A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic

U.S. Department of the Interior.

U.S. Geological Survey.

USGS/BRD/ITR—2003-0006.

Information and Technology Report.

Prepared in Cooperation with Olympic National Park.

A Framework for Long-term Ecological

Monitoring in Olympic National Park:

Prototype for the Coniferous Forest Biome.

Cover:

Front cover images—Olympic National Park, Andrea Woodward and Erik Ackerson.

Back cover image—Andrea Woodward.

Design—Erik Ackerson.

A Framework for Long-term Ecological

Monitoring in Olympic National Park:

Prototype for the Coniferous Forest Biome.

By Kurt Jenkins, Andrea Woodward, and Ed Schreiner.

U.S. Geological Survey.

Prepared in Cooperation with Olympic National Park.

USGS/BRD/ITR—2003-0006.

U.S. Department of the Interior.

U.S. Geological Survey.

U.S. Department of the Interior..

Gale A. Norton, Secretary..

U.S. Geological Survey..

Charles G. Groat, Director..

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2003..

For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services..

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center.

Denver, CO 80225.

For more information about the USGS and its products:

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS.

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/.

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Jenkins, Kurt, Woodward, Andrea, and Schreiner, Ed, 2003, A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in

Olympic National Park: Prototype for the Coniferous Forest Biome: U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources

Discipline, Information and Technology Report, USGS/BRD/ITR-2003-0006, 150 p.

Key words:

1. U.S. Geological Survey. 2. Status and trends program. 3. National Park Service. 4. Inventory and monitor-

ing program. 5. Long-term ecological monitoring. 6. Vital signs monitoring. 7. Conceptual ecosystem models.

8. Olympic National Park. 9. Coniferous forests. 10. Ecological indicators. 11. Environmental sampling.

12. Conceptual monitoring plan.

Executive Summary iii

Executive Summary.

This report is the result of a ve-year collaboration between scientists of the

U.S. Geological Survey Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Olympic

Field Station, and the natural resources staff of Olympic National Park to develop

a comprehensive strategy for monitoring natural resources of Olympic National

Park. Olympic National Park is the National Park Serviceʼs prototype monitoring

park, representing parks in the coniferous forest biome. Under the umbrella of the

National Park Serviceʼs prototype parks program, U.S. Geological Survey and

Olympic National Park staffs are obligated to:

• develop strategies and designs for monitoring the long-term health and

integrity of national park ecosystems with a significant coniferous forest

component.

• design exportable monitoring protocols that can be used by other parks

within the coniferous forest biome (i.e., parks having similar environ-

ments), and

• create a demonstration area and ʻcenter of excellenceʼ for assisting other

parks in developing ecological monitoring programs.

Olympic National Park is part of the North Coast and Cascades Network, a

network of seven Pacic Northwestern park units created recently by the National

Park Serviceʼs Inventory and Monitoring Program to extend the monitoring of

ʻvital signsʼ of park health to all National Park Service units. It is our intent and

hope that the monitoring strategies and conceptual models described here will meet

the overall purpose of the prototype parks monitoring program in proving useful

not only to Olympic National Park, but also to parks within the North Coast and

Cascades Network and elsewhere.

Part I contains the conceptual design and sampling framework for the

prototype long-term monitoring program in Olympic National Park. In this

section, we explore key elements of monitoring design that help to ensure the

spatial, ecological, and temporal integration of monitoring program elements and

discuss approaches used to design an ecosystem-based monitoring program. Basic

monitoring components include ecosystem drivers, (e.g., climate, atmospheric

inputs, human pressures), indicators of ecosystem integrity (e.g., biogeochemical

indicators), known threats (e.g., impacts of introduced mountain goats), and focal

or ʻkeyʼ species (e.g., rare or listed species, Roosevelt elk). Monitoring system

drivers and key indicators of ecosystem integrity provide the long-term baseline

needed to judge what constitutes ʻunnaturalʼ variation in park resources and

provide the earliest possible warning of unacceptable change. Monitoring effects

of known threats and the status of focal species will provide information useful to

park managers for dealing with current park issues.

In Part I we describe the process of identifying potential indicators of

ecological condition and present conceptual models of park ecosystems. In addition

we report results from several workshops held in conjunction with Olympic

National Park aimed at identifying potential indicators of change in the parkʼs

ecosystem. First, we describe the responses of Olympic National Park staff to the

generic question, “What is the most important resource to monitor in Olympic

National Park and why?” followed by the responses from resource and land

managers from areas adjoining the park. We also catalogue the responses of various

expert groups that we asked to help identify the most appropriate system drivers

and indicators of change in the Olympic National Park ecosystems. Results of the

workshops provided the justication for selecting basic indicators of ecosystem

integrity, effects of current threats to park resources, and focal resources of parks to

detect both the currently evident and unforeseeable changes in park resources.

We conclude Part I by exploring several generic statistical issues relevant to

monitoring natural resources in Olympic National Park. Specically we discuss

trade-offs associated with sampling extensively versus sampling intensively

in smaller geographic regions and describe a conceptual framework to guide

development of a generic sampling frame for monitoring. We recommend

partitioning Olympic National Park into three zones of decreasing accessibility to

maximize monitoring efciency. We present examples of how the generic sampling

frame could be used to help ensure spatial integration of individual monitoring

projects.

Part II of the report is a record of the potential monitoring questions and

indicators identied to date in our workshops. The presentation is organized

according to the major system drivers, components, and processes identied in

the intermediate-level working model of the Olympic National Park ecosystem.

For each component of the park system, we develop the need and justication

for monitoring, articulate park management issues, and describe key resources

and ecosystem functions. We also present a pictorial conceptual model of each

ecological subsystem, identify monitoring questions, and list potential indicators

for each monitoring question. We conclude each section by identifying linkages of

indicators to other ecological subsystems in our general ecosystem model, spatial

and temporal contexts for monitoring (where and how often to monitor), and

research and development needs. Part II represents the most current detailed listing

of potential indicators—the material for subsequent discussions of monitoring

priorities and selection of indicators for protocol development.

Collectively, the sections of this report contain a comprehensive list

of the important monitoring questions and potential indicators as well as

recommendations for designing an integrated monitoring program. In Part I,

Chapter 6 we provide recommendations on how to proceed with the important

next steps in the design process: establishing priorities among the many possible

monitoring questions and indicators, and beginning to research and design effective

long-term monitoring protocols.

iv A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Contents v

Contents.

Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................................iii .

List of Figures ..............................................................................................................................................vii .

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ ix .

Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................................... x .

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 .

PART I: DESIGN FOR LONG-TERM ECOLOGICAL MONITORING IN CONIFEROUS FOREST

ECOSYSTEMS IN OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK........................................................................... 5 .

Chapter 1. Monitoring Goals, Strategies, and Tactics .......................................................................... 5 .

1.1 The Role of Monitoring ............................................................................................................ 5 .

1.2 Monitoring Goals and Objectives: The Desired Endpoints ................................................ 6 .

1.3 Monitoring Strategies: Approaches to Monitoring............................................................. 7 .

1.4 Monitoring Strategies: Integration of Monitoring Projects ............................................... 8 .

1.5 Design Tactics: How to Get There.......................................................................................... 9 .

Chapter 2. Environmental Context: Ecological Resources, History, and Threats........................... 11 .

2.1 Setting....................................................................................................................................... 11 .

2.2 Climate...................................................................................................................................... 11 .

2.3 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................... 12 .

2.4 Glacial History ......................................................................................................................... 12 .

2.5 Vegetation Pattern.................................................................................................................. 17 .

2.6 Biogeography .......................................................................................................................... 17 .

2.7 Human History......................................................................................................................... 18 .

2.8 Natural Disturbance............................................................................................................... 18 .

2.9 Anthropogenic Threats.......................................................................................................... 21 .

2.10 Management Objectives ....................................................................................................... 21 .

2.11 Implications for Monitoring................................................................................................... 22 .

Chapter 3. Scoping and Identifying Indicators .................................................................................... 27 .

3.1 Park-staff Workshop .............................................................................................................. 27 .

3.2 Meeting of Adjacent Land-owners...................................................................................... 28 .

3.3 ‘Focus-group’ Workshops ..................................................................................................... 29 .

Chapter 4. Conceptual Models: Context for Indicators ..................................................................... 39 .

4.1 What is a Conceptual Model ................................................................................................ 39 .

4.2 Ecosystem Dynamics ............................................................................................................. 40 .

4.3 Modeling Olympic National Park ......................................................................................... 42 .

Chapter 5. Framework for Monitoring Coniferous Forest Ecosystems............................................ 47 .

5.1 The Economy of Scales ......................................................................................................... 47 .

5.2 Conceptual Framework for Integrated Sampling in Coniferous Forests ....................... 48 .

5.3 A Sampling Primer.................................................................................................................. 50 .

5.4 A Generalized Sampling Design........................................................................................... 51 .

Chapter 6. Next Steps .............................................................................................................................. 59 .

6.1 Setting Priorities ..................................................................................................................... 59 .

6.2 Agency Roles in Protocol Development and Implementation......................................... 60 .

6.3 Developing a Work Plan ........................................................................................................ 61 .

PART II: INDICATORS OF ECOLOGICAL CONDITION IN OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 63 .

Chapter 1. System Drivers: Atmosphere and Climate........................................................................ 65 .

Chapter 2. System Drivers: Human Activities ..................................................................................... 71 .

Chapter 3. Park and Surrounding Landscape ..................................................................................... 75 .

Chapter 4. Biogeochemical Cycles....................................................................................................... 79 .

Chapter 5. Contaminants ........................................................................................................................ 83 .

Chapter 6. Terrestrial Vegetation Communities .................................................................................. 87 .

Chapter 7. Special-status Plant Species: Rare and Exotic .............................................................. 91 .

Chapter 8. Terrestrial Fauna................................................................................................................... 97 .

Chapter 9. Populations and Communities of Large Mammals ....................................................... 101 .

Chapter 10. Special-status Terrestrial Wildlife Populations............................................................ 105 .

Chapter 11. Geoindicators..................................................................................................................... 111 .

Chapter 12. Aquatic/Riparian Habitat.................................................................................................. 113 .

Chapter 13. Aquatic Biota...................................................................................................................... 117 .

Chapter 14. Special-status Fish Species: Threatened, Rare, Non-native and Endemic............. 123 .

Chapter 15. Coastal Environments ....................................................................................................... 129 .

Chapter 16. Historical and Paleoecological Context for Monitoring.............................................. 133 .

LITERATURE CITED.................................................................................................................................. 135 .

APPENDIX A: List of monitoring workshops and participants for developing the prototype

monitoring program in Olympic National Park ...................................................................... 145 .

vi A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

List of Figures.

Part I.

Figure 1.1.1. Relationships between resource inventories, monitoring, research, and resource

management activities in national parks. .................................................................................. 6 .

Figure 1.3.1. A multi-faceted approach for monitoring known and unknown effects of sys-

tem drivers on ecosystem integrity and health in national parks (modified from

Woodley, 1993)................................................................................................................................ 8 .

Figure 1.5.1. Sequence of steps taken in designing long-term ecological monitoring in

Olympic National Park and relationships among ‘design’, ‘protocol development’ and

‘implementation’ phases of program development. ............................................................... 10 .

Figure 2.1.1. Location of coastal and interior units of Olympic National Park on Washington’s

Olympic Peninsula........................................................................................................................ 13 .

Figure 2.1.2. Roads (red) and trails (black) of Olympic National Park showing limited road

access to the park’s interior. ...................................................................................................... 13 .

Figure 2.2.1. Isoclines of mean annual precipitation (cm) on the Olympic Peninsula................. 15 .

Figure 2.5.1. Forest zones of the Olympic Peninsula (Modified from Henderson et al. 1989)..... 15 .

Figure 2.8.1. Areas of Olympic National Park significantly affected by wind or fire

(from Henderson et al. 1989)....................................................................................................... 21 .

Figure 2.11.1. Estimated times of foot travel from nearest road or trail in Olympic National

Park................................................................................................................................................. 25 .

Figure 4.2.1. Conceptual model of ecosystem dynamics (adapted from Holling 1986) ............... 41 .

Figure 4.3.1. Conceptual model illustrating the ecologic subsystems of Olympic National

Park and their geographic relationships.................................................................................. 43 .

Figure 4.3.2. Conceptual model illustrating the components of and interactions among

ecologic subsystems of Olympic National Park and how they correspond to the

chapters of Part II. ....................................................................................................................... 45 .

Figure 4.3.3. Conceptual model of the terrestrial coniferous forest ecosystems showing

flows of carbon, nitrogen, and water, and illustrating the dependence of time frame

of observable change on the hierarchical position (i.e., level of ecological

organization). ................................................................................................................................ 46 .

Figure 5.1.1. Allocation of sampling effort among axes of spatial scale, measurement effort

(i.e., scope), and replication effort in ‘extensive‘ and ‘intensive‘ sampling designs......... 49 .

Figure 5.2.1. Monitoring framework showing potential core elements of proposed

monitoring program and spatial relationships among extensive and intensive

monitoring designs....................................................................................................................... 50 .

Figure 5.3.1. Primary sample selection methods and strategies for sample distribution. .......... 53 .

Figure 5.4.1. Stratification of human access/use zones for sampling in Olympic National

Park................................................................................................................................................. 55 .

Figure 5.4.2. Percentages of mapped vegetation units falling within the combined high and

moderate zones of human access/use in Olympic National Park. ...................................... 54 .

Figure 5.4.3. Hypothetical systematic distribution of vegetation monitoring plots in Olympic

National Park with unequal probability of selection in zones of high, moderate, and low

human access/use (probability of selection decreases from highest to lowest human

access/use)................................................................................................................................... 55 .

List of Figures vii

Figure 5.4.4. Hypothetical selection of sample plots for monitoring ungulate ‘sign’ on lowland

winter ranges of Roosevelt elk in Olympic National Park. The hypothetical sample

includes the previous selection of vegetation monitoring plots supplemented with

additional randomly selected points to achieve a greater sample size.............................. 57 .

Figure 5.4.5. Hypothetical selection of sample plots for monitoring microclimate of forest stands.

The hypothetical sample is a systematic subsample of forest vegetation monitoring plots

restricted to those plots within the high-access sampling zone. ........................................ 57 .

Part II

Figure 1.1. Map of extant weather stations in Olympic National Park. ........................................ 66 .

Figure 1.2. Conceptual model of the interactions among atmospheric and terrestrial

ecosystem components. ............................................................................................................ 67 .

Figure 2.1. Conceptual model of interactions among human activities, park resources and

park management. ....................................................................................................................... 72 .

Figure 3.1. Conceptual model of the interactions among the forces determining landscape

pattern in Olympic National Park. ............................................................................................. 76 .

Figure 4.1. Conceptual model describing the impact of marine-derived nutrients on terrestrial

and aquatic environments in Olympic National Park............................................................. 80 .

Figure 6.1 Conceptual model describing the factors shaping plant communities in Olympic

National Park. ............................................................................................................................... 88 .

Figure 7.1 Conceptual model of biotic and abiotic factors affecting populations of rare and

exotic plant species in Olympic National Park........................................................................ 92 .

Figure 8.1. Trophic relationships among key faunal assemblages within coniferous forest

ecosystems of Olympic National Park...................................................................................... 98 .

Figure 9.1. Conceptual model of vegetation/prey/predator system behavior characterizing

dynamics of vegetation and large-mammal communities in Olympic National Park. .... 102 .

Figure 10.1. Conceptual model of factors affecting populations of special-status wildlife

species. ....................................................................................................................................... 106 .

Figure 12.1. Conceptual model of physical, chemical, and biologic aspects of aquatic/riparian

habitat and their interactions with system drivers in Olympic National Park.................. 114 .

Figure 13.1. Conceptual model of the aquatic trophic system and impacts caused by human

activities in Olympic National Park. ........................................................................................ 118 .

Figure 14.1. Conceptual model of threats to special-status fish species and the consequences

of extinction................................................................................................................................. 125 .

Figure 15.1. Conceptual model of the coastal ecosystem............................................................... 130 .

viii A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

List of Tables

Table 2.6.1. Endemic fauna and flora of the Olympic Peninsula...................................................... 19 .

Table 2.6.2. Mammal and bird species present in the Cascade Mountains but absent

historically from the Olympic Peninsula................................................................................... 20 .

Table 2.9.1. Summary of anthropogenic threats identified in the Olympic National Park

Resource Management Plan. Specific threats are grouped into general categories.

Whether the park address the concern with management actions and whether the

impacts are park wide are also indicated (Y=yes, N=no)...................................................... 23 .

Table 3.1.1. Matrix of relationships among park resources, their importance to monitoring,

and potential agents of change in Olympic National Park, as identified by Olympic

National Park staff. ..................................................................................................................... 30 .

Table 3.2.1 Resources currently monitored by other government agencies, tribes and private

companies on the Olympic Peninsula....................................................................................... 32 .

Table 3.3.1. Template of questions used by participants of the ‘Vital Signs’ workshop to

identify potential monitoring indicators in Olympic National Park. ..................................... 34 .

Table 3.3.2 Indicators identified in scoping meetings and agents to which they are expected

to respond...................................................................................................................................... 35 .

Table 5.3.1. Characteristics of simple random, cluster, and systematic sampling methods. ..... 52 .

Table 5.3.2. Characteristics of equal probability, stratified, and unequal probability samples.. 52 .

Table 5.17. Data sets that could provide context for monitoring results on a variety of time

scales. ............................................................................................................................................ 54 .

List of Tables ix

Acknowledgments.

We extend our sincere thanks and appreciation to the entire staff at Olympic

National Park for their commitment and work towards developing an effective

long-term monitoring program. We especially thank Cat Hawkins Hoffman, Chief

of Natural Resources, for dedicating so much of her time and self in furthering

this program and assisting us in our work, Roger Hoffman and Katherine Beirne

for preparing the map-based graphics in this report; Doug Houston and D. Erran

Seaman at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)-Olympic Field Station; Patti

Happe, Cat Hawkins Hoffman, Roger Hoffman, and John Meyer at Olympic

National Park for participating in our planning discussions from the beginning and

contributing freely with their ideas. We also thank Sam Brenkman, Steve Fradkin,

and John Meyer for their written contributions summarizing monitoring indicators

for aquatic and marine resources (see Part II).

Most of the ideas contained in this report were generated from a series of

workshops (see Appendix A for a list of all participants) hosted by USGS-Olympic

Field Station and Olympic National Park. We are particularly grateful to Gary

Davis, Cat Hawkins Hoffman, Barry Noon, D. E. Seaman, Ed Starkey, and Kathy

Tonnessen for their help in organizing and facilitating workshops. We thank Steve

Acker, Mike Adams, Steve Fancy, Bruce Freet, Paul Geissler, Darryll Johnson,

Kathy Jope, Gary Larson, Lyman McDonald, Karen Oakley, Dave Peterson,

Steve Ralph, and Ed Starkey for numerous helpful discussions about long-term

monitoring philosophy, objectives, and practice. We are indebted to Paul Geissler

for his many contributions to Chapter 6, including allowing us to use his tabular

summaries of sampling methods. Literally dozens of others have wittingly or

otherwise contributed many ideas—we thank you all.

We would like to thank the many individuals who have reviewed parts of this

report at various stages during its preparation including: Steve Acker, Katherine

Beirne, Tamara Blett, Dave Conca, Carrie Donnellan, Paul Gleeson, Patti Happe,

Shelley Hall, Cat Hawkins Hoffman, Roger Hoffman, Martin Hutten, Darryll

Johnson, Rob Norheim, Rich Olson, Dave Peterson, Ruth Scott, Mark Vande

Kamp, and Brian Winter. Finally, we extend our thanks to Gary Davis, John

Emlen, Steven Fancy, Paul Geissler, Cat Hawkins Hoffman, David Peterson,

Reg Reisenbichler, Charles Roman, Lyman Thorsteinson, and David Woodson

for providing peer review comments on the nal draft. Their thoughtful and

constructive comments very much improved this document.

This work was funded by the USGS with thanks to Drs. Norita Chaney and Paul

Geissler (USGS) for providing guidance, support and funding. We extend a special

thanks to Dr. Michael Collopy, former Center Director of the USGS Forest and

Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, for his unyielding support of our research

and monitoring activities and his extraordinary efforts in soliciting funding for this

project.

x A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center,

Olympic Field Station, 600 E. Park Avenue, Port Angeles, WA 98362.

A Framework for Long-term Ecological

Monitoring in Olympic National Park:

Prototype for the Coniferous Forest Biome.

By Kurt Jenkins, Andrea Woodward, and Ed Schreiner

Introduction.

Importance of Monitoring:

Maintaining a current understanding of ecologi-

cal conditions is fundamental to the National Park

Service in meeting its overarching mission—to

preserve park resources “unimpaired for the enjoy-

ment of future generations” (U.S. Congress 1916).

Initially, the implementation of an ecological moni-

toring program establishes reference conditions for

natural resources from which future changes can be

detected. Over the long term, these “benchmarks”

help dene the normal limits of natural variation,

may become standards with which to compare

future changes, provide a basis for judging what

constitutes impairment, and help identify the need

for corrective management actions. Issue-specic

monitoring programs (as opposed to general eco-

logical monitoring) are also important because they

provide the basis for evaluating effectiveness of

specic management actions and provide informa-

tion on how management practices may be adapted

to achieve desired objectives.

National Park Service Monitoring ‘Strategy’:

The National Park Service began developing

a comprehensive long-term ecological monitor-

ing program in 1993 by soliciting proposals for

ʻprototypeʼ parks. The goal of the ʻprototypeʼ parks

monitoring program is to “…develop a better

understanding of national park ecosystem dynamics

and ecological integration” (National Park Service

1995). Prototypes were to be phased in over time

and the U.S. Geological Survey assumed primary

responsibility for developing and testing monitoring

protocols for prototype programs.

Prototype monitoring programs are established

in several national park units or in clusters of parks

throughout the nation, each representing one of the

major biogeographic associations (e.g., biomes)

within the National Park System. The prototype

monitoring programs provide a forum to evaluate

monitoring strategies appropriate in national parks

and, importantly, serve as demonstration areas and

ʻcenters of excellenceʼ for assisting other parks

in monitoring. This includes the development of

exportable monitoring protocols for use by any park

with similar resources throughout the system.

Before all prototype monitoring programs

were established, Congress directed the National

Park Service to “undertake 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 condi-

tion of National Park System resources” (National

Park Service Omnibus Management Act 1998). The

National Park Service subsequently developed a

“Natural Resources Challenge,” an action plan and

budgetary strategy for improved resource steward-

ship in the National Park System (National Park

Service 1999). The Challenge included a specic

call to action to expand monitoring efforts beyond

the currently funded prototype monitoring parks to

all National Park Service units. The National Park

Serviceʼs Inventory and Monitoring strategy cur-

rently recognizes three major components of Inven-

tory and Monitoring:

1. Completion of basic resource inventories as a

basis for subsequent monitoring.

2. Sustaining eleven experimental prototype

monitoring programs to evaluate alternative

monitoring designs and strategies for selected

biomes.

3. Monitoring indicators of ecosystem sta-

tus or health (ʼVital Signsʼ) at all natural

resource parks (S. Fancy, Monitoring Natural

Resources in our National Parks,

http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/).

ʻVital signsʼ monitoring, the last element, is

intended to extend monitoring of key ecosystem

health indicators to all units of the National Park

Service. The purpose is to “assess the basic health

or integrity of park ecosystems, and to be able to

formulate management prescriptions wherever

necessary to maintain the integrity of those eco-

systems” (S. Fancy, Monitoring Natural Resources

in our National Parks, www.nature.nps.gov/im/

monitor/). The National Park Service organized

270 park units into 32 networks of parks in simi-

lar geographic areas of the country to achieve this

goal. ʻNetworksʼ form the framework for design-

ing, implementing, and analyzing vital signs of the

National Parks.

Olympic National Park staff is intensely

involved in both the prototype parks and vital-signs

monitoring programs. In 1993, Olympic National

Park was selected to develop a prototype monitor-

ing program representing parks in the coniferous

forest biome. Recently, Olympic National Park

was also included in the North Coast and Cascades

Network of parks for vital signs monitoring. Other

parks in the North Coast and Cascades Network

include Ebeyʼs Landing, Fort Clatsop, Fort Van-

couver, Mount Rainier, North Cascades, and San

Juan Islands. A signicant aspect of the National

Park Service Inventory and Monitoring Program is

the integration of the prototype-park program with

the monitoring requirements of other parks in the

network. Accordingly, parks with prototype pro-

grams are encouraged to develop protocols that are

applicable at the network level. The prototype-park

program in Olympic National Park is an integral

part of the North Coast and Cascades Network vital

signs monitoring program. The park plays a key role

in the network, by providing technical assistance

to the other parks in the Network, and developing

protocols needed by other parks

Scope and Content:

A rather critical rst-step in designing a moni-

toring program is guring out just what attributes

should be monitored, and deciding how to integrate

the individual monitoring projects into a compre-

hensive program. This is easily the most difcult

task facing national park managers because the list

of possibilities is literally endless. Scientists with

the USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science

Center, Olympic Field Station, obtained funding in

1996 from the USGS Inventory and Monitoring pro-

gram to initiate development of a long-term ecolog-

ical monitoring program for Olympic National Park.

This involved developing the design process itself,

creating conceptual models of park ecosystems,

identifying potential monitoring indicators, and

developing the conceptual framework for monitor-

ing. This necessitated setting up several workshops

with park staff and subject-matter experts to explore

the conceptual underpinnings of monitoring, as

well as the important park issues, key attributes

of park ecosystems, monitoring indicators, and

general sampling questions. From the outset, eld

station scientists have worked closely with Olympic

National Park resource management staff to create a

comprehensive monitoring framework for the park.

This report synthesizes results of these work-

shops and many discussions into what we hope is

a workable conceptual framework for developing

long-term monitoring in Olympic National Park.

Our scope includes all the major ecosystem compo-

nents in Olympic National Park, although we hope

that the conceptual materials may prove useful to

other parks within the North Coast and Cascades

2 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Network and elsewhere. The focus of our work is on

coniferous forest ecosystems, but it is not our intent

that this be a limiting factor. At the beginning of this

study in 1996, we proposed to develop a conceptual

plan for monitoring coniferous forest ecosystems of

Olympic National Park, in keeping with the 1993

Olympic National Park monitoring proposal and

the selection of Olympic National Park as a proto-

type for the coniferous forest biome. The scope and

content of our planning exercise expanded over the

years as we began to embrace the broader scope of

ʻvital-signsʼ monitoring programs, park-wide moni-

toring needs, and Network monitoring goals. Hence,

many of our conceptual models and examples

emphasize the coniferous forest subsystems within

Olympic National Park, but the concepts apply also

to monitoring aquatic or coastal subsystems.

This report consists of two sections:

Part I contains the conceptual design and a

sampling framework for the prototype monitoring

program in Olympic National Park. In this section,

we elaborate on monitoring goals and approaches

used to design an ecosystem-based monitoring

program. We describe the environmental setting

of Olympic National Park as context for select-

ing potential indicators and developing conceptual

models and sampling plans. We describe the process

of identifying potential indicators of ecological con-

dition and change. We present conceptual models of

park ecosystems, and describe a conceptual frame-

work for monitoring in the coniferous forest sub-

system. Because we focused initially on terrestrial

ecosystems, many of the examples provided contain

greater emphasis on those systems.

Part II contains a complete record of potential

indicators identied to date for Olympic National

Park. In this section we focus discussion on the

system drivers, components, and processes identi-

ed in the current working model of the Olympic

National Park ecosystem (see Part I, Chapter 4).

For each individual component of the park system,

we develop the need and justication for monitor-

ing in a word model of park management issues,

key resources and ecosystem functions. We pres-

ent a pictorial conceptual model of each ecological

subsystem, identify monitoring questions, and list

potential monitoring indicators for each monitoring

question. We conclude each section by identifying

linkages of monitoring indicators to other ecological

subsystems in our general ecosystem model, iden-

tify spatial and temporal contexts for monitoring

(where and how often to monitor), and research and

development needs. Part II represents the current

most detailed listing of potential indicators—the

material for subsequent discussions of monitoring

priorities and selection of indicators for protocol

development

This report IS a living document. The ideas

described here evolved in response to a continuous

input of ideas and changing organization within

the National Park Service monitoring community.

Olympic National Park and the North Coast and

Cascades Monitoring Network continue to prepare

to implement ecological monitoring at the park

and network levels with the hiring of new moni-

toring coordinators, data management specialists,

and biological and physical scientists. As these

monitoring programs develop, this report will need

to be updated to keep pace with the evolution of

new ideas, park resource-management issues, and

logistic constraints. We expect that additional moni-

toring components and protocols will be required

and that current thinking on monitoring issues will

be modied.

Introduction 3

4 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

1.1 The Role of Monitoring .

Monitoring is critically important to the sci-

entic management of national parks and other

protected areas (Fig. 1.1.1). Monitoring identies

the “normal” range of variation in park resources,

establishing a temporal baseline from which

changes may be detected and the need for manage-

ment intervention recognized. If a management

action is prescribed, monitoring again plays a

pivotal role in assessing the effectiveness of imple-

mented actions, identifying necessary adaptations

for management, and determining when manage-

ment objectives are achieved. Monitoring in this

context is a critical component of adaptive ecosys-

tem management (Holling 1978, Walters 1986).

Monitoring also may identify the need for scientic

research to explain the causes of temporal change.

Because resource inventory, monitoring, and

research are so integrally a part of management,

monitoring is easily confused with related activi-

ties involving measurement of natural systems and

resources. Ecological monitoring is the sequen-

tial measurement of ecological systems over time

with the primary purpose of detecting trends in the

components, processes or functions. By contrast,

an inventory is a point-in-time effort to quantify

presence, abundance, or distribution of resources

in space. Often inventories are more extensive

than the subsequent monitoring, and are designed

to document species occurring in the park and to

determine their distribution. Inventories may be

used as the foundation for monitoring if the inven-

tory is repeated over time. For example, monitoring

long-term changes in species distribution patterns

may require sequential measurements of a species

presence/absence using broadly accepted inventory

methods. Ecological research entails measuring

ecological systems for the purpose of explaining the

causes and effects of spatial or temporal patterns

in resource condition. While it is often hoped that

ecological monitoring can help to explain complex

relationships in ecological systems, such under-

standing generally requires a more focused research

investment. In general, monitoring is the tool used

to identify whether or not a change occurred and

research is the tool to determine what caused the

change. However, it seems likely that in many

cases evidence of causes may be perishable; thus,

establishing cause after the fact may be unlikely.

Hence, we should keep in mind the possibility of

monitoring based on hypotheses, with concurrent

collection of ancillary, potentially explanatory data.

This ancillary data may be exceptionally valuable

because quick action may be needed after a decline

is detected and there may not be time to collect

these data in subsequent years.

1.2 Monitoring Goals and Objectives:

The Desired Endpoints.

Monitoring goals and objectives dene the

expectations from monitoring, and are critical ele-

ments of the conceptual design. All subsequent

decisions stem from the initial statement of monitor-

ing goals and objectives. Here we dene the broad

goals of the overall monitoring program at Olympic

National Park. Specic objectives of individual

monitoring projects are described in Part II.

Ultimately the goal of ecological monitor-

ing in Olympic National Park, as in all parks, is to

promote knowledge about and understanding of

ecological dynamics, processes, and functions of the

park ecosystem. Such understanding is needed to

help park managers identify problems, make eco-

logically-based decisions, formulate management

plans, undertake appropriate management actions,

and assess effectiveness of adaptive management

PART I: DESIGN FOR LONG-TERM ECOLOGICAL MONITORING IN CONIFEROUS

FOREST ECOSYSTEMS IN OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

Chapter 1. Monitoring Goals, Strategies, and Tactics.

Part I. Chapter 1. Monitoring Goals, Strategies, and Tactics 5

Change

Detected?

Resource

Monitoring

Research

Resource

Management

Objective

Achieved?

Human

Cause?

Yes

Resource

Inventory

(Identifies causality)

(Determines

management

effectiveness)

(Establishes presence, abundance or distribution of resources)

(Establishes natural variation and identifies

change in resource condition)

Figure 1.1.1. Relationships between resource inventories, monitoring, research, and resource

management activities in national parks.

actions, while also promoting public understand-

ing of these unique protected resources. All such

uses of monitoring data are critical for the National

Park Service to fulll its mission of preserving park

resources unimpaired in perpetuity. Increasingly,

monitoring in protected ecosystems of national

parks also plays an important societal role in den-

ing conditions of ʻnaturalnessʼ for comparison with

and management of exploited ecosystems beyond

park boundaries. The National Park Service Inven-

tory and Monitoring program has established spe-

cic goals of monitoring to assist the park service

in meeting its overarching mission. We adopt these

service wide goals as guidance for developing the

prototype monitoring program in Olympic National

Park. They are:

• Determine status and trends in selected indi-

cators 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 benet

of park resources.

• Provide early warning of abnormal conditions

of selected resources to help develop effec-

tive mitigation measures and reduce costs of

management.

• Provide data to better understand the dynamic

nature and condition of park ecosystems and

to provide reference points for comparisons

with other, altered environments.

• Provide data to meet certain legal and Con-

gressional mandates related to natural resource

protection and visitor enjoyment.

• Provide a means of measuring progress

towards performance goals (S. Fancy, Moni-

toring Natural Resources in our National

Parks, www.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/).

These goals recognize that ecosystems are fun-

damentally dynamic and that the challenge of moni-

toring is to separate ʻnaturalʼ variation from unde-

sirable anthropogenic sources of change to park

resources. Although the distinction between natural

and anthropogenic change is somewhat articial,

and sometimes difcult to distinguish, we dene

“natural” change as the normal consequence of

often cyclical ecosystem processes that are in a state

6 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

of dynamic equilibrium in the absence of modern

human pressures. By comparison, “anthropogenic”

changes result mainly from industrial activities of

humans. Because they are, by denition, caused

by humans, they should be responsive to local,

regional, or global changes in human activities.

Anthropogenic changes tend to be directional, rather

than cyclical, and may be accompanied by losses in

biodiversity or functional integrity. Primary intents

of monitoring in Olympic National Park, therefore,

are to document natural variation in key compo-

nents of forest ecosystems as context for recogniz-

ing unacceptable impairment to park resources, to

identify the goals of resource restoration projects,

and to compare to more altered landscapes outside

parks.

1.3 Monitoring Strategies:

Approaches to Monitoring.

How best to meet these goals—whether to

focus monitoring on effects of known threats to

park resources or on general properties of ecosys-

tem status--was the topic of considerable discus-

sion at a recent workshop (Woodward et al. 1999).

We and others have described many considerations

inherent in choosing among a strictly threats-based

monitoring program, or alternate taxonomic, inte-

grative, or reductionist monitoring designs (Wood-

ley et al. 1993, Woodward et al. 1999). We assert

that the best way to meet the challenges of monitor-

ing in national parks and other protected areas is

to achieve a balance among different monitoring

approaches, while recognizing that the program will

not succeed without also considering political issues

(Woodward et al. 1999). To meet those needs, we

recommend a multi-faceted approach for monitoring

park resources, building upon concepts presented

originally for the Canadian national parks (Woodley

1993, Figure 1.3.1). Specically, we recommend

choosing indicators in each of the following broad

categories:

(1) ecosystem drivers that fundamentally affect

park ecosystems,

(2) effects of currently known threats to the

condition of park ecosystems

(3) basic indicators of ecosystem integrity, and

(4) focal resources of parks.

Ecosystem drivers, both natural and anthro-

pogenic, are the primary factors inuencing change

in park ecosystems. These may be related to global

or regional changes in climate, nutrient inputs, or

human pressures. At some point it is possible (even

likely) that these drivers will exceed their range of

natural variation (natural drivers, e.g., climate) or

that the ecosystem will loose the capacity to absorb

their effects (anthropogenic drivers, e.g., pollut-

ants). Trends in ecosystem drivers will suggest what

kind of changes to expect and may provide an early

warning of presently unforeseen changes to the

ecosystem.

Monitoring the effects of known threats will

provide information useful to management on cur-

rent issues. Monitoring effects of current threats

will ensure short-term relevance of monitoring.

Indicators of ecosystem integrity will provide

the long-term baseline needed to judge what consti-

tutes unnatural variation in park resources and pro-

vide the earliest possible warning of unacceptable

change. For our purposes, weʼve embraced Karr and

Dudleyʼs (1981) denition of biological integrity

as the capability of supporting and maintaining a

balanced, adaptive community of organisms hav-

ing a species composition, diversity, and functional

organization comparable to that of natural habitats

within a region. Ecological integrity implies the

summation of chemical, physical, and ecological

integrity, and it implies that ecosystem structures

and functions are unimpaired by human-caused

stresses. Indicators of basic ecosystem integrity

are aimed at early-warning detection of presently

unforeseeable detriments to the sustainability or

resilience of ecosystems.

Focal resources are agship resources of parks.

By virtue of their special protection, public appeal,

or other management signicance, these resources

have paramount importance for monitoring regard-

less of current threats or whether they would be

monitored as an indication of ecosystem integrity.

Collectively, these basic strategies for choosing

monitoring indicators achieve the diverse monitor-

ing goals of the National Park Service. They include

many of the criteria that have been suggested previ-

ously for selection of monitoring attributes (Davis

1989, Silsbee and Peterson 1991).

Part I. Chapter 1. Monitoring Goals, Strategies, and Tactics 7

1.4 Monitoring Strategies: Integration of Monitoring

Projects.

One of the most difcult aspects of designing a

comprehensive monitoring program is integration of

monitoring projects so that the interpretation of the

whole monitoring program yields information more

useful than that of individual parts. The National

Park Service strongly encourages integration within

and among monitoring programs so as to avoid a

“stovepipe” approach to monitoring. The analogy of

the stovepipe refers to the tendency for elements of

monitoring programs to be conceived, developed,

and implemented independently such that informa-

tion ows from individual stovepipes with minimal

interaction. One of the strategic goals identied in

the 1993 prototype monitoring proposal submitted

by Olympic National Park is to develop an inte-

grated monitoring program for coniferous forest

ecosystems.

Although integration is admittedly a subjective

goal for which it is difcult to identify benchmarks

of progress, we recognize several characteristics of

integrated monitoring programs that serve as strate-

gic goals for program design and implementation.

Our perspectives on integrative monitoring are

inuenced by proceedings of a workshop on

“Integrating Environmental Monitoring and

Research in the Mid-Atlantic Region,” sponsored

Known Effects

Unknown Effects

Threat-Specific Monitoring

• Predicted responses

Ecosystem Status Monitoring

• Early-warning indicators

Focal Resource Monitoring

• Potential scenarios

System

Drivers

Monitoring Need

Monitoring Strategy

(Modified from Woodley 1993)

Figure 1.3.1. A multi-faceted approach for monitoring known and unknown effects of system drivers on

ecosystem integrity and health in national parks.

by the Committee on Environment and Natural

Resources (1997), as well as our own workshops

(see Woodward et al. 1999).

We consider the following as strategic goals for

the design of integrated monitoring:

Ecological Integration involves considering

the ecological linkages among system drivers and

the components, processes, and functions of eco-

systems when selecting monitoring indicators. The

most effective ecosystem monitoring strategy will

employ a suite of individual measurements that

collectively monitor the integrity of the entire eco-

system. One strategy for effective ecological inte-

gration is to select indicators at various hierarchical

levels of ecological organization (Noss 1990).

Spatial Integration involves establishing

linkages of measurements made at different spatial

scales, including nested spatial scales within a park-

specic prototype monitoring program, or between

individual park programs and broader regional pro-

grams (i.e., National Park Service or other national

and regional programs). It requires understanding

of scalar ecological processes, the co-location of

measurements of comparably scaled monitoring

attributes, and the design of monitoring frameworks

that permit the extrapolation and interpolation of

scalar data.

8 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Temporal Integration involves establishing

linkages between measurements made at various

temporal scales. It will be necessary to determine a

meaningful time line for sampling different ecologi-

cal attributes while considering characteristics of

temporal variation in such attributes. For example,

sampling changes in forest overstory structures

(e.g., size class distribution) may require much

less frequent sampling than that required to detect

changes in composition, phenology or biomass

of herbaceous understories. Temporal integration

requires nesting the more frequent and, therefore,

more intensive sampling within the context of less

frequent sampling.

Methodological Integration involves choos-

ing sampling methods that promote sharing of data

among neighboring land management agencies

or other national parks in the region, while also

providing context for interpreting the data. For

example, the use of a common monitoring meth-

odology across jurisdictional boundaries on the

Olympic Peninsula (e.g. spotted owl monitoring),

would provide context for interpreting trends in

park resources relative to other land ownerships on

the Peninsula while also enhancing the usefulness

of monitoring data from Olympic National Park as

an environmental benchmark for the region.

Programmatic Integration involves the coor-

dination and communication of monitoring activi-

ties at the park and regional levels to promote broad

participation in monitoring and use of the resulting

data. For example, involving National Park Ser-

vice resource protection and education divisions in

routine monitoring activities at the park level results

in a well-informed park staff, improved potential for

informing the public, wider support for monitoring,

and greater acceptance of monitoring results in the

decision-making process. Coordination and integra-

tion of monitoring activities between the prototype

and network monitoring programs is also essential

to ensure maximum usefulness of protocols devel-

oped at the prototype parks.

1.5 Design Tactics: How to Get There?

We identify three stages in the maturation of

any monitoring program: a design phase, a pro-

tocol development phase, and an implementation

phase (Figure 1.5.1). The design phase boils down

to deciding what, when and where to monitor, and

articulating why. The individual design steps—

scoping (Chapter 3), conceptual modeling (Chapter

4), sampling framework (Chapter 5)—are all impor-

tant elements of achieving ecological and spatial

integration in monitoring. The subsequent chapters

of Part I summarize steps we have taken in design-

ing the prototype monitoring program in Olympic

National Park and our efforts to build an integrated

monitoring program.

The protocol development phase, which follows

the design phase, includes the critically important

research and development that results in specic

study plans, sampling methodologies, data manage-

ment systems, and written monitoring protocols

(Figure 1.5.1). Implementation of a mature moni-

toring program involves routine collection, analy-

sis, interpretation and reporting of data following

approved protocols over the long term. Peer review

is a critical component of each stage providing sug-

gestions for revisions in design, protocols, or imple-

mentation (Figure 1.5.1). Although the three stages

of program development are largely implemented

sequentially, the feedback arrows between them

recognize the iterative characteristics of a dynamic

monitoring program.

Part I. Chapter 1. Monitoring Goals, Strategies, and Tactics 9

Logistic Planning

Data Collection

Data Management

Data Analysis

Interpretation and

Reporting

Select Core

Components

Study Plans

Research &

Development

Data Management

Protocols

Environmental

Context

Scoping

Conceptual Model

Monitoring

Framework

Sampling Plan

Design Phase

Protocol

Development

Implementation

Peer Review

Figure 1.5.1. Sequence of steps taken in designing long-term ecological monitoring in Olympic National Park and

relationships among ‘design’, ‘protocol development’ and ‘implementation’ phases of program development.

10 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

The natural resources of Olympic National Park

are the raw materials for developing a long-term

ecological monitoring program. Here, we briey

present the background material with which we

work to formulate a monitoring program for Olym-

pic National Park. The information for this chapter

is synthesized from Henderson et al. (1989), Hous-

ton et al. (1994), Buckingham et al. (1995), and the

Resource Management Plan of Olympic National

Park (Olympic National Park 1999).

2.1 Setting.

Olympic National Park is the centerpiece of

the Olympic Peninsula, a 13,800 km

landmass in

the extreme northwest corner of the conterminous

United States. The Peninsula resembles an island

because it is surrounded on three sides by water:

the Pacic Ocean to the west, the Strait of Juan de

Fuca to the north, and Hood Canal to the east. The

southern boundary is usually considered to be the

Chehalis River Valley (Figure 2.1.1). The Olympic

Mountains rise from sea level at the coast to culmi-

nate on Mt. Olympus at 2430 m. Geologic uplift,

heavy precipitation and a dynamic glacial history

have created a radial pattern of 11 major river val-

leys centered in the mountains.

Olympic National Park covers 3700 km

two units: 3530 km

in the central mountainous

core, and a narrow 170 km

strip extending 84 km

along the coast. Ninety-six percent of the park is

designated wilderness; roads, campgrounds, and

structures occupy less than 1% of the area and

are located around the periphery of the park. The

center of the park is accessible only by the 984 km

of maintained trails (Figure 2.1.2). The park shares

474 km of boundary with land managed primarily

for timber by the Washington State Department of

Natural Resources (1600 km

), the USDA Forest

Service (2800 km

) and private timber companies.

