National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Program Center

Mojave Desert Network

Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Natural Resources Report NPS/MOJN/NRR—2008/057
ON THE COVER

From upper left to bottom right: Eureka Dunes, Death Valley National Park; Bighorn Sheep on Wheeler Peak, Great Basin National 

Park; Bear Poppy, Lake Mead National Recreation Area; Desert Tortoise, Joshua Tree National Park; Cholla Cactus Garden, Joshua 

Tree National Park; Photos taken by NPS Staff
Mojave Desert Network

Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Natural Resource Report NPS/MOJN/NRR—2008/057

Alice L. Chung-MacCoubrey

Mojave Desert Network, National Park Service

601 Nevada Way, Boulder City, NV 89005

Robert E. Truitt

Mojave Desert Network, National Park Service

601 Nevada Way, Boulder City, NV 89005

Christopher C. Caudill

University of Idaho, Department of Fish and Wildlife

Moscow, ID 83844

Thomas J. Rodhouse

Upper Columbia Basin Network, National Park Service,

Central Oregon Community College, 2600 NW College Way - Ponderosa Building

Bend, OR 97701

Kathryn Irvine

Montana State University Department of Mathematical Sciences

P.O. Box 172400, Bozeman, MT 59717

Joel R. Siderius

University of Washington College of Forest Resources

Box 352100, Seattle WA, 98195

Victoria K. Chang

Mojave Desert Network, National Park Service, Joshua Tree National Park

74485 National Park Drive, Twentynine Palms, CA 92277

With contributions from (in alphabetical order):

David Bedford, United States Geological Survey (USGS) Menlo Park, California; Todd 

Esque, USGS, Henderson Nevada; Sean Finn, USGS, Boise, Idaho; Kristina Heister, 

National Park Service (NPS) Valley Forge National Historical Park; Debra Hughson, 

NPS, Mojave National Preserve; David Miller, USGS, Menlo Park, California, Scott 

Newbold, NPS, Mojave Desert Inventory and Monitoring Network; Craig Palmer, 

University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV); Vanessa Truitt, UNLV; Robert Webb, 

USGS, Denver Colorado. Layout and design: Barbara BC Gleason/BGleason Design & 

Illustration, LLC. 

September 2008

U.S. Department of Interior

National Park Service

Natural Resource Program Center

Fort Collins, Colorado
 ii Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

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.

Natural Resource Reports are the designated medium for disseminating high-priority, 

current natural resource management information with managerial application. The 

series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations 

or address sensitive issues of management applicability. Examples of the diverse 

array of reports published in this series include vital signs monitoring plans; “how 

to” resource management papers; proceedings of resource management workshops 

or conferences; annual reports of resource programs or divisions of the Natural 

Resource Program Center; resource action plans; fact sheets; and regularly-published 

newsletters.

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations and data in this report are 

solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 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 

Natural Resource Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/

publications/NRPM) on the Internet or by sending a request to the address on the 

back cover.

Please cite this publication as:

Chung-MacCoubrey, A. L., R. E. Truitt, C. C. Caudill, T. J. Rodhouse, K. M. Irvine, J. R. 

Siderius, and V. K. Chang. 2008. Mojave Desert Network vital signs monitoring plan. 

NPS/MOJN/NRR—2008/057. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

NPS D—43, September 2008

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service iii

Figures ................................................................................................................... vi 

Tables .................................................................................................................. vii 

Appendices ................................................................................................................. viii 

Acronyms ................................................................................................................... ix 

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... xi 

Acknowledgments ...........................................................................................................xv

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

1.1 Guidance................................................................................................................. 1 

 1.1.1 Legislation ..................................................................................................... 1 

 1.1.2 Justification for Natural Resource Monitoring................................................. 2 

 1.1.3 Goals of Vital Signs Monitoring in the Mojave Desert Network....................... 3 

1.2 Mojave Desert Network Overview............................................................................ 4 

1.3 General Ecological Overview.................................................................................... 9 

 1.3.1 Landforms and Geology............................................................................... 10 

 1.3.2 Regional Climate and the Role of Topography.............................................. 10 

 1.3.3 Hydrology.................................................................................................... 12 

 1.3.4 Flora............................................................................................................ 12 

 1.3.5 Fauna .......................................................................................................... 14 

 1.3.6 Resources of Special Ecological Significance ................................................. 15 

1.4 Natural Resource Threats and Management Concerns........................................... 16 

 1.4.1 Invasive Species ........................................................................................... 17 

 1.4.2 Water Quantity Alteration............................................................................ 18

 1.4.3 Land Use Change/Development................................................................... 18 

 1.4.4 Air Quality Degradation ............................................................................... 18 

 1.4.5 Altered Disturbance Regime......................................................................... 19 

 1.4.6 Recreation/Visitation.................................................................................... 19 

 1.4.7 Climate Change........................................................................................... 19 

 1.4.8 Water Quality Degradation .......................................................................... 20 

 1.4.9 Soil Alteration.............................................................................................. 21 

 1.4.10 Grazing ..................................................................................................... 21 

1.5 Summary of Current and Past Monitoring.............................................................. 22 

 1.5.1 Air Quality Monitoring................................................................................. 22 

 1.5.2 Water Resources Monitoring in Mojave Desert Network Parks...................... 23 

Chapter 2 Conceptual Ecological Models...................................................................... 25 

2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 25 

2.2 Mojave Desert Network Conceptual Model Approach............................................ 25 

2.3 Mojave Desert Network Framework Model............................................................ 26 

2.4 Dry Systems Model................................................................................................ 29

 2.4.1 Shrubland Biome ......................................................................................... 31 

 2.4.2 Pinyon-juniper Woodland Biome.................................................................. 33 

 2.4.3 Mixed Conifer Biome................................................................................... 33 

 2.4.4 Alpine Tundra Biome ................................................................................... 34 

2.5 Wet Systems Model............................................................................................... 34 

 2.5.1 Groundwater............................................................................................... 36 

 2.5.2 Spring Systems ............................................................................................ 37

 2.5.3 Streams and Riparian Zones......................................................................... 38 

 2.5.4 Montane Lakes............................................................................................ 39 

2.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 40 

Contents
Sierra Nevada Network

 iv Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Chapter 3 Vital Signs....................................................................................................... 41 

3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 41 

3.2 Overview of Vital Signs Selection Process............................................................... 41 

 3.2.1 Lake Mead National Recreation Area Vital Signs Scoping Workshop (1999).. 42 

 3.2.2 Geologic Resource Evaluation Workshops (2003) ......................................... 42 

 3.2.3 Park-Level Vital Signs Scoping Workshops (2003)......................................... 42 

 3.2.4 Network-Level Vital Signs Scoping Workshop (2004).................................... 43 

 3.2.5 Selection of High-priority Vital Signs (2004) ................................................. 44 

 3.2.6 Selection of Final Network Vital Signs (2005) ............................................... 44 

3.3 Justification for Vital Signs..................................................................................... 44 

 3.3.1 Air and Climate ........................................................................................... 44 

 3.3.2 Geology and Soils........................................................................................ 45 

 3.3.3 Water.......................................................................................................... 47 

 3.3.4 Biological Integrity ....................................................................................... 48 

 3.3.5 Landscapes.................................................................................................. 51 

3.4 Vital Signs Protocol Development Strategy............................................................. 52 

Chapter 4 Sampling Design ............................................................................................ 55 

 4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 55 

4.2 Sampling Design Development.............................................................................. 55 

4.3 Sampling Design Concepts and Terminology.......................................................... 56

4.4 Sample Size Considerations and Magnitude of Change ......................................... 60 

4.5 Logistical Constraints of Sampling Designs............................................................. 61 

4.6 Overview of Sampling Designs for Mojave Desert Network Vital Signs ................... 61 

 4.6.1 Example: Integrated Upland Protocol ........................................................... 62 

Chapter 5 Sampling Protocols........................................................................................ 65 

5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 65 

5.2 Protocol Development Summaries ......................................................................... 65 

5.3 Protocol Format and Content ................................................................................ 65 

5.4 Protocol Development Process............................................................................... 66 

5.5 Protocol Overview and Development Schedule ...................................................... 67 

Chapter 6 Data Management......................................................................................... 73 

6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 73 

6.2 Goals and Objectives of Mojave Desert Network Data Management...................... 73 

6.3 Data Management Infrastructure and Systems Architecture ................................... 75 

6.4 Data Management Plan Model .............................................................................. 75 

6.5 Data Management Roles and Responsibilities......................................................... 76 

6.6 Data Sources and Priorities .................................................................................... 76 

6.7 Data Management and the Project Lifecycle .......................................................... 77 

6.8 Water Quality Data................................................................................................ 78 

6.9 Data Management Plan Maintenance.................................................................... 79 

Chapter 7 Data Analysis and Reporting......................................................................... 81 

7.1 Data Analysis......................................................................................................... 81 

7.2 Communications and Reporting ............................................................................ 84

 7.2.1 Programmatic Reports and Review............................................................... 84 

 7.2.2 Protocol-related Reports and Review............................................................ 84 

 7.2.3 Science Communication .............................................................................. 84 

 7.2.4 Interpretation and Outreach ........................................................................ 85 

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service v

Chapter 8 Administration and Implementation of the Monitoring Program............. 89 

8.1 National and Regional Context.............................................................................. 89 

8.2 Program Location .................................................................................................. 89 

8.3 Guidance from National and Regional Programs.................................................... 89 

8.4 Local Program Oversight and Direction .................................................................. 91 

8.5 Staffing Plan.......................................................................................................... 92 

 8.5.1 Mojave Desert Network Staff....................................................................... 92 

 8.5.2 Role of Park Staff and Cooperators.............................................................. 97 

8.6 Integration with Park Operations........................................................................... 97 

8.7 Partnerships........................................................................................................... 98 

8.8 Program Review .................................................................................................... 99 

Chapter 9 Schedule ....................................................................................................... 101 

9.1 Protocol Development ......................................................................................... 101 

9.2 Sampling Frequency and Timing .......................................................................... 106 

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

Chapter 11 Literature Cited.......................................................................................... 111 

Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts............................................................................ 121
Sierra Nevada Network

 vi Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Mojave Desert Network

Figures 

Figure 1.1. Relationships among inventories, monitoring, research, and natural resource 

management activities in national parks.............................................................. 3 

Figure 1.2. Parks of the Mojave Desert Network................................................................... 5 

Figure 1.3. Mojave Desert Network ecoregion provinces..................................................... 11 

Figure 2.1. Hierarchy of models from framework description of ecosystems, to system and

control models, and detailed models................................................................. 26 

Figure 2.2. Mojave Desert Network framework model, showing the four principal systems, 

their components, interactions, and processes .................................................. 27 

Figure 2.3. Mojave Desert Network conceptual model for dry systems................................ 30 

Figure 2.4. Vegetation zones are determined by specific moisture and temperature regimes, 

which shift with elevation and latitude.............................................................. 31 

Figure 2.5. Mojave Desert Network conceptual model for wet systems............................... 35 

Figure 4.1. Examples of five different revisit designs ........................................................... 59 

Figure 4.2. Site locations from an unequal probability generalized random-tessellation stratified 

sample for the Integrated Upland protocol at Joshua Tree National Park ................... 64 

Figure 6.1 Understanding data .......................................................................................... 73 

Figure 6.2 Management sections of the Mojave Desert Network Data and Information Plan ..76 

Figure 6.3 Project workflow and data management activities............................................. 78 

Figure 6.4 Simplified flow diagram for water quality data.................................................. 79 

Figure 7.1 Conceptual diagram of adaptive management illustrating the iterative cycle of 

monitoring, assessment, and decisions.............................................................. 81 

Figure 7.2 Relationships between analyses, reporting, research, and the Mojave Desert 

Network program goals.................................................................................... 82 

Figure 8.1. Pacific West Region Inventory & Monitoring Program networks. ....................... 90
National Park Service vii

Executive Summary

Tables

Table 1.1 Mission Statements for Mojave Desert Network parks......................................... 2 

Table 1.2 GPRA goals specific to parks and relevant to development of a monitoring 

plan for the Mojave Desert Network ................................................................... 4

Table 1.3 Area and elevation of Mojave Desert Network parks........................................... 6 

Table 1.4 Relative importance of Mojave Desert Network ecosystem stressors .................. 17 

Table 1.5 Record of historic (H, > 5 years ago) or current (C) monitoring data for the 

Mojave Desert Network Vital Signs across park units ......................................... 23 

Table 1.6 Weather and air quality (AQ) monitoring stations in (‘on-site’) or near Mojave 

Desert Network parks ....................................................................................... 24 

Table 2.1 Anthropogenic drivers and stressors, their potential ecological effects, and 

relevant Vital Signs for the Mojave Desert Network ........................................... 29 

Table 2.2 Characteristics of springs related to three kinds of aquifers common in the 

Mojave Desert Network .................................................................................... 38 

Table 3.1 The final 20 Mojave Desert Network Vital Signs are presented within the 

context of the NPS Ecological Monitoring Framework ....................................... 46 

Table 3.2 Protocols planned for development, Vital Signs addressed, and relevant parks... 53 

Table 4.1 Summary of sampling design components for each of 10 protocols planned 

for development............................................................................................... 62

Table 5.1 The 10 monitoring protocols to be developed and implemented between 

2008- 2012 ...................................................................................................... 69 

Table 6.1 Natural resource data provided on Mojave Desert Network and National 

Inventory and Monitoring Program websites..................................................... 75 

Table 6.2 Roles and responsibilities related to network data management........................ 77 

Table 7.1 Four approaches to analyzing monitoring data and the individuals responsible 

for analyses....................................................................................................... 83 

Table 7.2 Summary of reporting mechanisms to be used by the Mojave Desert Network .. 86

Table 8.1 Mojave Desert Network Board of Directors, current members, and their roles........91 

Table 8.2 Mojave Desert Network Technical Committee, current members, and their roles ..... 92 

Table 8.3 Proposed staffing plan for different phases of the Mojave Desert Network 

monitoring program ......................................................................................... 94 

Table 8.4 Description and schedule for various review processes in the Mojave Desert 

Network monitoring program. ............................................................................ 99 

Table 9.1 Proposed schedule for protocol development and implementation for the 

Mojave Desert Network .................................................................................. 102 

Table 9.2 Frequency, timing, and type of sampling for the 10 protocols addressing 17 

Vital Signs for the Mojave Desert Network parks............................................. 106 

Table 10.1 Summary budget for the Mojave Desert Network Vital Signs Monitoring 

Program in the first year of implementation (FY 2009) .................................... 108 

Table 10.2 Detailed budget for the Mojave Desert Vital Signs Monitoring Program in the 

first year of implementation after review and approval of the monitoring plan ...... 109
Sierra Nevada Network

 viii Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Appendices 

Appendix A Network Park Descriptions 

Appendix B Summary of Federal Legislation and Policy Related to Inventory and Monitoring 

Appendix C Ecological Context of Network Parks 

Appendix D Network Water Resources and Water Quality Standards: An Overview 

Appendix E Resources Threats and Management Concerns Related to Level 2 Vital Signs 

Appendix F Existing Monitoring Programs Relevant to Mojave Desert Network Parks 

Appendix G Conceptual Ecological Models 

Appendix H Network Vital Signs Scoping Workshop Report, May 25-27, 2004 Las Vegas, NV

Appendix I Protocol Development Summaries 

Appendix J Data and Information Management Plan 

Appendix K Network Charter

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service ix

Acronyms 

AARWP Annual Administrative Report and Work Plan 

ARD Air Resources Division 

ATB Across the Board 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BOD Board of Directors 

BSC Biological Soil Crusts 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CESU Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit 

DEVA Death Valley National Park 

DOD Department of Defense 

ENSO El Niño Southern Oscillation 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FTE Full-time Equivalent 

FY Fiscal Year 

GIS Geographical Information System 

GRBA Great Basin National Park 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

GRTS Generalized Random-Tessellation Stratified 

GSA General Services Administration 

I&M Inventory and Monitoring 

JOTR Joshua Tree National Park 

LAME Lake Mead National Recreation Area 

MANZ Manzanar National Historic Site 

MOJA Mojave National Preserve 

MOJN Mojave Desert Network 

NPS National Park Service 

NRAC Natural Resource Advisory Committee 

NRPC Natural Resources Program Center 

PARA Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument 

PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation 

PDS Protocol Development Summary 

PWR Pacific West Region 

SOP Standard Operating Procedure 

TC Technical Committee 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

VSMP Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

WASO Washington Support Office 

WRD Water Resources Division
Mojave Desert Network Sierra Nevada Network
National Park Service xi

Executive Summary

Knowing the condition of natural 

resources in national parks is 

fundamental to the National Park 

Service’s (NPS) mission to manage 

park resources “unimpaired for the 

enjoyment of future generations.” Thus, 

NPS has implemented the “Vital Signs 

Monitoring Program,” a long-term 

ecological monitoring program that 

will provide rigorous, scientificallybased information on the status and 

trends of park ecosystems. With this 

information, park managers will be 

better able to evaluate complex and 

challenging resource issues and make 

sound decisions that result in longterm protection of park ecosystems. 

This information on park resource 

condition will also be useful towards 

park planning, research, education, and 

public awareness.

Under the Vital Signs Monitoring 

Program, 270 park units were organized 

into 32 networks that linked parks with 

similar geographic and natural resource 

characteristics. The program created 

and funded Mojave Desert Network 

(MOJN) to assess ecosystem condition 

in six park units in Arizona, California, 

and Nevada, including Death Valley 

National Park, Great Basin National 

Park, Joshua Tree National Park, Lake 

Mead National Recreation Area, 

Manzanar National Historic Site, and 

Mojave National Preserve. After Grand 

Canyon-Parashant National Monument 

(PARA) was created in 2000, it was 

informally included in the set of parks 

addressed by the MOJN Inventory & 

Monitoring (I&M) Program. The MOJN 

encompasses the largest total park 

area of all the networks in the lower 48 

states (combined acreage of 3.3 million 

hectares or 9.7 percent of the total land 

area managed by NPS). 

The network monitoring program 

is intended to provide the minimum 

infrastructure needed to track the 

condition of park resources and is 

designed to complement, not replace, 

existing park monitoring and other 

agency monitoring programs. Funding 

for the MOJN supports a core, 

professional staff who perform network 

duties and collaborate with park staff 

and other programs and agencies to 

implement an integrated and longterm program to monitor the network’s 

highest-priority Vital Signs. No additional 

funds were allocated from the National 

I&M Program after the inclusion of 

PARA within the network, thus making 

partnerships and cost-sharing paramount 

to the program’s success.

The MOJN Vital Signs Monitoring 

Plan (VSMP) provides a framework for 

MOJN’s long-term natural resource 

monitoring program. The result of an 

extensive, multi-year planning process, 

the VSMP addresses all aspects of the 

planned monitoring program, from 

program goals and administration to 

sampling design, data analysis, and 

reporting. Specifically, the MOJN VSMP 

provides background information 

about the network parks, describes 

conceptual models used to guide and 

support program development, identifies 

the network’s 20 final Vital Signs, the 

process for selecting them, and their 

grouping into protocols, discusses 

sampling concepts and preliminary 

sampling designs, describes how data 

will be managed, analyzed, and reported, 

proposes a staffing plan, implementation 

schedule, and budget, and outlines 

the administrative framework and 

Claret cup hedgehog 

(Echinocereus triglochidatus), 

Grand Canyon-Parashant 

National Monument. Photo 

courtesy Kari Yanskey.

Cemetery monument at 

Manzanar National Historic 

Site, one of the seven parks in 

Mojave Desert Network. 

Photo courtesy Alice 

Chung-MacCoubrey.
 xii Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

mechanisms for program oversight. 

The MOJN VSMP (or Phase III plan) 

represents the culmination of 5 years 

of planning and is built upon previous 

versions of this plan developed during 

Phase I (2005) and Phase II (2006).

During Phase I of development, 

the network compiled background 

information about park resources, 

threats, and management concerns 

and current and historic monitoring 

efforts. This information is presented 

in Chapter 1, along with an ecological 

overview of network parks. Also 

described in Chapter 1 are the policy 

and management contexts for the 

monitoring program, including the goals 

and objectives for the MOJN monitoring 

effort. Appendixes A to F contain 

additional information used in program 

development. 

During Phase II, the network 

collaborated with park staff and scientists 

from multiple agencies and universities 

to develop conceptual ecological models 

for park ecosystems and to produce a 

final list of network Vital Signs. Chapter 

2 presents an overview of the conceptual 

models, which contain four levels 

of increasing complexity and detail. 

Described in Chapter 2 are the major 

concepts underlying the overarching 

model, a short synopsis of the dry 

and wet system models, and short 

descriptions of biomes and components 

within dry and wet systems. The 

conceptual models are presented in their 

entirety in Appendix G.

Using the results of the early planning 

and design work, the network hosted 

a series of park- and network-level 

workshops to produce a final list of 

Vital Signs (Chapter 3). Workshop 

participants included park and network 

staff and individuals from other 

federal and state agencies, academic 

and research institutions, and nonprofit organizations. Workshops were 

conducted over the course of 3 years 

(2003-2005) and culminated in a final list 

of 20 Vital Signs. The network proposes 

to address 17 of these Vital Signs 

through 10 protocols and to postpone 

development of the remaining 3 Vital 

Signs until the first set are complete. The 

final report from the 2004 NetworkLevel Vital Signs Scoping Workshop 

describes the process for prioritizing and 

ranking Vital Signs, presents the resulting 

prioritized list of candidate Vital Signs, 

provides justifications for rankings, 

and identifies potential monitoring 

questions, partners, and funding sources 

(Appendix H).

During Phase III, network staff 

developed strategies for monitoring 

Vital Signs, identified procedures for 

managing, analyzing, and reporting 

data, identified necessary staff and 

cooperators for developing and 

implementing monitoring protocols, 

and devised a schedule and budget for 

implementation. The results of these 

planning efforts are summarized in 

Chapters 4-10 and Appendix I. 

In Chapter 4, we describe sampling 

Leconte’s barrel cactus 

(Ferocactus cylindraceus

var. lecontei), Grand CanyonParashant National Monument. 

Photo courtesy Kari Yanskey.

Beavertail pricklypear (Opuntia 

basilaris var. basilaris), Grand 

Canyon-Parashant National 

Monument. Photo courtesy 

Kari Yanskey.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service xiii

concepts, steps, and considerations 

for developing sampling designs and 

summarize the spatial and temporal 

sampling designs proposed for each 

protocol. The network will use a 

combination of random and nonrandom 

sampling designs, depending on the 

monitoring objectives. For random 

sampling designs, we will consider the 

generalized random-tessellation stratified 

approach, which assigns a random 

sample of sites to panels that are visited 

on a rotational basis. In other cases, 

protocols will require the use of handpicked, nonrandom, judgment samples 

(or index sites) based on management 

priorities. Where possible, sampling for 

Vital Signs will be co-located in space 

and time to improve efficiency and depth 

of ecological understanding.

Monitoring protocols are detailed study 

plans that explain how data are to be 

collected, managed, analyzed, and 

reported. Well-developed monitoring 

protocols ensure standardization 

of methods among individuals and 

successive staff, allow documentation 

of changes in methods, and are a key 

component of quality assurance. Over 

the next 3-5 years, network staff and 

cooperators will develop 10 monitoring 

protocols to address Vital Signs for 

which MOJN staff will play a lead role 

in field data collection and/or analysis 

and reporting of the monitoring results. 

In Chapter 5, we describe the specific 

format and content of each protocol, 

identify the process for developing 

protocols, and summarize key elements 

of Protocol Development Summaries 

(PDSs; Appendix I). PDSs are short 

Executive Summary

protocol name

Primary vital signs

addressed funding source

Air Quality

Ozone

Wet and Dry Deposition

Visibility & Particulate Matter

Funded by another 

program

Climate Basic Meteorology Funded by another 

program

Integrated Upland

Soil Erosion & Deposition

Soil Disturbance

Soil Chemistry & Nutrient Cycling

Soil Hydrologic Function

Vegetation Change

Biological Soil Crusts

MOJN-funded

Riparian Vegetation Vegetation Change MOJN-funded

Riparian Birds Riparian Bird Communities MOJN-funded

Invasive/Exotic Plants Invasive/Exotic Plants Combination of MOJN and 

other program funding

Fire and Fuel Dynamics Fire and Fuel Dynamics Funded by another 

program

Groundwater and 

Springs

Groundwater Dynamics & Chemistry

Surface Water Dynamics

Surface Water Chemistry

MOJN-funded

Streams and Lakes Surface Water Dynamics

Surface Water Chemistry MOJN-funded

Landscape Dynamics Landscape Dynamics MOJN-funded

Small Mammals Small Mammal Communities Development is postponed

Reptile Communities Reptile Communities Development is postponed

At-Risk Populations At-Risk Populations Development is postponed

Vital Signs and monitoring protocols for the Mojave Desert Network: This table 

identifies protocols planned (or postponed) for development, Vital Signs addressed, and their 

primary funding source. Protocol names in bold are those funded primarily by the network.
 xiv Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

The Mojave desert supports 

colorful biota at a variety of 

scales, including these lichens 

at Grand Canyon-Parashant 

National Monument. Photo 

courtesy Kari Yanskey.

summaries that provide specific 

information on how each protocol 

will be developed, by whom, using 

what methods, and according to what 

timeframe. In Chapter 9, we provide a 

schedule for development, testing, peerreview, and implementation of each of 

the monitoring protocols.

Data and information management are 

central to the MOJN I&M Program and 

a critical component of any successful 

long-term monitoring program. To assure 

and maintain data integrity, MOJN 

will follow procedures outlined in the 

MOJN Data Management Plan (DMP; 

Appendix J) and summarized in Chapter 

6. The DMP documents our strategy 

for ensuring that data collected by the 

program are subjected to rigorous quality 

assurance and control procedures, and 

refers to other documents and resources 

for specific procedures. The plan also 

addresses how data and information will 

be made available to others for decision 

making, research, and education. 

Data analysis, interpretation, and 

reporting are crucial components in 

the development and implementation 

of the MOJN I&M Program. Data 

compiled from monitoring projects will 

be used by diverse audiences – NPS 

park managers and superintendents, 

scientific collaborators, educators – who 

might have different requirements and 

needs. In Chapter 7, we summarize 

the network’s plan for analysis and 

reporting, including types of analytical 

procedures, communication and 

reporting tools, responsible parties, and 

intended audiences. 

Successful program implementation will 

also rely upon appropriate staffing and 

administrative oversight (Chapter 8). 

MOJN’s long-term monitoring program 

will be developed and implemented 

through a combination of core network 

staff and additional personnel, which 

will vary with programmatic phase 

(Implementation Phase [FY 2009-11] 

or Monitoring Phase [FY 2012 and 

on]). The network receives general 

program guidance and direction 

through the National I&M Program 

Manager and the Regional I&M 

Coordinator. Local program oversight 

and direction is achieved through the 

MOJN Board of Directors (BOD) and 

Technical Committee. Specific roles and 

responsibilities of these oversight groups 

are described in Chapter 8 and the 

MOJN Network Charter (Appendix K). 

In FY 2008, the network’s annual 

operating budget included $860,000 

from the NPS Vital Signs Monitoring 

Program and $76,900 from the NPS 

Water Resources Division. These funding 

levels are expected to remain relatively 

fixed, except for potential across-theboard rescissions and periodic cost-ofliving increases. These funds are held in 

Washington Office base accounts and 

are transferred annually through the 

Pacific West Regional Office to Lake 

Mead NRA, the network’s host park. 

All funds are managed by the MOJN 

Network Coordinator under the auspices 

of the BOD. Chapter 10 provides an 

expanded description of the network 

budget, major categories of expenses, 

allocations towards data management, 

and a detailed budget for the first year of 

implementation (FY 2009).

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service xv

The Mojave Desert Network’s (MOJN) 

Vital Signs Monitoring Plan could 

not have been completed without the 

commitment, hard work, and support 

of network staff, park staff, and external 

cooperators, and strong leadership at the 

national, regional, and local levels.

We thank Kristina Heister, the preceding 

MOJN Network Coordinator, for all 

her hard work and immense dedication 

in guiding the network through the 

first two phases of development and 

laying the groundwork for Phase III. We 

thank Craig Palmer who pioneered and 

continues to support data management 

for the network. Special thanks to 

Upper Columbia Basin Network for 

their assistance on the draft Vital Signs 

Monitoring Plan. Marieke Jackson, an 

SCA intern, enthusiastically assisted 

with report assembly and presentation. 

Members of the data mining team 

(Stacy Holt, Jeanne Taylor, Stacy 

Manson) provided outstanding support 

investigating and reporting background 

information for protocol development, 

related inventories, and this report. 

External cooperators and park resource 

staff were critical in developing protocol 

development summaries and advancing 

protocol development efforts, including 

Alice Miller, Matt Brooks, Luke Sabala, 

Sandee Dingman, Tasha LaDoux, Burt 

Pendleton, Debbie Soukup, Michael 

Vamstad, and Bryan Hamilton. We thank 

those involved in the network’s Water 

Resources Working Group, particularly 

Debra Hughson, Gretchen Baker, Don 

Sada, and Terry Fisk, for their guidance 

on water quality and water-related Vital 

Signs issues. This monitoring plan also 

incorporates significant work from 

conceptual models and other supporting 

documents for Phase I and II prepared 

by the U.S. Geological Survey, Western 

Regional Science Center and Western 

Ecological Research Center. Special 

thanks to David Miller and Todd Esque, 

who headed the work group consisting 

of David Bedford, Sean Finn, Debra 

Hughson, and Robert Webb.

We particularly want to thank the 

MOJN Board of Directors (BOD) for 

their support, leadership, and advocacy. 

Recent and current BOD members 

include JT Reynolds (Chair), Jeff 

Bradybaugh, Andrew Ferguson, Les 

Inafuku, Cindy Nielsen, Curt Sauer, 

William K. Dickinson, Tom Leatherman, 

and Dennis Schramm. We would not 

have been able to progress without the 

participation, advice, and support of 

the MOJN Technical Committee (TC). 

TC members include Bob Bryson, Paul 

DePrey, David Ek, Angela Evenden, 

Linda Greene, Debra Hughson, Tom 

Leatherman, Kent Turner, Larry 

Whalon, Tod Williams, and Kari Yanskey. 

We are indebted to all the networks 

that have submitted reports before 

MOJN, upon which we greatly relied for 

developing this monitoring plan. Draft 

and final monitoring plans from which 

parts of our report are drawn include 

Upper Columbia Basin Network (Garrett 

et al. 2007: chapters 4, 7, 9), Klamath 

Network (Sarr et al. 2007: chapters 7, 

10), Southern Colorado Plateau Network 

(Thomas et al. 2005: chapter 9), Central 

Alaska Network (MacCluskie and 

Oakley 2005: chapter 8), Sierra Nevada 

Network (Mutch et al. 2007: chapters 

4, 5, 7-10), and Gulf Coast Network 

(Segura et al. 2006: chapter 5). 

Lastly, we thank Penny Latham, Pacific 

West Region I&M Coordinator, for her 

patient guidance, tireless contributions, 

and participation in the MOJN BOD 

and many other network activities, and 

Steve Fancy, NPS National Monitoring 

Program Leader, who is largely 

responsible for the success of the NPS 

I&M Program.

Acknowledgments
Mojave Desert Network Sierra Nevada Network
National Park Service 1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

1.1 Guidance

The National Park Service (NPS) is 

implementing a strategy designed 

to institutionalize natural resource 

inventory and monitoring on a 

programmatic basis throughout the 

agency. The effort was undertaken to 

ensure that the approximately 270 park 

units with significant natural resources 

possess the resource information 

needed for effective, science-based 

managerial decision-making and 

resource protection. The national 

strategy consists of a framework 

having three major components: (1) 

completion of basic resource inventories 

upon which monitoring efforts can be 

based; (2) creation of experimental 

Prototype Monitoring Programs to 

evaluate alternative monitoring designs 

and strategies; and (3) implementation 

of operational monitoring of critical 

parameters (“Vital Signs”) in all natural 

resource parks (NPS 2005a).

1.1.1 Legislation

NPS managers are directed by federal 

law and NPS policies to know the status 

and trends in the condition of natural 

resources under their stewardship 

in order to fulfill the NPS mission 

(NPS 1916) of leaving these resources 

“unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations.” Congress strengthened the 

NPS’s protective function, and provided 

language important to recent decisions 

about resource impairment, when 

it amended the Organic Act in 1978. 

Along with national legislation, enabling 

legislation (Appendix A) and mission 

statements (Table 1.1) for Mojave 

Desert Network (MOJN) parks (“park” 

hereafter is used in a general sense to 

refer to national parks, monuments, 

preserves, and national historic sites, all 

of which occur in the MOJN) provide 

justification, guidance, and context for 

natural resource management programs, 

including inventory and monitoring.

More recently, the National Parks 

Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (NPS 

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.” A 

summary of federal legislation and policy 

related to the inventory and monitoring 

efforts can be found in Appendix B.

The 2001 NPS Management Policies 

(NPS 2001a) 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.”

The Government Performance and 

Results Act (GPRA) is central to NPS 

operations, including the Inventory and 

Monitoring (I&M) Program. The NPS 

has developed a national strategic plan 

identifying key goals to be met (NPS 

2001a). A list of the national GPRA goals 

relevant to MOJN parks is located in 

Table 1.2. In addition to the national 

strategic goals, each park unit has a 

5-year plan that includes specific park 

GPRA goals. Many of these park specific 

goals are directly related to natural 

resource monitoring needs.

The NPS Water Resources Division 

provides explicit guidance and funding 

for the water quality component of 

each of the 32 network’s monitoring 

programs. Design and implementation 

of water quality monitoring is fully 

integrated with the network Vital Signs 

monitoring design process (including 

staffing, planning, design, etc.) to 

facilitate integration within the context 

of a comprehensive network monitoring 

program. The NPS goal is to rely on its 

own uniform monitoring data and use it 

to protect water resources. Monitoring 

of water quality also is supported 

through legislation, policy, and guidance 

described above, including the 1916 

Organic Act (NPS 1916), National Parks 

Monitoring is a 

central component 

of natural resource 

stewardship in the 

National Park Service, 

and in conjunction 

with natural resource 

inventories and 

research, provides the 

information needed 

for effective, sciencebased decisionmaking and resource 

protection.
 2 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

of natural resources that park managers 

are directed to preserve. NPS managers 

across the country are confronted with 

increasingly complex and challenging 

issues that require a broad-based 

understanding of the status and trends 

of park resources as a foundation for 

making decisions, working with other 

agencies, and the public for the benefit of 

those resources. 

The challenge of protecting and 

managing a park’s natural resources 

requires a multi-agency, ecosystem 

approach because parks are open 

systems, with threats such as air and 

water pollution, or invasive species, 

originating outside of the park’s 

boundaries. No single spatial or 

temporal scale is appropriate for all 

system components and processes. The 

appropriate scale for understanding and 

effectively managing a resource might be 

at the species, population, community, or 

Omnibus Management Act (NPS 1998), 

and Natural Resource Challenge (NPS 

1999a). Each network, as part of the Vital 

Signs Monitoring Program, is required 

to: (1) determine priorities for impaired 

water and pristine water monitoring; 

(2) define site-specific monitoring 

objectives; and (3) develop detailed 

water quality monitoring plans.

1.1.2 Justification for Natural 

Resource Monitoring

The intent of the NPS I&M Program is 

to track a subset of physical, chemical, 

and biological elements and processes 

of park ecosystems that are selected 

to represent the overall health or 

condition of park resources, known 

or hypothesized effects of stressors, or 

elements that have important human 

values or resource significance, known 

as “Vital Signs.” This subset of resources 

and processes is part of the total suite 

Park name park mission statement

Death Valley National Park 

(DEVA)

Death Valley National Park dedicates itself to protecting significant desert features that provide 

world class scenic, scientific, and educational opportunities for visitors and academics to explore 

and study.

Great Basin National Park 

(GRBA)

The mission of Great Basin National Park is to preserve for the benefit, inspiration, and enjoyment 

of present and future generations a representative segment of the Great Basin of the western 

United States and to promote an understanding of the natural and cultural heritage of the entire 

physiographic region.

Joshua Tree National Park 

(JOTR)

The National Park Service at Joshua Tree National Park preserves and protects a representative 

area of the Colorado and Mojave deserts and the natural and cultural resources for the benefit 

and enjoyment of present and future generations. The park includes rich biological and geological 

diversity, cultural history, recreational resources, and outstanding opportunities for scientific study.

Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area (LAME)

We provide diverse inland water recreational opportunities in a spectacular desert setting for 

present and future generations.

Manzanar National 

Historic Site (MANZ)

Manzanar National Historic Site dedicates itself to protecting the physical remnants of the 

internment camp and telling the story of the internment of over 110,000 individuals of Japanese 

ancestry during World War II in an accurate and balanced way that represents diverse viewpoints 

and beliefs.

Mojave National Preserve 

(MOJA)

Mojave National Preserve was established to preserve outstanding natural, cultural, and scenic 

resources while providing for scientific, educational, and recreational interests.

Grand Canyon-Parashant 

National Monument 

(PARA)

Grand Canyon-Parashant is a model of land management for the BLM and NPS that conserves its 

natural, scientific, and historic resources and includes ecological restoration and protection in a 

broad ecosystem context, while honoring the history and living traditions of the people who came 

before us: “the place where the west stays wild.”

Table 1.1. Mission Statementsa for Mojave Desert Network parks.

a

 Mission statements obtained from park General Management Plans (NPS 1992a; 1995; 1996; 1999b; 2000; 2001b; 2005b).

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 3

landscape level. This reality may require 

a regional, national, or international 

effort to understand the resource.

Monitoring is a central component of 

natural resource stewardship in the NPS, 

and in conjunction with natural resource 

inventories and research, provides 

the information needed for effective, 

science-based managerial decisionmaking and resource protection 

(Figure 1.1). Ecological monitoring 

establishes reference conditions for 

natural resources from which future 

changes can be detected. Site-specific 

information provided through natural 

resource monitoring is needed to 

identify change in complex, variable, 

and imperfectly understood ecosystems 

and to determine whether observed 

changes are within historic levels of 

variability or may indicate unwanted 

influences. Thus, monitoring data help 

define the typical limits of variation in 

park resources by augmenting historic 

data, and when put into a landscape 

context, monitoring provides the basis 

for determining meaningful change in 

ecosystems. Monitoring results may also 

be used to determine what constitutes 

impairment and to identify the need to 

initiate or change management practices. 

Understanding the dynamic nature of 

park ecosystems and the consequences 

of human activities is essential for 

management decision-making aimed 

to maintain, enhance, or restore the 

ecological integrity of park ecosystems 

and to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

ecological threats to these systems 

(Roman and Barrett 1999). 

1.1.3 Goals of Vital Signs Monitoring 

in the Mojave Desert Network

The NPS Servicewide (or National) I&M 

Program has defined long-term goals to 

comply with legal requirements, to fully 

implement NPS policy, and to provide 

park managers with the data they need to 

understand and manage park resources. 

The National and MOJN goals for Vital 

Signs Monitoring are:

1. Determine status and trends in 

selected indicators of the condition 

of park ecosystems to allow managers 

to make better-informed decisions 

and to 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 

Figure 1.1. Relationships among inventories, monitoring, research, and natural resource management activities in national parks (modified from Jenkins et al. 2002).

Chapter 1: Introduction & Background
 4 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

measures and reduce costs of 

management.

3. Provide data to better understand the 

dynamic nature and condition of park 

ecosystems and to 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 toward performance goals.

The defined goals drive action in 

conceptual design and monitoring 

protocol development. 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 changes suggest a 

change in management practices. Clearly 

articulated goals and objectives help 

define all aspects of a program including 

the choice of Vital Signs to be monitored. 

MOJN objectives will be developed for 

each individual vital sign. 

1.2 Mojave Desert Network 

Overview

In 1999, the NPS launched the Natural 

Resource Challenge, a nationwide 

program designed to strengthen natural 

resource management and to guide and 

fund inventory and monitoring efforts in 

Table 1.2. GPRA goals specific to parks a

 and relevant to development of a monitoring plan for the Mojave Desert Network.

a As of September 1, 2008, PARA was still developing their park strategic and planning documents.

b Goal targets will be established after parks have completed baseline and status determinations. It is expected that several MOJN 

parks will adopt one or more of the land health goals.

GPRA Goal Goal # DEVa grba Jotr lame manz moja

Category 1a: Natural and cultural resources and associated values are protected, restored, and maintained in good 

condition and managed within their broader ecosystem context.

Disturbed Lands Restored Ia1A X X X X X

Exotic Plant Species Ia1B X X X X X

Land Health – Wetlandsb Ia1C X

Land Health – Riparian and Stream Areasb Ia1D X

Land Health – Uplandb Ia1E X

Land Health – Mined Landsb Ia1G X X

Threatened and Endangered Species Ia2 X X X X X

Species of Management Concern Ia(0)2B X X X X

Exotic Animals Ia2C X X X X

Air Quality and Wilderness Values Ia3 X X X

Surface Water Quality Ia4 X X X X X

Water Quantity Ia4B X

Cultural Landscapes on the CLI Ia7 X X X X

Paleontological Resources Ia9 X X X X

Category 1b: The NPS 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.

Park Natural Resource Data Sets Ib01 X X X X X X

Cultural Landscapes Baseline Ib2B X X X X X X

Vital Signs Identified Ib3A X X X X X X

Vital Signs Monitored Ib3B X X X X X X

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 5

our nation’s parks (NPS 1999a). Under 

the program, approximately 270 park 

units were organized into 32 networks, 

with individual networks comprised 

of parks that share similar geographic 

and natural resource characteristics. 

The program created and funded the 

MOJN to assess ecosystem condition 

in six parks in Arizona, California, and 

Nevada, including Death Valley National 

Park (DEVA), Great Basin National Park 

(GRBA), Joshua Tree National Park 

Figure 1.2. Parks of the 

Mojave Desert Network.

(JOTR), Lake Mead National Recreation 

Area (LAME), Manzanar National 

Historic Site (MANZ), and Mojave 

National Preserve (MOJA) (Figure 1.2). 

After Grand Canyon-Parashant National 

Monument (PARA) was created in 2000, 

it was informally included in the set of 

parks addressed by the MOJN I&M 

Program. No additional funds were 

allocated from the National program to 

the network following the inclusion of 

PARA in the MOJN. 

Chapter 1: Introduction & Background
 6 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

The seven NPS parks in the MOJN 

network encompass a total of nearly 

3.3 million hectares of land and include 

vertical relief that ranges from the lowest 

point in North America in DEVA (-86 

m a.s.l.) to the alpine peaks of GRBA 

(3,981 m a.s.l.) (Table 1.3). A majority of 

the MOJN parks sit between the Sierra 

Nevada to the west (MANZ, DEVA), the 

north-south trending Basin and Range 

province to the north and east (MOJA, 

DEVA, LAME, PARA), the Transverse 

ranges to the south (JOTR), and the 

South Snake range (GRBA) in the north 

(Brussard et al. 1998).

The MOJN is predominantly semi-arid 

to arid, comprised of three contiguous 

desert ecosystems (Great Basin, Mojave, 

and Sonoran deserts), which exhibit 

a southward gradient of increasing 

temperature and decreasing average 

elevation. Because of its intermediate 

position along this climatic and 

elevational gradient, the Mojave desert 

is considered to be the transitional 

zone between the Great Basin and 

Sonoran deserts. Three of the MOJN 

parks (GRBA, MANZ, and portions 

of PARA) are located in the northern 

part of the MOJN, which is considered 

“high (elevation) or cold (climate) 

desert” environment. The remaining 

parks (DEVA, JOTR, LAME, MOJA, and 

portions of PARA) are located in the 

southern part of the MOJN, in a “hot 

desert” environment. 

As the northern-most MOJN park, 

GRBA lies entirely within the Great 

Basin desert region and the South Snake 

Range in east-central Nevada. GRBA 

has a rugged landscape exhibiting high 

elevation, snow-covered peaks (nearly 

10% of its land is above 3,000 meters) 

separated by low desert basins and valley 

floors. It is a temperate desert with hot 

summers and cold, snowy winters due 

to greater volumes of summer rains 

and winter snows. Due in part to its 

distance from urban centers, GRBA 

contains many relatively pristine natural 

resources, and often has some of the 

best visibility in the nation. GRBA is 

known for its glacial formations and 

karst geology, which include at least 42 

natural caverns that harbor a variety of 

biological and physical resources. One of 

the most decorated caves in the nation 

is Lehman Caves, which is the longest 

cave in Nevada. Ten perennial stream 

systems and six subalpine lakes support 

riparian habitats and greater biological 

productivity than surrounding, more arid 

areas and thus have local and regional 

ecological significance. The combination 

of a diverse moisture gradient, geologic 

history, and the isolation of higher 

alpine/subalpine areas in GRBA produce 

endemic plant and animal species that 

occur nowhere else. 

DEVA lies southwest of GRBA, near 

the southern boundary of the Great 

Basin desert and the northern boundary 

Mojave Desert Network

a Excludes 84,358 hectares of NPS-owned land currently within LAME boundary that is now part of 

PARA; total park acreage for LAME including NPS-owned land within PARA is 605,704 hectares. b Total size of PARA includes 84,358 hectares of NPS-owned land, 327,288 hectares of BLM-managed 

lands, and 12,595 hectares of non-federal lands.

PArk Name abbreviation area

(ha)

elevation

range (m)

Death Valley National Park DEVA 1,374,420 -86 to 3,368

Great Basin National Park GRBA 31,194 1,615 to 3,981

Joshua Tree National Park JOTR 321,327 0 to 1,772

Lake Mead National Recreation Area LAME 521,346a 152 to 1,719

Manzanar National Historic Site MANZ 329 1,158

Mojave National Preserve MOJA 619,923 274 to 2,438

Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument PARA 424,242b 366 to 2,447

Total 3,292,781 -86 to 3,981

Table 1.3. Area and elevation of Mojave Desert Network parks.
National Park Service 7

of the Mojave desert. Two mountain 

ranges flank DEVA to the west and east, 

producing dramatic topographic relief 

and landscape views. Renowned for its 

exposed, complex, and diverse geology 

and tectonics, DEVA contains one of 

only two active rift faults known in the 

world. DEVA includes the lowest point 

in North America (Badwater, -86 m 

b.s.l.), receives the least precipitation in 

the U.S., and claims the nation’s highest 

and world’s second highest recorded 

temperature. In addition, the park is 

one of the only places on earth where 

all five major dune types occur in close 

proximity. Because “hot desert” species 

are found at lower elevations and “cold 

desert” species are found at higher 

elevations, DEVA supports diverse 

assemblages of plant and animal life and 

has one of the nation’s most significant 

fossil records. Various habitats such as 

springs, drainages, playas, sand dunes, 

and subterranean pools are home to a 

plethora of endemic species that have 

adapted to DEVA’s unique and harsh 

environment (e.g., Devils Hole pupfish, 

[Cyprinodon diabolis]).

To the west of DEVA, MANZ is located 

at the northwestern edge of the Mojave 

desert, adjacent to the Great Basin 

and Sierran montane area. The park is 

shielded from moist ocean air masses 

by the Sierras and predominantly 

experiences a high-desert type climate. 

Originally established as a cultural 

historic site, MANZ has significant 

biological diversity that is highest 

along a natural, but intermittent creek, 

which flows west to east through the 

park. Natural vegetation at MANZ is 

primarily Great Basin sagebrush scrub 

(Artemisia spp.), saltbush (Atriplex spp.), 

rabbitbrush (Ericameria spp.), and a 

variety of forbs, cacti, and grasses.

