic approach of

encouraging networks and parks to

may also be linked to ecological

integrity, they are considered here

because of their societal value.

Monitoring to support wildland values is the second important theme

of the SCPN monitoring program. 

1.3.4 Network Monitoring in

Relation to Other Efforts

Network Approach 

Spreading available funding for vital

signs monitoring over all park units

with significant natural resources

Assessment of Aesthetic Qualities

Relating to Wildland Values 

Over 750,000 hectares within SCPN

parks are designated or proposed as

wilderness. Dark night skies, a hallmark of southwestern landscapes,

can still be found in many SCPN

units. Predominantly natural soundscapes still occur but are becoming

rare. SCPN parks have identified

qualities relating to human experience of wildlands as important park

resources. While qualities such as

natural quiet and dark night skies

Table 1-3. Management objectives relating to ecosystem integrity and associated 

ecosystem characteristics.
9

major Colorado Plateau ecosystems.

These initial steps were essential in

developing a preliminary list of vital

signs, some of which applied broadly

across ecosystems, while others

applied to particular ecosystems or

resource-stressor relationships.

The most difficult phase in vital signs

selection involved evaluating and prioritizing among potential vital signs.

During the winter and spring of

2004, we held a series of seven

topical workshops to identify and

evaluate candidate vital signs

(Appendix G). Each workshop was

undertaken with similar objectives

and used consistent techniques and

established evaluation criteria. The

workshops were attended by more

than 65 experts from NPS, cooperating agencies, private organizations,

scope of the monitoring program

was defined, the existing information

base was reviewed, and the most

important park resources, resource

concerns, and stressors were

described using the resource/issues

database (Support Document A). We

also identified key characteristics of

ecosystem integrity in a top-down

approach. We first identified significant ecosystems, then reviewed the

scientific literature, developed the

ecological context for park resources,

and evaluated the rarity and vulnerability of particular ecosystems. During

2003 and 2004, we solicited advice

from the scientific community concerning key ecosystem attributes

within particular systems. We also

worked collaboratively with USGS and

university scientists and the NCPN to

develop conceptual models for four

seek partnerships with federal, tribal

and state agencies, and adjacent

landowners to leverage monitoring

funding. In an optimal situation,

network monitoring would form the

middle tier of an integrated monitoring framework, linking national and

regional monitoring programs to parkspecific needs and monitoring efforts.

SCPN and NCPN collaboration to

monitor park ecosystems across

the Colorado Plateau 

Parks across the Colorado Plateau

have a history of working together

on natural resource science and

stewardship. Due to the fact that

there are 35 parks on the plateau,

a decision was made to divide the

Colorado Plateau into two networks:

the Northern Colorado Plateau

Network (NCPN) and the SCPN. 

Parks within the two networks share

many resource concerns and issues

and have established similar monitoring priorities. In FY2003, the NCPN

and SCPN Technical Advisory

Committees decided that the two

networks would work collaboratively

toward developing protocols to meet

common monitoring needs. This

alignment is fully supported and

preferred by the Colorado Plateau

Natural Resources Advisory Team,

which advises managers on the

Colorado Plateau on natural

resources coordination, and by the

Colorado Plateau-Cooperative

Ecosystem Studies Unit Research

Coordinator. In FY2004 the SCPN

and NCPN began developing common workplans and coordinating

protocol development efforts. 

1.3.5 Vital Signs Selection

Process

Identification and Selection

of Network Vital Signs

The general process we used to

select vital signs is summarized in

Figure 1-4. In 2003, the purpose and

FIGURE 1-4. Flow-chart of SCPN workplan to select and monitor vital signs.
and the academic community. In

May of 2004, a two-day selection

workshop was held to review the

topical workshop results and determine the core and secondary

network vital signs. This workshop

was attended by members of the

SCPN Science Advisory Committee,

Technical Advisory Committee, Board

of Directors and SCPN staff. See

Chapter 3 for more detail. 

1.3.6 Integration of Air and

Water Quality Monitoring

In addition to developing a unique

set of vital signs, I&M networks are

coordinating with the Air and Water

Resources Divisions of the National

Park Service to integrate existing and

planned air and water quality monitoring with the broader vital signs

monitoring program. The Air and

Water Resources Divisions will provide

guidance with respect to monitoring

protocols in order to standardize procedures nationwide. The following

sections provide a brief summary of

air and water quality monitoring in

SCPN park units. Detailed descriptions of these programs can be found

in Appendices B and C.

Air Quality Monitoring

The primary purpose of the Clean

Air Act is to provide ambient air

quality standards that protect

human health. Secondary standards

were also set to protect the “national welfare,” which is broadly defined

to include parks and natural areas.

Amendments to the Clean Air Act in

1977 added the “prevention of significant deterioration” (PSD) section,

which charges federal land management agencies “to preserve, protect,

and enhance the air quality in

national parks, national wilderness

areas, national monuments, national

seashores, and other areas of special

national or regional natural, recreational, scenic, or historic value”

(42 U.S.C. Sec. 7470). 

Four SCPN park units (BAND, GRCA,

MEVE, and PEFO) are rated as Class I

under the Clean Air Act (CAA) of

1970 as amended in 1990. Class I

designations apply to national parks,

national wilderness areas, and national monuments that are granted special

air quality protection under section

162 (a) of the Act. Congress designated all other “clean” air regions of the

country as Class II areas. The majority

of air quality monitoring in the SCPN

network occurs in the four Class I

parks (Table 1-4). Several Class II areas

have also had limited visibility and

ozone monitoring in the past. 

Visibility has been monitored as part

of the Interagency Monitoring of

Protected Visual Environments

(IMPROVE) network since 1986. Every

IMPROVE site deploys aerosol samplers to measure fine aerosols and

particulate matter. Light extinction

and light scattering are measured at

select sites, and automatic camera

systems are also deployed. 

Other air quality parameters monitored as part of nationwide efforts

include: deposition of nitrogen and

sulfur compounds in rain and snow

(wet deposition) as part of the

National Atmospheric Deposition

Program/National Trends Network

(NADP/NTN), deposition of nitrogen

and sulfur compounds in dryfall (dry

deposition) as part of the Clean Air

Status and Trends Network (CASTnet),

ozone as part of the NPS Gaseous

Pollutant Monitoring Network

10

Table 1-4. Current and past air quality monitoring in SCPN parks.

Current monitoring programs are indicated by the letter C; past monitoring programs by the letter P. Class I park names are in bold.

A database of current and past air quality monitoring can be found at http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/monitoring/MonHist/index.cfm.
partnering with USGS/WRD to synthesize electronically available water

quality data for SCPN parks and

completing water resource scoping

and data mining in all SCPN parks to

identify monitoring needs (Appendix

C). In FY2004, the network continued funding of the USGS/WRD water

quality data synthesis (to be completed in FY2005). NPS/WRD provided

the USGS/WRD additional funding to

conduct Level 1 baseline water-quality inventories of 57 key water bodies

in 13 SCPN units during CY05.

Preliminary analysis of data available

through the water quality data synthesis and the Level 1 water quality

inventory indicate that water quality

conditions exceeding established

USEPA and State standards exist for

various constituents at many SCPN

parks. These projects, in conjunction

with existing information sources,

are providing a sound basis for identifying and prioritizing long-term

water quality monitoring needs.

The first priorities for water quality

monitoring within SCPN parks are

303(d)-listed waters (Table 1-5) and

waters that are vulnerable to alteration from various sources of

contamination and/or land use practices. While there are currently no

designated Outstanding Natural

Resource Waters within SCPN parks,

monitoring to support the identification of relatively pristine waters is a

secondary priority. 

Ideally, the choice of vital signs for

our network will reflect the unifying

characteristics of network parks as

well as those features and processes

endemic to Southern Colorado

Plateau Network park units. In the

next sections, we present the regional ecological context shared by SCPN

park units as well as brief descriptions of important resources and

concerns identified by individual park

managers. These descriptions will

provide the backdrop for the presentation of SCPN vital signs.

1.4 ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT 

SCPN parks encompass almost 1.2

million hectares of land area, span

374 kilometers from east to west,

218 kilometers from north to south,

and cover 2.7 kilometers of vertical

relief. In this section we introduce

key physical and biotic qualities that

characterize the Colorado Plateau

(GPMN), and mercury deposition as

part of the National Atmospheric

Deposition Program/Mercury

Deposition Network (NADP/MDN).

Water Quality Monitoring

The NPS Natural Resource Challenge

(NRC) provides funding for water

quality monitoring within NPS units.

The purpose is to track the attainment of the Service’s long-term

water quality strategic goal of significantly reducing pollution in park

water bodies. Specifically, the goal

was for 85% of park units to have

unimpaired water quality by

September 30, 2005. The NPS is

also committed to preserving existing pristine water quality in parks,

including waters classified as

Outstanding National Resource

Waters (ONRW’s) or state-equivalent

listed waters. As part of this initiative, the NPS Water Resources

Division is providing each network

with funds to conduct water

resource monitoring and assist in

achieving several NPS objectives:

• Protection of designated uses

which involve 303(d)-listed waters,

Outstanding Natural Resource

Waters, or other designated waterbodies under provisions of the

Clean Water Act.

• Documentation of water quality

parameters that are vulnerable to

alteration from various sources of

contamination or land use practices.

• Establishment of water quality

parameters useful for indicating

ecosystem integrity of particular

water resources.

• Establishment of baseline

conditions.

The selection of water quality vital

signs and implementation of water

resource monitoring for SCPN parks

is being fully integrated into the

three-phase network planning

process. In FY2003, SCPN water

quality monitoring efforts included:

11

Table 1-5. Impaired waters included on Section 303(d) list1.

1 Sources are 2004 Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing Report for Arizona and 2004

2006 State of New Mexico Integrated Clean Water Act 303(d)/305(b) Report Water Quality and

Water Pollution Control in New Mexico.
and may serve as drivers, state factors, and/or interactive controls of

Colorado Plateau ecosystems.

Describing the range of physical and

biotic variation across the network

sets the stage for conceptual models

described in Chapter 2. 

1.4.1 Landscape Classification

In recent years, the concept of

ecoregions has emerged as the most

useful land-classification system for

supporting sustainable resource

management practices (Bailey 1995,

1998). The Nature Conservancy

(TNC) has developed a classification

of ecological systems which builds

on the regionalization, classification,

and mapping system of the National

Hierarchical Framework of Terrestrial

Ecological Units (ECOMAP 1993)

while making the ecoregional

boundaries more closely tied to

vegetation cover types defined by

the U.S. National Vegetation

Classification (Grossman et al.

1998), physiographic units, and

ecological processes (Groves et al.

2000, Comer et al. 2003). The

ecological hierarchy consists of

Domains, Divisions, Provinces, and

Sections (in decreasing spatial scale)

described by similarities in 1) potential natural communities, 2) soils,

3) hydrological function, 4) topography and landforms, 5) lithology,

6) climate, 7) air quality, and 8)

ecological processes (Cleland et al.

1997). Park units within the SCPN

belong to three provinces within

the Dry Domain: Colorado Plateau,

Arizona-New Mexico Mountains,

and the Southern Rocky Mountains

(Figure 1-5). 

The non-profit organization

NatureServe in conjunction with

state natural heritage programs has

adopted the concept of ecological

systems as a basis for finer scale

landscape classifications. “Ecological

systems represent recurring groups

of biological communities that are

found in similar physical environments and are influenced by similar

dynamic ecological processes, such

as fire or flooding,” (Comer et al.

2003). The goal of defining ecological systems was to complement the

National Vegetation Classification,

while creating finer scale mapable

units using a combination of plant

communities, soils, environmental

conditions, and ecological processes.

A summary of potential ecological

systems in the SCPN park units can

be found in Table D1, Appendix D.

12

FIGURE 1-5. Map of SCPN park units and corresponding ecoregion subunits.
1.4.2 Elevation

Mountainous regions with wide 

altitudinal range and topographic

complexity present a special case in

landscape classification. Altitude

affects climate in a manner similar

to latitude and results in altitudinal

zonation. SCPN park units have large

topographic variability (Table D2,

Appendix D). Due to the elevation

gradient, vegetation communities

in the SCPN range from lowland,

sparsely vegetated deserts to transitional woodland mountain zones to

sub-alpine vegetation (Betancourt

1990). This extreme variability is

associated with discontinuous environmental gradients that present

significant challenges to the design

and implementation of field-based

monitoring.

1.4.3 Climate

Bailey (1995, 1998) describes climate

as a prime controlling factor for

ecosystem distribution. The Colorado

Plateau region lies in a zone of aridtemperate climates characterized by

periods of drought and irregular

precipitation, relatively warm to hot

growing seasons, and long winters

with sustained periods of freezing

temperatures (Hunt 1967). Much

of the moisture from precipitation,

at 10-25 cm per year in many

SCPN locations (Montgomery and

Harshbarger 1992), is lost through

evaporation due to nearly vertical

noontime solar position, clear skies,

and dry, thin, high-elevation air

(Durrenberger 1972). 

A broad boundary that coincides

with the mean northwestern extent

of summer monsoonal precipitation

patterns divides the Colorado

Plateau into two climatic regions

(Petersen 1994; Figure 1-6).

Approximately two-thirds of the

Plateau (including SCPN park units)

lies southeast of this climatic boundary. The magnitude of the summer

precipitation maximum generally

weakens from southeast to northwest, and the northwestern onethird of the Plateau is dominated by

winter precipitation (Figure 1-6). A

shift between these two climatic

regions may contribute to high interseasonal and inter-annual variability

in precipitation in the SCPN region

(Ehleringer et al. 1999). From

November to March, the dominant

weather patterns on the southern

Plateau include precipitation from

Pacific region storms. December and

January tend to experience spatiallyheterogeneous precipitation strongly

influenced by elevation, while trends

in February and March show an

overall increase in precipitation on

the Plateau. By May, drier conditions

again prevail and last until late June

when monsoonal circulation begins

to gain strength (Mock 1996). Wet

summer monsoons (characterized by

longer periods of heavy rainfall) tend

to follow dry winters and vice versa

(Higgins et al. 1998). 

The El Nino Southern Oscillation

(ENSO) is a weak, seasonal warm,

south-flowing current off the coast

of Peru that occurs in a 4-7 year or

multidecadal cycle and affects precipitation and climate on the

southern Plateau (Wang 1995, Wang

and Ropelewski 1995, Trenberth

1997, Mantua and Hare 2002).

ENSO tends to bring wet winters and

increased stream flow to the SCPN

area through southerly displacement

of storm tracks. Strong ENSO events

will increase the variability of precipitation in the warm season and the

frequency of precipitation in the

cool-season (Trenberth 1997), and

these events can greatly affect surface erosion, soil moisture, perennial

stream flow, and groundwater

recharge (Hereford et al. 2002).

Opposite ENSO cycles are La Niña

events typified by normal to relatively

low warm-season precipitation and

drier than normal winters (Hereford

et al. 2002). At irregular intervals

(about every 3 years), usually

between mid-August and October, a

major tropical storm moves up the

Colorado River Valley from off the

Baja peninsula. These events are of

considerable biological significance

as they can produce high levels of

precipitation from September to

October, corresponding to the period

13

Summer monsoon thunderstorms provide an important source of precipitation.

PHOTO BY MARK WEISSINGER 
when warm-season grasses tend to

disperse seed (Spence 2001). While

climate patterns on the Colorado

Plateau are heterogeneous (Mock

1996), SCP weather stations reveal

general patterns: 1) precipitation

decreases from high elevations to

low elevations, and 2) summer

precipitation decreases from the

southeastern portion of the Plateau

to the northwest (Table D3 & Figure

D1, Appendix D). 

1.4.4 Landforms and Geology

Park units within the SCPN fall within

three geologic provinces of the

United States, the Colorado Plateau,

Rocky Mountains, and Basin and

Range (Thornbury 1965, Hunt 1967,

1974a); however, our discussion of

geology focuses primarily on the

most dominant province in the

region, the Colorado Plateau.

The 388,000 square kilometer

Plateau rises to elevations of

approximately 1,525 meters near

the western margins and climbs to

heights in excess of 3,350 meters at

the eastern boundaries (Ellwood

1996). In the west and southwest, the

Plateau breaks off into escarpments

that overlook the more broken and

divided landscape of the Basin and

Range geologic province, while its

northern and eastern boundaries are

bordered by the Rocky Mountains

province (Durrenberger 1972).

Precambrian metamorphic rocks

form the geologic basement of the

Plateau, and periodic flooding by

Paleozoic seas deposited a sequence

of sedimentary limestones, sandstones, and shales over the

basement rock. Volcanic eruptions

during the Mesozoic era covered

parts of the Plateau with igneous

material and volcanic ash. Miocene

uplifting raised the region more than

2 kilometers. Geologic stresses

associated with this period of uplift

caused widespread faulting in the

Basin and Range province but left

the sedimentary formations of the

Colorado Plateau relatively intact

(Thornbury 1965). Sedimentary

rocks forming the Plateau vary in age

from the Precambrian to the Tertiary

(Hunt 1974b, Ellwood 1996). Young

(Tertiary) rocks are exposed in basins

on the northeast side of the Plateau,

whereas outcrops of older rocks are

found along the southwestern rim

(Durrenberger 1972). 

The Plateau’s episodic, slow uplifting

resulted in the development of

numerous structural features, such

as basins, monoclines, upwarps and

uplifts, fault blocks, salt structures,

igneous domal uplifts, and intermediate structures (Hunt 1974a).

Water-related erosion events have

resulted in most of the depositional

and topographical makeup of the

modern Colorado Plateau (Ellwood

1996). As regional uplift occurred,

streams cut through over- steepened

rock strata, exposing geologic layers

dating to the Pre-Cambrian Era

(Crampton 1964, Hunt 1974b).

Subsequent erosion and weathering

of the region’s resistant limestones

and sandstones created scarps and

steep-walled canyons. The badlands

of the region, however, were created

by rapid erosion of relatively soft

shales (Ellwood 1996). 

Soil types on the Colorado Plateau

vary due to the influences of parent

material, climate, biotic communities, and geomorphic processes of

the region. Soil types range from

badlands composed of marine

shales, small areas of colluvium

collected next to cliffs, sand dunes,

loess-covered tablelands, and finetextured alluvium along rivers and

washes (West and Young 2000). Soils

of the Plateau are predominantly

alkaline, except in mountainous

areas where greater precipitation

rates and abundance of organic

material results in acidic soils. In

some places, the dominant pedogenic process is calcification, while

salinization is dominant on poorly

drained sites. Overall, the most

commonly found soil orders in the

Southern Colorado Plateau parks

include Entisols, Aridisols, Mollisols,

Alfisols, and Inceptisols. 

1.4.5 Hydrologic and

Hydrogeologic Regimes

More than nine-tenths of surface

water on the Plateau drains to the

14

FIGURE 1-6. Map of average annual precipitation for SCPN park units.
Colorado River, which drops from

the Rocky Mountains, dissects the

Plateau, and exits at the Grand

Canyon on its route to the Sea of

Cortez. Major tributaries to the

Colorado include the Green River

(draining from the north), the San

Juan River (draining from the east),

and the Little Colorado River (draining from the southeast). Four SCPN

parks are east of the Continental

Divide, draining to the Rio Grande.

Portions of the Colorado, San Juan,

and Little Colorado Rivers, and the

Rio Grande are located within or

bordering various SCPN park units.

Most of the smaller streams in SCPN

parks, including those on volcanic

formations, have intermittent and

perennial sections, and flow rarely

extends far from the foot of the

mountains even when flooded.

When crossing drier, lower elevations

of the Plateau, perennial streams

tend to lose a great deal of water

to seepage through streambeds and

evaporation (Hunt 1974b). Riparian

areas provide important corridors

for flora and fauna of the region

(Benson and Darrow 1981).

Groundwater storage is limited and

temporal in a variety of perched

aquifers of the SCPN region, but is

much greater in deep and extensive

sandstone and limestone aquifer systems (Montgomery and Harshbarger

1992). Fractures and secondary

openings in Paleozoic and volcanic

rocks of the SCPN region, particularly faults, provide zones of large

permeability allowing for lateral

and vertical movement of water

(Huntoon 1982, Montgomery and

Harshbarger 1992, Flynn and Bills

2002). Mountain snowmelt and rainfall seeps into aquifers through sand

and gravel near the edges of basins,

under normally dry washes, and via

sub-surface flow through fractures

beneath mountains (Leake et al.

2000). Principal aquifers found in

this region are the lower Tertiary

Uinta-Animas, the Tertiary and upper

Cretaceous Mesa Verde, the late

Cretaceous to Triassic Dakota-Glen

Canyon, the Permian CoconinoDeChelly, and the Mississippian and

late Cambrian Redwall-Muav

Limestone. Natural discharge from

aquifers delivers water back to the

surface via streams, springs, seeps,

and other emergent wetlands

(Cowardin et al. 1979) for use by the

plants and animals of SCPN parks.

1.4.6 Vegetation

Evolution of flora and vegetation

patterns in the SCPN region has

been impacted by the climate

change caused by the uplift of the

plateau (Ruddiman and Kutzbach

1991, Adams and Comrie 1997)

and by the great range of elevation

(Daubenmire 1943). The extent of

elevational displacement and distribution of vegetation types found in

the region is due to a combination

of climate, interactions between

species, and parent geologic material. The Colorado Plateau region

supports one of the highest levels of

endemism in the U.S., with about

10% of the 3,000-3,500 plant

15

(top) Spring run-off flows through Chaco

Wash, an intermittent stream supporting

gallery cottonwood trees at Chaco Culture

National Historical Park.

(above) Perennial flow supports a thin band 

of riparian vegetation in Stevens Canyon,

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. PHOTOS BY STEPHEN MONROE, NPS
species estimated to be endemic

(Shultz 1990). Many of these species

are either federally listed or otherwise rare.

Vegetation on the Colorado Plateau

consists mainly of open-woodlands

of drought-adapted conifers on the

high rims with extensive areas of

xeric shrubs and grasses on the

lower interior regions (Durrenberger

1972). At the highest elevations, significant communities of ponderosa

pine, mixed conifer forests, and subalpine forests occur, especially at

Grand Canyon National Park and

Bandelier National Monument. Due

to freezing temperatures in the winter, large succulents that characterize

subtropical and warm-temperate

regions are generally absent. The

arid-humid boundary lies at a high

elevation of 2,700 meters on the

central portion of the Colorado

Plateau (Spence 2001), although it is

somewhat lower (ca. 2,500 meters)

to the southwest on the Kaibab

Plateau. Above this elevation, small

areas of conifer forests and montane

and subalpine meadows are found.

A few small patches of alpine tundra

occur on the tops of some of the

higher peaks, although none occur

in SCPN park units.

Portions of six floristic provinces

occur in and adjacent to SCPN park

units. These are the Colorado

Plateau, Great Basin, southern Rocky

Mountains, Sonoran, Chihuahuan,

and Madrean provinces (McLaughlin

1989, McLaughlin 1992, Brown

1994). The majority of vegetation

occurring in SCPN parks is characterized by Plateau assemblages. Other

vegetative influences include

Chihuahuan (ELMO, ELMA, and

SAPU), southern Rocky Mountain

(MEVE and BAND), and Madrean

(WACA). Grand Canyon has a large

Mojavean (or Sonoran, using

McLaughlin’s classification) element.

Major studies discussing the flora

and vegetation of this region

include: Reveal (1979), Brown

(1982), Axelrod and Raven (1985),

McLaughlin (1986), Barbour and

Billings (1988), McLaughlin (1989),

Dick-Peddie and Hubbard (1977),

and McLaughlin and Bowers (1999).

1.4.7 Fauna

The vertebrate biota of the Colorado

Plateau is in many ways impoverished compared to surrounding

areas. Distribution of all vertebrate

species in this arid region is limited

by water availability and water-related vegetation diversity. Sixty-four

percent of the Colorado River fish

species are endemic (Bogan et al.

1998), and many of those are threatened or endangered. Riparian

corridors are important migratory

and breeding habitats for birds,

many of which use this habitat exclusively (Knopf and Sampson 1994).

Cooler, high elevation forests are

also important refuges for several

species of birds, small mammals

(including the endemic Stephen’s

woodrat [Neotoma stephensi relicta]),

and at least one endemic amphibian,

the Jemez Mountains salamander

(Plethodon neomexicanus).

Populations of large ungulates and

carnivores in mountain forests were

once driven to low numbers by hunting and trapping. With the help of

reintroductions, most of these

species have made a comeback to

the area. Grasslands and shrublands

in the area are also home to a large

number of reptiles (Drost and

Deshler 1995), birds, and important

keystone herbivores like the

American pronghorn (Antilocapra

americana) and the Gunnison’s

prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisoni). 

In contrast to the vertebrate populations, invertebrates of the region have

a relatively high level of endemism

(Mac et al. 1998). Hydrophilic species

dominate the federal T&E lists (Mac et

al. 1998), and scarcity of water and

sensitivity to contaminants seem to

limit the distribution of crustaceans

and mollusks to springs and undeveloped water systems (Arizona Game

and Fish Department 2001). In addition, the southwest as a whole

supports a high diversity of moths and

butterflies (Powell 1995). 

1.4.8 Fire Regimes

Except for climate, fire has probably

had the largest single impact in

shaping the ecology of the southern

Colorado Plateau (Allen 2002,

Grissino-Mayer et al. 2004). Prior to

European settlement, fires would

often burn for months and cover

16

(top) A desert bighorn sheep (Ovis

canadensis nelsoni) ewe and lamb

scramble up a boulder at Grand

Canyon National Park. PHOTO BY MARK WEISSINGER

(above) The American pronghorn

(Antilocapra americana) roams the

grasslands of the Colorado Plateau.

NPS ARCHIVE
thousands of acres (Swetnam

1990, Swetnam and Baisan 1996).

Ponderosa Pine forests burned every

2 to 30 years as low-intensity, areawide fires. With greater moisture

levels but heavier fuel loads, spruce-fir

forests burned much less frequently

but at high, stand-replacing intensity

(Veblen et al. 1994, Grissino-Mayer

et al. 1995). The Mesa Verde pinyonjuniper woodlands have historically

experienced severe fire events that

killed most aboveground vegetation,

while other SCPN forests experienced

frequent, low intensity, fires.

Research by Weaver (1951), Cable

(1975), Dieterich (1980, 1983),

Grissino– Mayer et al. (1995), Moore

et al. (1999), Floyd et al. (2000),

Allen (2002), Allen et al. (2002), Fule

et al. (1997, 2002), and Baker and

Shinneman (2004) was used to

establish a range of pre-settlement

fire frequencies for southwestern

communities (Table 1-6).

Fire regimes (Table 1-6) changed

dramatically with the coming of

European and American settlers

(Weaver 1951, Covington and

Moore 1994a, Swetnam and Baisan

1996, Swetnam and Betancourt

1998, Romme et al. 2003). Livestock

removed grassy fuels that carried

frequent, surface fires; and roads

and trails fragmented the continuity

of forest fuels, contributing to further reductions in fire frequency

and size (Covington and Moore

1994b). Fires that did break out

were suppressed by settlers and

fuels accumulated. By the early

1900s, fire exclusion began altering

forest structure and fire regimes.

Forests with historically frequent,

low-intensity fires were those initially

most affected (Arno and Ottmar

1994, Covington and Moore 1994a).

Woodland, Ponderosa pine, and

drier mixed conifer forests shifted

from a fire regime of frequent, 

surface fires to stand-replacing,

high-intensity fires. Fire had already

been infrequent, but high-intensity in

the spruce-fir forest, so suppression

efforts there had minimal effect.

1.5 NATURAL RESOURCES,

RESOURCE CONCERNS,

AND ISSUES OF SCPN PARKS

1.5.1 Review of Planning

Documents and Management

Interviews

An essential step in the process of

selecting vital signs for a network of

19 NPS units was to determine the

most important priorities for monitoring at individual parks. Network

staff used several sources of information to summarize the priority

resources, stressors, and resource

concerns for network parks: surveys

of park staffs about stressors affecting park resources, review of park

planning documents, and interviews

of park superintendents (Support

Document B). The information gathered through these sources was

summarized in the park narratives

(Appendix E). 

The next step in the process was to

consolidate and compare collected

information to determine the commonalities among SCPN parks. A

relational database was used to

allow park resource managers to

rank the importance of particular

resources or issues for their parks

(Support Document A). The database

format allowed us to summarize

significant natural resources and

important resource concerns in several different ways. Most importantly,

it allowed for network-wide comparison without loss of detail. 

SCPN staff assigned preliminary scores

based on the previously gathered

information. To confirm and refine

these scores, each park reviewed the

scores and park-specific information

in each category during an I&M

Workshop held in Farmington, NM,

April 1-3, 2003. The short summaries

provided below capture the most

important topics that emerged from

the ranking process.

1.5.2 Summary of Key

Resources

Surface Water Resources

Intermittent and ephemeral

water sources include washes,

runoff channels and arroyos, and

other water sources such as tinajas,

potholes, and water pockets

17

Table 1-6. Average pre-European fire frequencies in 

southwestern biotic communities.
(depressions in rock which collect

and retain rainfall). Washes and

arroyos in arid ecosystems can have

relatively high sub-surface moisture

levels (Ludwig and Whitford 1981)

and support distinct vegetation communities from surrounding uplands

(Krausman et al. 1985). These water

sources are often characterized by

high biological diversity and provide

important pathways for species dispersal (Domingo et al. 2000).