However, 350 km

of Olympic National Forest is

included in six units of Wilderness Areas, all abut-

ting the park (Olympic National Park 1999).

2.2 Climate.

Mountainous areas are often distinguished by

steep moisture and temperature gradients resulting

in substantially different environments over short

distances. In addition to being inuenced by the

mountains, the Olympic Peninsula environment also

reects its maritime climate, which is characterized

by exceptionally high levels of precipitation along

the western slope. Most storms pick up moisture

over the Pacic Ocean and move across the Pen-

insula from the southwest depositing over 600 cm

of precipitation annually on Mount Olympus. The

northeast corner of the Peninsula is in a striking

rain shadow with Sequim, only 55 km from Mount

Olympus, receiving an average of 45 cm of precipi-

tation annually (Figure 2.2.1). Hence, the area expe-

riences one of the steepest precipitation gradients

in the world. Most precipitation (80%) falls from

October through March while only 5% falls in July

and August, creating summer drought conditions

especially in the northeast. Winter precipitation falls

primarily as rain below 300 m elevation, rain and

snow from 300 to 750 m, and snow at higher eleva-

tions. Long-term data from lowland areas around

the Peninsula show the average January temperature

to be 0

C with average August maxima averaging

C (Phillips and Donaldson 1972, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1978).

The steep climatic and elevation gradients

of the Peninsula create a diversity of conditions

within the park. Climate ranges from mild, maritime

conditions on the coast to harsh, cold alpine areas

at high elevations to dry, near-continental climate

in the northeast. Consequently, cold-stressed alpine

vegetation exists within 15 km of intertidal com-

munities and an urban area that would naturally be

an oak savanna, and even closer to lush temperate

coniferous rainforest with some of the worldʼs larg-

est trees.

Chapter 2. Environmental Context: Ecological Resources, History, and Threats.

Part I. Chapter 2. Environmental Context 11

2.3 Geology and Soils.

The major formative geologic process for the

Olympic Mountains is plate tectonics, specically

the subduction of the oceanic Juan de Fuca plate

as it travels eastward and collides with the west-

ward-moving continental North American plate.

During the Miocene this oceanic plate slid under

the continental plate at the subduction zone, folding

and raising the edge of the continent. Basaltic sea

mounts, probably originally located on the ocean

oor near the shore, became the Crescent Formation

forming the northern, eastern and southern edges

of the mountains. Later, sedimentary rock from the

ocean oor located west of the basalts but east of

the subduction zone, folded to create the central

core and western side of the Peninsula. Eventually

the subduction zone moved further west, relieving

the downward pressure on the Peninsula and allow-

ing the mountains to rise. As the mountains uplifted,

erosion from precipitation and sculpting by glaciers

produced the radial river drainage pattern and pre-

cipitous mountain slopes (Tabor 1987).

The geologic and glacial histories of the Pen-

insula and western Washington provide a diversity

of parent materials for soil formation. The ocean

oor contributed sedimentary and marine-deposited

basaltic bedrock. The continental glaciers deposited

a variety of soil materials including granitic rocks

from the Cascade Range along the east and north

sides of the Peninsula. Mass wasting and glaciers

mixed, washed, and eroded all three material, creat-

ing a complex of mountainous and riverine soil

materials (Tabor 1987).

Olympic soils are considered to be young and,

in general, they are relatively infertile except in the

lower Dungeness River Valley. Local soil charac-

teristics, (e.g., soil moisture, subsurface ow, soil

temperature, and chemical properties) are highly

variable, being inuenced by the parent material,

climate, and biotic communities of the area. Com-

mon soil orders include spodosols, inceptisols, enti-

sols, histosols, and andisols (Henderson et al. 1989).

2.4 Glacial History.

Although more than 20 ice ages occurred during

the Pleistocene epoch (Mix 1987), little is known

about any except the most recent one, known as the

Wisconsin Ice Age. During the Wisconsin Ice Age,

there were several glaciations of which at least four

left records in the Puget Sound region. The most

recent of these was the Fraser glaciation with two

major periods of glacial advance (stades). The rst,

known as the Evans Creek Stade, occurred 21,000-

18,000 BP (years before present), and was charac-

terized by the expansion of alpine glaciers (Booth

1987). During this stade, glaciers lled valleys and

some adjacent lowlands, especially on the west side

of the Peninsula. Sea level was lower, exposing per-

haps an additional 50 km wide strip of coast (Long

1975). Eventually the valley glaciers retreated, but

ice returned to the area during the Vashon Stade,

this time due to the southern advance of the Cordil-

leran ice sheet from Canada. This stade was at its

maximum about 15,000 BP when the Puget trough

and the Strait of Juan de Fuca were lled with ice,

reaching a thickness of approximately 1100 m near

Port Angeles (Armstrong et al. 1965, Tabor 1987).

Ice was thickest in the northeast corner of the

Peninsula but the continental sheet never contacted

the remaining valley glaciers (Booth 1987, Tabor

1987). The Vashon Stade ended about 12,500 BP

and was followed by a minor re-advance of the ice

sheet about 11,500 BP (Sumas Stade).

During the Holocene, the period since the last

ice age, the area experienced the Hypsithermal

Period or “early Holocene warming” (10,000-7,000

BP) and then the Neoglacial Period (5,000-4,000

BP) characterized by renewed glacial advances

(Hammond 1976). The latest advance, known as the

Little Ice Age, occurred 1350-1850 AD (Porter and

Denton 1967).

12 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Washington

Figure 2.1.1. Location of coastal and interior units of Olympic National Park on Washington’s

Olympic Peninsula.

Figure 2.1.2. Roads (red) and trails (black) of Olympic National Park showing limited road access

to the park’s interior. (map prepared by R. Hoffman, Olympic National Park)

Part I. Chapter 2. Environmental Context 13

14 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Strait of Juan de Fuca

Pacifi

Ocean

Fork

Sequi

Port

Angeles

Vancouver

Island

k030103a

0 10

Miles

0 10

Kilometers

OLYM boundary

Lakes

Major rivers

OLYMPIC PENINSULA

PLANT ASSOCIATION

GROUPS (HENDERSON

& PETER, 2000)

Unclassified

Sitka spruce

Douglas fi

Western hemlock

Silver fir

Mountain hemlock

Subalpine fir

Park

land

Alpine

Figure 2.5.1. Forest zones of the Olympic Peninsula (OLYM=Olympic National Park).

(map prepared by K. Beirne, Olympic National Park).

Figure 2.2.1. Isoclines of mean annual precipitation (cm) on the Olympic Peninsula.

(map prepared by R. Hoffman, Olympic National Park).

Part I. Chapter 2. Environmental Context 15

16 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

2.5 Vegetation Pattern.

Studies of pollen preserved in lake bottoms

show that vegetation has been dynamic in response

to changes in climate. During full glaciation

(20,000-17,000 BP), low-elevation areas included

some of the species currently found in subalpine

parkland. Then as climate warmed during the early

Holocene, dry-adapted species became more abun-

dant. These included Douglas r (Pseudotsuga

menziesii), red alder (Alnus rubra) and some west-

ern hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) in the west, and

oak (probably Quercus garryana) and pines (prob-

ably Pinus contorta) in the northeast. Charcoal

deposits suggest re was frequent during this time.

Current vegetation began to establish after the cli-

mate cooled again (5,000-7,000 BP). Moist, temper-

ate species such as western hemlock and redcedar

(Thuja plicata) increased while Douglas r and red

alder persisted but at lower abundance (Barnosky et

al. 1987, Brubaker 1991, Whitlock 1992).

Because vegetation is highly indicative of cli-

mate, vegetation zones can be considered to reect

zones of similar environments. In the Olympics,

vegetation zones are dened by the abundance and

distribution of tree species, and show that the Olym-

pic environment is largely determined by elevation,

aspect and precipitation (Figure 2.5.1).

West-side lowland forests are in the Sitka

Spruce (Picea sitchensis) Zone. This zone includes

the temperate coniferous rainforest for which Olym-

pic National Park is famous. Here, massive Sitka

spruce trees grow to 90 m and deciduous bigleaf

maples (Acer macrophyllum) are laden with epi-

phytes. Lowland and mid-elevation forests on the

drier east side and mid-elevation forests on the west

side are in the Western Hemlock (Tsuga hetero-

phylla) Zone. This is the most widespread zone and

it is dominated by Douglas r (Pseudotsuga menzie-

sii) and western hemlock, while western red cedar

(Thuja plicata) is a fairly common constituent.

Montane forests are in the Pacic Silver Fir (Abies

amabilis) Zone on the cool, moist slopes of the

eastern, western and southern parts of the Peninsula,

while the Douglas-r Zone inhabits south-facing

montane slopes in the northeast. Subalpine areas

are a matrix of tree islands and meadows. Wet areas

experiencing snow packs deeper than 3 m are in

the Mountain Hemlock Zone (Tsuga mertensiana)

and include mountain hemlock, subalpine r (Abies

lasiocarpa), and sometimes Pacic silver r. The

Subalpine Fir Zone occurs in areas with snow packs

less than 3m deep and may also include lodgepole

pine (Pinus contorta) or whitebark pine (P. albicau-

lis). Treeline occurs at about 1615 m in wetter areas

and 1890 m in drier zones where trees nally give

way to alpine meadows (Henderson et al. 1989).

2.6 Biogeography.

The glacial history, geographic isolation, and

steep climatic gradients have important conse-

quences for the biogeography of the area. First, the

Peninsula was never completely covered by ice dur-

ing at least the Fraser Glaciation when a complex of

ridges and mountains were above ice. In addition,

sea level was lower when the ice was deep, expos-

ing considerable new lands along the coast for long

periods of time (Booth 1987, Tabor 1987).

The role of the Olympic Peninsula as a glacial

refugium is conjecture, but the theory is well sup-

ported by the present biogeography (Houston et al.

1994, Buckingham et al. 1995). The Olympic Pen-

insula is home to a surprising number of endemic

and disjunct species. Their distribution patterns are

consistent with the theory that the Peninsula served

as a glacial refugium during at least the Fraser

Glaciation. (Table 2.6.1). Of the fourteen endemic

or near-endemic plant species, two are coastal or

lowland (beyond the ice) and the others are subal-

pine and alpine (above the ice); four out of ve of

the endemic mammals are associated with alpine

and subalpine areas; and ve of eight endemic

insects are high montane or subalpine. In addition

to Peninsula endemics, several species are endemic

to the Peninsula and coastal islands to the north

suggesting that species might have evolved and

spread along the wide coastal strip to the west of the

Cordilleran Ice. Finally, some species are disjunct

from populations now present on the other side of

the area previously occupied by the Cordilleran ice

sheet. These species may have been widely distrib-

uted across the continent until they were extirpated

in part of their range by ice.

Typical of islands, which the Olympic Penin-

sula resembles, the Olympic Peninsula has a depau-

perate fauna compared with nearby continental

Part I. Chapter 2. Environmental Context 17

areas, in this case the Cascade Mountains (Table

2.6.2). Missing large mammals include grizzly bears

(Ursus arctos), mountain sheep (Ovis canadensis),

and mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus); miss-

ing smaller mammals include the pika (Ochotona

princeps) and the golden-mantled ground squirrel

(Spermophilus lateralis).

2.7 Human History.

Humans have occupied the Olympic Penin-

sula since nearly the end of the nal melting of the

Cordilleran Ice Sheet around 11,000-13,000 BP.

Humans may have crossed the Bering land bridge

to North America from Asia sometime during the

height of glaciation, approximately 25-15,000 BP.

The rst to arrive were hunter-gatherers, probably

utilizing caribou, bison, mastodons, mammoths

and other cold-climate fauna present at the time

(Bergland 1983). Sedentary land use is estimated to

have begun 3,000 BP and the livelihood was based

on marine shellsh, sh and marine mammals (Ber-

gland 1983, Schalk 1988, Wessen 1990). Humans

also made extensive use of plant materials, notably

western red cedar for housing, boats, baskets and

many other objects (Norton 1979).

Dramatic changes to the Peninsula began with

the arrival of Europeans. European contact occurred

during the 1770s, if not earlier, and resulted in sig-

nicant losses of native people to foreign diseases

(Capoeman 1990). European settlement began in

earnest with the establishment of Port Townsend in

1850 and Sequim in 1854. The rst logging com-

pany, Pope and Talbot, was formed in 1833, and

the rst railroad to Forks was completed in 1919

(Campbell 1979). Logging increased through time,

peaking during the 1980s, leaving the Park sur-

rounded by a landscape managed for timber. Euro-

pean settlement resulted in changes in animal popu-

lations as well. Wolves were hunted to extinction,

and elk and cougar nearly so (McLeod 1984). The

reduction in elk populations motivated the closure

of hunting seasons from 1905-1933, and was largely

responsible for the creation of the Olympic National

Monument in 1909 and, later, the Olympic National

Park in 1938.

One consequence of the high timber harvest

levels in the 1980s has been the loss of old-growth

forest habitat and the listing of two old-growth

dependent species, the northern spotted owl (Strix

occidentalis caurina) and the marbled murrelet

(Brachyramphus marmoratus), as threatened spe-

cies by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Since

then, forest harvest on Federal lands has been

sharply curtailed and is now subject to management

prescribed in the interagency Northwest Forest Plan,

an agreement to which the National Park Service is

a signatory (U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest

Service and U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau

of Land Management 1994). Other recent issues

involving dialogue with parties outside of the park

include harvest of park resources, salmon genetics,

dam removal on the Elwha River, park management

of bears, nonnative mountain goats, the reintroduc-

tion of wolves, and mining in and near the park

boundary.

Meanwhile, as unmanaged areas have been

reduced, and the human population of western

Washington has increased, visitation to the park has

shown a steady increase. In 1939 only 40,650 visits

were recorded, increasing to 100,000 in 1945, 1

million in 1958, and 4.2 million in 2001. The park

can expect increasing numbers of visitors into the

future (Olympic National Park records).

2.8 Natural Disturbance.

The major large-scale natural disturbances on

the Olympic Peninsula are re and wind (Figure

2.8.1, Henderson et al. 1989). Fire is most important

in drier vegetation types with the re return interval

of 140-240 years compared with 600-900 years in

wetter areas. Storms with hurricane force winds

move in from the coast, affecting the wetter side

of the Peninsula, and occur about every 20 years

(Henderson et al. 1989). Smaller-scale disturbances

are associated with heavy precipitation and include

avalanches, slope failures, soil creep, and scour-

ing of riverbanks. Beach erosion and other coastal

processes affect the coastal strip.

Fire suppression policies during the twentieth

century may have altered vegetation structure and

composition. However, the effects are not yet as

dramatic as for geographic areas experiencing re-

return intervals measured in decades rather than the

centuries appropriate for the Olympics.

Insects and diseases are a natural part of the for-

est ecosystem. Most pathogens occurring in the

18 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Table 2.6.1. Endemic fauna and ora of the Olympic Peninsula. See Houston et al. (1994) for primary sources, plus Pyle (2002).

Common Name Scientic Name

VERTEBRATES

Mammals

Olympic marmot Marmota olympus

Olympic yellow-pine chipmunk Tamias amoenus caurinus

Olympic snow mole Scapanus townsendii olympicus

Olympic Mazama pocket gopher Thomonys mazama melanops

Olympic ermine Mustela erminea olympica

Ampibians

Olympic torrent salamander Rhyacotriton olympicus

Fish

Olympic mud minnow Novumbra hubbsi

“Beardslee” rainbow trout (lacustrine form) Oncorhyncus mykiss irideus

“Crescenti” cutthroat trout (lacustrine form) Oncorhyncus clarki clarki

INVERTEBRATES

Insects

Olympic arctic

(lepidopteran) Oeneis chryxus valerata

Hurlbirtʼs skipper (lepidopteran) Herperia comma hurlbirti

Olympic Parnassian

(lepidopteran) Parnassius smintheus olympiannus

Ozette skipper (lepidopteran) Ochlodes sylvanoides undetermined

Spangled Blue (lepidopteran) Icaricia acmon spangleatus

Makah copper (lepidopteran) Lycaena mariposa undetermined

Olympic grasshopper Nisquallia olympica

Mannʼs gazelle beetle Nebria danmanni

Quileute gazelle beetle Nebria acuta quileute

Sylvan gazelle beetle

Nebria meanyi sylvatica

Johnsonʼs snail eater

(coleopteran) Scaphinotus johnsoni

Tiger beetle Cicindela bellissima frechini

Millipedes

Millipede

Tubaphe levii

Mollusks

Arionid slug Hemphillia dromedarius

Arionid jumping slug Hemphillia burringtoni

VASCULAR HERBACEOUS PLANTS

Pink sandverbena

Abronia umbellate acutulata

Olympic Mountain milkvetch Astragalus australis var. olympicus

Piperʼs bellower Campanula piperi

Flettʼs eabane Erigeron ettii

Thompsonʼs wandering eabane Erigeron peregrinus peregrinus var. thomsonii

Hendersonʼs rock spirea Petrophytum herdersonnii

Websterʼs senecio Senecio neowebsterii

Olympic Mountain synthyris Synthyris pinnatida var. lanuginosa

Flettʼs violet Viola ettii

Olympic aster

Aster paucicapitatus

Part I. Chapter 2. Environmental Context 19

Magenta paintbrush

Castilleja parviora var. olympica

Lance-leaf spring beauty

Claytonia lanceolata var. pacica

Blood-red pedicularis

Pedicularis bracteosa var. atrosanguinea

Tischʼs saxifrage

Saxifraga tischii

CRYPTOGAMS

Liverwort

Porella noellii forma crispate

Trinomials indicate subspecies.

Occurs south to Chehalis River.

Formerly considered as a distinct species; currently considered a lake-adapted form of the subspecies

Also occurs on Vancouver Island

Not found in Olympic National Park

Table 2.6.2. Mammal and bird species present in the Cascade Mountains but absent historically from the Olympic Peninsula.

See Houston et al. (1994) for sources.

Common Name Scientic Name

Mammals

Grizzly bear Ursus arctos

Wolverine Gulo gulo

Red fox

Vulpes vulpes

Coyote

Canis latrans

Lynx Lynx canadensis

Water vole Microtus richardsonii

Golden-mantled ground squirrel Spermophilus lateralis

Northern bog lemming Synaptomys borealis

Porcupine

Erethizon dorsatum

Pika

Orchotona princeps

Mountain sheep Ovis canadensis

Mountain goat Oreamnos americanus

Birds

White-tailed ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus

Spruce grouse Dendragapus canadensis

Scientic names from Honacki et al. (1982).

Subsequently introduced.

Colonized the Olympic Peninsula during the early twentieth century.

Occasional dispersing individuals, apparently no established population.

Merriam found no pikas but was uncertain that they were entirely absent.

Table 2.6.1. Endemic fauna and ora of the Olympic Peninsula. See Houston et al. (1994) for primary sources, plus Pyle (2002).

(Continued)

Common Name Scientic Name

VASCULAR HERBACEOUS PLANTS

20 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Olympics affect stressed trees and/or do not always

result in tree death. Insects cause local effects but no

widespread, devastating outbreaks of insects have

been recorded (Henderson et al. 1989). Two non-

native insects, the balsam woolly adelgid (Adelges

piceae) and hemlock woolly adelgid (A. tsugae),

and one non-native pathogen, white pine blister rust

(Cronarium ribicola), are of management concern.

2.9 Anthropogenic Threats.

If Olympic National Park is to meet its man-

date to maintain natural resources unimpaired for

future generations, the anthropogenic impacts to

these resources must be mitigated or prevented.

Some threats and their effects are unforeseeable

and cannot be specically described. As such, these

threats will be addressed by monitoring indicators

of ecosystem integrity expected to provide early

detection of changes in the structure and function of

park ecosystems.

Anthropogenic threats currently of concern

to park management are identied in the parkʼs

Resource Management Plan (Olympic National

Park 1999). Some threats have local effects on

specic resources (e.g., illegal harvest of animal

and plant taxa) while others are ubiquitous and have

unknown consequences (e.g., ultra-violet radiation

may have a wide range of yet undetermined effects).

Nevertheless, all management concerns can be seen

as symptoms of larger issues (Table 2.9.1). Identify-

ing these issues creates the context for monitoring

questions in two ways. First, identifying the larger

issue addressed by specic concerns across a region

can provide the common ground needed to integrate

those programs. For example, different land man-

agement agencies have different specic concerns

regarding how global climate change might affect

their resources (e.g., reduced timber production,

increased re frequency). It is logical to integrate

these concerns around the larger issue of climate

change. Second, some threats can be addressed

directly by park management, either with a policy

change, mitigation, or increased enforcement, and

others cannot. For threats it cannot act on directly,

the park can serve as a natural benchmark for man-

aged systems; monitoring should include the bench-

mark role as a consideration. Management concerns

can also be categorized by whether they are local or

have park-wide scope. This perspective will pro-

vide a clear context for monitoring questions and

approaches. Concerns that affect local areas or a

limited number of resources are most likely to be

addressed by smaller-scale and maybe shorter-term

monitoring. In contrast, concerns with park-wide

impacts will require an extensive component.

2.10 Management Objectives.

A monitoring plan must consider not only natu-

ral resources, but also the management goals for

those resources. The management goals are in turn

directed by various pieces of legislation that call for

providing public enjoyment of park resources but

only in a way that is compatible with their conser-

vation. Specically, the Resource Management Plan

for Olympic National Park (1999) identies eight

objectives to meet its overall goal of conservation:

• Protect the parkʼs natural resources and values

in an unimpaired condition and restore altered

areas to the condition they would possess

without European settlement.

• Protect rare species, restore threatened and

endangered species, and minimize harm to

indigenous species.

• Use scientic research to gain information

about resources, and natural and anthropo-

genic effects on them.

Figure 2.8.1. Areas of Olympic National Park affected by wind or

re (taken from Henderson et al. 1989).

Part I. Chapter 2. Environmental Context 21

• Assemble baseline inventories describing the

parkʼs natural resources and systematically

monitor them in order to understand the gov-

erning natural processes and detect change.

• Archive and maintain data and information

from research and monitoring, and encourage

its dissemination.

• Provide for appropriate wilderness uses and

experiences, especially solitude, while protect-

ing wilderness resources.

• Provide appropriate recreational opportunities

in environments least vulnerable to resource

degradation.

• Promote communication among Olympic

Peninsula land managing agencies to identify

common natural resource issues, propose solu-

tions and share resources and information.

These objectives are compatible with the

approach of monitoring specic management issues,

focal species, and indicators of ecosystem integ-

rity. Although specic agents of change are not

identied, it is recognized that the agents could be

internal or external to the park, and that anthropo-

genic change and human use are matters of resource

concern.

2.11 Implications for Monitoring.

Diverse Resources. One of the biggest chal-

lenges to monitoring the resources of Olympic

National Park is their profound diversity. Steep

environmental gradients due to mountainous terrain

and a wet maritime climate result in biologically

signicant environmental differences over short

distances. In addition, the park encompasses a broad

spectrum of environments from coastal beaches

and forests to subalpine meadows and glaciers. The

challenge for developing a monitoring program is

to select resources or processes that meet monitor-

ing objectives, identify indicators with intensive

and extensive scales, choose efcient indicators that

apply to as many high priority issues as possible,

and repeat this process iteratively. The ultimate goal

is to achieve adequate representation in an effective

scientically defensible monitoring program using

limited resources.

Difcult Access. The mountainous terrain of

the Olympics, the placement of roads peripheral to

the park, and the fact that 95% of the park is desig-

nated wilderness makes central and/or high eleva-

tion areas extremely difcult to reach. Results from

a model of travel time to different areas of the park

show that it is impossible to sample the entire park

with limited resources (Figure 2.11.1). Fortunately

there are statistical methods for sampling more dif-

cult areas with less intensity while still allowing

inferences to them. However, there are some parts

of the park that will be impractical to monitor

under modest budgets except with remote sensing

technology.

Endemic and Disjunct Species. The island-

like geography of the park and its glacial history

have resulted in a long period of biologic isola-

tion, enough for many endemic taxa to evolve and

several disjunct taxa to persist. Given the parkʼs

management goals, these unique organisms deserve

individual consideration for monitoring. Whether or

not they are chosen for monitoring will depend on

their perceived risk, general ecosystem importance,

and legal mandates.

Interpretation of Trends. By coincidence, the

beginning of European settlement of the Pacic

Northwest coincided with the end of the Little Ice

Age at around 1850. Since then, a change in anthro-

pogenic regime has coincided with a natural warm-

ing trend. Inuences of mechanized society (e.g.,

over-harvesting, and pollution) have been increas-

ing while the inuences of aboriginal societies have

declined (e.g., selective harvest of cedars, harvest of

marine mammals). Meanwhile, climate change due

to a natural climatic cycle has perhaps been exacer-

bated by an anthropogenic inuence on climate.

The implications for monitoring are that anthro-

pogenic change will be difcult to distinguish from

natural process. It is also difcult to dene manage-

ment goals for restoration, because the system does

not have a recorded equilibrium state from which

to extrapolate natural process and predict how the

current situation should look absent European inu-

ence. Therefore, observed trends must be interpreted

in light of inherent instability, from both natural and

anthropogenic forces.

22 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

GENERAL THREAT MGMT.

ACTION?

SPECIFIC CONCERN

IDENTIFIED IN RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT PLAN

PARKWIDE

IMPACTS?

Habitat Outside of the

Park

Fragmentation outside the park

Isolation of animals inside the

park

Alteration of sh habitat

Alteration of marine habitat

Climate Change

Increased ultra-violet radiation

Effect on ocean conditions

Pollutants

From growing metro area to east

From Asia

Oil and chemical spills

Effects on plants

Potential for lake acidication

Genetic Contamination N Fish hatcheries N

Water Rights N Dams N

Consumptive Use

Outside Park

Hunting

Over-harvest of sh

Off-shore coastal development

Mineral claims

Exotic Species

Exotic animals and plants

Introduced pests or diseases

NPS Development &

Policies

Park management (development)

Fire suppression

Visitor Impacts

Trampling

Impacts to soil and vegetation

Illegal harvest

Interactions with wildlife

Unknown magnitude of day use

Future visitor trends

Consumptive Use

Inside Park

Harvest (total amounts and species)

of intertidal & marine organisms

Illegal harvest

Table 2.9.1. Summary of anthropogenic threats identied in the Olympic National Park Resource Management Plan. Specic threats

are grouped into general categories. Whether the park addresses the concern with management actions and whether the impacts are

parkwide are also indicated (Y=yes, N=no).

Part I. Chapter 2. Environmental Context 23

24 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Figure 2.11.1. Estimated times of foot travel from nearest road or trail in Olympic National Park.

(map prepared by R. Hoffman, Olympic National Park).

Part I. Chapter 2. Environmental Context 25

26 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

The scoping phase was designed to solicit a

wide range of ideas on signicant management

issues, focal species, and key ecosystems and

components to monitor in Olympic National Park.

We initiated this process of identifying monitor-

ing needs with the park staff because they are most

familiar with its resources, and to ensure a ʻgrass-

rootsʼ contribution to the planning process. How-

ever, scoping is an iterative process, so we have

continued to solicit new perspectives on important

monitoring topics by convening meetings of natural

resource specialists from adjacent landowners on

the Olympic Peninsula, and from groups of experts

who have delved deeper into identifying potential

indicators of park integrity. A complete listing of

scoping workshops held by U.S. Geological Survey

and Olympic National Park and their participants is

provided in Appendix A.

3.1 Park-staff Workshop.

We invited all the parkʼs staff to participate in a

scoping workshop to help identify the most impor-

tant monitoring needs in Olympic National Park.

The range of this exercise included all terrestrial

and aquatic systems within the park, excluding

coastal resources. We excluded coastal resources at

this time because initially we dened the scope of

the monitoring program as coniferous forest eco-

systems including aquatic subsystems within them.

This denition was consistent with the 1993 Pro-

totype Monitoring Proposal submitted by Olympic

National Park. The coastal resource was considered

subsequently in the Olympic National Park “vital-

signs” workshop described in Section 3.3.

We used nominal group techniques to solicit

input on long-term ecological monitoring needs in

Olympic National Park in a structured and time-

efcient manner. Nominal group technique is a way

of organizing a meeting to identify and solve prob-

lems, while balancing and increasing participation

in the decision-making process (Delbecq et al. 1975,

www.institute.virginia.edu/services/CSA/nominal.htm).

Chapter 3. Scoping and Identifying Indicators.

We asked each park management division (i.e.,

resource management, resource education, resource

and visitor protection, maintenance, and administra-

tion) to send at least 5 participants to the workshop;

twenty-seven Olympic National Park staff members

attended (Appendix A). To keep groups as small

as possible and maintain an informal ʻround-tableʼ

atmosphere, we divided the participants into three

work groups, each with a U.S. Geological Survey

facilitator and a resource management specialist

from the park to record ideas in each group, while

also contributing to the discussion. We asked mem-

bers of each group the two-part question, ʻWhat

resources in Olympic National Park should be mon-

itored and why? Within each group, the workshop

participants answered the question, presenting one

idea at a time without discussion until everyoneʼs

ideas were exhausted. The groupʼs comprehensive

response was consolidated after a brief discussion

aimed at identifying common and different mean-

ings of similar ideas. We then asked participants to

prioritize monitoring needs by rating each monitor-

ing need as high, moderate, or low, and indepen-

dently identify their top 5 choices for monitoring.

The entire exercise was completed in one day.

The park staff identied a variety of park

resources representing both focal species and poten-

tial indicators of ecosystem integrity, as well as

potential agents of change affecting those resources

(Table 3.1.1). The matrix of relationships between

resources and agents of change revealed a compli-

cated array of potential effects and park manage-

ment issues. The resulting scores revealed that park

staff attributed high importance to monitoring focal

species, including:

• threatened wildlife species (e.g., northern

spotted owls, bald eagles (Haliaetus leuco-

cephalus), marbled murrelets and anadromous

sh),

• agship species such as the Roosevelt elk

(Cervus elaphus) and the endemic trout inhab-

iting Lake Crescent,

Part I. Chapter 3. Scoping and Identifying Indicators 27

• species associated with current park manage-

ment issues (e.g., non-native mountain goats

[Oreamnos americanus], rare plants, exotic

plants and shes), and

• large mammals whose proximity to park visi-

tors poses unique management issues regard-

ing both animal and human safety (e.g., bears

(Ursus americanus), cougars (Felis concolor).

Park staff also attributed high importance to

measuring potential indicators of ecosystem integ-

rity. They identied a wide gamut of potential

resources to monitor as a gauge of the parkʼs overall

health and integrity. These included recommenda-

tions to monitor:

• whole ecosystems, notably the parkʼs signa-

ture old-growth forested lowlands and riparian

forests,

• comprehensive characteristics of those ecosys-

tems, such as biodiversity and forest health,

and,

• important ecosystem processes such as uvial

dynamics and biogeochemical cycling.

Workshop participants also identied a wide

variety of individual system components (e.g., dead

and downed wood) and biotic communities (e.g.,

cryptogams, forest fungi, migratory birds, amphib-

ians) as potential resources to monitor. Park staff

assigned the highest importance values to the most

comprehensively stated park resources and lower

importance to more narrowly dened system com-

ponents. Nevertheless, the overall high importance

of ecosystem monitoring in Olympic National Park

supports the need for basic long-term monitoring

studies to provide environmental benchmarks and

identify future challenges associated with managing

protected areas.

3.2 Meeting of Adjacent Land-owners.

In April 1997 we held a workshop to learn

about inventory and monitoring projects being con-

ducted by other agencies on the Olympic Peninsula,

and to solicit input on important monitoring projects

in Olympic National Park. We invited representa-

tives from Federal and State agencies with respon-

sibilities for natural resources, private timber com-

panies, and Native-American tribes (Appendix A).

Prior to the meeting we asked each group to provide

a list of on-going inventory and monitoring projects,

reasons the selected indicators are of interest, a brief

description of indicators, and contact information.

We were able to compile the list and provide it at

the meeting. A summary of the monitoring indica-

tors and interested agencies appears in Table 3.2.1

and can be used to determine linkages with other

agencies regarding indicators eventually chosen by

Olympic National Park.

We also asked other agencies to identify their

information needs that might be met by ecological

monitoring in Olympic National Park. The com-

ments we received emphasized the benchmark role

of the park. The participants highlighted the points

that healthy salmon populations and forested water-

sheds are rare resources, available only in the park.

The natural variation of these resources and systems

must be described and compared with management

regimes outside of the park so that management

effects can be distinguished from natural variation.

Also, the park was encouraged to adopt methods

that were identical or equivalent to methods used

outside of the park to make comparison as easy as

possible. Specic resources were also identied as

high-priority subjects for monitoring:

• Physical properties of watersheds with third

order streams (water quality, channel prop-

erties, large woody debris, mass-wasting

frequency)

• Monitor recovery of a watershed after a burn

to compare with recovery after clear-cutting

or use other ways to provide baseline informa-

tion for comparison with forest management

practices

• Riparian areas

• Headwaters and seeps

• Amphibians

• Biodiversity

• Special forest products (moss, fungi, etc.)

• Intertidal monitoring and link the intertidal

and near-shore with freshwater watersheds by

considering sedimentation

• Northern spotted owls (territory occupancy,

fecundity)

• Threatened and endangered wildlife species

• Neotropical migratory birds

28 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

3.3 ‘Focus-group’ Workshops.

Olympic National Park staff convened a “vital-

signs” workshop to produce a comprehensive list of

important indicators of change in Olympic National

Park including coastal resources. In addition to

this general meeting, U.S. Geological Survey and

Olympic National Park staffs also convened several

other more specialized workshops (or participated

in workshops organized by the National Park Ser-

vice) to develop specic monitoring questions and

identify useful indicators for monitoring forest veg-

etation, forest wildlife, biogeochemistry, airborne

pollutants, and ultraviolet radiation (Appendix A).

The vital-signs workshop, sponsored by Olym-

pic National Park, was attended by 69 scientists or

resource management professionals representing

several universities, government and non-govern-

ment natural resource agencies (Appendix A).

Participants were divided among 9 working groups

corresponding to the following subject-matter cat-

egories: atmospheric resources, coastal resources,

aquatic habitat and biota, human use, aquatic physi-

cal properties, invertebrates, paleoecology, vegeta-

tion resources, and wildlife resources. Participants

were asked to identify the most cogent monitoring

needs, potential indicators, justications, and asso-

ciated considerations in each subject-matter area

(Table 3.3.1).

The complete summary of proposed monitoring

indicators derived from these focused discussions is

contained in Part II of this report. Each chapter con-

tains background on the nature of park management

concerns regarding each resource category, recom-

mendations of specic indicators, justication for

indicators, linkages to other topics, and conceptual

models. Here, we simply provide a summary list of

proposed indicators in Table 3.3.2 as a foundation

for developing a more focused monitoring frame-

work. During the peer-review of this report, some of

the individual elements on this list were questioned,

while others not on the list were proposed. We

remind the reader that no list of potential indicators

is ever complete, nor are the potential indicators

equal in importance or usefulness. The list is a start-

ing point for subsequent discussion.

Part I. Chapter 3. Scoping and Identifying Indicators 29

Park Resource

Importance

to monitoring

Agents of Resource Change

Importance Score

No. Top-ve Votes

Atmospheric Deposition

Climate

Fire Suppression

External Habitat Loss

Harvests

Disease

Visitor Use/Facilities

Exotic/Alien spp.

Fisheries Decline

Elwha Dam removal

System Drivers

Climate

Atmosphere

Adjoining land use

TERRESTRIAL SYSTEMS

Focal Species

Northern spotted owl 2.9 13 x x x x

Eagles 2.9 13 x x x x x

Marbled murrelet 2.6 13 x x x

Elk/deer 2.6 8 x x x x x x

Exotic plants 2.6 6 x x x

Rare plants 2.6 2 x x x

Mountain goats 2.3 3 x x

Cougars 2.2 2 x x x

Bears 2.1 2 x x x x x x

Olympic marmot 1.9 0 x

Ecosystem Integrity

Old-growth forest ecosystems 2.8 7 x x x x x x x x x

Forest biodiversity 2.7 4 x x x x x x x x

Forest disturbance/succession 2.6 2 x x x x x

Forest health 2.6 2 x x x

Riparian forest dynamics 2.5 7 x x x x x x

Amphibians 2.4 4 x x x

Forest fungi 2.2 2 x x

Importance Score

No. Top-ve Votes

Climate

Park Resource

Fire Suppression

External Habitat Loss

Harvests

Disease

Visitor Use/Facilities

Exotic/Alien spp.

Fisheries Decline

Elwha Dam removal

Atmospheric Deposition

Agents of Resource Change

Importance

to monitoring

Table 3.1.1. Matrix of relationships among park resources, their importance to monitoring, and potential agents of change in Olympic

National Park, as identied by Olympic National Park staff.

30 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Subalpine/alpine vegetation 2.2 2 x x x x x x

Forest carnivores 2.1 2 x x x x x

Migratory birds 2.1 2 x x x x

Wilderness campgrounds 2.1 1 x x

Bats 2.1 0 x x

Cryptogams 2.0 1 x x x x x

Dead and downed wood 1.8 0 x x x

Small mammals 1.5 0 x x

AQUATIC SYSTEMS

Focal Species

Anadromous sh 2.9 13 x x x x x x x x

Exotics 2.6 2

Endemic trout 2.6 0 x x x x x

Rare plants (Lake. Ozette) 1.9 1 x x x

Freshwater mussels 1.6 0 x x

Ecosystem Integrity

Water quality 2.7 4 x x x x x

Fluvial process/geomorph. 2.5 7 x x x x x

Riverine habitat 2.4 1 x x x x x x x

Amphibian communities 2.4 4 x x x x

High mountain lakes 2.4 2 x x x x

Resident native sh 2.3 3 x x x x x x x x

Biogeochemical processes 2.3 1 x x x x x x x x x

Wetlands 2.2 1 x x x x x x

Glaciers 1.9 1 x x

Riverine bird communities 1.9 0 x x x

Macroinvertebrates 1.9 x x x x x x

Average score of respondents rating the resource as low (1), moderate (2), or high (3) importance for monitoring.

Number of Olympic National Park employees voting the resource as one of the top ve priorities for monitoring in the park.

Importance Score

No. Top-ve Votes

Climate

Park Resource

Fire Suppression

External Habitat Loss

Harvests

Disease

Visitor Use/Facilities

Exotic/Alien spp.

Fisheries Decline

Elwha Dam removal

Atmospheric Deposition

Agents of Resource Change

Importance

to monitoring

Part I. Chapter 3. Scoping and Identifying Indicators 31

Wash. Dept. of Ecology

Wash. Dept. Fish & Wildlife

Wash. DNR

Timber, Fish & Wildlife

Rayonier Inc.

Weyerhaeuser Inc.

Elwha Klallam Tribe

Hoh Tribe

Point No Point Tribe

Suquamish Tribe

Olympic National Forest

Olympic Coast NMS

Streams & Rivers

Water quality & quantity

X X X X X

Large woody debris

Stream channel

X X

Salmon spawning habitat

X X X X X X

Macroinvertebrates

X X X

Forests

Health

X X

Restoration projects

Riparian areas

X X

Insects & diseases

Wetlands

Timber

Wildlife trees

Windthrow

Wildlife

Amphibians

X X X

Bald eagles

X X X

Band-tailed pigeon

Black bear

Breeding birds

Butteries

Cavity nesters

Deer

Diurnal raptors

Elk

Fisher

Game sh

X X X

Geoduck

Table 3.2.1. Resources currently monitored by other government agencies, tribes and private companies on the Olympic Peninsula.

32 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Goshawk

X X

Gyrfalcon

Harlequin ducks

Loon

Marbled murrelet

X X X

Marten

Merlin

X X

Neotropical birds

X X

Non-game sh

X X X X

Northern harrier

Northern spotted owl

X X

Peregrine falcon

X X

Raptors

Salmon

X X X X

Seabirds

X X

Townsendʼs big-eared bat

Coastal

Cetaceans

Harmful alga blooms

Juvenile rocksh

Kelp

Marine wildlife

Near-shore currents

Pinnipeds & porpoise

Sea otters

Sea urchins

Shellsh & biotoxins

Subtidal & intertidal

habitats

Washington Department of Natural Resources

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary

Wash. Dept. of Ecology

Wash. Dept. Fish & Wildlife

Wash. DNR

Timber, Fish & Wildlife

Rayonier Inc.

Weyerhaeuser Inc.

Elwha Klallam Tribe

Hoh Tribe

Point No Point Tribe

Suquamish Tribe

Olympic National Forest

Olympic Coast NMS

Part I. Chapter 3. Scoping and Identifying Indicators 33

NEED: What interest, problem, concern or threat will this monitoring project address

(expressed as a monitoring question)?

PROPOSED INDICATOR: What component, process, or function of the ecosystem will be

monitored to address the need identied above?

JUSTIFICATION: Why is this the best indicator (e.g., sensitivity, feasibility, integrative

properties, sampling or observer errors, keystone attribute, etc.)?

APPLICATION: Is long-term information about this indicator primarily useful to managers

within the park, on the Olympic Peninsula, throughout the Pacic Northwest, or over a broader

area (specify)? How might such information be useful to land managers?

LINKAGES: How will this monitoring project link with and benet other known monitoring

projects?

DESCRIPTION: Describe the recommended spatial and temporal scales of the proposed

monitoring.

PERSONNEL AND COSTS: Identify the personnel and cost requirements of the proposed

project.

LIMITATIONS: Are there potential obstacles to developing protocols to monitoring this

indicator or to actual monitoring? Are protocols well known or will research be needed to

develop protocols?

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: What research questions must be answered to develop

protocols to monitor this indicator?

Table 3.3.1. Template of questions used by participants of the vital-signs workshop to identify potential monitoring indicators in Olympic

National Park.

34 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Table 3.3.2. Indicators identied in scoping meetings and agents to which they are expected to respond.

Agents of Resource Change

Ecosystem

Component

Proposed

Indicators/Topics

Air Quality

Climate

Fire Suppression

External Land Use

Harvests

Disease

Visitor Use/Facilities

Exotic/Alien Species

Fisheries Decline

Dam Removal

Atmosphere and

Climate

Weather X

Snow characteristics X

Snow course X

Ultraviolet radiation X X

Ozone X X

Wet/dry deposition X X

Visibility X X

Foliar response X

Soil response X

Water quality in lakes

& streams

X X X X

Local air quality X X

Human Activities Vehicle counts X

Visitor surveys X

Experiential resources X

Illegal harvest X

Legal harvest X

Backcountry impacts X

Facility inventory X

Aerial overights X

Residence counts X

Incidental Business

Permits

Concession activities X

Part I. Chapter 3. Scoping and Identifying Indicators 35

Landscapes Disturbance X X X

Snow cover X

Vegetation phenology X

Land-use outside X

Vegetation structure

and chemistry

X X X X X X X X

Shoreline X X

Biogeochemical

Cycles

Small watershed

studies

X X

Water quality X X X X

Marine-derived

nutrients

X X

Contaminants Snow chemistry X X X

Persistent organic

pollutants in sh, lakes,

sediments, lichen

X X X

Terrestrial

Vegetation

Communities

Forest composition and

structure

X X X X X X X X

Nitrogen and carbon

dynamics

X X X X X X X X

Demographic

processes

X X X X

Animal use X X X

Special Status

Plants

Exotic spp. X X X X

Listed spp. X X

Rare plants X X

Cryptogams X X X

Exotic species X X X X

Agents of Resource Change

Ecosystem

Component

Proposed

Indicators/Topics

Air Quality

Climate

Fire Suppression

External Land Use

Harvests

Disease

Visitor Use/Facilities

Exotic/Alien Species

Fisheries Decline

Dam Removal

Table 3.3.2. Indicators identied in scoping meetings and agents to which they are expected to respond.

(Continued)

36 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Terrestrial Faunal

Communities

Terrestrial mammals X X

Terrestrial birds X X X

Terrestrial amphibians X X X X

Terrestrial arthropods X X

Terrestrial mollusks X X X X

Large Mammal

Populations

Elk X X X

Deer X X X

Parasites X X

Stress hormones X X X X X

Understory vegetation X X X

Bears X

Human encounters X X

Special-Status

Terrestrial Wildlife

Populations

Endemic mammals X X

Northern spotted owl X X

Marbled murrelets X X X

Bald eagles X X X X

Mountain goats X X X X X

Geological

Resources

(undetermined)

Aquatic/Riparian

Habitats

Disturbance dynamics X X X X

Water quality X X X X

Glaciers X

Stream habitat X X X X X

Lake & pond habitat X

Riparian vegetation X X X

Agents of Resource Change

Ecosystem

Component

Proposed

Indicators/Topics

Air Quality

Climate

Fire Suppression

External Land Use

Harvests

Disease

Visitor Use/Facilities

Exotic/Alien Species

Fisheries Decline

Dam Removal

Table 3.3.2. Indicators identied in scoping meetings and agents to which they are expected to respond.

