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

Prepared in Cooperation with Olympic National Park

USGS/BRD/ITR—2003-0006

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

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 monitoring 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 five-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 Service’s prototype monitoring 

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

National Park Service’s 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 environments), and 

• create a demonstration area and ‘center of excellence’ 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 Pacific Northwestern park units created recently by the National 

Park Service’s Inventory and Monitoring Program to extend the monitoring of 

‘vital signs’ 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 ‘key’ 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 ‘unnatural’ 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. 
iv A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park 

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 park’s 

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 justification 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. Specifically 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 efficiency. 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 identified to date in our workshops. The presentation is organized 

according to the major system drivers, components, and processes identified in 

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

For each component of the park system, we develop the need and justification 

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

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
vii

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 

system 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
viii A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in 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............................... 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 
ix

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

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 final 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.
1U.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 1

Introduction

Importance of Monitoring:

Maintaining a current understanding of ecological conditions is fundamental to the National Park 

Service in meeting its overarching mission—to 

preserve park resources “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations” (U.S. Congress 1916). 

Initially, the implementation of an ecological monitoring program establishes reference conditions for 

natural resources from which future changes can be 

detected. Over the long term, these “benchmarks” 

help define 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-specific 

monitoring programs (as opposed to general ecological monitoring) are also important because they 

provide the basis for evaluating effectiveness of 

specific management actions and provide information 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 monitoring program in 1993 by soliciting proposals for 

‘prototype’ parks. The goal of the ‘prototype’ 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 

‘centers of excellence’ 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 condition of National Park System resources” (National 

Park Service Omnibus Management Act 1998). The 

National Park Service subsequently developed a 
2 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

“Natural Resources Challenge,” an action plan and 

budgetary strategy for improved resource stewardship in the National Park System (National Park 

Service 1999). The Challenge included a specific 

call to action to expand monitoring efforts beyond 

the currently funded prototype monitoring parks to 

all National Park Service units. The National Park 

Service’s Inventory and Monitoring strategy currently recognizes three major components of Inventory 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 status or health (’Vital Signs’) at all natural 

resource parks (S. Fancy, Monitoring Natural 

Resources in our National Parks, 

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

‘Vital signs’ 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 ecosystems” (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 similar geographic areas of the country to achieve this 

goal. ‘Networks’ form the framework for designing, 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 monitoring 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 Ebey’s Landing, Fort Clatsop, Fort Vancouver, Mount Rainier, North Cascades, and San 

Juan Islands. A significant 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 programs 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 first-step in designing a monitoring program is figuring out just what attributes 

should be monitored, and deciding how to integrate 

the individual monitoring projects into a comprehensive program. This is easily the most difficult 

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 program to initiate development of a long-term ecological 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 monitoring. 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, field 

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 workshops 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 components in Olympic National Park, although we hope 

that the conceptual materials may prove useful to 

other parks within the North Coast and Cascades 
 3

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 prototype 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 

‘vital-signs’ monitoring programs, park-wide monitoring 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 selecting potential indicators and developing conceptual 

models and sampling plans. We describe the process 

of identifying potential indicators of ecological condition and change. We present conceptual models of 

park ecosystems, and describe a conceptual framework for monitoring in the coniferous forest subsystem. 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 identified to date for Olympic National 

Park. In this section we focus discussion on the 

system drivers, components, and processes identified 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 justification for monitoring in a word model of park management issues, 

key resources and ecosystem functions. We present 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, identify 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 monitoring 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 monitoring components and protocols will be required 

and that current thinking on monitoring issues will 

be modified.

Introduction
4 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park
 5

1.1 The Role of Monitoring 

Monitoring is critically important to the scientific management of national parks and other 

protected areas (Fig. 1.1.1). Monitoring identifies 

the “normal” range of variation in park resources, 

establishing a temporal baseline from which 

changes may be detected and the need for management intervention recognized. If a management 

action is prescribed, monitoring again plays a 

pivotal role in assessing the effectiveness of implemented actions, identifying necessary adaptations 

for management, and determining when management objectives are achieved. Monitoring in this 

context is a critical component of adaptive ecosystem management (Holling 1978, Walters 1986). 

Monitoring also may identify the need for scientific 

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 activities involving measurement of natural systems and 

resources. Ecological monitoring is the sequential 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 inventory 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 understanding 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 define the 

expectations from monitoring, and are critical elements of the conceptual design. All subsequent 

decisions stem from the initial statement of monitoring goals and objectives. Here we define the broad 

goals of the overall monitoring program at Olympic 

National Park. Specific objectives of individual 

monitoring projects are described in Part II. 

Ultimately the goal of ecological monitoring 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 ecologically-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
6 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Change

Detected?

Resource

Monitoring

Resource Research

Management

Objective

 Achieved?

Human

Cause?

No

No

No Yes

Yes

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 understanding of these unique protected resources. All such 

uses of monitoring data are critical for the National 

Park Service to fulfill its mission of preserving park 

resources unimpaired in perpetuity. Increasingly, 

monitoring in protected ecosystems of national 

parks also plays an important societal role in defining conditions of ‘naturalness’ for comparison with 

and management of exploited ecosystems beyond 

park boundaries. The National Park Service Inventory and Monitoring program has established specific 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 indicators of the condition of park ecosystems 

to allow managers to make better-informed 

decisions and to work more effectively with 

other agencies and individuals for the benefit 

of park resources. 

• Provide early warning of abnormal conditions 

of selected resources to help develop effective 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 Congressional mandates related to natural resource 

protection and visitor enjoyment.

• Provide a means of measuring progress 

towards performance goals (S. Fancy, Monitoring Natural Resources in our National 

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

These goals recognize that ecosystems are fundamentally dynamic and that the challenge of monitoring is to separate ‘natural’ variation from undesirable anthropogenic sources of change to park 

resources. Although the distinction between natural 

and anthropogenic change is somewhat artificial, 

and sometimes difficult to distinguish, we define 

“natural” change as the normal consequence of 

often cyclical ecosystem processes that are in a state 
 7

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 definition, 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 components of forest ecosystems as context for recognizing 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 ecosystem status--was the topic of considerable discussion 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, integrative, or reductionist monitoring designs (Woodley et al. 1993, Woodward et al. 1999). We assert 

that the best way to meet the challenges of monitoring 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). Specifically, 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 anthropogenic, are the primary factors influencing 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., pollutants). 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 current 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 constitutes unnatural variation in park resources and provide the earliest possible warning of unacceptable 

change. For our purposes, we’ve embraced Karr and 

Dudley’s (1981) definition of biological integrity 

as the capability of supporting and maintaining a 

balanced, adaptive community of organisms having 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 flagship resources of parks. 

By virtue of their special protection, public appeal, 

or other management significance, these resources 

have paramount importance for monitoring regardless 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 monitoring goals of the National Park Service. They include 

many of the criteria that have been suggested previously for selection of monitoring attributes (Davis 

1989, Silsbee and Peterson 1991). 

Part I. Chapter 1. Monitoring Goals, Strategies, and Tactics
8 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

1.4 Monitoring Strategies: Integration of Monitoring 

Projects 

One of the most difficult 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 information flows from individual stovepipes with minimal 

interaction. One of the strategic goals identified in 

the 1993 prototype monitoring proposal submitted 

by Olympic National Park is to develop an integrated monitoring program for coniferous forest 

ecosystems.

Although integration is admittedly a subjective 

goal for which it is difficult to identify benchmarks 

of progress, we recognize several characteristics of 

integrated monitoring programs that serve as strategic goals for program design and implementation. 

Our perspectives on integrative monitoring are 

influenced 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 ecosystems 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 ecosystem. One strategy for effective ecological integration 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 parkspecific prototype monitoring program, or between 

individual park programs and broader regional programs (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.
 9

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 ecological 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 choosing 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 methodology 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 coordination and communication of monitoring activities at the park and regional levels to promote broad 

participation in monitoring and use of the resulting 

data. For example, involving National Park Service 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 integration of monitoring activities between the prototype 

and network monitoring programs is also essential 

to ensure maximum usefulness of protocols developed 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 protocol 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 important elements of achieving ecological and spatial 

integration in monitoring. The subsequent chapters 

of Part I summarize steps we have taken in designing 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 specific 

study plans, sampling methodologies, data management systems, and written monitoring protocols 

(Figure 1.5.1). Implementation of a mature monitoring program involves routine collection, analysis, interpretation and reporting of data following 

approved protocols over the long term. Peer review 

is a critical component of each stage providing suggestions for revisions in design, protocols, or implementation (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
10 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

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.
 11

The natural resources of Olympic National Park 

are the raw materials for developing a long-term 

ecological monitoring program. Here, we briefly 

present the background material with which we 

work to formulate a monitoring program for Olympic National Park. The information for this chapter 

is synthesized from Henderson et al. (1989), Houston 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 km2

 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 Pacific 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 culminate on Mt. Olympus at 2430 m. Geologic uplift, 

heavy precipitation and a dynamic glacial history 

have created a radial pattern of 11 major river valleys centered in the mountains.

Olympic National Park covers 3700 km2

 in 

two units: 3530 km2

 in the central mountainous 

core, and a narrow 170 km2

 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 km2

), the USDA Forest 

Service (2800 km2

) and private timber companies. 

However, 350 km2

 of Olympic National Forest is 

included in six units of Wilderness Areas, all abutting 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 influenced by the 

mountains, the Olympic Peninsula environment also 

reflects its maritime climate, which is characterized 

by exceptionally high levels of precipitation along 

the western slope. Most storms pick up moisture 

over the Pacific Ocean and move across the Peninsula 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 precipitation annually (Figure 2.2.1). Hence, the area experiences 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 elevations. Long-term data from lowland areas around 

the Peninsula show the average January temperature 

to be 0o

C with average August maxima averaging 

21o

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 communities and an urban area that would naturally be 

an oak savanna, and even closer to lush temperate 

coniferous rainforest with some of the world’s largest trees.

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

Part I. Chapter 2. Environmental Context
12 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

2.3 Geology and Soils

The major formative geologic process for the 

Olympic Mountains is plate tectonics, specifically 

the subduction of the oceanic Juan de Fuca plate 

as it travels eastward and collides with the westward-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 

floor near the shore, became the Crescent Formation 

forming the northern, eastern and southern edges 

of the mountains. Later, sedimentary rock from the 

ocean floor 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 allowing the mountains to rise. As the mountains uplifted, 

erosion from precipitation and sculpting by glaciers 

produced the radial river drainage pattern and precipitous mountain slopes (Tabor 1987).

The geologic and glacial histories of the Peninsula and western Washington provide a diversity 

of parent materials for soil formation. The ocean 

floor 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, creating 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 characteristics, (e.g., soil moisture, subsurface flow, soil 

temperature, and chemical properties) are highly 

variable, being influenced by the parent material, 

climate, and biotic communities of the area. Common soil orders include spodosols, inceptisols, entisols, 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 first, 

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

18,000 BP (years before present), and was characterized by the expansion of alpine glaciers (Booth 

1987). During this stade, glaciers filled valleys and 

some adjacent lowlands, especially on the west side 

of the Peninsula. Sea level was lower, exposing perhaps 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 Cordilleran 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 filled 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).
 13

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
14 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park
 15

Strait of Juan de Fuca

Pacific 

Ocean

Forks

Sequim

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 fir

Western hemlock

Silver fir

Mountain hemlock

Subalpine fir

Parkland

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
16 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park
 17

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 abundant. These included Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga 

menziesii), red alder (Alnus rubra) and some western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) in the west, and 

oak (probably Quercus garryana) and pines (probably Pinus contorta) in the northeast. Charcoal 

deposits suggest fire was frequent during this time. 

Current vegetation began to establish after the climate cooled again (5,000-7,000 BP). Moist, temperate species such as western hemlock and redcedar 

(Thuja plicata) increased while Douglas fir and red 

alder persisted but at lower abundance (Barnosky et 

al. 1987, Brubaker 1991, Whitlock 1992).

Because vegetation is highly indicative of climate, vegetation zones can be considered to reflect 

zones of similar environments. In the Olympics, 

vegetation zones are defined by the abundance and 

distribution of tree species, and show that the Olympic 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 Olympic National Park is famous. Here, massive Sitka 

spruce trees grow to 90 m and deciduous bigleaf 

maples (Acer macrophyllum) are laden with epiphytes. Lowland and mid-elevation forests on the 

drier east side and mid-elevation forests on the west 

side are in the Western Hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) Zone. This is the most widespread zone and 

it is dominated by Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and western hemlock, while western red cedar 

(Thuja plicata) is a fairly common constituent. 

Montane forests are in the Pacific Silver Fir (Abies 

amabilis) Zone on the cool, moist slopes of the 

eastern, western and southern parts of the Peninsula, 

while the Douglas-fir 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 fir (Abies 

lasiocarpa), and sometimes Pacific silver fir. 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. albicaulis). Treeline occurs at about 1615 m in wetter areas 

and 1890 m in drier zones where trees finally give 

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

 2.6 Biogeography

The glacial history, geographic isolation, and 

steep climatic gradients have important consequences for the biogeography of the area. First, the 

Peninsula was never completely covered by ice during 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, exposing 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 supported by the present biogeography (Houston et al. 

1994, Buckingham et al. 1995). The Olympic Peninsula 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 subalpine and alpine (above the ice); four out of five of 

the endemic mammals are associated with alpine 

and subalpine areas; and five 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 distributed across the continent until they were extirpated 

in part of their range by ice. 

Typical of islands, which the Olympic Peninsula resembles, the Olympic Peninsula has a depauperate fauna compared with nearby continental 

Part I. Chapter 2. Environmental Context
18 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

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); missing smaller mammals include the pika (Ochotona 

princeps) and the golden-mantled ground squirrel 

(Spermophilus lateralis).

2.7 Human History

Humans have occupied the Olympic Peninsula since nearly the end of the final 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 first 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 shellfish, fish and marine mammals (Bergland 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 significant 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 first logging company, Pope and Talbot, was formed in 1833, and 

the first railroad to Forks was completed in 1919 

(Campbell 1979). Logging increased through time, 

peaking during the 1980s, leaving the Park surrounded by a landscape managed for timber. European settlement resulted in changes in animal populations 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 species 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 reintroduction 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 fire and wind (Figure 

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

in drier vegetation types with the fire 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 scouring 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 firereturn intervals measured in decades rather than the 

centuries appropriate for the Olympics.

Insects and diseases are a natural part of the forest ecosystem. Most pathogens occurring in the 
 19

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

Common Name Scientific Name

 VERTEBRATES 

Mammals 

Olympic marmot Marmota olympus

Olympic yellow-pine chipmunk Tamias amoenus caurinus a

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 b

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

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

 INVERTEBRATES 

Insects 

Olympic arctic d (lepidopteran) Oeneis chryxus valerata

Hurlbirt’s skipper (lepidopteran) Herperia comma hurlbirti

Olympic Parnassiand (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

Mann’s gazelle beetle Nebria danmanni

Quileute gazelle beetle Nebria acuta quileute

Sylvan gazelle beetle d Nebria meanyi sylvatica

Johnson’s snail eater d (coleopteran) Scaphinotus johnsoni

Tiger beetle Cicindela bellissima frechini

Millipedes 

Millipedee Tubaphe levii

Mollusks 

Arionid slug Hemphillia dromedarius

Arionid jumping slug Hemphillia burringtoni

 VASCULAR HERBACEOUS PLANTS

Pink sandverbena d Abronia umbellate acutulata

Olympic Mountain milkvetch Astragalus australis var. olympicus

Piper’s bellflower Campanula piperi

Flett’s fleabane Erigeron flettii

Thompson’s wandering fleabane Erigeron peregrinus peregrinus var. thomsonii e

Henderson’s rock spirea Petrophytum herdersonnii

Webster’s senecio Senecio neowebsterii

Olympic Mountain synthyris Synthyris pinnatifida var. lanuginosa

Flett’s violet Viola flettii

Olympic aster d Aster paucicapitatus

Part I. Chapter 2. Environmental Context
20 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Magenta paintbrushd Castilleja parviflora var. olympica

Lance-leaf spring beautyd Claytonia lanceolata var. pacifica

Blood-red pedicularis d Pedicularis bracteosa var. atrosanguinea

Tisch’s saxifrage d Saxifraga tischii

 CRYPTOGAMS

Liverwortd Porella noellii forma crispate

a

Trinomials indicate subspecies.

bOccurs south to Chehalis River.

c

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

dAlso occurs on Vancouver Island

e

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.a 

 See Houston et al. (1994) for sources.