A recent addition to the MOJN, 

PARA was created by presidential 

proclamation on 11 January 2000 and 

is jointly managed by the NPS and 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

PARA lies on the northeast edge of 

the Mojave desert, at the boundary 

between floristic provinces, with low 

elevations represented by classic, “hot 

desert,” Mojave desertscrub, and 

upper elevations represented by “cold 

desert,” Colorado Plateau vegetation. 

The intersection of these biomes is a 

distinctive feature giving rise to elevated 

biological diversity in this park (Stevens 

2001). Geologically, the monument 

is exemplary, providing exceptional 

insights into the geologic history of the 

Colorado Plateau. The most prominent 

topographic feature within the 

monument is the Shivwits Plateau, which 

is physiographically and stratigraphically 

typical of the Grand Canyon region. 

PARA offers impressive landscapes, 

remote and open spaces, natural caves 

Chapter 1: Introduction & Background

Aspen and talus slopes in Baker Canyon, Great Basin National Park. Photo courtesy 

Erik Beever, USGS.

Dune complex near Furnace 

Creek, Death Valley National 

Park. NPS Photo.
 8 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

and sinkholes, volcanic cinder cones 

and basalt flows, and significant fossil 

resources (e.g., invertebrates, sponges). 

Adjacent to and south of PARA is 

LAME, which encompasses 229 km 

of the Colorado River and is centered 

on two artificial lakes, Lake Mead and 

Lake Mohave. It is the premier inland 

water-recreation area in the West and 

primary source of drinking water for 

southern Nevada. LAME lies along the 

northeast boundary of the Mojave desert. 

Approximately 87% of LAME consists of 

terrestrial habitat representing elements 

of the Mojave, Sonoran, and Great Basin 

deserts (NPS 1999b). A smaller portion 

of the recreational area falls within 

the Colorado Plateau Province. The 

Colorado River’s former channel and 

associated lake shoreline, in combination 

with the park’s desert springs, provide 

important opportunities to preserve 

one of the Southwest’s most threatened 

habitats—the desert riparian community. 

Due in large part to these rare, riparian 

communities, the park supports 

significant populations of approximately 

100 species of special concern and species 

at the limits of their distributional range.

South of both LAME and DEVA is 

MOJA, which lies in the south-central 

Mojave desert and has strong floristic 

influences from the Sonoran desert 

along its southern boundary. MOJA 

encompasses a vast expanse of “hot 

desert” set among a landscape of 

mountain ranges, high elevation sand 

dunes (Kelso Dunes), great mesas, and 

extinct volcanoes (NPS 2000). Similar 

to DEVA, the dunes in MOJA constitute 

unique environments with specially 

adapted endemic plants and animals. In 

addition to far-reaching vistas, MOJA 

offers the densest population of Joshua 

trees (Yucca brevifolia) in the world. 

With an extensive variety of habitats, 

including species and landforms only 

found in the Mojave desert, MOJA 

provides opportunities for scientists 

and visitors alike to conduct research 

and view the diverse wealth of resources 

within this unique desert preserve. Also, 

approximately half of the lands within 

the preserve have been designated 

Critical Habitat for the desert tortoise, 

Gopherus agassizii, a species federally 

listed as threatened (NPS 2000). 

The southern-most park in the MOJN, 

JOTR, lies at the transition between 

the Mojave and Sonoran deserts, 

and within the west-east oriented 

Southern California Mountains. In this 

compressed transition zone between 

three ecosystems, the park supports 

a unique diversity of desert flora and 

fauna. Providing major habitat for its 

namesake, JOTR supports extensive 

stands of Joshua trees, prickly pear 

cacti (Opuntia spp.), California juniper 

(Juniperus californica), and pinyon 

pine (Pinus monophylla). The park 

Mojave Desert Network

Pinyon/Juniper woodland at Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument. NPS 

Photo.

The Sierra Nevada Mountains 

from Manzanar National 

Historic Site. NPS Photo.
National Park Service 9

climatically and floristically, and include 

the “cold climate” parks: Nevada-Utah 

Mountains-Semi-Desert-Coniferous 

Forest-Alpine Meadow Province and the 

Colorado Plateau Semi-Desert Province. 

A small portion of the MOJN (<5%) is 

contained within the last two provinces: 

the California Coastal Range Province 

and the Intermountain Semi-Desert and 

Desert Province. Where ecologically 

distinct units lie adjacent to each other, 

a transition zone having unique selective 

pressures often generates endemic 

species that are specially adapted to 

this narrow range of environmental 

conditions and exist nowhere else. It is 

apparent from the MOJN ecoregion map 

(refer to boundary between different 

showcases exposed granite monoliths 

and rugged canyons, which reveal the 

powerful tectonic and erosional forces 

that shaped the landscape. Five of North 

America’s 158 desert fan palm oases 

occur in JOTR, where fault lines that run 

through igneous and metamorphic rocks 

force water to the surface. A diverse and 

unique assemblage of species, especially 

reptiles, are dependent on these water 

sources. Currently, species that are 

actively managed within the park include 

the federally threatened desert tortoise, 

desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis 

nelsoni), Mojave fringe-toed lizard (Uma 

scoparia), and sensitive bat species. 

1.3 General Ecological Overview

In recent years, ecoregion classification 

systems have emerged as one of the 

most useful land classification systems 

for understanding relationships 

between ecologically similar land 

units and for supporting sustainable 

resource management practices (Bailey 

1995, 1998). Developed by the USDA 

Forest Service, ecological land types 

are defined, classified, and mapped 

into progressively smaller areas of 

increasingly uniform ecological potential 

(U.S Forest Service 1993; McNab and 

Avers 1994; Bailey 1995). Based on 

a hierarchical framework, the four 

levels of ecological units are Domain, 

Division, Province, and Section (from 

broadest to finest spatial scale). These 

ecological units are designated based 

on similarity of: 1) potential natural 

communities, 2) soils, 3) hydrologic 

function, 4) topography and landforms, 

5) lithology, 6) climate, 7) air quality, and 

8) ecological processes such as nutrient 

cycling and natural disturbance regimes 

(Cleland et al. 1997). 

The MOJN parks fall within five 

Ecoregion Provinces (Figure 1.3) 

located within the Dry Domain of the 

National Hierarchical Framework of 

Ecological Units (U.S. Forest Service 

1993; McNab and Avers 1994; Bailey 

1995). The predominant province is 

the American Semi-Desert and Desert 

Province, which includes the Mojave 

and Sonoran deserts and a majority 

of the “hot climate” parks. Two of the 

four ecoregion provinces are similar 

Chapter 1: Introduction & Background

Kelso Dunes, a unique and 

isolated sand dunes system, 

Mojave National Preserve. NPS 

Photo.

Lake Mead National Recreation Area, the only National Recreation Area in the 

Network. NPS Photo.
 10 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

colors in Figure 1.3) that environmental 

transition zones are present in several of 

the MOJN parks (DEVA, JOTR, PARA). 

In the following subsections, we describe 

key abiotic and biotic characteristics of 

the MOJN as a preface to the ecological 

conceptual models presented in Chapter 

2. More detailed information for each 

subsection can be found in Appendix C.

1.3.1 Landforms and Geology

The United States has been divided into 

physiographic or geomorphic regions 

based on common topography, rock 

types and structure, and geologic and 

geomorphic history. Here, we describe 

the distinctive landforms and geological 

features of the Basin and Range 

physiographic province, within which lie 

a majority of the MOJN parks.

The Basin and Range Province is the 

largest physiographic province in the 

U.S. and is the product of geological 

forces stretching the earth’s crust. Over 

time, compressional and extensional 

tectonic activity along fault lines, 

volcanic extrusions, igneous intrusions, 

glaciation, and continuous erosion 

and deposition have modified the 

distribution and thickness of these 

rocks. Presently, the Basin and Range 

is characterized by uplifted and tilted 

mountain ranges consisting primarily 

of thick Paleozoic and Mesozoic rock 

abruptly separated by broad, elongate, 

alluvium-filled valleys or basins. The 

overall configuration of these alternating 

mountain ranges and valleys is generally 

northwest-southeast trending. Basins 

consist of either piedmont slopes, 

regions of active erosion and deposition, 

and/or basin floors characterized by 

slow runoff, restricted drainage, and 

an accumulation of soluble salts. Both 

GRBA and DEVA lie in the mountainous, 

western portion of the Basin and Range 

and exhibit the most extreme relief of 

the province. MANZ lies on its western 

edge, in the Owens Valley, directly in 

the rain shadow formed by the Sierra 

Nevada mountains. LAME, MOJA, 

and JOTR also lie within the Basin 

and Range, while PARA is located on 

the Shivwits Plateau, the westernmost 

plateau of the Colorado Plateau 

physiographic province, adjacent to the 

Basin and Range.

In the Basin and Range, soils are primarily 

aridisols, with mollisols and alfisols found 

at higher elevations in the mountains and 

entisols found on older alluvial fans and 

terraces. These soils vary widely in their 

properties (e.g., age, parent material, 

pedogenic process, size, and texture). 

Across a range of climatic conditions 

and topography (see section 1.3.2), the 

effective moisture of soils with different 

properties varies, which determines or 

limits vegetation types and productivity. 

1.3.2 Regional Climate and the 

Role of Topography

Ecosystem distribution is largely 

determined by climate (i.e., temperature 

and precipitation) (Bailey 1995, 

1998). Within the MOJN, climatic 

patterns and transitional zones are 

influenced by landscape position, 

latitude, and topography. As a result, 

regional climatic conditions across the 

MOJN are some of the most extreme 

and variable in the world (Bailey 

1995). In this section, we describe the 

temperature and precipitation regimes 

in the MOJN, the dominant role of 

topography in determining regional 

climate, water availability, and ultimately, 

the distribution of plant and animal 

communities across the region.

Moist air masses originating in the 

Pacific Ocean, travel eastward, meet 

Mojave Desert Network

Joshua Tree National Park, near 

Barker Dam. Photo courtesy 

Stacy Manson.
National Park Service 11

the Sierra Nevada and the Transverse 

Ranges, rise, cool, and drop the bulk of 

their moisture load (as rain or snow) 

before they enter the MOJN. The effect 

of this rain shadow is a scarcity of 

water across the MOJN resulting in a 

semi-arid to arid desert environment. 

On the western side of the MOJN, 

drier conditions occur with limited 

precipitation from winter storms 

coming from the North Pacific Ocean. 

From west to east across the MOJN, 

precipitation gradually increases and 

occurs bimodally, especially during the 

summer and fall monsoon seasons. Thus, 

long periods of drought, with relatively 

high temperatures, are followed by short 

bursts of annual or bi-annual rain/snow 

precipitation events. This produces 

short, warm to hot growing seasons in 

which vegetation and wildlife compete 

strongly for food and water resources. 

The “hot desert” parks have average 

annual temperatures between 16-24 oC 

(7.1-32.6 oC range). Winters are mild 

and summers are very hot, and limited 

precipitation ranges from 5-25 cm in the 

valleys to 65 cm in the mountains. The 

“cold desert” parks have lower average 

annual temperatures between 3-10oC 

(2.1-16 oC range) and precipitation 

ranges from 13-20 cm in the valleys to 

65-90 cm in the mountains. 

Mountainous regions, with their broad 

elevational range and diverse topography 

have more complex weather patterns. 

Increasing altitude has a similar effect 

on weather as increasing geographic 

latitude, resulting in altitudinal 

zonation. In the MOJN, altitudinal 

zonation occurs along the slope of 

large mountains (e.g., Wheeler Peak in 

GRBA) and within deep canyons and 

valleys, creating local microclimates and 

supporting specialized vegetation zones. 

In the higher-elevation mountains, 

regional climate varies dramatically, 

characterized by longer, cold winters and 

relatively short, hot summers. In desert 

basins and canyons, thermal energy and 

humidity increases during the hotter 

summer months, which causes thermal 

updrafts and temperature fluctuations 

that create opportunities for plants to 

exceed their normal elevational limits 

(e.g., ponderosa pines or firs found at 

lower elevations in canyons). Closed 

basins, which are characteristic of the 

Basin and Range physiographic province, 

often experience temperature inversions, 

(i.e., cold air descends from mountains 

and accumulates in valleys) which can 

also affect the elevational distribution of 

plants (Grayson 1993). 

Regional, episodic climate effects, such 

as El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), 

the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), 

and even the Atlantic Multi-decadal 

Figure 1.3. Mojave Desert Network ecoregion provinces (Bailey 1995).

Chapter 1: Introduction & Background
 12 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

Oscillation (AMO) are also known to 

impact temperature regime, drought 

frequency, and precipitation in the 

Southwest (McCabe et al. 2004). ENSO 

is an ocean-atmospheric phenomenon 

that brings inter-annual variability to 

weather and climate and occurs with 

a frequency ranging from 3-8 years. 

Typically ENSO manifests itself by 

producing wetter, colder winters, which 

can have a profound effect on MOJN 

parks. Total seasonal precipitation is also 

correlated with ENSO and the PDO, 

with generally wetter years occurring 

during El Niño events and the positive 

phase of the PDO (Hereford et al. 2004). 

In arid and semi-arid environments, 

increases in precipitation trigger an 

increase in plant growth, which in turn 

results in more herbivores and ultimately 

more carnivores (Holmgren et al. 2006). 

Extended drought produces severe 

impacts on arid ecosystems including die 

back of perennial vegetation (Webb et al. 

2001) and declines in animal populations 

(e.g., threatened desert tortoise) 

(Longshore et al. 2003). More than half 

of the spatial and temporal variance in 

multi-decadal drought frequency over 

the conterminous United States can 

be attributed to the PDO and AMO 

(McCabe et al. 2004).

1.3.3 Hydrology

Aquatic or hydrologic resources represent 

a very small portion of total land cover in 

the MOJN (excluding LAME), however 

they are disproportionately important 

from an ecological perspective (Appendix 

D). This is because they often host 

endemic biota and riparian species that 

rely on aquatic habitats during part of 

their life cycle. Wet features embedded 

in dry desert ecosystems produce 

biological hotspots where biodiversity is 

concentrated in relatively small areas such 

as riparian habitats (e.g., springs, oases, 

stream corridors), and montane islands. 

For example, more than 75% of terrestrial 

species, including 80% of birds and 70% 

of butterflies, are strongly associated with 

riparian vegetation in the Mojave-Great 

Basin region (Brussard et al. 1998). 

Surface water resources in MOJN parks 

include both lotic (flowing) and lentic 

(non-flowing) environments. Major lotic 

environments are the Colorado, Virgin, 

and Muddy Rivers, while minor sources 

are perennial streams and springs, 

seasonal and ephemeral springs, and 

streams and seeps. Lentic environments 

in the MOJN include springs, wetlands, 

streams, lakes and ponds, playas, and 

oases/springs. These surface waters 

harbor biological diversity, provide an 

important source of drinking water for 

humans and wildlife, and are associated 

with important cultural sites. 

Groundwater is fundamental to the 

function of desert hydrological systems 

and alteration to the groundwater 

flow system directly impacts aquatic 

and riparian systems. Groundwater 

hydrology (discharge at springs, seeps, 

and storage in groundwater aquifers) is 

controlled by factors affecting recharge 

through the unsaturated zone. Much 

of the present-day recharge in the 

MOJN is discharged to the atmosphere 

by evapotranspiration from plants, 

soil, and surface water sources. In the 

absence of any human development, the 

groundwater systems in the MOJN are 

in dynamic equilibrium with long-term 

climatic patterns. Rain and snow provide 

recharge to the groundwater system, 

which is balanced by an equal amount 

of discharge plus short-term changes in 

groundwater storage.

1.3.4 Flora

Water is the single most important 

resource for the survival of biota in desert 

ecosystems, and its availability governs the 

abundance and distribution of flora and 

fauna (Noy-Meir 1973; Reynolds et al. 

2004). Current vegetation communities in 

the MOJN parks are the result of species 

adaptation and evolution, in addition to 

migration in response to departures from 

long-term climatic conditions (Thompson 

and Anderson 2000). Unique flora exist 

around desert riparian habitats (springs, 

streams, ponds, seeps), many of which 

have limited geographic distribution, 

are endemic, and are often classified as 

threatened or endangered. As a result, the 

Mojave desert has the highest frequency 

of endemic species in the western U.S. 

(McLaughlin 1989), which is indicative of 

its high ecological value. Plants provide a 

variety of necessary services for ecological 

The limited aquatic 

and hydrologic 

resources in MOJN 

are disproportionately 

important due to 

their critical role in 

supporting endemic 

biota, riparian plants 

and animals, and 

animals from adjacent 

uplands.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 13

function such as primary productivity, 

organic matter for decomposition, 

protection of soil from wind and water 

erosion, and cover for animals ranging 

from micro-invertebrates to large 

mammals. Disturbance that results in 

change to the composition, cover, or 

structure of plant communities is likely 

to alter ecosystem function. In DEVA 

and LAME, aquatic and riparian plant 

species are sensitive to environmental 

variations and are highly important 

indicators of ecosystem status and health. 

Riparian habitats are potentially the most 

significant to the long-term maintenance 

of biological diversity and potentially the 

most threatened habitats across parks in 

the MOJN. 

In a majority of the ‘hot desert’ parks 

(DEVA, JOTR, MANZ, MOJA), scrub/

shrubland vegetation is the dominant 

vegetation type (88-95% of land cover), 

with the remaining portion covered by 

barren land (rock, sand, clay). Within 

LAME, 16% of the land-cover type is 

open water (Lakes Mead and Mohave), 

while 80% is scrub/shrubland (based on 

U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] National 

Land Cover Dataset, 2001). Two distinct 

floristic subregions, western and eastern, 

occur in the Mojave desert as a result of 

a strong west-east precipitation gradient. 

Across the western Mojave subregion, 

three native vegetation communities 

contribute 75% of shrubland cover: 

creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) scrub, 

mixed woody scrub, and desert saltbush 

scrub. In the eastern Mojave subregion, 

plant communities are comprised of 

desert dunes, Mojave mixed steppe, 

big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), 

shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia) 

scrub, and native grassland. At higher 

elevations, a belt dominated by Joshua 

trees is present (JOTR, MOJA), and 

at slightly higher elevations, pinyonjuniper exists (DEVA, JOTR, MOJA). At 

even higher elevations (>3,048 m a.s.l.), 

especially within DEVA, a montane 

zone occurs, supporting ponderosa 

pine (Pinus ponderosa), Douglas fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii), Engelmann 

spruce (Picea engelmannii), and 

bristlecone pine (Pinus longaeva). 

GRBA and eastern PARA represent 

the “cold desert” MOJN parks that 

are similar climatically and floristically 

to each other. Distinct from the “hot 

desert” MOJN parks, the major 

land-cover type is evergreen forest 

representing 81% of GRBA land and 

27% of PARA land (USGS National 

Land Cover Dataset 2001). Vegetation 

exhibits altitudinal zonation, with 

lower elevations dominated by large, 

continuous expanses of sagebrushsteppe, and slightly higher elevations 

dominated by pinyon-juniper woodland. 

At still higher elevations, there is a 

subalpine montane zone dominated 

by mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus 

betuloides), Douglas fir, spruce, and 

Bear Poppy (Arctomecon 

humillis) in Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area. Photo courtesy 

NPS staff.

Cactus garden in Joshua Tree 

National Park. Photo courtesy 

Alice Chung-MacCoubrey

Chapter 1: Introduction & Background
 14 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

ponderosa, limber, and bristlecone pines. 

At the highest elevations, the alpine 

zone begins at treeline, interspersed 

with alpine tundra and meadows, and 

supports nearly 600 documented alpine 

plant species and ancient stands of 

bristlecone pine (>5,000 yrs old). Nearly 

as diverse as either the Rocky Mountains 

or Sierra Nevada at equivalent latitudes, 

the alpine and subalpine zones add 

greatly to the biological diversity of the 

region and to the potential resilience 

of the region in response to climatic 

change (Brussard et al. 1998). At GRBA, 

55% of rare and sensitive plant species 

documented within the park occur in 

alpine or subalpine habitats.

1.3.5 Fauna

Invertebrates comprise approximately 

95% of all animals (individuals) on earth 

(Mason 1995) and similarly comprise 

most of the animal biomass in deserts. 

Invertebrates and microorganisms, 

though often unnoticed, are important 

inhabitants in desert ecosystems 

because of their influence on a wide 

range of community- and ecosystemlevel processes (see 7.1 Terrestrial 

Invertebrates, Appendix C). Two 

conspicuous and particularly influential 

inhabitants of the desert Southwest are 

ants and termites. These small, unrelated, 

social organisms have profound effects 

on desert ecosystems. They are important 

as, among other things, consumers of 

both living and dead plant material 

and other insects; as prey for a suite of 

specialist predators that include both 

birds and lizards; as seed dispersers 

and seed predators; as decomposers; 

and, as nutrient cyclers, mainly through 

their nesting activities (Whitford 1996; 

MacMahon et al. 2000). Due to the 

low volume of free surface water in the 

Great Basin and Mojave deserts, aquatic 

invertebrates are often overlooked, but 

aridland springs support diverse aquatic 

invertebrate communities. Each spring is 

distinctive due to its unique combination 

of water chemistry, discharge, 

temperature, elevation, morphology, and 

disturbance. Thus, most aquatic habitats 

are distinctive, isolated and relictual, 

resulting in high rates of endemism. In 

addition, because aquatic invertebrate 

communities experience the environment 

on much smaller temporal and spatial 

scales than larger animals, they can 

function as indicators of water quality or 

ecosystem health (Brussard et al. 1998). 

Vertebrates contribute significantly to 

ecosystem function in desert shrublands 

and represent an important component 

of the biodiversity present in the Great 

Basin, Mojave, and Sonoran deserts 

(Whitford 2002). In general, vertebrates 

affect species diversity and trophic 

structure through competition and 

predation, while granivory (seed eating) 

and herbivory (vegetation eating) have 

strong effects on soil processes and 

plant community dynamics. As desert 

inhabitants, large herbivores (mule deer, 

bighorn sheep) impact vegetation and 

sensitive habitats (e.g., soil crusts on 

gypsum dunes), either individually or 

in groups, by their feeding and herding 

behavior. Granivores (rodents, birds) 

consume seeds, influence seed dispersal, 

and store excess seeds in caches for 

leaner times (Pulliam and Brand 1975; 

Reichman 1977). These seed caches 

appear to serve as important sites of 

germination for some plant species 

(Longland et al. 2001). In addition, seedcaching behavior may play an important 

role in the success of vegetation recovery 

in burned areas following wildfire. 

In the MOJN, carnivores include the 

mountain lion (Felis concolor), coyote 

(Canis latrans), the desert kit fox (Vulpes 

macrotis), ringtails (Bassariscus astutus), 

and raptors (hawks, owls, eagles), 

Desert tortoise are found only 

in the Mojave and Sonoran 

deserts. NPS Photo taken at 

Lake Mead National Recreation 

Area.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 15

while omnivores or scavengers include 

skunks, and various avian species (e.g., 

ravens [Corvus corax], turkey vultures 

[Cathartes aura]). Reptiles of significant 

interest include the desert tortoise 

(Gopherus agassizii), gila monsters 

(Heloderma suspectum), sidewinders 

(Crotalus cerastes), and a high diversity of 

rattlesnakes (Crotalus spp.).

1.3.6 Resources of Special 

Ecological Significance

Biological soil crusts refer to a diverse 

community of cyanobacteria, bacteria, 

lichens, mosses and metabolic byproducts that are cemented into a semipermeable soil surface. Intact biological 

soil crusts protect soils from both wind 

and water erosion, relative to bare soil, 

thus providing soil stabilization, which 

is important for, among other processes, 

seed establishment and germination 

(Belnap 2003; Warren 2003). The biotic 

components of the soil crust fix carbon 

and nitrogen and decompose and recycle 

organic matter, which contribute to the 

nutrient content and cycling processes 

important for plant growth and survival. 

Unfortunately, crusts are susceptible 

to trampling from large animals (feral 

equids, livestock, recreationists) and 

disturbances from vehicles. Biological 

soil crusts can be found in all network 

parks and are essential components and 

indicators of the status and health of 

desert ecosystems (Belnap et al. 2001).

Riparian habitats or communities occur 

along major watercourses, lakeshores, 

isolated springs, seeps, ponds, and 

streams. Aquatic, riparian and terrestrial 

species as well as a significant number 

of species of special concern rely on 

riparian areas because of the available 

water, associated species diversity (i.e., 

greater potential prey diversity), and 

structural diversity, which provides 

cover, food, migration pathways, and 

other habitat components (Lohman 

2004). Unfortunately, riparian habitats 

comprise one of the most dramatically 

altered community types over the last 

150 years in the western United States. 

Obligate riparian bird species may be 

particularly good indicators of change 

in riparian communities, the most 

threatened habitat in the MOJN. For 

example, the Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo 

bellii pusillus), an obligate-riparian 

breeder (Kus 1998), locate the vast 

majority of their nests in riparian 

vegetation. Change in the abundance 

or nesting behavior of this species may 

indicate compromised ecosystem health. 

Eolian dune and sand sheet systems are 

also home to endemic flora and fauna in 

the MOJN parks. Eolian sand deposits 

occur near locations with abundant sand 

supply, such as downwind of disturbed 

desert areas, major rivers and washes, 

and playas. These dunes are composed 

of well-sorted fine- to medium-grained 

sand, which result in deep water 

infiltration, rapid evaporation, and hence 

relatively short periods of near-surface 

water availability. Dunes are inhabited 

by distinctive plants that are able to 

colonize unstable materials; this plant 

cover is crucial to dune stability. Both 

active and stabilized parts of eolian sand 

systems present challenges in the form of 

moisture-deficient, unstable substrates; 

however many plants, insects, and 

reptiles have adapted to these sites. 

Playas are complex valley bottom 

systems that have self-contained 

drainage systems and are inundated on 

a nearly annual basis forming temporary 

shallow lakes. Wet playas have shallow 

groundwater and discharge, resulting 

in abundant salts, soft and unstable 

surfaces, and under certain conditions, 

Eureka Valley Sand Dunes, 

Death Valley National Park. 

NPS Photo.

Chapter 1: Introduction & Background
Sierra Nevada Network

 16 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

adjacent, associated springs. Dry 

playas have deeper water tables and 

are periodically inundated by surface 

water, but have less salt buildup than wet 

playas. Dry playas experience deposition 

from distal piedmont alluvial processes, 

from shallow ephemeral lakes, and 

from eolian dust and sand. Playas can 

be found throughout the MOJN, with 

numerous playas occurring at DEVA, 

JOTR, LAME, and MOJA. The Death 

Valley playa, nearly 128,000 acres, is one 

of the world’s largest salt pans. As with 

aeolian systems, playas support unique, 

highly variable, environments and biota 

that challenge categorization and are 

particularly sensitive to disturbance.

All MOJN parks contain natural caves 

except MANZ. One of the primary 

reasons for establishment of GRBA, 

Lehman Cave is famous throughout 

the world for an unusual concentration 

of cave formations and abundance of 

shields (NPS 1992a). GRBA contains 

over 30,000 acres of karst geology and 

over 40 natural or ‘wild’ caves. Caves 

are generally stable environments when 

compared with surface ecosystems, 

often showing remarkable consistency 

in temperature and humidity. Unique, 

cool microclimates near cave mouths 

may be important for several plant 

and animal species (e.g., bats). Cave 

and karst systems are sensitive to 

many environmental factors including 

changes in hydrology and water quality, 

atmospheric changes (CO2

), and altered 

geologic processes (erosion). Cave 

environments, including unique cave 

invertebrates, may provide a sensitive 

indicator of environmental change. 

Cultural resources (e.g., landscapes, 

historic sites) are an important 

component of the MOJN parks. A 

cultural landscape is a geographic 

area that includes cultural and natural 

resources associated with an historic 

event, activity, person, or group of 

people. They reveal our relationship 

with land over time, help individuals 

and groups understand themselves, and 

provide a sense of local and national 

heritage. MANZ represents the most 

notable cultural landscape and historic 

site within the MOJN where 110,000 

Japanese American were interned in 

World War II (1942-1945). As the best 

preserved internment site (NPS 1996), 

thousands of people visit MANZ each 

year. In addition, the primary ‘industries’ 

of early Euro-American settlements in 

the MOJN were located near available 

water resources and associated with 

agriculture, ranching, and mining 

(DEVA, JOTR, MOJA). Similar to natural 

resources, these cultural landscapes are 

affected by natural forces, development 

(commercial, residential), vandalism, 

and neglect. While cultural landscapes 

represent a relatively small proportion 

of total land area in the network, they 

are disproportionately important to park 

mission, NPS management, and visitor 

experience. Spring sites associated with 

cultural landscapes tend to be highly 

altered areas and often serve as a starting 

point for non-native plant and animal 

invasion (American bullfrogs [Rana 

catesbeiana], tamarisk [Tamarix spp.]), 

thus affecting the structure and function 

of surrounding ecosystems. 

1.4 Natural Resource Threats and 

Management Concerns

Because many of the MOJN parks share 

similar natural resource threats and 

issues, a set of network-level threats 

were identified during previous phases 

of the I&M process (see Appendixes 

E and H). In conjunction with this 

process, MOJN staff gathered parkspecific information on key natural 

resources, natural resource threats, 

and other significant concerns facing 

parks. In order to narrow the focus, 

ensure relevance to several network 

parks, and increase efficiencies in 

the planning process, priorities were 

established among focal resources 

and resource concerns. Examples of 

resources used by network staff to 

identify common priorities included: 

General Management Plans, Resource 

Management Plans, Strategic Plans, and 

interviews with park resource managers. 

Appendix E provides a summary of 

threats and management concerns for all 

Vital Signs prioritized by the MOJN.

In the following section, we discuss these 

network-level threats, with emphasis on 

the high- and medium-priority stressors. 

Threats considered the highest priority 

at the network-level include: (1) invasive 

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 17

species; (2) water quantity alteration; 

(3) land use change/development; and 

(4) air quality degradation (Table 1.4). 

Threats considered a medium priority 

include: (5) altered disturbance regime; 

(6) recreation/visitation; (7) climate 

change; (8) water quality degradation; 

and (9) soil alteration. Livestock grazing, 

although ranked as a low-priority threat 

(Table 1.4), is briefly discussed in this 

section because of the significant historic 

impacts of grazing within the MOJN. 

1.4.1 Invasive Species

Network-wide scoping sessions 

concluded that invasive species are 

the greatest stressor to terrestrial (dry) 

systems in the MOJN parks. Deserts 

are considered one of the least invaded 

ecosystems by plants, possibly due to 

naturally low levels of soil nitrogen 

(Brooks and Esque 2003). However, 

at least 66 non-native plant species 

have been identified in two or more 

park units within the MOJN. Similar to 

other arid systems in the western U.S., 

invasive annual grasses are particularly 

widespread and abundant, with species 

in the Mojave desert dominated by 

grasses in the genera Bromus spp. and 

Schismus spp. (Brooks 1999). 

Only 7 non-native terrestrial vertebrate 

species have been identified in two 

or more park units, including several 

common bird species and feral burro. 

Non-native aquatic species are common, 

particularly in the reservoirs at LAME 

(bull frogs, game fish, quagga mussels). 

Although significant amounts of staff 

time is dedicated to the management 

of these non-native fauna, they are 

considered less important (as a resource 

threat) than non-native invasive plants. 

Park management concerns are primarily 

related to invasive, non-native plant 

species and include: (1) the ability of 

invasive, non-native plant species to 

compete with native plant communities 

for limited resources, reducing native 

plant density, biomass, and diversity 

(Brooks 2000); (2) potential impacts 

of non-native plant species on native 

fauna, particularly special status species 

(e.g., desert tortoise), through the 

alteration of native plant communities 

(e.g., food source, shelter); (3) potential 

for permanent alteration of ecosystem 

processes, such as fire, which are critical 

to maintaining ecosystem structure and 

function; and (4) potential impacts of 

invasive plants, such as tamarisk, on 

Stressor MOJN 

Order/Overall DEVA GRBA JOTR LAME MANZ MOJA PARA*

Invasive Species 1/High H H H H H H N/A

Water Quantity Alteration 2/High H H H H H H N/A

Land Use Change/ Development 3/High H M H H H H N/A

Air Quality Degradation 4/High H H H M M H N/A

Altered Disturbance Regime 5/Medium M H H M H H N/A

Recreation/Visitation 6/Medium H M M H H M N/A

Climate Change 7/Medium M M H L M M N/A

Water Quality Degradation 8/Medium M H M M M L N/A

Soil Alteration 9/Medium L L M H H M N/A

Grazing 10/Low M H N/A M L M N/A

Resource Extraction 11/Low M L L L H M N/A

Increased Native Wildlife Pops 12/Low L M M L H L N/A

Habitat Fragmentation 13/Low L L M M M L N/A

Nutrient Availability 14/Low L L L L L L N/A

Disease 15/Low L L L L L L N/A

Table 1.4. Relative importance of Mojave Desert Network ecosystem stressors (from the Mojave Desert Network Park-Level 

Vital Signs Monitoring Workshop in 2003).

*PARA did not participate in workshop.

Chapter 1: Introduction & Background
 18 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

groundwater and surface water resources.

1.4.2 Water Quantity Alteration

The importance of water to desert 

ecology cannot be overstated. The 

availability of surface water is directly 

related to the availability of subsurface or 

groundwater, which is slowly recharged 

through precipitation events and which 

feeds scattered springs and wetland 

habitats across network parks. In places 

around Las Vegas, groundwater levels 

have declined 90 m since 1907 due to 

human demands (Bawden et al. 2003). 

Continued up-gradient pumping of 

groundwater may potentially lower the 

water table and dry up critical surface 

water resources within the MOJN parks. 

Primary threats to surface and subsurface 

water quantity identified by park 

managers are groundwater withdrawal by 

surrounding communities/commercial 

use, diversion of surface waters (e.g., 

through pipeline), and invasion by nonnative plant species such as tamarisk. 

Park management concerns related to 

alteration of water quantity are primarily 

focused on the future ability of parks 

to protect this critical resource in the 

face of burgeoning population growth. 

Reductions in already scarce water 

resources will likely impact biodiversity, 

the potential for extinction of aquaticand riparian-dependent species, and 

resources available to other fauna (e.g., 

bighorn sheep). Further investigations are 

needed to better understand the complex 

relationships between groundwater 

withdrawal, available surface water, and 

plant and wildlife populations.

1.4.3 Land Use Change/Development

The landscape of the MOJN parks has 

been significantly altered through historic 

and current patterns of land use and 

continues to be threatened by competing 

human interests. Since WWII, human 

population across the desert southwest 

has increased from approximately 

8 million to over 40 million human 

inhabitants today (Wilkerson 2004). In 

Clark County, Nevada, human population 

increased 8200% between 1940 and 2000, 

with over 1.7 million inhabitants by 2000 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2005). As human 

population continues to increase in areas 

surrounding parks, the associated impacts 

of urbanization on fragile desert resources 

(e.g., air pollution, increased groundwater 

withdrawal, nitrogen deposition, 

noise/light pollution, invasive species 

introduction) will increase. Impacts as a 

result of the myriad of human activities 

and development include: 1) physical 

alteration of the landscape surface (e.g., 

road-building, building construction, 

agriculture and grazing), 2) modification 

of plant and animal communities (from 

cats and dogs, invasive plants and 

animals, habitat fragmentation), and 3) 

multiplicative effects such as enhanced 

dust generation from gravel roads and 

effects of visitation and recreation. 

1.4.4 Air Quality Degradation

Threats to air quality in and around 

network parks are primarily associated 

with adjacent urbanization and include 

both point and non-point sources. 

Air quality in the network is affected 

primarily by air pollutants (e.g., ozone, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, volatile 

organic compounds, particulate matter) 

from densely populated urban centers in 

California, Arizona, and Nevada. Other 

sources of air quality degradation within 

and outside park boundaries include 

increased fire frequency in areas not 

naturally prone to fires, off-road vehicular 

traffic, mining activities (particulates), 

cogeneration power plants, landfills, 

vehicular emissions, and watercraft 

emissions (nitrogen and sulfur deposition). 

Potential future threats to air quality are 

primarily related to proposed commercial 

development on lands adjacent to parks 

(e.g., Eagle Mountain Landfill near JOTR, 

coal-fired power plants near GRBA).

Park management concerns related to 

declining air quality are associated with 

potential or actual negative impacts to 

visitor experience and human health, 

impacts on park natural and cultural 

resources (e.g., petroglyphs), and 

alteration of ecological processes (e.g., 

nutrient cycling). Maintenance of 

viewsheds and night sky vistas is a key 

management goal for several network 

parks, and reduced visibility may 

have a significant negative impact on 

visitor experience. Some park natural 

resources are particularly sensitive 

to specific pollutants. For example, 

The landscape of 

the MOJN parks has 

been significantly 

altered through 

historic and current 

patterns of land 

use and continues 

to be threatened by 

competing human 

interests.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 19

alpine lakes at GRBA have a very low 

buffering capability, thus the ecology 

(e.g., soil and water chemistry, species 

composition, predator-prey relations) 

could be significantly altered through 

deposition of acid rain and other airborne contaminants.

1.4.5 Altered Disturbance Regime

Natural disturbance regimes that are 

of primary interest in the MOJN are 

drought, fire, and flood events. Although 

these disturbances are considered part 

of, and critical to, the maintenance of 

natural ecological processes, they may 

also be considered ecosystem stressors 

or threats when natural disturbance 

regimes become altered by human 

activities. Changes in disturbance 

regimes that concern park managers 

generally involve change in frequency 

(e.g., fire frequency), intensity (e.g., 

flood events), or duration (e.g., drought 

events). Examples of specific threats to 

natural disturbance regimes in network 

parks include: (1) spread of invasive 

annual grasses leading to increased 

fuel continuity, fire frequency, and 

fire intensity; (2) historic and current 

fire suppression activities leading to 

increased fuel loading and changes 

in plant community structure and 

composition that increase the frequency 

and intensity of fires; and (3) climate 

change that may alter the amount or 

pattern of precipitation leading to 

extended drought periods or increased 

frequency and intensity of floods. 

1.4.6 Recreation/Visitation

Natural resources within parks are 

impacted not only by land use and 

development outside park boundaries, 

but also by increased visitation within 

parks. Increased human population 

(see section 1.4.3) surrounding parks 

is reflected in an increasing trend in 

park visitation. The longest period of 

visitation records at DEVA indicates an 

increase from 9,970 visitors per year 

in 1933 to 890,375 visitors per year in 

2003 (Figure 1.4). In 2003, four of six 

network parks (DEVA, JOTR, LAME, 

MOJA) were in the top 30% of NPS 

units (N=353) with the highest percent 

of total visitors. LAME experiences the 

highest visitation in the network and, 

in 2003, ranked 5th in the nation with 

7,915,581 recreation visits per year. In 

1995, LAME had its highest visitation 

of 9,838,702 total recreation visits (NPS 

2005c). Direct effects of increased park 

visitation include soil compaction in 

sensitive habitats (e.g., gypsum dunes and 

riparian corridors), light pollution, illegal 

collecting, and introduction and spread 

of invasive plant and animal species. 

Indirect effects of increased visitation 

are related to changes in land use, 

infrastructure development within park 

boundaries (e.g., increased number of 

developed roads, bathrooms, interpretive 

buildings), use of park resources (e.g., 

increased water consumption), and 

additional staff to manage visitation and 

provide a high quality visitor experience 

(Wittemyer et al. 2008).

1.4.7 Climate Change

The modern distribution and ecology 

of plant and animal communities is 

linked on a broad temporal scale to 

the climatic history of the Great BasinMojave desert region (Brussard et al. 

1998). In response to climate change 

over time, both the distribution and 

composition of biotic communities have 

been altered as species sought more 

favorable conditions, adapted to existing 

conditions, were extirpated locally, or 

became globally extinct. Many studies of 

future climate conditions predict global 

Chapter 1: Introduction & Background

Recreation and visitation levels 

among Mojave Desert Network

parks are highest at Lake Mead 

National Recreation Area. NPS 

Photo.
 20 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

warming of unprecedented rate resulting 

in increased temperatures, more variable 

weather patterns, more extreme weather 

events, and generally drier conditions in 

the southwestern U.S. (Giorgi et al. 2001; 

IPCC 2007). Human-induced changes 

in weather/climate may result from 

increased emission of greenhouse gases, 

increased atmospheric particulates, 

change in solar radiation and surface 

reflectance, and change in water vapor 

and other parameters associated with 

urbanization at a regional to global 

scale. Thus, on top of the background of 

climate variability is superimposed the 

short- and long-term effects of climate 

change caused by anthropogenic factors. 

Network and park management concerns 

are related to the potential effects of 

altered weather patterns and climate 

on ecosystem processes and biotic and 

abiotic resources. Specific concerns 

include associated change in ambient 

temperature and amount of precipitation 

(fewer storms, decreased snowpack, 

decreased flow in rivers and streams), 

surface water quantity, soil moisture and 

temperature, dust mobility, rate of soil 

erosion and deposition, change in the 

distribution and species composition of 

plant and animal communities, length 

of growing season, and fire fuel loading. 

Other potential concerns relate to 

human responses to weather/climate 

change, including increased reliance on 

groundwater supply and construction 

of dams and pipelines. Controlling 

anthropogenic factors that alter weather/

climate are considered outside the 

scope of management of the network or 

individual park unit. Effective monitoring 

will provide a basis for establishing the 

natural variability and human-induced 

change components of climate and help 

generate a database for projecting and 

interpreting hydrologic and biologic 

health of the desert ecosystem. 

1.4.8 Water Quality Degradation

Threats to groundwater and surface 

Figure 1.4. Trends in visitation at Mojave Desert Network parks. Note that the y-axis scales differ for the two panels in the figure.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 21

water quality vary in significance 

depending on the specific type and 

location of the water resource. For 

example, the chemical constituents or 

groundwater signature are determined by 

groundwater source, age, flow through 

different types of rock, and general 

movement. Alteration in groundwater 

chemistry can provide information on 

changes in water flow paths, changes in 

groundwater recharge, and presence of 

contaminants, all of which may indicate 

environmental change. General threats 

to water quality across network parks 

include: atmospheric pollutants, and 

pollutants from communities, mining, 

and commercial operations; more 

frequent, high-intensity fire events; 

concentrated recreational activities; 

and livestock grazing. There may be a 

link between water quantity and water 

quality, thus groundwater depletion/

lowered water tables also represent 

a potential threat to water quality 

in network parks. Acid rain is also 

considered a potentially significant threat 

to alpine lakes at GRBA. 

Park management is primarily concerned 

about the impact of decreased water 

quality on aquatic and terrestrial species 

and communities, public health and 

safety, and visitor experience. Wildlife, 

especially endemic and special-status 

species that depend on these relatively 

rare aquatic habitats for food, water, 

shelter, and breeding, may be particularly 

vulnerable. LAME provides drinking 

water for 18 million people in Nevada 

and California, thus human health issues 

related to alteration of water quality 

are a primary management concern. In 

addition, network parks obtain a portion 

of their drinking water from local 

springs, and the availability of clean water 

is considered a critical element of visitor 

experience. Lastly, the NPS is required 

to manage water resources in accordance 

with applicable laws, regulations, and 

NPS policy related to surface water 

quality/ impaired waters. 

1.4.9 Soil Alteration

In arid systems, any disturbance or 

alteration to the top soil layer (top 

3-20 mm), especially those areas with 

well-developed biological soil crusts 

(see section 1.3.6), is of particular 

concern. Threats to soil resources in the 

MOJN parks include any change that 

unnaturally accelerates geomorphic 

processes or significantly alters the 

physical or chemical properties of soils 

and ability of soils to function. Park 

management concerns vary depending 

on the specific threat but are generally 

related to potential impacts of degraded 

soil quality on desert ecosystems. 

Specific concerns include: (1) altered 

soil nutrient cycling leading to broad 

scale changes in plant communities 

(e.g., spread of invasive annual grasses); 

(2) increased atmospheric particulates 

(e.g., dust) leading to alteration of soil 

pedogenic processes; (3) compaction 

of soils in high visitor use areas (e.g., 

trails, riparian habitats), livestock grazing 

and off-highway vehicle use leading to 

long-term changes in soil-water-plant 

interactions, runoff, and rate of soil 

erosion; (4) alteration in the location 

and/or rate of soil erosion leading to 

changes in surface hydrology, loss 

of cultural resources, and change in 

plant distributions; (5) destruction of 

biological soil crusts and associated 

changes in soil stability and erosion rate; 

(6) development of hydrophobic soils in 

association with intense, stand replacing 

fires; and (7) potential contamination 

of soils (e.g., cyanide, lead, mercury, 

arsenic, uranium) associated with mining 

and commercial activities. 

1.4.10 Grazing

Livestock grazing has occurred across 

extensive areas, and at varied intensities, 

in MOJN parks for over 150 years. Today, 

limited livestock grazing continues in 

DEVA, GRBA, LAME, MOJA, and PARA. 

Though few studies have documented 

grazing impacts in the Mojave desert and 

Colorado Plateau, research from other areas 

of the Southwest indicates that livestock 

grazing can impact and alter the species 

composition, function, and structure of 

ecosystems (Jones 2000); however, effects 

are context dependent (Milchunas and 

Lauenroth 1993). Of particular concern 

for park managers in the MOJN is the 

potential impact of livestock grazing on 

riparian habitats and the fauna associated 

with them (Carothers et al. 1974; Mosconi 

Chapter 1: Introduction & Background
 22 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

and Hutto 1982, Chaney et al. 1990). Again, 

while grazing currently is not considered a 

high-priority threat within all MOJN parks, 

some monitoring of grazing impacts may be 

included in the MOJN monitoring program.

1.5 Summary of Current and Past 

Monitoring

An understanding of current and past 

monitoring activities in and around 

network parks is an important foundation 

for development of the MOJN Vital Signs 

monitoring program. Such information 

allows the network to identify where 

monitoring is adequate, and might only 

need to be expanded (or abandoned), and 

where additional inventory, monitoring, 

or protocol development is needed. 

Monitoring of Vital Signs identified 

through scoping workshops at the park 

and network-levels should complement 

existing monitoring programs already in 

place in network parks. 

Park Resource Management Plans and 

the NPS Natural Resource Inventory and 

Monitoring Guidelines (NPS-75) guide 

current and past monitoring activities at 

the network parks (NPS 1992b). Each 

park’s monitoring activities are also 

guided by GPRA management goals 

and are often focused on special status 

species, non-native plant and animal 

species, and riparian communities. 

Monitoring activities within network 

parks falls into two general categories: 1) 

monitoring conducted only within park 

boundaries (Appendix F, section 2.0); 

and 2) monitoring conducted within 

or near park boundaries that is part 

of a larger (e.g., state-wide, regional, 

national) monitoring program, which 

attempts to make inferences beyond 

park boundaries (Appendix F, section 

3.0). Thorough analysis of current and 

past monitoring projects and data (Table 

1.5) can serve as the basis for long-term 

monitoring in parks related to highpriority MOJN Vital Signs.