Most primary water sources in SCPN

parks are intermittent or ephemeral

in nature (Appendix C). These sources

typically flow only as a result of spring

runoff or in response to rainfall

events. Washes and arroyos occur in

virtually all SCPN park units with

varying degrees of intermittent or

ephemeral flow, and some provide

the only available sources of flowing

water within each park. Potholes,

catchments, and prehistoric impoundments are known to occur in CACH,

ELMA, ELMO, GLCA, GRCA, MEVE,

PEFO, SUCR, and WUPA. 

Perennial streams and rivers are

rare on the Colorado Plateau. Where

they do occur, rivers and streams

provide increased biodiversity, habitat for threatened and endangered

species, and a reliable source of

water. Major rivers or streams that

flow through or adjacent to SCPN

parks include the Colorado River

(GRCA, GLCA), Animas River (AZRU),

Rio Grande (BAND), Mancos River

(MEVE), Little Colorado River

(WUPA), and several other tributaries

of the Colorado River which flow

through GLCA and GRCA. Smaller

perennial creeks also flow through

BAND, CACH, NAVA, and RABR.

Seeps and springs support wetland

and riparian habitats ranging from

hanging gardens to cottonwood

stands. Hanging gardens have been

found to sustain many Colorado

Plateau endemic plant species

(Fowler et al. 1995). Wetland and

riparian habitats in the southwest

contribute to floral diversity and promote resident and migratory faunal

diversity (Pase and Layser 1977).

Springs are numerous in some SCPN

park units and rare in others

(Appendix C), and they provide

important sources (sometimes the

only perennial source) of water.

Seeps are less well-known in SCPN

parks, but are found in many parks,

notably CHCU and WACA.

Tinajas are defined as large rock

depressions associated with drainages

or channels. Tinajas are differentiated

from water pockets and potholes by

their association with drainages, their

ability to hold water year-round

(except in extreme drought), and the

presence of obligate phreatophytes

(plants whose roots extend downward to the water table). Tinajas tend

to sustain distinctive wetland communities (Spence and Henderson 1993).

While no comprehensive survey of

tinajas exists for the SCPN units, they

are known to occur at GLCA and

GRCA, and likely occur at CACH,

CHCU, and NAVA. 

Unique or Sensitive Habitats or

Vegetation Communities

This category encompasses several

habitats and vegetation types that are

rare, supply high rates of biodiversity,

support rare or endemic species, or

are high quality examples of a regionally rare or at-risk community. Unique

SCPN vegetation communities

include, but are not necessarily limited

to: wetland/riparian communities,

high quality grasslands, cinder or

lava flow communities, relict or

old-growth forest communities,

sagebrush shrublands, and shale, clay

barren, and gypsum communities. 

Dominant Vegetation

Communities

This category includes those vegetation types that make up a large

18

Rain filled tinajas provide an important water source amidst the slickrock

rims of Canyon de Chelly National

Monument. PHOTO BY STEPHEN MONROE, NPS
percentage of a park’s area, thus

having a major effect on wildlife

species, fire regimes, soils, and

ecosystem structure and function

within a park. Based on preliminary

data, Table D4, Appendix D estimates the percentage of park area

occupied by each vegetation type.

Dominant vegetation types in the

SCPN region include pinyon-juniper

woodlands, Ponderosa pine forests,

sagebrush communities, saltbush

shrublands, blackbrush shrublands,

and shortgrass prairie.

Ecosystem Structure and Function

Ecosystem structure is the static

aspects of an ecosystem, and ecosystem function can be thought of as

the dynamic aspects of the ecosystem (Noy-Meir 1985). This category

includes, but is not limited to,

ecosystem characteristics such as

nutrient cycling, productivity, succession, water relationships, natural

disturbance, diversity of communities

and habitats, and intact food chains

(including top carnivores). 

Specific examples of ecosystem

integrity in SCPN parks include the

absence of non-native amphibians,

reptiles, and fishes from MEVE

waterways; biological diversity that

includes five of the seven life zones

and three of the four deserts in

North America at GRCA; and intact

watershed systems at BAND. 

Threatened and Endangered

Species

Like all federal agencies, the National

Park Service is required by the

Endangered Species Act (ESA) to

conserve endangered and threatened

species and their critical habitats and

to avoid any actions that might jeopardize their survival. The Park Service

extends this responsibility to protecting federal candidate, state-listed,

and state-candidate species. Based

on information in the national NPS

database NPSpecies and provided by

park staff, 17 taxa with ESA status

are considered to occur in SCPN

parks (Table D5; Appendix D). There

are 6 bird species, 4 fish species, 1

invertebrate species, and 6 vascular

plant species. 

Species and Communities of

Special Interest

Faunal species and communities

of special interest include species

and communities that are locally

rare, not federally or state listed,

important contributors to ecosystems,

possible indicators of ecosystem condition, and/or charismatic species.

Most SCPN parks listed at least one

faunal species or community of

special interest (e.g., endemic small

mammals, large mammals, neotropical migratory birds, amphibians, and

invertebrates).

Floral species of special interest

include plant species which are locally

rare, endemic or of management

concern, and not federally or state

listed. At least one plant species of

special interest occurs in 15 of the

SCPN parks. Many of the floral

species of concern in SCPN parks are

19

(top) Tuckup Canyon, Grand Canyon National

Park. PHOTO BY STEPHEN MONROE, NPS

(above) Brilliant scarlet gilias bloom in a unique

habitat of black volcanic cinders, Sunset Crater

National Monument. PHOTO BY CHRIS LAUVER, NPS
endemics (e.g., Sunset Crater penstemon [Penstemon clutei] and Cliff

Palace milkvetch [Astragalus deterio]). 

Clear Skies with Low Pollution

There are two components to air

resources: clear skies allowing for

good visibility (both at day and

night) and low pollution. The

FY2004 GPRA report for air quality

(http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/who

/GPRA/GPRA2004review02042005.

pdf) found that during the period

1994-2003, ozone increased significantly at GRCA and MEVE; nitrate

and ammonium in precipitation

increased significantly at BAND; and

visibility degraded significantly on

hazy days at PEFO and MEVE. In

2005, ozone concentrations

exceeded EPA’s air quality standard

on one occasion. 

Wilderness and Natural Areas

Six SCPN parks have some level of

wilderness status (Table D6,

Appendix D), and several more may

attain status in the near future. Park

Service policy is to manage recommended and potential wilderness

lands as if they were designated

wilderness. Wilderness-related values, such as dark night skies, natural

quiet, scenic vistas, and opportunities

for solitude, also exist in parks which

do not have designated wilderness.

In a recent paper by the National

Parks and Conservation Association

(1999), 82% of Intermountain

Region park units consider night

skies an important resource. SCPN

parks with high quality night skies

include BAND, CHCU, ELMO, GLCA,

MEVE, NAVA, and WUPA. 

The natural soundscape is a resource

considered to be of value to human

visitors; however, there is a growing

body of evidence indicating that

wildlife species are also impacted

by noise intrusions into the natural

soundscape (Radle 2003). SCPN

parks with significant natural

20

(top) Wide unpolluted skies are a hallmark of SCPN parks,

Petrified Forest National Park. PHOTO BY CHRIS LAUVER, NPS

(above) Biological soil crusts amid pinyon-juniper woodlands,

El Morro National Monument. PHOTO BY CHRIS LAUVER, NPS
soundscape resources include CHCU,

GLCA, GRCA, NAVA, and WUPA.

Opportunities for visitors to experience solitude and scenic vistas are

also important resources. As human

population density increases

throughout the Southwest, SCPN

park units offer relief from crowding

and increasing noise and light pollution for both human visitors and

faunal populations. 

Unfragmented Landscapes

Unfragmented landscapes refer to

large tracts of land with little or no

partitioning due to roads, fences,

trails, or other facilities. Habitat fragmentation can lead to decreased

patch size, higher edge-to-interior

ratios, increased patch isolation, and

variation of connectivity between

patches (Saunders et al. 1991). Larger

SCPN parks such as GRCA, BAND,

MEVE, and ELMA preserve large elements of their broader landscapes in

relatively undisturbed and unfragmented condition. These parks are

refugia for rare, threatened or endangered plant and animal species, and

large carnivores. Roadless areas have

also been shown to be refugia for

native plants, and, depending on

other site conditions, deterrents to

spread of non-native invasive

(Gelbard and Harrison 2003). Small

parks, such as WACA and YUHO,

may function as important wildlife

corridors for large carnivores. 

Soil and Soil Quality

Soils in arid to semi-arid ecosystems,

such as the Colorado Plateau, are the

product of climate (strong winds and

infrequent rains), parent rocks (limestones, sandstones, and metamorphic

rocks), and topography (runoff and

deposit patterns) (Balba 1995).

According to the Soil Science Society

of America, soil quality is the capacity

of a soil to function (within natural or

managed ecosystem boundaries) to

sustain plant and animal productivity,

maintain or enhance water and air

quality, and support human health

and habitation (Jaenicke 1998). Soil

functions also include regulating

water flow and storage, cycling of

plant nutrients and other elements,

and filtering water and air (USDANRCS Soil Quality Institute 2001). Of

the natural agents which affect archeological resources, erosion caused by

wind, water, and temperature are

among the leading causes of resource

loss (Nickens 1991), indicating that

preserving soil quality is important to

preserving cultural resources. 

Closely related to soil resources are

biological soil crusts composed of

cyanobacteria, algae, microfungi,

mosses, and lichens. They provide a

crucial function in nutrient cycling,

soil stability, and water infiltration

and retention in arid systems (Loope

and Gifford 1972, Bailey et al.

1973, Rychert and Skujine 1974,

Brotherson and Rushforth 1983,

Harper and Marble 1988, West and

Young 2000). Biological soil crusts

may form more than 70% of the living ground cover on the Colorado

Plateau (Belnap 1990).

1.5.3 Summary of Key

Stressors/Resource Concerns

The SCPN network is differentiating

stressors and resource concerns by

the specificity of factors impacting

natural resources. Stressors are

anthropogenic factors that are outside the range of disturbances

naturally experienced by the ecosystem (Whitford 2002). We use the

term, resource concerns, to include

changes to resource condition due to

unknown factors or the cumulative

effects of multiple stressors on a

resource. Specific descriptions of the

effects of stressors on individual

ecosystems will be provided in

Chapter 2.

Invasive or Non-native Species

Examples of the severity of the invasive species issue include the

following cases: 1) 24% of the total

acreage at GLCA may be infested

with invasive plant species; 2) extensive infestations of tamarisk comprise

most of the vegetative cover along

the Colorado River corridor and

dominate much of the length of

many side canyons (National Park

Service 2002); and 3) cheatgrass

(Bromus tectorum) constitutes 85%

of the dominant understory at YUHO.

Effects of non-native species invasions

can include major changes in community composition (Bock et al. 1986),

competitive displacement of native

species, and alterations in ecosystem

characteristics such as disturbance

regimes (Hughes et al. 1991,

D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992, Mack

and D’Antonio 1998) and soil-resource

regimes (Vitousek et al. 1987,

Vitousek 1990, Evans et al. 2001). 

Park staff identified numerous

invasive plant species as being of

particular concern because of their

current rates of increase and significance (Table D7, Appendix D). Several

of the most commonly cited speciesof-concern impact riparian, wetland,

and aquatic ecosystems that are the

most resource-rich environments in

the arid land SCPN parks (e.g., salt

cedar [Tamarix spp.] and Russian olive

[Elaeagnus angustifolia]). 

Rangeland and Forestland

Management on Adjacent Lands 

Livestock grazing can impact species

composition, function, and structure

of ecosystems (Fleischner 1994).

Studies have found that trampling can

decrease cover of biological soil crusts

(Jeffries and Klopatek 1987) and

reduce or eliminate nutrient cycling

(Belnap et al. 1994). The loss of nitrogen cycling can have a corresponding

impact on the nitrogen content of

dominant plant species (Harper and

Pendleton 1993). Grazing in riparian

areas can impact water quality,

increase erosion and sedimentation,

contribute to the establishment of

21
invasive plants, and increase the

impacts of floods by reducing vegetative cover (Windell et al. 1986).

Wildlife management is also of

concern to park managers. Recent

increases in populations of elk

(Cervus elaphus) may be changing

plant communities through overgrazing and browsing and could inhibit

efforts toward re-establishment of

native plants. Browse by elk has

exceeded documented pre-European

range of variation (Allen 1996).

While ungulate populations are

being promoted, predator control by

land managers reduces a key component of a functioning ecosystem and

exacerbates impacts of ungulates. 

Urban/suburban/rural

Development on Adjacent Lands

Major subdivisions and larger urban

areas can impact natural resources in

nearby parks (e.g., AZRU and PETR)

through non-point source pollution

such as motor and exhaust residue

from streets, fertilizers and herbicides

from lawns, non-native plant introductions, feral animals, altered water

runoff patterns, and structures associated with development. Impacts

from urban development can also be

region-wide, such as the impacts to

air quality at GRCA from metropolitan areas in Arizona, Nevada, and

California and from development in

northern Mexico.

Rural developments along park

boundaries impact visitor experience,

detract from the remote character of

parks, and cause habitat fragmentation. Visitor experience may be

impaired through the increase in

noise and air pollution along with

viewshed alterations. Transportation

and utility corridors and range fences

fragment suitable habitat thereby

impairing movement of wildlife and

dividing biotic communities into more

vulnerable components (Sisk et al.

1997, Bright and van Riper III 2001).

Viewshed, Soundscape Intrusions

Urban developments and associated

activities alter natural viewsheds of

parks and contribute to haze and

noise pollution at local and regional

scales. In winter, high-pressure systems over the Colorado Plateau can

prevent the dispersal of atmospheric

pollution in river valleys and basins

(Durrenberger 1972). At GRCA,

over 60% of the visibility reduction

has been linked to sulfates from

fossil fuel combustion, smelters,

and urban areas. Currently, regional

haze produced from coal-fired

power generating stations affects

all SCPN parks. 

According to a report by the

National Parks Conservation

Association, light pollution at

national parks is a widespread problem impacting visitors’ experiences

(1999). Artificial light sources can

impair dark skies for up to 160 kilometers (Clarke 1999). Light pollution

may also alter animal behavior

through disorientation leading to

reduced survival. Species affected

by light pollution include migrating

birds (Cochran and Graber 1958,

Kemper 1964, Crawford 1981),

moths (Frank 1988, Blake et al.

1994), and frogs (Cornell and

Hailman 1984, Buchanan 1993).

Natural soundscapes are primarily

affected by vehicular traffic (i.e.,

private and commercial vehicles,

off-road vehicles, fixed-wing aircraft,

and helicopters). Soundscape impairments in SCPN parks include major

roads within or near park boundaries

(PEFO and ELMO), an off-road vehicle site on adjacent Forest Service

property (SUCR), and aircraft noise

(BAND, GRCA). Because low-elevation overflights for sightseeing and

other purposes adversely impact the

natural soundscape of most of

GRCA, the National Parks Overflights

Act of 1987 tasked the National Park

Service and Federal Aviation

Administration with developing a

plan for tour aircraft use of Grand

Canyon airspace that would limit

audible aircraft noise to less than

25% of the day in 50% or more of

the Park (Public Law 100-91, 18

August 1987).

Altered Vegetation Structure

or Composition

This category summarizes the importance of several stressors or resource

concerns collectively impacting vegetation structure or composition.

Changes to vegetation structure and

composition have the potential to

disrupt the function of an ecosystem

making it unsuitable for associated

biota (MacArthur and MacArthur

1961, Rotenberry 1985, Szaro et al.

1985) and permanently shift a system away from its original state

(Westoby et al. 1989, Milton et al.

1994). Examples of altered vegetation structure include the following:

• Increase in cover of pinyon-juniper

forests due to site-specific mechanisms including climate change

and land-use practices (Miller and

Wigand 1994, Tausch 1999, West

1999).

• Changes in structure and species

composition of montane coniferous systems due to fire and

climate change which results in

decreased biodiversity, altered spatial distribution of soil nutrients,

and deteriorated tree health and

consequent bark beetle infestations (Vankat and Major 1978,

Waring 1983, Allen 1998, Jackson

et al. 2000).

• Alteration of riparian systems due

to livestock grazing (Leopold 1924,

Carothers 1977, Mosconi and

Hutto 1982, Szaro 1989, Chaney

et al. 1990)

• Elimination of biological soil crusts

by surface disturbances such as

trampling and off-road vehicle use

(Jeffries and Klopatek, 1987,

Belnap et al. 1994) 

22
Industrial/Extractive Uses

Mineral extraction (coal, oil, natural

gas, and uranium) can impact the

environment through increased

sedimentation, toxic levels of chemicals such as heavy metals and

hydrocarbons, and noise pollution. A

byproduct of industrial and extractive uses is the increase in access

roads, paved surfaces, and pipelines.

These directly destroy and fragment

habitat, provide a path for nonnative plant invasion, lead to

increased soil erosion, and increase

sedimentation and runoff rates to

streams. In addition, extraction of

some resources (e.g., methane and

uranium) requires large volumes of

groundwater which can result in

depletion or contamination of

aquifers (Simons Li & Associates Inc

1982, Nuccio 2000, Gilbert 2002).

Mineral and geothermal development can occur on State Trust lands

within parks and on surrounding

Trust, Federal, tribal, and private

lands. Mineral resources on the

Colorado Plateau include:

• Large quantities of high quality

coal with low sulfur content

(Durrenberger 1972, Kirschbaum

2000). Both CHCU and MEVE are

situated on a large deposit of

coal that extends from southern

Colorado through western New

Mexico (Molnia et al. 2000).

• The San Juan Basin, extending

from southwest Colorado to

northwest New Mexico and

encompassing CHCU and MEVE,

has become the second largest

source of natural gas in the

coterminous United States

(Fassett 2000). 

• Uranium mines proposed in the

CHCU watershed 

Other extractive uses that occur on

the Colorado Plateau include mining

for gravel, pumice, and landscape

stones; uranium mining; logging;

and geothermal development. 

Water Management – Quantity

The primary concerns in this category

are depletion of water resources

across the region through water

impoundment, diversion, and pumping from aquifers and impacts to

surface and subsurface water

sources. Changes in hydrology

(storm water diversion, impoundments, ground water withdrawals

and other practices that reduce

streamflow or lower water tables)

affect aquatic and terrestrial ecological resources (e.g., riparian habitats,

wetlands, and stream habitats).

Water is scarce on the Colorado

Plateau (Durrenberger 1972), so any

removal of water resources adversely

impacts the biota of the area.

Growing urban areas on the

Colorado Plateau place increasing

demands (e.g., drinking water,

lawns, and irrigation) on the water

resources, and the issue is compounded by the latest drought in the

western United States. Groundwater

withdrawals from regional aquifers

in northern Arizona may impact

springflow and aquatic resources at

GRCA, WACA, and WUPA. Water

level declines have been documented

in the shallow alluvial aquifer at

CHCU. Infiltration of shallow

groundwater has affected cultural

resources at AZRU and ELMA. Visible

declines in hanging gardens and

other habitats associated with surface waters have been documented

at CACH and NAVA. The structure,

function, and sustainability of keystone riparian and wetland

ecosystems depend fundamentally

on the quality and quantity of water

resources. 

Visitor Use

The National Park Service Organic

Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 § 1)

requires that parks be managed “to

conserve the scenery, natural and

historical objects, and wildlife therein” and concurrently provide for

visitor use without impairing the

23

(top) An active gas well, Aztec Ruins National

Monument. PHOTO BY CHRIS LAUVER, NPS

(middle) An irrigation ditch diverts water

from the Animas River at Aztec Ruins

National Monument. PHOTO BY STEPHEN MONROE, NPS

(above) An earthen dam impounds Tsaile

Creek, creating perennial flow in the upper

reaches, Canyon de Chelly National

Monument. PHOTO BY STEPHEN MONROE, NPS
resources. This mandate is challenging for all parks, particularly those

with high visitation numbers. Many

parks of the SCPN experienced rapid

growth in the number of annual

recreational visits between the mid1980s and the mid-1990s (Figure

D2, Appendix D). Although visitor

use of Southwest parks has

decreased in the last few years, this

may be a temporary trend resulting

from the economy and a general

reduction in tourism since 2001.

Resource impacts associated with

increased visitation are numerous

and wide-ranging—from trampling

of soils and vegetation (Liddle 1975,

Weaver and Dale 1978, Whittaker

1978, Cole and Bayfield 1993), to

introduction of non-native plant

species (D’Antonio and Vitousek

1992), to direct interactions with

and disturbances of wildlife (Brown

and Stevens 1997, Miller et al. 2001),

to increased levels of water and air

pollutants (Carothers et al. 1976). 

Aquatic resources are under heavy

recreational pressure, particularly at

GRCA and GLCA. Documented

impacts from recreation at GRCA

and GLCA include bank erosion,

contamination from human waste,

water pollution, trash, and trampling

of plants (Carothers et al. 1976).

Erosional Loss of Soil

Erosional processes are fundamental

to Colorado Plateau topography and

ecosystem functioning. Water erosion redistributes soils and essential

plant nutrients in pinyon-juniper systems (Wilcox et al. 1996a, Reid et al.

1999), and continued Aeolian dust

deposition re-enriches the soil that

otherwise would become depleted

over time (Lajtha and Schlesinger

1988, Chadwick et al. 1999,

Reynolds et al. 2001). However,

livestock grazing, farming, logging,

catastrophic fires resulting from historic fire suppression, and urban

development directly and indirectly

increase the rate of loss of soils and

associated nutrients (Gellis 1996,

West and Young 2000, Breshears and

Allen 2002, Whicker et al. 2002). 

Elevated rates of erosion have contributed to habitat degradation and

the loss of geologic and paleo

resources (Allen et al. 2002, Whicker

et al. 2002). Wilcox et al. (1996b)

predicted that many woodland soils

at BAND would be lost within 100-

200 years due to erosion levels

compounded by historic grazing,

fire suppression, and catastrophic

fire. Erosive forces also expose

paleo resources potentially degrading the value of those resources

through damage and redistribution

(Kidwell and Flessa 1995). Major

archeological and fossil resources at

PEFO are being lost to wind and

water erosion.

Declining Air Quality

Pollutants from anthropogenic

sources have been detected at all

NPS monitoring stations (Ross 1990).

Air pollution affects natural and cultural resources throughout much of

the park system through impaired

visibility, threats to biotic health, and

degradation of historic structures

and artifacts (National Park Service

Air Resources Division 2002). See

Appendix B for information on air

quality and monitoring efforts in

SCPN park units.

Fire and Fuels Management

Fire-structured habitat (e.g., pinyonjuniper woodlands and Ponderosa

pine forests) composes at least onethird of the vegetation cover at six

parks (BAND, ELMA, GRCA, MEVE,

SAPU, WACA) in the network. The

combined impact of anthropogenic

practices and climatic shifts has

altered wildfire characteristics in those

ecosystems. Where low-intensity

surface fires were commonplace,

increased frequency of catastrophic

fires now threaten natural and cultural

resources, human communities, and

ecosystem function. NPS and other

federal agencies have been working

to return fire to those systems and

mechanically restore the structural

characteristics that existed preEuropean colonization.

1.6 SUMMARY OF PAST AND

CURRENT MONITORING

1.6.1 Monitoring in SCPN Parks

A solid understanding of current and

previous inventory and monitoring in

and around network park units is an

important foundation for development of the SCPN inventory and

monitoring program. Documentation

and review of existing work allows

the network to identify where monitoring is adequate, where additional

monitoring or protocol development

is needed, which monitoring studies

can be built upon and expanded,

and what studies should be abandoned. Information regarding

monitoring was gathered from a

Servicewide inventory and monitoring database (Support Document C),

and the superintendent interviews

(Support Document B). 

Documentation of existing inventory,

monitoring, and research efforts will

be an on-going SCPN data management function. With frequent

turnover of park natural resource

management staff, the “institutional”

knowledge that is often lost when

employees move to new positions will

at least be partially retained in these

databases. This effort should facilitate

park-level natural resource program

continuity. Table 1-7 is a summary of

the status of resource and stressor

monitoring in SCPN parks, as drawn

from the various interviews and database described above.

1.6.2 Regional or Adjacent

Lands Monitoring

By taking an ecoregional approach

to vital signs monitoring, we

24
acknowledge that ecosystems are not

contained within park boundaries.

We envision a collaborative effort

among SCPN park units and adjacent

land managers in order to accurately

determine the status of the nation’s

ecosystems both within and outside

the park units. SCPN adjacent and

neighboring lands are owned and/or

managed by various entities, including: the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM), the Bureau of Reclamation

(USBR), the Forest Service (USFS), the

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and

states and private entities (Figure 1-

7). Data collected from neighboring

lands that coincides with SCPN vital

signs objectives will help us to develop a broader assessment of

conditions and trends. 

Regional and nationwide monitoring

conducted by federal agencies, academic institutions, non-profit organizations, and other conservation

groups also provides valuable knowledge, skills, and resources required

to provide full monitoring coverage

across the Colorado Plateau. For

example, the State Agricultural

Experiment Station at University of

Illinois coordinates the National

Atmospheric Deposition Program/

National Trends Network

(NADP/NTN). Initiated in 1978,

NADP/NTN monitors precipitation

chemistry at a nationwide network

of sites. Climate data throughout the

U.S. is collected by the U.S. Forest

Service, Remote Automated Weather

Station Network (RAWS). The 1500

stations in the RAWS network collect

data on temperature, dew point,

precipitation, wind speed, wind

direction, relative humidity, fuel temperature, and fuel moisture. The

states of Arizona, Colorado, New

Mexico, Utah and the Navajo Nation

all have Natural Heritage programs

which collect and manage data on

biological diversity within their

respective areas. Specific information

regarding avian diversity and trends

can be found through two nationally

coordinated efforts, the Breeding

Bird Survey coordinated by the USGS

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center

and the National Audubon Society’s

Christmas Bird Count. Finally, several

efforts to document landscape

change have been initiated including

the USDA Forest Service Forest

Inventory and Analysis Program

which includes data on federal,

state, and private lands. An extensive

list of long-term regional and adjacent lands monitoring and research

programs was compiled by the SCPN

staff (Appendix F). 

25

Table 1-7. Summary of natural resource inventory or monitoring activities in SCPN park units.

H: historical inventory or monitoring data with adequate documentation; I: short-term comprehensive inventory (1 to 2 years); 

M: long-term monitoring (2+ years); S: SCPN inventory

* Earth sciences: includes geology, geomorphology, soils, etc.; Stressor: includes park visitors, non-native and invasive plants and animals,

herbivory and trampling by large mammals, NPS development and infrastructure, NPS management actions, adjacent land use activities,

natural disturbance, etc.
1.7 SCPN CORE VITAL 

SIGNS AND MONITORING

OBJECTIVES 

The ecological context of the

Colorado Plateau and an assessment

of important resources and management issues among network parks

provide a starting point for the vital

signs selection process. Chapter 2

describes our collaborative work with

the Northern Colorado Plateau

Network to develop conceptual

models of key Colorado Plateau

ecosystems. Chapter 3 summarizes

our use of expert workshops to solicit

and incorporate the advice of a broad

array of scientists and resource professionals into our monitoring plan. The

outcome of this two-year planning

effort was the selection of 25 vital

signs for SCPN parks. We are actively

engaged in developing monitoring

protocols for the highest priority, or

core, SCPN vital signs (Table 1-8). We

will seek to expand the monitoring

program to include the remaining

topics as additional resources become

available or through partnership

efforts. Monitoring objectives for each

vital sign are included in Table 1-9.

26

FIGURE 1-7. Map of land ownership across the Southern Colorado Plateau.
27

+ Vital signs that SCPN is working to develop with monitoring plans and protocols ◊ Vital signs with no known current or p• Vital signs that are monitored by a network park or another federal or state agency - The vital sign does not apply to the par

Table 1-8. Core vital signs for monitoring in SCPN parks.
28

Table 1-9. Monitoring objectives for core SCPN vital signs.
29

Table 1-9 continued. Monitoring objectives for core SCPN vital signs.

Landscape

31

2.1 THE USE OF MODELS 

IN DESIGNING AN

ECOLOGICAL MONITORING

PROGRAM 

Conceptual models of ecological

systems are “caricatures of nature”

(Holling et al. 2002) designed to

describe and communicate ideas

about how nature works. Conceptual

models provide a way to organize

current understanding of ecosystem

structure and processes and to

explore hypothesized linkages

among system components.

Conceptual models also improve

communication among scientists

from different disciplines, between

scientists and managers, and

between managers and the public. 

Conceptual models are essential for

designing credible and effective

ecological monitoring programs.

Ecological systems are highly integrative and complex, and their response

to novel environmental or biotic conditions is often poorly understood.

The intent of conceptual models for

monitoring design is not to represent

the full complexity of a system, but

rather to use current knowledge to

identify a limited set of integrative

elements that provide information on

multiple aspects of ecosystem condition (Noon 2003). Moreover,

conceptual models motivate hypotheses regarding consequences of

natural and anthropogenic processes

on system structure and function.

Conceptualizing the external processes that influence ecosystems (i.e.,

drivers), the key products of human

activities or natural events that alter

ecosystem integrity (i.e., stressors),

and likely pathways of degradation

and attendant changes in system

structure and function aids in identifying key system indicators or vital

signs. Concentrating monitoring

efforts on these vital signs ensures

the collection of information useful

for understanding ecological condition and change and for informing

park management. 

2.1.1 Conceptual Model

Approach 

The SCPN adopted a modified version of the interactive-control model

(Jenny 1941, Chapin III et al. 1996)

as the overarching framework for

conceptual model development

(Figure 2-1). This model, also known

as the Jenny-Chapin model, defines

state factors and interactive controls

central to the structure and function

of sustainable ecosystems. Jenny

(1941, 1980) proposed that soil and

ecosystem processes are determined

by five state factors—global climate,

potential biota, relief (topography),

parent material, and time since disturbance (Figure 2-1A). Chapin et al.

