National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Southeast Alaska Network

Natural Resource Report NPS/SEAN/NRR—2008/059 
ON THE COVER 

Glacier Bay National Park. Looking northeast across Berg Bay to Willoughby Island, with the East Arm and Mt. Wright in the 

background. Photo by Bill Eichenlaub. NPS. July 2007. 
Vital Signs Monitoring Plan 

Southeast Alaska Network 

Natural Resource Report NPS/SEAN/NRR—2008/059 

Brendan J. Moynahan 

William F. Johnson 

David W. Schirokauer 

Lewis C. Sharman 

Geoffrey Smith 

Scott Gende 

National Park Service 

Southeast Alaska Inventory and Monitoring Network 

 3100 National Park Road 

Juneau, Alaska 99801 

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve 

Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park 

Sitka National Historical Park 

 

September 2008 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Fort Collins, Colorado 
The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and 

applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management 

of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation and 

environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information is 

scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and is 

designed and published in a professional manner.

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

natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a 

general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues 

of management applicability. Examples of the diverse array of reports published in this series 

include vital signs monitoring plans; monitoring protocols; "how to" resource management 

papers; proceedings of resource management workshops or conferences; annual reports of 

resource programs or divisions of the Natural Resource Program Center; resource action plans; 

fact sheets; and regularly-published newsletters. 

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

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the U.S. Department of the 

Interior, NPS. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use by the National Park Service. 

This report is available from the Natural Resource Publications Management website 

(http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM) and the Southeast Alaska I&M Network website 

(http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/units/SEAN) on the Internet. 

Please cite this publication as: 

Moynahan, B. J., W. F. Johnson, D. W. Schirokauer, L. Sharman, G. Smith, and S. Gende. 2008. 

Vital sign monitoring plan: Southeast Alaska Network. Natural Resource Report 

NPS/SEAN/NRR—2008/059. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 





NPS D-171, September 2008

LL
LLL

Topic(s): 

Ecological monitoring 

Theme Keywords: 

Reports, Protocols, Guidelines, Plans 

Place Name Keywords: 

Alaska, Southeast Alaska, Glacier Bay, Sitka, Klondike, Skagway, Gustavus 

Acronyms: 

AK-EPMT Alaska Exotic Plant Management Team 

ARO Alaska Regional Office, Anchorage, AK 

BOD Board of Directors 

DMP Data Management Plan 

DOI Department of the Interior 

GLBA Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve 

PDS Protocol Development Summary 

I&M Inventory and Monitoring Program 

KLGO Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park 

MDN Mercury Deposition Network 

NPS National Park Service 

SEAN Southeast Alaska Network 

SITK Sitka National Historical Park 

TC Technical Committee 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USGS-BRD U.S. Geological Survey – Biological Resources Division 

WRCC Western Regional Climate Center 

WRD Water Resources Division (NPS) 

v

Contents 

 Page 

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................................... vii 

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................... vii 

LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................ viii 

THE SOUTHEAST ALASKA NETWORK MISSION STATEMENT................................................................... ix 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................................... xi 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ xiii 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 1

1.1 PURPOSES OF THE VITAL SIGNS PROGRAM .................................................................................................... 1

1.1.1 NPS Policies and Mandates that Link Monitoring and Management of Parks ....................................... 2

1.1.2 SEAN Parks Legislation ........................................................................................................................... 4

1.1.2.1 GLBA Enabling Legislation ................................................................................................................ 4

1.2 GOALS OF VITAL SIGNS MONITORING ........................................................................................................... 6

1.2.1 Integrating Water and Air Quality Monitoring ........................................................................................ 7

1.3 MONITORING OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................. 8

1.4 SOUTHEAST ALASKA NETWORK: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ....................................................................... 8

1.4.1 Klondike Goldrush National Historical Park ........................................................................................ 14

1.4.2 Sitka National Historical Park............................................................................................................... 15

1.4.3 Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve .............................................................................................. 15

1.5 RESOURCE PRESERVATION CONCERNS ....................................................................................................... 16

1.5.1 Broad-Scale Concerns of All SEAN Parks ............................................................................................. 17

1.5.2 Park-Scale, Issues-Oriented Monitoring: What Are the Most Important Management and Scientific 

Issues to the Network? ......................................................................................................................................... 19

1.6 THE SEAN APPROACH TO PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 20

1.7 DATA CAPTURE AND REVIEW OF MONITORING BY OTHERS ........................................................................ 22
vi

CHAPTER 2: CONCEPTUAL ECOLOGICAL MODELS .................................................................................... 23

2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 23

2.2 ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................... 24

2.2.1 Global Setting of Southeast Alaska Parks: Far-field Drivers of Change .............................................. 24

2.2.2 Local Resource Preservation Concerns: Near-field Drivers of Change................................................ 26

2.3 DRIVERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE ...................................................................................................... 26

2.3.1 Holistic Model ....................................................................................................................................... 26

2.3.2 Physical Drivers in Southeast Alaska .................................................................................................... 28

2.4 ECOSYSTEM INTERACTIONS ........................................................................................................................ 29

2.4.1 Succession in Freshwater ...................................................................................................................... 29

2.4.2 Primary Succession on Land ................................................................................................................. 30

2.4.3 The Marine Environment ....................................................................................................................... 31

CHAPTER 3: VITAL SIGNS ..................................................................................................................................... 33

3.1 VITAL SIGN SELECTION ............................................................................................................................... 33

3.1.1 Terrestrial, Freshwater, and Marine Scoping Workshops ..................................................................... 33

3.1.2 Compile, Rate, and Prioritize Candidate Vital Signs ............................................................................ 35

3.1.3 The Core and Secondary Programs ....................................................................................................... 36

3.1.4 Relationship between Vital Signs and Conceptual Models .................................................................... 38

CHAPTER 4: SAMPLING DESIGNS ...................................................................................................................... 41

4.1 SAMPLING DESIGN BY VITAL SIGN ............................................................................................................. 41

4.1.1 Area-based Sampling ............................................................................................................................. 41

4.1.2 List-based Sampling ............................................................................................................................... 44

4.1.3 Index Sites .............................................................................................................................................. 45

4.1.4 Census Designs ...................................................................................................................................... 47

CHAPTER 5: SAMPLING PROTOCOLS ............................................................................................................... 49
vii

CHAPTER 6: DATA MANAGEMENT AND ARCHIVING .................................................................................. 56

6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 57

6.2 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE ....................................................................................... 60

6.3 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND DATA PROCESSING WORKFLOW ................................................................... 61

6.4 DATA MANAGEMENT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES .................................................................................. 64

6.5 DATABASES ................................................................................................................................................. 64

6.6 DATA ACQUISITION, PROCESSING, AND REPORTING ................................................................................... 67

6.7 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL ......................................................................................... 69

6.8 DATASET DOCUMENTATION ........................................................................................................................ 70

6.9 DATA OWNERSHIP AND SHARING ................................................................................................................ 70

6.10 DATA DISSEMINATION ................................................................................................................................ 71

6.11 RECORDS MANAGEMENT, DATA MAINTENANCE, AND ARCHIVING............................................................. 71

6.12 PROJECT TRACKING AND DOCUMENTATION ............................................................................................... 73

6.13 IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 73

6.14 WATER QUALITY DATA .............................................................................................................................. 73

CHAPTER 7: DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING ........................................................................................... 75

7.1 DATA ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................................... 75

7.2 REPORTING .................................................................................................................................................. 77

CHAPTER 8: ADMINISTRATION/IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MONITORING PROGRAM ................. 81

8.1 SEAN ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................ 81

8.2 STAFFING PLAN ........................................................................................................................................... 83

8.2.1 Reliance on and Integration with Park Staff .......................................................................................... 84

8.2.2 Reliance on Cooperators, Partners, and Contractors ........................................................................... 86

8.3 PROGRAM REVIEWS .................................................................................................................................... 88
viii

CHAPTER 9: SCHEDULE ........................................................................................................................................ 89

CHAPTER 10: BUDGET............................................................................................................................................ 95

CHAPTER 11: LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................................... 99

GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................................................... 113 
ix

Figures

Figure 1.1 Relationships between park mandates, resource protection, and 

 long-term monitoring .................................................................................................. 2 

Figure 1.2 The Alexander Archipelago and the Southeast Alaska Network parks ..................... 10 

Figure 1.3 Map of Sitka National Historical Park. ...................................................................... 11 

Figure 1.4 Map of Klondike Goldrush National Historical Park. ................................................ 12 

Figure 1.5 Map of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. ....................................................... 13 

Figure 2.1 Important ecological features within the three ecosystem components in 

Southeast Alaska ....................................................................................................... 24 

Figure 2.2. Resource preservation concerns in Southeast Alaska parks ....................................... 25 

Figure 2.3 Holistic conceptual ecosystem model: Drivers of change ......................................... 27 

Figure 3.1 Thirteen of the 36 final Vital Signs mapped onto the SEAN conceptual model ........ 39 

Figure 3.2 Twenty-three of the 36 final Vital Signs mapped onto the SEAN 

conceptual model ...................................................................................................... 40 

Figure 6.1 The SEAN Functional Model of Data Management ................................................... 58 

Figure 6.2 The SEAN information architecture. .......................................................................... 61 

Figure 6.3 SEAN project stages. .................................................................................................. 62 

Figure 6.4 SEAN data management operations. .......................................................................... 63 

Figure 6.5 SEAN roles and responsibilities mapped to the four program Core Functions ......... 65 

Figure 6.6 Conceptual draft of a SEAN Vital Sign web page ..................................................... 72 

Figure 8.1 Interaction between the Southeast Alaska Network organizational elements ............ 83 
x

Tables 

Table 1. The Core and Secondary Vital Signs Programs ............................................................ xix

Table 1.1. Preliminary SEAN monitoring objectives .....................................................................9

Table 1.2. Resources and issues of concern to the Southeast Alaska Network Parks. .................21

Table 3.1. The Core and Secondary Vital Signs Programs ...........................................................37

Table 4.1. Summary of overall design features for SEAN Core Program Vital Signs .................42

Table 4.2. Number of weather stations within 60 km of SEAN’s park units ...............................47

Table 5.1. Justification and measureable objectives for monitoring protocols .............................51

Table 6.1. Repository content .......................................................................................................64

Table 6.2. Positions mapped to the four program Core Functions ...............................................66

Table 6.3. Development tasks associated with capturing data ......................................................68

Table 6.4. Operational tasks associated with capturing data ........................................................69

Table 7.1. Summary of analyses and responsibilities for the SEAN Core Program ....................76

Table 7.2. Reports to be produced ................................................................................................79

Table 8.1. Composition of the SEAN Board of Directors, 2008 ..................................................81

Table 8.2. Composition of the SEAN Technical Committee, 2008 ..............................................82

Table 8.3. Anticipated cooperators and partners for the SEAN Core Program ............................87

Table 9.1. Schedule for developing, testing, and finalizing monitoring protocols ........................90

Table 9.2. Summary of tasks for protocol development or for acquiring existing data ...............92

Table 9.3. Frequency and timing of sampling ..............................................................................94

Table 10.1. Anticipated income and expenditures for the SEAN in FY2009 ...............................96

Table 10.2. Projected budget for the Southeast Alaska Network, FY2009-2013 .........................97
xi

Appendices 

APPENDIX A – IDENTIFICATION OF ON-GOING AND HISTORIC MONITORING PROJECTS AND 

BASELINE STUDIES 

APPENDIX B – SOUTHEAST ALASKA NETWORK VITAL SIGN SELECTION HISTORICAL 

DOCUMENTATION 

APPENDIX C – PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT SUMMARIES 

APPENDIX D – CHARTER FOR THE SOUTHEAST ALASKA NETWORK BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

APPENDIX F – JUSTIFICATIONS AND POLICIES SUPPORTING LONG-TERM ECOLOGICAL 

MONITORING 

APPENDIX G – CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS FOR MONITORING 

APPENDIX H – SAMPLING DESIGN CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS 

APPENDIX I – THE PARENT LIST OF 36 PRIORITY VITAL SIGNS FOR THE SOUTHEAST ALASKA 

NETWORK

xiii

Mission Statement of the Southeast Alaska Network 

The SEAN collects, manages, analyzes, and reports long-term ecological data for the primary 

purpose of informing the network parks of the status, condition, and trends of key natural 

resources. The SEAN effectively delivers information so that customers–park staff, partners, 

and the public–can readily locate and use it with minimal reliance on network staff. 

xv

 

Acknowledgements 

This report represents the work of many people. We wish to thank the current and former 

members of the SEAN Board of Directors: Susan Boudreau (KLGO), Greg Dudgeon (former 

SITK superintendant), Tomie Lee (former GLBA superintendant), Mary Miller (SITK), and 

Cherry Payne (GLBA). Many NPS employees provided invaluable professional guidance on 

technical issues. We are particularly grateful to Sara Wesser (Alaska Region I&M Coordinator) 

and the SEAN Technical Committee for their support and commitment throughout the process of 

network development. This plan benefitted from contributions from Allison Banks, Bill 

Eichenlaub, Chris Gabriel, Gene Griffin, Whitney Rapp, Chad Soiseth, and Theresa Thibault. 

This group has steadfastly supported the network since its inception; the value and influence of 

their commitment to the Network cannot be overstated. 

We thank Chiska Derr and Chris Fastie for contributions to the first 3 chapters of this plan, to 

Steve Garman (Upper Colorado Plateau Network) for guidance on sampling design and written 

contributions to chapter 4. Barbara Sheinberg earned the network’s appreciation and respect for 

her key role in facilitating the scoping workshops and early Technical Committee meetings. 

The staff and products of the other three Alaska I&M networks greatly facilitated the 

development of this Monitoring Plan. Portions of this plan were originally conceived or 

articulated by the staffs of the Central Alaska Network, the Southwest Alaska Network, and the 

Arctic Network. In particular, we are thankful for the hard work, sound advice, and excellent 

examples of Maggie MacCluskie (Central Alaska Network); Michael Shephard, Alan Bennett, 

William Thompson, and Dorothy Mortenson (Southwest Alaska Network); and Jim Lawler, 

Scott Miller, and Diane Sanzone (Arctic Network). Reports by the Upper Colorado Plateau, 

Mid-Atlantic, Mojave, and Heartland Networks also served as helpful models. 

xvii

Executive Summary 

The Southeast Alaska Network (SEAN) includes Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, 

Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, and Sitka National Historical Park (hereafter 

GLBA, KLGO, and SITK). The SEAN is one of 32 networks of national parks included in the 

Servicewide Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) program and one of four networks in Alaska. 

Park units within the SEAN contain approximately 3.3 million acres (8.2 million hectares) of 

parklands. GLBA includes 2.77 million acres (1.12 million hectares) of designated marine and 

terrestrial wilderness. KLGO and SITK contain designated cultural landscapes with significant 

natural resource components. Together, the SEAN parks encompass approximately four percent 

of the area managed by the National Park Service. 

Knowing the condition of natural resources in national parks is fundamental to the ability of the 

National Park Service to manage park resources “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations.” Funded by the Natural Resource Challenge, NPS has implemented a strategy to 

programmatically institutionalize natural resource inventory and monitoring. The effort was 

undertaken to ensure that the 270 park units with significant natural resources possess the 

information needed for effective, science-based resource management decision-making. The 

national strategy consists of a framework having three major components: 1) completion of basic 

resource inventories upon which monitoring efforts can be based; 2) creation of experimental 

prototype monitoring programs to evaluate alternative monitoring designs and strategies; and 3) 

implementation of ecological monitoring in all parks with significant natural resources. The 

NPS strategy focuses monitoring on a select group of ecological elements and processes, known 

as Vital Signs. Vital Signs are defined as a subset of physical, chemical, and biological elements 

and processes of park ecosystems that are selected to represent the overall health or condition of 

park resources, known or hypothesized effects of stressors, or elements that have important 

human values. 

The complex task of developing ecological monitoring and attendant data management strategies 

requires a front-end investment in planning and design to ensure that monitoring will meet the 

most critical information needs and produce ecologically relevant and scientifically credible data 

that are accessible to managers in a timely manner. The three-phase, multi-year scoping and 

planning effort of this Vital Signs Monitoring Plan: 1) outlines SEAN monitoring goals and the 

planning process used to develop the monitoring program; 2) summarizes existing information 

concerning park natural resources and resource management issues across the network; 3) 

provides a conceptual model framework for SEAN park ecosystems; 4) selects and prioritizes 

seventeen Vital Signs; 5) presents a sampling framework for marine, freshwater, and terrestrial 

ecosystems in parks; 6) summarizes planned monitoring protocols, 7) describes the network’s 

approach to data management, and 8) provides information on program administration, funding, 

and operations. 

The SEAN’s monitoring architecture is structured to detect both natural and anthropogenic 

causes of change in ecosystem structure, function, and process. This architecture addresses the 

distinct spatial and temporal scales pertinent to each park and will incorporate a sampling design 

intended to both capture relatively local, park-specific trends and also to function like a network, 

so that inference scope is maximized. Selected Vital Signs can be described as response 
xviii

variables (discrete ecosystem elements that are influenced by various other ecosystem elements 

as well as ecological processes; e.g., wildlife populations) and covariates (ecosystem processes 

and elements that may not be of primary interest in and of themselves, but are particularly 

valuable in helping understand the context and factors of change in response variables; e.g., 

weather, oceanography, etc.). 

This plan presents a Core Program and a Secondary Program (Table 1). The SEAN Core 

Program includes 12 Vital Signs on which the network will focus its time, staff, and funds. For 

these Vital Signs, SEAN will develop formal monitoring protocols and fund operation, data 

collection, analysis, and reporting. The 6 Vital Signs in the Secondary Program are park-led 

monitoring efforts towards which SEAN will contribute data management expertise as time and 

funds allow. In distinguishing these 2 programs, SEAN explicitly focuses its limited resources 

and this Monitoring Plan on implementing and sustaining the highest-priority Vital Signs while 

also working to ensure (as time and resources allow) that park-led efforts benefit from adherence 

to the same rigorous, long-term data management standards as the Core Program Vital Signs. 

Over both the near-term and long-term, rigorous data management systems are the mechanisms 

by which SEAN will demonstrate its usefulness to parks and the public. Our data management 

procedures, beginning with system development and running through program operation, are 

built upon four “Core Functions”: acquisition, certification, repository, and dissemination. 

SEAN data management philosophy–the perspective from which we will approach both program 

development and operations–is explicitly focused on information dissemination. SEAN 

fundamentally integrates data delivery goals and objectives with protocol development and data 

acquisition; SEAN data will not be collected without forethought to whether they will result in 

achievement of monitoring objectives. The SEAN Data Management Plan is a companion to this 

report; it identifies key data resources and processes to manage inventory and monitoring data. 

We present our anticipated approach to sampling design for each of the 12 Core Program Vital 

Signs. Where possible and practical, we emphasize colocation of sampling sites (particularly for 

freshwater Vital Signs) and consistency across designs to facilitate integrative Vital Sign 

reporting and to support weight-of-evidence assessments. 

Reporting is the process by which we deliver information, derived from monitoring data, which 

communicates the condition of Vital Signs. Vital Signs monitoring reports will include: 1) 

Resource Briefs that concisely summarize the justification, methods, key findings, and available 

data for each Vital Sign; 2) annual summaries written for park and network managers; 3) fiveyear trend reports for park superintendents and natural resource managers; 4) internet websites 

for NPS staff, external cooperators, and the general public; 5) biannual newsletters for NPS staff, 

also made publicly available on the SEAN website; and 6) e-mail bulletins for park 

superintendents, natural resource managers, and the general public on request. To promote 

efficient reporting, data management efforts during the summary and analysis phase focus on 

automation of routine reports. Summary analysis for annual reports of Vital Signs monitoring 

studies will include graphed results and descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, sample 

size) for all of the primary variables included in the project. Five to ten year trend reports will 

typically include correlation and trends analysis.
xix

Table 1 The Core and Secondary Vital Signs Programs of the Southeast Alaska Network Vital 

Signs Monitoring Program. The 12 Core Vital Signs are the top priority Vital Signs that SEAN 

will address in the first five years of program implementation, and are the focus of this 

Monitoring Plan. A formal monitoring protocol will be developed for each of these 12 Vital 

Signs. Secondary Vital Signs will receive programmatic and data management support from 

SEAN as funding and staff schedules allow.

Ecological Monitoring Framework 

Level 1 Level 2 SEAN VITAL SIGN 

SEAN 

PARKS 

GLBA 

KLGO 

SITK 

Air and Climate Air Quality Airborne Contaminants ● ● ●

Weather and Climate Weather and Climate ● ● ●

Geology and 

Soils 

Geomorphology Glacial Dynamics (extent) ● ● 

Hydrology 

Streamflow ● ● ●

Oceanography ● 

Water Water Quality 

Freshwater Benthic 

Macroinvertebrates and Algae + + 

Freshwater Contaminants ● ● ●

Freshwater Water Quality ● ● ●

Marine Contaminants ● ● ●

Biological 

Integrity 

Invasive Species Invasive/Exotic Plants   

Focal Species or 

Communities 

Intertidal Communities + ●

Marine Predators ● 

Kittlitz’s Murrelets ● 

Western Toads +  

At-risk Biota Humpback Whales  

Human Use 

Visitor and Recreation Use Human Uses and Mode of Access   

Soundscape Underwater Sound  

Landscapes 

(Ecosystem 

Patterns & 

Processes) 

Landscape Dynamics Landform and Landcover ● ● ●

● Vital Signs for which the network will develop protocols and implement monitoring using funding from the Vital 

Signs or water quality monitoring programs. 

 Vital Signs that are currently being monitored by a network park, another NPS program, or by another federal or 

state agency using other funding. The network will collaborate with these other monitoring efforts. These Vital 

Signs represent the Secondary SEAN Program. 

+ Vital Signs apply to this park but will not be monitored at this time due to higher priorities and staff and funding 

limitations. 
xx

Administrative oversight for the program originates from the Board of Directors (BOD), the 

Chiefs of Resources, and Technical Committee (TC). The BOD, representing the superintendents 

of the three parks, the Regional I&M Coordinator, and the Network Coordinator (non-voting 

member), is charged with oversight of the network. The TC represents the natural resource 

technical staff of the 3 parks and serves as the scientific and operational body of the network that 

develops recommendations on how monitoring is implemented. The Network Coordinator will 

work closely with the Chiefs of Resources to plan park-specific implementation, time, and 

funding commitments. The Network Coordinator is supervised by the GLBA Superintendent 

with performance review input from the BOD. In turn, the Network Coordinator supervises the 

SEAN Data Manager. The SEAN staffing plan includes Project Leaders who oversee 

implementation of particular Vital Signs monitoring projects; Park Leads who support project 

implementation and assist with permitting and logistics; technical experts who provide support in 

GIS, data management, statistical analysis, and survey design. For many Vital Sign monitoring 

projects, the Park Lead is also the Project Leader. 

Several sources of funding are combined to support operations of the SEAN. The two principle 

funding sources are allocated through the Natural Resources Challenge: Vital Signs monitoring 

funds ($441,000) and Water Quality funds ($42,000). All funds are managed by the Network 

Coordinator under the oversight of the BOD. An Annual Work Plan directs expenditure of funds 

to projects, parks, and offices; it is submitted for approval by the Washington Office after being 

developed with input from the TC and review by the BOD. All SEAN program funds must be 

strictly accounted for and disclosed in an Annual Administrative Report, which is jointly 

produced with the Annual Work Plan. 

SEAN will be subject to periodic reviews to ensure high program quality and accountability. A 

full Program Review will occur in 2011, three years after this plan is implemented. This 

Program Review is intended to ensure that progress has been made toward protocol completion 

and that the SEAN organization is oriented toward meeting its goals and objectives. The 

Network Coordinator will ensure that all monitoring protocols have been sufficiently tested and 

developed, and are then submitted to the Regional Coordinator for formal peer review. 

Beginning in FY2011, the SEAN will host a triennial Science Symposium and Investigators’ 

Report. This will be in the form of a two-day meeting at which all investigators conducting 

monitoring will deliver technical presentations and discuss the results of their work. The 

Network Coordinator will use this meeting to solicit both detailed, project-specific reviews of 

work on specific Vital Signs, progress toward monitoring objectives, and also to request a more 

general critique of program implementation. 
1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 

The Southeast Alaska Network (SEAN) includes Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, 

Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, and Sitka National Historical Park (hereafter 

GLBA, KLGO, and SITK). The SEAN is one of 32 networks of national parks included in the 

Servicewide Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) program and one of four networks in Alaska. 

Park units within the SEAN contain approximately 3.3 million acres (8.2 million hectares) of 

parklands. GLBA includes 2.77 million acres (1.12 million hectares) of designated marine and 

terrestrial wilderness. KLGO and SITK contain designated cultural landscapes with significant 

natural resource components. Together, the SEAN parks encompass approximately 4 percent of 

the area managed by the National Park Service. 

For the purposes of this document, we define monitoring as the collection and analysis of 

replicated observations or measurements to evaluate changes in condition and, for some Vital 

Signs, progress toward meeting a desired condition (Elzinga et al. 1998). Desired conditions are 

typically defined in the parks’ General Management Plans or Resource Stewardship Strategy. 

1.1 Purposes of the Vital Signs Program 

The primary purpose of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program–to monitor the status and trend of 

key natural resource elements so that park managers can effectively preserve them–relates 

directly to the purposes of the National Park System. In this section, we review the justifications 

for integrating natural resource monitoring, set by enabling legislation for the NPS overall and 

for the SEAN parks specifically, that establish the importance of a program to track natural 

resource conditions. 

Vital signs, defined by NPS1, are a subset of physical, chemical, and biological elements and 

processes of park ecosystems that are selected to represent the overall health or condition of park 

resources, known or hypothesized effects of stressors, or elements that have important human 

values. The elements and processes that are monitored are a subset of the total suite of natural 

resources that park managers are directed to preserve "unimpaired for future generations," 

including water, air, acoustical, geological, plant and animal resources, and the various 

ecological, biological, and physical processes that act on those resources. Vital signs may occur 

at any level of organization including regional, landscape, community, population, or genetic 

level. Vital signs may be compositional (referring to the variety of elements in the system), 

structural (referring to the organization or pattern of the system), or functional (referring to 

ecological processes). 

More specifically, the purpose of the SEAN program is to design and implement monitoring 

protocols for a core set of selected high-priority Vital Signs and, when possible, to provide data 

management support for a secondary set of park-led Vital Signs. These core and secondary 

programs are described in detail in the third and subsequent chapters.

 

1

 NPS I&M Glossary, available at: http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/glossary.cfm
2

1.1.1 NPS Policies and Mandates that Link Monitoring and Management of Parks 

The enabling legislation establishing the NPS and its individual park units clearly mandates, as 

the primary objective, the protection, preservation, and conservation of park resources in 

perpetuity for the use and enjoyment of future generations (NPS 1980). NPS policy and 

pertinent legislation (National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998) require that park 

managers know the condition of natural resources under their stewardship and monitor long-term 

trends in those resources to fulfill the NPS mission of preserving parks unimpaired (Figure 1.1). 

The laws and management policies that follow provide the mandate for inventories and 

monitoring in national parks. 

 

Figure 1.1 Relationships between park mandates, resource protection, and long-term 

monitoring. 

The mission of the NPS (NPS Organic Act, 1916) is “to promote and regulate the use of the 

Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified by 

such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purposes of the said parks, monuments, 

and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects 

and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by 

such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” 

Congress strengthened the NPS’s protective function and provided language important to recent 

decisions about resource impairment when it amended the Organic Act in 1978 to state that “the 

protection, management, and administration of these areas shall be conducted in light of the high 

public value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of 

the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established.”

More recently, the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 established the framework 

for fully integrating natural resource monitoring and other science activities into the management 

processes of the National Park System. The act charges the Secretary of the Interior to 

“continually improve the ability of the National Park Service to provide state-of-the-art 
3

management, protection, and interpretation of and research on the resources of the National Park 

System,” and to “assure the full and proper utilization of the results of scientific studies for park 

management decisions.” Section 5934 of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to develop 

a program of “inventory and monitoring of National Park System resources to establish baseline 

information and to provide information on the long-term trends in the condition of National Park 

System resources.” 

Congress reinforced the message of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 in its 

text of the FY 2000 Appropriation Bill: 

“The Committee applauds the Service for recognizing that the preservation of the diverse natural 

elements and the great scenic beauty of America’s national parks and other units should be as 

high a priority in the Service as providing visitor services. A major part of protecting those 

resources is knowing what they are, where they are, how they interact with their environment 

and what condition they are in. This involves a serious commitment from the leadership of the 

National Park Service to insist that the superintendents carry out a systematic, consistent, 

professional inventory and monitoring program, along with other scientific activities, that is 

regularly updated to ensure that the Service makes sound resource decisions based on sound 

scientific data.” 

The 2006 NPS Management Policies updated previous policy and specifically directed the 

Service to inventory and monitor natural systems: 

“Natural systems in the national park system, and the human influences upon them, will be 

monitored to detect change. The Service will evaluate possible causes and effects of changes 

that might cause impacts on park resources and values. The Service will use the results of 

monitoring and research to understand the detected change and to develop appropriate 

management actions.” 

Further, the Service will: 

• Identify, acquire, and interpret needed inventory, monitoring, and research, including 

applicable traditional knowledge, to obtain information and data that will help park managers 

accomplish park management objectives provided for in law and planning documents; 

• define, assemble, and synthesize comprehensive baseline inventory data describing the 

natural resources under NPS stewardship, and identify the processes that influence those 

resources; 

• Use qualitative and quantitative techniques to monitor key aspects of resources and processes 

at regular intervals; 

• Analyze the resulting information to detect or predict changes ( including interrelationships 

with visitor carrying capacities) that may require management intervention and to provide 

reference points for comparison with other environments and time frames; and 

• Use the resulting information to maintain--and, where necessary restore-- the integrity of 

natural systems (2006 NPS Management Policies). 
4

Additional statutes that provide legal direction for expending funds to determine the condition of 

natural resources in parks, and that specifically guide the natural resource management of 

Network parks include the following: 

• Taylor Grazing Act 1934 

• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Acts, 1958 and 1980 

• Marine Mammal Protection Act 1972 

• Wilderness Act 1964 

• National Historic Preservation Act 1966 

• National Environmental Policy Act 1969 

• Clean Water Act 1972, amended 1977, 1987 

• Endangered Species Act 1973, amended 1982 

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act 1974 

• Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Acts, 1974 and 1976 

• Mining in the Parks Act 1976 

• American Indian Religious Freedom Act 1978 

• Archaeological Resources Protection Act 1979 

• Federal Cave Resources Protection Act 1988 

• Clean Air Act, amended 1990 

• Wild and Scenic River Act 1990. 

1.1.2 SEAN Parks Legislation 

The SEAN has some distinct, though not unique, challenges associated with the pronounced 

variety of spatial scales and recognized resources of the networks parks. This section describes 

the within-network diversity represented by the SEAN parks, as communicated by the enabling 

legislation of each.

1.1.2.1 GLBA Enabling Legislation 

On February 25, 1925, Presidential Proclamation designated Glacier Bay National Monument 

(GLBA) with the purpose of preserving and protecting the area’s tidewater glaciers, vegetation, 

unique opportunities for scientific study of glaciers and related flora and fauna changes over 

time, and historic value associated with early explorers and scientists. GLBA was expanded by 

approximately 523,000 acres and designated as a National Park and Preserve by the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Claim Act in 1980 (ANILCA, [P.L. 96-487] December 2, 1980). 

ANILCA further specified GLBA’s directive to include preserving lands and waters containing 

nationally significant natural, scenic, historic, archeological, geological, scientific, wilderness, 

cultural, recreational, and wildlife values; preserving the unrivaled scenic and geological values 

associated with natural landscapes; maintaining sound populations of, and habitat for, wildlife 

species of inestimable value to the citizens; preserving the natural, unaltered state of the coastal 

rainforest ecosystem; preserving wilderness resources and related recreational opportunities; 

maintaining opportunities for scientific research and undisturbed ecosystems; allowing the park 

to remain “[a] large sanctuary where fish and wildlife may roam free, developing their social 

structure and evolving over long periods of time as nearly as possible without the changes that 

extensive human activities would cause”. The specific direction for GLBA to provide research 

opportunities is a feature that distinguishes the GLBA mandate from that of many other national 

parks. 
5

Although ANILCA was passed before the inauguration of the NPS Inventory and Monitoring 

program, the act contains language that describes the need for an ecological monitoring program. 

The passage of ANILCA had, and will continue to have, large ramifications for national parks in 

Alaska. It is important to understand the intent of this law and its effect on the management of 

Alaska national parks. 

Title I, Section 101(b) of ANILCA states that: 

 it is the intent of Congress in this Act to preserve unrivaled scenic and geological values 

associated with natural landscapes; 

 to provide for the maintenance of sound populations of, and habitat for, wildlife species 

of inestimable value to the citizens of Alaska and the Nation, including those species 

dependent on vast relatively undeveloped areas; 

 to preserve in their natural state extensive unaltered arctic tundra, boreal forest, and 

coastal rainforest ecosystems; 

 to protect the resources related to subsistence needs; 

 to protect and preserve historic and archeological sites, rivers, and lands, and to preserve 

wilderness resource values and related recreational opportunities including but not 

limited to hiking, canoeing, fishing, and sport hunting, within large arctic and subarctic 

wildlands and on free-flowing rivers; 

 and to maintain opportunities for scientific research and undisturbed ecosystems. 

1.1.2.2 KLGO Enabling Legislation 

Public Law 94-323, June 30, 1976 created Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park 

(KLGO) “in order to preserve in public ownership for the benefit and inspiration of the people of 

the United States, historic structures and trails associated with the Klondike Gold Rush of 1898. 

Pending such establishment and thereafter, the Secretary shall administer lands, waters, and 

interests therein acquired for the park in accordance with the provisions of the Act approved 

August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535), as amended and supplemented, and the Act approved August 21, 

1935 (49 Stat. 666), as amended. ...The Secretary is authorized to cooperate and enter into 

agreements... in order to contribute to the development and management of such lands in a 

manner compatible with the purposes of the park. Such agreements, acquisitions, dispositions, 

development, or use and land-use plans shall provide for the preservation of historical sites and 

scenic areas, recreation, and visitor enjoyment to the fullest extent practicable.” 

1.1.2.3 SITK Enabling Legislation 

The Presidential Proclamation (N.959, 36 Stat. 2601, Mar. 23, 1910) that created Sitka National 

Monument (SITK) states: “Whereas, within the limits of public park created by proclamation 

June 21, 1890, near Sitka, Alaska, is located the decisive battle ground of the Russian conquest 

of Alaska in 1804, and also the site of the former village of Kik-Siti [Kiks.adi] tribe, the most 

warlike of the Alaskan Indians; and that here also are the graves of a Russian midshipman and 

six sailors, killed in the conflict, and numerous totem poles constructed by the Indians, which 

record the genealogical history of their several clans...”; Public Law 92-501, October 18, 1972, 

Sitka National Monument in the State of Alaska re-designated as Sitka National Historical Park, 

and it shall be administered, protected, and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the 

Act of August 25, 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1, 2-4), as amended and supplemented. 
6

Clearly, the information gained from an ecological monitoring program is integral to the ability 

of SEAN park managers to steward the land in a manner consistent with enabling legislation, 

including ANILCA. Although each SEAN park preserves unique areas, these parks share the 

common purpose of protecting outstanding natural resources across a full complement of spatial 

scales. This common purpose, coupled with common larger context of the coastal temperate 

rainforest of Southeast Alaska, unifies the network. 

1.2 Goals of Vital Signs Monitoring 

The first section of this chapter addressed the broad goals of monitoring in the context set by the 

enabling legislation for national parks generally and for the SEAN parks specifically. In this 

section, we first discuss the importance of inventory, monitoring, and research in stewarding 

natural resources. We then discuss our goals and objectives for SEAN monitoring, summarize 

our progress to date, and describe the next steps toward program implementation. 

The overall goals of natural resource monitoring in the national parks are to develop 

scientifically sound information on the current status and long-term trends in the composition, 

structure, and function of park ecosystems and to quantitatively determine how well current 

management practices are sustaining those ecosystems. Five Vital Sign monitoring goals guide 

all network monitoring programs: 

1. Determine status and trends in selected indicators of the condition of park ecosystems to 

allow managers to make better-informed decisions and to work more effectively with 

other agencies and individuals for the benefit of park resources. 

2. Provide early warning of abnormal conditions of selected resources to help develop 

effective mitigation measures and reduce costs of management. 

3. Provide data to better understand the dynamic nature and condition of park ecosystems 

and to provide reference points for comparisons with other altered environments. 

4. Provide data to meet certain legal and congressional mandates related to natural resource 

protection and visitor enjoyment. 

5. Provide a means of measuring progress toward performance goals. 

The SEAN long-term monitoring program will be designed around these five broad, Servicewide 

goals. We have specifically chosen to focus the SEAN monitoring program on general 

ecological function and several key species of management concern because our parks are 

primarily concerned with effects of anthropogenic and large-scale environmental influences on 

park-level resources and populations. Servicewide monitoring goals 1 and 3 establish the 

primary framework for the monitoring in the SEAN because they emphasize the establishment of 

baseline reference conditions representing the current status of park and preserve ecosystems, 

and an understanding of the range of natural variation in park ecosystems and detecting changes 

through time. 
7

1.2.1 Integrating Water and Air Quality Monitoring 

Issues affecting water quality, the role of water quality monitoring in an integrated ecosystem 

context, Water Resources Division (WRD) core parameters, and other water quality 

variables/metrics were discussed at coastal, freshwater, and marine scoping workshops. The 

network’s strategy for water quality monitoring (funded by the NPS WRD) is to fully integrate 

the design and implementation of water quality monitoring with the network-based Vital Signs 

monitoring. Steps taken toward developing a water quality monitoring component include (i) 

identifying and evaluating existing monitoring efforts, historic data, and information needs; (ii) 

developing a list of biological, chemical, and physical parameters for monitoring; and (iii) 

determining watershed and water body features. 

As part of these efforts, the network has determined that one waterway–Pullen Creek, partly 

within KLGO–is an impaired [303(d)-listed] waterway. The primary water quality concern for 

Pullen Creek is heavy metal contamination, in particular lead, zinc, cadmium, and mercury. 

These metals have been found in Skagway Harbor and are thought to originate from an ore 

transfer facility associated with the railroad in the town of Skagway. Other potential sources of 

metals in Pullen Creek are formerly used defense sites from World War II and urban runoff 

(Hood et al. 2006). Although Pullen Creek is within KLGO’s administrative boundary, the NPS 

has no jurisdiction over any portion of the stream. 

The State of Alaska does not designate Outstanding National Resource Waters. Water quality 

data collection within these parks has been sporadic, and trend analysis is not possible. In 

general, the SEAN waters show little evidence of human impact, but the network is concerned 

about potential impacts to water and air quality associated with cruise ship activity and delivery 

of airborne pollutants from industrial development in Asia. Of particular concern, however, is 

the portion of the Indian River that flows through SITK; specific water quality and quantity 

monitoring is being developed to address concerns with upstream residential development and 

diversion. 

There are no designated Class I Air Quality (Clean Air Act with 1990 Amendments) areas in the 

SEAN. GLBA presently has both requisite national park and designated wilderness acreage but 

these were not established until the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

(ANILCA) ten years after the passage of the original Clean Air Act in 1970. All parks are 

required to preserve the scenery unimpaired (NPS 1916), and all the SEAN parks are designated 

as Class II airsheds. Thus, measurable air quality parameters are of high value to natural area 

managers. In addition, the SEAN is a partner to the recently completed Western Airborne 

Contaminants Assessment Project (WACAP), a research effort to determine the risk to 

ecosystems and food webs in western national parks from the long-range transport of airborne 

contaminants. Beyond the importance of air quality monitoring for its own sake, wet and dry 

deposition of contaminants from far-field sources (e.g., pollutants delivered from Asian 

industrialization) is a growing concern because of their potential impacts to a wide array of other 

Vital Signs. 
8

1.3 Monitoring Objectives 

Network monitoring objectives, organized in the national I&M program’s ecological framework, 

have been established to help focus the monitoring program and facilitate partnerships. Table 1.1 

presents these general objectives for the 12 Vital Signs that form the SEAN Core Program (see 

Chapter 3). Network monitoring objectives established during Vital Sign development ensured 

that a full spectrum of ecological attributes and management issues were considered for possible 

monitoring. Detailed, quantifiable, Vital Sign monitoring objectives have been identified for 

individual Vital Signs as part of protocol development (see Chapter 5 and Appendix C). 

1.4 Southeast Alaska Network: Environmental Setting 

The SEAN consists of three units of the NPS. GLBA (5,130 mi2 [13,286 km2]) is headquartered 

in Gustavus, KLGO (20.6 mi2 [53.3 km2]) is managed by staff in Skagway, and SITK (0.18 mi2

[0.47 km2] is managed in Sitka. Collectively, these units comprise 3.3 million acres (1.3 million 

hectares)–fully 4 percent of the land managed by the NPS, and include a diversity of geologic 

and hydrologic features, ecosystems, wildlife, and climate conditions that are equaled in few 

places in North America. 

The three SEAN parks are strongly influenced by their proximity to the Gulf of Alaska and the 

maritime passages of the Alexander Archipelago (Figure 1.1). Southeast Alaska includes over 

1,100 islands, which are the tops of the partly submerged Coast Range. The region is bounded to 

the east by a mainland mountain range with peaks reaching 10,000 feet (3,048 m) elevation. 

These mountains and associated icefields are bisected by several large glacial rivers. The ocean 

coast to the west is lined with mountain ridges and peaks with heights ranging from 5,000 feet 

(1,524 m) to over 15,000 feet (4,572 m) above sea level. 

Marine environments and influences are integral components of all the Southeast Alaska parks. 

Storm systems typically approach Southeast Alaska from the Gulf of Alaska to the west and 

drive abundant moisture ashore. The dramatic topography produces a strong orographic effect 

with high precipitation near the ocean coast, and distinct rain shadows on the leeward side of 

mountain masses. These extremes are exemplified by the SEAN parks. For example, SITK 

(Figure 1.2) is exposed to the Gulf of Alaska and receives two or three times more precipitation 

(96”) than KLGO (Figure 1.3), which is about 100 miles (161 km) from the open ocean. GLBA 

(Figure 1.4) incorporates its own steep precipitation gradient from its outer coast on the open 

ocean to the drier eastern side of the Fairweather Range. Although strong gradients in 

precipitation characterize the region, generally high precipitation and cool temperatures support 

temperate rainforest ecosystems and myriad freshwater environments, including glaciers, glacial 

rivers, clearwater streams, lakes, and wetlands. Within the network parks, freshwater and 

terrestrial ecosystems are well represented. Although GLBA is the only park that includes an 

extensive marine component within its boundaries, both KLGO and SITK border productive 

estuaries, and all three parks are greatly influenced by marine processes. 
9

Table 1.1 Preliminary SEAN monitoring objectives, organized in the Inventory and Monitoring 

Ecological Management Framework. 

Level 1 Level 2 SEAN Vital Sign Monitoring Objective 

Air and Climate 

Air Quality Airborne 

Contaminants 

Track decadal trends of selected contaminants by 

direct measures of total deposition, air 

concentration, and lichen tissue concentration. 

Weather and 

Climate 

Weather and 

Climate 

Track the weather conditions at selected locations 

in SEAN parks. 

Geology and 

Soils 

Geomorphology Glacial Dynamics 

Determine changes in glacial extent and 

configuration of selected glaciers in GLBA and 

KLGO. 

Hydrology 

Streamflow Determine status and trends of streamflow in 

select SEAN streams. 

Oceanography 

Track spatial and temporal variation in water 

temperature, salinity, turbidity, pH, dissolved 

oxygen, light penetration, and primary 

productivity in marine waters of Glacier Bay 

proper. 

Water Water Quality 

Freshwater 

Contaminants 

Track selected contaminants through analysis of 

sediment and fish tissue samples. 

Freshwater Water 

Quality 

Determine trends of core water quality parameters 

(temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, pH) 

in select SEAN streams. 

Marine 

Contaminants 

Track marine contaminants at selected locations in 

all SEAN parks through biannual collection and 

analysis of blue mussel tissue samples. 

Biological 

Integrity 

Focal Species or 

Communities 

Intertidal 

Communities 

Determine the status and trends of intertidal 

species composition and distribution for the SITK 

intertidal zone. 

Marine Predators 

Determine long-term trends in the abundance and 

spatial distribution of marine birds and mammals 

within GLBA proper. 

At-risk Biota Kittlitz’s Murrelets 

Determine annual and long-term trends in 

abundance and spatial and temporal distribution 

within Glacier Bay proper. 

Landscapes 

(Ecosystem 

Patterns & 

Processes) 

Landscape 

Dynamics 

Landform and 

Landcover 

Determine long-term status and decadal trends in 

the areal extent and configuration of key landforms within, and on lands influencing SEAN 

parks. 
10

Figure 1.1 The Alexander Archipelago and the Southeast Alaska Network parks 
Figure 1.2 Map of Sitka National Historical Park.
12

Figure 1.3 Map of Klondike Goldrush National Historical Park. 
13

Figure 1.4 Map of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. 
14

KLGO and SITK are mandated specifically to maintain their cultural landscapes, which are 

composed of important ecological features. A cultural landscape is defined by the NPS as “a 

geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic 

animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or 

aesthetic values.” Nearly all cultural landscapes are dependent on park natural resources. It is 

these interconnected, dynamic systems of land, air, and water, vegetation and wildlife which 

have dynamic qualities that differentiate cultural landscapes from other cultural resources, such 

as historic structures. Thus, their documentation, treatment, and ongoing management require a 

comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach, including ecological monitoring. The integrity of 

the parks’ natural resources must be maintained in order to maintain the integrity of these 

cultural landscapes. For example, the SITK designated cultural landscape centers around a 

healthy Indian River and temperate rainforest associated with the Old Public Park (established in 

1890) and the Totem Trail. KLGO administers the Chilkoot Trail which winds through several 

ecological zones before reaching White Pass. These cultural landscapes overlay significant 

ecological resources that maintain a link with a community’s past and are vital to maintaining its 

integrity and sense of place, to the point that cultural and natural properties are indistinguishable. 

Although natural resources are not emphasized in their enabling legislation, they were identified 

as having “significant natural resources” by park managers and included in the I&M Program. 

1.4.1 Klondike Goldrush National Historical Park 

Established in 1976, KLGO is comprises three separate units totaling 13,191 acres (5,338 

hectares). It rests at the northern end of the Lynn Canal surrounded by steep, glaciated 

mountains. The park includes parts of both the Taiya and Skagway valleys which provide short 

pathways to glacier-free mountain passes connecting to the Canadian interior. The Taiya and 

Skagway Rivers reach two of only three glacier-free passes through the Coast Ranges of Alaska. 

As a result, KLGO is where the cold interior eco-region meets the Northwest Coast. The 

diversity of plant and animal species in Upper Lynn Canal are the highest in Alaska. With 

subarctic, alpine, boreal forest, north coast forest, and marine systems converging at KLGO, the 

park hosts species assemblages found nowhere else in the world. Plant diversity is high, as plant 

communities transition from wet coastal rainforest to drier interior conditions (Carlson et al. 

2007). Over 174 vascular plant species are present. The Chilkoot Trail unit of the park contains 

a variety of vegetation zones, including intertidal sand flats, coastal meadow, coastal western 

hemlock/Sitka spruce forest, subalpine montane zone of mountain hemlock/subalpine fir, and 

alpine tundra at the highest elevations. The Skagway and Taiya Rivers carry large amounts of 

glacial silt, causing the rivers to shift their course frequently as new bars and channels are 

formed. Chum, coho, and pink salmon spawn in the lower Taiya River and its tributaries. 

Resident fish include Dolly Varden char. Thousands of migratory and resident waterbirds and 

other predators, including bald eagles, seals, and sea lions, are attached to the spring eulachon 

run. The park contains mountain goats, black bear, and a small population of moose. Brown 

bears are regularly seen feeding on spawning salmon in the Taiya River system. Wolverine, 

marmot, porcupine, marten, and coyote are also present. Mink, bald eagles, and many other 

birds are found along the saltwater edge. One hundred fifty-eight species of birds have been 

recorded in the park. The western toad and Columbian spotted frog are the only amphibian 

species confirmed in the park. The unique geographic and ecological setting of KLGO 

underscores its importance as a rare linkage between interior and coastal Alaskan systems. 
15

1.4.2 Sitka National Historical Park 

SITK was first designated a federal public park in 1890 and received its current designation in 

1972. It includes 113 acres (46 hectares) of coastal lowland and riparian forest, the Indian River, 

and tidelands in Sitka Sound. The park protects and preserves a battleground, the site of the 

Kiks.ádi fort Shiskinoow, and the Russian Memorial associated with the 1804 Battle of Sitka; a 

collection of Tlingit and Haida totem poles; the grounds and structures associated with the 

Russian Bishop’s House (“Russian mission”) and the natural resources that give context to the 

historical events that occurred here. The convergence of the Indian River, the coastal rainforest, 

and the Pacific Ocean provides a biologically rich environment for a variety of aquatic resources 

and the organisms that depend on them. Sitka spruce/western hemlock forest dominates. Red 

alder is the major tree species of floodplains and riparian zones. One hundred fifty bird species 

have been recorded in and around the park. Salmon runs sometimes pack the Indian River with 

over 1.5 million fish. Brown bears, river otters, mink, and black-tailed deer frequently use park 

resources and habitat. Over 165 vascular and 172 nonvascular plant species have been 

inventoried in the park. Fifty two benthic macroinvertebrate species typical of cold clearwater 

streams have been identified from the Indian River. The park’s intertidal zone and estuarine 

areas, comprising fully 44% (50 acres) of the park’s acreage, teem with marine invertebrates 

such as seastars, limpets, chitons, polychaete worms, barnacles, clams, crabs, shrimp, and snails. 

Over 219 invertebrate species have been recorded in initial surveys, along with 85 species of 

marine algae. Marine fishes abound, including several species of rockfish, gunnels, surf perch, 

sculpins, coxcombs, greenlings, and tubesnouts. Although the State of Alaska owns the 

intertidal zone within the park boundary, SITK has the authority to manage these intertidal lands 

from a state lease. This unique management situation underlies a pronounced interest of the 

park’s natural resource staff in intertidal issues. 

1.4.3 Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve 

First designated a National Monument in 1925, GLBA was expanded to 3,283,246 acres 

(1,328,700 hectares) by ANILCA in 1980. This Act also designated 2.77 million acres of marine 

and terrestrial wilderness within the park. GLBA is situated at the southern reaches of a coastal, 

mountainous, wilderness landscape that includes the fourth largest area of glacial ice on earth. 

GLBA protects and preserves extensive icefields, alpine glaciers, and tidewater glaciers that 

emanate from mountain ranges rising abruptly from the coast. A long history of glacial activity 

and of tectonic activity along an active plate boundary has produced a complicated and dynamic 

geography and geology. A great diversity of bedrock types, geomorphic features, surface ages, 

and local climates has allowed the development of myriad habitat types in terrestrial, freshwater, 

and marine environments. A coastal rainforest of western hemlock and Sitka spruce is the 

dominant lowland vegetation in the region. Vegetation types representing early successional 

stages dominate in recently deglaciated areas. Lakes, streams, wetlands, and marine ecosystems 

are also developing in areas recently exposed by retreating glaciers. Over 300 streams are 

present in the park, 100 of which are newly formed since glaciers have receded. Most streams 

with a connection to the ocean host Pacific salmon runs. About 30 species of land mammals 

occur in GLBA, including beaver, red fox, hoary marmot, porcupine, river otter, mink, marten, 

wolverine, and ermine. Black bears are widespread and common, while brown bears are less 

numerous and found primarily in open habitats and close to salmon streams. Moose occur 

widely throughout thickets, meadows and open forests of lower elevations; deer are found in the 
16

mature plant communities fringing Icy Strait. Mountain goats occupy high elevations with 

suitable habitat. 

Within GLBA’s jurisdiction are over 600,000 acres of marine waters, including 53,000 acres of 

designated wilderness waters. As a result, GLBA is one of only a handful of large conservation 

areas in the world that includes extensive saltwater habitat. It is also the largest marine area 

managed by the NPS. GLBA’s approximately 1,180 miles of coastline represent nearly 30% of 

total NPS marine coastline–nearly three times more than the next largest coastline park. Due to 

large tidal fluctuations, the marine photic zone continuously receives dissolved nutrients from 

depth, while large surface inputs of fresh water provide stability during periods of sufficient 

daylength to sustain phytoplankton growth. These conditions stimulate high primary and 

subsequent secondary production of phytoplankton and zooplankton–the foundations of the 

marine food web–which support an abundance of forage fishes and other marine vertebrate 

predators. Invertebrates such as Dungeness crab, Tanner crab, sea anemones, and shellfish are 

also abundant in park marine waters. These resources in turn support diverse and abundant 

marine mammals, including harbor seals, Steller sea lions, humpback and killer whales, Dall’s 

and harbor porpoises, and a northern sea otter population that is approaching 2,000 individuals. 

About 240 species of birds have been recorded from the park, preserve, and nearby environs, 

including a diverse array of seabirds, passerines, shorebirds, raptors, and waterfowl. GLBA 

provides valuable opportunities to study and enjoy coastal flora and fauna in an unimpaired state, 

and to educate the public about the biological richness of marine systems and relationship to 

adjacent glacial and terrestrial systems. More information is available at the web pages for each 

park (http://www.nps.gov/klgo/; http://www.nps.gov/glba/; http://www.nps.gov/sitk/). 

1.5 Resource Preservation Concerns 

An implicit goal of the SEAN monitoring program is to achieve and sustain relevance to the 

parks that it is intended to serve; it must provide data useful to protection of park resources now 

and in the future. To ensure relevancy over time, the monitoring program must address broad 

concerns and not be limited to the issues of today, because these issues will undoubtedly change 

(MacCluskie and Oakley 2004). 

Understanding concerns pertaining to park resources is a fundamental first step in informing 

development of a monitoring program. That is, in order to begin describing what we choose to 

monitor and why, we must first describe why we are concerned about particular resources. This 

process is necessary in order to devise a monitoring program that is responsive and relevant to 

those concerns. 

Concern for park resources is essentially a perception of risk of harm to a valued resource. Risk 

is typically perceived because a valued resource is sensitive to an apparent and substantial 

stressor. Concerns about threats to the SEAN park resources can be generally characterized as 

those that are broad-scale and apply to all network parks, and those that are more local and parkspecific. This section identifies and briefly describes the SEAN’s key resource preservation 

concerns. Relationships among the concerns are discussed in conceptual models presented in 

Chapter 2. 
17

1.5.1 Broad-Scale Concerns of All SEAN Parks 

The resource protection concerns of the SEAN parks fall into two main categories: 

1. Concerns stemming from global industrialization: these include climate change, longdistance air and marine pollution, species additions and losses (biodiversity) and effects 

on migratory species when they are not present in network parks 

2. Concerns relating to human activities and development in the parks and in the regions of 

the parks 

1.5.1.1 Global Industrialization 

Vitousek et al. (1997) presented a concise, sobering picture of human domination of the Earth’s 

ecosystems. Growth of human populations and resource consumption are maintained by 

agriculture, industry, fishing, and international commerce. These activities change the Earth’s 

surface by way of two major effects: (1) changes in major biogeochemical cycles, and (2) adding 

or removing species. These alterations to the functioning of the Earth’s ecosystems are driving 

global climatic change and the irretrievable loss of biological diversity. This conceptual model of 

humanity’s role in Earth’s ecosystems provides a broad context for considering the resource 

protection concerns of the SEAN parks. Although the SEAN parks are relatively distant from 

many of the actual or potential sources of influence, human activities are changing the 

surrounding world so quickly and dramatically that this broad perspective–regional and even 

global–is necessary. 

 

Others (including the Central Alaska Network, MacCluskie and Oakley 2004) have noted that 

the most significant potential adverse effects on Alaska’s national parks from industrialization 

may result from activities in areas far away from the parks themselves. Concerns stemming from 

global industrialization fall into three categories: climate change, air and ocean pollution, and 

effects on biodiversity and species assemblages. 

Climate Change: Overall climate warming trends documented elsewhere are also being detected 

in much of Alaska. Dramatic melting of snow and ice in Alaska has been occurring over the last 

few decades due to warmer climate. Warming has caused thawing of many glaciers and 

permanent snowfields across Alaska, as well as reductions in seasonal snowfall and shorter 

seasons of river, lake, and sea ice. 

