March 11, 2003
Meeting Summary
The first meeting of the Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC)/Southwest Regional Working Group/Arizona Working Group occurred on March 11, 2003, at the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. We had an ambitious agenda, and the meeting coordinators (Randy Babb, Arizona State Coordinator; Roy Averill-Murray and Matt Goode, Southwest Regional Working Group Co-chairs) would like to thank everyone who participated for their efforts and involvement in making the meeting a success (see evaluation comments, attached). We would also like to reiterate several acknowledgements up front: the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, Tucson Herpetological Society, and Arizona Game and Fish Department for hosting/sponsoring the meeting; Caren Goldberg for major logistical assistance; all the facilitators listed below; Sean Blomquist, Dan Cox, and Kim Field for meeting support; and Anne Peterson and Daren Riedle for note-taking.
The primary objectives of this meeting were to 1) provide people interested in amphibian and reptile conservation in Arizona with a brief background of PARC and its Southwest Regional Working Group and 2) formalize an Arizona Working Group by identifying several priorities specific to herp conservation in Arizona that the group can begin to address. This meeting synopsis provides 1) a background summary of PARC; 2) an overview of the Southwest Regional Working Group; 3) a summary of meeting participants’ brainstorming, prioritization, and committee formation; 4) unresolved topics and action items; 5) a summary of the participant’s meeting evaluations; and 6) a list of participants and e-mail addresses.
1) PARC Background
PARC is a conservation coalition directed toward amphibians and reptiles. PARC’s mission is “to conserve amphibians, reptiles, and their habitats as integral parts of our ecosystem and culture through proactive and coordinated public/private partnerships.” PARC began in June 1999 with a large list of organizations and individuals, representing federal and state governments, private industry such as the pet trade and timber industry, conservation groups, zoos, and academia. PARC gets its strength from a variety of groups with different agendas but all with a single purpose of herpetofaunal conservation.
Several amphibian groups formed in response to reported amphibian declines, so what makes PARC any different? PARC includes all reptiles and all amphibians; is focused on habitat and habitat-related initiatives to conserve herps; includes partnerships among government and the private sector as well as individuals; and focuses on all species, not just endangered and threatened ones, with an objective of “keeping common species common.“ PARC provides information in the form of educational products and scientific databases for professional herpetologists, industry, and government agencies; coordinates interaction among a variety of groups and professions through the PARC web site (www.parcplace.org), email exchanges, and regional and national meetings; and helps identify common goals of members and facilitates the funding of projects.
The primary goals of PARC were established in the inaugural meeting in Atlanta in June 1999 and have remained consistent since: 1) Educate all herpetologists and the general public about herp conservation issues; 2) Establish databases for herp habitat, ecology, and management; 3) standardize techniques for sampling reptiles and assessing the effectiveness of the techniques that have been developed for amphibians; 4) develop a PARC fellowship program so that students can become involved in addressing PARC goals; and 5) encourage each regional and technical working group to develop specific priorities appropriate for the particular group.
Functionally, PARC is a volunteer organization with a structure that is effective only to the extent that people are willing to make an effort. The basic plan is modeled after the successful Partners in Flight program in which individual leaders in different regions and in different technical working groups serve as a joint steering committee (see figure). Individuals heading each of the regional and technical working groups, as well as the executive steering committee are posted on the PARC Web site. PARC leadership roles are dynamic and individuals who want to be more actively involved are encouraged to do so.
The general missions of each Technical Working Group (TWG) are as follows:
Education/Outreach: Identify audiences who need to be informed about the importance of reptile and amphibian conservation and establish the most effective mechanisms to communicate with these audiences.
Policy/Regulation/Trade: Better understand effects of existing policies, regulations, and trade on conservation of herpetofauna and suggest alternatives that could enhance conservation efforts.
Management: Identify needs for improved management of herpetofauna and identify ways in which reptiles and amphibians can be integrated into broader conservation programs.
Inventory/Monitoring: Identify comprehensive inventory and monitoring programs that will permit long- and short-term tracking of herpetofaunal population trends and that will help elucidate causative factors for those trends.