(1996) extended this framework to

define a set of four interactive

controls that are regulated by the

five state factors. These interactive

controls—regional climate, soil

resources, major functional groups of

organisms, and disturbance regime—

govern and respond to ecosystem

attributes. (Figure 2-1B).

By substituting water quality and

quantity for soil resources, the JennyChapin model can be applied to

aquatic as well as terrestrial ecosystems (Chapin III et al. 1996).

Regional climate and disturbance

regimes are external to the system

and are categorized as drivers of

ecosystem structure and function.

Soil resources and functional groups

CONCEPTUAL ECOLOGICAL MODELS

CHAPTER 2
32

encompass system states and

processes that influence overall system structure and function.

Functional groups pertain to species

or species assemblages likely to have

profound effects on ecosystem characteristics following their introduction

or loss from a system (Vitousek 1990,

Chapin III et al. 1997).

A key aspect of the Jenny-Chapin

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 an ecosystem with

different characteristics than the

original system (Chapin III et al.

1996). For example, major changes

in soil resources can greatly affect

productivity, recruitment, and competitive relations of plants and result

in substantive changes in the structure

and function of plant communities

and higher trophic levels. 

Using the Jenny-Chapin model as a

central theme (Figure 2-1B), a nested

hierarchy of conceptual models (Figure

2-2) was developed for each of the

five major ecosystems in the SCPN.

Objectives and details of models varied from general representation of

system structure to hypothesized

responses to specific stressors. This

nested hierarchy served to identify

specific drivers and stressors, plausible

stressor-induced degradation pathways and ecosystem responses, and

measures and vital signs indicative of

the domain of natural conditions and

the transition to degraded conditions. 

The nested hierarchy consists of

three general types of conceptual

model: 

Ecosystem Characterization

Model (Figure 2-2A) is a generalized model that includes a list of

state variables and forcing functions

important to the ecosystem and the

focal problem. It also illustrates

processes connecting components

(Jorgensen 1986). The model provides a framework for organizing

information from discussion and literature review around the four

interactive controls.

Ecosystem Dynamics Model

(Figure 2-2B) presents hypotheses

concerning ecosystem dynamics,

that is, how and why ecosystems

change as a consequence of interacting natural and human factors.

State-and-transition models are

used to depict system dynamics

and to pose hypotheses about

ecological thresholds, transitions

among states, and the effect of

management activities on state

transitions (Stringham et al. 2001,

Jackson et al. 2002, Bestelmeyer et

al. 2003). Models are developed

for broad functional groupings of

ecosystems with eventual development of site-specific models of

selected systems. 

Mechanistic Model (Figure 2-2C)

provides details concerning the

actual ecological processes

responsible for patterns depicted

in the dynamic models. These

models provide insight into pathways and primary and secondary

effects of particular stressors,

highlight potential monitoring

attributes or measures, and illustrate the linkage of these

attributes in the context of the

broader ecosystem. Models are

developed for single or multiple

combinations of stressors.

FIGURE 2-1. Illustration of the Jenny-Chapin model.

A – Jenny’s (1941) five state factors. B – Relationship among state factors, interactive controls, and ecosystem processes.

The circle represents the boundary of the ecosystem (from Chapin et al. 1996).
33

2.1.2 Conceptual Model

Development Summary 

Dr. Mark Miller, former NCPN

Ecologist, developed general conceptual models for the NCPN Phase I

Report (Evenden et al. 2002). The

NCPN and SCPN jointly developed a

conceptual model framework and

workplan to guide continued model

development and refinement for

Colorado Plateau ecosystems. The

SCPN funded the completion of dryland models and the development of

montane ecosystem models. The two

networks equally funded the development of conceptual models for

the riparian-aquatic and spring

ecosystems (Table 2-1). Conceptual

models are detailed in Supplements I

thru IV.

Summary conceptual models and

narratives for each ecosystem are

provided below to illustrate interactive controls (drivers, soil/water

resources, functional groups), stressors, key degradation processes, and

potential ecosystem measures for

characterizing natural and degraded

system conditions identified from

the hierarchical scheme of models.

Chapter 3 describes how conceptual

models and identified ecosystem

measures were used in the selection

of the SCPN vital signs. 

2.2 DRYLAND ECOSYSTEMS 

(see Supplement I for full report) 

Dryland systems occur where mean

annual precipitation is less than 450

mm, which includes about 85-90%

of SCPN parkland area. These systems are characterized by mixtures

of pygmy conifers (Juniperus and

Pinus spp.), shrub and desert grasslands, and biological soil crusts.

Additionally, landforms of the dryland systems include deep and

sparsely vegetated canyons, lava

beds, and slickrock. Limited precipitation and, in many cases, limited

vegetative cover impose a high

degree of vulnerability of dryland

systems to changes in natural disturbance and climatic regimes and

to human impacts. The summary

conceptual model for dryland ecosystems is shown in Figure 2-3 and

discussed below. 

Drivers 

Regional Climatic and Atmospheric

Conditions. Precipitation regime is

the most important climatic factor

defining the characteristics of dryland ecosystems. Precipitation

regulates key water-limited ecological processes, such as primary

FIGURE 2-2. Hierarchical conceptual model scheme used in the vital signs planning process.

A – ecosystem characterization model showing drivers (ovals), functional components (rectangles), and stressors (dashed rectangles), B – ecosystem dynamics model using a state and

transition framework, C – mechanistic model illustrating the degradation process of a

stressor (trampling).
34

production, nutrient cycling, and

plant reproduction (Noy-Meir 1973,

Comstock and Ehleringer 1992,

Whitford 2002). Interactions among

the seasonality, size, and duration 

of precipitation events determine

ecosystem response to precipitation.

Seasonality influences the partitioning

of precipitation among evaporation,

transpiration, runoff, drainage, and

soil-water storage and determines

vegetative dominance (Comstock

and Ehleringer 1992).

Most (e.g., 70%) precipitation

events are small (<5 mm) and drive

soil-surface processes such as nutrient mineralization and volatilization.

Larger events initiate seed germination and soil-water recharge

(Ehleringer et al. 2000). Precipitation

intensity, in combination with soil

characteristics and soil-surface features, determine infiltration and

runoff levels (Whitford 2002,

Breshears et al. 2003). Orographic

effects, rain shadows, and seasonal

storm features determine spatial pattern of precipitation which can be

highly variable during the summer.

Strong winds are common in dryland

systems. Winds modify energy and

water balances of plants and soils by

affecting evapotranspiration rates

(Larcher 1995), redistributing soil

resources (Whicker et al. 2002), and

interacting with topography to influence wildfire behavior. 

Natural Disturbance. Extreme climatic events typify dryland ecosystems

(Walker 1993, Whitford 2002) and

contribute to the natural spatiotemporal variability of dryland systems.

Drought, extreme precipitation events,

floods, and wind storms cause widespread mortality, impairment to the

establishment of long-lived plants,

and massive transport and redistribution of soil resources.

The role of wildfire varies among

dryland ecosystems, with greater

importance in sagebrush shrublands

and shrub steppe, productive semidesert grasslands and juniper

savannas (Jameson 1962, Johnsen

1962), and piñon-juniper woodlands.

Low-intensity surface fires thin or

eliminate fire-intolerant woody vegetation and favor the dominance of

fire tolerant graminoids (Jameson

1962, Wright 1980).

Insect and disease outbreaks are

linked with climatic conditions that

diminish the vigor and insect resistance of host plants and affect life

cycles and dispersal patterns of

insect herbivores (Swetnam and

Betancourt 1998, Logan et al. 2003).

As with fire, insect outbreaks interact

with climate to generate long-term

changes in vegetation structure.

Soil Resources

The edaphic heterogeneity created by

geologic and prehistoric climatic features and the tight coupling between

vegetation community pattern and

Table 2-1. Timetable for completing ecosystem specific conceptual models.

Table includes conceptual model projects funded through NCPN, SCPN and the USGS/BRD Canyonlands Research Station.
35

soil resources (Charley and West

1975, Schlesinger et al. 1990,

Schlesinger et al. 1996) strongly regulates vegetative patterns across parks.

Soil properties and associated biota

regulate hydrologic processes and the

cycling of mineral nutrients and sustain the existence and productivity

of plant and animal populations.

Dynamic attributes defining soil

function (i.e., organic matter) vary

naturally with temporally variable climatic and disturbance conditions.

Functional Groups

Biological Soil Crusts (BSC). BSC

are critical components of dryland

systems (Belnap and Lange 2001).

BSC occur within the upper few millimeters of the soil surface (Belnap et

al. 2001). BSC increase soil stability,

reduce raindrop impact and erosivity,

and enhance infiltration of precipitation. BSC are primary producers, and

associated species of bacteria fix

atmospheric nitrogen.

Vegetation. In addition to conducting photosynthesis, above-ground

structures of vascular plants protect

soils from erosion by raindrops,

wind, and overland water flow and

enhance the retention of soil

resources. Plants also modify the

physical environment by shading and

litter deposition. Roots stabilize soils,

conduct and redistribute resources,

and provide organic matter to soil

food webs. Vegetation is a key

component for vertebrate and invertebrate habitat. Fuel loadings and

fuel connectivity, the erosion potential of precipitation, and habitat

connectivity for coarse-scale organisms are influenced by the spatial

pattern of vegetative conditions.

Vertebrates and Invertebrates.

Consumption of plant and animal

material, trampling of soil and BSC by

ungulates, and redistribution of energy and materials are among the key

effects and functions of these species.

Stressors and Degradation

Processes

Climatic Change. Increasing levels

of atmospheric CO2, increasing soil

and air temperatures, and altered

precipitation patterns are likely to

affect physiological processes and

competitive relations of vascular

plants, nutrient cycles, hydrologic

processes, and natural disturbance

regimes. All of these can greatly alter

the structure and functioning of dryland ecosystems (Alward et al. 1999,

Ehleringer et al. 2000, Smith et al.

2000, Weltzin et al. 2003) and the

sensitivity of these systems to other

anthropogenic stressors. 

Air Pollution. Nitrogen deposition

has potential implications for numerous ecological patterns and

processes including ecosystem susceptibility to exotic species invasions

(e.g., Asner et al. 1997, Fenn et al.

2003a, Galloway et al. 2003).

Although current rates of nitrogen

deposition are generally low across

most of the western United States,

modeling indicates potential hot

spots of nitrogen deposition in the

vicinity of MEVE (Fenn et al. 2003b).

Fire Exclusion. Altered fire regimes

attributable to past livestock grazing

(fuel removal) and fire suppression

efforts have caused significant

changes in vegetation structure and

functioning of associated ecosystem

processes. Mediated by changes in

vegetation structure, altered fire

regimes can result in diminished

hydrologic functioning (e.g., Wilcox

et al. 1996b, Davenport et al. 1998,

Jacobs and Gatewood 1999) and

increased susceptibility to drought,

other disturbances, and various

stressors. 

Visitors. SCPN park units experienced

a rapid increase in annual visitors

from mid-1980 to mid-1990 (Figure

D2, Appendix D). Likely results

include greater off-trail trampling of

(top) The removal of perennial grasses 

and shrubs allows wind-driven erosion 

to form coppice dunes of unstable soil. PHOTO BY MARK MILLER, USGS

(middle) Pinyon pine and juniper on 

slickrock, Navajo National Monument.

PHOTO BY CHRIS LAUVER, NPS

(above) Desert shrubs and grasses,

Wupatki National Monument. PHOTO BY MEGAN SWAN, NAU
VITAL SIGNS MONITORING PLAN FOR THE SOUTHERN COLORADO PLATEAU NETWORK

36

soils and vegetation, direct interactions with and disturbances of

wildlife, and increased levels of

water and air pollutants. The trampling of soils is of special concern

due to the wide-ranging consequences of soil compaction and the

destruction of biological soil crusts

(BSC). The loss of BSC decreases soil

stability and increases wind and

water erosion. Additionally, nitrogen

fixation by BSC is critical to the productivity of dryland systems. 

Invasive Non-native Plants. Nonnative invasion can lead to the

displacement of native species and

alterations of ecosystem-level properties such as disturbance regimes

(D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992, Mack

and D’Antonio 1998) and soilresource regimes (Vitousek 1990,

Evans et al. 2001). Current and

historic grazing on and around SCPN

parks have converted significant

portions of native grasslands to

cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum)

(Table D8, Appendix D).

Livestock Grazing. Livestock grazing and trailing is permitted in

GLCA and trespass livestock occur

in several others. Historically, most

FIGURE 2-3. Summary conceptual model for dryland ecosystems. Solid ovals are drivers and interactive controls, solid

rectangles are system components that are interactive controls, dashed rectangles are stressors, and dotted rectangles are

key degradation processes associated with each stressor (described in Table 2-2). Text for interactive controls indicates

components or structure followed by function. Text for stressors shows proximate effects.
37

parks were grazed. Grazing has

modified vegetative communities by

removing palatable native grasses

and shrubs and trampling soils and

vegetation. The reduction of native

plants in conjunction with soil disturbance has led to the wide-spread

colonization of non-native plants on

park lands. 

Adjacent Land Use. Livestock

grazing, forest management, urban/

exurban development, and industrial and agricultural pollutants have

the potential to degrade park lands.

They increase the transfer of soil

and water to park areas by depositing

airborne and waterborne pollutants

and introducing non-native biota,

and they can be a source of disturbances such as wildfire. Large-scale

habitat loss and reduction of landscape connectivity threaten to

increase the insular nature of most

SCPN parks.

Four key degradation processes are

predicted in response to individual

and interacting stressors (Figure 2-3,

Table 2-2). These processes can lead

to conditions beyond the perceived

domain of naturally variable dryland

systems and have important implications for ecosystem sustainability. 

2.3 MONTANE AND

SUBALPINE ECOSYSTEMS 

(see Supplement II for full report)

Montane and subalpine ecosystems

occur in 9 SCPN parks (Supplement II).

Included in this suite of ecosystems are

Ponderosa pine forests, mixed conifer,

subalpine spruce-fir forests, montane

shubland, and montane-subalpine

grasslands. Conceptual models for

each ecosystem are presented in

Supplement II. Common interactive

controls, stressors, and key degradation processes are summarized in

Figure 2-4, and discussed below.

A fence demarcates the boundary

between Chaco Culture National

Historical Park and adjacent lands with

livestock grazing. PHOTO BY STEPHEN MONROE, NPS

Table 2-2. Key degradation processes and stressors, their ecosystem effects,

and potential measures for dryland ecosystems.
VITAL SIGNS MONITORING PLAN FOR THE SOUTHERN COLORADO PLATEAU NETWORK

38

Drivers 

Regional Climatic and Atmospheric

Conditions. The occurrence of forested systems on the Colorado Plateau

is directly related to mountainous

terrain and elevation-mediated precipitation gradients. A winter

snowpack is common in mixed

conifer and subalpine systems and

contributes to summer water for

plants. A critical weather component

in these systems is the high frequency

of lightning which provides an abundant source of forest fire ignitions. 

Natural Disturbance. Fire is a major

disturbance with regimes and effects

varying with elevation. High frequency, low intensity surface fires at lower

elevations consume surface fuels and

small stems and rarely result in overstory mortality. Park-like, old-growth

Ponderosa forests are maintained by

frequent surface fires. Low frequency,

high intensity, stand-replacing fires

occur at higher elevations, creating a

patch mosaic of post-fire successional

forests. In montane meadows, the

natural fire regime inhibits the establishment of trees. 

Wind events at scales from

microbursts to large storms occasionally result in gap formation. Large

windthrow patches notably occur in

subalpine forests. Winter winds in

FIGURE 2-4. Summary conceptual model for montane and subalpine ecosystems. Solid ovals are drivers and interactive

controls, solid rectangles are system components that are interactive controls (soil resources, functional groups), dashed

rectangles are stressors, and dotted rectangles are key degradation processes associated with each stressor (described in

Table 2-3). Text for interactive controls indicates components or structure followed by function. Text for stressors shows

proximate effects.
39

combination with ice and snow result

in the breakage of branches and

large windthrow patches. Downed

coarse woody debris resulting from

windthrow provides important habitat for ground-dwelling animals and

saprophytic species and is important

to nutrient cycling. 

The major pests and pathogens

impacting montane and subalpine

systems are native species. Bark beetles—usually present in low numbers

and persisting in less productive living trees and in fresh windthrows—

occasionally kill trees. Large-scale

tree mortality occurs when climateand pathogen-induced stress weakens tree defenses against beetles.

Soil Resources 

Soils range from shallow to deep,

but are generally permeable and

capable of storing snowmelt. This

provides available water for all or

most of the growing season.

Mycorrhizae are essential components in forested systems, facilitating

tree-root uptake of critical nutrients.

Functional Groups 

Vegetation. Forests are a significant source of primary production

and a unique habitat for numerous

plants and animals. At the landscape scale, the spatio-temporal

variability of natural disturbances

and successional development creates a mosaic of stand conditions

and ages, promoting broad-scale

diversity of flora and fauna. 

Vertebrates and Invertebrates.

The roles of these species are similar

to that in dryland systems. 

Stressors and Degradation

Processes

Climatic Change. Predicted increases in temperature can increase

physiological stress in trees, leading

to greater susceptibility to infestation

by insects and pathogens. Increased

temperatures can also alter the elevation domain of species, leading to

the migration of forest communities

farther upslope. 

Air Pollution. The air pollutants of

greatest concern are ozone, sulfate,

and nitrogen-based compounds such

as nitrate and ammonium/ammonia.

Ozone injures foliage, reduces growth,

and may combine with other air pollutants to cause even more damage.

Nitrogen may enhance vegetative

growth in nitrogen-limited systems,

but it can offset that growth with an

increased flux of nitrogenous trace

gases from soil, decreased diversity of

mycorrhizae and lichens, altered carbon cycling and fuel accumulation in

forests, and physiological perturbation

of overstory trees. Air pollutants

potentially can affect patterns of tree

mortality and regeneration and thereby affect species composition and

vegetation dynamics. 

Fire Exclusion. Fewer fires can lead

to dramatic changes in forest structure and composition and fuel

structure. In general, fire exclusion

increases tree densities and decreases herb and shrub cover. It also leads

to increased buildup of fuels, providing conditions for high-intensity fires

in systems naturally maintained by

low-intensity surface fires. 

Invasive Non-native Plants. Nonnative plants compete with and

displace native species, resulting in

lower biodiversity and altering soilnutrient cycling. Non-native invasion

is most important in Ponderosa pine

forests, where non-native plants

can comprise 21% of the plant

ground cover. 

Historic Livestock Grazing. Grazing

in high-elevation forests and meadows has greatly reduced the amount

of herbaceous cover. This has

reduced the amount of fine fuels

that once carried surface fires and

(top) Mixed conifer forest fringes a

montane meadow, Grand Canyon

National Park. NPS ARCHIVE

(above) Ground fire burns through

Ponderosa pine forest in Grand

Canyon National Park.

NPS ARCHIVES
40

has led to increased woody-plant

encroachment in meadows and

higher understory stem densities

in forests. 

Adjacent Land Use. Adjacent

lands can serve as sources of disturbance, notably fire. Forest harvest

and other land use practices can lead

to large-scale habitat loss, decrease

regional habitat connectivity, and overall, increase insularization of park lands.

Five key degradation processes are

predicted for montane and subalpine

systems (Figure 2-4, Table 2-3). 

Table 2-3. Key degradation processes and stressors, their ecosystem effects,

and potential measures for montane and subalpine ecosystems.
41

2.4 RIPARIAN AND AQUATIC

ECOSYSTEMS 

(see Supplement III for full report)

Riparian and aquatic ecosystems provide water and unique habitat for

numerous plant and animal species

in the predominantly dry landscape

of the SCPN. Aquatic systems include

surface water and channel characteristics of streams. Riparian zones

occupy landscape positions transitional between upland and aquatic

systems and are physically dynamic

and more biologically diverse than

surrounding uplands. Conceptual

models of aquatic and riparian

systems encompass perennial,

ephemeral, and intermittent streams

(Supplement III). A summary conceptual model was developed for the

two systems combined given their

high degree of overlap (Figure 2-5)

and is discussed below.

Drivers 

Regional Climatic and Atmospheric

Conditions. Precipitation drives fluvial geomorphic processes and

water-limited ecological processes

and, thus, is a key factor shaping

aquatic and riparian ecosystems. The

general importance of precipitation

seasonality, size, and duration are

discussed under the dryland conceptual model (2.2). Precipitation

intensity is especially relevant in

terms of runoff and the potential

for debris flows and flash floods.

Additionally, decadal-scale variations

in precipitation patterns are especially important in shaping riparian

areas (Hereford et al. 2002, Mantua

and Hare 2002). During wet cycles,

increased water flow results in erosion

of the riparian zone. In subsequent

dry periods, channel narrowing,

flood plain aggradation, and riparian

vegetation establishment on the

former channel occurs. The marked

shift from wet conditions in 1999

continues to the present and suggests a continued transition to a dry

phase for the next two to three

decades (Hereford et al. 2002).

Natural Disturbance. Heavy flooding results in widespread geomorphic

change and plant mortality as well as

the establishment of relatively longlived riparian species (Schumm and

Lichty 1963). For instance, seeds of

Populus spp. and Salix spp. germinate

and grow on moist, freshly deposited

alluvial sediments following floods

(Auble and Scott 1998, Cooper et al.

2003). Large magnitude floods redistribute sediment in channels and the

floodplain and create topographic

diversity through large-scale erosion

and deposition of sediments. More

frequent, low-magnitude floods create hydrologic gradients that control

patterns of vegetation establishment

and successional processes (Brinson

et al. 1981). 

Regional drought reduces surface

flows and depletes alluvial groundwater aquifers. Mild water stress

reduces plant productivity. Under

more severe conditions, trees die

from water stress or insects,

pathogens, and diseases. 

Upland Watershed Characteristics.

The form of channels, floodplains,

and many attributes of riparian

ecosystems are determined by the

flux of water and sediment from

upland watersheds. Soils, vegetative

pattern and composition, initial

relief, geology, watershed age, and

Flattened vegetation is an indicator of

recent flooding, Hubbell Trading Post

National Historic Site.

PHOTO BY CHRIS LAUVER, NPS

The Paria River in Glen Canyon

National Recreation Area transports

sediment downstream to the Colorado

River in Grand Canyon National Park.

NPS ARCHIVE

Mancos River, Mesa Verde National

Park. PHOTO BY CHRIS LAUVER, NPS
VITAL SIGNS MONITORING PLAN FOR THE SOUTHERN COLORADO PLATEAU NETWORK

42

climate ultimately determine water

and sediment inputs to rivers. 

Stream Flow Regime. The stream

flow regime determines the mechanical forces that erode, transport, and

deposit sediment which influences

channel dimensions of aquatic systems. Stream flow variation influences

the occurrence of suitable habitat

patches and species abundance (Bain

et al. 1988, Johnson 1992, Poff and

Allen 1995, Auble and Scott 1998).

Riparian ecosystems are structured by

geomorphic processes and hydrologic

conditions found in channels and on

associated flood plains. 

Reductions in the riparian zone area

result from diminished flow variability. Shallow alluvial groundwater is an

important feature of riparian flood

plain soils and is tightly linked to surface water dynamics. 

Flood Plain Soil Resources, Fluvial

Geomorphic Processes, Water

Quality

Flood Plain Soil Resources. Soil

biota contribute to the structure and

functioning of riparian ecosystems by

mediating nutrient cycling, water

infiltration and storage, soil aggregate stability, and water and nutrient

uptake by plants (Skujins 1984,

Whitford 1996, Lavelle 1997, Wardle

2002, Whitford 2002). Functioning of

these below-ground processes depends

on the amounts and types of organicmatter inputs from vegetation and on

soil conditions such as moisture availability, soil structure, soil aeration, and

soil temperature (Mitsch and Gosselink

1993, Whitford 1996, Whitford 2002).

The periodic wetting and drying of

riparian soils is critical to the release

of nutrients from leaf litter in riparian

environments (Mitsch and Gosselink

1993). Soil-water holding characteristics in addition to amount of alluvial

groundwater influence occurrence and

survival of riparian plants. 

FIGURE 2-5. Summary conceptual model for riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Solid ovals are drivers and interactive

controls, solid blue rectangles are system components that are interactive controls, clear rectangles are other biotic

components, dashed rectangles are stressors, and dotted rectangles are key degradation processes associated with each

stressor (described in Table 2-4). Text for interactive controls indicates components or structure followed by function. Text

for stressors shows proximate effects.
43

Fluvial Geomorphic Processes.

Stream channels adjust to variations in

the amount and size of the sediments

supplied by the watershed. Suspended

sediment and bed load influence

channel form. Channel patterns and

forms are a function of changes in

stream power, channel gradient, and

sediment loads, and occur naturally in

response to floods and droughts and

changes in the upland watershed. The

vertical accretion of sediments forms

flood plains which are critical substrate

for riparian vegetation.

Water Quality. Dissolved oxygen,

pH, and temperature are critical factors regulating aquatic biota. Aquatic

biota are adapted to temporal variations in these factors but are

susceptible to extremes. Conditions

outside the normal range of variation

can result in the loss of the most

sensitive species, substantive shifts

in species composition, or at the

extreme, the loss of all biota and

associated functions. Changes in flow

regime, human activities, nutrient

loading by livestock, and other stressors can drastically alter water quality.

In-channel Characteristics

Variations in channel form and substrate creates a range of geomorphic

features such as pools, riffles, meanders, and sand bars. These features

provide a variety of microhabitats for

aquatic biota. Flow velocity and refuge

availability determine the distribution

and suitability of microhabitats for

benthic macroinvertebrates. 

Functional Groups

Vegetation. Vegetation is the dominant functional type in riparian

ecosystems with woody trees and

shrubs as the defining elements. In

addition to conducting photosynthesis, the above-ground structure of

vascular plants protects floodplain soils

from erosion and enhances the deposition and retention of nutrient-rich

sediments during floods. Litter from

plants reduces the erosive impacts of

rainfall and adds organic matter for

nutrient cycling. Shading and litter

deposition by riparian plants affect

spatial and temporal patterns of soilresource availability to other organisms.

Roots stabilize soils and stream banks

serve as conduits for resource acquisition and redistribution and provide

organic-matter inputs to soil food

webs. Providing habitat for a diverse

array of secondary consumer and

decomposer communities is an important function of riparian vegetation. 

Aquatic Biota. Benthic macroinvertebrates are a vital link in aquatic and

riparian systems. They consume algae

and provide food for aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates. Macroinvertebrates

respond to physical parameters such

as temperature, substrate, and current velocity. They are also influenced

by their chemical environment,

including pH, oxygen availability, and

contaminants. Diversity and abundance of aquatic macroinvertebrates

generally increases with substrate

stability and the presence of organic

detritus (Allan 1995).

Stressors and Degradation

Processes

Climatic Change. Increasing levels of

atmospheric CO2, rising soil and air

temperatures, and altered precipitation patterns, including a potential

increase in the frequency of extreme

events, are likely to affect competitive

relations of vascular plants, nutrient

cycles, hydrologic and geomorphic

processes, and disturbance regimes.

Effects on water availability and flow

variability have the potential to greatly

alter the structure and functioning of

riparian ecosystems (e.g., Alward et al.

1999, Ehleringer et al. 2000, Smith et

al. 2000, Weltzin et al. 2003) and the

sensitivity of these systems to other

anthropogenic stressors. 

Streamflow Alteration. Surface

and groundwater extractions on

lands upstream from some park units

contribute to streamflow depletion and

reduced streamflow variability. Water

extractions can lead to dewatering of

the channel and floodplain, resulting

in the mortality of riparian vegetation

and encroachment of upland vegetation. Decreased bank stability

associated with the loss of riparian

vegetation increases channel erosion,

resulting in the loss of floodplain soil

resources and degradation of site conditions. Reduced stream transport

leads to channel narrowing, affecting

in-stream habitat of aquatic species. 

Dams have significantly altered the

Rio Grande and the Colorado River in

the SCPN by disrupting the natural

hydrologic regime and fragmenting

riparian corridors. This disruption has

altered habitats and competitive interactions, degrading biotic integrity.

Impoundments created by dams modify water temperatures and interrupt

sediment transport, negatively affecting all aquatic biota. In general, flow

regulation and depletion leads to

widespread loss or ecological simplification of riparian ecosystems

(Friedman et al. in press). 

Visitor use can trample vegetation and

muddy the water in narrow riparian

areas, Glen Canyon National

Recreation Area. PHOTO BY STEPHEN MONROE, NPS
44

Stream channel alterations intended

to improve drainage or flood-carrying

capacity occur upstream from some

SCPN parks. Channel alterations

frequently result in downstream

decreases in flow variability, increases

in turbidity and sedimentation, and

elevated water temperatures.

Increases in sedimentation result in

a decrease of primary productivity.

Increased temperatures compromise

habitat conditions for species adapted

to colder waters. 

Visitor Use. Trails in and adjacent

to riparian zones and hiking in slot

canyons can lead to increased erosion and stream channel instability,

dispersal of invasive non-native

species, increased levels of water and

air pollutants, and changes in water

quality. Recreational Jeep trails often

traverse streams. Driving through

streams and riparian areas breaches

stream banks and levees, increases

hydraulic roughness, removes vegetation, and degrades water quality.

Also, rutted Jeep trails can alter

stream flow paths. 

Invasive Non-native Plants. Riparian

corridors are prone to invasion by

non-native plant species (Malanson

1993) and typically host relatively

high percentages (25-30%) of nonnative species. Tamarisk (Tamarix

ramosissima) and Russian-olive

(Elaeagnus angustifolia) are invading

riparian areas along most of the

perennial waterways in SCPN, including the Escalante, Little Colorado,

Rio Grande, Animas, Chaco, and

Colorado Rivers. Tamarisk may promote fire disturbance by producing

large numbers of dead stems. 