(Continued)

Part I. Chapter 3. Scoping and Identifying Indicators 37

Aquatic Biota Plankton X X

Macroinvertebrates X X

Stream amphibians X X X X

Pond/lake amphibians X X X X

Fish X X X X X X

Spawning salmon X X X X X X X

Riverine birds X

Marine-derived

nutrients

X X

Special Status Fish

Populations

Lake Ozette sockeye X X X X

Bull trout X X X X X

Lake Cushman/Elwha

chinook

X X X

Pygmy whitesh X X

Lake Crescent trout X X X

Dolly varden X X X X

Brook trout X X X

Atlantic salmon X X X X

Olympic mudminnow X X

Coastal

Environments

Intertidal communities X X X X X X

Intertidal sh X X X X

Hardshell clams X X X X X

Watershed inputs X X X X

Ocean conditions X

Domoic acid X X X X

Agents of Resource Change

Ecosystem

Component

Proposed

Indicators/Topics

Air Quality

Climate

Fire Suppression

External Land Use

Harvests

Disease

Visitor Use/Facilities

Exotic/Alien Species

Fisheries Decline

Dam Removal

Table 3.3.2. Indicators identied in scoping meetings and agents to which they are expected to respond.

(Continued)

38 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

4.1 What is a Conceptual Model?

Modeling is the process of articulating relation-

ships among ecosystem components, processes,

and environmental effects to help select monitoring

indicators. Models can also be tools to communicate

why specic indicators were selected. Conceptual

models are necessary because different people

can have distinct views of a system based on their

interests, background and experience. For example,

a botanist may see vegetation in terms of individual

species and their adaptations, while a wildlife

biologist may see vegetation in terms of nutritional

value and accessibility for herbivores, and as cover

or shelter for carnivores. Conceptual models help

create a common perspective, operating hypotheses,

and experimental design. We hope to avoid the

situation of the fabled blind men who individually

insisted they were touching a rope, a tree, and a

snake instead of the elephant they explored in com-

mon. It is also important to recognize that concep-

tual models are always works in progress represent-

ing state-of-the-art syntheses of understanding. As

our perspective responds to new information, either

from the monitoring itself or from other sources,

we must update the conceptual model to reect new

understanding.

A conceptual model should serve the needs of

the modeler. It can take any form and be constructed

at any time during the process of choosing indica-

tors. The monitoring literature includes examples

of conceptual models in the form of tables (Noss

1990), box and arrow diagrams (EMAP 1990),

and graphics (Thornton et al.1994) to name a few.

Although models can also simply be paragraphs

describing system elements and their linkages,

groups of people seem to reach common under-

standings more quickly with visual, rather than

verbal models. Regarding timing, models of simple

systems might be constructed to aid indicator

selection; in more complex systems, models might

be used to explain why certain indicators were

selected. For example, Roman and Barrett (1999)

used models in the form of tables linking agents of

change, stresses and ecosystem responses to identify

indicators, and box and line diagrams to illustrate

how the most important elements link to the rest of

the system. Above all, conceptual models are tools

to improve communication.

Just as there is no single format for a concep-

tual model, there is no single model that adequately

describes an entire system. The effort is hampered

by the impossibility of achieving both model gen-

erality and model realism. Model generality is

needed to characterize large-scale inuences and

relationships among park resources; model realism

is needed to identify specic potential expressions

of change that could be effective monitoring indica-

tors. Consequently, both integrative general models

and realistic specic models are needed to represent

systems having the spatial scale of national parks.

Models having the generality to describe the

entire park will include few details about individual

ecosystem components and will instead provide

a broad vision of how those components interact.

They will express how large categories of biotic

and abiotic elements and processes are linked by

processes and material cycles to form an integrated

ecological system. From this perspective we will

be able to discern which monitoring indicators will

allow us to build an integrated monitoring program.

Achieving the model realism necessary for

indicator selection can be likened to moving a mag-

nifying glass around the parkʼs ecological system.

With each change of position, some elements are

brought into sharp focus while others are less clear.

For example, a model of salmon populations might

have individual salmon species and stream charac-

teristics that are important habitat factors in sharp

focus; riparian tree species might be indistinctly

represented as shade index, and distant trees might

be grouped as factors affecting stream chemistry. In

contrast, if the focus were red alder, salmon might

be represented simply as pulses of marine-derived

nutrients while trees would be in sharp focus.

Chapter 4. Conceptual Models: Context for Indicators.

Part I. Chapter 4. Conceptual Models 39

Effective conceptual models for indicator

selection can take many forms but all have certain

common characteristics. Their primary purpose is

to bring a specic ecological element into focus

by identifying important interactions with other

attributes. Creating a model requires specifying the

assumptions underlying the choice of indicators,

and facilitates their evaluation and acceptance.

In this chapter, we present conceptual models

describing the entire Olympic National Park and

terrestrial coniferous ecosystems. These models are

extremely general, lacking the resolution necessary

to consider individual ecosystem components (e.g.,

vegetation, atmosphere). Detailed models of sys-

tem components will be presented in Part II where

we describe each component and identify possible

indicators.

4.2 Ecosystem Dynamics.

Monitoring ecological systems, and especially

selecting indicators of ecosystem integrity, should

rest on some theoretical conception of how ecosys-

tems work. Presently, the eld of ecosystem theory

is fairly young, and it can only provide general

concepts and has little specic predictive ability.

Nevertheless, current ecological theory colors our

thinking about building conceptual ecosystem mod-

els, monitoring ecological integrity, and achieving

ecological integration of the monitoring program.

Theorists consider that a fundamental property

of ecosystems is that they are not in thermodynamic

equilibrium (Schneider and Kay 1994, Jorgenson

and Muller 2000a) because they receive an external

source of energy (i.e., usually solar radiation), anal-

ogous to a hot burner under a pot of water (Nicolis

and Prigogine 1989). Just as a heated pot of water

dissipates energy by boiling, ecosystems develop a

complexity of structures and linkages to dissipate

solar energy by putting it to work. As an ecosystem

develops through succession, and more solar energy

is put to work, the ecosystem can exist farther away

from energetic equilibrium.

An important property of dissipative struc-

tures (e.g., ecosystem components and linkages)

is that they tend to be self-organizing (Nicolis and

Prigogine 1989, Jorgenson and Muller 2000a). This

means that ecosystems develop feedback loops,

linkages, and high interdependability that result in

structures and processes that are more than the sum

of their parts. Self-organization has consequences

for the theoretical structure of ecosystems. Although

many constructs have been used to describe eco-

system structure (e.g., information theory, network

theory, etc.; Jorgensen and Muller 2000b) the easi-

est way to visualize ecosystem structure for eld-

oriented biologists and land managers is probably

that of hierarchy theory (see Allen and Hoekstra

1992). From this perspective, the components and

processes of ecosystems may be thought of as

“gears” sized according to the hierarchical position

of the ecological process they represent. Smaller

gears (lower in hierarchy) drive the larger (higher

in hierarchy) ones in a sense. For example, forest

stand level processes aggregate to landscape level

outcomes, which aggregate to regional outcomes.

As the system progresses through time, the smaller

gears appear to move faster than the larger ones.

Observations over a short period of time will docu-

ment perhaps many cycles of the smaller gears and

very little change, or maybe a linear trend in the

larger ones. For example, at the time-scale of cell

turnover, organisms may seem static. Meanwhile,

organisms are part of a longer-term cycle of birth

and death. At some time scale, even a static system

or linear trend will become cyclical. The com-

ing and going of ice ages, for example, illustrates

an apparently static climatic regime that is in fact

cyclical.

Another consequence of the thermodynam-

ics of ecosystems is that ecosystems themselves

are cyclical. Holling (1986) described the process

of ecosystem succession as having four stages. In

his scheme, (1) exploitation is the juvenile stage

of succession when nutrients are rapidly acquired

until the system enters the (2) conservation or adult

stage. Eventually the system experiences distur-

bance and enters the (3) creative destruction stage

when organization and connections break down.

Finally the system quickly enters the (4) renewal

stage where nutrients are released and available

for the cycle to repeat (Figure 4.2.1). The dynamic

properties of stability and resilience characterize

early stages, while the potential for chaotic dynam-

ics is typical of older, “over-connected” stages when

systems have achieved their limit of thermodynamic

instability. While this process is not random, it is

40 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

unpredictable in detail because the building blocks

(e.g., propagules, organisms, stored nutrients, and

climatic conditions) existing at any time and place

depend on site history, long-term climate cycles, the

immediate disturbance, and chance. Consequently,

each ecosystem is unique at some level, and spatial

and temporal heterogeneity are the norm.

Despite the imprecise understanding of ecosys-

tems provided by current ecological theory, we can

apply some of the ideas to conceptual modeling and

indicator selection for monitoring. General conclu-

sions are that indicators of ecosystem status need to

be integrative, that is indicate linkages rather than

single elements, and they should include both struc-

ture and function. Ecological theory also provides

the context for evaluating the role of those indica-

tors chosen because they are focal species or man-

agement issues to also indicate ecosystem status.

The level of biological organization and time frame

of indicators are important to consider because there

is a time scale appropriate for each. For animal pop-

ulations the time scale might be years or decades;

for catastrophic events it might be decades or cen-

turies. It is also important to realize that the scale

one step lower in hierarchy and time will provide

the mechanism for what is observed, and the scale

one step higher will provide the context. Using the

previous example, cells turn over in the context of

the organism they comprise. A catastrophic event

involving the organism will change the context for

its cells, affecting their behavior. We have applied

these concepts to our model of coniferous forests

described below.

In practical terms, it has been suggested that

ecological integrity is most secure when 1) avail-

ability of biological information (i.e., genetic

diversity, biodiversity), 2) availability of energy and

substrates (e.g., nutrients, carbon, and water), and

3) the already existing degree of self-organization

(or hierarchical structure) is preserved. These broad

concepts suggest a number of more specic items

to monitor (compiled from Odum 1985, Rapport et

al. 1985, Noss 1990, Franklin et al. 1981, Schneider

and Kay 1994, Muller and Jorgensen 2000):

• Flows of energy and materials

• Cycling of energy and materials

• Biodiversity (e.g., total, trophic structure,

r/K adapted species)

• Respiration and transpiration

Figure 4.2.1. Conceptual model of ecosystem dynamics (adapted from Holling 1986).

4. Renewal

-- Accessible Carbon

-- Nutrients & Energy

1. Exploitation

-- r-Strategy

-- Pioneers

-- Opportunists

2. Conservation

-- k-Strategy

-- Climax

-- Consolidation

3. Creative

Destruction

-- Fire --Storm

-- Senescence

-- Pest

(mineralization)

(adult stage)

(juvenile stage) (disturbance incorporation)

Capital

Storage

Organization

Connectedness

Part I. Chapter 4. Conceptual Models 41

• Biomass

• Organization and hierarchical structure

and the following general principals for selecting a

core set of monitoring indicators:

• Select indicators from important hierarchies

in the ecosystem, for example trophic struc-

ture, disturbances ordered by size, or levels of

organization within kingdoms of taxa (cell,

organism, population, community, landscape,

region).

• Monitor both structure and function (pro-

cess) of ecosystems. Look for places where a

functional component might be added to a

structural measurement (e.g., measure mortal-

ity and recruitment in forests as well as canopy

structure).

4.3 Modeling Olympic National Park.

Because it is not possible to develop one com-

prehensive detailed conceptual model that describes

all of the possible anthropogenic inuences on park

resources, system drivers, and potential expressions

of ecological change that might be monitored, we

will present models at a succession of scales. First

we will illustrate our simplest view that the entire

park ecosystem consists of four major subsystems:

(1) alpine and subalpine areas, (2) terrestrial for-

ests, (3) aquatic systems including streams, rivers,

lakes, ponds and riparian areas, and (4) the coastal

zone (Figure 4.3.1). When Olympic National Park

was selected as a prototype park its managers were

charged with developing monitoring protocols for

coniferous forests. Consequently, most progress has

been made on this subsystem. Meanwhile, monitor-

ing for aquatic/riparian areas is under development

by North Cascades National Park in its role as a

prototype park responsible for developing moni-

toring protocols for lake and stream ecosystems.

Coastal area monitoring is being developed in a

separate effort in Olympic National Park. The subal-

pine has been the subject of ongoing monitoring of

plant and animal communities in Olympic National

Park around the issue of non-native mountain goats,

and will receive further attention in the future.

As we increase the focus of our park view,

we recognize that each subsystem has certain key

categories of components and attributes in com-

mon (Figure 4.3.2). These include ora, fauna,

geology and soils, and structure (e.g., physical,

demographic). We also recognize that park subsys-

tems are dynamic. They respond to system driv-

ers and components of these subsystems interact

within a subsystem and with components of other

subsystems. The goal of monitoring is to discern

critical changes to these dynamic systems. The

chapters in Part II describe questions and indica-

tors for resources of the entire park, but they are not

completely organized according to this conceptual

model. Hence, we have cross-referenced this model

with Part II by indicating the chapters that cover

specic elements in the model.

As we narrow our focus to one subsystem,

namely coniferous forests, and try to express our

understanding of it in terms of ecosystem theory, the

necessary conceptual model becomes much more

complex. We take a three-dimensional view of the

terrestrial forest system at any point in its devel-

opment (Figure 4.3.3). The vertical axis indicates

that the elementary parts of forests are above- and

below-ground organisms categorized into kingdoms

plus soil, which have specic roles and associated

processes, are acted upon by drivers, and are subject

to export losses. The precise elements and complex-

ity depend on where the system is in the succes-

sional cycle. Fundamentally, these elements interact

through, and mediate ows of, the carbon, mineral

and hydrological cycles, and implicitly the energy

cycle. In other words, vertical ows of organic and

inorganic material and energy exist at any point on

the landscape.

The other two axes acknowledge that the

observable features of each system component

depend on both the level of organization and time

frame viewed by the observer. We represent time

and organizational level with discreet values,

although we recognize that they are continuous,

and that different ranges of each apply to different

subjects. However, we feel that specic discreet

examples will make it easier to visualize that appro-

priate indicators of change vary along these axes by

considering specic intersections of the grid they

form. For example, it might be important to monitor

individual species if the monitoring question indi-

cates interest in forest composition at annual time

42 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park





















Figure 4.3.1. Conceptual

model illustrating the ecologic

subsystems of Olympic

National Park.

Photos—Olympic National Park , Patricia Happe

and Washington Department of Ecology

Part I. Chapter 4. Conceptual Models 43

44 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

steps. However it may be appropriate to monitor

forest communities or stands at the decadal scale,

and to monitor changes in landscape pattern of

composition over an even longer time step. Like-

wise, while individual species might be important

indicators of productivity at the stand level, it might

be appropriate to monitor leaf-area index at larger

spatial scales. Finally, one might monitor carbon

dynamics using photosynthesis hourly at the leaf

level, carbon allocation daily or seasonally at the

plant (organismal) level, annual net primary produc-

tion at the stand or community level, and carbon

sequestration at the regional or global level.

Each monitoring question indicates the organi-

zational and temporal scales of interest and there-

fore the appropriate variables, and suggests triggers

for management response. We expect that in the

process of indicator selection, each subject-mat-

ter focus will have pertinent questions at various

temporal and spatial scales. Conceptual models

and possible indicators for subject-matter areas are

presented in Part II.

OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK

TERRESTRIAL

SUBALPINE

SUBSYSTEM

FOREST

SUBSYSTEM

Flora

2. Human Activities

6. Terrestrial Vegetation

7. Special Status Plants

Fauna

8. Terrestrial Fauna

9. Large Mammals

10. Spec. Status Terr. Fauna

Structure

3. Park & Surr. Landscape

6. Terrestrial Vegetation

8. Terrestrial Fauna

Geology & Soils

2. Human Activities

3. Park & Surr. Landscape

11. Geoindicators

COASTAL SUBSYSTEM

Flora

15. Coastal Environ.

Structure

3. Park & Surr. Landscp.

15. Coastal Environ.

Fauna

15. Coastal Environ.

Geology & Soils

15. Coastal Environ.

AQUATIC SUBSYSTEM

Flora

13. Aquatic Biota

Structure

3. Park & Surr. Landscp.

12. Aquat /Riparian Habitat

Fauna

13. Aquatic Biota

14. Spec. Status Fish

Geology & Soils

3. Park & Surr. Landscp.

11. Geoindicators

Interactions Within

& Among Subsystems

4. Biogeochemical Cycles

5. Contaminants

SYSTEM DRIVERS

1. Atmosphere &

Climate

2. Human Activities

3. Park & Surrounding

Landscapes

(Disturbance)

TIME

PAST

16. Historical & Paleoecological Context

PRESENT

Inventory

FUTURE

Monitoring

Figure 4.3.2. Conceptual model illustrating the components of, and interactions among ecologic subsystems of Olympic

National Park. Correspondence of subject matter with the chapters of Part II is also shown.

Part I. Chapter 4. Conceptual Models 45

Fig. 4.3.3. Conceptual model of the terrestrial coniferous forest ecosystems showing ows of carbon, nitrogen, and water,

and illustrating the dependence of time frame of observable change on the hierarchical position (i.e., level of ecological

organization) of the indicator.

Community/Stand

Population/Species

Organism

Gene

Landscape/Region

TIME

SYSTEM ELEMENTS

& PROCESSES

DRIVERS

Climate

Mineral Deposition

Atmos. Gas Conc.

Human Uses

VEGETATION

Photosynthesis Respiration

C Allocation Throughfall

Mortality Structure

Reproduction Phenology

Evapotranspiration

WILDLIFE

Excretion Reproduction

Herbivory

Respiration

Mortality Health

Physical Processes (incl. Geology)

Chemical Processes

Respiration

Decomposition

EXPORT

Migration Runoff

Baseflow Erosion

Ignition Harvest

Leaching

Carbon

Nitrogen

Water

Monitoring Indicators

(or Observable Features)

CONCEPTUAL MODEL O

FOREST ECOSYSTEMS

Predation Plant Propogation

LITTER, SOIL & SOIL ORGANISMS

46 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

All scientists and researchers working in Olym-

pic National Park quickly encounter a common set

of sampling issues having to do with how best to

distribute samples spatially while considering trade-

offs associated with the high costs of access. Among

others, each researcher must answer the following

questions:

• What is the targeted population to which infer-

ences will apply (i.e., population in the statisti-

cal sense of the complete set of objects to be

studied)?

• How should samples be distributed most ef-

ciently throughout the population of interest?

• Should samples be distributed systematically

or randomly?

• Is stratication a useful tool to enhance sam-

pling efciency?

Left to his or her own designs, each monitor-

ing scientist will develop unique solutions to these

generic questions, often to the detriment of integra-

tion goals. While dening the spatial population

of interest is project-specic and objective-driven,

the development of a generic sampling framework

can help immensely to facilitate the co-location of

sampling efforts where mutual interests overlap

spatially. Agreeing upon an ʻumbrellaʼ sampling

design is an important step in the development of an

integrated monitoring program.

In the following sections, we develop a general-

ized framework for sampling and monitoring conif-

erous forest ecosystems. We consider the generic

issues of scale inherent in designing any sampling

framework. We develop a conceptual model for

integrated sampling in the coniferous forest sub-

system, discuss general sampling principles, and

present examples for implementing the integrated

sampling model in Olympic National Park.

5.1 The Economy of Scales.

Spatial integration of monitoring projects

involves co-locating multidisciplinary components

of the monitoring program on common study plots.

Ideally, we would like to monitor several related

attributes of ecological systems to promote under-

standing of interrelationships within ecological

systems and be able to explain possible causes of

observed patterns of change. Unfortunately, nan-

cial and logistical constraints make it impossible

to measure everything everywhere, so the planning

process must consider trade-offs in how best to

allocate limited nancial resources to best meet the

overall monitoring goals.

Recently, Hall (1999) described the challenge

of designing a monitoring framework as a process

of optimizing trade-offs among scale, scope, and

statistical power of sampling.

• Scale, as used here, refers to “the temporal

and spatial dimension at which and over which

phenomenon are observed” (OʼNeill and King,

1998), or in our case, measured. Measurement

scale, consists of two parts: grain, the smallest

interval of space or time measured, and extent,

the total area or the length of time over which

observations are made (OʼNeill and King,

1998). Observations made frequently in many

small plots have very high temporal and spatial

grain, respectively, whereas observations made

infrequently or in large plots have lower tem-

poral and spatial grain. With respect to extent,

observations made over very long periods

of time and large geographic areas are often

referred to as having large temporal or spatial

scales. The spatial scale and temporal scales of

measurement are important considerations in

designing a monitoring program because they

dene the extent of area to which the monitor-

ing results apply, and they greatly inuence

costs of monitoring.

• Scope refers simply to the amount of informa-

tion that is gathered at each sampling site. As

mentioned, having information about a variety

of related ecological attributes promotes better

Chapter 5. Framework for Monitoring Coniferous Forest Ecosystems.

Part I. Chapter 5. Framework for Monitoring Coniferous Forest 47

understanding of changes. If scale refers to the

extent of area to which understanding applies,

scope refers to the depth of understanding

attained.

• Statistical power refers to the ability of sample

measurements to reveal actual changes in

the population being measured. Power of

a monitoring program depends upon many

variables, notably the variability in the attri-

bute measured and the number of independent

measures obtained, e.g., the number of inde-

pendent sample plots. Inadequate sampling

effort would negate the value of monitoring at

any spatial scale or scope if it fails to detect a

meaningful level of change (Gerrodette 1987,

Hayes and Steidle 1997).

The most luxurious monitoring program would

include comprehensive measurements of diverse

system components, sampled broadly, and repli-

cated abundantly to maximize understanding, infer-

ence, and detection simultaneously.

Alas, there are no free samples in the real

world, so trade-offs must be considered in choosing

among sampling frequency and intensity, sample

size, and spatial scale of statistical inference during

the design phase of monitoring development. The

point may be illustrated by representing a monitor-

ing program, schematically, as a cube, the volume

of which is limited by the total amount of resources

available for monitoring, and the shape of which is

controlled by the allocation of monitoring effort to

the three axes (Figure 5.1.1). Spatial effort, control-

ling the height of cube, refers to the spatial extent,

or scale, over which the sample will be distributed

and to which legitimate inferences may be drawn.

Measurement effort, controlling the width of the

cube at its base, refers to the detail and complexity

of sampling, or scope, conducted at each sample

point. Replication effort, depicting the depth of the

cube, refers to the number of sample units pos-

sible, given any combination of xed resource

levels available for monitoring and chosen spatial

and measurement efforts. By necessity, monitor-

ing projects with the greatest scope and complexity

are conducted at comparatively small spatial scales

(e.g., consider the U.S. Geological Survey/National

Park Serviceʼs small watershed ecosystem studies

or the National Science Foundationʼs Long-term

ecological research network) and they are rarely

replicated sufciently to allow inference beyond the

study site at the local level. At the other extreme,

comparatively shallow studies of presence/absence

or relative abundance of specic taxa typically are

conducted more extensively across broader spatial

scales, and are replicated more easily than are inten-

sive long-term-monitoring efforts. We identify these

two opposite ends of the allocation-of-effort spec-

trum as ʻextensive designʼ and ʻintensive design,ʼ

although there are all possible gradations of ʻinter-

mediate designsʼ in between.

Economics of the scaling issue are particularly

acute in large wilderness-area parks where high costs

of access to sampling sites greatly affects both the

measurement and replication efforts possible under

xed funding constraints. In our effort to integrate

many monitoring projects of diverse scope and scale

in Olympic National Park, and to accommodate as

many monitoring projects as possible, our conceptual

framework for monitoring requires explicit consider-

ation of sampling scales and trade-offs.

5.2 Conceptual Framework for Integrated Monitoring

in Coniferous Forests.

Here, we propose a generic framework for mon-

itoring the coniferous forest subsystem of Olympic

National Park. In this conceptual framework we

recommend several ʻcoreʼ components of long-term

monitoring in coniferous forests, spatial linkages

among these program elements, and implicit trade-

offs in the scope (or complexity) of each monitoring

project and spatial scale of sampling (Figure 5.2.1).

Although the generic model presented here identi-

es several of the key monitoring themes identied

for the coniferous forest subsystem, nal decisions

on specic monitoring projects will come after the

park staff reconsiders monitoring priorities for all

the ecological subsystems (see Chapter 6). The

framework illustrates a nested sampling design with

intensive monitoring projects co-located with more

extensively designed monitoring projects on nested

subsets of sampling plots. Though limited to the

coniferous forest subsystem, key features of this

framework apply to monitoring aquatic, coastal, and

subalpine subsystems of the park.

48 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

At the broadest of scales possible, representing

the ʻextensive designʼ, we envision parkwide moni-

toring of the composition and disturbance history of

park landscapes and vegetation (Figure 5.2.1). Such

monitoring would address the large-scale questions:

ʻAre changes in regional stressors affecting distur-

bance regimes? Composition of park landscapes?

Composition of forest communities?ʼ Although

patterns in landscapes might be examined through

remote sensing virtually throughout the park, moni-

toring changes in selected vegetation attributes on

the ground might also lend themselves to sampling

at the parkwide scale (e.g., presence/absence of

exotic plant species). Certain broad-scale studies of

animal distribution patterns, for example that of for-

est breeding birds, might also be linked to the most

extensively distributed plot network.

Many other projects may require that sampling

is restricted to a smaller area of the park due to the

nature of the monitoring question asked, or perhaps

because sampling requirements or logistical con-

straints preclude sampling at the parkwide scale.

An example of such an ʻintermediate-scaleʼ moni-

toring study might include monitoring the effects of

ungulate herbivory on forest vegetation or perhaps

monitoring of indices of ungulate abundance (e.g.,

pellet group surveys). Monitoring the intensity of

ungulate herbivory, as an example, would require

additional effort in vegetation measurement that

may not be practically implemented on a parkwide

scale, but could realistically be implemented in a

subset of the park that encompasses the majority of

elk and deer winter ranges.

Other ʻintensiveʼ monitoring projects may have

parkwide importance, but high sampling require-

ments force an economy of scales. For example,

consider the following monitoring questions:

• Are long-term changes in climate or atmo-

spheric deposition inuencing key biogeochem-

ical cycling processes in forest ecosystems?

• Are densities of key wildlife populations

changing?

Spatial

Effort

Measurement

Effort

Replication

Effort

ʻIntensive Design

ʻExtensive

Design

Figure 5.1.1. Allocation of sampling effort among axes of spatial scale, measurement effort (i.e.,

scope), and replication effort in ‘extensive’ and ‘intensive’ sampling designs.

Part I. Chapter 5. Framework for Monitoring Coniferous Forest 49

Although any of these questions are of park-

wide importance, the expense of instrumentation or

the frequency sampling requirements, data retrieval,

or maintenance schedules (for instrumentation) pre-

cludes distributing such monitoring effort represen-

tatively throughout remote wilderness. Such studies

must be restricted to subsets of the total sample area

and subsets of potential sampling plots inscribed by

the vegetation-plot sampling frame. The congruence

of scale implied by many of these relatively inten-

sive projects suggests a high potential for integrated

monitoring of a suite of indicators on intensive

monitoring plots, as demonstrated by overlapping

circles in Figure 5.2.1.

5.3. A Sampling Primer

a. Identifying the Population.

For each monitoring project, the important rst

step in designing the sampling scheme is to clearly

identify the target and sampled population to which

inferences from monitoring will be made. The target

population is the population of interest (i.e., about

which information is sought), whereas the sampled

population is that from which the sample is actually

drawn. Ideally, the sampled and target populations

are identical, but sometimes the sampled population

is more restricted in spatial extent than the target

population due to practical or logistic consider-

ations. For example, areas where the slope is too

steep to safely sample may be excluded from the

sampled population. It is important to clearly indi-

cate that conclusions drawn from the sample apply

only to the sampled population.

b. Probability-Based Sampling.

The next step is to design a probability-based

sampling scheme, meaning that all members of a

population have a known probability of being cho-

sen for the sample. In the past, there was a tendency

for biological research to be conducted on ʻrepre-

sentativeʼ sites as dened by the researcher. While

this may satisfy the researcherʼs sense of the typical

condition, the data can not be extrapolated reliably

Figure 5.2.1. Monitoring framework showing recommended core elements of proposed monitoring in the coniferous for-

est subsystem in Olympic National Park and spatial relationships among extensive and intensive monitoring designs.

Extensive MonitoringLandscape

Composition

Disturbance

Intermediate Scale

Vegetation

Breeding Birds

Owls Elk and Deer

Human Use

Climate

Biogeochemical

Intensive Plant

and Animal

Intensive Monitoring

50 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

to other than the sampled sites. Only results from a

probability-based sample from a specic population

can be extrapolated beyond individual sites to the

larger population.

Among the many variants of probabilistic

sampling, simple random, cluster, and system-

atic sampling are the most commonly used. With

simple random sampling, each point is randomly

selected independently from the whole popula-

tion. With systematic sampling, sample points are

evenly spaced, often on a grid after a random start.

Cluster sampling begins with a random or system-

atic sample of points and at each point a cluster

of samples is taken (e.g., subplots on a transect).

Any of these sample types (i.e., simple random,

compact cluster, or systematic) can be distributed

probabilistically throughout the sampled popula-

tion using equal probability, stratied, or unequal

probability sampling (Figure 5.3.1). With equal

probability sampling, all areas are equally likely

to be selected. With stratied sampling, the park is

divided into relatively homogeneous areas called

strata. Equal probability sampling is used within

strata; the selection probability and sample density

can be different for different strata. With unequal

probability sampling, the probability of selection

and sample density can vary continuously across the

park. Stratied sampling is a special case of unequal

probability sampling where probabilities of selec-

tion differ among strata.

c. Selecting the Sample.

Intuitively, most biologists and ecologists gravi-

tate toward choosing a stratied random sample to

distribute plots among different resource categories

that exist on the landscape (e.g., plant communities,

habitat types). Stratied random sampling allows

researchers exibility to allocate effort differently

among resource categories, depending upon sam-

pling variation within and among strata or upon the

abundance or rarity of resource categories. Many

biologists prefer stratied random sampling because

results grouped by category have a biological basis

for interpretation.

Despite these considerations, stratied random

sampling is not always the most exible or efcient

method of detecting spatial patterns of change (e.g.,

change in relation to a park boundary, elevation or

other environmental gradients). Strata boundaries

may change physically over time (e.g., consider the

effects of forest disturbance and succession), and

biologists frequently differ over what constitutes the

biologically meaningful categories for stratication.

Based on the pros and cons of sample types and

distributions (Tables 5.3.1 and 5.3.2), many statisti-

cians advocate distributing a systematic sample in

either a stratied or unequal probability distribution

pattern. This sample scheme ensures representative

survey coverage throughout the targeted area while

allowing for acquiring enough samples of common

resources as well as an adequate sample of rare

ones. Our discussion of sampling methods consid-

ered these as well as nancial and logistical issues

in formulating the following sampling recommen-

dations for Olympic National Park.

5.4. A Generalized Sampling Design.

We recommend the following generalized sam-

pling scheme to meet the many considerations of

monitoring in a large wilderness park with limited

access:

For each project, delineate verbally and visu-

ally the sampled population to which inferences will

apply. The sampled population will be delineated

uniquely for each monitoring project depending

upon monitoring objectives, as well as biological

and practical considerations. Delineations (strata)

should be dened by practically unchanging geo-

graphic or topographic criteria (e.g., elevation and/

or slope, but not vegetation category). For safety

reasons, we recommend omitting slopes >35

from

the sampled population. It may also be practical for

logistical or biological reasons to limit sampling

to specied areas of the park. For each monitoring

project we recommend mapping the sampled popu-

lation, or alternately, to shade black those areas of

the park that have been deleted from the sampled

population.

For many monitoring projects in Olympic

National Park, it is necessary for practical reasons

to delineate sampled populations on the basis of

human accessibility. Many regions of the park

require several days of foot travel to get to sampling

locations (Figure 2.11.1), and helicopters are not

recommended due to high costs, wilderness con-

siderations, or impacts to threatened or endangered

Part I. Chapter 5. Framework for Monitoring Coniferous Forest 51

species. To permit exibility in delineating sampled

populations and varying sampling probabilities in

relation to access costs, we recommend stratifying

the park according to the following categories of

accessibility and human use (Figure 5.4.1) :

High Accessibility/Human Use: areas <1.5 km from

a maintained park road

Moderate Accessibility/Human Use: areas <1.5 km

from a maintained hiking trail.

Low Accessibility/Human Use: areas >1.5 km from

a maintained road or hiking trail.

On occasions, a tremendous effort is required

to hike more than 1.5 km from maintained trails

in Olympic National Park due to dense understory

vegetation and obstacles in the form of large dead

and downed trees, root masses, and difcult ter-

rain. Therefore, these stratication categories have

proven useful to help researchers allocate monitor-

ing effort in relation to costs and practical consid-

erations in several inventory projects in Olympic

National Park. While such restriction would limit

parkwide inference, it is encouraging to know that

>25% of each primary vegetation class falls within

these two most accessible sampling zones (Figure

5.4.2). Thus, inference drawn from the two most

accessible categories captures a signicant area of

the park.

Table 5.3.1. Characteristics of simple random, cluster, and systematic sampling methods.

Pros Cons

Simple

Random

• Simple and has straight-forward

statistical properties

• The distribution of random points is

usually clumped

Cluster • Most useful when travel costs among

sites are high

• Degrees of freedom for analysis are

based on the number of sites rather

than the number of plots

Systematic • Spreads sample evenly in space • Under-samples rare resources and

over-samples common ones

Pros Cons

Equal

Probability

• Simple to implement

• All areas are equally important

• Emphasizes common species

• Can be inefcient

• Provides little information on less-

common species

Stratied • Sample density can be increased to

provide adequate samples for less-

common species

• Sample density can be increased in

more accessible areas to increase

sample size

• More complicated than equal

probability sampling

• Strata must remain xed forever,

although one can switch to unequal

probability sampling, which will

allow changes

Unequal

Probability

• It has the advantages of stratication

without need to dene discrete strata

• One can add samples without regard to

the initial strata

• Probability of selection can vary

continuously

• More complex than stratied

sampling

• One must keep track of the selection

probabilities

Table 5.3.2. Characteristics of equal probability, stratied, and unequal probability samples.

52 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

We recommend developing a generic grid-

based sampling frame to select sample units for

monitoring within Olympic National Park. We

also recommend using a 100-m grid superimposed

over the entire park as the most basic sampling

frame. Although this represents an immensely

dense grid for large-scale sampling purposes, it

provides enough potential sampling sites for local-

ized sampling of rarer resources. This grid can be

sampled across different spatial scales or at different

sampling intensities depending upon the specied

sample population and goals. For example, remotely

sensed attributes could be sampled extensively,

ostensibly at every sampling location throughout

the park. Most attributes will be measured at lower

intensity, either throughout the park (by selecting

every nth sampling point systematically) or at a

more restricted scale by limiting the sampled popu-

lation to specied elevation zones, accessibility

zones, or other denable criteria.

To increase sampling efciency, we recom-

mend using unequal probability sampling to allocate

effort among the dened human access/use zones.

For many monitoring projects it will be desirable

to concentrate sampling efforts in the most cost-

effective zones. As an example, consider the goal of

developing a parkwide network of vegetation moni-

toring plots. Assuming the goal of such a project

was parkwide inference, we recommend establish-

ing a network of plots with low survey coverage in

the Low Accessibility stratum and greater coverage

in the High and Moderate Strata (Figure 5.4.3).

Such a scheme would allow parkwide inference

while enhancing cost effectiveness.

We recommend co-locating monitoring efforts

on the network of vegetation monitoring plots to

the extent possible. Individual monitoring projects,

however, will require adjustments in sampling dis-

tribution and intensity depending upon the specic

monitoring objectives. It will be necessary to aug-

ment the sampling intensity for monitoring projects

that focus on comparatively rare resources or those

requiring a greater sampling intensity than that pro-

vided by the generalized vegetation sampling frame.

For example, if monitoring ungulate fecal pellets

or other indices of ungulate use called for a greater

Figure 5.3.1. Primary sampling methods and strategies for sampling distribution.

Simple Random Cluster Systematic

Sample Type

Equal

Probability

Stratified

(mid stratum

Sampled more

Intensively)

Unequal Probability

(gradient of sampling

intensity from

top to bottom)

o o

o o o

o oo o

o o

o o o

o o

o o o o

Recommended

Sample Distribution

Part I. Chapter 5. Framework for Monitoring Coniferous Forest 53

concentration of sampling points in lowland winter

ranges of Roosevelt elk than that provided by veg-

etation sampling, then an additional layer of points

could be superimposed on the above sampling

frame (Figure 5.4.4). The additional sample must

be with replacement, and the probability associated

with the new points is determined by the intensity

of the second round of sampling.

Alternatively, cost constraints associated with

intensive monitoring projects will force a reduction

in spatial scale relative to generic vegetation sam-

pling. We recommend co-locating intensive moni-

toring projects within a subset of points sampled

under the more extensive designs. For example, it

may be desirable to sample microclimate of for-

est vegetation as a subset of general vegetation

plots. Because instrumentation associated with such

monitoring may require frequent site visits, it may

be advantageous to specify a restricted sample of

vegetation monitoring points within the high-access

sampling zone. Figure 5.4.5 depicts a hypothetical

random selection of vegetation monitoring points

for monitoring forest climate within forest plots

located within the most accessible sampling stra-

tum.

Over time, the use of a common sampling frame

for all monitoring projects will create overlapping

samples, with each sample layer dened by proj-

ect-specic objectives and clearly dened sample

populations. Though points may be selected for

different purposes with different selection probabili-

ties initially, and distributed across different spatial

scales, data may be analyzed for any domain of data

at a later time, provided that common measurement

protocols are used and the sample selection prob-

abilities are known.

As demonstrated in these examples, the gener-

alized sampling frame promotes spatial integration

of sampling sites chosen for a wide variety of moni-

toring projects. It provides exibility for the devel-

opment of practical sampling plans by explicitly

considering accessibility in determining sampling

probabilities for each project. Systematic samples

may be combined with other independently derived

samples to increase efciency and interpretation and

ensure adequate sampling of rare resources.

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

Roc

Meado

Shrub

Douglas fir

Wester

n hemloc

Pacific silver fir

Subalpine fi

Sitka spruce

Western red cedar

Alaska yello

w cedar

Lodgepole pine

Hardwood

Mountain hemloc

Figure 5.4.2. Percentages of mapped vegetation types falling within the combined high and moderate zones of human

access/use in Olympic National Park.

54 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Figure 5.4.3. Hypothetical systematic distribution of vegetation monitoring plots in Olympic

National Park with unequal probability of selection in zones of high, moderate, and low human

access/use (probability of selection decreases from highest to lowest human access/use).

(map prepared by R. Hoffman, Olympic National Park)

Part I. Chapter 5. Framework for Monitoring Coniferous Forest 55

Figure 5.4.1. Stratication of human access/use zones for sampling in Olympic National Park.

(map prepared by R. Hoffman, Olympic National Park)

56 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Figure 5.4.5. Hypothetical selection of sample plots for monitoring microclimate of forest stands. The hypothetical

sample is a systematic subsample of forest vegetation monitoring plots restricted to those plots within the high and

moderate-access sampling zone. Park area excluded from the sampled population is shown in black.

(map prepared by R. Hoffman, Olympic National Park)

Figure 5.4.4. Hypothetical selection of sample plots for monitoring ungulate ‘sign’ on lowland winter ranges of

Roosevelt elk in Olympic National Park. The hypothetical sample includes the previous selection of vegetation

monitoring plots supplemented with additional randomly selected points to achieve a greater sample size. Park

area excluded from the sampled population is shown in black.

(map prepared by R. Hoffman, Olympic National Park)

Part I. Chapter 5. Framework for Monitoring Coniferous Forest 57

58 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

6.1 Setting Priorities.

The scoping meetings and conceptual modeling

identied a large set of possibilities for monitor-

ing in Olympic National Park. To date, the Olym-

pic Park staff has assigned only crude priorities to

broad topic areas (see Table 3.1.1). Since that early

exercise, the program has received additional input

resulting in an increased number of topic areas.

Working with Olympic National Park staff, we

honed the topics to specic questions within topic

areas, and then identied indicators to answer each

question (see Part II for the outcome). The next

step is for the Olympic Park staff, working in close

coordination with the North Coast and Cascades

Network and personnel involved with the North

Cascades prototype program, to undertake a struc-

tured and well-documented approach to prioritize

indicators and determine which protocols are avail-

able or should be developed.

Several structured approaches for reaching

group consensus have been developed (e.g., Delphi,

nominal group technique (Delbecq et al. 1975). One

promising approach to prioritization is the analytical

hierarchy process (Saaty 1980) as applied to ecolog-

ical monitoring and natural resource management

by Peterson, et al. (1994, 1995). The process seems

most productively applied to monitoring questions

(rather than indicators), and can be summarized as

having the following steps:

• Identify the objectives of the monitoring

program. The objectives should be based on

those of the national program (Chapter 1.2) but

may include some additional ones reecting

the local program. For example, an additional

objective for Olympic National Park might be

to meet the expectations of a prototype park.

Peterson et al. (1995) recommend working

with no more than seven objectives.

• Identify criteria that can be used to determine

how well each monitoring question meets each

objective.

• Determine a quantitative weight for each

objective, and criterion within objectives,

according to its importance relative to other

objectives and criteria. For example, all criteria

may be considered equal, or some may have

greater importance than others.

• Rate each monitoring question for each cri-

terion across all objectives on a scale of 1-5

according to how well it meets the criterion.

• Calculate the nal rating for each question by

weighting the scores for each question as deter-

mined above and sum across all criteria.

• Identify a cut-off point or some other crite-

rion for determining which questions will be

included in the monitoring program and which

will not. Those that will not be included at this

stage may be considered at a later time should

resources or priorities change.

Many monitoring questions can be addressed

using more than one indicator (Part II). Thus, priori-

ties also need to be established for the potential

indicators within each monitoring question. Indica-

tors could be chosen for each question by repeating

the analytical hierarchy process within each ques-

tion using different objectives. Objectives for indi-

cators may include cost, availability of protocols,

desirable statistical properties, etc. Alternatively,

chosen indicators could simply reect the priority of

the question. Accordingly, questions with a higher

priority are appropriate for a more intensive effort

than those with lower priority.

The analytical hierarchy process, or any other

formal process for setting priorities, is merely a

tool—decisions are ultimately made by, and the

responsibility of resource managers. A formal pro-

cess allows decision-makers to explicitly specify

assumptions and explore their consequences. In

Chapter 6. Next Steps.

Part I. Chapter 6. Next Steps 59

the end, the process of setting priorities is inescap-

ably subjective, based on current knowledge, and

the outcome must be generally intuitive to resource

managers to be acceptable. If the outcome is not

intuitive, then it is appropriate to explore the causes

by reassessing the weights given to the importance

of criteria and objectives and repeating the exercise.

This process should be considered iterative and can

be revisited as knowledge, resources, and political

and environmental factors change. In the meantime,

the rst outcome agreeable to the group should

describe the general outline of the monitoring pro-

gram and provide a worthy starting point.

6.2 Agency Roles in Protocol Development

and Implementation.

The protocol development and implementation

phases follow the initial design phase of long-term

ecological monitoring (Figure 2.5.1). Protocol

development involves selecting core monitoring

components, developing study plans, conducting

research and testing monitoring protocols, develop-

ing data management systems, and preparing writ-

ten protocols (Figure 2.5.1). The U.S. Geological

Survey is committed to help protocol park programs

with protocol development. The implementation

phase includes all aspects of operational monitor-

ing, including data collection, data management

and analysis, project reporting, and periodic review

of monitoring protocols. In previous prototype

monitoring programs, the U.S. Geological Survey

received funding for protocol development a few

years in advance of the National Park Service proto-

type parks receiving funds for program implementa-

tion. This funding sequence led to discrete stages of

protocol development, orchestrated by U.S. Geo-

logical Survey scientists, followed by implementa-

tion of monitoring programs by the National Park

Service (as in Figure 2.5.1).

In contrast to that model, Olympic National

Park and the rest of the North Coast and Cascades

Network received funding from the National Park

Serviceʼs ʻNatural Resources Challengeʼ to imple-

ment its monitoring program at the same time the

U.S. Geological Survey was funded to develop

the protocols. Consequently, the North Coast and

Cascades Network has added staff dedicated largely

to the development and implementation of monitor-

ing. The synchronous funding and professional staff

capabilities at both the North Coast and Cascades

Network and U.S. Geological Survey blurs the sepa-

rate timelines and agency responsibilities for proto-

col ʻdevelopmentʼ and ʻimplementationʼ phases.