Research: Help coordinate and prioritize research efforts to ensure that the most pressing management and regulatory needs are addressed.
2) PARC Southwest Regional Working Group Overview (SW PARC)
On September 28-29, 2002, Roy Averill-Murray and Matt Goode, hosted an organizational meeting among a small group of people from each of the southwest regional states. Representatives from 6 of the 8 states were present, including Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah. SW PARC is a working group organized for the purpose of implementing the PARC mission within the southwestern U.S., including Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and California. SW PARC is composed of individual state working groups. Each of these state groups implement projects within the scope of the TWGs listed above, depending on local priorities. Representatives from each state (Randy Babb has been identified as the Arizona Working Group Coordinator) sit on a Regional Coordinating Committee to facilitate regional coordination. Regional representatives ideally will also participate on the national-level TWGs to emphasize regional priorities and to facilitate information transfer between those groups and the region. SW PARC’s Regional Coordinating Committee is facilitated by 2 co-chairs (currently Roy Averill-Murray and Matt Goode), each serving a staggered, 2-year term. The co-chairs serve as an information link between the region and the national Joint Steering Committee. Current or proposed SW PARC projects include an interactive, geo-referenced herp database; southwestern deserts habitat management guidelines; an internship program; and a regional herpetologist database.
3) AZ PARC Discussion and Brainstorming
The following sections summarize brainstorming topics and discussion on issues specific to Arizona that the group might want to address. A separate session was held for each of the TWG topics. After brainstorming each TWG topic and grouping similar ideas as necessary, participants voted on priorities to concentrate on at this time. Each participant had 5 votes and could apply them however they wanted. After identifying the top priorities in this manner, participants signed up for specific committees, and individuals volunteered to serve as Chairs.
Policy, Regulation, & Trade (Facilitator: Bruce Taubert)
Bruce opened with a brief definition of terms, as summarized below, then the group brainstormed issues relative to this topic.
- Policy: how to treat something uniformly
- Regulation: laws, Title 17
- Trade: passing of specimens back and forth (including invasive species)
Topics brought up during brainstorming:
1. Tucson Rural Metro Fire Department moving rattlesnakes (~6000/yr), exempt from regulation because it is a public safety service. Want regulations for handling and release of snakes imposed on all fire stations and others. (Game and Fish Rules, Article 4)
2. Add bullfrogs, waterdogs and crayfish to Restricted Live Wildlife list (R12-4-406). (Article 4)
3. Differential bag limits for diamondbacks and Mohave rattlesnakes- 4/day too many? Possession limit reconsideration by commission. (Commission Order)
4. Free ranging non-native tortoises found feral around Tucson- disease and parasite/pathogen issues for wild tortoises. (Article 4)
5. Common species list in keeping with the “keeping common species common” PARC goal.
6. Herp permitting with special regard to venomous species (Article4).
7. Possession limits- issue of family bag limits (Commission Order)
8. Protocol and policy for captivity standards- adopt policy established by AZA, SSAR policy for research.
9. Prohibit importation of all ranid frogs (Article 4)
10. Add disease and parasite transmission to trade criteria
11. Recommend Heritage Diversity Review have larger input, more frequent reviews for new species of special concern (Bruce suggested that this be handled internally).
12. Regulations for methods of take (movement of rocks, etc). (Article 3)
13. Introduced species inventory; consider restricting aquatic turtles (12-4-406) (Article 4)
14. Preservation and restoration of surface water (Groundwater pumping effects and issues)
15. AGFD policy on extirpation of non-native predators, including fish-stocking programs
16. ADOT policy for roadkill herps; ways to safely cross roads
17. More attention on northern AZ species: inventory, research, etc.
18. Standardized management practices (habitat guidelines), best management practices (BMPs)
19. Integrate fish stocking practices vs. herp conservation (focus efforts better)
20. Game and Fish support for research in wilderness areas
21. Out-of-state trade- tough policy more of a deterrent than actually catching people in the act. More widely publicize accounts of people getting caught in illegal activity.