1.5.1 Air Quality Monitoring

Although most of the MOJN parks are 

some distance from large urban areas, 

many experience poor air quality from 

pollutants. In 2004, the American Lung 

Association, State of the Air Report 

(American Lung Association 2004) 

declared San Bernardino County, CA 

(adjacent to JOTR, non-attainment 

Class I airshed; and MOJA, Class II 

airshed) to have the unhealthiest air (e.g., 

visibility, ozone) in the nation. Recent 

data indicate that JOTR, MANZ, and 

MOJA are at high risk for foliar injury 

to plants from elevated ozone levels 

(NPS 2004a). Under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) and GPRA mandate, Class I park 

managers have a special responsibility 

to monitor and protect air quality and 

related resources from the adverse 

effects of air pollution, and to provide 

recommendations to protect park natural 

and cultural resources. At the networklevel, monitoring air quality conditions 

and understanding their interactions 

with physical and biological components 

of the ecosystem is vitally important to 

effectively evaluate the effects of these 

hazards on ecosystem health.

In the MOJN, climate and air quality 

data are monitored at a variety of stations 

located within (‘on-site’) or adjacent to 

the seven park units (Table 1.6). Many 

of the climate and air quality stations in 

the MOJN were installed and funded by 

non-NPS national agencies, inter-agency 

collaborations, and external partnerships. 

DEVA, GRBA, and JOTR have long-term, 

on-site, climate and air quality monitoring 

stations supported by NPS park staff and 

the NPS Air Resources Division. Three of 

the other MOJN parks (LAME, MANZ, 

MOJA) have climate and air quality 

stations within 170 km of park boundaries 

Air Quality monitoring 

equipment, Joshua Tree 

National Park. NPS Photo.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 23

(Table 1.6). Types of monitoring at these 

sites include ozone monitoring through 

the NPS Gaseous Pollutant Monitoring 

Network, wet deposition monitoring of 

atmospheric pollutants by the National 

Atmospheric Deposition Program 

(NADP), dry deposition monitoring of 

atmospheric pollutants by the Clean Air 

Status and Trends Network (CASTNet), 

and visibility monitoring through the 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 

Program. As new information is 

developed for the network, it will be 

added to the ARD’s ARIS site at http://

www2.nature.nps.gov/air/permits/aris/

networks/index.cfm.

1.5.2 Water Resources Monitoring 

in Mojave Desert Network Parks

A review of water resources in individual 

network parks, baseline water-quality 

inventory data and analysis, clean water 

action plans (CWAP), water quality 

standards for states in the MOJN, 

and water monitoring projects in the 

MOJN are provided in Appendix D. 

Water quality at Lake Mead and Lake 

Mohave are monitored extensively by 

other agencies and programs (B. Moore, 

LAME personal communication) due to 

their importance as regional sources of 

drinking water, recreational value, and 

designation as critical habitat for several 

special-status species of fish.

level 1 MOJN Vital Sign DEVA GRBA JOTR LAME MANZ MOJA PARA

Air and Climate

Air Chemistry – Ozone H/C H/C H/C H/C C C

Air Chemistry – Wet and Dry Deposition H/C H/C H/C C

Air Quality – Visibility and Particulates H/C H/C H/C

Weather and Climate – Basic Meteorology H/C H/C H/C C H/C

Geology and Soils

Soil Hydrologic Function

Soil Chemistry and Nutrient Cycling C

Biological Soil Crust Dynamics C C

Soil Erosion and Deposition Cd

Soil Disturbance Cd

Water

Groundwater Dynamics and Chemistry H/C H/C C H/C H

Surface Water Dynamics H/C C C H/C

Surface Water Chemistry H/C C H/C

Biological

Integrity

Invasive/Exotic Plantsa C C C C

Vegetation Change Ce C H/Ce Ce Ce

Reptile Communities C H/C C

Riparian Birds Cc Cc H H/Cbc Cc

Small Mammal Communities C H/C H H

At-Risk Populations H/C H/C C C

Landscapes Fire and Fuel Dynamics H/C H/C H/C H/C H/C H/C

Landscape Dynamics C

a All parks report the number of acres of invasive species ‘contained’ related to GPRA Goal Ia1B.

b Associated with spring restoration.

c Landbird monitoring primarily conducted in parks through the Great Basin Bird Observatory, Point Reyes Bird Observatory, U. S. Geological Survey (N. Am. Breeding Bird Survey), or state wildlife agencies (NV raptor surveys) – some focus on riparian habitats. LAME is 

the only network park with a MAPS (Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship Program) station.

d Represents a project approved for funding titled, “Monitoring protocols for soil stability at Lake Mead National Recreation Area.”

e A total of 921 long-term vegetation monitoring plots associated with the U. S. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis program 

are contained within DEVA (N=553), JOTR (N=127), and MOJA (N=241) and it is assumed some plots are located within LAME. It is 

unknown how many of these plots have associated data.

Table 1.5. Record of historic (H, > 5 years ago) or current (C) monitoring data for the Mojave Desert Network Vital Signs across park units. 

“Level 1” refers to the NPS Ecological Monitoring Framework.

Chapter 1: Introduction & Background
 24 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

The MOJN will periodically review state 

303(d) lists to determine the current 

regulatory status of these two reservoirs. 

Therefore, these reservoirs will not be 

directly sampled by the MOJN network 

nor addressed in the conceptual models 

presented in Chapter 2. For the rest of 

the MOJN parks, water monitoring is 

limited. In the April 2005 MOJN Water 

Resources Monitoring Workshop, 

the MOJN developed and prioritized 

monitoring objectives for water-related 

Vital Signs (Chapter 3).

Each state has developed its own list 

of Outstanding National Resource 

Waters (ONRW) under Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) guidance. 

Officially, there are no ONRWs in the 

MOJN, however, GBRA has four water 

bodies that have received a Class A 

designation by the state of Nevada, that 

state’s highest level of protection (Baker, 

Lehman, Pine, and Ridge Creeks).

Nevada defines Class A waters as waters 

or portions of waters located in areas 

of little human habitation, no industrial 

development or intensive agriculture, 

and where the watershed is relatively 

undisturbed by man’s activity.

Under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water 

Act, each state is required to conduct 

water quality surveys to determine the 

overall health of the waters of the state, 

including whether or not designated uses 

are being met, and report to the EPA 

every two years. When impaired water 

bodies are identified, they are included 

in 303(d) priority lists in order to limit 

discharges of specific pollutants to that 

water body (Ledder 2003). LAME is the 

only network park that contains waters 

designated as 303(d) (Appendix D).

Table 1.6 Weather and air quality (AQ) monitoring stations in (‘on-site’) or near Mojave Desert Network parks. Distance is from a 

given station to the boundary of park units.

park AQ 

Class

Weather

(RAWS or COOP)

Dry Deposition

(CASTNet)

Wet Deposition

(NADP/NTN)

Visibility

(IMPROVE)

Ozone

(OZONE)

DEVA II On-site On-site On-site On-site On-site

GRBA II On-site On-site On-site On-site On-site

JOTR I On-site On-site On-site On-site On-site*

LAME II On-site 170 km 170 km 180 km 8 km*

MANZ II 8-40 km 115 km 115 km 115 km 115 km

MOJA II On-site 100-150 km 100-150 km 100-150 km 35-50 km*

PARA II ND ND+ ND+ ND+ ND

Air quality data for on-site monitoring stations can be obtained from the monitoring network’s website listed below. Air quality estimates for parks without on-site monitoring are available from NPS Air Atlas at http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Maps/AirAtlas/index.

htm (Accessed 30 August 2005).

ND = Not determined.

RAWS = Remote Automated Weather Station Network

COOP = Cooperative Observer Program

NADP/NTN = National Atmospheric Deposition Program, data acquired from http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/

CASTNet = Clean Air Status and Trends Network at http://www.epa.gov/castnet/

IMPROVE = Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/

OZONE = EPA AirData at http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html or NPS AirWeb at http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/data/index.htm

Passive ozone at http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/studies/passives.htm

*Portable ozone (summer ozone season) at http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/studies/portO3.htm

+ ARD plans to add PARA to its map of air quality monitoring in the MOJN

(http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Permits/ARIS/networks/modn.cfm)

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 25

Chapter 2 Conceptual Ecological Models

2.1 Introduction 

Conceptual models are critical elements 

in the design of scientific monitoring 

programs for the management of 

ecological systems. An ecological 

conceptual model is a visual or narrative 

summary that identifies and illustrates 

the connection between ecosystem 

components and their processes, 

important drivers and stressors that 

impact the ecosystem, and indicators 

of ecosystem health and status. A welldeveloped set of conceptual models 

helps us understand how physical, 

chemical, and biological elements of an 

ecosystem interact. This knowledge aids 

in the selection of potential indicators of 

ecologic condition and trend, prediction 

of potential responses to environmental 

change, analysis and interpretation of 

monitoring data, and communication of 

resulting information to park managers 

and the public.

The conceptual models for the MOJN 

do not attempt to explain all possible 

relationships or identify all possible 

components of the ecosystems. Instead, 

they simplify reality by organizing 

information for understanding these 

complex natural systems and help 

us make decisions regarding the 

preservation of our natural resources 

(Margoluis and Salafsky 1998). In 

addition to promoting integration and 

communication among scientists and 

managers from different disciplines 

(Gross 2003), the process of constructing 

conceptual models helps to clarify our 

thinking about system processes and 

monitoring program goals and aids in 

the identification of critical knowledge 

gaps and areas of uncertainty. Since 

human social systems are unpredictable 

and generate novel processes, not all 

components or consequences can be 

identified with current knowledge, 

thus these models should be viewed as 

“works in progress” that will be revisited 

and refined with emerging knowledge.

The objectives of the MOJN conceptual 

ecosystem models are to:

•	 	Formalize current understanding of

ecosystem components and processes 

in the MOJN across multiple scales.

•	 Identify major system drivers and

stressors, the system attributes most 

affected by these drivers, and how they 

change through time.

•	 Identify indicators of ecological status

and trend (Vital Signs) and link Vital 

Signs to key ecological components 

and processes.

•	 Aid in defining appropriate scales for

monitoring in time and space.

•	 Aid in the development, interpretation,

and presentation of monitoring data.

•	 Serve to communicate common

understanding of the connections 

between management decisions and 

natural systems to NPS, other agencies, 

external scientists, and the general 

public (DeAngelis et al. 2003).

2.2 Mojave Desert Network 

Conceptual Model Approach

A wealth of conceptual models exists for 

semi-arid and arid parts of the American 

West, and we adapted many of these 

models for the MOJN. For the unique 

vegetation and desert processes found in 

the MOJN, we developed new models. 

Our general approach is to emphasize 

the role of water, a key limiting factor 

in the Mojave and Great Basin deserts, 

in structuring ecological communities. 

The amount of water, its availability, and 

its quality is controlled first by climate 

inputs and later by partitioning processes 

(e.g., runoff, infiltration, recharge) into 

saturated (e.g., lakes, streams, aquifers, 

and springs) and unsaturated (e.g., 

soil moisture) areas (Whitford 2002). 

Temperature fluctuations and pulses 

of water and nutrients superimposed 

upon a background of diverse geologic 

landforms and associated surficial 

deposits create a diversity of niches that 

shape biological communities (Chesson 

et al. 2004). Since water is such a limiting 

factor for MOJN desert biota, its role as 

a driver of plant and animal community 

structure and composition is emphasized 

in all our ecological conceptual models. 

The MOJN developed a nested set of 

conceptual models with four levels of 

increasing complexity and detail (Figure 

Pull quote 

here??
 26 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

2.1). At the highest level, the MOJN 

Framework Model identifies four general 

systems: the dry system (terrestrial), 

wet system (aquatic), atmospheric 

system, and human system, and 

describes how these systems interact 

and affect the structure and function of 

one another on a broad-scale (Figure 

2.2). At the next level, general systems 

models are developed for dry and wet 

systems, describing major components 

of each system (e.g., climate, soils, 

vegetation, and animals for dry systems), 

interactions and processes between 

components that influence the system 

structure, and means by which they are 

perturbed by stressors and drivers (dry 

system- Figure 2.3; wet system- Figure 

2.4). More specific system control 

models describe specific biomes (e.g., 

shrubland or forest) or components 

(e.g., groundwater or springs) within 

the dry and wet systems. Lastly, 

detailed submodels illustrate important 

subsystems and disturbance effects, 

such as the shrubland fire and recovery 

model. Although we have described 

MOJN ecosystems with discrete 

models at different scales, we recognize 

that system components interact and 

respond at multiple temporal and 

spatial scales and have attempted to 

link components and processes across 

multiple scales and levels of complexity. 

The hierarchical relationships 

between major components of MOJN 

ecosystems, processes, drivers/stressors, 

and their interactions at multiple 

temporal and spatial scales are critical to 

understanding the selection of MOJN 

Vital Signs for monitoring. 

In the following sections, we describe 

the major concepts underlying the 

overarching MOJN Framework 

model, the dry systems model, and the 

wet systems model and then briefly 

summarize biomes and components 

of dry and wet systems. All models are 

described in detail in Appendix G, the 

content of which overlaps closely with a 

publication by Belnap et al. (2008).

2.3 Mojave Desert Network 

Framework Model

We combined components of the 

Jenny-Chapin model (see Miller and 

Thomas 2004) to arrive at a simplified 

structure for the MOJN Framework 

model. We designed this highest level 

model to serve as the foundation for 

a series of more detailed ecological 

models. The Framework model 

identifies four General System Models 

(wet, dry, atmospheric, and human) 

and illustrates how wet and dry 

ecosystems in the MOJN, including 

the Mojave and Sonoran deserts, the 

southern part of Great Basin desert, 

and the western Colorado Plateau, are 

structured through interactions with the 

atmospheric system and human social 

systems (Figure 2.2). We briefly describe 

the four General Systems, summarize 

major interactions among them, and 

emphasize aspects of atmospheric and 

human social systems that act as drivers 

and stressors on components and 

processes of wet and dry systems.

The atmospheric system determines 

climate, which can change rapidly, and 

which creates the boundary conditions 

for weather. The atmospheric system 

conducts the most mass and energy, 

including pollution, to and from parks 

of the MOJN. Processes mediating 

interactions between the atmosphere 

and wet and dry systems include 

evaporation and transpiration, reflected 

radiation, precipitation, wind, and 

heat exchange. Climate of the Great 

Basin and Mojave deserts varies due 

to latitudinal and elevational effects 

on temperature, the rain shadow of 

the Sierra Nevada and Transverse 

Figure 2.1. Hierarchy of 

models from framework 

description of ecosystems, 

to system and control models, 

and detailed models.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 27

perennial streams). 

Climatic inputs of precipitation from 

the atmospheric system are partitioned 

into wet and dry systems. The dry 

system is best defined by what it is 

not and thus includes areas without 

standing or flowing “free” water. The 

division between wet and dry systems 

is logical for the MOJN because the 

transition between saturated, “free” water 

entities (e.g., springs, streams, lakes) 

and unsaturated substrates (e.g., soil or 

fractured rock) is rapid and distinct. Flora 

and fauna exhibit distinct transitions 

between wet and dry systems in direct 

response to the availability of water.

Dry systems comprise virtually all of 

the landscape within MOJN parks 

and are represented by a wide range of 

biomes (biotic communities) that are 

characterized by distinctive vegetation, 

Ranges, which sharply reduce winter 

storm precipitation (see Chapter 

1), and the influence of monsoonal 

systems from southern water bodies 

during summer. The result is a spatial 

and temporal mosaic of temperature 

and precipitation that interacts with 

geologic characteristics and elevation 

to determine plant community patterns 

across the landscape (vegetation zones). 

Biological communities are remarkably 

well- adapted to the harsh and variable 

desert climate, but nonetheless are 

ultimately limited by temperature 

extremes and long periods of drought. 

Climatic variability creates a complex 

framework for understanding past, 

current, and future features in the desert 

that are dependent on weather patterns 

(e.g., plant viability, plant-animal 

interactions, soil moisture availability, 

and persistence of ephemeral and 

Figure 2.2. Mojave Desert 

Network framework model, 

showing the four principal 

systems, their components, 

interactions, and processes.

Chapter 2: Conceptual Ecological Models
 28 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

ranging from alpine tundra (Salix spp.) 

and adjacent conifer forests in GRBA to 

dry, sparsely vegetated shrubland valleys 

in lower elevation parks. Dry systems 

have been subdivided into system 

control models by these vegetation 

zones, or biomes. Within dry systems, 

soil characteristics and processes are 

linked to landscape-level characteristics 

and processes, and these components 

combine to structure plant communities 

and animal habitat. Precipitation inputs 

from the atmospheric system are 

partitioned into runoff, groundwater 

recharge (recharge of aquifers), and 

infiltration into soil moisture, which 

is the primary water source used by 

biotic systems. These same partitioning 

processes strongly affect many 

geomorphic processes, such as erosion, 

and soil processes (e.g., nutrient cycling). 

Particularly important for MOJN 

desert ecosystems are the near-surface 

soil moisture dynamics in which the 

available moisture is driven by spatial 

and temporal interactions with climate, 

soil, and vegetation (Noy-Meir 1973; 

Rodriguez-Iturbe 2000; Reynolds et al. 

2004). Differences in soil moisture, along 

with temperature and elevation, result 

in the major dry system biomes (tundra, 

forest, woodland, shrubland), described 

in detail in the system control models.

Wet systems comprise a tiny fraction of 

the landscape within MOJN park units, 

but are a disproportionately important 

fraction in terms of virtually any 

ecological measure. The wet system is 

defined by areas with standing or flowing 

water such as lakes, streams, springs, 

and wetlands, and thus wet systems 

support plant communities that do not 

rely solely on direct precipitation. These 

areas have high biodiversity, displaying 

dense plant communities and supporting 

many terrestrial animals and diverse 

aquatic species. Most are isolated relics 

of formerly connected waterways, and 

support local obligate and endemic 

species. Climate (precipitation and 

temperature) is the main driver of the 

groundwater systems that maintain 

streams, lakes and springs in the 

network. Within a reference range of 

climate variability, recharge, storage, and 

discharge are approximately in a state of 

dynamic equilibrium.

Natural and human-induced changes to 

the atmospheric system are expected to 

be major future drivers and stressors to 

wet and dry systems. Altered atmosphere 

and climate created by anthropogenic 

increases in CO2

, particulates, aerosols, 

ozone, and other pollutants have 

potential to drive many ecosystem 

processes outside the reference range of 

variability. Regional storm and air flow 

from coastal areas partition most of the 

air pollution, haze, and particulate matter 

from central and southern California, 

as well as from Reno and Las Vegas, 

into patterns of wet and dry deposition, 

reduced visibility, and pollutants that 

can be monitored on a regional scale. 

Climate models predict that drier and 

warmer conditions will prevail in the 

Great Basin during the next couple of 

decades, suggesting that forest and alpine 

tundra systems in the region may shrink, 

move upslope, or disappear from the 

landscape entirely. This loss of forest will 

impact associated wildlife and highlights 

the need for a more complete picture of 

forest ecosystem dynamics in the region. 

Ecosystem condition cannot be 

understood without considering human 

impacts. Human social systems account 

for a majority of stressors and drivers 

influencing MOJN parks at scales from 

global to site-specific, and many of these 

influences are not directly in the control 

of the NPS. Natural resource threats 

Basins and ranges of the northern 

Mojave desert, Death Valley 

National Park. Photo courtesy 

D.M. Miller, USGS.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 29

In the dry systems model (Figure 2.3), 

climate drives many soils processes and 

influences characteristics for a given 

parent material (e.g., soil moisture 

regime). Across the landscape, a soilgeomorphic mosaic is created by 

variation in the magnitude, frequency, 

and timing of precipitation events and 

the interaction of precipitation with soil. 

For example, precipitation dynamics 

determine patterns of erosion, transport, 

and deposition of sediment. The soilsgeomorphic mosaic in turn strongly 

governs the distribution and abundance 

of vegetation and other biota in desert 

systems (Juhren et al. 1956; Beatley 

1969, 1976; Schwinning and Sala 2004). 

The abiotic matrix (e.g., soil, water, air) 

supplies the resources and supports the 

biota (e.g., flora, fauna) that together form 

the foundation of all dry ecosystems. 

Plant and soil crust communities are 

and management concerns identified by 

MOJN park staff (Chapter 1) form the list 

of key anthropogenic drivers and stressors 

listed in Table 2.1, which also includes 

their potential ecological effects and 

relevant MOJN Vital Signs (see Chapter 3).

2.4 Dry Systems Model 

Dry systems comprise virtually all of the 

landscape within MOJN parks. It has 

long been established that water is the 

single most important component for 

the survival of biota in terrestrial desert 

ecosystems (dry systems), controlling 

production and the sequestration 

of carbon and nitrogen for plant 

production (Noy-Meir 1973; Reynolds 

et al. 2004). The availability of water is 

largely controlled by soils, a geologic 

characteristic. Thus, geology and climate 

are the first-order template upon which 

dry systems are structured. 

Table 2.1. Anthropogenic drivers and stressors, their potential ecological effects, and relevant Vital Signs for the Mojave Desert Network. Refer to Chapter 1 (Table 1.4) for the relative importance of these natural resource threats to each of the network parks.

DRIVER/STRESSOR Ecological Effects Relevant MOJN Vital Sign

Invasive Species

Increased fire frequency

Community shifts and biodiversity loss

Altered groundwater dynamics

Altered soil nutrient cycling

Invasive/Exotic Plants

Fire and Fuel Dynamics

Vegetation Change

Water Quantity Alteration

Decreased surface water levels

Altered riparian communities

Loss of aquatic habitats

Loss of biodiversity

Basic Meteorology

Surface Water Dynamics & Quality

Groundwater Dynamics

At-Risk Populations, Riparian Birds

Land Use Change/ 

Development 

Increased groundwater extraction 

Soil disturbance 

Habitat loss or fragmentation

Altered surface water

Groundwater Dynamics & Chemistry 

Vegetation Change

Landscape Dynamics, Riparian Birds

At-Risk Populations, Small Mammals, Reptiles

Air Quality Degradation

Nitrogen deposition 

Establishment of invasive plants 

Lake acidification, foliar injury, vegetation growth loss

Wet/Dry Deposition, Ozone, Particulates

Soil Chemistry/Nutrient Cycling

Surface Water Quality

Altered Disturbance 

Regime (dry systems)

Altered nutrient dynamics

Increased soil erosion and deposition

Altered fire regime

Increases in exotic species

Soil Chemistry/Nutrient Cycling

Soil Disturbance, Erosion/Deposition

Fire and Fuel Dynamics

Invasive/Exotic Plants

Recreation/Visitation

Increased trampling and soil erosion 

Spread of invasive plants 

Disturbance/collection of wildlife

Soil Disturbance, Erosion/Deposition

Biological Soil Crusts 

Invasive/Exotic Plants, Reptiles

Climate Change Altered temperature, precipitation, deposition, and 

flow regimes

Basic Meteorology

Vegetation Change

Water Quality 

Degradation

Impacts to wet and dry system flora and fauna Surface Water Quality & Dynamics

At-Risk Species

Soil Alteration

Increased soil erosion & deposition

Loss of protective soil crusts

Reduced infiltration and increased runoff

Habitat loss

Soil Erosion/Deposition, Disturbance

Biological Soil Crusts

Soil Hydrologic Function

Small Mammals

Chapter 2: Conceptual Ecological Models
 30 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

largely structured by soil properties 

and processes, which in turn, influence 

soils through nutrient cycling, soil 

stabilization and armoring, and their 

role in natural and altered disturbance 

regimes. Vegetation structure and 

composition influence animal 

communities by providing food, 

cover, and other resources. Animal 

communities in turn modify the abiotic 

and biotic environment (soils and 

vegetation) through herbivory, seed 

dispersal, digging, burrowing, and 

other activities. The model incorporates 

natural and human drivers and stressors 

by identifying the model components 

they most strongly affect (Figure 2.3). 

Elevation and aspect influence 

temperature, soil moisture, and 

ultimately soil morphology, and these 

abiotic influences have long been known 

as correlates of different vegetation 

zones (Figure 2.4). As latitude increases, 

vegetation zones descend in elevation 

due to decreasing temperature and 

increasing available moisture (Merriam 

1890, 1898). Degree of plant cover 

generally increases with latitude and 

elevation, except at very high elevations. 

MOJN parks comprise a wide range of 

distinct vegetation zones, or biomes, 

Figure 2.3. Mojave Desert 

Network conceptual model for 

dry systems.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 31

ranging from shrublands at low 

elevations (e.g., sagebrush, creosote 

bush, pinyon-juniper woodlands at 

intermediate elevations, mixed conifer 

forests at higher elevations (e.g., spruce 

[Picea spp.], fir [Abies spp.], pine 

[Pinus spp.]), and alpine tundra above 

timberline (Figure 2.4). 

MOJN dry systems also include a variety 

of unique environments such as dunes, 

dry lake beds, salt flats, lava flows, and 

caves, for which specific models were 

not developed. The shrubland biome 

covers a majority of the landscape and 

is the site of the majority of human 

and other disturbances; thus, we have 

placed the greatest emphasis and detail 

in the shrubland system control model 

and associated detailed models. Full 

system control and detailed models for 

all biomes are presented in Appendix G. 

We briefly summarize each biome in the 

following sections.

2.4.1 Shrubland Biome

Shrubland and desertscrub biomes 

generally lie in the lowest altitude and 

most arid part of the landscape, the 

piedmonts and valley bottoms. These 

areas are typically composed of thick 

alluvial deposits, which are commonly 

rocky in the Mojave desert and finer 

textured in the Great Basin. 

Desertscrub biomes in the Great Basin 

and Mojave deserts are comprised of 

different plant communities. Great 

Basin shrubland (desertscrub of Turner 

1994a) consists of major plant dominants 

with cold temperature affinities and 

species associated with warmer 

temperatures such as rabbitbrush, 

blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima), 

hopsage (Grayia spp.), and horsebrush 

(Tetradymia spp.). These species are 

soft-wooded, highly branched and 

evergreen, and generally form open to 

dense stands, with perennial grasses 

as important understory elements. 

Sagebrush shrubland has been subjected 

to grazing, which increases woody 

species by selective herbivory. Invasions 

by grasses and forbs have increased 

the fire fuel load, enhancing fire cycles 

that disfavor the non-sprouting shrubs 

(D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992; Brooks et 

al. 2004). These disturbances are treated 

in more detail in the land-use and fire 

submodels (Appendix G).

Chapter 2: Conceptual Ecological Models

Figure 2.4. Vegetation zones 

are determined by specific 

moisture and temperature 

regimes, which shift with 

elevation and latitude.
 32 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

In contrast, Mojave desert shrubland 

(desertscrub of Turner 1994b) consists 

of major plant dominants with warm 

temperature affinities. Cacti are common 

in the southeast Mojave desert (due to 

greater summer rainfall), but present 

throughout the Mojave and include 

hedgehogs, several prickly pear cacti, 

barrel cacti (Ferocactus spp.), and two 

tall-statured yuccas (Mojave yucca

[Yucca schidigera] and Joshua Tree). 

Annual and biennial plants of the Mojave 

Desert shrubland are mainly winter 

germinators, although late summer 

germinators also occur. Creosote bush 

shrubland is the most widespread of 

the Mojave desert shrublands and often 

occurs with white bursage (Ambrosia 

dumosa) as a co-dominant. Mojave yucca 

and Joshua tree stands are common at 

higher altitudes, and in the case of the 

former, strongly associated with desert 

pavements and strong pedogenic soils. 

Studies of Joshua tree “woodlands” 

indicate that typically, the Joshua tree 

is dominant only in stature and the 

wide range of shrubs and grasses are of 

greater ecological importance (Rowlands 

1978). Salt desert shrubland (Saltbush 

series of Turner 1994b) is typified by 

one or more Atriplex species along with 

halophytic chenopods. The shrubs are 

generally widely spaced, and occupy 

environments such as fringes of playas. 

Saline playas represent groundwater 

discharge environments, supporting 

mostly phreatophytic species, and thus 

are treated in the wet systems models.

Several detailed submodels in Appendix 

G describe patch-scale dynamics, the 

roles of small mammals and reptiles, the 

influence of natural disturbance regimes, 

and anthropogenic disturbance effects 

on shrubland ecosystems. One of the 

anthropogenic disturbance submodels, 

the shrubland fire and recovery model, 

describes the establishment of the grass/

fire cycle in native shrublands (Appendix 

G, Section 7.3.4). The grass/fire cycle 

is an alteration of fire regime that may 

occur where alien annual grass species 

come to dominate the herbaceous layer 

in a plant community (D’Antonio and 

Vitousek 1992; Brooks et al. 2004). After 

colonizing, the alien annual grasses provide 

a continuous fine fuel that is readily ignited 

and facilitates fire spread where significant 

spread may not otherwise occur. Following 

these grass-fueled fires, alien annual 

grasses typically recover more rapidly 

than native species, further increasing 

the probability, size, and intensity of fires 

and the further decline of native species 

(Brooks and Minnich 2006). This cycle 

may be exacerbated by pollution and 

climate change. In parts of the MOJN, 

atmospheric nitrogen deposition may lead 

to increases in invasive annual grasses and 

decreases in the native annual vegetation 

(Brooks 2003). Climate variation resulting 

in temperature fluctuations, and the 

amount and seasonality of precipitation, 

could increase or decrease the relative 

importance of these disturbance processes.

The land disturbance model describes 

the effects of soil compaction, 

grazing, plowing, and water diversion 

on shrubland ecosystem function 

(Appendix G, Section 7.3.5). Each 

of these anthropogenic disturbances 

can directly or indirectly affect soil 

properties and plant communities, 

thus leading to effects on animal 

communities. For example, these 

activities cause soil disturbance and 

compaction, which leads to the loss of 

soil crusts, reduces water infiltration and 

nutrient cycling, and increases water and 

wind erosion. These effects on soils alter 

water and nutrient availability, which 

lead to changes in plant community 

composition and distribution, increasing 

the likelihood of invasive species 

establishment or spread, altered fire 

regimes, and fragmentation or loss of 

Creosote-dominated shrubland, 

with Kelso Dunes in background, 

Mojave National Preserve. NPS 

Photo.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 33

wildlife habitat. Other biomes (tundra, 

forest, woodland) likely experience 

many analogous disturbance processes 

as those described for shrublands.

2.4.2 Pinyon-juniper Woodland 

Biome

Pinyon (Pinus spp.) and juniper 

(Juniperus spp.) woodlands are the 

only major vegetation type occurring 

throughout the entire MOJN and are 

comprised of various combinations of 

eight pinyon and juniper species. These 

woodlands occur at middle elevations 

(1500 – 2300 m) on upper piedmont 

and lower slopes of mountain ranges in 

an elevational band between shrubby 

vegetation below (e.g., chaparral, Sonoran 

desertscrub, Mojave desertscrub, or 

shrub steppe) and mixed conifer forests 

above. Pinyon-juniper woodlands 

typically exhibit broken canopies ranging 

from 25 to 50% tree cover, and trees 

are rarely more than 12 m tall. Habitat 

tends to be rocky, and soils are usually 

thin on the mesas, plateaus, piedmonts, 

slopes and ridges (Pase and Brown 1994). 

Depending on a variety of environmental 

factors and antecedent conditions, the 

vegetation under the tree canopy ranges 

from bare ground to a rich shrub and/

or grass community hosting species 

representative of Mojave desertscrub, 

Sonoran desertscrub, interior chaparral, 

Great Basin shrub-steppe, and/or 

montane communities. Pinyon and 

juniper woodlands are important 

for wildlife habitat, and shifts in the 

distribution and density of pinyon and 

juniper woodlands can have large effects 

on the species composition, behavior, and 

population status of resident animals. 

Livestock and other large herbivores 

have important effects on pinyon and 

juniper systems, and some MOJN 

parks have been historically or are 

currently grazed by commercial 

livestock and/or feral equids. Intense 

grazing by livestock reduces perennial 

grasses, which leads to a reduction 

in fine fuels. Reduced fine fuels and 

intentional fire suppression results in 

a cascade of effects; including reduced 

frequency of surface fires, increased 

canopy cover of pinyon and juniper, 

reduced understory moisture, and 

altered understory plant composition 

(Appendix G, Section 6.2). Although 

some effects of livestock grazing can lead 

to decreased fire frequency, other effects, 

such as the introduction and spread 

of invasive annual grasses by livestock, 

may lead to increased fire frequency 

and establishment of a grass/fire cycle 

(described in Section 2.2.1). 

2.4.3 Mixed Conifer Biome

Coniferous forests (excluding pinyon 

and juniper woodlands) cover less 

than 1 percent of the Great Basin 

landscape, and even less of the Mojave 

desert landscape, where they represent 

scattered patches at high altitudes. 

There are 15 species of conifer in the 

Pinaceae in the Great Basin including 

ponderosa pine, white fir (Abies 

concolor), Engelmann spruce, Douglas 

fir, and limber pine (Pinus flexilis), 

which are found between 6,500 feet 

and timberline. Shrub understory in the 

forest is an important part of the forest 

ecosystem, and patches of mountain 

sage and mountain mahogany may play 

successional roles. Forest cover provides 

a unique environment for a host of 

plant and animal species that otherwise 

would not exist, adding great value to the 

diversity and stability of the ecoregion. 

The mixed conifer forest biome covers 

a substantial proportion of GRBA and 

is found between the woodland and 

shrubland biomes and alpine tundra. 

As is the case throughout most of the 

intermountain west, upland forests of 

the Great Basin are disturbance-driven 

ecosystems (Peet 2000). Wildfire is 

the most widespread and significant 

disturbance agent in the region. Perhaps 

the result of fire suppression, insect pest 

outbreaks are becoming increasingly 

important to conifers, especially in 

combination with the stress of prolonged 

drought. Anthropogenic drivers include 

global climate change, selective grazing 

and trampling by livestock (Belsky and 

Blumenthal 1997), and motor vehicle use 

(primarily off-highway vehicles). Increased 

temperature due to climate change may 

reduce total area of forest cover, by 

differentially selecting for arid-tolerant 

species at the lower elevations, or as a 

result of some species migrating upslope 

Chapter 2: Conceptual Ecological Models
 34 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

where they will occupy smaller areas where 

more favorable climatic conditions occur. 

Motor vehicle use can lead to increases in 

soil compaction and erosion, opportunities 

for invasive species (Gelbard and Belknap 

2003), higher incidence of human-caused 

fire, and a reduction in habitat quality due 

to increased fragmentation (Trombulak 

and Frissell 2000).

2.4.4 Alpine Tundra Biome

Alpine tundra occurs on rocky mountain 

tops above upper timberline, and is 

only present in the MOJN at GRBA. 

The short growing season due to cold, 

combined with intense radiation, wide 

temperature variation, extreme wind, 

thin air, and long-lasting snow, severely 

limit the productivity of flora and fauna 

in this zone (Scott and Billings 1964). 

The tundra environment is generally 

characterized by thin, rocky soils and 

plants with low, prostrate growth forms. 

Despite harsh environmental conditions, 

a diverse community of short-stemmed 

perennial herbs, lichens, and mosses 

are common, as are prostrate forms of 

woody shrubs (Pase 1994). At upper 

timberline, a transitional zone includes 

bristlecone (Pinus aristata) and limber 

pine with their characteristic stunted, 

krummholz growth. 

Anthropogenic drivers include 

climate change, direct trampling and 

contamination, wet and dry deposition 

of air pollution, ozone, introduced fire, 

and plant harvesting. Alpine tundra may 

be affected by climate change as: 1) the 

increased variability in climate results 

in a greater intensity and frequency of 

wind storms, 2) increased CO2 alters 

plant species composition by changing 

the need for photosynthetically efficient 

plants, and 3) timberline migrates upward 

due to increased temperatures. Reduced 

atmospheric ozone leads to increased 

solar radiation and incident UV radiation, 

damaging plants at these high elevations. 

Human trampling and harvesting of 

plants disturbs soils and plant mats, 

increasing wind and water erosion.

2.5 Wet Systems Model

The wet systems model describes 

the relationship and interactions 

among climate and four components: 

groundwater, lakes, streams, and springs 

(Figure 2.5). Hydrologic inputs to the wet 

system come from two predominantly 

abiotic systems: the atmosphere (through 

direct precipitation) and groundwater 

(through storage and transport of 

water). Water from these two sources 

is transported through biotic systems, 

then returned to the atmosphere through 

evaporative processes and returned 

to groundwater systems through deep 

infiltration. Water entering ecosystems 

from surface runoff and groundwater 

discharge support wet system habitats.

Stream and stream-bank (riparian) 

ecosystems consist of environments 

such as the floodplain, channel bank, 

channel bed, and channel, and are used 

by many ecosystem components such as 

plant communities, aquatic species, and 

wildlife. The function and distribution 

of these habitats are driven by the flow 

regime, particularly the pattern of 

flow of floods in space and time. Large 

streams and rivers are also complex 

networks in which the organization of 

channels and their tributaries uniquely 

shape flow characteristics and exchanges 

with floodplain and riparian habitats 

(Benda et al. 2004). The flow regime 

shapes habitats through disturbances, 

temperature and light variations, and 

water chemistry (including nutrient 

concentrations; Scott et al. 2004). 

The flow regime strongly influences 

Bristlecone pine, Mt. Washington, 

Great Basin National Park. NPS 

photo.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 35

Chapter 2: Conceptual Ecological Models

aquatic species from fish to springsnails 

and amphibians, as well as riparian 

vegetation such as cottonwoods (Populus 

spp.), willows, seep willows (Baccharus 

salicifolia), arrowweed (Pluchea sericea), 

ash (Fraxinus spp.), cattails (Typha spp.), 

rushes, and sedges. Because streams 

and riparian zones are associated with 

available water, they are utilized by wideranging wildlife such as deer (Odocoileus 

spp.), bighorn sheep, and a wide 

variety of birds. Riparian zones are also 

susceptible to invasive species that alter 

the habitat and stream function, such as 

tamarisk, and can then act as corridors 

for other invasive species.

Shallow subalpine lakes at GRBA 

depend on snowmelt runoff and 

groundwater. These lakes undergo 

seasonal fluctuations in volume, 

resulting in barren rocky shores rather 

than vegetated riparian zones. The 

subalpine position of these lakes renders 

them highly vulnerable to climate 

change and air pollution, because small 

temperature and precipitation changes 

can disproportionately affect lakes 

dependent on snowmelt, and because 

airborne pollutants are carried rapidly 

into the lakes along short flowpaths. 

Another factor that makes the lakes 

particularly susceptible to change is their 

underlying geology, which consists of 

metamorphic rocks that provide low 

buffering capacity.

Desert spring-fed wetlands can be 

broadly characterized as pools, streams, 

and muddy or boggy areas. Extensive 

wetlands and multiple spring pools 

form where a regional carbonate aquifer 

system discharges, such as at Ash 

Meadows, NV, and at DEVA. However, 

most of the desert parks have isolated 

small springs and wetlands that exhibit 

variable discharge. In Joshua Tree 

National Park, fan palm (Washingtonia 

spp.) oases are important habitat and 

historical sites. Where springs occur 

in broad, sediment-filled valleys, short 

streams and riparian corridors form. 

The seeps and springs at the mouths 

of mountainous canyons are more 

Figure 2.5. Mojave Desert 

Network conceptual model for 

wet systems.
 36 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

common, but typically smaller than 

springs fed by regional aquifers. 

Spring-fed wetlands form a wide variety 

of important riparian and aquatic habitat 

(Stevens and Springer 2004). In general, 

biological importance is correlated with 

the size of the wet area, brook length 

for flowing streams, and size of pools, 

which are in turn a function of spring 

discharge. Groundwater discharge at 

springs is thus a key indicator of riparian 

biologic health and integrity.

The major human stressors to wet 

systems affect both water quantity and 

quality. Groundwater is fundamental to 

the function of desert wet systems, and 

is described in terms of components 

and processes such as recharge, storage, 

and discharge of groundwater. Springs 

are affected by groundwater extraction, 

distribution of contaminants, and 

disturbance of recharge zones through 

paving and diversion (Figure 2.5). Water 

quantity can be indirectly altered in 

spring-fed wetlands and stream systems 

by invasive plants (e.g., tamarisk). Other 

human impacts include introduction 

of predators and parasites (e.g., 

mosquitofish [Gambusia spp.] and Asian 

tapeworm [Cestoda spp.]), direct human 

disturbance, and fire. Vital Signs reflect 

many of these drivers as well as the 

importance of wet systems for endemic 

and at-risk populations of pupfish 

(Cyprinodon spp.), chub, amphibians, 

riparian bird communities, and aquatic 

macroinvertebrates.

The major human stressor to streams 

and rivers is alteration of the flow regime 

through water withdrawal and damming. 

Other major stressors are the intentional 

or accidental introduction of exotic 

species, the degradation of water quality, 

effects of grazing and other land-use 

disturbances, impacts of recreational 

use, and indirect effects of humaninduced climate change and alteration 

of groundwater dynamics. Major threats 

to subalpine lakes are atmospheric 

deposition of pollutants, introduced 

species, and alteration of climate and 

precipitation patterns.

2.5.1 Groundwater 

Groundwater hydrology consists of 

three principal components: recharge, 

storage in groundwater aquifers, and 

discharge at springs, seeps, and other 

sites. Much of the present-day recharge 

in the MOJN occurs in mountains and 

the groundwater is discharged to the 

atmosphere by evapotranspiration from 

the plants, the soil, or open water (lakes, 

spring pools, and wet playas). In the 

absence of any human development, 

the groundwater systems in the MOJN 

are in dynamic equilibrium with longterm climatic patterns. Rain and snow 

provide recharge to the groundwater 

system, which is balanced by an equal 

amount of discharge plus short-term 

changes in groundwater storage. Storage 

and surface water discharges respond to 

long and short-term climatic changes. 

Large aquifers (regional carbonate) 

with long storage capacities respond 

slowly to climatic shifts, while small 

aquifers (perched mountainfront) with 

short residence time respond more 

quickly to periodic drought and flood 

cycles. An important consideration 

for groundwater systems is that water 

discharging in a spring within a given 

park may be recharged far away, so 

distant areas may be relevant for 

managing local hydrology.

The principal aquifer types within 

the MOJN are basin-fill deposits and 

regionally extensive carbonate rock 

(Harrill and Prudic 1998). Basin-fill 

Rogers Spring, Lake Mead 

National Recreation Area. NPS 

photo.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 37

Chapter 2: Conceptual Ecological Models

deposits consist of unconsolidated to 

consolidated clastic materials eroded 

from adjacent mountains. These deposits 

can be thousands of feet thick and form 

the most productive aquifers, especially 

in the Mojave and Sonoran deserts. 

Groundwater flowing through basinfill aquifers typically remains within its 

originating basin, except for water that 

infiltrates downward into underlying 

rock that has hydrologic connections 

beneath other basins. Carbonate rocks 

form a regionally extensive aquifer 

within the Basin and Range and northern 

Mojave desert. This aquifer allows 

for interbasin flow, as groundwater 

flows beneath surface water divides of 

mountain ranges (Harrill and Prudic 

1998). The carbonate aquifer recharges 

over a broad area of mountain tops near 

GRBA and discharges in many places, 

including springs and marshes of DEVA 

and LAME.

Recharge is derived from rain and 

snow. Climatic factors, partitioning of 

precipitation to runoff or infiltration, 

and spatial linkages of runoff, biotic 

use, evapotranspiration, and soil 

hydraulic properties all affect whether 

recharge occurs, and its locations and 

amounts. In low lying basins, where 

precipitation is low (5-15 cm/yr), 

rainfall provides moisture to the surface 

soils but is insufficient to saturate the 

underlying soils and to percolate into the 

groundwater system (Hevesi et al. 2003). 

Groundwater recharge occurs primarily 

in the mountains and upper piedmont 

areas where annual precipitation is 

from 15 to more than 75 cm (Hevesi 

et al. 2003) and elevations are greater 

than 1,500 m (Maxey and Eakin 1950; 

Rice 1984). In northern, colder regions 

(GRBA), or where mountains reach 

high altitudes (e.g., Spring Mountains), 

winter snow pack provides the dominant 

source of recharge to the groundwater 

system. In the southern regions (MOJA), 

rainfall is the dominant source of 

recharge. Most recharge occurs in the 

winter and spring, when precipitation 

is high and evapotranspiration is 

low. Diffuse recharge may reach the 

saturated zone (groundwater system) 

as deep infiltration of precipitation 

through fractured or porous rock in the 

mountain blocks. Alternatively, where 

bedrock is impermeable or topography 

is steep, snowmelt or rain may channel 

and flow down the mountain front onto 

the upper piedmont. Most channeled 

water infiltrates into the streambed and 

some recharges the underlying basin-fill 

aquifers as focused recharge. An extreme 

example of this is in the Mojave River 

basin, where 80 percent of the recharge 

to the basin is estimated to be from 

leakage of floodwater from the Mojave 

River into the underlying basin-fill 

aquifer (Stamos et al. 2001).

2.5.2 Spring Systems

Spring systems are ecosystems formed 

where groundwater discharges at the 

earth’s surface. Groundwater can 

move along complex and lengthy flow 

paths or along small aquifers with short 

pathways. The aquifer characteristics 

(residence time, lithology, chemistry) 

impart strong controls on groundwater 

discharge characteristics such as 

temperature, chemistry, and rates 

(Freeze and Cherry 1979; Domenico and 

Schwartz 1990; Fetter 1994), as depicted 

in the groundwater model. Springs are 

commonly the primary sources of water 

for small streams and riparian zones.

We group groundwater systems into 

three types of aquifers for the purposes 

of discussing spring systems: (1) 

small, commonly perched, aquifers; 

Saratoga Springs in southern 

Death Valley National Park

consists of several spring 

mouths that provide water to 

three open-water ponds. Photo 

courtesy D.M. Miller, USGS.

Chapter 2: Conceptual Ecological Models
 38 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

morphology can be related to functional 

characteristics. For instance, a marsh that 

is cleared and dredged in one location 

to provide open water for livestock may 

be functionally distinct from many lessdisturbed open-pool springs.

2.5.3 Streams and Riparian Zones

Stream and stream-bank (riparian 

zone) systems consist of flowing water 

(lotic) and associated channel bed and 

floodplain environments. We restrict 

our discussion to perennially flowing 

streams and rivers, and those that 

support perennial flora and fauna. Many 

intermittent streams occur throughout 

the MOJN, and we consider the function 

of those systems to be more similar to 

Dry Systems in that rare flow events 

add pulses of resources to typically dry, 

or xeric systems. Plants along these 

intermittent streams for the most part are 

typical xeric species. Furthermore, we 

do not specifically address the Colorado 

River due to uniqueness of its extreme 

size and managed flows.

Two aspects of stream and riparian 

zones (referred to collectively here as 

riparian unless specified) separate them 

from other systems in semi-arid regions. 

The presence of (1) perennially flowing 

water that typically spans multiple 

environmental zones creates (2) unique 

mosaics of heterogeneous flow and 

bank environments that support a high 

degree of biodiversity. However, because 

all streams and rivers are dynamic and 

adjust their characteristics to climate, 

geology, topography, base level, and 

vegetation (Fitzpatrick 2001), they often 

share common processes, features, 

and interactions across a wide range of 

environments (Patten 1998).

(2) local valley (basin fill) aquifers; 

and (3) regional (carbonate) aquifers. 

These aquifer types are described in 

the groundwater model (Appendix 

G) and their characteristics, related to 

springs, are summarized in Table 2.2. 

Springs fed by perched aquifers tend to 

be cool (<10°C) and commonly go dry 

during droughts. Springs fed from local 

aquifers may also change seasonally 

and go dry during extended droughts. 

Springs fed by regional aquifers, on the 

other hand, tend to be warmer (>20°C), 

and higher in solutes due to the depth 

and length of flow paths, and tend to 

have discharge rates that remain fairly 

constant over time intervals exceeding 

50,000 years (Winograd et al. 1992). 