Specically, synchronous funding presents a

unique opportunity for joint-funding and agency

collaboration in the development of monitoring

protocols. The North Coast and Cascades Network

and U.S. Geological Survey have entered into a

memorandum of understanding agreeing to develop

monitoring protocols cooperatively whenever sub-

ject-matter expertise and staff workloads permit. In

some circumstances, primarily the U.S. Geological

Survey principal investigator will provide funding,

supervision, and employees, whereas in other cases

National Park Service ecologists will provide the

principal leadership. In the case of U.S. Geologi-

cal Survey leadership, at least one person from the

National Park Service will have responsibility for

setting the direction for each protocol. Frequent

communication will be the key to cement effective

collaboration between U.S. Geological Survey and

the National Park Service scientists and manag-

ers, and ensure that U.S. Geological Survey work

in protocol development compliments park efforts.

Primary responsibilities will be worked out during

the study-planning phase for each individual proto-

col. We recommend both agencies follow a similar

process—study plan, research and development,

data management, protocol development, and peer

review. The process must be carefully documented,

leaving an administrative record of decisions, study

plans, research reports and peer review. Either the

U.S. Geological Survey or the National Park Ser-

vice may administer the documentation and peer

review process, depending upon project leader-

ship. In preparing protocols, we recommend that

U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, or

cooperating ecologists follow recommendations of

the National Park Service Inventory and Monitoring

Program for protocol development and data man-

agement (see www.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor; for rec-

ommendations on monitoring protocols see Oakley

and Boudreau 2000).

60 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

6.3 Developing a Work Plan.

Priority monitoring projects determined by

Olympic National Park and the rest of the North

Coast and Cascades Network are expected

to require an ambitious amount of protocol

development. The next step following prioritization

is to begin work on a handful of the identied

elements by deciding which to address rst.

The recommended monitoring program will be

built based on programmatic objectives while

the choice of starting point will take other issues

into consideration as well. Specically, each

recommended monitoring indicator should be

evaluated for:

• Availability of protocols developed by others

• Progress already made toward developing the

protocol during previous pilot studies or other

monitoring efforts in parks (e.g., Amphibian

Research and Monitoring Initiative, previous

deer and elk research)

• Whether the element is being developed by

another park in the network or elsewhere

• Feasibility

• Opportunity to build on other monitoring that

is already underway by the park

• Management considerations

• Available nancial and human resources

This analysis should lead to a logical work

plan because the element-specic answers to the

above evaluation indicate the amount and type of

needed work and what to do next. For example,

the initial stage of work might focus on nishing

protocols already under development, investigat-

ing the feasibility of those ecologically important

elements currently undergoing theoretical develop-

ment, and investigating efciencies or effective-

ness of alternative protocols. Once a work plan has

been established describing the initial elements, the

type of work needed (e.g., complete the protocol,

investigate other protocols, work on theory), and the

progress desired in the rst stage, protocol develop-

ment can begin.

Part I. Chapter 6. Next Steps 61

62 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

This section describes monitoring questions

and potential indicators for monitoring ecological

condition of natural resources in Olympic National

Park. Here, we have assembled an unranked (i.e.,

no priorities established), comprehensive summary

of all monitoring questions identied thus far for

all the major ecosystems of Olympic National Park,

including terrestrial, aquatic, and marine resources.

Each chapter covers one subject area and includes

a justication for monitoring, monitoring questions

and potential indicators, linkages with other sec-

tions, the spatial and temporal scales, and research

and development needs. Time intervals are recom-

mended in advance of power analysis and other

estimates of variation. They should be considered

preliminary. The organization of material by sec-

tions reects the content of the vital-signs work-

shop, various meetings, and other topic-oriented

workshops (interrelationships are shown in Figure

4.3.2, Part I). Consequently, there is much overlap

among sections (e.g., water quality is identied as

an indicator in at least six chapters) and one could

easily defend an alternate organization of the mate-

rial. Each chapter should not be considered a poten-

tial protocol. Instead, a protocol could be written

for each indicator. These chapters present the raw

material from which Olympic National Park, in

cooperation with the network, must choose monitor-

ing indicators:

Chapter 1 ..... System Drivers: Atmosphere and

Climate.

Chapter 2 ..... System Drivers: Human Activities.

Chapter 3 ..... Park and Surrounding Landscape.

Chapter 4 ..... Biogeochemical Cycles.

Chapter 5 ..... Contaminants.

Chapter 6 ..... Terrestrial Vegetation

Communities.

Chapter 7 ..... Special-Status Plant Species:

Rare and Exotic.

Chapter 8 ..... Terrestrial Fauna.

Chapter 9 ..... Populations and Communities of

Large Mammals.

Chapter 10 ... Special-Status Terrestrial Wildlife

Populations.

Chapter 11.... Geoindicators.

Chapter 12 ... Aquatic/Riparian Habitat.

Chapter 13 ... Aquatic Biota.

Chapter 14 ... Special-Status Fish Species:

Threatened, Rare, Non-native,

and Endemic.

Chapter 15 ... Coastal Environments.

Chapter 16 ... Historical and Paleoecological

Context for Monitoring Results.

Part II. Indicators of Ecological Condition in Olympic National Park.

Part II. Introduction 63

In the course of writing specic monitoring

questions for each subject, we encountered some

challenges. While identifying quantitative objec-

tives for monitoring is a universally recognized

need (Elzinga et al. 1998, Noon 1991), being able

to specify exactly the amount of change necessary

to detect over a given time period is not always

easy. The specicity of the monitoring questions

we could write depended on the type of information

being monitored, knowledge of biologically signi-

cant changes, and some idea of natural variation.

Consequently, we recognize three types of monitor-

ing questions:

1) Questions with Quantitative Monitoring Goals.

These are questions that express the need for

monitoring in terms of quantitative changes in

a specic metric over a given amount of time.

The metric may be the mean of some response

evaluated based on its variance.

a) Monitoring is often used to learn whether

management actions are working or are

needed. In these cases, the monitoring

question can specify quantitative detection

goals based on Limits of Acceptable Change

or other criteria. For example, one might want

to monitor whether some percentage of plants

in a revegetation project have persisted after a

set amount of time.

b) Some non-management monitoring questions

can be asked with specic goals if there is

some knowledge or intuition about what

constitutes a biologically signicant change.

For example, one might want to detect when

a rare plant population has declined below a

certain percentage of its baseline size.

2) Questions Reecting the Need to Obtain Trend

Data. Especially for system drivers, such as

weather and human activities, it is important

to monitor trends over time without specifying

a need to detect a quantitative change. These

variables are out of the control of management,

but will help anticipate future changes and will

enable interpretation of other monitoring results.

These questions will be phrased as the need to

detect a trend in some variable.

3) Questions Regarding Resources About Which We

Have Limited Knowledge. Some monitoring of

ecosystem responses might have quantitative goals

when we know more about what is a biologically

signicant change. In this case we frame questions

that ask whether a change has occurred and take

an educated guess at what level of sampling

will be required, or conduct a pilot research

project to determine variance of the indicator. As

monitoring proceeds, experience will teach us how

to effectively monitor each subject. These are the

questions that are most in need of re-evaluation

and mid-course correction of the monitoring

approach.

The value of being able to state quantitative

monitoring goals for a specic indicator is that,

along with some knowledge of natural variation,

one can design a sampling protocol with sufcient

replication to achieve the goal. As discussed in Part

I, Chapter 5, nancial limitations require monitoring

to be a trade-off among scope, scale, and intensity.

Having a quantitatively stated question can lead to a

quantitative understanding of the trade-off for each

question.

With these ideas in mind, in the following sec-

tions we present the comprehensive list of moni-

toring indicators identied thus far for Olympic

National Park.

64 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Monitoring Need/Justication:

The climate of the Olympic Peninsula is driven

by air masses coming from the west and southwest,

which collect moisture while moving across the

Pacic. When intercepted by the barrier posed by

the Olympic Mountains, these air masses release

most of their moisture on the windward side, leav-

ing little for the leeward side (Renner 1992). The

combination of the quantity of moisture stored

in maritime air masses and tall mountains able to

extract that water out causes the Olympics to have

one of the steepest precipitation gradients in the

world. Climate drives ecological systems and in the

Olympics the geographically and elevation-driven

temperature and precipitation gradients make a

complex pattern that is extremely difcult to inter-

polate between the few existing weather stations

(Figure 1.1 Map). The problem is compounded by

the predominance of low elevation weather stations,

making high elevation climate difcult to infer.

In addition to being moist, air masses cross-

ing the Pacic are relatively unimpacted by local

or continental pollution sources. Consequently, the

coastal and rainforest areas of the park have cleaner

air than many other ecosystems in the coterminous

United States (Thomas et al. 1989). Under the Clean

Air Act (1977, www.epa.gov/oar/oaq_caa.html)

Olympic National Park is designated as a Class I air

quality area. In Class I areas very little deterioration

of air quality is allowed. Additionally, values that

may be affected by changes in air quality (termed

Air Quality Related Values; ARQVs) must also be

protected in Class I areas. These values in Olympic

include visibility, odor, ora, fauna, and geological,

archeological, soil, and water resources. Within the

National Park Service, management of resources is

guided by a number of Service-specic pieces of

legislation. Standards for baseline knowledge and

monitoring of atmospheric resources are provided

in NPS 75 (National Park Service, 1992). At Olym-

pic National Park, baseline information regarding

atmospheric and meteorologic resources for existing

monitoring stations is adequate to meet Level I (i.e.,

Phase I which is the minimum level) of these stan-

dards. Level II standards are not met for the entire

geographic area within the park boundary.

Despite the relatively pristine condition of

Olympicʼs air, studies have shown that airborne

pollutants affect even the mountainous core of the

peninsula. Industrial and urban emission sources

affecting the north side of the park are located in

Port Angeles. However, SO

levels measured nearby

at the parkʼs air quality site do not violate federal or

state air quality standards and they are lower than

those measured in Port Angeles itself. Ozone con-

centrations increase with elevation and are moni-

tored along an elevation gradient on the north side

of the park. Acid precipitation has been examined

only on the west side of the park. The average pH

of rainfall at the Hoh is approximately 5.2 (NADP,

http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu). Nitrate concentrations

during the year vary little at this site, but during the

summer, inputs of SO

, another acid-forming ion,

are greatest. The source is partly biogenic, from

oceanic planktonic algae, but long-range transport

from Asia may also inuence the chemical com-

position of the atmosphere. Another threat to park

air quality is increasing pollution that is emerging

from the rapidly growing metropolitan area from

Vancouver, British Columbia to Portland, Oregon.

Pollutants are carried from these sources by easterly

winds. Finally, the consequences and magnitude

Chapter 1. System Drivers: Atmosphere and Climate.

Part II. Chapter 1. System Drivers: Atmosphere and Climate 65

of increasing ultraviolet radiation penetrating the

atmosphere at northern latitudes is unknown.

While air pollutants do not appear to pose a

signicant threat to terrestrial resources in the park

at present (Eiler et al. 1994), there are examples of

national parks that have been impacted. The park

houses potentially sensitive vascular plants, lichens

and mosses, which could be early-responders

to pollution if methods for monitoring them are

devised. Meanwhile, climate, independent of

considerations of pollutants, drives all terrestrial

and aquatic systems and it must be understood in

order to interpret nearly all research and monitoring

done in the park. Consequently needs exist for

models of weather, air pollution dispersal, and

deposition patterns in the complex situation caused

by orographic inuences on airow by the Olympic

Mountains.

Monitoring Questions and Indicators:

Question: What are the status and trends of geo-

graphic and elevational patterns of weather?

• Indicator: Meteorologic Variables. Add addi-

tional weather stations to those already existing

and operated by various authorities. Existing

permanent stations include the Elwha Ranger

Station, Quinault Ranger Station, Port Ange-

les, Hurricane Ridge, South Mountain and the

Hoh River; a temporary station exists at Deer

Park. Additional stations are recommended

for Mt. Anderson, Hoh Lake and the upper Sol

Duc drainage, but placement should be deter-

mined in consultation with climate modelers.

Measured variables should include air and

soil temperatures, radiation and energy ux,

relative humidity, and wind speed and direc-

tion. Justication: These are standard climatic

and energy variables, and they are used to

predict climatic variation and resource impacts

in various ecosystem models. The additional

sites will provide linkage to glacier monitor-

ing and will give better geographic coverage

at high elevations. Limitations: There will be

challenges with maintenance, data analysis and

locating sites having a large enough canopy

opening. Spatial interpolation will be difcult.

Climate Monitoring Sites

UV (1997-present)

Air Quality

(SO2/O3/DDM) (1983-present)

NADP (1980-present)

Basic Weather (1983-, 1986-,

or 1998-present)

IMPROVE (2001-present)

Dioxin (1999-present)

Figure 1.1. Map of extant atmosphere and climate monitoring stations in Olympic National Park plus an

IMPROVE site outside. (map prepared by R. Hoffman, Olympic National Park)

66 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

• Indicator : Snow Characteristics.

• Depth and Timing of Snow. One Snowpack

Telemetry (SNOTEL) site currently operates

at Hurricane Ridge, providing continuous

data on snow depth, snow water equivalent,

and timing of snowfall. Add three additional

SNOTEL sites at Mt. Anderson, Blue Gla-

cier, and the upper Sol Duc River. Justica-

tion: Eighty-percent of annual precipitation

falls during the winter meaning that snow

depth and water content have critical effects

on hydrologic resources, which affect terres-

trial and aquatic ecosystems. The data can

be used to validate models of snowpack and

hydrology. Limitations: As with the met sta-

tions, siting, maintenance and data analysis

will be challenging.

• Snow Depth and Water Equivalent. Measure

rain and snow deposition and distribution

(depth and snow water equivalent) more

widely in the park by making some snow

course measurements on the west side of the

Figure 1.2. Conceptual model of the interactions among atmospheric and terrestrial

ecosystem components (modied from Hall et al. 1989).

Atmosphere

Surface Physiology

Hydrology

Community

Composition

& Structure

Biochemical

& Hydrologic

Cycles

Anthropogenic

Activities

Soils

Temp

Water

Trace Gases

Pollutants

Light

Water

Trace Gases

Pollutants

Light

Temp

Moisture

Wind

Landscape

Modification

Nutrients

Erosion

Detritus

Water, Nutrients

Heat

Moisture

Radiation

Trace Gases

& Pollutants

Landscape

Modification

Nutrients

Water

Physiological

Response

Part II. Chapter 1. System Drivers: Atmosphere and Climate 67

Conceptual Model:

peninsula. Justication: We need a bet-

ter understanding of climatic variation and

better estimates for inputs into hydrologic

models describing distribution of water and

soluble chemicals. Snow course measure-

ments are relatively easy and inexpensive.

Limitations: Access to high elevation areas

on the west side is difcult.

• Park-wide Snow Cover. Use aerial photos

and/or satellite imagery to map and quantify

snow-covered areas. Justication: This will

contribute to understanding climate varia-

tion in time and space and will help estimate

inputs into hydrologic budgets. Limitation:

Cost.

Question: Are there trends in ultraviolet radiation

interception?

• Indicator: Ultraviolet Radiation. Continue to

monitor continuous broad spectrum UV radia-

tion at the present site on Ediz Hook. Perhaps

add less expensive monitors to other parts of

the park. Justication: UV radiation is pre-

dicted to change due to global climate change,

and may have important consequences for

biota. UV monitoring is part of a national pro-

gram of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Limitations: The UV monitor is expensive to

maintain.

Question: What are the geographic and elevational

patterns of ozone?

• Indicator: Ozone Patterns. Add a continu-

ous ozone monitor permanently at Hurricane

Ridge and two temporary analyzers on the east

side of the park and at the Hoh to supplement

the one already operating near Port Angeles.

Passive analyzers might be recommended,

especially at high elevation, following analysis

of data collected over the last 5 years. Justi-

cation: These new analyzers will describe

elevational and spatial distribution of ozone.

The one at the Hoh will indicate “background”

ozone levels for the Olympic Peninsula and

perhaps all of western Washington. Limita-

tions: Analyzers require a power source but

must also be located away from vehicle trafc.

Also, it is difcult to nd locations in the park

that meet the siting requirements for size of

canopy opening.

Question: What are the status and trends of geo-

graphic patterns of wet and dry deposition?

• Indicator: Patterns of Wet and Dry Deposi-

tion. Add measurements of wet deposition to

the dry deposition site in Port Angeles, and

measurements of dry deposition to the wet

deposition site in the Hoh. Wet deposition

includes dissolved ions such as nitrate, ammo-

nium, and sulfate. Dry deposition includes

other, undissolved chemical compounds.

Justication: These are standard measure-

ments used nationally by NADP. They will

provide information regarding the effects of

nitrogen and sulfur on terrestrial and aquatic

ecosystems by describing rain and snow chem-

istry, and dry deposition. The new sites will

improve geographic coverage. Limitations:

Finding representative sites will be difcult

due to high spatial variation and it will be

difcult to extrapolate the data to large areas.

Also, the accuracy and meaning of dry deposi-

tion estimates is questionable.

Question: What is the geographic distribution of

changes in airborne particulates and impairment of

visibility?

• Indicator: Visibility. Add another Interagency

Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments

(IMPROVE) site to the one already exist-

ing on the east side of the park. The new site

should be located on the west side of the park

to capture the low-pollution condition there.

Justication: Adding monitoring to the west

side of the park would give better geographic

coverage. Limitations: Expense.

Question: Are terrestrial resources changing,

including pollution-sensitive vegetation and soils?

• Indicator: Foliar Diagnoses of Pollution

Effects. Monitor foliar diagnostic symptoms

of pollution effects (e.g., chlorosis, needle

retention) and effects on lichens with other

vegetation monitoring. Justication: These

measurements will link ecological effects with

changes in pollutant concentrations and can be

68 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

incorporated with other vegetation monitoring

efforts. Limitations: Minimal because little

effort is needed to identify appropriate loca-

tions, vegetation types and species to monitor.

The main expense would be eld time.

• Indicator: Soil Chemistry and Microbes.

Measure temporal variation in soil nitrogen,

soil microora and microfauna, and carbon to

nitrogen ratio. Justication: These measure-

ments can be made in conjunction with vegeta-

tion monitoring and will describe ecosystem

response to changes in air quality and precipi-

tation chemistry. Limitations: Cost of analysis.

Question: Is water quality changing in sensitive

lakes and streams (i.e., those that are oligotrophic or

have low acid neutralizing capacity [ANC])?

• Indicator: Water Quality in Lakes and

Streams. Measure surface water quality,

including pH, ANC, conductivity, and major

anions in lakes and streams with the lowest

ANC. Water bodies having low ANC are the

most sensitive to SO

and NO

anions because

of the H

cations that accompany them. Lakes

having low ANC will have to be identied with

an initial survey. Justication: These methods

are used nationally in surface water surveys

and will indicate changes in the most sensi-

tive systems as an early warning of ecosystem

effects. Limitations: If sensitive lakes are in

the backcountry, they will be more costly to

access.

Question: Is local air quality near road corridors

and campgrounds changing?

• Indicator: Local Air Quality. Temporar-

ily measure air quality, especially visibility,

sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and ozone in

areas where management may have particular

concerns (e.g., road corridors, campgrounds,

fee kiosks, etc.). Justication: This will easily

address management concerns. Limitations:

No areas are currently of concern.

Linkages with Other Disciplines:

• Park and Surrounding Landscape. Snow cover.

• Aquatic/Riparian Habitat. Lake and stream

chemistry, especially in low ANC lakes.

• Biogeochemical Cycles. Lake chemistry, soil

chemistry.

• Terrestrial Vegetation Communities. Foliar

response to air pollution and radiation.

Research and Development Needs:

•

How can sampling be optimally designed to

facilitate accurate interpolation of climatic

data, including wet and dry deposition, both

geographically and elevationally? What are

the best statistical/quantitative techniques for

doing this?

• How can lapse rates (change in temperature

with elevation) be accurately quantied? Data

from the Quillayute weather balloon will be

helpful.

• Perhaps short-term monitoring on elevation

gradients would be a fruitful approach.

• What is the quantitative relationship between

passive and continuous ozone data? (Project is

underway.)

• What are the quantitative relationships

between air pollutants and ecosystem effects

(e.g., symptomatic impacts for plants, relative

sensitivity of different soil types to elevated

atmospheric nitrogen inputs)?

• How many lakes in Olympic National Park

are sensitive to deposition of the acid-forming

ions SO

-2

and NO

because they are oligotro-

phic or low-ANC systems?

Part II. Chapter 1. System Drivers: Atmosphere and Climate 69

Geographic

Zones Elevation Zones (m) Human Use Zones Frequency

Proposed

Indicator

West East <500

501-

1000

1001-

1500

>1500

Hi Mod

Low

(Interval)

Meteorology E E E E(e) E(e)

R(w)

E(e)

R(e)

E R R Hourly

SNOTEL R E E, R E R R Daily

Snow Course R E E E E Monthly

UV E E E  Hourly

Ozone R E E(e)

R(w)

R(e) E R ?

Dry Deposition R E E(e)

R(w)

E(e)R(w) Monthly

Wet Deposition E R E(w)

R(e)

E(w)

R(e)

Monthly

Visibility R E E, R R E Daily

Foliar Effects R R R ? Annually

Local Air

Quality

Daily

(e) indicates east side of park (drier areas) (w) indicates west side of park (wetter areas)

Spatial and Temporal Context:

Where and How Often to Monitor:

This table indicates existing monitoring (E) and

recommended additional monitoring (R).

70 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Monitoring Need/Justication:

As human population increases, so does visita-

tion to national parks and the consequent risks to

park resources, both natural and experiential. The

population of Washington State alone is projected to

increase from 5.9 million in 2000 to 7.5 million by

2025. Meanwhile, visits to Olympic National Park

have increased from 100,000 in 1945 to 3 million in

1984 and 4.2 million in 2001 (park records). Thus,

anthropogenic threats to park resources are increas-

ing both inside and outside the park.

Effects of human activity occur immediately

outside of the park and are due largely to forest

management practices. Examples of impacts within

the park from these activities include blow-down

of park trees adjacent to clear-cut logging on the

boundary, slash burns escaping into the park, water

pollution due to herbicide spraying, and increased

siltation of park waters (Olympic National Park

1999). Additionally, over 85 km of roads provide

unofcial access to the park and facilitate timber

theft, poaching of wildlife and plants, and illegal

harvest of shellsh. Non-forest activities affecting

the park include such things as local industries and

transportation, sh hatcheries, increasing residen-

tial development, ocean vessels, and mining. Other

anthropogenic effects are regional and global.

Examples include regional and global habitat degra-

dation for migratory species, ocean shing, par-

ticulates from Asia, effects on air quality caused by

increasing industry/vehicle trafc between Vancou-

ver, B.C. and Portland.

Inside the park, high visitor use directly affects

wilderness values. Unsanctioned campsites, social

trails, and unacceptable trail widening have resulted

from intense backcountry use and have caused

unacceptable vegetation loss and on-going ero-

sion (Olympic National Park 1999). Changes in

experiential values, such as solitude and quiet,

have not been measured. High numbers of visitors

may require management to change the placement

of facilities such as ranger stations, trail bridges,

boardwalks, privies and bear-wires, all affecting

wilderness resources.

Recognizing the need to manage visitor use

proactively to protect experiential and biologic

resources, the National Park Service advocates use

of the Visitor Experience and Resource Protec-

tion (VERP; National Park Service 1997) plan-

ning framework by parks, similar to the Limits of

Acceptable Change (LAC) framework. These are

dynamic processes for developing indicators and

standards to address visitor carrying capacity and

management issues for both experiential and bio-

logic resources. The goal is to set standards for the

limits of acceptable change in indicators of resource

quality (e.g., percent bare ground, number of others

encountered on trails) and link those indicators with

more easily measured indicators of visitor numbers

(e.g., number of cars in the parking lots, number of

vehicles passing fee stations). When the standards

are exceeded, management action is required. The

standards must protect against both ecological

harm to biologic resources and disappointment of

visitor expectations because these are both part of

the National Park System mandate (U.S. Congress

1916).

Chapter 2. System Drivers: Human Activities.

Part II. Chapter 2. System Drivers: Human Activities 71

Monitoring Questions and Indicators:

Question: Are visitor numbers and uses of the park

changing?

• Indicator: Visitor Census. Maintain the auto-

mated vehicle counters on all park entrances

and collect data annually. Justication: After

initial determination of correction factors

for visitors/vehicle and commercial and park

trafc, automated vehicle counts will give an

economical and accurate picture of park visita-

tion. It will also serve as an early warning sign

of visitor impacts on park resources. Finally,

park visitation counts can be disaggregated

according to the location of counter to give a

rough idea of visitor distribution. Limitations:

The initial calibration phase will be somewhat

costly.

• Indicator: Visitor Activities. Conduct social

surveys of individual and party activities at

specic park locations at ve-year intervals

to describe types of park use. The sites where

surveys are conducted should reect primary

natural resource concerns. They should also

recognize that the greatest increase in effects

of human use is occurring in more remote off-

trail areas rather than near trails. Justication:

These detailed surveys of activities are needed

to indicate what specic impacts may occur as

a result of visitor activities, and to rene esti-

mates of park visitation. This information will

be useful for managers in and out of the park

because it will suggest trends in recreation

demand and potential impacts on surround-

ing recreation areas. Limitations: Designing

a sampling strategy that has inference to the

entire visitor population is a complex task.

• Indicator: Visitor Distribution. Collect data

on visitor numbers at widely distributed sites

throughout the park along with conducting

social surveys. This would also be done at

ve-year intervals. Justication: This monitor-

ing will indicate the spatial distribution and

Human Population

Global National

Regional Local

Park

Managers

Park

Visitors

Other Park Users

Native Americans

Inholders

Poachers

External Activities

Land-Use Industry

Extraction Harvest

Transportation

Park Resources

Vegetation

Wildlife

Soils

Air Quality

Solitude

Political Pressure

Economic Demand

Expectations

Alternatives

Land-use Practices

Consumption

Pollution

Trampling

Harvesting

Pollution

Resource

Condition

Infrastructure

Policies

Need for

Services

Visitor

Experience

Political

Pressure

Conceptual Model:

Figure 2.1. Conceptual model of interaction among human activities, park resources, and park management.

72 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

intensity of visitor impacts to park resources.

Limitations: This sampling strategy will also

be difcult to design, and the study could be

costly depending on the size of the sample and

the number of locations in the park.

Question: Are visitorsʼ desires for, expectations of,

and actual experiences in Olympic National Park

changing?

• Indicator: (Under development). The Park

Service recognizes that experiential resources

are in need of protection as much as biologi-

cal resources and has developed the VERP

planning framework in response. The VERP

framework uses indicators and standards for

those indicators to dene the limits of accept-

able change to park resources. In the realm

of visitor use indicators, standards are fairly

easy to dene (e.g., < 20% bare ground, > 10

other people encountered on a particular trail),

and they can be specic to different areas of

the park. However, the linkage between easily

measured parameters, such as vehicle num-

bers in parking lots and trailhead counts, and

effects on park resources in relation to visitor

expectations are poorly understood. This ques-

tion is a subject of research at Mount Rainier

National Park where visitor densities are high

and much sociological research has already

been conducted. Results from Mount Rainier

provide guidance for other parks throughout

the Pacic Northwest.

Question: Is management responding to the needs

of visitors by adding or moving infrastructure?

• Indicator: Numbers of Facilities. Record the

number and location of facilities according

to category (e.g., hard-sided ranger stations,

ranger tents, shelters, wilderness campsites,

etc.) and the number of miles of roads, trails,

riprap, etc., parkwide on an annual basis.

Justication: Changes in the amount of

infrastructure will indicate a change in man-

agement activities that might impact park

resources. Limitations: Some facilities may be

created without the knowledge of park staff

(e.g., wilderness campsites).

• Indicator: Number of Over Flights. Monitor

the number, altitude and frequency of permit-

ted ights passing over the park at 5 to 10 year

intervals. Justication: Cumulative aircraft

use impacts many wilderness values of the

park.

Question: Are the amounts of legal and illegal har-

vest of park vegetation increasing?

• Indicator: Number and Size of Interceptions

by Law Enforcement. Following law enforce-

ment actions will indicate the trend in illegal

harvests. Justication: Records are easy to

obtain. Limitations: This approach does not

describe the total amount of illegal harvest.

• Indicator: Number and Amounts of Legal

Harvest. To be determined.

Question: Is the extent of impacts caused by visitor

use changing?

• Indicator: Surveys of Backcountry Campsites

and Trail Dimensions. Survey trail dimen-

sions, maybe with the help of trail crew, on

selected trails. Survey the size and number of

backcountry campsites, maybe with the help

of backcountry rangers. Justication: These

groups of people are in the backcountry regu-

larly, and the needed tasks are simple and need

no unusual equipment. Limitations: None.

Question: Are the activities of park residents and

inholders changing?

• Indicator: Residences and Sewer Systems.

Monitor the number of residences and number

and type of water and sewer systems in the

park and on inholdings. Justication: Indica-

tion of whether these facilities are increasing,

decreasing or staying constant will indicate

the need for concern about park resident and

inholder impacts. Limitations: Data on inhold-

ings may be difcult to obtain.

Question: Are the number and activities of conces-

sionaires, Incidental Business Permits (IBP) and

Special Use Permits changing?

• Indicator: Contracts and Permits. Monitor

the numbers and types of contracts or

Part II. Chapter 2. System Drivers: Human Activities 73

permits granted by the park annually using

park records. Justication: This is an inexpen-

sive way to determine whether there is need

for concern about these activities.

• Indicator: Concession activity. Monitor the

number, type, frequency, location and people/

trip for concession activities. Justication:

This is an inexpensive way to monitor changes

in concession activity and assess the need for

concern.

Linkages with Other Disciplines:

• Terrestrial Vegetation Communities. Impacts

of visitors and management on vegetation and

soils.

• Aquatic/Riparian Habitat. Impacts of visitors

and management on aquatic and riparian veg-

etation and habitat quality.

• Aquatic Biota. Fisheries.

• Coastal Environments. Impacts of visitors on

coastal intertidal areas.

• System Drivers: Atmosphere and Climate.

Effect of campres on air quality near camp-

grounds.

• Terrestrial Fauna. Effects of poaching on

animal resources, relationship between visitor

numbers and human-animal interactions.

• Park and Surrounding Landscape. Land-use

changes outside of the park.

• U.S. Census. Local, regional and statewide

human demographic changes.

Spatial and Temporal Context: Where and How Often to Monitor:

Geographic

Zones Elevation Zones (m) Human Use Zones Frequency

Proposed Indicator West East <500

501-

1000

1001-

1500 >1500 Hi Mod Low (Interval)

Vehicle Counts X X X X X 1 yr

Activity Surveys X X X X X X X X 5 yr

Distribution Surveys X X X X X X X X X 5 yr

Facility Inventory X X X X X X X X 1 yr

Internal Aircraft Flights X X 1 yr

Residences, Water & Sewer X X X 1 yr

IBP Contracts & Permits X X X X X X X X X 1 yr

Concession Activity X X X X X X X X X 1 yr

Research and Development Needs:

• Continued work with VERP or LAC to develop

relationships among visitor numbers, limits of

acceptable change, and visitor expectations.

• Develop an accurate census method for visita-

tion (day and overnight use) and specify ade-

quate equipment.

• Who is engaging in poaching various resources

and what are their motivations?

• What are the impacts of trampling on biodiver-

sity and plant processes?

• Is there a need for an indicator of legal and

illegal collection of plant material (e.g., mush-

rooms, salal, moss, beargrass)? If so, develop the

indicator(s).

• What effect is wood collection having on woody

debris resources?

• What is the relationship between external

changes in demographics and changes in the

nature and number of park visitors?

• Research is needed to determine the average

number of visitors per vehicle to adjust vehicle

counter data to indicate number of visitors. The

data will also need to be corrected for commer-

cial and park vehicle trafc.

• What is the impact of legal and illegal harvest

of park resources having on plant communi-

ties?

74 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Monitoring Need/Justication:

National Park managers face several threats to

park integrity that call for a regional or even global

perspective. Detecting the extent and intensity of

changes to park resources caused by large-scale

problems such as acid precipitation, climate change,

airborne pollutants or urbanization requires park

management to take an expansive view of the park.

This necessitates considering the park in the con-

text of surrounding managed lands and gaining an

understanding of how regional and global processes

such as atmospheric circulation patterns affect park

ecosystems.

Natural and human-caused disturbances are

important large-scale phenomena affecting the

structure and function of ecosystems, including

forest-dominated ecosystems of the Pacic North-

west (Spies 1997). These disturbances include re,

avalanches, windstorms, mass wasting, ooding,

beach erosion, insects and diseases, tsunamis, and

forest fragmentation outside of the park. Each of

these has a characteristic spatial and temporal scale,

and together with other environmental patterns,

they create a mosaic of habitats and communities

across the park. Landscape patterns have important

implications for many ecosystem processes such

as dispersal rates of old-growth forest dependent

organisms, the invasion of exotic species, and

disturbance type and frequency (Pickett and White

1985, Perry and Amaranthus 1997). Comprehensive

protection of a park requires an understanding of

the status and dynamics of disturbance patterns and

processes. Remote sensing is a powerful tool that,

when used over time, can indicate landscape-level

trends in landscape patterns, including the avail-

ability of habitat patches, presence of corridors

and connectivity with areas outside of the park for

species of concern, disturbance levels along riparian

corridors, and the size and frequency of windthrow,

re and other disturbances (Wilkie and Finn 1996).

Remote sensing tools (aerial photographs and satel-

lite imagery) tend to be expensive, but no other

means provide the large-scale perspective.

Landscape pattern is clearly a large-scale issue

best addressed by remote sensing. Additionally,

some important ecosystem processes that can be

meaningfully measured over small areas, can only

be evaluated using remote sensing techniques to

understand the landscape-scale changes they affect.

For example, primary productivity can be measured

in single forest stands but it is difcult to extrapo-

late from individual plots to the entire park unless

remote sensing tools are used. Parameters such as

canopy nitrogen can be measured remotely, and

using plot data for validation, can be used to esti-

mate productivity on a park-wide basis (Ollinger

et al. In press, Smith et al. 2002). Remote sensing

promises to bridge the gap between intensive eco-

logical research or monitoring and the evaluation,

understanding, and management of landscapes.

In addition to using repeat photography and

imagery, other regional sources provide land-

scape-scale data. Examples include the USDA

Forest Service Pest Management aerial surveys in

national forests and national parks (Dave Bridg-

water, [email protected]), the Intra-agency

Vegetation Mapping Program (Melinda Mouer,

[email protected]) and Olympic National Park

data on the frequency, cause and size of res since

1940. In addition, National Oceanic and Atmo-

spheric Administration produces coastal change

detection information, and Bureau of Land Manage-

ment provides lightning strike data throughout the

western U.S., including frequency maps for strikes.

Chapter 3. Park and Surrounding Landscape.

Part II. Chapter 3. Park and Surrounding Landscape 75

Monitoring Questions and Indicators:

Question: What are the trends in the frequency,

size, and distribution of disturbance events, namely

wind throw, ooding, mass-wasting, changes in

river channels, re, insects and disease?

Question: What are the trends in extent of snow

cover and in plant phenology?

Question: What are the trends in landscape-scale

patterns of vegetation and land-use outside of the

park?

Question: What are the trends in coastal shoreline

position?

• Indicator: Change Detection. Obtain satel-

lite imagery (Landsat Thematic Mapper [TM],

light detection and ranging [lidar], or other

airborne imagery as newer sensors become

available and affordable) and subject them

to automated image processing techniques to

detect change. These techniques are good at

nding change, but they are not as good at

determining the type of change. Once areas

that have changes have been identied, we can

quantify the extent of change and identify the

mechanism through a combination of aerial

photo interpretation and site visits. In many

cases site visits (ground-truthing) will not be

necessary, effective, or feasible due to inacces-

sibility of sites. Many common mechanisms

of change (i.e., clear cuts, regeneration, snow

melt, river meanders, re, etc.) are identi-

able from imagery. In fact, the mechanism of

change is sometimes more easily discerned

from the imagery or photo pairs than on the

ground because eld crews do not have the

benet of seeing two snapshots in time. Aerial

photos should be at 1:15,840 resolution (R.

Hoffman, Olympic National Park, Personal

communication) and could be taken every 10

years, or maybe half of the park every 5 years.

Satellite imagery may be inexpensive enough

that change detection analyses could be done

annually or biannually. Changes due to all of

the processes described in the questions above

could be described with this approach (Lefsky

et al. 2001, Lefsky et al. 2002).

Justication: The combination of satellite

imagery and aerial photos increases the ef-

Conceptual Model:

LANDSCAPE PATTERN

(SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL)

e.g., Corridors among patches

Patches – size, distribution

Shoreline position

Stream morphology

Physiognomic ecotones

DISTURBANCE —

NATURAL & HUMAN-

CAUSED

LANDSCAPE

REGIONAL/GLOBAL

COMMUNITY

CHANGES IN PLANT &

ANIMAL COMMUNITY

STRUCTURE, FUNCTION

& DISTRIBUTION

SCALE:

EXAMPLE

MEANS:

PROCESS:

Susceptibility

to future

disturbance

Succession

Mass-wasting

Harvest

Wind speed

Cloud formation

Phenology

Pollution

Storm size

& frequency

CLIMATE

ATMOSPHERE

Aggregation of

characteristics to

landscape scale

Exotic invasions

Dispersal rates

Connectivity

Figure 3.1. Conceptual model of the interactions among the forces determining landscape pattern in

Olympic National Park.

76 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

ciency of change detection and identication

by using an automated procedure to narrow

the focus of the analysis. Interpreting aerial

photos is the most accurate way to identify

remotely-sensed features but it is time con-

suming and requires special expertise. Aerial

photos would also have other uses for moni-

toring, including recording permanent plot

locations. Limitations: Aerial photos and their

interpretation are expensive, and qualied per-

sonnel are few. Timing of imagery to describe

snow cover and phenology might be difcult

to achieve. There can be problems with photo

registration, distortion, and quality.

Question: What are status and trends of forest

structure, composition and function?

• Indicator: Vegetation Chemistry. The Air-

borne Imaging Spectrometer (AIS) is able to

detect the differences in spectra emitted from

compounds based on chemical bond structure

(Ollinger et al. In press, Smith et al. 2002).

Consequently it can be used to measure such

things as species composition, leaf lignin,

forest productivity, decomposition rates, rates

of nutrient release and assimilation, rates of

nitrogen cycling, landscape transitions, and

vegetation stress across forested landscapes.

Justication: This new technology shows

promise for allowing detailed detection of

important, integrative forest processes. Limita-

tions: The technique is still experimental and

expensive, although the park service may be

able to acquire it for a discount. Extensive

ground-truthing is required.

• Indicator: Vegetation Structure and Com-

position. Acquire Landsat TM or Systeme

Probatoire dʼObservation de la Terre (SPOT)

data from which some of the above vegetation

processes, composition and structure can be

estimated, but less directly and at a lower level

of resolution. Justication: These data are

widely available and have great utility. Limi-

tations: Requires extensive ground-truthing,

which is expensive.

Linkages with Other Disciplines:

• Aquatic/Riparian Habitat. Changes in snow

cover and stream morphology.

• Terrestrial Vegetation Communities. Changes

in snow cover, phenology, and vegetation

structure and composition.

• Geoindicators. Mass-wasting, stream channel

morphology, and extent of wetlands if pos-

sible.

• System Drivers: Atmosphere and Climate.

Snow cover, disturbance, land-use outside of

the park.

• System Drivers: Human Activities. Land-use

outside of the park.

• Biogoechemistry. Vegetation chemistry.

• Populations and Communities of Large Mam-

mals. Phenology.

• Coastal Environments. Sea level change,

shoreline position alterations.

Geographic

Zones Elevation Zones (m) Human Use Zones

Frequency

Proposed Indicator West East <500

501-

1000

1001-

1500 >1500 Hi Mod Low (Interval)

Disturbance X X X X X X X X X 1-2 yrs

Snow Cover X X X X X X X X X 1-2 yrs

Vegetation Phenology X X X X X X X X X 1-2 yrs

Land-use Outside Park X X X X X 1-2 yrs

Vegetation Struct. & Chemistry X X X X X X X X X 5-10 yrs

Shoreline Position X X X X 5-10 yrs

Spatial and Temporal Context: Where and How Often to Monitor:

Part II. Chapter 3. Park and Surrounding Landscape 77

Research and Development Needs:

• How great is the ability of remotely sensed

data to detect signicant changes in land cover

and resource condition at small spatial (e.g.,

30 x 30 m) and temporal (e.g., annual) scales?

• Retrospective studies using historic records,

historic photos, historic aerial photos and

models are needed to reconstruct past patterns

of disturbance events. Geologic methods can

be used to date historic mass-wasting events,

and dendrochronological methods can be used

to determine re histories.

• Employ change detection analyses to deter-

mine size and frequency of disturbance events

such as windthrow and ooding using Landsat™

images from as far back as possible (ca. 1974).

• Compare spatial and temporal patterns of re

described by the aerial photos with results

from retrospective re history studies to

compare recent re behavior with historic and

pre-historic behavior.

• Coordinate data collection between plot-level and

remotely sensed data so that smaller-scale mea-

surements represent the same process detectable

remotely. The details will depend on which type

of remotely sensed data can be acquired.

78 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Monitoring Need/Justication:

Comprehensive monitoring programs must

reect the fact that ecosystems are not static col-

lections of biotic units. Rather, they are functioning

entities that process nutrients among biotic and abi-

otic components in biogeochemical cycles. Biogeo-

chemists see biogeochemical cycles as the foun-

dation of ecosystems, and that organisms merely

represent “repackaging” of energy and nutrients into

different stages of the cycles (stated at Biogeochem-

ical Processes Workshop, see Appendix A). The

importance of process in ecosystems is recognized

in the mandate of national parks to achieve “pres-

ervation of a total environment, as compared with

the protection of an individual feature or species”

(National Park Service 1968).

It may be hard to convince the public that

imperceptible chemical processes are important

indicators of ecosystem status when their more

obvious interests for protection are populations of

animal and plant species. However, biogeochemical

cycles are the network that links all ecosystem com-

ponents, biotic and abiotic (Likens et al. 1977, Sol-

lins et al. 1980). The importance of these cycles is

more obvious if, for example, one denes a stressed

ecosystem as one that is experiencing a decrease in

photosynthesis, a fundamental ecosystem process.

This denition reduces the effect of many possible

stressors (e.g., climate change, air pollution, acid

rain, disease) to an effect on one step in the carbon

cycle, and thereby makes it possible to predict how

a stressor will ramify throughout all other parts of

the system. Changes in biogeochemical cycles may

also be more sensitive indicators than biota because

they show less variation (Edmonds et al. 1998). In

addition to giving a clearer signal than biota, they

may also provide “early warning” of ecosystem

change because they may respond before biota

(Perry 1994). Finally, some biogeochemical mea-

surements give an integrated assessment of system

status. For example, stream chemistry reects not

only streambed characteristics but also includes

the runoff of water and nutrients from the entire

watershed (Likens et al. 1977, Sollins et al. 1980,

Edmonds et al. 1998). Consequently, biogeochemi-

cal indicators can give a comprehensive and inte-

grated assessment of ecosystem status (Waring and

Running 1998).

One important subset of the biogeochemical

network in Olympic National Park involves the

transfer of nutrients from the marine environment

to terrestrial forests by anadromous sh. When

anadromous sh return from the ocean to spawn and

die, they provide marine-derived nutrients to fresh-

water ecosystems through their excretion, gametes

and carcasses (Bilby et al. 1996). These nutrients

are important to the productivity of the lakes and

streams in which they spawn (Larkin and Slaney

1997). Nutrients are also transferred directly to

scavengers and indirectly through the soil to veg-

etation. As salmon populations uctuate, naturally

and due to anthropogenic inuences on habitat and

harvest, park resource managers are concerned

about the impact to the forest and aquatic ecosys-

tems. Fish numbers are hard to monitor directly,

but marine derived nutrients can be detected in

vegetation by analyzing isotopes of nitrogen and

carbon (Ben-David et al. 1998). In this way, salmon

can be monitored indirectly by monitoring one of

their ecological roles. A change in salmon popula-

tions could propagate throughout the food chain.