Altered Fire Regime. An increase

in catastrophic fire has resulted in

removal or reduction of the forest

canopy and surface vegetation contributing to accelerated erosion,

increases in suspended and bed-load

sediment, and increased peak flows

following floods. Ash can increase

levels of nutrients, ions, pH, and turbidity and decrease levels of oxygen

in aquatic systems.

Livestock Grazing. Long-term grazing

by livestock removes plant biomass,

alters plant population age structures,

and simplifies plant composition and

structure (Schultz and Leininger

Table 2-4. Key degradation processes and stressors, their ecosystem effects and 

potential measures for riparian and aquatic ecosystems.
45

1990). These changes reduce abundance and diversity of ripariandependent species including birds

(Dobkin et al. 1998, Scott et al.

2003). Also, trailing, trampling, and

widespread reductions in vegetation

cover by cattle can increase upland

runoff, reduce channel stability, and

initiate arroyo cutting (Cooke and

Reeves 1976, Brinson et al. 1981). 

Alteration of Upland Watersheds.

Activities of concern include livestock

grazing, forest management, urban/

exurban development, emissions of

industrial and agricultural pollutants,

and stream flow diversion or regulation. Associated resource issues

include increased transfer of soil and

water resources, deposition of airborne and waterborne pollutants,

introduction of non-native plant and

animal species, reduced groundwater

recharge, lowered groundwater levels,

and reduced stream flows. Organic

pollutants, such as livestock excretion

and pesticide use in urban and agricultural areas, can kill in-stream biota

and affect potability. Metal contaminants from upstream mines have

similar impacts. 

Five key degradation processes are

predicted for aquatic and riparian

systems (Figure 2-5, Table 2-4). 

2.5 SPRINGS 

(see Supplement IV for full report)

Springs are important point sources

of biodiversity and productivity in

otherwise low productivity desert

landscapes (Stevens and Nabhan

2002a, b). Aridland springs often

function as keystone ecosystems,

providing the only available water

and habitat in the landscape for

many plant and animal species. Also,

endemism is common due to adaptation to harsh conditions or the highly

dissolved mineral content of some

spring water. Springs occur in 14 of

the 19 SCPN parks and are viewed as

Vasey's Paradise, Grand Canyon National Park.

PHOTO BY REBECCA HARMS, NAU
46

a significant resource by park managers. A spring ecosystem includes the

aquifer providing groundwater, the

spring orifice and associated biota,

and the biota supported by the postorifice surface flow. These features

were integrated into the summary

conceptual model (Figure 2-6) and

are reviewed collectively below.

Drivers 

Regional Climatic and Atmospheric

Conditions. Precipitation is critical to

the existence of springs. Constrained

by geology and geomorphic processes, precipitation sources infiltrate

variably permeable or fractured rock

strata and follow groundwater flow

paths to surface openings. Size, frequency, and duration of precipitation

events are key factors influencing

spring water availability. 

Natural Disturbance. Flooding,

sheetwash, rockfall, seismic disturbance, and other erosional factors

influence aquifer dynamics, lead to

changes in groundwater flow rates,

and influence the position, shape,

and size of spring orifices. Flooding

and rockfall may kill existing plants

and rearrange microsite topography,

providing colonization opportunities.

Heavy precipitation may lead to

habitat patches for colonization by

long-lived plant species. Subsurface

flow paths may become blocked or

new paths generated by seismic

activities. Drought results in seasonal

or erratic desiccation of spring

ecosystems and reduces aquatic and

wetland biotic diversity. Fire in surrounding areas can modify water

flow rates and sediment load, resulting in the removal of above-ground

vegetative growth, altered soil structure and nutrient spiraling, and

altered population dynamics. 

Hydrologic Regime, Geology and

Geomorphology, and Water Quality

Hydrologic Regime. Water flow

rates influence the ability of a spring

system to maintain biotic components

and the proper functioning of nutrient and hydrologic cycles. Variable

flow rates maintain diverse microhabitat conditions critical to spring biota.

Geology and Geomorphology.

Geologic structure and composition

of an aquifer (degree of fracture

and faulting and rock type) influence aquifer recharge rates and

groundwater quality. Geomorphic

characteristics determine the microclimate of a spring such as the

angle and aspect of the spring orifice which, in turn, affect ambient

temperature and rates of groundwater emergence. Rockfall and

erosion can potentially alter the

geomorphology of a spring and

subsequently microhabitat and

microclimatic conditions. 

Water Quality. Temperature, geochemistry, and bacteria content all

contribute to the composition of

species assemblages present at

springs. Biodiversity may be reduced

at mineralized springs with total

dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations

of >1000 mg/L.; in general, fresh,

geothermal waters >30oC have

reduced biodiversity. However, harsh

environments created by unusual

water quality conditions can lead to

adaptational endemism of springassociated species. Water quality is

affected by flow rates, geology, pollutants, and grazing by ungulates. 

Functional Groups 

Riparian, Wetland, and, Aquatic

Habitats. Spring supported habitats and vegetation provide critical

animal habitat, improve water quality,

promote nutrient cycling, and contribute to the net primary production

of aridland systems. The microhabitat structure of spring ecosystems

determines invertebrate species

assemblages. Flow alteration and

terrestrial and aquatic disturbances

eliminate or create new microhabitat

(top) Bubbling Spring, Canyon de

Chelly National Monument.

PHOTO BY STEPHEN MONROE, NPS

(middle and above) Modifications for

livestock use are a common feature at

many Colorado Plateau springs.

NPS ARCHIVE PHOTOS
CONCEPTUAL ECOLOGICAL MODELS

47

and, in turn, influence the dynamics

of spring biota.

Terrestrial and Aquatic Vertebrates

and Invertebrates. Vertebrates and

invertebrates occupy various niches in

the aquatic and water-mediated

terrestrial component of spring systems. Species are key components of

trophic structures, consuming plant

and animal material and providing

food for higher-trophic organisms. 

Stressors and Degradation

Processes

Climatic Change. Changes in precipitation regime can dramatically

alter spring systems. Increased flooding or drought can alter aquifers

and thus flow levels, variability, and

microhabitat structures, leading to

substantive changes in biota. 

Non-native Invasion. Invasion by

non-native species can greatly compromise ecological functioning at

springs. Non-natives may displace

native species, leading to changes in

plant and animal composition, and

altering nutrient cycling and trophic

dynamics. 

Ungulate Grazing and Foraging.

Ungulates can alter spring ecosystems by removing vegetation cover,

altering plant and invertebrate

assemblages, increasing erosion, and

FIGURE 2-6. Summary conceptual model for spring ecosystems. Solid ovals are drivers and interactive controls. Solid

rectangles are system components that are interactive controls. Dashed rectangles are stressors, and dotted rectangles are

key degradation processes associated with each stressor (described in Table 2-5). Text for interactive controls indicates

components or structure followed by function. Text for stressors shows proximate effects. 
48

contaminating surface water (Grand

Canyon Wildlands Council 2002). 

Groundwater Depletion.

Changing spring flows may arise

from several anthropogenic impacts

on aquifers. Groundwater extraction may partially or wholly empty

individual springs or entire complexes of springs resulting in

habitat fragmentation, increased

isolation of spring ecosystems, and

interrupted biologic processes at

micro-site-regional spatial scales.

Urbanization leads to an increase in

impervious surface area over an

aquifer, decreasing the potential for

recharge. Changes in land use and

livestock grazing intensity can

change the role of plant-water use

in a watershed and cause a subsequent reduction of recharge rates.

Local Flow Regulation and

Diversion. Local diversion by facilities constructed over the point of

emergence (spring boxes, spring

houses, etc.) alters the natural flow

regime of many springs. The construction of cattle tanks on upstream

sources can affect flow variability at

some springs. Flow diversion or regulation interrupts natural disturbance

events such as flooding and alters

structural, functional, and trophic

attributes of springs. 

Pollution. Groundwater and surface

water pollution strongly affect

springs ecosystems. Upstream agricultural groundwater pollution may

shift ecosystem nutrient dynamics to

entirely novel trajectories, creating

conditions to which few native

species may be able to adapt. 

Visitor Use and Park Management.

Recreational use at springs leads to trampling around the outflow, degrading

native plant communities and potentially

introducing invasive non-native plants.

Managers often try to protect springs by

prohibiting visitors or creating discrete

trails to the springs. Such actions may

actually damage spring ecosystems.

Fencing out livestock may allow excess

vegetation to develop, eliminating surface water and threatening aquatic

species persistence (Grand Canyon

Wildlands Council 2002). Surfaced trails

may eliminate leaf litter and prohibit

movement of spring-associated land

snails and other invertebrate species.

Four key degradation processes are

predicted in response to individual

and interacting stressors (Figure 2-6,

Table 2-5).

Table 2-5. Key degradation processes and stressors, their ecosystem effects and 

potential measures for springs ecosystems.
49

In this chapter, we present the decision-making process used by SCPN

to identify, prioritize, and select the

network vital signs and the outcome

of those efforts. Included in this

process were seven topical workshops conducted in 2004 to identify

and evaluate potential vital signs as

well as a final workshop held with

the SCPN Science and Technical

Advisory Committees to select the

network vital signs. The conclusion

of this process was the selection of

22 vital signs for the SCPN. Of these,

17 were identified as the network’s

core vital signs—those for which we

will develop monitoring protocols

and implementation plans over the

next five years. 

This chapter also describes how we

used conceptual models developed

for major Colorado Plateau ecosystems in the vital signs selection

process. We discuss how key ecosystem characteristics influenced both

the selection and proposed integration of biotic and physical vital signs. 

3.1 IDENTIFICATION AND

SELECTION OF VITAL SIGNS

3.1.1 Workshops

The SCPN held a series of workshops

during the winter and spring of 2004

to identify and evaluate candidate vital

signs (Table 3-1). The workshops were

attended by 76 experts from NPS,

cooperating agencies, private organizations, and the academic community.

The workshop objectives were to produce 1) a prioritized list of vital signs

to monitor relating to the workshop

topic, and 2) group recommendations

regarding desired scales, approaches,

data sources, and/or monitoring questions to be addressed in applying

some of the recommended vital signs.

Participants nominated potential vital

signs using a standardized form

(example in Appendix G), and then a

lengthy discussion of this initial list of

proposed vital signs followed. This discussion led to a significant number of

modifications to the initial vital signs

list and provided each participant with

a good understanding of each vital

sign that remained for consideration.

To prioritize the final list of proposed

vital signs, participants evaluated each

vital sign by completing a standardized

form (Appendix G) containing a set of

criteria statements in four areas (ecological significance, management

significance, feasibility and cost of

implementation, and data utility and

application; Table 3-2). Participants

responded to the statements, which

were scored, normalized, summarized

using the vital signs database (Support

Document A), and then presented for

further evaluation and discussion.

Selection Criteria

We used a three-step process to

conduct evaluations of candidate

vital signs (Tables 3-2 and 3-3).

VITAL SIGNS

CHAPTER 3
50

Table 3-1. SCPN topical workshops held in 2004 to identify and evaluate candidate vital signs.

Canyon de Chelly National Monument. PHOTO BY CHRIS LAUVER, NPS
51

Table 3-3. Criteria considered by workshop participants during selection of vital sign sets.

Table 3-2. Criteria used to evaluate candidate SCPN vital signs.
52

Candidate vital signs were divided into

two categories: 1) ecosystem components and processes or stressors and

2) physical drivers. In the first step, we

used ecological and management significance of ecosystem components

processes or stressors to distinguish

higher ranking signs from those of

less importance. This step did not

apply to the physical driver category

as the criteria were not separated into

ecological and management significance. The second step involved using

differential weightings to maintain the

emphasis on ecological and management significance but also include

feasibility, cost, and data utility and

application for a more complete

assessment of implementing monitoring of the evaluated vital sign. In Step

3, participants were asked to consider

the criteria shown in Table 3-3 while

formulating 3 sets of vitals signs: the

single, most important sign, the best

set of 3, and the best set of 5 vital

signs. This exercise fulfilled several

objectives: 1) it produced a quick

expert opinion of the most important

vital signs, 2) it provided an unconstrained comparison or check of the

other two evaluation steps, and 3) it

highlighted sets that were generally

complementary and spanned a range

of scales and ecological levels. 

A complete summary of each topical

workshop, including discussion summaries and scores can be found in

Appendix G. An overall summary of

vital sign scores can be found in

Support Document A.

3.1.2 Selecting Network 

Vital Signs

A final workshop was held in May

of 2004 to select core and secondary

vital signs. In attendance were members of the SCPN Science Advisory

Committee, Technical Advisory

Committee, and Board of Directors,

a USGS scientist representing the

Northern Colorado Plateau Network,

and SCPN staff. 

A major objective was to review and

consider the results of previous

workshops (Table 3-1). In reviewing

the workshop results, participants

were asked to consider the following

questions: 

• Are the resulting prioritized vital

signs consistent with park priorities

regarding the most important

resource concerns and issues? 

• Are the resulting prioritized vital

signs consistent with important

ecosystem elements identified

through literature review and conceptual model development? 

Participants used and discussed the

workshop results as a basis for

developing a final list of core and

secondary vital signs for long-term

monitoring within the SCPN. 

3.2 SOUTHERN COLORADO

PLATEAU NETWORK VITAL

SIGNS

The outcome of the selection workshop described above and the

resulting list of core and secondary

network vital signs are shown in

Table 3-4. The core vital signs reflect

the highest priorities for network

monitoring. The SCPN plans to

develop monitoring protocols to

address the core vital signs over the

next five years. Secondary vital signs

include important monitoring needs

that only apply to a few parks or

network-monitoring needs that

ranked in the second tier of priorities. The network has no immediate

plans to develop protocols or implement monitoring for these vital signs

but will reconsider once the core

vital signs are implemented and as

partnership opportunities arise. 

Once the vital signs selection process

was completed, network staff visited

each of the nineteen parks in the

network. Park staff and resource

managers from SCPN park units

were asked to evaluate the network

vital signs list in terms of individual

park priorities (Appendix H). During

this evaluation period, network staff

worked with park resource managers

to develop a list of park-specific vital

signs not addressed by the network

list (Appendix H). Although these

specific monitoring needs will not be

addressed directly by the network,

SCPN staff will assist with protocols,

sampling design, or other aspects

of monitoring plan development

when needed.

Park resource managers and SCPN staff selected monitoring vital signs through

a series of workshops. NPS ARCHIVE
53

3.3 RATIONALE FOR

SELECTION OF VITAL 

SIGNS AND LINKAGE TO

CONCEPTUAL MODELS

The bond between the integrity of

the environment and human welfare

provides the ultimate rationale for

monitoring (Noon et al. 1999).

Monitoring the state or condition of

ecosystems (i.e., ecosystem structure

and function) is of primary importance because the current system

state influences resistance and

resilience to disturbances and stressors and determines natural diversity

and associated processes. SCPN has

adopted monitoring ecological

integrity as the overarching theme

of our long-term monitoring efforts.

The concept of ecological integrity

provides an appropriate foundation

for assessing the state of ecological

systems (Karr 1991, 1996, De Leo

and Levin 1997, Noon 2003). 

Use of Conceptual Models to

Inform the SCPN Vital Sign

Selection Process

Because monitoring all of the

processes and biotic components

that contribute to ecological integrity is impractical, we used expert

opinion and conceptual models of

key Colorado Plateau ecosystems to

guide the selection of a more limited suite of vital signs. The intent of

conceptual models for monitoring

design is not to represent the full

complexity of a system, but rather

to use current knowledge to identify

a limited set of integrative elements

that provide information on multiple

aspects of ecosystem condition

(Noon 2003). 

During our topical workshops on

dryland and montane systems, Mark

Miller and John Vankat, respectively,

set the stage for identifying candidate vital signs by presenting their

conceptual models for these systems. During the nomination phase

of the workshop, posters of these

models were available to inform the

nomination process. Other, less formalized conceptual models were

presented at 3 other topical workshops, including a presentation by

Mike Scott of a draft version of the

riparian/aquatic model. 

Key Ecosystem Characteristics

and Implications for Monitoring

Several key ecosystem characteristics

can be discerned from the dryland,

montane, and riparian/aquatic conceptual models that were developed.

Table 3-4. SCPN vital signs organized within the NPS Ecological Monitoring Framework.

Core vital signs are indicated in bold text.
54

A partial listing of these characteristics,

their implications for monitoring, and

the related vital signs are shown in

Table 3-5. Spring ecosystems were

selected as a core vital sign because

of their high conservation value and

their status as focal ecosystems in

arid landscapes. For this reason, we

are taking a fairly comprehensive

approach to monitoring springs by

including most of the important

ecosystem components as indicated

in the springs conceptual models

(Supplement IV). 

One of the features highlighted in the

dryland models was the overriding

influence of precipitation and extreme

climatic events in driving ecosystem

dynamics and thus the significance of

monitoring climate. According to the

models, fire plays a secondary role as

a driver of dryland systems, and only

at the upper end of the moisture/fuel

gradient. For these communities (e.g.,

pinyon-juniper woodlands), ecosystem

dynamics are a function of the interaction of fire, climate, and insect

outbreaks. Thus, monitoring vegetation condition (e.g., decreases in tree

productivity) and related disturbance

patterns may provide early warning

of ecosystem change. The models

also emphasize the role of degradational processes in influencing

dryland system dynamics. From the

dryland topical workshop, three

factors that affect ecosystem susceptibility to degradation were

identified based on the dryland

models: 1) inherent ecosystem characteristics that determine ecosystem

resistance and resilience to natural

Table 3-5. Key ecosystem characteristics, implications for monitoring, and related vital signs.

For dryland, montane, and riparian ecosystems.
55

disturbances and stressors, 2) ecosystem exposure to anthropogenic

stressors that drive degradational

processes, and 3) ecosystem condition—the functional status of

ecological processes required to sustain the ecosystem. The models show

tight linkages between soil resources

and vegetation, emphasizing the

importance of integrating vegetation

condition monitoring with monitoring of soil stability and upland

hydrologic function. 

In contrast to the dryland models, fire

was featured in the montane models

as the primary driver of montane

ecosystems. The montane models

depict various historical and current

fire regimes for the major montane

ecosystems, but across all systems

there is a clear need to monitor fire,

climate, and vegetation in order to

ascertain ecosystem dynamics. As

with dryland systems, climate is a

major driver of montane systems and

must be monitored because of the

potential interactions with fire and

insect outbreaks to cause changes in

vegetation condition. 

Models of riparian and aquatic

ecosystems emphasize that these

systems are primarily driven by

streamflow variability and geomorphic processes associated with

channel change (Table 3-5). The

models also indicate a tight linkage

between flood plain soil resources

and moisture availability for riparian

vegetation. These processes and

interactions provide the dynamic

physical template upon which riparian and aquatic biotic communities

are organized. Therefore, direct

monitoring of stream discharge,

cross-sectional channel geometry,

related shallow alluvial groundwater dynamics, and riparian

vegetation structural complexity

represent important leading indicators of change in riparian and

aquatic ecosystems. The models further illustrate that because of strong

longitudinal and lateral connectivity

to upland ecosystems, monitoring of

riparian vegetation condition (e.g.,

increases in non-native plant populations) and stream macroinvertebrates

(e.g., changes in functional feeding

groups) provide important insights

into degradational changes in water

quantity and quality. These changes

are the result of climatic factors as

well as broad-scale, anthropogenic

changes in water- and land-use such

as groundwater extraction and livestock grazing. Thus, monitoring

climate and land-cover patterns at a

watershed scale is important for

interpreting change in riparian and

aquatic ecosystems as well, since

these factors influence the delivery

of water and sediment from the

uplands to receiving streams.

Table 3-5 continued. Key ecosystem characteristics, implications for monitoring, and related vital signs.

57

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the sampling

design for the network’s core vital

signs. The design describes the

process for selecting sampling locations and the allocation of sampling

effort through time among locations.

A primary goal of the design is to

provide unbiased and defensible

inferences from sample observations

to the intended target populations.

A brief overview of sampling definitions and concepts is presented

below followed by a description

of the statistical sampling designs

the SCPN employs for vital signs

monitoring. 

4.2 SAMPLING CONCEPTS

AND DEFINITIONS

Survey sampling is the foundation

for the SCPN monitoring plan.

Defining the finite (target) population and using probability sampling

are two critical aspects of survey

sampling (Cochran 1977). A given

area for which inferences are desired

(e.g., a forest or stream within a

park) can be partitioned into a finite

collection of non-overlapping sample

units. In general, sample units are

predefined entities in which measurements are taken. The total collection of sample units is the (target)

population. This set of units, also

known as the sampling frame, is the

pool from which samples are selected in order to make inferences to the

rest of the unsampled population.

Sample units can be represented as

points (e.g., springs), linear features

(e.g., stream segments), or areas

(e.g., mapped soil types, or pixels

from remotely sensed images).

Responses are the measurements

taken on the sample units. The collection of responses from the chosen

sample units is called the sample.

Probability sampling is where each

sampling unit in the finite population

has a known probability (a selection

probability) of being included in a

sample. Each unit can have the same

selection probability (equal probability sampling) or the probabilities may

vary among groups of units (unequal

probability sampling). Where possible, we have chosen a probability

sampling approach to monitor vital

signs of the SCPN. 

Two common methods for selecting

samples are simple random sampling

and stratified random sampling. For

a simple random sample, a random

process is used to select the desired

number of sampling units from a

known population. In this scheme,

each member of the population has

an equal chance of being included

in the sample. In stratified random

sampling, the sampling frame is

divided into sub-populations by

using mutually exclusive strata. The

desired number of samples is then

randomly selected from each subpopulation. Strata are artificial

constructs defined prior to sample

selection that should never change,

regardless of conditions on the

ground (Geissler and McDonald

2003). Strata are typically defined

such that variation within a stratum

is less than among strata. Reasons

for using this technique include

increased precision, increased efficiency, and greater information

about sub-populations (Cochran

1977, Lohr 1999). Vegetation types

have often been used as strata, but,

because vegetation may change in

a particular area over time, this

approach leads to problems with

data analysis and future sample

selection decisions. Domains are subpopulations (e.g., vegetation types)

SAMPLING DESIGN

CHAPTER 4
58

defined after sampling occurs, can

be changed, and are used during

data analysis to derive estimates of

the sub-populations of interest. 

Most sample designs of the SCPN

rotate field sampling efforts through

various sets of sample units over

time. A group of sample units that

are always sampled together during

a sampling occasion is called a panel.

Sample effort can be rotated among

panels through time, which effectively rotates field effort among sample

units and therefore space. The way

in which units in the population

become members of a panel is called

the membership design (McDonald

2003). The pattern of visits through

time to all panels is the revisit

design, which specifies the temporal

sampling schedule. The notation

commonly used for revisit designs is

a pair of digits. The first digit is the

number of consecutive occasions

that a panel is sampled, the second

is the number of consecutive occasions that a panel is not sampled

(McDonald 2003). For example, if a

single panel is visited every sampling

occasion, its revisit design can be

expressed as [1-0] (Table 4-1). If a

panel is to be sampled once, then

never revisited, the notation is [1-n].

The notation [1-0, 1-4] signifies that

units in panel one are visited every

occasion and units in the second set

of panels are visited once every 5

years (Table 4-1). 

4.3 SAMPLE SELECTION

SCPN monitoring efforts are using

five fundamentally different schemes

for collecting measurements on vital

signs. (1) Grid-based sampling uses a

grid of points to represent units of a

target population and draws a probability sample. (2) Linear-based

sampling delineates sampling units

along linear segments and draws a

probability sample. (3) List-based

sampling constructs a list of sample

units and either draws a probability

sample or attempts to census all

units. (4) Index sites are used to collect information on areas or points

that were hand-picked to yield adequate data on a particular vital sign.

These samples are usually picked as

“representative” sites, and statistical

inference to a larger area is not possible because a probability sample

was not employed. (5) For certain

vital signs, sampling is not required

because they can be monitored at

the full spatial extent of a park.

Table 4-1. Tabular and notational representation of three example revisit designs. “X” in a cell 

denotes that all members of the panel are sampled during that occasion.
59

Table 4-2. Summary of sampling design, spatial allocation of samples,

and revisit plan for monitoring of SCPN vital signs.

1 Co-located, co-visited as part of the Integrated Upland Protocol 

2 Co-located, co-visited as part of the Integrated Riparian Protocol

* Potential revisit plan for medium-size parks (revisit plan varies by park size).
60

For these vital signs, a census is

employed to observe status and

trends. This chapter contains a section for each of the five sampling

schemes with further details presented by vital sign. A summary of

sampling designs, spatial allocation

of samples, and revisit plans for

vital signs monitoring is presented

in Table 4-2.

4.4 SPATIAL ALLOCATION

AND FACTORS INFLUENCING SAMPLE SELECTION

Traditionally, methods used to determine sampling units in a population

generally have employed a form of

random sampling along with an

attempt to distribute the units such

that good interspersion is achieved

throughout the population. The

SCPN uses two methods to spatially

allocate sample units. The majority of

vital sign sampling units are chosen

with the relatively new Generalized

Random-Tessellation Stratified (GRTS)

design (Stevens and Olsen 2004).

The purpose of the GRTS design is to

produce a spatially balanced random

sample, and it can be applied to

populations consisting of points,

linear features, or areas. In general,

GRTS disperses sample units evenly

over the extent of the sampling

frame and is more efficient than simple random sampling (Stevens and

Olsen 2004). The method uses a

function that maps two-dimensional

space (area) into one-dimensional

space (linear) and employs a restricted

randomization algorithm to produce

randomly ordered linear results that

are spatially well-balanced (Stevens

and Olsen 2004). The flexibility of

the GRTS design allows for maintaining a spatially balanced random

sample in each of the following

cases: selecting any number of sample points from the resulting output,

replacing samples that are lost

because in the field they are discovered to be part of the nontarget

population or are inaccessible, and

adding new samples to monitor a

particular vital sign when funding

levels or other resources are

increased. SCPN is also using judgment samples for spatial allocation

in a limited number of situations.

This method is used to monitor

water quality at sites that have a

long history of data collection, to

monitor night sky and natural

soundscape condition, and to monitor springs in parks that contain

relatively few occurrences of these

ecosystems. 

The SCPN monitoring program will

consider several factors when selecting sampling sites including

accessibility, travel costs, and efficiency. Given the often steep, rugged,

and remote terrain that exists within

many SCPN parks, access to many

potential sampling sites is either prohibitively expensive, presents safety

issues, and/or is practically impossible

for human ground or water-based

surveys. Two parks in particular

(GLCA and GRCA) have vast

amounts of backcountry with limited

access and present significant sampling challenges. To address these

issues and to modify the sampling

frame accordingly, geospatial data

sets of accessibility and travel costs

will be created for each park unit

using the Landscape Access Model

(developed by S. Garman, NCPN). In

this model, steep slopes (e.g., > 50%)

within a park are delineated, classified

as inaccessible, and excluded from the

sampling frame. Travel costs (i.e.,

slope-corrected hiking distances) are

also created using road and trail layers

and DEMs (digital elevation models).

Selection probabilities are then

assigned to discrete travel cost classes

(e.g., < 2 km, 2 to 4 km, and > 4 km). 

Another method of sampling sites

efficiently is to co-locate and co-visit

multiple vital signs. Co-location is

monitoring multiple vital signs at the

same physical location, and covisitation is taking measurements on

multiple vital signs during a sampling

occasion. Monitoring multiple vital

signs at the same place and time

increases operational efficiency

because costs associated with travel,

plot set-up, and sampling are much

less than those associated with individual and separate monitoring

efforts. The SCPN will employ the

efficiencies of co-location and covisitation in two integrative efforts:

monitoring three vital signs associated

with upland soils and vegetation and

monitoring the aquatic resource vital

signs including water quality, aquatic

macroinvertebrates, and the integrated riparian protocol. A mixed

approach will be used to select

aquatic rescource monitoring sites:

a linear-based design, use of judgement to identify suitable index sites,

or a combination of the two. 

4.5 GRID-BASED SAMPLING

Grid-based sampling is the primary

spatial sampling method for vital

signs associated with upland soils,

upland vegetation, and bird monitoring. The sampling frame is

constructed as a randomly oriented

grid of equidistant points. The points

represent the center of a sampling

unit or plot. Some points may then

be eliminated because of accessibility

problems and/or prohibitive costs

associated with access. Unique and

non-overlapping sampling units thus

represent the accessible target population of a vital sign. Specific details

of grid-based sampling are described

below for each vital sign.

4.5.1 Upland Vital Signs

SCPN staff will concurrently monitor

vegetation composition and structure, upland hydrologic function,

and upland soil/site stability at colocated ground-based sampling

plots. The initial sampling frame is

a randomly-oriented systematic grid

of evenly-spaced (100m) points

(e.g., Figure 4-1A). Inaccessible
61

FIGURE 4-1. Spatial data layers used to create an accessible and spatially balanced random sample (GRTS) for monitoring u

National Monument. (A) Sampling frame with 100m spacing for two target ecological sites (Frame program, S. Garman, NC

travel cost layer showing hiking distances (LAM, S. Garman, NCPN). (C) Ecological sites (NRCS). (D) GRTS sample with 30 of the two target ecological sites (Sandstone Upland and Shallow Loamy) with the split-panel revisit design shown in Table 4-
62

points will be eliminated from the

initial frame (e.g., Figure 4-1B). We

will also eliminate points that occur

in riparian areas (using a geospatial

data set of riparian corridors created

for each park using 10m digital elevation models). Upland vital signs

are measured on 3 evenly-spaced,

parallel transects within a 1 ha plot

centered on the grid point. The

100m grid spacing ensures unique,

non-overlapping sampling plots.