 

Warmer temperatures will result in a longer growing season. Changes in precipitation, 

vegetation community types, and marine, freshwater, and terrestrial processes will result in 

changes in vertebrate distribution and habitat use. Surface and groundwater processes will be 

affected by changes in timing and amount of runoff and snow/ice melt. All these processes 

could influence local marine characteristics or processes, with potentially profound changes on 

complex marine food webs. The magnitude and manifestation of many effects of climate change 

cannot be known at this time; large-scale, long-term ecological monitoring will be of tremendous 

value in understanding and responding to change in park resources. 

Long-distance Air and Marine Pollution: Low population densities, lack of large-scale industrial 

development, proximity to the Pacific Ocean, and vast stretches of wildlands lead many to 

believe that the air quality of Southeast Alaska is among the most pristine in the world. 
18

However, a lichen-based air quality study completed in 1999 demonstrated that sulfur, nitrogen, 

and heavy metal concentrations in the KLGO-Skagway area exceeded nutrient enhancement and 

heavy metal concentration thresholds established by the USDA for the adjacent Tongass 

National Forest (Geiser et al. 1994, Furbish et al. 2000, Dillman pers. com.). All SEAN parks 

may also be impacted by near-field mobile sources including cruise ships and other marine 

traffic, near-field point sources such as diesel-fired generators, and far-field industrial sources in 

Eurasia. A record number of cruise ships visited Glacier Bay proper in 2007, on both an annual 

basis (225 ship visits) and through the peak summer months of June through August (153 ship 

visits) (source: GLBA administrative records). Of 1.7 million visitors traveling to Alaska in 

2007, fully 60% (1,029,800 visitors) traveled by cruise ship; virtually all travel through 

Southeast Alaska and cruise ship visitation is increasing (McDowell Group 2007). 

 

In addition to air contamination degrading visibility and impacting the parks’ scenic beauty, 

deposition of airborne contaminants in sensitive park ecosystems has the potential to contribute to 

foliar damage (Fenn 2006), terrestrial and marine community compositions shifts (Geiser et al. 

1994, Fenn 2006), and bioaccumulation of contaminants in marine and terrestrial organisms 

(Goodyear and McNeil 1998, Pedersen and Lierhagen 2006). 

Because coastal Alaska is the first land that Asian air masses encounter after traversing the 

Pacific, abundant orographic precipitation may deliver significant amounts of contamination. 

Due to geographic proximity and prevailing weather patterns, direct delivery of mercury from 

rapid industrial development in Asia may be important in Southeast Alaska. Methylmercury, the 

organic, bioavailable form of mercury, is 100 times more toxic than elemental mercury. It can 

bioaccumulate in a variety of taxa and can reach concentrations one million times greater than 

environmental concentrations (Wolfe et al. 1998). The ecological effects of these air pollutants 

in Alaskan ecosystems are unknown.

Effects on Biodiversity: The potential for non-native invasive species of plants and animals to 

become established in the network parks is another concern stemming from global 

industrialization. Species additions and losses due to the expansion of human commerce around 

the globe is one of the biggest ecological problems worldwide, and even remote Alaska parks 

need to be aware of this potential problem. 

1.5.1.2 Human Activities and Development In and Near Network Parks 

Local human activities that occur inside and outside park boundaries–including visitation, 

transportation, recreation, and development–can generate varied direct and indirect impacts on 

park resources. All SEAN parks experience high levels of commercial cruise ship visitation. 

Though cruises can be a low-impact means of exposing thousands of visitors to a park in a 

concentrated and contained way, they also carry risks of fuel or waste spills and discharge, 

contribution to local air pollution, and impact or disturbance risk to sensitive or endangered 

animals (including humpback whales [endangered], Steller sea lions [eastern population, 

threatened], and Kittlitz’s murrelets [Candidate-Priority 2]). More traditional visitor use, such as 

kayaking and camping in GLBA, may occur at relatively low levels but is often concentrated in a 

few particularly desirable or accessible locations. Local impacts to campsites or nesting seabird 

colonies, for example, are not a trivial issue. Acre-for-acre, SITK experiences far greater 

visitation rates than do GLBA or KLGO, and impacts there may include weed introduction and 
19

soil compaction or erosion. KLGO supports a variety of visitation types, from the high-intensity 

visitation of the near-town parts of the park and the Chilkoot Trail to the more dispersed 

visitation of remote off-trail backcountry areas of the park. 

In two cases, development and consumptive use are significant issues to the SEAN parks. 

Residential development upstream of SITK has considerable potential to affect water quality and 

quantity of the Indian River. In GLBA, “grandfathered” commercial fishing (for halibut, 

salmon, and crab) continues in designated areas of Glacier Bay proper and throughout the outer 

waters adjacent to the park. Personal use and sportfishing also occur in GLBA; guided charter 

fishing is a rapidly growing consumptive use. 

Visitor access to the SEAN parks is relatively concentrated and lends itself to monitoring. Due 

to size (SITK), remoteness and ruggedness (GLBA), or both (KLGO), network parks generally 

have a small number of key access points that can be monitored and controlled. On the other 

hand, visitation (and related impacts) outside these key access points is extremely difficult to 

measure and predict. 

 

Taken together, local and regional modes of human use and development present considerable 

concern for park resources including water quality, threatened and endangered species, species of 

concern, invasive species, and general resource condition. 

1.5.2 Park-Scale, Issues-Oriented Monitoring: What Are the Most Important 

Management and Scientific Issues to the Network? 

To achieve success and continued support, long-term monitoring must provide data that are both 

useful and widely used. The data must be relevant to topics of widespread interest (i.e., the 

broad-scale concerns discussed in Section 1.5.1, above), as well as those of specific management 

concern. Most importantly, the information generated from the monitoring program needs to 

assist park managers in clarifying and addressing resource protection issues and measuring 

progress towards achieving the desired conditions described in General Management Plans and 

Resource Stewardship Strategies. 

As used in this plan, “issues-oriented monitoring” implies that, by virtue of legislative mandate, 

importance to stakeholders, or risk from a specific threat, some park resources may receive 

attention beyond that which would derive solely from their ecological position of importance in 

the landscape. It does not imply that monitoring will focus only on a narrow range of issues 

perceived to be relevant to today’s management challenges. The network’s monitoring program 

cannot address every resource management interest. Limitations exist because institutional 

resources devoted to monitoring practices are constrained by time, finances, and personnel. 

In framing our monitoring approach in the context of this goal of relevance, the SEAN asked the 

question: What are the most important management and scientific issues to the Network? To 

begin to answer, past and current monitoring efforts within the parks were summarized (see 

Section 1.6, below). Network park resource protection issues were compiled from former and 

current management plans, review of published and unpublished literature, and interviews with 

current and former park staff. Park staff developed a list of natural resource management issues 

or natural resources of special concern (current and anticipated) and identified the basis for 
20

concern, if known, by identifying human-caused or environmental threats with the potential to 

adversely affect park resources. Issues were compiled and summarized under the headings of 

Physical Change, Biological Resources, Pollution, and Human Use (Table 1.2). This matrix was 

presented and discussed at scoping workshops attended by Regional NPS staff and scientists 

from other state and federal agencies. A recurring theme among issues was a lack of 

information. This is not surprising, given the vast size and complexity of the park units, the brief 

history of their resource management programs, and their relatively small staffs and budgets. 

Park units in the Network share many of the same resource protection issues because of 

similarity in landscape features, geographic proximity, type and magnitude of public use, and 

certain commonalities of enabling legislation. Most protection issues are linked to human 

population growth and the many ways that human activities are manifested in ecosystem 

response at the global, regional, network, and park scales. In Chapter 2, resource protection 

issues and concerns of Network parks are discussed under the headings of far-field 

(global/regional) and near-field (network/park). Conceptualizing far-field and near-field human 

effects is a challenging task because the scales are linked, and environmental changes are not 

evenly distributed across the earth. Far-field human-related issues manifest themselves in the 

forms of climate change, long-distance air and ocean pollution, and demand for fossil fuels and 

other minerals. Near-field human-related issues include use of plants and animals, recreational 

use, and private lands development. 

1.6 The SEAN Approach to Program Development 

For clear practical and budgetary reasons, it is not possible to monitor all attributes of interest at 

once. Therefore, our program will be implemented in a stepwise fashion, wherein protocol 

development is a priority in early years, followed by data collection and regular evaluation and 

adaptation. Chapter 9 details the SEAN’s roll-out process for strategic, prioritized 

implementation given known constraints. 

The SEAN has followed the basic three-phase, five-step approach to designing a monitoring 

program, described in detail in the “Recommended Approach for Developing a Network 

Monitoring Program” (http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/index.cfm): 

Phase 1 

1. Define the purpose and scope of the monitoring program. 

2. Compile and summarize existing data and understanding of park ecosystems. 

3. Develop conceptual models of relevant ecosystem components. 

Phase 2 

4. Select Vital Signs and specific monitoring objectives for each. 

Phase 3 

5. Determine the appropriate sampling design and sampling protocols. 

In February 2005, the SEAN Technical Committee held a freshwater ecosystems scoping 

workshop; terrestrial and marine workshops were held in January and February 2006. The 

general purposes of the workshops were to review and discuss the current state of knowledge 
21

Table 1.2 Resources and issues of concern identified by the Southeast Alaska Network Parks.

Resource Issue/Concern Glacier Bay 

NP&Pr 

Klondike Gold 

Rush NHP 

Sitka 

NHP 

Air & Climate

Air quality X X X 

Geology & Soils

Glacial lake outburst floods X X 

Taiya River erosion X 

Water

Water quality X X X 

 Glacier Bay, Dry Bay, Salmon River X 

 Pullen Creek and Skagway River X 

 Indian River X 

Biological Integrity

Exotic plants X X X 

Salmon X X X 

Marine invertebrates and nonvascular plants X X X 

Eulachon (candlefish) runs X X 

Moose populations X X 

Forage fish distribution and dynamics X 

Vulnerability of rockfish populations X 

Seals, sea lions, Kittlitz's murrelets, and black-legged kittiwake 

apparent declines X 

Marine resource extraction (habitat impacts of weathervane 

scallop fishery; possibly some finfish and crab harvest) X 

Mountain goat populations X 

Declining eulachon runs X 

Western toad populations X 

River pollution (filamentous green algal and diatom mats) X 

Human Use 

Vessel effects on marine environments X X X 

Backcountry use X X 

Bear and camper interface X X 

Shoreline camping impacts X 

Proposed deepwater dock X 

Landscapes (Ecosystem Pattern and Processes) 

Marine-derived nutrients budget and cycle X X X 

Underwater soundscape X 

Toxic leachates from old asphalt plant X 

Airborne soundscape X X X 
22

concerning park ecosystems, resource protection issues, and potential options for monitoring. 

More specifically, the primary objectives of each workshop were (1) to review system-level 

conceptual models and (2) to generate a list of potential Vital Signs and monitoring questions. 

The workshops were attended by the SEAN Technical Committee, NPS staff from other 

networks and the Alaska Regional Office, and scientists from universities, State of Alaska 

agencies, and other federal agencies. The full texts of each workshop notebook are included on 

the electronic copies of this Monitoring Plan and are posted to the SEAN Website: 

http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/sean

Pre-workshop preparation involved assembling extensive background material on network parks 

and developing objectives and monitoring questions. This background material was mailed to 

participants before the workshop to familiarize them with the landscape and to stimulate 

discussion. Scoping workshop discussions were recorded and compiled into a workshop 

summary report that was sent to participants and posted on the network website. Chapter 3 

further discusses these workshops and subsequent steps in identifying, prioritizing, and selecting 

Vital Signs. 

1.7 Data Capture and Review of Monitoring by Others 

Recognizing that development of a network-based approach to monitoring would naturally 

springboard off existing efforts, the SEAN undertook a thorough evaluation of current and 

historic monitoring at each of the network parks conducted internally or by other partners. The 

SEAN contracted a thorough search for and review of past and ongoing investigations to identify 

work that could be classified as monitoring or become a basis for future monitoring. The SEAN 

Parks Project Tracking Database formed the backbone of the review, and was supplemented by 

many other databases (e.g., NatureBib, library searches, and project files). The products of this 

effort (delivered in the fall of 2006) were three park-specific tables that categorized several 

hundred projects by ecological subject (e.g., birds, intertidal communities, large mammals, 

weather, etc.), status (ongoing or historic), potential value as baseline data, and general 

characterization (i.e., the “who, what, when, where, and how”). These park-specific tables (in 

Appendix A) were used by the SEAN to learn from past experience and to identify candidate 

monitoring sites for our suite of Vital Signs. 
23

Chapter 2: Conceptual Ecological Models 

Most generally, ecology is the study of the distribution and abundance of plants and animals and 

their interaction with the environment on levels from cellular to ecosystem (Krebs 2001). Other 

variables–both biotic and abiotic elements of the ecosystems–may be useful in learning about a 

Vital Sign and explaining distribution and abundance. In this chapter, we discuss our use of 

conceptual models to represent our understanding of the basic structure and function of SEAN 

ecosystems. 

2.1 Introduction 

Ecological monitoring programs are designed and implemented based on an understanding of 

how the subject ecosystems function. Based on both knowledge and assumptions, this 

understanding should be explicitly presented in conceptual models, so that it is available for 

discussion, evaluation, and ultimately for refinement through incorporation of information 

gained through monitoring (Maddox et al. 1999). Indeed, development of conceptual models is a 

key requirement of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program for each network. Conceptual models 

play several useful roles in monitoring program design, including: 

 Formalizing current understanding of the context and scope of the ecological processes 

important in the area of interest; 

 Expanding our consideration across traditional discipline boundaries; 

 Integrating biotic and abiotic information and processes; and 

 Facilitating communication among scientists from different disciplines, between 

scientists and managers, and between managers and the public (Thomas 2001). 

Within the SEAN monitoring program, the development of conceptual models had the specific 

purpose of iteratively guiding the process of Vital Signs selection. The models were used in 

scoping sessions and then revised based on the outcome of those sessions. A critical role of the 

models was to identify the principal drivers of change–both natural and anthropogenic–in 

network ecosystems. With the drivers of change identified, the types of ecological changes most 

important for park managers to detect can be determined, based on their inherent importance or 

their influence on receptors of particular significance. The process of deciding which changes 

(and of what magnitude) the network wants to be able to detect helped form the foundation for 

Vital Sign selection. 

This chapter, then, represents our current understanding of the salient elements and processes of 

ecosystems of the SEAN parks. In this chapter, we present the three fundamental conceptual 

ecosystem models developed with several cooperating researchers. Appendix G presents a more 

detailed discussion of ecosystem interactions and all conceptual models generated during the 

three scoping workshops. Two pervasive themes of these models are (1) the linkages between 

the physical and biotic realms, and (2) the substantial interactions among terrestrial, freshwater, 

and marine ecosystem components in Southeast Alaska. The overlap of terrestrial, freshwater, 

and marine environments is represented by mapping the major habitat types in the SEAN parks 

in Figure 2.1. Most of the habitats shown depend on more than one environment. Although this 

is not unique to Southeast Alaska, deep marine incursions and abundant precipitation make 
24

marine and freshwater influences equal to the terrestrial in coastal areas of this region. This 

relationship among environments represented by the three overlapping ovals of Figure 2.1 is 

carried forward in the conceptual models presented here and several models presented in 

Appendix G. 

Figure 2.1 Important ecological features within the three ecosystem components in Southeast 

Alaska. Habitats can be associated with a single ecosystem component or with an overlap where 

two or three of the components come in contact. Most habitats exist in mature states and also in 

earlier stages of primary or secondary succession.

2.2 Ecological Context 

2.2.1 Global Setting of Southeast Alaska Parks: Far-field Drivers of Change 

Many habitats in Southeast Alaska are as wild and pristine as any in the world. However, human 

enterprise has caused changes that affect every place on earth (Vitousek et al. 1997). Thus, the 

relatively natural environments of Southeast Alaska operate within a regional and global system 

of physical and biological drivers that have been altered by human activity. Human enterprise 

has transformed much of the Earth’s surface, altered its biogeochemical processes, and 

eliminated or redistributed species and populations (Vitousek et al. 1997). Three important 

 

Beach Meadows

Early-successional shrublands & forests

Lowland Rainforest

Midslope Rainforest

Subalpine Forest

Alpine Tundra

Cove

Bay

Passage

Near-shore

Marine Trench

Continental Shelf

Nonglacial Stream & River

Glacial Stream & River

Pond

Lake

Glacier

Riparian Forest

Riparian shrubland

Forested Wetland

Nonforested Wetland

Snowfield

Intertidal Zone

Beach Fringe

Sand Dune

Fjord

Salt marsh

Marine-enriched

riparian zone

Estuary

River mouth

Stream mouth

Terrestrial

ecosystem components

Marine

ecosystem components

Freshwater

ecosystem components
25

consequences of these changes are climate change, loss of ecosystem processes and habitats, and 

loss of species, populations and communities (Figure 2.2). 

Land transformation around the world has altered global biogeochemical cycles by transferring 

large quantities of carbon from fossil fuels and biomass into the atmosphere, and by fixing 

nonreactive atmospheric nitrogen (N2) into reactive compounds (e.g., nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, 

ammonia) that contribute to the greenhouse effect and can alter plant nutrient status. The effects 

of carbon- and nitrogen-based greenhouse gases have already contributed to global climate 

change (Houghton et al. 2001), and continued changes threaten to alter natural competitive 

balances in plant and animal communities and initiate new disturbance regimes. 

Figure 2.2. Resource preservation concerns in Southeast Alaska parks. Far-field (top) and nearfield (bottom) drivers of change that are likely to threaten resources in Southeast Alaska (thicker 

arrows indicate greater concern). The transformation of the earth’s surface, oceans, and 

atmosphere has driven changes in global biogeochemical cycles and the biotic makeup of 

ecosystems. The interaction of these types of changes has resulted in global climate change, and 

the loss of ecosystems, communities, populations and species around the world. At the local and 

regional level, park use and development can result in stresses on natural systems. 

Marine Freshwater

Terrestrial

Changes to global

biogeochemical

cycles

Global biotic

changes

Land and water

transformations

Loss of species

and populations

Loss of 

ecosystems

Climate

change

Interacting consequences of global human activity

(Far-field drivers)

Interacting consequences of local and regional human activity

(Near-field drivers)

Development Park use by

 people

Nonconsumptive

use

Consumptive

use In parks Adjacentto parks
26

Land transformation is also responsible for global biotic changes caused by the harvest of plants 

and animals, habitat conversions and fragmentation, and freshwater diversion. Although 

Southeast Alaska has been generally insulated from the loss of local species, populations, and 

ecosystems, it is not immune to this type of damage. 

2.2.2 Local Resource Preservation Concerns: Near-field Drivers of Change 

At the local and regional scale there are several activities that have the potential to negatively 

impact park resources. Human activity in and near the parks is a primary resource preservation 

concern. Local human activity is unlike other resource preservation concerns because there is 

greater potential for managing human activity to modify environmental effects. There are two 

categories of human activity that are most likely to affect natural and cultural resources in 

network parks: development in and near parks, and use by park visitors (Figure 2.2). 

Consumption of natural resources by park visitors can be responsible for damage to and/or 

overharvest of plants or animals, leaving waste and refuse in parks, soil compaction, and 

introduction of invasive or exotic species to park habitats. In the SEAN parks, the most 

important potential environmental effect of these stressors is disturbance of wildlife and 

subsequent changes in plant and animal populations. Other important effects include the 

establishment and spread of invasive species and altered successional pathways. The noise, 

crowding, or refuse left by park visitors in formerly pristine areas can be an aesthetic concern for 

other visitors. 

Although generally less threatening than other concerns, research activity or resource 

management activity can influence natural environments. Field-based research activity may 

result in changes in populations and communities, alterations in successional pathways, and 

degraded visitor experiences. Research and management can also lead to increased public 

awareness of ecological issues, ecological restoration projects, and protection of threatened 

resources. 

2.3 Drivers of Environmental Change 

2.3.1 Holistic Model 

We have identified four broad categories of environmental factors that influence the current 

environmental conditions in Southeast Alaska and that are most likely to drive ecological 

changes in the future (Figure 2.3). These four drivers are climate, geologic processes, ocean 

processes, and human activity. 

1) Climate. The regional climate has a controlling affect on the landscape of Southeast 

Alaska, supporting the highly productive coastal rainforest and its denizens, supplying 

snowfall to feed alpine glaciers, creating myriad wetland and freshwater ecosystems, and 

influencing marine processes. 

2) Geological processes and patterns. The geology, geography, and landforms of the 

coastal region determine how the regional climate interacts with the land or water to 

shape a particular ecosystem. Dramatic coastal mountains and islands of the Alexander 
27

Archipelago dominate the landscape and create a spatially complex system of marine and 

terrestrial environments. 

3) Ocean processes and patterns. The processes and patterns of the ocean support 

productive and diverse marine ecosystems and strongly influence the weather, 

biochemistry, and biota of freshwater and terrestrial systems. All SEAN parks are 

adjacent to marine waters, and Glacier Bay includes an internationally significant marine 

reserve with strong connections to surrounding unprotected marine systems.

4) Human activity. Human activity (past and present, near and far) has affected all 

ecosystem components in Southeast Alaska and has great potential to drive changes in 

those components in the future. For example, human effects on global climate and the 

unpredictable risk of resulting climate changes may produce the most serious future 

concern. 

Figure 2.3 Holistic conceptual ecosystem model: Drivers of change. Climate, geologic 

processes, ocean processes, and human activity are the four major driving forces shaping 

landscapes and ecosystems in Southeast Alaska. Thicker radial arrows indicate greater 

influence. 

Marine

enterprises

Geologic patterns

and processes

Ocean patterns

and processes

Island

biogeography

Climate

change

Human activity

Glaciers

Global and

regional climate

Marine Freshwater

Terrestrial
28

Interactions among these four major drivers produce four more specific influences on ecosystem 

components in Southeast Alaska (Figure 2.3): 

1) Climate change. The long-term influence of humans on global and regional climate 

(Houghton et al. 2001) is expected to cause substantial changes in the climate of 

Southeast Alaska during the current century. We consider the potential for climate 

change to be the most important anthropogenic driver of landscape change. The potential 

environmental stresses caused by the predicted course of global warming could cause 

unprecedented change in all of the ecosystems of Southeast Alaska. 

 

2) Island biogeography. The geographic interaction between land and sea in the coastal 

landscape of Southeast Alaska creates a unique spatial matrix of islands, peninsulas, 

mainland landmasses, and the marine and freshwater ecosystem components that connect 

them. The natural fragmentation of the land and marine waters in Southeast Alaska 

makes the concept of island biogeography useful for prediction of undesirable change and 

identification of management strategies to mitigate that change. 

3) Glaciers. The interaction of regional climate and geography produces the conditions 

responsible for Southeast Alaska’s extensive glaciation. Glaciers, in turn, influence the 

local climate, modify terrain, produce unique wildlife habitats, and discharge water, ice, 

sediment, and organic material into freshwater and marine systems. Glaciers have 

strongly influenced the natural and cultural resources of all three SEAN parks. 

4) Marine enterprise. Coastal habitats in direct contact with marine waters are vulnerable to 

the environmental impacts of human activity at sea. Oil spills and other impacts resulting 

from commercial fishing, maritime transport (including cruise ship traffic), and coastal 

development in support of this maritime activity are potential threats throughout 

Southeast Alaska. 

2.3.2 Physical Drivers in Southeast Alaska 

2.3.2.1 Key Environmental Drivers 

Two dominant drivers–wetness and disturbance–influence the major ecological communities in 

Southeast Alaska. On land, near-constant wetness drives the development of plant communities 

and soils that are strongly influenced by autogenic (self-produced) processes. For example, 

leaching of rainwater through continuously accumulating organic soil horizons drives the 

development of an impervious soil horizon. This paludification leads to poorly drained soils and 

the plant communities that can tolerate them. Disturbance–whether by glaciers, downslope 

movement, windstorms, or insects – drives ecosystems in the opposite direction, creating 

younger, simpler systems. Compared to mature ecosystems, recently disturbed successional 

systems are able to sequester fewer resources, and nearby hydric systems receive the exported 

nutrients and energy. The results are lakes and streams that are more productive than their young 

successional setting would suggest. Adding to this temporal trend is the pronounced effect of 

large populations of anadromous fish which bring marine nutrients and energy into young and 

old streams, lakes, and adjacent terrestrial ecosystems. 
29

2.3.2.2 Origins of Terrestrial and Freshwater Features 

A combination of factors has given rise to the Southeast Alaska landscape of small, complex 

watersheds, and a great diversity of habitat types and community ages. Primary among these 

factors is a geographic location where moist, temperate air masses produce a maritime climate 

coupled with complex lithology and extreme topography associated with an active tectonic plate 

boundary. Glacial activity is an important consequence of these factors. Glaciers are a 

conspicuous element of today’s environments and have been modifying the landscape for 

millennia. Long histories of intense glacial activity and sea level fluctuation have further 

increased the topographic and geomorphic diversity. 

The result is a variety of terrestrial environments from lowland to alpine, and from well-drained 

to wetland. Steep terrain, active glaciers, lethal forest insect pests, and severe weather subject 

these diverse plant communities to repeated disturbances and produce a complex mosaic of 

community ages, further enhancing landscape and biotic diversity. 

2.3.2.3 Regional Influences on Marine Systems of Southeast Alaska 

A combination of factors has given rise to the high productivity and community diversity in 

marine environments of Southeast Alaska. Primary among these factors are a regional maritime 

climate with strong seasonality, and the deeply divided coastline which generates insularity, 

complex circulation, and diverse benthic habitats. At Glacier Bay, glacial activity has produced 

a fjord system with cold, sediment-rich freshwater input that contributes to complex water-mass 

structure and strong seasonal stratification. Diverse nektonic, benthic, and demersal 

communities are supported by high productivity of phytoplankton or macroalgal populations. 

2.4 Ecosystem Interactions 

In this section, we discuss the key ecological processes and settings that generate the patterns and 

processes that we observe today, and we describe the mechanisms by which processes occurring 

in one realm (i.e., freshwater, marine, or terrestrial) are interconnected with those in another. In 

Southeast Alaska, many of these processes are closely related to active primary succession in a 

post-glacial context. 

2.4.1 Succession in Freshwater 

New streams and lakes are created as retreating glaciers expose fresh terrain and a delay in biotic 

development in those waterways is mediated by high sediment load and variable flow rates 

associated with unvegetated watersheds. These processes are dampened by upstream lakes, 

which trap sediment and moderate flow, allowing stream communities to stabilize sooner 

(Milner 1997). The successional development of aquatic plant and animal communities is closely 

tied to the concurrent development of adjacent terrestrial plant communities (Milner et al. 2000). 

As vegetation colonizes stream banks, the addition of organic matter into streams promotes 

invading communities of stream invertebrates. The early input of leaves and catkins from shrubs 

is followed by the accumulation of coarse woody debris in stream channels. This debris provides 

cover for fishes and supports colonization by anadromous salmonids. The input of marine 

nutrients and energy from spawning salmonids to stream and riparian environments accelerates 

the development of stream invertebrate communities and creates a positive feedback to stream 

primary and secondary productivity. 
30

Glacial activity in the upper reaches of a watershed can affect stream development for hundreds 

or thousands of years after streamside surfaces become ice-free. In Glacier Bay and Klondike 

Gold Rush, sediment-rich glacial streams traverse lowlands occupied by forest ecosystems that 

have been developing for more than 10,000 years. Productivity in these streams will remain low 

until sediment sources are reduced. Where lakes associated with active alpine glaciers are in the 

watershed of such streams, rapid ablation (the reduction in volume of a glacier due to melting 

and evaporation) of glaciers and snowfields in the last 30 years may have increased the potential 

for glacial-lake outburst flooding. Catastrophic downstream flooding and debris flows have 

resulted from increased meltwater and higher lake levels behind loosely consolidated and 

saturated alpine moraines. The Taiya River in Klondike Gold Rush has experienced at least 

three glacial lake outburst floods in the last 120 years, most recently in 2003. 

Southeast Alaska watersheds that have been free of major glaciation for thousands of years, such 

as the Indian River in Sitka, tend to have mature riparian forests, and rivers tend to flow clear 

during most of the year. These mature rivers generally drain steep topography and are cold and 

swift. Their beds tend to be made up of gravel, cobbles, and boulders with a low amount of fine 

deposits such as silt. This provides multiple surfaces and habitat for a diverse benthic 

community. The silt-free interstitial spaces within gravel and cobble substrates allow surface 

water to flow through the hyporheic zone which delivers dissolved oxygen to invertebrates, 

salmonid eggs and newly emerged fry, removes waste products, and provides protection from 

strong current and predators (Edwards 2001). The Indian River and other rivers with old-growth 

and mature secondary growth forests in their riparian zones are significantly influenced by large 

trees that fall directly into and across the stream. This large woody debris (LWD) creates 

relatively immobile log barriers, log jams, and root wads that stabilize the river channel, provide 

cover, and form pools, all of which are critical for juvenile salmonid survival (Naiman et al. 

2000, Montgomery and Buffington 2001) 

 

A study of 33 lakes at Glacier Bay ranging in age from 10 to 13,000 years has indicated how 

their successional development is closely tied to the ecological development of the land in the 

surrounding watershed (Engstrom et al. 2000). Due to the compounding influences of lake 

chemistry and watershed geomorphology, lakes eventually (over several thousand years) become 

less fertile and less productive as they mature, even as carbon and nutrients accumulate in the 

surrounding landscape. These interactions emphasize the dependence of lake development on 

plant succession and soil development in the surrounding terrestrial environment (Engstrom et al. 

2000). There are no true lakes in Sitka or Klondike Gold Rush, however, intermittent ponds are 

seasonally present in both parks. 

2.4.2 Primary Succession on Land 

Two centuries of glacial recession at Glacier Bay has produced a landscape with plant 

communities in various stages of primary succession. These communities allow inference about 

the processes that determine how plant communities are assembled through time, both at GLBA 

and at the relatively older communities of SITK and KLGO. The geographic location of a site 

recently exposed by retreating glaciers influences the site’s climate, soil characteristics, and 

landscape position. Landscape position (a site’s spatial relationship to physical and ecological 

features) affects the rate of substrate stabilization and the proximity of mature vegetation which 

could supply seeds for colonizing plant populations (Fastie 1995). At Glacier Bay, these factors 
31

have varied from place to place, resulting in substantial variability in the composition of early 

plant communities. As succession proceeds, the ability of early plant populations to fix 

atmospheric nitrogen and the activity of herbivores influence interactions among plants (e.g., 

competition and facilitation) (Chapin et al. 1994). Differences among sites in early nitrogen 

fixation and in the consequent accumulation of soil nitrogen lead to long-term differences in 

ecosystem function. Therefore, predicting the pathways and endpoints of terrestrial ecological 

succession at any site requires knowledge of landscape-scale patterns. 

2.4.3 The Marine Environment 

2.4.3.1 The Glacier Bay Marine Ecosystem 

At least six major ecosystem processes are recognized as important determinants of the structure 

and function of the Glacier Bay marine ecosystem. A model focusing on these processes was 

developed for Glacier Bay by Bodkin et al. (2004) (Appendix G). The generality of this model 

makes it useful for describing ecological interactions in any marine system in Southeast Alaska. 

The six processes included in the model are: 

1. Human influences 

2. Oceanography 

3. Trophic interactions 

4. Production dynamics 

5. Transportation 

6. Disturbance (e.g. glaciation) 

The application of this model is based on current understanding of the relative importance of 

each of the ecosystem processes in regulating the abundance and structure of populations. The 

model is intended to be used to answer the question: What is the relative magnitude of influence 

of each ecosystem process on the population abundance and structure of a species? Through a 

process of repeatedly asking this question for individual species, it is possible to identify 

populations for which there is either a relatively good or a relatively poor understanding of 

structuring processes, and to identify processes that are important across populations. These 

processes are broadly defined (e.g., production dynamics can incorporate reproduction as well as 

survival), and other processes (e.g., competition, life history traits, sources of propagules) may 

be fundamental in structuring some populations. These processes often are not independent, and 

complex interactions can be expected. 

2.4.3.2 The Transfer of Marine-derived Nutrients and Energy to Riparian Systems 

Anadromous salmonid fishes return annually to streams in each of the network parks. Adult 

salmon return after multiple years as marine predators and die in the streams after spawning. 

These large runs of fish bring important nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorous) and energy 

(caloric food value) from the ocean to the freshwater ecosystem (Gende et al. 2004). Some of 

these nutrients and energy become part of the aquatic food web through scavenging by 

invertebrates (Lessard et al. 2003), predation on eggs, or uptake by plants. Terrestrial animals, 

including brown and black bears, river otters, gulls, and bald eagles, prey on live fish or 

scavenge dead fish. Animal waste and uneaten fish on and near the stream banks provide marine 

nutrients to riparian vegetation and the terrestrial food web (Ben-David et al. 1998). The water 
32

current flushes uneaten carcasses back to marine waters, and (in combination with the eventual 

out-migration of young salmonids) much of the marine-derived nutrients and energy in the 

stream may be eventually returned to the ocean. Nevertheless, a portion becomes incorporated in 

the terrestrial ecosystem and gradually migrates even beyond riparian areas. 

2.4.3.3 Productivity in the Intertidal Zone 

The intertidal zone is a component of all three parks. Although the areal extent of the intertidal 

zone is small relative to the marine or terrestrial ecosystems it borders, its high species diversity 

and productivity make it ecologically important to a large number of terrestrial and marine 

animals. The particular combination of plants and animals present in the intertidal zone depends 

in part on a variety of physical factors, including latitude, exposure to the open sea, ocean 

currents and fronts, and proximity to tidewater glaciers and turbid outwash or clearwater streams. 

Biotic interactions within the communities and interactions with land and sea animals (e.g., 

predation, herbivory) further modify the biotic diversity. Communities of intertidal plants and 

animals are subject to environmental stresses associated with daily tidal fluctuations, physical 

disturbance by weather events, and predation or herbivory from marine or terrestrial animals. 

The influx of cold, sediment-laden freshwater and icebergs from nearby tidewater glaciers 

influences the composition, structure, and productivity of these communities (Sharman 1988). 

Although they are well adapted to natural disturbance, these communities are highly vulnerable 

to new types of disturbance caused by human activity on land or at sea. For example, trampling 

by foot or vehicle traffic, changes in nearshore currents caused by docks and other shore-fast 

structures, and marine oil spills are threats to intertidal communities. 
33

Chapter 3: Vital Signs 

This chapter describes the process used to identify, organize, and prioritize a final set of Vital 

Signs for the SEAN. We also discuss the manner in which the selection and prioritization of 

Vital Signs was linked to park management and protection issues, ecological principles, 

conceptual ecosystem models, and the Network’s monitoring objectives. The historical 

documentation of Vital Sign list generation, justification, prioritization, and selection is included 

as Appendix B. 

The SEAN Technical Committee used a four-step process to identify and prioritize Vital Signs, 

with each step building upon earlier work and discussion: 

1. Conduct scoping workshops for the freshwater, terrestrial and marine ecosystems in 

SEAN parks. 

2. Prepare draft Ecological Monitoring Framework tables that identify candidate Vital 

Signs. 

3. Rate and rank management and ecological significance of candidate Vital Signs. 

 

4. Discuss and analyze the ratings and rankings for candidate Vital Signs, identify those of 

greatest importance for long-term monitoring, and finalize those that are of highest 

priority and around which the SEAN ought to develop the monitoring program 

The ultimate result of this process was the identification of a Core Program and a Secondary 

Program. The SEAN Core Program is the collection of Vital Signs on which the network will 

focus its time, staff, and funds. For these Vital Signs, SEAN will develop formal monitoring 

protocols and fund operation, data collection, analysis, and reporting. Vital Signs in the 

Secondary Program are park-led monitoring efforts towards which SEAN will contribute data 

management expertise as time and funds allow. 

3.1 Vital Sign Selection 

3.1.1 Terrestrial, Freshwater, and Marine Scoping Workshops 

Three scoping workshops were held in Juneau, Alaska to bring together park managers and 

scientists familiar with the ecology of the SEAN parks. The goals of these workshops were to 

review and refine the SEAN’s conceptual ecosystem models and to produce lists of potential 

monitoring objectives, monitoring questions, and Vital Signs related to each ecosystem. We 

focused one workshop on freshwater environments (April 2005), one on terrestrial (February 

2006), and one on marine (February 2006). Each was professionally facilitated. 

Scoping workshop notebooks were a key element of the scoping process; they provided 

background information, context, and guidelines for Vital Sign selection. Each workshop had an 

ecosystem focus, but the fields of discussion and opportunities for choosing Vital Signs were 

unbounded. Redundancy within and among workshops was encouraged and valued because it 
34

would underscore the importance of specific ecosystem drivers or components across systems 

and would help generate an integrated set of Vital Signs. 

At each workshop, the Network Coordinator and the facilitator described the NPS Inventory and 

Monitoring (I&M) Program and the progress of the three other Alaska I&M networks. Invited 

scientists familiar with the park resources gave presentations on the environmental setting of the 

three SEAN parks. After the introductory presentations and general discussion, we divided 

workshop participants into groups of fewer than ten people to nominate monitoring questions 

and potential Vital Signs. By way of guidance, each group was instructed to consider three key 

questions: 

 What conditions or key elements should be documented as indicators of ecosystem 

integrity? 

 What should be monitored to determine the range of variability in the ecosystem’s 

response to natural and human drivers? 

 What should be monitored to identify the thresholds that would trigger a need to 

implement focused research, corrective/adaptive management, and/or mitigation 

measures? 

We then conducted plenary sessions where the full workshop group further refined and 

combined the products of all small groups. These discussions focused on individual potential 

Vital Signs and broad issues that the participants believed should influence Vital Sign selection. 

From these workshops, four broad concepts emerged that governed SEAN Vital Sign selection: 

 Make use of historical datasets. The SEAN parks have long histories (by Alaska 

standards) and the landscapes of Sitka and Glacier Bay have a long association with NPS. 

Scientific research at Glacier Bay spans more than a century. Early datasets can add 

great value to monitoring programs by establishing credible baseline states and/or longterm ranges of variability. Shorter-term datasets spanning one or two decades (e.g., 

Glacier Bay studies on stream, lake, and vegetation succession, physical oceanography) 

also increase the predictive value of continued monitoring. 

 Drivers of change vs. changed ecosystems. It is important to understand why ecological 

change is occurring, but monitoring drivers (e.g., climate, glaciers, human use) should not 

be conducted at the expense of learning about the mechanisms and manifestations of 

change. Ideally, matched pairs of driver and receptor would be monitored 

simultaneously. 

 Climate data and climate change. Climate change will be measured by our program, and 

continuous weather and climate monitoring is seen as key to interpreting changes 

detected in other Vital Signs. 

 SEAN marine ecosystem and its connections. The SEAN has one of the few national 

parks with a large marine component - GLBA. The phasing-out of commercial fishing 

and the designation of wilderness waters uniquely position the GLBA marine ecosystem 

for monitoring and research. Additionally, the GLBA marine ecosystem cannot be fully 
35

understood separate from its context within the larger marine environment of Southeast 

Alaska, the Gulf of Alaska, and beyond. Regional monitoring programs of other agencies 

will be crucial to interpreting results of the SEAN monitoring of marine Vital Signs.

Detailed descriptions of these and other discussions, as well as full results of each workshop and 

lists of candidate Vital Signs, are included in summaries for each workshop which will be posted 

on the SEAN website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/units/SEAN). 

3.1.2 Compile, Rate, and Prioritize Candidate Vital Signs 

After the workshops, the SEAN staff summarized a candidate list of Vital Signs. Workshop 

brainstorming yielded a comprehensive, pooled list of more than 200 potential Vital Signs that 

were identified during the three scoping workshops. The SEAN staff, a consulting scientist and, 

later, the Technical Committee critically reviewed the pooled list. Together, they reduced the 

number of candidate Vital Signs to 80 and nested them within the NPS Ecological Monitoring 

Framework (NPS 2005). A nominated Vital Sign was removed from the list or nested within a 

primary Vital Sign based on three criteria: 

 Was an individual metric or parameter, but was not itself a Vital Sign; 

 Played a relatively minor role in the SEAN parks; or 

 Could be considered a subset of another Vital Sign. 

The SEAN staff entered the resulting master list of 80 candidate Vital Signs into a Microsoft 

Access database, which included potential monitoring questions and measures (generated at the 

scoping workshops) for each candidate Vital Sign. Information regarding which of the three 

scoping workshops had recommended each Vital Sign was also included. 

The SEAN Technical Committee members from each park used the above-mentioned database to 

rate each Vital Sign relevant to their park according to four management significance criteria. 

The SEAN Technical Committee, three consulting scientists, the network Data Manager, and a 

facilitator met for three days (May 2-4, 2006) to rate and rank candidate Vital Signs. Each 

participant rated the ecological significance of each Vital Sign for each park based on three 

criteria. The Data Manager compiled the ratings from all nine workshop participants for both 

ecological and management significance. Ratings for each of the 80 Vital Signs were then 

merged and ranked, giving equal weight to management and ecological significance. Rankings 

were then distributed to the group. For a full description of the prioritization process and rating 

criteria, see the SEAN Phase III Report (Moynahan and Johnson 2008). 

The group did not view the rankings as a definitive result, but rather as an important piece of 

information and a way to direct discussion about the relative importance of candidate Vital 

Signs. Through an iterative process of evaluating the numerical rankings alongside strategic and 

logistical considerations, the group identified 36 high-priority, unique Vital Signs. This list 

serves as the “parent list” from which the Network further focused the program based on staffing 

and funding resources. 

For each Vital Sign, the group collectively identified whether monitoring would be dependent 

upon SEAN funding and whether monitoring would likely occur within the first five years of 
36

implementation of the SEAN Monitoring Plan. Each participant was subsequently asked to 

suspend their role as advocate for their park’s needs and to identify the five Vital Signs they felt 

were most important for the network as a whole to monitor. The result of these two inquiries 

was a list of 15 highest-priority Vital Signs. Each participant outlined the rationale for their 

choices, and collectively the group agreed that the list of 15 highest-priority Vital Signs was 

acceptable for the SEAN. The group cautioned that the SEAN should not drop the remaining 

Vital Signs, and that the list of 15 should not necessarily totally dictate where money and work 

should be entirely focused. 

Much of this work in 2006 and the first six months of 2007 occurred with the SEAN Network 

Coordinator position being vacant. When the position was filled in July 2007, the new Network 

Coordinator called an August Technical Committee meeting to review the Vital Sign selection 

and prioritization process to date. In order to immediately confirm the direction and focus of the 

SEAN program development, the Coordinator cross-referenced the priority Vital Signs with 

additional information regarding their dependency on SEAN funding and the likelihood of 

implementation within the first five years. The 15 Vital Signs extracted from the “parent list” of 

36 were thereby identified as the proper focus for the SEAN program development in the first 

five years. 

In the winter of 2007-2008, based on emerging information and progress in program 

development, the SEAN elevated two Vital Signs (Kittlitz’s murrelets and Freshwater 

Contaminants) from the list of 36 to the priority list. Similarly, in the summer of 2008, the 

Network elevated another Vital Sign–Marine Contaminants (which had been nested under the 

priority Oceanography Vital Sign)–to bring it on par with the Airborne Contaminants and 

Freshwater Contaminants Vital Signs. The final result of these two years of work is a list of 18 

top-priority Vital Signs (Table 3.1). 

3.1.3 The Core and Secondary Programs 

To further focus the SEAN Program and assure its long-term sustainability, this Monitoring Plan 

advances the planning of the Phase III Report to distinguish the 18 top-priority Vital Signs by the 

role that the Network will play in their development, implementation, and execution. To that 

end, we identify a Core Program of 12 Vital Signs and Secondary Program of 6 Vital Signs 

(Table 3.1). 

The SEAN Core Program includes 12 Vital Signs on which the network will focus its time, staff, 

and funds. For these Vital Signs, SEAN will develop formal monitoring protocols and fund 

operation, data collection, analysis, and reporting. Vital Signs in the Secondary Program are 

park-led monitoring efforts towards which SEAN will contribute data management expertise as 

time and funds allow. In distinguishing these 2 programs, SEAN focuses its limited resources on 

implementing and sustaining the highest-priority Vital Signs while also working to ensure (as 

time and resources allow) that park-led efforts benefit from adherence to the same rigorous, 

long-term data management standards as the Core Program Vital Signs. 

While SEAN must first direct resources to the Core Program, it will actively seek and support 

opportunities to pursue execution of Secondary Program Vital Signs. These opportunities may 

be openings in the SEAN Data Manager’s schedule, external partnering opportunities, or 
37

Table 3.1 The Core and Secondary Vital Signs Programs of the Southeast Alaska Network Vital 

Signs Monitoring Program. The 12 Core Vital Signs (closed circles, bold text) are the top 

priority Vital Signs that SEAN will address in the first five years of program implementation, and 

are the focus of this Monitoring Plan. A formal monitoring protocol will be developed for each 

of these 12 Vital Signs. Secondary Vital Signs will receive programmatic and data management 

support from SEAN as funding and staff schedules allow.

Ecological Monitoring Framework 

Level 1 Level 2 SEAN VITAL SIGN 

SEAN 

PARKS 

GLBA 

KLGO 

SITK 

Air and Climate Air Quality Airborne Contaminants ● ● ●

Weather and Climate Weather and Climate ● ● ●

Geology and 

Soils 

Geomorphology Glacial Dynamics (extent) ● ● 

Hydrology 

Streamflow ● ● ●

Oceanography ● 

Water Water Quality 

Freshwater Benthic 

Macroinvertebrates and Algae + + 

Freshwater Contaminants ● ● ●

Freshwater Water Quality ● ● ●

Marine Contaminants ● ● ●

Biological 

Integrity 

Invasive Species Invasive/Exotic Plants   

Focal Species or 

Communities 

Intertidal Communities + ●

Marine Predators ● 

Kittlitz’s Murrelets ● 

Western Toads +  

At-risk Biota Humpback Whales  

Human Use 

Visitor and Recreation Use Human Uses and Mode of Access   

Soundscape Underwater Sound  

Landscapes 

(Ecosystem 

Patterns & 

Processes) 

Landscape Dynamics Landform and Landcover ● ● ●

● Vital Signs for which the network will develop protocols and implement monitoring using funding from the Vital 

Signs or water quality monitoring programs. These Vital Signs represent the Core SEAN Program. 

 Vital Signs that are currently being monitored by a network park, another NPS program, or by another federal or 

state agency using other funding. The network will collaborate with these other monitoring efforts. These Vital 

Signs represent the Secondary SEAN Program. 

+ Vital Sign occurs in this park but will not be monitored at this time due to higher priorities and staff and funding 

limitations. 
38

Network collaboration with individual parks to identify and secure external funding sources. 

Similarly, the SEAN will also encourage rigorous monitoring of other Vital Signs identified 

during the scoping and prioritization process (i.e., the remainder of the “parent list” of 36 Vital 

Signs) that were not ultimately included in the Core or Secondary Programs. That “parent list” is 

presented in Appendix I. 

This Monitoring Plan–as a 5-year implementation plan–focuses hereafter on the 12 Vital Signs 

comprising the SEAN Core Program. 

3.1.4 Relationship between Vital Signs and Conceptual Models 

About one-third (13) of the “parent list” of 36 final Vital Signs is directly related to the major 

drivers of ecosystem change identified in the SEAN’s holistic ecosystem model (Figure 3.1). 

Five of these Vital Signs are drivers (weather and climate, landform and landcover, glacial 

dynamics, human use and modes of access, and consumptive use), and eight are phenomena 

directly influenced by those drivers (Figure 3.1). Nine of these 13 Vital Signs are directly related 

to human activity. 

Of the 21 Vital Signs related to native organisms, nine are exclusively marine, terrestrial, or 

freshwater, and 12 are associated with two or more of the three environments (Figure 3.2). This 

emphasis on Vital Signs from multiple environments is both intentional and consistent with the 

acknowledged importance of interactions among terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems 

in the SEAN parks, and the goal of making broad, cross-ecosystem inferences from the results of 

monitoring individual Vital Signs. 

Due to the coastal nature of all the SEAN parks and the unique inclusion of marine waters at 

GLBA, 16 of the 21 native organism Vital Signs have a strong association with the marine 

environment, or are intended to include marine communities (e.g., pests and diseases, landcover 

and landform, plant communities, phenology). This apparent marine bias is due in part to the 

inclusion of several conspicuous marine mammals, including two endangered/threatened species 

(humpback whales and Steller sea lions, respectively), but ten of these sixteen Vital Signs are 

also associated with terrestrial or freshwater systems, providing good representation for these 

environments as well. 
39

Figure 3.1 Thirteen of the 36 final Vital Signs mapped onto the SEAN conceptual model 

representing major drivers of ecological and landscape change. Vital signs shown outside of the 

boxes are drivers of change, and those inside the arrows are direct effects of drivers. Vital signs 

in red are among the SEAN’s 18 high priority Vital Signs. In Figure 3.2, the remaining Vital 

Signs are mapped within the central ovals of this Figure 3.1. 

Marine

enterprises

Geologic Patterns 

and Processes

Ocean Patterns 

and Processes

Island

Biogeography

Climate 

Change 

Human Activity

Glaciers, Floods, 

Droughts, Weather,

Global and

Regional Climate

Marine Freshwater

Terrestrial

Weather and Climate

Human Uses and Modes of Access 

Consumptive Uses

Landcover and Landform Dynamics

Glacial 

Dynamics

Underwater Sound

Oceanography Airborne Sound 

Invasive/Exotic Animals

Marine Contaminants 

Airborne Contaminants 

Freshwater Contaminants 

Invasive/Exotic plants
40

Figure 3.2 Twenty-three of the 36 final Vital Signs mapped onto the SEAN conceptual model 

representing the three interacting environments (terrestrial, freshwater, marine). Vital signs in 

red are among the SEAN’s 18 high priority Vital Signs. 

Streamflow 

Freshwater Macroinvertebrates 

and Algae 

Freshwater Water Quality

Breeding Landbird Populations 

Ungulates 

Marine Predators 

Humpback Whales 

Forage Fishes 

Harbor Seals 

Killer Whales 

Steller Sea Lions 

Kittlitz’s Murrelets 

Phenology 

Western Toads 

Wetland Communities 

Intertidal Communities 

Landcover and Landform 

Bald Eagles 

Bears 

Biodiversity 

Pests and Diseases 

Plant Communities 

Salmonids 

Marine Environments Freshwater Environments 

Terrestrial Environments 
41

Chapter 4: Sampling Designs 

Monitoring goals and objectives are linked to data collection through sampling designs. A 

quality sampling design is necessary to achieve intended monitoring goals and produce rigorous, 

robust, and defensible conclusions. To achieve the greatest precision, accuracy and resolution, 

the design must carefully consider the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the 

Vital Sign and patterns of variability in space and time (Oakley et al. 2003). Sampling design 

planning is often an iterative process that results in adjusting monitoring/sampling objectives to 

accommodate the practical constraints of cost, time, logistics, safety, available information, and 

technology (Elzinga et al. 1998). 

A sampling design explicitly considers the underlying basis of monitoring locations and the 

ability to make inference from sampled observations to a larger target population. The sampling 

design describes the process for determining how locations of monitoring measurements are 

selected, the number of locations, the target population of interest, and the extent of sample 

inference. The process for allocating sampling effort across space and time is also a key 

component of a sampling design. This chapter provides an overview of the major themes and 

concepts of sampling designs, and describes the designs the SEAN will use for the monitoring of 

each Vital Sign in its Core Program. All proposed designs represent our best approximations and 

optimal revisit schedules; we expect to refine designs during the protocol development process 

for each Vital Sign. A discussion of key concepts and definitions is included in Appendix H. 

4.1 Sampling Design by Vital Sign 

Sampling designs of the SEAN monitoring program can be organized by the underlying sample 

frame–area-based, listed-based, and index-sites. Additionally, certain Vital Signs can be 

monitored at the full spatial extent of a park, and thus, dividing the finite population into sample 

units is not required. For these Vital Signs, a census is employed to observe status and trends, 

and is a fourth organizing type. The remainder of this chapter contains one main section for each 

of the four frame types–area, list, index, and census–followed by a brief description of the 

sampling design for corresponding SEAN Vital Signs. A summary of the overall design features 

for each Vital Sign is presented in Table 4.1. We intend these descriptions as representations of 

our current thinking on how best to approach sampling for each Vital Sign; proposed sampling 

and revisit designs represent our best approximations of an optimal balance between rigor and 

practical limitations. We expect to refine sampling designs during the process of developing full, 

formal protocols. 

4.1.1 Area-based Sampling 

An area-based sampling frame uses geographic boundaries to delineate a given sample unit. An 

example of an area frame is a map of all intertidal areas in the SEAN park units. The map serves 

as the basis for drawing a probability sample. 

Area sampling is the primary method for Intertidal Communities, Marine Predators, and 

Oceanography monitoring. The area frame is represented as polygons of the target population. 

For most, a specific number of locations within these polygons is selected, and constitute the 

location of sampling units. 
42

Table 4.1 Summary of overall design features for SEAN Core Program Vital Signs. 

Sample 

frame Vital Sign General description of frame Spatial allocation 

Re-visit 

plan Response design 

Areabased 

Kittlitz’s 

murrelets 

GLBA proper marine 

environment 

Systematic 

line transects [1-0] Boat-based surveys 

Marine 

Predators 

GLBA proper marine 

environment 

Systematic 

line transects [1-0] Boat-based 

surveys 

Intertidal 

Communities 

Map of all intertidal areas in 

SITK 

Systematic 

(15 transects) [1-0] 

Point, belt 

transects, and 

quadrat counts 

along transects 

Oceanography GLBA marine environment 

for water samples 

Random 

(24 locations) [1-0] 

Water column 

samples 

Listbased 

Glacial 

Dynamics 

All glaciers in GLBA and 

KLGO, monitored for extent NA (census) [1-9] 

Aerial 

photography 

Marine 

Contaminants 

GLBA, SITK intertidal 

environment 

NA (index 

sites selected 

from the 2007 

baseline study) 

[1-1] 

Assay of fieldcollected mussels 

Index 

sites 

Airborne 

Contaminants 

1) For lichen and air samples 

in each park unit, selected 

locations to capture the 

known variation in cruise 

ship visitation 

NA 

[2-9] for 

lichen and 

air samplers 

Samples of 

lichens within 2-

ha areas, passive 

air samplers 

 

2) Hg measures at a wetdeposition monitoring 

station in Bartlett Cove 

(GLBA) 

Hg: weekly 

from 2009-

2012 

Wet-deposition 

measures 

Freshwater 

Contaminants 

Co-located with Freshwater 

Water Quality and 

Streamflow 

NA [1-9] 

Assays of fish 

tissue an (in 

GLBA) lake core 

sediments 

Freshwater 

Water Quality 

Co-located with Freshwater 

Contaminants and 

Streamflow 

NA Continuous; 

spring - fall 

Field measures of 

NPS core 

parameters 

Streamflow 

Co-located with Freshwater 

Contaminants and Water 

Quality 

NA Continuous; 

spring - fall 

Automated 

stream gages 

Weather and 

Climate 

Locations picked to suite 

needs of external weatherclimate monitoring networks NA Continuous 

Ground-based 

weather stations 

Census Landform and 

Landcover 

For all park units, the full 

extent of the park and a TBD 

area around each park 

NA [1-9] 

Ikonos imagery 
43

4.1.1.1 Intertidal Communities 

Observations of flora and fauna of intertidal areas in SITK will be recorded to track changes in 

these communities sensitive to marine-related development and marine pollution. Maps of 

intertidal units in SITK will be used to randomly select 15 permanent transects. Along each 

transect, observations of sessile species, macroinvertebrates, and small mobile species will be 

acquired through permanent point samples, belt transects, and quadrats. Inference scope will be 

limited to the sampled intertidal zone. 

4.1.1.2 Kittlitz’s Murrelets 

Monitoring for Kittlitz’s murrelets will involve a series of at-sea surveys conducted on several 

occasions during the summer months in GLBA. Multiple surveys throughout the summer will 

help estimate the seasonal peak in numbers of Kittlitz’s murrelets for timing of future surveys 

and ensure that surveys capture temporal variability of Kittlitz’s murrelets within the park. 

Surveys will consist of two types of transects to capture known spatial variability (i.e., 

patchiness) in distribution, following Kissling et al. (2007). 

The data from the initial surveys will be compared with historical surveys conducted within 

Glacier Bay proper and from surveys in Icy Bay, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park (Kissling et 

al. 2007) and utilized in a power analysis to estimate sampling design power under different 

conditions of sampling (detectability, transect length, magnitude of population change, etc.). 