Small reductions in the numbers of anadromous sh

might signicantly degrade ecosystem processes

and productivity, which, in turn, could contribute to

a “positive feedback loop” due to lessened biologi-

cal productivity/oligotrophication and increasingly

reduced production levels.

Chapter 4. Biogeochemical Cycles.

Part II. Chapter 4. Biogeochemical Cycles 79

Because biogeochemical cycles include abiotic

as well as biotic elements, some predicted envi-

ronmental changes are expected to affect biogeo-

chemical processes directly. These include expected

changes in air quality and precipitation chemistry,

including toxic deposition. Changes in hydrology

resulting from development in and around parks,

changes in precipitation, and in the amount and

timing of glacier melt water, due to climate change,

will also affect biogeochemical cycling. Therefore

monitoring of biogeochemical cycling is closely

tied to monitoring of system drivers.

Monitoring Questions and Indicators:

Question: Are precipitation chemistry measure-

ments from the Hoh Small Watershed Project

deviating from the nearly twenty-year norm already

observed?

• Indicator: Small Watershed Precipitation

Measurements. The Small Watershed Project

in the Hoh River valley should continue to

measure monthly bulk precipitation chemistry,

precipitation amount, dissolved organic car-

bon and nitrogen, and conductivity monthly.

The park should consider adding continuous

measurements of conductivity and tempera-

ture. (The site has recently experienced mass

wasting so water quality and ow are not

representative of the conditions described by

earlier measurements. Therefore it might be

a useful research opportunity to study stream

recovery, but it is not as useful to continue

them for the purpose of adding to the estab-

lished record of water ow and quality.)

Justication: The Small Watershed Project

has produced informative results by establish-

ing baseline conditions so that a temporary

increase in atmospheric nitrogen could be

detected, although the source is not known. It

is important to have a few intensively moni-

tored sites, like the Hoh site, so that system

dynamics can be comprehensively understood

on a greater geographic basis. Limitations:

Intensive studies are expensive to maintain.

Conceptual Model: Figures 1.2 for Biogeochemical Cycles and 4.1 for Marine-Derived Nutrients

MARINE

ENVIRONMENT

FRESH-WATER

ENVIRONMENT

Out-migrating

Salmonids

ANIMAL

SCAVENGERS

& PREDATORS

TERRESTRIAL

VEGETATION

Esp. Riparian

Anadromous Fish

Smolts &

Adults

Returning Salmonids

Carcasses

Gametes

Excretion

SOILS

Marine-Derived Nutrients

LAKE AND

STREAM

PRODUCTIVITY

Figure 4.1. Conceptual model describing the impact of marine-derived nutrients on terrestrial and aquatic

environments in Olympic National Park.

80 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Question: Are basic properties of water quality

changing in the park?

• Indicator: Level I Water Quality. Level I

Water Quality parameters were identied by

the National Park Serviceʼs Water Resources

Division as the basic set of measurements

to be collected service-wide. They include

alkalinity, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen,

total suspended particulates, rapid bio-assess-

ment baseline (EPA/state protocols involving

macro-invertebrates and sh), temperature,

and ow. Justication: These protocols pro-

vide minimum baseline data for water qual-

ity assessment and are used throughout the

National Park Service. Limitations: Equip-

ment, maintenance, and contracted analysis

(if the park goes beyond Level I parameters),

could be costly.

• Indicator: Extensive Measurements of Water

Quality and Biogeochemistry. Datasonde units

should be used to measure dissolved organics,

pH, conductivity, temperature and turbidity of

stream water at 8 replicate sites (conclusion

of Biogeochemistry Workshop) in the park. In

addition, some units should be rotated around

the park to survey other sites temporarily in

order to establish baselines and characterize

eco-regions. At the 8 sites a stilling well and

recorder should be used to measure stream

ow. Litterfall, litter chemistry, dissolved

organic carbon and soil respiration should also

be measured. Finally, the full suite of anions

and cations should be measured twice per

year. Justication: An intensive monitoring

site is far more useful if its results can be put

in the context of a spatially broader sample.

The measurements described here would

be less expensive than an intensive site and

would allow for scaling up from the intensive

site, though with less detail. Also, these sites

would meet the requirement for Level I Water

Quality monitoring if the rapid bio-assessment

baseline protocols were added. Limitations:

Though less expensive than the Hoh intensive

site, these sites would also be expensive.

Question: Is the ecological role of anadromous sh

to transport marine-derived nutrients to freshwater

ecosystems changing in aquatic/riparian zones and

lowland forests?

• Indicator: Marine-Derived Nutrients. Deter-

mine isotopic ratios of

C and/or

N in

samples of resident trout, macroinvertebrates,

algae, alders, salmonberry, and cores of spruce

or r trees. Following research, some of these

may prove to be more effective indicators than

others. Justication: Collecting these samples

is relatively simple, and many rivers are easily

accessible by trail for their length.

Limitations: The ecological importance and

historic levels of marine-derived nutrients are

not known.

Linkages with Other Disciplines:

• System Drivers: Atmosphere and Climate.

meteorological data, air quality including

ozone, and wet and dry deposition.

• System Drivers: Human Activities. Changes

in human use and management response that

might affect biogeochemical cycles.

• Park and Surrounding Landscape. Nitrogen in

tree canopy and lignin via remote sensing

• Terrestrial Vegetation Communities. Stand-

level biogeochemical measurements (i.e.,

litterfall, decomposition, leaching, mineraliza-

tion).

• Aquatic/Riparian Habitat:. Large woody

debris in streams, sediment loading, changes

in glaciers

• Special-status Plant Species: Rare and Exotic

Species. Trends in exotic species because they

may cause a shift in plant community compo-

sition.

• Aquatic Biota. Changes in anadromous sh

runs or lotic/lentic biotic communities.

• Coastal Environments. Changes in estuarine

environment.

Part II. Chapter 4. Biogeochemical Cycles 81

Research and Development Needs:

• Interpret GIS layers in terms of biogeochemi-

cal processes.

• Work with modelers of local weather patterns

to determine large scale atmospheric ow pat-

terns (e.g., wind).

• What factors control nitrogen retention and

release from forested ecosystems?

• How much stress (e.g., nitrogen inputs) can be

added to the system before ecosystem change/

breakdown/reorganization occurs?

• What measures need to be collected synopti-

cally to enable scaling from small watershed

studies to the landscape scale?

• What are the “trigger points” in specic bio-

geochemical measurements that signal a need

for management action?

• What role and importance do marine-derived

nutrients have in terrestrial ecosystems?

• What were historic levels (pre-Columbian and

mid-20th century) of marine-derived nutrients

in riparian and lowland trees?

• Identify the most effective indicators of

marine-derived nutrients.

• Determine large-scale patterns of atmospheric

ow.

Spatial and Temporal Context: Where and How Often to Monitor:

Geographic

Zones Elevation Zones (m) Human Use Zones Frequency

Proposed Indicator West East <500

501-

1000

1001-

1500 >1500 Hi Mod Low (Interval)

Small Watershed Project X X X As before

Extensive Stream Quality--

Level I

X X X X X X X X 6 mo.

Marine Derived Nutrients X X X 5-10 yr.

82 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Monitoring Need/Justication:

Environmental contaminants originate primarily

from industrial processes and agricultural practices.

One category of contaminants is known as persis-

tent organic pollutants (POPs), of which twelve are

covered in an international treaty to reduce their

use. They include pesticides (e.g., DDT, chlordane,

dieldrin, etc.) and compounds used in or produced

by industry (e.g., PCBs, dioxins, furans, etc.). Toxic

metals, also produced by industry, include mer-

cury, lead, zinc, and cadmium. All of these chemi-

cals are troublesome because they are toxic at low

concentrations, persist in the environment, bioac-

cumulate, and are semi-volatile, meaning that they

easily vaporize into the atmosphere (Simonich and

Hites 1995). In addition, there are new chemicals

whose behavior is not yet understood, including

brominated compounds, ame retardant coatings

and substitutes for CFCs. Contaminants can reside

and move in the air, water and in food webs, but

because many large, natural-area national parks are

geographically remote and centered in mountains,

atmospheric deposition is the most important source

of contamination.

Olympic National Park experiences prevailing

winds from the southwest and west in the fall and

winter, and from the west and northwest in spring

and summer. These air masses moving inland from

the Pacic Ocean are relatively unaffected by local

or continental emissions. The coastal and rain forest

areas of the park, therefore, have been suggested

as having among the cleanest air in North America

(Thomas et al. 1989). Even on the north side of the

park, which is close to industrial and urban emis-

sions, air quality does not violate federal or state

air quality standards. Nevertheless, the park has

received long-range transport of chemicals possibly

from the Asian continent (Edmonds et al. 1998).

Consequently, the concern for air quality in the park

is based on the parkʼs role as a benchmark for the

rest of the continental U.S., the potential for increas-

ing pollutants from growing metropolitan areas in

the region, and a concern for trans-Pacic transport.

From the national perspective, western and

Alaskan mountainous national parks are important

baseline and sentinel sites for a number of atmo-

spheric contaminant concerns. First, contaminants

are expected to accumulate in the snow packs of

arctic and near-arctic areas, and mid-latitude moun-

tains due to the processes of ʻcold-condensationʼ

and ʻglobal distillationʼ (Biddleman 1999). Both

processes involve the physical properties of the

atmosphere as it cools with higher elevation and

latitude. Snow packs are at the headwaters of river

systems, and hence the effect of contaminants can

easily spread from them. Also, there is national

concern about transport of contaminants across

the Pacic, and western parks will give the clear-

est signal. Finally, these compounds bioaccumulate

up food chains and with age in individual animals

(Jansson, et al. 1993). Little is known quantitatively

about the effects of contaminants, and the unman-

aged ecosystems in national parks could serve as

useful laboratories, with monitoring as one compo-

nent. Because of these concerns, the National Park

Serviceʼs Air Resources Division is designing a

contaminants-monitoring program for the western

continental U.S. and Alaska.

One specic question regarding contaminants

nationally is also particularly important in Olympic

National Park. Anadromous sh have been shown

to accumulate contaminants during their residence

in the ocean (Ewald et al. 1998). When they return

home to spawn and die, salmon bring important

nutrients into the system, but they also may bring

signicant amounts of contaminants.

Chapter 5. Contaminants.

Part II. Chapter 5. Contaminants 83

Conceptual Model: Figure 1.2

Monitoring Questions:

Following a meeting held in June 2001 with

subject matter experts and representatives from

western national parks, the National Park Serviceʼs

Air Resources Division is designing an air tox-

ics monitoring scheme for the western parks. The

monitoring questions will be regional in scope

and will probably take advantage of the latitudi-

nal gradient from southern California to Alaska,

and the coastal-to-inland gradient from Olympic

National Park eastward to Glacier National Park.

Elevation gradients within parks will also likely be

exploited, as well as the relationship of individual

parks to synoptic air patterns. Olympic National

Park falls into three of ve high-priority geographic

and ecosystem categories identied by the group:

high elevation areas, areas not affected by local

sources of emissions, and areas that are inuenced

by transpacic air masses. Finally, several media

are under consideration for sampling that would be

appropriate for Olympic National Park: snow, air,

sh, freshwater lakes, sediments, and lichens. The

details of this monitoring plan are forthcoming and

will include some subset of the indicators described

below (www.aqd.nps.gov/ard/aqmon/air_toxics/

index.html).

Monitoring Indicators: (Monitoring questions are

being developed on a national basis).

• Contaminants in Snow. Measure concen-

trations of pesticides used currently and of

ʻnew POPsʼ whose behavior and effects are

unknown. Justication: Snow is an effective

scavenger of the compounds of concern, it

makes a major contribution to annual water

balance. Samples are inexpensive, donʼt

require a power source, are easy to collect and

handle, and are easy to archive. Limitations:

Snow tells only part of the contaminantsʼ

story, and because it is so labile, data may be

difcult to interpret. Samples must be col-

lected before early-season melting events,

and rain-on-snow events can destroy sam-

ples. Finally, a large volume is required for

archiving.

• Contaminants in Air and Precipitation.

Measure concentrations of POPs and metals

in air and precipitation at IMPROVE (visibil-

ity monitoring) sites (see Part II, Chapter 1).

Justication: Data are universally comparable

and a true measure of concentration. Air data

are fairly easy to collect and they are good for

model evaluation. The source can be deter-

mined from meteorology. Limitations: The

monitoring sites are expensive and require

power and maintenance so spatial representa-

tion is necessarily limited. Precipitation data

are harder to collect and require special meth-

odological care.

• Contaminants in Fish.

• Resident Fish. Collect samples of resident

trout that are non-migratory, predatory, old,

and preferably from oligotrophic systems.

Trout have been selected because they occur

in many western parks. Samples should be

homogenized and analyzed for 12 POPs

plus mercury and maybe some emerging

contaminants. Justication: Trout are at the

top of the aquatic food chain so they should

accumulate contaminants if they are pres-

ent in the ecosystem. Fish are charismatic,

economically important and are consumed

by subsistence cultures. Fishermen might be

able to collect some of the samples for free.

Limitations: Destructive sampling may not

be allowed in parks. It is difcult to know

the source of the contaminant. Analyses are

expensive.

• Anadromous Fish. Same as above. Justi-

cation: Parks with anadromous sh need

to know what amount of contaminants the

sh are bringing back to the park from the

ocean. Limitations: Knowing the amount of

contaminants does not indicate the effects

on the system. Analyses are expensive.

• Contaminants in Freshwater Lakes. Install

semi-permeable membrane devices (SPMD)

in some representative sample of lakes to

measure concentrations of contaminants

deposited from precipitation or air. Justica-

tion: Water samples realistically describe

84 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

exposure for aquatic organisms and levels can

be compared with lab toxicity tests. SPMD

technology may help overcome some of the

problems with other methods. Much water

chemistry work is being done by other agen-

cies, so sample results can be integrated with

other results. Limitations: Some lakes are

difcult to access and timing may be impor-

tant. Large volumes of water may be needed

to detect some compounds. Some compounds

may be unstable in water, either before or

after sampling.

• Contaminants in Sediments. Collect sedi-

ment cores from lake bottoms and analyze

them for POPs, mercury and emerging

contaminants. Justication: Lake sedi-

ment cores can describe spatial patterns of

contaminants. Lake sediments are one of

the best indicators of environmental con-

tamination (Puget Sound Action Commit-

tee, 2000). Limitations: Some pollutants

of interest do not accumulate in sediments.

Access to remote lakes may be difcult.

Cores are expensive to process and analyze.

• Contaminants in Lichens. Collect samples

of the same species of lichen throughout the

park, and hopefully from all of the parks in

a region. Analyze the samples for metals.

Justication: Historic samples are archived.

Lichens have been widely used already in

the Pacic Northwest and Alaska, where

they are an important part of the vegetation,

so there is a large database for comparison.

Lichens can be collected in conjunction

with other monitoring. Lichens can indicate

synergistic effects of multiple pollutants

and offer a potentially denser sample than

can be affordably obtained with instruments

(Nimis and Purvis 2002). Limitations: Con-

centrations of pollutants in lichens cannot

be equated with concentration or timing of

exposure. Lichens are not effective accumu-

lators of contaminants with low concentra-

tions or for POPs.

Linkages with Other Disciplines:

• Terrestrial Vegetation Communities. Lichens.

• Aquatic/Riparian Habitat.. Chemistry of fresh-

water lakes.

• System Drivers: Atmosphere and Climate.

Chemistry of freshwater lakes, air and precipi-

tation chemistry.

• Special-status Fish Species. Resident trout and

anadromous salmonids.

Spatial and Temporal Context: Where and How

Often to Monitor: (to be determined).

Research Needs:

• Determine concentrations of toxics at which

threshold responses or other effects (e.g., on

development, non-lethal effects on reproduc-

tion) occur in the food web and biogeochemi-

cal cycles.

• Determine source of contaminants through

mass balance or trajectory studies.

• Determine patterns in the distribution of con-

taminants in relation to air, land and water.

• Compare results from SPMDs with other col-

lection technologies to evaluate effectiveness.

• Determine effects of contaminants brought

by returning anadromous sh on the larger

ecosystem.

• Determine historic levels and distribution of

POPs from lake sediment cores.

Part II. Chapter 5. Contaminants 85

86 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Monitoring Need/Justication:

Vegetation is the great integrator of biologi-

cal and physical environmental factors, and is the

foundation of trophic webs and animal habitat

(Gates 1993) as well as having a major role in

geologic, geomorphologic and soil development

processes (Schumm 1977, Jenny 1941). Conse-

quently, results from monitoring vegetation and

associated ecological processes are an essential tool

for detecting changes occurring in park ecosystems.

For example, monitoring herbivory may be a good

indirect method of determining whether herbivore

populations or habitat use patterns have changed.

Also, permanent plot measurements may help

managers detect changes in tree mortality patterns

or invasions of exotic plant species. In addition,

when vegetation is monitored in conjunction with

monitoring of associated wildlife groups such as

small mammals, connections between vegetation,

habitat characteristics and the behavior of small

mammal populations may be revealed. Monitoring

of vegetation and associated ecological processes

such as the rate of nitrogen mineralization and soil

water chemistry are likely to provide a direct link

with climate and atmospheric changes (Pastor and

Post 1986, 1988). Finally, monitoring vegetation in

a statistically representative manner offers manage-

ment the opportunity to extend plot data to a larger

scale such as entire watersheds and perhaps the park

as a whole. Changes in vegetation means changes in

primary productivity and habitat quality and will be

reected throughout the ecosystem.

Olympic National Park contains steep environ-

mental gradients, due to the interaction between the

mountainous topography and maritime climate. This

has resulted in a wide range of vegetation types

existing in proximity to one another (Buckingham

et al. 1995). Conditions on the coastal lowlands

give rise to the spectacular ʻtemperate coniferous

rainforestsʼ with massive trees whose branches are

laden with epiphytes. Xerophytic vegetation such

as prickly pear cactus reside in the dry lowlands of

the northeastern Olympic Peninsula. Mountainous

Chapter 6. Terrestrial Vegetation Communities.

vegetation in the northeastern Olympics has charac-

teristics similar to those found in the Rocky Moun-

tains. These diverse vegetation types will respond

to environmental changes in different ways. Conse-

quently, patterns of vegetation change in relation to

environmental gradients offer a superb opportunity

to interpret the mechanisms driving the observed

changes.

Forest structure and composition are physical

manifestations of cumulative biological and physi-

cal processes that are difcult to measure but that

drive changes in forest integrity. Changes in forest

composition will result when particular habitats

respond to factors such as climate change, preclud-

ing suitability for particular species (Barnosky

1984, Davis 1981). As human development restricts

species migration across landscapes and regions,

signicant loss of biodiversity is expected to result

when displaced species cannot access hospitable

habitats. Additionally, changes in forest structure

and composition affect resource values such as

habitat quality, biodiversity, the hydrologic cycle,

and carbon storage (Pastor and Post 1986, 1988).

Forest health is a regional and national issue, and

measurements of forest structure and composition

are the most commonly used measurements for for-

est assessment.

Forests ecosystems are not intact unless pro-

cesses, as well as components, are at natural levels.

It is not clear whether processes or components are

more responsive to stress, but process variables tend

to be less variable than components, and changes

may be easier to detect using processes (Carpenter

et al. 1993). Although some of the process mea-

surements may be relatively expensive compared

with measurements of structure, the cost may be

offset by the early-warning capability. Additionally,

these variables will allow the system to be modeled

(Dunham 1993). Models will enable prediction and

extrapolation and allow us to distinguish between

expected changes in these naturally dynamic pro-

cesses and unexpected changes signaling a change

in the process itself.

Part II. Chapter 6. Terrestrial Vegetation Communities 87

Monitoring Questions and Indicators:

Question: Are the abundance of frequent species

and parameters of forest structure changing?

• Indicator: Forest Structure and Composition.

Permanent vegetation plots should be distrib-

uted across elevation, soil, climatic, and suc-

cessional gradients. Plots should be distributed

in forested, riparian, coastal, high-elevation

(subalpine) and non-forested plant associa-

tions. Specic methods should be the same as

or be capable of being summarized with those

used by other regional and national permanent

plot networks. Forest structure should be mea-

sured along several dimensions:

• Horizontal structure: including gap size and

frequency, fragmentation patterns and layer-

ing.

• Vertical structure: including canopy condition,

snags, understory, shrubs, and herbs.

Conceptual Model:

Successional Processes

(Temporal dynamics)

Climate/Weather

Precipitation

Temperature

Terrestrial and Aquatic

Wildlife

Herbivory

Nutrient Cycling

Habitat

(Abundance)

Soils

Chemistry

Organic Matter

Soil Organisms

Water Availability

Plant Communities

Components Attributes

Trees Structure

Shrubs Composition

Herbs Abundance

Ferns Woody Debris

Cryptogams Growth Rates

Longevity

Plant Autecology

Atmospheric

Dry Deposition

Wet Deposition

Air Quality

Anthropogenic

Influences

Pollutants

Introduction of Exotics

Direct Impacts

Harvest

Disturbance Processes

Snow/Ice

Fire

Wind

Pathogens

Insects

Fluvial dynamics

Figure 6.1. Conceptual model describing the factors shaping plant communities in Olympic National Park.

• Species composition, cover and thickness of

all layers, including exotic plants.

• Biomass distribution: living versus dead,

foliage, stems, large woody debris, forest

oor and soils.

• Presence of exotic and/or native insects and

diseases.

Justication: Forest health is a national and

regional issue and information from relatively

undisturbed areas such as national parks will

serve as a benchmark for disturbed areas.

Changes in species distributions at tree line

may be indicative of climate change (Walker

1991, Rochefort et al. 1994). These measure-

ments and methods will be directly compara-

ble with data from other agencies. Limitations:

All gradients may not be well covered due to

nancial limitations on the number of plots

that can be supported.

88 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Question: Are the rates of ecosystem processes

changing?

• Indicator: Forest Processes.

• Nitrogen and Carbon Dynamics. Indi-

cators of N and C dynamics should be

monitored on a subset of the permanent

vegetation plot network that is relatively

accessible. Specically, the following indi-

cators should be monitored using available

protocols:

• Net Primary Production. (i.e., litterfall,

tree growth using litter traps and tree

cores)

• Soil Nutrient and Organic Matter

Dynamics. (i.e., decomposition, leaching,

N-mineralization)

Justication: Methods are available to mea-

sure these variables at remote sites. These

variables will allow the system to be mod-

eled to enable prediction and extrapolation.

Limitations: Sample analyses can be expen-

sive. Repeated litter collection and sorting

is time consuming and costly.

• Demographic Processes. Plant mortality

and regeneration should be monitored in all

permanent plots according to methods used

in other permanent plot networks. Measure-

ments of growth and seed traps indicate

productivity. Justication: These measure-

ments are easy and inexpensive to include

with data already being collected on struc-

ture. They are likely to be early-warning

indicators of impending structural changes.

Limitations: Crews must be taught to recog-

nize the cause of mortality.

• Animal Use. Indicators of herbivory and

animal disturbance or presence (e.g., hoof

marks, droppings, etc.) should be recorded

for all permanent vegetation plots. Methods

for describing herbivory should be deter-

mined in consultation with wildlife biolo-

gists and should focus on known palatable

plant species. Justications: Animals have

an important role in shaping the structure

of vegetation and inuencing other forest

processes. This will be related directly to

monitoring of mountain goats in the subal-

pine zone, and elk in lowland forests. Limi-

tations: Methods for evaluating herbivory

are always difcult to design because they

essentially involve measuring something

that isnʼt there anymore. However, some

indices are available.

Spatial and Temporal Context: Where and How Often to Monitor:

Geographic

Zones Elevation Zones (m) Human Use Zones Frequency

Proposed Indicator West East <500

501-

1000

1001-

1500 >1500 Hi Mod Low (Interval)

Forest Structure & Compo-

sition

X X X X X X X X 10 yr

N & C Dynamics X X X X X X X 5 yr

Demographic Processes X X X X X X X X 10 yr

Animal Use X X X X X X X X 5 yr

Part II. Chapter 6. Terrestrial Vegetation Communities 89

Linkages with Other Disciplines:

• Populations and Communities of Large Mam-

mals. Animal use.

• Special-status Plant Species: Rare and Exotic.

Exotic plants.

• System Drivers: Atmosphere and Climate.

Forest processes.

• Park and Surrounding Landscape. Linkage

between landscape-scale and plot-scale mea-

surements of forest processes.

• Biogeochemical Cycles. Forest processes.

• Aquatic Habitat. Aquatic vegetation.

• Coastal Environments. Marine vegetation.

Research and Development Needs:

• Compare methods used by other regional and

national vegetation monitoring projects to ensure

that our methods are the same or can be summa-

rized into the same categories.

• Develop soils and vegetation maps, including

age class for vegetation.

• Develop models of vegetation dynamics and

processes to enable extrapolation and prediction.

90 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Monitoring Need/Justication:

The exceptionally complex environment in the

Olympics has resulted in a diverse array of plant

communities and species. Factors contributing to

this complexity include steep precipitation and ele-

vation gradients, complicated geology, geographic

isolation, and Pleistocene glaciation (Buckingham

et al. 1995). The park is home to eight vascular

plant taxa endemic to the Olympic Peninsula, more

than 50 species rare in Washington State (Wash-

ington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) 1997),

and at least 100 other species that are rare within

the park. Two categories of rare vascular species

are recognized for the purposes of monitoring: (1)

federally or state-listed rare endemic species (i.e.,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] Species

of Concern and WNHP Threatened Species), and

WNHP Sensitive Species known from only one

location in the park, and (2) species rare in the park.

These are important resources for the park to pro-

tect as it tries to meet its legal mandates to maintain

natural biodiversity.

In addition to rare vascular plants, Olym-

pic National Park houses many rare and several

extremely rare (i.e. two or fewer known locations)

non-vascular cryptogams, commonly known as

mosses, liverworts and lichens (M. Hutten, Con-

tract Researcher, Olympic National Park, Personal

communication). Cryptogams contribute signi-

cantly to the aesthetic beauty of park forests as they

drape from branches and carpet the ground. They

also play important roles in ecological processes,

such as nutrient cycling, water balance, and pro-

viding nesting materials. In general, they are more

sensitive to changes in air quality and precipitation

chemistry than many other organisms. Additionally,

many cryptogams are listed in the Record of Deci-

sion of the Northwest Forest Plan (U.S. Department

of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior

Chapter 7. Special-Status Plant Species: Rare and Exotic.

1994) as needing special protection. Because we are

only beginning to develop a taxonomic inventory of

Olympic National Park, the list of rare cryptogams

will continue to evolve.

The primary threats to rare vascular and non-

vascular plants in Olympic National Park are related

to human-caused disturbance. Indirect human-

caused effects include the introduction of exotic

ungulates (i.e. mountain goats) and increased soil

disturbance from trampling in the vicinity of rare

plant populations. Direct effects result from walking

on plants, new construction, road or trail reroutes,

and, in unusual cases, road or trail maintenance

activities (e.g., brushing). There is also the possibil-

ity of direct effects from re line construction and

helicopter landing areas.

In addition to an abundance of rare species,

Olympic National Park is also home to more than

300 species of exotic plants (Buckingham et al.

1995). Species of greatest concern are those that

spread rapidly, have both vegetative and sexual

reproductive abilities, can invade beneath closed

forest canopies in the absence of human distur-

bance, and those that can readily invade “sensitive

habitats” such as riparian areas. Species of par-

ticular concern include reed canarygrass (Phalaris

arundinacea), herb Robert (Geranium robertia-

num), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), giant

knotweed (Polygonum sachalinense), and Japanese

knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum). These species

are of concern mainly in the Western Hemlock Zone

in Olympic National Park and also present problems

elsewhere in the Pacic Northwest. Consequently,

there may be opportunities to collaborate with

other agencies that also monitor these species (e.g.,

USDA Forest Service, Washington Department of

Natural Resources, and Clallam, Jefferson, Grays

Harbor, and Mason Counties).

Part II. Chapter 7. Special-Status Plant Species: Rare and Exotic 91

The primary concern with exotic plants is their

effect on native plant species and communities. For

example, exotic species make up 60-80% of the

biomass in the understory of red alder (Alnus rubra)

stands along oodplains of the Hoh River (based on

data in Fonda 1974). Exotic plants are also known

to inhibit succession of native species in abandoned

homestead pastures and there is the possibility that

reed canarygrass has displaced some rare plant taxa

at Lake Ozette. Finally, reed canarygrass may have

compromised sockeye salmon spawning habitat on

the shores of Lake Ozette (Beauchamp 1995).

Monitoring should also be incorporated into

any management activities that restore native plant

populations or remove exotics. The details will

depend on the objective of the specic management

project and will not be discussed here.

Conceptual Model:

Disturbance Processes

Snow/Ice

Fire

Wind

Pathogens

Insects

Fluvial dynamics

Successional Processes

(Temporal dynamics)

Anthropogenic

Influences

Introduction of

Exotics

Human

Disturbance

Control

Climate/Weather

Precipitation

Temperature

Terrestrial and Aquatic

Wildlife

Herbivory

Nutrient Cycling

Habitat

Soils

Chemistry

Organic Matter

Soil Organisms

Water Availability

Plant Autecology

Exotic Species

Rare Species

Rate of Spread

Growth Rates

Effects of Control Abundance

Both

Community Composition

Demography

Terrestrial and Aquatic

Plant Communities

Rare Plant Abundance

Community Composition

Monitoring Questions and Indicators:

Question: Detect change in the population sizes and

ranges of listed rare vascular plants (USFWS Sensi-

tive, WNHP Threatened, selected WNHP Sensitive).

• Indicator: Population Size and Range of

Listed Rare Plants

• Species Occurring at One or a Few Sites.

Populations of these species should be com-

pletely mapped, and dimensions or cover and

reproductive status should be recorded for

individuals. High priority species should be

measured for three consecutive years at ve-

year intervals. Sites with suitable microhabitat

Figure 7.1. Conceptual model of biotic and abiotic factors affecting populations of rare and exotic plant

species in Olympic National Park.

but not currently occupied by rare species

should be monitored for colonization. Low

priority species should be monitored for 1

year at 3-5-year intervals. Indicators of distur-

bance such as hoof marks, droppings, torn or

bitten leaves, human foot prints, etc. should

also be noted to help explain declines in pop-

ulations. In addition, temperature, snowmelt,

and precipitation should be monitored concur-

rently with population sampling. Justication:

The indicators are comprehensive and fea-

sible given the small populations. The inter-

vals reect the time intervals at which change

might be expected to be noticeable while

92 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

accounting for annual variation. Some indica-

tion of the cause of population uctuations

would give managers a decision-making tool

to decide if protection is necessary. If popula-

tions decline due to direct or indirect effects

of human activities the data give managers a

place to start for designing a protection strat-

egy. Limitations: The process of monitoring

could put these populations at risk for damage

due to trampling or altering of their substrate.

The characteristics of suitable habitat have not

been completely identied for all rare species.

Lists of rare species are changeable.

• Species That Are More Widespread. These

species should be monitored in the same

way as small populations, but using ran-

domly selected subsamples.

Question: Detect a change in the range and abun-

dance of vascular plant species that are rare in the

park.

• Indicator: Plant Populations in Specic

ʻHot Spotsʼ of Rarity. There are far too many

rare plant species (more than 100) in Olym-

pic National Park to consider individually.

However, many occur in a limited number of

geographic areas. A strategy to monitor these

species would be to concentrate permanent

plots on one or several species in specic

geographic areas. Example areas include Mink

Lake, Griff Creek, Lake Ozette, Deer Park,

and Royal Basin. Justication: Targeting areas

is more efcient than targeting individual

plant species when there are more than one

hundred species. These places will be visited

while monitoring the listed species described

above. Limitations: Monitoring rare species is

labor intensive.

• Indicator: Populations of Rare Plants Occur-

ring in One Known Location and Not Covered

Above. Fourteen plant species are known from

only one location in the park and are not found

in the areas listed above. These populations

should be visited and photographed at least

every 5 years or have their size indicated in

some other way. Justication: Lone popula-

tions of rare plants are especially endangered

and are an important part of the parkʼs biodi-

versity. Limitations: Some populations are in

remote areas and difcult to access. This list

changes as more locations are discovered.

Question: Detect changes in the population size of

selected rare non-vascular cryptogams.

• Indicator: Populations of non-vascular

cryptogams occurring at no more than two

known locations in the park. These popula-

tions should be visited and photographed at

least every 5 years or have their size indicated

in some other way. Justication: Lone popula-

tions of rare plants are especially endangered

and are an important part of park biodiversity.

Limitations: Some populations are in remote

areas and difcult to access. This list changes

as more locations are discovered.

Question: What is the rate of range expansion of

selected exotic species (e.g., those that are espe-

cially aggressive or can spread under forest cano-

pies)?

• Indicator: Distribution of Exotic Species.

• Reed canarygrass, giant knotweed, Canada

thistle, and Japanese knotweed. These species

have many known sources from which the

populations spread. Indication of population

expansion could be observed using survey

transects from inside to outside of the estab-

lishment zones. Once thorough range maps

have been constructed, all park staff should

be made aware of, and report occurrences

of these species because they may show up

unexpectedly in new locations. Systematic

surveys and measurements should be made

biannually. Coordination between monitor-

ing results and removal efforts should be

made. Justication: This is the most efcient

way to monitor especially worrisome species

that propagate concentrically from a discrete

source. Limitations: The large number of spe-

cies and locations to track.

Part II. Chapter 7. Special-Status Plant Species: Rare and Exotic 93

• Herb Robert. Herb Robert spreads quickly

over large distances, especially along trails.

It could be monitored by annual mapping of

specic sites, chosen to describe its invasion

away from trails into forests, and deeper into

the park along trails. In addition, occurrence

of herb Robert and other exotics should be

surveyed annually along road corridors, riv-

ers, trails, and near horse corrals. Other park

divisions and crews working on other moni-

toring projects such as trail crew, vegetation

and wildlife monitoring crews, might be able

to help with documenting backcountry sight-

ings. As above, coordination between moni-

toring results and eradication efforts should

be made. Justication: This a potentially very

damaging exotic and these measurements

might dramatize the need for support for

exotic control in the park. Limitations: None.

Question: Have management activities been effec-

tive in eliminating or slowing invasion of exotic

species?

• Indicator: It is very important to know

whether management activities are effectively

addressing the invasion of exotic plants. The

specic indicators and sample design will

depend on the management actions and plant

species involved and will not be addressed in

detail here.

Linkages with Other Disciplines:

• System Drivers: Atmosphere and Climate.

Weather records.

• Park and Surrounding Landscape. Snow melt.

• Terrestrial Vegetation Communities. Species

composition.

Spatial and Temporal Context: Where and How Often to Monitor:

Geographic

Zones

Elevation Zones (m) Human Use Zones Frequency

Proposed Indicator West East <500

501-

1000

1001-

1500 >1500 Hi Mod Low (Interval)

Exotic Species

Geranium robertianum

Herb Robert

X X X X X 2 yr

Phalaris arundinacea

Reed canarygrass

X X X X X X X 2 yr

Cirsium arvense

Canada Thistle

X X X X X X X X 2 yr

Polygonum sachalinense

Giant knotweed

X X X X 2 yr

P. cuspidatum

Japanese knotweed

X X X X 2 yr

Listed Rare and/or Endemic

Taxa

Austragulus australis v.

olympicus

X X X X 5 yr

Botrychium ascendens X X X 5 yr

Botrychium lunaria X X X X 5 yr

Carex anthoxanthea X X X 5 yr

Carex buxbaumii X X X X 5 yr

94 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Cimicifuga elata X X X X 5 yr

Cochlearia ofcinalis X X X X 5 yr

Coptis asplenifolia X X X 5 yr

Dryas drummondii X X X 5 yr

Epipactis gigantea X X X X 5 yr

Lobelia dortmanii X X X X X 5 yr

Parnassia palustris ssp.

neogaea

X X X X X 5 yr

Poa nervosa var. wheeleri X X X 5 yr

Polemonium carneum X X 5 yr

Sanguisorba menziesii X X X 5 yr

Taxa listed Rare in Park X X X X X X X X 5 yr

Non-Vascular Cryptogams

Brachydontium olympicum X X X 5 yr

Crumia latifolia X X X 5 yr

Rhytidem rugosum X X X 5 yr

Ramalina thrausta X X X 5 yr

Bundophoron melanocarpum X X X 5 yr

Hydrotheria venosa X X X 5 yr

Karnefeltia californicum X X X 5 yr

Usnea spaecelata X X X 5 yr

Vulpicida tilesii X X X X 5 yr

Management Effectiveness

Research and Development Needs:

• What effects are exotic species, especially herb

Robert, having on native plant communities and

ecosystem function?

• What effects are exotic species having on food

habits of herbivores?

• To what extent are exotic plants distributed by

faunal species?

• What are the potential habitats of rare species

and the distribution of those habitats on North

Coast and Cascades Network lands?

• The life history traits are not known for all of the

rare species in the park.

• Imperfect knowledge of the distribution of rare

species will inhibit protocol development. Sur-

veys are needed to enable monitoring.

• What are the causes of exotic species invasions?

Are there underlying causes of invasion that

might be ameliorated?

• Determine effective tools for exotic species

elimination appropriate for the Pacic North-

west.

• What environmental conditions promote inva-

sion?

Part II. Chapter 7. Special-Status Plant Species: Rare and Exotic 95

96 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Monitoring Need/Justication:

The parkʼs staff and subject-matter experts

placed high importance on the need to monitor

the overall health and integrity of terrestrial eco-

systems, from the agship low-elevation ancient

forests to high-elevation alpine and subalpine

meadows. Meetings with park staff and disciplinary

experts focused on the need to monitor diversity of

the parkʼs fauna, overall, as well as status and trends

of key faunal groups, such as forest amphibians,

terrestrial birds and mammals (including bats), and

invertebrates (primarily arthropods and mollusks),

as indicators of the long-term integrity and func-

tional resiliency of park systems. In this section we

explore potential indicators of monitoring selected

faunal assemblages as indicators of the long-term

ecological integrity of park ecosystems. Though

also critically important to ecosystem health, we

identify indicators of large mammal populations

(Chapter 9), threatened and endangered or endemic

species (Chapter 10), and amphibians (Chapter 13)

in subsequent sections.

Properties of faunal assemblages and popula-

tions may be important indicators of environmental

change because animals serve a great diversity of

ecological functions that affect ecosystem produc-

tivity, resilience, and sustainability (Walker 1992,

Risser 1995, Marcot et al. 1998). Some particularly

important functional relationships include those

between pollinators and rare or endemic plant spe-

cies, small mammals and spore dispersal of mycor-

rhizal fungi, predators and prey, and relationships

between generalist species that respond favorably

to human activities (including many exotic spe-

cies) and ecological specialists that commonly do

not (mostly native species). Monitoring wildlife

assemblages may detect the effects of both local and

regional stressors on components and properties of

ecosystems, including effects of developed areas

Chapter 8. Terrestrial Fauna.

on park wildlife communities, forest disturbance

on mammalian prey of spotted owl populations,

expansion of alien wildlife species in the park,

and global climate change on many taxa, notably

populations of bats and amphibians. In addition to

gauging effects of potential stressors, monitoring

wildlife communities in Olympic National Park

would establish benchmarks for comparison to more

intensively managed coniferous forest landscapes

throughout the Pacic Northwest and would help

to dene management targets on both managed and

protected lands. Lastly, terrestrial fauna are desir-

able subjects for long-term ecological monitoring

because animals have widespread public appeal,

and changes in the parkʼs fauna are likely to garner

a high level of public interest and generate support

for corrective or remedial management actions.

Our scoping meetings generated considerable

discussion over what constitutes the most important

indicators of the integrity of the parkʼs fauna and

best methods of monitoring. Our dialogues reected

a recent theme debated in the literature over

whether it is best to monitor status and trends in

population characteristics of selected species (e.g.,

a taxonomic approach) or whether the structure of

faunal assemblages could be effectively monitored

to provide a more comprehensive view of changes

in park ecosystems (e.g., Goldstein 1999, Walker

1999). The resulting conceptual model portrays a

tiered approach reecting monitoring of park fauna

at several levels of ecological hierarchy and spatial

scale depending upon monitoring questions (Fig-

ure 8.1). Tier 1 indicators are aimed at identifying

changes relative abundance and community struc-

ture indices based on relatively low intensity survey

efforts. Tier 2 indicators involve more intensive

monitoring and estimation of population abundance

and demography.

Part II. Chapter 8. Terrestrial Fauna 97

Monitoring Questions and Indicators:

Tier 1: Low intensity/extensive-scale monitoring

Question: Are there changes in the species compo-

sition of key animal communities that could signal

changes in trophic structure, ecosystem function, or

sustainability (e.g., breeding landbirds, mammals,

arthropods, and mollusks)?

• Indicator: Indices of Community Composi-

tion. Sample presence/absence or relative

abundance of terrestrial vertebrates and inver-

tebrates. These indices should be developed

separately for each category, as sampling con-

straints are likely to be quite variable. Develop

a suite of metrics that, in aggregate, describe

changes in community composition, including

but not limited to:

Conceptual Model:

Figure 8.1. Trophic relationships among key faunal assemblages within coniferous forest ecosys-

tems of Olympic National Park.

Taxonomic/Functional Components

Mollusks

Small Mammals:

grazers

granivores

fungivores

Arthropods

Small Mammals:

insectivores

ovivores

Birds:

insectivores

piscivores

ovivores

Amphibians

Arthropods

Mesomammals

Raptors

Birds:

bud/catkin eaters

frugivores

granivores

nectivores

sap-feeders

Consumers

Top

Consumers

Drivers Attributes

Terrestrial

Vegetation

Producers

Natural

Habitat

Disturbances

Climate

Change

Atmospheric

Deposition

Habitat Loss/

Fragmentation

Alien/Invasive

Species

Human

Activity

(Tier 1):

Communities/

Guilds:

Richness

Trophic/

functional

Composition

Species

abundance

patterns

Populations

Relative

Abundance

(Tier 2):

Abundance

Demography

• Species Richness. Measure species richness

from observed species lists or computed

from heterogeneous species detection prob-

abilities (e.g., see Boulinier et al. 1998).

• Trophic Composition. Measure richness of

species within trophic levels for terrestrial

amphibians, mammals, and birds.

• Life-history Traits. Measure numbers of

species with generalist life history traits that

are adapted to exploiting ecological distur-

bances (i.e., r-selected species) and special-

ist species that are better adapted to exploit

stable ecosystems (K-selected species).

• Native:Alien Richness. Measure numbers

of native and alien species of terrestrial

amphibians, mammals, birds, arthropods,

and mollusks.

98 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

• Richness of Key Functional Groups. Mea-

sure numbers of key functional groups pres-

ent in the community.

• Redundancy within Key Functional Groups.

Measure numbers of species representing each

key functional group.

Justication: Aggregates of easily obtained

community metrics may signal warnings

of changes in community structure that

may inuence biotic integrity (Marcot et

al. 1998). Such coarse-grained sampling

may reveal the need for more intensive

population-level research on species or

species relationships. Limitations: Indices

of biotic integrity based on patterns of spe-

cies abundance have not been developed

for terrestrial ecosystems. Indices based on

species composition measure loss of spe-

cies in stepwise manner and do not provide

anticipatory warning of change.

Question: Are there changes in distribution or rela-

tive abundance that could portend threats to long-

term viability of selected species (signaling the need

for more intensive monitoring)?

• Indicator: Site Occupancy Rate. The propor-

tion of sites occupied by a species may be a

useful indicator of relative abundance of species

that are difcult to estimate directly (MacKenzie

et al. 2002). This indicator may be useful for

monitoring large-scale trends in abundance of

selected species of arthropods, mollusks, terres-

trial amphibians, mammals, or birds. Justica-

tion: Surveys may be implemented more easily

and less expensively than methods used for

abundance estimation. Limitations: Indices may

not be sensitive to changes in abundance for rare

or common taxa.

• Indicator: Abundance Indices of Avian Spe-

cies. Monitor long-term changes in distribution

and relative abundance of selected avian spe-

cies using plot sampling and distance-based or

double-observer estimation methods (Buckland

et al. 1993, Nichols et al. 2000). Justication:

Abundance indices are easily derived from point

counts. Relative ease of measurement allows

comparatively extensive survey coverage.

Limitations: Biases in distance-based sampling

are poorly understood in such highly structured

forest ecosystems.

• Indicator: Distribution and Abundance Indi-

ces of Mammalian Species. Monitor long-term

changes in distributions and abundance indices

of mammals using pitfall trapping arrays linked

with constant-effort trapping grids. Justication:

Abundance indices are easily derived from lim-

ited effort, allowing more extensive replication

than is possible from more intensive estimation

models. Limitations: Interpretation of indices is

based on the assumption that capture probabili-

ties do not vary among capture events.