SCPN has adopted the characterization of landscapes into ecological

sites as the basis for sampling site

selection for monitoring upland vital

signs. An ecological site is a landscape division with specific physical

characteristics that differs from other

landscape divisions in its ability to

produce distinctive types and

amounts of vegetation and in its

response to management (Society

for Range Management Task Group

on Unity in Concepts and

Terminology 1995). Ecological sites

have characteristic soils, hydrology,

plant communities, and disturbance

regimes and responses (Natural

Resources Conservation Services

2003). A map of four ecological

sites (derived from NRCS soil map

units and associated data) within

Wupatki National Monument is

shown in Figure 4-1C as an example.

The following criteria (from

http://esis.sc.egov.usda.gov/ESIS/

About.aspx, accessed during May

2006) are used to differentiate one

ecological site from another:

• Significant differences in the species

or species groups that are in the

characteristic plant community.

• Significant differences in the relative proportion of species or

species groups in the characteristic

plant community.

• Soil factors that determine plant

production and composition, the

hydrology of the site, and the

functioning of the ecological

processes of the water cycle, mineral cycles, and energy flow.

• Differences in the kind, proportion,

and production of the overstory

and understory plants due to differences in soil, topography,

climate, and environment factors,

or the response of vegetation to

management.

There are several advantages to

using ecological sites to determine

target areas for sampling. Ecological

sites are defined by a US federal

agency (NRCS), and because SCPN

parks span four US states, it’s important to use an upland classification

system that is at least regional in

scope. Individual ecological sites are

expected to occur in distinct areas

on the landscape. This will be useful

in stratifying natural variation in

areas (parks) with similar climates.

Because ecological sites contain

characteristic soils that have developed over time, they can often be

distinguished from each other on the

basis of other soil development factors, including parent material and

landscape position (Bestelmeyer et

al. 2004). As defined, ecological

sites are not expected to change,

and SCPN is using them as strata to

define upland target populations.

Additionally, ecological sites are

characterized by state and transition

models that describe vegetation

dynamics and management interactions with each site. These models

are useful for determining which

ecological sites are more resistant

and resilient to disturbances

(Bestelmeyer et al. 2004). Monitoring

ecological sites will also help to

ensure that status and trend observations will be interpretable within

and among the interrelated upland

vital signs. Many of our monitoring

questions pertain to changes that

occur within the predominant vegetation types (e.g., what are the

trends in bare soil and canopy cover

within pinyon-juniper woodlands?).

These and other related questions

are evaluated through the use of

domains (e.g., vegetation types)

during data analysis. 

The process for selecting ecological

sites to monitor is as follows. First,

ecological sites that represent the target ecological systems are selected.

The potential area (or sampling frame)

is evaluated in terms of its size and

accessibility. If the potential sampling

frame poses significant limitations for

monitoring because of these issues

(e.g., the extensive desert grasslands

and shrublands below the rim at

Grand Canyon NP), the frame is

refined to include ecological sites that

are reasonably accessible and are of

high management concern to park

resource managers. 

For ecological sites without significant accessibility problems, the

sampling frame is adjusted by masking out inaccessible sites (using the

Landscape Access Model) and a

geospatial data set of travel cost is

created. Sampling sites are then allocated using a GRTS sample (e.g.,

Figure 4-1D) with unequal probabilities. Selection probabilities are based

on travel costs and the spatial extent

of the targeted ecological sites.

In designing a network-wide sampling

approach for these vital signs, we recognized that there are vast differences

in SCPN park sizes and decided that

one size does not fit all. Six of the target parks are less than 3,000 ha in

size, and nine of the remaining target

parks range from 13,254 to 505,868

ha. The revisit design will vary by park

size (e.g., small, medium, and large).

For the six small parks (AZRU, ELMO,

NAVA, PETR, SUCR, WACA), one

objective is to employ an operationally

efficient design by sampling parks

that are geographically close to one

another. For the nine larger parks,

two potential revisit designs are

shown in Table 4-3. A number of
63

Table 4-3. Two potential revisit designs for monitoring upland vital signs.

factors may influence the selection of

a final revisit design, including analysis

of spatial and temporal variation from

sampled plots after the first several

years of monitoring, simulation studies, analysis of other existing data

where available, and consultation

with local experts. 

Panel membership is accomplished

by assigning sequential sets of sampling points from the GRTS output

to individual panels. As an example,

using the panel design shown in

Table 4-3a, the first 3 points of the

GRTS output could be assigned to

panel 1 of the [2-3] revisit design,

points 4 to 6 to panel 1 of the [1-4]

design, points 7 to 9 to panel 2 of

the [2-3] design, points 10 to 12 to

panel 2 of the [1-4] design, and so

on until all panels are filled. Both of

the designs in Table 4-3 balance the

need to revisit sampling sites in consecutive years to collect trend data

and account for annual variations

with the need to spread samples out

to capture spatial variation within

targeted ecological sites. 

4.5.2 Upland Bird Communities

Upland bird communities will be

monitored in 5 SCPN parks (BAND,

GRCA, MEVE, PEFO, and WUPA).

The goal is to provide status and

trends of bird communities in several

upland habitats (e.g., pinyon-juniper

woodland) that commonly occur

across these parks. The initial target

populations for bird monitoring are a

subset of the target ecological sites

designated for upland vital signs

monitoring. For each of the target

ecological sites, the sampling frame

is a randomly-oriented systematic

grid of points that are evenly spaced

250m apart. Depending on topography and the spatial extent of the

target populations, monitoring is

conducted on either 2 linear transects consisting of 15 points each

(spaced 250m apart) or on 3 linear

transects of 10 points each (spaced

250m apart), for a total of 30 sites

per target population. Using GIS,

each point in the sampling frame is

evaluated for its use as a starting

(b) Panel design adapted from a partially augmented serially alternating design (Urquhart and Kincaid 1999).

Each X represents a minimum of 3 plots.

(a) Split-panel design [2-3, 1-4] (each X represents a minimum of 3 plots).
64

point in locating either a 10-point or

15-point linear transect within the

target ecological site(s). Thus, the

sampling frame is modified to include

only those points capable of including the desired transect length (2.25

km or 3.5 km). The sampling frame is

further adjusted by masking out inaccessible sites (using the Landscape

Access Model). In addition, a geospatial data set of travel costs is created.

Sampling sites (and corresponding

transects) are then allocated by generating a GRTS sample with unequal

probabilities. Selection probabilities

are based on travel costs. Each sampling point along a transect is

sampled 3 times per year (during the

breeding season), and the revisit

design is yet to be determined. 

At each of the transect points, a

10-minute survey is performed.

Observations of birds by sight or call

are recorded along with the distance

from point center to the first detection of an individual. We will use the

histogram of detection distances to

estimate a function that accounts for

decreased probability of detection at

large distances. The software program Distance (Laake et al. 2004)

performs estimation of the detection

function and the density for each

species (Buckland et al. 2004).

Observations of target species are

also recorded while walking between

point locations along the transect.

Target species are those that are

uncommon or of special concern and

that typically are under-represented

on point-count surveys. Detection

distances are recorded for target

species. However, given the tendency

for a limited number of observations

of these species, transect observations generally provide status rather

than trend information.

For monitoring nesting success of

selected bird species, SCPN employs

a dual frame approach to sampling.

Within the target ecological sites, a

second list-based sampling frame is

composed of known locations of

nesting sites derived from previous

and current sampling. Sampling sites

are selected from the list-based

sampling frame for each target ecological site by using an unequal

probability GRTS sample. Selection

probabilities are based on accessibility (travel costs), and inferences are

made within target populations from

sampled to unsampled nests. The

revisit design is to be determined.

4.5.3 Invasive Exotic Plants

Detection of new populations of

invasive exotic species prior to establishment in areas of management

significance is the focus of this vital

sign. The initial sampling frame is a

randomly oriented systematic grid of

points with a large spacing (> 500m)

within each park, which is then

adjusted by masking out inaccessible

areas. Predictive models of exotic

plant invasion and dispersal will be

used to create geospatial zones of

invasibility for each park. These

zones differ in their degree of vulnerability to invasion based on

several factors including (1) propagule pressure and invasion pathways,

(2) resource availability, (3) physical

site attributes, and (4) vegetation

cover. Sampling sites are allocated

by generating a GRTS sample with

unequal selection probabilities due

to invasibility. Sampling sites are

members of a single panel monitored once every five years ([1-4]).

We will rotate monitoring effort

among the SCPN park units (e.g.,

four parks monitored per year). 

Given the vast areas of management

significance in the SCPN, detecting

new occurrences of exotic species is

likely to be a rare event. Thus, we

are employing adaptive sampling for

this vital sign. Using decision rules

that vary by species and by the spatial extent of new populations,

sampling intensities can increase

around the newly detected populations. Although this method is

cost-efficient, it will introduce bias

for which we will account using

estimators developed for adaptive

designs (Thompson 2002). 

4.6 LINEAR-BASED

SAMPLING

Linear-based sampling is the primary

spatial sampling method for vital

signs associated with riparian and

aquatic habitats. These vital signs will

be monitored within linear corridors

associated with flowing water. River

and stream populations are resources

that occur only on a linear-based

network within a bounded area

(Stevens and Olsen 2004). To sample

linear resources, the finite populations are often divided into discrete

and arbitrary fixed-length intervals

(Stevens and Olsen 2004). SCPN has

adopted this approach. The location

and extent of SCPN target populations are connected, non-overlapping

segments of streams and rivers.

Specific details of linear-based sampling are described below for each

vital sign.

4.6.1 Integrated Riparian

The integrated riparian vital signs

including riparian vegetation composition and structure and channel

morphology will be monitored concurrently at co-located sampling

locations at twenty sites selected

using a linear-based sampling

design. Additionally, streamflow will

be monitored at nineteen of these

sites, and depth to alluvial groundwater will be monitored at eight of

the sites. The monitoring focus is on

intermittent and perennial streams.

At four parks (BAND, GLCA, GRCA,

and PEFO), water quality, aquatic

macroinvertebrate, and integrated

riparian vital signs are co-located at

sites selected using linear-based

sampling. A list of streams selected

for integrated riparian monitoring is

presented in Table 4-4. 
65

Table 4-4. Preliminary list of perennial (P) and intermittent (I) rivers and streams selected for 

monitoring riparian and aquatic vital signs. “L” designates vital signs monitored using 

linear-based sampling, and “In” denotes those signs monitored using index sites.
66

A hierarchical, process-based stream

classification guides the sampling

design. The classification system is

based on three fundamental physical

conditions: 1) the availability of

water, 2) the spatial and temporal

patterning of sediment storage, and

3) the balance between stream

power and resistance of riparian vegetation. Classification is accomplished

using topographic maps, remotely

sensed data, and field verification.

The objective of the classification is

to group functionally similar physical

environments and channel types and

to classify stream channels by their

potential response to disturbances.

Selected watersheds of individual

stream systems represent the bounds

of the targeted populations. 

There are multiple sampling frames

corresponding to individual stream

systems (e.g., the Escalante River in

GLCA), and frames are stratified by

stream order (i.e., main stem or tributary). Thus, inferences are made

from sampled to unsampled stream

units within similarly classified (valley

segment, channel reach, and geomorphic setting) stream segments

of the main stem or tributaries. For

each stream system, the sampling

frame is composed of sampling units

that are equal distance apart. The

frame is subdivided into stream

segments for the main stem and

segments for tributaries. The linear

length of sampling units within the

main stem is 500m and 300m for

units within tributaries. The allocation of samples is determined from

an unequal probability GRTS sample.

Selection probabilities are based on

geomorphic settings with certain settings (e.g., alluvial) having higher

probabilities. Figure 4-2 shows an

example of this design. 

The revisit design varies by vital sign.

Accessibility is a common issue for

monitoring all of the vital signs in

Table 4-4, and thus selection probabilities are based on travel costs. A

rotating panel design similar to that

used for monitoring upland vegetation will be used for sampling riparian

vegetation and channel morphology,

with a revisit plan of once every five

years [1-4]. These vital signs can be

affected by random disturbance

events such as high-magnitude flooding. If extreme flooding occurs in a

stream with an integrated riparian

monitoring site, the site will be sampled as soon after the event as

possible. Frequent site visits are

required to adequately characterize

stream flow and depth to groundwater, and the revisit plan is quarterly.

Water level sensors and dataloggers

used to monitor these vital signs will

collect and store data at continuous

to monthly intervals. Aquatic macroinvertebrate vital signs co-located with

integrated riparian monitoring sites

will be revisited once a year [1-0].

4.6.2 Riparian Bird

Communities

Riparian bird communities will be

monitored in five SCPN parks (BAND,

CACH, GLCA, GRCA, and MEVE).

FIGURE 4-2. Example of the sampling design for monitoring riparian and

aquatic vital signs.

(A) Sampling frame composed of points spaced 300m apart in Coyote Gulch and associated

tributaries in Glen Canyon NRA. (B) A GRTS sample of 20 sampling locations.
67

The target populations are the riparian corridors along the streams and

rivers in these parks that are the

focus of riparian and aquatic vital

sign monitoring (Table 4-4). The bird

sampling frame corresponds to individual stream systems. As with the

monitoring of upland bird communities, points are sampled along linear

transects and spaced 250m apart.

The number of sampling points

required for monitoring riparian bird

communities within a stream ecosystem is to be determined. The

sampling points selected for riparian

and aquatic vital sign monitoring

(using a GRTS sample with unequal

probabilities) represent the starting

locations for the riparian bird transects. If the initial starting point is

insufficient to fully include the minimum transect length within the

target riparian corridor, additional

points are selected from the GRTS

sample (while maintaining the spatially balanced order). Each sampling

point along a transect is sampled 3

times per year (during the breeding

season), and the revisit design is to

be determined. 

4.6.3 Water Quality of Streams

The SCPN water quality monitoring

effort is designed to collect and

interpret water quality data to support NPS and network water quality

objectives including determination of

status and trends in the water quality

of selected streams. Priorities for

monitoring include impaired stream

reaches and relatively pristine waters.

The stream water-quality and integrated riparian vital signs will be

co-located at seven streams in SCPN

parks. The aquatic macroinvertebrate

vital sign will also be co-located at

most of these sites. Sample design is

described in Section 4.6.1. Streams

were chosen because one or more of

the following conditions were met: 

• presence of documented water

quality impairments

• existence of potential threats to

water quality 

• presence of pristine conditions

• availability of a significant amount

of historic water quality data,

and/or

• water quality data is needed to

meet the resource management

needs at selected parks.

A list including eight streams selected

for stream water-quality monitoring

using a GRTS sample with unequal

probabilities is presented in Table 4-4

and on Figure 4-3.

The revisit design for monitoring

stream water quality is monthly to

quarterly and will be determined on a

site-specific basis. Monitoring these

sites will provide representative data at

site and network levels because most

of the significant surface-water

sources identified in the scoping phase

of vital sign selection are included in

this sample, and the revisit plans will

be designed to obtain water quality

data representing a wide range of

hydrologic conditions (Appendix I).

The final panel design for monitored

streams will be largely contingent on

schedules and budgets of other monitoring efforts and partnerships that

can be developed. Monitoring of the

aquatic resource vital signs, including

water quality, will be directly managed

and funded by the SCPN. 

Water quality field parameters measured at each selected stream site

include dissolved oxygen, pH, specific

conductance, water temperature,

turbidity, and streamflow. Water

samples collected at each index site

will be analyzed for a suite of parameters including major ions, nutrients,

selected trace elements, and in some

cases bacteria (Table 4-5). Additional

parameters will be selected at certain

sites based on known or suspected

water-quality issues. Parameter selection was restricted to parameters

most likely to produce a data set useful for assessment of status and

trends in park water-quality conditions and early warning of threats to

water quality. 

4.7 LIST-BASED SAMPLING

List-based sampling is the spatial

sampling method for monitoring terrestrial arthropods and is one of the

spatial sampling methods for vital

signs associated with spring ecosystems and aquatic habitats (water

quality and macroinvertebrates).

The location and extent of target

populations for arthropods will be

developed from grids (modified to

include only highly accessible sites),

while target populations for springs

are from inventories. Both are organized into lists to derive sampling

locations. Further details of list-based

sampling are described below.

Table 4-5. Water quality sample types and parameters.
68

4.7.1 Ground-Dwelling

Arthropods

The monitoring of ground-dwelling

arthropods will be limited to a few

sites within pinyon-juniper woodland

habitat in two SCPN parks (GRCA

and MEVE). The sampling frame (one

for each park) consists of a list of

accessible upland sites (derived from

the upland vital signs grid-based

sampling frame) of the target habitat. Sampling sites are allocated by

generating a GRTS sample with

equal probabilities. Arthropod sampling will occur three times during

the growing season, and the revisit

design is to be determined.

4.7.2 Spring Ecosystems

Due to the large number of springs

and relatively few spring types at

GLCA, this is the only park where

we will use a list-based sampling

scheme. The sampling frame is a list

of known spring locations derived

from previous and current inventories. Sampling sites are selected by

using an unequal probability GRTS

sample. Selection probabilities are

based on accessibility (travel costs),

groundwater flow systems, and

spring type. Inferences are made

within the park from sampled to

unsampled springs that are part of

the same groundwater flow system

and spring type. The revisit design

is to be determined.

4.8 INDEX SITES

Twelve vital signs are monitored

using index sites. These include vital

signs associated with air quality,

weather and climate, wildland values, and water quality of streams.

Vital signs associated with springs,

seeps, and tinajas (i.e., water quality,

vegetation composition and structure,

spring flow, and macroinvertebrates)

are also monitored using index sites

in all parks except Glen Canyon.

Index sites are specific points or locations that are hand-picked by lead

investigators and monitored to yield

adequate data on a particular vital

sign. The use of index sites is justified because of the high costs of

the surveys or equipment involved

in the measurements. In some cases

(e.g., water quality sites), an index

approach was selected to maintain

continuity with existing data sets.

Statistical inference to a larger area

(such as a park or portion of a park)

is not possible because the index

sites were not chosen with a probability sample. However, monitoring

these vital signs at specific sites is

appropriate because they contain

the vast majority of the population

of monitored subjects or the spatial

fluctuation in measures across a

larger area is inconsequential for

long-term monitoring purposes. 

4.8.1 Air Quality

At present, air quality monitoring is

occurring at Bandelier NM, Grand

Canyon NP, Mesa Verde NP, and

Petrified Forest NP. Three vital signs

(ozone, wet and dry deposition,

and visibility and particulate matter)

will continue to be monitored at

existing stations within these parks

by programs external to the SCPN

I&M effort.

4.8.2 Weather and Climate

Climate conditions are monitored

at existing climate and precipitation

monitoring stations. An inventory

of climate stations across all NPS

I&M networks is currently being

conducted by the Western Region

Climate Center (administered by

NOAA, National Oceanic &

Atmospheric Administration). When

completed for SCPN, the inventory

results will be used to evaluate the

existing protocols, metadata, and

spatial coverage of climate data

across the network.

To support interpretation of trend

data from the upland monitoring

plots, additional micro-climate stations may be located near these plots.

These temperature and rain gauges will

have a recording frequency ranging

from 15 minutes to 1 hour.

4.8.3 Wildland Values

The status and trends of two vital

signs, night sky condition and natural

soundscape condition, are monitored

at index sites that were independently

selected. Sampling sites are located

within parks that contain substantial

wilderness or backcountry areas. The

revisit design is to be determined. 

4.8.4 Water Quality of Streams

The focus of the SCPN water quality

monitoring effort is to collect and

interpret water quality data to support

NPS and network water quality objectives. Emphasis is on perennial and

intermittent streams in the SCPN

parks. Thirteen streams in SCPN parks

function as index sites for water quality monitoring (Table 4-4 and Figure

4-3). Streams were chosen because

one or more of the following conditions were met: 

• presence of documented water

quality impairments

• existence of potential threats to

water quality 

• water quality data is needed to

meet the resource management

needs 

In addition, specific index water-quality

monitoring sites at each stream were

selected where:

• a significant amount of historic

water quality data are available

• an active stream flow gage exists, 

or

• known water quality threats exist

Water quality parameters, stream flow

and, in some cases, aquatic macroinvertebrates are monitored at selected

sites (Table 4-4). Stream flow gages

are associated with eight of the selected water quality monitoring sites

(Appendix I).
69

Currently water quality monitoring

programs exist in only two SCPN

parks. Water quality monitoring that

partially addresses critical data needs

is ongoing in GLCA and GRCA.

Details regarding the scope and

utility of these monitoring efforts

are presented in Appendix C.

The revisit designs for monitoring

stream water quality field parameters that will be measured at each

selected stream site are described in

Section 4.6.3. 

4.8.5 Aquatic

Macroinvertebrates of Streams

The aquatic macroinvertebrate vital

sign is monitored in conjunction with

water quality at index sites within

streams at BAND, CACH, GLCA,

GRCA, and MEVE (Table 4-4). The

revisit design for aquatic macroinvertebrates is annual [1-0]. Sampling

should be conducted during baseflow conditions, and timing of

sampling will be determined on a

site-specific basis. Appropriate index

periods established by State or

Federal agencies will be used.

4.8.6 Spring, Seep, and Tinaja

Ecosystems

Four vital signs are monitored at

springs, seeps, and tinajas using

index sites. The vital signs are vegetation composition and structure,

flow, aquatic macroinvertebrates,

and water quality. The spring index

sites are distributed in parks that

contain few occurrences of these

ecosystems and in GRCA, a park

that has significant numbers of

springs and tinajas (Table 4-6 and

Figure 4-3). Proposed index sites at

GRCA were selected to represent

springs discharging from principal

aquifers of the north and south

rims, to include a variety of spring

types, and to include pristine and

developed sites. Both CACH and

MEVE have numerous seeps and

springs. Information describing

these resources is limited and monitoring sites at these parks will be

selected following further inventory

and reconnaissance. 

FIGURE 4-3. Map of proposed water quality monitoring sites at index springs, streams, and rivers.
70

4.9 CENSUS

Satellite imagery is used to monitor

three vital signs associated with

ecosystem patterns and processes.

These vital signs are: land use/land

cover and landscape vegetation patterns, vegetation condition, and

vegetation disturbance patterns.

Monitoring is a census approach

(rather than sampling) because

imagery is acquired for the full spatial

extent of the park or for the full

extent of the greater park ecosystem.

The greater ecosystem includes the

area of the park and the lands surrounding it that potentially influence

the park area. Criteria used to define

the greater ecosystem include gravitational flows (erosion potential),

animal habitat corridors for dispersal

or migration, and potential corridors

for exotic plant invasion. Monitoring

the greater park ecosystem occurs for

the land use/land cover and vegetation condition vital signs. 

4.9.1 Land Use/Land Cover

and Landscape Vegetation

Patterns

This vital sign monitors the status

and trends in the composition,

extent, and distribution of land

use/land cover and vegetation types

on lands within and adjacent to

SCPN parks. The data source for

monitoring is satellite imagery with

medium spatial and spectral resolution (e.g., digital Landsat data).

Satellite scenes will be classified to

create geospatial layers of the initial

conditions (i.e., baseline maps) of

land cover and vegetation indicators.

With subsequent monitoring and

additional imagery, change detection

methods will be employed at the

pixel level to assess direction and

magnitude of spectral change. Pixels

with spectral changes of sufficient

magnitude are assigned to new

land cover or vegetation types. The

costs associated with acquiring and

classifying digital images require a

minimum revisit design of [1-4], or

once every five years. Given the census approach, there is no membership

design. Monitoring will be rotated

among the SCPN park units with

approximately four parks monitored

every year. 

4.9.2 Vegetation Condition 

This vital sign monitors vegetation

greenness and productivity on park

lands and the surrounding landscape. Digital data from the MODIS

instrument aboard the Terra satellite

Table 4-6. A preliminary list of springs (S) and tinajas (T) selected for monitoring four vital signs.
71

(with a spatial resolution of 250 m)

will be used as surrogates to monitor

vegetation greenness, annual productivity, length of season, and date and

level of maximum production.

Methods using MODIS Normalized

Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)

data (available every 16 days) are

employed to derive vegetation phenological metrics. Seasonal and annual

NDVI curves are used to track vegetation green-up times, production levels,

and senescence periods. Costs associated with acquiring and processing

MODIS data are relatively low. These

data are analyzed year-round for each

greater park ecosystem. Vegetation

condition is monitored seasonally and

annually, and there is no membership

design. Changes in vegetation condition are identified with year-to-year

comparisons of NDVI curves.

Monitoring data of associated vital

signs (climate, vegetation disturbance

patterns, and vegetation structure and

composition) are used to understand

changes to vegetation condition.

4.9.3 Vegetation Disturbance

Patterns

This vital sign includes fire, insect,

and disease disturbance and is monitored using satellite imagery with

medium spatial and spectral resolution (e.g., digital Landsat data).

Satellite scenes will be classified to

create baseline maps that delineate

the type, extent, and severity of disturbance. Existing maps will be used

(when available) in cases involving

large and recent disturbances. With

subsequent monitoring and additional imagery, change detection

methods will be employed at the

pixel level to assess direction and

magnitude of spectral change. Pixels

are assigned to new disturbance

classes if spectral changes of sufficient magnitude are detected.

Monitoring data of associated vital

signs (vegetation condition, climate,

and vegetation structure and composition) will be used to understand

large-scale changes to vegetation

disturbance patterns. The costs

associated with acquiring and classifying digital images require a

minimum revisit design of [1-4], or

once every five years. Given the census approach, there is no membership

design. Monitoring will be rotated

among the SCPN park units (e.g.,

four parks monitored every year)

with a flexible schedule that is capable of responding to large-scale

disturbances at a given park.

PHOTO BY LISA THO

73

Monitoring protocols are detailed

study plans that explain how data are

to be collected, managed, analyzed,

and reported and are key components of quality assurance for natural

resource monitoring programs

(Oakley et al. 2003). In order to collect high-quality and consistent data

over a period of decades, monitoring

protocols include detailed standard

operating procedures for all aspects

of the project (Beard et al. 1999). As

procedures are refined or modified

through time, those changes are

documented within the protocol. 

While one may think of monitoring

protocols as dealing primarily with

sampling methods, effective protocols are more comprehensive.

Monitoring projects that incorporate

an initial investment in carefully

defining objectives, identifying target

populations, developing appropriate

sampling designs, and determining

how monitoring results will be analyzed and reported are more likely to

succeed over the long term (Oakley

et al. 2003). Consequently, these

elements are essential to the monitoring protocols that will be

developed through this program. 

5.1 PROTOCOL

DEVELOPMENT

Over the next five years (FY2006 –

FY2010) the SCPN plans to develop

13 monitoring protocols that will

cover 17 vital signs (Table 5-1). Most

of these protocols will be developed

in collaboration with the Northern

Colorado Plateau Network. A wide

range of academic and USGS scientists are involved in protocol

development. Draft protocols will

undergo peer review by 3 subject

area experts, including a statistician.

Table 5-2 summarizes the rationale

and objectives for vital signs included

in these 13 monitoring protocols.

Detailed protocol development summaries are included in Appendix J.

5.2 STEPS TOWARD AN

INTEGRATED MONITORING

PROGRAM

Throughout the scoping and vital

signs selection process, there was

explicit recognition that SCPN parks

required a balanced monitoring program incorporating vital signs to

represent multiple spatial scales and

ecological levels, as well as monitoring of key components, processes,

and stressors. This need was reflected

in the ecosystem characteristics that

relate to ecological integrity (see

Table 1-3) and in the use of the

Jenny-Chapin model as the foundation for developing conceptual

models (Chapter 2). The end result

is a set of vital signs that will be

complementary in their information

content and provide an overall

assessment of the condition of park

ecosystems. By designing an integrated monitoring program that

takes advantage of these complementary aspects, the resulting

monitoring data will provide a

“weight of evidence” approach in

detecting changes in overall ecosystem integrity. In some cases, an

integrated monitoring approach may

also provide insight into the underlying causes of ecosystem change. 

We can optimize the utility of the

monitoring program by early consideration of important relationships

between vital signs and an evaluation

of which monitoring objectives require

integrated data collection and/or interpretation. This is particularly important

because financial resources and logistic constraints preclude our ability to

measure everything everywhere. 

MONITORING PROTOCOLS

CHAPTER 5
74

Table 5-1. Vital signs, protocols and current cooperators for the SCPN. NCPN and SCPN 

are collaborating in protocols indicated in bold.
75

Table 5-2. SCPN core vital signs, monitoring location, justification and objectives.
76

Table 5-2 continued. SCPN core vital signs, monitoring location, justification and objectives.
77

Table 5-2 continued. SCPN core vital signs, monitoring location, justification and objectives.
78

Table 5-2 continued. SCPN core vital signs, monitoring location, justification and objectives.
79

smallest interval of space measured

(O’Neill and King 1998). Replication

includes a spatial component (the

number of independent sample plots

dispersed through space) and a temporal component (the sampling

frequency or number of samples

through time). Measurement effort

refers to the amount of information

that is gathered at each sampling

site and may also include processing

time (e.g., for remotely sensed data). 

Table 5-3 provides a preliminary

assessment of these attributes for

SCPN core vital signs. Landscapelevel vital signs may generally be

considered as extensive monitoring

components (i.e., extensive coverage, low to moderate measurement

effort with coarse-grained data).

Many plot-based efforts are intermediate in terms of spatial scale,

measurement effort, and replication.

Those vital signs that require expensive instrumentation or high

measurement efforts are typically

poorly replicated, even if the intended spatial scale to which they apply

is large (e.g., climate stations). 