Size of spring ecosystems is a strong 

function of groundwater discharge. At 

the low end of discharge, seeps tend to 

support upland and facultative wetland 

species adapted to drier conditions. At 

the higher end of spring discharge rates, 

permanent ponds and riparian corridors 

support many endemic and endangered 

desert fish species.

Springs exhibit many morphologies and 

a single spring may change morphology 

with time. Common types range from 

lush open pools to seeps that exhibit 

damp earth with no open water; between 

these ends of a spectrum, there is a 

wide variety of wet meadows, marshes, 

permanently wet short stream segments 

in canyons, spring mounds, and saline 

springs and wet playas with no vascular 

plants. Aquatic organisms, riparian 

vegetation, and associated fauna all 

vary with spring type (Sada et al. 2005), 

but an anthropogenic overprint is 

ubiquitous, complex, and severe. Because 

current morphology is in part caused 

by human uses, it is unclear how the 

Aquifer type Perched Local Regional

Aquifer size Very small Small Large

Water temperature Cold Cool Warm

Solute concentration Low Low to moderate Moderate to high

Total discharge Very low Low Moderate to high

Discharge persistence Ephemeral Ephemeral to Perennial Invariant

Discharge site Mountain Piedmont Valley bottom

Typical discharge morphology Tinaja, seep, qanat Small spring, seep, spring mound Spring-marsh complex, wet playa

Table 2.2. Characteristics of springs related to three kinds of aquifers common in the Mojave Desert Network.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 39

materials in dams and fluctuating local 

groundwater levels. As a result, riparian 

vegetation is limited. Forest or open 

areas border the high shoreline, and 

bare, rocky areas mark the shorezone 

within seasonal fluctuation ranges. 

Streams lead from the lakes but flow is 

seasonally variable.

Like most high-altitude lakes, these 

lakes did not originally support native 

fish, but trout have been introduced 

into Baker Lake, and brook trout were 

removed from Johnson Lake to facilitate 

introduction of Bonneville cutthroat 

trout in Snake Creek. Aquatic fauna are 

little-studied in GRBA, but spadefoot 

toad (Scapiophus hammond) is known 

in the park and other toads and frogs 

and the tiger salamander (Ambystoma 

tigrinum) probably occur.

Lake level fluctuations affect shorezone 

stability, creating barren rocky shores 

difficult for plants to establish. Lower 

lake levels generally correspond with 

Pine Creek, Great Basin 

National Park. Photo courtesy 

Erik Beever USGS.

Perennial streams and riparian areas are 

not common in MOJN and mostly occur 

in areas of high effective moisture, such 

as northern latitudes and high elevations, 

or in places where there is access to a 

significant groundwater supply. Most 

streams in the Mojave Desert Network 

are mountainous streams at GRBA. These 

mountain streams do not extend to 

alluvial valleys and tend to have distinct 

channel morphology (and thus habitat) 

that varies relatively systematically with 

position in the watershed (Montgomery 

and Buffington 1997). These streams 

respond more quickly to precipitation 

and tend to be connected to smaller 

(and thus more climatically sensitive) 

groundwater aquifers. Riparian areas 

encompass a small (less than 1 to 3%) 

portion of semi-arid landscapes, yet 

are among the most biologically diverse 

and important ecosystem components 

(Naiman and Decamps 1997; Patten 

1998). In addition to obligate aquatic 

species, up to 80% of all vertebrates 

depend on riparian areas for at least 

one-half of their life cycles, and more 

than half are completely dependent on 

riparian habitats (Chaney et al. 1993). 

Riparian areas also serve as important 

connectors for energy and materials 

among nearly all ecosystem types. They 

integrate effects from upstream and 

downstream regions, and in essence 

affect and are affected by all portions of 

both wet and dry ecosystems.

2.5.4 Montane Lakes 

Natural lakes are rare in deserts, 

generally restricted to high-altitude areas 

with relatively great effective moisture, 

and found only at GRBA within MOJN. 

The large reservoirs of the Colorado 

River, Lake Mead and Lake Mohave, 

are not managed by the NPS, and are 

not considered in this model. Small 

spring pools that occur in many desert 

parks are described in the springs model 

(section 2.5.2 and Appendix G).

Six montane lakes occur in the southern 

Snake Range within GRBA. All lakes 

lie above 2900 m elevation and are 

associated with glacial moraines or 

cirque basins. The lakes are shallow 

(average 2.5 m) and vary in level, 

seasonally, due to porous glacial 

Chapter 2: Conceptual Ecological Models
 40 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

higher water temperatures and less 

mixing of waters by wind, and probably 

limit flora and fauna. Decomposing 

organic material may result in anoxic 

conditions, stressing any aerobic 

benthic organisms in the lakes. Natural 

stratification due to seasonal ice cover 

and wind turnover may also result in 

habitat stratification for aquatic species. 

Long-term records of ice breakup 

suggest warming of lakes in the northern 

hemisphere (Magnuson et al. 2000); 

along with declines in snow volume and 

earlier snowmelt, lakes may become 

warmer and shallower in the future.

2.6 Conclusion

The complexity of ecological systems 

presents a fundamental challenge to the 

development of a comprehensive and 

effective long-term ecological monitoring 

program. Conceptual modeling is an 

approach that has been widely used by 

monitoring programs to simplify reality 

by distilling complex natural systems 

into key elements (Manley et al. 2000; 

Noon 2003). It is important to note that 

conceptual modeling is not a goal in and 

of itself, but a tool to guide thinking, 

communication, and organization 

(Maddox et al. 1999). Ultimately, the 

hierarchical set of conceptual models 

developed by the MOJN (Figure 2.1) 

incorporate both broad- and fine-scale 

factors, processes, and drivers, which 

inform the selection of indicators and 

the design of monitoring protocols, as 

well as provide a basis for interpreting 

monitoring data. Baker Lake, Great Basin National 

Park. NPS photo.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 41

3.1 Introduction

Monitoring seeks to determine the status 

of and detect trends in indicators of 

ecological systems (Busch and Trexler 

2003). Elzinga et al. (1998) defined 

monitoring as “the collection and 

analysis of repeated observations or 

measurements to evaluate changes in 

condition and progress toward meeting 

a management objective.” Detection of 

ecological change or trend may trigger 

management action, determine progress 

toward a management objective, or 

generate a new line of inquiry/direction. 

There are many potential indicators of 

“ecological condition,” and monitoring 

programs must select the best subset 

of indicators that also meet constraints 

such as management relevance, 

budgetary and staffing limitations, and 

feasibility of implementation. 

The term “Vital Signs” was coined by 

the NPS to represent these ecological 

indicators of ecosystem condition, 

which are analogous to critical measures 

of human health such as pulse and 

respiration. Thus, Vital Signs are a subset 

of physical, chemical, and biological 

elements and processes of park 

ecosystems that are selected to represent 

the overall health or condition of park 

resources, known or hypothesized 

effects of stressors, or elements that have 

important human values. Vital Signs may 

occur at any level of organization (e.g., 

landscape, population, community) and 

may be compositional (e.g., variety of 

elements in the system), structural (e.g., 

organization or pattern of the system), 

or functional (e.g., ecological processes). 

Given this complexity, selecting the best 

Vital Signs for monitoring requires a 

structured, step-wise approach. 

3.2 Overview of Vital Signs 

Selection Process

The complex task of developing a 

network monitoring program requires 

a front-end investment in planning and 

design to ensure that monitoring meets 

critical information needs of each park 

and builds upon existing information 

collected about park ecosystems. It 

also ensures that monitoring produces 

Chapter 3 Vital Signs

scientifically credible data that are 

accessible to park managers in a timely 

manner and maximizes partnerships 

with other agencies and academia. 

An 8-step approach was taken by the 

network to identify, prioritize, and select 

Vital Signs at both the park and networklevels. This step-wise, iterative process 

of selecting Vital Signs allows various 

ecological indicators to be compared 

and collectively selected for inclusion 

in the network’s Vital Signs monitoring 

program. An overview of the 8 steps used 

for the selection of the MOJN Vital Signs 

is listed below. Note that due to certain 

logistical constraints, and the actual 

occurrence of certain workshops and 

meetings, we did not necessarily follow 

these 8 steps in sequential order. 

1. Identify ecosystem drivers, stressors, 

and important processes through 

development of an initial conceptual 

ecological model for the network 

(NPS 2003a).

2. Conduct a series of small, park-based 

workshops to identify important 

resources (abiotic, biotic, processes), 

resource threats, management 

concerns, monitoring questions and 

Vital Signs for each network park.

3. Identify similarities and differences 

across parks and summarize Vital 

Signs, threats, management concerns, 

and monitoring questions at the 

network-level.

4. Review of network-level information 

by park staff.

5. Prioritize Vital Signs for each park 

based on management significance 

and legal mandate.

6. Conduct a network-level Vital Signs 

scoping workshop to complete 

scientific review of networklevel Vital Signs and associated 

information; complete prioritization 

of Vital Signs based on ecological 

significance; provide additional 

information helpful to monitoring 

for high-priority Vital Signs 

(e.g., partnership opportunities, 

monitoring objectives).

7. Conduct a small workshop for network 

and park staff to initially select a “short 

Analogous to 

indicators of 

human health 

such as pulse and 

respiration, Vital 

Signs are indicators 

of ecosystem health 

and condition.
Sierra Nevada Network

 42 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

list” of high-priority Vital Signs for the 

MOJN parks.

8. Conduct a small workshop for 

network and park staff to select a final, 

prioritized list of Vital Signs for the 

network.

From 1999 to 2003, three types of parklevel workshops were held for the MOJN. 

The outcomes of these workshops are 

summarized in the next sections.

3.2.1 Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area Vital Signs 

Scoping Workshop (1999)

In spring 1999, the first in a series of 

Vital Signs scoping workshops was held 

at Lake Mead National Recreation Area 

and a candidate list of 88 Vital Signs was 

developed (NPS 1999c). The objectives 

of the LAME Vital Signs Workshop 

were to: (1) provide a peer review of the 

park’s current resource management 

program (e.g., framework and ecosystem 

model, management and monitoring 

activities); (2) ensure that functions 

or processes necessary to maintain 

ecosystem integrity are part of program 

planning; and (3) provide direction for 

a monitoring program that assesses the 

health status and trends of the park’s 

ecosystem. Workshop participants 

included academic scientists involved 

in research in the Mojave desert or a 

similar ecosystem, federal or state agency 

representatives involved in management 

or research activities occurring within 

LAME boundaries, and NPS staff. 

Workshop products included a list of 

reviewed ecosystem/park stressors 

and associated monitoring questions, 

and a candidate list of Vital Signs. This 

candidate list was subsequently adapted 

to each individual network park and 

served as a baseline for subsequent parklevel vital sign scoping workshops. The 

LAME Vital Signs Workshop Summary 

is available on-line at http://hrcweb.

lv-hrc.nevada.edu/mojn/data/lamewksp_

report.htm. 

3.2.2 Geologic Resource 

Evaluation Workshops (2003)

Between May and September 2003, 

the second series of MOJN Vital Signs 

scoping workshops were held to evaluate 

MOJN geologic resources. These 

Geologic Scoping Workshops were held 

at GRBA, JOTR, MOJA, MANZ, and 

PARA. MANZ was discussed only briefly 

at the MOJA workshop. Workshop 

objectives were: (1) to identify the status 

of geologic mapping efforts in each 

park, identify data gaps, and develop a 

strategy to complete baseline geologic 

maps; (2) introduce participants to 

the Vital Signs monitoring program 

and geologic indicators; (3) identify 

important geologic resources and related 

management issues and concerns; (4) 

identify resource threats; and (5) identify 

management/monitoring and research 

questions related to park geologic 

resources. Workshop participants 

included park and network staff, NPSGeologic Resources Division (GRD) 

staff, and other non-NPS participants 

(e.g., USGS, university staff). Candidate 

Vital Signs were discussed and identified 

within the context of the geoindicator 

checklist (developed by the International 

Union of Geological Sciences) and 

revised by NPS-GRD staff. The primary 

workshop product was a final report 

including a basic description of park 

physiography and geology, important 

geologic features and processes, 

identification of threats and management 

concerns to geologic resources, and 

identification of monitoring and research 

questions. The results of geologic 

resource evaluation workshops were 

used to develop materials and populate 

databases used at subsequent parklevel Vital Signs scoping workshops. 

Final geo-scoping workshop reports are 

available from the MOJN upon request 

(NPS 2003b, 2003c, 2003d, 2003e, 

2004b, 2004c, 2004d). 

3.2.3 Park-Level Vital Signs 

Scoping Workshops (2003)

During November and December 

2003, the network conducted their 

third series of park-level Vital Signs 

scoping workshops at DEVA, GRBA, 

JOTR, LAME, and MOJA. Workshop 

objectives were to: (1) identify important 

park resources; (2) identify important 

management issues; (3) identify and 

prioritize park drivers and stressors; (4) 

identify park monitoring and research 

questions; and (5) identify candidate 

Vital Signs. In preparation for these 

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 43

Chapter 2: Conceptual Ecological Models

park-level workshops, network staff 

summarized priority resources, stressors, 

and resource concerns using resources 

including General Management Plans, 

Resource Management Plans, Strategic 

Plans, and information from Geologic 

Scoping Workshops. The focus of 

the 2003 workshop at LAME was 

to review and update the Vital Signs 

and monitoring questions identified 

during the 1999 workshop. For MANZ, 

candidate Vital Signs and information 

were cooperatively developed by the 

MOJN Network Coordinator and the 

MANZ Superintendent. For PARA, 

resources staff were queried and 

candidate Vital Signs for PARA were 

developed as part of LAME, due to its 

ecological similarity. This was a logical 

step because PARA was created from 

portions of LAME, Grand Canyon 

National Park, and BLM lands. 

Participation in most workshops ranged 

from 13-18 individuals representing park 

and network staff, park cooperators/

scientists and park volunteers. Candidate 

Vital Signs at the park-level were 

identified within 5 broad categories: 

Air/Climate, Geology/Soils, Hydrology, 

Animals, and Plants. For each category, 

participants identified specific resources 

and resource issues important to their 

park. Responses ranged from smallscale, discrete resources (e.g., Devils 

Hole pupfish) to broad-scale ecosystem 

processes (e.g., geomorphic processes), 

and resources of value for societal 

reasons (e.g., charismatic species). 

For each ‘specific resource’, park staff 

identified associated ecosystem stressors, 

specific threats, management concerns, 

and monitoring questions. Participants 

also prioritized ecosystem stressors 

(identified in an early conceptual model) 

for each park based on each stressor’s 

management significance and potential 

impacts on resources. Scores were 

summed across parks to identify stressors 

of the greatest concern at the networklevel. Individual, park-level databases 

were merged into a single, network-level 

database. This database included 113 

candidate Vital Signs and was used to 

develop a Vital Signs framework for the 

network as well as for individual parks.

3.2.4 Network-Level Vital Signs 

Scoping Workshop (2004)

On May 25-27, 2004, the NetworkLevel Vital Signs Scoping Workshop 

was held in Las Vegas, NV to: (1) 

review identified management and 

scientific issues, resource threats, and 

monitoring questions; (2) review, revise, 

and prioritize candidate Vital Signs for 

long-term ecological monitoring at the 

network and park-levels; (3) for the top 

20% of Vital Signs, revise justification 

statements, develop potential monitoring 

objectives, identify existing protocols/

methods, potential partnerships, costsharing opportunities, and ecological/

operational scales for measurement; and 

(4) develop a network of stakeholders 

with the common goal of preserving 

important network resources. Over 60 

individuals representing 15 organizations 

participated in the workshop, including 

federal and state agencies, academic and 

research institutions, and non-profit 

organizations. 

Participants were organized into 

10-person work groups for each of five 

categories: (1) Air, Geology and Soils; 

(2) Hydrology; (3) Animals; (4) Plants; 

and (5) Human Use and Ecosystem. 

Each work group reviewed a specific 

set of candidate Vital Signs and was 

assigned a facilitator, recorder, and 

at least one park staff member with 

appropriate expertise to facilitate work 

flow and capture workshop results. 

An MS Access database was used to 

capture comments and provide updated 

information during the workshop. After 

individual work groups presented their 

results, all individuals re-convened to 

conduct the overall prioritization of 

Vital Signs. Prioritization of Vital Signs 

was based on management significance, 

ecological significance, and legal 

mandate, which were weighted 40%, 

40%, and 20%, respectively. Workshop 

products included: (1) a revised list of 

management concerns and resource 

threats for level 2 Vital Signs; (2) a 

reduced list of 69 candidate Vital Signs 

for the network and individual parks 

(3) a prioritized ranking of this list for 

the network and individual parks; and 

(4) supporting information for the top 

20% of network-level Vital Signs (e.g., 

Chapter 3: Vital Signs
Sierra Nevada Network

 44 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

justification statement, monitoring 

questions, etc.). The 2004 MOJN 

Vital Signs Scoping Workshop Report 

(Appendix H) and database output are 

available online at: http://hrcweb.lv-hrc.

nevada.edu/mojn/workshop.htm.

3.2.5 Selection of High-priority 

Vital Signs (2004)

In July 2004, the MOJN Technical 

Committee reviewed the results of 

previous workshops to select a “short 

list” of 26 high-priority Vital Signs for 

the network. High-priority Vital Signs 

were identified based on a review of the 

prioritized network list. The Technical 

Committee also discussed Vital Signs 

ranked highly at a park, but not network, 

level and made decisions based on 

management and ecological significance, 

potential partnership and cost-sharing 

opportunities, existing baseline data, and 

socio-political considerations. 

3.2.6 Selection of Final Network 

Vital Signs (2005)

The MOJN convened its last workshop 

on November 29-30, 2005 at LAME, 

Boulder City, NV. This workshop 

was attended by a quorum of MOJN 

Technical Committee members, resource 

specialists, and USGS professionals. The 

goal of this workshop was to select and 

prioritize a final set of Vital Signs from 

the “short list” identified at the previous 

workshop. Although the Technical 

Committee was committed to funding 

all selected Vital Signs for the next five 

years, the network is unable to fund all 

26 of the identified Vital Signs due to 

programmatic and fiscal constraints. 

Thus, the workshop was a facilitated and 

directed discussion of the merits of each 

of the 26 Vital Signs. To start the process, 

the 26 Vital Signs were presented in 

the prioritized order determined at the 

previous workshop. After discussing the 

short list, each workshop participant 

identified 7 Vital Signs they believed 

should merit “final vital sign” status. 

Results of this voting process were 

considered a recommendation to the 

Technical Committee and thus were 

not binding. After a second round of 

discussion, the Technical Committee 

agreed to a final list of 20 Vital Signs. In 

Table 3.1, the final Vital Signs are listed 

within context of the NPS Ecological 

Monitoring Framework, a systemsbased, hierarchical outline that facilitates 

comparisons of Vital Signs among parks, 

networks, and other programs.

3.3 Justification for Vital Signs

This section describes the significance 

and relevance of each final vital sign in 

evaluating the condition of MOJN park 

ecosystems. Vital Signs are presented in 

the same order as they appear in Table 

3.1, by Level I categories of the NPS 

Ecological Monitoring Framework.

3.3.1 Air and Climate

Air Quality – Visibility and 

Particulate Matter, Ozone, Wet and 

Dry Deposition

Atmospheric characteristics and 

processes have fundamental effects on 

wet and dry systems (Figure 2.2) and can 

significantly affect visitor experience. 

Although most of the MOJN park 

units are some distance from densely 

populated urban centers in California, 

Arizona, and Nevada, many experience 

poor air quality from pollutants such 

as ozone, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, volatile organic compounds, 

particulate matter, and toxics (NPS 

2006a). Influenced by weather patterns, 

these atmospheric pollutants are carried 

by the wind, broken down by high 

temperatures and radiation, and then 

deposited as wet and dry particles in the 

air, water, soil, vegetation, and on wildlife 

and humans. Atmospheric deposition 

of nitrogen and sulfur compounds can 

acidify and contaminate water and soils, 

affect stability of biological systems, and 

cause a fertilization effect that alters soil 

nutrient cycling and vegetation species 

composition. Acidification of subalpine 

lakes at GRBA are of particular concern 

due to their extremely low buffering 

capacity. Also of concern are the changes 

in vegetation community composition, 

increased productivity of non-native 

plants, and subsequent increased plant 

biomass and fire frequency that may 

result from increased atmospheric 

deposition of nitrogen (Brooks 1999). 

In 2004, the American Lung Association 

State of the Air Report declared San 

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 45

infiltration rates, and bulk density, 

control water availability. Soil type, in 

conjunction with plant communities and 

their dynamics, topography, and climate 

regimes, are primarily responsible for 

broad scale differences in soil moisture 

across the landscape. Plant-available soil 

moisture is a key factor in understanding 

ecosystem maintenance in desert 

ecosystems. 

Soil Chemistry and Nutrient Cycling

Soil moisture and chemical nutrients 

provide the foundation for plant 

growth. Nutrient cycles are essential 

ecosystem processes and the linkages 

to decomposition are complex. 

Ecosystems on stable trajectories have 

biological interactions that tend to 

conserve key nutrients. Significant 

increases or decreases in nutrient 

compounds through stressors such as 

acidification or nitrification are good 

indicators of change (Whitford 2002). 

Increased levels of soil nitrogen caused 

by atmospheric nitrogen deposition 

increase the dominance (density and 

biomass) of invasive plant species, 

particularly invasive grasses, with a 

concomitant decrease in the density, 

biomass, and species richness of native 

plant communities (Brooks 1999). In 

addition, decreased soil buffering and 

pH affect availability of N, P, and K and 

thus invasive grass distribution. These 

Storm clouds over the Snake Range at Great Basin National Park. NPS Photo.

Bernardino County, CA (adjacent to 

JOTR, which is a non-attainment Class 

I air quality area, and MOJA, which is 

Class II) to have the poorest quality air 

(e.g., visibility, ozone) in the nation. 

Particulate matter has been linked to 

respiratory ailments in humans (e.g., eye 

irritation, bronchitis) and photochemical 

smog degrades visitor experience by 

obscuring scenic vistas and night skies. 

Recent data indicates that JOTR, MANZ, 

and MOJA are at high risk for foliar 

injury to plants from elevated ozone 

levels (NPS 2004a). Under the Clean 

Air Act and GPRA mandate, Class I 

park managers have a responsibility 

to monitor air quality for the adverse 

effects of air pollution and provide 

recommendations to protect park natural 

and cultural resources. To evaluate these 

hazards to ecosystem health, monitoring 

air quality conditions and its interactions 

with physical and biological components 

is vitally important. 

Basic Meteorology 

Climate is a primary factor controlling 

the structure and function of MOJN 

ecosystems. Measurements of 

temperature, precipitation, wind, 

humidity, soil moisture/temperature can 

indicate changing climatic conditions and 

patterns. Key to understanding ecosystem 

dynamics is an understanding of the 

roles of climate variability, hydrologic 

interactions with soils, and adaptive 

strategies of biota to capitalize on 

spatially and temporally variable moisture 

dynamics (Noy-Meir 1973; RodriguezIturbe 2000; Reynolds et al. 2004). This 

information is highly relevant to the 

interpretation of other Vital Signs and 

provides a basis for understanding the 

response of desert ecosystems to future 

climate variation (Hereford et al. 2004). 

3.3.2 Geology and Soils

Soil Hydrologic Function

In deserts, geology and soils provide 

the template upon which biota build 

integrated ecological systems. The 

availability of water is crucial, and small 

variations can drastically alter plant and 

animal communities. Both physical and 

chemical geologic attributes, such as 

soil texture, which influences moisture 

Chapter 3: Vital Signs
 46 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

Level 1 level 2 level 3 MOJN Vital 

Sign rank

parks where vital sign is important

DEVA GRBA JOTR LAME MANZ moja

Air and Climate

Air Quality

Ozone Ozone 7 X X X X X X

Wet and Dry 

Deposition

Wet and Dry 

Deposition 8 X X X X X X

Visibility and 

Particulate 

Matter

Visibility and 

Particulate 

Matter

6 X X X X X X

Weather/

Climate

Weather/

Climate

Basic 

Meteorology 1 X X X X X X

Geology and Soils

Soil Quality Soil Function 

and Dynamics

Soil Hydrologic 

Function 10 X X X X X X

Soil Chemistry 

and Nutrient 

Cycling

9 X X X X X X

Biological Soil 

Crusts 13 X X X X X X

Soil Erosion and 

Deposition 11 X X X X X X

Soil Surface 

Disturbance 12 X X X X X X

Water

Hydrology

Groundwater 

Dynamics

Groundwater 

Dynamics and 

Chemistry

5 X X X X X

Surface Water 

Dynamics

Surface Water 

Dynamics 4 X X X X X

Water Quality Water 

Chemistry

Surface Water 

Chemistry 14 X X X X X

Biological Integrity

Invasive 

Species

Invasive/Exotic

Plants

Invasive/Exotic 

Plants 3 X X X X X X

Focal Species 

or

Communities

Desert 

Communities

Vegetation 

Change 2 X X X X X X

Amphibians 

and Reptiles

Reptile 

Communities 19 X X X X X X

Birds Riparian Bird 

Communities 18 X X X X X X

Mammals Small Mammal 

Communities 20 X X X X X X

At-Risk Biota

T&E Species 

and

Communities

At-Risk 

Populations 17 X X X X X

Landscapes

(Ecosystem

Pattern and

Processes)

Fire and Fuel

Dynamics

Fire and Fuel

Dynamics

Fire and Fuel 

Dynamics 15 X X X X X X

Landscape 

Dynamics

Land Cover 

and

Land Use

Landscape 

Dynamics 16 X X X X X X

Table 3.1. The final 20 Mojave Desert Network Vital Signs are presented within the context of the NPS Ecological Monitoring Framework. The table lists the ranking and importance at each park (from November 2005 Vital Signs Workshop, see 

Appendix H).

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 47

extremes in soil chemistry result in 

unique landscapes/plant assemblages 

and management problems (salinity/

toxicity) in network parks.

Biological Soil Crust Dynamics

Biological crusts are concentrated in the 

top 1 to 4 mm of the soil and comprise 

over 70% of the living ground cover. 

The main components of soil crusts 

are cyanobacteria, bryophytes, and 

lichens, which cover most soil spaces not 

occupied by green plants and are critical 

in reducing erosion, increasing water 

retention, and increasing soil fertility 

(Belnap 2001). Because plant cover is 

sparse in deserts, crusts are an important 

source of organic matter for desert soils. 

Large scale disturbance of biological 

soils crusts (by livestock grazing, human 

foot traffic, recreational and military 

vehicles, etc.) poses a significant threat 

to ecosystem integrity by increasing 

soil loss (erosion/dust), increasing the 

rate of water loss, and reducing soil 

fertility all of which may alter plant and 

animal communities. Initial studies in 

the Mojave desert indicate that crusts 

require more than a century for recovery 

and these recovery rates are dependent 

on climatic history, particularly 

variability in precipitation, severity of 

disturbance, and soil texture.

Soil Erosion and Deposition; Soil 

Disturbance

Disturbance of the soil surface is a 

natural process (e.g., animal burrowing, 

flooding) that can be aggravated by 

anthropogenic activities (e.g., grazing, 

off-highway vehicle use, mining). 

Chapter 3: Vital Signs

Soil surface disturbance causes dust 

generation, surface runoff, erosion, 

increased bare ground, decreased soil 

organic matter, increased invasive plant 

species cover, vegetation community 

change, all of which may negatively 

affect animal habitat and behavior. Loss 

of topsoil changes the capacity of soil 

to function and restricts its ability to 

sustain future uses. Erosion removes 

or redistributes topsoil, the layer of soil 

with the greatest amount of organic 

matter, biological activity, and nutrients 

(Belnap 2003). Erosion breaks down 

soil structure exposing organic matter 

within aggregates, which accelerates 

decomposition and loss. Degraded 

soil structure reduces the rate of 

water infiltration and increases runoff, 

which can lead to further erosion. The 

materials deposited by erosion can bury 

plants, cover roads and trails, accumulate 

in streams, rivers and reservoirs, degrade 

water and air quality, and damage or 

degrade cultural landscapes.

3.3.3 Water

Groundwater Dynamics and 

Chemistry

Groundwater is the source of most 

surface water expressions in the 

park, which create habitat for diverse 

aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial biota. 

Consequently, understanding and 

monitoring groundwater dynamics 

and chemistry has been identified 

as a top priority for network parks. 

Determining the status and trends and 

developing a better understanding of 

water table levels, groundwater flow 

paths, and the connection between 

groundwater and surface water 

resources are required for predicting the 

effects of natural and human-induced 

hydrological changes (e.g., municipal 

groundwater withdrawal) and the fate 

of contaminants (e.g., landfill leachate). 

Precipitation events slowly recharge 

desert basin aquifers, and this recharge 

feeds scattered springs and wetland 

habitats. Removing only a small fraction 

of groundwater from these basins can 

lower the water table and potentially 

dry up critical surface water resources. 

Land subsidence can disrupt surface 

drainage, reduce aquifer storage, cause 

Biological soil crusts contribute organic matter 

to soils and are sensitive to disturbance, 

Mojave National Preserve. NPS Photo.

Chapter 3: Vital Signs
Sierra Nevada Network

 48 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

earth fissures, and damage wells and 

other infrastructure (Bawden et al. 

2003). Groundwater withdrawal and 

contamination is considered a significant 

ecosystem stressor within the MOJN.

Surface Water Dynamics; Surface 

Water Chemistry

Surface water resources in MOJN parks 

(e.g., springs, seeps, lakes, streams, rivers, 

reservoirs) are sparsely distributed on 

the landscape, but are critical for the 

persistence of native biota and many 

endemic species. Therefore, monitoring 

surface water resources– both water 

quantity and quality parameters – was 

ranked 4th and 14th among all Vital 

Signs within the MOJN. Surface water 

dynamics and water chemistry have strong 

effects on aquatic biota, and therefore 

biological assemblages (e.g., aquatic 

macroinvertebrates) are often excellent 

indictors of flow regime, water chemistry, 

and disturbance history. Alteration of 

surface water resources within desert 

ecosystems has profound ecological and 

management implications, including 

loss of species diversity, extinction or 

extirpation of special-status and endemic 

species, alteration in the composition 

and distribution of plant and animal 

communities, alteration of culturally 

significant sites, and inability of parks to 

meet legal and policy mandates. Therefore, 

natural resource managers within 

the MOJN are very concerned about 

degradation of surface water resources.

Because surface waters in MOJN 

frequently derive their flow from 

regional groundwater systems, a 

primary cause of degradation is 

groundwater withdrawal and diversion. 

Due to recent drought conditions, and 

weather and water use predictions 

(Allen 2003), future pressures on 

groundwater resources are expected 

to increase, posing significant threats 

to surface water availability in network 

parks. Another source of water 

quality degradation in MOJN parks 

is contamination from mining, septic 

systems, and urban runoff. For example, 

Las Vegas Wash within LAME receives 

treated effluent and urban runoff from 

Las Vegas, NV, and is listed as highly 

contaminated or “impaired” under 

Red brome is an exotic annual grass found in 

Mojave Desert Network parks. Photo courtesy 

T. Esque, USGS.

section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. 

As a result, total maximum daily loads 

for total ammonia and total phosphorus 

have been established for the Las 

Vegas Wash (see Appendix D, Table 

5). Finally, atmospheric deposition of 

pollution and nutrients carried from 

agricultural and urban development 

areas may contaminate park surface 

waters. These chemical and hydrologic 

changes can cause fundamental shifts in 

the chemical properties of park waters 

that lead to subsequent shifts in biotic 

communities, which depend on these 

waters for their survival.

3.3.4 Biological Integrity

Invasive/Exotic Plants

The structure and composition of 

vegetation communities strongly 

define ecological communities and 

have significant effects on ecosystem 

processes. In the MOJN, invasive 

plants pose one of the greatest threats 

to natural and cultural resources of 

our parks. Non-native, invasive plant 

species are invading new areas and 

establishing at unprecedented rates 

because global trade and transportation 

have allowed these species to cross 

biogeographical barriers. Potential 

ecological damage from exotic invasive 

species includes alteration of natural 

disturbance regimes and ecosystem 

processes, and subsequent effects on 

native flora and fauna. Specific concerns 

include threatened and endangered 

species sustainability, alteration of 

density, biomass, and diversity of native 

plant communities, species extirpation/

extinction due to changes in fire regime, 

and alteration of basic soil processes. 

Numerous non-native plant species have 

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 49

Chapter 3: Vital Signs

been identified in MOJN park units. 

Invasive annual grasses are the most 

widespread and the greatest concern to 

park managers because of their effects 

on fire frequency and intensity.

Vegetation Change

The desert ecosystems found within 

the seven park units of the MOJN host 

a rich and diverse collection of plant 

communities and landforms (Berry et al. 

2006). Vegetation and soil constitute the 

very foundation to which all ecosystem 

functions are intricately connected and 

dependent upon. Changes in vegetation 

composition and structure can have 

profound effects on nutrient cycling 

and soil properties. Climate models 

predict a warmer, drier future for the 

southwestern United States (Seager 

et al. 2007). Parks are also faced with 

the unknown effects of air pollution, 

habitat loss, and altered disturbance 

regimes (e.g., fire, land development). 

These factors will likely have significant 

impacts on upland plant communities 

of the MOJN (Brooks and Matchett 

2006; Hereford et al. 2006). From the 

Vital Signs workshops, it was clear that 

riparian plant communities at seeps, 

springs, and streams are also of high 

management interest to parks, being 

closely tied to ground and surface water 

dynamics. The Vegetation Change vital 

sign combines the specific justifications 

for the individual vegetation 

communities that were not separated out 

as Vital Signs.

Reptile Communities

The Mojave and Great Basin deserts 

provide habitat to a diverse community 

of reptiles. Because of their diversity, 

abundance, and biomass in the MOJN, 

their representation in multiple trophic 

levels, ecological niches, and habitats, 

and their response to environmental 

change, reptiles may be good indicators 

of ecosystem health. Weather patterns 

(precipitation, temperature, solar 

radiation, etc.) influence reptile 

abundance and distribution by affecting 

their activity levels and patterns, their 

water balance, and their environment, 

including vegetation structure and 

food availability. Drivers and stressors 

affecting reptile communities include 

climate change, habitat disturbance and 

fragmentation, vegetation change (e.g., 

changes in plant community composition 

and structure), animal harvesting, 

introduced diseases, highway mortality, 

and other anthropogenic disturbances. 

Predictions of climate change include 

higher temperatures, longer and 

more severe droughts, and drier soils, 

which may limit water availability 

and require deeper burrowing to find 

cooler soils. Harvesting of adults by 

humans in the spring as well as yearround habitat fragmentation and 

disruption continually compromises the 

reproductive success of desert reptile 

populations. A significant number of 

species are of special concern, including 

the desert tortoise; federally threatened), 

chuckwalla (Sauromalus obesus), fringetoed lizard (Uma inornata), and gila 

monster (Brussard et al. 1998). 

Riparian Bird Communities

Birds are used widely as targets for 

management strategies, ecological 

assessments, and monitoring programs 

because they are scientifically and 

socially well known, and are responsive 

to natural and anthropogenic 

environmental change (Fleishman and 

Network and park staff discuss 

approaches to monitoring 

vegetation change with 

cooperators, Death Valley 

National Park. Photo courtesy 

Alice Chung-MacCoubrey.
 50 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

MacNally 2006). They are consumers 

at nearly all trophic levels and vectors 

for dispersal of seeds and organisms 

from isolated habitats. There is also a 

strong interdependence between bird 

assemblages and vegetation spatial 

structure and composition (Fleishman 

et al. 2003; Fleishman and MacNally 

2006). Almost all birds in the MOJN 

depend on wetland and riparian habitats 

during some phase of their annual cycle. 

In riparian habitats, obligate riparian 

bird species may be particularly good 

indicators of ecological change (e.g., 

least Bell’s vireo). Degradation and 

destruction of riparian areas, particularly 

human-induced, are widely viewed as 

the most important causes of the decline 

of land bird populations in the MOJN 

(Brussard et al. 1998). 

Small Mammal Communities

Small mammals are of particular interest 

due to their roles in soil processes, seed 

distribution and germination, plant 

herbivory, and food webs. Mammalian 

populations and communities may 

be good indicators of environmental 

change because environmental variables 

largely influence species composition 

and density. Research suggests that five 

environmental variables (including 

seasonal extremes in temperature, 

annual energy, moisture, and elevation) 

may predict up to 88% of the variation 

in mammalian species density for all 

of North America (Badgley and Fox 

2000). Contemporary populations of 

16 montane mammal species across the 

Great Basin-Mojave desert region are 

presently isolated on mountains and 

probably have been since the Pleistocene 

Epoch (Brussard et al. 1998). These 

mammals that occupy “sky islands” 

may be some of the first animals to 

be influenced by climate change due 

to proposed shrinking of these island 

habitats (McDonald and Brown 1992). 

Research in National Park units on the 

Colorado Plateau, Sierra-Cascades, 

and Rocky Mountains indicate that 

the number of mammal population 

extinctions has exceeded the number of 

colonizations since park establishment 

and that the rate of extinction is inversely 

related to park area (Newmark 1995). 

At-Risk Populations

At-risk biota include species designated 

as rare, endemic, and NPS sensitive. 

All network parks except MANZ have 

“at-risk” species that are important 

components of the park’s biodiversity 

and that are the focus of park 

management. Nearly 1,000 native plant 

species have been identified at DEVA, 

and approximately 12% of these native 

plants are considered special-status 

species, including two federally-listed 

plant species and 12 endemic plant 

species. Nearly all fishes, amphibians 

and many aquatic invertebrates have 

restricted distributions, are endemic, 

comprised of small populations, or 

are currently listed as threatened or 

endangered (e.g., Mohave tui chub 

[Siphatales bicolor mohavensis]). The 

primary management concern related to 

special status species is extirpation or in 

the case of endemic species, extinction. 

At-risk species are particularly sensitive 

to ecosystem change resulting from 

catastrophic (large or small scale) events 

(e.g., fire, flood), management actions, 

alteration of ecosystem dynamics, or 

cumulative impacts of non-catastrophic 

events (e.g., incremental changes over 

Yellow warbler in riparian 

vegetation at Cow Creek in 

Death Valley National Park. 

Photo courtesy Gerry/Vicki 

Wolfe.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 51

Chapter 3: Vital Signs

time). This is because at-risk species 

tend to be associated with small and 

isolated populations where loss of 

a few individuals can translate into 

larger-scale biodiversity loss (e.g., 

subspecies, genetic level). The need 

for baseline and long-term monitoring 

data on at-risk species, including their 

presence, abundance, and distribution is 

considered important to the MOJN Vital 

Signs monitoring program. 

3.3.5 Landscapes

Fire and Fuel Dynamics

Change in fire regime (size, frequency, 

intensity) may be the consequence of 

numerous stressors and drivers and 

is a significant threat to MOJN park 

ecosystems. The annual area burned in 

wildfires has generally increased in the 

western U.S. in past decades, partly due 

to build-up of woody fuels, drought, 

and invasion of non-native plant species 

(e.g., Bromus spp.). An understanding 

of Fire and Fuel Dynamics is critical to 

science-based management of shrubland, 

woodland, and forested ecosystems. 

Fire in the Mojave desert is considered 

historically infrequent, and desert 

shrublands were once considered ‘fireproof’. The invasion of alien annual 

grasses such as red brome (Bromus 

rubens) and cheat grass (Bromus tectorum) 

(Mack 1986; Salo 2004) has increased 

fire frequencies and intensities, and 

has become a resource management 

problem throughout low elevations in the 

Sonoran, Mojave, and Great Basin deserts 

(Brooks and Pyke 2001). Recurrent fire 

has devastating impacts on native plants 

that are poorly adapted to fire, leading to 

loss of native species, transitional shifts in 

communities, and potentially permanent 

replacement of native plant communities 

by alien annual grasslands (Brooks et al. 

2003). Fuels modeling can help predict fire 

behavior, monitor fuel condition changes, 

provide fuel assessments, and help parks 

develop fuels management plans.

Landscape Dynamics — Land Use, 

Land Cover, and Landscape Pattern

Landscape-level processes such as 

habitat patch mosaic structure may 

strongly influence local flora and 

fauna populations. The character of 

a landscape’s pattern (patch size and 

structure, distribution, connectivity) 

directly influences the distribution, 

abundance, and movement of 

animals (e.g., bighorn sheep), and the 

distribution, abundance, germination, 

and dispersal of plants. In deserts, 

where many of the organisms are living 

at or near the threshold for surviving 

the climatic extremes, the availability 

of resources in patches and ability to 

move among patches are critical factors 

(Whitford 2002). Changes in climate, 

fragmentation, change in fire regime, and 

grazing have had the greatest past and 

current impacts on landscape pattern in 

MOJN parks.

Seventy-five percent of the land cover 

in the Mojave region is shrub/scrubland 

(Davis et al. 1998), whereas land cover in 

GRBA and parts of PARA is dominated 

by woodland and forest cover. Land 

cover is affected by natural events, 

including climate variation, flooding, 

vegetation succession, and fire, all of 

which are susceptible to change in 

frequency or magnitude due to human 

activities. Today, human-induced 

change in land cover is a primary factor 

in habitat loss, the most significant 

contributor in the listing of threatened 

plant and animal species. Monitoring 

changes in land cover provides critical 

insights into current or future changes in 

ecosystem processes (e.g., geomorphic, 

hydrologic, soil, biological) and services 

(e.g., habitat, stabilizing soils).

Over three quarters of the Mojave desert 

is in federal jurisdiction (BLM, NPS, 

DOD). Private lands (21% of Mojave) 

and state lands occur in a checkerboard 

pattern embedded in a matrix of federal 

properties (Davis et al. 1998). Human 

Devastating effects of fire in 

pinyon-juniper woodlands of 

Joshua Tree National Park. USGS 

Photo.
Sierra Nevada Network

 52 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

population in the Mojave-Great Basin 

desert region is predicted to increase 

with concomitant development of 

private lands, particularly near JOTR 

(29 Palms, CA), MOJA (Barstow, CA), 

and LAME (Las Vegas, NV). Landuse practices at the local and regional 

scale can dramatically affect soil quality, 

water quality and quantity, air pollution, 

habitat fragmentation, habitat loss, and 

contribute to the spread and introduction 

of invasive species. Monitoring changes 

in land use lends interpretive power to 

other Vital Signs and may contribute 

to early detection and management of 

future resource issues.

3.4 Vital Signs Protocol 

Development Strategy

Extensive discussions at Vital Signs 

workshops led to the selection of 

twenty final Vital Signs that represent 

a complimentary set of components, 

processes, and stressors and are of 

significant ecological and management 

interest to MOJN park managers. A 

conscious decision was made to select 

Vital Signs of common concern rather 

than those that were park-specific in 

nature. Thus, the final list is relevant 

to most or all of the parks (Table 3.1). 

Additional discussions need to occur 

between parks and network staff 

throughout the development process to 

achieve a successful and sustainable Vital 

Signs monitoring program for the MOJN. 

The network faces several challenging 

issues in developing a successful 

monitoring program to address the 

final list of Vital Signs. Characteristics 

that make MOJN parks fascinating and 

spectacular places to visit also make 

them challenging to monitor. MOJN 

parks encompass significant physical 

and biological diversity and a large 

total combined acreage. To develop 

a program that effectively addresses 

twenty Vital Signs across over 3 million 

hectares of diverse, remote, and often 

inaccessible terrain would necessitate 

resources beyond those available to 

the program, particularly given that 

additional funds were not allocated for 

monitoring at Grand Canyon-Parashant 

National Monument. 

To address these challenges, the network 

proposes to stagger the development 

of higher priority Vital Signs over 

several years, focus and limit Vital Signs 

objectives to a realistic and achievable set, 

integrate Vital Signs to increase sampling 

efficiency and reduce cost, postpone 

the development of lower priority 

Vital Signs, and seek external funds or 

partnerships to supplement program 

funds and augment monitoring activities. 

To reduce the number of Vital Signs 

under development during the first three 

to five years, lower priority Vital Signs 

will be postponed until higher priority 

Vital Signs protocols are developed, 

funds become available, or collaborative 

or partnership opportunities arise that 

reduce development or implementation 

costs. Starting in FY 2008, extensive 

discussions occurred between the 

MOJN Technical Committee, network 

staff, and cooperators to iteratively 

refine objectives for each vital sign to a 

technically-sound, financially-feasible, 

and scientifically-relevant set. Rather 

than selecting an overly ambitious set 

of objectives and compromising our 

ability to achieve them, the network will 

adopt the principle of selecting a smaller 

number of objectives and accomplishing 

them well. 

The integration of Vital Signs has both 

scientific and programmatic advantages. 

In some cases, answers to some of the 

complex or ‘big picture’ monitoring 

questions may require analysis of data 

acquired from two or more related 

Vital Signs. For example, to address 

the question “are changes in the 

composition and structure of vegetation 

communities related to changes in soil 

characteristics and processes?” We need 

to use information from the Vegetation 

Change, Soil Chemistry, hydrology, 

disturbance, and Erosion/Deposition 

Vital Signs. Although monitoring data 

cannot be used to explore causal 

relationships, they provide insight into 

potential processes and relationships 

and provide hypotheses for future 

research. From a programmatic 

standpoint, integrating related Vital Signs 

can lower implementation costs through 

co-location and co-visitation of sampling 

sites (assuming sampling designs and 

schedules are compatible). 

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 53

Table 3.2. Protocols planned for development, Vital Signs addressed, and relevant parks.

Protocol names in bold are those funded primarily by the network. Symbols identify parks at which a protocol will be implemented, 

characterize the funding source, and identify Vital Signs for which protocol development will be postponed. Absence of a symbol indicates that the vital sign does not apply to the park or will not be implemented at the park.

Legend:

+ Vital signs that the network will develop protocols for and implement monitoring using funding from the Vital Signs or water quality monitoring programs.

G Vital Signs that are monitored by a network park, another NPS program, or by another federal or state agency using other funding. The network will collaborate with these other monitoring efforts. 

• Vital Signs that monitoring will likely be conducted in the future, but which cannot currently be developed due to limited staff and 

funding.

Parks where implemented

protocol name primary vital signs

addressed

DEva

grba

jotr

lame

man

z

m

oja

para

Air Quality

Ozone

Wet and Dry Deposition G G G G G G G

Visibility and Particulate Matter

Climate Basic Meteorology G G G G G G G

Integrated Upland

Soil Erosion & Deposition

+ + + + + +

Soil Disturbance

Soil Chemistry & Nutrient Cycling

Soil Hydrologic Function

Vegetation Change

Biological Soil Crusts

Riparian Vegetation Vegetation Change + + + + + +

Riparian Birds Riparian Bird Communities + + + + + +

Invasive/Exotic Plants Invasive/Exotic Plants +/G +/G +/G +/G +/G +/G +/G

Fire and Fuel Dynamics Fire and Fuel Dynamics G G G G G G G

Groundwater & Springs

Groundwater Dynamics & Chemistry

Surface Water Dynamics + + + + + +

Surface Water Chemistry

Streams and Lakes

Surface Water Dynamics +

Surface Water Chemistry + G

Landscape Dynamics Landscape Dynamics + + + + + + +

Small Mammals Small Mammal Communities • • • • • • •

Reptile Communities Reptile Communities • • • • • • •

At-Risk Populations At-Risk Populations • • • • • • •

Chapter 3: Vital Signs
Sierra Nevada Network

 54 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

The MOJN proposes the development 

of 10 protocols over the next 3-5 years 

that would address seventeen Vital Signs 

(Table 3.2). Protocols for two Vital Signs 

(air quality and climate) will largely 

document standard methods used by 

park staff, NPS- Air Resources Division, 

and other partners to collect data from 

existing monitoring stations and identify 

how data will be stored and processed at 

MOJN. Monitoring methods for other 

Vital Signs protocols will be developed 

through collaborative efforts of MOJN 

staff, park staff, and university or agency 

partners. The remaining three Vital Signs 

will be developed after higher priority 

protocols have been developed and if 

funds are available, or if collaborative 

or partnership opportunities arise that 

reduce development or implementation 

costs. The three postponed Vital Signs 

include At-Risk Populations, Reptile 

Communities, and Small Mammal 

Communities. The riparian bird vital 

sign is slated for development because 

monitoring of this conspicuous and 

highly charismatic taxonomic group may 

be integrated with protocols addressing 

Vegetation Change, Surface Water, and 

Groundwater Vital Signs. Sampling 

designs for the proposed protocols are 

described in Chapter 4, and monitoring 

objectives for each protocol are 

presented in Chapter 5.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 55

4.1 Introduction

Monitoring goals and objectives are 

linked to data collection through 

sampling designs. A quality sampling 

design is necessary to achieve intended 

monitoring goals and produce rigorous, 

robust, and defensible conclusions. To 

achieve the greatest precision, accuracy, 

and resolution, the design must carefully 

consider the physical, chemical, and 

biological characteristics of each 

particular vital sign and patterns of 

variability in space and time associated 

with that vital sign (Oakley et al. 2003). 