• Indicator: Relative Activity of Bats. Monitor

relative activity levels of bats in selected forest

plots using echolocation call recording devices.

Justication: Data may be obtained remotely at

relatively low cost. Limitations: Most species of

bats present in the park cannot be reliably distin-

guished from recorded echolocation calls.

Tier 2: High Intensity Monitoring.

Question: Are there changes in demographic rates

and abundance of key wildlife taxa?

• Indicator: Abundance and Demography of

Breeding Birds. Establish 8-10 ha reference

plots for territory mapping, nest searches, and

constant-effort mist netting of bird populations.

Justication: Intensive studies measure change

directly and provide insights into demographic

causes of observed changes. Methods are suit-

able for monitoring effects of specic stressors,

for example, inuences of human-developed

areas on breeding bird communities. Limita-

tions: High efforts and costs limit replication

and constrain inference to small spatial scales.

• Indicator: Abundance and Demography of

Mammals. Abundance and demography of small

mammals. Establish 100-150-station trapping

grids and estimate abundance, survival, and

births in open populations of small mammals.

Justication: Intensive studies measure change

directly and provide insights into demographic

causes of observed changes. Limitations: High

Part II. Chapter 8. Terrestrial Fauna 99

efforts and costs limit replication and constrain

inference to small spatial scales

Linkages with Other Disciplines:

System Drivers: Atmosphere and Climate. Effects

of climate on arthropods and bats.

System Drivers: Human Activities. Effects of devel-

oped areas on faunal assemblages.

Park and Surrounding Landscape. Relationships of

vertebrate distribution to landscapes.

Terrestrial Vegetation Communities. Integrate moni-

toring of vegetation and wildlife communities.

Special-status Wildlife Populations. Effects of small

mammals on northern spotted owls.

Aquatic/Riparian Habitat. Riparian wildlife com-

munities.

Spatial and Temporal Context: Where and How Often to Monitor:

Geographic

Zones Elevation Zones (m) Human Use Zones Frequency

Proposed Indicator West East <500

501-

1000

1001-

1500 >1500 Hi Mod Low (Interval)

Tier-1 (presence/no detec-

tion, site occupancy, relative

abundance)

Terrestrial mammals X X X X X X 1 yr

Terrestrial birds X X X X X X 1 yr

Terrestrial amphibians X X X X X X 1 yr

Terrestrial arthropods X X X X X X 1 yr

Terrestrial mollusks X X X X X X 1 yr

Tier-2 (demographic studies)

Terrestrial mammals X X X X X 1 yr

Terrestrial birds X X X X X 1 yr

Note: The spatial emphasis is placed on (but need not be restricted to) low-elevation forests, where refer-

ence plots are most needed, and high elevation zones where effects of global climate change are expected

to be most pronounced. Focus on high- and moderate-use zones accommodates access constraints in wil-

derness.

Research and Development Needs:

• Develop methods to integrate sampling across

taxonomic boundaries in a single sampling

scheme.

• Investigate properties of estimating site occu-

pancy rates for terrestrial amphibians, small

mammals, and invertebrates, for potential use in

monitoring changes in spatial patterns of species

distribution.

• Explore means of integrating Tier-1 indicators

into indices of biotic integrity of terrestrial fau-

nal associations in coniferous forests.

• Examine sensitivity of integrative indices of

biotic integrity to gradients of resource distur-

bance on the Olympic Peninsula.

• Examine statistical power of potential indicators

to detect resource change.

• Examine reliability of distance-based and

double-observer methods of estimating avian

bird populations in structurally complex envi-

ronments.

100 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Monitoring Need/Justication:

Native populations of large mammals, includ-

ing Roosevelt elk, Columbian black-tailed deer,

black bear, and cougar, are key components of

conifer forest ecosystems of Olympic National

Park. Roosevelt elk were so important politically at

the turn of the 20

century that Olympic National

Park was created in large measure to protect the last

stronghold of this unique coastal form of elk. Today,

Roosevelt elk and the other large mammal species

generate broad appeal with the visiting public for

the viewing opportunities they provide, while also

creating management concerns for human safety,

particularly in the case of large carnivores. Further,

grazing and trampling activities of large ungulates

(i.e., deer and elk) affect structure and composi-

tion of the parks renowned low-elevation temper-

ate rain forest ecosystems (Happe 1993, Schreiner

et al. 1996, Woodward et al. 1994). Predators may

inuence abundance of ungulates, suggesting that

changes in top-level carnivores may create cascad-

ing inuences on park ecosystems (McLaren and

Peterson 1994).

There are several legitimate concerns over the

future protection and welfare of the parkʼs large

mammalian fauna (Houston et al. 1990). Many pop-

ulations of large mammals range widely across park

boundaries. Therefore, they are affected by habitat

conditions, forest management practices, and hunt-

ing regimes outside the park. Elk populations have

declined by approximately 40% outside Olympic

National Park since 1980, due primarily to changing

land use practices (Smith 2001), raising concerns

that migratory elk leaving the park could be subject

to similar pressures. Declining opportunities for

hunters outside the park may increase illegal hunt-

ing of elk inside the park, as well as legal and illegal

harvests of elk leaving the park. Concerns of a

ʻboundaryʼ effect are heightened by recent ndings

that many mature male elk leave the park during the

rutting season and may be susceptible to harvest (P.

Happe, Olympic National Park, Unpublished data).

Also, recent aerial surveys of elk on key winter

ranges suggest that fewer elk are observed near the

park boundary than in recent decades (P. Happe,

Olympic National Park, Unpublished data).

Much less is known about Columbian black-

tailed deer than Roosevelt elk. Over the last sev-

eral years, however, many debilitated deer have

exhibited symptoms of excessive hair-loss and

extreme emaciation, related to high abundance of

both internal and external parasites (K. Jenkins,

U.S. Geological Survey, Unpublished data). This

condition has been reported in many low-lying

areas in western Washington, leading to concern

over whether mortalities resulting from hair loss are

having a major impact on populations (Washing-

ton Department Fish and Wildlife 2002:71). State

biologists continue to investigate potential disease

vectors that could be affecting the stateʼs deer herds.

Recent outbreaks of hoof and mouth and mad cow

disease in Europe have heightened awareness of

the potential for non-native disease vectors to affect

native ungulates in U.S. national parks.

Populations of large mammalian carnivores are

poorly understood in the park, although close-range

and potentially dangerous encounters with both

black bears and cougars appear to have increased

in recent years (P. Happe, Olympic National Park,

Personal communication). Each year, park manag-

ers respond to concentrated activities of black bears

and cougars by closing popular destination areas to

the visiting public. Recent changes in legal har-

vest methods outside the park (i.e., banned use of

hounds and baits) could reduce harvest pressures on

native carnivores and inuence interactions of large

carnivores with humans using the park and popula-

tions of their ungulate prey.

Chapter 9. Populations and Communities of Large Mammals.

Part II. Chapter 9. Populations and Communities of Large Mammals 101

Monitoring Questions and Indicators:

Question: Is the status of elk or deer populations

changing?

• Indicator: Abundance Indices of Elk. Con-

duct replicated aerial surveys of elk in two

west-side watersheds of Olympic National

Park during spring ʻgreen-upʼ when the major-

ity of elk are drawn to riparian deciduous

forest types and before overstory trees have

leafed out. Justication: Aerial trend counts

of Roosevelt elk have been conducted in two

west-side watersheds of Olympic National

Park sporadically for almost two decades.

Such counts of elk have been shown to have

high repeatability in the Hoh and Queets

drainage (Houston et al. 1987). Limitations:

Conceptual Model:

Figure 9.1. Conceptual model of vegetation/prey/predator system behavior characterizing dynamics

of vegetation and mammal communities in Olympic National Park.

Solar

Energy

Primary

Producers

Landscapes

Patch Diversity

Community / Stands

Species Comp.

Stand Architecture

Phytomass

Individuals

Browsing Pressure

Nutrient Quality

Large Herbivores

Landscapes

Distribution

Populations

Abundance

Composition

Individuals

Physical Condition

Roosevelt Elk

Black-tailed Deer

Large Carnivores

Landscapes

Distribution

Populations

Abundance

Composition

Individuals

Physical Condition

Black Bear

Cougar

Human Predators

(Harvest)

)

(Natural Mortality)

(Reproduction)

Climate

Land use

Natural Disturbance

Human Pop n

Economy

Regulations

Land use

(Reproduction)

(Competition)

Material/Energy/Nutrients

Influence

Process Rate Function

Decomposers

Aerial surveys are not practical in more

densely forested drainages (those with less

hardwood bottomland forest). Limited scale

of study restricts inference to key watersheds.

Variation in visibility biases of aerial surveys

has not been determined.

• Indicator: Abundance of Deer. Conduct

replicated ground-based counts of deer dur-

ing winter from 30 km of trails in the Elwha

Valley. Justication: Ground-based counts of

deer have been conducted in the Elwha Val-

ley for three years with high repeatability of

results (K. Jenkins, U.S. Geological Survey,

Unpublished data). Ground-surveys provide

estimates of female:male:young ratios. Limita-

tions: Limited scale of study restricts inference.

102 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

• Indicator: Abundance of Deer and Elk Pel-

lets. Conduct surveys of deer and elk pellet

groups. Justication: Rapid and relatively

easy survey procedures allow monitoring rela-

tive abundance of elk and deer at large spatial

scales. Extensive surveys would provide indi-

ces of changes in relative abundance of deer

and elk, changes in distribution, and would

allow extrapolation of survey results con-

ducted on limited areas (see above). Recent

advances in survey methodology and analyti-

cal methods allow correction for visibility

biases, to allow correction for differences

in visibility of elk and deer pellets, vegeta-

tion effects, and observers (K. Jenkins, U.S.

Geological Survey, Unpublished data). Limita-

tions: Pellet deposition rates and persistence

of deer and elk pellets are poorly understood

and may require additional research.

• Indicator: Composition of Elk Populations.

Conduct aerial surveys of elk group composi-

tion during rutting aggregations during the

fall. Justication: Such aerial surveys were

conducted three years in the 1980s with high

repeatability of results (Olympic National

Park, Unpublished data). Change in male:

female ratio may be an indicator of popula-

tion change due to hunting pressure on males.

Change in female:young ratio may be an indi-

cator of change in reproductive productivity or

high mortality of young animals. Limitations:

Changes in composition ratios have ambigu-

ous meaning without corresponding data on

population trends.

Question: Are there changes in physical condition

of elk that could signal population level changes in

abundance?

• Indicator: Abundance of Internal Parasites.

Collect fresh fecal samples of deer and elk

during mid-winter. Count numbers of larvae,

eggs, and oocytes of common internal para-

sites. Justication: Fresh fecal pellets are

easily collected. Parasite abundance indicates

the general health status of individuals. Limi-

tation: Sampling variability and repeatability

of results unknown.

• Indicator: Levels of Stress Hormones in

Fecal Samples. Monitor concentrations of

common corticosteroid hormones in fecal

samples. Justication: Fresh fecal pellets are

easily collected. Monitoring corticosteroid

hormones might be an efcient screening

method to signal the need for more detailed

research. Limitation: Sampling variability and

relationships to nutritional stress require addi-

tional study.

Question: Are key plant taxa changing in abun-

dance, cover, fruit abundance, or morphologic

stature?

• Indicator: Understory Structure and Compo-

sition. Measure cover, density, height, fruiting,

or morphologic characteristics of key plant

taxa that are sensitive to changes in herbivory

(e.g., salmonberry, ladyfern, deerfern, grami-

noids; Happe 1993). Measure structural form

class and browsing history of salmonberry.

Justication: Previous research indicated that

certain understory plant species are sensitive

indicators of and provide an early indication

of change in herbivores (Happe 1993, Sch-

reiner et al. 1996). Measurement of understory

characteristics may be linked to more general

monitoring of forest communities (see Part

II, Chapter 5). Limitations: Causes of change

cannot be interpreted denitively without

complex research designs.

Question: Is the abundance of bears and cougar

changing?

• Indicator: Population Trends of Black Bears.

Count black bears observed using high-

elevation meadows during summer and fall.

Justication: Trends in black bears can be

monitored coincidental to conducting aerial

mountain goat surveys during mid-sum-

mer (see Part II, Chapter 5) and monitoring

composition of elk populations during fall

(see above: Composition of elk populations).

Limitations: Repeatability of bear surveys is

unknown. Variability associated with changing

visibility biases is not known.

Part II. Chapter 9. Populations and Communities of Large Mammals 103

• Indicator: Frequency of Bear and Cougar

Encounters with Humans. Maintain manda-

tory reporting of all bear and cougars sighted

by park staff, and all threatening encounters

with large carnivores reported by park visitors.

Justication: Cost-effective trend data. Data

collection is consistent with other staff duties.

Limitations: Changes in reported sightings

confound changes in human use patterns with

changes in carnivore density.

Linkages with Other Disciplines:

• System Drivers: Human Activities. Elk harvest

trends outside the park. Poaching violations.

• Park and Surrounding Landscape. Habitat

composition.

• Terrestrial Vegetation Communities. Inu-

ences of herbivory on forest composition and

structure.

Spatial and Temporal Context: Where and How Often to Monitor:

Geographic

Zones Elevation Zones (m) Human Use Zones Frequency

Proposed Indicator West East <500

501-

1000

1001-

1500 >1500 Hi Mod Low (Interval)

Abundance of elk X X X X X 5 yr

Abundance of deer X X X X 1 yr

Pellet group abundance X X X X X X 5 yr

Composition of elk populations X X X X X 5 yr

Abundance of internal parasites X X X X 1 yr

Stress hormones 1 yr

Understory structure and comp. X X X X 10 yr

Bear trends X X X X X X 5 yr

Frequency of bear and cougar

encounters

X X X X X X X X X 1 yr

Research and Development Needs:

• Determine differential persistence and vis-

ibility bias associated with detectability of elk

and deer pellet groups. Such understanding is

needed to compare densities of deer and elk

pellet groups between ungulate species and

among geographic areas of the park (research

is in progress).

• Determine sampling variability and repeat-

ability of counts of parasite eggs, larvae and

oocytes in feces of deer and elk (research is in

progress).

• Determine seasonal variation in fecal stress

hormones and relationship to nutritional status.

• Determine variability in sightability of black

bears from summer or fall aerial surveys.

Additional research that may lead to other indica-

tors or renements to proposed indicators:

• Determine visibility biases of aerial surveys of

elk.

• Evaluate non-invasive (camera or DNA-based)

methods of estimating abundance of large-carni-

vores.

• Determine relationships between abundance

estimates of deer and elk and fecal pellet group

indices.

104 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Monitoring Need/Justication:

The mountainous insular geography of the

Olympic Peninsula has promoted the evolution of

several unique taxa of terrestrial wildlife found

only on the Peninsula, primarily within Olympic

National Park (Houston et al. 1994). Loss or frag-

mentation of late-seral coniferous forest habitats

throughout the Pacic Northwestern U.S. has fur-

ther insularized populations of several old-growth

dependent wildlife species and has contributed to

the federal or state listing of some as threatened or

ʻspecies of concernʼ throughout their ranges. Nota-

bly, Olympic National Park is home to at least 4

endemic mammalian taxa (including the Olympic

marmot and endemic subspecies of yellow-pine

chipmunk , Mazama pocket gopher, and Townsendʼs

mole), one endemic amphibian (Olympic torrent

salamander), as well as several taxa with disjunct

distributions that may also have endemic subspe-

cic forms. Olympic National Park also supports

important populations of three species of terrestrial

vertebrates on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceʼs

threatened species list, including the northern spot-

ted owl, marbled murrelet, and northern bald eagle.

Presence of several other federally-listed species of

concern, including three bat species, three amphib-

ian species, Pacic sher, northern goshawk, and

olive-sided ycatcher may also serve as indica-

tors of long-term health of terrestrial ecosystems

of Olympic National Park. As most of the rare and

unique amphibian species are aquatic, monitoring

of those species is covered in Part II, Chapter 13

(Aquatic Biota).

There are several concerns regarding the

long-term conservation of this unique fauna. The

endemic mammals, which inhabit primarily high-

elevation subalpine communities, may be affected

by long-term changes in climate that inuence

patterns of snow deposition, snowmelt, rates of tree

invasion, and ultimately, distributions of subalpine

meadow habitats. Old-growth forest obligate spe-

cies, occurring primarily at lower elevations, may

be threatened by increased insularization of forests

protected within Olympic National Park, which

could disrupt natural colonization and dispersal pat-

terns, dynamics of metapopulations, and exchange

of genetic materials among population segments.

Further, loss and fragmentation of habitats outside

the parkʼs boundaries may promote expansion of

generalist predators or competitors inside the park,

potentially to the disadvantage of protected species.

For example, recent research revealed lower nest-

ing densities of spotted owls near the boundaries of

Olympic National Park, as well as displacement of

spotted owls from several low-elevation nesting ter-

ritories by the more aggressive and generalist barred

owl (S. Gremel, Olympic National Park, Personal

communication). Similarly, recent research points

to potential effects of habitat fragmentation outside

the park and human developments within the park

on both the distributions of generalist predators

and their potential effects on nesting success of the

marbled murrelet (J. Marzluff, University of Wash-

ington, Personal communication). Because Olympic

National Park provides regionally signicant popu-

lations of both spotted owls and marbled murrelets,

monitoring their long-term persistence and health is

a high priority at both local and regional scales.

In addition to challenges of managing this

unique array of native species within the park,

other unwanted ʻalienʼ or ʻexoticʼ species threaten

ecological values of the park and, therefore, also

warrant a concerted monitoring effort at the popula-

tion level. Of greatest concern, an exotic popula-

tion of mountain goats was established in Olympic

National Park in the early 1920s from a founding

population of 11-12 mountain goats introduced from

British Columbia and Alaska (Houston et al. 1994).

The population increased to about 1100 goats by the

Chapter 10. Special-Status Terrestrial Wildlife Populations.

Part II. Chapter 10. Special-Status Terrestrial Wildlife Populations 105

mid-1980s, during which time grazing, trampling,

and wallowing activities appeared to threaten eco-

logical values of high-elevation plant communities

in alpine and subalpine zones. Experimental reduc-

tion programs reduced mountain goat populations

to approximately 380 mountain goats during the

mid-1990s, but continued vigilance of population

status of mountain goats and inuences of moun-

tain goats on plant communities and high-elevation

ecosystems is needed to chronicle the extent and

magnitude of undesirable effects. This information

will factor into the future debate over how best to

manage introduced populations of mountain goats

and preserve subalpine and alpine vegetation com-

munities.

Conceptual Model:

Figure 10.1. Conceptual model of factors affecting populations of special-status wildlife species.

Special-status Terrestrial

Wildlife Populations

THREATENED

HABITAT LOSS/

FRAGMENTATION/

INSULARIZATION

GLOBAL CLIMATE

CHANGE

CONTAMINANTS

Threats

Consequences for:

ECOSYSTEM STRUCTURE

AND

FUNCTION

BIODIVERSITY

Northern Spotted Owl

Marbled Murrellet

American Bald Eagle

Rare

American Marten

Goshawk/Merlin

Endemic

Olympic Marmot

Yellow pine chipmunk

Mazama Pocket Gopher

Townsend s Mole

UNIQUE

ALIEN/INVASIVES

Mountain Goats

Corvids

Barred Owls

MARINE ECOSYSTEMS

INVASIVE SPECIES

(=)

Potential Monitoring

Attibutes

GENETIC DIVERSITY

OCCUPANCY

REPRODUCTION

ABUNDANCE

Monitoring Questions and Indicators:

Question: Are endemic populations of Olympic

marmots changing?

• Indicator: Colony Occupancy. Determine

occupancy of all historically known marmot

colonies at approximately 5-year intervals.

Justication: Baseline records of marmot

colonies exist back to the 1960s in selected

regions of the park. Changes in the number

of occupied colonies may indicate large-scale

changes in metapopulation processes. Occu-

pancy is easily determined.

106 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

• Indicator: Colony Size, Reproductive Indi-

ces. Determine maximum numbers of adults

and juveniles observed as an index of colony

size and composition. Justication: Many

known colonies are quite accessible. Quick

index could signal changes in overall status

of individual colonies and factors inuenc-

ing productivity and recruitment. Limitations:

Interpretation may be difcult.

• Indicator: Genetic Diversity. Measure

genetic variability within and among colonies

of marmots at a 5-10 year frequency, aimed

at detecting long-term (decadal) change in

gene frequencies and heterozygosity. Justica-

tion: Research underway in Olympic National

Park is investigating potential applications

of genetic techniques for monitoring genetic

exchange among maternal colonies. Genetic

techniques may provide early warning of

geographic isolation in marmot colonies and

disruption of metapopulation processes.

Question: Is the genetic diversity of other endemic

mammalian subspecies changing in Olympic

National Park?

• Indicator: Genetic Diversity. Measure

genetic variability from a sample of tissues

collected from specic endemic mammalian

taxa in Olympic National Park. Samples could

be collected at 5-10-year frequency to detect

change at the decadal time-scale. Justica-

tion: As with marmots, disjunct distributions

of other mammalian taxa may increase risk

of inbreeding depression, reduction in genetic

variability, or increased expression of deleteri-

ous alleles. Research underway in Olympic

National Park is establishing empirical base-

lines of genetic diversity of selected endemic

taxa (J. Kenagy, University of Washington,

Personal communication).

Question: Are population parameters of northern

spotted owl deviating from long-term patterns, sig-

naling a change in population abundance?

• Indicator: Territory Occupancy. Monitor a

sample of known territories of northern spot-

ted owls annually to determine percentages of

territories occupied by single owls, breeding

pairs, and barred owls. Justication: Olym-

pic National Park has been monitoring 50-60

known territories since at least 1995. Monitor-

ing the occupation of known territories has

provided important information on large-scale

patterns of nesting distributions of spotted

owls and revealed barred owl expansion into

northern spotted owl territories. Limitation:

Research is needed to determine fate and

reproductive success of displaced pairs of

spotted owls.

• Indicator: Fecundity and Survival. Determine

the number of female young produced per ter-

ritorial female by monitoring the same known

territories annually. Additionally, contribute to

Peninsula-wide estimates of survival rate by

banding new edglings and adults each year

and reporting annual sightings of each.

Justication: Demographic studies may

provide early warning of changes in popula-

tion status. Olympic National Park has been

monitoring demographic performance of

spotted owls since 1989, producing one of the

longest running population data sets in the

park. The 1994 Presidentʼs Northwest Forest

Plan directed federal agencies to work cooper-

atively in monitoring the effectiveness of for-

est conservation measures that were adapted to

conserve the northern spotted owl throughout

its range. Olympic National Park is one of 8

demographic study areas used to study popu-

lation demographics and rates of population

change throughout the owlʼs range; it is the

most important National Park Service contri-

bution to the interagency regional monitoring

effort. Limitation: Demographic monitoring is

expensive and generally exceeds monies avail-

able for long-term monitoring programs. It is

important to derive outside funding to sustain

this interagency monitoring effort.

• Indicator: Abundance. Because estimation of

abundance is extremely expensive, we recom-

mend only repeating the survey as concerns

and auxiliary funding might dictate and per-

mit. Justication: The population of nesting

owl pairs was estimated in Olympic National

Part II. Chapter 10. Special-Status Terrestrial Wildlife Populations 107

Park between 1992-1995 and provides a base-

line for future population comparison (Seaman

et al., 1996). A repeat estimation might be

justied if demographic monitoring suggests

grave concerns for future conservation outlook

for the species, or if there is local need for a

comparative population estimate. Limitation:

Estimation is costly.

Question: Are there changes in distribution and

status of marbled murrelets?

• Indicator: Presence/no detection of Probable

Breeding Birds. Monitor the percentage of

sample stands occupied by probable breeding

birds (recognized as birds ying below the

canopy). Justication: The Marbled Murrelet

Technical Committee of the Pacic Seabird

Group has developed survey standards for

determining presence or probable absence of

nesting activities (Evans et al. 2000). Olympic

National Park staff has inventoried presence/

no detection in many areas of the park associ-

ated with Elwha River restoration (Hawthorn

et al. 1996), front country campgrounds and

paired undeveloped sites (Hall 2000). Limi-

tations: The relationship between probable

nesting behavior and population density is not

known.

• Indicator: Relative Abundance. Monitor rela-

tive abundance of marbled murrelets ying

up selected watersheds using high-frequency

marine radar. Justication: Radar surveys

may be the most reliable method of estimated

marbled murrelet numbers in specic water-

sheds (Burger 1997). Standard methodologies

have been employed in many areas of British

Columbia (Cooper and Hamer 2000) Limita-

tions: Sampling variation and optimal sam-

pling design are poorly understood.

Question: Are there deviations in productivity of

bald eagle populations from the long-term norm that

would signal changes in population status?

• Indicator: Territory Occupancy and Nest-

ing Success. Determine territory occupancy

of known nesting territories of bald eagles on

Olympic National Parkʼs outer coastline and

in the interior Olympic Peninsula. Also moni-

tor reproductive success of eagles occupying

territories. Justication: Olympic National

Park occurs within 2 of 11 recovery zones in

the state of Washington. Monitoring within

these two recovery zones is necessary to

contribute to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

recovery efforts for these two species. The

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Washing-

ton Department of Fish and Wildlife currently

share responsibilities and costs of monitor-

ing. Limitations: An insufcient number of

nesting territories has been identied in the

park interior to permit reliable monitoring of

reproductive indicators for interior-nesting

birds. Additional surveys are needed to locate

additional nest sites.

Question: Are populations of introduced mountain

goats or their effects on high-elevation plant com-

munities increasing, triggering the need for more

intensive management?

• Indicator: Relative Abundance of Moun-

tain Goats. Monitor relative abundance of

mountain goats, by conducting aerial counts

in randomly selected sample units at approxi-

mately 3-5 year intervals. Justication: Aerial

survey sampling methods have been designed

previously and have been used to monitor

trends in mountain goat populations since the

mid-1980s (Houston et al. 1986, 1991). Preci-

sion of estimates and sampling costs is known.

Limitations: Inuences of observer and envi-

ronmental variability on detection biases is not

known.

• Indicator: Distribution and Abundance of

Rare or Endemic Plant Populations. See Part

II, Chapter 7 (Special Status Plant Species:

Rare and Exotic).

Linkages with Other Disciplines:

• System drivers: Atmosphere and climate.

Effects of climate change on marmots and

habitat.

• System drivers: Human Activities. Park devel-

opment and activities.

108 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

• Park and Surrounding Landscape. Insulariza-

tion, re history, forest succession.

• Contaminants: Persistent organic pollutants.

• Terrestrial Vegetation Communities. Com-

munity-level effects of introduced mountain

goats.

• Special-status Plant Species. Population-level

effects of introduced mountain goats effects.

• Terrestrial Fauna. Prey, predators, or competi-

tors of special-status wildlife.

Spatial and Temporal Context: Where and How Often to Monitor:

Geographic

Zones Elevation Zones (m) Human Use Zones Frequency

Proposed Indicator West East <500

501-

1000

1001-

1500 >1500 Hi Mod Low (Interval)

Olympic Marmots. X X X X X 1 yr

Endemic mammalian popn.s X X X X 10 yr

Northern spotted owls X X X X X X X X 1 yr

Marbled murrelets X X X X X X 1 yr

Bald eagles X X X X X 1-2 yr

Mountain goats X X X X X X 5 yr

Research and Development Needs:

• Develop genetic markers and baseline under-

standing of genetic variability and spatial pat-

terns of heterogeneity in Olympic marmots and

other endemic mammalian taxa (research is in

progress, conducted by independent research-

ers).

• Optimal sampling designs need to be developed

and evaluated for both presence/no detection and

radar-based sampling of marbled murrelets. Spa-

tial and temporal patterns of sampling variation

and its relationship to monitoring costs should

be evaluated further.

• Visibility biases of aerial mountain goat surveys

should be evaluated.

• Develop methods for monitoring goshawks and

Pacic marten populations.

• Develop methods for monitoring changes in

abundance of bat species of concern.

Part II. Chapter 10. Special-Status Terrestrial Wildlife Populations 109

110 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Monitoring Need/Justication:

In 2000, the National Park Serviceʼs Geologic

Resources Division introduced geoindicators to

park resource managers as an important ecosystem

management tool. Geoindicators are measures of

physical processes on the earthʼs surface that may

undergo signicant change in less than 100 years

and may be affected by human actions. Geoindica-

tors differ from geologic processes in that they are

parameters that can be used to assess changes in

rates, frequencies, trends, or magnitudes of geologic

processes. For example, glaciation is the process by

which ice accumulates, ows and recedes, shap-

ing the land as it does so. Glacier uctuation is the

geoindicator that tracks changes in ice mass balance

and position, which are important in understand-

ing and forecasting changes to mountain and river

ecosystems.

Nearly all of the important geologic processes

in Olympic National Park that might change in a

100-year time frame are related to solid or liquid

water, and soil. Throughout its geologic history, gla-

ciers and owing water have physically shaped the

Olympic Peninsula. River levels, amount and timing

of ow, and the effects of erosion on river morphol-

ogy determine the quality of aquatic habitat. Coastal

areas are inuenced by sea level and shoreline

position. Steep topography, sedimentary soils, and

heavy precipitation in some areas of the park make

slope failure and “stream blow-out” a frequent

disturbance. Lakes and wetlands are also impor-

tant sources of biodiversity that may need geologic

monitoring. Changes in these geologic processes

will be greatly affected by changes in precipitation

and air temperature, both predicted to change due to

anthropogenic forces. Monitoring how these pro-

cesses respond to climate change will indicate how

habitat quality throughout the park will be affected.

Chapter 11. Geoindicators.

Conceptual Model: See factors below identied in

other sections.

Monitoring Questions and Indicators:

Olympic National Park has identied nearly

a dozen geoindicators of processes that are highly

important to park ecosystems, highly likely to

be impacted by humans, and have a high level of

signicance to park management. Questions and

indicators for these geoindicators will be developed

at the national level:

• Frozen ground activity (especially soliuction

lobes).

• Glacier uctuations.

• Groundwater chemistry in the unsaturated

zone.

• Lake levels (including subalpine lakes).

• Relative sea level.

• Shoreline position.

• Slope failures.

• Soil and sediment erosion.

• Soil compaction.

• Stream ow.

• Stream channel morphology.

• Stream sediment and load.

• Surface water quality.

• Ground water chemistry.

• Nutrient dynamics.

• Wetlands—extent, structure and hydrology.

Nearly all of these geoindicators have been

identied under other subject matter headings

as important to monitor. Specic protocols for

monitoring these indicators may be coordinated

nationally by the National Park Service Geological

Resources Division in the near future.

Part II. Chapter 11. Geoindicators 111

Linkages with Other Disciplines:

• Aquatic/Riparian Habitat. Stream sediment

load, stream channel morphology, lake levels,

glacier uctuations, water quality.

• Park and Surrounding Landscape. Shoreline

position, slope failures, wetlands.

• Biogeochemistry. Water quality, stream ow.

• Coastal Environments. Relative sea level,

shoreline position.

Spatial and Temporal Context: Where and How

Often to Monitor: (will be completed pending

national guidance)

Research Needs:

• How do observed changes in river ow rate and

temperature affect stream morphology, stream

chemistry, and aquatic ecosystem development?

How sensitive are sh populations to those

changes?

• How will changes in sea level affect the amount

and type of estuarine habitat and how would

such changes affect sh populations that spawn

in the park?

• What are the effects of increased or decreased

erosion on stream morphology and consequently

for sh populations?

• How will riparian areas respond to changes in

river ow rate?

112 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Monitoring Need/Justication:

The water resources and associated riparian

zones of Olympic National Park include a full array

of high- and low-elevation lakes, ponds, bogs,

mineral and freshwater springs, and glacial and

non-glacial rivers and streams. In addition, one res-

ervoir and one dam reside within park boundaries.

These areas, in turn, provide habitat for a diversity

of anadromous and resident sh, amphibians, and

invertebrates. Despite the abundance and vital

importance of these resources as habitat, no inte-

grated monitoring program exists. A specic exam-

ple shows how poorly the resources are understood.

In one study, the acidication potential of lakes in

Seven Lakes Basin was found to be fairly low, in

keeping with predictions (Welch and Spyridakis

1984). Based on these results and geomorphologic

considerations, other high-elevation lakes were also

predicted to have low acidication potential. Never-

theless, a one-season examination of several east-

side alpine lakes found these to have high acidica-

tion potential (Larson 1995).

The physical, hydraulic, and chemical proper-

ties of streams and rivers determine their suitability

as habitat for aquatic wildlife. Conditions appro-

priate for spawning are dened by water depth,

water velocity, size of substrate, and availability of

cover provided by overhanging vegetation, under-

cut banks, submerged logs and rocks, among other

stream characteristics (Bjornn and Reiser 1991).

These factors are also important along with debris

dams in determining migration success for anadro-

mous sh. Successful incubation of embryos of sh

and amphibians depend on conditions that are con-

ducive to development, and that allow young sh to

emerge from under gravel. Some of the important

factors include dissolved oxygen concentration,

water temperature, substrate size, channel gradi-

ent, channel conguration, and water depth, among

others (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Food resources

Chapter 12. Aquatic/Riparian Habitat.

depend on the availability of coarse particulate

organic matter accumulating behind debris dams

and supporting invertebrate communities. Like-

wise, lake morphology determines many important

habitat properties such as temperature gradients and

light penetration in the water column and substrate

characteristics (Bain and Stevenson 1999). Lake

and stream characteristics are linked to terrestrial

ecosystems because they are formed and maintained

by interactions among landscape-scale features such

as topography, geology, climate, vegetation, and

drainage area.

Riparian vegetation structure, composition and

dynamics also play a major role in creating suitable

habitat for sh and other aquatic, semi-aquatic, and

riparian wildlife (Naiman et al. 1993, Gregory et al.

1991). Streamside vegetation is important in pre-

venting sedimentation and mass failure, inuencing

channel structure and oodplain processes, and con-

trolling stream temperatures (Murphy 1995). Ripar-

ian vegetation also provides signicant nutrient

inputs and structural elements to the river system

including plant litter and large woody debris. Large

woody debris is also linked to the coast because it

may wash to the ocean and contribute to the drift-

wood element of beach environments. The impor-

tance of riparian vegetation to riparian and stream

habitats is recognized by the forest industry as it

protects riparian buffer strips from harvest (Gregory

et al. 1987).

The major threats to water resources inside

the park include climate change, which will affect

disturbance regimes, water temperature, spatial and

temporal aspects of hydrology (Grimm 1993), and

air-borne contaminants. Outside the park, land man-

agement practices and other human activities affect

park waters, even though most rivers and streams

originate inside the main body of the park (exclud-

ing the coastal strip). Contaminants from the air and

from herbicides used on lands managed for timber

Part II. Chapter 12. Aquatic/Riparian Habitat 113

outside of the park may pollute waters (Rashin and

Graber 1993), removal of riparian vegetation may

reduce the suitability of streams for migration and

spawning (Gregory 1995), and harvest of anadro-

mous sh diminishes the substantial quantity of

nutrients from salmon carcasses historically pres-

ent (Cederholm and Peterson 1985). Contaminants,

marine-derived nutrients, and water chemistry are

addressed elsewhere. Here we focus on the hydro-

logic and physical properties of lakes and streams.

Conceptual Model:

Rivers/Streams

Physical

Substrate Size Debris

Temperature Cover

Hydraulic

Depth Gradient

Velocity

Channel Config.

Chemical

Dissolved O

Nutrients

Contaminants

Lakes/Ponds

Chemical

Contaminants pH

Nutrients

Aquatic/Riparian Vegetation

Structure

Composition-including Exotics

Dynamics

Aquatic/Riparian Habitat

Characteristics

Aquatic/Riparian

Wildlife

Anadromous Fish

Resident Fish

Amphibians

Invertebrates

Birds

Mammals

Physical

Substrate Temp. Gradient

Light Penetration

Disturbance

Regime

Climate

Atmosphere

Land Use &

Management

Outside Park

Basin Characteristics

Geology

Topography

Vegetation

Drainage Area

Monitoring Questions and Indicators:

Question: Describe changes in features providing

inputs to river systems (i.e., disturbances and ripar-

ian vegetation types).

• Indicator: Size and Distribution of Distur-

bance and Vegetation. Analyze repeat aerial

photographs and Landsat imagery at 5-year

intervals for distribution and frequency of

all types of disturbance along a subsample

of the river systems. Changes in the amount

and distribution of riparian vegetation types,

Figure 12.1. Conceptual model of physical, chemical, and biologic aspects of aquatic/riparian habitat and

their interactions with system drivers in Olympic National Park.

especially cottonwoods, should also be moni-

tored. Justication: Both riparian vegetation

and disturbances such as mass-wasting events

provide inputs and structural elements to river

systems. Changes in the frequency and dis-

tribution of these features could have serious

consequences for rivers. Aerial photos and

Landsat images will be important for moni-

toring all types of disturbance throughout the

park. Limitations: Remote sensing is expen-

sive and expertise to analyze aerial photos is

rare. Ground-truthing current aerial photos is

expensive and unrealistic for historic ones.

114 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Question: Is water quality changing in selected

lakes and streams?

• Indicator: Water Quality.

• Rivers with ongoing monitoring. Add physi-

cal and chemical water quality parameters to

rivers with ongoing hydrologic monitoring (i.e.,

timing and amount of ow) by other agencies;

especially, add chemical measurements to rivers

in the U.S. Geological Survey network (Hoh,

Dungeness, Skokomish rivers). Physical and

chemical parameters for rivers should include:

quantity, sediment, temperature, dissolved oxy-

gen, pH, nutrients, turbidity, conductivity, and

pollutants. The Clean Water Act Total Maximum

Daily Load (TMDL) protocol (Butler and Snou-

waert 2002) should be followed for temperature

and sediment. Justication: These additional

measurements would give a more complete

picture of sites where there is already a long-

term record and regular visits for maintenance.

Limitations: Expense.

• Rivers and lakes without existing monitoring.

• Coastal creeks and the Ozette River should

be monitored for the parameters listed

above.

• Lake Ozette should be monitored for sedi-

ments using lake-bed cores.

• Lake Crescent should be monitored for

hydrocarbons and inholder activities at rst

fall rains.

• High-elevation lakes should be monitored

for level, sediment, ions, dissolved organic

nitrogen and carbon, pH, nutrients, tem-

perature prole, conductivity, phyto-and

zooplankton, pollutants, turbidity, and light

penetration (Dissolved organic carbon

might be a surrogate).

• Expanding measurements to other sites

would also be desirable but of lower prior-

ity.

Justication: These are sites with specic

management concerns that also include

a range of resource types. Limitations:

Expense.

Question: Describe changes in glacier size.

• Indicator: Glacier terminus position and

mass balance. Insure that monitoring of Blue

Glacier continues. Staff members of the Uni-

versity of Washington are currently monitor-

ing Blue Glacier with some help from the park

in maintaining a camera. Adding monitoring

to Anderson or Eel glacier would be desirable,

but of lower priority. A protocol for moni-

toring mass balance using arrays of stakes

is being developed by Jon Reidel at North

Cascades National Park. Justication: There

is a very long record of the terminus position

already (>100 years). Blue is a sentinel gla-

cier in a larger glacier monitoring network.

Many rivers in Olympic are glacier fed so that

changes in amount and timing of glacier melt

will affect their properties. Limitations: None.

Question: Are parameters describing physical

habitat-related characteristics of lakes and streams

changing?

Indicator: Physical characteristics of streams and

lakes.

• Streams. In addition to the chemical and

ow measurements described above, streams

should be monitored for large woody debris,

channel morphology, habitat units (e.g., ponds

and rifes), substrate, and structures (e.g.,

boulders and submerged woody debris). The

protocols should incorporate those developed

by Timber Fish and Wildlife (TFW, Schuett-

Hames et al. 1994) and Reed Glesne at North

Cascades National Park. Justication: Physi-

cal features of streams besides water quality

are important descriptors of aquatic habitat.

Using TFW protocols will help the park serve

as a benchmark for managed lands. Limita-

tions: Extent depends on funding.

• Lakes and Ponds. In addition to the param-

eters described above, lakes should be moni-

tored for large woody debris, littoral habitat/

vegetation, substrate, morphology/bathymetry

and structure. Protocols should complement

those of TFW for streams and incorporate

protocols under development by Gary Larson

of U.S. Geological Survey.

Part II. Chapter 12. Aquatic/Riparian Habitat 115

Justication: Changes in these parameters

indicate a change in habitat quality for lake

and pond dwellers. Limitations: Expense.

Question: Are abundance of frequent plant species

and vegetation structure changing?

Indicator: Structure and composition of ripar-

ian vegetation. The structure and composition of

riparian vegetation should be monitored similarly

to forest vegetation (see Part II, Chapter 6) with

the additional need to indicate distance from river.

Snags, tree allometry, and mortality are espe-

cially important. Protocols should be based on the

protocols under development by Dean Berg and

the Regional Riparian Forest Permanent Sample

Plot System (Reeves et al. 2001, www.reo.gov/

monitoring/watershed). Vegetation plots should be

co-located with stream habitat monitoring. Justi-

cation: Riparian vegetation contributes important

components to stream systems as well as modifying

microclimate and stream temperature. Following the

protocols used by others will widen the use of our

data. Limitations: Expense.

Linkages with Other Disciplines:

• Park and Surrounding Landscape. Snow cover

and duration, disturbance.

• Geoindicators: Glaciers, lake morphology,

channel morphology.

• System Drivers: Atmosphere and Climate.

Meteorologic stations, snow course.

• Biogeochemistry. Water quality.

Spatial and Temporal Context: Where and How Often to Monitor:

Geographic

Zones Elevation Zones (m) Human Use Zones Frequency

Proposed Indicator West East <500

501-

1000

1001-

1500 >1500 Hi Mod Low (Interval)

Disturbance & Riparian Veg. X X X X X X X X X 5-10 yr

Wat. Qual. – Rivers with moni-

toring

X X X X X X 1 yr

Wat. Qual. – Coastal creeks X X X X 1 yr

Wat. Qual. – Lake Ozette X X X 1 yr

Wat. Qual. – Lake Crescent X X X 1 yr

Wat. Qual. – High Lakes X X X X X X 1 yr

Glaciers X X X 1 yr

Habitat - Stream X X X X X X 1-2 yr

Habitat – Lakes & Ponds X X X X X X 5 yr

Ripar. Vegetation – Plot Level X X X X X X 10 yr

Research Needs:

• Complete a thorough inventory of glaciers, geo-

logic features, lakes, ponds, rivers and streams

by stream classes, avalanche paths, wetlands,

riparian vegetation, and shoreline position.

• Repeat survey of the western lake survey sites.

• Pilot efforts to develop parameters and spatial

relationships to determine if there are surrogates.

• Hydrologic models are needed to extrapolate

point measurements to larger areas.

• Determine what amount of change is biologi-

cally signicant in terms of impacting fauna.

116 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Monitoring Need/Justication:

The rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds of Olym-

pic National Park support diverse assemblages of

plankton, macroinvertebrates, amphibians, and

nsh. These faunal communities make signi-

cant contributions to the productivity and stability

of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems of the

park. The diversity of macroinvertebrates found in

freshwater ecosystems, for example, contribute to

a number of critical ecological functions related to

processing organic material, such as leaf litter, con-

suming autochthonous inputs (i.e., periphyton) and

distributing nutrients through diverse trophic path-

ways (Cummins 1974). Further, the parkʼs anadro-

mous sh are widespread and, because all Pacic

salmon die after spawning, their gametes and car-

casses provide a pulse of nutrients that fuel aquatic

systems and provide food for over 130 species of

aquatic and terrestrial wildlife species including

several species of birds and mammals (Cederholm

et al. 2001). Positive benets of salmon-derived

nutrients include increases in invertebrate, phyto-

plankton, and periphyton production, invertebrate

diversity, and sh growth rates (Cederholm et al.

1989).

Olympic National Parkʼs fresh waters are also

home to 7 species of pond-breeding and 4 species

of stream- or seep-breeding amphibians, including

the Olympic torrent salamander that is found only

on the Olympic Peninsula (Good and Wake 1992).

Collectively, amphibian communities are important

consumers of zooplankton and macroinvertebrates,

while also providing food for sh, birds, and other

amphibians. A primary goal of the National Park

Serviceʼs mission is to preserve the biological integ-

rity in the composition and function of these com-

plex aquatic systems.

Aquatic faunal communities of Olympic

National Park face a number of threats. Migratory

salmon, trout, and char are especially vulnerable

because they migrate to coastal and ocean areas

outside the park for large portions of their life cycle.

Consequently, they are subject to the full spectrum

of resource exploitation and habitat degradation

that has driven many Pacic salmon stocks to low

or critical levels of abundance. One of the principal

threats to anadromous salmonids is the high rate of

harvest during their marine and estuarine migra-

tion, which affects the size of annual salmon runs

returning to the park (Emmett and Schiewe 1997,

Francis 1997). Degradation of water quality and

aquatic habitat is most acute in the parkʼs coastal

strip and lands that extend into developed areas,

where intensive logging and habitat degradation

upstream has reduced both the quality and quan-

tity of downstream spawning habitats in the park

(Bottom 1995). A third threat faced by the parkʼs

anadromous sh resources are articial enhance-

ment programs, including hatcheries, which operate

around the Olympic Peninsula supplementing native

sh runs with introduced stocks, and potentially

compromising the genetic integrity of native stocks

(Bottom 1995).

Changes in system drivers, discussed in other

chapters of this report, including changes in atmo-

sphere, human use and associated contaminants,

also threaten the integrity of biotic assemblages

in Olympic National Park waters. For example,

depletion of the earthʼs ozone layer has caused

levels of ultraviolet radiation-B (UVB) to increase

in northern latitudes over the past 20 years (World

Meterological Organization 1998). Some studies

have shown that eggs of amphibians protected from

UVB have greater hatching success than those not

protected, suggesting that increases in UVB could

negatively impact amphibian communities at broad

Chapter 13. Aquatic Biota.

Prepared with assistance from J. Meyer

Part II. Chapter 13. Aquatic Biota 117

Olympic National Park.

ecological scales (Blaustein et al. 1994, but see

Palen et al. 2002). Many contaminants may also

affect quality of park waters, affecting the integ-

rity of plankton, macroinvertebrate, and amphib-

ian communities, and potentially accumulating in

higher trophic levels. Recently, increased atmo-

spheric nitrogen inputs at West Twin Creek (and

presumably elsewhere in the park) were associated

with a dramatic drop in stream pH (from 7.0 to as

low as 4.5; Edmonds et al. 1998). It is known that

pH decreases of this magnitude can have a profound

effect on aquatic communities (U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency 1986). On a more local scale,

nutrient inputs to Lake Crescent from human shore-

line developments (including septic systems, out-

houses, and sedimentation) may accelerate eutro-

phication of this deep, oligotrophic lake, potentially

inuencing plankton and algal communities and

spawning beds of endemic trout residing in Lake

Crescent. Similarly, sedimentation associated with

local developments in the Lake Ozette basin plus

invasion of exotic plants may be inuencing nutri-

ent budgets and trophic structure within Lake Ozette

and spawning grounds of the threatened Lake

Ozette sockeye salmon stock (Beauchamp 1995).

Lastly, introduction of non-native shes to

many park waters constitutes a profound perturba-

tion to structure and composition of biotic com-

munities, primarily those of high-elevation lakes in

which brook trout are now abundant. Past research

has shown negative relationships of introduced trout

on abundance and diversity of amphibians breeding

in high mountain ponds and lakes, as well changes

in the abundance and community structure of plank-

ton and macroinvertebrate communities (Markle

1992).

These and several other resource concerns

have led park staff, working with many disciplinary

experts, to highlight the need to monitor biodiver-

sity of park aquatic fauna and status of key groups,

such as planktonic communities, aquatic inverte-

brates, amphibians, sh, interdependent terrestrial

species, and marine-derived nutrients as indicators

of long-term integrity and functional resiliency.

Population-level monitoring of selected ʻspecial-

statusʼ aquatic species is elaborated in the following

chapter.

Conceptual Model:

Figure 13.1. Conceptual model for the aquatic trophic system and impacts caused by human activities.

Aquatic Trophic System Threats

Phytoplankton

Zooplankton

Autochthonous &

allochthonous

inputs

Aquatic

Invertebrates

Amphibians

Fish

(live, carcasses,

gametes)

Terrestrial Species

Birds

CONTAMINANTS

Directly & indirectly

through water quality

UVB

NON-NATIVE

FISH

OVERHARVEST

HATCHERY

SUPPLEMENTATION

HABITAT

MODIFICATION

118 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Monitoring Questions and Indicators:

Question: Are there changes in the species compo-

sition and structure of phytoplankton and zooplank-

ton communities of park lakes that could signal

changes in trophic structure, ecosystem function, or

sustainability?

• Indicator: Composition and structure.

Specic indicators and metrics to be identied

and developed by U.S. Geological Survey/

North Cascades Lakes and Rivers Prototype

Monitoring Program.

Question: Are there changes in the species compo-

sition and structure of macroinvertebrate communi-

ties of park rivers and streams?

• Indicator: Abundance. Specic indicators

and metrics to be identied and developed to

be consistent with U.S. Environmental Protec-

tion Agencyʼs rapid bioassessment of macro-

invertebrates. Justication: The National Park

Serviceʼs Water Resources Division proposes

rapid assessment of macroinvertebrates as part

of a core suite of monitoring variables.

• Indicator: Composition and structure. Indica-

tors and metrics to be identied and developed

by U.S. Geological Survey/North Cascades

Lakes and Rivers Prototype Monitoring

Program. Justication: Changes in the com-

position and structure of macroinvertebrates

can signal fundamental changes in ecosys-

tem processes and ecological functions in

freshwater ecosystems. Such monitoring can

be integrated with existing U.S. Geological

Survey monitoring of macroinvertebrates in

the Elwha watershed (National Air and Water

Quality Assessment Program). Limitations:

Taxonomic analysis of macroinvertebrates is

notoriously tedious and potentially costly.

Question: Are there changes in aquatic amphibian

communities that could signal impacts associated

with UVB, introduced sh, disease, contaminants,

or climate change.

• Indicator: Abundance of stream-breeding

amphibians. Count amphibians present in

belt-transects placed across sampled stream

reaches to get abundance index. Justica-

tion: U.S. Geological Survey has completed

an inventory of stream-breeding invertebrates

in Olympic National Park and has provided

sampling recommendations for designing a

monitoring program. Limitations: Cost.

• Indicator: Presence/no detection of pond-

breeding amphibians. Record presence/no

detection of pond and seep-breeding amphib-

ian species. Justication: U.S. Department of

Interior Amphibian Research and Monitoring

Initiative is currently conducting presence/no

detection surveys of amphibians breeding

in Olympic National Park lakes and ponds.

Protocols are developed and linked with

monitoring of core water quality variables and

disease screening of amphibians. Limitations:

Presence/no detection may provide relatively

insensitive indicator of subtle changes, but

estimation of population abundance is beyond

scope of this project.

• Indicator: Species diversity. Use abundance

indices and presence/no detection surveys

(above) to measure changes in species rich-

ness, evenness, and other metrics indicating

changes in the overall structure of amphibian

communities.

Question: Are sh communities changing in struc-

ture or populations declining due to changes in

freshwater habitat?

• Indicator: Abundance of sh. (focusing here

on those species that require an extended

period of rearing in freshwater, including coho

and cutthroat trout). Assess annual abundance

through electroshing and snorkel surveys

in randomly selected stream reaches. Where

feasible, construct smolt traps to provide

more reliable estimates of annual abundance,

including coho smolts produced from selected

tributaries or river systems. Justication:

Coho salmon require an extended period of

rearing in freshwater and their annual abun-

dance is more closely linked to freshwater

and terrestrial habitat (e.g. water quality and

quantity, pool/rife ratios, woody debris

loading) than other salmon species. Method-

Part II. Chapter 13. Aquatic Biota 119

ologies suitable for surveying freshwater sh

in stream systems, including coho, are being

developed in conjunction with North Cascades

National Park as part of the Lakes and Rivers

Prototype Monitoring Program. Limitations:

High-gradient streams and large main-stem

river channels are not easily sampled. Sam-

pling biases may differ according to gradient,

habitat complexity, conductivity, and other

sampling difculties.

• Indicator: Abundance of spawning salmon.

Conduct redd (nest) surveys in stream reaches

where spawning by adult salmonids is pos-

sible. Justication: This is currently the best

means of assessing annual abundance of large

numbers of salmonid stocks, especially those

that do not spend large amounts of time rear-

ing in freshwater systems such as chinook,

pink, and chum salmon. These activities need

to be coordinated with state and tribal manag-

ers who conduct these types of surveys in the

park. Limitations: None.

• Indicator: Spawning escapement. As fund-

ing allows, install weirs in small and moder-

ate-sized representative streams to provide

more reliable estimates of annual spawning

escapement. Justication: Trapping estimates

are much more reliable than other methods of

assessing spawning escapement and should

be done over a brood cycle and in conjunction

with redd surveys and used as a correction fac-

tor for years when no surveys are conducted.

Limitations: Cost.

• Indicator: Genetic composition of native

stocks. Monitor potential introgression of

hatchery strains into genome of native stocks.

Indicators to be developed further.

Question: Are there manifest ecosystem-level

effects associated with changes in salmon abun-

dance?

• Indicator: Marine-Derived Nutrients. (See

also Part II, Chapter 4 - Biogeochemical

Cycles). In conjunction with sh abundance

surveys, monitor marine-derived nutrients

in aquatic and riparian vegetation, aquatic

invertebrates, and juvenile sh. Justication:

Marine-derived nutrients are important con-

tributors to the productivity of aquatic and

terrestrial ecosystems. Prior studies suggest

they directly inuence rates of growth of

juvenile sh, which translates into high rates

of survival to maturity. Limitations: Quantita-

tive relationships between salmon and nutrient

inputs to stream and lake systems is lacking

for the Olympic Peninsula but could become

an important factor in future salmon manage-

ment.

• Indicator: Abundance of riverine birds.

Count numbers of individual birds, broods,

and edglings per brood (as appropriate) for

common mergansers, red breasted mergansers,

harlequin ducks, dippers, and kingshers.

Justication: Each of these species has been

identied as having a strong, consistent rela-

tionship or recurrent relationship with salmon

in Oregon and Washington (Cederholm et al.

2001). The ecology of these species may be

beneted by salmon through nutrients pro-

vided in the form of gametes, fry, or carcasses,

or indirectly from increased productivity of

other food species. It may be particularly

interesting to monitor effects of salmon resto-

ration in the Elwha watershed following dam

removals. Limitations: Changes in commu-

nity structure of consumers may be a lagging,

rather than leading, indicator of changes in

lotic ecosystems.

Linkages with Other Disciplines:

• System Drivers: Atmosphere and Climate.

UVB that may inuence amphibian popula-

tions. Climate change that may inuence

aquatic biota.

• System Drivers: Human Activities. Changes

in human development along lake shores,

changes in shing pressure.

• Park and Surrounding Landscape. Changes in

logging patterns and landscape composition

upstream from park rivers and lake water-

sheds.

120 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

• Biogeochemical Cycles. Changes in water

quality parameters that inuence all biotic

communities. Changes in wet and dry deposi-

tion.

• Contaminants. Changes in contaminants that

inuence biota and may accumulate in higher

trophic levels.

• Geoindicators. Changes in shoreline, mass

wasting, erosion, stream ow, channel mor-

phology that all inuence aquatic habitats.

• Special-status Terrestrial Wildlife. Bald eagle

populations are strongly dependent on sal-

monids, particularly those nesting along park

rivers.

• Aquatic/Riparian Habitat. All measures of

aquatic/riparian habitat directly affect aquatic

biota.

• Special-status Fish Species. Threatened or

endemic species of sh depend upon salmon-

based nutrient budgets, plankton, and mac-

roinvertebrates. Exotic trout may inuence

amphibian communities of lakes and ponds.

Spatial and Temporal Context: Where and How Often to Monitor:

Geographic

Zones Elevation Zones (m) Human Use Zones Frequency

Proposed Indicator West East <500

501-

1000

1001-

1500 >1500 Hi Mod Low (Interval)

Plankton Communities X X X X X X 1 yr

Macroinvertebrates X X X X X X X X 1 yr

Stream Amphibians X X X X X X X X 1 yr

Pond/Lake Amphibians X X X X X X X X 1 yr

Fish X X X X X X X X (?) 1 yr

Spawning Salmon X X X X X X 1 yr

Riverine Birds X X X X X X 1 yr

Marine-Derived Nutrients X X X X X X 5-10 yr

Research and Development Needs:

• Examine reliability of currently available stream

sampling techniques (snorkeling and electrosh-

ing) to detect the occurrence of native freshwa-

ter rearing sh species and assess their relative

abundance.

• Explore sampling techniques suitable for assess-

ing species composition and relative abundance

of sh in larger main-stem river systems where

sampling techniques are very limited and/or

costs are high.

• What is the relationship between salmon spawn-

ing escapement (e.g. carcasses) and productivity

of aquatic systems, especially abundance of sh

in the same and other species in future brood

years?

• How do stream channel characteristics (amount

of large woody debris, deep pools, side chan-

nels, and unaltered natural stream banks) inu-

ence the deposition and retention of salmon

carcasses for utilization by terrestrial and aquatic

fauna as well as nutrient recycling?

• Study population processes, fresh water habitats,

breeding behavior and reproductive ecology to

understand what constitutes minimal popula-

tions size.

• Explore effects of current management regimes

on salmon resources.

Part II. Chapter 13. Aquatic Biota 121

122 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Monitoring Need/Justication:

Olympic National Park contains some of the

last remaining undisturbed, contiguous habitat

throughout the range of several west-coast sh

species. Olympic National Park supports at least

29 native species and is the only national park in

the lower 48 states that contains substantial num-

bers of native anadromous salmonids, some of

which are listed as threatened under the Endan-

gered Species Act. Some special-status species may

serve as important “seeds” or genetic reservoirs to

recolonize nearby extirpated populations in adja-

cent watersheds. In addition, all salmon species

contribute nutrients and organic matter to aquatic

habitats, providing an important nutrient subsidy to

freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems, and inuenc-

ing stream productivity at all trophic levels. Conse-

quently, sh populations in Olympic National Park

are an integral part of the biological integrity of

aquatic ecosystems, and are of major ecological and

economic importance and of public interest.

Three species of sh have been listed as threat-

ened under the Endangered Species Act. Lake

Ozette sockeye were listed in March 1999 because

they are genetically distinct from all other sockeye

populations in the Pacic Northwest (Gustafson et

al. 1997), and they are among the last remaining

wild sockeye in Washington State. Other unique

attributes of Lake Ozette sockeye include early

river-entry timing, relatively large adult body size,

and large average smolt size (Gustafson et al. 1997).

Lake Ozette once supported a harvestable run of

sockeye salmon until overexploitation and degra-

dation of spawning habitats caused a signicant

decline (Beauchamp 1995). Extirpation of these

sh would impact ecosystem processes within the

coastal portion of the Park. In November 1999, bull

trout were listed as a threatened species in Puget

Chapter 14. Special-Status Fish Species: Threatened, Rare, Non-native, and Endemic.

Prepared with assistance from S. Brenkman

Sound and coastal Washington. Substantial declines

in distribution and abundance of bull trout through-

out their range have been attributed to habitat

degradation (Fraley and Shepard 1989), oversh-

ing (Ratliff and Howell 1992), dams and irrigation

projects (Rieman and McIntyre 1993), and displace-

ment by non-native brook trout (Salvelinus fonti-

nalis; Markle 1992). Finally, Puget Sound Chinook

salmon were listed in March 1999, including Chi-

nook salmon that inhabit the Elwha River Basin,

Dungeness River Basin, and North Fork Skokomish

River. Based on life history and genetic attributes,

Elwha Chinook appear to be transitional between

populations from the Puget Sound and the Wash-

ington Coast. Lake Cushman Chinook are unique

because the population is one of the last remain-

ing Chinook populations adapted to a freshwater

life history. Factors for decline of Chinook include

changes in ow regime, hydroelectric development,

high water temperatures, and loss of large woody

debris.

Olympic National Park is home to other rare or

unique species. Pygmy whitesh (Prosopium coul-

teri) are remnants from the last ice age. In North

America they are distributed across the northern tier

of the United States, throughout western Canada

and north into southeast Alaska. Pygmy whitesh

are also found in one lake in Russia. Washington

State is at the extreme southern edge of their native

range in North America (Washington Department

of Fish and Wildlife 2001), and they have been

observed in Lake Crescent. Historically, pygmy

whitesh resided in at least 15 lakes in Washington.

Now they inhabit only nine and are likely to become

endangered or threatened in a signicant portion

of their remaining range. Beardslee and crescentii

trout are locally adapted trout species that inhabit

Lake Crescent in Olympic National Park. These sh

once supported popular sheries in the lake until

catch-and-release regulations were implemented

Part II. Chapter 14. Special-Status Fish Species 123

Olympic National Park.

recently. The Quinault River in Olympic National

Park is at the extreme southern edge of the range of

Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) in North America.

In the lower 48 states, this species is only found on

the Olympic Peninsula, in the upper Sol Duc and

Quinault Rivers, and in Puget Sound. Additionally,

Pacic (Lampetra tridentata) and river (L. ayresi)

lampreys are considered federal species of concern

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

One important endemic species is the Olympic

mudminnow (Novumbra hubbsi), which is one of

ve species worldwide in the family Umbridae and

is the only member of the genus Novumbra. Three

other species are found in North America and one in

Eastern Europe. Olympic mudminnows are found

only in Washington State and no other members

of the family Umbridae are found in Washington

(Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

2001). The current distribution of the Olympic mud-

minnow includes the southern and western lowlands

of the Olympic Peninsula including Lake Ozette

and the lower Queets River. Olympic mudminnows

are listed as Sensitive by Washington State.

At present, there is a paucity of information

related to rare species in Olympic National Park.

Throughout the years, there has been inadequate

monitoring of the distribution and abundance of sh

species. The primary goals related to monitoring spe-

cial status species are to: 1) prevent the loss of native

sh species categorized as special status, 2) preserve

the genetic integrity of federally listed populations of

salmonids, and 3) reduce the likelihood of displace-

ment of native species by non-native species. Mean-

while, the monitoring program must consider that the

list of special status sh is likely to change.

There are several potential threats to the persis-

tence of threatened, rare, and endemic sh popula-

tions in Olympic National Park. Substantial declines

in distribution and abundance of native sh species

can result from overharvest associated with recre-

ational, commercial, and treaty sheries; displacement

of native sh species by non-native species; habitat

degradation associated with logging and hydroelectric

development; hatchery supplementation programs;

and possibly global climate change.

Potentially signicant threats to native sh

species in Olympic National Park may be the inva-

sion of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and brook

trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and related competi-

tion with native species. Atlantic salmon are com-

mercially raised in marine net pens in Washington

State and British Columbia. Annual escapes of

salmon from pens in British Columbia are esti-

mated to be approximately 60,000 sh. Catastrophic

events resulted in the escape of 107,000; 369,000;

and 115,000 Atlantic salmon in 1996, 1997, and

1999, respectively, in Washington State (Amos and

Appleby 1999). Atlantic salmon have been observed

in the lower Elwha River and Quillayute River on

the Olympic Peninsula. The presence of Atlantic

salmon is of particular regional interest because

of the recent listing of many salmon populations

in Washington as endangered or threatened under

the Endangered Species Act. Potential impacts of

escaped Atlantic salmon include competition, preda-

tion, disease transfer, hybridization, and coloniza-

tion (Amos and Appleby 1999).

Non-native brook trout were introduced into

numerous high mountain lakes in Olympic National

Park. Hybridization between brook trout and bull

trout is a recognized problem, particularly in iso-

lated streams. The distribution of brook trout in

streams remains unknown although individuals

have been observed in small streams in the park.

Persistence of small isolated populations of native

char may be seriously threatened by the presence of

non-native brook trout (Markle 1992). Brook trout

likely have a reproductive advantage over bull trout

because they mature at an earlier age.

An understanding of reference conditions

for special-status sh species will be essential to

the establishment of appropriate management and

conservation strategies in Olympic National Park.

Additionally, knowledge of reference conditions in

Olympic National Park will be useful in understand-

ing patterns observed in more degraded systems.

We designated four categories of special-species

status in decreasing order of priority for monitoring:

threatened, rare, non-native, and endemic.

124 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Conceptual Model:

Special Fish Species

Anadromous

Elwha Chinook

Lake Ozette Sockeye

Bull Trout

Non-Anadromous

Lake Cushman Chinook

THREATENED

Rare

Dolly Varden

Pygmy Whitefish

Endemic

Beardslee Trout

Crescenti Trout

Olympic Mudminnow

UNIQUE

Anadromous Fish

Bull Trout

NATIVE

HABITAT DEGRADATION

Logging & Hydroelectric

Development

GLOBAL CLIMATE

CHANGE

OVER HARVEST

Recreational, Tribal,

Commercial

NON-NATIVE SPECIES

Atlantic Salmon, Brook

Trout

HATCHERY

SUPPLEMENTATION

Threats

Consequences for:

ECOSYSTEM STRUCTURE

AND

FUNCTION

BIODIVERSITY

Monitoring Questions and Indicators:

Question: Are there changes in population param-

eters for species listed as threatened?

• Indicator: Abundance, genetic diversity,

health and competition with hatchery sh for

Lake Ozette Sockeye salmon.

• Relative Abundance: Monitor the relative

abundance of adult sockeye at the weir near

the Lake Ozette outlet. Coordinate efforts

with the Makah Tribe.

• Genetic Diversity: Conduct genetic sam-

pling and analysis to ensure persistence

of wild strain of Lake Ozette sockeye on

decadal basis. To detect gene ow from

hatchery to wild sh, collect genetic sam-

ples from every tributary once every ve

years.

Figure 14.1. Conceptual model of threats to special-status sh species and the consequences of extinction.

• Fish Pathogens: Determine the extent of

sh pathogens in juvenile sockeye.

• Hatchery Supplementation: Obtain data

on number, timing, and location of released

sockeye in Lake Ozette Basin.

Justication: These indicators of population

status will describe changes that might be

caused by known threats. Limitations: Cost.

• Indicator: Population and habitat measure-

ments for bull trout.

• Relative Abundance. Conduct annual

monitoring of abundance of adult bull trout

in North Fork Skokomish River. Annual

monitoring of this population has occurred

during most years since 1973. Conduct

annual redd surveys of bull trout in selected

reaches of South Fork Hoh, Queets, or Hoh

River.

Part II. Chapter 14. Special-Status Fish Species 125

• Genetic Diversity. Collect non-lethal n

samples from bull trout in selected rivers

every 10 years to detect changes in genetic

make-up within and among populations.

• Population Structure. Collect scales to

determine population structure of bull

trout in selected rivers. Scales can indicate

genetic structure, age composition and life

history composition of populations.

Justication: These indicators will describe

population status in relation to known

threats. Limitations: Cost of analysis.

• Indicator: Abundance of Lake Cushman/

Elwha Chinook salmon. Determine relative

abundance of adult Chinook in North Fork

Skokomish River annually (may be accom-

plished when sampling for bull trout). Deter-

mine relative abundance of Elwha Chinook

and classify as to hatchery or wild in origin.

Justication: These indicators will describe

population status in relation to known threats.

Limitations: None.

Question: Are there changes in population param-

eters for rare species in Olympic National Park?

• Indicator: Existence of Pygmy Whitesh in

Lake Crescent. Determine presence vs. non-

detection of pygmy whitesh in Lake Cres-

cent at 5-10 year intervals. Justication: A

minimum amount of information is needed to

determine whether the pygmy whitesh popu-

lation still exists. Limitations: None.

• Indicator: Abundance of Lake Crescent

Trout. Determine abundance of Lake Cres-

cent trout species using redd counts in Barnes

Creek, lake outlet, and upper Lyre River. Jus-

tication: Abundance is easy to estimate with

this species. Limitations: Cost.

• Indicator: Existence of Dolly Varden in

Known Sites. Conduct presence vs. non-detec-

tion surveys in upper Sol Duc River and upper

Quinault River every 5 to 10 years. Justica-

tion: A minimum amount of information is

needed to determine whether the Dolly Varden

populations still exist. Limitations: Cost.

Question: What is the extent of invasion of the

non-native sh species, brook trout, and Atlantic

salmon?

• Indicator: Distribution. Determine the distri-

bution of Atlantic salmon and brook trout in

Olympic National Park. Focus should be on

streams with immediate threats (e.g., upper

Sol Duc where Dolly Varden and brook trout

may co-occur, Atlantic salmon observed in

Elwha River). Justication: Distribution of

these species in the park is the best indicator

of their threat to park resources. Limitations:

Cost.

• Indicator: Extent of Hybridization with

Native Char. Conduct genetic monitoring

of char populations in streams where brook

trout overlap with native char. Justication:

Hybridization is a potentially signicant

impact of brook trout on native char. Limita-

tions: Expense of sample analyses.

Question: Are there changes in population parame-

ters for endemic species in Olympic National Park?

• Indicator: Distribution and Abundance of

Olympic Mudminnow. Obtain data from

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

on annual trends in distribution and abundance

of mudminnows in Olympic National Park.

Select a certain number of sites to revisit on

one- to ve-year cycles. Justication: Verify-

ing data collected by another agency is an

efcient way to monitor mudminnows.

Limitations: None.

Linkages with Other Disciplines:

• Aquatic/Riparian Habitat: Status of habitat qual-

ity in areas where these species are present.

• Aquatic Biota: Status of food resources in

areas where these species occur.

126 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Spatial and Temporal Context: Where and How Often to Monitor:

Geographic

Zones Elevation Zones (m) Human Use Zones Frequency

Proposed Indicator West East <500

501-

1000

1001-

1500 >1500 Hi Mod Low (Interval)

Lake Ozette Sockeye X X X X 1 yr

Bull Trout X X X X 1 yr

Lk. Cushman/Elwha Chinook X X X X 1 yr

Pygmy White Fish X X X X 5-10 yr

Lake Crescent Trout X X X X 1 yr

Dolly Varden X X X 5-10 yr

Brook Trout X X X X X X 1 yr

Atlantic Salmon X X X X X 1 yr

Olympic Mudminnow X X X X 1-5 yr

Research Needs:

• In what ways are non-native sh species inu-

encing native sh species?

• What are the genetics, habitat requirements, den-

sity, life history, ecology, and population limiting

factors for special-status species?

• Determine statistical power of bull trout moni-

toring in the North Fork Skokomish River to

evaluate sampling sufciency.

• Determine sampling requirements for Dolly

Varden and pygmy whitesh.

• Address the potential decline of amphibians as a

result of brook trout plantings in high mountain

lakes.

• Identify general spawning locations in coastal

river basins.

• Determine extent of life-history diversity in

coastal rivers (e.g. anadromous, uvial, resident,

and aduvial morphs).

• Evaluate otolith methodology. Describe and

evaluate life-history variation among years and

sh populations.

Part II. Chapter 14. Special-Status Fish Species 127

128 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Monitoring Need/Justication:

The 65-mile coastal strip of Olympic National

Park contains both upland terrestrial and marine

intertidal habitats. This section focuses primarily

upon the intertidal marine environment, while needs

of the coastal terrestrial area are considered else-

where in the monitoring plan.

The Pacic Coast intertidal zone hosts a diverse

array of habitats, from sandy beaches, to boulder

elds, to rocky platforms. Each of these habitats

supports diverse assemblages of macroalgae, inver-

tebrates, and sh. Seasonal upwelling from Febru-

ary to July brings nutrient-rich cold water from

the ocean bottom to the surface, providing food

for many animals. This extraordinary habitat and

resource diversity, along with the remote nature of

the Olympic coast, make it a unique ecosystem that

does not exist elsewhere in the coastal United States

(Ricketts et al. 1985).

The Olympic coast intertidal zone is not a

closed system, either ecologically or jurisdiction-

ally. Because of this, consideration of linkages

between the intertidal and subtidal/nearshore zones

is necessary for adequate treatment of intertidal

monitoring needs. Ecologically there are substan-

tial physical and biological linkages between these

zones that are critical in determining zonal com-

munity structure. From a jurisdictional perspective,

the Parkʼs intertidal zone is within the boundaries

of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary

(OCNMS), the usual and accustomed use areas of

the Makah, Quileute, Hoh, and Quinault tribes, and

the offshore island National Wildlife Refuge is man-

aged by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Each

of these entities monitor some aspect of marine

Chapter 15. Coastal Environment.

(Prepared by S. Fradkin, Olympic National Park).

resources, creating the opportunity for important

collaborations that can expand the scope of moni-

toring beyond what the park can support by itself.

Olympic National Park staff place a high impor-

tance on the need to monitor the ecological integ-

rity of the intertidal communities. This approach

was favored over one that focused on monitoring

specic ʻfocalʼ species, an approach followed by

several monitoring programs in other areas of North

America (e.g., Channel Islands National Park, Davis

1989) that have a simpler community structure or

harvested species of particular importance (e.g.,

abalone). In April 2002, the park sponsored a work-

shop to review the intertidal community monitoring

program. The workshop included a comprehensive

group of marine-oriented National Park Service,

OCNMS, and Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife staffs, and academic subject matter experts

from southern California to Alaska. The recommen-

dations from the workshop agreed with the current

community level monitoring approach. The primary

focus of the major Park monitoring components

is to track long-term temporal changes (>decadal

time scale) in the structure and function of intertidal

assemblages across a broad geographical coverage

(Tier 1). Emphasis is currently being placed upon

methods to improve the spatial inference capacity of

the program. Intensive studies of population dynam-

ics or functional relationships among species are

considered a secondary priority (Tier 2). The major

threats to intertidal health come from harvest, non-

consumptive human use (e.g. trampling), spills of

toxic chemicals, and global climate change.

Part II. Chapter 15. Coastal Environment 129

Conceptual Model:

Monitoring Questions and Indicators:

Question: Is intertidal community composition

changing over time?

Tier 1:

• Indicator: Intertidal Invertebrate and

Macroalgae Community Composition.

Sample abundance/percent cover of intertidal

species. Justication: Different habitat types

(i.e., sandy beaches, cobble elds, rocky

platforms) support distinct communities com-

posed of complex suites of invertebrates and

macroalgae. They are expected to respond to

changes in consumptive use, climate change,

ocean conditions and catastrophic events (e.g.,

Intertidal Ecosystem Change

Terrestrial runoff

Boat discharge

Terrestrial runoff

Shoreline

modification

Groundwater

pumping

Stream sediment

Stream temp.

Oil spills

Combustion

POPs/ PAHs

Discharge

Debris

Noise

Desalination

Bilge discharge

Boat hulls

Human waste

disposal

Clam harvest

Fish harvest

Unclassified

species harvest

Trampling

Tribal harvest

Natural global

processes

Industrial

pollutants

Agents

Change

Nutrient

Enrichment

Hydrologic

Manipulation

Toxic

Contamination

Exotic

Species

Harvest

Aquaculture

Climate

Change

Multiple

Stressors

Algal production

Turbidity

Pred./Competition

Plankton

Neckton/Benthos

Water quality

Pathogens

Salinity

Toxic level

Habitat distribution

Water quality

Pathogens

Turbidity

Mortality

Species diversity

Pred./Competition

Habitat distribution

Water quality

Pathogens

Turbidity

Species diversity

Pred./Competition

Habitat distribution

Water quality

Pathogens

Species diversity

Pred./Competition

Energy flow

Species diversity

Sea level

Coastal erosion

Salinity

Precipitation

Environ. fluctuation

Pathogens

Ecosystem

Responses

Emergent

Impacts

Human Health Costs

Socio-economic Costs

Climate System Changes

oil and toxin spills). Because they are at the

bottom of the food chain, changes in these

indicators will have consequences throughout

the system.

Tier 2:

• Indicator: Intertidal Fish. Establish a set of

permanent tidepools and track changes in

intertidal sh species composition over time.

Justication: Relatively little is known about

the temporal dynamics of intertidal sh com-

munities. Community and species population

structure may serve as a useful indicator of

environmental change.

Figure 15.1. Conceptual model of the coastal ecosystem.

130 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

• Indicator: Hardshell clams. Establish tran-

sects in appropriate clam habitat and track

changes in community compositions, spe-

cies abundance, size frequency, and growth

rates. Justication: Hardshell clams provide

valuable ecological services such as nutrient

cycling and particle ltration, in addition to

being important organisms for recreational

harvest. The standard invertebrate and mac-

roalgal-community monitoring program is not

adequate to monitor hardshell clams, requiring

a separate monitoring program.

Question: Are physical and chemical features of

the intertidal environment changing?

• Indicator: Watershed Inputs. A coastal water

quality monitoring program is currently being

developed in collaboration with National Park

Service-Water Resources Division as part

of a comprehensive Olympic National Park

water quality monitoring program. Justica-

tion: Inputs of sediments and warm water

from coastal streams inuenced by local land

management practices (e.g., Quileute jetty

construction and maintenance) have the poten-

tial to markedly alter intertidal and nearshore

environments.

• Indicator: Ocean Conditions. Aside from

assessing changes in intertidal community

composition and the monitoring of intertidal

water temperature as part of the broader

Olympic National Park water quality monitor-

ing program, monitoring of ocean conditions

entails collaboration with the OCNMS, the

University of Washington, the Partnership for

the Interdisciplinary Study of Coastal Oceans

(PISCO, a consortium of academic institu-

tions funded by the David and Lucile Packard

Foundation), and coastal tribes. The OCNMS

and PISCO have embarked on a program to

study ocean condition (temperature, salin-

ity, currents, chlorophyll) using an array of

moorings along the Olympic coast. The park

is currently collaborating with the OCNMS

and University of Washington to monitor the

temporal dynamics of dead seabird beach-

ings, an indirect indicator of ocean conditions.

Justication: Most intertidal invertebrates and

macroalgae have complex life-histories where

different life-stages utilize both nearshore

waters and intertidal benthic habitats. Changes

in ocean conditions can therefore have pro-

found impacts on the recruitment of intertidal

organisms, in addition to directly affecting

intertidal organisms by altering physical con-

ditions and/or resource levels.

Question: Are levels of toxins changing in coastal

waters?

• Indicator: Domoic Acid. While the park

does not currently monitor domoic acid,

the Quileute tribe, Washington Department

Fish and Wildlife, and Washington Depart-

ment of Health have monitoring programs

to determine domoic acid levels in water

and in bivalve tissue. Justication: Domoic

acid is a naturally occurring toxic second-

ary metabolite produced by certain strains of

the marine diatom Pseudonitczhia. Domoic

acid causes mortality in sh, and can bioac-

cumulate in bivalves, presenting a substantial

human health risk. Its occurrence in nearshore

waters has increased dramatically over the

past decade, presumably due to changed ocean

conditions.

Linkages with Other Disciplines:

• Terrestrial Vegetation Communities. Terres-

trial vegetation composition and structure.

• Aquatic/Riparian Habitat. Stream hydrology

and sediment load.

• Biogeochemistry. Stream water quality.

• Park and Surrounding Landscape. Shoreline

position.

• Off-shore Monitoring. Juvenile sh life his-

tory requirements.

Part II. Chapter 15. Coastal Environment 131

Spatial and Temporal Context: Where & How Often to Monitor:

Currently the park monitors intertidal communities in three general habitat types (sandy beaches, cobble

beaches, and rocky platforms) that span the 65-mile coastline.

Proposed

Indicator Tidal Elevation Human use Zones

Frequency

V. High High Mid Low Near-shore V. High High Mid Low

Tier 1

Intertidal

community

composition

X X X X X X annual

Tier 2

Intertidal

Fish

X X X X X X ?

Hardshell

clams

X X X X X X ?

Watershed

inputs

X ?

Ocean

conditions

annual

Domoic acid X

annual

Research and Development Needs:

• Determine population trends of key non-

classied intertidal species (i.e. barnacles,

seastars, etc.).

• Determine effects of visitor trampling on inter-

tidal communities.

• Determine population trends of hard-shell clams

and mussels.

• Determine status and susceptibility of the

intertidal zone for invasion by exotic species

(OCNMS collaboration).

• Create sociological/political/bureaucratic habitat

inventory to lay groundwork for multi-agency

cooperative habitat protection.

• Determine linkages between indicators.

• Determine trends and effects of sediment trans-

port in the intertidal/subtidal zone.

• Determine patterns of long-shore and cross-

shore water movement.

• Determine contingency monitoring plans for

response to oil spills as augmentation to existing

monitoring plans.

• Develop methods to improve spatial inference

of the current intertidal community monitoring

program.

• What are current background toxin levels?

132 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Ecosystems follow a cyclical developmental

path involving organization, destruction by a dis-

turbance, and regeneration, with each ecosystem

rebuilding from the remains of what came before

it (Holling 1986). For example, the amount of soil

organic matter and other soil properties reect

previous vegetation and the type of disturbance that

destroyed it. The biota that can potentially re-estab-

lish are determined by propagules left in the soil or

that can be produced by surrounding areas, or are

within migration range. Consequently, the structure

and function of any ecosystem reects its history,

including the effects of humans. In addition, many

of the environmental forces inuencing ecosystem

development are also cyclical, and on time scales

Chapter 16. Historical and Paleoecological Context for Monitoring Results.

that are much longer than our lifetimes or even

historic records. For example, the observations of

climate warming since the industrial revolution

must be interpreted in the context of the longer-

term trend in warming since the end of the Little Ice

Age (Gates 1993). Without a long-term context for

our monitoring observations, we may misinterpret

changes we observe. There are a variety of data sets

that might be useful in providing the environmen-

tal and human context for monitoring at Olympic

National Park (Table 5.17.1). While adding to or

summarizing these data are not strictly monitoring

activities, the information they provide would be

useful to the monitoring program.

Table 5.17. Data sets that could provide context for monitoring results on a variety of time scales.

Time Frame Type of Data Information

Past 100 yr Photographic Record Conditions existing at specic time and place; vegetation coverage and

character

Past 150 yr Written Record- diaries,

scientic notes, park and

forest records

Conditions existing at specic time and place; helps complete picture of

park cultural landscapes and human-environment interactions

150-250 BP Ethnographic Record Pre-European population dispersal, ora and faunal use, re use,

Past 2K yr Dendrochronology possibly

Remote Sensing and Trace

Element Analysis

Climate change, ne-grained climate change last 1,000 years, re history,

cultural history of bark stripping

Past 12K yr Archeological Record Human dispersal, prehistoric faunal populations, plant and animal use

Past 12K yr Soils including paleosoils

and relic soil properties

Characteristics of past environments, changes in plant communities,

encroachment of forest on anthropogenic prairies, changes in treelines

and subalpine settings

Past 18K yr Quaternary Geology, esp.

glacial and tectonic; sea

level changes, tsunami

events, Cascade volcano

tephra

Aids understanding of the development of park landforms; Pleistocene

glaciations determine beginning of Olympic NP vegetation, soil

development and human populations; describes major climatic cycles

and events

Past 30K yr Palynology Quaternary plant communities, climate and ecosystem change, re

history, logging or other community altering events from uctuations in

sediment deposition

> 30K yr Bedrock Geology Knowledge of substrate that terrestrial and climatic processes operate on

to produce soils, landforms, and biotic resources; address river bank and

slope stability, location of rare and endemic plants, potential extractive

areas for prehistoric populations.

Part II. Chapter 16. Historical and Paleoecological Context 133

For each type of data there are three areas of

concern, 1) what specic studies or information are

needed for long-term ecological monitoring, 2) are

any of these data being lost to neglect, been over-

looked, and is there a strategy for collecting, analyz-

ing and archiving any data that comes available, and

3) do we have a strategy to expand our analysis of

these data? These questions can be answered at two

levels: 1) by providing an overview and assessment

of these data sets, and 2) by identifying the need for

specic research and protection strategies in each

data category. These needs should be addressed as

funding and time are available.

134 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Allen, T. F. H. and T. W. Hoekstra. 1992. Toward a

unied ecology. Columbia University Press, NY.

384 pp.

Amos, K. H. and A. Appleby. 1999. Atlantic salmon

in Washington State: A sh management perspec-

tive. Washington Department of Fish and Wild-

life, Olympia.

Armstrong, J. E., D. R. Crandell, D. J. Easterbrook

and J. B. Noble.1965. Late Pleistocene stratig-

raphy and chronology in southwestern British

Columbia and northwestern Washington. Geologi-

cal Society of America Bulletin 76:321-330.

Bain, M. B. and N. J. Stevenson (eds.). 1999.

Aquatic Habitat Assessment, Common Methods.

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Barnosky, C. W. 1984. Late Pleistocene and early

Holocene environmental history of southwestern

Washington, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Earth

Sciences 21:619-629.

Barnosky, C. W., P. M. Anderson, and P. J. Bartlein.

1987. The northwestern U.S. during deglaciation:

vegetational history and paleoclimatic implica-

tions. Pages 289-321 in W. F. Ruddiman and H. E.

Wright, Jr., editors. North America and Adjacent

Oceans During the Last Deglaciation. Geological

Society of America, Boulder CO.

Beauchamp, D., M. LaRiviere, and G. Thomas.

1995. Evaluation of competition and predation

as limits to juvenile kokanee and sockeye salmon

production in Lake Ozette, Washington. North

American Journal of Fisheries Management 15:

193-207.

Ben-David, M., T. A. Hanley, and D. M. Schell.

1998. Fertilization of terrestrial vegetation by

spawning Pacic salmon: The role of ooding and

predator activity. Oikos 83:47-55.

Bergland, E. O. 1983. Prehistory and ethnography

of Olympic National Park. National Park Service,

Seattle WA. 89 p.

Literature Cited.

Biddleman T. F. 1999. Atmospheric transport of

pesticides and exchange with soil, water, and

aerosols. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 115:115-

166.

Bilby, R. E., B. R. Fransen, and P. A. Bisson. 1996.

Incorporation of nitrogen and carbon from spawn-

ing coho salmon into the trophic system of small

streams: evidence from stable isotopes. Canadian

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 53:164-

173.

Bjornn, T. C. and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat

requirement of salmonids in streams. American

Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:83-138.

Blaustein, A. R., P. D. Hoffman, D. G. Hokit, J. M.

Kisecker, S. C. Walls, and J. B. Hays. 1994. UV

repair and resistance to solar UV-B in amphibian

eggs: a link to population declines? Proceedings

of the National Academy of Science 91:1791-

1795.

Booth, D. B. 1987. Timing and processes of degla-

ciation along the southern margin of the cordil-

leran ice sheet. Pages 71-90 in W. F. Ruddiman

and H. E. Wright, Jr., editors. North America and

Adjacent Oceans During the Last Deglaciation.

Geological Society of America, Boulder CO.

Bottom, D. L. 1995. Restoring salmon ecosystems

– myth and reality. Restoration and Management

Notes 13,2:162-170.

Boulinier, T., J. D. Nichols, J. R. Sauer, J. E. Hines,

and K. H. Pollock. 1998. Estimating species

richness to make inferences in community ecol-

ogy: the importance of heterogeneity in species

detectability. Ecology 79:1018-1028.

Brubaker, L. B. 1991. Climate change and the origin

of old-growth Douglas-r forests in Puget Sound

lowland. Pages 17-24 in Wildlife and Vegetation

of Unmanaged Douglas-r Forests. U.S. Forest

Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-

285.

Literature Cited 135

Buckingham N. M., E. G. Schreiner, T. N. Kaye,

J. E. Burger, and E. L. Tisch. 1995. Flora of the

Olympic Peninsula. Northwest Interpretive Asso-

ciation. Seattle, WA. 199 pp.

Buckland, S. T., D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham,

and J. L. Laake. 1993. Distance sampling:

estimating abundance of biological populations.

Chapman and Hall, New York.

Burger, A.E. 1997. Behavior and numbers of

marbled murrelets measured with radar. Journal

of Field Ornithology 68:208-223.

Butler, A. and E. Snouwaert. 2002. Guidance

document for developing total daily minimum

loads (TMDLs) water cleanup plans. Washington

Department of Ecology, 99-23-WQ, p. 26.

Campbell, P. 1979. A history of the North Olympic

Peninsula. Peninsula Publishing, Port Angeles,

WA. 68 p.

Capoeman, P. K., editor. 1990. Land of the

Quinault. Quinault Indian Nation Publication,

Taholah, WA. 315 pp.

Carpenter, S. R., T. M. Frost, J. F. Kitchell, and

T. K. Kratz. 1993. Species dynamics and global

environmental change: a perspective from ecosys-

tem experiments. Pages 267-279 in P. M. Kareiva,

J. G. Kingsolver and R. B. Huey, editors. Biotic

Interactions and Global Change. Sinauer, Sunder-

land, MA.

Cederholm, C. J. and N. P. Peterson. 1985. The

retention of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)

carcasses by organic debris in streams. Canadian

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42:

1222-1225.

Cederholm, C. J., D. B. Houston, D. L. Cole, and W.

J. Scarlett. 1989. Fate of coho salmon (Oncorhyn-

chus kisutch) carcasses in spawning streams.

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sci-

ence 46:1347-1365.

Cederholm, C. J., D. H. Johnson, R. E. Bilby, L.

G. Dominguez, A. M. Garrett, W. H. Graeber,

E. L. Greda, M. D. Kunze, B. G. Marcot, J. F.

Palmisano, R. W. Plotnikoff, W. G. Pearcy, C.

A. Simenstad, and P. C. Trotter. 2001. Pacic

salmon and wildlife: ecological contexts, relation-

ships, and implications for management. Pages

628-687 in D. H. Johnson and T. A. OʼNeil, edi-

tors. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon

and Washington. Oregon State University Press,

Corvallis.

Committee on Environment and Natural Resources.

1997. Integrating the nationʼs environmental

monitoring and research networks and programs:

a proposed framework. National Science and

Technology Council Report, Environmental Mon-

itoring Team. Washington, D.C. (www.epa.gov/

cludygxb/pubs/html)

Cooper, B. A., and T. E. Hamer. 2000. Appendix

H: Use of radar for marbled murrelet surveys.

Pages 28-34 in D. M. Evans, W. P. Ritchie, S. K.

Nelson, E. Kuo-Harrison, P. Harrison, and T. E.

Hamer, editors. Methods for surveying marbled

murrelets in forests: an update to the protocol for

land management and research. Pacic Sea-

bird Group, unpublished document. 15 April

2000. Available at www.nmnh.si.edu/FIRDNET/

PacBirds/.

Cummins, K. W. 1974. Structure and function of

stream ecosystems. BioScience 24:631-641.

Davis, G. E. 1989. Design of a long-term ecological

monitoring program for Channel Islands National

Park, California. Natural Areas Journal 9:80-89.

Davis, M. B. 1981. Quaternary history and the

stability of forest communities. Pp. 132-153 in D.

S. West, H. H. Shugart and D. B. Botkin, editors.

Forest Succession: Concepts and Applications.

Springer-Verlag, New York.

Delbecq, Andrew L., Van de Ven, Andrew H. and

Gustafson, David H. 1975. Group Techniques for

Program Planning, a Guide to Nominal Group

Technique and Delphi Processes, Scott Foreman,

New York.

Dunham, A. E. 1993. Population responses to

environmental change: operative environments,

physiologically structured models, and population

dynamics. Pages 95-119 in P. M. Kareiva, J. G.

Kingsolver and R. B. Huey, editors. Biotic Inter-

136 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

actions and Global Change. Sinauer, Sunderland,

MA.

EMAP. 1990. And overview of the Environmental

and Assessment Program. EMAP Monitor. EPA

Ofce of Research and Development, Washing-

ton, D. C. EPA-600/M-90/022.

Edmonds, R. L., R. D. Blew, J. L. Marra, J. Blew,

A. K. Barg, G. Murray, T. B. Thomas. 1998.

Vegetation patterns, hydrology, and water chem-

istry in small watersheds in the Hoh River valley,

Olympic National Park. Scientic Monograph

NPSD/NRUSGS/NRSM-98/02. U.S. Department

of the Interior, National Park Service.

Eiler, J. M., C. L. Rose, and T. J. Sullivan. 1994.

Status of air quality and effects of atmospheric

pollutants on ecosystems in the Pacic Northwest

region of the National Park Service. Technical

Report NPS/NRAQD/NRTR-94/160. National

Park Service, Denver, CO.

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

1998. Measuring and monitoring plant popula-

tions. Report No. BLM/RS/ST-98/005+1730.

Government Printing Ofce, Washington, D.C.

Emmett, R. L. and M H. Schiewe (eds.) 1997.

Estuarine and Ocean Survival of Northeast Pacic

Salmon: Proceedings of a Workshop. U.S. Depart-

ment of Commerce NOAA Technical Memoran-

dum NMFS-NWFSC-29.

Ewald, G., P. Larsson, H. Linge, L. Okla, and N.

Szari. 1998. Biotransport of organic pollutants

to an inland Alaska lake by migrating sockeye

salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Arctic 51:40-47.

Evans, D. M., W. P. Ritchie, S. K. Nelson, E. Kuo-

Harrison, P. Harrison, and T. E. Hamer, editors.

Methods for surveying marbled murrelets in

forests: an update to the protocol for land man-

agement and research. Pacic Seabird Group,

unpublished document. 15 April 2000. Available

at www.nmnh.si.edu/FIRDNET/PacBirds/.

Fonda, R. W. 1974. Forest succession in relation to

river terrace development in Olympic National

Park, Washington. Ecology 55:927-942.

Fraley, J. J. and B. B. Shepard. 1989. Life history,

ecology, and population status of migratory bull

trout (Salvelinus conuentus) in the Flathead Lake

and river system, Montana. Northwest Science

63:133-143.

Francis, R. C. 1997. Sustainable use of salmon: Its

effects on biodiversity and ecosystem function.

Pages 626-670 in C. H. Freeze, editor. Harvest-

ing Wild Species – Implications for Biodiversity

Conservation. Johns Hopkins University Press,

Baltimore.

Franklin, J. F., K. Cromack, W. Denison, et al. 1981.

Ecological characteristics of old-growth Douglas-

r forests. USDA Forest Service General Techni-

cal Report PNW-118. Pacic Northwest Forest

and Range Experiment Station, Portland Oregon.

Gates, D. M. 1993. Climate Change and its Biologi-

cal Consequences. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.

Gerrodette, T. 1987. A power analysis for detecting

trends. Ecology 68:1364-1372.

Goldstein, P. Z. 1999. Functional ecosystems and

biodiversity buzzwords. Conservation Biology.

13:247-255.

Good, D. A. and D. B. Wake. 1992. Geographic

variation and speciation in the torrent salamanders

of the genus Rhyacotriton (Caudata:Rhyacotrito-

nidae). University of California Publications in

Zoology 126, Berkeley.

Gregory, S. V. 1995. Riparian management for the

Century. Pages 69-85 in K. A. Kohm and J. F.

Franklin, editors. Creating a Forestry for the 21

Century. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Gregory, S. V., G. A. Lamberti, D. C. Erman, K.

V. Koski, M. L. Murphy, and J. R. Sedell. 1987.

Inuence of forest practices on aquatic produc-

tion. Pages 233-255 in E. O. Salo and T. W.

Cundy, editors. Streamside Management: For-

estry and Fishery Interactions. Institute of Forest

Resources, University of Washington, Seattle.

Gregory, S. V., F. J. Swanson, W. A. McKee, and K.

W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of

riparian zones. BioScience 41:540-551.

Literature Cited 137

Grimm, N. 1993. Implications of climate change

for stream communities. Pages 293-314 in P. M.

Kareiva, J. G. Kingsolver and R. B. Huey, editors.

Biotic Interactions and Global Change. Sinauer,

Sunderland, MA.

Gustafson, R. G., T. C. Wainwright, G. A. Winans,

F. W. Waknitz, L. T. Parker, and R. S. Waples.

1997. Status review of sockeye salmon form

Washington and Oregon. U.S. Department of

Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum.

NMFS-NWESC-33, 282 p.

Hall, F., et al. 1989. Advances in Geophysics, Vol.

30.

Hall, R. J. 1999. Monitoring change in protected

areas: problems of scope, scale, and power. Pages

271-277 in D. Harmon, editor. On the Frontiers

of Conservation: Proceedings of the 10

Confer-

ence on Research and Resource Management in

Parks and on Public Lands. The George Wright

Society, Hancock, MI.

Hall, S.L. 2000. Land management strategies and

marbled murrelet occurrence on the Olympic

Peninsula, WA. MS thesis. University of Wash-

ington, Seattle, WA. 76 pp.

Hammond, A. L. 1976. Paleoclimate: ice age earth

was cool and dry. Science 191:455.

Happe, P. J. 1993. Ecological relationships

between cervid herbivory and understory vegeta-

tion in old-growth Sitka spruce-western hemlock

forests in western Washington. Ph.D. dissertation.

Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Hawthorn, A.W., C. Byrnes, T. DaSilva, and P.

Happe. 1996. Marbled murrelet surveys in the

lower Elwha River Valley, Olympic National Park

and vicinity. Unpublished nal report. Olympic

National Park les. 31 pp.

Hayes, J. P., and R. J. Steidle. 1997. Statistical

power analysis and amphibian population trends.

Conservation Biology 11:273-275.

Henderson, J. A., D. H. Peter, R. D. Lesher, and D.

C. Shaw. 1989. Forested plant associations of the

Olympic National Forest. USDA Forest Service,

Pacic Northwest Region R6 Ecological Techni-

cal Paper 001-88.

Holling, C. S., editor. 1978. Adaptive environmen-

tal assessment and management. John Wiley &

Sons, New York, New York.

Holling, C. S. 1986. The resilience of terrestrial

ecosystems: local surprise and global change.

Pages 292-320 in W. M. and R. E. Munn, edi-

tors. Sustainable Development of the Biosphere.

Oxford University Press.

Honacki, J. H., K. E. Kinman, and J. W. Koeppl.

1982. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic

and geographic reference. Allen Press and Asso-

ciation of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, KS.

Houston, D. B., B. B. Moorhead, and R. W. Olson.

1986. An aerial census of mountain goats in the

Olympic Mountain Range, Washington. North-

west Science 60:131-136.

Houston, D. B., B. B. Moorhead, and R. W. Olson.

1987. Roosevelt elk density in old-growth forests

of Olympic National Park. Northwest Science 61:

220-225.

Houston, D. B., B. B. Moorhead, and R. W. Olson.

1991. Mountain goat population trends in the

Olympic Mountain Range, Washington. North-

west Science 65:212-216.

Houston, D. B., E. G. Schreiner, B. B. Moorhead,

and K. A. Krueger. 1990. Elk in Olympic

National Park: will they persist over time? Natu-

ral Areas Journal 10:6-11.

Houston, D. B., E. G. Schreiner, and B. B. Moor-

head. 1994. Mountain goats in Olympic National

Park: Biology and management of an introduced

species. Scientic Monograph NPS/NROLYM/

NRSM-94/25, U.S. Department of the Interior,

National Park Service.

Jansson, B., R. Andersson, L. Asplund, K. Lit-

zen, K. Nylund, U. Sellstrom, U. B. Uvemo, C.

Wahlberg, W. Widequist, T. Odsjo, and M. Ols-

son. 1993. Chlorinated and brominated persistent

organic compounds in biological samples from

the environment. Environmental Toxicology and

Chemistry 12:1163-1174.

138 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Jenny, H. 1941. Factors of Soil Formation.

McGraw-Hill, New York.

Jorgensen, S. E. and F. Muller, eds. 2000a. Hand-

book of ecosystem theories and management.

Lewis Publishers, NY. 584 pp.

Jorgensen, S. E. and F. Muller. 2000b. Towards a

unifying theory. Pages 465-471 in S. E. Jorgensen

and F. Muller, editors. Handbook of ecosystem

theories and management. Lewis Publishers, New

York.

Karr, J. R. and D. R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological per-

spective on water quality goals. Environmental

Management. 5:55-68.

Larkin, G. A. and P. S. Slaney. 1997. Implications of

trends in marine-derived nutrient inux to south

coastal British Columbia salmonid production.

Fisheries 22:16-24.

Larson, G. L., C. D. McIntire, E. Karnaugh-

Thomas, and C. Hawkins-Hoffman. 1995. Lim-

nology of isolated and connected high-mountain

lakes in Olympic National Park, Washington,

USA. Archive fur Hydrobiologie 134:75-92.

Lefsky, M. A., W. B. Cohen, et al. 2002. Lidar

remote sensing for ecosystem studies. Bioscience

52:19-30.

Lefsky, M. A., W. B. Cohen, and T. A. Spies. 2001.

An evaluation of alternate remote sensing prod-

ucts for forest inventory, monitoring, and map-

ping of Douglas-r forests in western Oregon.

Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31:78-87.

Likens, G. E., F. H. Bormann, R. S. Pierce, J. S.

Eaton, and N. M. Johnson. 1977. Biogeochem-

istry of a Forested Ecosystem. Springer-Verlag,

New York. 146 p.

Long, W. A. 1975. Salmon Springs and Vashon con-

tinental ice in the Olympic Mountains and rela-

tion of Vashon continental to Fraser Olympic ice.

U.S. Forest Service, Olympia, WA. 123 p.

MacKenzie, D. I., J. D. Nichols, G. B. Lachman, S.

Droege, J. A. Royle, and C. A. Langtimm. 2002.

Estimating site occupancy rates when detection

probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83:2248-

2255.

Marcot, B. G., L. K. Croft, J. F. Lehmkuhl, R.

H Naney, C. G. Niwa, W. R. Owen, and R. E.

Sandquist. 1998. Macroecology, paleoecology,

and ecological integrity of terrestrial species

and communities of the interior Columbia Basin

and northern portions of the Klamath and Great

Basins. USDA Forest Service General Technical

Report PNW-GTR-410. 131 pp.

Markle, D. F. 1992. Evidence of bull trout x brook

trout hybrids in Oregon. Pages 58-67 in P. J.

Howell and D. V. Buchanan, editors. Proceedings

of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout Workshop.

Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Soci-

ety, Corvallis.

McLaren, B. E., and R. O. Peterson. 1994. Wolves,

moose, and tree rings on Isle Royale. Science

266:1555-1558.

McLeod, R. L. M. 1984. An American wilderness:

the origins of Olympic National Park. MA Thesis.

University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 158 p.

Mix, A. C. 1987. The oxygen-isotope record of

glaciation. Pages 111-136 in W. F. Ruddiman

and H. E. Wright, Jr., editors. North America and

Adjacent Oceans During the Last Deglaciation.

Geological Society of America, Boulder CO.

Muller, F. and S. E. Jorgensen. 2000. Ecological

orientors: a path to environmental applications

of ecosystem theories. Pages 561-575 in F. Jor-

gensen and S. E. Muller, editors. Handbook of

Ecosystem Theories and Management. CRC

Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Murphy, M. L. 1995. Forestry impacts on fresh-

water habitat of anadromous salmonids in the

Pacic Northwest and Alaska: requirements

for protection and restoration. NOAAʼs Coastal

Ocean Program, decision analysis series No. 1.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Ocean

Ofce, Washington, D.C.

Literature Cited 139

Naiman, R. J., H. Dechamps, and M. Pollock. 1993.

The role of riparian corridors in maintaining

regional biodiversity. Ecological Applications 3:

209-212.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

1978. Climate of Washington. Climatology of the

United States 60. National Oceanic and Atmo-

spheric Administration, Washington, D.C.

National Park Service. 1968. Administrative

Policies for Natural Areas. Government Printing

Ofce, Washington, D.C.

National Park Service. 1992. The Natural Resources

Inventory and Monitoring Guideline (NPS-75).

Government Printing Ofce, Washington, D.C.

National Park Service. 1995. Natural Resource

Inventory and Monitoring in National Parks. U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

National Park Service. 1997. Visitor experience and

resource protection (VERP) framework: a hand-

book for planners and managers. Government

Printing Ofce, Washington, D.C.

National Park Service. 1999. National Resource

Challenge: The National Park Serviceʼs Action

Plan for Preserving Natural Resources. National

Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Nicolis, G. and I. Prigogine. 1989. Exploring Com-

plexity: an Introduction. W. H. Freeman, New

York.

Nichols, J. D., J. E. Hines, J. R. Sauer, F. W. Fallon,

J. E. Fallon, and P. J. Heglund. 2000. A double-

observer approach for estimating detection prob-

ability and abundance from point counts. Auk

117:393-408.

Nimis, P. L. and O. W. Purvis. 2002. Monitoring

lichens as indicators of pollution, an introduction.

Pages 7-10 in P. L. Nimis, C. Scheidegger, and P.

A. Wolseley, editors. Monitoring with Lichens—

Monitoring Lichens. Kluwer Academic Publish-

ers, Boston.

Noon, B. R. 1991. Scientic framework for effec-

tiveness monitoring of the Northwest Forest Plan.

Pages 49-68 in B. S. Mulder, B. R. Noon, T. A.

Spies, M. G. Raphael, C. J. Palmer, A. R. Olsen,

G. H. Reeves, and H. H. Welsh, Technical coor-

dinators. The Strategy and Design of the Effec-

tiveness Monitoring Program for the Northwest

Forest Plan. General Technical Report PNW-

TTR-437, USDA Forest Service Regional Ecosys-

tem Ofce Portland, OR.

Norton, H. H. 1979. The association between

anthropogenic prairies and important food plants

in western Washington. Northwest Anthropologi-

cal Research Notes 18:175-200.

Noss, R. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiver-

sity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biol-

ogy 4:355-364.

Oakley, K. L., and S. L. Boudreau. 2000. Concep-

tual design of the long-term ecological monitoring

program for Denali National Park and Preserve.

U.S.G.S., Alaska Biological Science Center,

Anchorage, AK 99503.

Odum. E. P. 1985. Trends expected in stressed eco-

systems. BioScience 35:419-422.

Ollinger, S. V., M. L. Smith, M. E. Martin, R. A.

Hallett, C. L. Goodale, and J. D. Aber. In press.

Regional variation in foliar chemistry and soil

nitrogen status among forests of diverse history

and composition. Ecology.

Olympic National Park. 1999. Resource Manage-

ment Plan. Olympic National Park, Port Angeles,

WA.

OʼNeill, R.V., and A. W. King. 1998. Homage to

St. Michael; or, why are there so many books

on scale? Pages 3-15 in D.L. Peterson and V. T.

Parker, editors. Ecological Scale: Theory and

Applications. Columbia University Press. New

York, NY.

Palen, W. J., D. E. Schindler, M. J. Adams, C. A.

Pearl, R. B. Bury, and S. A. Diamond. 2002.

Optical characteristics of natural waters protect

amphibians from UV-B in the U.S. Pacic North-

west. Ecology 83:2951-2957.

Pastor, J. and W. M. Post. 1986. Inuence of cli-

mate, soil, moisture and succession on forest car-

bon and nitrogen cycles. Biogeochemistry 2:3-27.

140 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Pastor, J. and W. M. Post. 1988. Response of north-

ern forests to CO

induced climate change. Nature

334:55-58.

Perry, D. A. 1994. Forest Ecosystems. Johns Hop-

kins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Perry, D. A. and M. P. Amaranthus. 1997. Distur-

bance, recovery and stability. Pages 31-56 in K.

A. Kohm and J. F. Franklin, editors. Creating a

Forestry for the 21

Century. Island Press, Wash-

ington, D.C.

Peterson, D. L., D. G. Silsbee, and D. L. Schmoldt.

1994. A case study of resources management

planning with multiple objectives and projects.

Environmental Management 18:729-742.

Peterson, D. L., D. G. Silsbee, and D. L. Schmoldt.

1995. A planning approach for developing inven-

tory and monitoring programs in national parks.

Natural Resources Report NPS/NRUW/NRR-95/

16, National Park Service. 49 pp.

Phillips, E. L. and W. R. Donaldson. 1972. Wash-

ington climate for Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jef-

ferson, Pacic and Wahkiakum Counties. Coop-

erative Extension Service Publication EM 3708.

Washington State University, Pullman. 39 p.

Pickett, S. T. A. and P. S. White, eds. 1985. The

Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch

Dynamics. Academic Press, New York.

Porter, S. C. and G. H. Denton. 1967. Chronology

of neoglaciation in the North American cordillera.

American Journal of Science 265:177-210.

Puget Sound Action Committee. 2000. 2000 Puget

Sound Update: Seventh Report of the Puget

Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. Puget

Sound Action Committee, Olympia, Washington.

Pyle, R. M. 2002. The Butteries of Cascadia.

Seattle Audubon Society. 420 pp.

Rapport, D. J., H. A. Regier, and T. C. Hutchinson.

1985. Ecosystem behavior under stress. American

Naturalist 125:617-640.

Rashin, E. and C. Graber. 1993. Effectiveness of

best management practices for aerial application

of forest pesticides. Report TFW-WQ1-93-001.

Washington Department of Natural Resources

Forest Practices Division, Olympia.

Ratliff, D. E. and P. J. Howell. 1992. The status of

bull trout populations in Oregon. Pages 10-17 in

P. J. Howell and D. V. Buchanan, editors. Pro-

ceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout

Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fish-

eries Society, Corvallis.

Reeves, G. H., D. B. Hohler, D. P. Larsen, D. E.

Busch, K. Kratz, K. Reynolds, K. F. Stein, T.

Atzet, P. Hays and M. Tehan 2001. Aquatic and

riparian effectiveness monitoring program for

the Northwest Forest Plan. Pre-publication draft.

Corvallis, OR.

Renner, J. 1992. Northwest mountain weather:

understanding and forecasting for the backcountry

user. Mountaineers, Seattle, WA.

Ricketts, E. F., J. Calvin, and J. W. Hedgpeth,

revised by D. W. Phillips. 1985. Between Pacic

Tides, 5

Edition. Stanford University Press,

Stanford, CA. 652 p.

Rieman, B. E. and J. D. McIntyre. 1993. Demo-

graphic and habitat requirements for conservation

of bull trout. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain

Research Station, General Technical Report INT-

302. Ogden, Utah.

Risser, P. G. 1995. Biodiversity and ecosystem

function. Conservation Biology 9:742-746.

Rochefort, R., R. Little, A. Woodward, and D.

Peterson. 1994. Changes in subalpine tree distri-

bution in western North America: a review of cli-

mate and other causal factors. Holocene 4:89-100.

Roman, C. T. and N. E. Barrett. 1999. Conceptual

framework for the development of long-term

monitoring protocols at Cape Cod National Sea-

shore. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center,

Coop. National Park Studies Unit, University of

Rhode Island.

Saaty, T. L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process.

McGraw-Hill, New York.

Literature Cited 141

Schalk, R. 1988. The evolution and diversication

of native land use systems on the Olympic Penin-

sula. Institute for Environmental Studies, Univer-

sity of Washington, Seattle. 213 pp.

Schneider, E. D. and J. J. Kay. 1994. Life as a mani-

festation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Mathematical and Computer Modelling 19:25-48.

Schreiner, E. G., K. A. Drueger, P. J. Happe, and D.

B. Houston. 1996. Understory patch dynamics

and ungulate herbivory in old-growth forests of

Olympic National Park, Washington. Canadian

Journal Forest Research 26:255-265.

Schuett-Hames, D., A. Pleus, L. Bullchild, and S.

Hall. 1994. Ambient monitoring program manual.

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, TWF-

AM9-94-001.

Schumm S. A. 1977. The Fluvial System. John

Wiley and Sons, New York.

Seaman, D. E., S. Gremel, S. Roberts, and D. Smith.

1996. Spotted owl inventory and monitoring in

Olympic National Park. Final Report. Febru-

ary 1992-September 1995. USGS Forest and

Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Olympic

Field Station, and Natural Resources Management

Division, Olympic National Park. Unpublished

report. Port Angeles, WA.

Silsbee, D.G. and D. L. Peterson. 1991. Design-

ing and implementing comprehensive long-term

inventory and monitoring programs for National

Park System Lands. Natural Resources Report

NPS/NRUW/NRR-91/04.

Simonich, S. L. and R. A. Hites 1995. Global distri-

bution of persistent organochloride compounds.

Science 269:1851-1854.

Smith, J. 2001. Historical populations of elk on the

Peninsula: 100 years of landscape and population

trends. Pages 11-13 in M. E. Ferry, T. S. Peter-

son, and J. C. Calhoun, editors. Status of Elk

Populations on the Olympic Peninsula. Olympic

Natural Resources Center Conference Proceed-

ings. University of Washington, Olympic Natural

Resources Center, Forks, WA.

Smith, M.L., S. V. Ollinger, M. E. Martin, J. D.

Aber, R. A. Hallett, C. L. Goodale. 2002. Direct

estimation of above-ground forest productivity

through hyperspectral remote sensing of canopy

nitrogen. Ecological Applications 12:1286-1302.

Sollins, P., C. C. Grier, F. M. McCorrison, K.

Cromack Jr., R. Fogel, and R. L. Frederickson.

1980. The internal element cycles of an old-

growth Douglas-r ecosystem in western Oregon.

Ecological Monographs 50:261-285.

Spies, T. 1997. Forest stand structure, composition,

and function. Pages 11-30 in K. A. Kohm and J. F.

Franklin, editors. Creating a Forestry for the 21

Century. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Tabor, R. W. 1987. Guide to the geology of Olym-

pic National Park. Pacic Northwest Parks and

Forest Association, Seattle, WA. 144 p.

Thomas, T., J. J. Rhodes, R. L. Edmonds, and T.

W. Cundy. 1989. Precipitation chemistry and

ecosystem function in Olympic National Park:

baseline research and precipitation studies, 1987

Annual Report to the National Park Service,

Seattle, Washington Cooperative Agreement No.

CA-9000-8-0007, subagreement No. 6, College

of Forest Resources, University of Washington,

Seattle.

Thornton, K. W., G. E. Saul and D. E. Hyatt. 1994.

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Pro-

gram assessment framework. EPA/620/R-94/016,

US EPA Ofce of Research and Development,

Research Triangle Park, NC.

U.S. Congress. 1916. Hearing before the committee

on the public lands on HR 434 and HR 8668, bills

to establish a national park service, April 5 and 6.

Congress, 1

Session. Government Printing

Ofce, Washington D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Depart-

ment of Interior. 1994. Record of decision for

amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of

Land Management planning documents within

the range of the northern spotted owl: Standards

and guidelines for management of habitat for late

successional and old-growth forest related spe-

cies within the range of the northern spotted owl.

142 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land

Management, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Qual-

ity criteria for water 1986.U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Ofce of Water Regulations

and Standards, EPA 440/5-86-001, Washington,

D.C.

Walker, B. H. 1991. Ecological consequences of

atmospheric and climate change. Climate Change

18:301-316.

Walker, B. H. 1992. Biodiversity and ecological

redundancy. Conservation Biology 6:18-23.

Walker, B. H. 1999. The ecosystem approach to

conservation: reply to Goldstein. Conservation

Biology 13:436-437.

Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive management of renew-

able resources. Macmillan, New York, New York.

Waring, R. H. and S. W. Running. 1998. Forest

Ecosystems, 2

Edition. Academic Press, New

York, NY.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2001.

http://www.wa.gov/wdfd/wlm/diversity/soc/

status/whitsh/wfshxsum.htm.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002.

Final Environmental Impact Statement: Game

Management Plan, July 2003-June 2009. Wildlife

Program. 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia.

Washington Natural Heritage Program. 1997.

Endangered, threatened and sensitive plants of

Washington. Washington Department of Natural

Resources, Olympia.

Welch, E. B. and D. E. Spyridakis. 1984. Acidica-

tion potential in high mountain lakes in Wash-

ington. Final Report Research Contract C-84039.

Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia.

Wessen, G. 1990. Prehistory of the ocean coast of

Washington. Pages 412-421 in W. Suttles, editor.

Handbook of North American Indians. 7: North-

west Coast. Smithsonian Institution, Washington,

D.C.

Whitlock, C. 1992. Vegetational and climatic his-

tory of the Pacic Northwest during the last

20,000 years: implications for understanding pres-

ent-day biodiversity. Northwest Environmental

Journal 8:5-28.

Wilkie, D. S. and J. T. Finn. 1996. Remote Sens-

ing Imagery for Natural Resources Monitoring: A

Guide for First-Time Users. Columbia University

Press, New York. 295 p.

Woodley, S. 1993. Monitoring and measuring

ecosystem integrity in Canadian National Parks.

Pages 155-175 in S. Woodley, J. Kay, and G.

Francis, editors. Ecological Integrity and the

Management of Ecosystems. St. Lucie Press.

Delray Beach, FL.

Woodward, A., E. G. Schreiner, D. B. Houston, and

B. B. Moorhead. 1994. Ungulate-forest relation-

ships in Olympic National Park: retrospective

exclosure studies. Northwest Science 68:97-110.

Woodward, A., K. J. Jenkins and E. G. Schreiner.

1999. The role of ecological theory in long term

ecological monitoring: report of a workshop.

Natural Areas Journal 19:223-233.

World Meteorological Organization. 1998. Scien-

tic Assessment of Ozone Depletion: Report 44.

World Meteorological Organization.

Literature Cited 143

144 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Olympic National Park Staff Scoping Workshop,

27 February 1997, Port Angeles WA.

Objectives: To introduce park staff to the long-

term ecological monitoring program and planning

process. To solicit input from park staff on the most

important monitoring topics.

Facilitating: Kurt Jenkins, Andrea Woodward, D.

Erran Seaman, Ed Schreiner.

Participating: Olympic National Park and USGS

Olympic Field Station Staffs.

John Aho—

Olympic National Park, Management Assistant.

Matt Albright—

Olympic National Park, Horticulturist.

Marie Birnbaum—

Olympic National Park, Wilderness.

Janis Burger—

Olympic National Park, Resource Educator.

Keith Flanery—

Olympic National Park, Ranger.

Matt Graves—

Olympic National Park, Resource Educator.

Mike Gurling—

Olympic National Park, Resource Educator.

Richard Hanson—

Olympic National Park, Trails Foreman.

Patti Happe—

Olympic National Park, Supervisory Wildlife

Biologist.

Cat Hawkins Hoffman—

Olympic National Park, Chief of Natural Resource

Management.

Doug Houston—

USGS-FRESC-Olympic Field Station, Research

Biologist.

Martha Hutchinson—

Olympic National Park, Ranger.

Steve Joel—

Olympic National Park, Ranger and Dispatcher.

Dan Johnson—

Olympic National Park, Resource Educator.

Mike Kalahar—

Olympic National Park, Mainenance.

Francis Kocis—

Olympic National Park, District Ranger.

Bruce Moorhead—

Olympic National Park, Wildlife Biologist .

(retired)

David Morris—

Olympic National Park, Superintendent.

Bill Rhode—

Olympic National Park, District Ranger.

Roger Rudolph—

Olympic National Park, Assistant Superintendent.

Curt Sauer—

Olympic National Park, Chief Ranger.

Susan Schultz—

Olympic National Park, Historian.

Ruth Scott—

Olympic National Park, Natural Resource

Specialist.

D. Erran Seaman—

USGS-FRESC-Olympic Field Station, Research

Ecologist.

Michael Smithson—

Olympic National Park, Chief of Resource

Education.

Don Tinkham—

Olympic National Park, Maintenance.

Ron Whattnem—

Olympic National Park, Ranger.

Jacilee Wray—

Olympic National Park, Anthropologist.

John Wullschleger—

Olympic National Park, Coastal Ecologist

Olympic Peninsula Long-term Ecological Moni-

toring Workshop, 10 April 1997, Olympic Natu-

ral Resources Center, Forks WA.

Objectives: To exchange information among agen-

cies on inventory and monitoring activities on the

Olympic Peninsula. To identify high priority or use-

ful monitoring projects in Olympic National Park.

Facilitating: Andrea Woodward.

Appendix A. List of Workshops and Participants for Developing a Prototype

Long-term Ecological Monitoring Program in Olympic National Park.

Appendix A. Workshops and Participants 145

Participating: Scientists and resource managers

from land-management agencies on the Olympic

Peninsula.

Ed Bowlby—

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.

John Calhoun—

Olympic Natural Resources Center.

Bob Davies—

—.

Richard Fredrickson—

Washington Department Fish and Wildlife.

Cat Hawkins Hoffman—

Olympic National Park.

Ward Hoffman—

Olympic National Forest.

Larry Jones—

U.S.D.A. Forest Service.

Cathy Lear—

Hoh Tribe.

Mike McHenry—

Lower Elwha Tribe.

Loyal Mehrhoff—

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Dave Schuett-Hames—

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.

Kate Sullivan—

Weyerheauser Company.

Tom Terry—

Weyerheauser Company.

Dan Varland—

Rayonier.

George Wilhere—

Washington Department Natural Resources.

Brian Winter—

Olympic National Park.

Indicator Selection for Ecological Monitoring: In

Theory and Practice, 6-9 May 1997, Best West-

ern Olympic Lodge, Port Angeles WA.

Objectives: To explore ecological advances in the

process of selecting ecological indicators using the

long-term ecological monitoring program in ONP

as a case example for discussion. To examine the

theoretical and scientic basis for selecting ecologi-

cal indicators and determine how to set priorities for

indicator selection.

Facilitating: Barry Noon (U.S.D.A. Forest Service-

Redwoods Sciences Lab) and Kurt Jenkins.

Participating: Olympic National Park and USGS

Olympic Field Station staffs and invited monitoring

scientists:

John Bart—

USGS-FRESC-Snake River Field Station.

Ted Case—

University of California, San Diego.

Gary Davis—

Channel Islands National Park.

John Emlen—

USGS-Western Fisheries Research Center.

Dan Fagre—

USGS-Glacier National Park.

Paul Geissler—

USGS.

David Graber—

Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.

Patti Happe—

Olympic National Park.

Kim Hastings

University of Montana.

Roger Hoffman—

Olympic National Park.

Doug Houston—

USGS-FRESC-Olympic Field Station.

Cat Hawkins-Hoffman—

Olympic National Park.

John Meyer—

Olympic National Park.

L. Scott Mills—

University of Montana.

James Nichols—

USGS-Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.

David Peterson—

USGS-FRESC-Cascadia Field Station.

James Quinn—

University of California, Davis.

Rusty Rodriguez—

USGS-Western Fisheries Research Center.

Ed Schreiner—

USGS-FRESC-Olympic Field Station.

D. Erran Seaman—

USGS-FRESC-Olympic Field Station.

Peter Stine—

USGS-California Science Center.

David Tallmon—

University of Montana.

Hart Welsh—

U.S.D.A. Forest Service-Redwood Sciences Lab.

B. Ken Williams—

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

146 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Brian Winter—

Olympic National Park.

Andrea Woodward—

USGS-FRESC-Olympic Field Station.

R. Gerald Wright—

Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research

Unit.

Coniferous Forest Monitoring Focus Group

Meeting, 28 August 1997

Western Fisheries Research Center, Seattle WA.

Objectives: To (1) review research and monitoring

objectives, (2) explore general approaches to study

design relative to monitoring objectives and park

management needs, and (3) discuss sampling meth-

ods for vertebrate monitoring.

Facilitating: Andrea Woodward.

Participating: Olympic National Park and USGS

Olympic Field Station staffs and invited forest sci-

entists:

Joe Ammirati—

University of Washington.

Jan Henderson—

U.S.D.A. Forest Service.

Kurt Jenkins

USGS-FRESC-Olympic Field Station.

Dave Peter—

U.S.D.A. Forest Service.

Charlie Halpern—

University of Washington.

Cat Hawkins Hoffman—

Olympic National Park.

Dave Shaw—

Wind River Canopy Crane Research Facility.

Ed Schreiner—

USGS-FRESC-Olympic Field Station.

Terrestrial Wildlife (Coniferous Forests) Focus

Group Meeting, 19 December 1997

Olympic National Forest District Ofce,

Quilcene WA.

Objectives: To (1) review research and monitoring

objectives, (2) explore general approaches to study

design relative to monitoring objectives and park

management needs, and (3) discuss sampling meth-

ods for vertebrate monitoring.

Facilitating: Kurt Jenkins .

Participating: Olympic National Park and USGS-

FRESC-Olympic Field Station staffs and invited

wildlife research scientists:

Don Major—

USGS-FRESC.

Keith Aubrey—

U.S.D.A. Forest Service.

Bruce Bury—

USGS-FRESC.

Patti Happe—

Olympic National Park.

Cat Hawkins Hoffman—

Olympic National Park.

John Marzluff—

University of Washington.

L. Scott Mills—

University of Montana.

Martin Raphael—

U.S.D.A. Forest Service.

D. Erran Seaman—

USGS-FRESC-Olympic Field Station.

Ed Schreiner—

USGS-FRESC-Olympic Field Station.

Steve West—

University of Washington.

Andrea Woodward—

USGS-FRESC-Olympic Field Station.

Olympic National Park Vital Signs Workshop,

26-28 January 1999, Red Lion Hotel, Port

Angeles WA.

Objectives: To identify vital signs for monitoring

the health of all ecosystem components in Olympic

National Park. To review results of indicator selec-

tion from previous focus group workshops (wildlife

and terrestrial forest vegetation).

Facilitating: Gary Davis, Channel Islands National

Park, Cat Hawkins Hoffman, Olympic National

Park.

Participating: Olympic National Park and USGS

Olympic Field Station staffs and invited resource

specialists:

Steve Acker—

U.S. D.A. Forest Service.

Mike Adams—

USGS-FRESC.

Jim Agee—

University of Washington.

Appendix A. Workshops and Participants 147

Matt Albright—

Olympic National Park.

Bill Baccus—

Olympic National Park.

Kathy Beirne—

Olympic National Park.

Bob Bilby—

National Marine Fisheries Service.

Ed Bowlby—

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.

Sam Brenkman—

Olympic National Park.

Dave Conca—

Olympic National Park.

Howard Conway—

University of Washington.

Paul Crawford—

Olympic National Park.

Patte Danisiewicz—

Olympic National Park.

Dave DeSante—

Institute of Bird Populations.

Megan Dethier—

University of Washington.

Bob Edmonds

University of Washington.

Dan Fagre—

USGS-Northern Rocky Mountains Science Center.

Steve Fancy—

National Park Service.

Bruce Freet—

North Cascades National Park.

George Galasso—

Olympic Coast National marine Sanctuary.

Jack Galloway—

Olympic National Park.

Bob Gara—

University of Washington.

Paul Geissler—

USGS.

Paul Gleeson—

Olympic National Park.

Reed Glesne—

North Cascades National Park.

Rich Gregory—

National Park Service.

Bob Gresswell—

USGS-FRESC.

Mike Gurling—

Olympic National Park.

Matt Hagemann—

National Park Service.

Charlie Halpern—

University of Washington.

Patti Happe—

Olympic National Park.

Pat Heglund—

University of Idaho.

Jan Henderson—

U.S.D.A. Forest Service.

Cat Hawkins-Hoffman—

Olympic National Park.

Roger Hoffman—

Olympic National Park.

Bill Hogsett—

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Doug Houston—

USGS-Olympic Field Station .

Gay Hunter—

Olympic National Park.

Kurt Jenkins—

USGS-Olympic Field Station.

Darryll Johnson—

USGS-Cascadia Field Station.

Bob Kuntz—

North Cascades National Park.

Jim Marra—

University of Washington.

Bob McKane—

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

John Meyer—

Olympic National Park.

Bob Mierendorf—

North Cascades National Park.

Rich Olson—

Olympic National Park.

Mark OʼNeill—

Olympic National Park.

Dave Peter—

U.S.D.A. Forest Service.

Dave Peterson—

USGS-Cascadia Field Station.

Reg Reisenbichler—

USGS-Western Fisheries Research Center.

John Riedel—

North Cascades National Park.

Gina Rochefort—

North Cascades National Park.

Roger Sanquist—

U.S.D.A. Forest Service.

148 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Curt Sauer—

Olympic National Park.

Carl Schoch—

Oregon State University.

Ruth Scott—

Olympic National Park.

Ed Schreiner—

USGS-Olympic Field Station.

Erran Seaman—

USGS-FRESC-Olympic Field Station.

Richard Siddeway

Washington Department of Ecology.

Michael Smithson—

Olympic National Park.

Ed Starkey—

USGS-FRESC.

Bob Stottlemeyer—

USGS-Midcontinent Ecosystem Science Center.

Jim Tilmant—

National Park Service.

Kathy Tonnessen—

National Park Service.

Jim Warner—

Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority.

Beth Willhite—

U.S.D.A. Forest Service.

Brian Winter—

Olympic National Park.

Andrea Woodward—

USGS-FRESC-Olympic Field Station.

John Wullschleger—

Olympic National Park.

Biogeochemical Processes: Parameters for Long-

term Monitoring Programs of Pacic Northwest

National Parks, 16-17 January 2001, Seattle WA.

Objectives: To review biogeochemical research and

monitoring in Pacic Northwestern National Parks.

To identify the most critical information needs to

inform about anticipated environmental changes in

the Pacic Northwest. To assess adequacy of exist-

ing monitoring programs. To identify additional

parameters for long-term monitoring.

Facilitating: Kathy Tonnessen , National Park

Service-Rocky Mountains Cooperative Ecosystem

Studies Unit, and Cat Hawkins Hoffman, Olympic

National Park.

Participating: USGS Scientists, National Park Ser-

vice, invited biogeochemical specialists.

Steve Acker—

NPS, Pacic West Region .

Bob Black—

USGS-Water Resources Division.

Tamara Blett—

NPS, Air Resources Division.

Dave Busch—

USGS-FRESC.

Don Campbell—

USGS-Water Resources Division.

Marsha Davis—

NPS, Columbia-Cascades System Support Ofce.

Bob Edmonds—

University of Washington.

Annie Esperanza—

Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park.

Dan Fagre—

USGS-Glacier National Park.

Mark Flora—

NPS, Water Resources Division.

Jerry Franklin—

University of Washington.

Bill Hogsett—

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Roy Irwin—

NPS, Water Resources Division.

Darryll Johnson—

USGS-Cascadia Field Station.

Peter Kiffney—

National Marine Fisheries Service.

Dixon Landers—

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Ken Mabery—

NPS, Regional Ecosystem Ofce.

Tonnie Maniero—

NPS, Air Resources Division.

Stephanie McAfee—

University of Washington.

Jon Riedel—

North Cascades National Park.

Gina Rochefort—

North Cascades National Park.

Roger Rudolph—

Olympic National Park.

Barbara Samora—

Mount Rainier National Park.

Ed Schreiner—

USGS-Olympic Field Station.

Kathie Weathers—

Institute of Ecosystem Studies.

Andrea Woodward—

USGS-Olympic Field Station.

Appendix A. Workshops and Participants 149

Statististics of Sampling for Long-term Ecologi-

cal Monitoring in Olympic National Park, 2-3

April 2001, Red Lion Hotel, Port Angeles WA.

Objectives: To identify useful tools to determine an

adequate sampling effort. To examine strengths and

weaknesses of potential sampling frames for moni-

toring in Olympic National Park. To recommend

practical means of integrating monitoring across

spatial scales.

Facilitating: Kurt Jenkins and Andrea Woodward.

Participating: Staffs of USGS-Olympic Field Sta-

tion and Olympic National Park. Invited monitoring

specialists and biometricians.

Steve Acker—

NPS, Pacic West Region.

Jean-Yves Pip Courbois—

University of Washington.

Steven Fradkin—

Olympic National Park.

Oz Garton—

University of Idaho.

Paul Geissler—

USGS.

Patti Happe—

Olympic National Park.

Roger Hoffman—

Olympic National Park.

Gail Irvine—

USGS-Alaska Biological Science Center.

Lyman McDonald—

Western Ecosystems, Inc.

Eric Rexstad—

University of Alaska.

Susan Roberts—

USGS-Olympic Field Station.

Regina Rochefort—

North Cascades National Park.

Ed Schreiner—

USGS-Olympic Field Station.

National Park Service Air Toxics Workshop, 26-

27 June 2001, Seattle WA (workshop organized

and supported by the National Park Serviceʼs

Air Resources Division).

For workshop participants and summary report see

www.aqd.nps.gov\ard\aqmon\air_toxics\index.html.

Ultraviolet Radiation Monitoring, 16-17

July 2001, Red Lion Hotel, Port Angeles WA

(workshop organized and supported by Olympic

National Park).

Objectives: To discuss latest ndings regarding

unltraviolet radiation and effects of ultraviolet

radiation on plants, animals and people. To identify

options for how to monitor ultraviolet radiation in

national parks.

Facilitating: Cat Hawkins Hoffman, Olympic

National Park and Betsy Weatherhead, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Participating: USGS and NPS resource manag-

ers and scientists, invited specialists, and resource

education and interpretation staffs.

Dave Busch—

USGS-Regional Ecosystem Ofce.

Sarah Ehlen—

North Cascades National Park.

Gregg Fauth—

Fort Vancouver National Historic Site.

Bill Gleason—

San Juan Islands National Historic Park.

Roger Hoffman—

Olympic National Park

Les Inafuku—

Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park.

Ken Mabery—

NPS-Regional Ecosystem Ofce.

Maureen McGee-Ballinger—

Mount Rainier National Park.

Paula Ogden—

North Cascades.

Steve Ralph—

North Coast and Cascades Network Coordinator.

Ruth Rhodes—

North Cascades National Park.

Barbara Samora—

Mount Rainier National Park.

Michael Smithson—

Olympic National Park.

Kathy Steichen—

Olympic National Park.

Scott Stonum—

Fort Clatsop National Historic Park.

Betsy Weatherhead—

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Andrea Woodward—

USGS-Olympic Field Station..

150 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park