As we drafted protocol development summaries, we identified a

number of park monitoring questions that depend on data from

two or more linked vital signs. It

was also apparent that a number of

‘big picture’ monitoring questions

could only be addressed through

more complex combinations of

monitoring results. As we continue

developing the monitoring program, we will begin to describe the

data integration needs for the main

SCPN monitoring themes. This will

include consideration of park monitoring needs within the context of

specific ecosystem models. Figure

5-1 provides an example of combining results from multiple vital

signs to answer ‘big picture’ monitoring questions. 

As we develop sampling designs and

monitoring protocols, we must consider trade-offs concerning the scale,

scope, and statistical power of our

sampling efforts (Hall 2000). The

need for integration will be one element of those discussions. 

A preliminary task toward developing

a framework for integrated monitoring is to define the spatial scales and

replication and measurement efforts

associated with particular vital signs.

This framework will assist us with

consideration of the best means for

integrating monitoring data collected

across disparate spatial and temporal

scales. It will also be useful in assessing the relative cost and effort

associated with particular vital signs.

We have modified a framework

developed by Jenkins and colleagues

(2002) to help with this task. Spatial

scale consists of two parts: extent,

or the total area over which observations are made, and grain, the

PHOTO BY MARK WEISSIN
80

Table 5-3. Spatial scale, replication effort, and measurement effort for the SCPN core vital signs.Color coding indicates a general scale from low to high (blue, green, yellow, orange, pink) for each attribute.
81

FIGURE 5-1. Example of integrated monitoring questions relating to SCPN upland ecosystems.

83

Data become information through the

process of analysis, synthesis, modeling, or other types of interpretation.

Data management provides a means

for organizing, documenting, and

archiving data so that the original

information potential is maintained

through time. This is particularly

important for long-term programs

where the lifespan of a data set will

likely be longer than the careers of

those who developed it. A data management system that can effectively

produce, maintain, and distribute

monitoring results is central to the

success of the I&M Program. 

This chapter summarizes the general data management standards;

expected roles and responsibilities;

and data processing, storage, and

distribution guidelines for the SCPN.

A more detailed description can be

found in the SCPN Data Management

Plan (Supplement V), which will be

revised periodically. Detailed data

management procedures for monitoring projects will be based on

these guidelines.

6.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The SCPN approach to data management is user oriented, the user

ranging from SCPN staff to cooperating scientists and park managers.

The primary goal of the SCPN data

management program is to ensure

the quality, clarity, security, longevity,

and availability of SCPN I&M data.

Quality – SCPN I&M data will be

used by park staff to inform management decisions regarding park

natural resources; it is essential that

these data be accurate and complete. Appropriate quality assurance

measures will be employed throughout the process of collecting,

processing, and maintaining data.

Good data stewardship habits and

attitudes will be encouraged.

Clarity – Confusing and cryptic data

sets are of little use and can be easily

misinterpreted. All data and information products will be accompanied

by complete documentation so that

users will be aware of the applicability and limitations of the data.

Security – All information products will

be maintained so that appropriate levels of access are provided to SCPN and

park staff. Existing technologies will be

utilized to protect I&M data from corruption or loss, ensuring the long-term

security and integrity of the data.

Longevity – Many factors combine to

increase the longevity of a data set:

proper documentation, organization,

and standardization to modern technologies. SCPN will ensure that all data

sets are completely documented. Data

sets will be organized in a logical and

consistent manner so that nothing is lost

over time. As software and hardware

technologies change, data sets will be

updated so that they remain readable

and accessible.

Availability – I&M data can only be

useful to park managers if it is easily

available in a timely manner and in a

useful form. Information products will

be distributed to park management on

a regular schedule and, when appropriate, will be made available to a

broader audience.

DATA MANAGEMENT

CHAPTER 6
84

6.2 SOURCES OF NATURAL

RESOURCE DATA

The existence of numerous potential

sources of ecological data about

park natural resources requires SCPN

to prioritize data management.

Some sources of natural resource

data include:

• Inventories

• Monitoring

• Special focus studies completed

by parks

• External research projects

• Studies by other land management

agencies on adjacent lands

• Resource impact evaluations related

to park planning and compliance

regulations

• Resource management and

restoration work

SCPN will be able to maintain the

highest level of control on data

collected through the network

monitoring program, and thus our

data management efforts will focus

on these data. However, the goal is

to apply the same standards, procedures, and attitudes about data

management to other sources of

natural resource data over the longterm and to work toward raising the

level of data management for projects originating outside the I&M

program. Our data management

staff may also serve as consultants

for new park monitoring projects,

contributing good data management

practices to those efforts. 

6.3 ROLES AND

RESPONSIBILITIES

Data management and stewardship

is the responsibility of all participants

in SCPN network I&M activities; it

requires true collaboration among

many people with a broad range of

tasks and responsibilities. Good

habits and attitudes are as important

as standards and procedures.

Although primary responsibility

resides with the data manager, project

Table 6-1. Roles of SCPN network staff and cooperators working 

on monitoring projects.

Table 6.2. SCPN infrastructure service or support providers.
85

managers, and GIS specialist who

make up the core data management

team, all SCPN staff and cooperators

are responsible for ensuring data

stewardship is practiced throughout

the life of a monitoring project.

Table 6.1 summarizes the roles and

responsibilities of SCPN staff and

cooperators with respect to data

stewardship.

6.4 INFRASTRUCTURE AND

SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE

Management and dissemination of

monitoring data is made possible by

information technology infrastructure

and system architecture. Infrastructure

refers to the network of computers

and servers that information systems

are built upon. System architecture

refers to the application, database system, repositories, and software tools

that make up the framework of the

SCPN’s data management enterprise.

SCPN relies on cooperative agreements with Northern Arizona

University (NAU) and the USGS

Colorado Plateau Research Station

(CPRS) as well as NPS regional and

national information technology personnel and resources for maintenance

and support of computer and networking infrastructure (Table 6-2). 

6.4.1 SCPN System Architecture 

Working files, master libraries, and

digital archives will be stored on

SCPN file and data servers. A template project directory for databases,

files, and project documentation will

be used for each monitoring project.

This directory will contain working

files for which all project team members will have read/write access.

Master libraries are repositories for

final information products and certified databases. Master libraries will

be organized according to type –

databases will be stored together,

documents will be stored together,

etc. – and only certain SCPN personnel will have full access. Digital

archives will be repositories for packages of data and information that

can easily be redistributed and will

have extremely limited write access.

Rather than developing a single integrated database system, SCPN will

develop stand-alone project databases that share design standards

and centralized lookup tables for

data shared across projects. These

modular databases allow for greater

flexibility to accommodate each

project’s needs, and sufficient standardization can ensure the ability to

aggregate and summarize data

across multiple projects. SCPN currently uses Microsoft Access for all

project databases and is investigating

the need to move to a client-server

relational database management system such as Microsoft SQL Server. 

6.4.2 National System

Architecture

The national I&M program provides

several repositories for hosting SCPN

information products and applications for summarizing park data at a

national level. The applications are

available online and allow users to

access basic natural resource information for SCPN parks:

• NatureBib – master database for

natural resource bibliographic references

• NPSpecies – master database for

species occurrence records and

evidence (voucher specimens, references, observations or data sets)

at each park

• NR-GIS Metadata and Data Store –

master database of metadata for

GIS and natural resource data sets

and a repository for that data

6.5 DATA MANAGEMENT

PROCESS AND WORKFLOW

Within the context of a monitoring

project SCPN data management

tasks can be divided into several

types of activities. These activities

(Figure 6-1) provide the backbone

for planning and executing data

management procedures for each

monitoring project. Specific procedures and guidelines for each of

these activities are explained in the

data management plan. Data design

refers to the design and development of project data sheets, the

database, and database applications.

During data acquisition, data are collected in the field or acquired from

other sources, entered into the project database, and verified. Data will

then be validated to ensure they are

within normal ranges, summarized,

and exported for analysis.

Documentation will be completed,

data and information products will

be distributed, and both digital and

analog products will be archived.

Data and documentation take different forms and are maintained in

different places throughout the

phases of a project. These phases

can be modeled as a sequence of

events and tasks which involve interaction with the following items:

• Raw data – Analog data recorded

by hand on field data sheets and

digital files from handheld computers, GPS receivers, telemetry

data loggers, etc. 

• Working database – A projectspecific database for entering

and processing data for the current season (or other logical time

period). This may be the only

database for short-term projects

with no need to distinguish current season data from the full set

of validated data. 

• Certified data and metadata –

Completed data and documentation for short-term projects, or one

season of completed data for

long-term monitoring projects.

Certification is a confirmation by

the project manager that the data

have passed all quality assurance

requirements and are complete
86

and ready for distribution. Metadata

records include detailed information

about project data needed for proper use and interpretation.

• Master database – Project-specific

database for storing the full set of

validated project data used for viewing, summarizing, and analysis.

Current season data from the working database must pass all quality

assurance steps prior to upload into

this master project database. 

• Reports and data products –

Information that is derived from

certified project data. 

• Edit log – A means of tracking

changes to certified data. 

• National databases and repositories – Applications and repositories

maintained at the national level,

primarily for the purpose of integration among NPS units and for

sharing information with cooperators and the public. 

FIGURE 6-1. Data management activities within the context of a monitoring project.
87

• Archived data – Digital and hardcopy data stored and maintained

for the long-term.

6.6 WATER QUALITY DATA

Water quality data collected as part

of the network’s monitoring program

have distinct data management

requirements. Data must be managed

according to guidelines from the NPS

Water Resources Division (WRD;

http://www.nature.nps.gov/water/info

anddata/index.cfm). NPS WRD has

selected the Environmental Protection

Agency’s national STOrage and

RETrieval water quality database

(STORET) as the standard for archiving

NPS water quality data. WRD maintains a copy of STORET and requires

that all I&M chemical, physical, and

biological water quality data be

archived in this copy. SCPN will use

the Microsoft Access database application (called NPSTORET) developed by

WRD to fulfill this requirement. 

The USGS/WRD-Colorado developed

a water quality database that

enables assessment of the temporal

and spatial distribution characteristics

of water quality data available for

the 19 SCPN park units. For the purpose of developing the Water Quality

Vital Signs Monitoring Plan, this

database provides a useful tool for

evaluation of historical water quality

of the waters in and surrounding

SCPN park units and determination

of historical and current water quality

conditions in and near these parks.

SCPN plans to maintain and regularly

update the water quality database

through data retrievals from

NPSTORET or STORET, enabling it to

serve as a dynamic tool for the network’s long-term water quality

monitoring and analysis needs. 

6.7 DATA DESIGN

The data manager and project manager will collaborate on design of

field data sheets, database structure,

and database application for each

monitoring project. Databases will be

standardized where possible following

the I&M recommended guidelines for

database structure and naming conventions developed in the Natural

Resource Database Template (NRDT)

and the Recommended Naming

Standards. SCPN will also develop

standardized lookup tables for data

elements shared across many monitoring projects. Database design will

also be guided by a data modeling

process involving the creation of three

types of data models: conceptual,

logical, and physical.

6.8 DATA ACQUISITION AND

QUALITY CONTROL

Data managed and utilized by the

network will originate from three

types of sources: within the network,

other NPS data collection efforts,

and outside the NPS altogether.

• Network Data – any data produced

from projects that are initiated

(funded) by the SCPN I&M Program

or projects that in some way involve

the I&M Program. 

• NPS Data – any data produced by

the NPS that did not involve the

inventory and monitoring program. 

• External Data – any data produced

by agencies or institutions other

than the National Park Service. 

SCPN staff are responsible for the

acquisition and quality control of network data. Project crew leaders and

members are primarily responsible for

data collection, data entry, and verification of data acquired from field

data collection. Each monitoring project protocol will detail procedures for

these data acquisition steps based on

guidelines outlined in this plan. As

data are collected and entered into a

database, quality control procedures

will be used to increase accuracy and

limit transcription mistakes. A verification procedure will be used to

check for and correct any transcription mistakes. 

NPS and external data will be

acquired only with complete documentation and metadata. These data

will undergo limited processing and

quality control by SCPN staff to

ensure compatibility with SCPN project databases, if necessary. Legacy

data from parks will be evaluated

and prioritized for digitizing or converting to modern database formats.

Some external ancillary data, such as

climate data, will be acquired when

needed in subsets rather than stored

by SCPN in its entirety. 

6.9 QUALITY ASSURANCE,

DATA SUMMARIZATION,

AND EXPORT FOR ANALYSIS

Quality assurance, data summary, and

data analysis are the responsibility of

the project managers; however, the

data manager will provide tools to

project managers to facilitate these

three activities. Data validation

(ensuring measures are within normal ranges and logical) procedures

will be detailed in each monitoring

protocol and will generally include

outlier detection and other

exploratory analyses. 

Routine data summaries will be produced after data have been verified

on a schedule specific to each project.

Summaries will generally be automated within the database application,

but park-specific data reports can be

produced for management needs.

Automated exports will also be

included in each database application

to enable project managers to export

subsets of data in a format ready for

import into specific statistics or other

analytic software programs.

6.10 DOCUMENTATION

Dataset documentation is the responsibility of the project manager and

data manager. All datasets will be documented with formal metadata, using

Federal Geographic Data Committee

and USGS National Biological

Information Infrastructure standards.
88

Table 6-3. Repositories for SCPN information products.

Documentation accompanying database applications will include a

manual with instructions for using

the application, an entity relationship

diagram, a data dictionary, and programming code documentation.

6.11 ACCESS AND

ARCHIVING

6.11.1 Data Ownership and

Sensitivity

SCPN data products are owned by

the National Park Service provided

under OMB Circular A-110, Section

36. The Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA) establishes that the federal

government, the NPS included, must

provide access to non-protected

data and information of interest to

the public through reading rooms

or the Internet. 

The NPS is directed to protect information about the nature and

location of sensitive park resources

under one Executive Order and four

resource confidentiality laws:

• Executive Order No. 13007: Indian

Sacred Sites

• National Parks Omnibus

Management Act (NPOMA; 16

U.S.C. 5937)

• National Historic Preservation Act

(16 U.S.C. 470w-3)

• Federal Cave Resources Protection

Act (16 U.S.C. 4304)

• Archaeological Resources

Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh)

All monitoring information products

will be vetted for sensitive data prior

to making them available to the general public. Classification of sensitive

I&M data will be a shared responsibility that includes network staff,

park resource management staff,

park superintendents, and investigators working on individual projects.

Park management has ultimate

responsibility for deciding which

information is sensitive and should

not be released to the public. The

network has ultimate responsibility

for ensuring that sensitive data are

not released to the public.

6.11.2 Dissemination and

Access

Dissemination of monitoring and

information products from SCPN will

follow these guidelines:

• data will be easily located and

acquired

• only data subjected to full quality

control and quality assurance measures will be released

• data will be accompanied by complete metadata

• sensitive data will be identified and

protected from unauthorized access

Information products will be made

available primarily through websites

and clearinghouses which will allow

users to search for and download

reports, summarized data, maps and

metadata, and other associated information. Distribution means will

include (but may not be limited to):

• SCPN public website

• NR-GIS Metadata and Data Store

• Service-wide databases, such as

NPSTORET, NPSpecies, and

NatureBib

• Regional, Network, or Park data

servers protected with read-only

access

• FTP sites, CDs, DVDs, or hard drives,

as appropriate

6.11.3 Archiving and Storage

Digital and analog information products will be stored, archived, and

maintained in a variety of repositories

(Table 6-3). Digital products resulting

from monitoring projects will be

archived on SCPN file servers and

national file and data servers and

protected from catastrophic loss by

regular, automated backups to external media. Analog products will be

archived to NPS standards by individual park facilities or approved non-NPS

institutions. At the termination of a

project or at regular milestones, an

archival package will be prepared and

delivered to the desired location.
89

The information obtained through

the SCPN monitoring program has

a wealth of applications including

management decision-making,

research, education, and promotion

of public understanding of SCPN

park resources. Park managers are

the primary audience for the results

of vital signs monitoring. Our goal

is to provide superintendents and

resource managers with the data

they need to make and defend

management decisions and to work

with others for the benefit of park

resources. Other key audiences for

monitoring results include park planners, interpreters, researchers and

other scientific collaborators, and

the general public. To be effective,

monitoring data must be analyzed,

interpreted, and provided at regular

intervals to each of these audiences

in a format they can use. With these

varied constituencies, it is important

to analyze SCPN monitoring data at

several different scales, and the

same information needs to be distributed in different formats to

resonate with different audiences.

This chapter presents an overview of

how the SCPN proposes to analyze,

synthesize, and disseminate monitoring results to a wide variety of

audiences in a timely manner.

7.1 DATA ANALYSIS 

To conduct an appropriate analysis

of monitoring data, one must consider the monitoring objectives, the

spatial and temporal aspects of the

sampling design used, the intended

audiences, and management uses

of these data. Selection of specific

analytical methods should occur following determination of monitoring

objectives and sampling design and

before sampling. Each monitoring

protocol will contain detailed information on analytical tools and

approaches for data analysis and

interpretation including rationale for

a particular approach, advantages

and limitations of each procedure,

and standard operating procedures

(SOPs) for each prescribed analysis.

General categories of analysis for

SCPN vital signs are presented in

Table 7-1. 

In general, the quantitative ecologist

and principal investigator for a particular project will collaborate on selection

of analytic approaches for status and

trends analyses. They will also share

responsibilities for conducting and

reporting the analyses. Integrated

analyses that examine patterns across

vital signs will require a team approach

where multiple principal investigators

will collaborate with the quantitative

ecologist. An exception to these analytical activities is with the air quality

vital signs; analyses and reports of air

quality are produced by NPS-ARD and

other agencies (EPA-CASTNET and

IMPROVE). 

To provide a context for data analysis,

a brief conceptual overview of five

types of analyses is presented below.

More specific details of the proposed

analyses for the SCPN vital signs are

presented in Table 7-2.

7.1.1 Parameter Estimation

The most common type of analysis

for SCPN vital signs will be parameter estimation. 

DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING

CHAPTER 7
90

Table 7-1. Categories of analysis for SCPN vital signs.
91

Table 7-2. Summary of proposed analyses for SCPN vital signs.
92

Table 7-2 continued. Summary of proposed analyses for SCPN vital signs.
93

This can involve either the estimation

of the state or condition of a given

resource (status) or the change in that

resource state over time (trend). This

analysis focuses on measuring and

describing the attributes of a population in terms of its distribution and

structural features. Using this method

requires an understanding of the distribution from which the samples are

drawn such as the bias in the estimate of central tendency and the

precision or variability in the data. If

the expected value of the estimate

(e.g., the mean from repeated samples) is equal to the true value of the

parameter, then the estimator is considered unbiased. If the parameter

estimate differs systematically from

the true value (e.g., repeated samples

are always greater than the true

value), then the estimator is biased.

Precision reflects variation in the data;

the greater the precision (or tendency

of the samples to be close to the true

value), the less variation in the data. 

Evaluation of trend estimates (and

determining if change has occurred

over time) is a primary focus of our

long-term monitoring program. SCPN

will employ several common statistical

and graphical techniques to evaluate

trends. One easily interpreted method

of representing trends of the estimated parameters is to use graphs. This

simple technique plots values of the

parameter through time, and can easily show if the parameter is increasing,

decreasing, fluctuating, or not changing significantly. A common statistical

tool for evaluating the relationship of

one or more independent variables to

a single, continuous dependent variable is regression analysis. We will use

regression analysis to calculate the

trend slope of parameter estimates

over time. In this case, determining if

change has occurred is a form of

hypothesis testing where the null

hypothesis is that the slope is 0.

Analysis of variance-based (ANOVA)

trend analysis will be employed

when populations are categorized

into domains of interest (e.g., vegetation types).

7.1.2 Hypothesis Testing

Related to detecting change in

parameter estimates over time, we

will also use hypothesis testing for

other selected purposes. In scientific

settings, hypothesis testing is a keystone approach in experimental

research to determine effects of

treatments. For our purposes, this

method will be used when the status

of a given resource is tested against

reference values, such as legal thresholds (e.g., water quality exceedance

standards) or desired conditions. We

will use this method to test whether

or not conclusions can be drawn

about the relationship between the

parameter estimate and the reference

to which it is being compared. 

7.1.3 Model Selection

A third analytical approach we will

use is model selection to help better

understand the dynamic relationships

among park resources, ecosystem

drivers, and stressors. One goal in

developing models is to provide early

warning of abnormal conditions and

impairment of park resources and to

inform park management decisionmaking. This approach considers

multiple lines of evidence within the

monitoring data to support development of a suite of models that

represent multiple hypotheses concerning the desired relationships.

The model selection approach will

be used in developing the SCPN integrated analysis reports (see 7.2.3). 

Model selection will be based on the

principle of parsimony, where the

appropriate model should contain

only enough (significant) parameters

to account for the variation in the

data. One objective is to compare

models with varying numbers of

parameters and then select an

“optimal” model that is neither too

simple nor too complex and is biologically meaningful. A companion

objective is to use informationtheoretic approaches (Burnham and

Anderson 2002) to compare the relative strength of competing models.

Models can be evaluated and ranked

using criteria such as how well data

fit the model and presence of excessive parameters. 

7.1.4 Bayesian Approaches

We will consider use of a fourth analytical approach, Bayesian statistical

methods, as an alternative to traditional, frequentist statistics. In

general, Bayesian approaches allow

for the incorporation of previous

evidence (data) along with new information to estimate the probability of

a particular outcome. This technique

may be useful during model selection. These statistical methods are

based on Bayes’s theorem (Bayes

1763). More specifically, Bayesian

methods use the observed data to

calculate the probability of the value

of a parameter. With additional data,

Bayesian techniques draw on this

prior (a priori) distribution to derive

a new (posterior) distribution that

incorporates the likelihood of the

data given the prior distribution. This

approach is appealing because it

takes into account all of the information accumulated and enables an

assessment about the probability of

a given hypothesis being true, rather

than rejection or acceptance based

on a specified threshold (i.e., the 

-level or p-value of traditional statistics). A Bayesian approach may be

well suited in selecting models to

relate the dynamic nature of park

resources over the long-term because

of its ability to continually incorporate

updates to parameter estimates as

data accumulate.

7.1.5 Spatial Pattern Analysis

We will use a fifth analytical

approach, spatial pattern analysis, to

investigate landscape land cover and
94

vegetation patterns and patterns pertaining to early detection of invasive

exotic plants. Issues of concern include

patch dynamics of land cover and vegetation types of interest and habitat

fragmentation. An abundance of

landscape metrics (e.g., patch shape,

mean patch size, average perimeterarea ratio) can be employed to

evaluate spatial patterns, but many

indices have been shown to be correlated (Ritters et al. 1995). One

approach to this problem is to define

independent components of spatial

pattern and then develop a suite of

metrics that measure the components

(Li and Reynolds 1994, Ritters et al.

1995). For example, spatial heterogeneity can be divided into number

and proportion of land cover types,

patch shape, spatial arrangement of

the patches, and contrast between

neighboring patches (Li and Reynolds

1995). We will use a similar approach

and select a small set of metrics that

individually describe independent pattern components but collectively cover

the complexity of spatial patterns. 

7.2 DATA REPORTING 

We will use a variety of approaches to

disseminate the results of the SCPN

monitoring program to park managers, scientists, and the general

public. The network will regularly prepare two types of data reports for

each monitoring project: annual data

summary reports and long-term (3

to10 year) trend reports. These

reports will form the basis for a

variety of secondary information

products. On a longer time interval,

synthetic reports that integrate trend

data from linked monitoring projects

will be prepared to describe the overall condition or integrity of a park

resource or ecosystem. In addition to

these regular reporting formats, network staff will work individually with

SCPN parks to meet special park data

requests. Parks engaged in the preparation of planning documents (e.g.,

General Management Plans, Resource

Stewardship Plans, Fire Management

Plans) or management assessments

may require specific data summaries

to meet a particular need. Three types

of reports are described below, as

well as our other approaches to data

dissemination. 

7.2.1 Annual Reports for

Specific Monitoring Projects

The primary purposes of annual

reports for specific monitoring projects are to:

• Summarize annual data and document monitoring activities for the

year

• Describe current conditions of the

resources sampled, and

• Provide data back to park managers

in a timely way to increase data utility and improve communication

within and among SCPN parks.

Several of our monitoring projects

involve data collection each year (e.g.,

climate, water quality) and the protocols for these vital signs include

producing annual reports. For monitoring projects involving less frequent

data collection (e.g., bird communities, riparian vegetation composition

and structure), summary reports will

be prepared in those years when

sampling occurs. Where possible,

annual reports will be based on automated data summarization routines

built into the database for each protocol. The automation of data

summaries and annual reports will

facilitate the network’s ability to manage multiple projects and to produce

reports with consistent content from

year to year at timely intervals. For

more complex analyses, data will be

analyzed using statistical software

packages. Reporting for some vital

signs (e.g., water quality) will include

an evaluation of current status

against historical levels, reference

conditions, or regulatory standards.

Annual reports will be reviewed at the

network level. 

7.2.2 Trend Reports for Specific

Monitoring Projects

The primary purpose of trend reports

is to report on the following: 

• Patterns and trends in condition of

resources being monitored 

• New characteristics of resources

and correlations among related

vital signs 

• Degree of change that can be

detected by the current level of

sampling, and

• Interpretation of monitoring data

in a park, multi-park, and regional

context.

Examples of trend reports for SCPN

include:

• Water quality trends at Bandelier

NM.

• Changes in riparian geomorphology and riparian vegetation on the

Escalante River.

• Trends in mixed-conifer breeding

bird communities across three

SCPN parks.

Trend reports will be prepared every

3 to 5 years for vital signs that are

sampled annually and at a 10-year

interval for vital signs that are monitored less frequently. Trend reports

will be peer-reviewed by an external

3-member panel. 

7.2.3 Integrated Analysis

Reports 

The primary purpose of integrated

analysis reports is to examine patterns across vital signs and ecological

factors to gain broad insights into

ecosystem processes and trends in

ecosystem integrity.

This may be accomplished through:

• Qualitative comparisons of monitoring trends with known or

hypothesized relationships 

• Data exploration and confirmation

of hypothesized relationships (e.g.,
95

ordination, classification, multiple

regression, structural equation

modeling), and 

• Development of predictive models. 

Examples of integrated analysis

reports for SCPN include:

• Trends in water quality and

macroinvertebrate communities

on Capulin Creek.

• Trends in terrestrial arthropod

assemblages, breeding bird communities, and vegetation dynamics

in the pinyon-juniper woodlands

of Mesa Verde NP.

• Trends in landscape vegetation

pattern, vegetation condition, and

mixed-conifer stand structure

across two SCPN parks.

These analyses will contribute to

our understanding of ecological relationships and provide a weight-ofevidence approach to describing

changes in ecosystem condition.

Integrated analysis reports will be

prepared at 10-year (or longer) intervals and will be peer reviewed by an

external 3-member panel. 

7.2.4 Data Dissemination 

The SCPN will provide monitoring data

through a variety of means including

workshops, presentations, publications, newsletters, and websites. 

Network Workshops. Network

staff, park scientists, and collaborators involved in monitoring SCPN

vital signs will routinely meet with

park managers to provide a briefing

on the condition of park natural

resources and discuss possible implications for management. These

workshops may be organized by

ecosystems or by broad monitoring

topics. The workshops will serve to

increase the availability and utility of

monitoring results for park managers and promote communication

among the contributing scientists

and park managers. 

Scientific Publications,

Presentations, and Outreach.

Publishing scientific journal articles

and book chapters is a key method

for communicating advances in

knowledge and improving the scientific rigor of the monitoring

program. Network staff, park scientists, and collaborators will also

periodically present their findings at

professional symposia, conferences,

and workshops to communicate the

latest findings and identify emerging

issues relevant to natural resource

monitoring and management. Along

with providing scientific reports,

each scientist involved with network

monitoring will be asked to contribute materials (e.g., story ideas,

photographs) for use in newsletters,

interpretive talks and exhibits, and

other media in order to inform and

entertain the general public.

Internet and Intranet Websites.

Internet and NPS intranet websites are

contemporary tools useful for promoting communication, coordination, and

collaboration among the many people, programs, and agencies involved

in the SCPN monitoring program. All

written products of the monitoring

effort, unless they contain sensitive or

commercially valuable information that

needs to be restricted, will be posted

to the SCPN internet website:

http://www1.nature.nps.gov/im/units/

scpn/index.htm.

Documents available on this network

website will include this monitoring

plan; all protocols; annual, trend,

and integrated analysis reports; 

and other materials of interest to

NPS staff and our collaborators.

Additionally, to promote communication and coordination within the

network, we will maintain a password-protected intranet website

where draft products, works in

progress, and other materials that

require restricted access can be

shared within the program.

97

This chapter provides information on

the administrative organization of

the Southern Colorado Plateau

Network, including staffing, operations and partnerships. 

8.1 NETWORK

ORGANIZATION 

A multi-level organizational structure

has been identified to ensure that

an effective I&M Program is created

and implemented for the SCPN

(Appendix K: SCPN Charter). This

organizational structure comprises

a Board of Directors, Technical

Advisory Committee, Scientific Panel,

and SCPN Staff. 

8.1.1 Board of Directors

The Board of Directors (BOD) provides

guidance, oversight, and advocacy in

the development and implementation

of the I&M Program for the 19 NPS

units within the SCPN.

8.1.2 Technical Advisory

Committee

The Technical Advisory Committee

(TAC) is responsible for the scientific

and technical planning aspects, parkbased logistic support, and resource

management applications of the I&M

Program for the 19 NPS units within

the network.