22. Pet store regulations
23. Effects of land use on herps studied and used to make guidelines and recommendations
24. Design of cattle guards to reduce impacts on herps (i.e., pitfall effects)
25. Enforceability of AZ commercialization laws outside borders
26. Identify benefits to herps in non-herp recovery plans
27. Military pets- release and captivity issues
28. Wildlife oversight services for government (military) (Article 4)
29. Military- SIKES act needs more attention
30. Domestic animal (cats and dogs) impacts on wildlife
31. Pesticides effects on herps
These issues were generally grouped into the following categories:
- Article 4 issues
- Policy on nonnative aquatic predators/competition
- Commission Orders
- Preservation of surface water
- BMPs
i. ADOT roadkill policy
ii. Cattle guard design
- Cats and dogs
- Areas of concern for over-exploitation (incl. species, localities, mgmt, etc.)
Management (Facilitator: Mike Sredl)
The Management discussion started with comments from Roy Averill-Murray that each PARC region would be completing habitat management guidelines. The Midwestern region has finished theirs. Southwest PARC is taking formative steps in developing one for the desert southwest (an AGFD invitation for bids has been/is about to be issued). The regions covered would include the Chihuahua, Mojave, and Sonoran Deserts, and maybe the Madrean Archipelago and Great Basin Desert. Although many other habitat categories exist in the Southwest, the money that is currently present will only cover the desert regions. Comments were made that at some point guidelines should be set for other regions in the Southwest such as the Colorado Plateau.
Several broad topics were mentioned during the brainstorming session. Those topics are listed below:
- BMPs/habitat guidelines for the desert southwest
- Develop a list of species and threats in AZ
- Habitat info database
- Disease
- Invasive species
- Basic biology for under represented taxa
Instead of trying to break each topic down further, it was decided to build goals under each topic, identify those goals by species or habitat type, then set guidelines after the goals had been identified.
Education/Outreach (Facilitator: Taylor Edwards)
Discussion started with a statement by the moderator that we need to identify audiences that we deem important to PARC and then identify mechanisms to reach those audiences. A huge list of audiences were identified, and participants decided on the handful of priorities, listed below:
- Kids (4th grade, re: state-mandated desert education curriculum)
- Homeowners, especially those on outskirts/new subdivisions
- Educators
- Decision makers
- Commission
- Other biologists
- Recreational users
Several mechanisms were listed to address those audiences. Those mechanisms are listed below.
- Media
- Teacher packets
- Networking
- Website
- Promoting PARC logo
- Internships
Research (Facilitator: Andy Holycross)
The PARC mission statement on research states that, PARC should help coordinate and prioritize research efforts to ensure that the most pressing management and regulatory needs are addressed. Again, many options were put forth, both broad and specific, and those options were summarized under the following headings:
- Sponsorship (funding)
- Support (reactive approaches)
- Advisory/Advocacy (proactive approaches)
- Synthesis of research; application for management and link to education and outreach
- Database
It was then decided the best way to address those topics were by the following mechanisms:
- Volunteer coordination program
- Synthesis/application/interpretation of research for management
(Web database reference with links to organizations and data)
- Science advisory committee
- Coordinate research funding potential
Inventory and Monitoring (Facilitator: Cecil Schwalbe)
The majority of discussion under this topic centered on inventory, as the distribution for many amphibians and reptile species is poorly understood. Participants then began to brainstorm on proper inventory methodology and general logistics of conducting a statewide inventory. The following topics for the I&M subcommittee to consider were listed:
- Species richness?
- Atlas project (cf. Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas)
- Historical distribution (museum specimen inventory)
- Systematic vs. opportunistic sampling
Development of Committees
This was a two-step process. First, participants voted to determine what categories the participants found most important under each heading. Then participants signed up for committees, which will concentrate on the top priorities (bolded below).