Common Name Scientific Name

Mammals

Grizzly bear Ursus arctos

Wolverine Gulo gulo

Red foxb Vulpes vulpes

Coyotec Canis latrans

Lynx Lynx canadensis

Water vole Microtus richardsonii

Golden-mantled ground squirrel Spermophilus lateralis

Northern bog lemming Synaptomys borealis

Porcupine d Erethizon dorsatum

Pikae Orchotona princeps

Mountain sheep Ovis canadensis

Mountain goat Oreamnos americanus

Birds

White-tailed ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus

Spruce grouse Dendragapus canadensis

a Scientific names from Honacki et al. (1982).

bSubsequently introduced.

c

Colonized the Olympic Peninsula during the early twentieth century.

dOccasional dispersing individuals, apparently no established population.

e

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

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

 (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name

 VASCULAR HERBACEOUS PLANTS
 21

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 nonnative 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 mandate 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 specifically 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 identified in the park’s 

Resource Management Plan (Olympic National 

Park 1999). Some threats have local effects on 

specific 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). Identifying these issues creates the context for monitoring 

questions in two ways. First, identifying the larger 

issue addressed by specific concerns across a region 

can provide the common ground needed to integrate 

those programs. For example, different land management agencies have different specific concerns 

regarding how global climate change might affect 

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

increased fire 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 managed systems; monitoring should include the benchmark role as a consideration. Management concerns 

can also be categorized by whether they are local or 

have park-wide scope. This perspective will provide 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 natural 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 conservation. Specifically, the Resource Management Plan 

for Olympic National Park (1999) identifies eight 

objectives to meet its overall goal of conservation:

• Protect the park’s 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 scientific research to gain information 

about resources, and natural and anthropogenic effects on them.

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

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

Part I. Chapter 2. Environmental Context
22 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

• Assemble baseline inventories describing the 

park’s natural resources and systematically 

monitor them in order to understand the governing 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 protecting 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 solutions and share resources and information.

These objectives are compatible with the 

approach of monitoring specific management issues, 

focal species, and indicators of ecosystem integrity. Although specific agents of change are not 

identified, it is recognized that the agents could be 

internal or external to the park, and that anthropogenic change and human use are matters of resource 

concern.

2.11 Implications for Monitoring

Diverse Resources. One of the biggest challenges 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 

significant 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 monitoring objectives, identify indicators with intensive 

and extensive scales, choose efficient 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 

scientifically defensible monitoring program using 

limited resources.

Difficult Access. The mountainous terrain of 

the Olympics, the placement of roads peripheral to 

the park, and the fact that 95% of the park is designated wilderness makes central and/or high elevation areas extremely difficult 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 difficult 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 islandlike geography of the park and its glacial history 

have resulted in a long period of biologic isolation, enough for many endemic taxa to evolve and 

several disjunct taxa to persist. Given the park’s 

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 Pacific 

Northwest coincided with the end of the Little Ice 

Age at around 1850. Since then, a change in anthropogenic regime has coincided with a natural warming trend. Influences of mechanized society (e.g., 

over-harvesting, and pollution) have been increasing while the influences 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 exacerbated by an anthropogenic influence on climate. 

The implications for monitoring are that anthropogenic change will be difficult to distinguish from 

natural process. It is also difficult to define management 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 influence. Therefore, observed trends must be interpreted 

in light of inherent instability, from both natural and 

anthropogenic forces. 
 23

GENERAL THREAT MGMT.

ACTION? 

SPECIFIC CONCERN 

IDENTIFIED IN RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT PLAN

PARKWIDE

IMPACTS?

Habitat Outside of the 

Park

 N

Fragmentation outside the park 

Isolation of animals inside the 

 park

Alteration of fish habitat

Alteration of marine habitat

Y

 

Y

Y

N

Climate Change N Increased ultra-violet radiation 

Effect on ocean conditions

Y

?

Pollutants

 N

From growing metro area to east

From Asia

Oil and chemical spills

Effects on plants

Potential for lake acidification

Y

Y

N

Y

N

Genetic Contamination N Fish hatcheries N

Water Rights N Dams N

Consumptive Use 

Outside Park N

Hunting

Over-harvest of fish

Off-shore coastal development

Mineral claims

N

N

N

N

Exotic Species Y Exotic animals and plants

Introduced pests or diseases

Y

?

NPS Development & 

Policies Y Park management (development)Fire suppression

N

Y

Visitor Impacts

 Y

Trampling

Impacts to soil and vegetation

Illegal harvest

Interactions with wildlife

Unknown magnitude of day use

Future visitor trends

N

N

N

?

N

Y

Consumptive Use 

Inside Park Y

Harvest (total amounts and species) 

 of intertidal & marine organisms

Illegal harvest

 

N

N

Table 2.9.1. Summary of anthropogenic threats identifi ed in the Olympic National Park Resource Management Plan. Specifi 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
24 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park
 25

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
26 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park
 27

The scoping phase was designed to solicit a 

wide range of ideas on significant management 

issues, focal species, and key ecosystems and 

components to monitor in Olympic National Park. 

We initiated this process of identifying monitoring needs with the park staff because they are most 

familiar with its resources, and to ensure a ‘grassroots’ contribution to the planning process. However, 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 park’s staff to participate in a 

scoping workshop to help identify the most important 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 defined the scope of 

the monitoring program as coniferous forest ecosystems including aquatic subsystems within them. 

This definition was consistent with the 1993 Prototype Monitoring Proposal submitted by Olympic 

National Park. The coastal resource was considered 

subsequently in the Olympic National Park “vitalsigns” 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 timeefficient manner. Nominal group technique is a way 

of organizing a meeting to identify and solve problems, 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 administration) 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 ‘round-table’ 

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 members of each group the two-part question, ‘What 

resources in Olympic National Park should be monitored and why? Within each group, the workshop 

participants answered the question, presenting one 

idea at a time without discussion until everyone’s 

ideas were exhausted. The group’s comprehensive 

response was consolidated after a brief discussion 

aimed at identifying common and different meanings of similar ideas. We then asked participants to 

prioritize monitoring needs by rating each monitoring need as high, moderate, or low, and independently identify their top 5 choices for monitoring. 

The entire exercise was completed in one day.

The park staff identified a variety of park 

resources representing both focal species and potential 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 complicated array of potential effects and park management 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 leucocephalus), marbled murrelets and anadromous 

fish), 

• flagship species such as the Roosevelt elk 

(Cervus elaphus) and the endemic trout inhabiting Lake Crescent, 

 Part I. Chapter 3. Scoping and Identifying Indicators 
28 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

• species associated with current park management issues (e.g., non-native mountain goats 

[Oreamnos americanus], rare plants, exotic 

plants and fishes), and 

• large mammals whose proximity to park visitors poses unique management issues regarding 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 integrity. They identified a wide gamut of potential 

resources to monitor as a gauge of the park’s overall 

health and integrity. These included recommendations to monitor:

• whole ecosystems, notably the park’s signature old-growth forested lowlands and riparian 

forests, 

• comprehensive characteristics of those ecosystems, such as biodiversity and forest health, 

and,

• important ecosystem processes such as fluvial 

dynamics and biogeochemical cycling. 

Workshop participants also identified a wide 

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

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

cryptogams, forest fungi, migratory birds, amphibians) 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 defined system components. 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 conducted by other agencies on the Olympic Peninsula, 

and to solicit input on important monitoring projects 

in Olympic National Park. We invited representatives from Federal and State agencies with responsibilities for natural resources, private timber companies, 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 indicators 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 comments we received emphasized the benchmark role 

of the park. The participants highlighted the points 

that healthy salmon populations and forested watersheds 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. Specific resources were also identified as 

high-priority subjects for monitoring:

• Physical properties of watersheds with third 

order streams (water quality, channel properties, 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 information 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
 29

3.3 ‘Focus-group’ Workshops

Olympic National Park staff convened a “vitalsigns” 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 Service) to develop specific monitoring questions and 

identify useful indicators for monitoring forest vegetation, forest wildlife, biogeochemistry, airborne 

pollutants, and ultraviolet radiation (Appendix A). 

The vital-signs workshop, sponsored by Olympic National Park, was attended by 69 scientists or 

resource management professionals representing 

several universities, government and non-government natural resource agencies (Appendix A). 

Participants were divided among 9 working groups 

corresponding to the following subject-matter categories: atmospheric resources, coastal resources, 

aquatic habitat and biota, human use, aquatic physical properties, invertebrates, paleoecology, vegetation resources, and wildlife resources. Participants 

were asked to identify the most cogent monitoring 

needs, potential indicators, justifications, and associated 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 contains background on the nature of park management 

concerns regarding each resource category, recommendations of specific indicators, justification 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 framework. 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 starting point for subsequent discussion. 

Part I. Chapter 3. Scoping and Identifying Indicators 
30 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Park Resource

Importance

to monitoring Agents of Resource Change Importance Score1 No. Top-five Votes2 Atmospheric Deposition Climate Fire Suppression External Habitat Loss Harvests Disease Visitor Use/Facilities Exotic/Alien spp.

Fisheries DeclineElwha 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 xxxxx 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 xxxxxx x

Forest biodiversity 2.7 4 x xxxxxx 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 1

No. Top-five Votes 2

Climate

Park Resource Fire Suppression

External Habitat Loss

Harvests

Disease

Visitor Use/Facilities

Atmospheric Deposition

Exotic/Alien spp.

Fisheries Decline

Elwha Dam removal

Importance Agents of Resource Change 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 identifi ed by Olympic National Park staff. 
 31

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 fish 2.9 13 x xxxxx 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 fish 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

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

2Number of Olympic National Park employees voting the resource as one of the top five priorities for monitoring in the park.

Importance Score 1

No. Top-five Votes 2

Climate

Park Resource Fire Suppression

External Habitat Loss

Harvests

Disease

Visitor Use/Facilities

Atmospheric Deposition

Exotic/Alien spp.

Fisheries Decline

Elwha Dam removal

Importance Agents of Resource Change to monitoring

Part I. Chapter 3. Scoping and Identifying Indicators 
32 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park Wash. Dept. of Ecology Wash. Dept. Fish & Wildlife Wash. DNR1 Timber, Fish & Wildlife Rayonier Inc. Weyerhaeuser Inc. Elwha Klallam Tribe Hoh Tribe Point No Point Tribe Suquamish Tribe

Olympic National ForestOlympic Coast NMS2

Streams & Rivers

Water quality & quantity X XXX X

Large woody debris X

Stream channel X X

Salmon spawning habitat X XXXX X

Macroinvertebrates X XX

Forests

Health X X

Restoration projects X

Riparian areas X X

Insects & diseases X

Wetlands X

Timber X

Wildlife trees X

Windthrow X

Wildlife

Amphibians X XX

Bald eagles X XX

Band-tailed pigeon X

Black bear X

Breeding birds X

Butterflies X

Cavity nesters X

Deer X

Diurnal raptors X

Elk X

Fisher X

Game fish X XX

Geoduck X

Table 3.2.1 Resources currently monitored by other government agencies, tribes and private companies on the Olympic Peninsula.
 33

Goshawk X X

Gyrfalcon X

Harlequin ducks X

Loon X

Marbled murrelet XX X

Marten X

Merlin X X

Neotropical birds X X

Non-game fish XX X X

Northern harrier X

Northern spotted owl X X

Peregrine falcon X X

Raptors X

Salmon X XXX

Seabirds X X

Townsend’s big-eared bat X

Coastal

Cetaceans X

Harmful alga blooms X

Juvenile rockfish X

Kelp X

Marine wildlife X

Near-shore currents X

Pinnipeds & porpoise X

Sea otters X

Sea urchins X

Shellfish & biotoxins X

Subtidal & intertidal 

habitats X

1

Washington Department of Natural Resources 2

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Wash. Dept. of Ecology Wash. Dept. Fish & Wildlife Wash. DNR1 Timber, Fish & Wildlife

Rayonier Inc.Weyerhaeuser Inc.Elwha Klallam TribeHoh TribePoint No Point TribeSuquamish TribeOlympic National ForestOlympic Coast NMS2

Part I. Chapter 3. Scoping and Identifying Indicators 
34 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

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 identified 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 Pacific 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 benefit 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.
 35

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

Agents of Resource Change

Ecosystem

Component

Proposed

Indicators/Topics

Air QualityClimateFire SuppressionExternal Land UseHarvestsDiseaseVisitor Use/FacilitiesExotic/Alien SpeciesFisheries DeclineDam 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

XX 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 overflights X

Residence counts X

Incidental Business 

Permits

X

Concession activities X

Part I. Chapter 3. Scoping and Identifying Indicators 
36 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Landscapes Disturbance X X X

Snow cover X

Vegetation phenology X

Land-use outside X

Vegetation structure 

and chemistry

XXX XX XXX

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 fish, lakes, 

sediments, lichen

XX X

Terrestrial 

Vegetation 

Communities

Forest composition and 

structure

XXX XX XXX

Nitrogen and carbon 

dynamics

XXX XX XXX

Demographic 

processes

XX 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 QualityClimateFire SuppressionExternal Land UseHarvestsDiseaseVisitor Use/FacilitiesExotic/Alien SpeciesFisheries DeclineDam Removal

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

 (Continued)
 37

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 QualityClimateFire SuppressionExternal Land UseHarvestsDiseaseVisitor Use/FacilitiesExotic/Alien SpeciesFisheries DeclineDam Removal

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

 (Continued)

Part I. Chapter 3. Scoping and Identifying Indicators 
38 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

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 XX

Pygmy whitefish 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 fish 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 QualityClimateFire SuppressionExternal Land UseHarvestsDiseaseVisitor Use/FacilitiesExotic/Alien SpeciesFisheries DeclineDam Removal

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

 (Continued)
 39

4.1 What is a Conceptual Model?

Modeling is the process of articulating relationships among ecosystem components, processes, 

and environmental effects to help select monitoring 

indicators. Models can also be tools to communicate 

why specific 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 common. It is also important to recognize that conceptual models are always works in progress representing 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 reflect 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 indicators. 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 understandings 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 conceptual model, there is no single model that adequately 

describes an entire system. The effort is hampered 

by the impossibility of achieving both model generality and model realism. Model generality is 

needed to characterize large-scale influences and 

relationships among park resources; model realism 

is needed to identify specific potential expressions 

of change that could be effective monitoring indicators. Consequently, both integrative general models 

and realistic specific 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 magnifying glass around the park’s 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 characteristics 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
40 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Effective conceptual models for indicator 

selection can take many forms but all have certain 

common characteristics. Their primary purpose is 

to bring a specific 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 system 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 ecosystems work. Presently, the field of ecosystem theory 

is fairly young, and it can only provide general 

concepts and has little specific predictive ability. 