4.1.1.3 Marine Predators 

USGS conducted annual boat-based surveys in and around Glacier Bay proper for marine birds 

and mammals from 1999 through 2003. The surveys were designed to assess important areas of 

marine predator concentration in Glacier Bay. However, they also served as a means of 

surveying multiple species of marine birds and mammals for understanding long-term trends. 

These systematic surveys were conducted in June of each year covering nearly 30% of total 

marine habitat in Glacier Bay proper, with coverage of the entire shoreline and extensive 

sampling of offshore habitats with a fine-scale grid. A subset of June transects was surveyed in 

November of 1999 and repeated in March for four years (2000-2003). 

These data will be used to develop the SEAN’s monitoring protocol. Preliminary results 

indicated that adoption of the existing protocol, but with a reduction of up to 70% in effort, 

would yield data with precision acceptable for the SEAN’s long-term monitoring purposes. 

Transects will be stratified by coastal and pelagic areas (relative the shoreline of Glacier Bay 

proper); stratification is particularly important for generating accurate population estimates for 

several key species. Because populations of many marine birds and mammals are inherently 

variable in space and time, the true value of using this transect methodology will be in the 

accumulation of long-term datasets (i.e., trend detection for some species will require 15-25 

years of data). 

4.1.1.4 Oceanography 

Measures of standard oceanographic parameters (water temperature, salinity, turbidity, pH, 

dissolved oxygen, light penetration, and primary productivity) throughout the water column will 
44

be acquired at 24 permanent stations across the distance-from-tidewater-glaciers/turbid-outwashstreams gradient within Glacier Bay proper. Stations were established by USGS (Hooge et al. 

2003, Etherington et al. 2007) to capture known variation in Glacier Bay proper, including midbay sills and deep basins. A protocol describing Conductivity-Temperature-Depth (CTD) casts 

to measure water temperature, salinity, photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), optical 

backscatterance (OBS – turbidity), and chlorophyll-a fluorescence (proxy for phytoplankton 

concentration) was developed by USGS (Hooge et al. 2003, Etherington et al. 2007), and will be 

adopted by the SEAN. Oceanographic data for the outer coast will be harvested from external 

programs (NOAA, Univ. of Alaska, Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game), and will include elements of 

physical and chemical oceanography (e.g., salinity, pH) as well as biological oceanography (e.g., 

primary productivity). 

4.1.2 List-based Sampling 

A list-based frame is a list of possible sample units, derived from inventories or intimate 

knowledge of the extent of a resource. An example would be a list of all glaciers in the SEAN 

park units. The list-based frame is used to draw probability samples, or all units of the list are 

selected for monitoring (i.e., census). A list-based scheme will be used for monitoring two of the 

Core Program Vital Signs: Glacial Dynamics and Marine Contaminants. 

4.1.2.1 Glacial Dynamics 

All glaciers will be identified in GLBA and KLGO. High-altitude aerial photography (and/or 

satellite imagery, potentially) will be used once every ten years to delineate spatial extent 

(terminus position), surface area, and elevation of each glacier. Photography will occur at the 

end of the summer ablation season to allow accurate determination of the equilibrium line and to 

take advantage of the maximum yearly exposure of lowland features. We expect that a decadal 

time step will be sufficient to capture significant changes. Location of measures will generally 

correspond to historical stations that were selected for their representativeness of glacier systems 

in GLBA and KLGO. 

SEAN does not expect to undertake mass-balance monitoring at this time, but has retained these 

monitoring elements in the Glacial Dynamics PDS to facilitate potential future expansion of 

glacier monitoring if additional funding is identified. 

4.1.2.2 Marine Contaminants 

In 2007, SEAN funded a baseline marine contaminants project (Tallmon 2007) that sampled 

intertidal blue mussels (Mytilus trossulus) from several sites in GLBA (both within Glacier Bay 

proper and in outside waters) and at SITK and KLGO. Mussels provide an excellent timeintegrating bio-proxy for a broad spectrum of marine water pollutants (persistent organic 

pollutants, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and metals). The protocol followed was similar to 

that of NOAA’s nationwide Mussel Watch Program. SEAN will follow the recommendations of 

the forthcoming (expected fall 2008) report of the baseline study to select one or two 

representative sites from the Glacier Bay locations and one site in SITK. These sites will be 

monitored in alternate years (mid-summer), starting in 2009. Every attempt will be made to 

encourage NOAA to add these sites to its larger Mussel Watch Program. 
45

4.1.3 Index Sites 

Index sites are a special case of the list-based frame, used to collect information on points or 

locations that are hand-picked by lead investigators and monitored to yield adequate data on a 

particular Vital Sign. These samples are usually selected as “representative” sites, and–given the 

lack of probability sampling–statistical inference is limited to the monitored areas. 

Selection of index sites is justified due to the high costs of the surveys or equipment involved in 

the measurements (e.g., airborne contaminants, weather & climate). The use of index sites is 

appropriate in cases where selected sites represent the majority of the population of monitored 

subjects, or where the spatial fluctuation in measures across a larger area is inconsequential for 

long-term monitoring purposes. Given limited monitoring resources and large, inaccessible land 

areas, the SEAN employs this type of frame in monitoring five of the 12 Core Program Vital 

Signs: Airborne Contaminants, Weather & Climate, and three freshwater Vital Signs. 

4.1.3.1 Freshwater Vital Signs – Common Considerations and Collocation 

Three of the Core Program Vital Signs are related to freshwater water quality: Freshwater 

Contaminants, Freshwater Water Quality, and Streamflow. At least one stream in each park unit 

is selected for monitoring these three Vital Signs. Up to two additional young, recently 

deglaciated streams in GLBA may be included. Streams were selected on the basis of being the 

only stream in a park unit (i.e., the Indian River at SITK), on the importance of the stream for 

anadromous fish spawning and rearing, and on the importance of the stream as a source of 

sediment and pollution discharge to the ocean. Within each stream, a 100-m section will be 

selected on the basis of accessibility and used in monitoring all three freshwater Vital Signs. The 

ability to include other streams and lakes will be determined as costs and effort are better defined 

in pilot implementation. 

The collocation of freshwater Vital Signs monitoring provides efficiency in terms of data 

collection effort and provides integrative information useful in evaluating reasons for observed 

trends in one or more Vital Signs. Dependent upon site access and characteristics, streamflow 

measures may not be precisely spatially coincident with other Vital Signs on all streams; 

however, near-upstream measures will provide a useful proxy of streamflow through the selected 

index site. 

4.1.3.2 Freshwater Contaminants 

The SEAN will monitor freshwater contaminants fish, macroinvertebrate, and sediment sampling 

on a rotating basis. Field staff will collect sediment samples from the streambed and benthic 

macroinvertebrates from long-lived species with a ≥2 year life cycle. Fish tissue samples will be 

collected from resident fish and juvenile salmonids (primarily coho), that stay in freshwater 

systems long enough to bioaccumulate toxins. Collection of Hg, other heavy metals, and a 

“legacy” suite (e.g., PCBs, toxaphene, PAHs, DDT, chlordane, HCH, dioxins, furans, and 

chlordane) will alternate with collection of other persistent organic pollutants (e.g., PBDEs, 

PFAs, SCCPs, PCNs, endosulfan, trifluralin, and methoxychlor). 

4.1.3.3 Freshwater Water Quality 

Core parameters currently identified (NPS 2002) are temperature, pH, conductivity, dissolved 

oxygen, flow/stage/level (see Streamflow Vital Sign below), and turbidity. In-situ water quality 
46

core parameters will be sampled using recording instrumentation known as data sondes. These 

instruments incorporate multiple sensors integrated into a single instrument. Sondes with 

integrated dataloggers will be placed in streams for continuous data recording and subsequent 

downloading. In addition to core measures, parameters to track biological productivity, nutrient 

enrichment, and organic pollution will be considered; these may include chlorophyll-a, total 

dissolved solids (TDS), alkalinity, total and dissolved iron, total phosphorous, total nitrogen, 

ammonia as N, major cations (silicon, magnesium, calcium, sodium, potassium), major anions 

(chloride, fluoride, ortho-phosphate as P, nitrate as N, nitrite as N, sulfate), dissolved organic 

carbon (DOC), biological oxygen demand (BOD, 5-day), and fecal coliform bacteria. Other 

parameters for consideration in more developed areas may include hexane-extractable material 

and pharmaceuticals. Collection of water samples will follow a rigorous quality 

assurance/quality control protocol that includes chain-of-custody records for samples. Laboratory 

analyses and reporting will also follow a QA/QC plan. Samples will be processed by a certified 

lab (e.g., Analytica Alaska in Juneau). 

4.1.3.4 Streamflow 

Data from existing USGS stream gages will be harvested each year. Streamflow measures of the 

Indian River will be collected via two gages recently and cooperatively established by SITK, the 

City and Borough of Sitka, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. In GLBA, traditional 

USGS stream discharge measurement techniques will be established by the SEAN. In KLGO, a 

gage will be established on the Taiya River. Data from all existing gages on selected streams 

will be used, regardless of their location relative to the index site used for other freshwater 

measures. These data provide an overall condition assessment of the stream, and upstream gages 

provide some indication of condition of the actual index site. The primary recorded measures 

will be stage height and discharge, reported on seasonal, annual, and peak bases.

4.1.3.5 Airborne Contaminants 

Air quality of all SEAN parks may be impacted by near-field mobile sources including railway 

operations, busses, cruise ships and other marine traffic; near-field point sources such as dieselfired generators; and far-field industrial sources in Eurasia. In addition to air contamination 

degrading visibility, deposition of air contaminants has the potential to contribute to foliar 

damage (Fenn 2006), terrestrial and marine community compositions shifts (Geiser et al. 1994, 

Fenn 2006), and bioaccumulation of contaminants in marine and terrestrial organisms (Goodyear 

and McNeil 1998, Pedersen and Lierhagen 2006). Monitoring of air contaminants both directly 

and in lichen species affords efficient and cost-effective methods for tracking airborne 

contaminants. Two-hectare monitoring sites will be selected to capture variation in cruise ship 

routes and other physical site criteria, with two sites in KLGO, two in GLBA, and one in SITK. 

These sites will complement the 73 plots already established throughout SE Alaska as part of the 

regional lichen monitoring program operated by the USDA Forest Service, some of which may 

serve as additional controls to high-visitation sites selected in SEAN parks. Lichen samples will 

be collected at each site, and assayed for 24 elements, total nitrogen, total sulfur, and total nitrate 

concentration. Passive throughfall samplers at each site will measure wet and dry deposition, 

providing data on sulfates, nitrates, and ammonium and hydrogen ions. Passive air samplers will 

be operated at sites from approximately mid-April to mid-October to provide concentration 

measures of SO2, NHO3, NH3, NO2, and NOx in ambient air. Lichen community samples also 

will be collected on adjacent sites, following methods used by the Tongass National Forest 
47

(Geiser et al. 1994, Geiser 2004). We will construct predictive models of elemental 

concentration in lichens from pollutant concentrations in ambient air. Lichen sampling and air 

samplers will be activated for two consecutive years per decade. 

 

Hg monitoring will be part of a regionwide network run by the Mercury Deposition Network 

(MDN, http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/mdn/), which is housed within the National Atmospheric 

Deposition Program (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/). A historic wet-deposition station in GLBA will 

be brought back on-line to provide weekly samples for at least the next three years. After three 

years of data collection, results will be evaluated relative to other extant stations in coastal 

Alaska to determine whether the GLBA data are distinct and valuable for monitoring regional 

mercury deposition, or whether variation in GLBA data is adequately captured by another NADP 

station in the region. 

4.1.3.6 Weather and Climate 

Programs external to the SEAN currently are monitoring weather and climate. Davey et al. 

(2007) identified existing stations within 60 km of each of the SEAN’s park units (Table 4.2). 

Only GLBA contains weather stations. The SEAN monitoring efforts will consist of establishing 

three or four weather stations within the parks, acquiring and archiving data from existing 

stations, and analyzing data specific to park units. Basic parameters (e.g., precipitation and 

temperature) and other available measures (e.g., snowfall and depth) will be included in 

analyses. Many of the climate stations have a long period of record, with some dating back to 

the 1890’s. This temporal sample provides a useful context for delineating future, broad-scale 

climatic extremes and change. For efficiency, initial monitoring efforts will determine a shortlist of stations most useful to SEAN park units, and only work with data from these stations. 

Moreover, climate products already available from WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center –

Reno) and from other climate centers (e.g., PRISM – Oregon State Climate Center, Corvallis) 

will be used to provide broad-based assessments of historical and current climatic conditions. 

Table 4.2 Number of weather stations within 60 km of SEAN’s park units. Number of stations 

within a park unit is noted inside the parentheses. (Table from Davey et al. 2007). 

Network GLBA KLGO SITK 

COOP (NWS-Cooperative Observer Program). 36 (3) 13 (0) 6 (0) 

CWOP (Citizen Weather Observer Program) 2 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 

NADP (National Atmospheric Deposition Program) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 

NRCS-SC (USDA/NRCS snowcourse network) 4 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 

NWS-AK (NWS Alaska Region network) 6 (1) 1 (0) 0 (0) 

RAWS (Remote Automated Weather Station network) 2 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 

SAO (Surface Airways Observation Network) 14 (1) 3 (0) 3 (0) 

SNOTEL (USDA/NRCS Snowfall Telemetry network) 2 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 

Other 3 (0) 2 (0) 2 (0) 

Total 70 (5) 24 (0) 12 (0) 

4.1.4 Census Designs 

Census designs are used where all the individuals of a sampling frame may be monitored, as is 

the case with mapping efforts and with some known small wildlife or plant populations. SEAN 

will use a census design for monitoring Landform and Landcover. 
48

4.1.4.1 Landform and Landcover 

Landform and landcover will be monitored via satellite. IKONOS or other high resolution space 

borne imagery will be acquired for the full extent of each park unit and relevant adjacent areas 

outside the park unit to monitor near-park disturbances and boundary contrasts. The extent of 

extra-park area to include will be determined by processes with the potential to influence park 

lands, such as drainage, extra-urban threats (SITK), etc. The expense of imagery acquisition and 

processing requires a minimum 10-year revisit design. Change detection will be concentrated on 

specific landforms (e.g., moraine deposits, glacier extent, firn lines, terraces, fluvial deposits, 

proglacial lakes, alluvial deposits, accretion zones on river systems, shoreline features, erosion 

zones on river systems, river channels). Broad class types will be required for vegetation, but 

types will be sufficient for condition monitoring of the SEAN’s vegetative areas. Classified 

maps from the most recent and previous monitoring events determine status and trends in 

landcover composition and structure. We will consider options to use medium-resolution 

imagery (e.g., ASTER) every five years to enhance temporal resolution for detecting broad-scale 

changes. 
49

Chapter 5: Sampling Protocols 

Sampling protocols for monitoring Vital Signs are study plans detailing how “data are to be 

collected, managed, analyzed, and reported, and are a key component of quality assurance for 

natural resource monitoring programs” (Oakley et al. 2003). Protocols consist of three main 

sections: 1) narrative; 2) standard operating procedures; and 3) supplementary materials. The 

protocol narrative describes why a particular Vital Sign and metric(s) were selected; specifies 

objectives and details of the proposed sampling design to meet those objectives; identifies field 

methods that will be used to gather data; explains how these data will be managed, analyzed, and 

reported; discusses personnel requirements and training and safety procedures; and describes 

operational requirements such as scheduling, equipment, and budget. Standard operating 

procedures provide detailed instructions on how to accomplish every topic mentioned in the 

narrative. Supplementary information includes relevant sources of data such as sample databases 

and digital images (Oakley et al. 2003).

 

The SEAN staff met with cooperators from the SEAN parks (Technical Committee membership) 

and the NPS Alaska Regional Office (NPS-ARO), during November 2007 to discuss a schedule 

for developing and implementing sampling protocols. Additional discussions were held with 

USGS-BRD, a key potential cooperator. Our Core Program of 12 Vital Signs were selected 

primarily based on their ecological and management significance, and secondarily with regard to 

the SEAN’s workload and funding capacity in the first years of implementation. We must 

balance our desire for holistic monitoring program with the realities of staffing and budget 

limitations. To achieve that balance, we have opted to prioritize development and 

implementation of the Core Program over opportunistic contributions to Vital Signs listed under 

the Secondary Program (refer to Chapter 3). 

In Chapter 9 we describe the importance of building a reasonable schedule that emphasizes 

quality over quantity. That is, the SEAN has decided to focus on completing fewer, but highquality Vital Signs monitoring protocols within a given year, rather than aspiring to complete the 

maximum number in the shortest timeframe. To meet this implementation goal of doing a few 

things well while still maintaining our longer-term vision for a fully implemented, holistic 

monitoring program, we have decided to focus initial implementation (begun in 2008) on five 

Vital Signs: Airborne Contaminants, Marine Predators, Weather and Climate, Oceanography, 

and Freshwater Water Quality. (Development of the Freshwater Water Quality protocol will be 

closely coordinated with the other three freshwater Vital Signs (Contaminants, 

Macroinvertebrates and Algae, and Streamflow) to coordinate collocation and sampling design 

considerations.) These first 5 Vital Signs were selected for three key reasons: (1) they were 

consistently identified by the SEAN Technical Committee as being of high priority and direct 

relevance to SEAN parks, (2) all have considerable extant raw and analyzed data that will 

contribute directly to protocol development, and (3) there are immediate and substantial 

partnering opportunities to leverage SEAN contributions and capitalize on expert assistance in 

tailoring protocols to the SEAN parks. Table 5.1 displays the five-year (2009-2013) schedule of 

development and testing of Core Program protocols monitored only by the SEAN or monitored 

in partnership with SEAN parks or other agencies. See Section 8.4 for further details on 

partnerships with other agencies, and see Chapter 9 and Table 9.1 for recognized issues to be 

addressed during protocol development and testing. A protocol development summary (PDS) 
50

briefly describes key elements of sampling protocols that will be implemented within five years 

of the initial draft release of the Monitoring Plan, and how the SEAN expects to go about 

developing each protocol (see http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/ for the basic guidelines). 

A summary of the justifications and measurable objectives for all PDSs is provided in Table 5.1; 

the PDSs themselves are in Appendix C. 
Table 5.1 Justification and measureable objectives for monitoring protocols used to monitor Core Program VitaSEAN parks. 

SEAN Vital Sign 

and Protocol 

SEAN PARKS 

Scheduled 

Year of 

Protocol 

Completion 

Justification Measurab

GLBA 

KLGO 

SITK 

Oceanography ● 2009 

Oceanographic conditions and processes are critical to marine flora and fauna and are likely to be an important determinant of both short- and long-term variation in the marine biotic community, from primary production to top predators. 

1. Measure spatial an

oceanographic trensalinity, turbidity, light penetration, ain marine waters o

Airborne Contaminants ● ● ● 2010 

Airborne contaminants and increased particulate loads have potential to affect climatic conditions, alter marine and terrestrial ecological processes, and degrade visibility impacting the parks' scenic beauty. All SEAN parks may be impacted by near-field mobile sources including cruise ships and other marine traffic, near-field point source such as diesel fired generators, and far-field industrial sources in Eurasia. Mercury (Hg) may be an important contaminant in Southeast Alaska due to its proximity to Eurasian sources and the prevailing weather patterns. Once Hg becomes bioavailable in an organic form, methyl mercury (MeHg) is 100 times more toxic and can bioaccumulate in a variety of taxa, reaching concentrations one-million times greater than environmental concentrations. 

1. Determine long-ter

concentrations of elements in lichen network of lichen SE Alaska wide in

2. Track actual conce

SO2, NHO3, NH3ambient air, 

3. Track total deposit

kg/ha/yr) for N & 

4. Determine long-ter

community compomeasurement of pe

5. Determine depositi

the National MDN and maintaining an GLBA. 
SEAN Vital Sign 

and Protocol 

SEAN PARKS 

Scheduled 

Year of 

Protocol 

Completion 

Justification Measurab

GLBA 

KLGO 

SITK 

Kittlitz's Murrelets 

● 2010 

The National Park Service is a steward to the global population of KIMU. Best estimates indicate that over 20% of the world’s population resides seasonally or year-round within Glacier Bay and Wrangell-St. Elias National Parks alone. KIMU are a species of management concern as a result of substantial declines across their range, including some areas where declines have exceeded 70%. In 2007, the USFWS upgraded KIMU to a Priority 2 for listing under the Endangered Species Act due to widespread and dramatic declines across their range. The population in Glacier Bay National Park is estimated to have declined 80% since the early 1970’s. 

1. Generate populatio

that, at a minimumα=0.05) to detect a population within 

2. Determine annual 

KIMU within Glacgenerating populasummer using at-s

transect methodolo

3. Quantify annual va

distribution of KIMGlacier Bay prope

4. Adapt and implem

monitoring design WRST, (Kissling Bay proper to achisampling objectivemaximize inferenc

Marine Contaminants ● ● ● 2010 

Marine waters in SEAN parks are believed to be pristine, but are subject to 2 risks of contamination: chronic delivery and accumulation of far-field contaminants associated with global industrialization, and acute, localized contamination associated with local human activity and marine enterprise. Biennial monitoring of a broad array of contaminants will allow SEAN to track longterm trends in the former while maintaining a high-quality, updated baseline inventory that would be indispensible in the event of the latter. 

1. Determine long-ter

contaminants at seSEAN parks throuand analysis of blu

Table 5.1, continued 
SEAN Vital Sign 

and Protocol 

SEAN PARKS 

Scheduled 

Year of 

Protocol 

Completion 

Justification Measurab

GLBA 

KLGO 

SITK 

Marine Predators 

●   2010 

Marine mammals and seabirds in GLBA are among the most emblematic and readily observable wildlife in the park. A large proportion of these species is also of particular management concern, due either to conservation status iconic or charismatic characteristics. Many visitors to GLBA both aspire and expect to observe a variety of seabirds, cetaceans, and pinnipeds. Top trophic-level predators (including marine mammals and seabirds) can serve as an index of ecosystem health because they assimilate and reflect the dynamics of populations at lower trophic-levels. 

1. Determine long-ter

abundance and spamarine birds and mproper using grid-surveys twice each along-shore (shoretransects that covethe marine habitat

Weather and Climate 

●

●

● 2010 

Climate is a basic driver of all ecological systems. Global climate models predict climate change and variability will be most severe at high latitudes. There are many indications that environmental conditions are already changing in Alaska. 

1. Determine variabil

in climate for all Smonthly and annudescriptive statistiparameters, includprecipitation, snow wind direction. 

Freshwater Water Quality 

●

●

● 2011 

Freshwater quality is critical to the functioning of aquatic, terrestrial, and nearshore marine ecosystems across SEAN. Threats to SEAN stream water quality include climate change, visitor impacts, urban development, invasive species, and long-range atmospheric contaminants. 

1. Track core water q

(temperature, dissconductivity, pH) 

Table 5.1, continued 
SEAN Vital Sign 

and Protocol 

SEAN PARKS 

Scheduled 

Year of 

Protocol 

Completion 

Justification Measurab

GLBA 

KLGO 

SITK 

Streamflow 

● ● ● 2011 

Streamflow is a critical monitoring component of aquatic ecosystems and habitats because many chemical and physical variables are influenced directly or indirectly by it. Climate change, urban development, water diversions, and other factors may alter streamflow and cause increase in erosion and siltation, increase of high-volume flash discharges in fall and winter and extreme low water in summer, threatening habitat for aquatic life such as spawning salmon and macroinvertebrates. 

1. Determine status a

in select SEAN str

Freshwater Contaminants ● ● ● 2012 

Contaminants such as mercury, POPs, fire retardants, PCBs, and PAHs, are known biological toxins and can bioaccumulate in SEAN aquatic environments. They can enter aquatic ecosystems from local sources, longrange atmospheric transport or by marinederived nutrients (spawning salmon). 

1. Track levels of sele

selected lotic and through analysis otissue samples, wilakes that do and danadromous fish psalmon) that may contaminants. 

Intertidal Communities ● 2012 

Intertidal invertebrates provide a critical prey resource for myriad vertebrate and invertebrate marine predators, as well as spawning and nursery habitats for forage fish and juvenile crustaceans. SEAN intertidal areas are biologically rich and are sensitive habitats vulnerable to disturbance. Threats include visitor trampling, adjacent development, oil spills, sewage, and boat groundings. 

1. Determine the statu

species compositiothe SITK intertida

2. Determine trends i

distribution of invintertidal invertebr

Glacial Dynamics ● ● 2013 

In both parks, glaciers have been and continue to be principal direct and indirect determinants of landform, oceanography, ecological pattern/process, and scenery. Changes in 

1. Determine (by dire

modeling/proxy) cand configuration GLBA and KLGO

Table 5.1, continued 
SEAN Vital Sign 

and Protocol 

SEAN PARKS 

Scheduled 

Year of 

Protocol 

Completion 

Justification Measurab

GLBA 

KLGO 

SITK 

glacial extent and mass balance serve as proxies for climate change. 

Landform and Landcover ● ● ● 2013 

Landscape structure is the base upon which physical and ecosystem processes function. The composition, quantity, patch configuration, and juxtaposition of terrestrial landscape components (landcover and landform types) control energy and material flow, inputs to marine systems, habitat availability, and wildlife movement patterns. Changes in landform and landcover types occur rapidly in SEAN parks in response to climate-mediated glacial retreat and primary succession, isostatic rebound, tectonic activity, wild-land fire, and insect outbreaks. Landcover and land use change could have profound impacts with cascading effects across terrestrial and aquatic systems. 

1. Determine long-tertrends in the areal extkey landforms withininfluencing, SEAN pa2. Complete the extenthe Glacial Dynamics 3. Determine status anthe areal extent and ccommunity types at bwithin, and on lands i4. Determine status anselected key landscapproportion of area in number and density osize) of NPS lands wilands influencing SEA

Table 5.1, continued 

57

Chapter 6: Data Management and Archiving 

“Documents prepared without carefully 

considering how people access or read 

information inevitably end up as digital 

landfill: either inaccessible or, if 

inadequately networked, forgotten.” 

Martin and Coleman 2002. 

The long-term success of the SEAN’s monitoring efforts is fundamentally dependent on 

thoughtful and efficient data management. We have focused the network’s approach to data 

management on four functional areas that are described in this chapter and throughout this 

Monitoring Plan: data acquisition, verification, storage, and dissemination. All are integrated 

with and flow from protocol development (Chapter 5). 

Nested under the SEAN’s mission statement and goals, we explicitly emphasize delivery of 

useful products to customers (NPS employees, external partners, the general public) by 

leveraging modern, web-based technologies. The SEAN has the advantage of being among the 

later networks to be developed, making us well-positioned to design our data management 

operations around the most recent mainstream information technology (IT) capabilities. 

Just entering development, the SEAN’s IT facilities are described in detail in its Data 

Management Plan (DMP) (Johnson et al. 2008), which is built in conformance with the national 

I&M Program Data Management Plan, formally known as “Data Management Guidelines for 

Inventory and Monitoring Networks” (NPS 2008). Whereas the national plan provides an 

overarching strategy and direction, the SEAN plan provides detailed specifications for 

developing and fulfilling its information management role. This chapter represents a distillation 

of the SEAN’s DMP; headings used here directly correspond to the DMP chapters. 

In the Introduction section we give a broad overview of the perspective and principles that guide 

our approach to data management. Subsequent sections discuss processes and architecture in 

greater detail. The full SEAN DMP is available at the SEAN website. 

6.1 Introduction 

The SEAN will provide direct support to the three network parks and make information available 

to the NPS and the outside world. Its data management design is based on the foundational 

functional model depicted in Figure 6.1. This model is explicitly customer-centric; it is based on 

deciding and describing exactly what needs to be delivered and then developing processes to 

properly provide those products. 

The SEAN’s data management is based in the four Core Functions: 1) Information 

Dissemination, 2) Information Repository, 3) Information Certification, and 4) Information 
58

Acquisition. Each of these Core Functions must be addressed during the two phases of 

establishing a data management program that is fully integrated within the Vital Signs 

monitoring program: the Development Phase and the Operations Phase. Given the context of our 

customer-centric philosophy, we have structured the Development Phase to flow in a clockwise 

order illustrated in Figure 6.1 (e.g., 1-2-3-4). That is, the SEAN will work to clearly articulate the 

desired end-products before initiating data collection in the field. We recognize that this 

presentation is likely opposite the direction in which a monitoring program operates. Indeed, the 

Operation Phase (once the program is fully developed) does flow in the chronological and 

counter-clockwise order of 4-3-2-1 (beginning with data collection and ending in dissemination). 

 

Figure 6.1 The SEAN Functional model of data management. Dissemination services (red) 

provide all data products to all customers using Internet web servers. Repositories (yellow) store 

the certified inventory and monitoring products called for in the protocols. Certification 

processes (green) assure repositories have the highest quality data and that sensitive items are 

restricted to authorized users. Data acquisition processes (blue) led by park staff and 

cooperators include a wide array of tasks, ranging from designing field forms to producing talks 

on long-term trends. Note that the color coding for these Core Functions is carried throughout 

other figures in this Chapter. 
59

The purpose of our emphasis on dissemination is to underscore the critical importance of 

specifying the desired data and products before constructing observation, certification, and 

repository processes. A useful analogy: to achieve a desired objective, it is more effective to 

pick a destination and then drive to it, rather than to drive around and see if the place at which 

you arrive is useful. The SEAN DMP addresses both network development and network 

operations, which have significantly different characteristics that require some different skills. 

The figure illustrates the linear process by which information is made available: 

 

 Valid information is acquired from collectors 

 Certification is granted to valid information 

 Repositories are populated with certified information 

 Information is disseminated from repositories 

 Customers make use of disseminated information 

Long-term monitoring projects have fundamentally different data management requirements than 

one-time, stand-alone projects (e.g., research investigations or baseline inventories). The 

usefulness of time-series (i.e., monitoring) data over time is dependent upon their consistency 

over time. Modification of data collection between collection periods produces discontinuities 

which result in opportunities for interpretation errors and may constrain retrospective analyses. 

Therefore, rigorous planning is needed to select (for each Vital Sign) the stable data elements 

that are useful over the long run, and to establish broader priorities that identify the types of data 

management services to which the SEAN will direct its attention. To this end, we identify three 

priorities for the network in pursuing its mission. 

 

1. First and foremost, the SEAN will establish and execute projects that directly perform 

long-term monitoring related to the Core Program Vital Signs described in Chapter 3. 

2. We may assist the SEAN parks with technical data management support on park-specific 

projects that relate to a Vital Sign that is not in the Core Program, but is on the “parent 

list” of 36 (see Chapter 3). 

3. Lowest priority is assigned to one-time measurements that may inform a Vital Sign 

monitoring process but that are not Vital Signs themselves. Development of data 

management processes for these efforts may cost as much as full operation of some longterm programs. We include this item in our plan because we recognize that a particularly 

important future data need could be identified that would require considerable effort or 

expense to obtain. 

For Vital Sign data to be accessible across time and people, it must be readily locatable and 

accompanied with sufficient documentation (i.e., metadata) to enable accurate interpretation and 

reliable use by a customer. Data use should not be conditional on collaborating with specific 

network or park staff, because data must be longer-lived than any individual’s tenure. Metadata–

the documentation necessary to make time-series data useful–will vary by Vital Sign. 

The World Wide Web (“web”) offers easy access to information, and linking of data with its 

essential documentation. Computer networks at all SEAN parks have adequate bandwidth, 

latency, and reliability for staff to rely on the web for daily work. Also, customers generally do 

not have to purchase or install special software products to work with data. Browsers are free, 
60

and plug-ins are readily available. Technologically, we can now leave behind the “push model”, 

where key persons need to provide customers with assistance. The “pull model” lets current and 

future customers make good use of Vital Signs data on their own. 

The SEAN is committed to making all of its data products and supporting information available 

through the web. The SEAN home page will deliver program information and have a link for 

each Vital Sign. Once a Vital Sign monitoring protocol is fully designed and implemented, the 

SEAN Data Manager will create a main page for it. As deliverables and documentation become 

certified, links on the Vital Sign home page will provide access to them. The SEAN will require 

that all project data deliverables assume a form that may be directly disseminated over the web. 

NPS emphasizes that data quality is extremely important to maintain long-term integrity, and the 

SEAN will enforce an “authoritative source” concept, whereby one and only one copy of each 

data deliverable will be stored in one and only one repository. After Vital Sign datasets are 

acquired, they will be validated by the Data Manager. The project leader will then certify 

completeness. The certified data deliverable will then be installed in one and only one 

designated repository, fully replacing any earlier version of that deliverable. Adherence to this 

approach is essential because if multiple copies of data exist, those copies will eventually 

diverge. Given the long-term horizon for I&M Vital Signs data, the probability of two copies of 

any dataset remaining identical over time approaches zero. When multiple divergent datasets are 

known to exist, the accuracy of none can be assured. For this reason, SEAN data management 

will maintain only one authoritative copy of any product, and only that one copy will be 

disseminated. 

Finally, the SEAN recognizes that the field of archiving is actively developing and faces 

extraordinary challenges regarding digital objects. Standard archiving processes described in the 

national DMP will be followed. 

6.2 Infrastructure and Systems Architecture 

Application software standards required by DOI and NPS will be observed; data product 

specifications in protocols will never call for software that violates agency standards. The SEAN 

will further limit the formats of acceptable products in order to keep the number of formats 

manageable. Internet access is required to cooperate with the SEAN. Park offices have good 

network connectivity; we will rely on park, regional, and I&M technical staff to assure its 

continuation. 

Data storage will be provided by several repositories that maintain their own production 

facilities. One staging area for initial validation will exist as directories on the SEAN file server. 

To facilitate automated file backup and for reliability and security reasons, no data deliverables 

will be stored on SEAN workstations. Draft data objects will be stored, whenever possible, on 

IT-maintained park file servers. Because field computers are not as robust as park file servers, 

project leaders should back up field data to servers as often as is practical. 

From the basic functional diagram in Figure 6.1, the SEAN has developed a service architecture 

(Figure 6.2). The dissemination services (red boxes in Figure 6.2) are provided to all customers 

by internet web servers maintained by WASO and our partners (e.g., the Western Regional 
61

Climate Center). Repositories (yellow) are located at WASO I&M, outside agency partners, 

collection curators, and the SEAN itself. The I&M repositories include the stores for enterprise 

applications like NPS DataStore and NPStoret. Local collections of physical specimens also 

serve the repository Core Function. The certification processes (green) restrict repository 

content to the highest quality products. Sensitive items will be appropriately redacted before 

leaving the certification block. Led by park staff and cooperators, data acquisition processes 

(blue) generate all the deliverables, including nontabular items. 

Figure 6.2 The SEAN information architecture. 

6.3 Project Management and Data Processing Workflow 

The SEAN will follow the four-stage project management model illustrated in Figure 6.3. The 

model comprises two phases: Development and Operations. Development follows the 1-2-3-4 

path, beginning at end-product definition and working back to datapoint observation. Through 

that effort, the SEAN will specify a variety of items, some of which are: 

 Funding and staff 

 The frozen detailed protocol 

 Contents of the vitals sign’s web main page 

 Partners (if any) that will be employed for dissemination and repository Core Functions 
62

 Programs to deliver specific content when called by web links 

 Repositories to be used for each deliverable 

 Data objects and containers needed in the repository to house products 

 Processes for loading certified data into repositories 

 Measures of data validity and the programs that enforce validity 

 Listing of sensitive items and processes that enforce privacy of sensitive data 

The Operations Phase, following the 4-3-2-1 functional order, is illustrated in Figure 6.4. 

Figure 6.3 SEAN project stages. 
63

Figure 6.4 SEAN data management operations. 

Data acquisition includes gathering raw data, external data, specimens, media, and GIS objects. 

From these items, project leaders (working on park file servers) create tables, analyses, reports, 

and presentations. Complete deliverables will be transmitted to SEAN data management for 

validation. Once at the SEAN, data will be staged on a file server and analyzed for complete 

conformance to detailed specifications and constraints, as detailed in the Vital Signs protocol. 

Imperfect submissions will be returned to project leaders for correction. Valid submissions will 

then be redacted to restrict sensitive items and will be installed in the appropriate repository. 

The three repository types are designed for particular content (see Table 6.1). 
64

Table 6.1 Repository content. 

Auxiliary (SEAN) Repository I&M Repository Partner Repository 

 Project tracking sheets 

 Protocol summaries 

 Project abstracts 

 Status reports 

 Data collection logs 

 FAQs 

 Presentations 

 Audio data 

 Video data 

 Photo data 

 Noncitable papers 

 Working files

 NPS Data Store metadata 

 NPS Data Store data 

 NPSpecies entries 

 NatureBib citable 

documents 

 NPS Storet entries 

 Investigator annual reports 

 Future SEAN-specific 

objects 

 Specialized data feeds 

as defined by partners 

6.4 Data Management Roles and Responsibilities 

Operations of the four Core Functions are completed by parties with overlapping responsibilities 

(see Figure 6.5). While not explicitly defined in the four operating functions, two additional 

responsibility classes are required to build and run the network: program management and 

system development. These two critical responsibilities are directed by the Network Coordinator 

and Data Manager, respectively. 

 

Information management is a joint responsibility among network participants. Table 6.2 

identifies specific positions needed to accomplish the four program Core Functions. (See the full 

SEAN Data Management Plan (available at the SEAN website) for full details on operations, 

including descriptions of key roles and responsibilities for each position). Program management 

will be a constant need. Development is necessarily front-loaded. Initially, more resources will 

be required for development and fewer for operations, but development needs will drop 

substantially once the initial Vital Sign programs have been established. 

6.5 Databases 

The SEAN defines databases very broadly as containers holding deliverable data products. 

Repositories house databases, and databases store objects that include tabular data, photos, and 

reports. 

Four repository types are used by the SEAN. First, “partner” stores support specialized 

information for which dissemination is already well developed by a third party. NOAA’s 

Western Regional Climate Center, for example, is a partner repository that will be used for 

tabular weather and climate data. Second, “I&M” repositories house data products maintained 

by enterprise applications like NPSpecies, NPS Data Store and NatureBib. Third, an “auxiliary” 

repository will be maintained by the SEAN to hold products that the other repositories are not 

designed to accept, such as project tracking reports and audio files. Fourth, “collection” 

repositories curate project-generated specimens. Though physically dispersed, all repositories 

share the capability of being centrally accessed using web links organized in the SEAN’s Internet 

pages. 
65

As the I&M “Integration of Resource Management Applications” (IRMA) initiative develops, 

more types of data products may be accepted by the I&M repository. The SEAN expects that, 

eventually, many auxiliary repository elements may be seamlessly migrated to I&M. 

Database creation follows the 1-2-3-4 functional workflow: 

 Define end products 

 Locate dissemination points 

 Identify repositories that support the deliverables 

 Model data and relations required to build those deliverables 

 Create repository containers to hold the required data (if they don’t already exist) 

 Outline methods for validating, securing, and submitting data to repositories 

 Build data acquisition tools to support both the raw data and the information generated by 

the project 

Figure 6.5 SEAN roles and responsibilities mapped to the four program Core Functions. 
66

Table 6.2 SEAN monitoring program positions mapped to the four program Core Functions, 

plus overall program management and system development. 

Staff or Position 

Program Management Information Dissemination Information Repository Information Certification Information Acquisition System Development 

Network Coordinator ● ● ●

Technical Committee ● ● 

National I&M Data Manager ● 

Network Data Manager ● ● ● ●

I&M IT Staff and Management ● ● ●

Partner Staff ● ● ● 

Park Superintendent ● 

Project Leader ● ● ●

Park and AKRO IT Technical Staff ● ●

Curator ● 

Subject Matter Experts ● ●

Park and Regional GIS Specialists ● ●

Subcontractors, labs, etc. ● ●

Park Staff ●

Cooperators ●

Web Developers ●

Database Developers ●

Duplicated effort may be avoided by deliberately defining final network products that fit existing 

I&M repository enterprise application databases. For example, formal reports can be specified in 

a manner that assures they are citable and may therefore be loaded into NatureBib. Similarly, 

Microsoft Access database tables used for data acquisition may be laid out so they are assured of 

fitting within NPS Data Store. 

For some Vital Signs, the repository Core Function will be provided by partners. Because the 

network is ultimately responsible for the Vital Signs data, it will permanently maintain 

safekeeping copies of submissions made to partners. In adherence with the “authoritative 

source” policy, these copies will not be available for dissemination; they are solely for internal 

business continuity processes. 

Nontabular data will typically be stored as files in the auxiliary repository, within directory 

structures defined by the SEAN. However, customers will not have direct access to the 

directories; they will access files via guided web pages. The I&M NPS Data Store repository 

will be used for all SEAN metadata, regardless of where the authoritative source data are actually 

housed. 
67

Repository of physical specimens will be managed by the park curator or, in certain cases, an 

outside collection curator. The project leader will be responsible for delivering properly 

prepared specimens to the curator with proper identification and Automated National Catalog 

System (ANCS+) data in a form acceptable to the curator. 

The certification process validates all Vital Sign data. Custom programs will analyze all tables in 

the databases to validate them against the mandatory criteria defined in the protocol. Database 

validation programs also report to the project leader optional criteria exceptions and outlier 

analyses. Nontabular data (e.g., reports or audio files) are difficult to validate. In those cases, 

validation will include confirming that the file can be correctly opened by current versions of 

associated software. For all file types, validation will be withheld until the deliverables are 

compared against specifications in the protocols, and until the metadata are seen to be complete. 

Once the data are stamped as valid, the project leader will certify the data and attest that they 

may be disseminated. The deliverables will then be installed in their appropriate repository. 

Data acquisition processes store all project data locally in a standard folder structure defined in 

the protocol, greatly facilitating review by all involved in the project. Tabular data are collected 

in local databases that are compliant with the NPS Natural Resource Database Template (NRDT) 

and designed specifically to support the products of the project. 

6.6 Data Acquisition, Processing, and Reporting 

In this section, Data Acquisition refers to Core Function 4 depicted in Figure 6.1. We use the 

term “data acquisition” to mean the collection and organization of field data and the creation of 

deliverable data products from them. “Processing” refers to the Core Function 3 tasks that 

formalize, validate, redact, and certify the proposed products. “Reporting” relates to the Core 

Function 2 installation of certified products into repositories. The “Dissemination” Core 

Function is summarized in section 6.10. 

It is important to note that each of these staged Core Functions have two phases: Development 

and Operations. It is essential that time-series data are consistently collected and managed over 

time. Because changing the collection rules invites error at a fundamental level, development 

should be completed, and the data rigorously defined, before any operations begin. As an 

example, consider that auto manufacturers finish building pickup trucks before selling them; they 

do not need technicians bolting on overlooked parts as the trucks speed down freeways. This 

concept holds true with building a comprehensive data management system: if the original 

development is done well, operations may continue full speed for many years with only an 

occasional reopening of development. 

Certain tasks are inherent to robust data collection, processing, and reporting. Table 6.3 presents 

those tasks that must be undertaken during the Development phase, and Table 6.4 lists those that 

occur during Operations. 
68

Table 6.3 Development tasks associated with capturing data, listed in order of execution. 

Function Tasks 

Prerequisites  Specify the desired final deliverable data products 

 Draft data model that supports creating deliverables 

 Identify NPS application interfaces 

 Identify partner repository interfaces 

 Identify outside raw data sources 

 Identify needed GIS functionality 

 Develop detailed database design diagrams 

 Identify business rule constraints 

 Define validation criteria for all data, including nontabular objects 

 Specify the formats and versions of deliverables 

 Draft project deliverable tracking spreadsheet 

 Freeze the data products in the protocols 

Reporting to Repositories  Verify appropriate backup, restore, security, and accessibility are 

available 

 Create auxiliary repository containers 

 Create and test extract-transform-load processes used to 

accurately install project data in particular repositories 

Validation/Certification 

Processing 

 SEAN Board of Directors, Executive Committee, and Technical 

Committee identify which elements of the proposed datasets are 

sensitive 

 Create and test validation processes 

 Create and test processes that limit sensitive data access to NPS 

staff 

 Data Manager and project leader clarify reporting requirements 

and schedules 

Data Acquisition  Create/test NRDT-compliant database tables and objects 

 Build any required GIS components and interfaces 

 Import any required external data 

 Design/print any sampling forms 

 Obtain any dataloggers, tablets, and handhelds 

 Create/test entry/edit programs using “front-end builder” platform 

 Build reports for predefined analyses 

 Distribute software to field computers 

 Review field computer backup procedures 

 Initiate a “project log” for recording collection events and 

exceptions 
69

Table 6.4 Operational tasks associated with capturing data, in order of execution. 

Function Tasks 

Data Acquisition  Project leader originates certain metadata 

 Oversee entry/verification of raw data 

 Backup as necessary to prevent catastrophic loss 

 Update the project log 

 Submit raw data products for validation 

 Revise products until validation is passed 

 Certify products for installation in repositories 

 Build any deliverables requiring valid detailed data 

 Submit deliverables for validation, correction, and certification 

 Send specimens to curators 

 Archive any original collection forms 

 Update deliverable tracking system 

Validation/Certification 

Processing 

 Accept submissions and attempt to validate them 

 Report errors and outlier analyses to project leader for resolution 

 Originate certain metadata 

 Accept project leader certifications 

 Review metadata for completeness 

 Update deliverable tracking system 

Reporting to Repositories  Apply security tags to sensitive data products 

 Once certified, transmit products to repositories of partners, 

national I&M program, SEAN 

 Verify repository has correctly and completely accepted data 

 Update deliverable tracking system 

6.7 Quality Assurance and Quality Control 

Quality assurance comprises steps that encourage accurate and complete data acquisition, 

including frozen monitoring protocols, thorough staff training, and carefully designed data entry 

processes. Data verification will be observed in accord with the data management plan. 

Quality control is accomplished by formally validating every data product submitted. All 

validation criteria are enumerated in detail in advance in the protocol, both for tabular and nontabular deliverables. A standard unit of data submission, such as oceanographic data stream by 

calendar year, must be observed for each project. 

Once data are validated, the project leader states the submission is certified and the Data 

Manager sends it to the repository. No repository updates will be attempted until an entire 

submission unit has passed all mandatory validation and been certified. Where applications 

permit, each repository update will be stamped with its data, user ID, and protocol version. 
70

6.8 Dataset Documentation 

Metadata documentation is essential to ensure data usefulness over time. Metadata for all data 

capable of being documented using the 8-level Federal Geographic Data Committee 

(FGDC)/NPS metadata standard will be stored in NPS Data Store. Metadata will also be 

documented for external data obtained from non-NPS sources that are used in support of 

analyses. 

Some nontabular data lack recognized detailed metadata standards. For example, photographs 

may exhibit a wide variety of attributes, but no single definition of what should be recorded as 

metadata is available from a single authoritative body. Where practical, files that accept 

attributes will have them embedded in the files. JPEG photos and MP3 audio are examples of 

file types that can carry their metadata inside them. The exact content included, in the absence 

of recognized standards, will be defined by the Data Manager in SOPs. 

The network’s Internet website will be intended to provide access to considerable documentation 

for each Vital Sign, including tracked deliverables, exception logs, and abstracts. One goal of 

the dissemination Core Function is to provide sufficient documentation tied to the delivered data 

so it can effectively “stand on its own.” The SEAN Vital Sign monitoring protocols–which will 

also be web-accessible–will thoroughly document data as well. 

6.9 Data Ownership and Sharing 

NPS will retain ownership of network data, both certified products and all levels of draft data. 

Furthermore, data ownership will include data directly originated by NPS and data collected by 

cooperators. The SEAN will work to structure cooperative agreements so that data ownership is 

explicit and clear. Network data that employ a partner for repository and dissemination services 

will remain property of NPS. A partner that requires transfer of data ownership to them is not 

acceptable and will not be employed. 

NPS data are in the public domain. Sensitive data, however, will be restricted according to law 

and policy. The park superintendents and network staff will collaborate on assigning sensitive 

designations to specific items on a deliverable-by-deliverable basis. Before submission to a 

repository, the Data Manager will mark every row or file that is sensitive. Applications that 

access repositories will not display sensitive items unless proper authorization credentials have 

been established. The SEAN will not submit sensitive data to partner repositories whose access 

is not entirely under control of NPS. 

Draft work copies of data in various stages of completeness are the responsibility of the Project 

Leader. These may includes tabular data as well as reports, analyses, presentations, and other 

nontabular data. When properly validated, a deliverable becomes the responsibility of the 

network Data Manager. The Data Manager will distribute products to repositories as soon as 

they are certified. However, if a Project Leader fails to certify validated data in a timely fashion, 

the Data Manager may submit data to repositories unilaterally when it is in the best interest of 

the NPS. 
71

The Project Leader stewards all data products up to the point they meet all mandatory validation 

criteria. The network Data Manager stewards validated data. Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) requests for validated data will be serviced by the network Data Manager. FOIA requests 

for draft and incomplete data will be serviced by the responsible Project Leader. 

6.10 Data Dissemination 

Dissemination, being the first Core Function considered in the SEAN’s design, drives all else in 

the network. All deliverables are to be digital and available through Internet web browsing. 

For data to be valuable, they must be accompanied by adequate documentation to clearly explain 

how to use and interpret them. Each Vital Sign or project will have its own main page that offers 

the deliverables specified in the protocol, including (among others) progress reports, deliverable 

tracking, permit details, and contact information. 

The SEAN has acquired and installed a network search appliance that indexes and delivers 

selected background documents, correspondence, and ancillary files. Customers may use the 

search appliance to browse the program’s full offerings. Vital sign web pages will be made 

available by links on the primary SEAN Internet homepage. Figure 6.6 illustrates a draft of a 

Vital Sign main page. 

Only the single authoritative copy of validated and certified data will be disseminated from 

designated repositories. To ensure that data meet the measureable standards defined in the 

protocol, repositories will never be loaded with project data until a candidate items passes all 

validations. Repositories will be populated in blocks of defined submission units, so partial 

update problems will not arise. Formal user authentication processes will be used to protect 

sensitive data. 

6.11 Records Management, Data Maintenance, and Archiving 

All SEAN repositories will have the capability to archive digital items. All SEAN deliverables 

must be provided as computer files of an acceptable protocol-specified format. For example, 

physical photographic prints may be scanned and submitted as JPEGs; posters submitted as 

original PPTs or PDFs; analog video as AVI. While this is a change from older practices, it is 

not burdensome for new material: most deliverables are now “born digital.” 

The SEAN will assist project leaders in finding park or other agency archives capable of 

cataloging and storing any physical items requiring permanent archiving. Physical collections 

are essential for items like biological or mineral specimens. Their usefulness is realized through 

physical examination. But items should be stored digitally whenever possible, because it makes 

them vastly more available. 
72

Figure 6.6 Conceptual draft of a SEAN Vital Sign web page, to be nested below the primary, 

standard Network webpage. The completed and functional webpage will conform to all NPS 

webpage standards. 
73

I&M enterprise application repositories are particularly attractive because their data are 

professionally and reliably archived. Partner repository archiving practices, on the other hand, 

may be unknown. Therefore, a copy of each partner submission will be kept at the SEAN for 

NPS archiving, to prevent loss due to partner error. 

SEAN-held products will be backed up using best practices detailed in the DMP. Because digital 

media have finite physical and logical life spans, we will implement processes that periodically 

renew “permanent” media when needed. To guard against version obsolescence of digital data, 

resources must be periodically expended to upgrade repository files to current formats. 

6.12 Project Tracking and Documentation 

The SEAN DMP outlines a method for using spreadsheets to track progress in building the 

specified products. Each project will have a tracking sheet with a separate tab for each 

submission unit–typically each collection year. A matrix of deliverables and milestones will be 

filled with task completion dates. The deliverable tracking will be updated only by SEAN staff. 

It will always be available for public viewing as a link on the corresponding project web page. 

This type of tracking will cover operations only; development is tracked internally. In the future 

a database approach may enhance project tracking. 

6.13 Implementation 

The data management plan proposes a phased implementation that provides essential 

functionality first. Subsequent enhancements will add in other phases, without impacting existing 

service. The first phase will include development of substantial new processes and will be the 

most time-consuming. After development processes are well underway, operations will begin 

overlapping with development. Eventually, operations will require far greater resources than 

development. The data management support infrastructure that is designed and built for the firstto-be-implemented Vital Signs will be substantially reused for later Vital Signs, thereby gaining 

efficiency and ensuring compatibility over time. 

6.14 Water Quality Data 

Several water quality Vital Signs will be among the first that SEAN will undertake. Monitoring 

protocols will be established in the Development Phase, and then the web page content will be 

drafted. The monitoring protocols for these Vital Signs will identify an EPA-compatible Storet 

repository to which these data will be submitted. The protocol will identify business rule 

constraints for the partner repository, including Storet formatting rules. We will define a 

validation process, develop and install an acquisition database (likely the MS Access tool already 

in wide use for this purpose), and develop a tracking sheet that lists deliverables and milestones. 

In the Operations Phase, data will be collected and entered into the MS Access database. When 

the project leader judges the dataset to be complete, it will be submitted as a whole for 

validation. Errors will be reported to the project leader by the Data Manager. The project leader 

will correct the errors in the MS Access database and resubmit. When the data pass validation, 

the project leader will issue certification to the Data Manager. Metadata will be submitted to 
74

NPS Data Store by the Data Manager, who will then submit the properly-formatted data to the 

NPS Water Resources Division (WRD). WRD will, in turn, ensure delivery of the data to the 

EPA partner repository for storage and dissemination. The Data Manager will provide ongoing 

project tracking in the publicly-viewable sheet created for that purpose. 
75

Chapter 7: Data Analysis and Reporting 

In this chapter, we describe how data collected as part of the SEAN monitoring program will be 

analyzed and how information will be disseminated. We anticipate that our primary audience 

will be park managers interested in reporting on the condition of park resources and meeting 

park goals and legal mandates. Still, we have structured our data management approach 

(Chapter 6) and our analysis and reporting strategy to serve both that audience and also a wide 

variety of non-park audiences. 

7.1 Data Analysis 

For the purposes of this program, we define data analysis as the process by which observations 

of natural resources are converted into meaningful information (MacCluskie et al. 2005). This is 

a broad definition of data analysis that includes a range of activities that occur post-collection, 

such as applying and interpreting statistical tests and models, interpreting remotely sensed 

imagery, and comparing historical and contemporary photos. We also include in this definition 

of data analysis the processes of data exploration, quality control, and mining existing data for 

relevant information. 

Efficient and effective data analysis results from careful planning. That planning–including 

details on proposed data analyses–will be embodied by finalized monitoring protocols. All 

protocols will be focused on the fundamental goal of analysis of monitoring data: to detect 

change over time. In this way, SEAN data analysis is primarily concerned with temporal 

variation in observations. 

Generally, we anticipate three primary steps of data analysis for which the SEAN will be 

responsible: data management, data summarization, and in-depth analysis. Additional steps or 

further in-depth analyses by others outside the network will be encouraged to the fullest extent 

possible; indeed, the SEAN approach to data management (summarized in Chapter 6) is designed 

to facilitate the access and use of SEAN data by any interested party.

A comprehensive and efficient approach to data management serves as the first step and 

underpinnings for all SEAN products. As such, the SEAN Data Manager will be actively 

engaged in all Vital Sign monitoring, from protocol development through analysis and reporting. 

Chapter 6 describes the four nodes of data management as acquisition, certification, repository, 

and dissemination. Field operations flow in this order, but the development of the data 

management program proceeds in the opposite order. In this way, the SEAN positions itself to 

ensure that data acquired, analyses conducted, and reports delivered are all directly in-line with 

the goals, objectives, needs, and expectations identified by technical specialists and managers at 

the start of the development process. 

The second step is timely data summarization, which includes preparation of descriptive 

statistics (e.g., mean, measures of variance), plots, charts, and graphs that provide information on 

the status of a Vital Sign. The SEAN will prepare these items with a specified frequency (Table 

7.1), and use them to identify problems with sample design or data collection. Data summaries 

may provide the first indication of change in status of a Vital Sign. Full, completed protocols for 
76

Table 7.1 Summary of analyses and responsibilities for SEAN Core Program Vital Signs. 

SEAN Vital Sign and 

Protocol Analysis Lead 

Airborne Contaminants 

Report following each decadal revisit to field sites; 

integrative report with Marine Contaminants and 

Freshwater Contaminants every 10 years. 

Project PI 

Freshwater Contaminants 

Summarize contaminant data as available; trend 

analysis every 5 years; integrative report with Air 

Contaminants and Marine Contaminants every 10 

years. 

Cooperator - PI 

Freshwater Water Quality Summarize core parameter data as available; trend 

analysis every 5 years Cooperator - PI 

Streamflow Annual summary of streamflow values, max/min, 

dates. Park Lead 

Glacial Dynamics (extent) 10-year report on observed changes in extent. Cooperator - PI 

Intertidal Communities 

Post-observation summary statistics of diversity 

indices and species richness; 5-10 year return on trend 

analyses 

Park Lead 

Kittlitz's Murrelets Annual summary of population estimates, raw counts, 

density maps Park Lead 

Landform and Landcover 10-year report on cover class representation Cooperator - PI 

Marine Predators Annual summary of population estimates, raw counts, 

density maps by species. 

SEAN Coordinator with 

Cooperator for detailed 

analyses 

Marine Contaminants 

Bi-annual summary of assay results; integrative report 

with Air Contaminants and Freshwater Contaminants 

every 10 years. 

Park Lead with 

Cooperator - PI 

Oceanography Annual summary of quarterly oceanographic data, 

trend analysis every 5 years 

Park Lead with 

Cooperator - PI 

Weather and Climate Annual summary of descriptive stats, trend analysis 

every 5 years Park Lead 

 
77

each Vital Sign will include Standard Operating Procedures for each Vital Sign. Adherence to 

these SOPs and summarization schedule will aid the SEAN in its reporting on Vital Signs.

The third step includes trend analysis and other sophisticated analyses that aim to detail the 

magnitude and direction of Vital Sign change and factors contributing to change. The analysis 

and synthesis reports will interpret the findings, incorporate appropriate literature, and seek other 

data sets/reports from SEAN monitoring or elsewhere to help in interpreting and understanding 

observed trends. With a staff of two, the SEAN must take care to not over-commit on the role it 

will play in conducting detailed data analysis in-house. The SEAN balances its staff and budget 

limitations with the approaches outlined in Chapter 8 (Staffing) and Chapter 10 (Budget); the 

salient point is that the SEAN will rely heavily on partnerships and cooperative agreements to 

deliver detailed analyses and interpretation. Contributions from external collaborators will be 

balanced and strengthened by direct input from the many subject-matter experts at GLBA, 

KLGO, and SITK who will serve as Park Leads or Principle Investigators. Data analysis 

responsibilities will fall primarily upon the Park Lead, particularly for those Vital Signs for 

which the SEAN will primarily provide programmatic support. This integrated approach is 

reflected in our staffing plan described in Chapter 8. 

7.2 Reporting 

Reporting is the primary means by which the SEAN will deliver information–derived from 

analyzed data–to decision-makers and other customers. The primary audience for the results of 

Vital Signs monitoring is park management: superintendents, park resource chiefs, and other 

managers who require natural resource data to make and defend management decisions. 

However, other key audiences for monitoring results include park planners, interpreters, 

researchers and other scientific collaborators, the general public, Congress, and the Office of 

Management and Budget. To be most effective, monitoring data must be analyzed, interpreted, 

and provided at regular intervals to each of these audiences in a format they can use, which 

means that the same information needs to be packaged and distributed in several different 

formats. 

The list of reports to be produced by the SEAN follows national guidelines and meets network 

reporting goals (Table 7.2). The content and amount of detail included in the various products of 

the monitoring program will differ depending on the intended audience for each report. At the 

network level, park managers and natural resource staff and collaborators need to have available 

the detailed, complex scientific data relevant to the park’s issues and resources. At the national 

level, however, a different scale of analysis and reporting is needed to be most effective. 

Although the form of reporting to different audiences will vary, the SEAN will strive for two 

characteristics in all reports and communications: timeliness and accessibility. Park managers 

cannot always anticipate their information needs, and often the timescale for providing critical 

information is short. Management action to protect natural resources is most effective if 

implemented early. Similarly, park visitors would prefer to know about changes in status of 

natural resources as soon as possible. 
78

As described in Chapter 6, dissemination of both data and reports will be primarily web-based. 

Reporting will not be exclusively through the web; other modes of reporting SEAN progress and 

findings may include: 

 Informal verbal communication with superintendents and NPS staff 

 Informal verbal communication with staff from other natural resource agencies 

 Staff meetings 

 Public presentations (talks and posters) 

 Newsletters 

 Reports (annual reports, project-specific reports, analysis and synthesis reports, State of 

the Park reports, etc.) 

 Journal articles 

 

Written project reports will generally take two forms. Informational reports (including annual 

data summaries) will be short, frequent, easily-digestible reports that provide updates on 

operations, observations, and apparent trends. The SEAN will emphasize these reports in the 

first years of implementation, with the objective of keeping park staff, cooperators, and partners 

informed of, interested in, and committed to the SEAN’s implementation. Documentary reports 

will contain greater detail on methods, results, and interpretation, and will also evaluate the 

efficiency and effectiveness of Vital Sign specific monitoring. These less frequent reports will 

serve a more technical purpose; they will formally document data analyses, make program 

details available for scrutiny and peer review, and serve as the formal historical record of Vital 

Signs monitoring. For any report format, we anticipate that reporting procedures will evolve 

with the monitoring program and adapt to changing communication technology. 

A fundamental report will be the Resource Briefs–one- to three-page summaries for each Vital 

Sign on the monitoring approach and key findings. Intended for wide distribution as the first 

source for an overview on the approach and status of a given Vital Sign, these Resource Briefs 

will be least common denominator among Vital Signs. They will be updated annually and 

served over the SEAN web page. The Annual Administrative Report and Work Plan provides a 

means to track the accountability of the program. Results that may aid in the day-to-day 

management decisions of the parks and that maintain interest in the monitoring program will be 

presented in annual technical reports. Concise information that may be of interest to a larger 

audience will be presented in a newsletter and on the SEAN website. Findings from the program 

will also be presented verbally at public talks, professional meetings, and through public media. 

The network will also conduct periodic program and protocol reviews. 

Together, all SEAN analyses and reports will be useful to the Network parks in understanding 

and reporting on condition of park resources. Additional, integrative reports will be specified as 

protocol development progresses; once monitoring protocols are finalized and frozen, the 

Network Coordinator will identify natural opportunities for integrative reporting. Several 

particularly likely integrative reports include: 

1. SEAN-wide contaminants assessment, based on data collected under the Airborne, 

Marine, and Freshwater Contaminants Vital Signs, 

2. SEAN-wide freshwater ecosystem assessment, based on data collected under the four 

freshwater Vital Signs: Physicochemical Water Quality, Contaminants, Streamflow, and 

Macroinvertebrates and Algae, 
79

3. SEAN-wide landform dynamics, based on data from Landform and Landcover, Glacial 

Dynamics, and Weather and Climate, and 

4. GLBA-based, targeted biological assessment of data collected under Oceanography, 

Weather and Climate, Marine Predators, Humpback Whales, Kittlitz’s Murrelets. 

Table 7.2 Reports to be produced by the Southeast Alaska Vital Signs Monitoring Program 

Type of Report Purpose Target Audience Frequency Peer Review 

Process 

Resource Briefs 

Succinctly summarize and 

distribute key findings and 

monitoring updates for each 

Vital Sign 

Network staff, Park management 

and staff; Servicewide program 

managers, external scientists, 

general public 

Updated 

Annually 

Network Level; 

Coordinator and 

Technical 

Committee 

Annual 

Administrative 

Report and 

Workplan 

Account for expenditures and 

work accomplishments during 

the preceding fiscal year; 

outline planned work and 

expenditures for the coming 

fiscal year 

Network staff, Technical 

Committee, Board of Directors, 

Regional Coordinator, 

Servicewide program managers; 

used for annual report to 

Congress 

Annual 

Regional office; 

Servicewide 

program 

manager 

Annual report 

for each 

protocol 

Inform Technical Committee 

and park staff of findings; 

document and archive data 

from previous year; early 

identification of apparent 

trends or need for adjustments 

Park resource managers, 

network staff Annual Network level 

Analysis and 

synthesis reports 

- trends 

Identify trends of concern; 

evaluate program direction; 

actively disseminate 

information to park managers 

Superintendents, park resource 

managers, external scientists 3-10 years 

Technical 

Committee; 

external peer 

review 

Program and 

protocol review 

reports 

Formal review of operations 

and results; review 

administration of the network 

Superintendents, park resource 

managers, monitoring program 

managers, external scientists 

5 years Regional or 

national 

Integrative 

Reports 

Detailed, coordinated analyses 

that simultaneously consider 

data generated by multiple 

Vital Signs. 

Superintendents, park resource 

managers, external scientists 10 years 

Technical 

Committee; 

external peer 

review 

Scientific 

posters and 

peer-reviewed 

literature 

Peer review of program and 

projects; feedback on study 

design, results, and 

interpretation; collaboration 

Park resource managers, 

network staff; external scientists Varies Professional 

peers/editors 

Professional 

symposia, 

conferences, and 

workshops 

Peer review of program and 

projects; feedback on study 

design, results, and 

interpretation; collaboration 

Park resource managers, 

network staff; external scientists Varies Professional 

peers/editors 

SEAN 

contributions to 

State of the 

Parks Report 

Report condition of park 

resources at a national level; 

highlight activities and 

interesting findings 

Congress, budget office, 

monitoring program managers, 

public 

Annual National level 

81

Chapter 8: Administration/Implementation of the 

Monitoring Program 

In this chapter we describe the Network’s organizational structure, the decision-making process 

of the network, the staffing plan, integration of network monitoring operations with other park 

operations, anticipated state and federal partnerships, and the periodic review process for the 

program. 

8.1 SEAN Organizational Structure 

Membership and operation of the SEAN Board of Directors (BOD) is guided by a charter 

(Appendix E). The BOD for the SEAN includes the superintendent of each park, the Alaska 

Region I&M coordinator, and the network coordinator (Table 8.1). One of the superintendents 

serves as the chair for the BOD, and this position rotates among the superintendents every two to 

three years. The three superintendents and regional I&M coordinator are the voting members of 

the BOD, and the other members serve as advisors to the voting members. 

Table 8.1 Composition of the SEAN Board of Directors, 2008. 

Title Current Member Voting Advisor 

Superintendent, GLBA Cherry Payne X 

Superintendent, KLGO Susan Boudreau X 

Superintendent, SITK Mary Miller X 

Regional I&M Coordinator Sara Wesser X 

Network Coordinator Brendan Moynahan X 

The BOD ensures that the monitoring program is built upon a collaborative vision for the 

network and considers the mandates, needs, interests, and goals of all park units. The BOD 

works to maintain the integrity of Vital Signs Monitoring and Water Resources funds and staff 

and assures that monitoring resources are not diverted or reassigned to other programs. 

Additionally, the BOD ensures that park staff selected to participate in the SEAN are fully 

committed to Vital Signs monitoring and establishes personnel appraisal systems that reward 

network cooperation. Finally, the BOD responds to information gained through long-term 

monitoring and acts on recommendations from the Technical Committee (TC) to institute new 

management actions or modify existing management actions where necessary to protect or 

restore park ecosystems. An important feature of the charter governing decision-making by the 

SEAN BOD is that all decisions are made by consensus. 
82

The SEAN Technical Committee (TC) consists of the Network Coordinator (chair), lead 

ecologist or biologist from each of the SEAN parks, the Coastal Cluster Ecologist (for GLBA, 

SITK, KLGO, and WRST), and the Regional I&M Coordinator (see Table 8.3). Though not 

formally identified as a regular member of the TC, the SEAN Data Manager is requested by the 

Network Coordinator to attend TC meetings and serve as an active advisor on topics related to 

data collection, data management, and information delivery. 

The TC is a working group that provides technical oversight and advice for decision-making. 

Key roles are to provide guidance and support needed to sustain on-the-ground monitoring 

efforts and to assist the Network Coordinator in the preparation of the Annual Administrative 

Report and Work Plan. The TC may make frequent use of work groups to evaluate options and 

provide alternatives and may often rely on work group reports as a basis for action. All work 

groups will be chaired by a member of the TC, and work group members will be approved by the 

TC. 

Table 8.2 Composition of the SEAN Technical Committee, 2008. 

Title Current Member Unit 

SEAN Coordinator, Chair Brendan Moynahan SEAN 

SEAN Data Manager Bill Johnson SEAN 

Ecologist Lewis Sharman GLBA 

Biologist Geoffrey Smith SITK 

Biologist Dave Schirokauer KLGO 

Ecologist, Coastal Cluster 

Program 

Scott Gende GLBA, SITK, 

KLGO, WRST 

Regional I&M Coordinator Sara Wesser Alaska Regional 

Office 

The Network Coordinator will work closely with the Chiefs of Resources at GLBA, KLGO, and 

SITK to facilitate implementation of the monitoring program at the park level. The Chiefs assist 

with resolving operational, implementation, and planning issues that are beyond the authority of 

the TC but are not substantial enough to be elevated to the BOD. The Chiefs can commit and 

direct park staff and funds toward execution of the monitoring plan. 

The Board of Directors, Technical Committee, Chiefs of Resources, and Network Coordinator 

work in concert to accomplish the goals and objectives of the monitoring program (Figure 8.3). 

The Board of Directors is the final decision-making body and is accountable for the operation 

and productivity of the network. The Technical Committee works with the Network Coordinator 

to formulate recommendations for all aspects of the program. The Network Coordinator then 

presents these recommendations to the Board of Directors for review, input, and approval. The 

Network Coordinator works with the Chiefs of Resources to identify and resolve operational 

issues related to implementation of approved projects and tasks. The Technical Committee also 

serves as the means by which park staff (not on the Technical Committee) may raise various 

issues for discussion or clarification. 
83

Figure 8.1 Interaction between the Southeast Alaska Network organizational components. 

The Network Coordinator position serves several functions. Foremost among these is to ensure 

the communication of information within and among the many people and groups involved in the 

program, including the BOD, TC, Chiefs of Resources, regional and national program staff, staff 

of the network parks, partners, and cooperators in the program. This communication is 

accomplished in part by regular meetings of the TC (approximately four per year), the Chiefs of 

Resources (as needed, typically by telephone or during park visits), the BOD (four per year), and 

regular updates for the Chair of the Board of Directors. The Network Coordinator has a crucial 

role of being a translator; i.e., a senior scientist who serves as a link between the technical issues 

related to designing and conducting a monitoring program and the managers and resource 

management issues that monitoring data are intended to inform. The Network Coordinator is 

also responsible for managing the network budget and providing annual accountability of the 

funds. The Coordinator works with the TC to establish objectives for the program and to direct 

annual and long-range implementation. A final important role of the Network Coordinator is to 

ensure regular and thorough review of the program and to correct program components that are 

not meeting rigorous standards.

8.2 Staffing Plan 

The SEAN staffing plan is based on a small core network staff (the Network Coordinator and 

Data Manager), heavy reliance on park staff, and strategic development of cooperative 

relationships and partnerships to assist with implementing the monitoring plan prescribed by the 

network. The SEAN core staff is centrally based in Juneau at the Glacier Bay Field Station at 

Indian Point. Network staff are administratively supported by GLBA. The SEAN Data Manager 

provides local IT support to the SEAN and two Coastal Cluster Program employees. Using 

Network 

Coordinator 

Board of Directors 

Technical 

Committee 

Park Natural 

Resource Staff 

Identify technical issues and desired outcome

Make proposals and recommendations

Chiefs of 

Resources 

Identify and resolve 

operational issues
84

Juneau as the central base, the SEAN facilitates travel to and from parks for both the SEAN and 

park staff, and also aids in partnership development with other agencies and groups that are 

based in Juneau. 

Keys to the SEAN staffing plan are that (1) the core network employees assume considerable 

flexibility in roles and responsibilities, and (2) the park-based staff makes a substantial 

commitment to active involvement in organizing and conducting field monitoring. This 

approach is based upon the need to: 

 Minimize staff costs and conserve funding needed for field operations; 

 Capitalize on efficiency and safety associated with local knowledge of park staff; 

 Ensure programmatic integration of monitoring with other park operations such as 

resource protection and interpretation; and 

 Fully utilize the breadth of both network and park staff expertise. 

Given the small network staff, a fundamental challenge for the SEAN is to secure the range of 

technical specialists needed to implement the monitoring program without over-committing the 

network budget to staff salaries. As noted by the other Alaska networks (e.g., CAKN, SWAN, 

and ARCN), the SEAN must strike a balance between hiring staff to conduct the monitoring 

program and having the operational funds to do the work (i.e., collect the data). Due to 

limitations imposed by the current budget, the SEAN does not anticipate hiring additional 

permanent network staff beyond the current Network Coordinator and the Data Manager. It 

follows that the SEAN will rely not only on park staff, but also on partnerships and contract 

assistance. 

8.2.1 Reliance on and Integration with Park Staff 

The “network concept” is based on the principle of park and network staff joining together to 

plan, coordinate activities, share and leverage resources, and implement operational monitoring. 

Programmatic integration of monitoring with park operations such as protection, interpretation, 

maintenance, and stewardship is crucial. Due to inherent staffing limitations, the SEAN faces 

the challenge of being substantially reliant on park staff without becoming burdensome. Both 

KLGO and SITK have single-person natural resource staffs (plus their Chiefs of Resources); 

GLBA has a more sizeable natural resources staff–approximately 13–which includes seasonal 

hires and the two members of the Coastal Cluster Program. (Although much of the attention of 

Coastal Cluster staff happens to be focused on GLBA at the moment, this program is designed to 

serve all four of its cluster parks [GLBA, SITK, KLGO, and WRST] equally). To work 

effectively and efficiently with parks, the SEAN will incorporate the following elements into the 

monitoring program: 

 Lead. Network Vital Signs monitoring staff must professionally lead the program in 

order to inspire confidence and build strong internal support and credibility. This is 

extremely important during initial years of the program and will be achieved by the 

Network Coordinator (i) developing and communicating the vision of the network and 

the value of long-term monitoring to all organizational levels of SEAN parks; (ii) 

encouraging the active involvement and ownership of the TC membership and park staff; 

and (iii) earning the support and backing of the BOD and the Chiefs of Resources by 

demonstrating the value of the network approach. 
85

 Be a support program, not a separate program. The SEAN staff will be active and 

visible members of the network parks. The Network Coordinator will travel regularly to 

each of the parks to assist with design, planning, data collection, and reporting results. 

The Data Manager will visit parks as needed in order to work directly with project 

leaders to design, construct, test, and coordinate data collection and management 

activities. By having a visible presence on the ground and at planning sessions at each 

park, the network staff will have their work seen and valued as a fully integrated program 

at each park. 

 Demonstrate, inform, and assist. In addition to its primary role of conducting long-term 

monitoring to inform park management, the SEAN staff will work to demonstrate 

relevance and benefits to park staff. To the extent that it fits with monitoring operations 

and objectives, the SEAN will work to customize products and data management directly 

to the needs of park staff. This may be done through network cooperation with extant 

staff work processes and assistance with data management operations. 

 No surprises. The SEAN will work to always propose and schedule park support and to 

clear requests with supervisors and/or the Chiefs of Resources with the support of the 

Technical Committee. 

 Foster ownership and involvement. Involve park biologists, interpreters, rangers, pilots, 

maintenance, and other staff in the collection of monitoring data, as educators, or in a 

support capacity for carrying out most monitoring operations. Involvement will also be 

achieved through frequent park visits to build personal and working relationships 

between network and park staff. This involvement and personal familiarity of the park 

staff with SEAN work, and of the network staff with park operations and realities, will 

facilitate park-based field monitoring. 

Park staff will serve two primary roles in conducting the monitoring and delivering information: 

Project Lead and Park Lead. The Project Lead is the individual designated to take overall 

responsibility within the network context for the design, measurement, and reporting on a Vital 

Sign. He or she works with the Network Coordinator and the Technical Committee to determine 

the long-range direction for data collection. The Project Lead oversees collation and 

summarization of the monitoring data and interacts regularly with the Data Manager. The Park 

Lead is the staff member from a SEAN park who ensures that park-level interests are considered 

in the execution of the monitoring Vital Sign. The Park Lead works with the Network 

Coordinator and the Project Lead to communicate relevant park operations and assist with 

compliance, permitting, and other park requirements. These two roles will often be served by the 

same individual. 

 

As the program moves from design and protocol development into field implementation and data 

collection, the SEAN will evaluate whether to fund term or seasonal biological technicians or 

data management assistants. This approach will ensure that annual field work is completed, that 

park staff are not overburdened with support to the SEAN, and will avoid the addition of 

permanent staff that the SEAN budget cannot sustain. 
86

Field sampling will be conducted by teams consisting of Project Leads, Park Leads, park staff, 

and SEAN biological technicians. Creating monitoring teams from network and park-based staff 

is crucial to integrating science and management and institutionalizing the monitoring program 

within park operations. 

8.2.2 Reliance on Cooperators, Partners, and Contractors 

Cooperators are parties external to the SEAN who will be actively involved as project (or fieldeffort) leaders for defined monitoring tasks. Partners are entities external to NPS who will 

contribute, manage, or serve data directly related to a SEAN Vital Sign. Due to its minimal 

network staff size, the SEAN will rely heavily on cooperators for implementation of the 

monitoring program. Most of that reliance will fall on the relationship between the SEAN and 

the parks, but there will also be considerable reliance on cooperators that are supported entirely 

or in part by network funds. Examples of likely external cooperators include faculty or students 

at the University of Alaska Southeast (a current cooperator working on the design of the water 

quality monitoring program) or the U.S. Geological Survey (a cooperator that will assist with 

collection and analysis of oceanographic data). The SEAN will strategically work with external 

partners who offer an established service. Excellent examples of partners with whom the SEAN 

will cooperate include the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC, serving weather and 

climate data that will be collected and delivered by the SEAN) and possibly the Alaska Ocean 

Observing System (AOOS, which serves standard oceanographic data collected throughout 

Alaska waters). Current and expected cooperators and partners are listed by Vital Sign in Table 

8.3. 

The appeal of working with partners to store and disseminate data is apparent–selected partners 

have already established themselves as long-term, single-stop sites for rich, standardized 

datasets. They are known quantities to which the SEAN can directly link from the network web 

page. We acknowledge that there is both strength and risk in building a monitoring program that 

is dependent upon cooperators. Strength is added because cost-sharing projects and coordinating 

activities that yield the desired monitoring data are often efficient ways to use funds, reduce 

mobilization costs, and collaborate with experts in other organizations. Risk results from the fact 

that cooperators’ capacity for cost-sharing, cooperation, and in-kind contributions can vary over 

time; this may inject a certain amount of unpredictability into a program that is dependent upon 

repeatability and predictably in data collection and over the long term. The SEAN’s approach to 

working with cooperators will be to pursue, wherever possible, the establishment of multiyear 

(3- to 5-year) cooperative funding agreements. 

To the extent that the SEAN will rely on contract work with private professionals, we anticipate 

that it will figure most prominently during the first five to seven years, when expert technical 

input is needed for protocol development. Our overall staffing objective is to build a monitoring 

program that can be sustained and operated primarily by network and park staff, with strategic 

assistance of key partners. To that end, we will likely engage external technical experts in order 

to build monitoring protocols that will not only yield the desired data, but also have a high 

likelihood of being sustained over many decades. 
87

Table 8.3 Anticipated cooperators and partners for the SEAN Core Program Vital Signs. 

SEAN Vital Sign Monitoring Conducted and Managed 

Solely by SEAN and SEAN Parks 

Monitoring Conducted and Managed 

by SEAN and Cooperator(s) 

Airborne Contaminants 

SEAN 

Mercury Deposition Network 

U.S. Forest Service 

Freshwater Contaminants SEAN 

Univ. Alaska Southeast 

Freshwater Water Quality SEAN 

Univ. Alaska Southeast 

Streamflow SEAN 

Glacial Dynamics SEAN 

TBD 

Intertidal Communities SEAN 

Kittlitz's Murrelets 

SEAN 

NPS Coastal Cluster Program 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Alaska Dept. Fish and Game 

Landform and Landcover SEAN 

TBD 

Marine Predators SEAN 

Marine Contaminants SEAN 

NOAA MusselWatch Program 

Oceanography SEAN 

Alaska Ocean Observing System 

Weather and Climate SEAN 

Western Regional Climate Center 

 
88

In general, the SEAN will favor cooperative agreements with agencies and universities over 

contracts because they (1) are relatively flexible, (2) lend themselves to long-term relationships, 

(3) allow direct access to and collaboration with subject matter experts and research 

professionals, and (4) in some cases–particularly with Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit 

(CESU) agreements–will result in lower overhead costs to the SEAN. 

8.3 Program Reviews 

Scheduled, periodic reviews of the network’s monitoring program and protocols will ensure that 

network and park personnel critically evaluate progress toward meeting the objectives of the 

Vital Signs Monitoring Program. Reviews will also provide the opportunity to evaluate whether 

SEAN needs to adjust direction or effort as it develops a fully-implemented and functional 

program. Three levels of review are planned. 

First, the Annual Administrative Report and Work Plan (AARWP) will provide the Technical 

Committee, Chiefs of Resources, and Board of Directors with an opportunity to evaluate 

accomplishments of the past year and to explicitly articulate the focus and funding allocation for 

the coming year. Each year’s finalized AARWP will be posted to the SEAN website. 

Second, beginning in FY2011, the SEAN will host a triennial Science Symposium and 

Investigators’ Report. This will be in the form of a two-day meeting at which all investigators 

conducting monitoring will deliver technical presentations and discuss the results of their work. 

During the second day of the meeting the Technical Committee will discuss the presentations 

and evaluate progress and results. The Network Coordinator will use this meeting to solicit both 

detailed, project-specific review of work on specific Vital Signs, progress toward monitoring 

objectives, and also to request a more general critique of program implementation. The 

symposium format will encourage a broader and longer-term review than is afforded by the 

AARWP, and the SEAN will benefit from the focused group review by those experts personally 

invested in the program. 

 

Finally, the national I&M staff will formally review the program three years after 

implementation. A formal report will be generated from this periodic review, with specific 

suggestions for improvements and course corrections to the monitoring program. Among other 

things, this review will evaluate whether the SEAN has established an organization, staff, and 

resources to ensure long-term success. Subsequent program reviews will occur every 5 years 

thereafter.
89

Chapter 9: Schedule 

This chapter identifies the target dates for protocol completion, identifies tasks that need to be 

completed in support of those protocols, and summarizes the frequency of sampling for protocols 

that will be implemented in the next five years. Our approach to the implementation of 

monitoring in the SEAN is to start slowly, focus on a small number of projects, and be prepared 

to make adjustments. During the early years of the program it is important not to overburden 

network and park staff with overzealous plans to take on too much too quickly and, thereby, 

overshoot its capabilities. Nevertheless, we aim to balance that prudence with an eagerness to 

establish the functionality of the program and quickly demonstrate the benefits and relevance to 

SEAN parks. 

Other Alaska networks (e.g., SWAN) have described holistic monitoring programs that can be 

viewed as hierarchical and occurring at multiple levels (tiers) based on scale of resolution and 

rates of change (see SWAN Phase III Report, Bennett et al. 2005). Spatially continuous 

monitoring (Tier 1) is usually conducted by satellite remote sensing or aerial photography and is 

directed at broad landscape-scale patterns of change (e.g., climate or glacial extent). Frequent 

multipoint ground-based monitoring using probabilistic sampling designs (Tier 2) are used to 

document status or change in a resource (e.g., resident lake fish or water quality) or to provide 

ground verification of remotely-sensed parameters in Tier 1. Finally, the most frequent 

monitoring and intensive sampling (Tier 3) occurs at a limited number of smaller, intensively 

monitored resources (e.g., specific wildlife populations) for the purpose of determining causeand-effect relationships, the status of a harvested resource, or to understand how processes 

interrelate. 

While we find this model to be a helpful conceptual tool for organizing an approach to the 

complexity of ecological monitoring at multiple scales, we can also see that the implementation 

of the SEAN monitoring program will be more immediately shaped by the logistical limitations 

of staff and budget. The SEAN must operate strategically at a certain scale of economy, such 

that high-quality information on the most important Vital Signs is captured, archived, and served. 

In this way, the SEAN is charged with doing a few things well, making maximum use of existing 

data and monitoring efforts, and forging and maintaining long-term partnerships with entities 

outside the NPS. 

To that end, the schedule for the first few years of the program (Table 9.1) is directed toward 

some Vital Signs (e.g., Weather and Climate) that are fundamentally important to understanding 

other resources, and toward some that are more locally important and for which excellent 

opportunities exist for either initiating or continuing monitoring (e.g., Marine Predators and 

Airborne Contaminants). Some focal Vital Signs, such as Oceanography, fit both criteria. Table 

9.1 is useful in understanding that, though SEAN is undertaking development of a considerable 

number of Vital Signs, not all Vital Signs will require large investments in time and money. 
Table 9.1 Schedule for developing, testing, and finalizing monitoring protocols for Vital Signs of the Southeast A

SEAN Vital Sign 

and Protocol 

PARKS Protocol Development Status Relative Cos

and Effort fo

Protocol 

Completion 

GLBA 

KLGO 

SITK 

FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 

Oceanography ●

Implement, Peer 

Review & 

Finalize 

Low 

Airborne Contaminants ● ● ● Develop Draft; Test and Revise Peer Review & Finalize Medium Marine Predators ● Develop Draft; Test and Revise Peer Review & Finalize Medium Kittlitz's Murrelets ● Develop Draft; Test and Revise Peer Review & Finalize Low Marine Contaminants ● ● ● Develop Draft; Test and Revise Peer Review & Finalize Low Weather and Climate ● ● ● Develop Draft; Test and Revise Peer Review & Finalize Low Streamflow ● ● ● Develop Draft Test and Revise Peer Review & Finalize Medium Freshwater Water Quality ● ● ● Develop Draft Test and Revise Peer Review & Finalize Medium Freshwater Contaminants ● ● ● Develop Draft Test and Revise Peer Review & Finalize Medium Intertidal Communities ● Develop Draft; Test and Revise Peer Review & Finalize Low Glacial Dynamics (Extent) ● ● Develop Draft; Test and Revise Peer Review & Finalize Medium Landform and Landcover ● ● ● Develop Draft; Test and Revise Peer Review & Finalize High 
91

In strong agreement with the processes followed by other networks, the SEAN will focus in the 

initial years on developing protocols, Vital Sign-specific monitoring plans, and the infrastructure 

for managing and serving data. The SEAN can certainly benefit from the work that other 

networks have already accomplished. In particular, the SEAN’s protocol development and 

implementation will make maximal use of existing draft or approved protocols from other 

networks. The result should be a greatly shortened and more cost-effective protocol 

development effort. Of course, protocols for some Vital Signs must be developed originally, as 

they do not occur within other networks or for which monitoring within the SEAN has 

substantially unique field challenges (e.g., Marine Predators, Western Toads, or Kittlitz’s 

Murrelets). 

Throughout the five-year implementation phase, draft protocols will be written, field-tested for 

one to two years, submitted for peer review, and finalized. The typical protocol development 

process–from draft to finalization–will be three years. Some key questions that need to be 

answered during protocol testing include: Are there problems with methods or equipment? Do 

procedures require too much time or staff? Are standard operating procedures (SOPs) for data 

collection and management too complex? How can the protocols be made more efficient? How 

well do the resulting products meet the needs of the parks and other users? We anticipate that in 

many cases pilot monitoring, including tests of data management SOPs, will reveal the need for 

changes in protocol design. Table 9.2 encapsulates the key known issues that must be addressed 

during protocol development for each Vital Sign. 

The timing and frequency of monitoring is guided by the spatial and temporal patterns of 

variance in the parameters being measured and by the information desired (Table 9.3). The 

limited resources of the SEAN and logistical challenges prohibit routine measurements at high 

frequency or close spatial intervals. Measurements will be made at intervals of time and space 

that allow for detection of large-scale changes in physical processes and smaller scale biotic 

responses. 
92

Table 9.2 Summary of tasks to be completed for protocol development or for acquiring existing 

data, SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Program. 

Target Year for 

Protocol 

Completion 

Vital Sign Parks Key Issues to be Addressed During 

Protocol Development and Testing 

2009 Oceanography GLBA 

Techniques for sampling core parameters are well 

established. Work will focus on database development 

and writing the protocol to NPS specifications; existing 

protocol underwent a thorough interagency review by an 

expert panel in 2006. Network will investigate adding a 

measure of ocean acidification to the current protocol. 

2010 Airborne 

Contaminants All 

A monitoring protocol is one specified product of a study 

that will occur across all network parks in 2008-2010. 

Field work and contaminant sampling (using multiple 

designs) will occur in 2008 and 2009; a protocol is a 

specified deliverable for 2010. Using this product as the 

basis, SEAN will submit a final protocol for peer review 

and approval. Concurrent monitoring for wet-deposition 

mercury at GLBA will begin in Spring 2008, following 

the national protocol from the Mercury Deposition 

Network, which SEAN has joined. 

2010 Kittlitz's 

Murrelets GLBA 

The NPS Southeast Alaska Coastal Cluster, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and the USGS have conducted 

intensive KIMU surveys and are working on formalizing 

a monitoring protocol which would be directly 

applicable to GLBA populations. SEAN work will focus 

on adapting this forthcoming protocol to meet NPS 

specifications and will implement it in GLBA. SEAN 

will work to coordinate annual monitoring with the 

Marine Predators and Oceanography vital signs. 

2010 Weather and 

Climate All 

Techniques for monitoring weather and climate are welldeveloped; protocol development will focus on 

identification of candidate weather station sites, site 

selection, adoption of existing NPS protocols for SEAN 

use, and integration of SEAN data management with 

external partners. 

2010 Marine 

Predators GLBA 

SEAN has established a CESU Agreement with a 

quantitative population ecologist at UAF to assess and 

modify an existing survey protocol for long-term 

monitoring. Protocol development will focus first on 

identifying which species the protocol should target and 

selecting the desired precision, and then will use existing 

data from 1999-2003 to conduct power analyses to 

determine the sampling effort required to achieve the 

desired degree of precision. 

2010 Marine 

Contaminants 

GLBA, 

SITK 

Protocol will be developed from the approach used in the 

on-going (and SEAN-funded) 2007 Baseline 

Contaminants Study (Tallmon). SEAN will investigate 

the possibility of developing the GLBA and SITK 

mussel sampling as formal NOAA MusselWatch sites. 
93

Target Year for 

Protocol 

Completion 

Vital Sign Parks Key Issues to be Addressed During 

Protocol Development and Testing 

2011 

Freshwater 

Water Quality All 

In 2009, SEAN will assess the product of an on-going 

agreement with UAS to recommend specific approaches 

to protocols for comprehensive water quality monitoring 

in SEAN parks. This agreement has already delivered 

the PDSs for these freshwater-related vital signs, and is 

currently developing protocol recommendations, with 

attention toward co-locating sampling of all freshwater 

vital signs. The full protocols will be written and 

reviewed, in order of priority of implementation: 

Freshwater Water Quality, Streamflow, and 

Contaminants. SEAN will ensure that the Contaminants 

protocol dovetails with contaminants monitoring that 

will occur under the Airborne Contaminants and Marine 

Contaminants sampling approaches. In this way, 

contaminants-related monitoring occurring under 

different vital signs can best inform mode of delivery 

and pathways to bioavailability across air, freshwater, 

marine, and terrestrial sources. 

2011 Streamflow All 

2012 Freshwater 

Contaminants All 

2012 Intertidal 

Communities SITK 

NPS is awaiting the final report of a USGS study that 

will recommend a monitoring protocol in SITK. This 

report will serve as the basis for the network protocol, 

which will be written to NPS specifications and peerreviewed. 

2013 Glacial 

Dynamics 

GLBA, 

KLGO 

SEAN will conduct a cost and methods comparison, and 

will modify and adopt approved protocols of other 

networks (e.g., NCCN). Because glacial extent is 

essentially a mapping task for one type of land cover, it 

will be included within the Landform and Landcover 

Vital Sign. 

2013 Landform and 

Landcover All 

The PDS proposes a 4-year protocol development 

process. Investigate whether to include an initial 

retrospective analysis to evaluate historic changes of 

landscape patterns and conditions. Although this is not 

an essential part of developing this protocol, it would 

inform the development of the protocol by refining and 

helping to prioritize the list of landscape components for 

future mapping efforts. Full mapping using highresolution satellite imagery is expected every 10 years. 

SEAN will also evaluate whether to use LandSat, 

ASTER or other coarse resolution imagery during the 

mid-point of each decadal cycle to map a subset of 

features that may be changing at high rates, and the 

effects of any unpredictable or catastrophic events (e.g., 

outburst floods) that may have occurred since the last 

mapping cycle. 

Table 9.2, continued 
94

Table 9.3 Frequency and timing of sampling for Vital Signs to be monitored by the SEAN. 

SEAN Vital Sign Sample 

Interval 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

Airborne Contaminants 

Lichen sampling Annually 

Passive samplers 

(concentration) Weekly 

Throughfall samplers 

(deposition) Weekly 

Freshwater 

Contaminants Decadal 

Freshwater Water 

Quality Continuously 

Streamflow Continuously 

Glacial Dynamics Decadal 

Intertidal Communities Triennially 

Kittlitz’s Murrelets Annually 

Landform and 

Landcover Decadal 

Marine Contaminants Biannually 

Marine Predators Annually 

Oceanography Quarterly 

Weather and Climate Continuously 
95

Chapter 10: Budget 

In this chapter we explain how allocation of the SEAN budget complements, but does not 

duplicate, funds already being expended by network parks. We outline the budget for the SEAN 

monitoring program during the first year of operation (FY 2009) and present the network budget 

in the same expense format that networks use in preparing the Annual Administrative Report and 

Work Plans submitted to Congress. 

Natural Resource Challenge funds for the program are held in NPS Washington Office base 

accounts and transferred annually through the NPS Alaska Regional Office. In FY 2009, the 

network anticipates receiving $441,800 from the I&M Program for Vital Signs monitoring, and 

$42,000 from the NPS Water Resources Division (Table 10.1). Vital signs monitoring is 

intended to “fill gaps” in what parks are already doing by augmenting existing park personnel 

and base funds. In the SEAN, allocation of Vital Signs Monitoring and Water Resources funding 

reflects this intent. Greater amounts of Network funding will be directed to program areas and 

Vital Signs that parks do not have financial or staff resources to initiate or sustain (e.g., climate, 

landcover, physical resources, and water chemistry). Lesser amounts of Network funding 

(primarily in the form of assistance in database construction, data management, and data 

delivery) will be directed to Vital Signs for which parks have ongoing monitoring and existing 

staff (e.g., humpback whales, western toads, and visitation). 

Budget estimates for FY 2009 (Table 10.1) are preliminary and may be adjusted depending upon 

the outcome of protocol development and testing. Approximately 42% of the Network budget 

will be committed to permanent and term staff salaries and approximately 42% will support 

protocol development and testing through cooperative agreements and contracts. The remainder 

of the budget (approximately 16%) will be directed toward fixed operating costs and travel. For 

the model of a small, centralized staff to be successful, adequate travel funds are required to 

ensure that monitoring data are collected. Furthermore, to maintain close communication 

between Network and park staffs, the BOD, and the TC, annual face-to-face meetings are 

planned. We anticipate that these proportionate expenditures will remain fairly stable through 

future years. As required, the Network is making a strong commitment (approximately 46% of 

the FY 2009 SEAN budget) to data management. 

The projected budget for the five-year implementation window of this monitoring plan is 

presented in Table 10.2. The largest proportion of fixed costs–personnel–will increase annually 

with normal annual general salary and step increases. Assuming a flat network budget, these 

increases in personnel costs will incrementally reduce the amount of funds available for other 

expenses. Because of the importance of within-network travel (and the cost associated with 

administering a program serving remote locations in a large archipelago) and the relative low 

amount of funding allocated to operations and equipment, the budget areas most likely to be 

reduced are contracts and cooperative agreements. Assuming flat budgets, the amount of 

discretionary network dollars available for implementing the program and conducting field work 

will erode over time. To project that scenario, we assume a 3% cost-of-living adjustment per 

year plus normal step increases. In Juneau, this increase is moderated somewhat by the fact that 

the Alaska cost-of-living-adjustment, currently 24%, is scheduled to be decreased 1% per year 

until stabilizing at 19%. 
96

Table 10.1 Anticipated income and expenditures for the SEAN in FY2009. 

Income 

Vital Signs Monitoring 441,800 

Water Quality Base 42,000 

Total Income 483,800 

 

Expenditures 

 FY 2009 Information Management 

Personnel Percent Amount 

Network Coordinator (GS-12) 90,000 33% 29,700 

Data Manager (11 CI) 90,000 100% 90,000 

Subtotal 180,000 

 

Cooperative Agreements 

Data analysis, reporting 50,000 33% 16,500 

Subtotal 50,000 

 

Operations 

Oceanography 20,000 33% 6,600 

Airborne Contaminants 50,000 33% 16,500 

Kittlitz's Murrelets 15,000 33% 4,950 

Weather and Climate 20,000 33% 6,600 

Marine Predators 20,000 33% 6,600 

Marine Contaminants 15,000 33% 4,950 

Freshwater Water Quality 30,000 33% 9,900 

Streamflow 30,000 33% 9,900 

Subtotal 200,000 

 

Equipment and Consumables 

Instrumentation, field supplies 10,000 33% 3,300 

Office supplies, equipment 5,000 50% 2,500 

Software and books 1,000 50% 500 

Storage media 2,500 100% 2,500 

Subtotal 18,500 

 

Travel 

Network Travel 26,000 20% 5,200 

Subtotal 26,000 

 

Other 

Region contingency (1%) I&M 4,400 

Region contingency (1%) WQ 400 

ATB Recission for WQ (2.4%) 1,000 

Training and conferences 3,000 

Subtotal 8,800 

 

Total Expenditures 483,300 45% 216,200 
97

Table 10.2 Projected budget for the Southeast Alaska Network, FY2009-2013. 

99

Chapter 11: Literature Cited 

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme. 2004. AMAP Assessment report: arctic 

pollution issues: persistent organic pollutants, heavy metals, radioactivity, human health, 

changing pathways: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, 

Norway. 

Arcese, P., and A. R. E. Sinclair. 1997. The role of protected areas as ecological baselines. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 61:587-620. 

Arendt, A.A., Echelmeyer, K.A., Harrison, W.D., Lingle, C.S., and Valentine, V.B. 2002. 

Rapid wastage of Alaska glaciers and their contribution to rising sea level. Science 

297:382-386. 

Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid bioassessment 

protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates 

and fish. 2d ed. EPA/841-B-99-002. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC. 

Baron, J.S., N.L. Poff, P.L. Angermeier, C.N. Dahm., P.H. Gleick, N.G. Hairston Jr., R.B. 

Jackson, C.A. Johnston, B.D. Richter, A.D. Steinman. 2002. Meeting ecological and 

societal needs for freshwater. Ecological Applications 12:1247-1260. 

Ben-David, M., R.T. Bowyer, L.K. Duffy, D.D. Roby, and D.M. Schell. 1998. Social behavior 

and ecosystem processes: river otter latrine sites and nutrient dynamics of terrestrial 

vegetation. Ecology 79:2567–2571. 

Bennett, A. J., W. L. Thompson, and D. C. Mortenson. 2005. Phase III report, Vital Signs 

monitoring plan, Southwest Alaska Network. National Park Service, Anchorage, AK. 

Berger, A. R., and W. J. Lams. 1996. Geoindicators: Assessing rapid environmental changes in 

earth systems. Balkema, Rotterdam. 

Blais, J. M., R. W. MacDonald, D. MacKay, E. Webster, C. Harvey, and J. P. Smol. 2007. 

Biologically mediated transport of contaminants to aquatic systems. Environmental 

Science and Technology 41:1075-1084. 

Blum, O.B., and Y.G. Tjutjunnik. 1992. Quantitative biogeochemical monitoring of air pollution 

in urban areas by heavy metals: a new approach and new methods. The Second 

International Lichenological Symposium, IAL2, Hemmeslov, Bastad, Sweden. 

Bradsher, K., and D. Barboza. 2006. Pollution from Chinese coal casts a global shadow. The 

New York Times: New York. 

Bodkin, J.L., P.H. Hooge, G.S. Drew, G.V. Irvine, and L.C. Sharman. 2004. Glacier Bay 

Marine Ecosystem Conceptual Model. Unpublished report. Alaska Science Center, U.S. 

Geological Survey, Anchorage, AK. 
100

Buckland, S.T., D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, and J.L. Laake, D. L. Borchers, and L. Thomas. 

2001. Distance Sampling, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 

Burton, G. A., P. M. Chapman, and E. P. Smith. 2002. Weight-of-evidence approaches for 

assessing ecosystem impairment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 8:1657-1673. 

Carlson, M. L. and M. Shephard. 2007. Is the spread of non-native plants in Alaska 

accelerating? Pp.111-127 in Harrington, T.B. and S.H. Reichard, eds. Meeting the 

challenge: invasive plants in Pacific Northwest ecosystems. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-694. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Portland, OR. 

Carstensen, R., M. Willson, and R. Armstrong. 2003. Habitat use of amphibians in northern 

Southeast Alaska. Discovery Southeast, Juneau Alaska. 

Chapin, F. S., L. R. Walker, C. L. Fastie, and L. C. Sharman. 1994. Mechanisms of primary 

succession following deglaciation at Glacier Bay, Alaska. Ecological Monographs 

64:149-175. 

Clean Air Act with 1990 Amendments. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Chapter 85. 

Croze, H. 1982. Monitoring within and outside protected areas. Pages 628-633 in J. A. McNeely 

and K. R. Miller, editors. National parks, conservation, and development: The role of 

protected areas in sustaining society. Proceedings of the World Congress on National 

Parks, Bali, Indonesia. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling techniques. John Wiley & Sons, N.Y. 428pp. 

D’Antonio, C., Meyerson, L. A., and J. Denslow. 2001. Exotic species and conservation: 

research needs. Pages 59-80 in M.E. Soule and G.H. Orians, eds. Conservation biology: 

research priorities for the next decade. Island Press, London. 

Dale, V., H. S. Brown, R. A. Haeuber, N. T. Hobbs, N. Huntly, R. J. Naiman, W. E. Riebsame, 

M. G. Turner, and T. J. Valone. 2000. Ecological principles and guidelines for managing 

the use of land. Ecological Applications 10:639-670. 

Dastoor, A. P., and Larocque, Y. 2004. Global circulation of atmospheric mercury: a modeling 

study. Atmospheric Environment 38:147-161. 

Davey, C.A., Redmond, K.T., and Simeral, D.B. 2007. Weather and climate inventory, National 

Park Service, Southeast Alaska Network. Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/SEAN/NRTR—2007/012, WRCC Report 2007-08. Western Regional Climate 

Center, Reno, NV. 

Davis, G. E. 1989. Design of a long-term ecological monitoring program for Channel Islands 

National Park, California. Natural Areas Journal 9:80-89. 

Day, R. H. 1996. Nesting phenology of Kittlitz’s murrelets. Condor 98:433-437. 
101

Day, R. H., K. J. Kuletz, and D. A. Nigro. 1999. Kittlitz’s murrelet Brachyramphus brevirostris. 

The Birds of North America, No. 435. 

Day, R. H., and D. A. Nigro. 2000. Feeding ecology of Kittlitz's and Marbled murrelets in 

Prince William Sound, Alaska. Waterbirds 23:1–14. 

Drake, J. A., H. A. Mooney, F. di Castri, R. H. Groves, F. J. Kruger, M. Rejmanek, and M. 

Williamson, editors. 1989. Biological invasions: A global perspective. Wiley, Chichester, 

UK. 

Drees, L. 2004. A retrospective on NPS invasive species policy and management. Park Science 

22:21-26. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Denver, CO. 

Drew, G.S., Speckman, S.G., Piatt, J. F., Burgos, J.M., and Bodkin, J. L. 2007. Survey Design 

Considerations for Detecting Change in Marine Bird and Mammal Populations of Glacier 

Bay, Alaska. Draft project report, in review.

Edwards, D. 1998. Issues and themes for natural resource trends and change detection. 

Ecological Application 8:323-325. 

Edwards, R. T. 2001. The hyporheic zone. In R. J. Naiman and R. E. Bilby, editors. River 

ecology and management: lessons from the Pacific coastal ecoregion. Springer-Verlag, 

New York. 

Elzinga, C. L., D. W. Salzer, and J. W. Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and monitoring plant 

populations. BLM Technical Reference 1730-1. BLM/RS/ST-98/005+1730. 

Engstrom, D. R., and Swain, E. B. 1997. Recent declines in atmospheric mercury deposition in 

the upper Midwest. Environmental Science and Technology 31:960-967. 

Engstrom, D. R., S. C. Fritz, J. E. Almendinger, and S. Juggins. 2000. Chemical and biological 

trends during lake evolution in recently deglaciated terrain. Nature 408:161-166. 

ENRI. 1999a. Macroinvertebrate Technical Level Biomonitoring Methods

(http://aquatic.uaa.alaska.edu/pdfs/Macroinvertebrate_Technical_Level_BioMonitoringM

ethods.pdf). Environmental and Natural Resources Institute, U. of Alaska, Anchorage. 

ENRI. 1999b. Diatom Monitoring Methods 

(http://aquatic.uaa.alaska.edu/pdfs/Diatom_Biomonitoring_Methods.pdf). Environmental 

and Natural Resources Institute, U. of Alaska, Anchorage. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Guidance on choosing a sampling design for 

environmental data collection, for use in developing a quality assurance plan. 

Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency. Report EPA QA/G-5S. 

Etherington, L.L., Hooge, P.N., Hooge, E.R., and D.F. Hill. 2007. Oceanography of Glacier 

Bay, Alaska: implications for biological patterns and productivity in a glacial fjord 

estuary. Estuaries and Coasts 30:927-944. 
102

Ewald, G., Larsson, P., Linge, H., Okla, L., and Szarzi, N. 1998. Biotransport of organic 

pollutants to an inland Alaska lake by migrating sockeye salmon (O. nerka). Artic 51:40-

47. 

Fairchild, L. 2007. Amphibian Productivity Monitoring, Chytrid Fungal Sampling, and Habitat 

Assessment in Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park. National Park Service, 

Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, Alaska. 

Fastie, C. L. 1995. Causes and ecosystem consequences of multiple pathways of primary 

succession at Glacier Bay, Alaska. Ecology 76:1899-1916. 

Fenn, M. E., J. S. Baron, E. B. Allen, H. M. Rueth, K. R. Nydick, L. Geiser, W. D. Bowman, J. 

O. Sickman, T. Meixner, D. W. Johnson, and P. Neitlich. 2003. Ecological effects of 

nitrogen deposition in the Western United States. Bio Science 53(4). 

Fenn, M. E. and M. A. Poth. 2004. Monitoring nitrogen deposition in throughfall using ion 

exchange resin columns - A field test in the San Bernardino Mountains. JEQ 2004 33: 

1947-1953. 

Fenn, M.E. 2006. The effects of nitrogen deposition, ambient ozone, and climate change on 

forests in the western U.S. In Aguirre-Bravo, C.; Pellicane, Patrick J.; Burns, Denver P.; 

and Draggan, Sidney, Eds. 2006. Monitoring Science and Technology Symposium: 

Unifying Knowledge for Sustainability in the Western Hemisphere. 2004 September 20-

24; Denver, CO. Proceedings RMRS-P-42CD. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 990 p. 

Field, W.O. 1925-1990. Repetitive photography of ice termini in GLBA; various reports in 

GLBA library. 

Fitzgerald, W. F., Engstrom, D. R., Lamborg, C. H., and Balcom, P. H. 2006. 2006 Progress 

Report: Natural and anthropogenic sources of mercury to the atmosphere: Global and 

regional contributions: Submitted to: STAR Program, National Center for Environmental 

Research, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington D.C. 

Forman, R. T. T. 1995. Land mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, UK. 

Fry, J. D. 1992. The mixed-model analysis of variance applied to quantitative genetics: 

biological meaning of the parameters. Evolution 46:540-550. 

Furbish, E. C., L. Geiser, and C. Rector. 2000. Lichen-air quality pilot study for Klondike Gold 

Rush National Historical Park and the city of Skagway, Alaska. National Park Service - 

Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, Skagway Alaska – Final Report. 

Geiser, L. 2004. Monitoring air quality using lichens on National Forests of the Pacific 

Northwest: Methods and Strategy. USDA-Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region 

Technical Paper, R6-NR-AQ-TP-1-04. 134 pp. 
103

Geiser, L. C. Derr, and K. Dillman. 1994. Air quality monitoring on the Tongass National Forest: 

Methods and baselines using lichens. USDA-Forest Service, Alaska Region R10-TB-46. 

Geiser, L. and P. Neitlich. 2007. Air pollution and climate gradients in western Oregon and 

Washington indicated by epiphytic macrolichens. Environmental Pollution 145:203-218 

Gende, S. M., T. P. Quinn, M. F. Willson, R. Heintz, and T. M. Scott. 2004. Magnitude and fate 

of salmon-derived nutrients and energy in a coastal stream ecosystem. Journal of 

Freshwater Ecology 19:149-160. 

Goodyear, K. L. and S. McNeil. 1998. Bioaccumulation of heavy metals by freshwater insect 

larvae. In Review of environmental contamination and toxicology volume 158. Springer 

Gordon, D. R. 1998. Effects of invasive, non-indigenous plant species on ecosystem processes: 

lessons from Florida. Ecological Applications 8:975-989. 

Halvorson, C. H. 1984. Long-term monitoring of small vertebrates: A review with suggestions. 

Pages 11-25 in J. Johnson, J. Franklin, and R. Krebill, coordinators. Research natural 

areas: Baseline monitoring and management. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report. INT 173, Ogden, UT. 

Helfield, J. M., and R. J. Naiman. 2002. Salmon and alder as nitrogen sources to riparian forests 

in a boreal Alaskan watershed. Oecologia 133:573-582. 

Heys, J. and W. Rapp. 2007. Alaska Exotic Plant Management Team (AK-EPMT) Protocol 

2007. National Park Service. Anchorage, AK. 

Hilderbrand, G. V., T. A. Hanley, and C. C. Schwartz. 1999a. Role of brown bears (Ursus arctos) 

in the flow of marine nitrogen into a terrestrial ecosystem. Oecologia 121:546-550. 

Hill, D.F. 2007. Application of the ADCIRC model to Glacier Bay, Alaska. Report to the 

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Gustavus, AK. 132 pp. 

Hood, E., G. Eckert, S. Nagorski, and C. Talus. 2006. Assessment of coastal water resources and 

watershed conditions at Klondike Goldrush National Historical Park, Alaska. Technical 

Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2006/349. March 2006. 89 pp. 

Hooge, P.N., E.R. Hooge, E.K. Solomon, C.L. Dezan, C.A. Dick, J. Mondragon, H. Reiden, and 

L. Etherington. 2003 version. Fjord oceanography monitoring handbook: Glacier Bay, 

AK. U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK. 

Houghton, J. T., Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P. J. v. d. Linden, and D. Xiaosu. 2001. 

Climate change 2001: the scientific basis, contribution of working group I to the third 

assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge 

University Press, UK. 
104

Irvine, G. and E. Madison. 2008. Development of a Monitoring Protocol for Detection 

Ecological Change in the Intertidal Zone of Sitka National Historical Park, Alaska 

(Draft). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston. 

Irwin, R. J. 2004a. Draft Part B Lite. Online at 

http://www1.nature.nps.gov/water/Vital%20Signs%20Guidance/Guidance%20Document

s/Part%20b%20lite%2033.pdf. 

Irwin, R. J. 2004b. Draft Part B of Aquatic Habitat Park Service guidance for Park Service Vital 

Signs Monitoring. Planning Process Steps: Issues To Consider And Then to Document In 

A Detailed Study Plan That Includes A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) And 

Monitoring “Protocols” (Standard Operating Procedures). Online at 

http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/wqPartB.doc. 

Jansen, J.K., Bengtson, J.L., Boveng, P.L., Dahle, S.P., and Ver Hoef, J. 2006. Disturbance of 

harbor seals by cruise ships in Disenchantment Bay, Alaska: an investigation at three 

spatial and temporal scales. National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center, Seattle, WA. 87 pp. 

Johnson, W. F. and B. J. Moynahan. 2008. Data management plan: Southeast Alaska network. 

Natural Resource Report NPS/SEAN/NRR—2008/058. National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 

Johnson, W. C., and S. P. Bratton. 1978. Biological monitoring in UNESCO biosphere reserves 

with special reference to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Biological 

Conservation 13:105-115. 

Jones, K. B. 1986. The inventory and monitoring process. Pages 1-9 in A. Y. Cooperrider, R. J. 

Boyd, and H. R. Stewart, ediors. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. USDOI 

Bureau of Land Management, Service Center, Denver. 

Jones, S.H. and C.B. Fahl, 1994. Magnitude and frequency of floods in Alaska and 

conterminous basins of Canada. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 93-4179. 

Kipple, B.M. 2002. Southeast Alaska Cruise Ship Underwater Acoustic Noise. Technical 

Report NSWCCD-71-TR-2002/574, Report to Glacier Bay National Park by the Naval 

Surface Warfare Center - Detachment Bremerton. 92 pp. 

Kipple, B. M. and C. M. Gabriele. 2003. Glacier Bay Underwater Noise - August 2000 through 

August 2002. Technical Report NSWCCD-71-TR-2004/521, Report to Glacier Bay 

National Park by the Naval Surface Warfare Center - Carderock Division. 69 pp. 

Kissling, M., Reid, M., Lukacs, P., Gende, S.M., and S.B. Lewis. 2007. Using spatial models to 

understand abundance patterns for a declining seabird: implications for monitoring. 

Ecological Applications 17:2164-74. 

Krebs, Charles J. 2001. Ecology. Fifth edition. Benjamin Cummings. 695pp. 
105

Kuletz, K. J., and S. J. Kendall. 1998. A productivity index for marbled murrelets in Alaska 

based on surveys at sea. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:446-460. 

Leith, I.D., van Dijk, N., Pitcairn, C.E.R., Wolseley, P.A., Whitfield, C.P. and Sutton, M.A. 

2005. Biomonitoring methods for assessing the impacts of nitrogen pollution: refinement 

and testing. JNCC Report No. 386. Peterborough UK 

Lenat, D.R. and M.T. Barbour. 1994. Using benthic macroinvertebrate community structure for 

rapid, cost-effective water quality monitoring: rapid bioassessment. Pages 187-215 in 

S.L. Loeb and A. Spacie, eds. Biological monitoring of aquatic systems. Lewis 

Publishers. 

Lessard, J. L., R. W. Merritt, and K. W. Cummins. 2003. Spring growth of caddisflies 

(Limnephilidae: Trichoptera) in response to marine-derived nutrients and food type in a 

Southeast Alaskan stream. International Journal of Limnology 39:3-14. 

Levin, S.A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology: 73:1943-1967. 

Likens, G. E. 1992. The ecosystem approach: its use and abuse. Excellence in Ecology, Vol. 3. 

Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany. 167 pp. 

Lohr, S. L. 1999. Sampling: design and analysis. Duxbury Press, N.Y. 494 pp. 

Lovell, S. J., Stone, S. F., and L. Fernandez. 2006. The economic impacts of aquatic invasive 

species: a review of the literature. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 35:195-

208. 

MacArthur, R.H. and E.O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton 

Landmarks in Biology, Princeton, NJ. 

MacCluskie, M. and K. Oakley. 2004. Phase III report, Vital Signs monitoring plan, Central 

Alaska Network. National Park Service, Fairbanks, AK. 

MacCluskie, M., K. Oakley, T. McDonald, and D. Wilder. 2005. Vital signs monitoring plan: 

Central Alaska inventory and monitoring network. National Park Service, Fort Collins, 

Colorado, USA. 

Maddox, D., K. Poiani, and R. Unnasch. 1999. Evaluating management success: Using 

ecological models to ask the right monitoring questions. Pp. 563–584 in Ecologica 

Stewardship. A common reference for ecosystem management. Vol. III. W.T. Sexton, 

A.J. Malk, R.C. Szaro, and N.C. Johnson, editors. Elsevier Science. 

Magnuson, J. J. 1990. Long-term ecological research and the invisible present. BioScience 

40:495-501. 

Mann, D. H. 1986. Wisconsin and Holocene glaciation of southeast Alaska. Pages 237-265 In T. 

D. Hamilton, K. M. Reed, and R. M. Thorson, editors. Glaciation in Alaska. Alaska 

Geological Society, Anchorage, AK. 
106

Marcot, B. G., J. D. Steventon, G. D. Sutherland, and R. K. McCann. 2006. Guidelines for 

developing and updating Bayesian belief networks applied to ecological modeling and 

conservation. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36:3063-3074. 

Marsh, H., and D. F. Sinclair. 1989. Correcting for bias in strip transect aerial surveys of aquatic 

fauna. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:1017-1024. 

Martin, Julia and D. Coleman, “The Archive as an Ecosystem”, Journal of Electronic Publishing. 

7(3). ISSN 1080-2711 http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/07-03/martin.html 

McCann, R. K., B. G. Marcot, and R. Ellis. 2006. Bayesian belief networks: applications in 

ecology and natural resource management. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 

36:3053-3062. 

McCauley, R.D., Fewtrell, J., and A.N. Popper. 2003. High intensity anthropogenic sound 

damages fish ears. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113:638-642. 

McDonald, T. L. 2003. Environmental trend detection: a review. Environmental Monitoring 

and Assessment 85:277-292. 

McDowell Group. 2007. Alaska Visitor Statitiscs Program V, interim visitor volume report: 

Summer 2007. Prepared for the State of Alaska, Dept. of Commerce, Community, and 

Economic Development by The McDowell Group, Juneau, AK. 7 pp. Available at: 

http://www.dced.state.ak.us/oed/toubus/pub/AVSP_Summer_2007.pdf

Michener, W. K., T. J. Baerwald, P. Firth, M. A. Palmer, J. L. Rosenberger, E. A. Sandlin, and 

H. Zimmerman. 2001. Defining and unraveling biocomplexity. BioScience 51:1018-

1023. 

Milner, A. M. 1997. Glacial recession and freshwater ecosystems in coastal Alaska. Pages 303-

330 In A. M. Milner and M. W. Oswood, editors. Freshwaters of Alaska: ecological 

synthesis. Springer-Verlag, New York. 

Milner, A. M., E. E. Knudsen, C. Soiseth, A. L. Robertson, D. Schell, I. T. Phillips, and K. 

Magnusson. 2000. Colonization and development of stream communities across a 200-

year gradient in Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska, USA. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences 57:2319-2335. 

Milner, A.M., S.C. Conn, and J.M. Ray. 2004. Development of a long-term ecological 

monitoring program for Denali National Park and Preserve: Design of methods for 

monitoring stream communities. University of Alaska report to the United States 

Geological Survey. 220 pp. 

Molnia, B. (in prep.) Website being developed containing methods and recent findings. See 

NPS/GLBA website for synopsis of methods and work to date. 

Molnia, B. 2007. Late nineteenth to early twenty-first century behavior of Alaskan glaciers as 

indicators of changing regional climate. Global and Planetary Change 56:23-56. 
107

Montgomery, D. R., and J. M. Buffington. 2001. Channel Processes, Classification and 

Response. In R. J. Naiman and R. E. Bilby, editors. River Ecology and Management: 

Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. Springer-Verlag, New York. 

Moore, C. T., and W. L. Kendall. 2004. Costs of population measurement uncertainty in indexbased monitoring. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 27:287-296. 

Moynahan, B. J., W. F. Johnson. 2008. Vital Signs Monitoring Plan, Southeast Alaska 

Network, Phase III Report. National Park Service, Juneau, AK. 

Murphy, M. L. 2001. Primary Production. In R. J. Naiman and R. E. Bilby, editors. River 

Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. Springer-Verlag, 

New York. 

Naiman, R. J., and K. H. Rogers. 1997. Large animals and system-level characteristics in river 

corridors. BioScience 47:521-529. 

Naiman, R. J., R. E. Bilby, and P. A. Bisson. 2000. Riparian Ecology and Management in the 

Pacific Coastal Rain Forest. Bioscience 50:996-1011. 

Nagorski, S., J. Hudson, D. Engstrom, D. Krabbenhoft, J. DeWilde. Scale and distribution of 

global pollutants (mercury and POPs) in Southeast Alaska Network park watersheds. 

(Project in development). 2007-2008. 

Nagorski, S., and Hood, E. 2007. Technical Assistance in Evaluating, Summarizing, and 

Developing the Water Quality Monitoring Component of the National Park Service’s 

Southeast Alaska Network Inventory and Monitoring Program Report to the National 

Park Service. April, 2007. 58 pp. 

National Park Service, 1980. State of the parks. May 1980-A report to the Congress. Office of 

Science and Technology, National Park Service. Washington, D.C. 

National Park Service. 1916. Organic Act 

National Park Service. 1993. The Vail agenda: National Parks for the 21st Century. National Park 

Service Document: D-726A 

National Park Service. 2002. Recommendations for Core Water Quality Monitoring Parameters 

and other key elements of the NPS Vital Signs program water quality monitoring 

component, Freshwater Workgroup Subcommittee. August 15, 2002. Fort Collins, CO. 

19 pp. 

National Park Service. 2003. White-Paper Recommendations For Core Water Quality (Vital 

Signs) Monitoring Parameters for Marine and Coastal National Parks Report of the 

National Park Service Vital Signs Monitoring Marine/Estuarine Workgroup Convened: 

April 3-4, 2002. North Atlantic Coast CESU at the University of Rhode Island, 

Narragansett, RI. 
108

National Park Service. 2003. Specifications for annual progress reports and final reports 

submitted to the Alaska Inventory and Monitoring Program, Alaska Region, National 

Park Service. 7 pp. 

National Park Service. 2005. Ecological Monitoring Framework. National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, CO. Available at: 

science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/docs/Ecological_Monitoring_Framework.doc 

National Park Service. 2006. Ocean Park Stewardship Action Plan. National Park Service, 

Water Resources Division. Denver, CO. 

National Park Service. 2007. Western Airborne Contaminants Assessment Project- Results (Fact 

Sheet). October 2007. 

National Park Service. 2008. Data Management Guidelines for Inventory and Monitoring 

Networks. Natural Resources Report NPS/NRPC/NRR—2008/035. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, CO. 

National Research Council. 1992. Executive summary. Pages 9-13 in Science and the national 

parks. Committee on Improving the Science and Technology Programs of the National 

Park Service, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

National Research Council. 2003. Ocean noise and marine mammals. Report by the Committee 

on Potential Impacts of Ambient Noise in the Ocean on Marine Mammals. The National 

Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 202 pp. 

Neilson, J.L. and C.M. Gabriele. 2006. Results of humpback whale population monitoring in 

Glacier Bay and adjacent waters: 2006. Report to the National Park Service, Gustavus, 

AK. 

Neusser, S. M., F. J. Breidt, and W. A. Fuller. 1998. Design and estimation for investigating the 

dynamics of natural resources. Ecological Application 8:234-245. 

Nichols, J. D., T. Boulinier, J. E. Hines, K. H. Pollock, and J. R. Sauer. 1998. Estimating rates of 

local species extinction, colonization, and turnover in animal communities. Ecological 

Applications 8:1213-1225. 

Noon, B.R. 2003. Conceptual issues in monitoring ecological resources. Pages 27–72 in 

Monitoring Ecosystems: Interdisciplinary Approach for Evaluating Ecoregional 

initiatives. D.E. Busch and J.C. Trexler, eds. Island Press. 

Oakley, K.L., L.P. Thomas, and S.G. Fancy. 2003. Guidelines for long-term monitoring 

protocols. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:1000–1003. 

Pacyna, E. G., and Pacyna, J. M. 2002. Global emission of mercury from anthropogenic sources 

in 1995. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 137:149-165. 
109

Pacyna, E. G., and Pacyna, J. M. 2005. Anthropogenic sources and global inventory of mercury 

emissions, in Parsons, M., and Percival, J., eds. Mercury: Sources, Measurements, 

Cycles and Effects. Mineralogical Society of Canada. 

Paine, R. T. 1995. A conversation on refining the concept of keystone species. Conservation 

Biology 9:962–964. 

Payne, K. 2004. Amphibian Monitoring and Habitat Assessment in Klondike Gold Rush 

National Historical Park. National Park Service, Klondike Gold Rush National Historical 

Park, Alaska. 

Payne, K. 2005. Amphibian Productivity Monitoring and Habitat Assessment in Klondike Gold 

Rush National Historical Park. National Park Service, Klondike Gold Rush National 

Historical Park, Alaska. 

Payne, K. 2006. Amphibian Productivity Monitoring, Chytrid Fungal Sampling, and Habitat 

Assessment in Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park. National Park Service, 

Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, Alaska. 

Pedersen S. and S. Lierhagen. 2006. Heavy metal accumulation in arctic hares (Lepus arcticus) 

in Nunavut, Canada. Sci. Total Environ. 368:951-955. 

Peterson, D.N. 1968. Observations on basal sliding of the Casement Glacier, Southeast Alaska. 

Ph.D. Dissertation. Ohio State University. 183 pp. 

Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R., and D. Morrison. 2005. Update on environmental and economic costs 

associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics 52: 

273-288. 

Poff, N.L., J.V. Ward. 1989. Implications of streamflow variability and predictability for lotic 

community structure: a regional analysis of streamflow patterns. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46:1805-1818. 

Pollock, K. H. 2000. Capture-recapture models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 

95:293-296. 

Pollock, K. H., H. Marsh, L. L. Bailey, G. L. Farnsworth, T. R. Simons, and M. W. Alldredge. 

2004. Separating components of detection probability in abundance estimation: An 

overview with diverse examples. Pages 43-58 in W. L. Thompson, editor. Sampling rare 

or elusive species: Concepts, designs, and techniques for estimating population 

parameters. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 

Porter, E., T. Blett, D. Potter, and C. Huber. 2005. Protecting Resources on Federal Lands: 

Implications of Critical Loads for Atmospheric Deposition of Nitrogen and Sulfur. 

BioScience 55:603-612. 
110

Power, M. E., D. Tilman, J. A. Estes, B. A. Menge, W. J. Bond, L. S. Mills, G. Daily, J. C. 

Castilla, J. Lubchenco, and R. T. Paine. 1996. Challenges in the quest for keystones. 

Bioscience 46:609-620. 

Quinn, J. F., and C. Van Riper III. 1990. Design considerations for national park inventory 

databases. Pages 5-14 in C. Van Riper III et al. editors. Examples of resource inventory 

and monitoring in national parks of California. Proceedings of the Third Biennial 

Conference on Research in California’s National Parks, University of California, Davis. 

Rantz, S.E., et al. 1982a. Measurement and computation of streamflow: Volume 1, 

Measurement of discharge: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2175. 284 pp. 

Rantz, S.E., et al. 1982b. Measurement and computation of streamflow: Volume 2, Computation 

of discharge. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2175, 631 pp. 

Resh, V.H. and J.K. Jackson. 1993. Rapid assessment approaches to biomonitoring using benthic 

macroinvertebrates. Pages 195–233 in D.M. Rosenberg and V.H. Resh, eds. Freshwater 

biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, 

MA. 

Richter, B.D., J.V. Baumgartner, J. Powell, D.P. Braun. 1996. A method for assessing 

hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conservation Biology 10:1163-1174. 

Rinella, D. J., D.L. Bogan, K. Kishaba, and B. Jessup. 2005. Development of a 

Macroinvertebrate Biological Assessment Index for Alexander Archipelago Streams – 

Final Report (Draft). Environmental and Natural Resources Institute, UAA. 

http://aquatic.uaa.alaska.edu/pdfs/Alexander%20Archipelago%20report_working%20dra

ft.pdf

Robards, M., G. Drew, J. Piatt, J.M. Anson, A. Abookire, J. Bodkin, P. Hooge, and S. Speckman. 

2003. Ecology of selected marine communities in Glacier Bay: Zooplankton, forage fish, 

seabirds and marine mammals. Final Report for Glacier Bay National Park. USGS Alaska 

Science Center, Anchorage, Alaska, 156 pp. 

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. 68 pp. 

Royer, T.C., Grosch, C. E., L. A. Mysak. 2001. Interdecadal variability of Northeast Pacific 

coastal freshwater and its implication on biological productivity. Progress in 

Oceanography 49:95-111. 

Royer, T.C. 1982. Coastal fresh water discharge in the Northeast Pacific. Journal of Geophysical 

Research 87:2017-2021. 

Ruesnik, J. L., Parker, I. M., Groom, M. J., and P. M. Kareiva. 1995. Reducing the risk of 

nonindigenous species introductions. Bioscience 45:465-477. 
111

Sanderson, J. G., and L. D. Harris. 2003. The rest of the story—Linking top-down effects to 

organisms. Pages 55-72 in J. A. Bissonette and I. Storch, editors. Landscape ecology and 

resource management. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 

Schreuder, H. T., R. Ernst, and H. Ramirez-Maldonado. 2004. Statistical techniques for 

sampling and monitoring natural resources. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Stn., RMRS-GTR-126. 111pp. 

Sharman, L. C. 1988. Marine intertidal community development following glacial recession in 

Glacier Bay, Alaska. Pages 165 In A. M. Milner, J. D. Wood, Jr., editor. Proceedings of 

the Second Glacier Bay Science Symposium 1987. U. S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service, Glacier Bay Lodge, Alaska. 

Simpson, J.J., G.L. Hufford, M.D. Fleming, J.S. Berg, and J.B. Aston. 2002. Long-term climate 

patterns in Alaskan surface temperature and precipitation and their biological 

consequences. IEEE Trans. Geoscience and Remote Sensing 40:1164-1184. 

Speare, R. (2001) Attachment 7: Nomination of amphibian chytridiomycosis as a key threatening 

process. In ' Developing Management Strategies to Control Amphibian Diseases: 

Decreasing The Risks Due To Communicable Diseases'. pp 185-208. Report to 

Environment Australia: Canberra. 

Stevens, D. L., and N. S. Urquhart. 2000. Response designs and support regions in sampling 

continuous domains. Environmetrics 11:13-41. 

Tallmon, D. 2007. Contaminants assessment of intertidal resources in Southeast Alaska national 

parks. Research proposal and North and West Alaska Cooperative Ecosystem Studies 

Unit Task Agreement (Number 9910324704). University of Alaska Southeast, Grant and 

Contract Services, Juneau, AK. 

Thomas, L. 2001. Conceptual models: What are they and how do we use them to design 

monitoring programs? Presentation to the Vital Signs Monitoring Meeting, Phoenix, AZ, 

August 20-24, 2002. National Park Service. 

Thomas, L. and C. J. Krebs. 1997. A review of power analysis software. Bulletin of the 

Ecological Society of America 78:126-139. 

Thompson, W. L. 2002. Towards reliable bird surveys: Accounting for individuals present but 

not detected. Auk 119:18-25. 

Turner, M. G. 1989. Landscape ecology: The effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of 

Ecology and Systematics 20:171-197. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Candidate and listing priority assignment form for 

Kittlitz’s Murrelet. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management, 

Anchorage, Alaska. 38pp. 
112

Van Oostdam, J. V., Donaldson, S., Feeley, M., Tremblay, N., Arnold, D., Ayotte, P., Bondy, G., 

Chan, L., Dewailly, E., Furgal, C., Gill, U., Kalhok, S., Kihnlein, H., Loring, E., Muckle, 

G., Myles, E., Receveur, O., Stokker, Y., and Tracy, B. 2003. Canadian Arctic 

Contaminants Assessment Report II: Sources, Occurrence, Trends, and Pathways in the 

Physical Environment. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Ottowa, p. 150 pp. 

Van Vliet, G. B. and M. McAllister. 1994. Kittlitz’s murrelet: the species most impacted by 

direct mortality from the Exxon Valdez oil spill? Pacific Seabirds 21:5-6. 

Vander Pol, S. S., Becker, P. R., Kucklick, J. R., Pugh, R. S., Roseneau, D. G., and Simac, K. S. 

2004. Persistent Organic Pollutants in Alaskan murre (Uria spp.) eggs: Geographical, 

species, and temporal comparisons. Environmental Science and Technology 38:1305-

1312. 

Viereck, L.A. C.T. Dyrness, A.R. Batten, and K.J. Wenzlick. 1992. The Alaska. Vegetation 

Classification. USDA, Forest Service PNW Research Station General Technical Report 

286. 

Vitousek, P.M., H.A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J.M. Melillo. 1997. Human domination of 

earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494-499. 

Waits, L. P., S. L. Talbot, R. H. Ward, G. F. Shields. 1998. Mitochondrial DNA Phylogeography 

of the North American Brown Bear and Implications for Conservation. Conservation 

Biology 12:408-417 

White, P. S., and S. P. Bratton. 1980. After preservation: Philosophical and practical problems of 

change. Biological Conservation 18:241-255. 

Wiersma, G. B. 1984. Integrated global background monitoring network. Research and 

monitoring in circumpolar biosphere reserves. Waterton Biosphere Reserve, Waterton 

Lakes, Alberta, Canada. 

Wiggins, G.B. 2004. Caddisflies: The Underwater Architects. University of Toronto Press, 

Toronto. 292 pp. 

Williams, B. K., J. D. Nichols, and M. J. Conroy. 2002. Analysis and management of animal 

populations. Academic Press, San Diego. 

Wolfe, M.F., Schwartzback, S., and Sulaiman, R.A., 1998, Effects of mercury on wildlife: a 

comprehensive review: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 17:146-160. 
113

Glossary 

Ablation refers to the reduction in volume of a glacier due to melting and sublimation. 

Adaptive Management is a systematic process for continually improving management policies 

and practices by learning from the outcomes of operational programs. Its most effective 

form—"active" adaptive management—employs management programs that are designed 

to experimentally compare selected policies or practices, by implementing management 

actions explicitly designed to generate information useful for evaluating alternative 

hypotheses about the system being managed. 

Allochthonous refers to all organic matter that a stream receives from production that occurred 

outside the stream channel. 

Anastomosis refers to a form of lotic waterbody in which streams branch out and reconnect; 

commonly referred to as “braiding.” 

Attributes are any living or nonliving feature or process of the environment that can be 

measured or estimated and that provide insights into the state of the ecosystem. 

Availability bias results when individuals or species are present but unavailable for detection 

(i.e., detection probability is zero). For example, an availability bias would result from 

the failure to record plant species because they were dormant and underground during a 

sampling occasion. Conducting surveys from the same platform when multiple platforms 

are more appropriate may induce availability bias 

Benthic refers to aquatic organisms that live near and are adapted to the bottom or substrate of a 

waterbody. 

Biodiversity is short for “biological diversity” and is typically used to refer to the variety of life 

forms found on earth. Biodiversity may be used to describe the number of taxa found in a 

specific geographic area by levels of the taxonomic hierarchy (e.g., # of phyla 

represented, # of bird species, # of chironomid genera, etc.) Various metrics have been 

developed to describe biodiversity including species richness, Shannon-Wiener diversity 

index, etc. 

Colocation refers to monitoring multiple Vital Signs at the same physical locations. 

Conceptual Models are purposeful representations of reality that provide a mental picture of 

how something works to communicate that explanation to others. 

Covisitation refers to recording observations on multiple Vital Signs during a sampling 

occasion. 

Data refers to a collection of organized observations. Data may consist of numbers, words, or 

images, particularly as measurements or observations of a set of variables. SEAN data 
114

will exist in a variety of forms, including tabular observations, spatial data, 

documentation, reports, images, sound and video files, and administrative records. 

Database refers to the comprehensive collection of containers holding the Network’s data 

products (see Chapter 6). 

Data Analyses, as defined for this program, are the processes by which observations of the 

environment are turned into meaningful information. These include all evaluations after 

data are collected and entered into an electronic file. Data analysis includes quality 

control checks that occur during summarization and exploratory data analysis and 

extends through to analytical procedures leading to conclusions and interpretations of the 

data (see Chapter 7). 

Data Management refers to the development of a modern information management 

infrastructure and procedures to ensure that relevant natural resource data collected by 

NPS staff, cooperators, researchers, and others, are entered, quality-checked, analyzed, 

reported, archived, documented, cataloged, and made available to others for management 

decision-making, research and education (see Chapter 6). 

Demersal refers to organisms that live in the water column of the ocean and freshwater lakes, 

near and just above the seabed or benthos. 

Ecological integrity is a concept that expresses the degree to which the physical, chemical, and 

biological components (including composition, structure, and process) of an ecosystem 

and their relationships are present, functioning, and capable of self-renewal. Ecological 

integrity implies the presence of appropriate species, populations and communities and 

the occurrence of ecological processes at appropriate rates and scales as well as the 

environmental conditions that support these taxa and processes. 

Ecosystem is defined as “a spatially explicit unit of the Earth that includes all of the organisms, 

along with all components of the abiotic environment within its boundaries” (Likens 

1992). 

Ecosystem drivers are major external driving forces such as climate, fire cycles, biological 

invasions, hydrologic cycles, and natural disturbance events (e.g., earthquakes, droughts, 

floods) that have large scale influences on natural systems. 

Ecosystem management is the process of land-use decision making and land-management 

practice that takes into account the full suite of organisms and processes that characterize 

and comprise the ecosystem. It is based on the best understanding currently available as 

to how the ecosystem works. Ecosystem management includes a primary goal to sustain 

ecosystem structure and function, recognition that ecosystems are spatially and 

temporally dynamic, and acceptance of the dictum that ecosystem function depends on 

ecosystem structure and diversity. The whole-system focus of ecosystem management 

implies coordinated land-use decisions. 

Firn line is the highest level to which the fresh snow on a glacier's surface retreats during the 

melting season, or the boundary of the area of snow on a glacier surviving one year's 
115

ablation. In the absence of superimposed ice, this limit is equivalent to the equilibrium 

line. 

Focal resources are park resources that, by virtue of their special protection, public appeal, or 

other management significance, have paramount importance for monitoring regardless of 

current threats or whether they would be monitored as an indication of ecosystem 

integrity. Focal resources might include ecological processes such as deposition rates of 

nitrates and sulfates in certain parks, or they may be a species that is harvested, endemic, 

alien, or has protected status. 

Hyporheic refers to the saturated area beneath and along side a streambed where water 

percolates through interstitial space in the subsurface gravel. 

Indicators are a subset of monitoring attributes that are particularly information-rich in the sense 

that their values are somehow indicative of the quality, health, or integrity of the larger 

ecological system to which they belong (Noon 2002). Indicators are a selected subset of 

the physical, chemical, and biological elements and processes of natural systems that are 

selected to represent the overall health or condition of the system. 

Isostatic rebound, also called post-glacial rebound is the rise of land masses that were depressed 

by the huge weight of ice sheets or glaciers. 

Lentic refers to ecosystems composed of non-moving freshwaters, e.g., lakes, ponds and 

wetlands. 

List-based Sampling refers to how sampling locations for selected protocols were selected by 

construction of a list of sample units and choosing a random sample of units from the list. 

Lotic refers to ecosystems composed of moving freshwaters, e.g., rivers and streams. 

Mass balance, related to glacial dynamics, the difference between accumulation and ablation 

(melting and sublimation). 

Measures are the specific feature(s) used to quantify an indicator, as specified in a sampling 

protocol. 

Metadata are the documentation items that describe the content, context, quality, structure, and 

accessibility of a data set. 

Necktonic refers to organisms that live in the water column of the ocean and freshwater lakes 

and are capable of propelling themselves independent of the water currents. 

Paludification refers the development of an impervious soil horizon through the long-term 

process leaching of rainwater through continuously accumulating organic soil horizons. 

Park Lead refers to staff members from a specific park who ensure that park-level interests are 

considered in the execution of monitoring for a Vital Sign (see Chapter 8). 
116

Perception bias arises when there is a failure to detect an individual or species that is available 

for detection (i.e., detection probability is nonzero). For instance, individuals left 

unrecorded due to their lack of identification features at the time of recording 

observations and measures results in perception bias. 

Project Leader refers to the individual designated to take overall responsibility within the 

network context for the design, conduct and reporting on a Vital Sign. He or she works 

with the Network Coordinator and Technical Committee to determine long-range 

directions for data collections. They oversee collection and summarization of the data. 

Protocols, as defined for this program, are detailed study plans that provide rationale for 

monitoring a Vital Sign, and provide instructions for carrying out the monitoring. 

Protocols consist of a narrative, standard operating procedures, and supplementary 

materials (Oakley et al. 2003). 

Response design directs how to record the response (Vital Sign metric) within each sampling 

unit, which includes choosing a method of measurement and an optimum shape and size 

of units (Stevens and Urquhart 2000). 

Revisit Design refers to how visits to all panels in a sampling design will be scheduled over time 

(see Chapter 4 and McDonald 2003). 

Sample Units are the smallest entities upon which measurements are taken (see Chapter 4 and 

McDonald 2003). 

Standard Operating Procedures are detailed instructions for carrying out monitoring 

operations and form one part of Monitoring Protocol (Oakley et al. 2003). 

Status, as used in this program, refers to the condition of a resource or Vital Sign at a given 

point in time. 

Stressors are physical, chemical, or biological perturbations to a system that are either (a) 

foreign to that system or (b) natural to the system but applied at an excessive [or 

deficient] level (Barrett et al. 1976:192). Stressors cause significant changes in the 

ecological components, patterns and processes in natural systems. Examples include 

water withdrawal, pesticide use, timber harvesting, traffic emissions, stream acidification, 

trampling, poaching, land-use change, and air pollution. 

Trend, as used in this program, refers generally to directional change measured in a resource by 

monitoring its condition over time. Trends can be measured by examining individual 

change (change experienced by individual sample units) or by examining net change 

(change in mean response of all sample units) (see McDonald 2003). 

Vital Signs, as used by the National Park Service, are a subset of physical, chemical, and 

biological elements and processes of park ecosystems that are selected to represent the 

overall health or condition of park resources, known or hypothesized effects of stressors, 

or elements that have important human values. The elements and processes that are 

monitored are a subset of the total suite of natural resources that park managers are 
117

directed to preserve “unimpaired for future generations,” including water, air, geological 

resources, plants and animals, and the various ecological, biological, and physical 

processes that act on those resources. Vital signs may occur at any level of organization 

including landscape, community, population, or genetic level, and may be compositional 

(referring to the variety of elements in the system), structural (referring to the 

organization or pattern of the system), or functional (referring to ecological processes). 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-1 

Appendix A 

Identification of monitoring projects and potential baselines 

among ongoing and former research in the parks of the 

Southeast Alaska Network 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-2 

Contents

TRANSMITTAL LETTER..................................................................................................................... A-4

PROCEDURE FOR CONSTRUCTING THE PROJECT EVALUATION TABLES ...................... A-5

EXPLANATORY COMPANION TO THE PROJECT EVALUATION TABLES........................... A-6

IDENTIFYING BASELINE CANDIDATES & MONITORING FOR SEAN: DEFINITIONS AND 

RANKINGS .............................................................................................................................................. A-7

GLBA PROJECT EVALUATION TABLE........................................................................................... A-8

ATMOSPHERE ......................................................................................................................................... A-8

FRESHWATER ....................................................................................................................................... A-11

Streams –physical/general...............................................................................................................A-11

Hydrology/water quality ..................................................................................................................A-11

Fish (incl. salmon) ...........................................................................................................................A-12

General ecology/succession.............................................................................................................A-16

Lakes................................................................................................................................................A-19

Impacts (including fishing) ..............................................................................................................A-21

TERRESTRIAL ....................................................................................................................................... A-23

Bedrock geology ..............................................................................................................................A-23

Landform dynamics..........................................................................................................................A-23

Isostatics/Tectonics..........................................................................................................................A-24

Glaciers............................................................................................................................................A-26

Soils .................................................................................................................................................A-28

Plants...............................................................................................................................................A-29

Birds.................................................................................................................................................A-34

Mammals..........................................................................................................................................A-39

Amphibians ......................................................................................................................................A-45

Invertebrates ....................................................................................................................................A-46

General (Incl ecology/succession)...................................................................................................A-48

Impacts.............................................................................................................................................A-49

MARINE................................................................................................................................................ A-51

Oceanography/water quality ...........................................................................................................A-51

Bathymetry/sediments ......................................................................................................................A-54

Fish ..................................................................................................................................................A-57

Birds.................................................................................................................................................A-60

Whales .............................................................................................................................................A-64

Pinnipeds/sea otters.........................................................................................................................A-68

Invertebrates ....................................................................................................................................A-75

General marine (incl acoustics).......................................................................................................A-82

Impacts.............................................................................................................................................A-88

INTERTIDAL.......................................................................................................................................... A-92

Landforms/sediments .......................................................................................................................A-92

Invertebrates/algae ..........................................................................................................................A-93

Fish ..................................................................................................................................................A-95

Birds.................................................................................................................................................A-96

General/impacts...............................................................................................................................A-97

GENERAL, OTHER................................................................................................................................. A-98

KLGO PROJECT EVALUATION TABLE...................................................................................... A-102

ATMOSPHERE ..................................................................................................................................... A-102

BIRDS ................................................................................................................................................. A-103

MAMMALS ......................................................................................................................................... A-105

FISH.................................................................................................................................................... A-105

PLANTS............................................................................................................................................... A-105
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-3 

AMPHIBIANS....................................................................................................................................... A-106

VISITOR USE/ IMPACTS ................................................................................................................... A-107

GEOMORPHOLOGY ............................................................................................................................. A-107

WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................................... A-108

GENERAL ECOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... A-108

PHOTOGRAPHY................................................................................................................................... A-109

SITK PROJECT EVALUATION TABLE ........................................................................................ A-110

ATMOSPHERE ..................................................................................................................................... A-110

BIRDS ................................................................................................................................................. A-110

MAMMALS ......................................................................................................................................... A-111

LAND PLANTS .................................................................................................................................... A-111

MARINE/INTERTIDAL ......................................................................................................................... A-112

INDIAN RIVER..................................................................................................................................... A-113

GENERAL ECOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... A-114

LANDSCAPE........................................................................................................................................ A-115

HISTORY............................................................................................................................................. A-115

ASPHALT PLANT................................................................................................................................. A-115

WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................................... A-116
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-4 

Transmittal Letter 10/17/06 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Susan Boudreau, GLBA 

FROM: Greg Streveler, ISES 

SUBJECT: Transmittal of final products 

Susan, per our agreement, here on this CD (and on the park web) are copies of the final 

drafts of all work I have done related to identification of monitoring projects and 

potential baselines among ongoing and former research in the park. On this CD, you 

should find: 

• Procedure for construction project evaluation tables, final 

• Identifying baselines and monitoring candidates, final 

• Explanatory companion to tables 

• GLBA Project evaluation table, final 

• GLBA monitoring project summaries, final 

• SITK Project evaluation table, final 

• KLGO project evaluation table, final 

If all these documents meet with your satisfaction, my work on this project is hereby 

terminated. Thank you for the opportunity to work on this worthwhile project. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-5 

 Procedure for Constructing the Project Evaluation Tables 

 Greg Streveler 

 10/17/06 

I began this project by first developing the task concept through a series of discussions 

with Chiska Derr. In a nutshell, the agreed objective was to review all past and ongoing 

research to identify work that can be classified as monitoring, or that could become the 

basis of monitoring in the future. 

The next step was to put a draft procedure for identifying ongoing monitoring and 

baseline candidates through several drafts in consultation with Chiska and staff from 

SEAN parks. With the task and procedure clarified, webmaster Bill Eichenlaub 

acquainted me with the NPS intranet and pointed me toward the most productive sources 

for my purposes. We decided that the SEAN park’s Project Tracking database 

(/Science/Resource Management/SEAN-data-management/projecttracking/project_tracking_database) would form the backbone of my review, but many 

supplementary databases (notably k/eco_data, naturebib, library/products/reports, and 

research/research projects/investigator files) were invaluable. 

For SITK and KLGO, I asked the Resource Management Specialists to supplement the 

Project Tracking lists, after which I filled in as much detail as possible from sources 

available to me electronically on the park intranets. This work was followed by onsite 

visits with Geoff & Meg, reviewing all pertinent literature at their command and further 

gleaning their personal knowledge. The lists were finished after a further round of 

review with Meg (later, Theresa) & Geoff, in which the final details were emplaced and 

their views on monitoring/baseline determinations were fully integrated. 

For GLBA, I first supplemented the Project Tracking list with notes on monitoring 

subjects from a RM workshop, then began to iteratively query and a number of sources, 

beginning with the electronic ones available on the park intranet. These were extensively 

supplemented from my personal library and that of the park, and the USGS hard copy 

files. All Project Tracking headings were examined, whether relevant or not; other work 

was cited if I went to some trouble to evaluate it. The vast GLBA literature was weeded 

down by eliminating out-of-hand: 

• a variety of topics such as most of archaeology, sociology, and bedrock geology 

(except where a monitoring component suggested itself); 

• most projects that on their face were very cursory or crudely done. 

An attempt was then made to examine some form of report or data on all the rest. Many 

sources from the staff and elsewhere were then iteratively queried until there existed a 

credible first draft. 

I then farmed the draft out to the park RM staff, the USGS staff, and a few key 

independent researchers for their formal input on details and references, which added 

very considerably to the breadth and accuracy of the document. The semi-final package 

was then farmed out one last time to the staff, and final details were elicited from key 

non-staff. Results were compiled into the final. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-6 

 Explanatory Companion to the Project Evaluation Tables 

 for 

 GLBA, KLGO and SITK Greg Streveler 10/17/06 

The purpose of these tables is to present in outline form the basic information on all past 

and present research for SEAN parks that is of potential interest from a standpoint of 

ecosystem monitoring. The master list of all such projects was constructed by me with 

periodic review by Park RM, USGS and selected independent research personnel during 

April – September, 2006. 

Column 1 of each Table gives each project’s name. If in regular print, this name 

is as it appears in the park’s Project Tracking database; if in italics, it is a name invented 

to encapsulate material not in that database. 

Column 2 gives an assessment of that project’s status as ongoing monitoring. The 

code in that column refers to the companion document “Identifying Baseline Candidates 

& Ongoing Monitoring”. There are only two possible answers here: “Yes” and “No”, in 

most cases accompanied by an explanatory code. The lack of a coded explanation means 

that the reason is considered to be self-evident. 

Column 3 gives an assessment of the project’s status as potential baseline 

material. There are three possible answers here: “No”, “Yes” and “PRIME”. The 

“PRIME” category is reserved for projects that struck me as the most important baseline 

candidates. Again the codes accompanying these determinations are explained in 

“Identifying Baseline Candidates & Ongoing Monitoring”. I have tended to be inclusive 

here when in doubt, so that potentially useful items do not fall off the radar screen 

prematurely. 

 Column 4 gives a telegraphic summary of the project, with key references. 

 Explanatory Companion 

 to the 

 GLBA Monitoring Project Summaries Table 

This table is a distillate of the GLBA Project Evaluation Table. Its intent is to display 

two sorts of projects: 1) those which are ranked as “Ongoing Monitoring”, and 2) those 

which are judged to present significant opportunities for additional monitoring, but for 

some reason have not risen to that status. Low ranking projects are removed as an aid to 

focus on the more important ones in a SEAN context. 

Material in all columns is taken verbatim from the Project Evaluation Table in all cases 

except for Column 4. In that column, “Ongoing Monitoring” projects are re-crafted into 

prose statements as an aid to their inclusion into the upcoming SEAN Phase II report. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-7 

Identifying Baseline Candidates & Monitoring for SEAN: 

Definitions and Rankings 

 Reviewers: Chiska, Scott, Lewis, Rusty, Meg, Geof 

 Greg Streveler 10/17/06 

The SEAN definition of Monitoring: “The collection and analysis of replicated 

observations or measurements to evaluate changes in condition and progress toward 

meeting a management objective.” 

Monitoring can have a great variety of sophistication levels, ranging from qualitative or 

casual observations that only grossly describe the status quo, to carefully structured and 

data rich programs that allow precise statistical evaluation &/or identification of small 

deviations from the status quo. It has been agreed that I am to focus on the upper levels 

of this spectrum. The following is a second attempt to define projects that rise to the 

level of “Baseline Candidate” or “Ongoing Monitoring”. Projects that fail to fulfill these 

criteria will fall off the list, and will not receive further attention from me. 

I. A project is a Baseline Candidate if all the following criteria are met:

A1 - It has sample sizes and data quality sufficient to permit some evaluation of 

confidence limits or level of detectable change, 

 or

A2 - It is sufficiently exhaustive, either alone or in concert with other data sets, to 

permit firm statements about a key phenomenon (for example, presence/absence of 

river otters in the Indian River estuary); 

 And

B - It has protocols sufficiently described to locate study localities and to replicate the 

mode of sampling/observation. 

II. If a project that is ranked as a Candidate, will get a ranking of “Prime Candidate” if:

A - It clearly meets the SEAN Ecological Significance Criteria: 

 (a) important as a controller or integrator; (b) useful as an integrator; (c) linked to 

other vital signs 

 or

B - It meets SEAM Management Significance criteria: 

(a) needed to make or implement a management decision or evaluate an outcome of a 

management action: (b) required by a legal mandate; (c) there is a formal mandate for 

monitoring; (d) resource is “listed” or otherwise of concern to an agency. 

III. A project is “Ongoing Monitoring” if it:

A1 - Meets the above criteria for a Baseline Candidate, 

or

 A2 – Has been intended as monitoring 

 And

B1 - Has been repetitively sampled at least once in the last few years 

 or

 B2 - There are firm plans for follow-up. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-8 

 GLBA Project Evaluation Table 10/17/06 Final

Greg Streveler, in consultation with GLBA & USGS Staff 

 (for explanation of codes, see a companion document,“Identifying Baseline Candidates and Ongoing M

 Project names in italics are not in the GLBA Project Tracking database.

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Atmosphere 

Air Quality Camera System No No Never happened, according to Eichenlaub Airborne Contaminants Assessment Yes ? 

(A1,B2?) 

Yes  (A2, B) 

What: Assessment of semi-volatile organics, persistent organic poHow: Passive air filtration and vegetation sampling, using protocoparks When: 2005 (sampler will be collected , 2006) Where: On face of Beartrack Mountain, below timberline Who: Dixon Landers (WACAP) Comments: We don’t have the exact details of the analysis, but it replication. 

Atmospheric Mercury qnd Lead Assessment 

Yes (A1,B1) Yes 

(A2, B) 

What: Monitoring of atmospheric Hg (and Pb210), as a “pristine” to compare readings from more trammeled parts of the world. How: Passive monitoring of precipitation When: July 2003 – July 2005 Where: Bartlett Cove Who: Dan Engstrom Comments: Samples are being processed. Assume it is according 

Cruise ship stack Emission Opacity Yes (A2,B1) PRIME 

(Ba,b,c) 

What: Measurement of cruise ship (and tour vessel) stack emissiowith opacity regs How: Opacity readings a minimum of twice per operating season on an opportunistic basis for tour vessels. Where: Glacier Bay When 1991-present Who: NPS rangers Ref: GLBA Marine Vessel Emissions Program (2006 edition) 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-9 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Comments: given length of baseline and volume of data, and intera key monitoring program 

Weather Data, NCDC Yes (A2,B1) PRIME 

(Aa,c) 

What: Weather data from 8 stations in region averaged How: Data obtained from National Climatic Data Center on daily daily average wind speed. When: Jan 1993-July 2002 Where: Yakutat, Elfin Cove, Hoonah, Bartlett Cove, Gustavus, AuHaines Ref: Etherington, L., et al. 2004. Factors affecting Seasonal and Surface Water Oceanographic Properties within a Fjord Estuarine Alaska. USGS/BRD report to NPS, Gustavus. Comments: Very important data set. Could be extended backwarhistorical weather patterns. Up-to-date data also collected on contpurchased at any time. 

Bartlett Cove & Gustavus Weather Stations 

Yes (A2,B1) PRIME 

(Aa,c) 

What: weather records How: NWS official stations Where: Bartlett Cove and Gustavus, the former in the same spot thtimes, now automated from airport. When: operated nearly continuously since the 1950’s Refs: recent records synopsized in the NCDC weather summary pmore time depth available. 

Lawson’s Weather Stations Yes (A2,B1) PRIME 

(Aa,c) 

What: Lowland weather patterns How: 24 automated stations that must be downloaded and servicemeasuring standard parameters as well as isotopic composition of When: For about a decade, and ongoing Where: Along Glacier Bay, numerous localities Who: Dan Lawson Comments: Lawson has the data; no synoptic report yet. 

Other weather data No (B1) PRIME 

(Aa,c) 

What: various short-term records from summer field stations; a maweather records up to 1989 Where: Muir Inlet, Falls Creek; Dry Bay Who: up-Bay rangers, IPS, Gustavus Electric, Lewis Hunter; Chad Refs: info in various NPS field logs and IPS reports 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-10 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

 Hunter, L. 1994. Grounding-line Systems and Glacier MasTemperate Glaciers and their Effect on Glacier Stability. Ph.D. Th Lowe, F. 1966. Climate in Goldthwait, et. Soil DevelopmSuccession In a Deglaciated Area of Muir Inlet, Alaska. IPS Rept Comments: Hunter’s work is of the first importance for the park, very complementary to that of Etherington, above. Lowe gives a gMuir Inlet as of the mid 60’s. Soiseth advises that a station is now and has bee functioning since May ‘05. I have not attempted to suvarious logs and reports, but there are really quite a few data from especially in Muir Inlet. An important record for Dixon Harbor wof 1973-4, & 1974-5 by Home (1977). 

Glacier Bay Climate Model No No What: First coherent, data-driven climate model for GLBA. 

Ref: Hunter, L & R. Powell. 1993. in Proceedings of the Third GSymposium , Engstrom, ed. NPS, Anchorage Comments: Of the first importance; based on data given in Huntenot useful for monitoring. 

Air pollution Potential, upper Fjords No No What: Meteorological measurements to determine air pollution po

How: Measured cloud cover, temp, humidity, radiation, wind speWhere: Main measurements made at Goose Cove, stations at o anWhen: Summer 1976 Who: Carl Benson, Gerd Wendler Ref: Benson, C. et al. 1978. On the Climate and Air Pollution PoGeophysical Inst. UAF rept to NPS Comments: A one-year sample of weather variables is not sufficieitself, but could be useful if patched together with other short recoresearch camps and ranger stations. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-11 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

 Freshwater The Freshwater section is somewhat duplicative of the work 

Nagorski & Ginny Eckert. The reader is referred to their repon water quality issues. 

 Streams –physical/general Streams GIS Layer Not sufficient precision to document change on all but largest scal Hydrology/water quality 

This subsection is only flagged, since it is the primary focus of Eckert/Nagorski/Hood report, except for the geomorphologica

Abyss Lake Jökulhlaups, 1997-2001 No (B1) Yes (A2,B) What/where: Analysis of Outburst history of Abyss Lake area. 

Who: Chad Soiseth, Scott Grover. When: 1997, 2001 Refs: Grover, S. (1997). An investigation of the 1997 Abyss Lake National Park. Gustavus, Alaska, U.S. National Park Service, GlacPreserve: 11 pp.  Grover, S. (2003). An investigation of glacial outburst floods Bay National Park, Alaska. Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S. National Resources Division: 14 pp. Comments: Added more detail here because of the geomorphologiThe summary of drainage shifts and lake level changes is based on analysis. I have called this monitoring on the basis of my understaunder surveillance for future changes. 

Outburst lake mapping & Monitoring Yes 

(A1,B1) 

Yes (A2,B) What: Mapping and monitoring of outburst lakes with objective o

model of their behavior How: Mapping from photos and visits; measurement of depths anmapping of downstream effects Where: Throughout park and elsewhere When: 2005-2006 Who: Denny Capps Comments: PhD work in progress, U British Columbia 

Abyss Lake Water-level Yes (A2,B1) Yes (A2,B) What: Collection of 20 photos, 1997-present. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-12 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Who: Bill Eichenlaub Comments: Intended as a continuing collection for purpose of mo

Alsek River Gauging Station Yes (A2,B1) Dan Neal, USGS. Perennial gauging station. Important record. East Alsek Water Quantity & Quality Chad Soiseth. Summer of 2005 draft report available. Second yea

2007. 

Baseline Water Quality Data Inventory and Analysis 

Chris Cofeen, Cathy Connor. According to project tracking, was 2002-03. Some data from USGS Ed Neal exist with Chad Soiseth completed. 

Kahtaheena River Gaging Station Yes (A2,B1) Station run for a couple of years around 2002-02 on Falls Creek b

Gustavus Electric Co. Reestablished in 2006. 

Air Temp and Water Temp Flux Dan Lawson, Jim Taggart. Comparison of marine and atmospheri

Glacier Bay. 

Dixon Harbor Area Hydrology Dan Bishop, 1975-76. Has some potentially important data on pH 

concentrations from a number of water bodies. That latter are sholevels for fish in some instances. Ref: . Bishop, D. M. (1977). Hydrology of coastal streams near Lipp. Dixon Hbr Biological Survey.

Burroughs Glacier Margin Geochemistry 

Dave Mickleson. Good water chemistry data from sites, some of wRef: Mickelson, D. M. and N. R. Ham (1995). Thirty years of glaBurroughs Glacier, Wachusetts Inlet, Glacier Bay, Alaska. Proc. 3Symp, 1993, Gustavus, Alaska, USNPS.

 Fish (incl. salmon) Coastal Chinook Salmon Data Storage Tag Project

No No What :Exploration of utility of a tagging tool 

Who: James Murphy 

East Alsek Sockeye Salmon Decline (includes East Alsek Monitoring)

Yes (A1,B1) PRIME 

(Ab,Ba) 

What/how: 1) map and quantify sockeye salmon spawning habitat determine whether spawning habitat is limiting and how macrophy2) use archived adult scales and contemporary juvenile scales and change effects on growth, 3) quantify juvenile sockeye distributiongrowth to establish basic life history information and collect scale 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-13 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

4) Determine growth rate of aquatic vegetation and rate of sedimeactivity of spawning sockeye. Project results will resolve questionlarge-scale habitat manipulation to improve fish returns and inform Where: East Alsek River When: 2005-06 Who: Derrek Faber, Chad Soiseth Ref: Faber, D, et al. 2006. Evaluation of Habitat and growth TreSockeye Salmon in Glacier Bay National Preserve, Alaska. UA SComments: Currentlly in progress with ’06 as final of 2 y field seaMaster’s student Derrek Faber’s thesis work. Anticipated completComments: Comprehensive study; most germane part to inventor1, which is providing detailed map and quantitative description of parameters. 

Freshwater Fish Species No No Empty category Freshwater fish distribution database inventory: 1952-1994 

No No What: This is an Access database table companion to the physical 

database table. The data table indicates species and life stage preseas reported over recent history from a wide variety of sources. Datthe more than 300 streams in the park. Data quality are highly varistream visit by a nonscientist to multiple and repeated visits to stre(i.e. Milner at Berg Bay and Wolf Point Creek). Comments: Larger studies on individual creeks are reported under 

Post-Glacial Salmon Recolonization No Yes? 

(A1?,B) 

What: Genetic variation among sockeys and pinks How: analysis of allozymes and mitochondrial DNA Who: Chris Kondzela, Tony Gharrett Where: four Glacier Bay systems, including Gull lake, Seclusion RWhen: 1993-94? Refs. Kondzela, C & A. Gharrett. 2004. Post-Glacial ColonizatioSalmon in glacier Bay. Abstract, 4th GB Science Symposium, Jun Kondzela, C. & A. Gharrett. Draft. Sockey Salmon ColonComments: Draft reviewed by Chad, but paper not available. Bassymposium, study designed to elucidate between-stream relationshpresumably could be replicated in the future to note genetic changhatchery fish or somesuch). I presume the work could be replicatewell enough to distinguish between-stream differences. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-14 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Salmon - Chinook - Dundas/Seclusion Study 

No No What: Survey in search of Chinook salmon 

How: Visual surveys of adults; minnow trapping for juvs Where: main channels of Dundas/Seclusion complex When: Sept, 2002. Ref: Waltmeyer, D. & C. Soiseth. 2004. An Evaluationn of ChinHabitat Use in GLBA, Alaska. Tech Rept NPS?NRWRD/NTR-20Comments: Cursory; samples of fish small. Results for Chinook Dollies in Seclusion). Not useful for baseline 

Salmon - Coho Fry No No Dan Van Leeuwen Proposal for study that was aborted Diet of Coho Juveniles as function of stream age 

No No What: Diet of juvenile coho as function of stream age / ecosystem 

How: Stomach analysis of fish compared to invertebrate availabilsampling of aquatic and terrestrial streambank fauna. Where: Wolf Point Creek, Ice Valley Creek and Berg Bay South When: July/August, 2005 Who: Emily Greenall, under the supervision of Milner Ref: Greenall, E. 2005. A Study Comparing the Changes in AquInvertebrate Composition, and Juvenile Coho Salmon Diet PrefereStreams of Different Ages. M.S. Thesis, King’s College, LondonComments: Based on relatively small samples [ex: stomachs (N=(N=10-17/stream)]; sample sites not precisely located. Her hypothcorrelation between stream age (therefore food choices) and fish d

Salmon - Coho Genetics and Colonization 

No (B1) Yes (A1,B) What: Documentation of metapopulation genetics in streams of va

How: Genetic analysis of coho stocks, focusing on nine nuclear losize and inter-stream distance as variables Where: Known-age streams along the Glacier Bay chronosequencWhen: 1997 Who: Kim Scribner, Chad Soiseth, George Sage, Lyman ThorsteinJennifer Neilsen. Ref: Scribner, K., et al. In prep. Coho Salmon Colonization in ReStreams in Glacier Bay, Alaska: Implications for Pacific Salmon Rsubmitted to J. Fisheries. Comment: Relatively large total sample (N=615) from a total of 1of 36 fish/stream. This level of sampling allowed distinction amodegree of confidence; hence each stream can be considered well ch
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-15 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

These data would allow comparison at some later date A resamplipotentially indicate changes in gene freq. for specific loci sampledof earlier drafts of this paper was that samples from juvenile fish ctoward related individuals.

Falls Creek Resident Dolly Varden Genetics 

No (B1) Yes (A1,B) What: Genetic characteristics of resident population 

How: Microsatellite analysis, using 5 loci; 27 fish sampled. Where: Falls creek above proposed hydro development When: 2000 Who: Erika Leder Ref: Leder, E. 2001. Genetic Affinities and Population DifferentiVarden of the Falls Creek Area; a preliminary Investigation. DrafGustavus Electric. U Wisconsin, Madison. Comments: Not an extensive study, but sample size and homogenloci make the results quite solid and replicable. 

Salmon - Stream Surveys No No? Repository for lots of stream surveys and related data gleaned from 

Soiseth. See Freshwater fish distribution database inventory: 195

Salmon-stream Surveys - Historical No No What: Various notes and surveys on salmon escapements and stre

How: Visual observation Where: Various streams in park When: 1901-1990 Refs: Soiseth, C. Undated. Summary of Stream Surveys in GlaciPark and Preserve: 1952-1994. NPS/RM report in Library/Produc Schroeder, M. 1990. The Salmon Resources of Seven SpawWithin GLBA, Alaska. Also see these reports in Archives: Moser, 1901;Prather & Mow, 1989, Mattson et al,, 1959; Huneke 1965; Cebula, 1963; Blackie 1989; Baade, 1954-55. See also Mursecond & third Dixon Harbor Biological Survey reports, and MarrBay Environmental Survey report. Comments: Of various quality. Some, notably Murrell & Marriotreplicable but cursory. Not generally useful as baseline material. This describes Freshwadatabase and inventory above. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-16 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Salmonid Presence and Relative Abundance Survey 

No No Seems to overlap with the above project. Has small amt. of data f

Point Creek minnow trapping in park database. 

Boussole Lake & Valley Salmon – 1970-s 

No (B1) Yes 

(A1, B) 

What: Salmonid populations and food habits How: systematic minnow trapping, stomach analysis; stream survweir Where: Boussole Valley & Lake, Dixon Harbor vicinity When: 1975 Who: Ed Murrell Refs: Murrell, E. 1977. Growth and August Foods of Juvenile Aand Coho Salmon in the Boussole Valley of GLBA. M.S. Thesis, Fairbanks.  Murrell, E. Freshwater and Anadromous Fishes. In Dixon hfinal report on the summer phase of 1975 research. Streveler & WComments: Minnow trapping in Boussole Lake and Boussole Valsystematic fashion. In streams, each of 39 station were occupied tdays apart. In the Lake, 56 stations were trapped in August and a stations mapped with fair accuracy. Given the number and coverawould provide a reasonably good baseline. The escapement count

Sockeye Salmon Mark & Recapture No No What/where: Estimate escapement population estimates and sex ra

River sockeyes; construct correction factor for peak survey countsHow: Mark-recapture of adults to estimate escapement on East; vDoame, evaluate feasibility of providing similar program here. Ref: Tracy, M. 2004. East Alsek River Mark-recapture ExperimMark-recapture Feasibility Effort. Permit Appl’n to NPS Comments: Three years of data were collected to calibrate aerial ssockeye escapement. Data exist in report form from ADFG. Resubaseline. 

 General ecology/succession Stream Colonization Yes (A1,B1) Yes 

(A1,B) 

What: Documentation of a number of biological & physical charastreams & their biotic communities Where: spread through the chronosequence 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-17 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

When: 1978-present. Who: Sandy Milner and a succession of students & collaborators Ref: Milner, A. 1983. The Ecology of Post-glacial Streams in GLD. Thesis. University of London.  Sidle, R & A. Milner. 1989. Factors Influencing Stream DevArctic & Alpine Res. 21(4): 350-363. (nearly identical paper in 2n

 Milner, A. & R. Bailey. 1989. Salmonid Colonization of Ne

Aquaculture & Fisheries Mgt 20:179-192.  Adamson (Flory), L. 1996. Invertebrate Community DeveloGLBA, Alaska.  Phillips, I. 1999. The Influence of Wood on the Ecology of D Thesis, U Birmingham.  Milner, A. & I. Phillips. 2000? The Role of Riparian Vegetin the Development of Macroinvertebrate Assemblages in Streamsmanuscript.  Robertson, A. & A. Milner. 1999. Meiobenthic Arthropod CStreams in GLBA, Alaska. Hydrobiologia 397: 197-209.  Milner, A. et al. 2000. Colonization and Development of StAcross A 200 Year Gradient In GLBA, Alaska. Can. J. Fish. Aqu Milner, A.M. and I.T. Gloyne-Phillips (2005) The role of ripwoody debris in the development of macroinvertebrate assemblagResearch and Application 21:403-420  Robertson, A. & A. Milner. 2006. The influence of Stream Variables in Structuring Meiofaunal Assemblages in Recently DegLimnology, Oceanography 5(3): 1454-1465.  Veal, A.J. (2004) The ecology of Stonefly Creek in Glacier Bthesis, University of Alaska.  McDermott, M. (2006) The Lotic Meiofaunal Community of Stream. Ph. D. Thesis, Roehampton University. Comments: Some of these streams, notably Berg Bay North & SoValley (numerous visits) , several in Wachusett Inlet (Stonefly CreVivid Lake Creek, have long-term data that can be repeated. Milnsuch sites on 5 streams in his 1987 paper. Sampling sites initially located in his thesis; GPS coordinates now available. Other sites a
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-18 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

the above works. 

Wolf Creek Watershed Monitoring; Yes 

(A1, B1) 

PRIME (Ab) 

What: Long term monitoring of environmental and biotic variableconnection with a study of stream development How: Various qualitative & quantitative measures Where: Wolf Point Creek along the W shore of Muir Inlet When: annually, 1977-present Refs: Milner, A. 1993. Community Development in Wolf Point CProceedings of the Third Glacier Bay Science Symposium , EngstAnchorage.  Milner, A.M. (1987) Colonization and ecological developmGlacier Bay National Park, Alaska. Freshwater Biology. 18:53-7 Milner, A.M. (1994) Colonization and succession of inverteGlacier Bay, Alaska. Freshwater Biology. 32:387-400  Adamson (Flory), E. 1996. Invertebrate Community Develoin GLBA, Alaska. PhD Thesis, U of Sterling, UK.  Milner, A et al. 1999. Invertebrate Community DevelopmeGLBA, Alaska: a Long Term Record in Friberg & Carl (eds) BiodEcology, Denmark. NERI Tech Rept No. 266.. [ includes discuss Flory, E. and A. Milner. 1999. Influence of Riparian VegeAssemblages in a Recently formed Stream In GLBA, Alaska. J. N18(2):261-273.  Flory, E. & A. Milner. 2000. Macroinvertebrate CommunPoint Creek, GLBA, Alaska. Freshwater Biol. 44:465-580.  Flory, E.A. and A.M. Milner (1999) The role of competitiocommunity development in a recently formed stream in Glacier BAquatic Ecology 33:175-184  Monaghan, K. 2000. The Effects of Fish Colonization on Community Succession in a New Stream, Alaska. Ph.D Thesis, U  McDermott, J. The Lotic Meiofaunal Community of a RecPh. D. Thesis, Roehampton University.  Milner, A. , et al. 2004. Ecological Development of the Wol1971 to 2001: a 25 year record. Abstract, 4th GB Science SymposComments: Milner’s 2005 fish collecting permit refers to a long-tePoint Creek, at which most of the data from the cited reports were 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-19 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

records exist of numerous stream characteristics from this stream, quantitatively sampled. Changes over time have been sufficiently considerable confidence, providing perhaps the most data-rich & psystem in the park. 

Falls Creek Aquatic Biota Yes (A2,B)) PRIME 

(Ba) 

What: Inventory of stream habitat types, fish populations and bendivedrsity/biomass index How: Stream surveys for adult salmonids, trapping; snorkeling anjuveniles and upland Dolly Varden population; systematic Surber invertebrates in lower Falls Creek as Where: Falls Creek and associated drainages When: 1999-2001 Who: Liz Flory Refs: Flory, E. 1999. Fish and Fish Habitats of the Falls Creek ARept to Gustavus Electric, Gustavus.  Flory, E. 2001. Resident Dolly Varden, Anadromous Fish SInvertebrates of the Falls Creek Area, 2000. Icy Strait Env. Svcs. Gustavus. Comments: Extremely important study in area of future hydro sitepopulation estimation, stream habitat map, and invertebrate index 

 Lakes 

Parts of this section are also directly related to work by Eckerwater quality synopsis 

Lake Evolution No (B1) Yes 

(A1,B) 

What: Compared modern chronosequence with a temporal record to define the sorts of trajectories lakes go through during watersheHow: Sampled ~ 30 lakes 3+ times over 3 years for water chemisfor a sediment core. : Measuring hydrologic, chemical and biotic chronosequence; sampling of diatoms, etc. in stratigraphy of lake When: 1988-90 Where: Lakes throughout the park and on Pleasant Island. Refs: Engstrom, D, et al. 2000. Chemical and Biological trends dRecently Deglaciated Terrain. Nature 408:161-166.  Fritz, S. et al. 2004. Patterns of Early Lake Evolution in BComparison of Stratigraphic Inference with a Modern Chronosequ Engstrom, D., S.Fritz and S Juggins. 2004. Patterns of Ea
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-20 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

GLBA: a comparison of sediment records with a classic chronoseqScience Symposium, Juneau.Comments: Lakes not precisely located in published materials buavailable from investigators. Again, study not designed as baselinover a larger scale, especially for differences in water chemistry thregional scale, since these data can be controlled for succession. 

Lake Extents GIS Layer No(B1) Yes (A2,B) 

 (A2, B) 

What: Layer of GLBA Lakes based on 1996 digital orthophoto quof park) Who: Bill Eichenlaub Comments: This work by Bill is an example of the sort of precise electronically from georeferenced photography. It provides a precas of the time of photography. 

Lake algae, diatoms & Invertebrate successional history 

No (B1) Yes (A2,B) What: documented algal, diatom (benthic, planktonic) and zoopla

space and time, using the same set of lakes used by Engstrom et alchemical evolution. How: direct measurement of existing biota; inference from remainWhen: 1988-90 (& possibly later) Where: Lakes throughout the park and on Pleasant Island. Who: Olaf Olson, Craig Williamson, the Engstrom team Refs: Olson, O. 1998. Mechanisms of Long-term Change in PeripStructure. PhD thesis, Lehigh U. (I haven’t seen this ref.)

Olson, O. G., D. R. Engstrom, et al. (1995). Long-term chan

community structure inferred from chronosequence of lakes in GlaAlaska. Third Glacier Bay Science Symposium, Glacier Bay NatioU.S. National Park Service.  Williamson, C. et al. 2001. Ultraviolet radiation and ZooplaStructure Following Deglaciation in Glacier Bay, Alaska. EcologComments: Uses same lakes as does Engstrom. Lakes shown on relocate. Careful work that is in large part replicable; could becomup due to ozone depletion. 

Lake Hydrology/Chemistry Relationships, Lester Island 

No(B1) Yes? 

(A1?,B?) 

What: Details of water input type and pattern as determinant of wHow: Piezometers, and weirs on inlet streams Where: Three small lakes on Lester Island When: not specified, but probably 1988 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-21 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Who: Jim Almendinger Ref: Almendinger, J. E. (1990). Hydrologic control of lake chemiSecond Glacier Bay Science Symposium, Glacier Bay National PaNational Park Service.Comments: Lakes are specified, but details of design not specifiedpresented. Water quality data given in Engstrom study (see aboveprovide more details on hydrology & monitoring scheme, probablespecially in concert with other Engstrom stuff. 

Lake Productivity with Relation to Sockeye production 

No (B1) Yes (A1,B) What: Measurement of nutrient levels, light penetration, chloroph

zooplankton populations How: Standard methodology for each parameter. When: 1990 (May & Aug) – 1991(4 times, June-Aug) Where: Berg bay north upper and lower lakes; Vivid lake. Who: Sandy Milner Ref: Milner, A. 1992. Lake Productivity with Relation to SockeyGLBA. UAA, Anchorage. Comments: Methods well spelled out. Sufficient samplings to allosummer conditions in the lakes. 

 Impacts (including fishing) Bartlett River Coho Creel Survey No (B2) Yes (A1,B) What: Survey of coho catch 

How: Creel survey Where: Bartlett River When: 1996-98, 20 days/yr over ~45 day season. Who: Chad Soiseth, Kathy Smikrud Ref: Soiseth, C. and L. Adamson (1998). Glacier Bay National PRiver Recreational Fishing survey and bear education campaign, 1National Park Service, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. Comments: Draft in progress by Soiseth, currently incorporating NWill likely be published as NPS WRD technical publication. Chaconfidence limits for the catch data; major changes in total catch wnoted by a re-survey. CPUE, however, is more tightly constrained
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-22 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

measure against which to contrast change. 

Charter Sportfishing Logbook Program Yes (A2,B2) Yes? 

(A1?,B) 

What: Survey of marine and freshwater charter and guided client eHow: creel survey When: 1995-Present Where: Park-wide including Preserve Who: Chad Soiseth Ref: Access data table exists. Data queries exist but data has not yno final/annual summary exists Comments: If treated in aggregate, may give a reasonable sample trends for period of record. Should allow some level of comparisoEffort, catch and harvest are self-reported by charter captains with assessment of accuracy. Data accuracy and reliability are suspect aindividuals is known to be inconsistent and probably not very reliasignificant recall bias likely exists. 

Dundas/ Seclusion River Charter Harvest 

Yes (B2) Yes? 

(A1?,B) 

What: Survey of coho and Dolly Varden catch How: creel survey When: 1997-2000, 7-26 visits/yr Where: Dundas/Seclusion River Who: Chad Soiseth Ref: Data in project tracking, summarized but not statistically treaComments: 50-140 anglers contacted. If treated in aggregate, masample of harvest and CPUE for that general period. Should allow comparison to a future survey. . This is part of a longer term (sinccatch and harvest monitoring program of permitted charter operatoreporting were self-reported by charter anglers and data accuracy aconsidered suspect by Chad. 

Fisheries - Dry Bay No No No data found. Seems to be a general category of Chad’s for keep

BOF activities relative to the fishery 

Dry Bay Subsistence and Personal Use No No Not a subject appropriate to present purposes 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-23 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Terrestrial 

 Bedrock geology Bedrock Geology No No Purpose is to classify and map geologic formations Tectonic Elements and Plutonic Belts No No General description of regional tectonic history 

Landform dynamics 

Collapsing Kame Terrace, Adams No (B1) Yes 

(A2, B) 

What: Detailed measurement of a landform undergoing rapid chaHow: careful field mapping and fixing of elevations Where: SW Adams, White River watershed When,: Summer 1968. Who: Gary McKenzie Ref: McKenzie, G. 1969. Observations on a Collapsing Kame TJ. Glaciology 8(54):413-425. Comments: Very well described and measured. Replicable. If thinto monitoring the evolution of postglacial landforms, this would 

Casement& Burroughs Forelands Landforms

No (B1) Yes (A2,B) What: Detailed mapping of landforms 

How: aerial and foot recon; photos Where: Casement and Burroughs Glacier Forelands When: 1962-63; 1969-70 Who: Roy Welch, Robert Price, Dave Mickelson Refs: Welch, R. 1964. The Form and Origin of Landforms Produof Casement Glacier, Alaska. M.S. Thesis, University of Oklahom Price, R. 1964. Land Forms Produced By Wastage of the CSoutheast Alaska. IPS Rept #9.  Mickelson, D. 1971. Glacial Geology of the Burroughs GlAlaska. IPS Rept #40.  Mickelson, D. M. and N. R. Ham (1995). Thirty years of glBurroughs Glacier, Wachusetts Inlet, Glacier Bay, Alaska. Proc. 3Symp, 1993, Gustavus, Alaska, USNPS. Comments: Each of these studies produced detailed maps and pho
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-24 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

could be monitored for changes over time. Mickleson (1993) pesechronology of studies 

Cave Inventory No No What, where: Survey to locate caves/karst on “Little White Cap” 

Who: Kevin Allred & Wayne Howell. mountain, Dundas. Ref: Report in: K:\Resource Mgmt\Cultural\Caves\Caves Report.

Interstadial Wood - Tree Ring Analyses 

No No What, where: Purpose to reconstruct paleoclimate of glacier Bay 

How: analysis of tree rings Who: Dan Lawson. Ref: Lawson, D., G. Wiles, et al. (2005). A dendroclimatic record last 10,000 years, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve: 2005 PNew Hampshire, U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and EngineerComments: baseline only in the most general sense.

Tidal Inlet Landslide Yes 

(A2,B2) 

PRIME (Aa, Ba) 

What: history and present status of a rock mass poised to slip cataa giant wave, along with modeling of the likely wave. How: precise measurement and description of rock mass, with speand exact position. Permanent GPS stations installed, allowing exof incremental change in position. Where: Tidal Inlet, N shore When: First measurements made 2002; revisited at least once sincWho: Gerald Weiszorek, Roman Motyka Ref: Weiczorek, G. et al. 2003. Preliminary Assessment of a LanHazard: Tidal Inlet, GLBA, AK. USGS Open File Rept 03-100. Comments: The purpose of this work is to allow precise replicatiorock mass’s behavior. And of course this is a critical management 

 Isostatics/Tectonics Rapid Uplift of Southeast Alaska (also includes Tide Gauge Records of Uplift, Uplift and Seismicity) 

Yes (A1,B2) PRIME 

(Aa) 

What: Ice unloading in Glacier Bay during Little Ice Age and subsHow: Precise GPS measurements of uplift rates; estimation of pasinterpretation Where: Throughout park lowlands When: 1999-2004 Who: Chris Larsen, Roman Motyka 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-25 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Ref: Larsen, C et al. 2004. Glacial isostatic Rebound Models for Alaska. Geophys Inst, U Alaska. Powerpoint program and AbstraSymposium, Juneau. Also, Larsen’s thesis is on his website. Comments: Most of this study is historical; however, the precise uhighly replicable, even on a short timescale. 

Gravity Measurements No (B1) Yes (A2,B) What: Gravity measurements 

How: Portable gravimeter Where: Gustavus airport When: 1968-1988 Who: Dave Barnes Ref: Barnes, D. 1990. Gravity, gravity-change and other geophysGlacier Bay National Park and Preserve. Second Glacier Bay ScieBay National Park & Preserve, AK, U.S. National Park Service. Comments: Barnes says that the Gustavus measurements are the ovicinity precise enough to detect decadal gravity changes, if any (nyet). (Gravity measurements are critical in sorting out isostacy frointerpreting uplift) 

Plate Boundary Observatory at Cape Spencer 

Yes (A2,B2) Yes (A1,B) What: Earthscope observatory installation to monitor plate bound

network How: Install precision GPS and strainmeter When: to be installed in 2006 and operated indefinitely Where: Cape Spencer Who: Michael Jackson, Kyle Bohnenstiehl, Ben Pauk Ref: Permit application in park electronic files Comments: An excellent monitoring subject 

Fairweather Fault Monitoring – 1960’s 

No (1) Yes? 

(A2?,B?) 

What: Survey of landform changes and microearthquatke activity How: site visit and seismograph recording When: June 1968. Where: East of Crillon Lake Who: Robert Page Refs: Page, R. The Fairweather Fault Ten Years After the Southe1958. Unpublished report in Barco library Archives.  Page, R. 1969. “The Fairweather fault ten years after the souof 1958.” Seismological Society of America Bulletin 59(5): 1927-
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-26 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Comments: Observation site probably cannot be precisely relocatdescriptions & photos, and since scarp was cut into soil, traces of tbe very obscure. However, probably replicable record of microea

Fairweather Fault Monitoring –modern 

Yes? (B2?) Yes (A1,B) What: lateral crustal motions relative to the Fairweather (and Cha

How: Precise GPS monitoring Where: Throughout park lowlands When: 1999-2004 Who: Chris Larsen, Roman Motyka, David Freymueller Ref: Larsen, C et al. 1994. Tectonics of Southeast Alaska. GeopFairbanks. Powerpoint presentation at 4th GB Sci Symposium Comments: Precision work; definitely replicable. Note relationshiabove 

 Glaciers Glacial Thinning Yes 

(A1,B2) 

PRIME (Ab) 

What: precise documentation of the surface elevations of selected detect changes in their rates of ablation & accumulation. How: remote sensing from satellites and aircraft When: last several years & ongoing, with retrospective based on uWhere: A series of glaciers around the park, including Muir, CaseBrady [and others]. Who: Keith Echelmeyer. Refs: Arendt, A., K. et al. 2002. Rapid wastage of Alaska glacierrising sea level. Science 297:382-386. Comments: Data specific to Glacier Bay are “soon to be publisheEtherington. This work is of the first importance as background to changes in park ecosystems. 

Glacier Change Photography Yes (A1,B1) PRIME 

(Aa,b) 

What: Monitoring the position of glacier termini in the park] How: Establishment and reoccupation of ground-based photo staWhen: 1926 – present Where: Many glaciers throughout park Who: W.O. Field & son, Austin Post, Bruce Molnia, David HarriRefs: Field, W.O. Glacier Bay Ice Termini Photos & observationreports in NPS Library Archives 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-27 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

 Post, A. photo collection in his private library and USGS a Streveler, G & S. Brown. 1997. Recommendations for CoW.O. Field Photostations. Icy Str. Env. Svcs. Rept to NPS  Clague, J. & S. Evans. 1993. Historic Retreat of Grand paGlaciers, St. Elias Mountains., Canada. J. Glaciology 39(133):619Comments: Bruce Molnia has taken this project over; to my knowreport, but results are on a website.

Glacier Dynamics No No What,where: History of glacial advance retreat in Glacier Bay dur

Who: Dan Lawson; Cathy Connor, Greg Streveler Comments: not relevant to the present purposes 

Glacier Mass Balance in relation to Climate and conditions at the terminus 

No (B1) PRIME 

(Aa,b,c) 

What: Multivariate study of bathymetry, topography, climate and How: bringing together much existing data and collecting original Inlets on details of sediment flux and micro bathymetry. Where: Glaciated parts of park, with particular emphasis on Tarr When: 1990-1992  Who: Lewis Hunter, Ross Powell Ref: Hunter, L. 1994. Grounding-line Systems and Glacier Mass Temperate Glaciers and their Effect on Glacier Stability. Ph.D. Th Hunter, L. E. and R. D. Powell (1995). Climatic controls on Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Alaska. Proceedings of thScience Symposium, Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve, AK, Service. Comments: synopsis of AAR positions over time is a very useful with the Echelmeyer work (see also comments in climate section)

Crillon Glacier Studies No (B1) Yes 

(A2, B) 

What: Measurements of ice flow, air temperature, lake depths, froHow: flow rates by theodolite on fixed markers and ice frontal feasoundings; temps by thermograph. Where: Crillon Lake vicinity When: 1933-34, 36; 1961. Who: Dick Goldthwait, Ian McKellar, Caspar Kronk, Brad WashbRefs: Goldthwait, R. 1936 Crillon glacier Glacial motion sheets, temperature thermograph sheets. Data in Barco Library archives.  Goldthwait, R. et al. 1963. Fluctuations of Crillon Glacier SInt’l Assoc. Sci. Hydrol Bull. 8(1):62-74. (Manuscript in Barco li
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-28 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Comments: Methods well spelled out. The flow rates measured shcomparable to measurements made today. 

Relict Neoglacial Ice - Lituya No No What: Investigated of a drunken forest 

How: Foot & aerial photo recon Where: near Fish Lake, Lituya When: 1973. Who: Austin Post & Greg Streveler Ref: Post, A. & G. Streveler. 1976. Tilted Forest: Glaicological-Vegetated Neoglacial Ice at Lituya Bay, Alaska. Quaternary ReseComments: The itinerary and excavation site for ice is located reathe outer limit of drunken forest at that time. Replicable 

 Soils Soil Development & Chemistry No (B1) Yes (A2,B) What: Soil development along the Glacier Bay (and outer coast) C

How: Soil description on surfaces of various ages When: over many years Where: Mostly along east side of Glacier Bay, but also on outer cWho: cast of thousands Refs: Crocker, R. & J. major. 1955. Soil Development in RelatioSurface Age at Glacier Bay, Alaska. J. Ecology 43:427-448.  Ugolini, F. 1966. Soils. in Goldthwait, et. Soil DevelopmSuccession In a Deglaciated Area of Muir Inlet, Alaska. IPS Rept 

Ugolini, F & D. Mann. 1979. Biopedological Origin of Pea

Alaska. University of Washington.  Ugolini, F. 1980. Soils. In Lituya Bay Environmental SurvMolnia, eds. NPS, Gustavus. 

 Bormann, B. & R. Sidle. 1986. Changes in Productivity an

in a Chronosequence at GLBA, Alaska. J. Ecol (78):561-78.  Stottlemeyer, R. 1988. Effects of Ecosystem Succession oChemistry in Glacier Bay. in Proceedings of the Second Glacier Milner & Wood, eds. NPS, Anchorage.  Hobbie, E. et al. 1993. A Stable Isotopic Investigation of NGlacier Bay, Alaska. in Proceedings of the Third Glacier Bay Sci
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-29 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Engstrom, ed. NPS, Anchorage  Fastie, C. 1994. Two Centuries of Primary Succession at GTest of a Classic Glacial Retreat Chronosequence. Ph.D. Thesis.  Chapin, F., et al. 1994. Mechanisms of Primary Plant SuccDeglaciation at Glacier Bay Alaska. Ecological Monographs 64 (Comments: as a group, these works give a good picture of soil devones whose work is located precisely enough (in the material availapproximately replicable are Ugolini (1966), Chapin, & Fastie. Uthe Weisbrod transects he used are relocatable. 

Microbial Utilization of Salmonderived Nutrients No No What: Change in riparian microbial communities along chronoseq

of nutrient dynamics related in part to presence/absence of salmon How: Sample soils at one site each near mouths of 3 streams for bmolecular analysis. When: 2006 Where: Wolf Point, Ice Valley and Berg Bay South creeks Who: Eran Hood, Scott Gende, Cory Cleveland Ref: project proposal in park electronic files Comments: intended as pilot study to inform a larger proposal to 

 Plants Actinorhizal Rosaceae No No What: Exploration of symbiosis between Dryas and commensal c

Who: Van den Heuvel. Comments: not relevant in present context 

Botrychium Collection No No What: collections of the genus for park and elsewhere to work out 

Who: Mary Stensvold, USFS Comments: not relevant in present context 

Dry Bay Vegetation Yes (B1) Yes (A2, B) What: Part of the GB landcover map effort (see below), with the a

mapping. How: See landcover map, below; in addition, mapped from 1948 protocols to make comparisons over that time period. When: 2004 Where: Preserve Who: Susan Klein did the mapping 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-30 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Ref: The 1996 data is incorporated into the Park Landcover Map; separately Comments: The coarse-grained, somewhat arbitrary (and mappercommunity boundaries preclude use as baseline to detect minor chtime or space will be detected. Photos from ground-truthing are a 

GLBA Plant Inventory No No What: Vascular plant field inventory 

How: Directed site surveys Where: whole park When: 2001-03 Who: Rob Lipkin & crew Ref: Carlson, M & R. Lipkin. 2004. GLBA Vascular Plant Invenreport. ANHP, Anchorage. Comments: This is a key inventory reference, but does not lend it

Landcover Map No (B1) Yes (A2, B) What: Map of plant communities 

How: Mapped from 1996 airphotos with ground-truthing to documpresence/abundance. Accurately located photos from ground-truthWhere: In vegetated regions of park When: Field work, 2004 Who: Jess Grunblatt, Keith Boggs, several others (notably Susan photos) and Koren Bosworth (taxonomy) Ref: Draft map produced as of 5/06. Comments: The coarse-grained, somewhat arbitrary (and mappercommunity boundaries preclude use as baseline to detect minor chtime or space will be detected. Photos and notes from ground-truadjunct. 

Moss Colonization of the Walker Glacier 

No No What: Survey level data in course of working on provenance of th

Who: James Dickson. Comments: not relevant in present context 

Permanent Quadrats at GB - Cooper Yes (A2,B2) Yes (A1,B) What/where: total of nine 1m2 quadrats placed in Teacup Hbr vic

Hugh Miller mouth (3). Hugh Miller quadrats expanded by Juday larger area for statistically valid monitoring of large woody plantsHow: photography and mapping of plants in quadrat When: All monitored by Cooper through his 4th expedition in the 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-31 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

at Hugh Miller subsequently lost (but possibly relocatable). Refs: Cooper, W. 1923. The Recent Ecological History of GlaciIII has plot locations Ecology 4: 93-128;223-246;355-365.  Cooper, W. 1931. A Third Expedition to Glacier Bay, Ala

Cooper, W. 1939. A fourth Expedition to Glacier Bay, Ala

 Juday, G. et al. 1991. Ten Years of Successional Change oPlots. U Alaska Ag & Forest Expt Stn rept to NPS. Comments: These 9 plots are the longest monitored permanent quregion. Of great historical interest, being established by the “fathebut two on an island in Hugh Miller Inlet (Is it possible that the othIan Worley most likely has the data from the interval 1941- 1975 (data). Noble I believe did another occupation in the 1980’s. Judaythe post-Cooper data. Sue Hazlett may be working on this. On thsample size (one square meter), has been greatly augmented by Juprime ranking because I just had to based on the plots’ longevity. 

Permanent Vegetation Study Plots Yes (A2,B2) Yes (A2,B) What: Variations in forest structure and history along the E shore 

historical/ecosystemic implications. How: 10ea 10ha areas used as study areas. 10ea 150m2 plots samppermanently marked. Silvicultural measures made in each; cores famong other, measures, used to reconstruct past stands and history Soil chemistry/structure documented Where: Ten localities from Bartlett Cove to Muir Inlet When: 1987-91; revisited in 1995-6; partially in 2004 - 2005 Refs:Fastie, C. 1994. Two Centuries of Primary Succession at Glaof a Classic Glacial Retreat Chronosequence. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ Fastie, C. 1995. Causes and Ecosystem Consequences of MPrimary Succession at Glacier Bay, Alaska. Ecology 76(6):1899-Comments: Fastie’s plots are marked with metal stakes. Great oppermanent plot establishment. Need to think how to compare with Eglitis/Schultz plot data. 

Primula Biogeography No No What: study looks at genetics of the genus over a broad geograph

samples from GLBA Who :Guggisberg Comments: too cursory 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-32 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Spruce Seedlings Survival No No Seedlings from the Chapin/Fastie study, now all removed Nitrogen Fixers in early Succession No Yes (A1,B) What: mapping of nitrogen fixers on surfaces of two ages in comp

How: Plant mapping in circular plots along a transect along with chemistry. Where: N end of Wachusett Inelt When: Summer, 1991 Who: Steve Kohls, Don Lawrence Ref: Kohls, S. J. and D. B. Lawrence (1995). Nitrogen fixers in esurfaces of two ages at Wachusett Inlet, Glacier Bay National Park Third Glacier Bay Science Symposium, Glacier Bay National Park National Park Service.Comments: Not a large study, but well described and executed. S

Vegetation Mapping, Falls Creek No (B1) Yes 

(A2, B) 

What: Plant community maps, inventory of notable species How: mapping from air photos with abundant ground truthing and Where: Lower Falls Creek watershed and vicinity, including parts after the land trade. When: 1999-2000 Who: Koren Bosworth, Greg Streveler Refs: Bosworth, K & G.Streveler. 1999, 2001. Plant CommunitiSpecies, and Wetlands of the Falls Creek Area. Icy Strait Env. SvElectric, Gustavus. Comments: Somewhat arbitrary (and mapper-specific) nature of mboundaries preclude use as baseline to detect minor change. Large space will be detected; especially valuable given the changes wroudevelopment.. Species list from the various communities gives bcompare arrivals of invasives and possible loss of rare/sensitives. 

Plan Community Analysis – Dixon Harbor Area 

No No What: classification and structure of plant communities 

How: Describe community types from visual impression; test typpresence/abundance sampling of community types, using a protocstudy. Where: Dixon habor – Torch Bay vicinity When: 1973-75 Who: Ian Worley, Greg Streveler Refs: Worley, I & G. Streveler. 1973. Plant Communities. in Dix
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-33 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Survey: final report on the summer phase of 2003 research. StrevGordon. NPS, Juneau.  Worley, I & G. Streveler. 1975. Plant Community Analysis. Biological Survey: final report on the summer phase of 2004 reseaeds. NPS, Juneau.  Worley, I. 1977. Plan Community Analysis. in Dixon Harbfinal report on the summer phase of 2005 research. Streveler & WComments: Thorough characterization, but not sufficiently tied to 

Dryas studies No(B1) No? 

(A1?,B?) 

What: nitrifiying effect of Dryas on surrounding vegetation How: series of obs & experiments on Dryas effects on growth rateespecially cottonwood. When: 1940’s-1950’s Where: bench between Goose and Nunatak Coves Who: Don Lawrence Ref: Lawrence, D. et al. 1967. The Role of Dryas Drummondii iDevelopment Following Ice Recession at Glacier Bay, with SpeciaFixation by Root Nodules. J. Ecol. 55:793-813 Comments: If plots relocatable, would allow revisitation of a numknown since seedlings. Lewis Sharman has large packet of info ab“farm”. behind Goose Cove. 

Forest Community Responses to Bark Beetles 

Yes (B1) PRIME 

(Ac) 

What: Documenting vegetational response to mortality of spruce How: Established 100ea 1m2 plots (for small scale features) & 9 escale ones) When: Established in 1984; partially remapped & re-photographeWhere: Lester, Young, Bartlett Cove, Bartlett River trail Who: Richard Carstensen, Mark Noble, Cathy Pohl Ref: Carstensen, R, et al. 1993. Forest Community Responses to Infestation at Glacier Bay, Alaska, 1984-1993. Unpublished ms in Comments: The 1997 data are unpublished. This work is meticulimportant adjunct to the USFS beetle effects work. 

Mechanisms of Plant Succession No (B1) Yes 

(A1,B) 

What: Sophisticated, multifaceted investigation of the relationshipWhere: along the classic east shore transect from Muir Inlet to BaHow: 4ea 2km2 study areas, within each of which 10 intensive sitparamaters, radiation, life history & growth stage traits of dominan
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-34 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

planted in some experiments and later harvested. When: 1983-87; plantings harvest finished 2004 Who: Terry Chapin, Lars Walker, Chris Fastie, Lewis Sharman Ref: Chapin, F., et al. 1994. Mechanisms of Primary Plant SucceDeglaciation at Glacier Bay Alaska. Ecological Monographs 64 (Comments: VERY IMPORTANT STUDY. Study areas relocatabplant height, max stem diameter replicable. Didn’t give it a PRIMreplicable measures may not be of great interest. 

Primary vs. Secondary Succession No (B2) No? 

 (A2, B?) 

What: Contains some data on nature of wave scar succession at LHow: Verbal description and some quantitative data from a lowlaWhere: Lituya Bay. When: 1977 Who: Don Lawrence Ref: Lawrence, D. 1979. Primary versus Secondary Succession proc. Of 1st Conf on Sci Res in the National Parks. New Orleans, D.C. Comments: Based on one day’s work. Study sites may have been This may be evident in Lawrence’s field notes, which I think are a

Eider Island Vegetation transect No (B1) Yes? 

(A2, B?) 

What: Vegetation transect How: belt transect from top of island to lower limit of plants; transWhere: Eider Island, Beardslee Entrance When: about 1970 Who: Cliff Estabrook, seasonal ranger/nat Ref: Should be report and data in Estabrook’s notes; haven’t founComments: If this work is still around, and if the stakes are still thvaluable though limited baseline against which to measure, for insinvasive species. My recollection is that Estabrook had study sites Beardslee islets N of Forxfarm Island and maybe also on what is n(formerly Ascention Island). 

 Birds Bald Eagle Movement No (B1) No (A1) What: Monitored eagle movements 

How: Tracked movements of 20 Adult and fledgeling eagles by sa
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-35 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

telemetry. When: 1991-1993. Where: Eagles tagged in Glacier Bay; tracked within park and as Prince Rupert. Who: Mary Kralovek Ref: Kralovek, M. 1994? Bald Eagle Movements In and From GPoly, Blacksburg, VA. Comments: Reasonably good sample size and range of ages. If rethe same general areas, should be fair inedicators of changes in ea

Bald Eagle Nest Monitoring Yes (A1,B1) PRIME 

(Ab,Ba) 

What: Eagle Nest location & productivity surveys How: Systematic vessel surveys from offshore, mostly from vesseused helicopter. All surveys enumerated active and inactive nestspresence of eaglets and other immatures as indices of productivityWhere: Glacier Bay When: 1966 – 2002. Who: Mary Kralovek & other NPS (Bren Harrington, Jeff Mow, SLentfer, Annie Farrris); Fred Robards, Stanley Cain & other FWS Refs: Robards, F & J. King. 1966. Nesting and Productivity of BAlaska – 1966. Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife, Juneau.  Wik, O. 1971 field notes, containing survey of eagle nests iGustavus. (I haven’t found these).  Cain, S. 1982. Eagle Population an dNest Survey of glacier USFWS, Juneau.  Jones-Toscano, E et al. 1983. Eagle Nest Survey, GLBA. N Harrington, b. 1975. Eagle Count. NPS, Gustavus. (Nest mlost, but productivity data in report). 

 Lentfer, H. & A. Meier. 1989. Survey of the 1989 Breedin

the Beardslee Islands in GLBA, Alaska. NPS/RM, Gustavus.  Mow, J. 1989. Bald Eagle Report – 1989. NPS, Gustavus Cain survey made as result of ranger obs.)  Farris, A. 1990. 1990. Survey of the 1990 Breeding Bald EBeardslee Islands in Glacier Bay, Alaska. NPS, SCA Volunteer.  Kralovek, M. 1989. Bald Eagle Nest Tree Survey and Data Kralovek, M. 2002. Bald Eagle Productivity and Nest Distr
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-36 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Characteristics in GLBA, 1994-2002. Abstract, 4th GB Science Sy (Couldn’t find other survey that has been done by NPS, (by Comments: The Robards survey was reasonably thorough. The Cthorough and made moreso by ranger work in ’89. Mow & Jones sThe Beardslees, especially, have been repetitively and thoroughly especially are quite replicable. 

Diversity and Relative Abundance of Songbirds 

No No? 

(A1?,B?) 

What: breeding landbird surveys; in 1997, also include woody vegHow: Standard breeding bird survey protocols (listening/viewing all woody stems enumerated in 20 5m circular plots along each ceWhan: 1997-98 Where: Upland vegetation of Wachusett, Adams, Mid-Lower Muillustrate a successional sequence (1997); Riparian vegetation to talong salmon vs. non-salmon streams, Geikie, Fingers, Spokane (1Who: Mary Willson, Scott Gende, Jeff Nichols Ref: Willson, M. F. and S. M. Gende (1998). Breeding landbird sGBNPP, U.S. National Park Service, Glacier Bay National Park an Willson, M. F. and J. V. Nichols (1997). Breeding landbird sBay, U.S. National Park Service, Glacier Bay National Park and PComments: Methods reasonably clear, location of study transects rather approximate in literature available, but may be better in invrigorous. Possibly reliable for baselines; in concert with Trautmanespecially Saracco they provide a reasonable picture that could be sense. 

Goshawk Habitat No No Who: Mary Kralovek. 

Comments : study never happened 

Landbird Abundance, Community Composition 

No? (A1) No? 

( A1?,B) 

What: Bird abundance and community composition related to variforest habitats. How:57 variable circular plot point bird counts conducted along 1stratified random sampling; vegetative community composition analong perpendicular transects centered on each point. Where: Transects scattered through bay and Excursion Ridge When: June 2004 Who: Jim Saracco, Scott Gende Comments: Methods rigorous and repeatable, but data rather thin
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-37 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

proposed larger study. 

Landbirds in Riparian Vegetation No (B1) Yes (A1,B) What: Bird species richness and abundance in relation to riparian 

the American portions of trans-mountain rivers in SE Alaska How: Stratified random sampling of vegetation; point counts of biprotocols Where: Major rivers, including the Alsek in GLBA When: Summer 2005? Who: Jim Johnson, Bob Christensen Ref: Johnson, J. 2005. Relationship between Breeding Bird ComVegetation of Southeast Alaska. Powerpoint program supplied by Comments: Data for plant community structure and bird distributireplicable. Sample sites are GPS’d 

Burroughs Songbird survey No No What: Brief survey of passerines 

How: 4 hr foot survey in 3 sample areas Where: Burroughs Glacier Forelands When, July 1991 Who: Susan Spackman Ref: Spackman, S. 1991. Distribution of Passerines along a 50 yeGlacier Bay, Alaska. (Streveler files) Comments: brief but rigorous. Transect approximately relocatablstudies from this critically shrinking habitat (But see Willson & G

Outer Coast Upland Bird Surveys No (B1) Yes? 

(A1,B?) 

What: Survey of avifauna How: General observation; occupation of 5ea. 500m transects 9 tirecorded according to a standard protocol at 50 m intervals & vegeWhere: Dixon Harbor vicinity. Justice Creek to Topsy Creek; LituWhen: summer, 1974; early summer, 1976-77. Who: Sam Patten, Dick Weisbrod Ref: Patten, S. 1974. Birds. In Dixon Harbor Biological SurveyNPS, Gustavus.  Weisbrod, A. 1980. Birds. In Lituya Bay Environmental S& Molnia, eds. NPS, Gustavus. Comments: These are the most comprehensive and rigorous of seassociated with the Dixon harbor & Lituya work. Nothing related replicable at Dixon Harbor. The Lituya transects may be precisely 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-38 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

were marked with permanent metal tags and related to mining claiMethodology is well described and quite similar to modern FWS nprotocols. 

Marbled Murrelet Dawn Watches No No What, Where: Surveys of murrelet nesting behavior at Bartlett Cov

How: standard protocols Who: Rusty Yerxa, Judy Rice Refs: Rice, J. 1996. Marbled Murrelet Assessment for the BartleExperience Enhancement and Opportunity Expansion. NPS, Denv Yerxa, R. 1999. Report on Marbled Murrelet Dawn Watch1999, at Bartlett Cove, GLBA, Alaska. NPS/RM, Gustavus Comments: Yerxa utilized some of the same sites, and the same eby Rice; the results are comparable, but based on scanty overlappioccupations). Purposes of work were to provide opportunity for a assess potential road improvement impacts, not to provide a monitmost sites monitored have been subsequently altered by developm

Birds of the Falls Creek Area No No What: Generally qualitative survey of upland birds; assessment of 

and use How: keeping of general notes; directed survey of habitat potentiaroute, using standard protocols. Where: Falls creek development area When: 1999-2000 Who: Hank Lentfer, Greg Streveler Refs: Lentfer, H. & G. Streveler. 1999. Birds of the Falls Creek Svcs. Rept to Gustavus Electric, Gustavus. Comments: Murrelet work replicable in theory, but most of area nconstruction. 

Molting goose surveys No No What, how: Counting & banding of molting geese 

Where: Adams, predominantly, but also elsewhere, such as in WeWho: USFWS banding effort in Adams in early ‘60’s by FWS and by NPS over the years; also see Calambokidis. Refs: Robards, F. 1960. Construction of a Portable Goose trap. 331. (Some GB data, but I can’t find the main FWS report)  Calambokidis, J. 1983. Biology and Behavior of Molting CBay, Alaska. Cascade Research collective, Olympia. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-39 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

 Taylor, M. 1984. Survey of Molting Canada Geese in AdamComments: This work has seriously lapsed, despite the possibility remain one of the major molting grounds in SE. There are numeroespecially, in staff field notes (if these still exist). 

Muir Inlet Upland Birds – 1960’s No (A1,B1) No? 

(A1?,B?) 

What: Bird distribution and abundance How: Numerous observations by 3 good observers. In case of Trareoccupation of a series of upland stations in various lowland habiWhere: eastern Muir Inlet When: summer, 1962-1967 Refs: Wik, O. 1967. Birds of Glacier Bay National Monument.  Trautman, M. 1966. Birds in Goldthwait, et. Soil DevelopSuccession In a Deglaciated Area of Muir Inlet, Alaska. IPS Rept  Welch, R. 1965. Ecological Observations in the Muir InleIPS Rept #15. Comments: The volume of observations, antiquity, and number orecord of considerable interest if not directly replicable. TrautmanCasement to Muir Point is grossly reoccupiable and is the closest birds from that period. 

 Mammals Bear Activity and Habitat Assessment Yes (A1,B1) Yes (A2,B) What: Assessment of bear habitrat and activity levels in areas of m

constructing a history of bear-human interactions How: Activity assessed by reading of sign, video camera installatHabitat quality assessed by veg plots, scat analysis, plant nutrient analysis of hair. Spacio-temporal history constructed from park dWhere: Eight areas of management concern along central and uppdue to suspected high human and bear use, long term camping clonumbers of historical bear-human conflicts. Who: Tania Lewis, Steve Partridge, Tom Smith. When 2000-2005, repeated visits June-August Refs: Lewis, T. Bear Activity and Habitat Assessment Project; 20NPS/RM, Gustavus.  Lewis, T. 2006. Bear Activity and Habitat Assessment Pro
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-40 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Report. NPS/RM, Gustavus. (Final report in prep by Steve PartriComments: Purpose is to inform park management decisions by qactivity levels in areas of concern, including Sandy Cove and Tarr Some aspects, such as habitat mapping and sign distribution, are sthey could provide a general baseline if applied to larger areas rathHaving said that, the site photos and vegetation plots are relocatabconsidered along with other relocatable veg plots (e.g., Cooper, Faof potential monitoring opportunities. 

Bear Sightings and Incidents No No What: RM database on bear sightings and incidents 

How: opportunistic (some, such as obs from tourboat are somewhWhen: Going back to before the 1960’s Where: Throughout park Who: anyone, but mainly park staff. Comments: Give very general insight into changes over time. Soon these data (see bear impact study for examples) sharpen the patmonitoring in the context of such studies, but not stand-alone. 

Moose Population Assessment Yes 

(A1, B2) 

PRIME  (Aa, Ba) 

What: Management background research on population dynamicscondition, and movements of moose How: coordinated fabric of aerial surveys checked by mark/recaptbody fat, analysis of reproductive tracts of hunted animals, monitoconsumption on willow transects and plots, direct observation of fexclosures, tracking of GPS-tagged cows Where: on the Gustavus forelands and vicinity When: Surveys since the late “80’s; intensive science since about Who: Kevin White, Neil Barten Refs: Barten, N. et al. 2002. Strategic Plan for Management of MForelands, Unit 1(c), 2001-2005. AFG, Juneau.  White, K et al. 2004. Effects of food-limitation on an IrrupPopulation in the Gustavus Forelands, Alaska. Abstract, 4th GB SJuneau.  White, K. 2006. Powerpoint presentation provided by inveComments: Disciplined work. Willow mensuration data from permhighly repeatable, as are body condition indices; population censuconfidence limits, requiring mark/”recapture” of tagged animals) r
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-41 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

index for total herd size (herd composition less so). 

Patterns of Nest Predation by Red Squirrels 

No No Who: Willson, Gende 

Comments: Study didn’t happen here, though one in Juneau area 

Water Shrew Taxonomic Status No No Who: Olson. 

Comments: Didn’t catch any water shrews 

Bear surveys, Falls Creek shore Yes (B1) Yes (A2,B) What: Spring Black Bear (and other mammal) use of the shore zo

How: Direct observation and track analysis Where: Super habitat NW of Falls Creek mouth, When: 1997-1999 Who: Greg Streveler Refs: Streveler, G. 1997,1998. Bear and Other Wildlife Usage ospring 1997-98. Icy Strait Env. Svcs. Repts to Gustavus Electric, G Lentfer, H. & G. Streveler. 1999. Mammals of the Falls Cr1999. Icy Strait Env. Svcs. Rept to Gustavus Electric, Gustavus. Comments: Track analysis and # individuals seen provides a good along that shore. 

Endicott Gap Large Mammal Survey No No What: General survey of large mammal distribution & abundance, 

to trans-boundary movements How: sign analysis, sightings Where: Endicott Gap area When: late 1970’s Who: Greg Streveler, Leigh Smith. Ref: Streveler, G. P. and L. Smith (1987). Endicott Gap large mamNational Park Service, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve: 1Comments:. Ballpark estimate of population sizes and movement sign. Not intended to be replicable, and it ain’t 

Brown Bears of the upper West Arm No(B1) Yes (A1,B) What: Habitat descriptions, estimate of the abundance of brownies 

Where: The Tarr/Hopkins area How: Scat collection and analysis, sign interpretation; track size aWhen: summer, 1988 1989, 1991 Who: Janet Warburton, David Wolfe Refs: Warburton, J. 1988. A background Survey of the DistributHabitats of Brown Bears in the West Arm of Glacier Bay. NPS/R
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-42 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

 Wolfe, D. 1989. Brown Bears of the Upper West Arm of Gnumbers, Movement patterns and Habitat Usage. NPS/RM  Duncan, T. & L. Climo. 1991. Brown Bear Use of BeacheArea, GLBA, in 1991. NPS/RM Comments: Warburton methods not sufficiently constrained to be job as is possible with track analysis. Result treated statistically. Replicable, and would be a useful extension of baseline of later stumore cursory, but track analysis directly comparable to first two stprovides a reasonably repeatable view of bear populations in this a

Dixon Harbor Large Mammal Survey No Yes (A2,B) What: Survey of mammals weasel sized & up 

How: Observation, track & scat analysis Where: Dixon Harbor – Torch Bay vicinity When: 1973-75; 1991 Who: Greg Streveler, Lewis Sharman, Hank Lentfer Refs: Streveler, G. 1973. Larger Mammals. in Dixon Harbor Bioreport on the summer phase of 2003 research. Streveler, Worley, Juneau.  Streveler. 1975. Larger Mammals. in Dixon Harbor Biologon the summer phase of 2004 research. Streveler & Worley, eds.  Streveler, G. 1977. Larger Mammals. in Dixon Harbor Bioreport on the summer phase of 2005 research. Streveler & Worley Sharman, L & H. Lentfer. 1991. 1991Dixon Harbor BiologiGustavus. Comments: Most material too qualitative to repeat. However, for goats, the population estimates, derived over three years for a sma(and in the case of wolves, corroborated by Home’s winter work) Sharman’s & Lentfer’s work provides good comparisons for wolvnot goats. They make many comparisons of behavior, distribution other species that allow at least general conclusions about decadal such changes have been substantial. 

Wolf Pack Ecology/Sensitivity No (A1) Yes? 

(A2?, B) 

What: Detailed snapshot of one wolf pack’s use of Adams Inlet How: Extensive foot travel along wolf use routes, observation of scats. Where: South half of Adams Inlet watershed 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-43 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

When, July 1993 Who: Brad Meiklejohn Ref: Meiklejohn, B. 1993. Ecology and Sensitivity to Human Diat GLBA< Alaska. U. Vermont Field Naturalist Program Report. Comments: Our only coherent data on wolves in the Glacier Bay work are replicable if a pack should set up again in the same area: of the diet and the general use patterns. 

Mountain Goat Surveys No(B1) PRIME 

(Bd) 

What: Survey of most vegetated alpine, from timberline to 4000 fHow: 1983, snowshoe survey; 1985, systematic survey via helicoWhere: 1983, Adams; 1985, Glacier Bay watershed & adjacent paWhen: March, 1983; July 8-14, 1985 Who: Gary Vequist, Layne Adams Refs: Vequist, G. 1983. Population Changes of Mountain Goats iBarCo library.  Adams, L. & G. Vequist. 1986. Mountain Goat Survey, GResource & Inventory Report. AR 86-03. Comments: 1985 work highly replicable. All data given in detailUsed protocols that allow direct comparison with ADF&G data froreport gives figures for Adams going back to 1968, for valleys thagoats in them. 

Wolf predation on Mountain Goats No(A1) No? 

(A2?,B) 

What: Analysis of several hundred wolf scats Where: from park (mostly outer coast) and elsewhere How: analysis done by eyeball in field for most part When: late ‘70’s & early ‘80’s Who: Joe Fox, Greg Streveler Ref: Fox, J. & G. Streveler. 1986. Wolf Predation on Mountain GMamm. 67(1):192-195. Comments: paints a picture of wolf food habits that is replicable ominor dietary items could have been missed. 

Moose Survey, Adams Inlet No(B1) Yes 

(A2, B) 

What: History of Moose in Adams, notably including description How: Aerial surveys, Protocol described reasonably well. Gives which was totally censused. Where: Adams Inlet watershed. When: Late winter 1984,85,86. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-44 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Who: Gary Vequist Ref: Vequist, G. 1986. Colonization of Post-glacial Plant CommuAdams  Inlet, GLBA. Paper given at Interagency Moose Conference, AncNPS/RM Comments: I once saw a copy of Gary’s flight-lines in the files. Isurvey would be replicable; if not, then at least the survey of Adam

Space/habitat use by moose in relation to OHV’s 

No No What: How do OHV trails and use affect moose distribution & ha

How: compared 9,752 collared moose locations with trail distribuheavy OHV use. Where: Forelands outside preserve to the northwest When: data from 2003-04 Who: Sanjay Pyare & Winston Smith Refs: Pyare, S & W. Smith. 2005. Space use and habitat Use by OHV routes on the Yakutat Forelands: preliminary results of a GIconducted for th US Forest Service. Comments: Not directly relevant to park, except that some collarelocations the preserve. 

Moose Effects on Soil Nutrient Dynamics 

No No What: Soil differences in browsed and unbrowsed willow thickets 

How: Soil assays in ADF&G browse monitoring sites and exclosuplots) Where: Gustavus When: 2004 Who: Eran Hood, Amy Miller, Kevin White Ref: Hood, E. et al. 2004. Effects of Moose Foraging on Soil NuForelands, Alaska. Abstract, 4th GB Science Symposium, Juneau. Comments: Reconniassance level study with not enough replicatebaseline. 

Small mammal studies (mice, voles, shrews) 

No Yes? 

(A1,B?) 

What: Survey of mammals on East side of Muir Inlet, the lower oand Sandy Cove Islands & associated mainland. How: generally based on trapping, with varying degrees of rigor Where, when: various park localities & times Who: Gene Good, Carol Terry, Cliff Estabrook, Bea VanHorne, SRefs: Good, E. 1966. Mammals. in Goldthwait, et. Soil Develop
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-45 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Succession In a Deglaciated Area of Muir Inlet, Alaska. IPS Rept  Estabrook. C. 1968. Summary of Small mmmals Collected Season, GLBA. Seasonal Ranger Report  Terry, C. 1977. Small Mammals in Dixon Harbor Biologithe summer phase of 1975 research. Streveler & Worley, eds, NPproduced a Ph.D thesis from the U Kansas)  Van Horne, B. 1977. Small Mammal Populations in Glacieof results for summer, 1976. Draft report, Oregon State U.  Terry, C. 1980. Small Mammals in Lituya Bay EnvironmenWorley, & Molnia, eds. NPS, Juneau  Terry, C. 1981. Population Fluctuation in the Arvicolidae (relationships to “microtine cycles”. Ph.D. Thesis, U. Kansas.  Antell, S 1987. Systematics and Zoogeography of MammalDissertation, Washington State U. Comments: Study by Terry in the Dixon harbor area is particularlon 3 years’ data and related to approximately relocatable sites; it isense. The other studies cannot be considered replicable, though tinsights into the small mammals of their respective areas. Antell’reviewing specimens of Terry’s. 

 Amphibians Western Toad Inventory No 

(B1) 

Yes? (A2?,B) 

What: Toad survey of four areas in park. How: Foot survey, filling out forms on potential habitat for 19 poWhere: Taylor-Dundas lowland, Ripple cove moraine, lower BartWhen: June, 2004 Who: Richard Carstensen, Bob Christensen, Cheryl Van Dyke,PyRefs: Carstensen, R. 2004. Summary Thoughts on Glacier Bay Tto NPS  Christensen, B. 2004. Monitoring Western Toad Populatio4th GB Science Symposium, Juneau. Comments: Small sample of the park, but searched systematically gross abundance. 

Opportunistic amphibian survey No No What/how: Collection of amphibian distribution/abundance recor
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-46 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

environs. When: principally 2001-03, but also looking at historical records Who: Blain Anderson. Refs: Anderson, B. 2004. an Opportunistic Survey of AmphibianParks. NPS, Anchorage  Anderson, B. 2004. An Opportunistic Amphibian InventorParks, 20001-03. Abstract, 4th GB Science Symposium, Juneau. Comments: Compilation of records; not intended to be replicable, compendium of records as adjunct to the Carstensen study (see ab

Boareal Toad as a Successional Animal 

No No What: Ecological characterization, with particular reference to hab

dispersal capability. How: general observation and some experimentation on tolerance Where: Glacier Bay watershed When: 1981-82. Ref: Taylor, M. 1983. The Boreal Toad as a Successional AnimaM.S. Thesis, U Cal Hayward. Comments: Many interesting qualitative observations, useful for prough abundance in a number of generally described localities, buquantification. 

 Invertebrates Spruce Beetle Effects Yes ( B1) PRIME 

(Aa) 

What: Monitoring progress of beetle infestation in terms of tree mstand structure & understory composition. How: fourty five 1/5 acre permanent plots in lower GB, within wand beetle density measures made. When: Work begun 1982; revisits yearly until 1988, then 1992 & 05; GPS’d then. Refs: Eglitis, A. 1982. Biological Evaluation R10-82-1, Spruce BAnchorage.  Eglitis, A. 1988. Spruce Beetle in GLBA: 1987 update. USR10-89-1.  Schultz, M. 2001. Changing Forest Structure & CompositiSpruce Beetle Mortality Plots. USFA Biological Eval. R10-TP-9
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-47 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

 Schultz, M. 2004. Spruce Beetle and Forest Structure in GLterm plots. Abstract. 4th GB Science Symposium, Juneau. Comments: Especially in conjunction with Carstensen/Noble’s wosection”) this forms an extremely important baseline. As in many location data from investigators. 

Insects along Muir Inlet Chronosequence 

No No What: Insect survey 

How: general collecting When: 1965 Where: along Muir Inlet Who: David DeLong Ref: DeLong, D. 1966. in Goldthwait, et. Soil Development and a Deglaciated Area of Muir Inlet, Alaska. IPS Rept #20. Comments: Our earliest and still broadest & most detailed study oalso see Mann, below, from the outer coast), but unfortunately not 

Ice worm ecology/physiology No No What: Iceworm distribution, behavior, physiology, food habits. 

How: Disciplined observation and measurement of rel. densities onear glacier. Densities on one quadrat observed quantitatively oveWhere: Casement Glacier When: Summer 1967 Who: Dan Goodman Ref: Goodman, D. 1971. Ecological Investigation of Ice Worms Alaska. Inst. Polar Studies Rept #39. Comment: If the glacier weren’t changing so rapidly, some of the would be replicable. Perhaps the most useful thing is his delimitatglacier where iceworms were noted; these could be checked to see there, but the answer is probably trivial, as they will eventually be 

Outer Coast Insects& Spiders No No What: surveys of Carabid beetles and spiders. 

How: general collecting; pit traps When: 1977-1981 Where: Lituya Forelands Who: Dan Mann Refs: Mann, D. 1980. Terrestrial Arthropods. In Lituya Bay EnvStreveler, Worley & Molnia eds. NPS, Gustavus  Mann, D. 1983. The Quaternary History of the Lituya Glac
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-48 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Ph.D. Thesis, University of Washington. Comments: Our only information on terrestrial inverts for the outto be replicable. 

 General (Incl ecology/succession) Johns Hopkins Inlet Landslide No No Documentation of a single mass wasting event by a park visitor Park and Wilderness Boundaries No No A map exercise Vegetation & Wildlife of Gustavus No Yes 

(A2, B) 

What: surveys of birds and mammals along Gustavus shores; genwildlife/habitat relationships; observations of crane numbers & hamigration; detailed vegetation mapping; mapping of human trails, How: Repeated foot surveys along shore at low and high tide, usito the tide. Fall counts of cranes and their habitat selection. Where: All of Gustavus, with special attention to the Critical HabiWhen: fall/winter 1981-81; fall 1982; summer/fall 2002-03 Who: Greg Streveler, Craig matkin, Judy Brakel Ref: Streveler, G. & C. Matkin. 1983. A preliminary Eavaluation & Habitats on Gustavus Beaches and Dude Creek Uplands. Gulf Gustavus, Rept to ADF&G.  Streveler et al. 2003. Gustavus Plant Communities: their ComUse by Fish, Wildlife and People. Icy Strait Env. Svcs. rept to ThGustavus.  Streveler et al. Sandhill Crane Use of the Dude Creek CHA DStrait Env Svcs rept to ADF&G, Gustavus. Comments: Protocols generally well described. Crane counts and but not structured to allow calculation of confidence limits. Veg, mapping is constrained by reference to many natural landmarks; threplicable parts of this work. 

Biological Inventory of Selected NPS & Adjacent Lands 

No No What, how: General Biological inventory 

Where: non-marine portions of the Bartlett Cove, Gustavus and InWhen: 1995 Who: Greg Streveler, Bruce Paige, Koren Bosworth. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-49 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Ref: Streveler, G et al. 1995. Biological Inventory of Selected PCove, Gustavus and Indian Point Areas, Southeast Alaska. Icy StrDenver. Comments: General synopsis of vegetation & vertebrates of these 

Winter Birds & Mammals, Dixon Harbor 

No No What: Presence, general abundance and habits of Birds and Mam

How: Daily observation Where: Dixon harbor vicinity When: Nov 1993 – March 1994, November 1994 – May 1995 Who: Scott (Sappington) Home Ref: Home, W. 1977. Ecology of Overwintering Mammals and Bof GLBA, Alaska. University of Alaska, Fairbanks rept to NPS Comments: Observations, though protracted and careful, are not callow replication. However, they do provide good estimates for thpatterns of certain species, notably canids and birds generally in T

 Impacts Camper Impacts No (B1) Yes (A2,B) What: Survey of campsite areas to determine relative degree of de

point of view How: Chose areas most frequented by campers; developed a protodetractions from wilderness character. (Attempted but largely abaecological impacts) When: 2001-2002 Where: Throughout Glacier Bay Who: Tania Lewis & Nat Drumheller Ref: Smith, et al. 2002? Bear-Human Interactions at GLBA: ConUSGS/NPS, Anchorage.  Lewis, T & N. Drumheller. 2003. Wilderness Camp ImpactImpacts On the Shoreline of Glacier Bay. Draft Final Rept, NPS/R Lewis, T, et al. 2004. Wilderness Camping in Glacier Bay: to Shoreline habitat. Abstract, 4th GB Science Symposium, JuneauComments: Sample sites located precisely in park database; protoavoid observer-specific judgements to a large degree. Should be respecially useful. In many sites, vegetative conditions will rapidly 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-50 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

configuration & desirability; thus site-specific comparisons will haterm. However, overall campsite conditions could be compared o

Dry Bay ATV Impacted Wetlands Inventory 

No (B1) Yes (A2,B) What: Inventory of ATV effects on wetlands 

How: 40 GPS’s point locations where trails cross wetlands photogm plots, soil examined Where: Dry Bay When: 2006 Who: Bud Rice Comments: No report yet, but based on conversation with Bill E, work; point photos especially useful. 

Off Highway Vehicle Tracks Inventory Yes (A1,B1) Yes (A2,B) What: GIS layer mapping ATV tracks 

How: plotting them to ~3m accuracy from air photos with ground When: 2001-03-06 Where: Dry Bay Who: Bill Eichenlaub Comments: Precise work that is highly replicable 

Exotic Plant Inventory & ControlGLBA Yes (A2,B2) Yes (A2,B) What: Invasive plant surveys and limited eradication How: Systematically and opportunistically searched for invasives

practicable; described and delimited all exotic patches by GPS witdetect annual changes. When: 2003 - ongoingWhere: Focused on the Bartlett Cove area with secondary emphasBeardselee Islands; and visits to other sites included Dundas Bay, Arm, and mid-bay islands. Who: Jeff Heys, Whitney Rapp Refs: Heys, J. & C. McKee. 2004. Exotic Plant Survey of GLBASeason Report. NPS/RO & USGS/BRD 

 Rapp, W. 2005. Invasive Plant Management in GLBA, Gu

Field Season Report. NPS/RM. 

Man-made disturbances inventory No (B1) Yes (A2,B) What/how: Brief report and 30 or so photos of various vegetative 

and refuse. Where: scattered along shore of the bay When: 1970-71 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-51 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Who: Ole Wik, seasonal ranger Ref: Wik, O. Undated. Man-made Distrubances in Glacier Bay aphotographic report. NPS, Gustavus Comments: At least a dozen of the photos are of relocatable sites. structures of historic interest. Wik is a superb observer. There is library by Kim Heacox of some interest in this context. 

Bear Campsite Assessment No (B1) Yes (A1,B) What: Habitat & encounter risk assessment for bears & people at w

How: Mine park records for distribution of incidents, camper distcampsites in terms of quality of bear habitat, encounter potential adisplacement Where: Glacier Bay When: 2001-02. Who: Tom Smith, Terry DeBruyn, Tania Lewis, Allison Banks, RPartridge, Nat Drumheller. Ref: Smith, T & T. Lewis. 2002. Risk Assessment of Bear-HumaCampsites within GLBA, Alaska: 2001 year end report. . USGS,  Smith, T. et al. 2004. Bear-Human Interaction at GLBA: CoAbstract. 4th GB Science Symposium, Juneau. Comments: No final report prepared yet. Based on the abstract anI’d judge that at a minimum the site photos, habitat evaluations an“permanent” wildlife trails are useful in the present context. Statisreported yet, but in Tania’s view, the work is replicable. 

Marine 

 Oceanography/water quality 

This sub-section is somewhat duplicative of the work of Eran Hand Ginny Eckert. 

Bartlett Cove Water Temperatures -- -- Refers to water temperature loggers that were deployed as part of 

(Donnellan, Fisher, Barber). See comments under that study 

Bartlett cove Oceanography No No What: Water quality and current velocity in vicinity of proposed s

How: CTD measurements, current velocity readings. Where: Bartlett Cove When: Two days, Aug-Sept 1998 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-52 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Who: Dan lawson Ref: Lawson, D et al. 1998. Oceanographic Investigation of the in Bartlett Cove, GLBA, Alaska. Contract report to NPS by CRRComments: Gives basic idea of patterns in these parameters, but t

Fjord Oceanography Yes 

(A1,B1,B2) 

PRIME (Aa,c) 

What: USGS program of oceanographic work, emphasizing water currents, waves & fronts. How: Principal focus is on results of CTD & chlorophyll-a measustations. Also temperature loggers moored at various locations thrWhere: midchannel throughout the bay and off the bay mouth When: 1992-present. Who: Hooge, Etherington (Arimitsu since Lisa left) Refs: Hooge, P & E. Hooge. 2002. Fjord Oceanographic ProcessUSGS/BRD, Juneau.  Etherington, L. 2003. Monitoring of Oceanographic PropertiUSGS/BRD, Gustavus.  Etherington, L., et al. 2004. Factors affecting Seasonal and RSurface Water Oceanographic Properties within a Fjord Estuarine Alaska. USGS/BRD report to NPS, Gustavus. 

 Etherington, L. et al. In Review. Oceanography of Glacier B

for biological patterns and productivity in a glacial fjord estuary

Comments: Three of the most important papers ever generated focarefully specified; highly replicable (and in fact, the stations have reoccupied by Etherington up through 2005, and Arimitsu on a red

Frontal Zones in Glacier Bay No (B1) Yes 

(A1,B) 

What: Investigate structure, distribution, timing of frontal zone strHow: Surface temperature mapping via satellite; oceanographic msorts; surface drifters Where: lower and mid bay north of Sitakaday When: 2004 Who: Lisa Etherington, Erika Madison, Dave Douglas Ref: Etherington, E. 2004. Research on Oceanographic Currentscoupling at frontal zones in GLBA. USGS/BRD Research Permit Comments: Data have not been written up yet. This study relates measurements” below. Dave Douglas has produced surface temp mindicate frontal structures. Metadata has been turned over to the pa
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-53 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

generated. 

Ocean Current Measurements No (B1) Yes 

(A1, B1) 

What: Examine oceanographic current patterns with specific refercharacteristics of frontal boundaries How: ADCP, CTD and surface drifter data Where: Lower & Mid Glacier Bay, adjacent Icy strait (+ 2 ADCP/Icy Strait by Cokelet) When: ADCP & CTD transects/stations: April-Oct 2001; July 200(Drifters deployed: twice during summer 2002. Who: Lisa Etherington, Phillip Hooge, Mondragon, Jennifer FishRefs: Etherington, L. 2005. Research on Ocean Currents: Physicfrontal zones in GLBA. Project summary for NPS Comments: Data synopsis in K/eco-data. Fisher sampled set locaOctober 2001: samples were collected weekly during both flood aa total of 22 days samples. This effort could be considered a base

Oceanography/ Currents - GNOME Model 

No No What: NOAA model that predicts oil spill spread in surface water

Where: Glacier Bay Ref: Cheng, R. R., S. J. Taggart, and J. K. Nielsen. 2006. Preliminmodeling of tidal circulation in Glacier Bay, Alaska. in The 7th Inon Hydroscience and Engineering. Comments: First generation model has been developed. This is nand so is not a baseline candidate 

Oceanography of Muir Inlet-1960’s No (B1) Yes? 

(A1?,B1) 

What: General oceanography with particular ref to summer/winter How: Standard measurements Where: Muir Inlet When: ~13 times, from Aug 1965-July 1967. Who: Matthews & Quinlan Refs: Matthews, J. and A. Quinlan. 1975. Seasonal CharacteristiMuir Inlet, a Fjord with Tidewater Glaciers. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can

 Quinlan, A. 1970. Seasonal and Spatial Variations in the W

of Muir Inlet, Glacier Bay, Alaska. M.S. Thesis, University of AlComments: Data presented as means for sketchily located stationglacier. Figures averaged for whole inlet probably replicable. If scomparison with Hooge & Hooge and later work by Etherington.. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-54 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Oceanography of Muir Inlet- 1990’s Yes (A1,B1) Yes (A1,B) What: Oceanographic parameters in the vicinity of Muir Glacier to 

environment. How: CTD, Oxygen, Turbidity; one sample run/yr at a grid along single visits at other times of year. Where: uppermost Muir Inlet When: 1994-2000 Who: Susan Bigl, Dan Lawson Ref: Bigl, S et al. .Fjord Oceanographic Processes, Muir Inlet, Gl2000. Comments: Adds data to the Hooge oceanographic stations 19 & with same. As such, important baseline, critical to Cheng’s curren

 Tide Station Data Yes (A1,B1) Yes (A1,B) What: continuous records of tidal height 

How: fixed tidal stations. When: Early Record by Reid, 1890’s, Tidal Inlet; 3 year record at 1960’s; shorter records at Johnson Cove, Muir Inlet, Geikie Inlet 1year record at Point Gustavus, 1999. Who:Harry Reid, NOAA Comments: Only existing tidal records for Glacier Bay. 

 Bathymetry/sediments Multibeam Sonar No (B1) Yes? 

(A2?, B) 

What/how: 3-D projections of the submarine topography Where/when: much of the main trunk of Glacier Bay done by USGhas done some multibeam sampling within Muir Inlet in 2004. Who: Paul Carlson and several local USGS personnel, notably PhiRef: Carlson, P. et al. 2003. Multibeam Bathymetry and Selected Glacier Bay, Alaska. USGS Water Resources Investigation. Rept Comments: Purpose is mapping surface topography. Highly replicocean floor in sufficient detail that, if replicated, would detect majtopography. Will not detect small changes. 

Seafloor Mapping and Classification No No What: Map of benthic habitats 

How: Ground truthed existing bathymetric and reflectance data by digital video footage of substrate character, biota and geomorphic these against depth to make a classification of habitat types. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-55 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

When: 1996-2005 Where: In the offshore portions of the middle and lower bay Who: Phillip Hooge, Lisa Etherington, Jodi Harney Refs: Hooge, P., et al. 2004. Sea Floor Habitat Mapping and ClasAlaska, Phase 1&2, 1996-2004.  Harney, J, et al. 2005. Geologic Characteristics of Benthic HSoutheast Alaska. USGS Open File Rept. 2006-1081. Comments: Product is a habitat map, extremely important basic inclassification nor the type boundaries are sufficiently exact to permSimilar in scale and scope to terrestrial plant communities map. 

Sidescan Sonar No (B1) Yes 

(A2,B) 

What: high resolution sea floor mapping. How: This is a high resolution sonar technique for mapping benthiWhere: Glacier Bay Who: same as above Comments: The side-scan sonar data is included in the Hooge et awas not used in producing the habitat map (Harney et al. 2006). Sin mapping smaller coves in Glacier Bay, whereas the multibeam Bay. This technique produces fine-grained benthic maps that will sea floor changes. 

Queen Inlet Channels and Sediments No (B1) Yes 

(A2, B) 

What: Delimitation and description of features that relate to sedimdelta front to a fan in the bay proper. Where: on the Floor of Queen inlet and adjacent parts of Bay How: Sidescan and multibeam sensing. When: 1988-99. Who: Paul Carlson in conjunction with Ross Powell, Ellen CowanEarly work by Chuck Hoskin & Dave Burrell. Refs: Burrell, D. 1971. Suspended Sediment Distribution Pattern-Outwash Fjord. Proc. Is Int’l.Conf. on Port and Ocean EngineeriConditions, Vol 1:227-245.  Hoskin, C. & D. Burrell. 1972. Sediment Transport and ABasin, Glacier Bay Alaska. J. Glaciol. 80(5):539-550. Carlson, P. et al. 1989. Turbidity Current Channels in Queen InleCan. Jour. Earth Sci. 26:807-820.  Carlson, P. et al. 1988. in Proceedings of the Second Glac
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-56 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Symposium. NPS, Anchorage.  Carlson, P et al. 1992. Submarine Sedimentary Features oqueen Inlet, Glacier Bay Alaska. Can. Jour. Earth Sci. 29.:565-57 Carlson, P, et al. 1999. Growth of a Post-Little Ice Age SuAlaska. Geo-marine Letters (1999):227-236. Comments: Detailed descriptive work designed to describe sedimmap the topography; and elucidate processes generating it. Much most recent, is quite detailed and exact, allowing detection of topoorder of 10m. Measures of sedimentation rates and character are aQueen Inlet has the best studied combo of subsurface topography in the park, along with McBride Inlet, below. 

Tarr SedimentTtransport/ Deposition No (B1) Yes (A2,B) What: Measurement and characterization of sediment flux 

How: Sediment traps, seismic reflection profiles. Where: Tarr Inlet When: Summers 1989-1991 Who Jinqui Kai (Ross Powell’s advisee) Kai, J. 1994. Sediment Yields, Lithofacies Architecture and MudGlacimarine Environments. Ph.D Thesis, Northern Illinois U. Comments: Methods of sediment trapping described quite well; lowith fair accuracy on map of Tarr. Replication of all or a subset odoable for indicating moderate-great change 

McBride SedimentTtransport/ Deposition 

No (B1) Yes 

(A2,B) 

What: Measurement of sedimentation rates How: Sediment traps; bathymetry; water column characteristics Where: McBride Inlet When: 1984-1987 Who: Ellen Cowan, Ross Powell Refs: Cowan, E. 1988. Sediment Transport and Deposition in a Glacier Bay, Alaska. Ph.D. Thesis, Northern Illinois U.  Cowan, E. & R. Powell. Circulation and Suspended SedimInlet, a Tidewater Glacial Fjord. in Proceedings of the Second GlaSymposium. NPS, Anchorage.  Cowan, E. & R. Powell. 1990. Suspended Sediment TranCyclicly Interlaminated Sediments in a Temperate Glacial Fjord, ADowdeswell, J & J.Scoukse (Eds). Glacimarine Environments. G
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-57 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

 Cowan, E & R. Powell. 1991. Ice-proximal Sediment AccTemperate Glacial Fjord, Southeastern Alaska. GSA Spec. paper  Cowan, E & R. Powell. 1994. High Frequency Climate Sof GLBA, Alaska. Abstract, 4th GB Science Symposium, Juneau Comments: Positions of sampling stations mapped reasonoceanography & sedimentology of this small inlet documented excandidate (but change in geometry of inlet due to ice recession is a 

Johns Hopkins Sediment Deposition No (B1) Yes (A2,B) What: Rates of sediment accumulation in basins 

How: inference from seismic-reflection data. When: 1979 Where: Johns Hopkins Inlet Who: Jinqui Cai & Ross Powell Ref: 1993. Glacier Fluctuations and Sediment Yields Interpreted Profiles in Johns Hopkins Inlet, Alaska in Proceedings of the ThiSymposium , Engstrom, ed. NPS, Anchorage Comments: Careful estimation of volumes and accretion rates on on that basis. 

 Fish Halibut Diet No (B1) Yes? 

(A1,B?) 

What: Document halibut diet (+ size distribution & sex ratio) of scaught halibut How: Stomach analysis of over 700 fish; length measurement, sesame number?). Preliminary stomach analysis finished. When: Aug 1991, June-Aug 1992 & 1993. Where: in Glacier Bay Who: Liz Chilton, Gretchen Bishop Ref: Bishop, G.. 1993. Pacific Halibut Diet. Fisheries Program AReport. NBS, Glacier Bay.  Chilton, L , et al. 1993. in Proceedings of the Third Glacie, Engstrom, ed. NPS, Anchorage Comments: The sample size looks promising for approximate repscale, approximately duplicating the sites from which the fish wer

Halibut Movement No (B1) Yes What: Home ranges and movement patterns 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-58 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

(A1, B) How: deploying 110 sonic and 1598 IPHC harvest tags; plotting t

Where: Glacier Bay When: 1991-1996, with tagging starting in 1992. Ref: Hooge, P., et al. Draft. Home Range and Movement PatternFidelity Within and Between Years. USGS/BRD, Juneau. Comments: Though not designed as baseline, precision of tagging sonic tags could allow use as such if the monitoring question were IPHC harvest tags were attached to a large number of halibut. Altlocations were imprecise these types of data could be extremely vafisheries closures to estimate whether more halibut more out of the density of halibut increases in closed areas. 

Halibut (and other demersal fishes ) distribution, abundance population structure 

No (B1) Yes? 

(A1?, B) 

What: Distribution and relative abundance of halibut (and other deBay. Part of the above study How: Systematic, precisely located grid of skates. All halibut weAll fish caught were recorded. Where: throughout the bay. When: 1992-93 Who: Phillip Hooge, Jim Taggart, Jennifer Mondragon, Gretchen Ref: Mondragon, J et al. 2004. The Distribution and Relative AbHalibut in a Recently Deglaciated Fjord: the role of glacial inputs Abstract, 4th GB Science Symposium, Juneau.  Bishop, G. & SG Taggart. 1993. Habitat Correlates of PacifGroundfish Species in GLBA. in Proceedings of the Third GlacieSymposium, Engstrom, ed. NPS, Anchorage Comments: Methods and locations clear & replicable. Important structure of the population. This is may be a valuable baseline if vsub-regional scale; for smaller scales the data are too sparse, especincidentally caught species. The papers available do not provide fish, but these data exist in USGS databases. 

Halibut Synthesis No No What: A general, non-technical summary of several projects 

Who: Phillip Hooge. Comments: too general and qualitative to be useful in the present 

Small Schooling Fish No (B2) Yes? 

(A1?,B) 

What: documents presence and relative abundance of ~90% of expfishes 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-59 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

How/when: Beach seine (1999-2000), midwater & bottom trawl (2Where: in GB proper Who: John Piatt, Mayumi Arimitsu, Martin Robards, Gary Drew Refs: Robards, M., et al. 2002. Glacier Bay Small Schooling Fish Rept, Anchorage.  Arimitsu, M, et al. 2003. Inventory of Marine and EstuarinCentral Alaskan National Parks. USG S/BRD Final Report, Anch Robards, M., et al., 2003. Ecology of Selected Marine ComZooplankton, Forage Fish, Seabirds and Marine Mammals. USGSComments: sampling systematic and relocatable; a rigorous study enough locality-by-locality to be replicable on that scale, but valuawhole study or major parts of it were replicated. 

Spatial Patterns of Outer Coast Rockfish 

Yes? (A1?,B1) 

Yes? (A1?,B) 

What: Preliminary assessment of the nearshore black rockfish comhabitats within the outer coast region of Glacier Bay National Park How: SCUBA visual and video surveys. Etherington: Stratified ratransects within 3 exposure strata: exposed, outer Bay, inner Bay. by species. Benthic habitat data also collected. Bodkin: capture/mWhere: Lower outer coast; Bodkin mentions three sites, but not susame as Etherington’s. He also sampled three fished sites along YWho: Lisa Etherington, Jim Bodkin. When: Etherington, Summer, 2003; Bodkin, May 2006Comments: Data not written up yet. Etherington thinks the methorepeatable, but her work was planned as a pilot study, so sample sia baseline. Bodkin has picked up this work beginning in 2006; hishould begin to provide a rigorous comparison . It is likely that thimportant baseline. 

Sleeper Shark Distribution & Movements 

No No What: Sleeper shark distribution, residence times & home ranges, 

How: implanted sonic tags in three individuals (Muir); examined 3 survey for crabs (Hopkins). Where: Upper Muir, Mouth of Hopkins When: 1990’s; checked for tag relocations over three years (sharkyear) Who: Hooge, Taggart & shop Ref: Hooge, P & S.J. Taggart. Review draft. Movements of Soni
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-60 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Glacier Bay, Ak. USGS/BRD, Juneau.  Taggart, S. J., A. G. Andrews, J. Mondragon, and E. A. Mathof sleeper sharks, Somniosus pacificus, and harbor seals, Phoca viAlaska Fishery Research Bulletin 11:113-117.  Taggart, SJ et al. 2004. Co-occurrence of Pacific Sleeper Shsleeper sharks predators, competitors or scavengers of harbor seals2004. Testing the Effectiveness of a high latitude Marine Reserve Juneau. Progress Report. Comments: sample sizes too small for baseline, but is our only infTaggart reports that some fishermen have reported a large increase sleeper sharks in recent years, which adds to the relevance of this 

Ichthyoplankton study No (B1) Yes (A1,B) What: Ichthyoplankton distribution & abundance 

How: vertical tows in 4 segments, 0-100 m. When: May-June, 2000 Where: 11 of Hooge’s stations (even numbered ones) Who: Martin Robards Ref: Robards, M. et al. 2003. Ecology of Selected Marine CommZooplankton, Forage Fish, Seabirds & Marine Mammals. USGS/BComments: Cumulative total of 76 precisely located samples maka reasonable level for early summer conditions. 

 Birds Foraging Ecology and Monitoring of Kittiwakes 

No (B2) 

PRIME (Ab) 

What: Surveys of kittiwake numbers and productivity at various nthe Margery colony. When: numerous years going back to the late 1960’s Where: The upper and mid bay; outer coast Refs: Gordon, R. 1973. in Dixon Harbor Biological Survey: FinaPhase of 1973 Research, Streveler & Worley, eds. . NPS, Gustavu Patten, S. 1995. Birds. in Dixon Harbor Biological SurveyPhase of 1974 Research, Streveler & Worley, eds. . NPS, Gustavu Weisbrod, A. 1978. Lituya Bay Mining Impact: Avifaunal Washington CPSU, Seattle.  Acuna, C & L. Selig. 1983. Population Observations at Litu
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-61 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Lion, harbor Seal. NPS/RM, Gustavus.  Heacox, K. 1983. The Margerie Glacier Kittiwake ColonyNPS/RM, Gustavus.  Jettmar, K. The Lituya Bay Kittiwake Colony, GLBA: a Ce Climo, L. & T. Duncan. 1991. The Status of Black Legged 1991. NPS/RM, Gustavus  Sharman, L. & H. Lentfer. 1991. 1991 Dixon Harbor BioloGustavus.  Lentfer, H. 1992. Census of Breeding and Productivity of SKittiwake Colonies in GLBA, Alaska in 1992. NPS/RM, Gustavu Hooge, E. 1993. Census Methodologies of Black-legged KProceedings of the Third Glacier Bay Science Symposium , Engst Yerxa, R & E. Hooge. 1994. Status of Selected Black-leggGlacier Bay, Alaska: census and productivity report, 1994. NPS/N Yerxa, R, M. Kralovek & E. Hooge. 1995. Status of SelectKittiwake Colonies in Glacier Bay, Alaska: census and productiviNPS/NBS, Gustavus.  Hooge, E et al. 1998. Black Legged Kittiwake Monitoring Gustavus. Comments: In aggregate, this is one of the most thoroughly survethe Margerie & Lituya colonies particularly have excellent and repnumbers and productivity. The methodology since the early 1990basis. 

Gull Egg Environmental Assessment, S Marble island 

No (B2) 

PRIME (Aa,Bd) 

What: Population sizes and fecundity of seabirds with particular rwinged gulls How: Protocols per Byrd (1989), well spelled out for each speciesWhen/where: Summer 1999 on S Marble Island Who Stephanie Zador, John Piatt Ref: Zador, S & J.Piatt. 1999. Populations and Productivity of Sisland, Glacier Bay, During May-July, 1999. USGS/BRD Comments: This is a highly disciplined study with clear protocols was to construct exploitation model, but highly replicable 

Gull Egg Predation Simulation Model No No Ref: Zador, S. & J. Piatt. 2006. Balancing Predation and Egg har

Seabirds: a Simulation Colony. Ecological Modeling 195: 318-32
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-62 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Comments: This is a model, based in part of information from S Mstudy for ecological specifics relative to S Marble Island. 

Gulls of N Marble Island No (B1) Yes (A1,B) What: Breeding ecology of gulls (and other bird species) on N ma

How: Extended onsite observation, mapping of colonies, measuretiming. When: May-August, 1972; April-August, 1973. Who: Sam & Renee Patten Ref: Patten, S. 1974. The Breeding Ecology of the Glaucous-winAlaska. M.S Thesis, U Washington. Comments: A thorough and careful study; important background neighboring island. 

Kittlitz's and Marbled Murrelets - Distribution, Abundance 

Yes (A1, B1) 

PRIME (Ba,b) 

What: determine the seasonal, at-sea habitat use of murrelets withPark, including both East and West Arms of Glacier Bay Proper. How: Systematic vessel-based counts on strip transects using stantelemetry data from birds captured and tagged in 2004. Where: Glacier Bay Who: Marc Romano, John Piatt, Yumi Arimitsu, Alison Agness, GWhen: June-August surveys, 2003; two 10-day cruises during the Ref: Romano, M., et al. 2004. At-sea Density and Distribution of Murrelets in Glacier Bay, Alaska, Summer, 2003.  Romano, M & John Piatt. 2004. Temporal and Spatial VarKittlitz’s Murrelets in Glacier Bay. Abstract, 4th GB Science sympComments: Careful, repeatable work of the utmost importance, givstatus. 2004 paper cites data from 1991 & 1999/2000, which allow 

Kittlitz's Murrelet Population -- -- Included in FWS Birds & Mammal surveys – 2000’sBehavioral Ecology of Kittlitz’s Murrelets 

No No What: Murrelet movements, foraging behaviors 

How: Telemetry on 15 tagged birds Where: Glacier Bay When: 2004 Who: Marc Romano, John Piatt Ref: Romano, M & J. Piatt. 2004. Behavioral Ecology of KittlitzDetermined by Radio Telemetry. Abatract, 4th GB Science SympoComments: This study is not designed to provide a replicable base
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-63 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

aspects of life history. 

Scoter surveys No (B1) No? 

(A1?,B) 

What: Counts of scoter flocks How: Usually just by eyeballing When: late 60’s to 80’s Where: Generally on the middle west side of GB, where most big concentrated Who: Susanne Carter, Barb Blackie, Lewis Sharman, Ole Wik, Jerrangers/biotechs. When: Various times, going back at least to 1967 Refs: Carter, S. 1985. Census and Behavior of Surf and WhitewinMiller Inlet Area of Glacier Bay, Alaska. Cascadia Research CollComments: I did not make a concerted search for the various inhonotes that previously existed. One can only hope that they are stil

FWS Outer Coast aerial surveys No (B1) PRIME 

(Ab,Bd) 

What: survey of nearshore marine birds How: low aerial flights over nearly entire outer coast shoreline Where: Spencer-Dry Bay When: 8 surveys, June-October, 2001, 2002. Who: Bruce Conant, Jack Hodges, Russ Oates, Mike Jacobson, Jim Ref: Conant, B & D. Groves. 2002. Gulf of Alaska Shoreline WatJuneau. Comments: Repeated surveys done by very seasoned observers. Gbird numbers & distribution. Valuable work. 

FWS SE-Wide Aerial Waterbird Survey No (A1,B1) No (A1) What: Aerial survey of all SE Alaskan coastal waters for waterbi

How: Via aircraft @ 150ft, 2 observers, covering 1⁄4 mi strip of waWhere: all park coastline except outside coast N of Spencer When: late 1990’s (1997 for parts of park) once in winter, once in Who: Jack Hodges, Debbie Groves Ref: data in FWS files, according to Debbie Groves. Hodges is pComments: This one-time survey is a useful baseline on a regionathere is too much variation for a one-time survey to be useful in thtake on more significance in concert with the above project, and wsurvey of Piatt et al. Also useful in placing park fauna in a region
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-64 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

 Whales Humpback Whale Entanglement No (B1) PRIME 

(Ab, Ba,d) 

What: Documents rates of whale entanglement in gear How: Analysis of scarring on peduncle evident on photos Where: Northern SE Alaska, including Glacier Bay When: Photographs taken 2003-04 Who: Janet Neilson Ref: Neilson, J. 2006. Humpback Whale Entanglement in FishinSoutheastern Alaska. M.S. Thesis, UAF Comments: The large sample size (n >160) allows high degree of therefore in its use as monitoring rates of entanglement. 

Killer Whale Acoustics No No What: Document occurrence of transient killer whales & acoustic 

associated with predatory behavior How: photo I.D; follow whales to record communications in assn When: 2004-present Where: Glacier Bay Who: Volker Deecke, Jan Straley Ref: Deecke, V. 2006. Predatory Behaviour and Acoustic Commeating Killer Whales in GLBA. Permit appln to NPS in park electComments: elegant study, but designed to elucidate relationship band related acoustics rather than provide a baseline. However, it wterm efforts to document the number, behaviour and timing of use below) 

Killer Whale Population Assessment Yes 

(A1, B2) 

PRIME (Aa,b, Bd) 

What: Population & feeding ecology, and relationships with other How: Repeated photographic identification and observation Where: Glacier Bay and Icy Strait, with comparisons elsewhere in When: Summer, with occasional checks other seasons. Summer days/week; 2002-present, 40-45 days/season. Who: Dena matkin Refs: Matkin, D., et al. in press. Killer Whale Feeding Ecology aInteractions with Other Marine Mammals in the Glacier Bay RegiGlacier Bay Science Symposium.  Matkin, D. 1992. Summary of Killer Whale Research in G
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-65 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Alasks, 1983-1990. Rept to NMFS, Seattle. Comments: Seminal work on a charismatic top predator. Methodout. Degree of confidence in population figures analyzed. Demog

Whale Foraging & Prey Concentrations (1)

Yes (A1,B1) Yes (A1,2) What: Relationship between foraging whales and concentrations o

How: Sonic and net sampling of prey in vicinities of feeding whaon obs of 44 whales; Piatt/Gabriele study based on obs of 20 whalWho: Ken Krieger, John Piatt, Chris Gabriele When: 1984 (Krieger); 2001-02 (Piatt & Gabriele) Where: Glacier Bay & adjacent Icy StraitRefs: Krieger, K. 1988. in Proceedings of the Second Glacier BaNPS, Anchorage. Comments: Piatt/Gabriele data partially analyzed but not reported sufficient sample size to give good picture of whale foraging habitand therefore should be replicable, at least in a general sense 

Whale Foraging & Prey Concentrations (2) 

Yes (A1,B1) 

Yes? (A2?,B) 

What: Take Hydroacoustic signature of vicinity of feeding whaleencountered during whale census activities How: Each time feeding whale encountered, take & archive readinprey mass in the vicinity When: 1996 – present Where: Glacier Bay – Icy Strait Who: Chris Gabriele, Janet Neilson Refs: Gabriele, C et al. 1996, 1997, 1999. Population Characteristiin Glacier Bay and Adjacent Waters - annual reports. NPS/RM, GComments: Data are summarized in the abovementioned reports; annually since then but not reported. These date are not truthed by is that one day it will be possible to retroactively identify the types these records. 

Humpback Whale Monitoring - 1990’s to present 

Yes (B2) PRIME 

Ab, Ba,b,d) 

What: Humpback distribution, abundance, population ecology How: Vessel-based observation Where: Glacier Bay and adjacent parts of Icy Strait When: 1991 – Present Who: Chris Gabriele, Janet Doherty (Neilson) Refs: Gabriele, C et al. 1993. Variability in Counts of IndividuallWhales in glacier Bay and Icy Strait. in Proceedings of the Third 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-66 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Symposium , Engstrom, ed. NPS, Anchorage  Gabriele, C. 2004. Age At First Calving of Female HumpbaAlaska. Abstract, 4th GB Science Symposium, Juneau.  Neilson. J & C. Gabriele. 2005. Results of Humpback Whain Glacier Bay and Adjacent Waters:2005. NPS/RM, Gustavus Comments: This long-term study, especially when combined with always as rigorous) ones going back to the mid ‘70’s, provide one baselines related to the park biota. The 2004 ref illustrates the dehistory information now provided by this long term data set. The parameters for replicability of survey data – one of the few GLBA rigorously constrained. 

Whale Population & Behavior - 1980's No (B1) PRIME 

(Ab,Bab,d) 

What: Series of natural history studies prior to Gabriele’s, coverindemographics, distribution, behavior, and relationship to vessels How: Methods & coverages of surveys described in each of these Where: Glacier Bay & environs When: 1980’s Who: Scott Baker, Anjenette Perry, Gary Vequist, Jan Straley Refs: Perry, A., et al. 1985. The Natural History of Humpback WAlaska. NPS/RM  Baker, et al. 1986. Population Characteristics of Humpbacand Adjacent Waters: 1986. NPS, Gustavus 

Vequist, G. & C. Baker. 1987. Humpback Whales in Glac

term history of habitat use. NPS/RM, Gustavus 

Straley, J. 1989,90. Population Characteristics of Humpb

and Adjacent Waters. Rept to NPS, Gustavus. 

Straley, J. 1994. Seasonal Characteristics of Humpback W

Alaska. M.S. Thesis. University of Alaska. (also see 3rd symposiuComments: The basic demographic info is quite repeatable, and in foundation for Gabriele’s subsequent work. The Vequist paper is work done in Glacier Bay during the decade 1976-86. 

Whale Populations and Behavior1970’s No (B1) Yes (A1,B) What/how: Whale population behavior, distribution, abundance, a

extended observation & photography; followed up by Dean’s statiof blow interval data as index of stress. When: 1970’s 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-67 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Who: Chuck Jurasz, Ginny Palmer, Fred Dean Refs: Dean, F et al. 1985. Analysis of Humpback Whale Blow InFinal Rept on Contract to NPS, Au Alaska, Fairbanks.  Jurasz, C & V. Palmer. 1981. Censusing and Establishing AHumpback Whales, Employing Photodocumentation in GLBA, AAnchorage. Comments: Exhaustive statistical analysis of blow intervals as indresponses, notably to vessels. Important baseline, especially given data in the cited Jurasz report and several others by these authors gof whale populations and behaviors during the 1970’s. 

Humpback Whale Genetics Yes (A1,B1) Yes 

(A1, B) 

What: Determining whale sex and genetic population structure How/where: Molecular markers for paternity; analysis of mitochoelevenmicrosatelite loci for population differentiation. 139 whaleAlaska, California and Gulf of Maine. When: Samples procured in SE, 2000-present Who: Denny Vant, Chris Gabriele, Janet Neilson Ref: Vant, MD. 2002. Population Structure and Genetic Diversity the North Bacific: a multi loci Approach. MS Thesis, U Aukland, Comments: Careful and thorough study that identifies population reliable clarity. Good baseline. Much data in recent years remain

Humpback Whale distribution vs. vessels & oceanography 

No (B1) 

Yes (A1,B) 

What: Whale distribution and behavior in relation to boats, tides aHow: Documentation of whale and vessel distribution in time and kayak-based platforms. Comparison of distributional data with sy(notably tidal stage and satellite measurements of sea surface tempfrontal locations). Where: the Point Adolphus area When: 1999-2001Who: Nikki Koehler, Chris Gabriele, Mia Grifalcone Ref: Koehler, N. 2004. Humpback Whale and Vessel Use PatterPoint Adolphus. Abstract, 4th GB Science Symposium, Juneau. Comments: Distributional data for whales and boats highly repliconly because the data are entirely outside the park., but of course mwhales are involved. 

Harbor Porpoise Censuses Yes Yes What: Censusing harbor porpoise numbers 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-68 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

(A1, B1) (A1,B) How: Calambokidis and Taylor – obs from shore. Prather and Da

In the case of Prather, too cursory to be useful. Dahlheim – line trdescribed in 1994 paper. When: 1979 – present; Dahlheim’s censuses spring/summer/fall 1Refs: Taylor, B & P. Dawson. 1984. Seasonal Changes in DensiPorpoise Affecting Census Methodology in GLBA, Alaska. Rep. 34.  Calambokidis, J. 1983. The Behavior of Harbor Porpoises emphasis on marked Individuals. Cascadia Research Collective.  Prather, S. et al. 1989. Harbor Porpoise Baseline Survey, 1 Dahlheim, M. 1994. Abundance and Distribution of HarboAlaska, Cook Inlet and Bristol Bay, Alaska. NMFS Marine Mamm Dahlheim, M. in prep. Porpoise survey just completed at treported yet. Comments: All work prior to Dahlheim’s not sufficiently extensivprovide a credible baseline. Taylor’s work in Sitakaday Narrows to a small area. Dahlheim’s surveys are statistically and methodolcover enough territory to give a rough index to porpoise abundancto census the park. 

 Pinnipeds/sea otters Harbor Seal Diet and Foraging Areas Yes 

(A1, B1) 

Yes (A1,B) What: What and where are seals eating in Glacier Bay? Multi-age

factors in seal decline How: Scat analysis; stable isotope analysis of shed hair; tracking sand TDR recorders; fine-scale hydroacoustics surveys in areas whbehavior Where: Throughout bay, but mostly Spider Is & Hopkins vicinitieWhen: 1996-2002 by Matthews’ crew; 2004-06 by Blundell/GendWho: Beth Matthews; Gail Blundell, Jamie Womble, Scott GendeRefs: Matthews, E. 2002. Diet of Harbor Seals at a Glacial Fjord in Glacier Bay, 1996-2001. Progress Report. UAS  Matthews, E. 2004. Trophic Differences in Harbor Seals froTerrestrial Haulout in Glacier Bay Inferred from Stable Carbon an
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-69 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Molted Hair. Abstract, 4th GB Science Symposium, Juneau.  Womble, J. et al. 2006. Harbor Seal Foraging Ecology Inv2005 Annual Report To NPS Comments: This is a large and complicated set of studies with sevfor hair were large, especially from Hopkins (N=101), less so for Sscat sample size was smaller (N=86) and spread widely in space & can be considered a reasonably good baseline.  Matthews considered scat analysis provisional pending more samamplified by Womble as of 2006, when 44 samples were collected Adams.  TDR’s retrieved (n~30) over three years, 04-06, will provide conlocation & interval when analyzed, and the sample size is approacbaseline.  Large scale acoustic surveys were carried out monthly in 2005 at Entrance & Hopkins (3 replicates/ site); small scale surveys were d(n=40). 

Harbor Seal Genetics Yes (A1,B1) Yes (A1,B) What: Characterizing genetics of Glacier Bay harbor seals in comp

region to clarify metapopulation structure. Where: a number of Glacier Bay sites. How: Blood, hair, serum, tissue analysis When/who: 1996-2002 (Beth Matthews); 2004-2006 (Gail BlundComments: Not sure of Matthews’ sample sizes; Blundell: over 40published yet, but sample sizes should allow high confidence in rethat early results suggest that stocks are structured on a much finer currently recognized for Alaska. 

Harbor Seal Monitoring - Locations and Counts 

Yes (A1, B1) PRIME 

(Ab, Ba,d) 

What: Censusing seals in Glacier Bay How: Mostly land-based counts of hauled-out seals, using various and discarded aerial counting; Matthews used it as adjunct to land vessel counts in winter. Womble has continued aerial counts of teof region-wide trend surveys. When: Streveler, 1973-78; Calambokidis, 1982-84; Matthews, 192004-present. Where: Particular emphasis on the major natal areas, but some couwinter. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-70 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Who: Greg Streveler, John Calambokidis, Beth Matthews, Jamie Ref: Streveler, G. 1979. Distribution, population ecology and ImHarbor Seal in Glacier Bay, Alaska. NPS, Juneau.  Calambokidis, J., et al. 1987. Distribution and Haul-out BehGlacier Bay, Alaska.  Matthews, E. 1992. Harbor Seal Censuses in GLBA: a compaerial censusing. UAS rept to NPS/NMFS, Juneau  Matthews, E. 1993. Long-term Trends in Abundance of HarDevelopment of Monitoring Methods in GLBA, Southeast AlaskaThird Glacier Bay Science Symposium , Engstrom, ed. NPS, Anc

Matthews, E. & G. Pendleton. 2000. Declining Trends in ha

Glacial Ice and Terrestrial Haulouts in GLBA, 1992-1998. UAS/A Matthews, E et al. 2004. Declines in Harbor Seal Numbers Abstract, 4th GB Science Symposium, Juneau.  Womble, J, et al. 2005. Glacier Bay Harbor Seal Foraging EReport, 2005 field season. ADF&G report to NPS.  Mathews, E. and G. Pendleton. 2006. Declines in harbor snumbers in Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska, 1992-2002. Marin22:167-189. Comments: Matthews has stitched together data from all these soustandard for replicability and statistical treatment. Her work is higprovides one of the few data sets that is rigorously examined for rework is also based on regional protocols, and provides a repeatablout) such data are quite variable and must be looked at in aggregatpicture. The Hopkins work of Matthews has been discontinued, b2007 in some form. 

Harbor Seal Pup Call Frequency No No What: Documentation of frequency and temporal patterning of pup 

How: keeping track of pup vocalizations in course of other seal wWhere: Hopkins When: 1990’s Who: Laura Dzinich, Beth Matthews Ref: Dzinich, L & E. Matthews. Unpublished ?(abstract 1999). A Variation in Rates of Harbor Seal Pup Calls in Johns Hopkins InleNPS/UAS. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-71 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Comments: Postulated to be correlated with the timing of mothersso might be an index to a time of mother/pup separation & thus imthat correlation has not been demonstrated. 

Harbor Seals 1998 - McBride No (B2) Yes (A1,B) What: Evaluation of human/vessel disturbance of seals 

How: Systematic observation, using defined protocols Where: McBride Inlet When: 37 days during pupping season, 1998. Who: Tania Lewis Refs: Lewis, T. 1999. Distribution, Pupping Phenology, and haulSeals at McBride Glacier Fjord, GLBA. NPS/RM, Gustavus.  Lewis, T. and E. Matthews. 2000. Effects of Human Visitoharbor Seals at McBride Glacier Fjord, GLBA. UAS & NPS/RM Comments: Purpose is as title states. Gives general idea of # of senough data to provide a baseline. Comments: Nice study, applicable so long as McBride remains an 

Sea LionNumber, Movements and Metapopulation Structure  (Includes ”Sea Lion Brand Resighting” and “Sea Lion Pup Branding” from the project tracking database) 

Yes (A2,B1) PRIME 

(Ab,Bb) 

What: Numbers; movements of individuals between rookery/haulbetween regions; metapopulation structure of the species. How: Rookery counts; Branding and resightings of branded animindividuals for comparison with selected loci in stocks from other Where: Various haulouts/rookeries in GLBA, with particular attengraves When: 1994 – present (with notes from 1975-77, 199697) Who: Beth Matthews, Ken Pitcher, Lori Jemison, Tom Gelatt, AHastings, Park staff Refs: Acuna, C & L. Selig. 1983. Population Observations at LitLion , Harbor Seal. NPS/RM, Gustavus.  Patten, R. 1975. Marine Mammals . in Dixon Harbor Biolon the summer phase of 2004 research. Streveler & Worley, eds.  Streveler, G. 1980. Larger Mammals. In Lituya Bay EnvSterveler, Worley & Molnia, eds. NPS, Gustavus [Page on marinfrom archives copy!]  Calkins, D. et al. 1999. Steller Sea Lion Status and Trends 1997. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 15(2):462-477.  Matthews, E. 2003. Observations of Steller Sea Lions from 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-72 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

at South Marble Island, GLBA.  Jemison, L. 2005. Trip Report: Sightings of Branded StelleAlaska, 1-25 July, 2005. ADF&G, Juneau  Gelatt, T et al. 2004. Steller Sea Lion Population Trends, DObservations in GLBA. Abstract, 4th GB Science Symposium, Ju Pitcher, K ,et al. in prep. Status and Trends in Abundance Eastern Steller Sea Lion Population. Comments: The brand/resighting work, especially if the 03-05 woexcellent index to occurrence of branded animals in the park, and our animals. The ADF&G reports also have data on the frequency entanglement gear found on sea lions. Womble also has 4 years+ surveys. Survey data give good long-term trend indices. Pitcher aCrowe has a paper in progress on sea lion genetics that covers the which will show that ~70% of founding females came from the weeven though it is nominally within eastern stock boundaries. 

Sea Lion Scat Analysis Yes? 

(A1?,B1) 

Yes? (A1?,B) 

What: Dietary analysis Where: Graves rocks, South Marble How: scat collection and analysis When: “a number of years” up to present, back at least to 1994 for Marble. Who: Laurie Jemison, Ken Pitcher, Andrew Trites, Dom Tollit (UComments: No data are published yet, but analyses were obtained (Graves) and 2001 (S Marble & Graves). For those years, n~50 pedata. Analysis is backed up at the time of this writing. 

Sea Lion Aerial Surveys in relation to Spring Fish Spawning Areas 

No (B2) Yes? 

(A1?,B) 

What: Surveys of haulouts to determine seasonal distribution in reHow: Systematic monthly aerial counts Where: 25 sites in SE AK, incl. Marble is, Graves Rocks, Pt. CaroWhen: March 2001-May 2004, for all but Tarr which was only surInlet, Dixon River, Alsek River, Excursion River included during Who: Jamie Womble, Mike Sigler, Mary Willson Refs: Womble, J. 2003. Seasonal Distribution of Steller Sea Lioquality Ephemeral Prey Species in SE Alaska. M.S. Thesis, UAF Womble, J, et al. 2005. Distribution of Steller Sea Lions in Spawning Fish in SE Alaska. Marine Ecology Prog. Series 294:27
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-73 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

 Womble, J. et al. in review. Season Specific foraging stratpredator: linking seasonal distribution patterns and prey availabilitComments: Studies well designed, but purpose was to demonstratlion densities & fish resources, not provide population baseline. Aaccompanied by photos are reliable means for spot checks, but do variability at a site. Sampling density & duration appears sufficienmagnitude baseline if aggregated over several haulouts and times. 

Sea Otters and Benthic Marine Communities 

Yes? (A1,B2?) 

PRIME (Ab,Bd) 

What: Document ecosystemic conditions in the shallow benthic oinvasion. How: 30 permanent study sites at which the biota (macroalgae, beurchins, predatory snails, sea stars, crabs) resurveyed annually. A1m2 and 1040ea. 10m2 quadrats. Assessed population structure fourchins. Where: Shallow subtidal, lower and mid Glacier Bay When: (1999 pilot) 2000-2003 Who: Mike Donellen, Jennifer Fisher, Julie Barber Ref: Donellen, M., et al. 2004. The Ecological Effects of Sea OtBenthic Communities in GLBA, and Inventory and Monitoring of Communities in Lower/Mid Glacier Bay, annual report 2004. NPComments: This was envisioned as a pre-sea otter study, and is adthat, with lots of data and (Bill tells me) good statistical rigor. It wup on it as an adjunct to Bodkin’s intertidal work. 

Sea Otters and the Nearshore Communities 

Yes (A1,B2) 

PRIME (Ab, Bd) 

What: Sea otter distribution and abundance, food habits, effects ocrabs How/where: aerial surveys in Glacier Bay and adjoining waters oand distribution. Direct foraging observations to document dietary species composition, density, biomass, and sizes of intertidal clamBay, 14 sites in Idaho Inlet, 12 sites in Port Althorp and 2 sites in MADS work on Dungeness crabs also cited here. Scheding’s worsampling data. When: boat-based surveys began soon after release of recolonists, Aerial surveys begun in 1994 and continued to present. Some cla03,before otters. Done yearly up to present. MADS work (see elWho: Bodkin, Esslinger, Kloecker; Neilson (aerial surveys); Sche
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-74 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

staff Refs: Acuna C. & L. Selig. 1983. Sea Otter Observation on the OGustavus. (in Sharman files)  Perrelli, R. 1985. Sea Otter Outer Coast [& Pt. Gustavus] O1985. NPS, Gustavus (in Sharman files)  Klinger, N. 1987. Sea Otter Outer Coast Observations, 198Sharman files)  Vequist, G. 1987. Sea Otter Recolonization of Ancestral RaGustavus. (in Sharman files)  Shirley, T. C., G. Bishop, C. E. O'Clair, S. J. Taggart, and Jotter predation on Dungeness crabs in Glacier Bay, Alaska. Pages Crabs: Biology, Management, and Economics. Alaska Sea Grant C96-02.  Bodkin, J., et al. 2000. Sea Otter Studies in GLBA: aerial observations and Intertidal Clam Sampling. USGS/BRD, Anchora Scheding, K. 2004. The bathymetric distribution of Dungen

magister, in bays with and without sea otters. Masters of Science. UFairbanks, Fairbanks. 

 Bodkin, J. 2005. Sea Otter Movements and Life History in 

on Project 9353AOC  Bodkin, J et al. 2004. Perspectives from an Invading PredaBay. Abstract, 4th GB Science Symposium, Juneau. Comments: Based on the reports seen, Bodkin’s and Scheding’s wstatistically tight, excellent for a baseline. Most of the earlier obseconstrained, but provide a valuable historical background. 

KelpBeds and Sea Otters Yes 

(A1, B1) 

PRIME (Ab, Bd) 

What: Manipulated sea urchin and kelp densities to observe proxy on urchins. How/when: Set up unspecified # of plots over 2 years, 1973-4; diurchins and kelp. Revisited and resampled more or less same sites Where: Torch Bay subtidal Refs: Duggins, D. 1979. Kelp Beds and Sea Otters: an experimen61(3):447-453.  Duggins, D. 1980. Kelp Dominated Communities: ExperiRelationship Between Sea Urchins, Their Predators and their Alga
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-75 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Thesis, Universtiy of Washington  Estes, J & D. Duggins. 1995. Sea Otters & Kelp Forests in variation in a Community Ecological paradigm. Ecol. Monograp Duggins, D. 2003. Trip Report, Southeast Alaska, 2003. RComments: Very important baseline given its duration and rigor, sample sites are GPS’d. (Duggins has this info) The 1970’s-80’s-9approximate but still very valuable given the magnitude of changeImportant adjunct to Bodkin’s work. 

 Invertebrates Brachyuran Larvae Distribution & Abundance, Dungeness Crab Larval Dispersal 

No(B1) Yes? 

(A1,B?) 

What: Is Glacier Bay a net sink or producer of crab larvae? E.g., temporal distribution of crab larvae relative to tidal stage and oceaHow/where: Year 1: sampled larvae at 5 stations in lower bay, 3 dSitakaday. Documented vertical distribution changes, day & nighduring summer, 2002. When: 2001-02 Who: Jennifer Fisher Refs: Fisher, J. 2004. Distribution, Abundance and Timing of BrHigh-latitude Fjord. Abstract, 4th GB Science Symposium, Juneau Fisher, J. 2005. Larval Dynamics of Brachyuran Crabs in a Southeast Alaska. M.S. Thesis, San Jose State University. Comments: Jen’s thesis covers the questions of larval temporal dyspatial aspects. Etherington’s note in k/eco-data says that the driftavailable to her. Sampling was intended to elucidate timing and bto have been sufficiently spread in space or time to provide a replibaseline. Might be a useful baseline on phenological changes, in cwork. 

Dungeness Aggregation No No What/where: Description of crab aggregations in pothole features 

Diving on the potholes Who: Phillip Hooge Ref: Hooge, P., et al. 2004. Sea Floor Habitat Mapping and ClassAlaska, Phase 1&2, 1996-2004. Comments: Reconiassance study. Not meant for replication.
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-76 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Dungeness Crab Larval Abundance Yes (A2, B1) Yes? 

(A1?, B) 

What: Settlement and recruitment of Dungeness crab. How: monitoring settlement bags and plankton collectors When: 2000-present Where: Bartlett Cove, Beardslee Islands. Who: Ginny Eckert, Heidi Herter.Refs: Permit appln in Project Tracking , 2005 Investigator’s Annu Most recent meeting presentation: How Big is Big Enough? Temperate Marine Reserve May Not Be Self Sustaining for Some Dungeness Crabs in Glacier Bay, presented by G. Eckert at Ocean HI.  Herter, H. defense in Fall 2006. Spatial variation in DungeBeardslee Islands and Bartlett Cove, GLBA. M.S. Thesis Approseen.  Papers in progress. Comments: Study designed to document timing of life history phadistribution in lower Glacier Bay. Based on IAR, could be used fosuch events was to be used as an index of phenological changes. 

Dungeness Crab Larvae Spaciotemporal Distribution Yes? (A1?,B1) Yes? (A1?, B) What: Patterns of larval abundance How/where: Light traps repetitively occupied at Bartlett Cove; 11

Bay light trapped once each at two depths. When: Bartlett Cove 2000-2003; elsewhere, summer 2002 Who: Ginny Eckert, Jeff Douglas, Jim Taggart, Jennifer Fisher Ref: Eckert, G. et al. 2004. Temporal and spatial Patterns in DunAbundance within Glacier Bay. Abstract, 4th GB Science SympoComments: The Bartlett Cove data have enough replicates to funcone-time samples elsewhere provide a general snapshot that, if reponly a gross change in pattern.

Dungeness Crab Larval Movement (better title: relationship between adult and larval crab abundance) 

Yes (A1,B1) Yes (A1,B) What: Relationship between adult and larval crab abundance 

How: Extensive pot survey of adult populations in concert with pWhere: Lower Glacier Bay and Icy Strait When: 1996-2002 Who: Wongyu Park, Tom Shirley, Jim Taggart Ref: Relationship Between Abundance of Dungeness Crab Adults population increase or larval export from an MPA? Abstract, 4th G
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-77 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Juneau. Comments: Large sample size, rigorous design. Highly replicable

Dungeness Crab-pot Dive Experiment No (B1) Yes (A1,B) What: Assess the effectiveness of pot surveys in population assess

How: Sample crabs in with commercial crab pots, and a dive study in the same areas. Where: Lower Glacier Bay, Dundas Bay and Gustavus Flats When: April & September, 1993-2000Who: Jim Taggart, Chuck O’Clair, Tom Shirley, Jennifer MondraRef: Taggart, S. J., et al. 2004. Estimating Dungeness crab (Canc

crab pots and dive transects compared. Fishery Bulletin 1

Comments: This systematic and extensive work provides much dapopulation structure. Though the sampling density was not sufficipopulation parameters in a locality , it does so on a sub-regional sc

Dungeness Crab Distribution/Movements/Abundance in shallow water 

No (B1) Yes 

(A1,B) 

What: Survey of crab density in shallow waters How: Census by divers on 2m x 100m transects, 0 to 18m depth, transects in each of 5 sites. Tracked 16 adult male, 8 non ovigerouovigerous female sonic-tagged crabs for a week. Where: Lower Glacier Bay & Icy Passage. When: 1992-93 Who: Chuck O’Clair, Tom Shirley, (the MADS group) Ref: O’Clair, C et al. 1993. Nearshore Distribution and AbundanGLBA, Alaska. in Proceedings of the Third Glacier Bay Science ed. NPS, Anchorage Comments: Carefully designed and described study. Highly replitag component, which is based on a small sample for a short time. 

Dungeness Fjord Oceanographic Gradient (FOG) 

No(B1) Yes (A1,B) What: Survey of crab distribution throughout Glacier Bay in com

parameters and distance from bay mouth How: 468 pots at 52 sites at -10m; CTD measurements made at eaoceanographic transects also referred to. When: Aug-Sept, 1999. Who: Jim Taggart, Phillip Hooge, Jennifer Mondragon, Alex AndRef: Taggart, SJ et al. 2003. Living on the Edge: the distribution Recently Deglaciated Fjord. Marine Ecology Progress Series 246:Comments: Carefully planned study designed to exhibit general p
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-78 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

on that scale. Taggart adds that monitoring animals such as this, tdistributions to see if their distributions change, would be a good ichange. 