Development of sampling designs is 

often an iterative process that results 

in adjusting monitoring/sampling 

objectives to accommodate the practical 

constraints of cost, time, logistics, safety, 

available information, and technology 

(Elzinga et al. 1998).

This chapter presents an overview of 

general approaches taken by the MOJN 

for its suite of Vital Signs to be developed 

into monitoring protocols over the next 

3-5 years. We provide an overview of 

how sampling designs are developed 

and define the relevant concepts and 

terminology associated with sampling 

design development. We then discuss 

two essential elements of a sampling 

design for long-term monitoring: sample 

size and magnitude of change. The final 

two sections describe the integration 

of Vital Signs, fieldwork and data, and 

outline preliminary design decisions 

for each vital sign, grouped by protocol. 

Specific design and decision justifications 

are included in individual vital sign 

protocol development summaries 

presented in Appendix I and in Chapter 

5, and will be more formally discussed in 

monitoring protocol narratives. 

4.2 Sampling Design Development 

In this section, we discuss the general 

strategy and framework that the MOJN 

has adopted for constructing sampling 

designs. This strategy was employed 

during the writing of the protocol 

development summaries provided in 

Appendix I. Individual protocol narratives 

will describe the specific process for 

selecting the final sampling design. 

The first task is to define clear, concise, 

and realistic monitoring objectives for 

each vital sign. The objectives must 

be flexible enough to accommodate 

future changes in the environment, 

management issues, and funding. In 

addition, monitoring objectives should 

balance the needs of individual parks 

with the network-wide perspective. 

Usually long-term monitoring objectives 

are stated in terms of estimating status 

and trend of a particular vital sign at a 

park-wide scale. 

Sampling designs should be as simple as 

possible while providing data that meet 

monitoring objectives. By maintaining 

simplicity and avoiding significant 

changes in design and methods, we can 

ensure consistency of implementation 

through time such that changes in status 

and trends are ‘real’ and not simply an 

artifact of changing methods and/or 

sampling designs (Oakley et al. 2003). 

Another important aspect of the 

development of the sampling design is 

acknowledgment that it is an iterative 

process. As we continue to refine our 

objectives, we gain new insights into 

particular Vital Signs and the needs of 

park managers. Because our intent is to 

develop a robust monitoring program 

that can meet the needs of NPS managers 

well into the future, our designs must 

be able to accommodate changes in 

management and funding priorities, as 

well as environmental changes. Thus, 

our monitoring objectives must balance 

the needs of current park managers and 

future generations of managers who can 

expect environmental and management 

challenges we cannot foresee.

Sampling designs 

should be as simple 

as possible while 

providing data that 

meet monitoring

objectives.

Chapter 4: Sampling Design

White bursage (pale, short) 

and creosote bush on a 

piedmont near Kelso, Mojave 

National Preserve. Blue flags 

(background) mark plants 

being studied in a permanent 

monitoring plot. Photo 

courtesy D.M. Miller, USGS.
 56 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

The final sampling design is a result of a 

series of decisions about where, when, 

and how to sample a vital sign. Typically, 

multiple target variables of a vital sign 

are of interest. For example, for the 

Vegetation Change vital sign, relative 

abundance, mortality, and regeneration 

are variables that might be measured. 

The target variable is not necessarily 

the same as the measured variable (de 

Gruijter et al. 2006). For example, for 

vegetation change, relative abundance 

is one of the target variables of interest, 

but the actual measured variable may 

be percent cover or stem counts. 

We consider the vital sign as a whole 

entity when developing the sampling 

design; the measurements taken can be 

modified to account for the multiple 

target variables of interest. The following 

questions provide a brief overview of 

sampling design issues we considered 

after establishing the monitoring 

objectives:

1. What is the population of interest?

2. What is the sampling frame or 

collection of sampling units?

3. What will actually be measured on 

each sample unit (measured variables)? 

4. What are the potential sources of nonsampling error? For example, does the 

sampling frame represent the target 

population? Is there a potential for 

missing values? Does the actual field 

method of measurement have potential 

observer errors, detection errors, or 

instrumentation problems?

5. How does the vital sign vary in space 

and time?

6. What is the appropriate temporal 

window, and time interval between 

sampling occasions, for sampling?

7. What is the appropriate choice of 

sampling design type (e.g., ocular 

estimates of vegetation cover) and 

what are the attributes of this chosen 

design type? 

8. What are the budget, time, and/or 

safety constraints? 

These questions are not exhaustive, but 

provide a starting point for discussions 

about sampling-design decisions 

for each vital sign. We address many 

of these questions, including target 

populations and sampling frames, 

allocation and arrangement of samples 

(membership design), and frequency 

of sampling occasions (revisit design), 

for each vital sign grouped by protocol. 

These are summarized in a preliminary 

framework in Table 4.1. The specific 

protocol narratives will address the 

actual measurements to be taken at 

sampling locations (response design) 

and the number of samples required 

to meet the stated objectives (sample 

size). In the next section we define the 

italicized terms and provide more details 

concerning sampling design terminology 

and concepts adopted by the MOJN.

4.3 Sampling Design Concepts and 

Terminology

Sampling designs should be concise and 

understandable. Overly complex designs 

can be confusing and may reduce 

accessibility of results to the monitoring 

program audience, many of whom are 

not well versed in statistics and sampling 

design theory. The MOJN program 

will be designed as simply as possible, 

with complexity added only as needed 

to achieve objectives. Of course, to 

monitor ecosystem structure, function, 

and processes, some level of complexity 

cannot be avoided, particularly when 

dealing with large, remote, and difficultto-access landscapes (McDonald and 

Geissler 2004).

As discussed in Chapters 1 and 3, 

our monitoring objectives call for the 

estimation of status, trend, or both. 

We are intentional in our use of those 

two terms and follow definitions 

reviewed by Urquhart et al. (1998) and 

McDonald (2003). Status is a measure 

of a current attribute, condition, or 

state, and is typically measured with 

population means or totals. Trend is 

a measure of directional change over 

time and can occur in some population 

parameter such as a mean (net trend), 

or in an individual member or unit of a 

population (gross trend). Status applies 

to specific points in time, whereas trend 

pertains to measurements recorded 

at multiple time periods. Status 

typically is served best by a spatially 

extensive sample, while trend is less 

reliant on large samples and usually 

Status is a measure 

of the condition of 

a resource or 

attribute at a

given point 

in time.

Trend is a measure 

of directional change 

over time.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 57

requires more temporally-intensive 

sampling. The balance between spatial 

and temporal extent sets up the first 

cost-benefit decision, and is one that 

must be addressed through a careful 

consideration of program objectives.

After defining clear and concise 

monitoring objectives, the next 

important step in developing a sampling 

design is to define the collection of 

animals, plants, natural resources, or 

environmental attributes of interest 

within a specified study. A population 

consists of elements, the objects on 

which a measurement is taken (Scheaffer 

et al. 1990). The actual elements sampled 

are referred to as the sampling unit; 

they are non-overlapping collections of 

elements (in most cases, the sampling 

unit is the same as the element). A 

target population is defined as the 

complete collection of sampling units 

upon which inference is made. Note 

that this is a statistical population and 

it may or may not refer to a biological 

population. Without a clear idea of 

the target population, the remaining 

decisions concerning sampling design 

development are impossible to make.

We try to quantify our target population 

by using a sampling frame, defined 

as the collection of sampling units. 

Common examples of sampling units in 

the MOJN monitoring program include 

plots, quadrats, and polygons on a 

digital map, or discrete phenomena such 

as lakes, springs, or stream segments. 

The sampling frame could be a list 

of elements (e.g., list of springs) or a 

map of discrete areal elements (e.g., 

vector-based GIS coverage of a park). A 

sample is a subset of sampling units of a 

population (sampled population) that 

are measured. 

Another consideration for samplingdesign development is potential sources 

of non-sampling error. Non-sampling 

error may affect the precision and 

accuracy of estimates from sampling 

efforts (Lessler and Kalsbeek 1992). 

Frame error is the error resulting 

from the disparity between the target 

population and sampled population. 

Frame error, similar to sampling error, 

is reduced by increasing the number 

of units in the sampled population 

(i.e., increasing the sample size). Overcoverage occurs when the sampled 

population contains elements not 

included in the target population. 

Under-coverage occurs when elements 

of the target population are omitted 

from the sampled population. Nonresponse error results from the failure 

to obtain responses (i.e., measurements) 

for the entire chosen sample. When 

missing outcomes are very different from 

the outcomes obtained, the estimates 

calculated from the responding portion 

of the sample are biased. Measurement 

error is defined as the difference in 

measurements obtained and the true 

value of the measure and may include 

detection errors from observers 

and instrument errors. The three 

components of non-sampling error: 

frame, non-response, and measurement, 

may not always be avoidable, but survey 

planning and design that accounts for 

these error sources may be helpful in 

reducing the effects of non-sampling 

error on target population estimates.

The next important step in developing 

a sampling design is determining where 

to distribute sampling locations. If the 

sample is generated using some type 

of random draw, the sample is said to 

be a probability sample. Whenever 

possible we have used a probability 

sample to monitor MOJN Vital Signs. 

We prefer probabilistic sampling designs 

because they permit valid inference 

to the sampled population. Because 

MOJN parks are typically quite large, 

probabilistic sampling is being employed 

for most Vital Signs (see “membership 

design” below). 

A familiar probabilistic sampling design 

is simple random sampling, which 

involves drawing units from a population 

at random with equal probability 

of selecting any individual unit. 

Unfortunately, this often fails to produce 

an ideal spatial sample in ecological 

settings because of uneven spatial 

patterns inherent to a simple random 

draw and concordant environmental 

spatial patterns. In particular, simple 

random samples generated from a 

population can often be patchy or 

clustered, with groups of sample sites 

Chapter 4: Sampling Design
Sierra Nevada Network

 58 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

closer to one another than to other 

groups of samples, and large areas of 

the frame can remain unsampled. In 

addition, certain rare or uncommon 

elements may be missed entirely.

An alternative approach, and one that 

the MOJN is proposing to use for some 

of the Vital Signs requiring a probabilistic 

sample, is to draw a spatially-balanced 

random sample following the methods 

described by Stevens and Olsen (2004). 

This approach, often referred to as 

GRTS (generalized random-tessellation 

stratified), allows for a spatially-balanced 

random draw of sample units with 

variable inclusion probabilities and 

an ordered list of sample units that 

can support additions and deletions 

of sample units while retaining spatial 

balance. These features provide 

considerable flexibility and efficiency to 

the MOJN program. In addition, because 

of the size and topographic complexity 

of our parks, it may be necessary and 

efficient to stratify sampling based 

on elevation, landform, soils, or other 

physical characteristics. Also, we will 

investigate using unequal probability 

samples such that adequate sample sizes 

are allotted to unique and high-priority 

sub-populations. 

A judgmental sample is one where 

the subset of units is hand-picked 

non-randomly by a researcher. The 

scope of inference is only to individual 

sampling units because the sample does 

not typically represent other sites that 

were not chosen. In the MOJN, a set 

of judgmentally selected springs that 

are connected to the carbonate-rock 

aquifer will be monitored because 

of the high management concern of 

potential withdrawals from the aquifer 

and the biological importance of the 

habitat surrounding these springs for 

rare, endemic, and endangered species. 

We refer to judgmentally-selected 

sampling sites as index sites in the 

remaining chapters. 

Another alternative to probabilistic 

sampling used in the MOJN program is 

the census, which involves obtaining 

a response from every element in the 

target population. However, an adequate 

sampling frame and survey design that 

ensures a true census requires that the 

census is free of frame error. Though 

rarely possible in most ecological 

applications, it can occur, for example, 

with the use of satellite imagery to 

determine land cover change. Satellite 

imagery may also contain sources of 

frame error depending on the pixel 

resolution and the temporal frequency 

of images used to detect change.

Once the target population, sampling 

frame, and a strategy for drawing samples 

are determined, the temporal aspect of 

sampling must be considered. Obviously 

the specifics concerning the sampling 

occasion, time of year (season or month) 

and time of day, is dependent on the 

particular aspect of the vital sign being 

measured. However, for larger parks it 

may not be feasible to actually visit the 

entire sample within a given sampling 

occasion due to travel time and other 

factors. Thus, most sample designs 

proposed for the MOJN will rotate field 

sampling efforts through various sets of 

sample units over time. In this situation, 

it is useful to define a panel of sample 

units to a group that is always sampled 

during the same sampling occasion or 

time period (Urquhart and Kincaid 1999; 

McDonald 2003). The way in which 

sample units in the sample population 

become members of a panel will be called 

the membership design (McDonald 

2003). The allocation procedure could 

be a probabilistic sample, a judgmental 

sample, or a census.

The temporal scheduling of sampling, 

particularly when multiple panels are 

being used, requires a revisit design

(Urquhart and Kincaid 1999; McDonald 

2003). See Figure 4.1 for a schematic 

representation of, and notation for, 

different revisit designs. MOJN has 

adopted notation for revisit designs 

for brevity and consistency following 

McDonald (2003). Under this notation, 

the revisit plan is represented by a 

pair of digits. The first is the number 

of consecutive occasions that a panel 

will be sampled, and the second is the 

number of consecutive occasions that 

a panel is not sampled before repeating 

the sequence. The total number of 

panels in the rotation design is normally 

the sum of digits in the notation. For 

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 59

Figure 4.1. Examples of five different revisit designs (reproduced from 

MacCluskie et al. 2005). 

Sample Occasion

Panel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Design (1-0)

1 X X X X X X X X X X

Design (1-n)

1 X

2 X

3 X

4 X

5 X

6 X

7 X

8 X

9 X

10 X

Design (2-n)

1 X

2 X X

3 X X

4 X X

5 X X

6 X X

7 X X

8 X X

9 X X 

10 X X

Design (2-3)

1 X X X X

2 X X X X

3 X X X X

4 X X X X

5 X X X X

Design (1-0, 2-3)

1 X X X X X X X X X X

2 X X X X

3 X X X X

4 X X X X

5 X X X X

6 X X X X

example, using this notation the digit 

pair [1-2] means that members of three 

panels will be visited for one occasion, 

not visited for two occasions, then 

visited again for one occasion, not 

visited for two occasions, and so on. If a 

single panel is to be visited every sample 

occasion, its revisit design would be [1-

0]. The notation [1-1] indicates that a 

panel is to be sampled on an alternating 

schedule. The notation [1-n] means a 

panel is to be visited once and never 

again. The notation [1-0,1-5] means that 

units in one panel will be visited every 

occasion, while units in six other panels 

will be visited once every six years. This 

particular design is called a split-panel.

Response design (measurements taken 

at sampling locations) and sample size

(the number of samples required to meet 

stated monitoring objectives) are two 

essential components of any sampling 

design that are detailed in the protocols 

themselves (see overview, Chapter 5), 

but we introduce them briefly in this 

chapter. Response design and sample 

size components are developed after 

basic decisions regarding target and 

sampling population, spatial allocation 

and membership, and revisit strategies 

have been made. In addition, a response 

design is usually necessary before sample 

size can be estimated appropriately. 

This is particularly true when response 

decisions, such as plot shape and size, 

strongly influence the variability of 

population estimates. However, we must 

decide about sample size in order to 

finalize decisions about membership and 

revisit design, and in practice, sampling 

designs arise out of an iterative process 

in which the order of operations is 

not rigid. As with the design decisions 

described above, sample size is primarily 

an exercise in cost-benefit trade-offs, 

and must be determined through careful 

consideration of program objectives.

Beginning with the simplest, in which a 

single panel or set of sampling units, such 

as a group of streams or vegetation plots, 

are visited on every sampling occasion, 

and ending with a complex split-panel 

design in which the first panel is sampled 

on every occasion and five panels are 

revisited on two consecutive occasions 

and then “rested” for three occasions.

Chapter 4: Sampling Design
Sierra Nevada Network

 60 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

4.4 Sample Size Considerations 

and Magnitude of Change

Populations in the real world are dynamic, 

and change over time is expected. What 

is important is whether or not there has 

been meaningful change (meaningful to 

the ecosystem, public, or park manager), 

what has caused the observed change, 

and whether or not further change in the 

resource is expected.

To understand what constitutes a 

meaningful and significant change, we 

must differentiate between statistical 

significance and biological significance. 

Statistical significance relies on probability 

and is influenced by sample size. Even 

minor changes (from a biological 

perspective) will be statistically significant 

if the sample size is large enough. So, 

regardless of statistical significance, we 

would consider something biologically 

significant if it facilitates a major shift in 

ecosystem structure or function (e.g., 

loss of one or more species, addition of 

non-native species, changes in ecosystem 

processes, etc.).

Thus, from a monitoring standpoint, 

we are concerned with both statistical 

and biological significance. We want to 

know whether we are likely to detect a 

change statistically that we also consider 

biologically meaningful. To answer 

this we need to decide what level of 

statistical significance we want to attain 

(i.e., our Type I error rate orβ, discussed 

below), what level of change we consider 

biologically meaningful and that we 

hope to detect (i.e., the “effect size”), the 

amount of variation among sampling 

units, and the number of sampling units.

In addition to our monitoring objectives, 

we need to define our sampling 

objectives. Sampling objectives

establish a desired level of statistical 

power (1-β to detect a specified 

minimum detectable change or effect 

size and acceptable levels of false-change 

(a or the probability of a Type I error) 

(Elzinga et al. 2001). Sample size is a 

function of each of these components, 

and decreasing sample size, which can 

be desirable for cost effectiveness, will 

often force acceptance of higher error 

and lower power. These tradeoffs are 

mitigated by reducing variance estimates, 

either through modifications in response 

design, another component of the 

sampling design (e.g., revisit design), or 

by accepting a higher minimum effect 

size (Steidl et al. 1997).

In general, sample size should be 

large enough to give a high probability 

of detecting any changes that are of 

management, conservation, or biological 

importance, but not unnecessarily large 

(Manly 2001). Scientists traditionally seek 

to reduce Type I errors, and accordingly 

prefer small a levels. In a monitoring 

program such as ours with a strong 

resource-conservation mandate, however, 

it is preferable to employ an early warning 

philosophy by tolerating a highera, but 

consequently increasing the power to 

detect differences or trends (Sokal and 

Rohlf 1995; Roback and Askins 2005).

For our initial set of protocols, we 

will use power analyses to determine 

the approximate sample size needed 

to detect significant levels of change. 

Given our specification of a, desired 

power, and effect size, combined with 

information on the variance of the 

response variable in question (obtained 

from available data or comparable 

analogous data, where available), it is 

possible to calculate the sample size 

required to achieve these results. 

We may use simple equations (Elzinga 

et al. 2001; Thompson 2002) for 

approximating sample sizes for designbased estimators of status. Trend analysis 

requires model-assisted methods; 

therefore, sample size calculations for 

such models require the use of statistical 

packages such as SAS (SAS Institute, Inc). 

For complex designs estimating trend 

(e.g., panel designs), power analyses 

based on simulations are required. We 

will work with statisticians to implement 

simulation-based approaches using 

familiar statistical software packages 

(e.g., SAS software and R programming 

language [http://www.r-project.org/]). 

Further, we will recalculate sample sizes 

periodically for individual Vital Signs 

as data become available in order to 

refine and revise sampling designs, and 

ensure that objectives are being met and 

sampling resources are being optimally 

allocated among Vital Signs. 

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 61

The Integrated Upland Protocol will monitor long-term trends in focal vegetation 

communities, including creosote-bursage communities (upper photo) and Joshua 

tree woodlands (lower photo), Joshua Tree National Park. Upper photo courtesy 

Stacy Manson. Lower photo courtesy Penny Latham.

4.5 Logistical Constraints of 

Sampling Designs

Several characteristics of MOJN parks 

and their natural resources impose 

significant logistical constraints on 

spatial and temporal aspects of sampling 

designs. First, MOJN parks encompass 

some of the largest park acreages in 

the lower 48 states. Consequently, safe 

access to potential sampling sites, either 

by road, trail, or backcountry hiking, 

may not always be logistically feasible 

or cost-effective, given the remote 

and rugged nature of some portions 

of the parks (e.g., mountainous areas 

within DEVA). To address this issue, we 

intend to use a weighted approach that 

allocates a greater proportion of the 

sample to areas within a predetermined 

distance from roads and a smaller 

proportion of the sample to the more 

remote areas of the parks. In addition, as 

mentioned elsewhere (e.g., Chapter 5), 

we intend to coordinate data collection 

for multiple Vital Signs, either by colocation or co-visitation of established 

sampling sites. Second, MOJN parks 

experience extreme weather conditions 

that vary from park to park (e.g., cool 

temperatures at the top of Wheeler 

Peak in GRBA, at the same time that 

temperatures at DEVA exceed 48°C). 

Consequently, access to some of the 

parks may vary seasonally, field work 

may be performed safely only within 

certain seasons, and particular Vital 

Signs may only be sampled within 

specific temporal windows (e.g., plants 

that are seasonally present). These issues 

will be carefully evaluated and addressed 

using a variety of appropriate revisit 

designs for each individual monitoring 

protocol. Finally, an additional 

approach that the network is currently 

investigating is the use of high-resolution 

aerial photography to extend groundbased sampling measurements (e.g., 

vegetation cover attributes) to remote, 

inaccessible areas within parks.

4.6 Overview of Sampling Designs 

for Mojave Desert Network Vital 

Signs

Table 4.1 lists the 10 protocols planned 

for development, the vital signs they 

address, and the proposed sampling 

design for each protocol. For each 

protocol, the table identifies the target 

population(s) based on monitoring 

objectives (identified in Chapter 5, 

Table 5.1), allocation and arrangement 

of samples (membership design), and 

frequency of sampling occasions (revisit 

design). Opportunities for integrating 

Vital Signs through co-visitation and colocation are also listed.

Chapter 4: Sampling Design
 62 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

protocol 

name vital sign target population membershipdesign

revisit

design

integration

opportunities

Air Quality

Ozone

Existing air quality monitoring 

stations N/A [1-0] Wet and Dry Deposition

Visibility and Particulate 

Matter

Climate Basic Meteorology Existing weather stations N/A [1-0]

Integrated

Upland

Vegetation Change Upland shrub communities

Probabilistic

(GRTS)

Rotating

Panel

Invasive/Exotic Plants

Fire and Fuel 

Dynamics

Landscape Dynamics

Biological Soil Crusts BSCs in upland shrub communities

Soil Erosion and Deposition

These processes and characteristics 

within upland shrub communities

Soil Disturbance

Soil Chemistry/Nutrient Cycling

Soil Hydrologic Function

Riparian

Vegetation Vegetation Change

Cottonwood, willow, and palm oasis 

communities at large persistent 

springs Probabilistic

(GRTS)

Rotating

Panel

Invasive/Exotic Plants

Groundwater and 

Springs

Streams and Lakes

Riparian Birds

Landscape Dynamics

Perennial stream vegetation 

(GRBA)

Riparian Birds Riparian Bird Communities

Riparian-obligate breeding birds

at large persistent springs Probabilistic

(GRTS)

Rotating

Panel

Riparian Vegetation

Groundwater and 

Springs 

Streams and Lakes Riparian-obligate breeding birds 

along perennial streams (GRBA)

Invasive/

Exotic Plants Invasive/Exotic Plants

In upland shrub and riparian

communities

Judgmental

and 

Probabilistic

TBD

Integrated Upland

Riparian Vegetation

Fire and Fuel 

Dynamics

Prioritized watch list Judgmental TBD

Fire and Fuel 

Dynamics Fire and Fuel Dynamics Fires within MOJN parks TBD TBD Invasive/Exotic Plants

Integrated Upland

Groundwater

and Springs

Groundwater Dynamics and 

Chemistry Wells Judgmental TBD

Surface Water Dynamics and 

Surface Water Chemistry Carbonate-aquifer springs Judgmental RotatingPanel

Riparian Vegetation

Riparian Birds

Streams and

Lakes

Surface Water Dynamics and 

Surface Water Chemistry

Status of 303(d) waterbodies 

(LAME) Census [1-0] Riparian Vegetation

Riparian Birds

Permanent streams (GRBA) TBD Rotating

Panel

Lakes (GRBA) TBD TBD

Landscape

Dynamics Landscape Dynamics MOJN parks, including buffer 

around park boundaries Census TBD Integrated Upland

Riparian Vegetation

Table 4.1 Summary of sampling design components for each of 10 protocols planned for development (and associated Vital Signs).

4.6.1 Example: Integrated Upland 

Protocol

MOJN parks encompass a wide range 

of plant communities, from saltbush 

and creosotebush at low elevations to 

bristlecone pine communities at the 

highest elevations. Park managers are 

interested in understanding long-term 

trends in composition and structure of 

these communities (vegetation change) 

as well as soil properties and processes 

across MOJN parks. Since changes in 

vegetation can have profound effects 

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 63

The GRTS approach is advantageous 

because selected points that turn out 

to be inaccessible may be replaced by a 

subsequent sample point from the same 

draw without losing spatial dispersion 

and randomness. 

The unequal representation of shrub 

communities across the landscape poses 

a challenge that may be remedied by an 

unequal probability GRTS approach. 

Whereas an equal probability GRTS 

draw may result in insufficient sample 

sizes of specific shrub communities, an 

unequal probability draw may ensure 

adequate sample sizes within unique 

high-priority communities, such as 

Joshua tree. Figure 4.2 illustrates the 

sample site locations resulting from 

an unequal probability GRTS draw for 

Joshua Tree National Park (JOTR). Of 

100 sample sites, twenty-three were 

allotted within Joshua tree communities 

and seventy-seven were allotted within 

creosotebush communities. 

We delineated the sampling frame by 

vegetative community for this example 

only. Optimally, the sampling frame will 

be delineated by physical characteristics 

or features such as elevation, landform, 

or soils to avoid sampling frame 

error that may result when vegetative 

communities shift across the landscape. 

In future discussions with the Integrated 

Upland protocol working group, we 

will refine the membership, revisit, and 

response designs, sampling methods, 

sample size requirements, and logistical 

strategies for implementing the protocol 

at all network parks. We anticipate an 

extended period of time dedicated to 

sample site selection as we 1) explore 

base data (spatial and tabular) useful 

for selecting sites and estimating sample 

size, and 2) resolve issues associated with 

applying an inference-based approach to 

these large parks. 

on soil properties and vice versa, the 

study of one necessitates the study of 

the other. For this reason and those 

discussed above for co-location and 

co-visitation of Vital Signs, we plan to 

design protocols that simultaneously 

address Vegetation Change, Biological 

Soil Crusts, and soils-related Vital Signs 

(Soil Chemistry and Nutrient Cycling, 

Soil Hydrologic Function, Soil Erosion/

Deposition, and Soil Disturbance). 

Financial and logistical constraints 

require that we limit our objectives 

for the Vegetation Change vital sign 

to a subset of these communities. 

For this vital sign, we identified two 

target populations of interest for longterm monitoring: shrub and riparian 

communities. We selected shrub 

communities because this physiognomic 

class collectively represents a large 

proportion of each park and captures 

several focal communities of interest 

(Joshua tree, blackbrush, and sagebrush), 

thus providing a common theme 

among parks and increasing our ability 

to discern landscape-scale change in 

upland vegetation and soils. From the 

Vital Signs workshops, it was also clear 

that riparian communities were of high 

management interest to parks, due to 

the significant degree of biodiversity, 

productivity, and human impacts that 

occur in these systems. We propose to 

address these two disparate communities 

as separate protocols because their 

different ecological characteristics and 

spatial distributions across the landscape 

necessitate different sampling designs 

and methods. 

Here we discuss a potential sampling 

design for the Integrated Upland 

protocol, which integrates sampling 

for shrub communities, biological soil 

crusts, and associated soil processes 

and characteristics. We plan to design 

protocols that simultaneously co-locate 

and co-sample parameters estimating 

vegetation change and soil condition 

to maximize data integration among 

Vital Signs and minimize travel costs. 

A random, probability-based sampling 

approach is desirable because we want 

to make inferences across MOJN 

park landscapes, which are very large. 

Chapter 4: Sampling Design
 64 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

Figure 4.2. Site locations from an unequal probability generalized random-tessellation stratified sample for the Integrated Upland 

protocol at Joshua Tree National Park. Of 100 sample sites (stars), twenty-three were allotted within Joshua tree communities (orange 

area) and seventy-seven were allotted within creosotebush communities (green area). Only areas within 5 km of a road were included 

in the sampling area.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 65

5.1 Introduction

Monitoring protocols are the key, onthe-ground, functional elements of 

our program. Formal, peer-reviewed 

protocols ensure consistent and reliable 

monitoring, and provide for project and 

program continuity as personnel change. 

Our protocols and their associated 

development process emphasize careful 

selection and testing of methods and 

sampling designs, comprehensive and 

detailed review by National Park Service 

and external, non-NPS experts prior to 

implementation, and careful, detailed 

documentation to ensure consistent 

implementation over time. Where 

possible, the network will take advantage 

of existing protocols, particularly those 

that have already undergone I&M and 

peer review. Even in those cases, the 

protocols need to be adapted for the 

particular circumstances of MOJN parks. 

The following sections describe protocol 

development planning documents 

(Protocol Development Summaries), 

guidance specifying the content of 

each protocol document, the protocol 

development process, and protocols 

planned for development by the MOJN 

over the next three to five years.

5.2 Protocol Development 

Summaries

Protocol Development Summaries 

(PDSs) are required for all monitoring 

protocols planned for development 

and implementation by the network 

monitoring program. The PDS is a short 

document that identifies the vital sign 

of interest, describes why the protocol 

and monitoring is needed, specific 

issues and questions being addressed, 

specific monitoring objectives, proposed 

methodological approach, and other 

details. The typical PDS includes the 

following material:

•	 Protocol Title

•	 Parks Where Protocol will be 

Implemented: Names or 4-character 

codes for the parks where the protocol 

is likely to be implemented over the 

next 5 years.

•	 Justification/Issues being 

Addressed: A paragraph or two 

justifying why this protocol needs to be 

developed.

•	 Monitoring Questions and 

Objectives to be Addressed by the 

Protocol

•	 Basic Approach: Description of any 

existing protocols or methods that will 

be incorporated into the protocol, the 

basic methodological approach, and 

sampling design.

•	 Principal Investigators and 

NPS Lead: The name and contact 

information for the Principal 

Investigators (P.I.s) and for the NPS 

project manager responsible for 

working with the P.I.s to ensure that 

the protocol meets network and 

park needs.

•	 Development Schedule, Budget, 

and Expected Interim Products: 

Description of expected costs, time 

lines, and interim products (annual 

reports, sampling designs, etc.).

Protocol development summaries 

for nine MOJN protocols proposed 

for development in the next 3 to 5 

years can be found in Appendix I. The 

development of PDSs is an iterative 

process, requiring extensive input 

and feedback from park staff and 

cooperators to develop a succinct 

summary and realistic set of protocol 

development plans. PDSs will be 

updated as necessary to reflect the 

latest decisions on objectives, target 

populations, methods, cooperators, and 

other pertinent information. Additional 

PDSs for the remaining three Vital Signs 

will be developed in the future as time, 

funding, and collaborative opportunities 

are identified.

5.3 Protocol Format and Content

Monitoring protocols will follow the 

document standards described in 

Oakley et al. (2003). This guideline 

specifies format and content for the 

protocol document, and emphasizes 

a modular structure that facilitates 

information access while supporting 

a well-documented history of change 

and revision. The following paragraphs 

summarize the several components of a 

typical MOJN monitoring protocol.

Chapter 5: Sampling Protocols

Monitoring protocols 

are detailed study plans 

that explain how data 

are to be collected, 

managed, analyzed, 

and reported, 

and are a key 

component of 

quality assurance 

for natural resource 

monitoring programs. 

(Oakley et al. 2003).
Sierra Nevada Network

 66 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Monitoring protocols consist of several 

discrete sections detailing protocol 

background, sampling objectives, 

sampling design (including location and 

time of sample collection), field methods, 

data analysis and reporting, staffing 

requirements, training procedures, and 

operational requirements (Oakley et al. 

2003). The first section is the narrative, 

which provides the background and 

rationale for vital sign selection, including 

a summary of pertinent research 

background, local research history, and 

a clear statement of park management 

information needs concerning the vital 

sign being monitored. The narrative 

also discusses specific measurable 

objectives and monitoring questions 

and identifies how the data to be 

collected in the monitoring effort will 

address these questions. Narratives 

also summarize the design phase of the 

protocol development and document key 

decisions made. Documenting the history 

of a protocol during its development 

phase helps ensure that future refinement 

of the protocol continues to improve the 

protocol and is not mere repetition of 

previous trials or comparisons (Oakley 

et al. 2003). Narratives also provide a 

listing and brief summary of all Standard 

Operating Procedures (SOPs), which 

are developed in detail as independent 

sections in the protocol. 

Protocol SOPs are discrete sections 

that carefully and thoroughly explain 

in a step-by-step manner how each 

procedure identified in the protocol 

narrative will be accomplished. At a 

minimum, separate SOPs address presampling training requirements, data to 

be collected, equipment operations, data 

collection techniques and methods, data 

management, data analysis, reporting, 

and any activities required at the end 

of a field season (e.g., post-sampling 

equipment maintenance and storage). 

One SOP identifies when and how 

revisions to the protocol are undertaken. 

As stand-alone documents, SOPs are 

easily updated compared to revising an 

entire monitoring protocol. A revision 

log for each SOP identifies any changes 

that are implemented, by whom, when, 

and why – emphasizing in a practical 

way the nature of protocols as “living 

documents.” The final elements or 

sections in a typical protocol will include 

literature cited and, where appropriate, 

attachments such as appendixes, 

data tables, handbooks, or any other 

supporting information.

Complete monitoring protocols identify 

supporting materials critical to the 

development and implementation of the 

protocol (Oakley et al. 2003). Supporting 

materials are any materials developed or 

acquired during the development phase of 

a monitoring protocol. Examples of this 

material may include databases, reports, 

maps, geospatial information, species lists, 

analytical tools tested, and any decisions 

resulting from these exploratory analyses. 

Material not easily formatted for inclusion 

in the monitoring protocol also may be 

included in this section.

5.4 Protocol Development Process

Once a vital sign has been selected, the 

next step is to develop a monitoring 

plan and formal monitoring protocol for 

that vital sign. Successful development 

of a monitoring protocol often involves 

a multiyear effort to determine the 

appropriate spatial and temporal scale 

for sampling and to test sampling 

procedures before they are implemented 

for long-term monitoring. In many cases, 

such development requires specialized 

technical expertise and access to 

equipment or resources that may not 

be directly available to a monitoring 

program. For the MOJN I&M Program, 

protocol development will be performed 

through collaborative projects that take 

advantage of diverse agency, academic, 

and other professional expertise 

that leverage and augment network 

resources. Current collaborators 

providing key technical assistance 

include USGS, U. S. Forest Service, and 

Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit 

(CESU)-affiliated academic experts. In 

general, MOJN staff will be the primary 

developers of protocol-associated 

data management and documentation 

procedures, and will oversee both field 

testing and future implementation in 

network parks. 

The general protocol development 

process is as follows. Network staff, 

park staff, and collaborators identify 

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 67

the key monitoring objectives and 

questions, and types of data needed 

to best answer those questions. Next, 

the protocol development workgroup 

selects or develops appropriate sampling 

methods and spatial and temporal revisit 

designs, with the support of a statistician. 

Method and design development takes 

into account specific properties of the 

sampled resource. Following fieldtesting (and possible revision), protocol 

SOPs are drafted to detail all methods, 

designs, and related information. 

Finalized protocol documents are 

then sent through an informal internal 

and formal external (peer and expert) 

review process. Following reviews and 

revision, the approved protocol will be 

accepted for full implementation by 

the program, and implementation will 

commence according to the design and 

schedule set for that protocol. Given the 

lengthy and involved process of protocol 

development, the network plans to use 

and modify existing protocols whenever 

feasible to meet our needs.

5.5 Protocol Overview and 

Development Schedule

The MOJN I&M Program has identified 

twenty high-priority Vital Signs for 

monitoring at network parks. Of 

these, seventeen will be the focus for 

development and implementation within 

the next three to five years (see Table 5.1 

and Chapter 9, Table 9.1). The remaining 

three Vital Signs are not slated for 

development within this timeframe, but 

will be addressed in the future as time 

and resources permit. 

Integration of data collection for 

multiple Vital Signs, either by co-location 

or co-visitation, can be advantageous for 

financial, logistical, and ecological (e.g., 

minimize human-caused disturbance) 

reasons. Given the large size of MOJN 

parks, the wide spatial distribution of 

target populations to which the network 

plans to make inferences, and associated 

logistic challenges of sampling these 

populations, the efficiencies associated 

with co-location and co-visitation 

allow the network to achieve more 

with its limited financial resources. 

Information from co-located or covisited Vital Signs may also provide a 

more holistic, ecological assessment 

of condition and in some cases, insight 

into underlying causes of ecosystem 

change. Integration is most appropriate 

when Vital Signs are ecologically related 

and exhibit strong spatial or temporal 

linkages, when monitoring objectives 

are complimentary, and when sampling 

designs are similar. 

The MOJN is making a concerted 

effort in the early stages of protocol 

development to facilitate communication 

among different protocol development 

teams to permit identification of areas 

of overlap and potential integration. As 

a result of these initial discussions, the 

MOJN plans to develop 10 protocols to 

address 17 network Vital Signs. Similar 

to the Northern Colorado Plateau 

Network and Southern Colorado Plateau 

Network, the MOJN plans to integrate 

soils and vegetation Vital Signs into a 

single protocol (Integrated Upland) 

due to the close linkages between these 

ecosystem components. The spatial and 

temporal alignment that results from 

co-location and co-visitation will make 

it easier to jointly model resulting soils 

and vegetation data (i.e., avoids problems 

associated with misaligned data). We also 

plan some degree of integration for data 

collection, analysis, and interpretation 

among several of the 10 protocols. 

MOJN staff working with 

University of Nevada Las Vegas 

(UNLV) partners to check 

invertebrate pitfall traps, 

Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area. 

Photo Courtesy 

Alex Suazo, UNLV.

Chapter 5: Sampling Protocols
Sierra Nevada Network

 68 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

In Table 5.1, we identify the 10 protocols 

to be developed over the next three to 

five years, the Vital Signs they address, 

their justification and objectives, and 

parks where they will be implemented. 

As of the close of FY 2008, we’ve 

initiated development of five protocols, 

including the Integrated Upland, 

Groundwater and Springs, Streams and 

Lakes, Air Quality, and Invasive/Exotic 

Plants, each of which is currently in 

a different stage of development (see 

Table 9.1). In FY 2009, the network 

will facilitate interchange among all 

protocol working groups to achieve a 

combined set of monitoring objectives 

that are as integrated and synergistic as 

possible. The network will also initiate 

development of an additional three 

protocols in FY 2009, including Weather 

and Climate, Riparian Vegetation, and 

Fire and Fuel Dynamics. The remaining 

protocols: Landscape Dynamics and 

Riparian Birds, will be initiated in 

FY 2010. The MOJN will coordinate 

protocol development with the national 

program and other networks to avoid 

a redundancy in efforts and to build 

upon existing work, particularly those 

for Landscape Dynamics and Invasive/

Exotic Plants. 

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 69

Table 5.1. Monitoring protocols to be developed and implemented between 2008- 2012. Summaries of these protocols are listed below and include the start-up year for development, the primary network Vital Signs addressed, the justification, monitoring objectives, 

and relevant parks where the protocol will be implemented.

StartUp YearNetwork 

Vital Sign Justification Monitoring Objectives Parks

FY 2008

Integrated Upland Monitoring Protocol

Vegetation Change

Soil Erosion and 

Deposition

Soil Disturbance

Soil Chemistry and

Nutrient Cycling

Soil Hydrologic 

Function

Biological Soil 

Crusts

(BSC)

Soils, vegetation, and biological soil 

crusts are the central components of 

ecosystems between which critical 

ecological processes and interactions 

occur. Soils structure plant communities 

by influencing nutrient and moisture 

availability. Plants and BSCs influence 

soils through primary production, 

soil stabilization, and their effects 

on moisture infiltration, nutrient and 

hydrologic cycles, and disturbance 

regimes. Because plants, soils, and 

BSCs are tightly linked and affected 

by similar drivers and stressors (e.g. 

climate, atmospheric deposition, fires, 

floods, invasive species, recreational 

activity, grazing), they will be monitored 

together.

1. Determine trends in composition, 

structure, mortality, relative abundance, 

and regeneration within upland shrub 

communities.

2. Determine status and trends in abundance 

and composition of BSCs within upland 

shrub communities.

3. Determine status and trends in soil chemistry 

and nutrients (particularly nitrogen), the 

magnitude and extent of soil erosion and 

surface disturbance, and soil hydrologic 

function within upland shrub communities.

4. Determine trends in distribution and 

abundance of non-native plant species within 

upland shrub communities.

DEVA

GRBA

JOTR

LAME

MOJA

PARA

Groundwater and Springs Monitoring Protocol

Groundwater 

Dynamics and 

Chemistry

Surface Water 

Dynamics

Surface Water 

Chemistry

Springs are intimately linked to 

groundwater, and the ecological 

characteristics of individual springs are

strongly affected by groundwater 

source and dynamics, necessitating an 

integrated approach. Surface water 

resources are sparsely distributed on 

the landscape but are critical for the 

persistence of native biota – including 

many endemic, rare, threatened, or

endangered species.

1. Determine status and trend in ground water 

resources, as estimated from existing wells.

2. For index springs, determine the status, 

trend, and natural range of variability of flow.

3. For index springs, determine the status, 

trend, and natural range of variability in core 

water chemistry parameters.

4. Determine status and trend of biotic 

communities in index springs, including 

aquatic macroinvertebrates and aquatic 

vertebrates.

DEVA

GRBA

JOTR

LAME

MOJA

PARA

Streams and Lakes Monitoring Protocol

Surface Water 

Dynamics

Surface Water 

Chemistry

Relative to their abundance in the 

landscape, streams and lakes are 

disproportionately important in terms of

biodiversity, productivity, and other 

ecosystem functions. Several streams 

and rivers at LAME are listed as 

impaired on state 303d lists, and 4 

streams at GRBA are recognized by 

Nevada as Class A waters. GRBA has 

by far the largest number of streams 

(10) and lakes (6) of any park in the 

network, and both habitats are thought 

to be susceptible to human stressors, 

including groundwater withdrawal, 

climate change, and atmospheric 

pollutants.

Water Quality Objectives

1. Identify the regulatory status and determine 

trends in water quality at 303(d) streams of 

Las Vegas Wash at LAME.

2. Identify the regulatory status and determine 

trends in water quality of the Class A streams 

within GRBA.

Non-regulatory Objectives

1. Identify trends in discharge in GRBA streams, 

particularly in lower reaches in contact with 

the regional carbonate aquifer.

2. Determine status and trend in core water 

quality parameters in GRBA streams.

3. Determine status and trend in stream 

macroinvertebrate assemblages in GRBA 

streams. Use regional bioassessment criteria 

to determine whether macroinvertebrate 

assemblages indicate “reference/unimpaired” 

or “stressed/impaired” status.

4. For perennial lakes within GRBA, determine 

whether water level, lake ice phenology, or 

water chemistry parameters (specifically pH 

and metals) change over time.

GRBA

LAME

Chapter 5: Sampling Protocols
 70 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

Table 5.1 Monitoring protocols to be developed and implemented between 2008- 2012 (continued).

StartUp YearNetwork 

Vital Sign Justification Monitoring Objectives Parks

FY 2008

Air Quality Monitoring Protocol

Ozone

Wet and Dry

Deposition

Visibility &

Particulate

Matter

The deposition of atmospheric 

pollutants may have significant effects 

on soil chemistry, vegetation, and 

ecosystem processes. Monitoring air 

quality will provide important reference 

data for interpretation of other 

Vital Signs (e.g., soil chemistry and 

vegetation change)

1. Identify seasonal and annual trends in 

climate (temperature, precipitation) using 

data from existing monitoring stations.

2. Determine status and trends in air quality 

(Ozone, Dry and Wet Deposition, visibilityreducing pollutants) using data from existing 

monitoring stations

All

Invasive/Exotic Plants Monitoring Protocol

Invasive/Exotic 

Plants

Invasive exotic plant species pose one 

of the greatest threats to natural and 

cultural resources of MOJN parks. 

Impacts include displacement of native 

plants, degradation of wildlife habitat, 

fundamental changes to ecosystem 

processes (e.g., nutrient cycling), and 

alteration of disturbance regimes (e.g., 

establishment of grass/fire cycle). 

Early detection is key to effective 

management.

1. Detect incipient populations and new 

occurrences of target invasive plants in 

prioritized areas (vector corridors and areas 

of high management significance). 

2. Estimate the status and trend of established 

target invasive plants (frequency and 

abundance) in upland shrub communities, 

riparian communities, and priority 

management sites.

3. Provide recommendations to determine 

trends in abundance of target and secondary 

invasive plant species and native plants 

following past management practices.

All

FY 2009

Weather and Climate Monitoring Protocol

Basic Meteorology

Changes in weather patterns and 

climate trends are major drivers in all 

ecosystems. This vital sign will provide

important reference data for 

interpretation of other Vital Signs.

1. Determine how local and regional trends in 

climate and air quality conditions are related 

to other Vital Signs. All

Riparian Vegetation Monitoring Protocol

Vegetation Change

Riparian areas in the MOJN 

parks have greater biological 

productivity, biodiversity, and rates of 

biogeochemical cycling and storage 

than surrounding uplands and are one 

of the most threatened habitats in 

MOJN parks. Native riparian vegetation 

is threatened by groundwater 

withdrawal, human visitation, invasive 

plants, and altered disturbance regimes 

(e.g., fire).

1. Detect significant shifts in community 

composition, structure, distribution, and 

areal extent of vegetation in cottonwood/

willow-dominated, palm oasis, and 

streamside communities.

2. Determine the status and trend in 

abundance, mortality, and regeneration of 

principal riparian plant species (dominant or 

target).

3. Detect trends in the frequency and 

abundance of target invasive plant species in 

these riparian communities.