8.1.3 Scientific Panel 

The primary purpose of the scientific

panel is to provide scientific guidance

to the SCPN in the design and implementation of the monitoring

program. Current panel members are: 

• Dr. Craig Allen, USGS/Jemez

Mountains Field Station

• Dr. Jim Gosz, Sevilleta LTER

Program 

• Dr. Dave Lime, University of

Minnesota

• Dr. Barry Noon, Colorado State

University 

• Dr. Jack Schmidt, Utah State

University 

• Dr. Tom Sisk, Northern Arizona

University 

8.2 STAFFING 

In November 2005, the SCPN

Technical Advisory Committee and

Board of Directors approved an operational staffing plan for the SCPN

(Appendix L). The plan reflects the

shared belief that the network

requires a core staff of highly qualified NPS scientists to implement this

important, long-term program

(Figure 8-1). At the same time the

BOD recommended a conservative

strategy toward allocating funds

toward permanent personnel and

other fixed costs. The current plan

maintains these costs at below 65%

of the program’s operational base.

The staffing plan also maintains a

commitment to continuing partnerships with USGS and our CESU

partners. Approximately one third of

the program’s budget will be directed toward accomplishing monitoring

objectives through cooperative relationships. In addition, we will reserve

5% of the operational program

budget for continued research,

development, and analysis. Table 8-3

describes SCPN positions and their

responsibilities. 

8.3 OPERATIONS

8.3.1 Facilities 

The SCPN is currently housed with

the Colorado Plateau Cooperative

Ecosystem Studies Unit (CP-CESU)

on the campus of Northern Arizona

University. To date, the university has

provided office space as in-kind support to the program. The SCPN and

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 8
98

Table 8-1. Board of Directors membership and responsibilities.

Table 8-2. Technical Advisory Committee membership and responsibilities.
99

CP-CESU are anticipated to be tenants in the NAU Applied Research

and Development Building, scheduled for completion in 2007. The

new building will include office

space and dry lab facilities for the

program. Negotiations with the university regarding lease rates will

occur in 2006. 

8.3.2 In-house Monitoring

Crews 

We plan to use our cooperative

relationship with Northern Arizona

University to staff two field crews.

A water resources field crew will

monitor water quality, aquatic

macroinvertebrates, and integrated

riparian vital signs under the direction of the SCPN Hydrologist. An

uplands field crew will monitor vegetation and soil stability vital signs

under the direction of the SCPN

Terrestrial Ecologist. See Appendix L

for details. 

Training. The quality of data resulting from long-term monitoring is only

as good as the field crews who collect

the data. Routine training prior to the

field season is essential to ensure that

high-quality and consistent data are

collected over the years. During the

training period, the project manager

will provide crew members with

review and/or training for all standard

operating procedures included in the

monitoring protocols. This period will

also allow the project manager to

evaluate the skills and experiencelevel of new crew members. 

Safety. Field work can involve exposure to harsh conditions, hazardous

plants and animals, and extreme

weather conditions. Worker safety is

of paramount concern in conducting

a field-based monitoring program.

The SCPN monitoring program will

be operated in accordance with safety laws, regulations and policies, and

appropriate training will be provided. 

Equipment. The network will supply

the equipment and supplies necessary to conduct in-house monitoring

projects. Property and equipment will

FIGURE 8-1. SCPN organization chart.

* Propose ending position as vegetation mapping projects are completed (FY2007).
100

Table 8-3. Roles and responsibilities of network staff positions.

be managed according to Directors

Order #44: Property Management.

Sensitive property (cameras, computers, etc.) and property sensitive to

theft, loss or damage (GPS units,

radios, and binoculars) will be managed as accountable property.

Purchasing of equipment likely to

depreciate will be scheduled over

time to reduce the impact of

replacing substantial amounts of

equipment in any given year.

Calibration of equipment will follow

manufacturer directions and will be

included in an appendix to the monitoring protocol. Vehicles will

normally be leased through General

Services Administration (GSA). 

8.4 PARTNERSHIPS 

We have initiated a number of cooperative and interagency agreements

to develop monitoring protocols and

complete projects in support of the

POSITION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
101

monitoring program (see Table 5-1).

We anticipate forming additional

partnerships as we move into implementation of the monitoring

program. A few key relationships

are described below. 

8.4.1 Integration with the

Northern Colorado Plateau

Network 

The SCPN staff is working in close

collaboration with the Northern

Colorado Plateau Network to develop a series of protocols for shared

monitoring needs. The two networks began coordinating their

planning efforts in order to meet

the goal of developing a common

set of conceptual models for

Colorado Plateau ecosystems (see

Chapter 2). More recently, the two

networks have established several

cooperative and interagency agreements to develop monitoring

protocols for aquatic macroinvertebrates, riparian, upland and springs

ecosystems, and for landscape vital

signs. The main benefits from this

partnership are cost-efficiency for

protocol development, monitoring

consistency across a larger geographic area, and the resulting

opportunity to evaluate trends more

broadly across NPS units of the

Colorado Plateau. 

8.4.2 Colorado Plateau

Cooperative Ecosystems 

Studies Unit 

Organizationally, the SCPN is part of

the Colorado Plateau Cooperative

Ecosystem Studies Unit (CP-CESU)

with close ties to the CP-CESU and

its host university, Northern Arizona

University. The CESU mission is to

improve access to scientific research

and technical assistance within the

federal land management agencies

and to create effective partnerships

among federal agencies and universities. The CP-CESU provides the

network with ready access to university and nonprofit members for

technical assistance needed to

develop and implement the monitoring program. 

8.4.3 National Park Service

Air Resources Division (ARD). The

ARD coordinates air quality monitoring (ozone, wet and dry deposition,

particulates, visibility) for the NPS.

The SCPN will rely on ARD data collection and reporting to summarize

these data for Class I parks. 

Fire Effects Monitoring Program.

The fire effects monitoring program

documents basic information for wildland fires and monitors prescribed fire

effects on vegetation. There is the

potential for a partnership between

the SCPN and Fire Effects Monitoring

Program to achieve common monitoring objectives.

Table 8-4. Monitoring program review.
102

Water Resources Division (WRD).

The WRD provides technical support

for hydrologic monitoring (water

quantity and quality) in SCPN parks.

The water quality component of the

Natural Resource Challenge (NRC)

requires that Vital Signs Networks

archive all physical, chemical, and

biological water quality data collected with NRC water quality funds in

the National Park Service’s STORET

database maintained by WRD. 

8.4.4 U.S. Geological Survey

Scientists 

The network is currently working with

USGS scientists from the Colorado

Plateau and Canyonlands Field

Stations of the Southwest Science

Center, the Fort Collins Science

Center, and the Water Resources

Discipline of USGS to develop monitoring protocols. The Earth Resources

Observations Systems (EROS) Data

Center is providing MODIS NDVI data

for monitoring vegetation condition. 

8.4.5 Other Federal, State or

Tribal Monitoring Programs 

The network relies on multiple

agencies for data from their weather

station networks. These networks

include the NOAA National Weather

Service Cooperative Observing

Program and Climate Research

Network (CRN) and the Remote

Automated Weather Stations

(RAWS) network supported by the

Interagency Fire Center. We will also

work with the Western Region

Climate Center of NOAA. 

The SCPN will work with a number

of state and tribal agencies on monitoring related to water quality and

water quantity: 

• Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality Water

Quality Division

• Arizona Department of Water

Resources

• Colorado Department of Public

Health and Environment Water

Quality Control Division

• Colorado Division of Water

Resources

• Navajo Nation Department of

Water Resources

• Navajo Nation Environmental

Protection Agency

• New Mexico Environment

Department Surface Water Quality

Bureau

• New Mexico Environment

Department Ground Water Quality

Bureau

• New Mexico Office of the State

Engineer

• Utah Department of Environmental

Quality Division of Water Quality

• Utah Department of Environmental

Quality Division of Water

Resources

8.5 REVIEW PROCESS 

An essential element of any science

program is periodic review. Peer

review of proposals, monitoring

protocols, reports, and other products improves the quality of

scientific research by incorporating

the knowledge of other scientists.

Effective peer review improves the

credibility of the program by 

conveying to other scientists, 

policy-makers, managers, and 

the public the knowledge that 

the resulting products have met

accepted standards of rigor and

accountability. Table 8-4 describes

the review process for the monitoring program. 
103

This chapter describes the SCPN

timeline to develop monitoring protocols for core vital signs and to

implement those protocols across

network parks. It also summarizes

the frequency and timing of monitoring for each core vital sign.

9.1 PROTOCOL

DEVELOPMENT 

In Table 9-1 we describe the

expected timeline to complete protocol development and implement

13 monitoring protocols covering

18 core vital signs. We initiated six

protocol development projects in

FY2005 (five in collaboration with

the Northern Colorado Plateau

Network) and plan to initiate six

additional projects in FY2006. See

Appendix J for detailed descriptions

of particular protocol development

projects. 

For several of our most broadly

applied monitoring topics (i.e.,

upland, riparian), we have identified

a two-year window for site selection

and establishment in order to

address problems or uncertainties

that could arise as we attempt to

apply our stratification and inference-based site selection approaches

to park-specific situations. Some of

these uncertainties are the result of

the scale and accuracy of available

map layers. For instance, we are

exploring the use of ecological sites

as the basis for upland stratification.

In our initial trials, we have discovered that multiple ecological sites are

often mapped as a single map unit

complex. In this type of situation, it

is likely that an initial GIS stratification will need to be combined with

field-based decision rules in order to

select sites within the target population. Another problem is insufficient

base spatial data. In spite of recent

network and Servicewide I&M

Program efforts, many SCPN parks

still lack basic inventory layers such

as recent soils maps or accurate

maps of perennial stream reaches.

Notwithstanding these potential

obstacles, we are committed to

working with SCPN park resource

managers to identify long-term target populations and maintain

appropriate inference strategies. 

9.2 SAMPLING SEASON AND

MONITORING FREQUENCY

Table 9-2 summarizes the frequency

and timing of monitoring for each

core vital sign. The frequency of

sampling (or revisit design) ranges

from continuous data collection

(e.g., automated weather stations)

to remotely-sensed data that may

be acquired every five years. See

Chapter 4 for more detailed description of our proposed revisit designs. 

An index period refers to a time

frame for sampling that optimizes

the cost-efficiency or information

content of the data. For biotic populations or communities, the index

period may correspond to life cycle

or phenologic stages. For water quality, index periods correspond to

phases of the hydrologic cycle,

including snow-melt, baseflow, and

runoff generated by summer thunderstorms. Sampling during an index

period can minimize between-year

variability due to natural events and

optimize the accessibility of the target community or attribute. Table

9-2 currently contains rough estimates of the index period associated

with a particular vital sign. As protocol development continues, index

periods will be refined to meet site

and protocol-specific requirements. 

SCHEDULE

CHAPTER 9
104

Table 9-1. Timeframe for implementing the SCPN monitoring program.

Protocol development, field trials, needs assessment Full implementation

Site selection & establishment Partially or fully implemented through other so
105

* Notation follows McDonald (2003). See Chapter 4 for explanation.

** Revisit plan for medium-size parks (revisit plan varies by park size).

Table 9-2. Index period and general revisit plan for vital signs monitoring.

107

In this chapter we present the

budget for the network’s operational

monitoring program. Appendix L

includes more detailed budget cost

projections for fiscal years 2006-

2010. Here we present the budget

for FY 2008, the first full year in

which the operational staff will be in

place and all monitoring projects

underway.

On an annual basis, the SCPN

receives $1,209,000 from the NPS

Servicewide Inventory and

Monitoring Program and $124,000

from the NPS Water Resources

Division. In planning this budget, we

sought to hold personnel and fixed

costs to below 65% of the network’s

operational base in order to maintain

program flexibility. We intend to

accomplish some monitoring work

through cooperative agreements

with our CESU and USGS partners

(approximately one third of base

funds). For several projects (e.g.,

water resource monitoring, integrated upland monitoring) field work will

be carried out by NAU field crews

under the direction of network staff.

In other cases (e.g., bird community

monitoring), a university or USGS scientist will serve as project manager

and also conduct the field work.

Given the periodic need for protocol

revision and data analysis, we have

reserved 5% of the budget to support technical assistance with these

recurring tasks. 

BUDGET

CHAPTER 10
Table 10-1. SCPN Budget for FY 2008.
109

Adams, D. K., and A. C. Comrie. 1997. The North American

monsoon. Bulletin of the American Meteorological

Society 78:2197-2214.

Allan, J. D. 1995. Stream ecology: structure and function of

running waters. Chapman & Hall, London.

Allen, C. D. 1996. Elk response to the La Mesa Fire and current status in the Jemez Mountains. Pages 179-195 in C.

D. Allen, editor. Fire effects in southwestern forests:

Proceedings of the second La Mesa Fire Symposium.

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station, Los Alamos, NM.

Allen, C. D. 1998. A ponderosa pine natural area reveals its

secrets. Pages 551-552 in M. J. Mac, P. A. Opler, C. E.

Puckett Haecker, and P. D. Doran, editors. Status and

trends of the nation’s biological resources. U.S.

Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston,

Virginia.

Allen, C. D. 2002. Lots of lightning and plenty of people: An

ecological history of fire in the upland Southwest. Pages

143-193 in T. Vale, editor. Fire, Native Peoples, and the

Natural Landscape. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Allen, C. D., M. Savage, D. A. Falk, K. F. Suckling, T. W.

Swetnam, T. Schulke, P. B. Stacey, P. Morgan, M.

Hoffman, and J. T. Klingel. 2002. Ecological restoration of

southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems: A broad perspective. Ecological Applications 12:1418-1433.

Alward, R. D., J. K. Detling, and D. G. Milchunas. 1999.

Grassland vegetation changes and nocturnal global

warming. Science 283:229-231.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2001. Wildlife 2006.

Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

Arno, S. F., and R. D. Ottmar. 1994. Reducing hazard for catastrophic fire. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Asner, G. P., T. R. Seastedt, and A. R. Townsend. 1997. The

decoupling of terrestrial carbon and nitrogen cycles.

Bioscience 47:226-234.

Auble, G. T., and M. L. Scott. 1998. Fluvial disturbance

patches and cottonwood recruitment along the upper

Missouri River, Montana. Wetlands 18:546-556.

Axelrod, D. I., and P. H. Raven. 1985. Origins of the cordilleran flora. Journal of Biogeography 12:21-47.

Bailey, D. A., P. Mazurak, and J. R. Rosowski. 1973.

Aggregation of soil particles by algae. Journal of

Phycology 9:99-101.

Bailey, R. G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United

States, 2nd edition revised and expanded. U.S. Department

of Agriculture Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

Bailey, R. G. 1998. Ecoregions: the ecosystem geography of

the oceans and continents. Springer, New York, 

New York.

Bain, M. B., J. T. Finn, and H. E. Booke. 1988. Streamflow

regulation and fish community structure. Ecology 

69:382-392.

Baker, W. L., and D. J. Shinneman. 2004. Fire and restoration

of piñon-juniper woodlands in the western United States:

a review. Forest Ecology and Management 189:1-21.

Balba, A. M. 1995. Management of problem soils in arid

ecosystems. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, Florida.

Barber, M. C. 1994. Environmental monitoring and assessment program indicator development strategy. in.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and

Development, Environmental Research Laboratory,

Athens, GA.

Barbour, M. G., and W. D. Billings, editors. 1988. North

American terrestrial vegetation, Second edition.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Bayes, T. 1763. An essay towards solving a problem in the

doctrine of chances. Philosophical Transactions of the

Royal Society of London 53:370-418.

LITERATURE CITED

CHAPTER 11
110

Beard, G. R., W. A. Scott, and J. K. Anderson. 1999. The

value of consistent methodology in long-term environmental monitoring. Environmental Monitoring and

Assessment 54:239-258.

Belnap, J. 1990. Microbiotic crusts: their role in past and 

present ecosystems. Park Science 10:3-4.

Belnap, J., B. Büdel, and O. L. Lange. 2001. Biological soil

crusts: characteristics and distribution. in J. Belnap and

O. L. Lange, editors. Biological soil crusts: structure,

function, and management. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Belnap, J., T. Harper, and S. D. Warren. 1994. Surface disturbance of cryptobiotic soil crusts; nitrogenase activity,

chlorophyll contenct and chlorophyll degradation. Arid

Soil Research and Rehabilitation 8:1-8.

Benson, L. D., and R. A. Darrow. 1981. Trees and shrubs of

the Southwestern deserts, 3rd edition. University of

Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Bestelmeyer, B. T., J. R. Brown, K. M. Havstad, R. Alexander,

G. Chavez, and J. E. Herrick. 2003. Development and use

of state-and-transition models for rangelands. Journal of

Range Management 56:114-126.

Bestelmeyer, B.T., J.E. Herrick, J.R. Brown, D.A. Trujillo, and

K.M. Havstad. 2004. Land management in the American

Southwest: a state-and-transition approach to ecosystem

complexity. Environmental Management 34: 38-51.

Betancourt, J. L. 1990. Late quarternary biogeography of the

Colorado Plateau. Pages 259-292 in J. L. Betancourt, T. R.

Van Devender, and P. S. Martin, editors. Packrat Middens:

The last 40,000 years of biotic change. University of

Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Blake, D., A. M. Hutson, P. A. Racey, J. Rydell, and J. R.

Speakman. 1994. Use of lamplit roads by foraging bats in

southern England. Journal of Zoology 234:453-462.

Bock, C. E., J. H. Bock, K. L. Jepson, and J. C. Ortega. 1986.

Ecological effects of planting African lovegrasses in

Arizona. National Geographic Research 2:456-463.

Bogan, M. A., C. D. Allen, E. H. Muldavin, S. P. Platania, J.

N. Stuart, G. H. Farley, P. Melhop, and J. Belnap. 1998.

Southwest. in M. J. Mac, P. A. Opler, C. E. Puckett

Haecker, and P. D. Doran, editors. Status and trends of

the nation’s biological resources. United States

Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division,

Reston, Virginia.

Breshears, D. D., and C. D. Allen. 2002. The importance of

rapid, disturbance-induced losses in carbon management

and sequestration. Global Ecology and Biogeography

11:1-5.

Breshears, D. D., J. J. Whicker, M. P. Johansen, and J. E.

Pinder III. 2003. Wind and water erosion and transport in

semi-arid shrubland, grassland and forest ecosystems:

Quantifying dominance of horizontal wind-driven transport. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms

28:1189-1209.

Bright, J. L., and C. van Riper III. 2001. The influence of habitat types, water sources, and movement barriers on

pronghorn antelope home ranges in northern Arizona.

Pages Pages 33-71 in C. van Riper III, K. A. Thomas, and

M. A. Stuart, editors. Proceedings of the Fifth Biennial

Conference of Research on the Colorado Plateau. USGS,

Flagstaff, AZ.

Brinson, M. M., B. L. Swift, R. C. Plantico, and J. S. Barclay.

1981. Riparian ecosystems: their ecology and status. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service.

Brotherson, J. D., and S. R. Rushforth. 1983. Influence of cryptogamic crusts on moisture relationships of soils in Navajo

National Monument. Great Basin Naturalist 43:73-78.

Brown, B. T., and L. E. Stevens. 1997. Winter bald eagle distribution is inversely correlated with human activity along the

Colorado River, Arizona. Journal of Raptor Research 31:7-10.

Brown, D. E. 1982. Biotic communities of the American southwest United States and Mexico. Desert Plants 4:1-342.

Brown, D. E. 1994. Biotic communities: southwestern United

States and northwestern Mexico. University of Utah Press,

Salt Lake City, Utah.

Buchanan, B. W. 1993. Effects of enhanced lighting of the

behaviour of nocturnal frogs. Animal Behaviour 45:893-899.

Buckland, S. T., D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, J. L. Laake, D.

L. Borchers, and L. Thomas. 2004. Advanced distance

sampling. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Burnham, K.P. and D.R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection

and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer. New York, New York.

Cable, D. R. 1975. Range management in the chaparral type

and its ecological basis: the status of our knowledge. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Carothers, S. W. 1977. Importance, preservation, and management of riparian habitats: an overview. Pages 2-4 in R.

R. Johnson and D. A. Jones, editors. Importance, preservation, and management of riparian habitat: a symposium.

U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station, Tucson, AZ.

Carothers, S. W., S. W. Aitchison, M. M. Karpiscak, G. A.

Ruffner, and N. J. Sharber. 1976. An ecological survey of the

riparian zone of the Colorado River between Lees Ferry and

the Grand Wash Cliffs, Arizona. National Park Service.

Chadwick, O. A., L. A. Derry, P. M. Vitousek, B. J. Huebert,

and L. O. Hedin. 1999. Changing sources of nutrients during four million years of ecosystem development. Nature

397:491-497.

Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W. S. Platts. 1990. Livestock grazing on western riparian areas. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 8, Denver, Colorado.

Chapin III, F. S., M. S. Torn, and M. Tateno. 1996. Principles of

ecosystem sustainability. The American Naturalist

148:1016-1037.

Chapin III, F. S., B. H. Walker, R. J. Hobbs, D. U. Hooper, J. H.

Lawton, O. E. Sala, and D. Tilman. 1997. Biotic control

over the functioning of ecosystems. Science 277:500-504.

Charley, J. L., and N. E. West. 1975. Plant-induced soil chemical patterns in some shrub-dominated semi-desert

ecosystems of Utah. Journal of Ecology 63:945-963.

Clarke, W. M. 1999. Vanishing night skies. National Parks

July/August:22-25.

Cleland, D. T., P. E. Avers, W. H. McNab, M. E. Jensen, R. G.

Bailey, T. King, and W. E. Russell. 1997. National hierarchical framework of ecological units. Pages 181-200 in M. S.

Boyce and A. Haney, editors. Ecosystem management:

applications for sustainable forest and wildlife resources.

Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
111

Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling techniques. John Wiley &

Sons, New York, NY.

Cochran, W. W., and R. R. Graber. 1958. Attraction of nocturnal migrants by lights on a television tower. Wilson

Bulletin 70:378-380.

Cole, D. N., and N. G. Bayfield. 1993. Recreational trampling

of vegetation: standard experimental procedures.

Biological Conservation 63:209-215.

Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, S. Gawler, C. Jossee, G.

Kittel, S. Menard, M. Pyne, M. Reid, K. Schultz, K. Snow,

and J. Teague. 2003. Ecological systems of the United

States: A working classification of U.S. Terrestrial Systems.

NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.

Comstock, J. P., and J. R. Ehleringer. 1992. Plant adaptation in

the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau. Great Basin

Naturalist 52:195-215.

Cooke, R. U., and R. W. Reeves. 1976. Arroyos and environmental change in the American southwest. Clarendon

Press, Oxford, England.

Cooper, D. J., D. R. D’Amico, and M. L. Scott. 2003.

Physiological and morphological response patterns of

Populus deltoides to alluvial groundwater declines.

Environmental Management 31:215-226.

Cornell, E. A., and J. P. Hailman. 1984. Pupillary responses of

two Rana pipiens-complex anuran species. Herpetologica

40:356-366.

Covington, W. W., and M. M. Moore. 1994a.

Postsettlement changes in natural fire regimes and forest structure: Ecological restoration of old-growth

ponderosa pine forests. Pages 153-181 in R. N.

Sampson and D. L. Adams, editors. Assessing Forest

Ecosystem Health in the Inland West. Haworth Press,

New York, New York.

Covington, W. W., and M. M. Moore. 1994b. Southwestern

ponderosa forest structure: changes since Euro-American

settlement. Journal of Forestry 92:39-47.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979.

Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the

United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

Crampton, C. G. 1964. Standing up country: the Canyonlands

of Utah and Arizona. Alfred Knopf and University of Utah

Press, in association with Amon Carter Museum of

Western Art, New York, New York.

Crawford, R. L. 1981. Weather, migration and autumn bird

kills at a north Florida TV tower. Wilson Bulletin 93.

D’Antonio, C. M., and P. M. Vitousek. 1992. Biological invasions

by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change.

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23:63-87.

Daubenmire, R. F. 1943. Vegetational zonation in the Rocky

Mountains. Botanical Review 9:325-393.

Davenport, D. W., D. D. Breshears, B. P. Wilcox, and C. D.

Allen. 1998. Viewpoint: Sustainability of pinyon-juniper

ecosystems— a unifying perspective on soils erosion

thresholds. Journal of Range Management 51:231-240.

De Leo, G. A., and S. Levin. 1997. The multifaceted aspects of

ecosystem integrity. Conservation Ecology [online] 1:3.

Dick-Peddie, W. A., and J. P. Hubbard. 1977. Classification of

riparian vegetation. Pages 85-90 in R. R. Johnson and D.

A. Jones, editors. Importance, Preservation and

Management of Riparian Habitat: A symposium. USDA

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station, Tucson, AZ.

Dieterich, J. H. 1980. Chimney Spring forest fire history. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountains Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort

Collins, Colorado.

Dieterich, J. H. 1983. Fire history of southwestern mixed confier: a case study. Forest Ecology and Management 6:13-31.

Dobkin, D. S., A. C. Rich, and W. H. Pyle. 1998. Habitat and

avifaunal recovery from livestock grazing in a riparian

meadow system of the northwestern Great Basin.

Conservation Biology 12:209-221.

Domingo, F., L. Villagarcia, M. M. Boer, L. Alados-Arboledas,

and J. Puigdefabregas. 2000. Evaluating the long-term

water balance of arid zone stream bed vegetation using

evapotranspiration modelling and hillslope runoff measurements. Journal of Hydrology 243:17-30.

Drost, C. A., and E. Deshler. 1995. Amphibian and reptile

diversity on the Colorado Plateau. Pages 326-328 in E. T.

LaRoe, G. S. Farris, C. E. Puckett, P. D. Doran, and M. J.

Mac, editors. Our living resources: a report to the nation

on the distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. plants,

animals, and ecosystems. U.S. Department of the Interior,

National Biological Service, Washington, D.C.

Duriscoe, D., and C. A. Moore. 2001. Preserving endangered

night skies. National Park Service.

Durrenberger, R. 1972. The Colorado Plateau. Annals of the

Association of American Geographers 62:211-236.

ECOMAP. 1993. National hierarchical framework for ecological units. USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

Ehleringer, J. R., S. Schwinning, and R. Gebauer. 1999. Water

use in arid land ecosystems. Pages 347-365 in M. C. Press,

J. D. Scholes, and M. G. Barker, editors. Physiological Plant

Ecology. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.

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, editors.

Physiological Plant Ecology. Proceedings of the 39th

Symposium of the British Ecological Society. Blackwell

Science, University of York.

Ellwood, B. B. 1996. Geology and America’s national park

areas. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Evans, R. D., R. Rimer, L. Sperry, and J. Belnap. 2001. Exotic

plant invasion alters nitrogen dynamics in an arid grassland. Ecological Applications 11:1301-1310.

Evenden, A., M. Miller, M. Beer, E. Nance, S. Daw, A.

Wight, M. Estenson, and L. Cudlip. 2002. Northern

Colorado Plateau vital signs network and prototype

cluster, plan for natural resources monitoring: Phase I

report, October 1, 2002. [Two volumes]. National

Park Service, Northern Colorado Plateau Network,

Moab, UT.

Fassett, J. E. 2000. Geology and coal resources of the

Upper Cretaceous Fruitland Formation, San Juan Basin,

New Mexico and Colorado. Pages 1-8 in M. A.

Kirschbaum, L. N. R. Roberts, and L. R. H. Biewick, editors. Geologic assessment of coal in the Colorado

Plateau: Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah.

U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO.
112

Fenn, M. E., J. S. Baron, E. B. Allen, H. M. Rueth, K. R.

Nydick, L. Geiser, W. D. Bowman, J. O. Sickman, T.

Meixner, D. W. Johnson, and P. Neitlich. 2003a. Ecological

effects of nitrogen deposition in the western United

States. Bioscience 53:404-420.

Fenn, M. E., R. A. Haeuber, G. S. Tonnesen, J. S. Baron, S.

Grossman-Clark, D. Hope, D. A. Jaffe, S. Copeland, L.

Geiser, H. M. Rueth, and J. O. Sickman. 2003b. Nitrogen

emissions, deposition, and monitoring in the western

United States. Bioscience 53:391-403.

Fleischner, T. L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in

western North America. Conservation Biology 8:629-644.

Floyd, M. L., W. H. Romme, and D. D. Hanna. 2000. Fire history and vegetation pattern in Mesa Verde National Park,

Colorado, USA. Ecological Applications 10:1666-1680.

Flynn, M. E., and D. J. Bills. 2002. Investigation of the geology and hydrology of the Coconino Plateau of Northern

Arizona: A project of the Arizona rural watershed initiative. U.S. Government Printing Office, Flagstaff, AZ.

Fowler, J. F., N. L. Stanton, R. L. Hartman, and C. L. Hartman.

1995. Level of endemism in hanging gardens of the

Colorado Plateau. Pages 215-223 in C. van Riper III, editor. Proceedings of the second biennial conference on

research in Colorado Plateau National Parks. National

Park Service, Flagstaff, AZ.

Frank, K. D. 1988. Impact of outdoor lighting on moths: 

an assessment. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society

42:63-93.

Friedman, J. M., G. T. Auble, P. B. Shafroth, M. L. Scott, M. F.

Merligiano, M. D. Freehling, and E. R. Griffin. 2005.

Dominance of non-native riparian trees in western USA.

Biological Invasions 7:747-751.

Fule, P. Z., W. W. Covington, and M. M. Moore. 1997.

Determining reference conditions for ecosystem management of southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Ecological

Applications 7:895-908.