Nevertheless, current ecological theory colors our 

thinking about building conceptual ecosystem models, 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), analogous 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 structures (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 ecosystem structure (e.g., information theory, network 

theory, etc.; Jorgensen and Muller 2000b) the easiest way to visualize ecosystem structure for fieldoriented 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 document 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 coming and going of ice ages, for example, illustrates 

an apparently static climatic regime that is in fact 

cyclical.

Another consequence of the thermodynamics 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 disturbance 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 dynamics is typical of older, “over-connected” stages when 

systems have achieved their limit of thermodynamic 

instability. While this process is not random, it is 
 41

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 ecosystems provided by current ecological theory, we can 

apply some of the ideas to conceptual modeling and 

indicator selection for monitoring. General conclusions are that indicators of ecosystem status need to 

be integrative, that is indicate linkages rather than 

single elements, and they should include both structure and function. Ecological theory also provides 

the context for evaluating the role of those indicators chosen because they are focal species or management 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 populations the time scale might be years or decades; 

for catastrophic events it might be decades or centuries. 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) availability 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 specific 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
42 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

• 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 structure, disturbances ordered by size, or levels of 

organization within kingdoms of taxa (cell, 

organism, population, community, landscape, 

region).

• Monitor both structure and function (process) of ecosystems. Look for places where a 

functional component might be added to a 

structural measurement (e.g., measure mortality and recruitment in forests as well as canopy 

structure).

4.3 Modeling Olympic National Park

Because it is not possible to develop one comprehensive detailed conceptual model that describes 

all of the possible anthropogenic influences 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 forests, (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, monitoring for aquatic/riparian areas is under development 

by North Cascades National Park in its role as a 

prototype park responsible for developing monitoring protocols for lake and stream ecosystems. 

Coastal area monitoring is being developed in a 

separate effort in Olympic National Park. The subalpine 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 common (Figure 4.3.2). These include flora, fauna, 

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

demographic). We also recognize that park subsystems are dynamic. They respond to system drivers 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 indicators 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 

specific 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 development (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 specific roles and associated 

processes, are acted upon by drivers, and are subject 

to export losses. The precise elements and complexity depend on where the system is in the successional cycle. Fundamentally, these elements interact 

through, and mediate flows of, the carbon, mineral 

and hydrological cycles, and implicitly the energy 

cycle. In other words, vertical flows 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 specific discreet 

examples will make it easier to visualize that appropriate indicators of change vary along these axes by 

considering specific intersections of the grid they 

form. For example, it might be important to monitor 

individual species if the monitoring question indicates interest in forest composition at annual time 
 43

Subalpine 

Subsystem 

Coastal

Subsystem

Aquatic

Subsystem

Terrestrial Forest

Subsystem 

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
44 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park
 45

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. Likewise, 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 production at the stand or community level, and carbon 

sequestration at the regional or global level. 

Each monitoring question indicates the organizational and temporal scales of interest and therefore the appropriate variables, and suggests triggers 

for management response. We expect that in the 

process of indicator selection, each subject-matter 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)

PAST TIME

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

Fig. 4.3.3. Conceptual model of the terrestrial coniferous forest ecosystems showing fl 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 OF

FOREST ECOSYSTEMS

Predation Plant Propogation 

LITTER, SOIL & SOIL ORGANISMS
 47

All scientists and researchers working in Olympic National Park quickly encounter a common set 

of sampling issues having to do with how best to 

distribute samples spatially while considering tradeoffs associated with the high costs of access. Among 

others, each researcher must answer the following 

questions:

• What is the targeted population to which inferences will apply (i.e., population in the statistical sense of the complete set of objects to be 

studied)?

• How should samples be distributed most effi -

ciently throughout the population of interest? 

• Should samples be distributed systematically 

or randomly?

• Is stratification a useful tool to enhance sampling efficiency?

Left to his or her own designs, each monitoring scientist will develop unique solutions to these 

generic questions, often to the detriment of integration goals. While defining the spatial population 

of interest is project-specific 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 ‘umbrella’ sampling 

design is an important step in the development of an 

integrated monitoring program. 

In the following sections, we develop a generalized framework for sampling and monitoring coniferous 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 subsystem, 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 understanding of interrelationships within ecological 

systems and be able to explain possible causes of 

observed patterns of change. Unfortunately, financial and logistical constraints make it impossible 

to measure everything everywhere, so the planning 

process must consider trade-offs in how best to 

allocate limited financial 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” (O’Neill 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 (O’Neill 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 temporal 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 

define the extent of area to which the monitoring results apply, and they greatly influence 

costs of monitoring.

• Scope refers simply to the amount of information 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 
48 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

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 attribute measured and the number of independent 

measures obtained, e.g., the number of independent 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 replicated abundantly to maximize understanding, inference, 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 monitoring 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, controlling 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 possible, given any combination of fixed resource 

levels available for monitoring and chosen spatial 

and measurement efforts. By necessity, monitoring projects with the greatest scope and complexity 

are conducted at comparatively small spatial scales 

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

Park Service’s small watershed ecosystem studies 

or the National Science Foundation’s Long-term 

ecological research network) and they are rarely 

replicated sufficiently 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 specific taxa typically are 

conducted more extensively across broader spatial 

scales, and are replicated more easily than are intensive long-term-monitoring efforts. We identify these 

two opposite ends of the allocation-of-effort spectrum as ‘extensive design’ and ‘intensive design,’ 

although there are all possible gradations of ‘intermediate designs’ 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 

fixed 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 consideration of sampling scales and trade-offs.

5.2 Conceptual Framework for Integrated Monitoring 

in Coniferous Forests

Here, we propose a generic framework for monitoring the coniferous forest subsystem of Olympic 

National Park. In this conceptual framework we 

recommend several ‘core’ components of long-term 

monitoring in coniferous forests, spatial linkages 

among these program elements, and implicit tradeoffs in the scope (or complexity) of each monitoring 

project and spatial scale of sampling (Figure 5.2.1). 

Although the generic model presented here identifies several of the key monitoring themes identified 

for the coniferous forest subsystem, final decisions 

on specific 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. 
 49

At the broadest of scales possible, representing 

the ‘extensive design’, we envision parkwide monitoring of the composition and disturbance history of 

park landscapes and vegetation (Figure 5.2.1). Such 

monitoring would address the large-scale questions: 

‘Are changes in regional stressors affecting disturbance regimes? Composition of park landscapes? 

Composition of forest communities?’ Although 

patterns in landscapes might be examined through 

remote sensing virtually throughout the park, monitoring 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 forest 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 constraints preclude sampling at the parkwide scale. 

An example of such an ‘intermediate-scale’ monitoring 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 ‘intensive’ monitoring projects may have 

parkwide importance, but high sampling requirements force an economy of scales. For example, 

consider the following monitoring questions:

• Are long-term changes in climate or atmospheric deposition influencing key biogeochemical cycling processes in forest ecosystems?

• Are densities of key wildlife populations 

changing?

Spatial

Effort

Measurement

Effort

Replication

Effort

‘Intensive’ Design

‘Extensive’

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

Although any of these questions are of parkwide importance, the expense of instrumentation or 

the frequency sampling requirements, data retrieval, 

or maintenance schedules (for instrumentation) precludes distributing such monitoring effort representatively 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 intensive 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 first 

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 considerations. For example, areas where the slope is too 

steep to safely sample may be excluded from the 

sampled population. It is important to clearly indicate 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 chosen for the sample. In the past, there was a tendency 

for biological research to be conducted on ‘representative’ sites as defined by the researcher. While 

this may satisfy the researcher’s 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 forest 

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

Landscape Landscape Extensive Monitoring Extensive Monitoring

Composition Composition Disturbance Disturbance

Intermediate Scale Intermediate Scale

Vegetation Vegetation Breeding Birds Breeding Birds

Owls Elk and Deer Elk and Deer

Human Use Human Use

Climate Climate

Biogeochemical Biogeochemical

Intensive Plant Intensive Plant

and Animal and Animal

Intensive Monitoring Intensive Monitoring
 51

to other than the sampled sites. Only results from a 

probability-based sample from a specific population 

can be extrapolated beyond individual sites to the 

larger population. 

Among the many variants of probabilistic 

sampling, simple random, cluster, and systematic sampling are the most commonly used. With 

simple random sampling, each point is randomly 

selected independently from the whole population. With systematic sampling, sample points are 

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

Cluster sampling begins with a random or systematic 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 population using equal probability, stratified, or unequal 

probability sampling (Figure 5.3.1). With equal 

probability sampling, all areas are equally likely 

to be selected. With stratified 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. Stratified sampling is a special case of unequal 

probability sampling where probabilities of selection differ among strata. 

c. Selecting the Sample

Intuitively, most biologists and ecologists gravitate toward choosing a stratified random sample to 

distribute plots among different resource categories 

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

habitat types). Stratified random sampling allows 

researchers flexibility to allocate effort differently 

among resource categories, depending upon sampling variation within and among strata or upon the 

abundance or rarity of resource categories. Many 

biologists prefer stratified random sampling because 

results grouped by category have a biological basis 

for interpretation. 

Despite these considerations, stratified random 

sampling is not always the most flexible or efficient 

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 stratification. 

Based on the pros and cons of sample types and 

distributions (Tables 5.3.1 and 5.3.2), many statisticians advocate distributing a systematic sample in 

either a stratified 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 considered these as well as financial and logistical issues 

in formulating the following sampling recommendations for Olympic National Park. 

5.4. A Generalized Sampling Design

We recommend the following generalized sampling scheme to meet the many considerations of 

monitoring in a large wilderness park with limited 

access:

For each project, delineate verbally and visually 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 defined by practically unchanging geographic or topographic criteria (e.g., elevation and/

or slope, but not vegetation category). For safety 

reasons, we recommend omitting slopes >35o

 from 

the sampled population. It may also be practical for 

logistical or biological reasons to limit sampling 

to specified areas of the park. For each monitoring 

project we recommend mapping the sampled population, 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 considerations, or impacts to threatened or endangered 

 Part I. Chapter 5. Framework for Monitoring Coniferous Forest 
52 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

species. To permit flexibility 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 difficult terrain. Therefore, these stratification categories have 

proven useful to help researchers allocate monitoring effort in relation to costs and practical considerations 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 significant 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 inefficient

• Provides little information on lesscommon species

Stratified • Sample density can be increased to 

provide adequate samples for lesscommon species

• Sample density can be increased in 

more accessible areas to increase 

sample size

• More complicated than equal 

probability sampling

• Strata must remain fixed forever, 

although one can switch to unequal 

probability sampling, which will 

allow changes

Unequal 

Probability

• It has the advantages of stratification 

without need to define discrete strata

• One can add samples without regard to 

the initial strata

• Probability of selection can vary 

continuously

• More complex than stratified 

sampling

• One must keep track of the selection 

probabilities

Table 5.3.2. Characteristics of equal probability, stratified, and unequal probability samples.
 53

We recommend developing a generic gridbased 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 localized sampling of rarer resources. This grid can be 

sampled across different spatial scales or at different 

sampling intensities depending upon the specified 

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 population to specified elevation zones, accessibility 

zones, or other definable criteria.

To increase sampling efficiency, we recommend using unequal probability sampling to allocate 

effort among the defined human access/use zones. 

For many monitoring projects it will be desirable 

to concentrate sampling efforts in the most costeffective zones. As an example, consider the goal of 

developing a parkwide network of vegetation monitoring plots. Assuming the goal of such a project 

was parkwide inference, we recommend establishing 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 distribution and intensity depending upon the specific 

monitoring objectives. It will be necessary to augment the sampling intensity for monitoring projects 

that focus on comparatively rare resources or those 

requiring a greater sampling intensity than that provided 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

o o

o o

o o

o

o o

o

o

o o

o

o o

o

o

o

ooo o

o o o o

o o

oo o

o

o

o

ooo

o

o oo o

o

o

o

o o

o o o o oo

o

o

o o

o o

o

o o

o oo o

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo oo

oo

oo

oo

oooo

oooo

oooo

oooo

oooo

Recommended

Sample Distribution

Part I. Chapter 5. Framework for Monitoring Coniferous Forest 
54 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

concentration of sampling points in lowland winter 

ranges of Roosevelt elk than that provided by vegetation 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 sampling. We recommend co-locating intensive monitoring projects within a subset of points sampled 

under the more extensive designs. For example, it 

may be desirable to sample microclimate of forest 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 stratum. 

Over time, the use of a common sampling frame 

for all monitoring projects will create overlapping 

samples, with each sample layer defined by project-specific objectives and clearly defined sample 

populations. Though points may be selected for 

different purposes with different selection probabilities 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 probabilities are known. 

As demonstrated in these examples, the generalized sampling frame promotes spatial integration 

of sampling sites chosen for a wide variety of monitoring projects. It provides flexibility for the development 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 efficiency and interpretation and 

ensure adequate sampling of rare resources.

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Rock

Meadows

Shrub

Douglas fir

Western hemlock

Pacific silver fir

Subalpine fir

Sitka spruce

Western red cedar

Alaska yellow cedar

Lodgepole pine

Hardwood

Mountain hemlock

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.
 55

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 

Figure 5.4.1. Stratifi 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
 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 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 
58 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park
 59

6.1 Setting Priorities

The scoping meetings and conceptual modeling 

identified a large set of possibilities for monitoring in Olympic National Park. To date, the Olympic 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 specific questions within topic 

areas, and then identified 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 structured and well-documented approach to prioritize 

indicators and determine which protocols are available 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 ecological 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 reflecting 

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 criterion across all objectives on a scale of 1-5 

according to how well it meets the criterion.

• Calculate the final rating for each question by 

weighting the scores for each question as determined above and sum across all criteria.

• Identify a cut-off point or some other criterion 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, priorities also need to be established for the potential 

indicators within each monitoring question. Indicators could be chosen for each question by repeating 

the analytical hierarchy process within each question using different objectives. Objectives for indicators may include cost, availability of protocols, 

desirable statistical properties, etc. Alternatively, 

chosen indicators could simply reflect 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 process allows decision-makers to explicitly specify 

assumptions and explore their consequences. In 

Chapter 6. Next Steps

Part I. Chapter 6. Next Steps
60 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

the end, the process of setting priorities is inescapably 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 first outcome agreeable to the group should 

describe the general outline of the monitoring program 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, developing data management systems, and preparing written 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 monitoring, 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 prototype parks receiving funds for program implementation. This funding sequence led to discrete stages of 

protocol development, orchestrated by U.S. Geological Survey scientists, followed by implementation 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 

Service’s ‘Natural Resources Challenge’ to implement 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 monitoring. The synchronous funding and professional staff 

capabilities at both the North Coast and Cascades 

Network and U.S. Geological Survey blurs the separate timelines and agency responsibilities for protocol ‘development’ and ‘implementation’ phases. 

Specifically, 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 subject-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. Geological 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 managers, 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 protocol. 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 Service may administer the documentation and peer 

review process, depending upon project leadership. 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 management (see www.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor; for recommendations on monitoring protocols see Oakley 

and Boudreau 2000). 
 61

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 identified 

elements by deciding which to address first. 

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. Specifically, 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 financial and human resources

This analysis should lead to a logical work 

plan because the element-specific 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 finishing 

protocols already under development, investigating the feasibility of those ecologically important 

elements currently undergoing theoretical development, and investigating efficiencies or effectiveness 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 first stage, protocol development can begin. 