DEVA

GRBA

JOTR

LAME

MOJA

PARA

Fire and Fuel Dynamics Monitoring Protocol

Fire and Fuel 

Dynamics

Altered disturbance regimes are 

a priority management concern 

to managers at MOJN parks, who 

are, in particular, concerned with 

changes in fire frequency and intensity 

indicated by numerous recent, large, 

and high intensity fires within parks. 

Understanding the nature, direction, 

and potential effects of these 

changes in fire regime are critical to 

understanding potential threats to 

native species and ecosystem processes.

1. Document changes over time in the causes 

and patterns of burning, and evaluate how 

changes vary among major vegetation 

types and areas of differing fire regime 

classifications. 

2. Determine post-fire vegetation successional 

patterns among major vegetation types and 

fire regime categories. 

3. Determine if abundance and distribution of 

invasive annual grasses are changing over 

time, and if those patterns vary among major 

vegetation types and fire regime categories.

All

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 71

StartUp YearNetwork 

Vital Sign Justification Monitoring Objectives Parks

FY 2009

Landscape Dynamics Monitoring Protocol

Landscape 

Dynamics

Increasing land use and development 

around parks will have increased 

impacts on fragile desert resources. 

Monitoring changes in land cover 

composition, configuration, and 

connectivity will help managers 

understand and manage future threats 

to park ecological integrity.

1. Determine trends in land cover distribution 

within and adjacent to MOJN park 

boundaries. 

2. Identify patterns of change for relevant land 

cover types within and adjacent to MOJN 

park boundaries. 

3. Document land use changes that correspond 

with changes in land cover distribution and 

patterns. 

All

Riparian Bird Monitoring Protocol

Riparian Birds

Birds have public appeal and are 

sensitive indicators of change. Data 

from bird monitoring has high value 

because it provides information unique 

from that of other Vital Signs (e.g., 

responses by consumers), and parks 

have a legal mandate to address 

landbirds under the Endangered 

Species Act and Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act. Eighty percent of bird species in 

the Mojave-Great Basin region are 

associated with riparian vegetation, and 

federally endangered bird species are 

present in the MOJN.

1. Use occupancy data to determine status and 

trends of principal riparian-obligate breeding 

bird species of concern in cottonwood 

or willow-dominated, palm oasis, and 

streamside riparian communities.

2. Determine status and trends in the 

abundance of riparian-obligate birds during 

the breeding season in the specified riparian 

communities. 

3. Estimate status and trends in riparian 

breeding bird community richness in 

specified riparian communities.

DEVA

GRBA

JOTR

LAME

MOJA

PARA

Table 5.1 Monitoring protocols to be developed and implemented between 2008- 2012 (continued).

Chapter 5: Monitoring Protocols
Sierra Nevada Network

 72 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 73

6.1 Introduction

The central mission of the NPS I&M 

Program is to provide timely and 

relevant scientific information about 

the status and trends of park resources 

to park managers. To accomplish 

this, the network will require a data 

management system that effectively 

addresses the generation, preservation, 

documentation, and transmission of data 

and the information contained within. 

Good data management is the means by 

which scientific data, and the derived 

information about our natural resources, 

become part of our NPS heritage. A 

robust system for data management is 

particularly important for a long-term 

monitoring program where the lifespan 

of a dataset will span the careers of many 

individuals. Recognizing this, founders 

of the NPS Servicewide I&M Program 

established data management as a 

cornerstone to all monitoring programs. 

Thus, networks are expected to invest 

at least thirty percent of available 

resources on data management and to 

fully integrate data management into 

network processes and procedures. The 

Data and Information Management Plan 

(DMP; Appendix J) is one element in 

the network’s effort to achieve this goal 

of high-quality data and information 

management. With proper data 

management, analysis of high quality 

monitoring data will provide information 

that improves our understanding of 

ecological relationships, expands our 

knowledge and understanding of 

ecological patterns and principles, and 

ultimately facilitates park management 

(Figure 6.1).

6.2 Goals and Objectives of 

Mojave Desert Network Data 

Management

The success of our program in providing 

timely and relevant information on 

the condition of park resources hinges 

upon our ability to produce, manage, 

and deliver this information, and the 

subsequent knowledge derived, to its 

intended audience. Our overall strategy 

for achieving this goal focuses on 

ensuring the quality, interpretability, 

security, longevity, and availability of our 

natural resource data. In implementing 

a data and information management 

system, the network will strive for the 

following: 

•	 Confidence in the security and

availability of natural resource data and 

related information 

•	 Easy access to most information, and

appropriate safeguards for sensitive 

information 

•	 Awareness of the intended use and

limitations of each dataset 

•	 Infrastructure and documentation that

encourages data exploration 

•	 Compatibility of datasets for

exploration and analysis at larger scales 

and across disciplines 

•	 Implementation of standards and

procedures that facilitate information 

management, and that reinforce 

good habits among staff at all levels 

of project implementation – project 

leaders, technicians, and volunteer 

data collectors 

•	 A proper balance between the

standards needed to ensure quality 

and usability, and the flexibility to 

meet specific needs and encourage 

innovation 

Figure 6.1 Understanding data (Bellinger 2004).

Chapter 6: Data Management

...founders of the NPS 

Servicewide I&M 

Program established 

data management as 

a cornerstone to all 

monitoring programs.
Sierra Nevada Network

 74 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

•	 A natural resource culture, which views

data not as a commodity but as the 

lifeblood of our work 

The MOJN DMP outlines how the 

network intends to implement and 

maintain a system that will serve the data 

and information management needs of 

our I&M Program. This plan reflects 

our commitment to establishing and 

maintaining a robust system for data 

management to ensure the availability 

and usability of high-quality natural 

resource information.

The MOJN DMP describes how the 

network will: 

•	 Support I&M Program objectives

•	 Acquire and process data

•	 Assure data validation and quality

control

•	 Document, analyze, summarize, and

disseminate data and information 

•	 Maintain nationally developed data

management systems 

•	 Maintain, store, and archive data

The goal of the MOJN’s data 

management program is to maintain, 

in perpetuity, the ecological data, 

information, and knowledge that results 

from the network’s resource inventory 

and monitoring work (e.g., datasets, 

databases, metadata). The purpose of 

the DMP is to describe the resources 

and processes required to ensure the 

following standards for data acquired or 

managed by MOJN:

•	 Accuracy: Analyses performed to 

detect ecological trends or patterns 

require high quality data with minimal 

error and bias. Inconsistent or poorquality data can limit the detectability 

of subtle changes in ecosystem patterns 

and processes, lead to incorrect 

interpretations and conclusions, 

and could greatly compromise the 

credibility and success of the I&M 

Program. To ensure that MOJN 

produces and maintains data of the 

highest possible quality, procedures are 

established to identify and minimize 

errors at each stage of the data 

lifecycle.

•	 Security: Digital and hard-copy data 

must be maintained in environments 

that protect against loss, either due to 

electronic failure or to poor storage 

conditions. MOJN digital data are 

stored in multiple formats on a secure 

server, and are part of an integrated 

backup routine that includes rotation 

to off-site storage locations. In 

addition, MOJN is working with NPS 

museum curators and archivists to 

ensure that related project materials 

such as field notes, data forms, 

specimens, photographs, and reports 

are properly cataloged, stored, and 

managed in archival conditions.

•	 Longevity: Countless datasets have 

become unusable over time either 

because the format is outdated (e.g., 

punchcards), or because metadata is 

insufficient to determine the data’s 

collection methods, scope and 

intent, quality assurance procedures, 

or format. While proper storage 

conditions, backups, and migration 

of datasets to current platforms 

and software standards are basic 

components of data longevity, 

comprehensive data documentation 

is equally important. MOJN uses a 

suite of metadata tools to ensure that 

datasets are consistently documented, 

and in formats that conform to current 

federal standards.

•	 Usability: One of the most important 

responsibilities of the I&M Program 

is to ensure that data collected, 

developed, or assembled by MOJN 

staff and cooperators are made 

available for decision-making, 

research, and education. Providing 

well-documented data, in a timely 

manner, to park managers is especially 

important to the success of the 

program. MOJN must ensure that:

° data can be easily found and 

obtained

° data are subjected to full quality 

control before release

° data are accompanied by complete 

metadata

° sensitive data are identified and 

protected from unauthorized 

access and distribution

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 75

6.3 Data Management 

Infrastructure and Systems 

Architecture

The national data management plan 

guidance document (NPS 2008) 

defines infrastructure (hardware) and 

architecture (software), and outlines how 

infrastructure and systems architecture 

need to be addressed by the network. 

Since the network office and staff are 

hosted at LAME, our IT resource needs 

are integrated with LAME.

The MOJN’s main mechanism for 

distribution of the network’s inventory 

and monitoring data will be the World 

Wide Web, which will allow data and 

information to reach a broad community 

of users. As part of the National I&M 

Program, web-based applications and 

repositories have been developed to 

store a variety of park natural resource 

information (Table 6.1).

The real value of MOJN’s information 

is when it reaches those who can apply 

it (Figure 6.1 above). If the web portals 

listed above (Table 6.1) do not meet a 

specific user’s requirements, MOJN 

data management staff will work with 

users on an individual basis to ensure 

receipt of the desired information in the 

requested format.

6.4 Data Management Plan Model

In the past, I&M network data 

management plans were written as an 

iterative group process. 

Under this model, network data 

managers were assigned to one of four 

groups. The first group worked together 

to develop and submit a plan the first 

Table 6.1 Natural resource data provided on Mojave Desert Network and National Inventory and Monitoring Program websites.

Web Application

Name Data available at site

NPSpecies Database of plant and animal species known or suspected to occur on NPS park units and as a species 

keyword search for reference materials.

NatureBib Bibliography of park-related natural resource information.

IRMA Portal to a variety of NPS information sources; will include NPSpecies, NatureBib and NPS Data Store links.

Data Store Park and network -related metadata and selected datasets (spatial and nonspatial).

NPStoret Database for water quality assessment.

MOJN Websites Through the use of the network’s inter- and intra-net web sites and the use of MS SharePoint, reports, 

summaries, outreach materials, and monitoring data and information for MOJN projects and tools for 

data, data downloads, and database templates will be made available, MOJN Intranet.

year. The second group built upon salient 

elements of the first plan, filled in gaps, 

and revised materials to develop an 

improved version the second year. By 

the third iteration, the data management 

plan was comprehensive, but also lengthy, 

which was discouraging to readers 

and difficult to implement. Plans also 

contained redundancy, repeating in each 

iteration the same set of information 

(legal mandates, policies, and general data 

stewardship guidelines). Consequently, 

the fourth and last group of data 

managers have designed and written their 

plans based on a new model. To avoid 

repeating the same general information 

(adding to its length) and having to 

periodically update each network plan 

with new national guidance and legal 

mandates, the new model proposes:

•	 To produce a national-level data

management plan guidance 

document that maintains the 

overarching documentation 

(what and why concerning data/

information stewardship) and legal 

mandates regarding management 

plan development, and that is easily 

referenced and can be used in the 

development of a new network data 

management plan.

•	 To produce a new network-level

data management plan that is more 

applicable (how and when concerning 

data/information stewardship), easily 

understood, and does not require the 

lengthy background documentation 

and legal mandates.

The MOJN DMP is written as both a 

standalone document and as a support 

document for the network’s Final 

Chapter 6: Data Management
 76 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

6.5 Data Management Roles and 

Responsibilities

Data management is collaborative 

work that involves many persons with 

a broad range of expertise and abilities. 

All network staff have a role in data 

stewardship, and project datasets and 

products reflect all those who have 

contributed. Table 6.2 summarizes 

the roles and responsibilities related 

to network data management, from 

field-based data collection, to final 

distribution and archiving. The 

fundamental role of the network data 

manager is to coordinate these tasks.

6.6 Data Sources and Priorities

There are multiple sources of significant 

data related to natural resources in the 

MOJN parks. The types of work that 

may generate these data include:

•	 Inventories

•	 Monitoring

•	 Protocol development pilot studies

•	 Special-focus studies performed

by internal staff, contractors, or 

cooperators

•	 Research projects performed by

external scientists

•	 Studies performed by other agencies

on park or adjacent lands

•	 Resource impact evaluations related to

park planning and compliance

•	 Resource management and restoration

work

Because the I&M Program focuses on 

natural resource inventories and longterm monitoring, MOJN’s first priority is 

the management of data and information 

that results from these efforts. 

However, the standards, procedures, 

and approaches to data management 

developed by MOJN carry over and are 

being applied to other natural resource 

data sources. For example, all natural 

resource parks need a basic suite of 

resource inventory data in order to 

manage their resources and support a 

successful monitoring program. The 

National I&M Program has determined 

that 12 inventory datasets, including 

both biotic and abiotic components, 

will be acquired by all parks. MOJN 

Vial Signs Monitoring Plan to guide 

the management of data as well as 

subsequently-produced information 

and knowledge. Hence, the plan is a 

condensed or abbreviated link between 

the national data management plan 

guidance document (NPS 2008) and 

the more technically oriented and 

applicable supporting documentation 

(management sections and standard 

operating procedures) that are appended 

to the plan (Figure 6.2). The supporting 

documentation are the dynamic 

guidance that will provide users (park 

and network staff, cooperators, and 

others) with the practical tools to access 

any particular data and/or information 

management procedure. The supporting 

documentation is composed of SOPs 

that have been arranged into categories 

of related procedures (i.e., management 

sections) as illustrated in Figure 6.2. 

The national guidance document 

contains the legal mandates and overarching justifications, the network 

plan is the connection between the 

national guidance and the network-level 

management sections and SOPs.

Figure 6.2 Management sections of the Mojave Desert Network Data and Information Plan.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 77

with project leaders and participants.

Specific data management procedures 

corresponding to these five stages are 

described in the chapters of the MOJN 

DMP (Appendix J). Chapters 1-5 develop 

the data management framework. 

Chapter 6 is devoted to data acquisition, 

processing, and reporting, while Chapter 

7 provides a framework for verifying 

and validating data that are collected 

and entered into databases. Dataset 

documentation is the subject of Chapter 8, 

data ownership and sharing is presented 

in Chapter 9, and data dissemination, 

including issues such as compliance with 

is working with individual parks and 

national NPS programs to acquire 

and standardize these basic resource 

datasets, and make them widely 

available. The datasets are:

•	 Natural resource bibliography

•	 Documented species list of vertebrates

and vascular plants

•	 Species distribution and status of

vertebrates and vascular plants

•	 Vegetation map

•	 Base cartographic data

•	 Soils map

•	 Geology map

•	 Water body location and classification

•	 Water quality data

•	 Location of air quality monitoring

stations

•	 Air quality data

•	 Weather data

6.7 Data Management and the 

Project Lifecycle

I&M projects are typically divided into 

five broad stages: initiation, planning, 

execution, monitoring and control, and 

closure (Figure 6.3). During all stages, 

data management staff collaborate closely 

Chapter 6: Data Management

Role Primary responsibilities related to data management

Project leader Direct operations, including data management requirements, for network projects

Project crew leader Supervise crew; communicate regularly with data manager and project leader

Project crew member Collect, record, perform data entry, verify data; organize field forms, photos, other related materials

Resource specialist Evaluate validity and utility of project data; document, analyze, publish data and associated 

information products

GIS specialist Oversee GPS data collection; manage spatial data; prepare maps; perform spatial analyses

IT specialist Apply database and programming skills to network projects; maintain information systems to 

support data management

Quantitative ecologist Determine project objectives and sample design; perform and document data analysis and synthesis; 

prepare reports

Network data manager Ensure program data and information are organized, useful, compliant, safe, and available

Network coordinator Coordinate and oversee all network activities

Park or regional curator Ensure project results (documents, specimens, photographs, etc.) are cataloged and accessioned into 

NPS or other repositories

I&M data manager 

(national level)

Provide service-wide database support and services; provide data management coordination among 

networks

End users (managers, 

scientists, interpreters, public)

Inform and direct the scope of science information needs; interpret information and use to direct or 

support decisions

Table 6.2 Roles and responsibilities related to network data management.

Prioritizing data management efforts in a sea 

of unmanaged data

• Highest priority is to produce and curate high-quality, well-documented 

data originating with the Inventory and Monitoring Program

• As time and resources permit, assist with data mangement for current 

projects, legacy data, and data originating outside the Inventory and 

Monitoring Program that complement program objectives

• In addition, help ensure good data management practices for parkbased natural resource projects that are just beginning to be developed 

and implemented
 78 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

Figure 6.3 Project workflow and data management activities.

the Freedom of Information Act, are 

addressed in Chapter 10. Chapters 11 and 

12 provide a framework for the long-term 

maintenance, storage, and security of 

MOJN data.

6.8 Water Quality Data

The water quality component of the 

Natural Resource Challenge requires 

that networks archive all water quality 

data collected as part of the monitoring 

program in a STORET (STORage 

and RETrieval, EPA 2006) database 

maintained by the NPS Water Resources 

Division (WRD). MOJN will be 

developing an MS-Access database that 

consolidates available water quality data 

collected in and near the 7 MOJN park 

units. Associated with this database are 

assessment tools to evaluate water quality 

standards that allow comparisons of 

historical and current data with applicable 

state standards. MOJN will maintain this 

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 79

database and integrate new data collected 

so it can serve as an ongoing tool for 

the network’s long-term water quality 

monitoring and analysis needs.

On an annual basis, MOJN will compile 

and format new water quality data from 

the MOJN H2O MS-Access database into 

an electronic data deliverable (EDD) that 

is compatible with WRD-STORET. WRD 

will ensure that content is transferred to 

the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

STORET database (Figure 6.4).

6.9 Data Management Plan 

Maintenance

The MOJN approach is to maintain a 

DMP that is useful to a broad audience, 

and that can provide guidance on data 

management practices at a number of 

different levels. MOJN will keep the 

plan simple, flexible, and evolving, 

and include data users in the decisionmaking process whenever possible.

The document has undergone an initial 

prescribed review process that included 

both an internal network review (e.g., 

Figure 6.4 Simplified flow diagram for water quality data.

technical committee members and 

network staff), and an extensive review 

that involved the regional data/GIS 

coordinator, data management staff 

from the Washington Support Office 

I&M Program, and other network 

data managers. MOJN will update 

the plan to ensure that it accurately 

reflects the network’s current standards 

and practices. Recommendations 

for changes can be forwarded to the 

network data manager by any interested 

party or user of network inventory and 

monitoring data (e.g., park resource 

managers, project leaders, technicians, 

superintendents, external users). These 

recommendations will be discussed 

by data management and network 

staff and appropriate actions will be 

decided. Simple changes can be made 

immediately in the document, while 

substantive changes will be made during 

version updates. The most current 

version of the plan is available on the 

MOJN website (http://science.nature.

nps.gov/im/units/mojn/index.cfm).

Chapter 6: Data Management
Mojave Desert Network Sierra Nevada Network
National Park Service 81

in the network, partly to facilitate 

data analysis. These typically are 

“unstructured” designs with a minimum 

of stratification, known and typically 

equal sample selection probabilities, 

and simple membership designs. 

Straightforward and flexible designs in 

turn facilitate direct and interpretable 

analytical approaches. By emphasizing 

a design-based approach to monitoring, 

inferences can be drawn directly from 

designs and can minimize reliance on 

assumptions (Edwards 1998; Manly 

2001). This will be particularly true for 

estimation of status, where classical 

sampling theory for finite populations 

is well-developed and provides designunbiased estimators of population 

parameters such as the population 

mean and variance (Thompson 2002). 

Selected sampling designs also support, 

and often require, the use of modelassisted or model-based approaches. 

This is particularly true for trend 

estimation, and to address sampling 

and non-sampling errors (year, site, 

and residual random effects), missing 

data, and important auxiliary variables 

(Urquhart and Kincaid 1999; Thompson 

2002). Mixed linear models are useful 

for analyzing trend in data collected 

through rotating panel designs, an 

approach, which has been proposed for 

some of the Vital Signs (Urquhart et al. 

1993; VanLeeuwen et al. 1996, Urquhart 

Data analysis, interpretation, and 

reporting are crucial components in 

the development and implementation 

of the MOJN I&M Program. Data 

compiled from monitoring projects will 

be used by diverse audiences – NPS park 

managers and superintendents, scientific 

collaborators, educators – who might 

have different requirements and needs. 

Recognizing this fact, and following 

National I&M Program guidance, a 

minimum of one-third of the network’s 

resources are committed toward the 

management, analysis, and timely 

reporting of I&M information. Success 

of this program depends on the ability 

to deliver meaningful information to 

parks regarding the status and trend of 

park Vital Signs, and this is the key link 

in completing the adaptive management 

cycle (Figure 7.1). 

This chapter summarizes the major 

themes and concepts of the network’s 

plan for analysis and reporting. Figure 

7.2 summarizes the major approaches 

to analyses and reporting tools that 

will be pursued and how they interact 

with outside research to support the 

network’s programmatic goals. The 

data analysis section describes four 

categories of data analysis and identifies 

lead individuals for each analysis. The 

reporting section describes different 

reporting tools, their content, intended 

audience, frequency and format, and 

responsible parties. Specific details on 

analysis of each vital sign is beyond 

the scope of this chapter and will 

be included within the monitoring 

protocols that correspond to specific 

Vital Signs. Several of these are currently 

under development as described in 

Chapter 5. 

7.1 Data Analysis

Successful data analysis depends upon 

well-articulated questions and objectives 

and appropriate, statistically-valid 

sampling designs. Appropriate sampling 

designs are critical because they allow 

statistically rigorous conclusions and 

inferences to be reached about the 

status and trend of each vital sign. As 

described in Chapter 4, simple and 

flexible sampling designs are emphasized 

Chapter 7: Data Analysis and Reporting

Figure 7.1 Conceptual diagram of adaptive 

management illustrating the iterative cycle of 

monitoring, assessment, and decisions.

The timely analysis 

and reporting of 

information on status 

and trends of vital 

signs is critical to the 

process of adaptive 

management. 
 82 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

practical, given natural and sampling 

variability. Each monitoring protocol 

developed by the MOJN will contain 

detailed information on analytical tools 

and approaches for data analysis and 

interpretation, including rationales for 

a particular approach, advantages and 

limitations of each procedure, and SOPs 

for each prescribed analysis. 

Four general categories of analysis for 

MOJN Vital Signs and the lead analyst 

responsible for each are summarized 

(Table 7.1). The Project Leader for a 

protocol will be the lead analyst and thus 

will ensure that data are analyzed and 

interpreted within protocol and program 

guidelines. The lead analyst may rely 

on non-NPS cooperators to assist with 

analysis and interpretation. The MOJN 

is currently employing the services of 

statisticians at Oregon State University, 

Montana State University, and University 

of Idaho through a cooperative 

agreement. This arrangement, or 

something similar, will provide high-level 

analytical support in the future.

Figure 7.2 Relationships between analyses, reporting, research, and the Mojave Desert Network 

program goals.

et al. 1998; Urquhart and Kincaid 

1999; Piepho and Ogutu 2002; Sims 

et al. 2006). For data that fail to meet 

normality assumptions, a Generalized 

Mixed Model can be used (Purcell et al. 

2005). Several other networks (Sierra 

Nevada, Upper Columbia Basin, and 

Klamath) are currently collaborating 

with statisticians at Oregon State 

University and University of Idaho on 

implementation of these models within 

SAS and the R package for water quality 

and other Vital Signs. Such models 

can provide more precise parameter 

estimates, can be used to generate and 

test hypotheses about the ecological 

processes underlying observed patterns, 

and under the best circumstances, can 

be used to predict future scenarios. To 

deliver meaningful information to park 

managers, it is important not only to 

report on a trend, but to provide some 

interpretation of the trend and potential 

underlying causes.

Selection of specific analytical tools for 

interpreting monitoring data is a function 

of monitoring objectives, assumptions 

regarding the target population, and 

the level of confidence desired, or 

Successful data 

analysis depends 

on well-articulated 

questions and 

objectives and 

appropriate, 

statistically-valid 

sampling designs.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 83

Chapter 7: Data Analysis and Reporting

Table 7.1. Four approaches to analyzing monitoring data and the individuals responsible for analyses.

Type of

Analysis Description Lead Analyst & Support

Data Summarization/

Characterization

Calculation of basic statistics of interest and initial screening, including:

• Measures of central tendency (mean, median) and variation (range, variance, S.E.)

• Identification of missing values and outliers (box-and-whisker plots, queries, QA/

QC)

• Graphical summaries & visual inspection of data

Summarization procedures are specified in the monitoring protocols and 

include measured and derived variables and matrices for community analyses.

Lead: Project Leader for 

protocol

Support: Field crew leads, 

network staff, park staff

Status Determination Analysis and interpretation of vital sign status to address the following 

questions:

• Do observed values exceed a regulatory standard or a known ecological 

threshold?

• How do observed values compare with the range of historical variability for a vital 

sign?

• What is the precision (i.e., variability) and confidence in the status estimate?

• What is the spatial distribution (park, network, ecoregion) of observed values at 

time of evaluation?

• Do these patterns suggest relationships with other factors not accounted for in 

the sampling design?

• What environmental factors function as covariates and influence the 

measurement values?

Design-unbiased population estimators (e.g., Horvitz-Thompson) will be used 

to determine status.

Lead: Project Leader for 

protocol

Support: Network staff, 

Park staff, Cooperators or 

Partners, regulatory and 

Subject-Matter Experts

Trend Evaluation Evaluations of interannual trends will seek to address:

• Is there continued directional change in indicator values over the period of 

measurement?

• What is the estimated rate of change (and associated measure of uncertainty)?

• How does this rate compare with rates observed from historical data, other 

indicators from the same area, or other comparable monitoring in the region?

• Are there unforeseen correlations that suggest other factors should be 

incorporated as covariates? (correlations, regression analyses)

• If no trend was detected, what was the power to detect trend, given observed 

levels of variability?

Analysis of trends will initially employ graphic portrayals (Cumulative Sum 

[CUSUM] and control charts), then repeated-measures and time-series using 

mixed linear models.

Lead: Project Leader for 

protocol

Support: Network staff, 

Statisticians, Park staff, 

Cooperators or Partners, 

regulatory and SubjectMatter Experts

Synthesis Examination of patterns across Vital Signs and ecological factors to gain broad 

insights into ecosystem processes and integrity, which may include:

• Tests of hypothesized relationships, congruence among indicators, and covariate 

influence

• Development of analytical and predictive models 

• Integrative approaches (ordination of community data, multiple regression, 

diversity and conservation-value indices, Bayesian hierarchical and graphical 

models)

• Evaluation of competing a priori-specified models that explain dynamics in Vital 

Signs; model averaging, variable weights, and prediction

Synthetic analyses will require close interaction with academic and agency 

researchers and has great potential to explain ecological relationships in the 

non-experimental context of vital signs monitoring. Integration with results 

from other monitoring and research is critical.

Leads: Network 

Coordinator & Ecologist

Support: Project Leaders, 

Statisticians, Data 

management staff, Park 

staff, Cooperators or 

Partners, regulatory and 

Subject-Matter Experts
 84 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

7.2 Communications and 

Reporting

As part of the NPS effort to “improve 

park management through greater 

reliance on scientific knowledge,” data 

analysis and reporting are cornerstones 

of the I&M Program. Effective 

communication tools are critical for 

conveying status and trends information 

to a wide range of audiences. The 

primary audience for many I&M 

products is at the park-level, providing 

park managers with information needed 

to make better-informed decisions. 

However, certain products are intended 

for other key audiences including park 

planners, interpreters, Congress, the 

President’s Office of Management and 

Budget, external scientists and the 

general public. 

To effectively communicate monitoring 

information and results with a variety of 

audiences, analysis and interpretation 

must occur on a regular basis, and results 

must be communicated in formats 

specific to intended audiences. With 

the assistance of a CESU cooperator 

at Colorado State University and 

the NPS-Natural Resource Program 

Center, MOJN will develop a science 

communication plan which identifies 

natural resource education and 

communications techniques to be used 

for internal and external audiences. 

MOJN reporting mechanisms 

are based on national guidance, 

have been modified to fit network 

needs, and fall into four categories: 

programmatic, protocol-related, science 

communication, and interpretation/

outreach. The following sections 

describe each report category and 

how they differ in content, purpose, 

and audience. These details are 

also summarized in Table 7.2. Each 

monitoring protocol will also contain 

additional and specific information on 

data summary, analysis and reporting 

requirements and procedures.

7.2.1 Programmatic Reports and 

Review

The Annual Administrative Report and 

Work Plan (AARWP) report specifies 

annual objectives, accomplishments, and 

expenditures to a variety of audiences, 

ranging from park superintendents and 

staff to national program managers and 

Congress. The 5-year Program Review 

is an avenue for evaluating the efficacy, 

accountability, and scientific rigor of 

the monitoring program. Following 

this review, network staff and protocol 

leads have primary responsibility 

for implementing the resulting 

recommendations. Table 7.2 contains 

a summary and Chapter 8 contains 

additional detail on programmatic 

reports and review. 

7.2.2 Protocol-related Reports and 

Review

Protocol reports document the 

collection, analysis, and interpretation of 

monitoring data and results of periodic 

protocol reviews. Annual protocol 

reports document monitoring activities 

for the year, including any changes 

to the protocols, and describe the 

current status of monitored resources. 

Completed every 3-5 years, trend 

analysis and synthesis reports describe 

trend analyses, identify patterns, and 

synthesize data within multiple spatial 

contexts. These thorough and detailed 

reports are intended primarily for 

resource managers and scientists. 

Protocol reviews will be conducted 

after completion of one full monitoring 

cycle (i.e., full rotation through all 

panels) and likely, in conjunction with 

the corresponding trend analysis and 

synthesis report. Protocol reviews will 

include a peer-review process to evaluate 

effectiveness (protocol design, minimum 

change detection levels achieved, SOPs, 

etc.), implementation success (schedule, 

budget, logistics), and information 

management (QA/QC, archiving 

processes, communication products, 

etc.), and to determine whether and 

what types of changes are warranted. 

Network staff and protocol leads are the 

primary recipients of this information 

and are responsible for implementing 

recommendations. See Chapter 8 for 

further detail.

7.2.3 Science Communication

Scientific journal and other professional 

articles will be published to 

Effective 

communication 

tools are critical for 

conveying status and 

trends information 

to a wide range of 

audiences.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 85

communicate advances in knowledge to 

the scientific community and to achieve 

an important and widely acknowledged 

means of quality assurance and quality 

control. The scrutiny of the scientific 

peer-review process is one of the best 

methods for ensuring scientific rigor in 

the program’s methods, analyses, results, 

and conclusions. As the opportunity 

arises, network staff and cooperators will 

submit manuscripts and present findings 

at professional symposia, conferences, 

and workshops. Scientific journal 

articles and other publications based on 

MOJN data and projects will be tracked 

by the network through the publications 

section of the AARWP. 

7.2.4 Interpretation and Outreach

The MOJN will develop a variety of 

avenues for communicating monitoring 

goals, activities, and results to park staff 

and the public and maintaining visibility 

for the program. One avenue will be 

an electronic newsletter, distributed 

two times a year, that distills scientific 

findings into non-technical articles of 

interest to park managers and the general 

public. In addition, network staff and 

cooperators will meet periodically to 

interact with park staff (superintendents, 

resource managers, park specialists, 

interpretive staff, etc.) and present 

monitoring goals, network activities, and 

vital signs objectives. Network and park 

staff will explore whether this would 

be best accomplished through a single 

annual network meeting (i.e., Science 

Day) at a central location or a series of 

meetings at various locations throughout 

the network. In an effort to expand the 

scope of our outreach and generate 

interest among local school teachers 

and students, the network will explore 

the development of a Citizen Science 

program, where student volunteers 

collect data (e.g., long-term phenology 

records) for the monitoring program.

Websites are important for improving 

visibility and promoting communication, 

coordination, and collaboration among 

various entities. The MOJN internet 

website serves as a centralized repository 

for all finalized, reviewed reports and 

summaries, which do not contain 

sensitive information. The network 

intranet site facilitates the internal 

distribution of NPS documents. 

In June 2007, over 100 members of the natural resource community attended the Mojave Desert 

Network’s inaugural science day event. NPS Photo.

Chapter 7: Data Analysis and Reporting
 86 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

Type of Rep

ort

Purp

ose of Rep

ort

Primary Audience Frequenc

y

Review P

r

ocess

Programmatic Rep

orts

Annual AdministrativeReport & Work Plan

• Account for funds and FTEs expended.• Describe objectives, tasks, accomplishments, products of 

the monitoring effort. 

• Improve communication within park, network, and 

region.

Superintendents, Technical Committee, MOJN staff, regional coordinators, and national program managers; Used for annual report to Congress.

Annual Reviewed and approved 

by PWR Regional Coordinator and national program manager

Monitoring Program Review

• Formally review operations and results at 5-yr intervals• Implement the quality assurance and peer review 

process.

Superintendents, park resource managers, MOJN staff, national program managers, external scientists, partners

5-year intervals Peer review at national 

level, MOJN Board ofDirectors & Technical Committee

Pr

o

t

o

col-related Rep

orts

Annual Reports for each Protocol 

• Summarize annual data and document monitoring 

activities for the year

• Describe status of the resource • Document changes in monitoring protocols• Communicate monitoring efforts to parks

Superintendents, park resource managers, MOJN staff, national program managers, external scientists and partners.

Annual Peer reviewed at 

network-level

Trend Analysis and Synthesis Reports

• Determine patterns/trends in resource condition• Discover new characteristics of resources and 

correlations among resources

• Interpret data within park, multi-park, network, and 

regional contexts

• Recommend changes to management (feedback for 

adaptive management)

Superintendents, park resource managers, MOJN staff, external scientists

3-5 year intervals for resources sampled annually

Peer reviewed at the network-level 

Summary of Trend Reports

• Summarize Comprehensive Trend Analysis and Synthesis 

Reports to highlight key findings and recommendations.

Superintendents, park resource managers, interpreters, generalpublic

Commensuratewith frequency of ComprehensiveReports

Peer reviewed at the network-level

Protocol Review • Review protocol design and products to determine 

necessary changes

• Ensure peer-review and quality assurance

Superintendents, parkresource managers, MOJN staff, national program managers

5-year intervals Peer reviewed at 

regional and/or national level, MOJN Board of Directors, Technical Committee

Table 7.2. Summary of reporting mechanisms to be used by the Mojave Desert Network.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 87

Chapter 7: Data Analysis and Reporting

Table 7.2. Summary of MOJN reporting mechanisms (continued). Type of Rep

ort

Purp

ose of Rep

ort

Primary Audience Frequenc

y

Review P

r

ocess

Science Communicati

ons

Technical Bulletins, Journal articles, and Book Chapters

• Make scientific contributions to ecological and 

monitoring science.

• Subject I&M activities and approaches to unbiased peer 

review.

• Elevate scientific standing and authority of program.

MOJN staff, scientific community, park resource managers

Variable Peer reviewed by journal or 

book editor

Symposia, workshops, and conferences

• Communicate to scientists and managers.• Expose I&M activities to regional or national scientific 

community.

• Elevate scientific standing and authority of program.

Resource managers of federal and state agencies, MOJN park staff, scientific community

Variable May be peer reviewed by 

editor, if written papers are published

Interpretati

o

n and Outreac

h

Resource Brief • For each protocol, report activities and explain the 

significance and relevance of the scientific findings in non-technical manner 

Park staff, interpreters, general public

Annual Peer reviewed at the

 network-level

Newsletter • Improve awareness of network goals, activities, and 

findings by park staff and the public

• Distill scientific findings into non-technical articles of 

general interest

• Provide information to interpretive programs

Park staff, agency partners and cooperators, interpreters, general public

Twice per year by email & onMOJN website

Peer reviewed at networklevel

Park presentations and/or Science Days

• Report progress and activities of network• Summarize information on MOJN vital signs• Identify emerging issues and generate new ideas• Facilitate interactions among park resource managers 

and external scientists

Park resource managers, MOJN staff, cooperators, and partners

Variable Peer reviewed at networklevel

Internet and Intranet Websites

• Improve public awareness through web presence • Centralized repository of all final reports to ensure 

products are easily accessible in commonly-used electronic formats

• Facilitate internal distribution of NPS documents

Superintendents, park resource managers, MOJN staff, national program managers, scientific community, general public

As reports are finalized

Only reviewed, finalized products without sensitive information will be posted
Mojave Desert Network Sierra Nevada Network
National Park Service 89

Natural Resource Challenge legislation 

and agency policy, reviews and retains 

approval authority for completed 

Vital Signs (or Phase III) Monitoring 

Plans, and provides technical and 

administrative guidance on network 

program development. National I&M 

guidance and funding is provided by 

Washington Support Office (WASO) 

through the National I&M Program 

Manager, the Pacific West Region (PWR) 

office, and the PWR Regional I&M 

Coordinator. 

The PWR Regional I&M Coordinator 

oversees program development for 8 

PWR networks, ensures compliance 

with National I&M Program guidelines, 

serves as an ex-officio member of 

the MOJN Board of Directors, and 

supervises the MOJN Network 

Coordinator (as well as other PWR 

network coordinators). Divisions of the 

NPS Natural Resources Program Center 

have responsibilities for completing 

baseline resource inventories and to 

serve as subject matter experts for Vital 

Signs within their purview.

The National I&M Program interfaces 

with local network oversight groups 

(MOJN Board of Directors [BOD] and 

Technical Committee [TC]) through 

the PWR Regional I&M Coordinator 

and the MOJN Network Coordinator. 

National program guidance, directives, 

and requests usually flow from the 

National I&M Program Manager 

through the PWR Regional I&M 

Coordinator to the MOJN Network 

Coordinator, who then distributes 

information to the BOD and TC. 

Accountable to the NPS Associate 

Director, the network provides reports 

and updates (typically prepared by the 

Network Coordinator and staff) to 

the National I&M Program Manager 

through the PWR Regional I&M 

Coordinator.

As one of 32 networks receiving funding 

from the National I&M Program and 

Water Resources Division, MOJN is 

required to submit an administrative 

report and work plan to the National 

I&M Program that summarizes (1) 

accomplishments and an accounting 

This chapter describes administration of 

the MOJN monitoring program, including 

program oversight and guidance, the 

proposed staffing plan, integration with 

park operations, partnerships, and the 

periodic review process.

8.1 National and Regional Context

MOJN is one of eight I&M networks in 

the Pacific West Region (PWR; Figure 

8.1). In addition to its unique Mojave 

ecosystems, MOJN contains landscapes 

with ecological similarities to a number 

of surrounding networks, including 

Northern Colorado Plateau Network, 

Southern Colorado Plateau Network, 

Upper Columbia Basin Network, 

and Sierra Nevada Network at higher 

elevations, and Chihuahuan Desert 

Network and Sonoran Desert Network 

at lower elevations. As such, MOJN is in 

a position to benefit from, build upon, 

or coordinate with existing efforts at 

these other networks in order to develop 

its program.

8.2 Program Location

Core staff of the MOJN are dutystationed at Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area (LAME) in Boulder 

City, NV. This location was selected 

due to the park’s central location in the 

network and proximity to cooperators 

at other federal agencies, universities, 

and research institutes. Starting in FY 

2009, network staff will be housed in a 

small, network-funded office building 

at LAME, which will be supported and 

maintained by the park. The park also 

provides administrative and IT support 

in exchange for a small percentage 

of network funds. As needed and as 

appropriate, other network staff may 

be located at other parks within the 

network (e.g., data miners based at parks 

where data mining occurs).

8.3 Guidance from National and 

Regional Programs

National and Regional programs play 

important roles in guiding program 

development and implementation. The 

National I&M Program establishes 

standards and guidelines based on 

Chapter 8: Administration and Implementation of the Monitoring Program

The National I&M 

Program establishes 

standards and 

guidelines based on 

Natural Resource 

Challenge legislation 

and agency policy...
 90 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

Figure 8.1. Pacific West Region Inventory & Monitoring Program networks. Map courtesy of Pacific West 

Region GIS group.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 91

of funds spent during the previous 

year, and (2) scheduled activities and 

budget allocations for the coming year. 

The report provides the National I&M 

Program Manager with accomplishments 

and budget information needed for the 

annual Report to Congress, which allows 

the network and national program to 

show accountability for funds received 

through the Natural Resource Challenge. 

The AARWP is discussed further in 

section 8.8.

8.4 Local Program Oversight and 

Direction

Local program oversight and direction 

within the MOJN is provided by the 

BOD, TC, and Network Staff. This 

section describes the responsibilities, 

structure, and composition of the MOJN 

BOD and TC. Specific details may be 

found in the MOJN Charter (approved 

April 2003) and MOJN Charter 

Amendment 2 (approved December 

2005; See Appendix K). 

The MOJN BOD is responsible for 

developing a strategic vision for 

long-term monitoring, ensuring the 

overall effectiveness and success of the 

network’s monitoring efforts, and for 

providing program accountability. The 

BOD makes decisions on budget, longterm staffing, and program direction 

based on technical assistance and 

advice provided by the TC and Network 

Coordinator. Voting members of the 

BOD include the 7 park Superintendents 

of the network (Table 8.1). The Chair 

of the BOD is the park Superintendent 

that serves as liaison to the Regional 

Leadership Council, typically a 2-year 

term. Non-voting, ex-officio members 

that play an advisory role include 

the Regional Coordinator, Network 

Coordinator, Natural Resource Advisory 

Committee (NRAC) representative, and 

Great Basin CESU coordinator (Table 

8.1). While the Network Coordinator 

is a common member to both the BOD 

and TC, additional representation 

of the BOD at TC meetings (by the 

Superintendent Liaison) and the 

TC at BOD meetings (by the current 

NRAC representative) ensures stronger 

communication among these groups. 

The BOD meets at least twice per year 

in person and by conference call as 

needed. Decisions are typically made by 

consensus.

The MOJN TC is responsible for 

providing technical assistance, advice, 

and recommendations to the MOJN 

BOD. Voting members include the 5 

Park Resource Chiefs, representatives 

from MANZ and PARA (designated by 

park Superintendents), the Network 

Coordinator, and the MOJN Science 

Advisor (Table 8.2). The MOJN Network 

Coordinator serves as the Chair of the 

TC and coordinates its efforts. NonTable 8.1. Mojave Desert Network Board of Directors: current members and their roles. a

Title Name Voting 

Member

Advisory 

Role

Superintendent, DEVA JT Reynolds (Chair, BOD)a X

Superintendent, GRBA Andrew Ferguson X

Superintendent, JOTR Curt Sauer X

Superintendent, LAME William Dickinson X

Superintendent, MANZ Les Inafuku X

Superintendent, MOJA Dennis Schramm X

Superintendent, PARA Jeff Bradybaugh X

PWR Regional Coordinator Penny Latham X

MOJN Network Coordinator Alice Chung-MacCoubrey X

Regional NRAC Representative Kari Yanskey X

Great Basin CESU Coordinator Angie Evenden X

a

 Membership as of Sept. 2008. Reynolds will be succeeded by Sauer as Chair in January 2009.

Chapter 8: Administration and Implementation of the Monitoring Program

The MOJN Board 

of Directors is 

responsible for 

developing a strategic 

vision for longterm monitoring, 

ensuring the overall 

effectiveness and 

success of the 

network’s monitoring 

efforts, and for 

providing program 

accountability.
 92 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

condition and to provide reference 

points for comparisons with other, 

altered environments. MOJN 

staff will develop an integrated, 

scientifically credible, long-term 

ecological monitoring program to 

efficiently and effectively monitor 

status and trends of selected Vital 

Signs and develop data management 

and decision support systems to 

aid park managers in accessing and 

utilizing monitoring information for 

management purposes.

•	 Integrate natural resource inventory

and monitoring information into 

National Park Service planning, 

management, and decision making. 

MOJN staff will work with various 

park divisions to make natural 

resource interpretation and 

protection an integral part of overall 

park management. 

•	 Share National Park Service

accomplishments and information 

with other natural resource 

organizations and form partnerships 

for attaining common goals and 

objectives. MOJN staff will cooperate 

with other agencies and organizations 

to share resources, achieve common 

goals, and avoid unnecessary 

duplication of effort and expense.

8.5.1 Mojave Desert Network Staff

The proposed MOJN staffing strategy is 

designed to support the programmatic 

voting members play an advisory role 

and include designated park staff, the 

Superintendent Liaison, and Great Basin 

CESU coordinator (Table 8.2). The TC 

meets at least twice per year in person 

and by conference call as needed. TC 

members express the needs of individual 

parks but make decisions based on 

greatest benefit to the network. Decisions 

are typically made by consensus.

8.5 Staffing Plan

MOJN staff and their activities are 

intended to support the following 

National I&M Program goals and to 

implement them at the network-level in 

a manner to address local park needs:

•	 Establish natural resource inventory

and monitoring as a standard practice 

throughout the National Park system 

that transcends traditional program, 

activity, and funding boundaries. 

•	 Inventory the natural resources and

park ecosystems under National Park 

Service stewardship to determine 

their nature and status. MOJN 

staff will assist parks and national 

programs in developing baseline 

inventories of natural resources 

in the parks and developing data 

management systems to aid park 

managers in accessing and utilizing 

inventory information.

•	 Monitor park ecosystems to better

understand their dynamic nature and 

Table 8.2. Mojave Desert Network Technical Committee: current members and their roles.a

Title Name

Voting 

Member

Advisory 

Role

MOJN Network Coordinator (Chair) Alice Chung-MacCoubrey X

Resource Chief, DEVA Linda Greene/ David Ek X

Resource Chief, GRBA Tod Williams X

Resource Chief, JOTR Paul DePrey X

Resource Chief, LAME Kent Turner X

Resource Chief, MOJA Bob Bryson X

Representative, MANZ Les Inafuku X

Representative, PARA Kari Yanskey X

MOJN Science Advisor Debra Hughson X

Superintendent Liaison Jeff Bradybaugh X

Great Basin CESU Coordinator Angie Evenden X

Designated Park Staff Various X

a

 Membership as of Sept. 2008. 

The MOJN

Technical Committee 

is responsible for 

providing technical 

assistance, advice, 

and recommendations 

to the MOJN Board 

of Directors.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 93

Chapter 7: Data Analysis and Reporting

functions above, employing a core of 

professional, permanent staff to oversee 

and implement the program and a variety 

of temporary staff to conduct shorterterm projects (e.g., vegetation mapping), 

develop data management infrastructure 

and procedures, and perform field 

data collection and management. Table 

8.3 summarizes title, grade, primary 

duties, and other information for each 

position we propose and the phase 

they will contribute to. Core network 

staff are responsible for implementing 

and managing the I&M Program over 

the long-term. The Implementation 

Phase is the period during which 

monitoring protocols are sequentially 

developed, tested, and implemented, 

baseline inventories are conducted 

to support protocol development, 

and data management infrastructure 

is developed. Temporary positions 

proposed for the Implementation Phase 

will conduct shorter-term projects 

and other activities that will support 

protocol development or facilitate the 

transition to full implementation (e.g., 

data mining, spatial data acquisition 

and manipulation). The Monitoring 

Phase is the period that occurs after all 

protocols have been developed, refined, 

and implemented and data management 

procedures are in place. At this point, 

the network’s primary focus will be 

performing and reporting on monitoring 

activities and managing resulting data. 

Temporary positions proposed for the 

Monitoring Phase will collect field data 

or provide data management support 

for resulting data. Staffing needs during 

the Monitoring Phase are difficult to 

define in greater detail because protocols 

are not fully developed. Thus staffing 

needs for this phase will be addressed 

in an iterative manner by the Network 

Coordinator, BOD, and TC as protocols 

are completed. All network positions are 

subject to BOD approval.