Discussion Topic. # of Votes
Policy, Regulation, and Trade
AGFD Article 4 Live Wildlife Rules 15
Develop a nonnative and invasive species policy 6
Feral cat and dog policy 3
AGFD Commission Orders 2
Reducing road mortality 2
Reducing mortality due to cattle guards 1
Developing areas of concern 0
Management
Management of exotics and invasive species 9
Disease 7
Developing best management practices (BMPs) 4
Obtaining basic ecological information on native herp species 2
Building a habitat database 1
Education
Developing educational materials for 4th grade students 7
Provide educational materials and advice to AGFD Commissioners 6
Develop teacher packets 5
Develop educational materials for homeowners 3
Provide information for other educators 3
Provide information on the SWPARC website 3
Research
Science Advisory (Prioritization) Committee 14
Synthesis/ application/interpretation of data for management 7
Volunteer Coordinator 0
Inventory and Monitoring
Distribution Maps 24
Atlas 18
Opportunistic data collection 14
Committee rosters are noted below. Individuals not present at the meeting who are interested in participating are encouraged to contact the committee chair (e-mail addresses are included at the end of the meeting summary). A volunteer for Research Committee Chair is also needed.
Policy, Regulation, Trade
Jeff Servoss (Chair)
Dale DeNardo
Bill Burger
Dennis Caldwell
Jim Jarchow
Management
Trevor Hare (Chair)
Larry Jones
Mike Sredl
Jim Jarchow
Sean Blomquist
Dan Cox
Education/Outreach
Craig Ivanyi (Chair)
Dennis Caldwell
Trevor Hare
Don Swann
Anne Peterson
Research
Chair (open)
Tom Jones
Daren Riedle
Kim Field
Andy Holycross
Roy Averill-Murray
Dan Cox
Erika Nowak
Anne Peterson
Sheridan Stone
Inventory & Monitoring
Andy Holycross (Chair)
Trevor Persons
Cecil Schwalbe
Emily Taylor
Marty Feldner
Daren Riedle
Bruce Taubert
Tom Jones
Bill Burger
Mike Sredl
Bill Radke
Roy Averill-Murray
Trevor Hare
Erika Nowak
Don Swann
Sheridan Stone
Each committee has been tasked to develop a problem statement relative to their action issue(s) and include goals, objectives, and potential solutions for addressing the problem. These statements should be forwarded to Randy Babb within 60 days (May 11) to then be routed to the entire AZ PARC distribution list for concurrence. Upon overall AZ PARC consensus, the committee will then work toward implementing identified solutions.
4) Unresolved Issues and Action Items
One topic that did not receive formal discussion was that of how to organize the Arizona Working Group. Do we want to have a formal organizational structure (other than the State Coordinator) based on TWGs, regional representatives within Arizona (e.g., Colorado Plateau, Mojave Desert, Sonoran Desert, etc.), something else, or nothing? This could be a topic of discussion for the next meeting.
| Action Item Develop AZ problem statements Distribute problem statements Consider AZ PARC organization Set next meeting |
Responsibility Each committee Randy Babb, Roy Averill-Murray All Randy Babb, all |
Deadline May 11 May 16 By next meeting Within 6 months? |
5) Meeting Evaluation
Twenty-six participants completed meeting evaluations and provided constructive comments on what worked well with the meeting and what could use improvement. Seven questions were asked on the evaluation form, and responses/scores are summarized below.
We stayed focused and on track (1-10 scale, best =10).
Mean = 7.0 Mode = 8 Range = 2-9
Facilitators were well organized (1-10 scale, best =10).
Mean = 7.3 Mode = 9 Range = 3-10
An appropriate level of diversity of viewpoints was expressed/encouraged (1-10 scale, best =10).
Mean = 8.5 Mode = 9 Range = 5-10
We are working on the right tasks (1-10 scale, best =10).
Mean = 8.2 Mode = 8 Range = 6-10
Give an overall rating of the meeting (1-10 scale, best =10).
Mean = 7.9 Mode = 9 Range = 3-10
What went especially well? Why?
Good discussion, exchange/diversity of ideas, communication (multiple comments)
Facilitators focused, knowledgeable, prepared (multiple comments)
Good organization (multiple comments)
PRT discussion/facilitation (3 comments)
Research discussion/facilitation (3 comments)
I&M discussion/facilitation (3 comments)
PARC background (2 comments)
Great attendance (2 comments)
Goals and objectives accomplished/Got a lot done in a short time/Productive
Management discussion/facilitation
Clear direction from participants
Great location
Good products (but process seemed slower than necessary)
“Overall, a great way to start AZ PARC!”
What needed the most improvement? Why?
Inconsistent facilitation/knowledge of how to facilitate effectively (7 comments); Education topic could have used a better outline to start with (end product ended up OK)
Needed more time (4 comments)
Better definition of goals/tasks (3 comments)
More people staying through end and committee assignments (3 comments)
Groups could have been smaller (3 comments)
More direct ties to national PARC priorities (2 comments)
Better dry erase markers (2 comments)
Group comprised of primarily conservation-minded people. Success may be bolstered by involvement by industry/special interests
Shorten introduction
Uncomfortable chairs
Need to put the work/effort from the meeting into real research situations
Need more realistic Research and I&M links to applied conservation and natural resource mgmt
More consideration should be given to how mgmt budgets, planning, and implementation are conducted
Consistent approach to all topics
Group could use organizational management help (compare with Partners in Flight)
Not enough participation from academics, especially discussion of experimental techniques that would enhance/improve studies of AZ herps
Need more tangible products (perhaps will be developed subsequent to the meeting)
Better description of purpose and expected outcomes in meeting announcement
6) Meeting Participants
Affiliation Summary:
13 State government
17 Federal government
11 NGOs/herp societies
11 Academia
2 No response
54 Total
Name Affiliation e-mail
Averill-Murray, Roy AZ Game and Fish Department
Babb, Randall D. AZ Game and Fish Department
Blomquist, Sean AZ Game and Fish Department
Burger, Bill AZ Game and Fish Department
Caldwell, Dennis Tucson Herpetological Society
Comendant, Tosha Univ. California, Santa Cruz
Conner, Charles National Park Service
Cox, Daniel AZ Game and Fish Department
Daisan, Taylor US Army
DeNardo, Dale Arizona State University
Edwards, Taylor University of Arizona
English, Randy US Army
Feldner, Jerry Arizona Herpetological Assoc.
Feldner, Marty
Ferguson, George University of Arizona
Field, Kimberleigh AZ Game and Fish Department
Gray, Melissa University of Arizona
Goode, Matt Southwest COOP Ecosystems
Hare, Trevor Sky Island Alliance
Jones, Larry USFS
Jones, Tom Grand Canyon University
Hardy, David Tucson Herpetological Society
Holycross, Andrew Arizona State University
Ivanyi, Craig Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum
Jarchow, Jim Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, SVG
Jennings, Randy Western New Mexico University
Kamees, Larry NM Department of Game & Fish s
Kanavage, Tony Tucson Herpetological Society
Malcom, Jacob San Bernardino, Leslie Canyon NWR
Masters, Elroy BLM Phoenix Field Office
Nowak, Erika USGS
Ostergaard, Elissa AZ Game and Fish Department s
Painter, Charlie NM Game and Fish Department
Perry, Janice Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum
Peterson, Anne AZ Game and Fish Department
Radke, William San Bernardino, Leslie Canyon NWR
Rau, Chuck
Riedle, Daren AZ Game and Fish Department
Rorabaugh, Jim USFWS
Schwalbe, Cecil USGS/University of Arizona
Servoss, Jeff USFWS
Sharrocks, Kenny FreeForm Designs
Sredl, Michael AZ Game and Fish Department
Stone, Sheridan US Army
Swann, Don Saguaro National Park
Taubert, Bruce AZ Game and Fish Department
Taylor, Daisan US Army White Sands Missile Range
Taylor, Emily Arizona State University
Tuegel, Marty USFWS
Turner, Dale The Nature Conservancy
Urbanowski, Dereck University of Arizona
Wallace, Eric University of Arizona
Wright, Kevin The Phoenix Zoo
Young, Lori BLM Phoenix Field Office