Part I. Chapter 6. Next Steps
62 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park
 63

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 identified 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 justification for monitoring, monitoring questions 

and potential indicators, linkages with other sections, the spatial and temporal scales, and research 

and development needs. Time intervals are recommended in advance of power analysis and other 

estimates of variation. They should be considered 

preliminary. The organization of material by sections reflects the content of the vital-signs workshop, 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 identified as 

an indicator in at least six chapters) and one could 

easily defend an alternate organization of the material. Each chapter should not be considered a potential 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 monitoring 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
64 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

In the course of writing specific monitoring 

questions for each subject, we encountered some 

challenges. While identifying quantitative objectives 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 specificity of the monitoring questions 

we could write depended on the type of information 

being monitored, knowledge of biologically signifi -

cant changes, and some idea of natural variation. 

Consequently, we recognize three types of monitoring questions:

1) Questions with Quantitative Monitoring Goals. 

These are questions that express the need for 

monitoring in terms of quantitative changes in 

a specific 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 specific goals if there is 

some knowledge or intuition about what 

constitutes a biologically significant 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 Reflecting 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 

significant 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 specific indicator is that, 

along with some knowledge of natural variation, 

one can design a sampling protocol with sufficient 

replication to achieve the goal. As discussed in Part 

I, Chapter 5, financial 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 sections we present the comprehensive list of monitoring indicators identified thus far for Olympic 

National Park.
 65

Monitoring Need/Justification:

The climate of the Olympic Peninsula is driven 

by air masses coming from the west and southwest, 

which collect moisture while moving across the 

Pacific. When intercepted by the barrier posed by 

the Olympic Mountains, these air masses release 

most of their moisture on the windward side, leaving 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 difficult to interpolate 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 difficult to infer.

In addition to being moist, air masses crossing the Pacific 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, flora, fauna, and geological, 

archeological, soil, and water resources. Within the 

National Park Service, management of resources is 

guided by a number of Service-specific pieces of 

legislation. Standards for baseline knowledge and 

monitoring of atmospheric resources are provided 

in NPS 75 (National Park Service, 1992). At Olympic 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 standards. Level II standards are not met for the entire 

geographic area within the park boundary.

Despite the relatively pristine condition of 

Olympic’s 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, SO2

 levels measured nearby 

at the park’s air quality site do not violate federal or 

state air quality standards and they are lower than 

those measured in Port Angeles itself. Ozone concentrations increase with elevation and are monitored 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 SO4 , another acid-forming ion, 

are greatest. The source is partly biogenic, from 

oceanic planktonic algae, but long-range transport 

from Asia may also influence the chemical composition 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
66 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

of increasing ultraviolet radiation penetrating the 

atmosphere at northern latitudes is unknown.

While air pollutants do not appear to pose a 

significant 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 influences on airflow by the Olympic 

Mountains.

Monitoring Questions and Indicators:

Question: What are the status and trends of geographic and elevational patterns of weather?

• Indicator: Meteorologic Variables. Add additional weather stations to those already existing 

and operated by various authorities. Existing 

permanent stations include the Elwha Ranger 

Station, Quinault Ranger Station, Port Angeles, 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 determined in consultation with climate modelers. 

Measured variables should include air and 

soil temperatures, radiation and energy flux, 

relative humidity, and wind speed and direction. Justifi 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 monitoring 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 difficult.

4 5

3

2

1

4 4

4

4 4

4

4

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)

4

3

2

1

5

6

6

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)
 67

• 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 Glacier, and the upper Sol Duc River. Justifi cation: Eighty-percent of annual precipitation 

falls during the winter meaning that snow 

depth and water content have critical effects 

on hydrologic resources, which affect terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The data can 

be used to validate models of snowpack and 

hydrology. Limitations: As with the met stations, 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 (modifi 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

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

peninsula. Justifi cation: We need a better understanding of climatic variation and 

better estimates for inputs into hydrologic 

models describing distribution of water and 

soluble chemicals. Snow course measurements are relatively easy and inexpensive. 

Limitations: Access to high elevation areas 

on the west side is difficult.

• Park-wide Snow Cover. Use aerial photos 

and/or satellite imagery to map and quantify 

snow-covered areas. Justifi cation: This will 

contribute to understanding climate variation 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 radiation at the present site on Ediz Hook. Perhaps 

add less expensive monitors to other parts of 

the park. Justifi cation: UV radiation is predicted to change due to global climate change, 

and may have important consequences for 

biota. UV monitoring is part of a national program 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 continuous 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. Justifi 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. Limitations: Analyzers require a power source but 

must also be located away from vehicle traffic. 

Also, it is difficult to find locations in the park 

that meet the siting requirements for size of 

canopy opening.

Question: What are the status and trends of geographic patterns of wet and dry deposition?

• Indicator: Patterns of Wet and Dry Deposition. 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, ammonium, and sulfate. Dry deposition includes 

other, undissolved chemical compounds. 

Justifi cation: These are standard measurements 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 chemistry, and dry deposition. The new sites will 

improve geographic coverage. Limitations: 

Finding representative sites will be difficult 

due to high spatial variation and it will be 

difficult to extrapolate the data to large areas. 

Also, the accuracy and meaning of dry deposition 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 existing 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. 

Justifi 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. Justifi cation: These 

measurements will link ecological effects with 

changes in pollutant concentrations and can be 
 69

incorporated with other vegetation monitoring 

efforts. Limitations: Minimal because little 

effort is needed to identify appropriate locations, vegetation types and species to monitor. 

The main expense would be field time.

• Indicator: Soil Chemistry and Microbes. 

Measure temporal variation in soil nitrogen, 

soil microflora and microfauna, and carbon to 

nitrogen ratio. Justifi cation: These measurements can be made in conjunction with vegetation monitoring and will describe ecosystem 

response to changes in air quality and precipitation 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 SO4

 and NO3 anions because 

of the H+

 cations that accompany them. Lakes 

having low ANC will have to be identified with 

an initial survey. Justifi cation: These methods 

are used nationally in surface water surveys 

and will indicate changes in the most sensitive 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. Temporarily 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.). Justifi 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 quantified? 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 SO4

-2 and NO3-

 because they are oligotrophic or low-ANC systems?

Part II. Chapter 1. System Drivers: Atmosphere and Climate
70 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

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 1⁄2 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).
 71

Monitoring Need/Justification:

As human population increases, so does visitation 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 increasing 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 

unofficial access to the park and facilitate timber 

theft, poaching of wildlife and plants, and illegal 

harvest of shellfish. Non-forest activities affecting 

the park include such things as local industries and 

transportation, fish hatcheries, increasing residential development, ocean vessels, and mining. Other 

anthropogenic effects are regional and global. 

Examples include regional and global habitat degradation for migratory species, ocean fishing, particulates from Asia, effects on air quality caused by 

increasing industry/vehicle traffic between Vancouver, 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 erosion (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 Protection (VERP; National Park Service 1997) planning 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 biologic 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
72 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Monitoring Questions and Indicators:

Question: Are visitor numbers and uses of the park 

changing?

• Indicator: Visitor Census. Maintain the automated vehicle counters on all park entrances 

and collect data annually. Justifi cation: After 

initial determination of correction factors 

for visitors/vehicle and commercial and park 

traffic, automated vehicle counts will give an 

economical and accurate picture of park visitation. 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 

specific park locations at five-year intervals 

to describe types of park use. The sites where 

surveys are conducted should reflect primary 

natural resource concerns. They should also 

recognize that the greatest increase in effects 

of human use is occurring in more remote offtrail areas rather than near trails. Justifi cation: 

These detailed surveys of activities are needed 

to indicate what specific impacts may occur as 

a result of visitor activities, and to refine estimates 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 surrounding 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 

five-year intervals. Justifi cation: This monitoring 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.
 73

intensity of visitor impacts to park resources. 

Limitations: This sampling strategy will also 

be difficult 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 visitors’ 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 biological resources and has developed the VERP 

planning framework in response. The VERP 

framework uses indicators and standards for 

those indicators to define the limits of acceptable change to park resources. In the realm 

of visitor use indicators, standards are fairly 

easy to define (e.g., < 20% bare ground, > 10 

other people encountered on a particular trail), 

and they can be specific to different areas of 

the park. However, the linkage between easily 

measured parameters, such as vehicle numbers in parking lots and trailhead counts, and 

effects on park resources in relation to visitor 

expectations are poorly understood. This question 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 Pacific 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. 

Justifi cation: Changes in the amount of 

infrastructure will indicate a change in management 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 permitted flights passing over the park at 5 to 10 year 

intervals. Justifi cation: Cumulative aircraft 

use impacts many wilderness values of the 

park. 

Question: Are the amounts of legal and illegal harvest of park vegetation increasing?

• Indicator: Number and Size of Interceptions 

by Law Enforcement. Following law enforcement actions will indicate the trend in illegal 

harvests. Justifi 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 dimensions, 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. Justifi cation: These 

groups of people are in the backcountry regularly, 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. Justifi cation: Indication 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 inholdings may be difficult to obtain.

Question: Are the number and activities of concessionaires, 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
74 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

permits granted by the park annually using 

park records. Justifi cation: This is an inexpensive 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. Justifi 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 vegetation and habitat quality.

• Aquatic Biota. Fisheries.

• Coastal Environments. Impacts of visitors on 

coastal intertidal areas. 

• System Drivers: Atmosphere and Climate. 

Effect of campfires on air quality near campgrounds.

• 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 visitation (day and overnight use) and specify adequate equipment.

• Who is engaging in poaching various resources 

and what are their motivations?

• What are the impacts of trampling on biodiversity and plant processes?

• Is there a need for an indicator of legal and 

illegal collection of plant material (e.g., mushrooms, 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 commercial and park vehicle traffic.

• What is the impact of legal and illegal harvest 

of park resources having on plant communities?
 75

 Monitoring Need/Justification:

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 context 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 Pacific Northwest (Spies 1997). These disturbances include fire, 

avalanches, windstorms, mass wasting, flooding, 

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 availability 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, 

fire and other disturbances (Wilkie and Finn 1996). 

Remote sensing tools (aerial photographs and satellite 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 difficult to extrapolate 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 estimate productivity on a park-wide basis (Ollinger 

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

promises to bridge the gap between intensive ecological research or monitoring and the evaluation, 

understanding, and management of landscapes.

In addition to using repeat photography and 

imagery, other regional sources provide landscape-scale data. Examples include the USDA 

Forest Service Pest Management aerial surveys in 

national forests and national parks (Dave Bridgwater, dbridgwater@fs.fed.us), the Intra-agency 

Vegetation Mapping Program (Melinda Mouer, 

mmouer@fs.fed.us) and Olympic National Park 

data on the frequency, cause and size of fires since 

1940. In addition, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration produces coastal change 

detection information, and Bureau of Land Management 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
76 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Monitoring Questions and Indicators:

Question: What are the trends in the frequency, 

size, and distribution of disturbance events, namely 

wind throw, flooding, mass-wasting, changes in 

river channels, fire, 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 satellite 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 

finding change, but they are not as good at 

determining the type of change. Once areas 

that have changes have been identified, 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 inaccessibility of sites. Many common mechanisms 

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

melt, river meanders, fire, etc.) are identifi -

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 field crews do not have the 

benefit 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). 

Justifi cation: The combination of satellite 

imagery and aerial photos increases the effi -

 Conceptual Model: 

LANDSCAPE PATTERN

(SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL)

e.g., Corridors among patches

Patches – size, distribution

Shoreline position

Stream morphology

Physiognomic ecotones

DISTURBANCE —

NATURAL & HUMANCAUSED

COMMUNITY LANDSCAPE REGIONAL/GLOBAL

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.
 77

ciency of change detection and identification 

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 consuming and requires special expertise. Aerial 

photos would also have other uses for monitoring, including recording permanent plot 

locations. Limitations: Aerial photos and their 

interpretation are expensive, and qualified personnel are few. Timing of imagery to describe 

snow cover and phenology might be difficult 

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 Airborne 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. 

Justifi cation: This new technology shows 

promise for allowing detailed detection of 

important, integrative forest processes. Limitations: 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 Composition. Acquire Landsat TM or Systeme 

Probatoire d’Observation 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. Justifi cation: These data are 

widely available and have great utility. Limitations: 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 possible.

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

Research and Development Needs:

• How great is the ability of remotely sensed 

data to detect significant 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 fire histories.

• Employ change detection analyses to determine size and frequency of disturbance events 

such as windthrow and flooding using LandsatTM 

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

• Compare spatial and temporal patterns of fire 

described by the aerial photos with results 

from retrospective fire history studies to 

compare recent fire behavior with historic and 

pre-historic behavior.

• Coordinate data collection between plot-level and 

remotely sensed data so that smaller-scale measurements represent the same process detectable 

remotely. The details will depend on which type 

of remotely sensed data can be acquired.
 79

Monitoring Need/Justification:

Comprehensive monitoring programs must 

reflect the fact that ecosystems are not static collections of biotic units. Rather, they are functioning 

entities that process nutrients among biotic and abiotic components in biogeochemical cycles. Biogeochemists see biogeochemical cycles as the foundation of ecosystems, and that organisms merely 

represent “repackaging” of energy and nutrients into 

different stages of the cycles (stated at Biogeochemical Processes Workshop, see Appendix A). The 

importance of process in ecosystems is recognized 

in the mandate of national parks to achieve “preservation 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 components, biotic and abiotic (Likens et al. 1977, Sollins et al. 1980). The importance of these cycles is 

more obvious if, for example, one defines a stressed 

ecosystem as one that is experiencing a decrease in 

photosynthesis, a fundamental ecosystem process. 

This definition 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 measurements give an integrated assessment of system 

status. For example, stream chemistry reflects 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, biogeochemical indicators can give a comprehensive and integrated 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 fish. When 

anadromous fish return from the ocean to spawn and 

die, they provide marine-derived nutrients to freshwater 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 vegetation. As salmon populations fluctuate, naturally 

and due to anthropogenic influences on habitat and 

harvest, park resource managers are concerned 

about the impact to the forest and aquatic ecosystems. 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 populations could propagate throughout the food chain. 

Small reductions in the numbers of anadromous fish 

might significantly degrade ecosystem processes 

and productivity, which, in turn, could contribute to 

a “positive feedback loop” due to lessened biological productivity/oligotrophication and increasingly 

reduced production levels.

Chapter 4. Biogeochemical Cycles

Part II. Chapter 4. Biogeochemical Cycles
80 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Because biogeochemical cycles include abiotic 

as well as biotic elements, some predicted environmental changes are expected to affect biogeochemical 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 measurements 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 carbon and nitrogen, and conductivity monthly. 

The park should consider adding continuous 

measurements of conductivity and temperature. (The site has recently experienced mass 

wasting so water quality and flow 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 established record of water flow and quality.) 

Justifi cation: The Small Watershed Project 

has produced informative results by establishing 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 monitored 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.
 81

Question: Are basic properties of water quality 

changing in the park?

• Indicator: Level I Water Quality. Level I 

Water Quality parameters were identified by 

the National Park Service’s 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-assessment baseline (EPA/state protocols involving 

macro-invertebrates and fish), temperature, 

and flow. Justifi cation: These protocols provide minimum baseline data for water quality assessment and are used throughout the 

National Park Service. Limitations: Equipment, 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 

flow. 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. Justifi 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 fish 

to transport marine-derived nutrients to freshwater 

ecosystems changing in aquatic/riparian zones and 

lowland forests?

• Indicator: Marine-Derived Nutrients. Determine isotopic ratios of 15C and/or 13N in 

samples of resident trout, macroinvertebrates, 

algae, alders, salmonberry, and cores of spruce 

or fir trees. Following research, some of these 

may prove to be more effective indicators than 

others. Justifi 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. Standlevel biogeochemical measurements (i.e., 

litterfall, decomposition, leaching, mineralization).

• 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 composition.

• Aquatic Biota. Changes in anadromous fish 

runs or lotic/lentic biotic communities.

• Coastal Environments. Changes in estuarine 

environment.