Core Network Staff

Core staff is defined as permanent staff 

required to implement and manage all 

aspects and activities of the network 

inventory and monitoring program. 

Currently, three of five core positions 

are filled, including the Network 

Coordinator, Ecologist, and Data 

Manager. The Aquatic Ecologist role 

will be addressed by a cooperator in FY 

2009 and will be filled in FY 2010. The 

Program Assistant position will be filled 

in FY 2009. Duties of each core position 

are described below. 

Network Coordinator: The Network 

Coordinator is responsible for the 

overall management and supervision of 

the program. The coordinator consults 

with the MOJN BOD and TC, the 

Regional I&M Coordinator, and the 

National I&M Program Manager to 

establish general program direction and 

to develop strategies for accomplishing 

goals. Duties include coordination 

and oversight of inventory-related 

activities, the design, development, 

and implementation of the monitoring 

program, including development and 

testing of protocols, ensuring scientific 

rigor, etc., overseeing the development 

and implementation of the data 

management program, and ensuring 

communication and dissemination of 

program activities and results. Program 

management duties include formulation 

and management of budgets, planning, 

hiring and supervision of network 

staff, development of contracts and 

agreements, and preparation of 

annual program reports and work 

plans. As a biologist, the Network 

Coordinator also serves as project lead 

on Vital Signs protocol development, 

overseeing protocol design and testing, 

implementation, and data collection, 

analysis, and reporting for several Vital 

Signs protocols.

Data Manager: The Data Manager is 

responsible for data and information 

stewardship at the network. The Data 

Manager develops and implements the 

Data Management Plan and associated 

SOPs, which ensure long-term data 

quality, integrity, security, and availability 

to network and staff, cooperators, 

and other parties. The Data Manager 

supports program activities by designing 

and managing databases for inventory 

and monitoring projects, assisting in 

development of data collection forms, 

QA/QC procedures, and automated 

reports, ensuring that datasets are fully 

documented and validated, data are 

disseminated to various parties, and 

Chapter 8: Administration and Implementation of the Monitoring Program
 94 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

Position GS 

Level Status Duty Station Primary Duties Phase III(FY 2007-08)

Implementation

Phase

(FY 2009-11)

Monitoring 

Phase

(FY 2012 on)

Core Network Staff

Network 

Coordinator 12 Perm LAME

Program development 

& management; 

monitoring 

implementation; 

staff supervision; 

communication.

1.0 1.0 1.0

Data 

Manager 11 Perm LAME

Oversee & coordinate 

data management 

activities.

1.0 1.0 1.0

Ecologist 11 Perm LAME

Monitoring design, 

data analysis and 

reporting- upland 

protocols

1.0 1.0

Aquatic 

Ecologist 9/11 Perm/ 

term

MOJA/

DEVA/

LAME

Monitoring design, 

data analysis and 

reporting- WQ and 

water/riparian-related 

protocols

1.0 1.0

Program 

Assistant 7 Perm/ 

term LAME

Budget & agreements 

tracking, travel, 

timekeeping, records 

mgt., etc.

0.5 0.5

Implementation

Vegetation 

Ecologista 9 Term LAME

Coordinate and oversee 

vegetation mapping at 

network parks.

1.0 -

GIS specialist 7/9 Term LAME

Compile spatial data. 

Develop procedures 

for utilizing and 

disseminating spatial 

data

1.0 -

Data Mining 

Technicians 5/6/7 Term Various

Support basic 

inventories and 

development of 

monitoring protocols

4.0 3.0b

Monitoring

Data 

Technician 5/6/7 Term TBD

Provide GIS, database, 

and data management 

support.

- 1.0

Biological 

Science 

Technicians

5/6/7 Term TBD Field data collection 

and data entry. - b 2.0

Physical 

Science 

Technicians

5/6/7 Term TBD Field data collection 

and data entry. - b 2.0

a position is cost-shared between parks and network b Three full time equivalent (FTE) data mining positions will be funded through FY 2009. In FY 2010, the data mining positions will be 

eliminated, and the network may begin acquiring biological or physical science technician positions proposed for the Monitoring 

Phase.

Table 8.3. Proposed staffing plan for different phases of the Mojave Desert Network monitoring program. Core staff are augmented 

by additional positions, which meet specific needs of the Implementation and Monitoring phases.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 95

associated contracts and agreements 

are managed effectively. The Data 

Manager also manages and coordinates 

IT equipment and activities, maintains 

spatial data associated with network 

I&M projects, and incorporates spatial 

data into the network GIS. 

Ecologist: The Ecologist will provide 

statistical and analytic support to 

network monitoring projects and 

coordinate the development and 

implementation of upland monitoring 

protocols. Accordingly, the Ecologist 

develops sound sample designs, analytic 

approaches, and inference strategies 

(with assistance from statistical 

cooperators as necessary), works with 

cooperators to develop protocols and 

associated SOPs, conducts pilot testing 

and protocol implementation, oversees 

data collection, analysis, reporting, and 

dissemination of project analyses and 

reports, and develops and manages 

protocol-related contracts or agreements.

Aquatic Ecologist: The Aquatic 

Ecologist will work with the network 

cooperator and park staff to develop, 

refine, and test protocols to address 

water quality, groundwater, surface 

water, and riparian-related Vital Signs 

and protocols, ensuring that protocol 

objectives are financially and logistically 

realistic. The Aquatic Ecologist will be 

the primary lead on implementing these 

protocols, ensuring data quality, project 

documentation and metadata, and 

preparing and disseminating project 

analyses and reports. These tasks 

will involve coordination with park 

staff and oversight of associated data 

collection (from the field or existing 

sources), including the supervision of 

associated technicians. This individual 

will be the primary technical contact for 

partners working on water and riparian 

resource issues. 

Program Assistant: The Program 

Assistant will serve as a central contact 

for network staff that performs or 

coordinates administrative tasks, 

facilitates communication between 

network staff at different locations, and 

standardizes personnel procedures and 

practices for the network. Duties will 

include tracking and reporting budget 

status, procurement, timekeeping, travel 

management, agreements tracking, 

property inventory, office logistics, 

meeting and workshop arrangements, 

and filing network records and reports. 

This position will either be shared with 

another network or park program or will 

address other duties or roles within the 

MOJN I&M Program.

Additional Network Staff for the 

Implementation Phase 

During this phase, several positions 

are needed to support the completion 

of basic inventories, development of 

monitoring protocols, and establishment 

of spatial data management 

infrastructure, procedures, and policies 

that will be maintained in the long-term 

by the Data Manager. These positions 

are described below. The Data Mining 

Technician positions are currently filled, 

and the GIS Specialist will be hired in FY 

2009. Further discussions are required to 

determine when the Vegetation Ecologist 

position will be filled and how the 

position will be funded. Optimally, these 

positions will end upon completion 

of their respective projects (e.g., data 

mining), which should correspond with 

the start of full implementation, but 

positions may be terminated earlier in 

response to budget limitations.

Vegetation Ecologist: Vegetation 

maps play an important role in park 

management activities and decisions 

and in the development of the Vital 

Signs monitoring program. Vegetation 

mapping of the mandated 270 park 

units is coordinated and funded 

through the national Vegetation 

Mapping Program, and only one of the 

network’s large parks (JOTR) has been 

addressed to date. Due to the number 

of large parks in the network and the 

diversity of vegetation they encompass, 

vegetation mapping projects will be 

complex and will require extensive 

coordination and oversight. The MOJN 

Vegetation Ecologist will assist parks 

in coordinating and accomplishing 

vegetation maps in an efficient manner 

and with a network-wide perspective. 

The cost for this position will be shared 

between the network and network parks. 

The Vegetation Ecologist will work with 

Chapter 8: Administration and Implementation of the Monitoring Program
Sierra Nevada Network

 96 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

network, park, and national program 

staff to develop a realistic strategy and 

timeline for vegetation mapping at the 

network’s numerous large parks. Based 

on this mutually agreed-upon work 

plan, this individual will coordinate and 

oversee vegetation mapping activities 

at various parks, including conducting 

planning meetings, coordinating 

activities with park staff and cooperators, 

developing and managing contracts 

and agreements on project tasks (e.g., 

classification, photo-interpretation, 

etc.), hiring technicians and overseeing 

field work as needed, developing project 

budgets and work plans, and preparing 

annual reports and presentations. 

GIS Specialist: The GIS specialist will 

compile and refine relevant park spatial 

data, including that for the 12 basic 

inventories and other network-sponsored 

inventories. This individual will work 

with the data manager to develop 

infrastructure, procedures, and policies 

for utilizing and disseminating spatial data 

from inventory and monitoring activities, 

work with the network coordinator 

and other network staff to support 

spatial aspects of protocol development 

(e.g., sample frame delineation and site 

selection), and work with network staff 

and cooperators to develop a landscape 

monitoring protocol.

Data Mining Technicians: The Data 

Mining Technicians conduct data mining 

to support or complete inventories 

and to support protocols undergoing 

development. Due to the park-specific 

nature of their duties, these individuals 

are duty-stationed at parks rather 

than at the network office at LAME. 

Data Miners have documented park 

references in NatureBib, populated 

NPSpecies with links to references, 

and located and entered metadata on 

datasets pertinent to network Vital 

Signs, protocol development, vegetation 

mapping, and other baseline inventories. 

Data mining technicians will complete 

duties related to these tasks in FY 2009. 

Additional Network Staff for the 

Monitoring Phase

For the Monitoring Phase (after all 

protocols have been fully implemented), 

the network will require several 

positions to conduct data collection 

and management. By designating these 

positions as temporary, the network 

retains the flexibility to adjust the 

number, type, and duration of positions, 

associated costs, and activities addressed. 

These positions are described below.

Data Technician: The Data Technician 

will provide GIS, database, and other 

data management support to the Data 

Manager, particularly in developing 

and implementing standard operating 

procedures associated with monitoring 

protocols. The Data Technician will also 

conduct data mining associated with 

inventories and to support protocols still 

undergoing development.

Biological and Physical Science 

Technicians: We present an approach 

that utilizes several technicians yearround for data collection during the 

field season and other important duties 

during the off-season (data entry and 

mining). These technicians’ primary 

duties will be field data collection, 

data entry, and data verification 

according to methods described 

in monitoring protocols. Where 

possible, data collection periods for 

different protocols will be staggered 

such that technicians could collect 

data for two or more protocols each 

year. Outside the field season, two or 

more technicians would perform data 

entry and management, equipment 

maintenance, and data mining for 

inventory projects not completed during 

the Implementation Phase. In addition 

to addressing data management and 

mining for the network and associated 

parks, maintaining at least two or more 

technicians year-round would also 

promote consistency in field staff and 

protocol implementation among years 

and avoid problems associated with 

attracting and hiring seasonals on an 

annual basis. It is difficult to predict the 

number of positions required prior to 

completion of monitoring protocols, but 

due to the magnitude of network parks 

and associated field work, it is likely that 

more field assistance will be required 

than the network can afford. Ultimately, 

the number and type of positions 

(seasonal or term), duty stations, and 

funding source (network, park, and 

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 97

other) will need to be determined by the 

Network Coordinator, BOD, and TC 

as protocols are developed. Additional 

methods for acquiring or supplementing 

field technicians are discussed below. 

8.5.2 Role of Park Staff and 

Cooperators 

Park staff involvement with the I&M 

Program is integral to its success. 

Park staff involvement in protocol 

development is critical to ensure that 

monitoring data are relevant to park 

needs, and we have incorporated salary 

costs for several pay periods of park 

staff time in FY 2009 (see Chapter 10). 

In addition, the costs of implementing 

monitoring protocols across the vast 

areas, rugged terrain, and remote 

landscapes of MOJN parks will likely be 

very high. If protocol implementation 

relies solely on I&M funds, the network 

may be required to scale back protocol 

objectives, the number of sites sampled, 

or drop lower priority protocols. With 

the contribution of park staff time (both 

professional and technical) to protocol 

implementation, the network will be 

able to achieve a greater proportion of 

its monitoring objectives or implement a 

larger number of protocols. Additional 

benefits of park staff involvement 

include greater program visibility at 

parks, park staff with vested interests in 

monitoring results, greater interaction 

between network and park staff, and 

greater integration with park activities. 

Recognizing these benefits, the network 

must also acknowledge the potential 

risk that park leadership, priorities, and 

budgets may change and park staff may 

be re-directed away from monitoring 

activities. Thus, the monitoring program 

must remain flexible enough to 

accommodate changes in park personnel 

and contributions while maintaining 

as much consistency and continuity as 

possible. The nature and magnitude 

of park contributions to protocol 

development and implementation 

will be discussed among the Network 

Coordinator, BOD, and TC in FY 2009.

Cooperators are also critical to the 

development and implementation of 

monitoring protocols, providing high 

levels of knowledge and expertise 

to specific projects and network 

activities. The network has engaged 

a variety of university and federal 

agency cooperators to provide support 

on conceptual models, protocol 

development, statistical design, and 

data management. Cooperative 

relationships with other networks, 

universities, nonprofit organizations, 

and federal agencies will be explored 

to develop additional protocols in FY 

2009 and FY 2010 and to meet shortor long-term staffing requirements. In 

addition, cooperative agreements and 

partnerships will be explored to provide 

or supplement field assistance during the 

Monitoring Phase. 

8.6 Integration with Park 

Operations

Developing and implementing the Vital 

Signs monitoring program at MOJN 

network parks will require continued 

collaboration and cooperation with 

multiple park divisions and programs. 

Resource management staff have been 

involved in development of the MOJN 

program from early in its inception. Park 

biologists, botanists, physical scientists, 

hydrologists, and key management 

staff participated in critical park and 

network workshops (e.g., geo-scoping, 

water resources, and Vital Signs 

selection workshops) and contributed 

to the development and evaluation of 

conceptual models and the drafting 

of Protocol Development Summaries. 

The network’s Science Advisor and 

park professional staff (physical 

and biological) will continue to play 

important roles in protocol development 

and implementation.

The network will also work with park 

staff to resolve numerous logistical issues 

associated with protocol implementation 

(e.g., hiring, housing, and supervising 

field crews). We will work closely with 

park staff to make arrangements to 

sample sites located in remote areas, 

which may constitute a large number 

of sites. We will also work closely with 

parks and local Park Safety Officers 

to participate in safety programs 

and training–including backcountry 

communication procedures, first aid, and 

development of job hazard analyses for 

Chapter 8: Administration and Implementation of the Monitoring Program
 98 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

each Vital Signs protocol. As part of the 

protocol development process, it will be 

important for protocol working groups 

to identify areas where integration with 

park operations is critical to ensure 

effective and efficient implementation. 

Park housing will be needed for 

field crews. This will require early 

communication with park administrative 

and maintenance staff who manage 

housing and other park divisions (that 

compete each year for available housing).

Another key area of integration 

will be with the parks’ Divisions of 

Interpretation. In addition to using 

our website (inter- and intranet), 

newsletters, fact sheets, and brochures 

to share information, we will work 

with the Interpretive Divisions, Natural 

Resources Program Center (NRPC) 

Education and Outreach Division, 

and associated cooperators to develop 

a Science Communication Plan 

that outlines effective strategies for 

communicating monitoring results to 

diverse audiences. 

All MOJN staff members play important 

roles in communication and integration 

with park staff. As best possible, MOJN 

staff will periodically participate in 

park meetings (e.g., staff meetings, park 

workshops, strategic planning, and 

lecture series) to maintain contact with 

park staff and involvement with park 

activities. To foster awareness of network 

activities, and program results, network 

staff will also periodically provide 

presentations on the I&M Program, 

results of Vital Signs monitoring, and 

data management, and provide training 

and assistance as needed to effectively 

use I&M products, tools, and databases.

8.7 Partnerships

The MOJN has partnered with other 

federal agencies, universities, and other 

networks to initiate the development 

of the Vital Signs monitoring program 

and plans additional partnerships to 

develop and test remaining protocols in 

FY 2009 and FY 2010. Current or recent 

partnerships are as follows:

Cooperative Agreements (CESU)

•	 University of Nevada—Las Vegas (Dr.

Soukup) - To develop soils component 

of the Integrated Upland monitoring 

protocol. 

•	 University of Nevada—Las Vegas

(Dr. Palmer)- To design databases for 

inventory and monitoring data and 

evaluate spatial data for the network’s 

GIS program.

•	 University of Nevada—Las Vegas (Dr.

Abella)- To develop the invasive/exotic 

plant monitoring protocol. 

•	 Desert Research Institute (Dr. Sada)—

To develop springs inventory protocols 

(Level I & II) and conduct Level I 

springs inventory protocol at four 

network parks.

•	 Great Basin Institute (Dr. Keir) — To

provide field assistance in conducting 

Level I springs inventory protocol at 

four network parks.

•	 University of Idaho (Dr. Caudill)— To

develop and implement the MOJN 

Water Quality Monitoring Plan 

and two water-related monitoring 

protocols (Groundwater and Springs; 

Streams and Lakes).

•	 University of Idaho (Dr. Steinhorst)—

A joint CESU agreement with three 

other PWR networks to provide 

statistical review and support for 

Partnerships will aid the MOJN in meetings its monitoring goals. Cooperators from 

University of Nevada-Reno discuss collaborative opportunities with park and network 

staff at Grapevine Springs, Death Valley National Park. Photo courtesy Stacy Holt.

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 99

protocol and monitoring plan 

development.

•	 University of Idaho (Dr. Wright)— To

provide support on various aspects of 

the monitoring plan.

•	 University of Washington (Dr. Agee)

— A joint CESU agreement with the 

Regional Coordinator and other PWR 

networks to coordinate and conduct 

peer-review of network protocols and 

to provide technical and administrative 

assistance to the network.

•	 Colorado State University (Dr. Bruyere)

— A joint CESU agreement with 

NRPC Education and Outreach and 

other networks to develop a science 

communication plan for MOJN. 

Interagency Agreements

•	 U.S.D.A.—Agricultural Research

Service- Jornada Experimental RangeTo evaluate the use of high-resolution 

aerial photography for estimating 

vegetation cover and composition and 

augmenting ground-based sampling of 

these parameters.

•	 U.S. Geological Survey-Western

Regional Science Center and Western 

Ecological Research Center—To 

develop and write conceptual models 

and assist in development of Fire and 

Fuel Dynamics and other protocols.

•	 U.S. Forest Service-Rocky Mountain 

Research Station —To develop 

vegetation component of Integrated 

Upland and Riparian Vegetation 

protocols.

•	 Bureau of Reclamation— A joint

agreement with the national vegetation 

mapping program to 1) prepare a 

vegetation mapping workplan for the 

MOJN and 2) develop a vegetation 

map at MANZ. 

•	 Bureau of Reclamation—To provide 

short-term office space to network staff.

8.8 Program Review

To ensure long-term effectiveness of the 

monitoring program, the network will 

periodically review different aspects of 

the program (administrative, technical, 

and operational) and incorporate the 

resulting recommendations. In Table 

8.4 is a summary of the formal review 

processes that MOJN plans to conduct, 

their objectives, involved parties, and 

corresponding schedule. 

Each year, the network prepares the 

AARWP, which reports accomplishments 

and expenditures for the previous 

fiscal year and proposes objectives, 

activities, and a budget for the coming 

fiscal year. The AARWP is an annual 

method for tracking progress, promoting 

Review Type Schedule Author

or Lead Parties Involved Objectives

Annual 

Administrative

Report and

Work Plan

Annual

Network 

Coordinator & 

Network Staff

Board of Directors, 

Technical Committee

WASO I&M Program

Provide yearly accountability for program. 

Report on accomplishments and explain goals 

and projects for the next fiscal year.

3-year Start-up 

Review

FY 2012 WASO 

Monitoring 

Program Lead

WASO Monitoring 

Program Lead and 

Review Panel

Evaluate operational and administrative 

aspects of program to determine whether 

program practices, procedures, and timelines 

are effective, realistic, and sustainable.

5-year Periodic 

Program

Review

5-year intervals, 

beginning in 

2017

Network 

Coordinator & 

Network Staff

WASO I&M Program, 

Board of Directors, 

Technical Committee

Evaluate administrative and technical 

aspects of program for efficacy, scientific 

rigor, integration, and success in achieving 

programmatic goals. Involves a synthesis of 

data collected to date and an evaluation of 

program structure and function.

Protocol 

Reviews

After 

completion of 

one monitoring 

cycle

MOJN protocol 

lead and 

cooperators

Internal and external 

subject matter experts, 

Network Coordinator, 

Technical Committee

Evaluate implementation of protocols, 

evaluate scientific and technical merits of 

protocols, evaluate information management 

and management relevance, and make 

recommendations for improvement.

Table 8.4. Description and schedule for various review processes in the Mojave Desert Network monitoring program.

Chapter 8: Administration and Implementation of the Monitoring Program
Sierra Nevada Network

 100 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

accountability, and communicating 

activities and accomplishments to 

the network (BOD & TC) and the 

national program. Cumulatively, the 

network’s AARWPs provide a long-term 

administrative record and history. The 

AARWP is prepared by the Network 

Coordinator and staff, is reviewed by the 

BOD, TC, and Regional Coordinator, 

and is signed by the Network 

Coordinator, Regional Coordinator, and 

BOD Chair for submission to WASO.

In FY 2012, the network will undergo a 

three-year start-up review to evaluate the 

operational and administrative aspects 

of the monitoring program and ensure 

long-term success and sustainability. This 

initial review is conducted by the WASO 

Monitoring Program Lead, is intended 

to be a relatively informal assessment 

of monitoring program objectives, 

procedures, timelines, and trajectories, 

and will provide recommendations for 

programmatic adjustments.

After the three-year start-up review, the 

MOJN monitoring program will undergo 

periodic program reviews on a fiveyear schedule. This review will evaluate 

administrative and technical aspects 

of the program, including program 

effectiveness, accountability, structure 

and function, scientific rigor of protocols 

and associated data, integration with 

park activities, and effectiveness of 

outreach and partnership activities. 

As the building blocks of the network’s 

monitoring program, individual 

protocols will also undergo review. Once 

each protocol has been implemented 

for one entire monitoring cycle (i.e., full 

rotation through all panels), the network 

will review the scientific, technical, and 

administrative aspects of the protocol 

and its implementation. The protocol 

lead and cooperators will provide 

materials for review by external subject 

matter experts, park professional and 

management staff, and the TC. This 

review will evaluate whether protocol 

objectives are being met, whether data 

collected or technical aspects of field 

implementation suggest modification 

of methods or exploration of new 

techniques, and whether information is 

appropriately managed and reported. 

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 101

This chapter describes the MOJN 

timeline for developing and implementing 

Vital Signs protocols across network 

parks. It also summarizes the frequency 

and timing of monitoring for each vital 

sign and its associated protocol. 

9.1 Protocol Development

For most protocols, development 

includes refining objectives, developing 

sampling designs, testing methods 

through pilot studies, and preparation of 

a protocol narrative and SOPs for review. 

Protocol developers must conform to 

WASO guidance on protocol format and 

content. Each protocol will undergo 

scientific peer-review and approval. 

The review process was developed by 

the PWR Regional I&M Coordinator 

and is coordinated by Dr. Jim Agee, a 

cooperator at University of Washington. 

The following provides a general 

overview of the network protocol 

development schedule. The network 

proposes to develop 10 protocols in the 

next 3-5 years to address 17 Vital Signs. 

The proposed schedule (Table 9.1) has 

been devised at a pace manageable by 

network staff, which includes the recent 

addition of a network ecologist in late 

FY 2008. In addition to this general 

summary, more detailed information 

regarding timelines and the current 

status of individual protocols can be 

found in Appendix I. 

In FY 2007, three protocols were 

initiated under guidance of the 

Network Coordinator and a university 

cooperator, Dr. Christopher Caudill 

(University of Idaho). These include 

the Integrated Upland, Groundwater 

and Springs, and Streams and Lakes 

protocols. Development of two 

additional protocols, Air Quality and 

Invasive/Exotic Plants, was initiated in 

FY 2008 (Table 9.1). The network will 

begin development of three additional 

protocols in FY 2009, including Weather 

and Climate, Riparian Vegetation, and 

Fire and Fuel Dynamics. The remaining 

protocols, Landscape Dynamics and 

Riparian Birds, will be initiated in FY 

2010 (Table 9.1). Pending the completion 

of the 10 protocols and/or the availability 

of staff, funding, and opportunities 

for collaboration, development of the 

remaining 3 Vital Signs (Small Mammals, 

Reptiles, At-Risk Populations) may be 

initiated in FY 2011 or beyond.

Chapter 9: Schedule

MOJN protocol 

development updates 

can be found online at 

the network webpage. 

Visit http://science.

nature.nps.gov/im/

units/MOJN/index.

cfm for more info!

Valley-mountain pair in the 

northern Mojave desert. Photo 

courtesy D.M. Miller, USGS.
 102 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

Table 9.1. Proposed schedule for protocol development and implementation for the Mojave Desert Network. 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Pr

o

t

o

col Name

WTR

SPR

SUM

FALL

WTR

SPR

SUM

FALL

WTR

SPR

SUM

FALL

WTR

SPR

SUM

FALL

WTR

SPR

SUM

FALL

Inte

grated Upland

Review/refine monitoring objectives (workgroups)

Review existing efforts (NPS I&M, other resources)

Develop sampling design

Draft protocol narrative and SOPs

Test methods in pilot study

Revise protocol (sampling design, etc.)

Peer review

Revise protocol and submit for approval

Plot/equipment installation

Field sampling (Implementation)

Gr

oundwater and Sprin

gs

Review/refine monitoring objectives (workgroups)

Review existing efforts (NPS I&M, other resources)

Develop sampling design

Draft protocol narrative and SOPs

Test methods in pilot study

Revise protocol (sampling design, etc.)

Peer review

Revise protocol and submit for approval

Plot/equipment installation

Field sampling (Implementation)

StreamS and La

kes

Review/refine monitoring objectives (workgroups)

Review existing efforts (NPS I&M, other resources)Develop sampling designDraft protocol narrative and SOPsTest methods in pilot studyRevise protocol (sampling design, etc.)Peer reviewRevise protocol and submit for approvalPlot/equipment installation

Field sampling (Implementation)

Mojave Desert Network
National Park Service 103

Chapter 9: Schedule

Table 9.1 Proposed schedule for protocol development and implementation for the Mojave Desert Network (continued). 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Pr

o

t

o

col Name

WTR

SPR

SUM

FALL

WTR

SPR

SUM

FALL

WTR

SPR

SUM

FALL

WTR

SPR

SUM

FALL

WTR

SPR

SUM

FALL

AIR QUALIT

Y

Review/refine monitoring objectives (workgroups)

Review existing efforts (NPS I&M, other resources)

Develop sampling design

Draft protocol narrative and SOPs

Test methods in pilot study

Revise protocol (sampling design, etc.)

Peer review

Revise protocol and submit for approval

Plot/equipment installation

Field sampling (Implementation)

WEAT

HER AND CLIMATE

Review/refine monitoring objectives (workgroups)

Review existing efforts (NPS I&M, other resources)

Develop sampling design

Draft protocol narrative and SOPs

Test methods in pilot study

Revise protocol (sampling design, etc.)

Peer review

Revise protocol and submit for approval

Plot/equipment installation

Field sampling (Implementation)

RIPARIAN VE

GETATI

O

N

Review/refine monitoring objectives (workgroups)

Review existing efforts (NPS I&M, other resources)

Develop sampling design

Draft protocol narrative and SOPs

Test methods in pilot study

Revise protocol (sampling design, etc.)

Peer review

Revise protocol and submit for approval

Plot/equipment installation

Field sampling (Implementation)
 104 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network

Table 9.1 Proposed schedule for protocol development and implementation for the Mojave Desert Network (continued).

Mojave Desert Network 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Pr

o

t

o

col Name

WTR

SPR

SUM

FALL

WTR

SPR

SUM

FALL

WTR

SPR

SUM

FALL

WTR

SPR

SUM

FALL

WTR

SPR

SUM

FALL

INVASIVE/EX

OTIC PLANTS

Review/refine monitoring objectives (workgroups)

Review existing efforts (NPS I&M, other resources)

Develop sampling design

Draft protocol narrative and SOPs

Test methods in pilot study

Revise protocol (sampling design, etc.)

Peer review

Revise protocol and submit for approval

Plot/equipment installation

Field sampling (Implementation)

FIRE AND FUEL D

YNAMICS

Review/refine monitoring objectives (workgroups)

Review existing efforts (NPS I&M, other resources)

Develop sampling design

Draft protocol narrative and SOPs

Test methods in pilot study

Revise protocol (sampling design, etc.)

Peer review

Revise protocol and submit for approval

Plot/equipment installation

Field sampling (Implementation)

LANDSCAPE D

YNAMICS

Review/refine monitoring objectives (workgroups)

Review existing efforts (NPS I&M, other resources)

Develop sampling design

Draft protocol narrative and SOPs

Test methods in pilot study

Revise protocol (sampling design, etc.)

Peer review

Revise protocol and submit for approval

Plot/equipment installation

Field sampling (Implementation)
National Park Service 105

Table 9.1 Proposed schedule for protocol development and implementation for the Mojave Desert Network (continued).

Chapter 9: Schedule

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Pr

o

t

o

col Name

WTR

SPR

SUM

FALL

WTR

SPR

SUM

FALL

WTR

SPR

SUM

FALL

WTR

SPR

SUM

FALL

WTR

SPR

SUM

FALL

RIPARIAN BIRDS

Review/refine monitoring objectives (workgroups)

Review existing efforts (NPS I&M, other resources)

Develop sampling design

Draft protocol narrative and SOPs

Test methods in pilot study

Revise protocol (sampling design, etc.)

Peer review

Revise protocol and submit for approval

Plot/equipment installation

Field sampling (Implementation)
 106 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network Mojave Desert Network

9.2 Sampling Frequency and 

Timing

Frequency and timing of sampling 

varies by protocol (Table 9.2). Some data 

collection will occur continuously (e.g., 

spring discharge, air quality parameters, 

etc.) and some will occur at specific 

periods during the year (e.g., vegetation 

sampling, riparian bird monitoring, etc.). 

Field work will typically occur during 

spring and fall. Summer field work will 

be limited because biological activity is 

at a minimum during these hot summer 

months and because of the logistical and 

safety issues associated with working in 

extreme summer temperatures. 

Table 9.2. Frequency, timing, and type of sampling for the 10 protocols addressing 17 Vital Signs for the Mojave Desert Network 

parks. 

Protocol Module

Data

collection

method

Month

JanFebMarAprM

ay

JunJulA

u

g

SepOctNo

v

Dec

Integrated Upland Vegetation Field S S S S S S

Soils component Field S S S S S S

Riparian Vegetation Field S S S S S

Riparian Birds Field S S S

Invasive/Exotic Plants Early detection Field I I I I I I I

Status & trends Field I I I I

Groundwater & Springs

Groundwater level Automated I I I I I I I I I I I I

Spring discharge Automated I I I I I I I I I I I I

Water chemistry Field I I I I

Aquatic biota Field I I

Streams and Lakes

Stream water chemistry Field I

Stream water chemistry Automated I I I I I

Stream discharge Automated I I I I I I I I I I I I

Lake water level Automated I I I I I I I I I I I I

Lake water chemistry Automated I I

Stream 

macroinvertebrates Field I

Air Quality Automated I I I I I I I I I I I I

Weather & Climate Automated I I I I I I I I I I I I

Fire & Fuel Dynamics TBD TBD

Landscape Dynamics Remote 

Sensing TBD

TBD = to be determined. Site membership design: I = index sites, S = probabilistic sample.
National Park Service 107

Chapter 10: Budget

This chapter presents the budget for the 

MOJN Vital Signs Monitoring Program 

for FY 2009, the network’s first year 

of operation after approval of the final 

Monitoring Plan. We first present the 

FY 2009 network budget in the format 

used for the Annual Administrative 

Report and Work Plan (Table 10.1), and 

then provide the same budget in greater 

detail and with an estimate of resources 

devoted to information and data 

management (Table 10.2). 

In FY 2008, MOJN received $860,000 

from the National I&M Vital Signs 

Monitoring Program and $76,900 

from the NPS Water Resources 

Division. These values represent the 

net funding after 1) an increase in Vital 

Signs Monitoring Program funding 

by $20,600 for cost of living increases 

and 2) a reduction of 1.56% due to a 

congressionally-imposed Across the 

Board (ATB) rescission. Combined, these 

funding sources serve as base funds with 

which the network Vital Signs and water 

quality monitoring programs will be 

developed and implemented. We expect 

these amounts to remain relatively 

fixed, except for periodic cost of living 

adjustments for federal employees and 

potential ATB rescissions. Vital Signs 

Monitoring Program funds are held in 

Washington Office base accounts and 

are transferred annually through the 

Pacific West Regional Office to LAME, 

the network’s host park. All funds 

are managed by the MOJN Network 

Coordinator under the auspices of the 

BOD, with assistance from the Budget 

staff at LAME. The BOD approves the 

Annual Work Plan with input from the 

Network Coordinator and TC. The work 

plan directs expenditure of funds to 

projects, parks, and offices.

In FY 2009, the network will enter 

the Implementation Phase, defined 

in Chapter 8 as the period when 

the network will be developing and 

implementing monitoring protocols (FY 

2009-11), developing data management 

infrastructure, and completing inventories 

that support protocol development. These 

activities will be accomplished through 

a combination of core network staff, 

temporary network staff, and external 

cooperators (via CESU cooperative 

agreements and interagency agreements), 

the costs of which constitute a majority 

of the program budget (Table 10.1 and 

10.2). Costs for core network staff are 

approximately 31% in FY 2009. After 

the one remaining core network position 

(aquatic ecologist) is hired, core network 

staff will cost approximately 37%. 

This percentage will increase gradually 

over time due to cost of living and step 

increases. An additional 29% of the 

program budget is dedicated to temporary 

personnel who will support activities 

associated with protocol development, 

testing, and field implementation. 

Upon entering the Monitoring Phase 

(full implementation of all protocols), 

temporary personnel requirements will 

change from protocol development 

and inventory activity to protocol 

implementation (field data collection, data 

entry, etc.). The staffing plan in Chapter 

8 presents one approach to achieving 

field data collection (several MOJNfunded technicians), but additional field 

assistance will likely be required and the 

network will explore all staffing options 

for implementing protocols (MOJN 

temporary staff, park staff, partnerships, 

cooperative agreements, or some 

combination) with the MOJN BOD and 

TC as protocols near completion.

In FY 2009, approximately 20% of the 

program budget will be allocated to 

external cooperators or contractors 

to provide assistance on protocol 

development and data management 

(Table 10.1). Through these agreements 

and contracts, we will obtain technical 

and statistical support as we initiate 

or continue development of protocols 

(Table 10.2). Operations, equipment, 

and travel expenses during the 

Implementation Phase (Table 10.1 

and 10.2) will be allocated to startup 

equipment purchases, general 

administrative costs, General Services 

Administration (GSA) vehicles, and 

travel related to meetings, visiting parks, 

training, and protocol testing. These 

categories of expenses will increase as 

protocols are implemented (equipment 

costs, logistics support, field travel, 

Each year, the MOJN 

Board of Directors 

approves an Annual 

Work Plan, which 

is prepared by the 

Network Coordinator 

with input from 

network staff and the 

Technical Committee.
 108 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Sierra Nevada Network Mojave Desert Network

etc.). Relative to other networks, 

these expenses may constitute a larger 

proportion of the program budget due to 

the vast, remote, and rugged landscapes 

across which the protocols will be 

implemented. 

Guidelines for developing a monitoring 

program suggest that approximately 30% 

of the overall budget should be allocated 

to information/data management to 

ensure data quality and longevity and to 

facilitate communication of monitoring 

results. In Table 10.2, we provide the 

percent of time that each network 

position or cooperator is expected to 

devote to information/data management 

in FY 2009. Approximately 43% of the 

network budget will be used towards 

data and information management 

during the Implementation Phase. In the 

Monitoring Phase, data managementrelated staff supporting protocol 

and program development will be 

reduced, and monitoring-related data 

management duties will be performed by 

core network staff, temporary field-going 

staff, and the data technician. 

Table 10.1. Summary budget for the Mojave Desert Network Vital Signs Monitoring Program in 

the first year of implementation (FY 2009).

MOJN Vital Signs MOnitoring Budget FY 2009

Income

Vital Signs Monitoring $860,000

Water Resources Division $76,900

Funds Available $936,900

Amount % by Budget 

Category

Expenditures

Personnel- Core $285,937 31%

Personnel- Temporary $268,268 29%

Cooperative Agreements $188,217 20%

Contracts $45,500 5%

Operations/Equipment $100,528 10% 

Travel $48,450 5%

Total Expenditures $936,900 
National Park Service 109

Chapter 10: Budget

Table 10.2. Detailed budget for the Mojave Desert Network Vital Signs Monitoring Program in the first year of implementation after 

review and approval of the monitoring plan.

MOJN Vital Signs MOnitoring Budget FY 2009

Income

Vital Signs Monitoring $860,000

Water Resources Division $76,900

Total Income $936,900

Expenditures

Core Personnel GS Level Amount Amount allocated to 

Data Management

Network Coordinator 12 $101,054 5% $ 5,053

Data Manager 11 $90,177 100% $ 90,177

Ecologist 11 $67,791 5% $ 3,390

Program Assistant (1/2 FTE) 7 $26,915 10% $ 2,692

Temporary Personnel or Assistance

Various park staff (e.g., Science Advisor; 2PP) various $9,000

Vegetation mapping coordination (4mo) 7 $18,634 20% $ 3,727

GIS Specialist 9 $58,623 100% $ 58,623

Data Mining Technicians (3) 5/6/7 $177,011 100% $177,011

Misc. personnel costs $5,000

Subtotal $554,205 $340,671

Cooperative Agreements

Integrated Upland Protocol $40,000 20% $ 8,000

Groundwater and Springs Protocol $25,000 20% $ 5,000

Invasive/Exotic Plants Protocol $73,217 20% $ 14,643

Science Communication Plan- development $15,000 25% $ 3,750

Remote Sensing Techniques Development $35,000 20% $ 7,000

Subtotal $188,217 $ 38,393

Contracts

SCA intern support- housing $13,000

Water chemistry & macroinvertebrate analyses $20,000

Office maintenance $5,000

Vital Signs Monitoring Plan—formatting & printing $7,500

Subtotal $45,500

Operations/Equipment

Streams and Lakes monitoring equipment $ 12,150

Groundwater and Springs monitoring equipment $14,750

Integrated Upland monitoring field equipment $12,000 

GSA vehicles $7,000

LAME Administrative Support $10,000

General supplies and furniture $13,628

Network – service agreements & license upgrades $10,000 $ 10,000

Computers, hardware, & software $14,000 $ 14,000

IT Assessment $7,000

Subtotal $100,528 $ 24,000

Travel

Network staff- meetings, conferences, & training $37,200

Water quality monitoring-related meetings $4,000 

Park staff—network-related meetings & conferences $7,250

Subtotal $48,450

Data Management

Total 

Expenditures $936,900 43% $403,064
Mojave Desert Network Sierra Nevada Network
National Park Service 111

Chapter 11: Literature Cited

Allen, J. 2003. Drought lowers Lake 

Mead. NASA Earth Observatory 

Feature, November 13, 2003. Online. (http://earthobservatory.nasa.

gov/Study/LakeMead/). Accessed 30 

August 2005.

American Lung Association. 2004. 

State of the air: 2004. American 

Lung Association, New York, New 

York. On-line. (http://lungaction.

org/reports/stateoftheair2004.html). 

Accessed 30 August 2005.

Archer, S. and C. J. Stokes. 2000. Stress, 

disturbance and change in rangeland 

ecosystems. Pages 17-38 in O. Arnalds 

and S. Archer editors. Rangeland 

Desertification, Vegetation Science 

Vol. 19. Kluwer Publishing Company.

Badgley, C. and D. L. Fox. 2000. 

Ecological biogeography of North 

American mammals: species density 

and ecological structure in relation to 

environmental gradients. Journal of 

Biogeography 27:1437-1467.

Bailey, R. G. 1995. Description of the 

ecoregions of the United States, 2nd 

edition. Miscellaneous Publication 

1391. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, 

D.C. 

Bailey, R. G. 1998. Ecoregions: The 

ecosystem geography of the oceans 

and continents. Springer-Verlag, New 

York, New York.

Bawden, G. W., M. Sneed, S. V. Stork, 

and D. L. Galloway. 2003. Measuring 

human-induced land subsidence from 

space. USGS Fact Sheet 069-03. U. S. 

Geological Survey, Denver. 

Beatley, J. C. 1969. Dependence of 

desert rodents on winter annuals and 

precipitation. Ecology 50: 721-725.

Beatley, J. C. 1976. Vascular plants of 

the Nevada Test Site and centralsouthern Nevada. National Technical Information Service, TID-26881. 

Springfield, Virginia.

Belsky, A. J. and D. M. Blumenthal. 1997. 

Effect of livestock grazing on stand 

dynamics and soils in upland forests 

of the interior West. Conservation 

Biology 11:315-327.

Bellinger, G. 2004. Knowledge 

Management—Emerging 

Perspectives. Online. (http://www.

systems-thinking.org/kmgmt/kmgmt.

htm#fle96). Accessed 13 December 

2007.

Belnap, J. 2001. Biological soil crusts: 

webs of life in the desert. USGS Fact 

Sheet FS-065-01. U. S. Geological 

Survey, Denver.

Belnap, J. 2003. Biological soil crusts 

and wind erosion. Pages 339-347 

in J. Belnap and O. L. Lange eds. 

Ecological Studies Series 150, 

Biological soil crusts: structure, 

function, and management. SpringerVerlag, Berlin.

Belnap, J., J. H. Kaltenecker, R. 

Rosentreter, J. Williams, S. Leonard, 

D. Eldridge and P. Peterson. 2001. 

Biological soil crusts: Ecology and 

management. Technical Report 1730-

2. US Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, 

National Science and Technology 

Center, Denver, CO.

Belnap, J., R. H. Webb, M. E. Miller, D. 

M. Miller, L. A. DeFalco, P. A. Medica, 

M. L. Brooks, T. C. Esque, and D. 

Bedford. 2008. Monitoring ecosystem 

quality and function in arid settings 

of the Mojave Desert: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigation Report 

2008-5064, 119 p.

Benda, L., N. L. Poff, D. Miller, T. 

Dunne, G. Reeves, G. Pess, and M. 

Pollock. 2004. The network dynamics 

hypothesis: How channel networks 

structure riverine habitats. BioScience 

54:413-427.

Berry, K. H., J. Mack, R. W. Murphy, and 

W. Quillman. 2006. Introduction 

to the special issue on the changing 

Mojave Desert. Journal of Arid 

Environments 67:5-10.

Brooks, M. L. 1999. Habitat invasibility 

and dominance by alien annual 

plants in the western Mojave Desert. 

Biological Invasions 1:325-337.

Brooks, M. L. 2000. Competition 

between alien annual grasses and 

native annual plants in the Mojave 

Desert. American Midland Naturalist 

144:92-108.

Brooks, M. L. 2003. Effects of increased 

soil nitrogen on the dominance of 

alien annual plants in the Mojave 

Desert. Journal of Applied Ecology 

4:344-353.
Sierra Nevada Network

 112 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Mojave Desert Network

Brooks, M. L. and T. C. Esque. 2003. 

Alien plants and fire in desert tortoise 

(Gopherus agassizii) habitat of the 

Mojave and Colorado Deserts. 

Chelonian Conservation Biology 4: 

330-340.

Brooks, M. L., and J. R. Matchett. 2006. 

Spatial and temporal patterns of 

wildfires in the Mojave Desert, 1980-

2004. Journal of Arid Environments 

67:148-164.

Brooks, M. L., and R. A. Minnich. 2006. 

Southeastern deserts bioregion. 

Chapter 16 in: Sugihara, N. G., van 

Wagtendonk, J. W., Shaffer, K. E., 

Fites-Kaufman, J., Thode, A. E. editors. 

Fire in California’s Ecosystems. The 

University of California Press, Berkeley.

Brooks, M. L., T. C. Esque, and T. A. 

Duck. 2003. Fuels and fire regimes 

in creosostebush, blackbrush, and 

interior chaparral shrublands. 

Technical Report for the Southern 

Utah Demonstration Fuels Project. 

U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Fire Science Lab, 

Missoula, Montana.

Brooks, M. L., C. M. D’antonio, D. M. 

Richardson, J. B. Grace, J. E. Keeley, J. 

M. DiTomaso, R.J. Hobbs, M. Pellant, 

D. Pyke. 2004. Effects of invasive alien 

plants on fire regimes. BioScience 

54:677-688.

Brussard, P. F., D. A. Charlet, and D. 

S. Dobkin. 1998. The Great BasinMojave Desert Region. Pages 505-

542 in M. J. Mac, P. A. Opler, C. E. 

Puckett-Haecker, and P. D. Doran, 

editors. The status and trends of the 

nation’s biological resources. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Busch, D. E. and J. C. Trexler. 

2003. Monitoring ecosystems: 

interdisciplinary approaches for 

evaluating ecoregional initiatives. 

Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Carothers, S. W., R. R. Johnson, and 

S. W. Aitchison. 1974. Population 

structure and social organization 

of Southwestern riparian birds. 

American Zoologist 14:97-108.

Chapin III, F. S., E. O. Sala, C. I. 

Burke, J. P. Grime, D. U. Hooper, 

W. K. Lauernroth, A. Lombard, 

H. A. Mooney, A. R. Mosier, S. 

Naeem, S. W. Pacala, J. Roy, W. 

L. Steffen, and D. Tilaman. 1998. 

Ecosystem consequences of changing 

biodiversity. BioScience. 48:45-52.

Chapin III, F. S., M. S. Torn, and M. 

Tateno. 1996. Principles of ecosystem 

sustainability. The American 

Naturalist 148:1016-1037. 

Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W. S. Platts. 

1990. Livestock grazing on western 

riparian areas. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 8, Denver, 

Colorado.

Chesson, P., R. L. E. Gebauer, S. 

Schwinning, N. Huntly, K. Wiegand, 

M.S.K. Ernest, A. Sher, A. Ovoplansky, 

and J.F. Weltzin. 2004. Resource pulses, 

species interactions, and diversity 

maintenance in arid and semi-arid 

environments. Oecologia 141:236-253.

Christensen, N. L., A. M. Bartuska, 

J. H. Brown, S. Carpenter, C. M. 

D’Antonio, R. Francis, J. F. Franklin, 

J. A. MacMahon, R. F. Noss, D. J. 

Parsons, C. H. Peterson, M. G. Turner, 

and R. G. Woodmansee. 1996. The 

report of the Ecological Society of 

America Committee on the scientific 

basis for ecosystem management. 

Ecological Applications 6:665-691. 

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. 

Costanza, R., R. Arge, R. de-Groot, S. 

Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. 

Limburg, S. Naeem, R. Oneil, J. Paruelo, 

R. Raskin, P. Sutton, and J. van denBelt. 

1998. The value of ecosystem services: 

putting the issues in perspective. 

Ecological Economics 25:67-72. 

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.

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

K. A. Thomas, P. A. Stine, D. Odion, M. 

I. Borchert, J. H. Thorne, M. V. Gray, 

R. E. Walker, and others. 1998. The 

California Gap Analysis Project—Final 

Report. University of California, Santa 

Barbara. On-line. (http://www.biogeog.

ucsb.edu/projects/gap/gap_rep.html) 

Accessed 30 August 2005.
National Park Service 113

DeAngelis, D. L., L. J. Gross, E. J. 