Fule, P. Z., W. W. Covington, M. M. Moore, T. A. Heinlein,

and A. E. M. Waltz. 2002. Natural variability in forests

of the Grand Canyon, USA. Journal of Biogeography

29:31-47.

Galloway, J. N., J. D. Abner, J. W. Erisman, S. P. Sietzinger, R.

W. Howarth, E. B. Cowling, and B. J. Cosby. 2003. The

nitrogen cascade. Bioscience 53:341-356.

Geissler, P. H., and T. L. McDonald. 2003. Sampling designs

for National Park monitoring. in, Paper presented to the

George Wright Society, April 17, 2003.

Gelbard, J. L., and S. Harrison. 2003. Roadless habitats as

refuges for native grasslands: interactions with soil,

aspect, and grazing. Ecological Applications 13:404-415.

Gentile, J. H., M. A. Harwell, J. Cropper, W. , C. C. Harwell,

D. DeAngelis, S. Davis, J. C. Ogden, and D. Lirman. 2001.

Ecological conceptual models: a framework and case

study on ecosystem mgmt for South Florida sustainability.

The Science of the Total Environment 274:231-253.

Gilbert, S. 2002. Coal bed methane: boon for industry, bane

for wildlife. Intermountain Journal of Sciences 8:252.

Grand Canyon Wildlands Council. 2002. Inventory of 100

Arizona Strip springs, seeps, and natural ponds: final

project report. Arizona Water Protection Fund,

Phoenix, AZ.

Grissino-Mayer, H. D., C. H. Baisan, and T. W. Swetnam.

1995. Fire history in the Pinaleno Mountains of southeastern Arizona: effects of human-related disturbances.

Pages 399-407 in L. F. DeBano, P. F. Ffolliott, A. OrtegaRubio, G. J. Gottfried, R. H. Hamre, and C. B. Edminster,

editors. Biodiversity and management of the Madrean

Archipelago: the Sky Islands of southwestern United

States and northwestern Mexico. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station, Tucson, Arizona.

Grissino-Mayer, H. D., W. H. Romme, M. L. Floyd, and D. D.

Hanna. 2004. Climatic and human influences on fire

regimes of the southern San Juan Mountains, Colorado,

USA. Ecology 84:1708-1724.

Grossman, D. H., D. Faber-Langendoen, A. W. Weakley, M.

Anderson, P. S. Bourgeron, K. Crawford, S. Goodin, K.

Landaal, K. Metzler, M. Patterson, P. M., M. Reid, and L.

Sneddon. 1998. International classification of ecological

communities: Terrestrial vegetation of the United States.

Volume I: The national vegetation classification standard.

The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.

Groves, C. R., L. L. Valutis, D. Vosick, B. Neely, K. Wheaton, J.

Toval, and B. Runnels. 2000. Designing a geography of

hope: A practitioners handbook to ecological conservation planning Vol II. The Nature Conservancy.

Hall, S. L. 2000. Land management strategies and marbled

murrelet occurrence on the Olympic Peninsula, WA. M.S.

Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Harper, K. T., and J. R. Marble. 1988. A role for nonvascular

plants in management of arid and semiarid rangelands.

Pages 135-169 in T. Tueller, editor. Application of plant

science to rangeland management and inventory. Kluwer

Academic, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Harper, K. T., and R. L. Pendleton. 1993. Cyanobacteria and

cyanolichens: can they enhance availability of essential

mineral for higher plant? Great Basin Naturalist 53:59-72.

Harwell, M. A., V. Myers, T. Young, A. Bartuska, N. Gassman,

J. H. Gentile, C. C. Harwell, S. Appelbaum, J. Barko, B.

Causey, C. Johnson, A. McLean, R. Smola, P. Templet, and

S. Tosini. 1999. A framework for an ecosystem integrity

report card. Bioscience 49:543-556.

Hereford, R., R. H. Webb, and S. Graham. 2002. Precipitation

history of the Colorado Plateau Region, 1900-2000. USGS.

Higgins, R. W., Y. Yao, and X. L. Wang. 1998. Influence of North

American monsoon system on the United States summer

precipitation regime. Journal of Climate 10:2600-2622.

Hobbs, R. J. and s. E. Humphries. 1995. An integrated

approach to the ecology and management of plant invasion. Conservation Biology 9:761-770.

Holling, C. S., L. H. Gunderson, and D. Ludwig. 2002. In

quest of a theory of adaptive change. Pages 3-22 in L. H.

Gunderson and C. S. Holling, editors. Panarchy:

Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Hughes, F., P. M. Vitousek, and T. Tunison. 1991. Alien grass

invasion and fire in the seasonal submontane zone of

Hawai’i. Ecology 72:743-747.

Hunt, C. B. 1967. Chapter 14: Colorado Plateau. Pages 277-307

in C. B. Hunt, editor. Physiography of the United States. W.

H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, California.
113

Hunt, C. B. 1974a. Chapter 15: Colorado Plateau - Land of

colors and canyons. Pages 424-479 in C. B. Hunt, editor.

Natural Regions of the United States and Canada. W.H.

Freeman & Co., San Francisco, CA.

Hunt, C. B. 1974b. Natural Regions of the United States and

Canada. W.H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco, CA.

Huntoon, P. W. 1982. The ground water systems that drain

to the Grand Canyon of Arizona. University of Wyoming,

Laramie, Wyoming.

Jackson, L. E., J. C. Kurtz, and W. S. Fisher. 2002. Evaluation

guidelines for ecological indicators. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,

Research Triangle Park, NC.

Jackson, R. B., H. J. Schenk, E. G. Jobbagy, J. Canadell, G. D.

Colello, R. E. Dickinson, C. B. Field, P. Friedlingstein, M.

Heimann, K. Hibbard, D. W. Kicklighter, A. Kleidon, R. P.

Neilson, W. J. Parton, O. E. Sala, and M. T. Sykes. 2000.

Below ground consequences of vegetation change and

their treatment in models. Ecological Applications

10:470-483.

Jacobs, B. F., and R. G. Gatewood. 1999. Restoration studies

in degraded pinyon-juniper woodlands of north-central

New Mexico. in Proceedings: Ecology and management

of pinyon-juniper communities within the Interior West.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station, Provo, UT.

Jaenicke, E. C. 1998. From the ground up: Exploring soil

quality’s contribution to environmental health. Henry A.

Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture.

Jameson, D. A. 1962. Effects of burning on a galleta-black

grama range invaded by juniper. Ecology 43:760-763.

Jeffries, D. L., and J. M. Klopatek. 1987. Effects of grazing

on the vegetation of the blackbrush association. Journal

of Range Management 40:390-392.

Jenkins, K., A. Woodward, and E. Schreiner. 2002. A framework for long-term ecological monitoring in Olympic

National Park: prototype for the coniferous forest biome.

USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center,

Olympic Field Station, Port Angeles, WA.

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

Jenny, H. 1980. The soil resource: origin and behavior.

Springer-Verlag, New York.

Johnsen, T. N. J. 1962. One-seed juniper invasion of northern

Arizona grasslands. Ecological Monographs 32:187-207.

Johnson, W. C. 1992. Dams and riparian forests: case study

from the upper Missouri River. Rivers 3:229-242.

Jorgensen, S. E. 1986. Fundamentals of ecological modelling.

Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Karr, J. R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long neglected aspect

of water resources management. Ecological Applications

1:66-84.

Karr, J. R. 1996. Ecological integrity and ecological health are

not the same. Pages 97-109 in P. C. Schultz, editor.

Engineering within ecological constraints. National

Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Karr, J. R., and D. R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspective on

water quality goals. Environmental Management 5:55-68.

Kemper, C. A. 1964. A tower for TV, 30,000 dead birds.

Audubon Magazine 66:89-90.

Kidwell, S. M., and K. W. Flessa. 1995. The quality of the

fossil record: populations, species, and communities.

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26:269-299.

Kirschbaum, M. A. 2000. Geologic assessment of coal in the

Colorado Plateau: Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and

Utah. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.

Knopf, F. L. and F. B. Samson. 1994. Scale perspectives on

avian diversity in western riparian ecosystems.

Conservation Biology 8:669-676.

Krausman, P. R., K. R. Rautenstrauch, and B. D. Leopold. 1985.

Xerioriparian systems used by desert mule deer in Texas and

Arizona. Pages 144-149 in R. R. Johnson, C. D. Ziebell, D.

R. Patton, P. F. Ffolliott, and R. H. Hamre, editors. Riparian

ecosystems and their management: Reconciling conflicting

uses. USDA Forest Service, Tucson, AZ.

Laake, T. L., S. Strindberg, F. F. C. Marques, S. T. Buckland, D.

L. Borchers, D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, S. L. Hedley,

J. H. Pollard, and J. R. B. Bishop. 2004. Distance 4.1.

Release 2. in Research Unit for Wildlife Population

Assessment University of St. Andrews, editor., St.

Andrews, Scotland.

Lajtha, K., and W. H. Schlesinger. 1988. The biogeochemistry

of phosphorus cycling and phosphorus availability along a

desert soil chronosequence. Ecology 69:24-39.

Larcher, W. 1995. Physiological plant ecology, 3rd edition.

Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Lavelle, P. 1997. Faunal activities and soil processes: adaptive

strategies that determine ecosystem function. Advances

in Ecological Research 27:93-132.

Leake, S. A., A. D. Koniecski, and J. A. H. Rees. 2000. Desert

basins of the Southwest. U.S. Geological Survey.

Leopold, A. 1924. Grass, brush, timber, and fire in southern

Arizona. Journal of Forestry 6:1-10.

Li, H., and J. F. Reynolds. 1994. A simulation experiment to

quantify spatial heterogeneity in categorical maps.

Ecology 75:2446-2455.

Li, H., and J. F. Reynolds. 1995. On definition and quantification of heterogeneity. Oikos 73:280-284.

Liddle, M. J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects

of human trampling on natural ecosystems. Biological

Conservation 7:17-36.

Logan, J. A., J. Régnière, and J. A. Powell. 2003. Assessing

the impacts of global warming on forest pest dynamics.

Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 1:130-137.

Lohr, S. L. 1999. Sampling: design and analysis. Duxbury

Press, New York, NY.

Loope, W. L., and G. F. Gifford. 1972. Influence of a soil

microfloral crust on select properties of soils under pinyon-juniper in southeastern Utah. Journal of Soil Water

Conservation 27:164-167.

Ludwig, J. A., and W. G. Whitford. 1981. Short-term

water and energy flow in arid ecosystems. Pages 85-91

in D. W. Goodall and R. A. Perry, editors. Arid-land

ecosystems: structure, functioning and management,

Vol. 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

Massachusetts.

Mac, M. J., P. A. Opler, C. E. Puckett Haecker, and P. D.

Doran. 1998. Status and trends of the nation’s biological

resources - southwest. United States Geological Survey,

Biological Resources Division, Reston, Virginia.
114

MacArthur, R. H., and J. W. MacArthur. 1961. On bird

species diversity. Ecology 42:594-598.

Mack, M. N., and C. M. D’Antonio. 1998. Impacts of biological invasions on disturbance regimes. Trends in Ecology

and Evolution 13:195-198.

Malanson, G. P. 1993. Riparian Landscapes. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, England.

Mantua, N. J., and S. R. Hare. 2002. The Pacific decadal

oscillation. Journal of Oceanography 58:35-44.

McDonald, T. L. 2003. Environmental trend detection: a

review. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

85:277-292.

McLaughlin, S. P. 1986. Floristic analysis of the southwestern

United States. Great Basin Naturalist 46:46-65.

McLaughlin, S. P. 1989. Natural floristic areas of the western

United States. Journal of Biogeography 16:239-248.

McLaughlin, S. P. 1992. Are floristic areas hierarchically

arranged? Journal of Biogeography 19:21-32.

McLaughlin, S. P., and J. E. Bowers. 1999. Diversity and

affinities of the flora of the Sonoran floristic province.

Pages 12-35 in R. H. Robichaux, editor. Ecology of

Sonoran desert plants and plant communities. University

of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Miller, R. F., and P. E. Wigand. 1994. Holocene changes

in semiarid pinyon-juniper woodlands. Bioscience

44:465-474.

Miller, S. G., R. L. Knight, and C. K. Miller. 2001. Wildlife

responses to pedestrians and dogs. Wildlife Society

Bulletin 29:124-132.

Milton, S. J., W. R. J. Dean, M. A. du Plessis, and W. R.

Siegfried. 1994. A conceptual model of arid rangeland

degradation. Bioscience 44:70-76.

Mitsch, W. J., and J. G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands 2nd

Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. Inc., New York, NY.

Mock, C. J. 1996. Climatic controls and spatial variations of

precipitation in the western United States. Journal of

Climate 9:1111-1125.

Molnia, C. L., L. N. R. Roberts, L. R. H. Biewick, and L. M.

Osmonson. 2000. Federally owned coal and federal lands

in the Colorado Plateau Region. U.S. Geological Survey,

Denver, Colorado.

Montgomery, E. L., and J. W. Harshbarger. 1992. Arizona

hydrogeology and water supply. Applied Hydrogeology

1:25-40.

Moore, M. M., W. Covington, and P. Z. Fule. 1999. Reference

conditions and ecological restoration: A southwestern

Ponderosa Pine Perspective. Ecological Applications

9:1266-1277.

Mosconi, S. L., and R. L. Hutto. 1982. The effect of grazing

on the land birds of a western Montana riparian habitat.

Pages 221-233 in L. Nelson, J. M. Peek, and P. D. Dalke,

editors. Proceedings of the wildlife-livestock relationships

symposium. Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment

Station, Moscow, ID.

National Park Service. 2002. Grand Canyon National Park:

Tamarisk management and tributary restoration, environmental assessment / assessment of effect.

National Park Service Air Resources Division. 2002. Air quality

in the National Parks, second edition. National Park

Service Air Resources Division, Lakewood, Colorado.

National Parks and Conservation Association. 1999.

Vanishing night skies. NPCA Policy Papers.

National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA’s 

environmental monitoring and assessment program:

overall evaluation. in. National Academy Press,

Washington, D.C.

Natural Resources Conservation Services. 2003. National

range and pasture handbook. USDA, NRCS, Grazing

Lands Technology Institute.

Nickens, P. R. 1991. The destruction of archeological sites

and data. in G. S. Smith and J. E. Ehrenhard, editors.

Protecting the past. CRC Press Inc.

Noon, B. R. 2003. Conceptual issues in monitoring ecological

systems. Pages 27-71 in D. E. Busch and J. C. Trexler, editors. Monitoring ecosystems: interdisciplinary approaches

for evaluating ecoregional initiatives. Island Press,

Washington, D.C.

Noon, B. R., T. A. Spies, and M. G. Raphael. 1999.

Conceptual basis for designing an effectiveness monitoring program. USDA Forest Service.

Noy-Meir, I. 1973. Desert ecosystems: Environment and producers. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics

4:25-51.

Noy-Meir, I. 1985. Chapter four: Desert ecosystem structure

and function. Pages 93-103 in M. Evenari, I. Noy-Meir,

and D. W. Goodall, editors. Hot Deserts and Arid

Shrublands. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Nuccio, V. 2000. Coal-bed methane: potential and concerns.

U.S. Geological Survey.

Oakley, K. L., L. P. Thomas, and S. G. Fancy. 2003. Guidelines

for long-term monitoring protocols. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 31:1000-1003.

O’Neill, R. V., and A. W. King. 1998. Homage to St. Michael;

or, why are there so many books on scale? Pages 3-15 in

D. L. Peterson and V. T. Parker, editors. Ecological Scale:

Theory and Applications. Princeton University Press,

Princeton, NJ.

Pase, C. P., and E. F. Layser. 1977. Classification of riparian

habitat in the southwest. Pages 5-9 in R. R. Johnson and

D. A. Jones, editors. Importance, preservation, and management of riparian habitats: a symposium. USDA Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station, Tucson, AZ.

Petersen, K. L. 1994. Modern and Pleistocene climatic patterns in the West. Pages 27-54 in K. T. Harper, L. L.

St.Clair, K. H. Thorne, and W. M. Hess, editors. Natural

History of the Colorado Plateau and Great Basin.

University of Colorado Press, Niwot, Colorado.

Poff, N. L., and J. D. Allen. 1995. Functional organization of

stream fish assemblages in relation to hydrological variability. Ecology 76:602-627.

Powell, J. A. 1995. Lepidoptera inventories in the continental

United States. Pages 168-170 in E. T. LaRoe, G. S. Farris,

C. E. Puckett, P. D. Doran, and M. J. Mac, editors. Our living resources: a report to the nation on the distribution,

abundance, and health of U.S. plants, animals, and

ecosystems. U.S. Department of Interior, National

Biological Service, Washington, D.C.

Radle, A. L. 2003. The effect of noise on wildlife: A literature

review. in.
115

Reid, K. D., B. P. Wilcox, D. D. Breshears, and L. MacDonald.

1999. Runoff and erosion in a pinyon-juniper woodland:

Influence of vegetation patches. Soil Science Society of

America Journal 63:1869-1879.

Reveal, J. L. 1979. Biogeography of the Intermountain

region. Mentzelia 4:1-92.

Reynolds, R., J. Belnap, M. Reheis, P. Lamothe, and F. Luiszer.

2001. Aeolian dust in Colorado Plateau soils: nutrient

inputs and recent change in source. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Science 98:7123-7127.

Ritters, K. H., R. V. O’Neill, C. T. Hunsaker, J. D. Wickham, D.

H. Yankee, S. P. Timmins, K. B. Jones, and B. L. Jackson.

1995. A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecology 10:23-39.

Romme, W. H., M. L. Floyd-Hanna, and D. D. Hanna.

2003. Ancient piñon-juniper forests of Mesa Verde

and the West: A cautionary note for forest restoration

programs. in Proceedings of the Conference on Fire,

Fuel Treatments, and Ecological Restoration: Proper

Place, Appropriate Time. U.S. Forest Service, Fort

Collins, CO.

Ross, M. N. 1990. The clean air act. Pages 51-65 in M. A.

Mantell, editor. Managing National Park System Resources:

A Handbook on Legal Duties, Opportunities, and Tools. The

Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C.

Rotenberry, J. T. 1985. The role of habitat in avian community composition: physiognomy or floristics? Oecologia

67:213-217.

Ruddiman, W. F., and J. E. Kutzbach. 1991. Plateau uplift and

climatic change. Scientific American 264:66-75.

Rychert, R. C., and J. Skujine. 1974. Nitrogen fixation by

blue-green algae-lichen crusts in the Great Basin Desert.

Soil Science Society of America 38:768-771.

Saunders, D. A., R. J. Hobbs, and C. R. Margules. 1991.

Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a

review. Conservation Biology 5:18-32.

Schlesinger, W. H., J. F. Reynolds, G. L. Cunningham, L. F.

Huenneke, W. M. Jarrell, R. A. Virginia, and W. G.

Whitford. 1990. Biological feedbacks in global desertification. Science 247:1043-1048.

Schultz, T. T., and W. C. Leininger. 1990. Differences in riparian vegetation structure between grazed areas and

exclosures. Journal of Range Management 43:295-299.

Schumm, S. A., and R. W. Lichty. 1963. Channel widening

and floodplain construction along Cimarron River in

southwestern Kansas.

Scott, M. L., S. K. Skagen, and M. F. Merligiano. 2003.

Relating breeding bird diversity to geomorphic change

and grazing in riparian forests. Conservation Biology

17:284-296.

Simons Li & Associates Inc. 1982. Erosion study at Chaco

Culture National Historical Park, New Mexico: final report

to the National Park Service. Southwest Region NPS

Office, Santa Fe, NM.

Sisk, T. D., N. M. Haddad, and P. R. Ehrlich. 1997. Bird

assemblages in patchy woodlands: modeling the effects

of edge and matrix habitats. Ecological Applications

7:1170-1180.

Skujins, J. 1984. Microbial ecology of desert soils. Advances

in Microbial Ecology 7:49-91.

Smith, S. D., T. E. Huxman, S. F. Zitzer, T. N. Charlet, D. C.

Housman, J. S. Coleman, L. K. Fenstermaker, J. R.

Seemann, and R. S. Nowak. 2000. Elevated CO2 increases productivity and invasive species success in an arid

ecosystem. Nature 408:79-82.

Society for Range Management Task Group on Unity in

Concepts and Terminology. 1995. New concepts for

assessment of rangeland condition. Journal of Range

Management 48:271-282.

Spence, J. R. 2001. Climate of the central Colorado Plateau, 

Utah and Arizona: Characterization and recent 

trends. Pages 187-203 in K. Thomas and C. Van 

Riper III, editors. Proceedings of the Fifth Biennial 

Conference on Research on the Colorado Plateau. 

U.S. Geological Survey Report Series 

USGSFRESC/COPL/2001/24.

Spence, J. R., and N. R. Henderson. 1993. Tinajas and hanging 

garden vegetation of Capital Reef National Park, 

Southern Utah, USA. Journal of Arid Environments 

24:21-36.

Stevens, D. L., and A. R. Olsen. 2004. Spatially balanced

sampling of natural resources. Journal of the American

Statistical Association 99:262-278.

Stevens, L. E., and G. P. Nabhan. 2002a. Biodiversity: plant

and animal endemism, biotic associations, and unique

habitat mosaics in living landscapes. Pages 41-48 in

Center for Sustainable Environments, Terralingua, and

Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, editors. Safeguarding

the uniqueness of the Colorado Plateau: an ecoregional

assessment of biocultural diversity. Center for Sustainable

Environments, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.

Stevens, L. E., and G. P. Nabhan. 2002b. Hydrological diversity: water’s role in shaping natural and cultural diversity on

the Colorado Plateau. in Center for Sustainable

Environments, Terralingua, and G. C. W. Council, editors.

Safeguarding the uniqueness of the Colorado Plateau: an

ecoregional assessment of biocultural diversity. Center for

Sustainable Environments, Northern Arizona University,

Flagstaff, Arizona.

Stringham, T. K., W. C. Krueger, and D. R. Thomas. 2001.

Application of non-equilibrium ecology to rangeland

riparian zones. Journal of Range Management 

54:210-217.

Swetnam, T. W. 1990. Fire history and climate in the

Southwestern United States. in J. S. Krammes, editor.

Effects of Fire Management of Southwestern Natural

Resources. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Tucson, AZ.

Swetnam, T. W., and C. H. Baisan. 1996. Historical fire

regime patterns in the Southwestern United States since

AD 1700. Pages 11-32 in C. D. Allen, editor. Fire Effects

in Southwestern Forests: Proceedings of the Second La

Mesa Fire Symposium. USDA Forest Service, Los Alamos,

New Mexico.

Swetnam, T. W., and J. L. Betancourt. 1998. Mesoscale distrubance and ecological response to decadal climatic

variability in the American Southwest. Journal of Climate

11:3128-3147.

Szaro, R. C. 1989. Riparian forest and scrubland community

types of Arizona and New Mexico. Desert Plants 9:69-138.
116

Szaro, R. C., S. C. Belfit, J. K. Aitkin, and J. N. Rinne. 1985.

Impact of grazing on a riparian garter snake. Pages 359-

363 in R. R. Johnson, C. D. Ziebell, D. R. Patton, P. F.

Ffolliott, and F. H. Hamre, editors. Riparian ecosystems

and their management: reconciling conflicting uses. U.S.

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station, Tucson, Arizona.

Tausch, R. J. 1999. Historic pinyon and juniper woodland

development. Pages 12-19 in S. B. Monsen and R.

Stevens, editors. Proceedings: ecology and management

of pinyon-juniper communities within the Interior West.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station, Provo, Utah.

Thompson, S. K. 2002. Sampling, 2nd edition. John Wiley &

Sons, New York, NY.

Thornbury, W. D. 1965. Regional geomorphology of the

United States. John Wiley, New York.

Trenberth, K. E. 1997. The definition of El Nino. Bulletin of

the American Meteorological Society 78:2771-2777.

U.S. Department of Interior. 2003. Revised strategic plan for

FY 2003-2008 U.S. Department of the Interior, National

Park Service. 2002. Tamarisk Management and Tributary

Restoration, Environmental Assessment, Grand Canyon

National Park. Grand Canyon, AZ.

UNESCO. 2002. Properties inscribed on the world heritage

list. World Heritage Centre, Paris, France.

USDA-NRCS Soil Quality Institute. 2001. Soil quality - introduction. in USDA-NRCS Soil Quality Institute, editor. Soil

Quality Information Sheets. USDA-NRCS Soil Quality

Institute, Washington, D.C.

Vankat, J. L., and J. Major. 1978. Vegetation changes in

Sequoia National Park, California. Journal of

Biogeography 5:377-402.

Veblen, T. T., K. S. Hadley, E. M. Nel, T. Kitzberger, M. Reid,

and R. Villalba. 1994. Disturbance regime and disturbance interaction in a Rocky Mountain subalpine forest.

Journal of Ecology 82:125-135.

Vitousek, P. M. 1990. Biological invasions and ecosystem

processes: towards an integration of population biology

and ecosystem studies. Oikos 57:7-13.

Vitousek, P. M., L. R. Walker, L. D. Whiteaker, D. MuellerDombois, and P. A. Matson. 1987. Biological invasion by

Myrica faya alters ecosystem development in Hawaii.

Science 238:802-804.

Walker, B. H. 1993. Rangeland ecology: understanding and

managing change. Ambio 22:80-87.

Wang, B. 1995. Interdecadel changes in El Nino onset in the

last four decades. Journal of Climate 8:267-285.

Wang, X. L., and C. F. Ropelewski. 1995. An assessment 

of ENSO-scale secular variability. Journal of Climate

8:1584-1599.

Wardle, D. A. 2002. Communities and Ecosystems: Linking

the aboveground and belowground components.

Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Waring, R. H. 1983. Estimating forest growth efficiency in

relation to canopy leaf area. Advances in Ecological

Research 13:327-354.

Weaver, H. 1951. Fire as an ecological factor in the southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Journal of Forestry 49:93-98.

Weaver, T., and D. Dale. 1978. Trampling effects of hikers,

motorcycles and horses in meadows and forests. Journal

of Applied Ecology 15:451-457.

Weltzin, J. F., M. E. Loik, S. Schwinning, D. G. Williams, P. A.

Fay, B. M. Haddad, J. Harte, T. E. Huxman, A. K. Knapp,

G. Lin, W. T. Pockman, M. R. Shaw, E. E. Small, M. D.

Smith, S. D. Smith, D. T. Tissue, and J. C. Zak. 2003.

Assessing the response of terrestrial ecosystems to potential changes in precipitation. Bioscience 53:941-952.

West, N. E. 1999. Distribution, composition, and classification of current juniper-pinyon woodlands and savannas

across western North America. Pages 20-23 in S. B.

Monsen and R. Stevens, editors. Proceedings: ecology

and management of pinyon-juniper communities within

the Interior West. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Provo, Utah.

West, N. E., and J. A. Young. 2000. Intermountain valleys

and lower mountain slopes. Pages 256-284 in M. G.

Barbour and W. D. Billings, editors. North American

Vegetation. Cambridge Univercity Press, Cambridge, UK.

Westoby, M., B. Walker, and I. Noy-Meir. 1989. Opportunistic

management for rangelands not at equilibrium. Journal

of Range Management 42:266-274.

Whicker, J. J., D. D. Breshears, P. T. Wasiolek, T. B. Kirchner,

R. A. Tavani, D. A. Schoep, and J. C. Rodgers. 2002.

Temporal and spatial variation of episodic wind erosion in

unburned and burned semiarid shrubland. Journal of

Environmental Quality 31:599-612.

Whitford, W. 2002. Ecology of desert systems. Academic

Press, Elsevier Science Ltd., San Diego, California.

Whitford, W. G. 1996. The importance of the biodiversity of

soil biota in arid ecosystems. Biodiversity and

Conservation 5:185-195.

Whittaker, P. L. 1978. A comparison of surface damage by

hiking and horseback riding in Great Smoky Mountains

National Park. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park

Service, Great Smoky National Park, TN.

Wilcox, B. P., B. D. Newman, C. D. Allen, K. D. Reid, D.

Brandes, J. Pitlick, and D. W. Davenport. 1996a. Runoff

and erosion on the Pajarito Plateau: observations from

the field. Pages 433-439 in New Mexico Geological

Society Guidebook, 47th Field Conference, Jemez

Mountains Region.

Wilcox, B. P., J. Pitlick, C. D. Allen, and D. W. Davenport.

1996b. Runoff and erosion from a rapidly eroding pinyon-juniper hillslope. Pages 61-77 in M. G. Anderson and

S. M. Brooks, editors. Advances in Hillslope Processes,

Volume 1. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, New York, New York.

Windell, J. T., B. E. Willard, D. J. Cooper, S. Q. Foster, C.

Knud-Hansen, L. P. Rink, and G. N. Kiladis. 1986. An ecological characterization of Rocky Mountain montane and

subalpine wetlands. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish

and Wildlife Service, U. S. Department of the Interior,

Washington, D. C.

Wright, H. A. 1980. The role and use of fire in the semidesert grass-shrub type. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station, Ogden, UT
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) is the nation’s principal conservation agency, charged with the mission “to protect and provide

access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian tribes and our committements to island

communities.” More specifically, Interior protects America’s treasures for future generations, provides access to our nation’s natural and

cultural heritage, offers recreation opportunities, honors its trust responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives and its responsibilities to island communities, conducts scientific research, provides wise stewardship of energy and mineral resources, fosters sound use

of land and water resources, and conserves and protects fish and wildlife. The work that we do affects the lives of millions of people;

from the family taking a vacation in one of our national parks to the children studying in one of our Indian schools.

NPS D-46, October 2006
EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICAT

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Program Center

1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 150

Fort Collins, CO 80525

www.nature.nps.gov