Part II. Chapter 4. Biogeochemical Cycles
82 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Research and Development Needs:

• Interpret GIS layers in terms of biogeochemical processes.

• Work with modelers of local weather patterns 

to determine large scale atmospheric flow patterns (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 synoptically to enable scaling from small watershed 

studies to the landscape scale?

• What are the “trigger points” in specific biogeochemical 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 

flow.

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 XXX 6 mo.

Marine Derived Nutrients X X X 5-10 yr.
 83

Monitoring Need/Justification:

Environmental contaminants originate primarily 

from industrial processes and agricultural practices. 

One category of contaminants is known as persistent 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 mercury, lead, zinc, and cadmium. All of these chemicals are troublesome because they are toxic at low 

concentrations, persist in the environment, bioaccumulate, 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, flame 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 Pacific 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 emissions, 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 park’s role as a benchmark for the 

rest of the continental U.S., the potential for increasing pollutants from growing metropolitan areas in 

the region, and a concern for trans-Pacific transport.

 From the national perspective, western and 

Alaskan mountainous national parks are important 

baseline and sentinel sites for a number of atmospheric contaminant concerns. First, contaminants 

are expected to accumulate in the snow packs of 

arctic and near-arctic areas, and mid-latitude mountains due to the processes of ‘cold-condensation’ 

and ‘global distillation’ (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 Pacific, and western parks will give the clearest 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 unmanaged ecosystems in national parks could serve as 

useful laboratories, with monitoring as one component. Because of these concerns, the National Park 

Service’s Air Resources Division is designing a 

contaminants-monitoring program for the western 

continental U.S. and Alaska.

One specific question regarding contaminants 

nationally is also particularly important in Olympic 

National Park. Anadromous fish 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 

significant amounts of contaminants. 

Chapter 5. Contaminants

Part II. Chapter 5. Contaminants
84 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

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 Service’s 

Air Resources Division is designing an air toxics monitoring scheme for the western parks. The 

monitoring questions will be regional in scope 

and will probably take advantage of the latitudinal 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 five high-priority geographic 

and ecosystem categories identified by the group: 

high elevation areas, areas not affected by local 

sources of emissions, and areas that are influenced 

by transpacific air masses. Finally, several media 

are under consideration for sampling that would be 

appropriate for Olympic National Park: snow, air, 

fish, 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 concentrations of pesticides used currently and of 

‘new POPs’ whose behavior and effects are 

unknown. Justifi cation: Snow is an effective 

scavenger of the compounds of concern, it 

makes a major contribution to annual water 

balance. Samples are inexpensive, don’t 

require a power source, are easy to collect and 

handle, and are easy to archive. Limitations: 

Snow tells only part of the contaminants’ 

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

difficult to interpret. Samples must be collected before early-season melting events, 

and rain-on-snow events can destroy samples. 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 (visibility monitoring) sites (see Part II, Chapter 1). 

Justifi 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 determined from meteorology. Limitations: The 

monitoring sites are expensive and require 

power and maintenance so spatial representation is necessarily limited. Precipitation data 

are harder to collect and require special methodological 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. Justifi cation: Trout are at the 

top of the aquatic food chain so they should 

accumulate contaminants if they are present 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 difficult to know 

the source of the contaminant. Analyses are 

expensive.

• Anadromous Fish. Same as above. Justifi cation: Parks with anadromous fish need 

to know what amount of contaminants the 

fish 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. Justification: Water samples realistically describe 
 85

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 agencies, so sample results can be integrated with 

other results. Limitations: Some lakes are 

difficult to access and timing may be important. 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 sediment cores from lake bottoms and analyze 

them for POPs, mercury and emerging 

contaminants. Justifi cation: Lake sediment cores can describe spatial patterns of 

contaminants. Lake sediments are one of 

the best indicators of environmental contamination (Puget Sound Action Committee, 2000). Limitations: Some pollutants 

of interest do not accumulate in sediments. 

Access to remote lakes may be difficult. 

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. 

Justifi cation: Historic samples are archived. 

Lichens have been widely used already in 

the Pacific 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: Concentrations of pollutants in lichens cannot 

be equated with concentration or timing of 

exposure. Lichens are not effective accumulators of contaminants with low concentrations or for POPs.

Linkages with Other Disciplines:

• Terrestrial Vegetation Communities. Lichens.

• Aquatic/Riparian Habitat.. Chemistry of freshwater lakes.

• System Drivers: Atmosphere and Climate. 

Chemistry of freshwater lakes, air and precipitation 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 reproduction) occur in the food web and biogeochemical cycles.

• Determine source of contaminants through 

mass balance or trajectory studies.

• Determine patterns in the distribution of contaminants in relation to air, land and water.

• Compare results from SPMDs with other collection technologies to evaluate effectiveness.

• Determine effects of contaminants brought 

by returning anadromous fish on the larger 

ecosystem.

• Determine historic levels and distribution of 

POPs from lake sediment cores.

Part II. Chapter 5. Contaminants
86 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park
 87

Monitoring Need/Justification:

Vegetation is the great integrator of biological 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). Consequently, 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 management 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 

reflected throughout the ecosystem. 

Olympic National Park contains steep environmental 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 ‘temperate coniferous 

rainforests’ 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 characteristics similar to those found in the Rocky Mountains. These diverse vegetation types will respond 

to environmental changes in different ways. Consequently, 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 physical processes that are difficult 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, precluding suitability for particular species (Barnosky 

1984, Davis 1981). As human development restricts 

species migration across landscapes and regions, 

significant 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 forest assessment.

Forests ecosystems are not intact unless processes, 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 measurements 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 processes and unexpected changes signaling a change 

in the process itself.

Part II. Chapter 6. Terrestrial Vegetation Communities
88 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

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 distributed across elevation, soil, climatic, and successional gradients. Plots should be distributed 

in forested, riparian, coastal, high-elevation 

(subalpine) and non-forested plant associations. Specific 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 measured along several dimensions:

• Horizontal structure: including gap size and 

frequency, fragmentation patterns and layering.

• 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 

floor and soils.

• Presence of exotic and/or native insects and 

diseases.

Justifi 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 measurements and methods will be directly comparable with data from other agencies. Limitations: 

All gradients may not be well covered due to 

financial limitations on the number of plots 

that can be supported.
 89

Question: Are the rates of ecosystem processes 

changing?

• Indicator: Forest Processes.

• Nitrogen and Carbon Dynamics. Indicators of N and C dynamics should be 

monitored on a subset of the permanent 

vegetation plot network that is relatively 

accessible. Specifically, the following indicators 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)

Justifi cation: Methods are available to measure these variables at remote sites. These 

variables will allow the system to be modeled to enable prediction and extrapolation. 

Limitations: Sample analyses can be expensive. 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. Measurements of growth and seed traps indicate 

productivity. Justifi cation: These measurements are easy and inexpensive to include 

with data already being collected on structure. They are likely to be early-warning 

indicators of impending structural changes. 

Limitations: Crews must be taught to recognize 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 determined in consultation with wildlife biologists and should focus on known palatable 

plant species. Justifi cations: Animals have 

an important role in shaping the structure 

of vegetation and influencing other forest 

processes. This will be related directly to 

monitoring of mountain goats in the subalpine zone, and elk in lowland forests. Limitations: Methods for evaluating herbivory 

are always difficult to design because they 

essentially involve measuring something 

that isn’t 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 & CompositionX 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

Linkages with Other Disciplines:

• Populations and Communities of Large Mammals. 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 measurements of forest processes.
90 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

• 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 summarized 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.
 91

Monitoring Need/Justification:

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 elevation 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 (Washington 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 protect as it tries to meet its legal mandates to maintain 

natural biodiversity.

In addition to rare vascular plants, Olympic 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, Contract Researcher, Olympic National Park, Personal 

communication). Cryptogams contribute signifi -

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 providing 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 Decision 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 nonvascular plants in Olympic National Park are related 

to human-caused disturbance. Indirect humancaused 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 possibility of direct effects from fire 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 disturbance, and those that can readily invade “sensitive 

habitats” such as riparian areas. Species of particular concern include reed canarygrass (Phalaris 

arundinacea), herb Robert (Geranium robertianum), 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 Pacific 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
92 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

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 floodplains 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 specific 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 Sensitive, 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 completely mapped, and dimensions or cover and 

reproductive status should be recorded for 

individuals. High priority species should be 

measured for three consecutive years at fiveyear 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 disturbance such as hoof marks, droppings, torn or 

bitten leaves, human foot prints, etc. should 

also be noted to help explain declines in populations. In addition, temperature, snowmelt, 

and precipitation should be monitored concurrently with population sampling. Justification: 

The indicators are comprehensive and feasible given the small populations. The intervals reflect the time intervals at which change 

might be expected to be noticeable while 
 93

accounting for annual variation. Some indication of the cause of population fluctuations 

would give managers a decision-making tool 

to decide if protection is necessary. If populations decline due to direct or indirect effects 

of human activities the data give managers a 

place to start for designing a protection strategy. 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 identified 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 randomly selected subsamples.

Question: Detect a change in the range and abundance of vascular plant species that are rare in the 

park.

• Indicator: Plant Populations in Specific 

‘Hot Spots’ of Rarity. There are far too many 

rare plant species (more than 100) in Olympic 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 specific 

geographic areas. Example areas include Mink 

Lake, Griff Creek, Lake Ozette, Deer Park, 

and Royal Basin. Justifi cation: Targeting areas 

is more efficient 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 Occurring 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. Justifi cation: Lone populations of rare plants are especially endangered 

and are an important part of the park’s biodiversity. Limitations: Some populations are in 

remote areas and difficult 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 populations should be visited and photographed at 

least every 5 years or have their size indicated 

in some other way. Justifi cation: Lone populations of rare plants are especially endangered 

and are an important part of park biodiversity. 

Limitations: Some populations are in remote 

areas and difficult 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 especially aggressive or can spread under forest canopies)?

• 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 establishment 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 monitoring results and removal efforts should be 

made. Justification: This is the most efficient 

way to monitor especially worrisome species 

that propagate concentrically from a discrete 

source. Limitations: The large number of species and locations to track.

Part II. Chapter 7. Special-Status Plant Species: Rare and Exotic
94 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

• Herb Robert. Herb Robert spreads quickly 

over large distances, especially along trails. 

It could be monitored by annual mapping of 

specific 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, rivers, trails, and near horse corrals. Other park 

divisions and crews working on other monitoring projects such as trail crew, vegetation 

and wildlife monitoring crews, might be able 

to help with documenting backcountry sightings. As above, coordination between monitoring results and eradication efforts should 

be made. Justification: 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 effective 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 

specific 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 

XXX X X 2 yr

Phalaris arundinacea

Reed canarygrass

X X X X XXX 2 yr

Cirsium arvense 

Canada Thistle

X X X X X X X X 2 yr

Polygonum sachalinense

Giant knotweed

X X XX 2 yr

P. cuspidatum 

Japanese knotweed

XX X X 2 yr

Listed Rare and/or Endemic 

Taxa

Austragulus australis v. 

olympicus

X X XX 5 yr

Botrychium ascendens X XX 5 yr

Botrychium lunaria X X XX 5 yr

Carex anthoxanthea X X X5 yr

Carex buxbaumii X X XX 5 yr
 95

Cimicifuga elata X X XX 5 yr

Cochlearia officinalis X X XX 5 yr

Coptis asplenifolia X X X5 yr

Dryas drummondii X X X5 yr

Epipactis gigantea X X XX 5 yr

Lobelia dortmanii X X X X X 5 yr

Parnassia palustris ssp. 

neogaea

X X X XX 5 yr

Poa nervosa var. wheeleri X X X 5 yr

Polemonium carneum X X 5 yr

Sanguisorba menziesii X X X5 yr

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

Non-Vascular Cryptogams

Brachydontium olympicum X X X5 yr

Crumia latifolia XX X 5 yr

Rhytidem rugosum X XX 5 yr

Ramalina thrausta X X X5 yr

Bundophoron melanocarpum X X X5 yr

Hydrotheria venosa X X X 5 yr

Karnefeltia californicum XX X 5 yr

Usnea spaecelata X X X5 yr

Vulpicida tilesii X XX 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. Surveys 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 Pacific Northwest. 

• What environmental conditions promote invasion? 

Part II. Chapter 7. Special-Status Plant Species: Rare and Exotic
96 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park
 97

Monitoring Need/Justification:

The park’s staff and subject-matter experts 

placed high importance on the need to monitor 

the overall health and integrity of terrestrial ecosystems, from the flagship 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 park’s 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 functional 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 populations may be important indicators of environmental 

change because animals serve a great diversity of 

ecological functions that affect ecosystem productivity, 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 species, small mammals and spore dispersal of mycorrhizal fungi, predators and prey, and relationships 

between generalist species that respond favorably 

to human activities (including many exotic species) 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 Pacific Northwest and would help 

to define management targets on both managed and 

protected lands. Lastly, terrestrial fauna are desirable subjects for long-term ecological monitoring 

because animals have widespread public appeal, 

and changes in the park’s 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 park’s fauna and 

best methods of monitoring. Our dialogues reflected 

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 reflecting monitoring of park fauna 

at several levels of ecological hierarchy and spatial 

scale depending upon monitoring questions (Figure 8.1). Tier 1 indicators are aimed at identifying 

changes relative abundance and community structure 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
98 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Monitoring Questions and Indicators:

Tier 1: Low intensity/extensive-scale monitoring

Question: Are there changes in the species composition 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 Composition. Sample presence/absence or relative 

abundance of terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates. These indices should be developed 

separately for each category, as sampling constraints 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 ecosystems 

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

1o Consumers

2o Consumers

TopConsumers

Drivers Attributes

Terrestrial

1o Producers Vegetation

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 probabilities (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 disturbances (i.e., r-selected species) and specialist 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.
 99

• Richness of Key Functional Groups. Measure numbers of key functional groups present in the community.

• Redundancy within Key Functional Groups.

Measure numbers of species representing each 

key functional group.

Justifi cation: Aggregates of easily obtained 

community metrics may signal warnings 

of changes in community structure that 

may influence 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 species abundance have not been developed 

for terrestrial ecosystems. Indices based on 

species composition measure loss of species in stepwise manner and do not provide 

anticipatory warning of change.

Question: Are there changes in distribution or relative abundance that could portend threats to longterm viability of selected species (signaling the need 

for more intensive monitoring)?

• Indicator: Site Occupancy Rate. The proportion of sites occupied by a species may be a 

useful indicator of relative abundance of species 

that are difficult 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, terrestrial amphibians, mammals, or birds. Justification: 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 Species. Monitor long-term changes in distribution 

and relative abundance of selected avian species using plot sampling and distance-based or 

double-observer estimation methods (Buckland 

et al. 1993, Nichols et al. 2000). Justification:

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 Indices of Mammalian Species. Monitor long-term 

changes in distributions and abundance indices 

of mammals using pitfall trapping arrays linked 

with constant-effort trapping grids. Justification:

Abundance indices are easily derived from limited effort, allowing more extensive replication 

than is possible from more intensive estimation 

models. Limitations: Interpretation of indices is 

based on the assumption that capture probabilities 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. 

Justification: Data may be obtained remotely at 

relatively low cost. Limitations: Most species of 

bats present in the park cannot be reliably distinguished 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. 

Justification: Intensive studies measure change 

directly and provide insights into demographic 

causes of observed changes. Methods are suitable for monitoring effects of specific stressors, 

for example, influences of human-developed 

areas on breeding bird communities. Limitations: 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. 

Justification: Intensive studies measure change 

directly and provide insights into demographic 

causes of observed changes. Limitations: High 

Part II. Chapter 8. Terrestrial Fauna
100 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

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 developed areas on faunal assemblages.

Park and Surrounding Landscape. Relationships of 

vertebrate distribution to landscapes.

Terrestrial Vegetation Communities. Integrate monitoring of vegetation and wildlife communities.

Special-status Wildlife Populations. Effects of small 

mammals on northern spotted owls.

Aquatic/Riparian Habitat. Riparian wildlife communities.

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 detection, 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 reference 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 wilderness. 

Research and Development Needs:

• Develop methods to integrate sampling across 

taxonomic boundaries in a single sampling 

scheme.

• Investigate properties of estimating site occupancy 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 faunal associations in coniferous forests.

• Examine sensitivity of integrative indices of 

biotic integrity to gradients of resource disturbance 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 environments.
 101

Monitoring Need/Justification:

Native populations of large mammals, including 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 20th 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 composition of the parks renowned low-elevation temperate rain forest ecosystems (Happe 1993, Schreiner 

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

influence abundance of ungulates, suggesting that 

changes in top-level carnivores may create cascading influences on park ecosystems (McLaren and 

Peterson 1994). 

There are several legitimate concerns over the 

future protection and welfare of the park’s large 

mammalian fauna (Houston et al. 1990). Many populations of large mammals range widely across park 

boundaries. Therefore, they are affected by habitat 

conditions, forest management practices, and hunting 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 hunting of elk inside the park, as well as legal and illegal 

harvests of elk leaving the park. Concerns of a 

‘boundary’ effect are heightened by recent findings 

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 blacktailed deer than Roosevelt elk. Over the last several 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 (Washington Department Fish and Wildlife 2002:71). State 

biologists continue to investigate potential disease 

vectors that could be affecting the state’s 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 managers respond to concentrated activities of black bears 

and cougars by closing popular destination areas to 

the visiting public. Recent changes in legal harvest methods outside the park (i.e., banned use of 

hounds and baits) could reduce harvest pressures on 

native carnivores and influence interactions of large 

carnivores with humans using the park and populations of their ungulate prey.

Chapter 9. Populations and Communities of Large Mammals

Part II. Chapter 9. Populations and Communities of Large Mammals
102 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Monitoring Questions and Indicators:

Question: Is the status of elk or deer populations 

changing?

• Indicator: Abundance Indices of Elk. Conduct replicated aerial surveys of elk in two 

west-side watersheds of Olympic National 

Park during spring ‘green-up’ when the majority of elk are drawn to riparian deciduous 

forest types and before overstory trees have 

leafed out. Justifi 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 during winter from 30 km of trails in the Elwha 

Valley. Justifi cation: Ground-based counts of 

deer have been conducted in the Elwha Valley 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. Limitations: Limited scale of study restricts inference.
 103

• Indicator: Abundance of Deer and Elk Pellets. Conduct surveys of deer and elk pellet 

groups. Justifi cation: Rapid and relatively 

easy survey procedures allow monitoring relative abundance of elk and deer at large spatial 

scales. Extensive surveys would provide indices of changes in relative abundance of deer 

and elk, changes in distribution, and would 

allow extrapolation of survey results conducted on limited areas (see above). Recent 

advances in survey methodology and analytical methods allow correction for visibility 

biases, to allow correction for differences 

in visibility of elk and deer pellets, vegetation effects, and observers (K. Jenkins, U.S. 

Geological Survey, Unpublished data). Limitations: 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 composition during rutting aggregations during the 

fall. Justifi 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 population change due to hunting pressure on males. 

Change in female:young ratio may be an indicator of change in reproductive productivity or 

high mortality of young animals. Limitations:

Changes in composition ratios have ambiguous 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 parasites. Justifi cation: Fresh fecal pellets are 

easily collected. Parasite abundance indicates 

the general health status of individuals. Limitation: Sampling variability and repeatability 

of results unknown.

• Indicator: Levels of Stress Hormones in 

Fecal Samples. Monitor concentrations of 

common corticosteroid hormones in fecal 

samples. Justifi cation: Fresh fecal pellets are 

easily collected. Monitoring corticosteroid 

hormones might be an efficient screening 

method to signal the need for more detailed 

research. Limitation: Sampling variability and 

relationships to nutritional stress require additional study.

Question: Are key plant taxa changing in abundance, cover, fruit abundance, or morphologic 

stature?

• Indicator: Understory Structure and Composition. Measure cover, density, height, fruiting, 

or morphologic characteristics of key plant 

taxa that are sensitive to changes in herbivory 

(e.g., salmonberry, ladyfern, deerfern, graminoids; Happe 1993). Measure structural form 

class and browsing history of salmonberry. 

Justifi cation: Previous research indicated that 

certain understory plant species are sensitive 

indicators of and provide an early indication 

of change in herbivores (Happe 1993, Schreiner 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 definitively without 

complex research designs.

Question: Is the abundance of bears and cougar 

changing?

• Indicator: Population Trends of Black Bears.

Count black bears observed using highelevation meadows during summer and fall. 

Justifi cation: Trends in black bears can be 

monitored coincidental to conducting aerial 

mountain goat surveys during mid-summer (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
104 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

• Indicator: Frequency of Bear and Cougar 

Encounters with Humans. Maintain mandatory reporting of all bear and cougars sighted 

by park staff, and all threatening encounters 

with large carnivores reported by park visitors. 

Justifi 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. Influences 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 XX X 1 yr

Research and Development Needs:

• Determine differential persistence and visibility 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 repeatability 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 indicators or refinements to proposed indicators:

• Determine visibility biases of aerial surveys of 

elk.

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

methods of estimating abundance of large-carnivores.

• Determine relationships between abundance 

estimates of deer and elk and fecal pellet group 

indices.
 105

Monitoring Need/Justification:

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 fragmentation of late-seral coniferous forest habitats 

throughout the Pacific Northwestern U.S. has further insularized populations of several old-growth 

dependent wildlife species and has contributed to 

the federal or state listing of some as threatened or 

‘species of concern’ throughout their ranges. Notably, 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 Townsend’s 

mole), one endemic amphibian (Olympic torrent 

salamander), as well as several taxa with disjunct 

distributions that may also have endemic subspecific forms. Olympic National Park also supports 

important populations of three species of terrestrial 

vertebrates on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

threatened species list, including the northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and northern bald eagle. 

Presence of several other federally-listed species of 

concern, including three bat species, three amphibian species, Pacific fisher, northern goshawk, and 

olive-sided flycatcher may also serve as indicators 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 highelevation subalpine communities, may be affected 

by long-term changes in climate that influence 

patterns of snow deposition, snowmelt, rates of tree 

invasion, and ultimately, distributions of subalpine 

meadow habitats. Old-growth forest obligate species, 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 patterns, dynamics of metapopulations, and exchange 

of genetic materials among population segments. 

Further, loss and fragmentation of habitats outside 

the park’s 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 nesting densities of spotted owls near the boundaries of 

Olympic National Park, as well as displacement of 

spotted owls from several low-elevation nesting territories 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 Washington, Personal communication). Because Olympic 

National Park provides regionally significant populations 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 ‘alien’ or ‘exotic’ species threaten 

ecological values of the park and, therefore, also 

warrant a concerted monitoring effort at the population level. Of greatest concern, an exotic population 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
106 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

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

and wallowing activities appeared to threaten ecological values of high-elevation plant communities 

in alpine and subalpine zones. Experimental reduction programs reduced mountain goat populations 

to approximately 380 mountain goats during the 

mid-1990s, but continued vigilance of population 

status of mountain goats and influences of mountain 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 communities.

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. 

Justifi 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. Occupancy is easily determined. 
 107

• Indicator: Colony Size, Reproductive Indices. Determine maximum numbers of adults 

and juveniles observed as an index of colony 

size and composition. Justifi cation: Many 

known colonies are quite accessible. Quick 

index could signal changes in overall status 

of individual colonies and factors influencing productivity and recruitment. Limitations: 

Interpretation may be difficult.

• 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. Justifi cation: 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 specific endemic mammalian 

taxa in Olympic National Park. Samples could 

be collected at 5-10-year frequency to detect 

change at the decadal time-scale. Justifi cation: As with marmots, disjunct distributions 

of other mammalian taxa may increase risk 

of inbreeding depression, reduction in genetic 

variability, or increased expression of deleterious alleles. Research underway in Olympic 

National Park is establishing empirical baselines 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, signaling a change in population abundance?

• Indicator: Territory Occupancy. Monitor a 

sample of known territories of northern spotted owls annually to determine percentages of 

territories occupied by single owls, breeding 

pairs, and barred owls. Justifi cation: Olympic National Park has been monitoring 50-60 

known territories since at least 1995. Monitoring 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 territorial female by monitoring the same known 

territories annually. Additionally, contribute to 

Peninsula-wide estimates of survival rate by 

banding new fledglings and adults each year 

and reporting annual sightings of each. 

Justifi cation: Demographic studies may 

provide early warning of changes in population 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 President’s Northwest Forest 

Plan directed federal agencies to work cooperatively in monitoring the effectiveness of forest 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 population demographics and rates of population 

change throughout the owl’s range; it is the 

most important National Park Service contribution to the interagency regional monitoring 

effort. Limitation: Demographic monitoring is 

expensive and generally exceeds monies available 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 recommend only repeating the survey as concerns 

and auxiliary funding might dictate and permit. Justifi cation: The population of nesting 

owl pairs was estimated in Olympic National 

Part II. Chapter 10. Special-Status Terrestrial Wildlife Populations
108 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Park between 1992-1995 and provides a baseline for future population comparison (Seaman 

et al., 1996). A repeat estimation might be 

justified 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 flying below the 

canopy). Justifi cation: The Marbled Murrelet 

Technical Committee of the Pacific 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 associated with Elwha River restoration (Hawthorn 

et al. 1996), front country campgrounds and 

paired undeveloped sites (Hall 2000). Limitations: The relationship between probable 

nesting behavior and population density is not 

known. 

• Indicator: Relative Abundance. Monitor relative abundance of marbled murrelets flying 

up selected watersheds using high-frequency 

marine radar. Justifi cation: Radar surveys 

may be the most reliable method of estimated 

marbled murrelet numbers in specific watersheds (Burger 1997). Standard methodologies 

have been employed in many areas of British 

Columbia (Cooper and Hamer 2000) Limitations: Sampling variation and optimal sampling 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 Nesting Success. Determine territory occupancy 

of known nesting territories of bald eagles on 

Olympic National Park’s outer coastline and 

in the interior Olympic Peninsula. Also monitor reproductive success of eagles occupying 

territories. Justifi 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 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife currently 

share responsibilities and costs of monitoring. Limitations: An insufficient number of 

nesting territories has been identified 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 communities increasing, triggering the need for more 

intensive management?

• Indicator: Relative Abundance of Mountain Goats. Monitor relative abundance of 

mountain goats, by conducting aerial counts 

in randomly selected sample units at approximately 3-5 year intervals. Justifi 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). Precision of estimates and sampling costs is known. 

Limitations: Influences of observer and environmental 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 development and activities.
 109

• Park and Surrounding Landscape. Insularization, fire history, forest succession.

• Contaminants: Persistent organic pollutants.

• Terrestrial Vegetation Communities. Community-level effects of introduced mountain 

goats.

• Special-status Plant Species. Population-level 

effects of introduced mountain goats effects.

• Terrestrial Fauna. Prey, predators, or competitors 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 understanding of genetic variability and spatial patterns of heterogeneity in Olympic marmots and 

other endemic mammalian taxa (research is in 

progress, conducted by independent researchers).

• Optimal sampling designs need to be developed 

and evaluated for both presence/no detection and 

radar-based sampling of marbled murrelets. Spatial 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 

Pacific marten populations.

• Develop methods for monitoring changes in 

abundance of bat species of concern.

Part II. Chapter 10. Special-Status Terrestrial Wildlife Populations
110 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park
 111

Monitoring Need/Justification:

In 2000, the National Park Service’s Geologic 

Resources Division introduced geoindicators to 

park resource managers as an important ecosystem 

management tool. Geoindicators are measures of 

physical processes on the earth’s surface that may 

undergo significant change in less than 100 years 

and may be affected by human actions. Geoindicators 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, flows and recedes, shaping the land as it does so. Glacier fluctuation is the 

geoindicator that tracks changes in ice mass balance 

and position, which are important in understanding 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, glaciers and flowing water have physically shaped the 

Olympic Peninsula. River levels, amount and timing 

of flow, and the effects of erosion on river morphology determine the quality of aquatic habitat. Coastal 

areas are influenced 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 important 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 processes respond to climate change will indicate how 

habitat quality throughout the park will be affected.

Chapter 11. Geoindicators

Conceptual Model: See factors below identified in 

other sections.

Monitoring Questions and Indicators:

Olympic National Park has identified 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 

significance to park management. Questions and 

indicators for these geoindicators will be developed 

at the national level:

• Frozen ground activity (especially solifluction 

lobes)

• Glacier fluctuations

• 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 flow

• 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 

identified under other subject matter headings 

as important to monitor. Specific 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
112 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Linkages with Other Disciplines:

• Aquatic/Riparian Habitat. Stream sediment 

load, stream channel morphology, lake levels, 

glacier fluctuations, water quality.

• Park and Surrounding Landscape. Shoreline 

position, slope failures, wetlands.

• Biogeochemistry. Water quality, stream flow.

• 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 flow rate and 

temperature affect stream morphology, stream 

chemistry, and aquatic ecosystem development? 

How sensitive are fish populations to those 

changes?

• How will changes in sea level affect the amount 

and type of estuarine habitat and how would 

such changes affect fish populations that spawn 

in the park?

• What are the effects of increased or decreased 

erosion on stream morphology and consequently 

for fish populations?

• How will riparian areas respond to changes in 

river flow rate?
 113

Monitoring Need/Justification:

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 reservoir and one dam reside within park boundaries. 

These areas, in turn, provide habitat for a diversity 

of anadromous and resident fish, amphibians, and 

invertebrates. Despite the abundance and vital 

importance of these resources as habitat, no integrated monitoring program exists. A specific example shows how poorly the resources are understood. 

In one study, the acidification 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 acidification potential. Nevertheless, a one-season examination of several eastside alpine lakes found these to have high acidification potential (Larson 1995). 

The physical, hydraulic, and chemical properties of streams and rivers determine their suitability 

as habitat for aquatic wildlife. Conditions appropriate for spawning are defined by water depth, 

water velocity, size of substrate, and availability of 

cover provided by overhanging vegetation, undercut 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 anadromous fish. Successful incubation of embryos of fish 

and amphibians depend on conditions that are conducive to development, and that allow young fish to 

emerge from under gravel. Some of the important 

factors include dissolved oxygen concentration, 

water temperature, substrate size, channel gradient, channel configuration, 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. Likewise, 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 fish and other aquatic, semi-aquatic, and 

riparian wildlife (Naiman et al. 1993, Gregory et al. 

1991). Streamside vegetation is important in preventing sedimentation and mass failure, influencing 

channel structure and floodplain processes, and controlling stream temperatures (Murphy 1995). Riparian vegetation also provides significant 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 driftwood element of beach environments. The importance 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 management practices and other human activities affect 

park waters, even though most rivers and streams 

originate inside the main body of the park (excluding the coastal strip). Contaminants from the air and 

from herbicides used on lands managed for timber 

 Part II. Chapter 12. Aquatic/Riparian Habitat
114 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

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 anadromous fish diminishes the substantial quantity of 

nutrients from salmon carcasses historically present (Cederholm and Peterson 1985). Contaminants, 

marine-derived nutrients, and water chemistry are 

addressed elsewhere. Here we focus on the hydrologic 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 O2 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 riparian vegetation types). 

• Indicator: Size and Distribution of Disturbance 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 monitored. Justifi cation: Both riparian vegetation 

and disturbances such as mass-wasting events 

provide inputs and structural elements to river 

systems. Changes in the frequency and distribution of these features could have serious 

consequences for rivers. Aerial photos and 

Landsat images will be important for monitoring all types of disturbance throughout the 

park. Limitations: Remote sensing is expensive and expertise to analyze aerial photos is 

rare. Ground-truthing current aerial photos is 

expensive and unrealistic for historic ones.
 115

Question: Is water quality changing in selected 

lakes and streams?

• Indicator: Water Quality.

• Rivers with ongoing monitoring. Add physical and chemical water quality parameters to 

rivers with ongoing hydrologic monitoring (i.e., 

timing and amount of flow) 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 oxygen, pH, nutrients, turbidity, conductivity, and 

pollutants. The Clean Water Act Total Maximum 

Daily Load (TMDL) protocol (Butler and Snouwaert 2002) should be followed for temperature 

and sediment. Justification: These additional 

measurements would give a more complete 

picture of sites where there is already a longterm 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 sediments using lake-bed cores.

• Lake Crescent should be monitored for 

hydrocarbons and inholder activities at first 

fall rains.

• High-elevation lakes should be monitored 

for level, sediment, ions, dissolved organic 

nitrogen and carbon, pH, nutrients, temperature profile, 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 priority.

Justifi cation: These are sites with specific 

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 University of Washington are currently monitoring 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 monitoring mass balance using arrays of stakes 

is being developed by Jon Reidel at North 

Cascades National Park. Justifi cation: There 

is a very long record of the terminus position 

already (>100 years). Blue is a sentinel glacier 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 

flow measurements described above, streams 

should be monitored for large woody debris, 

channel morphology, habitat units (e.g., ponds 

and riffles), substrate, and structures (e.g., 

boulders and submerged woody debris). The 

protocols should incorporate those developed 

by Timber Fish and Wildlife (TFW, SchuettHames et al. 1994) and Reed Glesne at North 

Cascades National Park. Justifi cation: Physical 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. Limitations: Extent depends on funding.

• Lakes and Ponds. In addition to the parameters described above, lakes should be monitored 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
116 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Justifi 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 riparian 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 especially 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. Justifi -

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 monitoring 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, geologic 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 biologically significant in terms of impacting fauna.
 117

Monitoring Need/Justification:

The rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds of Olympic National Park support diverse assemblages of 

plankton, macroinvertebrates, amphibians, and 

finfish. These faunal communities make signifi -

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, consuming autochthonous inputs (i.e., periphyton) and 

distributing nutrients through diverse trophic pathways (Cummins 1974). Further, the park’s anadromous fish are widespread and, because all Pacific 

salmon die after spawning, their gametes and carcasses 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 benefits of salmon-derived 

nutrients include increases in invertebrate, phytoplankton, and periphyton production, invertebrate 

diversity, and fish growth rates (Cederholm et al. 

1989). 

Olympic National Park’s 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 fish, birds, and other 

amphibians. A primary goal of the National Park 

Service’s mission is to preserve the biological integrity in the composition and function of these complex 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 Pacific 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 migration, 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 park’s coastal 

strip and lands that extend into developed areas, 

where intensive logging and habitat degradation 

upstream has reduced both the quality and quantity of downstream spawning habitats in the park 

(Bottom 1995). A third threat faced by the park’s 

anadromous fish resources are artificial enhancement programs, including hatcheries, which operate 

around the Olympic Peninsula supplementing native 

fish 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 atmosphere, human use and associated contaminants, 

also threaten the integrity of biotic assemblages 

in Olympic National Park waters. For example, 

depletion of the earth’s 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 1

Part II. Chapter 13. Aquatic Biota

1Olympic National Park
118 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in 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 integrity of plankton, macroinvertebrate, and amphibian communities, and potentially accumulating in 

higher trophic levels. Recently, increased atmospheric 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 shoreline developments (including septic systems, outhouses, and sedimentation) may accelerate eutrophication of this deep, oligotrophic lake, potentially 

influencing 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 influencing nutrient 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 fishes to 

many park waters constitutes a profound perturbation to structure and composition of biotic communities, 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 plankton 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 biodiversity of park aquatic fauna and status of key groups, 

such as planktonic communities, aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, fish, interdependent terrestrial 

species, and marine-derived nutrients as indicators 

of long-term integrity and functional resiliency. 

Population-level monitoring of selected ‘specialstatus’ 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
 119

Monitoring Questions and Indicators:

Question: Are there changes in the species composition and structure of phytoplankton and zooplankton communities of park lakes that could signal 

changes in trophic structure, ecosystem function, or 

sustainability?

• Indicator: Composition and structure. 

Specific indicators and metrics to be identified 

and developed by U.S. Geological Survey/

North Cascades Lakes and Rivers Prototype 

Monitoring Program.

Question: Are there changes in the species composition and structure of macroinvertebrate communities of park rivers and streams? 

• Indicator: Abundance. Specific indicators 

and metrics to be identified and developed to 

be consistent with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s rapid bioassessment of macroinvertebrates. Justifi cation: The National Park 

Service’s Water Resources Division proposes 

rapid assessment of macroinvertebrates as part 

of a core suite of monitoring variables.

• Indicator: Composition and structure. Indicators and metrics to be identified and developed 

by U.S. Geological Survey/North Cascades 

Lakes and Rivers Prototype Monitoring 

Program. Justifi cation: Changes in the composition and structure of macroinvertebrates 

can signal fundamental changes in ecosystem 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 fish, 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. Justifi cation: 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 pondbreeding amphibians. Record presence/no 

detection of pond and seep-breeding amphibian species. Justifi 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 richness, evenness, and other metrics indicating 

changes in the overall structure of amphibian 

communities.

Question: Are fish communities changing in structure or populations declining due to changes in 

freshwater habitat?

• Indicator: Abundance of fish. (focusing here 

on those species that require an extended 

period of rearing in freshwater, including coho 

and cutthroat trout). Assess annual abundance 

through electrofishing 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. Justifi cation: 

Coho salmon require an extended period of 

rearing in freshwater and their annual abundance is more closely linked to freshwater 

and terrestrial habitat (e.g. water quality and 

quantity, pool/riffle ratios, woody debris 

loading) than other salmon species. MethodPart II. Chapter 13. Aquatic Biota
120 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

ologies suitable for surveying freshwater fish 

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. Sampling biases may differ according to gradient, 

habitat complexity, conductivity, and other 

sampling difficulties.

• Indicator: Abundance of spawning salmon. 

Conduct redd (nest) surveys in stream reaches 

where spawning by adult salmonids is possible. Justifi 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 rearing in freshwater systems such as chinook, 

pink, and chum salmon. These activities need 

to be coordinated with state and tribal managers who conduct these types of surveys in the 

park. Limitations: None. 

• Indicator: Spawning escapement. As funding allows, install weirs in small and moderate-sized representative streams to provide 

more reliable estimates of annual spawning 

escapement. Justifi 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 factor 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 abundance?

• Indicator: Marine-Derived Nutrients. (See 

also Part II, Chapter 4 - Biogeochemical 

Cycles). In conjunction with fish abundance 

surveys, monitor marine-derived nutrients 

in aquatic and riparian vegetation, aquatic 

invertebrates, and juvenile fish. Justifi cation:

Marine-derived nutrients are important contributors to the productivity of aquatic and 

terrestrial ecosystems. Prior studies suggest 

they directly influence rates of growth of 

juvenile fish, which translates into high rates 

of survival to maturity. Limitations: Quantitative 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 management.

• Indicator: Abundance of riverine birds. 

Count numbers of individual birds, broods, 

and fledglings per brood (as appropriate) for 

common mergansers, red breasted mergansers, 

harlequin ducks, dippers, and kingfishers. 

Justifi cation: Each of these species has been 

identified as having a strong, consistent relationship or recurrent relationship with salmon 

in Oregon and Washington (Cederholm et al. 

2001). The ecology of these species may be 

benefited by salmon through nutrients provided 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 restoration in the Elwha watershed following dam 

removals. Limitations: Changes in community 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 influence amphibian populations. Climate change that may influence 

aquatic biota.

• System Drivers: Human Activities. Changes 

in human development along lake shores, 

changes in fishing pressure.

• Park and Surrounding Landscape. Changes in 

logging patterns and landscape composition 

upstream from park rivers and lake watersheds. 
 121

• Biogeochemical Cycles. Changes in water 

quality parameters that influence all biotic 

communities. Changes in wet and dry deposition.

• Contaminants. Changes in contaminants that 

influence biota and may accumulate in higher 

trophic levels.

• Geoindicators. Changes in shoreline, mass 

wasting, erosion, stream flow, channel morphology that all influence aquatic habitats.

• Special-status Terrestrial Wildlife. Bald eagle 

populations are strongly dependent on salmonids, 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 fish depend upon salmonbased nutrient budgets, plankton, and macroinvertebrates. Exotic trout may influence 

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 electrofishing) to detect the occurrence of native freshwater rearing fish species and assess their relative 

abundance.

• Explore sampling techniques suitable for assessing species composition and relative abundance 

of fish in larger main-stem river systems where 

sampling techniques are very limited and/or 

costs are high.

• What is the relationship between salmon spawning escapement (e.g. carcasses) and productivity 

of aquatic systems, especially abundance of fish 

in the same and other species in future brood 

years? 

• How do stream channel characteristics (amount 

of large woody debris, deep pools, side channels, and unaltered natural stream banks) influence 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 populations size.

• Explore effects of current management regimes 

on salmon resources.

Part II. Chapter 13. Aquatic Biota
122 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park
 123

Monitoring Need/Justification:

Olympic National Park contains some of the 

last remaining undisturbed, contiguous habitat 

throughout the range of several west-coast fish 

species. Olympic National Park supports at least 

29 native species and is the only national park in 

the lower 48 states that contains substantial numbers of native anadromous salmonids, some of 

which are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Some special-status species may 

serve as important “seeds” or genetic reservoirs to 

recolonize nearby extirpated populations in adjacent 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 influencing stream productivity at all trophic levels. Consequently, fish 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 fish have been listed as threatened 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 Pacific 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 degradation of spawning habitats caused a significant 

decline (Beauchamp 1995). Extirpation of these 

fish 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. Brenkman1

Sound and coastal Washington. Substantial declines 

in distribution and abundance of bull trout throughout their range have been attributed to habitat 

degradation (Fraley and Shepard 1989), overfishing (Ratliff and Howell 1992), dams and irrigation 

projects (Rieman and McIntyre 1993), and displacement by non-native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis; Markle 1992). Finally, Puget Sound Chinook 

salmon were listed in March 1999, including Chinook 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 Washington Coast. Lake Cushman Chinook are unique 

because the population is one of the last remaining Chinook populations adapted to a freshwater 

life history. Factors for decline of Chinook include 

changes in flow regime, hydroelectric development, 

high water temperatures, and loss of large woody 

debris.

 Olympic National Park is home to other rare or 

unique species. Pygmy whitefish (Prosopium coulteri) 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 whitefish 

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 

whitefish resided in at least 15 lakes in Washington. 

Now they inhabit only nine and are likely to become 

endangered or threatened in a significant portion 

of their remaining range. Beardslee and crescentii

trout are locally adapted trout species that inhabit 

Lake Crescent in Olympic National Park. These fish 

once supported popular fisheries in the lake until 

catch-and-release regulations were implemented 

Part II. Chapter 14. Special-Status Fish Species

1Olympic National Park
124 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in 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, 

Pacific (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 

five 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 mudminnow 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 fish 

species. The primary goals related to monitoring special status species are to: 1) prevent the loss of native 

fish species categorized as special status, 2) preserve 

the genetic integrity of federally listed populations of 

salmonids, and 3) reduce the likelihood of displacement of native species by non-native species. Meanwhile, the monitoring program must consider that the 

list of special status fish is likely to change.

There are several potential threats to the persistence of threatened, rare, and endemic fish populations in Olympic National Park. Substantial declines 

in distribution and abundance of native fish species 

can result from overharvest associated with recreational, commercial, and treaty fisheries; displacement 

of native fish species by non-native species; habitat 

degradation associated with logging and hydroelectric 

development; hatchery supplementation programs; 

and possibly global climate change.

Potentially significant threats to native fish 

species in Olympic National Park may be the invasion of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and brook 

trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and related competition with native species. Atlantic salmon are commercially raised in marine net pens in Washington 

State and British Columbia. Annual escapes of 

salmon from pens in British Columbia are estimated to be approximately 60,000 fish. 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, predation, disease transfer, hybridization, and colonization (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 isolated 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 fish 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 understanding 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. 
 125

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 parameters for species listed as threatened?

• Indicator: Abundance, genetic diversity, 

health and competition with hatchery fish 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 sampling and analysis to ensure persistence 

of wild strain of Lake Ozette sockeye on 

decadal basis. To detect gene flow from 

hatchery to wild fish, collect genetic samples from every tributary once every five 

years. 

Figure 14.1. Conceptual model of threats to special-status fi sh species and the consequences of extinction.

• Fish Pathogens: Determine the extent of 

fish pathogens in juvenile sockeye.

• Hatchery Supplementation: Obtain data 

on number, timing, and location of released 

sockeye in Lake Ozette Basin.

Justification: These indicators of population 

status will describe changes that might be 

caused by known threats. Limitations: Cost.

• Indicator: Population and habitat measurements 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
126 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

• Genetic Diversity. Collect non-lethal fin 

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.

Justifi 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 accomplished when sampling for bull trout). Determine relative abundance of Elwha Chinook 

and classify as to hatchery or wild in origin. 

Justifi cation: These indicators will describe 

population status in relation to known threats. 

Limitations: None.

Question: Are there changes in population parameters for rare species in Olympic National Park?

• Indicator: Existence of Pygmy Whitefish in 

Lake Crescent. Determine presence vs. nondetection of pygmy whitefish in Lake Crescent at 5-10 year intervals. Justifi cation: A 

minimum amount of information is needed to 

determine whether the pygmy whitefish population still exists. Limitations: None.

• Indicator: Abundance of Lake Crescent 

Trout. Determine abundance of Lake Crescent trout species using redd counts in Barnes 

Creek, lake outlet, and upper Lyre River. Justifi cation: Abundance is easy to estimate with 

this species. Limitations: Cost.

• Indicator: Existence of Dolly Varden in 

Known Sites. Conduct presence vs. non-detection surveys in upper Sol Duc River and upper 

Quinault River every 5 to 10 years. Justifi cation: 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 fish species, brook trout, and Atlantic 

salmon?

• Indicator: Distribution. Determine the distribution 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). Justifi 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. Justifi cation: 

Hybridization is a potentially significant 

impact of brook trout on native char. Limitations: Expense of sample analyses.

Question: Are there changes in population parameters 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 five-year cycles. Justifi cation: Verifying data collected by another agency is an 

efficient way to monitor mudminnows. 

Limitations: None.

 Linkages with Other Disciplines:

• Aquatic/Riparian Habitat: Status of habitat quality in areas where these species are present.

• Aquatic Biota: Status of food resources in 

areas where these species occur.
 127

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 fish species influencing native fish species?

• What are the genetics, habitat requirements, density, life history, ecology, and population limiting 

factors for special-status species?

• Determine statistical power of bull trout monitoring in the North Fork Skokomish River to 

evaluate sampling sufficiency.

• Determine sampling requirements for Dolly 

Varden and pygmy whitefish.

• 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, fluvial, resident, 

and adfluvial morphs).

• Evaluate otolith methodology. Describe and 

evaluate life-history variation among years and 

fish populations.