Comiskey, W. M. Mooij, M. P. Nott 

and S. Bellmund. 2003. The use of 

models for a multi-scaled ecological 

monitoring system. Pages 167-188 

in D. E. Busch and J. C. Trexler, 

editors. Monitoring ecosystems: 

interdisciplinary approaches for 

evaluating ecoregional initiatives. 

Island Press, Washington, D.C.

de Gruijter, J., D. Brus, M. Bierkens, 

and M. Knotters. 2006. Sampling 

for Natural Resource Monitoring. 

Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Díaz, S. and M. Cabido. 2001. Vive la 

différence: Plant functional diversity 

matters to ecosystem processes. 

Trends in Ecology and Evolution 

16:646–655.

Domenico, P. A. and F. W. Schwartz. 

1990. Physical and Chemical 

Hydrogeology. John Wiley and Sons, 

New York.

Edwards, D. 1998. Issues and themes for 

natural resources trend and change 

detection. Ecological Applications 8: 

323-325.

Elzinga, C. L., D. W. Salzer, and J. W. 

Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and 

monitoring plant populations. Bureau 

of Land Management Technical 

Reference 1730-1. Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, D.C.

Elzinga, C. L, D. W. Salzer, J. W. 

Willoughby, and J. P. Gibbs. 2001. 

Monitoring Plant and Animal 

Populations. Blackwell Science, Inc., 

Malden, MA.

EPA. 2006. STORET, Environmental 

Protection Agency. Online. (http://

www.epa.gov/STORET/). Accessed 1 

November 2006.

Fetter, C. W. 1994. Applied 

Hydrogeology. Prentice-Hall, 

Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Fitzpatrick, F. A. 2001. A Comparison 

of Multi-Disciplinary Methods for 

Measuring Physical Conditions of 

Streams. Pages 7-18 in J. M. Dorava, D. 

R. Montgomery, B. B. Palcsak, and F. 

A. Fitzpatrick, editors. Geomorphic 

Processes and Riverine Habitat. 

American Geophysical Union Water 

Science and Application 4.

Fleishman, E. C., J. Betrus, and R.B. 

Blair. 2003. Effects of Spatial Scale and 

Taxonomic Group on Partitioning 

of Butterfly and Bird Diversity in the 

Great Basin, USA. Landscape Ecology 

18:675-685.

Fleishman, E. and R. MacNally. 2006. 

Patterns of Spatial Autocorrelation 

of Assemblages of Birds, Floristics, 

Physiognomy, and Primary 

Productivity in the Central 

Great Basin, USA. Diversity and 

Distributions 12:236-243.

Freeze, R. A., and J. A. Cherry. 1979. 

Groundwater. Simon and Schuster, 

New York.

Garrett, L. K., T. J. Rodhouse, G. H. 

Dicus, C. C. Caudill, and M. R. 

Shardlow. 2007. Upper Columbia 

Basin Network Vital Signs monitoring 

plan. Natural Resource Report NPS/

UCBN/NRR—2007/002. National 

Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Gelbard, J. L. and J. Belknap. 2003. 

Roads as Conduits for Exotic Plant 

Invasions in a Semiarid Landscape. 

Conservation Biology 17:420-432.

Giorgi, F., P. H. Whetton, R. G. Jones, 

J. H. Christensen, L. O. Mearns, 

B. Hewitson, H. von Storch, R. 

Francisco, and C. Jack. 2001. 

Emerging patterns of simulated 

regional climatic changes for the 

21st century due to anthropogenic 

forcings. Geophysical Research 

Letters 28:3317-3320.

Grayson, D. K. 1993. The Desert’s Past: 

A Natural Prehistory of the Great 

Basin. Smithsonian Institution Press, 

Washington, D. C.

Grimm, V. and C. Wissel. 1997. Babel or 

the ecological stability discussions: an 

inventory and analysis of terminology 

and a guide for avoiding confusion. 

Oecologia 109:323-334. 

Gross, John E. 2003. Developing 

Conceptual Models for Monitoring 

Programs. National Park Service, 

Inventory and Monitoring Program, 

Fort Collins, CO. On-line. (http://

science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/

docs/Conceptual_Modelling.pdf). 

Accessed 13 December 2007.

Harrill, J. R. and D. E. Prudic. 1998. 

Aquifer systems in the Great Basin 

region of Nevada, Utah, and adjacent 

states summary report. USGS 

Professional Paper 1409-A. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Denver. 

Chapter 11: Literature Cited
Sierra Nevada Network

 114 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Mojave Desert Network

Hereford, R., R. H. Webb, and C. I. 

Longpre. 2004. Precipitation history 

of the Mojave Desert region, 1893-

2001. U. S. Department of Interior, U. 

S. Geological Survey, Denver. USGS 

Fact Sheet 117-03. On-line. (http://

pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs117-03/). Accessed 

30 August 2005.

Hereford, R., R. H. Webb, and C. 

I. Longpré. 2006. Precipitation 

history and ecosystem response to 

multidecadal precipitation variability 

in the Mojave Desert region, 1983-

2001. Journal of Arid Environments 

67: 13-34.

Hevesi, J. A., A. L. Flint and L. E. Flint. 

2003. Simulation of net infiltration 

and potential recharge using a 

distributed-parameter watershed 

model of the Death Valley Region, 

Nevada and California.USGS WaterResources Investigations Report 03-

4090. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver. 

Holmgren, M., P. Stapp, C. R. Dickman, 

C. Gracia, S. Graham, J. R. Gutierrez, 

C. Hice, F. Jaksie, D. A. Kelt, M. 

Letnic, M. Lima, B. C. Lopez, P. L. 

Meserve, W. B. Milstead, G. A. Polis, 

M. A. Previtali, M. Richter, S. Sabate, 

and F. Squeo. 2006. Extreme climatic 

events shape arid and semiarid 

ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and 

the Environment 4:87-95.

IPCC-Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change, Climate Change 

2007: The physical science basis. 

Contribution of working group I 

to the fourth assessment report of 

the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change, S. Solomon et al., 

editors. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, UK

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.

Jones, A. 2000. Effects of cattle grazing 

on North American arid ecosystems: 

a quantitative review. Western North 

American Naturalist 60:155-164.

Juhren, M., F. W. Went, and E. Phillips. 

1956. Ecology of desert plants IV. 

Combined field and laboratory work 

on germination of annuals in the 

Joshua Tree National Monument, 

California. Ecology 37: 318-330. 

Karlen, D. L., M. J. Mausbach, J. W. 

Doran, R. G. Cline, R. F. Harris, and 

G. E. Schuman. 1997. Soil quality: A 

concept, definition, and framework 

for evaluation. Soil Science Society of 

America Journal 61:4-10. 

Kus, B. E. 1998. Use of restored riparian 

habitat by the endangered Least 

Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). 

Restoration Ecology 6:75-82.

Landres, P. B., P. Morgan, and F. J. 

Swanson. 1999. Overview of the 

use of natural variability concepts 

in managing ecological systems. 

Ecological Applications 4:1179-1188.

Ledder, T. 2003. Water resource 

information and assessment for 

the Great Lakes Inventory and 

Monitoring Network. National Park 

Service, Great Lakes Inventory and 

Monitoring Network, Ashland, 

WI. Great Lakes Technical Report: 

GLKN/2003/05.

Lessler, J. T., and W. D. Kalsbeek. 1992. 

Nonsampling Errors in Surveys. John 

Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

Likens, G. 1992. An ecosystem approach: 

its use and abuse. Excellence in 

ecology, book 3. Ecology Institute, 

Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany. 

Lohman, K. 2004. Wildlife use of 

riverine riparian areas. Pages 74-86 

in M.C. McKinstry, W. Hubert, and 

S. Anderson, Wetland and Riparian 

Areas in the Intermountain West. 

University of Texas Press. Austin, TX.

Longland, W.S., S.H. Jenkins, S.B. 

Vander Wall, J.A. Veech, and S. 

Pyare. 2001. Seedling recruitment 

in Oryzopsis hymenoides: Are desert 

granivores mutualists or predators? 

Ecology 82:3131-3148.

Longshore, K. M., J. R. Jaeger, and J. M. 

Sappington. 2003. Desert Tortoise 

(Gopherus agassizii) Survival at Two 

Eastern Mojave Desert Sites: Death 

by Short-Term Drought? Journal of 

Herpetology 37:169-177.

MacCluskie, M., and K. L. Oakley. 2005. 

Central Alaska Network: Vital Signs 

Monitoring Plan. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
National Park Service 115

Chapter 11: Literature Cited

Mack, R. N. 1986. Invasion of Bromus 

tectorum into western North 

America: an ecological chronicle. 

Agroecosystems 7:145-165.

MacMahon, J. A., J. F. Mull, and T. 

O. Crist. 2000. Harvester ants 

(Pogonomyrmex spp.): Their 

community and ecosystem influences. 

Annual Review of Ecology and 

Systematics 31:265-291.

Maddox, D., K. Poiani, and R. Unnasch. 

1999. Evaluating management success: 

Using ecological models to ask the right 

monitoring questions. Pages 563-584 

in W. T. Sexton, A. J. Malk, R. C. Szaro, 

and N. C. Johnson, editors. Ecological 

stewardship: A common reference for 

ecosystem management, Volume III. 

Elsevier Science, Oxford, UK.

Magnuson, J. J., D. M. Robertson, 

B. J. Benson, R. H. Wynne, D, M. 

Livingstone, and others. 2000. 

Historical Trends in Lake and 

River Ice Cover in the Northern 

Hemisphere. Science 289:1743-1746.

Manley, P. N., W. J. Zielinski, C. 

M. Stuart, J. J. Keane, A. J. Lind, 

C. Brown, B. L. Plymale, and C. 

O. Napper. 2000. Monitoring 

ecosytems in the Sierra Nevada: 

The conceptual model foundations. 

Environmental Monitoring and 

Assessment 64:139-152.

Manly, B. F. J. 2001. Statistics for 

environmental science and 

management. Chapman and Hall/

CRC Press, New York, NY.

Margoluis, R. and N. Salafsky. 1998. 

Measures of success : designing, 

managing, and monitoring 

conservation and development projects. 

Island Press, Washington, D.C. 

Mason, W. T. 1995. Invertebrates. 

Pages 159-160 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 US plants, animals, and 

ecosystems. U. S. Department of the 

Interior, National Biological Service, 

Washington, D.C.

Maxey, G. B. and T. E. Eakin. 1950. 

Ground water in White River Valley, 

White Pine, Nye, and Lincoln 

Counties, Nevada. Nevada State 

Engineer Water Resources Bulletin 

No. 8. Carson City, Nevada.

McCabe, G. J., Palecki, M. A. and J. L. 

Betancourt. 2004. Pacific and Atlantic 

Ocean Influences on Multidecal 

Drought Frequency in the United 

States. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences 101: 4136-4141.

McDonald, K. A. and J. H. Brown. 1992. 

Using montane mammals to model 

extinctions due to global change. 

Conservation Biology 6:409-415.

McDonald, T. L. 2003. Review of 

Environmental Monitoring Methods: 

Survey Designs. Environmental 

Monitoring and Assessment 85:277-292.

McDonald, T. L., and P. H. Geissler. 

2004. Systematic and stratified 

sampling designs in long-term 

ecological monitoring studies. 

Unpublished Report.

McLaughlin, S. P. 1989. Natural Floristic 

Areas of the Western United States. 

Journal of Biogeography 16:239-248.

McNab, W. H. and P. E. Avers, compilers. 

1994. Ecological subregions of the 

United States: section descriptions. 

Technical Report WO-WSA-5. U. S. 

Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

Merriam, C. H. 1890. Results of a 

biological survey of the San Francisco 

Mountain region and desert of the 

Little Colorado, Arizona. North 

American Fauna Series No. 3. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Division 

of Ornithology and Mammalogy, 

Government Printing Office, 

Washington, D.C

Merriam, C. H. 1898. Life-zones and 

crop-zones of the United States. 

Bulletin 10. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Division of Biological 

Survey, Washington, D.C. 

Michener, W. K., J. W. Brunt, J .J. Helly, 

T. B. Kirchner, and S. G. Stafford. 

1997. Nongeospatial metadata for 

the ecological sciences. Ecological 

Applications 7:330–342.

Milchunas, D. G. and W. K. Lauenroth. 

1993. Quantitative effects of grazing 

on vegetation and soils over a global 

range of environments. Ecological 

Monographs 63:327-366. 
Sierra Nevada Network

 116 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Mojave Desert Network

Miller, M. E. and L. P. Thomas. 2004. 

The structure and functioning of 

dryland ecosystems—conceptual 

models to inform the vital-sign 

selection process. U. S. Department 

of the Interior, National Park Service, 

Southern Colorado Plateau Network, 

Flagstaff, AZ. Draft. 4 February 2004.

Montgomery, D. R., and J. M. 

Buffington. 1997. Channel-reach 

morphology in mountain drainage 

basins. Geological Society of America 

Bulletin 109:596-611.

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, University of Idaho, 

Moscow, Idaho.

Mutch, L. S., M. Goldin Rose, A. Heard, 

R. R. Cook, and G. L. Entsminger. 

2007. Sierra Nevada Network: Vital 

Signs Monitoring Plan. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Naiman, R. J., and H. Decamps. 1997. 

The ecology of interfaces: Riparian 

zones. Annual Review of Ecology and 

Systematics 28:621-658.

National Park Service. 1916. National 

Park Service Organic Act of 1916. 

PL Chapter 408, 39 Sta. 535 et seq. 16 

USC 1.

National Park Service. 1992a. General 

management plan for Great Basin 

National Park. U.S. Department of 

Interior, National Park Service, Great 

Basin National Park, NV.

National Park Service. 1992b. NPS75: Natural resources inventory 

and monitoring guidelines. U.S. 

Department of Interior, National Park 

Service, Washington, D.C.

National Park Service. 1995. General 

management plan for Joshua Tree 

National Park. U.S. Department of 

Interior, National Park Service, Joshua 

Tree National Park, CA. 

National Park Service. 1996. General 

management plan and environmental 

impact statement for Manzanar 

National Historic Site. U. S. Department 

of Interior, National Park Service, 

Manzanar National Historic Site, CA.

National Park Service.1998. National 

Parks Omnibus Management Act of 

1998. 16 USC 5901-6011; PL 105-391. 

National Park Service. 1999a. Natural 

resource challenge: the National Park 

Service’s action plan for preserving 

natural resources. U. S. Department 

of the Interior, National Park Service, 

Washington D.C.

National Park Service. 1999b. Lake 

Mead National Recreation Area 

business plan executive summary. U. 

S. Department of Interior, National 

Park Service, Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area, NV.

National Park Service. 1999c. Lake 

Mead National Recreation Area 

vital signs workshop summary. U. 

S. Department of Interior, National 

Park Service, Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area, NV.

National Park Service. 2000. Mojave 

National Preserve general 

management plan. U. S. Department 

of Interior, National Park Service, 

Mojave National Preserve, CA. 

National Park Service. 2001a. 2001 

National Park Service management 

policies. U. S. Department of Interior, 

National Park Service, Washington, 

D.C.

National Park Service. 2001b. General 

management plan for Death Valley 

National Park. U. S. Department of 

Interior, National Park Service, Death 

Valley National Park, CA. 

National Park Service. 2003a. Outline 

for vital signs monitoring plans. U. S. 

Department of Interior, National Park 

Service, Inventory and Monitoring 

Program, Ft. Collins, Colorado. 

Internal guidance document.

National Park Service. 2003b. Grand 

Canyon-Parashant National 

Monument geologic resources 

evaluation scoping meeting summary. 

U. S. Department of Interior, National 

Park Service, Geologic Resources 

Division, Fort Collins, CO.

National Park Service. 2003c. Great 

Basin National Park geologic 

resources evaluation scoping 

meeting summary. U. S. Department 

of Interior, National Park Service, 

Geologic Resources Division, Fort 

Collins, CO.
National Park Service 117

Chapter 11: Literature Cited

National Park Service. 2003d. Joshua 

Tree National Park geologic resources 

management issues scoping summary. 

U. S. Department of Interior, National 

Park Service, Geologic Resources 

Division, Fort Collins, CO.

National Park Service. 2003e. Mojave 

National Preserve geologic resources 

management issues scoping summary. 

U. S. Department of Interior, National 

Park Service, Geologic Resources 

Division, Fort Collins, CO.

National Park Service. 2004a. Assessing 

the risk of foliar injury from ozone 

on vegetation in parks in the Mojave 

Desert Network, October 2004. U. S. 

Department of Interior, National Park 

Service, Air Resources Division, Fort 

Collins, CO. 

National Park Service. 2004b. Death 

Valley National Park geologic 

resources management issues scoping 

summary (Revised). U. S. Department 

of Interior, National Park Service, 

Geologic Resources Division, Fort 

Collins, CO.

National Park Service. 2004c. Lake 

Mead National Recreation Area 

geologic resources management issues 

scoping summary (Revised). U. S. 

Department of Interior, National Park 

Service, Geologic Resources Division, 

Fort Collins, CO.

National Park Service. 2004d. Manzanar 

National Historic Site geologic 

resources management issues 

scoping summary. U. S. Department 

of Interior, National Park Service, 

Geologic Resources Division, Fort 

Collins, CO.

National Park Service. 2005a. 

National Park Service I&M Vital 

Sign Framework. On-line. (http://

science.nature.nps.gov/ im/monitor/

vsmAdmin.htm#Framework). 

Accessed 30 August 2005. 

National Park Service. 2005b. Draft 

General Management Plan and 

Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Grand CanyonParashant National Monument. U. 

S. Department of Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management and National Park 

Service, Grand Canyon-Parashant 

National Monument, UT and AZ. 

National Park Service. 2005c. National 

Park Service Public Use Statistics 

Office. On-line. (http://www2.nature.

nps.gov/stats/). Accessed 30 August 

2005.

National Park Service. 2008. Data 

Management Guidelines for Inventory 

and Monitoring Networks. Natural 

Resouce Report NPS/NRPC/NRR2008/035. National Park Service. Fort 

Collins, Colorado.

Newmark, W.L. 1995. Extinction of 

Mammal Populations in Western 

North American National Parks. 

Conservation Biology 9:512-526.

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. 

Noy-Meir, I. 1973. Desert ecosystems: 

environment and producers. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics 

4:25-51.

Oakley, K. L., L. P. Thomas and S. G. 

Fancy. 2003. Guidelines for long-term 

monitoring protocols. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 31:1000-1002.

Pase, C.P. 1994. Arctic and alpine tundra. 

Pages 27-33 in D.E. Brown, editor. 

Biotic Communities Southwestern 

United States and Northwestern 

Mexico. University of Utah Press, Salt 

Lake City, Utah.

Pase, C. P. and D. E. Brown. 1994. 

Rocky Mountain (Petran) subalpine 

conifer forest. Pages 37-39 in Brown, 

D.E., editors. Biotic communities of 

the Southwestern United States and 

northwestern New Mexico.

Patten, D. T. 1998. Riparian ecosystems 

of semi-arid North America: Diversity 

and human impacts. Wetlands 18:498-

512.

Peet, R. K. 2000. Forests and meadows 

of the Rocky Mountains. Pages 75-121 

in Barbour, M. G. and W. D. Billings, 

editors. North American terrestrial 

vegetation, second edition. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom.

Pellant M., P. Shaver, D. A. Pyke, and J. E. 

Herrick. 2000. Interpreting indicators 

of rangeland health, version 3. 

Technical Reference 1734-6. BLM, 

National Science and Technology 

Center, Denver, CO U.S.A.
Sierra Nevada Network

 118 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Mojave Desert Network

Piepho, H. P. and J. O. Ogutu. 2002. A 

simple mixed model for trend analysis 

in wildlife populations. Journal 

of Agricultural, Biological, and 

Environmental Statistics. 7:350-360.

Prichard, D., J. Anderson, C. Correll, 

J. Fogg, K. Gebhardt, R. Krapf, S. 

Leonard, B. Mitchell, and J. Staats. 

1998. Riparian Area Management: 

A User Guide to Assessing Proper 

Functioning Condition and the 

Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. 

Technical Reference 1737-15, BLM/

RS/ST-98/001-1737, Bureau of Land 

Management, Denver, CO.

Purcell, K. L., S. R. Mori, and M. K. 

Chase. 2005. Design Considerations 

for examining trends in avian 

abundance using point counts: 

examples from oak woodlands. The 

Condor 107:305-320.

Pulliam, H. R. and M. R. Brand. 1975. 

The production and utilization 

of seeds in plains grassland of 

southeastern Arizona. Ecology 

56:1158-1156

Rapport, D. J. 1998. Defining ecosystem 

health. Pages 18-33 in D. J. Rapport, R. 

Costanza, P. R. Epstein, C. L. Gaudet, 

and R. Levins, editors. Ecosystem 

Health. Blackwell Science, Malden, MA. 

Reichman, O. J. 1977. Optimization of diets 

through food preferences by heteromyid 

rodents. Ecology 58:454-457.

Reynolds, J. F., P. R. Kemp, K. Ogle, and 

R. J. Fernandez. 2004. Modifying the 

‘pulse-reserve’ paradigm for deserts 

of North America: precipitation 

pulses, soil water, and plant responses. 

Oecologia 141:194-210.

Roback, P. J., and R. A. Askins. 2005. 

Judicious use of multiple hypothesis 

tests. Conservation Biology 19:261-

267.

Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. 2000. 

Ecohydrology: A hydrologic 

perspective of climate-soil-vegetation 

dynamics. Water Resources Research 

36:3-9.

Roman, C. T., and N. E. Barrett. 

1999. Conceptual Framework for 

the Development of Long-term 

Monitoring Protocols at Cape Cod 

National Seashore. U. S. Department 

of Interior, U. S. Geological Survey, 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 

University of Rhode Island, 

Providence, Rhode Island.

Rowlands, P. G. 1978. The vegetation 

dynamics of the Joshua Tree Desert 

(Yucca brevifolia Engelm) in the 

southwestern United States. Ph.D. 

Dissertation, 192 pp., University of 

California Riverside.

Sada, D. W., E. Fleishman, and D. 

D. Murphy. 2005. Associations 

among spring-dependent aquatic 

assemblages and environmental 

and land use gradients in a Mojave 

Desert mountain range. Diversity and 

Distributions 11:91-99.

Sarr, D. A., D. C. Odion, S. R. Mohren, E. 

E. Perry, R. L. Hoffman, L. K. Bridy, 

and A. A. Merton. 2007. Klamath 

Network Vital Signs Monitoring 

Plan. Natural Resource Report NPS/

KLMN/NRR—2007/016. National 

Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Salo, L. F. 2004. Population dynamics of 

red brome (Bromus madritensis rubens): 

times for concern, opportunities 

for management. Journal of Arid 

Environments 57:291-296. 

Scheaffer, R. L., W. Mendenhall, and 

L. Ott. 1990. Elementary survey 

sampling, 4th edition. PWS-Kent, 

Boston.

Schwinning, S. and O. E. Sala. 2004. 

Hierarchy of responses to resource 

pulses in arid and semi-arid 

ecosystems. Oecologia 141:211-220. 

Scott, D. and W. D. Billings. 1964. Effects 

of environmental factors on standing 

crop and productivity of an alpine 

tundra. Ecological Monographs 

34:243-270.

Scott, M. L., M. E. Miller, and J. C. 

Schmidt. 2004. The structure and 

functioning of riparian ecosystems 

of the Colorado Plateau– Conceptual 

models to inform the vital-sign 

selection process: Southern Colorado 

Plateau Network Phase Two 

Supplement (Draft). 

Seager, R., M. Ting, I. Held, Y Kushnir, J. 

Lu, G. Vecchi, H-P. Huang, N. Harnik, 

A. Leetmaa, N-C Lau, C. Li, J. Velez, 

and N. Naik. 2007. Model projections 

of an imminent transition to a more 

arid climate in southwestern North 

America. Science 316: 1181-1184.
National Park Service 119

Chapter 11: Literature Cited

Segura, M., R. Woodman, J. Meiman, W. 

Granger, and J. Bracewell. 2007. Gulf 

Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring 

Plan. Natural Resource Report NPS/

GULN/NRR–2007/015. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Seybold, C. A., J. E. Herrick, and J. 

J. Brejda. 1999. Soil resilience: A 

fundamental component of soil 

quality. Soil Science 164:224-234. 

Sims, M., S. Wanless, M. P. Harris, P. 

I. Mitchell, and D. A. Elston. 2006. 

Evaluating the power of monitoring 

plot designs for detecting long-term 

trends in the numbers of common 

guillemots. Journal of Applied 

Ecology 43:537-546.

Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1995. 

Biometry, 3rd edition. W.H. Freeman 

and Company, New York.

Stamos, C. L., P. Martin, T. Nishikawa, 

and B. F. Cox. 2001. Simulation of 

ground-water flow in the Mojave 

River basin, California. USGS WaterResources Investigations Report 

01-4002 Version 3. U. S. Geological 

Survey, Washington, D. C. 

Steidl, R. J., J. P. Hayes, and E. Schauber. 

1997. Statistical power analysis in 

wildlife research. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 61:270-279.

Stevens, L. 2001. Ecological Assessment 

of the Shivwits Plateau Region. Grand 

Canyon Wildlands Council, Inc., 

Flagstaff, AZ.

Stevens, D. L., and A. R. Olsen. 2004. 

Spatially Balanced Sampling of Natural 

Resources. Journal of American 

Statistical Association 99:262-278.

Stevens, L. E., and A. E. Springer. 

2004. A conceptual model of springs 

ecosystem ecology: Task 1B Final 

Report: Southern Colorado Plateau 

Network Phase Two Supplement. 

Stringham, T. K., W. C. Krueger, 

and P. L. Shaver. 2003. State and 

transition modeling: An ecological 

process approach. Journal of Range 

Management 56:106-113. 

Thomas, L., M. Hendrie (editor), C. 

Lauver, S. Monroe, N. Tancreto, 

S. Garman, and M. Miller. 2005. 

Vital Signs Monitoring Plan for the 

Southern Colorado Plateau Network: 

Phase III report. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Thompson, R. S., and K. H. Anderson. 

2000. Biomes of Western North 

America at 18,000, 6,000 and 0 14C 

yr BP reconstructed from pollen 

and packrat midden data. Journal of 

Biogeography 27:555-584.

Thompson S. K. 2002. Sampling. 2nd ed. J. 

Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Trombulak, S. C., and C. A. Frissell. 

2000. Review of Ecological Effects 

of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic 

Communities. Conservation 

Biology 14:18-30.

Turner, R. M. 1994a. Great Basin 

Desertscrub. Pages 145-155 in D. E. 

Brown ed. Biotic Communities of 

the Southwestern United States and 

Northwestern Mexico. University of 

Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Turner, R. M. 1994b. Mojave 

Desertscrub. Pages 157-168 in D. E. 

Brown ed. Biotic Communities of 

the Southwestern United States and 

Northwestern Mexico. University of 

Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 

Urquhart, N. S., and T. M. Kincaid. 

1999. Designs for detecting trend 

from repeated surveys of ecological 

resources. Journal of Agricultural and 

Biological Environmental Statistics 

4:404–414.

Urquhart, N. S., S. G. Paulsen, and D. P. 

Larsen. 1998. Monitoring for policyrelevant regional trends over time. 

Ecological Applications 8:246-257.

Urquhart, N. S., Overton, W. S. and D.S. 

Birkes. 1993. Comparing Sampling 

Designs for Monitoring Ecological 

Status and Trends: Impact of Temporal 

Patterns. Pages 71-85 in V. Barnett 

and K.F. Turkman, editors. Statistics 

for the Environment. John Wiley and 

Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. Data Access 

Tools. On-line.( http://www.census.

gov/main/www/access.html). 

Accessed 30 August 2005.

USGS National Land Cover Dataset. 

2001. Data Acesss Tools. Online. 

(http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd.php)

Accessed 30 September 2008. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1993. 

ECOMAP. National hierarchical 

framework of ecological units. U.S. 

Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 
Sierra Nevada Network

 120 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Mojave Desert Network

VanLeeuwen, D. M., L. W. Murray, and 

N. S. Urquhart. 1996. A mixed model 

with both fixed and random trend 

components across time. Journal 

of Agricultural, Biological, and 

Environmental Statistics 4: 435-453.

Warren, S. D. 2003. Synopsis: Influence 

of biological soil crusts on arid land 

hydrology and soil stability. Pages 

349-362 in J. Belnap and O. L. Lange 

eds. Ecological Studies Series 150, 

Biological soil crusts: structure, 

function, and management. SpringerVerlag, Berlin.

Webb, R. H., T. C. Esque, P. A. Medica, 

L. A. DeFalco, and M. B. Murov. 2001. 

Monitoring Of Ecosystem Dynamics 

In The Mojave Desert: The Beatley 

Permanent Plots, USGS Fact Sheet 

040-01, 4p.

Westman, W. E. 1978. Measuring the 

inertia and resilience of ecosystems. 

BioScience 28:705-710.

Whisenant, S. G. 1999. Repairing 

damaged wildlands: A processoriented landscape scale approach. 

Cambridge University Press. 

Cambridge, UK.

White, P. S. and S. T. A. Pickett. 1985. 

Natural disturbance and patch 

dynamics: An introduction. Pages 

3-13 in S. T. A. Pickett and P. S. White, 

editors. The Ecology of Natural 

Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. 

Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 

Whitford, W. G. 1996. The importance 

of the biodiversity of soil biota in 

arid ecosystems. Biodiversity and 

Conservation 5:185-195.

Whitford, W. G. 1998. Validation of 

indicators. Pages 205-209 in D. J. 

Rapport, R. Costanza, P. R. Epstein, 

C. Gaudet, and R. Levins, editors. 

Ecosystem Health. Blackwell Science, 

Malden, MA. 

Whitford, W. G. 2002. Ecology of desert 

systems. Academic Press, San Diego, 

CA.

Wilkerson, C. 2004. The Mojave Desert: 

Land of Power and Passions, Land 

of Vulnerability. Presentation at the 

Mojave Desert Science Symposium, 

University of Redlands, California, 

November 16-18, 2004. 

Wittemyer, G., P. Elsen, W. T. Bean, A. 

C. O. Burton, and J. S. Brashares. 

2008. Accelerated human population 

growth at protected area edges. 

Science 321:123-126.

Winograd, I. J., T. B Coplen, J. M. 

Landwehr, K. M. Revesz, A. C. 

Riggs, and others. 1992. Continuous 

500,000-year climate record from 

vein calcite in Devils Hole, Nevada. 

Science 258: 255-260.
National Park Service 121

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND CONCEPTS

Alluvial fan—an outspread, gently 

sloping mass of alluvium deposited by 

a stream, especially in an arid region 

where a stream issues from a narrow 

canyon onto a plain or valley floor.

Anthropogenic effects—are caused by 

or attributed to humans. As used here, 

they are human influenced factors that 

cause stress in natural systems.

Attributes—any living or nonliving 

feature or process of the environment 

that can be measured or estimated and 

that provide insights into the state of 

the ecosystem. The term indicator is 

reserved for a subset of attributes that is 

particularly information-rich in the sense 

that their values are somehow indicative 

of the quality, health, or integrity of the 

larger ecological system to which they 

belong (Noon 2003; http://science.nature.

nps.gov/im/monitor/Glossary.htm).

Bajada—a broad, gently inclined, 

detrital surface extending from the base 

of mountain ranges into an in-land basin.

Biological integrity—the ability 

to maintain and support a balanced, 

integrated, adaptive community of 

organisms having a species composition, 

diversity, and functional organization 

comparable to that of the natural habitat 

of the region.

Biome—a climax community that 

characterizes a particular natural region.

Biota—the animal and plant life of a 

region.

Carbonate rock—rock formed from the 

carbonates of calcium, magnesium, and/ 

or iron (e.g., limestone or dolomite).

Conceptual models—purposeful 

representations of reality that provide a 

mental picture of how something works to 

communicate that explanation to others.

Degradation—an anthropogenic 

reduction in the capacity of a particular 

ecosystem or ecosystem component to 

perform desired ecosystem functions 

(e.g., degraded capacity for conserving 

soil and water resources). Human 

actions may degrade desired ecosystem 

functions directly, or they may do so 

indirectly by damaging the capacity of 

ecosystem functions to resist or recover 

from natural disturbances and/or 

anthropogenic stressors (derived from 

concepts of Whisenant 1999; Archer and 

Stokes 2000; Whitford 2002).

Disturbance—“...any relatively discrete 

event in time that disrupts ecosystem, 

community, or population structure and 

changes resources, substrate availability, 

or the physical environment” (White 

and Pickett 1985:7). In relation to 

monitoring, disturbances are considered 

to be ecological factors that are within 

the evolutionary history of the ecosystem 

(e.g., drought). These are differentiated 

from anthropogenic factors that are 

outside the range of disturbances 

naturally experienced by the ecosystem 

(Whitford 2002).

Driver—The major external driving 

forces that have large-scale influences on 

natural systems. Drivers can be natural 

forces or anthropogenic (http://science.

nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/Glossary.cfm).

Ecological Monitoring Framework—

is a National Park Service systems-based, 

hierarchical outline that facilitates 

comparisons of vital signs among parks, 

networks, and other programs.

Ecological integrity—a concept 

that expresses the degree to which 

the physical, chemical, and biological 

components (including composition, 

structure, and process) of an ecosystem 

and their relationships are present, 

functioning, and capable of self-renewal. 

Ecological integrity implies the presence 

of appropriate species, populations and 

communities and the occurrence of 

ecological processes at appropriate rates 

and scales as well as the environmental 

conditions that support these taxa and 

processes (http://science.nature.nps.gov/

im/monitor/Glossary.htm).

Ecoregion—an area over which the 

climate is sufficiently uniform to permit 

development of similar ecosystems on 

sites having similar properties. Ecoregions 

contain many landscapes with different 

spatial patterns of ecosystems.

Ecosystem—a spatially explicit unit 

of the Earth that includes all of the 
Sierra Nevada Network

 122 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Mojave Desert Network

organisms, along with all components 

of the abiotic environment within its 

boundaries (Likens 1992, cited by 

Christensen et al.1996:670).

Ecosystem functioning—the flow 

of energy and materials through the 

arrangement of biotic and abiotic 

components of an ecosystem. Includes 

many ecosystem processes such as 

primary production, trophic transfer 

from plants to animals, nutrient cycling, 

water dynamics and heat transfer. In 

a broad sense, ecosystem functioning 

includes two components: ecosystem 

resource dynamics and ecosystem 

stability (Díaz and Cabido 2001).

Ecosystem health—a metaphor 

pertaining to the assessment and 

monitoring of ecosystem structure, 

function, and resilience in relation to 

the notion of ecosystem “sustainability” 

(following Rapport 1998; Costanza et al. 

1998). A healthy ecosystem is sustainable 

(see Sustainable ecosystem, below).

Ecosystem integrity—see ecological 

integrity.

Ecosystem management—the process 

of land-use decision making and landmanagement practice that takes into 

account the full suite of organisms and 

processes that characterize and comprise 

the ecosystem. It is based on the best 

understanding currently available as to 

how the ecosystem works. Ecosystem 

management includes a primary goal 

to sustain ecosystem structure and 

function, a recognition that ecosystems 

are spatially and temporally dynamic, 

and acceptance of the dictum that 

ecosystem function depends on 

ecosystem structure and diversity. 

The whole-system focus of ecosystem 

management implies coordinated landuse decisions (http://science.nature.nps.

gov/im/monitor/Glossary.cfm).

Edaphic—related to or caused by 

particular soil conditions, as of texture 

or drainage, rather than by physiographic 

or climate factors. 

Endemic species—any species naturally 

confined to a particular area or region.

Endolithic—within the soil or rock 

layer.

Eolian—pertaining to the wind, esp. 

said of such deposits as loess and dune 

sand.

Equilibrium—a condition of balance 

between two opposing forces.

Evapotranspiration—the portion 

of precipitation returned to the area 

through evaporation and transpiration.

Focal resources—park resources that, 

by virtue of their special protection, 

public appeal, or other management 

significance, have paramount 

importance for monitoring regardless of 

current threats or whether they would be 

monitored as an indication of ecosystem 

integrity. Focal resources might include 

ecological processes, such as deposition 

rates of nitrates and sulfates in certain 

parks; or they may be a species that 

is harvested, endemic, alien, or has 

protected status.

Focal species / organisms—species 

and/or organisms that play significant 

functional roles in ecological systems 

by their disproportionate contribution 

to the transfer of matter and energy, by 

structuring the environment and creating 

opportunities for additional species and/

or organisms, or by exercising control 

over competitive dominants and thereby 

promoting increased biological diversity 

(derived from Noon 2003). Encompasses 

concepts of keystone species, umbrella 

species, and ecosystem engineers.

Functional groups—groups of 

species that have similar effects 

on ecosystem processes (Chapin 

et al. 1996)—frequently applied 

interchangeably with functional types.

Functional types –sets of 

organisms sharing similar responses 

to environmental factors such as 

temperature, resource availability, and 

disturbance (= functional response types) 

and/or similar effects on ecosystem 

functions such as productivity, nutrient 

cycling, flammability, and resistance 

/ resilience (= functional effect types) 

(Díaz and Cabido 2001).

Generalized Random-Tessellation 

Stratified (GRTS)—allows for a 

spatially-balanced random draw of 

sample units with variable inclusion 
National Park Service 123

Chapter 12: Glossary

probabilities and an ordered list of 

sample units that can support additions 

and deletions of sample units while 

retaining spatial balance.

Genotype—the genetic constitution, 

latent or expressed, of an organism, 

the sum total of all genes present in an 

organism.

Geomorphic—pertaining to the shape 

of the earth or its surface features.

Hydrologic function (lotic and 

lentic systems)—capacity of an area 

to: dissipate energies associated with 

(1) high stream flow (lotic); or (2) wind 

action, wave action, and overland flow 

(lentic); thereby reducing erosion 

and improving water quality; filter 

sediment, capture bedload, and aid 

floodplain development; improve 

flood-water retention and groundwater 

recharge; develop root masses that 

stabilize streambanks against cutting 

action; develop diverse ponding and 

channel characteristics to provide the 

habitat and the water depth, duration, 

and temperature necessary for fish 

production, waterfowl breeding, and 

other uses; support greater biodiversity 

(Prichard et al. 1998).

Hydrologic function (upland 

systems/soils)—capacity of a site to 

capture, store, and safely release water 

from rainfall, run-on, and snowmelt, 

to resist a reduction in this capacity, 

and to recover this capacity following 

degradation (Pellant et al. 2000).

Indicators—a subset of monitoring 

attributes that are particularly 

information-rich in the sense that their 

values are somehow indicative of the 

quality, health, or integrity of the larger 

ecological system to which they belong 

(Noon 2003). Indicators are a selected 

subset of the physical, chemical, and 

biological elements and processes of 

natural systems that are selected to 

represent the overall health or condition 

of the system (Noon 2003; http://science.

nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/Glossary.htm).

Indicators of ecosystem health—

measurable attributes of the environment 

(biotic or a biotic) that provides insights 

regarding (1) the functioning status of 

one or more key ecosystem processes, 

(2) the status of ecosystem properties 

that are clearly related to these ecosystem 

processes, and/or (3) the capacity of 

ecosystem processes or properties to resist 

or recover from natural disturbances and/

or anthropogenic stressors (modified 

from Whitford 1998). In the context of 

ecosystem health, key ecosystem processes 

and properties are those that are closely 

associated with the capacity of the 

ecosystem to maintain its characteristic 

structural and functional atributtes over 

time (including natural variability). 

Inventory—an extensive point-intime survey to determine the presence/

absence, location or condition of a biotic 

or abiotic resource (http://science.nature.

nps.gov/im/monitor/Glossary.cfm).

Karst—an area of limestone formations 

characterized by sinks, ravines, and 

underground streams.

Landscape—a spatially structured 

mosaic of different types of ecosystems 

interconnected by flows of materials 

(e.g., water, sediments), energy, and 

organisms.

Lentic—referring to standing freshwater 

habitats, such as ponds and lakes.

Lithology —study of the physical 

characteristics of rocks, in particular, 

their color, mineralogic composition, 

and grain size. 

Lotic—referring to running freshwater 

habitats.

Measures—specific feature(s) used to 

quantify an indicator, as specified in a 

sampling protocol. For example, pH, 

temperature, dissolved oxygen, and 

specific conductivity are all measures of 

water chemistry (http://science.nature.

nps.gov/im/monitor/Glossary.cfm).

Membership design –Describes 

the method by which members of 

the population are assigned to panels 

(McDonald 2003). 

Metadata—Data about data. Represents 

the set of instructions or documentation 

that describe the content, context, 

quality, structure, and accessibility of a 

data set (Michener et al. 1997). 

Microclimate—A local atmospheric 

zone where the climate differs from the 

surrounding area (Wikipedia).
Sierra Nevada Network

 124 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan

Mojave Desert Network

Monitoring—collection and analysis of 

repeated observations or measurements 

to evaluate changes in condition and 

progress toward meeting a management 

objective (Elzinga et al. 1998). Detection 

of a change or trend may trigger a 

management action, or it may generate a 

new line of inquiry. Monitoring is often 

done by sampling the same sites over 

time, and these sites may be a subset of 

the sites sampled for the initial inventory 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/

monitor/Glossary.cfm).

Natural variability—the ecological 

conditions, and the spatial and temporal 

variation in these conditions, that are 

relatively unaffected by people, within 

a period of time and geographical 

area appropriate to an expressed goal 

(Landres et al. 1999).

Orographic—of or pertaining to 

mountains or mountain ranges.

Panel –A group of sample units that 

will always be sampled during the 

same sampling occasion or time period 

(MacDonald 2003). 

Pediment—a broad gently sloping 

erosion surface or plain of relief, 

typically developed by running water, in 

an arid region at the base of an abrupt 

and receding mountain front.

Pedogenesis—the process of soil 

formation.

Phenology—term referring to the 

timing of an organisms lifecycle (e.g., 

producing flowers) only with certain 

periods of light.

Phreatophytes—a plant species which 

extends its roots into the saturated zone 

of the water table.

Piedmont—lying or formed at the base 

of a mountain or mountain range.

Physiography—study of the natural 

features of the earth’s surface including 

land formation, climate, currents, and 

distribution of flora and fauna. Also 

known as physical geography. 

Playa—a term used in the Southwestern 

US for a dry, barren area in the lowest 

part of an undrained desert basin, 

underlain by clay, silt, or sand and 

commonly by soluble salts. It may be 

marked by an ephemeral lake.

Protocols—are detailed study plans 

that provide rationale for monitoring a 

Vital Sign, and provide instructions for 

carrying out the monitoring. Protocols 

consist of a narrative, standard operating 

procedures, and supplementary 

materials (Oakley et al. 2003)

Resilience—the capacity of a particular 

ecological attribute or process to 

recover to its former reference state or 

dynamic after exposure to a temporary 

disturbance and/or stressor (adapted 

from Grimm and Wissel 1997). The 

ability of a natural ecosystem to restore 

its structure following acute or chronic 

disturbance (Westman 1978). Resilience 

is a dynamic property that varies in 

relation to environmental conditions 

(Scheffer et al. 2001).

Resistance—the capacity of a particular 

ecological attribute or process to remain 

essentially unchanged from its reference 

state or dynamic despite exposure to a 

disturbance and/or stressor (adapted 

from Grimm and Wissel 1997). 

Resistance is a dynamic property that 

varies in relation to environmental 

conditions (Scheffer et al. 2001).

Revisit design—refers to the schedule 

with which panels will be sampled over 

time (McDonald 2003). 

Riparian—pertaining to or situated on 

the banks of a body of water, esp. a river.

Soil / site stability—the capacity of 

a site to limit redistribution and loss 

of soil resources (including nutrients 

and organic matter) by wind and water 

(Pellant et al. 2000).

Soil quality—the capacity of a specific 

kind of 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 (Karlen et al. 1997). From 

an NPS perspective, soil quality is 

defined by a soil’s capacity to perform 

the following ecological functions: 

(a) regulate hydrologic processes; 

(b) capture, retain, and cycle mineral 

nutrients; (c) support characteristic 
National Park Service 125

Chapter 12: Glossary

native communities of plants and 

animals. Soil quality can be regarded 

as having (1) an inherent component 

defined by the soil’s inherent soil 

properties as determined by the five 

factors of soil formation, and (2) a 

dynamic component defined by the 

change in soil function that is influenced 

by human use and management of the 

soil (Seybold et al. 1999).

Split panel—a revisit design in which 

one panel is sampled on every occasion 

and remaining panels are revisited on 

every nth occasion (e.g., [1-0, 1-4]. 

Status—as used in this program, refers 

to the condition of a resource or vital 

sign at a given point in time.

Stressor—physical, chemical, or 

biological perturbations to a system 

that are either (a) foreign to that system 

or (b) natural to the system but applied 

at an excessive [or deficient] level 

(Barrett et al. 1976:192). Stressors cause 

significant changes in the ecological 

components, patterns and processes 

in natural systems. Examples include 

water withdrawal, pesticide use, timber 

harvesting, traffic emissions, stream 

acidification, trampling, poaching, land 

use change, and air pollution (http://

science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/

Glossary.cfm).

Threshold—as applied to state-andtransition models, a threshold is a 

point “...in space and time at which 

one or more of the primary ecological 

processes responsible for maintaining the 

sustained [dynamic] equilibrium of the 

state degrades beyond the point of selfrepair. These processes must be actively 

restored before the return to the previous 

state is possible. In the absence of active 

restoration, a new state is formed” 

(Stringham et al. 2003). Thresholds are 

defined in terms of the functional status 

of key ecosystem processes and are 

crossed when capacities for resistance 

and resilience are exceeded. (Also see 

state and transition.)

Transition—as applied to state-andtransition models, a transition is a 

trajectory of change that is precipitated by 

natural events and/or management actions 

which degrade the integrity of one or 

more of the primary ecological processes 

responsible for maintaining the dynamic 

equilibrium of the state. Transitions are 

vectors of system change that will lead 

to a new state without abatement of the 

stressor(s) and/or disturbance(s) prior 

to exceeding the system’s capacities for 

resistance and resilience (adapted from 

Stringham et al. 2003). 

Trend—as used by this program, refers 

to directional change measured in 

resources by monitoring their condition 

over time. Trends can be measured by 

examining individual change (change 

experienced by individual sample units) 

or by examining net change (change 

in mean response of all sample units) 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/

monitor/Glossary.cfm).

Trophic—describes the position that an 

organism occupies in a food chain (what 

it eats and what eats it). 

Variable—any quantitative aspect of an 

object of concern.

Vital signs—a subset of physical, 

chemical, and biological elements and 

processes of park ecosystems that are 

selected to represent the overall health 

or condition of park resources, known 

or hypothesized effects of stressors, or 

elements that have important human 

values. The elements and processes 

that are monitored are a subset of the 

total suite of natural resources that 

park managers are directed to preserve 

“unimpaired for future generations,” 

including water, air, geological resources, 

plants and animals, and the various 

ecological, biological, and physical 

processes that act on those resources. 

Vital signs may occur at any level of 

organization including landscape, 

community, population, or genetic level, 

and may be compositional (referring to 

the variety of elements in the system), 

structural (referring to the organization 

or pattern of the system), or functional 

(referring to ecological processes) 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/

monitor/Glossary.cfm).

Watershed—a drainage basin, usually 

described as into a river or lake.
Mojave Desert Network Sierra Nevada Network
The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; 

provides scientific and other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to 

American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated Island Communities.

NPS D–043, September 2008
Natural Resource Program Center

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150

Fort Collins, CO 80525

www.nature.nps.gov

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM