B08_Attachment_2_Example_Report.pdf

Comprehensive Thrasher Surveys in the California Mojave Desert

2021 Season Summary Report to the Bureau of Land Management

James Tietz, Geoffrey R. Geupel, Dennis Jongsomjit, and Chris McCreedy

Point Blue Contribution # 2377

September 2021

3820 Cypress Drive # 11 Petaluma, CA 94970 www.pointblue.org

Photo by Jim Tietz/Point Blue http://www.pointblue.org/

Table of Contents

Introduction and Background…………………………………………………………………………………………………….2

Methods…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3

Site Selection………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3

Area-search Survey Protocol…………………………………………………………………………………………..5

Integrated Monitoring of Bird Conservation Regions (IMBCR) test protocol…………………..6

Habitat Evaluation Protocol...…………………………………………………………………………………………6

Data Entry and Management………………………………………………………………………………………….7

Results……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9

Area-searches…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………9

Nesting Behavior…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9

IMBCR ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………10

Dome Fire ………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10

Regional Results by BLM District……………………………………………………………………………………………...13

Needles District…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13

Barstow District………..………………………………………………………………………………………………….15

Ridgecrest and Bakersfield Districts and Death Valley NP…………………………….………………16

Discussion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18

Literature Cited………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..20

Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………23

Appendix A: Example Datasheets…………………………………………………………………………………23

Appendix B: Plot locations……………………………………………………………………………………………26

Appendix C: Site Driving Directions………………………………………………………………………………28

Appendix D: Bird species and numbers of individuals detected …………………….…………….33

Introduction and Background

The Desert Thrasher Working Group (DTWG) was formed in 2011 with the goal of addressing knowledge gaps to advance effective conservation action by land managers.

Specifically, the group designed standardized inventory, monitoring, and centralized data management protocols that address basic needs for driving conservation of desert thrasher species forward (GBBO 2019, BADC 2020). Of particular concern are Bendire’s Thrasher (BETH, Toxostoma bendirei) and LeConte’s Thrasher (LCTH, Toxostoma lecontei) that have been identified among the fastest declining bird species of arid lands (NABCI 2014). Both BETH and LCTH have been recently listed by Partners in Flight as ‘Red Watch List’ species – species with an extremely high vulnerability to extinction due to multiple factors – with a need to recover populations well above current levels (Rosenberg et al. 2016). From 1970 to 2014, LCTH lost 67% of its global population and is estimated to decline by an additional 50% over the next 27 years (i.e., its ‘half-life’; Rosenberg et al. 2016). BETH has been found to be at greater risk, with a global population loss of 86% over the same time period and a ‘half-life’ of only 18 years (Rosenberg et al. 2016). The California Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has listed BETH as a sensitive species and both thrasher species are again listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) updated Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2021). The Sonoran Joint Venture (SJVTC 2006) designates both as species of continental concern requiring management attention. In California, BETH is considered a California State Bird Species of Special Concern throughout its range, whereas LCTH has this designation for the San Joaquin population only (Shuford and Gardali 2008, CDFW 2018).

Long-term monitoring programs such as Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) report range-wide population declines for both thrasher species (Sauer et al. 2017). However, conventional bird monitoring protocols such as point count surveys (including BBS and Integrated Monitoring in Bird Conservation Regions (IMBCR; Pavlacky et al. 2017) do not effectively sample desert thrasher populations for a variety of reasons, including: low densities, secretive behavior, ventriloquial vocalizations, and early breeding season phenology (Bear Sutton et al. 2017, Weigand and Fitton 2008). To fill resultant data gaps, the DTWG developed and implemented a standardized area search protocol targeted at desert thrashers that allows observers to detect secretive non-vocal birds (McCreedy et al., in prep.). Sites were randomly selected throughout the study area, which included all of the known U.S. breeding ranges of both thrashers, stratified by likelihood of thrasher occupancy using MaxEnt models (GBBO 2019).

Our specific goals in 2021 were to: 1) survey sites in California where historical data and our previous surveys had found BETH recently and to monitor those populations for persistence; 2) survey sites with recent historical sightings along the western edge of their range in the Mojave NP to monitor for range contraction; 3) survey sites within, along and around the recent (August 2020) Dome Fire footprint to evaluate the fire’s effects on BETH and habitat within the core of California’s population; and 4) survey sites in the western Mojave Desert where we have detected LCTH and monitor their populations. 5) Explore the IMBCR methodology’s (Pavlacky et al. 2017) effectiveness at detecting thrashers on a subset of area search survey sites.

Methods

Site Selection

In 2021 we focused on 18 locations with previous BETH and LCTH detections from prior surveys that occurred at 46 total sites between 2017–2019. Eight sites were within the Mojave National Preserve (MNP). Other locations included sites with BETH north and south of the MNP and sites with LCTH in the western Mojave Desert. The sites in the western Mojave Desert are also within the BETH Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), and our results may assist the BLM with habitat protection, restoration, and management decisions (pers. comm., C.

Otahal).

We also selected eight new sites within the MNP, one in the Castle Mountains National Monument, and we extended our site at the Chemehuevi Wash. For sites not previously surveyed, we gridded UTM coordinates for nine 300 m x 300 m plots, with all plots at least 300 m apart. In the field, we selected 2 to 9 plots of the total gridded for the actual survey. At each site, we selected plots that we believed to have the highest habitat suitability for BETH, which meant an experienced observer did an on-site assessment of the presence of appropriate vegetation (e.g., Joshua tree, cholla, yucca) and slope (i.e., not too steep).

To increase our coverage of the upper reaches of the Chemehuevi Wash, we added five plots which straddle Turtle Mountain Road, two plots downstream and three plots upstream.

The thick stands of blue palo verde (Parkinsonia florida) along the lower stretches of the Chemehuevi Wash (between Hwy 95 and the Colorado River) have many historical sightings of BETH from this project, eBird sightings, and from previous Point Blue projects showing that BETH breed there nearly annually (McCreedy et al. 2015). However, bird data from the upper reaches of the wash were limited to just a few plots on this project which detected two individuals in March of 2017 just upstream of the bridge that crosses Hwy 95. The palo verde coverage diminishes as the plots go upstream, so this variable could help our models better predict the occurrence of BETH in this habitat.

We established three sites with historical occurrence of BETH in the western portion of the MNP: one site within Cottonwood Basin of the Granite Mountains Reserve, and two sites along Kelbaker Road in Joshua tree habitat three km east of the Aiken Mine Road intersection.

England and Laudenslayer (1989) found small populations at scattered locations with suitable habitat in the western Mojave Desert during targeted BETH surveys in the 1980s. In 2001, Jones and Stokes conducted surveys at many of the same locations but found only two individuals at just one site (i.e., Copper City; Jones and Stokes 2001). Sterling (2008) surmised the difference in numbers may be related to differences in rainfall between the wet years of the 1980 surveys and the drought conditions of the 2001 surveys. In 2019, we surveyed many of these sites again during a year with above average precipitation but did not confirm any detections in the western Mojave (Tietz et al. 2020). Given the general downward trend in the species’ population, it is possible that the lack of recent BETH observations from the western Mojave is due to a range contraction (Tietz et al. 2020).

Two additional sites near the California-Nevada border were surveyed this year for the first time in 2021: one is near the New York Mountains, while the other is in the Castle Mountain National Monument. There is a historical observation from 1976 of five BETH seen approximately 1.5 km southeast of the New York Mountain site, but no recent observations.

In August of 2020 the lighting-caused Dome Fire burned 43,273 acres of Joshua tree habitat on Cima Dome (NPS 2020). We believe the Dome Fire encompassed the core of the California BETH population based on our BETH data recorded at nearby sites and on historical eBird sightings within the Dome Fire’s footprint. To evaluate Dome Fire’s impacts on the impacts of the wildfire, vegetation loss, and habitat change on the BETH population we selected four sites from a total of 12 randomly generated sites; two sites were entirely within the fire’s footprint and two sites overlapped the fire’s perimeter. The four sites were selected in part for their ease of access. All nine plots within each of the four new sites were surveyed at least twice in 2021.

In total, we surveyed 176 plots at 27 different sites during the 2021 field season (Fig. 1, Appendices B and C), a 76% increase in the number of plots surveyed compared to 2019. This number includes four sites with 29 plots first surveyed in 2017, eight sites with 44 plots first surveyed in 2018, six sites with 32 plots first surveyed in 2019, and nine sites of 71 plots that Point Blue biologists had never surveyed before.

Figure 1. Plot cluster locations by BLM Field Office Districts in California. Each cluster consists of 2-13 plots that were surveyed in 2021 for Bendire’s and LeConte’s Thrashers.

Area-search Survey Protocol

Our survey protocol was based and modified (increased size and amount of time) from methods developed by Point Blue for LeConte’s Thrasher surveys conducted in the BLM Carrizo Plain National Monument since 2010 (Jongsomjit et al. 2013, 2014; Tietz et al. 2016, DTWG 2018, McCreedy et al., in prep). Surveys consisted of a 40-minute area search on each 300 m x

300 m plot. To maintain a consistent search pattern, the surveyor walked systematically through the plot in transects spaced approximately 50 m apart but were free to pursue individual birds upon detection. We recorded birds only if they were within the plot and within the 40-minute search window. We recorded detections of all avian species, with additional information collected on target species: BETH, LCTH, and Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus; LOSH), a Species of Special Concern in California (Humple 2008). Any target species detections that fell outside of the plot area and/or survey timing window were still recorded as incidental detections on a target species datasheet. See Appendix A for an example survey datasheet and target species datasheet. Surveys began on March 12, 2021and continued through May 25. Plots were visited once (59 plots), twice (110 plots) or three times (7 plots) over the season for a total revisit rate of 1.69 (i.e., number of surveys/number of plots). We attempted to survey every site two to three times, but weather-related events (primarily wind in excess of 17 knots) and logistical issues prevented us from achieving this.

Integrated Monitoring of Bird Conservation Regions (IMBCR)

In 2021, we conducted IMBCR point counts to relate their effectiveness at detecting thrashers against to the preferred area search protocol adopted by the DTWG. Point counts were set up on the same grid system already designed for our area searches, such that we used the corners of the plots so that our points were 300 m apart. At four sites on the MNP where we had detected BETH in previous years, we conducted 16 point counts per site. The points counted were in one of the arbitrarily chosen site corners. The four sites were Shadow Valley, Rainbow Wells, Kelso Wash, and Rattlesnake Mine. The surveys were conducted from April 28 – May 2, which is generally the peak singing period for most bird species in the Mojave, including BETH. Each point count was six minutes in duration (Pavlacky et al. 2017). Detections of the same individual at different points were noted so a total number of individuals per site could be obtained. For comparison, we also conducted area searches at these four sites in 2021.

Habitat Evaluation Protocol

We completed a vegetation survey at each plot to characterize habitat attributes at sites with thrashers. The habitat evaluation protocol is used by DTWG research teams across five states (Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah; DTWG 2018). These habitat evaluations were conducted once during the season at each plot surveyed for birds that had not been surveyed in a prior year. We used the Point-Center Quarter method (Krebs 1989), in which the plot is divided into quadrants (northeast, southeast, southwest, northwest) extending outward from the center point in the four cardinal directions. We used a rangefinder to measure distances from the center point to each of the following within each quadrant:

woody shrubs (<0.5m), shrub/trees (0.5 to 2m), cholla and yucca (>0.5 m), and trees (>2m).

Additionally, we recorded the following for each habitat evaluation:

1. Mistletoe density

Desert Mistletoe (Phoradendron californicum) clumps within 50 m of center-point, counted by rounding to the nearest 10 (i.e., 0, 10, 20, 30, etc.)

2. Fruit-bearing shrub density Count of fruit-bearing shrubs, separated by species, within 50 m of center-point, excluding mistletoe.

3. Yucca density Count of yucca individuals >2 m in height, separated by species, within 100 m of center-point. Joshua trees were counted as trees, not yuccas.

4. Grass and forbs groundcover Proportion of ground covered by grass or forbs along a 50 m transect extending north from plot center-point, separated into native and non-native.

5. Ground cover composition Describes the dominant ground cover within 100 m of the plot center-point, with cover-types defined as boulder, cobble, pebble, sand, silt, or other.

6. Physical attributes and invasive plant presence Describes the presence/absence of various invasive plants and anthropogenic impact from livestock grazing, OHV use, water tanks, rural sprawl, and more. See example datasheet in Appendix A for the full list.

Additionally at our sites in or near the Dome Fire, we collected plot-level habitat data to monitor the fire’s effects on thrasher occupancy. These data consisted of an estimate of each plot that was burned and counts of Joshua trees within 100 m of the plot center that were alive (>50% of vegetation green) or dead (<50% of vegetation green). DeFalco et al. (2010) showed that survivorship of Joshua trees declined rapidly after the first year for trees with >30% scorching of above ground vegetation. Hence, it is possible that we slightly overestimated the numbers of live trees on our plots. We compare results from three unburned sites on or near Cima Dome (distances from the fire varied between 0.7 and 7.7 km), two sites on the periphery of the fire, and two sites entirely within the fire.

Data entry and management

All bird and related plot and weather data from the ‘Area Search surveys’ has been entered and curated in the California Avian Data Center (http://data.prbo.org/cadc/), a node of the Avian Knowledge Network (http://www.avianknowledge.net/). Additional bird data from sites identified as a Sonoran Joint Venture ‘Avicaching Location’ (https://sonoranjv.org/avicaching/), which overlapped with our area search locations, were also entered into eBird (https://ebird.org/home). Checklists of all birds encountered from survey http://www.avianknowledge.net/ https://sonoranjv.org/avicaching/ https://ebird.org/home sites and at incidental sightings were entered into eBird. The ‘Target species data’ for incidental sightings of the three target species (BETH, LCTH, and LOSH) and all plot vegetation data are currently stored on Point Blue servers for CA and combined with the other participating states (the latter currently residing on Great Basin Bird Observatory servers).

Results

Area-searches

During surveys, we detected 20 adult BETH on 12 plots of five sites, 10 adult LCTH on seven plots of six sites, and 24 adult LOSH on 15 plots of 10 sites. In some cases, these may have been the same individuals sighted more than once on repeat visits. Incidentally (either outside of the plot or survey timing window), we detected an additional 57 BETH, 25 LCTH, and 39 LOSH. In the field we prioritized data gathering of incidental sightings in the following order:

BETH, LCTH, and LOSH; hence, not every incidental shrike sighting was recorded, which led to the disproportionately low number of incidental sightings for that species.

Across all area-search surveys, we detected a total of 2,561 individuals of 71 avian species (Appendix D). In addition, we detected 116 individuals of five mammal species: white-tailed antelope squirrel (67; Ammospermophilus leucurus), panamint chipmunk (1; Neotamias panamintinus), desert cottontail (3; Sylvilagus audubonii), black-tailed jackrabbit (43; Lepus californicus), and coyote (2; Canis latrans).

Nesting Behavior

We located nests opportunistically during area-search surveys (Table 1). We found one BETH nest, one LCTH nest, and five LOSH nests. The BETH nest was discovered in a Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia) on May 5th in the nestling stage, but because the contents could not be checked easily due to the density of the foliage and the observer’s presence was eliciting distress calls from the adults, the clutch size could not be determined. On May 16th, a fledgling with a full-grown tail was discovered ~720 m east of the nest accompanied by two adults, one of which was carrying food. The LCTH nest was discovered in a Mojave yucca (Yucca schidigera) on March 17th with a chick and an egg. On March 31st, the nest was found to be empty, and although an adult LCTH was seen on the plot, it was apparently not feeding fledglings, thus indicating that the nest may have failed. A total of five LOSH nests were discovered this year, one found on plot STMO6, while the other four were off plot. Two of the LOSH nests were in Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia), one was in peach-thorn (Lycium cooperi), one was in Mojave yucca (Yucca schidigera), and one was in a bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata). The outcome of these LOSH nests was not determined.

Table 1. Bendire’s Thrasher, LeConte’s Thrasher, and Loggerhead Shrike nest locations, contents, and substrate.

Coordinates in NAD83 Zone 11.

Species Date found

Nest contents

UTM

easting

UTM

northing

Site District Substrate

BETH 5 May Nestlings 627502 3912969 Dome Fire A

Needles Yucca brevifolia

LCTH 17 March 1 egg, 1 nestling

494743 3836333 Stoddard Mountain

Barstow Yucca schidigera

LOSH 31 March 4 eggs 494321 3836989 Stoddard Mountain

Barstow Yucca schidigera

LOSH 13 April building 398103 3916670 Butterbredt Canyon

Bakersfield Purshia tridentata

LOSH 27 April 3 eggs 499241 3885981 Copper City Barstow Lycium cooperi LOSH 12 May 5+ nestlings 617907 3917704 Shadow

Valley Needles Yucca brevifolia

LOSH 14 May 4+ eggs 622999 3898804 Rainbow Wells

Needles Yucca brevifolia

IMBCR Results

We had ten BETH detections at seven points (eight individuals) at three of the four sites (Table 2). Seven detections were by song, and three were visual detections. Estimated distances to the birds ranged from 43-405 m with a mean of 225.3 m ± 119.6 (SD). No LCTHs were detected during the point counts.

Table 2. Comparison of BETH detections in 2021 using IMBCR point counts and plot area searches at four sites at the Mojave National Preserve (see Appendices B and C for site locations). PC = point count and AS = area search.

Site PC date # of PC individuals Avg PC distance

# AS

visits

# AS plots occupied

# incidental AS sightings

SHVA 4/29/2021 3 198.6 2 3 16

RAWE 4/30/2021 4 213.8 2 3 6

KEWA 5/1/2021 1 405.0 2 0 1

RAMI 5/2/2021 0 . 2 0 0

Dome Fire Results

The two sites entirely within the Dome Fire footprint, sites DOFB and DOFD, (Table 3 and Fig. 2) were an average distance of 2.3 km from the fire perimeter. All 18 plots from these two sites were burned, with an average of 97.5% of each plot burned. Furthermore, these two sites averaged 211 Joshua Trees per plot, with an average of 92.5% of those having ≥50% scorching in the vegetation. BETH were not detected at DOFB or DOFD. However, there was one incidental detection of a bird singing from a Joshua tree (80% burned) 100 meters north of plot 7 on the DOFD site. Plot 7 was the only plot from the 2 sites with a notable expanse of unburned habitat, and the BETH flushed toward this unburned patch upon approach.

The two sites straddling the edge of the fire footprint, sites DOFA and DOFC (Table 3 and Fig. 2), had six and seven plots respectively with some degree of burn on them, while the remaining plots (4 on DOFA and 3 on DOFC) were completely unburned. Of the burned plots, DOFA had 4 plots with >90% burned habitat, while DOFC had 3 plots with >90% burned habitat.

Of the partially burned plots, DOFA had two plots with an average of 72.5% burned habitat, while site DOFC had four plots with an average of 43.8% burned habitat. None of the plots on these sites that were >90% burned had any BETH detected on them. At the DOFA site, three birds were detected on two partially burned plots (85% and 60% burned) and another bird was detected on an unburned plot, while on the DOFC site, one bird was detected on a partially burned plot (60% burned) and another on an unburned plot. The only nest found on this project in 2021 was on the DOFA site in a 2.4 m tall Joshua tree that was on the edge of the fire perimeter.

Prior to the Dome Fire in 2020, we surveyed three sites (RAWE, KEWA, and SHVA; Table 3 and Fig. 2) in 2018 and 2021 in Joshua tree habitat outside the Dome Fire footprint, but on or near the Cima Dome. The average distance of these sites to the fire footprint was 3.5 km. In 2018, all of these sites had BETH detections (SHVA = 5 birds on 3 plots, RAWE = 2 individuals on 2 plots, KEWA = 2 individuals on 2 plots). The number of plots occupied by BETH was similar in 2018 and 2021; the average # of plots occupied (standardized by number of surveys per site per year) equaled 0.16 in 2018 and 0.15 in 2021. We did not detect any birds on the KEWA site during a survey in 2021, but we did detect two individuals incidentally that were just off the plots.

Table 3. Comparison of sites within, straddling the perimeter, or outside of the Dome Fire, which occurred in Aug 2020 on the Cima Dome, Mojave N.P. Resurvey rate = # surveys/# plots. Dist to fire perimeter is positive going out and negative going in. # plots burned counts plots with any amount of burn. Average % of plot burned is an average of all nine plots. JT = Joshua Tree. See Fig. 2 and Appendices B and C for site locations.

Site Plots surveyed Resurvey rate

Dist (km) to fire perimeter # plots burned

Avg % plot burned Avg #

JT/plot Avg % JT dead/plot

# plots occupied by BETH

DOFB 9 2.0 -2.7 9 100 243 100 0

DOFD 9 2.0 -1.9 9 95 180 85 0

DOFA 9 2.0 0 6 60 235 59 3

DOFC 9 2.0 0 7 52 153 52 2

RAWE 7 2.0 0.7 0 0 171 0 3

KEWA 6 2.0 1.8 0 0 86 0 0

SHVA 7 1.7 7.9 0 0 71 0 3

Figure 2. The Dome Fire perimeter and the survey sites used to monitor the fire’s effects on thrasher occupancy at the Mojave National Preserve. The sites entirely outside the perimeter (KEWA, RAWE, SHVA) were first surveyed in 2018, while the sites on the perimeter (DOFA, DOFC) or entirely inside the perimeter (DOFB, DOFD) were created in 2021.

Regional Results by BLM District

Needles District

Figure 2. Site locations in the Needles Field Office District

In the Needles Field Office District, we surveyed 20 site clusters consisting of 143 plots (Fig. 3). Fifteen of the site clusters were within the MNP, which had a resurvey rate of 1.87. In addition, we surveyed one site north of the MNP. along Excelsior Mine Road, one site in the Old Woman Mountains, one site along the Chemehuevi Wash, one site in the Granite Mountain Reserve, and one site in the Castle Mountain N.M. (Appendix B and C). On surveys, we detected

18 adult BETH, 4 LCTH, and 11 LOSH; all of the thrashers were found within the MNP. 57 incidental BETH sightings were detected within this district, all of which were within the MNP.

We also found one BETH nest on 5 May (Table 1), and on 16 May, a fledgling was observed 720 meters east of the nest accompanied by its parents, one of which was carrying food. We detected 13 adult LCTH incidentally on this district, all of which were within the MNP.

We also detected 25 LOSH adults and 2 LOSH nests. Both LOSH nests were built in Joshua trees, one with 4+ eggs and one with 3+ nestlings (nests were too high to ascertain complete nest contents). At the two new sites at Kelbaker Road (KERA and KERB), we did not detect any thrashers, but one LOSH was detected on survey at KERB, and single incidental LOSH were found at both sites. The new sites at Hart Mine (HAMI) and New York Mountains (NYMT) did not have any thrasher or shrike detections. The new site at Cottonwood Basin did not have any thrashers on survey, but a BETH was detected 50 m outside of a plot perched on a creosote shrub (Larrea tridentata) in a desert wash. We did not detect any shrikes in Cottonwood Basin.

Barstow District

Figure 3. Site locations in the Barstow Field Office District

In the Barstow Field Office District, we surveyed four site clusters consisting of 23 plots (Fig. 4) with a resurvey rate of 1.43. On survey, we detected zero BETH, 6 LCTH, and 11 LOSH.

The six LCTH detections were all adults and were found at three of the four site clusters.

Incidentally, we detected 17 adult LCTHs and zero LCTH fledglings. We also found one LCTH nest in this district at the Stoddard Mountain site on 17 Mar. The nest was in a Yucca schidigera that was 1.8 m high. This nest was found to be empty on 31 Mar, and the observer was unable to find any fledglings or food carries. In addition, we found 7 incidental LOSH and two LOSH nests: one with four eggs at our Stoddard Mountain site in a 1.8 m tall Yucca schidigera, and one with three eggs near the Copper City site in a 1.4 m tall Lycium cooperi.

Ridgecrest District and Death Valley National Park

Figure 4. Site locations in the Ridgecrest Field Office District and at Death Valley National Park.

In the Ridgecrest Field Office District, we surveyed three site clusters consisting of 10 plots total (Fig. 5) with a resurvey rate of 1.0 (i.e., these plots were only surveyed once). We did not encounter any BETH or LCTH on survey or confirm any sightings incidentally in this field office district. We intended to survey Butterbredt Canyon (BUCA), but persistent winds exceeded protocol for official surveys. Two of the sites we surveyed were within Death Valley National Park: Lee Flat and Burro Valley. On a survey, we found one LOSH at Lee Flat, and incidentally we found four LOSHs. Furthermore, we incidentally found a nest being built at Butterbredt Canyon in a 2 m tall Purshia tridentata.

Discussion

In 2021, all of our BETH detections were on the MNP, while LCTH and LOSH detections were more widespread. Importantly, 86% of our BETH detections were on or in the vicinity of the Cima Dome, while just 25% of our sites were in the Cima Dome area.

BETH were not detected on plots that were completely burned in the Dome Fire or on plots within the fire perimeter. Three sites surveyed near Cima Dome in 2018 were still occupied by BETH in 2021 (SHVA, RAWE, KEWA). All 3 sites were beyond the Dome Fire’s perimeter.

Furthermore, 2 new sites plotted on the periphery of the Dome Fire had BETH in unburned habitat., Five BETH (two pairs and a single bird) were detected incidental to surveys in small islands of unburned habitat near our sites in the interior of the fire footprint. Based on our surveys in the Dome Fire, it appears that BETH cannot persist in areas with >90% of the vegetation burned, but can persist, and even successfully nest, in unburned habitats at the edge of the fire footprint.

The MNP estimated that the Dome Fire burned 43,273 acres and killed ~25% of the contiguous Joshua tree forest in the area (NPS 2020. The fire left few patches of unburned vegetation within its perimeter. The natural recruitment of Joshua trees into large areas of denuded vegetation is a slow process (Vamstad and Rottenberry 2010, Esque et al. 2015). Even if Joshua tree recruitment is augmented through the planting of seedlings, it will take several decades for the trees to grow tall enough to become suitable nesting habitat for BETH (Esque et

al. 2015). Furthermore, exotic annual vegetation left unchecked will decrease the fire-return interval and retard succession within this fire footprint, thus preventing a Joshua tree forest from reoccurring here (Vamstad and Rottenberry 2010, Maloney et al. 2019). To increase the likelihood that the Dome Fire footprint is restored to Joshua tree forest, herbicide applications may be necessary to remove exotics. Moreover, considering how important the Joshua tree forest in the Cima Dome region seems to be for BETH, the National Preserve and State of California should prioritize extinguishing all fires in Joshua tree forest as soon as they are spotted.

The number of BTJA and DECO detected on our surveys declined greatly between 2018 and 2021 (Table 4), with a percentage decrease of 87.7% and 97.3% respectively. Although the surveys in 2019 also showed a large decrease from the numbers in 2018, many of the sites surveyed that year were in the far western and northern sections of the Mojave Desert; many of the sites in 2018 and 2021 were at the same locations, and they were located farther south and east. There are two reasons that may have contributed to this decline. First, Rabbit Hemorrhagic Disease was first identified in California in May 2020 (CDFW News 2020). Both BTJR and DECO are susceptible to this highly contagious and fatal disease. Second, the Mojave Desert has experienced extreme drought from the summer of 2020 to this writing (Fig. 5). The drought has caused a severe shortage in new growth of annual vegetation and shrubs used for forage by BTJA and DECO.

Table 4. Numbers of Black-tailed Jackrabbits (BTJR) and Desert Cottontails (DECO) detected during area searches from 2018-2021.

Numbers are standardized by numbers of surveys conducted by year.

Year Surveys BTJR BTJR/Survey DECO DECO/Survey 2018 201 229 1.14 75 0.37 2019 194 78 0.40 6 0.03 2021 298 43 0.14 3 0.01

The 2020-2021 water-year was one of the driest ever recorded in the Mojave (Fig. 5;

U.C. Merced 2021). The lack of moisture meant that many plants remained dormant (e.g., box-thorns, Lycium; saltbush Atriplex; hopsage, Grayia) through the breeding season or died (e.g., beavertail prickly pear, Opuntia basilaris). Prior research in the region has shown that during severe drought many bird species either forgo or delay nesting, and that delayed nesting can lead to declines in nest success due to increased nest predation or parasitism (McCreedy and van Riper 2015). Over the course of the season, we only found one BETH nest, one LCTH nest, and five LOSH nests. During our 2021 surveys, no LCTH fledglings were detected, even on plots known to have had successful broods in previous years. Singing LCTH were encountered infrequently and most sightings were of silent pairs showing no sign of nesting. A few suspected females were followed for over 30 minutes suggesting they were not attending active nests (Martin and Geupel 1993). Other locally breeding landbird species did not appear to be breeding, as observers encountered little evidence of breeding behavior (e.g., nesting material or food carries) or incidental nests. For example, Black-throated Sparrows (Amphispiza bilineata) that are normally with fledglings by May were still observed flocking throughout the study period, suggesting that they did not pair off to establish territories and raise young.

Figure 5. Precipitation anomaly for the southwestern United States from 1 Oct 2020-15 Apr 2021 showing the percentage deviation from the 1981-2010 mean (U.C. Merced 2021).

Acknowledgments We are extremely grateful to the Bureau of Land Management, in particular Amy Fesnock Parker, Chris Otahal, Geoff Walsh and Jim Weigand for financial and technical support. We thank the US Department of Interior National Park Service (Mojave) for providing “Scientific Research and Collecting Permits” for Black Canyon Wash (BCWA), Ivanpah-Cima (IVCI), Kelso Wash (KEWA), Rattlesnake Mine (RAMI), Rainbow Wells (RAWE), Shadow Valley (SHVA), Vontrigger Hills (VOHI), Watson Wash (WAWA) and Castle Mountain National Monument (Hart Mine (HAMI)). We thank the Sweeny Granite Mountains Desert Research Center (of the University of California Natural Reserve System) for allowing us to camp and access (in part) to the Cottonwood Basin (COBA) plots. We thank our colleagues at Point Blue, especially Ryan DiGaudio for help creating the maps in this report, and My-Lan Le for assisting with bird and vegetation surveys and Laurel Schuyler for contract assistance. We also thank Dawn Fletcher and Elizabeth Hammond of the Great Basin Bird Observatory and other members of the Desert Thrasher Working Group, Sonora Joint Venture, and the Western Working Group of Partner in Flight for their continued collaboration and technical support. We also thank John Fish, Tasha La Doux, George Mayfield, Marcus Webster, Michael Wellman for volunteer field assistance, and Tasha La Doux, Jim Morefield, and Lauren Harter for plant identification help. Financial support provided by The McKray Foundation was essential for this project success.

Literature Cited

BADC (Borderland Avian Date Center). 2020: https://borderlandsbirds.org/projects/desert-thrasher/

Bear Sutton, C.T., M.J. Desmond, M. Darr, and D. VanLeeuwen. 2017. Breeding habitat requirements of Bendire’s Thrasher throughout its New Mexico range. New Mexico Ornithological Society, April 22, 2017.

CDFW (Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, California Department of Fish and Wildlife in collaboration with Aerial Information Systems, Inc.). 2012. 2012 Vegetation Map in Support of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan; Interim Report (1.1). A report for the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Planning Program and California Energy Commission.

CDFW News. 2020. Deadly disease detected in California wild rabbits for the first time.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife News. May 13, 2020.

https://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2020/05/13/deadly-disease-detected-in-california-wild-rabbits-for-the-first-time/?fbclid=IwAR3SSk_OgPRuVmAyNnISuIGBDCps9eD8bBPtmidvQGgN0ffEflP9HE_keCg

DeFalco, A.L., T.C. Esque, S.J. Scoles-Sciulla, and J. Rodgers. 2010. Desert wildfire and severe drought diminish survivorship of the long-lived Joshua tree. American Journal of Botany 97:243- 250.

DTWG (the Desert Thrasher Working Group). 2018. Survey Protocol and Habitat Evaluation for LeConte’s and Bendire’s Thrashers. https://borderlandsbirds.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Thrasher-Survey-Protocol-2018_DTWG.pdf

England, A.S. and W. F. Laudenslayer. 1989. Distribution and seasonal movements of Bendire’s Thrasher in California. Western Birds 20:97-124.

Esque, T. C., P. A. Medica, D. F. Shrylock, L. A. DeFalco, R. H. Webb, and R. B. Hunter. 2015.

Direct and indirect effects of environmental variability and survivorship of pre-reproductive Joshua trees, Yucca brevifolia Engelm. (Agavaceae). American Journal of Botany 102:85-91.

GBBO (Great Basin Bird Observatory). 2019. Region-Wide Desert Thrasher Monitoring, 2017- 2018: Comprehensive Report (ammon@gbbo.org). Unpublished report. Great Basin Bird Observatory, Reno NV.

Humple, D. 2008. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). Pages 271-277 in W.D. Shuford and T. Gardali, editors. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California.

Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, CA and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

https://borderlandsbirds.org/projects/desert-thrasher/ https://borderlandsbirds.org/projects/desert-thrasher/ https://borderlandsbirds.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Thrasher-Survey-Protocol-2018_DTWG.pdf https://borderlandsbirds.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Thrasher-Survey-Protocol-2018_DTWG.pdf

Jones and Stokes. 2001. Bendire’s Thrasher survey results, 2001. Report to U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

Jongsomjit, D., J.R.Tietz, and G.R Geupel. 2013. Carrizo Plain National Monument Monitoring.

Point Blue unpublished report to the Bureau of Land Management.

Jongsomjit, D., L. Salas, J.R. Tietz, and G.R. Geupel. 2014. Le Conte’s Thrasher Abundance Modeling. 2014 Unpublished Report to the Bureau of Land Management.

Pavlacky, D.C., P.M. Lukacs, J.A. Blakesley, R.C. Skorkowsky, D.S. Klute, B.A. Hahn, V.J. Dreit, T.L.

George and D. Hanni. 2017. A statistically rigorous sampling design to integrate avian monitoring and management within Bird Conservation Regions. PLoS ONE 12(10):e0185924.

doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185924

Maloney, K.A., E.L. Mudrak, A. Fuentes-Ramirez, H. Parag, M. Schat, C. Holzapfel. 2019.

Increased fire risk in Mojave and Sonoran shrublands due to exotic species and extreme rainfall events. Ecosphere 10(2): e02592.10.1002/ecs2.2592

Martin, T .E. and G. R. Geupel. 1993. Nest monitoring plots: Methods for locating nests and monitoring success. J. Field. Ornith. 64:507-519.

McCreedy, C., C. van Riper, III, T. C. Esque, and A. J. Darrah. 2015. Effects of drought and fire on bird communities of the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open- File Report 2015-1240, 34 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151240.

McCreedy, C., C. Kondrat-Smith, D.M. Fletcher, L.B. Harter, and G.R. Geupel. In preparation.

Standardized bird monitoring protocol for Toxostoma thrashers. Western Birds.

NABCI (North American Bird Conservation Initiative), U.S. Committee. 2014. The State of the Birds 2014 Report. U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. 16 pages.

http://stateofthebirds.org/2014)

NPS. 2020. Dome Fire. Mojave National Preserve California, National Park Service. Last updated: November 19, 2020. https://www.nps.gov/moja/learn/nature/dome-fire.htm

Rosenberg, K.V., J. A. Kennedy, R. Dettmers, R. P. Ford, D. Reynolds, J.D. Alexander, C. J.

Beardmore, P. J. Blancher, R. E. Bogart, G. S. Butcher, A. F. Camfield, A. Couturier, D. W.

Demarest, W. E. Easton, J.J. Giocomo, R.H. Keller, A. E. Mini, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, T. D.

Rich, J. M. Ruth, H. Stabins, J. Stanton, T. Will. 2016. Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: 2016 Revision for Canada and Continental United States. Partners in Flight Science Committee. https://www.partnersinflight.org/resources/the-plan/

Sauer, J.R., D.K. Niven, J.E. Hines, D.J. Ziolkowski, K.L. Pardieck, J.E. Fallon, and W.A. Link. 2017.

The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 – 2015. Version 2.07.2017.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0185924 http://stateofthebirds.org/2014 https://www.partnersinflight.org/resources/the-plan/

USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. From https://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/, accessed 12/5/2017.

SJVTC (Sonoran Joint Venture Technical Committee). Beardmore, C.J., ed. 2006. Sonoran Joint Venture: Bird Conservation Plan, Version 1.0. Tucson: Sonoran Joint Venture.

https://sonoranjv.org/downloads/SJVConsPlan121206.pdf

Sterling, J. 2008. Bendire’s Thrasher (Toxostoma bendirei). Pages 311-315 in W. D. Shuford and T. Gardali, editors. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California.

Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, CA and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

Tietz, J.R., D. Jongsomjit and G. Geupel 2016. Le Conte’s Thrasher Survey Protocol. Unpublished Point Blue Conservation Science report.

Tietz, J.R., G.R. Geupel, D. Jongsomjit, C. McCreedy. 2019. Region-wide desert thrasher monitoring: results from California. 2018 season summary report to the Bureau of Land Management.

Tietz, J.R., G.R. Geupel, D. Jongsomjit, C. McCreedy. 2020. Region-wide desert thrasher monitoring: results from California. 2019 season summary report to the Bureau of Land Management.

University of California (UC) Merced 2021. The Climate Toolbox.

https://climatetoolbox.org/tool/climate-mapper

Vamstad, M.S. and J.T. Rotenberry. 2010. Effects of fire on vegetation and small mammal communities in a Mojave Desert Joshua tree woodland. Journal of Arid Environments 74:1309- 1318.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2021. Birds of Conservation Concern 2021. United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds, Falls Church, Virginia. (http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/ managed-species/birds-of-conservation-concern.php)

Weigand, J. and S. Fitton. 2008. Le Conte’s Thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei). In The Draft Desert Bird Conservation Plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of desert-associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/desert.html https://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/ https://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/ https://sonoranjv.org/downloads/SJVConsPlan121206.pdf http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/desert.html

Appendix A - Survey Forms

Le Conte's and Bendire's Thrasher Survey Form - 2017

Observer(s) Name and Contact Info:

Plot ID:

Date:

Start time: End time:

Clouds % Wind Precip

Temp F or C (circle one) None or Light

Plot Boundaries NW Corner E NE Corner E

(NAD 83) N N

SW Corner E SE Corner E

N N Species Observed

Record details of observations of LCTH, BETH, and LOSH on a Sighting Form

Species Visual, Call, Flyover, Song - one code per individual; groups in parenthesis e.g. (V20) Total Highest breeding code

Target Species Sighting Form - 2017 Record sightings of Le Conte's Thrasher, Bendire's Thrasher, and Loggerhead Shrike Plot ID:

Observer Name and Contact Information

Date:

Detection Time:

UTM: E:

Species: N:

Within Plot Y N Within Survey Time Y N (circle one)

Location Information (land ownership, habitat type, etc.)

Perch Substrate (species):

Perch Height (0.1 m) Highest breeding code:

Activity (circle all that apply):

Singing Calling Foraging Flying Flushing Running Perching

Nest found: Y N (circle one)

(NAD83) E: N:

Nest Substrate: Nest Stage (circle one)

Nest Height (0.1

m) Building Eggs young/eggs #____

Plant Height (0.1 m)

Additional comments or notes:

Thrasher Habitat Evaluation Form Plot ID: mE(NAD83): Surveyor:

Avg. Elev: Zone: Date:

Point-Center Quarter: Measure distance to the first visible vegetation.

Northwest Distance Species Cholla (>0.5m) Yucca (>0.5m) Shrub sp. (≤0.5m) Shrub/tree(>0.5 to 2m) Tree (>2 m) Northeast Cholla (>0.5m) Yucca (>0.5m) Shrub sp. (≤0.5m) Shrub/tree(>0.5 to 2m) Tree (>2 m) Southeast Cholla (>0.5m) Evaluation of ENTIRE plot: Mark X for presence Yucca (>0.5m) Shrub sp. (≤0.5m) Tank w/ standing water Shrub/tree(>0.5 to 2m) Burned habitat Tree (>2 m) OHV use evidence < 1 yr Southwest Livestock evidence < 1 yr Cholla (>0.5m) Rural sprawl within 5km Yucca (>0.5m) Sahara mustard Shrub sp. (≤0.5m) Red brome Shrub/tree(>0.5 to 2m) Bufflegrass Tree (>2 m) Arab. Mediterranean grass Bermuda grass Mistletoe (estimate # of mistletoe clumps within 50 m radius) Fountain grass Estimate to the nearest 10: 0, 10, 20, 30, etc. Russian thistle Mistletoe clumps: live grass dead grass Fruit-bearing shrub (estimate # of fruiting shrubs within 50 m radius) Fruit-bearing shrub Estimate to the nearest 10: 0, 10, 20, 30, etc.

Fruiting shrubs species: Ground Composition w/i 100 m (>50% presence):

Mark X for presence Fruiting shrubs species:

Fruiting shrubs species: silt/clay sand Joshua Tree (Count all Joshua trees within 100 m radius) rock Branches No Branches other:

Grass/forb ground cover (live/dead) (at veg. pt. along 50 m line N # of meters % of Wash Cover (entire plot)

Appendix B – Plot Locations All coordinates given in NAD83 UTM zone 11.

PLOT ID EASTING NORTHING PLOT ID EASTING NORTHING

BUCA.2 395250 3920050 KIPE.2 610650 3952150

BUCA.3 395250 3920650 KIPE.3 611250 3952150

BUCA.4 395850 3919450 KIPE.4 610050 3951550

BUCA.5 395850 3920050 KIPE.5 610650 3951550

BUCA.7 396450 3919450 KIPE.6 611250 3951550

CEFL.2 433950 4016350 KIPE.7 610050 3950950

CEFL.5 433950 4015750 KIPE.8 610650 3950950

CEFL.6 434550 4015750 KIPE.9 611250 3950950

CEFL.7 433350 4015150 LEFL.2 442950 4038850

CEFL.8 433950 4015150 LEFL.3 443550 4038850

COCI.5 498150 3886150 LEFL.5 442950 4038250

COCI.6 498750 3886150 LEFL.6 443550 4038250

COCI.8 498150 3885550 MEMO.5 611550 3945850

COCI.9 498750 3885550 MEMO.6 612150 3945850

COME.4 498450 3882250 MEMO.8 611550 3945250

COME.5 498450 3882850 MEMO.9 612150 3945250

COME.6 498450 3883450 RAMI.2 673800 3886300

COME.7 499050 3882850 RAMI.3 674400 3886300

COME.8 499050 3883450 RAMI.5 673800 3885700

DORO.1 517950 3807250 RAMI.6 674400 3885700

DORO.2 518550 3807250 RAMI.9 674400 3885100

DORO.4 517950 3806650 SAVA.1 442650 4036750

DORO.5 518550 3806650 SAVA.2 443250 4036750

DORO.7 517955 3806050 SAVA.3 443850 4036750

DORO.8 518550 3806050 SAVA.6 444450 4035150

EXMI.5 613650 3943050 SHVA.3 618000 3918100

EXMI.6 614250 3944050 SHVA.4 616800 3917500

EXMI.7 613050 3943450 SHVA.5 617400 3917500

EXMI.8 613650 3943450 SHVA.7 616800 3916900

EXMI.9 614250 3943450 SHVA.9 618000 3916900

KECR.1 387150 3942550 SIMO.1 490950 3828250

KECR.2 387150 3941950 SIMO.2 491550 3828250

KECR.3 387150 3941350 SIMO.4 494050 3827350

KEWA.5 631200 3896500 SIMO.5 494250 3827350

KEWA.6 631800 3896500 SIMO.7 493650 3825550

KEWA.7 630600 3895900 SJMI.10 385650 3921550

KEWA.8 631200 3895900 SJMI.3 388650 3923350

KEWA.9 631800 3895900 SJMI.4 388350 3922750

KIPE.1 610050 3952150 SJMI.5 388350 3922150

PLOT ID EASTING NORTHING PLOT ID EASTING NORTHING

SJMI.6 388950 3922150 SRMI.9 520350 3803350

SJMI.8 387750 3921850 STMO.3 493950 3837550

SOMO.2 389250 3871450 STMO.5 493650 3836950

SOMO.3 388650 3870850 STMO.6 494250 3836950

SOMO.4 389250 3870850 STMO.8 494250 3836350

SOMO.5 389850 3870550 STMO.9 494850 3836350

SOMO.5 389850 3870550 SUVA.10 487350 3897550

SRMI.3 520350 3804550 SUVA.13 486150 3896950

SRMI.5 519750 3803950 SUVA.15 487350 3896950

SRMI.6 520350 3803950 SUVA.8 486150 3897550

SRMI.8 519750 3803350 SUVA.9 486750 3897550

Appendix C Driving Directions by Site

These driving directions are intended to be used in addition to map resources such as USGS quad maps, California Atlas and Gazetteer, Google Earth or other sources. Roads in the southern California deserts are often unmarked and may not appear on maps or may be rough and impassible for most vehicles. These directions may be useful for biologists and volunteers in future seasons. We specify where 4wd or high clearance is recommended and offer specific help in accessing field sites.

Black Canyon Wash (BCWA): In Mojave Preserve, from Black Canyon Wash Rd., turn east onto dirt road at UTM 647150, 3877130. This road is about 1.1 miles south of the turnoff for Hole-in-the-Wall Campground. This road goes all the way to the plots. Road is sandy, high clearance and 4wd necessary.

Butterbredt Canyon (BUCA): From CA highway 14, take Jawbone Canyon Rd to the west, go about

4.7 miles. At UTM 400110, 3907870, turn right to stay on Jawbone Canyon Rd (sign for Kelso). The road winds uphill and along ridge for a while. Turn right at UTM 398550, 3916490, there is a sign for Butterbredt Springs Preserve and a cattle guard. Continue past Butterbredt Springs to get to the plots. There are several primitive camping pullouts near the plots, we recommend the one near the springs at UTM 398670, 3916050 and there is another just south of the plots. 4wd recommended but it is possible to get at least to Butterbredt Springs with 2wd.

Butte Valley (BUVA): This site is within Death Valley National Park in the shadow of scenic Striped Butte. Recommended access is from the east side (road in Coyote canyon and Goler Canyon can be washed out and impassable). Go approximately 2 miles north of the town Shoshone, CA (be sure to bird the Amargosa River nature tail in downtown Shoshone) on Hwy 127, head west on CA-178 – Jubilee Pass Road. Turn Right on Badwater Rd towards Asford Junction, a few miles past Ashfrod Mill Ruins’ turn left on West Side Road then approximately a dozen miles left on Warm Springs Rd.

Long slow bumpy ride past Warm Springs Camp/ruins. At Junction of Goldhill Road go left on Butte Valle Rd for about 5.2 miles. Study plots on the left side of Road. Watch out for rutting wild burros.

The access road is extremely rough and slow going – 4WD with high clearance is required.

Note: GRG April 19 2021: The drive in is on 20 miles of extremely rough road and slow going. The habitat in Butte Valley (DVNP) is marginal at best for thrashers. I highly recommend this sight be dropped indefinitely. It is not worth the wear and tear on vehicles.

Centennial Flat (CEFL): From I-395, head east on CA-190 for 24.6 miles. Turn right on Centennial Rd and head south 1.5 miles, then left at the Y and head south another 1 mile to site. Camping is possible on any of the side roads.

Chemehuevi Wash (CHWA 1-8): From Needles, head south on highway 95. Just north of crossing the wash, there is a jeep trail that goes east from highway 95 at 715790,…