Part II. Chapter 14. Special-Status Fish Species
128 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park
 129

Monitoring Need/Justification:

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 elsewhere in the monitoring plan.

The Pacific Coast intertidal zone hosts a diverse 

array of habitats, from sandy beaches, to boulder 

fields, to rocky platforms. Each of these habitats 

supports diverse assemblages of macroalgae, invertebrates, and fish. Seasonal upwelling from February 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 jurisdictionally. 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 substantial physical and biological linkages between these 

zones that are critical in determining zonal community structure. From a jurisdictional perspective, 

the Park’s 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 managed 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 monitoring beyond what the park can support by itself.

Olympic National Park staff place a high importance on the need to monitor the ecological integrity of the intertidal communities. This approach 

was favored over one that focused on monitoring 

specific ‘focal’ 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 workshop 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 recommendations 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 dynamics or functional relationships among species are 

considered a secondary priority (Tier 2). The major 

threats to intertidal health come from harvest, nonconsumptive human use (e.g. trampling), spills of 

toxic chemicals, and global climate change. 

Part II. Chapter 15. Coastal Environment
130 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

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. Justifi cation: Different habitat types 

(i.e., sandy beaches, cobble fields, rocky 

platforms) support distinct communities composed 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

of

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 fish species composition over time. 

Justifi cation: Relatively little is known about 

the temporal dynamics of intertidal fish communities. Community and species population 

structure may serve as a useful indicator of 

environmental change.

Figure 15.1. Conceptual model of the coastal ecosystem.
 131

• Indicator: Hardshell clams. Establish transects in appropriate clam habitat and track 

changes in community compositions, species abundance, size frequency, and growth 

rates. Justifi cation: Hardshell clams provide 

valuable ecological services such as nutrient 

cycling and particle filtration, in addition to 

being important organisms for recreational 

harvest. The standard invertebrate and macroalgal-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. Justifi cation: Inputs of sediments and warm water 

from coastal streams influenced by local land 

management practices (e.g., Quileute jetty 

construction and maintenance) have the potential 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 monitoring 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 institutions 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, salinity, 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 beachings, an indirect indicator of ocean conditions. 

Justifi 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 profound impacts on the recruitment of intertidal 

organisms, in addition to directly affecting 

intertidal organisms by altering physical conditions 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 Department of Health have monitoring programs 

to determine domoic acid levels in water 

and in bivalve tissue. Justifi cation: Domoic 

acid is a naturally occurring toxic secondary metabolite produced by certain strains of 

the marine diatom Pseudonitczhia. Domoic 

acid causes mortality in fish, and can bioaccumulate 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. Terrestrial 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 fish life history requirements.

Part II. Chapter 15. Coastal Environment
132 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

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 XXX annual

Tier 2 

Intertidal 

Fish

X XX XXX ?

Hardshell 

clams

XX X XXX ?

Watershed 

inputs

 X ?

Ocean 

conditions

 X 

annual

Domoic acid X annual

Research and Development Needs:

• Determine population trends of key nonclassified intertidal species (i.e. barnacles, 

seastars, etc.).

• Determine effects of visitor trampling on intertidal 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 transport in the intertidal/subtidal zone.

• Determine patterns of long-shore and crossshore 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?
 133

Ecosystems follow a cyclical developmental 

path involving organization, destruction by a disturbance, 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 reflect 

previous vegetation and the type of disturbance that 

destroyed it. The biota that can potentially re-establish 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 reflects its history, 

including the effects of humans. In addition, many 

of the environmental forces influencing 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 longerterm 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 environmental 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 specific time and place; vegetation coverage and 

character

Past 150 yr Written Record- diaries, 

scientific notes, park and 

forest records

Conditions existing at specific time and place; helps complete picture of 

park cultural landscapes and human-environment interactions

150-250 BP Ethnographic Record Pre-European population dispersal, flora and faunal use, fire use,

Past 2K yr Dendrochronology possibly 

Remote Sensing and Trace 

Element Analysis

Climate change, fine-grained climate change last 1,000 years, fire 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, fire 

history, logging or other community altering events from fluctuations 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 
134 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

For each type of data there are three areas of 

concern, 1) what specific studies or information are 

needed for long-term ecological monitoring, 2) are 

any of these data being lost to neglect, been overlooked, and is there a strategy for collecting, analyzing 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 

specific research and protection strategies in each 

data category. These needs should be addressed as 

funding and time are available.
 135

Allen, T. F. H. and T. W. Hoekstra. 1992. Toward a 

unified ecology. Columbia University Press, NY. 

384 pp.

Amos, K. H. and A. Appleby. 1999. Atlantic salmon 

in Washington State: A fish management perspective. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia.

Armstrong, J. E., D. R. Crandell, D. J. Easterbrook 

and J. B. Noble.1965. Late Pleistocene stratigraphy and chronology in southwestern British 

Columbia and northwestern Washington. Geological 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 implications. 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 Pacific salmon: The role of flooding 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 spawning 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 deglaciation along the southern margin of the cordilleran 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 ecology: the importance of heterogeneity in species 

detectability. Ecology 79:1018-1028.

Brubaker, L. B. 1991. Climate change and the origin 

of old-growth Douglas-fir forests in Puget Sound 

lowland. Pages 17-24 in Wildlife and Vegetation 

of Unmanaged Douglas-fir Forests. U.S. Forest 

Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR285.

Literature Cited 
136 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Buckingham N. M., E. G. Schreiner, T. N. Kaye, 

J. E. Burger, and E. L. Tisch. 1995. Flora of the 

Olympic Peninsula. Northwest Interpretive Association. 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 ecosystem experiments. Pages 267-279 in P. M. Kareiva, 

J. G. Kingsolver and R. B. Huey, editors. Biotic 

Interactions and Global Change. Sinauer, Sunderland, 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 (Oncorhynchus kisutch) carcasses in spawning streams. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 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. Pacific 

salmon and wildlife: ecological contexts, relationships, and implications for management. Pages 

628-687 in D. H. Johnson and T. A. O’Neil, editors. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon 

and Washington. Oregon State University Press, 

Corvallis.

Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. 

1997. Integrating the nation’s environmental 

monitoring and research networks and programs: 

a proposed framework. National Science and 

Technology Council Report, Environmental Monitoring 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. Pacific Seabird 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-
 137

actions and Global Change. Sinauer, Sunderland, 

MA.

EMAP. 1990. And overview of the Environmental 

and Assessment Program. EMAP Monitor. EPA 

Office of Research and Development, Washington, 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 chemistry in small watersheds in the Hoh River valley, 

Olympic National Park. Scientific 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 Pacific 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 populations. Report No. BLM/RS/ST-98/005+1730. 

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Emmett, R. L. and M H. Schiewe (eds.) 1997. 

Estuarine and Ocean Survival of Northeast Pacific 

Salmon: Proceedings of a Workshop. U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA Technical Memorandum 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. KuoHarrison, P. Harrison, and T. E. Hamer, editors. 

Methods for surveying marbled murrelets in 

forests: an update to the protocol for land management and research. Pacific 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 confl 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. Harvesting 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 Douglasfir forests. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-118. Pacific Northwest Forest 

and Range Experiment Station, Portland Oregon.

Gates, D. M. 1993. Climate Change and its Biological 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:Rhyacotritonidae). University of California Publications in 

Zoology 126, Berkeley.

Gregory, S. V. 1995. Riparian management for the 

21st Century. Pages 69-85 in K. A. Kohm and J. F. 

Franklin, editors. Creating a Forestry for the 21st

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. 

Influence of forest practices on aquatic production. Pages 233-255 in E. O. Salo and T. W. 

Cundy, editors. Streamside Management: Forestry 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 
138 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

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 10th Conference 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 Washington, 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 vegetation 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 final report. Olympic 

National Park files. 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, 

Pacific Northwest Region R6 Ecological Technical Paper 001-88.

Holling, C. S., editor. 1978. Adaptive environmental 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, editors. 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 Association 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. Northwest 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. Northwest 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? Natural Areas Journal 10:6-11.

Houston, D. B., E. G. Schreiner, and B. B. Moorhead. 1994. Mountain goats in Olympic National 

Park: Biology and management of an introduced 

species. Scientific Monograph NPS/NROLYM/

NRSM-94/25, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service. 

Jansson, B., R. Andersson, L. Asplund, K. Litzen, K. Nylund, U. Sellstrom, U. B. Uvemo, C. 

Wahlberg, W. Widequist, T. Odsjo, and M. Olsson. 1993. Chlorinated and brominated persistent 

organic compounds in biological samples from 

the environment. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 12:1163-1174.
 139

Jenny, H. 1941. Factors of Soil Formation. 

McGraw-Hill, New York.

Jorgensen, S. E. and F. Muller, eds. 2000a. Handbook 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 perspective on water quality goals. Environmental 

Management. 5:55-68.

Larkin, G. A. and P. S. Slaney. 1997. Implications of 

trends in marine-derived nutrient influx to south 

coastal British Columbia salmonid production. 

Fisheries 22:16-24.

Larson, G. L., C. D. McIntire, E. KarnaughThomas, and C. Hawkins-Hoffman. 1995. Limnology 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 products for forest inventory, monitoring, and mapping of Douglas-fir 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. Biogeochemistry of a Forested Ecosystem. Springer-Verlag, 

New York. 146 p.

Long, W. A. 1975. Salmon Springs and Vashon continental ice in the Olympic Mountains and relation 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 Society, 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. Jorgensen and S. E. Muller, editors. Handbook of 

Ecosystem Theories and Management. CRC 

Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Murphy, M. L. 1995. Forestry impacts on freshwater habitat of anadromous salmonids in the 

Pacific Northwest and Alaska: requirements 

for protection and restoration. NOAA’s Coastal 

Ocean Program, decision analysis series No. 1. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Ocean 

Office, Washington, D.C.

Literature Cited 
140 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

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 Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C.

National Park Service. 1968. Administrative 

Policies for Natural Areas. Government Printing 

Office, Washington, D.C.

National Park Service. 1992. The Natural Resources 

Inventory and Monitoring Guideline (NPS-75). 

Government Printing Office, 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 handbook for planners and managers. Government 

Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

National Park Service. 1999. National Resource 

Challenge: The National Park Service’s Action 

Plan for Preserving Natural Resources. National 

Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Nicolis, G. and I. Prigogine. 1989. Exploring Complexity: 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 doubleobserver approach for estimating detection probability 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 Publishers, Boston.

Noon, B. R. 1991. Scientific framework for effectiveness 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 coordinators. The Strategy and Design of the Effectiveness Monitoring Program for the Northwest 

Forest Plan. General Technical Report PNWTTR-437, USDA Forest Service Regional Ecosystem Office Portland, OR.

Norton, H. H. 1979. The association between 

anthropogenic prairies and important food plants 

in western Washington. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 18:175-200.

Noss, R. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4:355-364.

Oakley, K. L., and S. L. Boudreau. 2000. Conceptual 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 ecosystems. 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 Management Plan. Olympic National Park, Port Angeles, 

WA.

O’Neill, R.V., and A. W. King. 1998. Homage to 

St. Michael; or, why are there so many books 

on scale? Pages 3-15 in D.L. Peterson and V. T. 

Parker, editors. Ecological Scale: Theory and 

Applications. 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. Pacific Northwest. Ecology 83:2951-2957.

Pastor, J. and W. M. Post. 1986. Influence of climate, soil, moisture and succession on forest carbon and nitrogen cycles. Biogeochemistry 2:3-27.
 141

Pastor, J. and W. M. Post. 1988. Response of northern forests to CO2

 induced climate change. Nature 

334:55-58.

Perry, D. A. 1994. Forest Ecosystems. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Perry, D. A. and M. P. Amaranthus. 1997. Disturbance, recovery and stability. Pages 31-56 in K. 

A. Kohm and J. F. Franklin, editors. Creating a 

Forestry for the 21st Century. Island Press, Washington, 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 inventory 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. Washington climate for Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Pacific and Wahkiakum Counties. Cooperative 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 Butterflies 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. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout 

Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries 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 Pacific 

Tides, 5th Edition. Stanford University Press, 

Stanford, CA. 652 p.

Rieman, B. E. and J. D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation 

of bull trout. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station, General Technical Report INT302. 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 distribution in western North America: a review of climate 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 Seashore. 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 
142 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

Schalk, R. 1988. The evolution and diversification 

of native land use systems on the Olympic Peninsula. Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Washington, Seattle. 213 pp.

Schneider, E. D. and J. J. Kay. 1994. Life as a manifestation 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, TWFAM9-94-001.

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. February 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. Designing 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 distribution 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. Peterson, and J. C. Calhoun, editors. Status of Elk 

Populations on the Olympic Peninsula. Olympic 

Natural Resources Center Conference Proceedings. 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 oldgrowth Douglas-fir 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 21st

Century. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Tabor, R. W. 1987. Guide to the geology of Olympic National Park. Pacific 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 Program assessment framework. EPA/620/R-94/016, 

US EPA Office 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. 

64th Congress, 1st Session. Government Printing 

Office, Washington D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department 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 species within the range of the northern spotted owl. 
 143

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Quality criteria for water 1986.U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office 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 renewable resources. Macmillan, New York, New York.

Waring, R. H. and S. W. Running. 1998. Forest 

Ecosystems, 2nd Edition. Academic Press, New 

York, NY.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2001. 

http://www.wa.gov/wdfd/wlm/diversity/soc/

status/whitfish/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. Acidification potential in high mountain lakes in Washington. 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: Northwest Coast. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 

D.C.

Whitlock, C. 1992. Vegetational and climatic history of the Pacific Northwest during the last 

20,000 years: implications for understanding present-day biodiversity. Northwest Environmental 

Journal 8:5-28.

Wilkie, D. S. and J. T. Finn. 1996. Remote Sensing 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 relationships 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. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: Report 44. 

World Meteorological Organization.

Literature Cited 
144 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park
 145

Olympic National Park Staff Scoping Workshop, 

27 February 1997, Port Angeles WA

Objectives: To introduce park staff to the longterm 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 Monitoring Workshop, 10 April 1997, Olympic Natural Resources Center, Forks WA

Objectives: To exchange information among agencies on inventory and monitoring activities on the 

Olympic Peninsula. To identify high priority or useful 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
146 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

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 Western 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 scientific basis 

for selecting ecological indicators and determine 

how to set priorities for indicator selection. 

Facilitating: Barry Noon (U.S.D.A. Forest ServiceRedwoods 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
 147

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 methods for vertebrate monitoring. 

Facilitating: Andrea Woodward 

Participating: Olympic National Park and USGS 

Olympic Field Station staffs and invited forest scientists:

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 Office, 

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 methods for vertebrate monitoring. 

Facilitating: Kurt Jenkins 

Participating: Olympic National Park and USGSFRESC-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 selection 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
148 A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park

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 O’Neill— 

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
 149

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 Longterm Monitoring Programs of Pacific Northwest 

National Parks, 16-17 January 2001, Seattle WA

Objectives: To review biogeochemical research and 

monitoring in Pacific Northwestern National Parks. 

To identify the most critical information needs to 

inform about anticipated environmental changes in 

the Pacific Northwest. To assess adequacy of existing 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 Service, invited biogeochemical specialists.

Steve Acker— 

NPS, Pacific 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 Office

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 Office

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

Statististics of Sampling for Long-term Ecological 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 monitoring 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 Station and Olympic National Park. Invited monitoring 

specialists and biometricians.

Steve Acker 

NPS, Pacific 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 Service’s 

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 findings 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 managers and scientists, invited specialists, and resource 

education and interpretation staffs.

Dave Busch 

USGS-Regional Ecosystem Office

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 Office

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
Printed on recycled paper