Abundance of Male and Female Dungeness Crabs 

No (B1) Yes (A1,B) What: Spatial variability in distribution of adult crabs by sex 

How: Systematic pot fishing Where: Lower Bay and Icy Passage When: 1992-93 Who:Erica Leder Ref: Leder, E.et al. 1993. Male Size and Female Reproduction in Glacier Bay, alaska .in Proceedings of the Third Glacier Bay ScieEngstrom, ed. NPS, Anchorage Comments: As with the above study (to which it is related) the mdescribed, and sample sizes are sufficient to allow confident replic

Tanner & Red King Crab Pot Survey (includes “Tanner Crab Nurseries” listed in project tracking database; also has an important multi-species component)

No (B1) PRIME 

(Ba) 

What: Distribution, abundance, condition and population parametcrabs; special attn. given to apparent nursery areas in Scidmore anHow: Systematic pot survey, using commercial crab and shrimp gsampled during fall survey. Temperature measured at each pot. Where/when: Most of glacier Bay (excluding Hopkins, Adams, Mbays sampled (and in some cases re-sampled) during summer, 200Miller sampled again on finer scale, Fall, 2003. Who: Jim Taggart, Jennifer Mondragon, Alex Andrews, Julie NielRefs: Taggart, SJ et al. 2003. Testing the Effectiveness of a high Network. Phase 1: Distribution of King and Tanner Crabs in GlacUSGS/BRD, Juneau. Progress Report.  Taggart, SJ et al. 2004. Testing the Effectiveness of a high Network. USGS/BRD, Juneau. Progress Report.  Neilsen, J et al. 2004. Glacial Fjords in GLBA: Nursery arAbstract, 4th GB Science Symposium, Juneau.  Mondragon, J. et al. 2004. Spatial Distribution and Relativand Red King Crab Inside and Outside Marine Reserves in Glacie4th GB Science Symposium, Juneau.  Nielsen, J. K. 2005. Distribution and movement of juvenile Chionoecetes bairdi in Glacier Bay National Park. M. Sc. thesis. UFairbanks, Fairbanks. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-79 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

 Nielsen, J., et al. Submitted. Distribution of juvenile and aduChionoecetes bairdi in a glacial fjord ecosystem: implications for processes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences XXComments: All species caught in pots were recorded as well as thsurvey should be viewed as a comprehensive of mobile benthic mvaluable for monitoring changes in relative abundance and distribugastropods, smaller crab species. The shrimp and crabs are indicacommercially fished species are very important for monitoring the decision to close commercial fishing (e.g. will blue king crabs recis closed? Incidence of rizocephalan parasites was also carefully m

Movements of Red King & Tanner Crabs 

Yes (A1, B1) Yes (A1,B) What: Estimate the movement of crab populations 

How: sonic tags attached to ~60 crabs, monitored 6 times by vessemonitored by fixed dataloggers. Where: near the boundary of the Muir Inlet reserve. When: Tagged Sept 02, Oct 03; tracked Nov 02-Feb 04 and 05Who: Jim Taggart, Jennifer Mondragon, Alex Andrews, Julie NielRef: Taggart, SJ et al. 2004. Testing the Effectiveness of a HighNetwork in GLBA, Alaska. USGS/BRD/ Juneau  Mondragon, J et al. 2004. Spatial Disrtribution and Relativand Red King Crabs inside and Outside of Marine Reserves in GlaMondragon, J. et al. 2004. Spatial Distribution and Relative AbuKing Crab Inside and Outside Marine Reserves in Glacier Bay, AlScience Symposium, Juneau. Comments: data loggers have been only partially successful, but mbeen made by vessel. Large sample size makes it possible to estimpopulations and allows replication. 

Bitter Crab Disease in Tanner Crabs No PRIME 

Aa?,Ba) 

What: distribution & prevalence of bitter crab disease in Glacier BHow: testing blood of crabs caught during systematic pot survey fWhere: Glacier Bay When: 2002 Who: Kyle Moselle, Sherry Tamone, Jim Taggart, Jennifer MondRef: Moselle, K et al. 2004. The Distribution of Bitter Crab DiseGlacier Bay, Alaska. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-80 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Comments: large, systematic sample size, simple technique. Highto an important subject economically and (perhaps) ecologically. 

Zooplankton studies No (B1) Yes? 

(A1,B?) 

What: Zooplankton survey How: 50m vertical hauls at even numbered oceanongrapic station 2002), and immediately offshore of beach seine sites (per ArimitsuWhere: Glacier Bay When: 1999-2002 Who: Martin RobardsRef: Robards, M. et al. 2003. Ecology of Selected Marine CommZooplankton, Forage Fish, Seabirds & Marine Mammals. UDGDComments: Sampling frequency and timing available in Glacier Bcomparisons between authors’ data and those of Wing 1963 (presuKrieger & Wing, 1984. Given the point-in-time nature of samplinnot likely to be an adequate baseline on a fine scale, but very usefufor average biomass determinations of the various surveyed specie

Ice-proximal Marine Invertebrate Concentrations 

No (B1) Yes? 

(A1?,B) 

What: Distribution & abundance of benthic, epibenthic and planktidewater glaciers How: Grabs, sediment traps; plankton tows When: 1984, 1986 Where: Near Riggs and McBride glaciers Ref: Simenstad, C. & R. Powell. 1988. in Proceedings of the SecSymposium, Milner & Wood, eds. NPS, Anchorage. Comments: Zooplankton work potentially important adjunct to thbut paper at hand does not give sample size of tows. Benthic work sample sizes, but is clearly extensive and therefore valuable. Comwork in the Dixon Harbor area should be possible. In both cases, approximately located. 

Gustavus School Plankton Study No No What: A school project to identify plankton 

Who: Chohla Dick. Comments: not designed to produce data 

Invertebrate Predator Population Ecology 

No No What: The distribution & ecology of Nucella 

Where: Glacier Bay Who: Gail Irvine. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-81 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Comments: According to Eichenlaub, Irvine did some preliminary large proposal didn’t get funded. 

Multi-Agency Dungeness Study (MADS) 

-- -- This is a general heading for a number of studies, reported in this t

separate headings. Taken altogether, work done under this rubric extensive and replicable work done in the park. Despite the closurpark, it is of great relevance to the question of marine reserve desi

Red Tree Coral Exploration No No What: Qualitative description of coral at a couple of localities 

Who: Tamone, Andrews, the other MADS crew Ref: Stone, R. P., J. Mondragon, and A. G. Andrews. 2005. Deepwtree coral, Primnoa pacifica in Glacier Bay, Alaska in 3rd Internatdeep-sea corals, Science and management. Poster Presentation, MComments: Not a monitoring subject per se, but the presence of cfor reconstructing temperature, and gross trophics using isotope an

Tanner Crab Molt No(B1) PRIME 

(Ab,Ba) 

What: Molt hormone analysis to document the presence of a termvarious size. How: physiological analysis Where: Glacier Bay When: 2004 Who: Sherry Tamone, Jim Taggart, etc. Refs: Tamone, S., et al. In press. Ecdysteroid levels in Glacier bay for a terminal molt. Pages xx-xx in J. F. Piatt and S. M. Gende, edScience Symposium. U. S. Geological Survey, Juneau.  Tamone, S. T.,et al. 2006 Submitted. Ecdysteroid levels in G

evidence for a terminal molt. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aq

Comments: Found that a lot of terminally molted crabs are below them immune from harvest mortality and likely sets them up for hcompared to their conspecifics that terminally molt above legal. Tselection favoring terminal molting below legal size. This study sdetermining whether the proportion of crabs terminally molting beafter closure of commercial fishing. VERY IMPORTANT FISHE

Leather Chiton (Gumboot) studies No (B1) No? 

(A1?,B?) 

What: Compared effects of Katherina removal on community struHow: removed gumboots from 2ea 25 sq m. plots and measured thselected macroinvertebrates in comparison to adjacent untreated p
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-82 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Where: Torch Bay intertidal When: 1979-1983. Who: Megan Dethier, Dave Duggins Ref: Dethier, M. & D. Duggins. 1988. Variations in Strong InterZone along a Geographic Gradient: A Washington- Alaska ExperiComments: plots were permanently marked; if authors can relocatdetails on experiment protocols, may be a potential baseline. How

Ecology of urchin/kelp/starfish community 

No (B1) Yes? 

(A1,B?) 

How: Urchin experiments: urchins & algae rigorously censused othen various manipulations were performed on 50 sq m plots withiplots: starfish removed in some; urchins caged in others, + controlWhere: 4 shallow subtidal sites in central Torch Bay When: over 3 years, 1975-78. Who: Dave Duggins Ref: Duggins, D. 1980. Kelp Dominated Communities: Sea urchtheir Algal Resources. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Washington.13papers.) Comments: Rigorous study; could be important baseline if exact sby author. 

 General marine (incl acoustics) Marine Ecosystem Conceptual Model(s) 

No No Hale & Wright’s, Bodkin’s lovely models. 

Comments: conceptual; not intended to present specific data 

Beardslee Islands Bird and Mammal Surveys 

No No What: bird and mammal surveys 

How: skiff-based observation along standard transects. When: SuSummer, 1991 (Duncan & Climo); December, many years, 1975-2Where: Beardslees Ref: Duncan, T & L. Climo. 1991. Beardslee Island Bird & MamGustavus. Comments: Matkin (probably should be discounted; report not fou(text of report found but not data appendix, which is a shame becaand were good observers); Streveler (Many years of Audubon bird data) 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-83 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

In all, not good baseline material except in a general sense, as obseconditions were too variable. 

Marine Mammal and Seabird Distribution Surveys (marine predator surveys)USGS 

No (B1) PRIME 

(Ab,c;Ba,d) 

What: Systematic surveys of Marine Birds and Mammals How: Repeated boat surveys along a standard set of transects, usiWhere: Glacier Bay, Dundas Bay(’99) and eastern Icy Strait When: June, 1999-2001; subset of Glacier Bay in Nov 1999 and MWho: Jim Bodkin, John Piatt, Gary Drew, Martin Robards, othersRefs: Bodkin, J. et al. 2000. Marine Predator Surveys in GLBA.  Robards, M. et al. 2003. Ecology of Selected Marine ComZooplankton, Forage Fish, Seabirds & Marine Mammals. USGS/B Piatt, J et al. 2004. Hotspots in a Glacial Landscape: PatchBirds and mammals in Glacier Bay. Abstract, 4th GB Science Sym Drew, G & J. Piatt. 2004. Marine Habitats and their EffecMammal Distributions in GLBA. Abstract, 4th GB Science Symp Drew, G & J. Piatt. 2004. Monitoring of Marine Predator 1991-2003. Abstract, 4th GB Science Symposium, Juneau. Comments: Systematic, replicable and extensive in space and timto portray moderate changes in the more abundant species. Authodata with unpublished 1991 data, and were able to place confidenctrends over that time period.

FWS Marine Bird and Mammal Surveys -1980’s 

No (B1) Yes (A2,B) What: Bird and mammal censuses 

Where: Cross Sound and lower outer coast (1981); Cross Sound anHow: vessel surveys, focusing on colonies and (in 1982) vessel traWhen: 1981,82 Who: Art Sowls, Dave Nyswander, John Trapp, Jay Nelson, Bill LRefs: Sowls, A. etal. 1982. Marine Bird and Mammal Surveys of Alaska, Summer 1981. USFWS, Anchorage  Nelson, J. & W. Lenhausen. 1983. Marine Bird and MammaCoast of SE Alaska, Summer 1982 Comments: Counts not done to modern, statistically treatable protseasoned observers. Detailed field notes given for each colony in a data appendix not sent to park, that resides in FWS Anchorage oCOPY OF THIS!). 

FWS Marine Bird and Mammal Yes (A1,B1) PRIME What: census of marine bird and mammal populations, with partic
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-84 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Surveys -2000’s (Ab,Bd) murrelets. 

How: Variety of vessel-based transects, including linear transects zigzag transect of variable offshore distance, standard transects in Add’l visits to hotspots in 2004. The two years’ data coalesced inestimates. Also censuses of colonies. Where: Western Icy Strait and outer coast, from Carolus – Dry BaTaylor, lower outer coast fjords and Lituya. When: July 2003-04 Who: Michelle Kissling, Kathy Kuletz, Steve Brockman Ref: Kissling, M. et al. submitted. Distribution and Abundance Along the Outer Coast of GLBA. 4th GB Sci Symposium Comments: Rigorous study intended to be repeated every 3-5 yea

Hydroacoustic Survey for Euphausiids & Fish (1)

No (B1) Yes? 

(A1,B?) 

What: Characterization of potential prey resources, in proximity to How: hydroacoustics with truthing by netting Where: Glacier Bay and elsewhere outside park When: summers, 1981-84 Who: Ken Krieger, Bruce Wing Ref: Krieger, K. & B. Wing. 1986. Hydroacoustic Monitoring of Humpback Whale Movements. NMFS, Juneau Comments: Pretty extensive work. Gives broad picture of whale scale. Utility as baseline greatly increased if survey tracks can be are approximately located in report: Wing says that’s all the detail 

Hydroacoustic Survey for Euphausiids & Fish (2) 

No (B1) Yes (A1,B) What: Survey for Plankton & fish biomass distribution 

How: systematic, vessel-based hydroacoustic scanning; 48 trawl tthe fish related to acoustic readings; CTD data taken with each towchlorophyll at some stations Where: Stations throughout Glacier Bay and Icy Strait in water coWhen: June 1999 Who: Abookire, Piatt, Speckman Ref: Robards, M. et al. 2003. Ecology of Selected Marine CommZooplankton, Forage Fish, Seabirds & Marine Mammals. UDGDComments: Systematic and extensive, using predator survey trackinventory database. Given the point-in-time nature of sampling anlikely to be an adequate baseline on a fine scale, but very useful on 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-85 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

average biomass determinations of the various surveyed species. Uauthors do not attempt to draw comparisons with Krieger & Wingstation data are in the USGS database. 

Marine Mammal Sightings Yes? 

(A1?, B2) 

Yes? (A2?, B) 

What: Kept track of non-humpback marine mammals in course of How: Rigorous protocol for sample area and obs/time. When: 1994-present Who: Chris Gabriele, Janet Neilson, Tania Lewis Ref: Gabriele, C. & T. Lewis. 2000. Summary of Opportunistic Sightings, Glacier Bay and Icy Strait, 1994-1999. NPS/RM. Comments: Data have been gathered up to present, but not reportauthors’ intend work “to be primarily descriptive [and to] ... compother researchers”. I consider it replicable and valuable so long aout in strict adherence to present protocols, and especially if by thsome disagreement among the GLBA staff in this regard, howeverimportant for scarce species like Minke whales & Dall porpoises, data for harbor porpoises & killer whales. 

Marine Reserves Effectiveness -- -- A general topic with Goals: “Measure transfer rate of halibut, Tan

between the newly created [Glacier Bay] reserves and the adjanceterm goal is to measure detailed movement patterns of crab and hafish habitat, seasonal changes in distribution, migration patterns anand habitat requirements with ontogeny.“ The halibut and crab stmore specific headings elsewhere in this table. 

Underwater Acoustic Monitoring Yes (A2,B1) PRIME 

(Ab,Ba) 

What: Attempt to model impact of ship underwater sound on humand behavior. How: Constructed model using GB specific data (measurement of a number of assumptions, notably on whale responses to and uses environment; from the model, made predictions on the distances hfunctions and hearing acuity would be affected by two specific vespeed. Where/When: M/V Capelin sound output measured at Glacier Baship outputs measured at Ketchikan Naval range, 1999-2001 & 20baseline, 2000-2002.. The Bartlett Cove station has been recording continuously up to present. Who: Erbe, Kipple, Gabriele 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-86 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Refs: Kipple, B. & C. Gabriele. 2003. Glacier Bay Watercraft NoNoise Levels of Watercraft Operated by GLBA as Measured in 20Surface Warfare Ctr., Carderock Div. Rept to NPS. Tech. Rept. 2003/522. 

 Erbe, C. 2003. Assessment of the Bioacoustic Impact of Sh

in Glacier Bay, Alaska. (Incl Exec. Summary by C. Gabriele) Rep Kipple, B. 2002. Glacier Bay Underwater Noise – Interim Warfare Ctr., Detachment Bermerton. Technical Report to NPS.  Gabriele, C. 2002. Underwater Acoustic Monitoring ProjecProjects/Investigator files  Kipple, B. 2004. Coral Princess Underwater Acoustic LevWarfare Ctr., Detachment Bermerton. Technical Report October 2NPS.  Kipple, B & C. Gabriele. 2004. How Loud are those Cruise Underwater Noise – Skiffs to Ships. Abstract, 4th GB Science SyComments: Purpose of study is to make a first generation model, data. Erbe says that there are too many assumptions in model to bthis time. From baseline standpoint, boat signatures replicable. Thoccurring sound is based on 5200 noise samples from Bartlett Covshould be an excellent baseline for that spot. 

Underwater Noise Research - 1980's No (B1) Yes 

(A2, B) 

What: Characterized acoustic environment of the bay by a variety Correlated acoustic measures with individual whale behavior as doHerman. How/when: Summer, 1981: emphasized acoustic environment by 38 stations around the bay. Summer, 1982: emphasized correlatioWhere: Glacier Bay, emphasizing areas where whales frequent. Who: Miles, Malme Ref: Malme, C et al. 1982. The Acoustic Environment of HumpbBay and Frederick Sound/Stephens Passage, Alaska. Bold, BaranReport 4848.  Miles, P. & C. Malme. 1983. The Acoustic Environment anHumpback Whales in Glacier Bay, Alaska. Bold, Baranek & New#734. Comments: Stations are located in 1982 report to within 1 to .1mi
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-87 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

well described. Should be generally replicable. 

Ecology of Selected Marine Communities 

-- -- What: Synthesis of oceanography, plankton, forage fish, and mari

not include any benthic/demersal stuff. When: Various, but mostly in the last decade; refers to some earliWhere: Glacier Bay Who: Robards, Drew, Piatt, Anson, Abookire, Bodkin, Hooge, SpRef: Robards, M., et al., 2003. Ecology of Selected Marine CommZooplankton, Forage Fish, Seabirds and Marine Mammals. USGSComments: THIS IS A MAJOR SYNTHESIS of several importanexcept the zooplankton study are reported elsewhere on this outlinsummarized there will be reported under other headings. 

Torch Bay-Dixon Harbor Benthic Fauna & sediment chemistry 

No Yes 

(A1,B) 

What: survey of subtidal benthic fauna and sediment chemistry How: document species presence and estimate rel. abundance for one sample from each station analyzed for clast size and a number notably heavy metals. Where: Dixon Harbor and Torch Bay When: 1975-76 Who: George Mueller, A.S. Naidu and Doug Schamel. Mueller, G. et al. 1977. Benthic Marine Studies. in Dixon Harboreport on the summer phase of 2005 research. Streveler & WorleyComments: detailed but only roughly quantitative analysis of faunextensive and quite repeatable, given the number of stations, even not precisely located. 

Juvenile fish/oceanography surveys Yes (A1,B1) PRIME 

(Aa,c) 

What: Growth, distribution and abundance of juvenile salmon and associated CTD parameters along standard transects in Icy Strait & program) When: Six times, May – October, 1997 to present Where: 4 Transects in Icy Strait & at Icy Point, respectivelyWho: Joe Orsi, Emily Fergusson, Molly Sturdevant, Burce Wing. Ref: Orsi, J. et al. 2005. Survey of Juvenile Salmon and AssociatIchthyofauna in the Marine Waters of Southeastern Alaska, May-Athe North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission, 2005, Auke Bay Comments: A valuable long-term study with major tie-ins to otheoceanographic work in the area. Methods apparently rigorous and 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-88 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Sedimentation & Composition of Fjord Wall Communities 

No (B1) No? 

(A1?,B?) 

What: Correlation of rock wall shallow subtidal invertebrate cominfluence (principally sediment in the water column) How: Suspended sediment amts and CTD measurements and evalphotography of adjacent rock wall Where: 9 stations from Willoughby N to upper Tarr an Muir InletSE) When: 1990 Who: Diane Carney, John Oliver, Cynthia Armstrong Ref: Carney, D. et al. 1999. Sedimentation and Composition of WAlaskan Fjords. Polar Biol. 22:38-49 Comments: Sites may be precisely identifiable due to photographlocations). Work is based on single occupations for oceanographibiotic sampling was extensive geographically and does not providper site; therefore, the utility as a baseline is limited to change on 

Impacts 

Vessel Effects on Marine and Nearshore Zone 

No No What: Overview of vessel impact potentials 

When 2000 Who: James Wuebben, Lewis Hunter, Dan Lawson, Susan Bigl Ref: Wuebben, J. et al. 2000. Impact Study of Vessel Effects on zone, Glacier Bay, Alaska. CRREL report to NPS Comments: A broad but cursory overview of a large range of implittle or no original data 

Commercial Fisheries, includingCommercial Tanner Crab Harvest 

Yes (A2,B1) Yes 

(A2,B) 

What: Various data sets and talks assembled by Soiseth in “Projecand catches. Includes IPHC Halibut catch in Glacier Bay and neardata for many species. ADF&G Tanner crab stock assessment surStrait and other areas in SE AK. Comments: these programs are certainly intended as monitoring ocrude indices to stock sizes & composition. 

Commercial Fishing Compensation Project 

No No Comment: Financial, political; not relevant in this context 

Dungeness Crab Gear Distribution Survey 

No No That fishery is now closed 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-89 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Dungeness Injury No No What: Frequency, causes and implications of injury to crabs in a p

How: Experimental pot fishery backed up by lab study of injured abilities Where: Bartlett CoveWhen: June-October 2002 Who: Julie Barber Ref: Barber, J. 2004. Factors Influencing Injury of Trapped DunConsequences for Released Males. M.S. Thesis, U of Rhode islanthere is another manuscript that was never finished.) Comments: Field portion designed to elucidate the effect of soak fishery that no longer exists in the park. (But could be very imporThere is a very large data set on injury rates in Dungeness crabs bocommercial fishing closure.) 

Kittlitz's Murrelets & Vessels No (B1) PRIME 

(Ba,d) 

What: Effects of vessels on murrelet distribution, use patterns. How: Observation of murrelets in presence/absence, before/afterWhere: 7 murrelet concentration sites in Glacier Bay When: 41 days during may-July, 2004. Who: Alison Agness, John Piatt Ref: Agness, A. 2006. Effects and Impacts of Vessel Activity on Glacier Bay, Alaska. M.S. Thesis, U Washington. Comments: Very careful and replicable work with much attention 

Cross Sound and Icy Strait sport fishery harvest (includes Sport Fishing Interaction Survey)

Yes (A2,B1) Yes? 

(A1?,B) 

What: Survey of charter fishery effort and harvest How: Creel surveys; questioning of individual fishers When: 2002 and 2003, continued by ADF&G since then Who: Jason Gasper, Vince Gallucci, marc Miller; Bruce Kruger. Refs: Gaspar, J, et al. 2005. Sportfish Information for managing Harvest, and Effort for the Gustavus and Elfin Cove Sportfishery iStrait Region of northern SE Alaska during 2003. NPS Tech. Rep Kruger annual data reports to ADF&G Comments: NPS study compares and contrasts effort and harvest Cove based charter fleets. Documents seasonal local depletion of PCPUE, HPUE. ADF&G work monitors catch characteristice of fidock . Work generally sufficient to document major changes in casome unknown level of accuracy (but at least the self-reporting bia
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-90 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Galluci/Gaspar work also has a sociological component. 

Sea Lion Reaction to Vessels - Marble island 

No (B1) Yes? 

(A1?,B) 

What: Observations of vessel approach distance and sea lion reacHow: Visual observation and gauging of vessel appprach distancedisturbance rigorously Where: South Marble Island When: 23 days in summer, 1994,95,97. Refs: Matthews, E. 1997. Effects of Vessel Traffic on the Behaba Haulout in GLBA. UAS rept to NPS.  Matthews, E. 2000. Reaction of Steller Sea Lions to VesselBay. UAS rept to NPS Comments: This sample of 23 days and 88 vessel approaches is a activity during those years; if replicated during approximately the a fairly good baseline for disturbance as a function of approach di

Researcher Disturbance to Sea Lions No (B1) No?(A1?,B?) What: Part of a regional study to determine the effects of research 

rookeries. How: Observers placed on selected sites for 2 weeks to document activities. Where: S Marble, Graves When: Summer, 2003 Who: Laura Kucey Ref: Kucey, L. 2005. Human disturbance and the hauling out behMS thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Comments: I’ve not reviewed this thesis, nor has the RM staff, budescription the work may be replicable. 

Harbor Seal reaction to vessels Yes? 

(A1?,B1) 

PRIME (Ba) What: documenting frequency, severity and timing of disturbance 

and other causes relative to aerial census overflights (Spider) and How: Direct observation using defined protocols Where: Spider Island, Johns Hopkins Inlet, North Marble Island When: 1996- 1999, comparing back to 1991 data at Spider islandNorth Marble Who: Beth Matthews, Janene Driscoll Refs: Matthews, E. 1996. The Effects of Seismic Reflection SurHarbor Seals In Johns Hopkins Inlet, GLBA, Alaska. NPS, Gusta Matthews, E. 1997. Preliminary Assessment of Harbor Se
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-91 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Sources of Disturbance ath the Spider Island Reefs in GLBA. UA Matthews, E. 2000. Progeress Report: Measuring the EffeSeals at North Marble Island, a terrestrial Haulout in GLBA. UAS 

 Matthews, E. and J. Driscoll. 2000 Draft. Disturbance of 

Effects on Counts from Aerial Surveys, GLBA, 1991-1999. Comments: Principal purpose of Spider Is work was to evaluate ecounts, but also quite useful as index of disturbance over that decafuture. Hopkins and Marble work was more cursory, but very systCrucial info given the plight of seals lately. 

Marine Mammal tissue analysis No No What: analysis of one stranded whale’s tissues for organochloride

When: 2002 Where: Pt. Gustavus stranded whale Ref: Letter from Gina Ylitalo to Chris Gabriele, 6/4/02. Comments: Another set of samples are “on the shelf” for the stranplanned to be submitted for pathology analysis. Too few samples 

Cruise Ship Impact on Water Quality No No What: Study is part of an ongoing program being conducted by the 

Environmental Conservation to evaluate the impacts of the commeon Alaskan coastal waters. The study will collect bateriological anat one sampline station in Bartlett Cove. When: 2003 Where: one station at Bartlett Cove Who: Gendron, ADEC Comment: Park has rec’d no data from this according to Rusty Yeappln, was to be a small, cursory study. 

Increase in male Dungeness after fishery closure 

Yes (A1,B1) Yes (A1,B) What: Change in average size of male crabs 

How: Systematic pot fishery before and after closure, with outlier Where: Lower Glacier Bay; outlier in Icy Strait When: 1997-2001 Who: Jim Taggart , Tom Shirley, Chuck O’Clair, Jennifer MondrRefs: Taggart, SJ et al. 2004. Increase in the Relative AbundancDungeness Crabs Following Closure of Commercial Fishing in GlAbstract, 4th GB Science Symposium, Juneau.  Taggart, S. J., T. C. Shirley, C. E. O'Clair, and J. Mondrago

increase in the relative abundance of large male Dungeness crabs, 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-92 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

following closure of commercial fishing in Glacier Bay, Alaska. PShipley, editor. Aquatic protected areas as fisheries management toSociety, Bethesda, MD. 

Comments: Carefully designed study. Highly replicable. 

Survey of private vessel fishing license permit holders in Glacier Bay proper 

No (B1) Yes? 

A1?,B) 

What: Survey of private angler fishery effort and harvest Where: in Glacier Bay How: Phone and mail, asking general info for # & species of fish cWhen: 2002 and 2003 Who: Sarah Osterhoudt, Jane Swanson, Darrell Johnson Ref: Osterhaudt, S. et al. 2005. Sportfishery Information for Mansurvey of Fishing License Holders Entering Glacier Bay on PrivatTech. Rept, Seattle Comments: Companion to Gasper et al report. Authors caution thand “may not be representative of the intended population”. Soisethe best available on this subject.. 

Intertidal 

 Landforms/sediments Dry Bay Shoreline Change No No What: History of shoreline change at Dry Bay 

How: Compiling historic maps Who: Chad Soiseth Comments: Not enough detail on these various sketch maps to rep

Beach Characteristics, Icy Point-Sea Otter Creek 

No (B1) Yes? 

(A2,B?) 

What: Character of shorelines How: 55 beach transects, documenting beach profile, ht of storm bvegetation zones; 90 sediment samples along these transects. Where: Cape Fairweather-Icy Point (with aerial obs N of Cape FaWhen: 1975-1977 Who: Bruce Molnia & crew Refs: Molnia, B. 1978. Beach Dynamics, Geology and Oil spill Sof Alaska Coastline in GLBA – Sea Otter Creek to Icy Point. USG284. (This report is in archives on microfiche – can’t access). Molnia, B. 1980. Beach Characteristics and Physical Aspe
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-93 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Susceptibility. in Lituya Bay Environmental Survey, Streveler, WNPS, Gustavus. Comments: Transects probably could be relocated within 100m or whose accuracy is based on survey data related to an estimate of Moffer more detail, but I did not review it. I observed the field workelevation of >1m could be detected. Replicable on that level. 

 Invertebrates/algae Intertidal Bivalve Study No (B1) PRIME 

(Ab, Bd) 

What: Survey of clam density and species composition How: Ten .25m quadrats sampled at 0 tide level, ~86 sites When: 1999-2000 Where: Many places along Glacier Bay, Idaho Inlet and Port AlthoWho: Jim Bodkin, Kim Kloecker, Esslinger, DeGroot,, Monson Refs: Bodkin, J & K. Kloecker. 1999. Intertidal Clam Diversity, GLBA: 1999 Ann rept. USGS, Anchorage  Bodkin, J et al. 2000. Sea Otter Studies in GLBA: Aerial sobservations, and Intertidal Clam Sampling. USGS, Anchorage. Comments: A very important, rigorous study that provides a splenundergoing drastic change.

Intertidal Community Change No No What: Assess biodiversity and temporal changes in rocky intertida

western coast of the United States, Where: This study will resample a site within Glacier Bay Nationastudied in July of 2002. Who: Peter Raimondi Comments: Only thing found is a permit appln in project tracking. sampling of the site will be done in a way to allow long-term moncorroborated. Project appears not to have occurred, so far as is kn

Torch Bay Intertidal Community Studies – 1970’s 

No No What: Biotic characterization of intertidal biota; investigations of 

response to disturbance. How: Careful mensuration, disturbance experiments, removal/addWhere: Torch Bay When: 1993-94 Who: Dave Duggins, Jim Quinn 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-94 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Refs: Duggins, D & J.Quinn. 1975. Rocky Intertidal CommunitiBiological Survey: final report on the summer phase of 1994 reseaeds. NPS, Juneau.  Quinn, J & D. Duggins. 1977. Rocky Intertidal CommunitiBiological Survey: final report on the summer phase of 1995 reseaeds. NPS, Juneau. Comments: Much of descriptions, though detailed, are not pinned removal/addition experiments were initiated and monitored, but thlocated, and besides, since responses to disturbance are usually rapmonitoring them at this late date are nil. 

Wachusett Intertidal Transects No (B1) Yes? 

(A2?,B?) 

What: Intertidal Transects How: General desription AND PHOTOS of four intertidal transecWhere: upper and central Wachusett Inlet When: summer 1971 & 1982 Who: Bill Garry, Lewis Sharman, Cathy Coghill Refs Garry, W. 1971. Intertidal Transects in Wachusett Inlet. Rlibrary archives.  Sharman, L. & C. Coghill. 1982. Wachusett Inlet IntertidaBarco Library archivesComments: The transects are marked by cairns and are as well Fieplus photos may well make them relocatable. The photos also wilin cover by major organisms. Sharman & Coghill did reoccupy thdone in great detail, but given the changes expected between now hazy “before” picture. 

Intertidal Monitoring No (B1) Yes? 

(A1?,B) 

What: Purposes are to develop monitoring protocols and to elucidprocesses that contribute to variation” in rocky intertidal communiHow: Develop and use protocols for monitoring; sampled 25 rockWhen: 1997-2001 Where: Various sites along Glacier Bay Who: Gail Irvine Ref: Irvine, G. 2005. Development of Coastal Monitoring ProtocoStudies for Intertidal Assemblages of Glacier Bay National Park aBRD-NRPP Project.Comments: The purpose was to develop rather than apply a proto
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-95 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

protocol is under analysis; if the result is positive, then some or alcan be used as a baseline for future monitoring 

Marine Intertidal Community Development 

No (B1) Yes (A1,B) What: Factors influencing biotic differences on bedrock-boulder s

How: Measured water chemistry & turbidity, distance from glaciepresence & abundance in quadrats along vertical transects; did sitetransplants. Where: along the east Glacier Bay chronosequence. When: summer, 1984. Who: Lewis Sharman Ref: Sharman, L. 1988. Marine Intertidal Community DevelopmRecession in Glacier Bay, Alaska. in Proceedings of the Second GSymposium. NPS, Anchorage. Comments: Not in paper, but Lewis has photos and notes that wil6 study sites and re-measurement of the biotic & physical parametGary/Sharman and Irvine work. 

 Fish Spawning Beaches No No What: Opportunistic observations on beaches used by spawning f

Who: several staff members. Comments: Related to next study 

Capelin Spawning Ecology No No What: Spawning ecology of capelin 

Where: Glacier Bay When: 1999-2004 How: based on midwater trawling/ beach seining/ oceanography. coastal inventory for potential spawning sites Who: Yumi Arimitsu, others Ref: Arimitsu et al. in review. Glacial influence on distribution, adynamics of Pacific capelin. Comments: Have not seen draft paper, but assume it is based on a other studies cited at various places above; therefore not listed sepbaseline potential. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-96 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

 Birds Black Oystercatcher Ecological Assessment 

Yes (A1, B21) 

Yes (A1,B) 

What: Breeding biology, overwintering survival and abundance/dterritories How: Capture, banding/resighting, morphometric measurement, oobjectives of assessing population distribution, abundance, producWhere: Beardslee Islands When: 2004-ongoing Who: David Tessler, Lewis Garding, Yumi Arimitsu Ref: Tessler, D. 2005. Black Oystercatcher Distribution and Prodislands, GLBA, Alaska. ADF&G, Juneau. Comments: Part of an interagency study to document aspects of oregional basis. Thorough, disciplined study, a valuable update and baseline. 

Breeding Ecology of Black Oystercatchers 

Yes (A2, B1) Yes (A2,B) What: Survey of Oystercatcher nesting activity 

How: repeated visits of all shorelines by kayak Where: Beardslee Islands and adjacent mainland When: May 30 – July 10, 1989 Who: hank Lentfer & Anya Meier Ref: Lentfer, H. & A. Maier. 1989. Distribution & Biology of BBeardslee Islands, Glacier Bay, Alaska. NPS/RM Comments: Thorough survey which very likely noted all nesting Important baseline against which to compare Tessler’s recent work

Shorebird GIS Data from the Bear Campsite Assessments Project 

No No? 

(A1?,B) 

What: Noted shore-nesting bird occurrences as part of protocol foimpacts to campsites. How: visual observation Where: Many campsites along Glacier Bay When: 2001-02 Who: Tania Lewis, Nat Drumheller. Comments: data not worked up but possibly a useful adjunct to A

Shorebird Surveys - NPS Who: Mary Kralovek. 

Comments: Never happened 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-97 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

 General/impacts Beach Surveys for Nesting Birds (same as “Human Disturbance of Coastal Marine Birds”) 

No (B1) Yes (A2,B1) What: Determine the near-shore distribution of the arctic tern, bla

gull and glauous-winged gull, herring gull, parasitic jaeger, semipspotted sandpiper, with emphasis on coastal areas receiving high voystercatcher breeding productivity in Beardslee Islands. How: Determined high use areas from NPS data. Did foot surveysites: other shores were observed at close range from a boat, and fsigns of nesting beharvior noted; some closed areas not surveyed. concentrations surveyed twice on successive years. Where: Glacier Bay When: 2003-05; oystercatcher breeding in Beardslees, May-July, Who: David Tessler, Yumi Arimitsu, Marc Romano, John Piatt Refs: Arimitsu, M., et al., 2004. Ground-Nesting Marine Bird DiPotential for Human disturbance in GLBA, Alaska: 2003 Annual RAnchorage  Arimitsu, M. et al. 2004. Ground-neting Marine Bird DistHuman Impacts in GLBA. Abstract, 4th GB Science Symposium,  Arimitsu, M. et al. 2005. Ground-Nesting Marine Bird DiHuman Impacts in Glacier Bay. USGS (BRD), Anchorage. (Finareview) Comments: Survey methods spelled out well in reports, but someboundaries of areas defined as “high use” and on the number & ex(This may be remedied in the final report). The work did not incluconcentrations were found to be in closed areas) and was based on provides more of an index than a population estimate. But as suchgeneral patterns. 

Beach Debris Surveys No (B1) Yes (A2,B) What: Foot surveys of beaches to note amounts and types of beac

How: Most or all using NOAA standard protocols. Where: Bartlett Cove, Lester & Young Islands, Taylor Bay, OuteWhen: 1988-1992 Who: Numerous investigators Refs: Streveler, G. 1989. Accumulation of Debris and Bird/Mam
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-98 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Beaches: a summary of existing data.  Sharman, L. & H. Lentfer. 1991. 1991 Dixon Harbor BiolGustavus.  Rettew, J. Persistent Marine Beach Debris Survey, Lester & Gustavus, Alaska. NPS/RN, Gustavus.  Polasky, C. 1992. Bartlett Cove Beach Debris Survey, GLNPS, Gustavus  Greer, Antaya, Schroeder 1991-1992. Raw Data in Sharma Johnson, S. 1988. Surveys from Taylor Bay to Justice CrePerry) NOAA Raw data in Sharman’s files. (1992 data in same fiComments: Generally done to NOAA protocols, and in all cases wreplicate. Very useful baseline 

Coastal Resources Inventory and Mapping Program; Coastal Inventory - Dynamic Segmentation 

No (B1) Yes (A2,B) What: Systematic characterization of biota, substrate, morphology 

How: Using standard coastwalker protocol developed at GLBA Where: Entire park intertidal zone with exception of outer coast N When: 1997-2003 Who: Lewis Sharman et al.Ref: Data archived at GLBA/RM Comment: The coastwalker data are not sufficiently quantitative frelocatable photos accompanying each shore segment can be used changes in plant and encrusting invertebrate cover, as well as in sh

Outer Waters Vessel Activity Surveys Yes (B1) Yes (A2,B) What: vessel survey 

How: Aerial surveys, with a stratified sampling design; photos of Where: Waters in GLBA outside Glacier Bay proper When: 2002-03 Who: Chad Soiseth Ref: Soiseth, C. 2004. Vessel Use and Activity in GLBA’s OuteGB Science Symposium, Juneau. Comments: Multiple replicates of day of week and weekend stratSept) seasons. The design is replicable and established a baseline oGLBA’s outer waters from Excursion Inlet to Icy Point

General, Other 

Birds of Glacier Bay Nat’l Monument No No What: Richly annotated checklists with much historical informatio
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-99 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

How: Compiled by rangers based on a theirs’ and others’ observaWhere: Glacier Bay mostly When: 1962, 1967 Refs: Jacot, F. 1962. Checklist of Birds for Glacier Bay NationaGustavus.  Wik, O. 1967. Birds of Glacier Bay National Monument. Gustavus Comments: Wik is an excellent observer, and pulls together much Should be considered important inventory material, and certainly adrawn about changes in cases where these are major. Jacot’s contsubsumed into Wik’s. 

Climate-Glacial-Ocean Linkages No No What: Ice-proximal sediment records as proxies for short-term cli

through water column events and glacial discharge) How: Reading sedimentary record of such things as summer organof dropstones, proportions of seasonal rythmites. Where: upper Glacier Bay When: ongoing, dating back to Cowan/Powell’s early work see elsRef: Cowan, E & R. Powell. 2004. High Frequency Climate SignGLBA, Alaska. Abstract In 4th Glacier Bay Science SymposiumComments: This paper is a general treatise on the utility of such rof records themselves. 

Falls Creek EIS No No Specific parts thereof considered under other headings. Gustavus and lower Glacier Bay Bird Data 

No (A1) No What: Observations of local birders, including the Audubon Chris

owl surveys (Drumheller) When: for last 30 years or so Comments: don’t follow replicable protocols & therefore are not except in a general sense 

Ranger Daily Logs No No? Scattered observations generally; may contain elements that are re

notes of Ole Wik & Jerry Hok in late ‘60’s. 

 Digital Orthophotos No (B1) PRIME 

(Ba) 

What: 1996 georeferenced black/white digital ortophoto coverage case of GLBA, ~80% coverage. Comments: According to Bill E, these are the state-of-the-art phoavailable for accurate GIS layer bases. Extremely important as the 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-100 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

of all sorts 

Visitor - Backcountry Surveys No (B1) PRIME 

(Ab,Ba) 

What: Five survey projects done prior to 1990: - backcountry users, 1978 & 1984 - cruiseship passengers in 1979 & 1989 - Alsek River recreationists in 1984 Refs: Johnson, D et al. 1990. Social Science Perspectives On ViWashingoton CPSU  Littlejohn, M. GLBA Bartlett Cove Visitor Survey. Visitor 114. U Idaho CPSU Comments: This work is included despite being sociological in nathe only body of such literature for the park. The Johnson ref (Chof 4 of the 5 sociological studies done in the park prior to 1990 (thcruiseship passengers, was being analyzed at the time of writing). professionals and is therefore (likely) replicable; and in fact Johnscomparisons between studies in his report. The 1999 visitor survedesign flaws according to Allison Banks.

Backcountry Visitor Use Data Yes 

(A2,B) 

PRIME (Ac,Ba) 

What: use volumes, distribution & trends How: Data from park records When: 1996-2003 Where: Glacier Bay Who: Mary Kralovek, Allison Banks Ref: Kralovek, M et al. 2004. Distribution and Number of Backc1996-2003. Abstract, 4th GB Science Symposium, Juneau. Comments: an exceedingly important baseline 

Wildlife Sightings Database No No What: park sighting records 

How: Opportunistic, unsystematic When: Going back to before the ‘60’s Where: park Who: whomever Comments: useful to provide very general impressions over the loas a baseline per se. 

Map for New Park Brochure- 2006 No PRIME 

(Ab,Ba) 

What: Map for new park brochure, which is based on latest /best tinformation. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-101 

 Project Ongoing 

Monitoring?

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Who: Tom Patterson Comments: Bill Eichenlaub says GIS data accumulated by Patterspotential basis for any major GLBA mapping project. 

Dry Bay Photo Mosaics No (B1) PRIME 

(Ba) 

What: stitched-together collage of aerial photos from 1948, 1966, Who: Bill Eichenlaub Comments: These photos provide superb baseline for following ain vegetation, landforms, human works. 

Historical photos No (B1) PRIME 

(Ab,Ba) 

What: various aerial photography series for park, beginning with Many other sources, including: - Bill Field’s collection, I think now archived at UAF, plus a large GLBA. - Harris’s (1969) occupation of many Field photostations - Many Institute of Polar Studies geology reports have poor copiephotos in them; in a number of cases, the authors are still around aoriginals, from which good copies could be made. Key works wit(IPS 3); Price (IPS 9); Welch (15); Mckenzie (25); Mickelson (40 - Original photos in Cooper & Lawrence reports Mark Noble, U Carstensen are all likely repositories for Cooper/Lawrence photoshistoric photos for NPS archives. - Austin Post has large set of aerials he has taken personally; also - Many early park employees have photos in their personal files - A series of photos from Icy Strait and Dundas from the ‘30’s by Edberg, in GLBA archives. - Morgan DeBoer’s and Jim Mackovjak’s historical photo collect- Molnia’s recent reoccupation of Field’s stations SEE ESPECIALLY: Lawrence, et al. 1993. Repeat Photograohy Glacier Bay, 1979-1993. in Proceedings of the Third Glacier Bay Engstrom, ed. NPS, Anchorage 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-102 

 KLGO Project Evaluation Table Final, 10/17/06

Greg Streveler, in consultation with Meg Hahr & Theresa Thebault, KLG

 (Codes follow numerics in a companion document,“Identifying Baseline Candidates and Ongoing Monitoring 

Project Ongoing 

Monitoring? 

Potential Baseline? 

Comments 

Atmosphere Lichen-air quality pilot Yes (A1, B2) Yes (A2,B) What? Survey lichens for indications of reduced air quality 

How? Tissue evaluation for heavy metals, Where? Two sites in Skagway 

When? 1998-1999 Who? Linda Geiser, Elaine Furbish Refs: Furbish, E, L. Geiser and C. Rector. 2000. Lichen - Air Quality Pof Skagway, AK. NPS, RM. 48p.  Hahr, M. 2004. Assess current status of lichens and develop air quaProposal to NPS Air Resources Division. Comments: Canadian government installed passive air samplers (to measucontaminants) in SKG for one year starting in 2006. Park will resample ppassive air samplers (PASDs) during two-year follow-up study (fy 07). 

Dyea weather station No (B1) Yes?(A1?,B?) 3 summers’ data from Dyea campground FTS weather station beginning i

continued. 

NOAA weather, SKG Yes (A1,B1) Yes (A1,B) What? Weather station 

Where? Skagway Airport (mouth of Skagway River) When? ongoing Who? National Weather Service 

NRCS Snow Survey Site (Moore Creek snow course & automated weather station) 

Yes(A1,B1) Yes? (A1, B), 

(Snow yes; station after more time) 

What? Snow depth and precip gage read manually; automated weather stair temp, snow depth). Where? Adjacent to the Klondike Highway at the Moore Creek Bridge, n

When? Snow monitored since the ‘80’s; weather station since 2004. Who? USDA-Nat Resource Cons Svs , NPS Ref? Data online at http://www.ak.nrcs.usda.gov/snow/ 

ADEC Cruise Ship emissions (opacity) 

Yes?(A2,B2?) No (A1) What? Readings of visible emisions (opacity) from vessel smoke stacks 

How? Certified observers read the visible emissions from cruise ships to d
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-103 

Project Ongoing 

Monitoring? 

Potential Baseline? 

Comments 

monitoring compliance with the State Marine Vessel Emission standard (18 AAC 50.

Where? Skagway Harbor When? Once per year (random) Who? ADEC Comments: A pretty cursory program park collected this data in the past clear where the info is kept. If we could locate the data, we’d need to evalpartner with tribe or other entity to continue this work 

ADEC Fine Particulate Matter Pollution (PM2.5) Monitoring 

No(B2) Yes? 

(A1?,B?) 

What? Monitoring of particulates How? PM2.5 Continuous Monitoring Station Where? 2 sample stations at Skagway When? Jan 2004-March 2005 Who? ADEC (vanVliet) Ref: No report; data at ADEC Comment: park has had hard time getting summary of results from ADECHahr, vanVliet said that state standards were not exceeded 

 Birds Bald Eagle productivity Yes(A1,B1) Yes (A2,B) What? monitored 3 nests annually 

How: repeated obs to note whether active Where? along the Taiya River When? 2002-06 Who? NPS; Ref: Data maintained by USFWS, JNU (Jacobson). Comment: Known nests have not been active in these years; nest to S outwas destroyed due to erosion of riverbank (undercutting the tree). Two newere recordedin 2006 as active nest structures. 

Off-road Breeding Bird Surveys (ORBBS) - ALMS 

Yes(A1,B1) Yes ( A2,B) What? Offroad Breeding Bird Survey, expanded and subsumed into the A

System How? ORBBS and ALMS protocols Where? 2 routes in Taiya Valley When? Since 1995 Who? NPS/FWS(Rudis) conducts survey Ref? data managed by USGS - Handel  Handel, C. & M. Cady. 2004. Alaska Landbird Monitoring Survey: poteconducting point count surveys. USGS AK Sci Ltr. 50p. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-104 

Project Ongoing 

Monitoring? 

Potential Baseline? 

Comments Comment: data probably adequate for regional comparisons; needs to be rmonitoring tool. 

Christmas bird count Yes (A2) No (A1) Counts not systematic nor strictly comparable from year to year Breeding Landbird Inventory 

Yes (A1,B1) Yes (A1,B) What: Includes the more quantitative surveys and other qualitative efforts

 How:. Twenty-eight new survey points were established throughout the ecological gradient) and sampled (following the ALMS protocol) for this Who: Colleen Handel (USGS) Comments: The protocol developed for this effort was peer-reviewed. Thepermanently marked, GPS’ed, and detailed habitat parameters were measusurvey points can be relocated and resampled. This sampling network waterm monitoring. 

Nocturnal Owl Inventory 

No No One winter’s data. Followed BBS and USFWS protocol, but few owls en

methodology to get enough data for reproducible results. 

BBS bird survey Yes (A,B1) Yes(A2,B) What? Breeding Bird Survey 

How? Per national BBS protocol (50 stops along a standard route, 3-minuWhere? 25 miles along Chilkoot Trail & Dyea; When? Since 1993 with a break from 1999-2004 Who? FWS (Andres, Rudis) Ref? USGS (Handel) manages data Comment: data probably adequate for regional comparisons; needs to be rmonitoring tool. 

Coastal Waterbird surveys 

Yes (A2, B1) Yes? 

(A1?,B) 

What? Spring waterbird counts, as companion to the Breeding Landbird How? Spring, ~ weekly counts at specific points along road Numbers a

Where? Offshore of road from SKG - Dyea Who? NPS When? Begun 2003, continued thru 06. Ref: Hahr, M. & T.Trapp. 2004. Waterbird and Breeding Landbird Inve44p. Comment: Ranger reports from the 1980s and early 1990s indicated large waterbirds along the KLGO coast during spring migration. Those reports waterbirds in what was intended to simply be a Landbird Inventory for KLinventory, but have been continued. Sampling design exists, but not peerdata to judge its suitability for baseline and trend detection. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-105 

Project Ongoing 

Monitoring? 

Potential Baseline? 

Comments 

 Mammals Goat surveys No 

(NPS part) ? on rest 

No? What? Surveying mountain goats 

How? Mostly aerial surveys, but Joly’s: two ground-based surveys from Where? in Taiya Watershed When? Various times and investigators Who? NPS (Joly& Canadian cooperator); BLM (Denton); USFS (MillsteiRef? Joly, K. 1996. Mountain Goat Survey of Upper Taiya River DrainaComment: NPS - Joly’s work repeatable but too cursory; for others, word sets and ideas about goats vs. helicopters. I have not seen the data or repthis work personally 

Bear scat survey No No Small sample size. Scat surveys are inexact indices of bear population siz

of bear activity and could be useful from a management perspective, but nmonitoring. 

 Fish Eulachon genetics study No (B2) Yes? (A2,B) What? Comparison of Eulachon genetics among “populations” to gauge t

How? Measure frequency of alleles at selected microsatellite loci of 100 

across their Alaska range. Where? Samples obtained from Taiya and Skagway rivers. When? Samples collected 2003 (Taiya and Skagway) and again in 2005 (Who? USFS (Rob Spangler) Ref? No report yet Comment: May allow changes in genetic structure of populations over lo

SEAN marine/estuarine fish inventory

No No Litzow, M., J. Piatt, and M. Arimitsu. 2002. Inventory of Marine and Es

Alaskan National Parks during summer, 2001. NPS, ANC. Structured to extend species list; not rigorously quantitative. 

Plants 

Exotic plant surveys Yes 

(A2,B1) 

PRIME (A2, Ba) 

What? Surveys of introduced plants in Dyea and along Chilkoot trail How? Systematically recorded identities & extents of exotics. First survepolygons and recorded species presence/abundance in each. Last two: GPalong trail/Dyea and the White pass unit, following NPS Exotic Plan ManWhen? 2000, 2004, 2005 2006 Who? NPS (Furbish, Delost, Schultz) Refs? Furbish, E. 2001. Exotic Plant Survey of the Chilkoot Trail, KLGDelost, J. 2004. Exotic Plant Survey of KLGO. NPS/RM. 17p. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-106 

Project Ongoing 

Monitoring? 

Potential Baseline? 

Comments Schultz, D. 2005. Exotic Plant Survey of KLGO. NPS/RM. 14p. Comments: 2006 report will be completed September 2006 

Vascular plant inventory (ANHP) 

No No Purpose is for constructing an annotated checklist and evaluating presence 

Subalpine fir mortality Yes (A1,B1) Yes? 

(A2?, B) 

What? Monitoring balsam bark beetle infestation of fir How? 02: Set up 6 ea. 9 ha relocatable plots on which beetle density indmortality recorded. More plots since then near Skagway (outside park). Where? The upper Skagway valley (White Pass City area). When? Started 2001 Who? USFS (Schultz) Ref: Mark Schultz memo to Meg Hahr 3/8/06 Comment: Memo gives general idea on progress of infestation; haven’t s

Sitka Spruce, tomentosus and bark beetle infestation 

No (B1) Yes? (A1?,B) What? Monitoring Sitka Spruce tomentosus and relationship to subsequen

How? Installation of plots in Dyea (details forthcoming), taged 142 for coWhere? Dyea When? August 2006 Who? Mark Schultz, Lori Trummer (USFS) Ref: Mark Schultz, Lori Trummer personal communication August 2006 Comment: Preliminary report due September 2006 describing monitoring 

Amphibians 

SEAN amphibian opportunistic inventory 

No No Qualitative and opportunistic; intended for inventory level summary of ex

Western toad monitoring pilot study 

Yes? (A1?,B) Yes? (too 

soon to tell but USGS is optimistic) 

What? Mark-recapture study of western toads – ARMI Apex-level Monit

How? Systematic marking of adult western toads at breeding ponds using estimate population size, determine population trends, and describe metapWhere? Western toad breeding ponds in Dyea area When? Initiated in 2004 Who? NPS/USGS ARMI (Adams, Payne) Ref: Hahr, M. 2005. Southeast Alaska Cluster Program Request for fundARMI Apex Monitoring Site. Proposal to SE AK Coastal Cluster Program Comment: USGS arrived in KLGO to train NPS staff in toad tagging techbreeding season so an estimate of the breeding population could not be obefforts will span the entire breeding season allowing for a complete datase
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-107 

Project Ongoing 

Monitoring? 

Potential Baseline? 

Comments whether the breeding population is sufficiently large to satisfy the requiremonitoring program.

Amphibian habitat surveys 

Yes (A1, B2) PRIME 

(Ab) 

What? Systematic survey of toad presence/absence – ARMI mid-level mto provide landscape level index of changes in toad occupancy of suitable whether KLGO is an appropriate area for an ARMI mid-level monitoring and toad presence/absence, life stage and general abundance in 129 surveHow? According to USGS Amphibian Research & Monitoring Initiative MWhere? Throughout Taiya and Skagway watersheds. When? 2004-2006. Potential amphibian breeding sites were surveyed in 2amphibian species occurrence and reproduction. Who? NPS, USGS ARMI (Adams, Payne) Ref: Payne, K. 2005. Amphibian Productivity Monitoring and Habitat ARM.46p.  Comment: will be continued in 2006 by Kevin Payne with direction 

 Visitor Use/ Impacts Chilkoot trail visitor use Yes (A2, B) PRIME 

(Ba) 

Overnight users of the Chilkoot trail are closely monitored by the NPS thr

Dyea Social Science Survey. 

No (B1) PRIME 

(Ba) 

What? Survey of volumes of various types and volumes of visitor use How? Physical counts of day use of Chilkoot Trail and Dyea Townsite Tof Dyea users and polling a sample thereof to determine their experience 

traffic counters at 3 locations in Dyea Townsite. Monitoring protocol also Where? at Dyea and the base of the chilkoot trail Who? Van de Kamp, SekampRef: (Van de Kamp and Seekamp. 2005. Visitation and Visitor Use ExpeTrail). Visitor use of the Dyea area and day use of the lower Chilkoot Trafor the first time in the history of the park, for the 2004 season. 

Geomorphology Taiya erosion – Dyea Townsite 

Yes (A2, B1) Yes (A2,B) Measurement of Taiya River bank erosion in the Dyea townsite, 1967-pre

Ref Inglis, R. 2002. Assessment of Bank Retreat Monitoring Data from KLGO (but only deals with Dyea area). USGS,WRD. 16p. Comment: Designed to inform townsite protection questions; probably to
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-108 

Project Ongoing 

Monitoring? 

Potential Baseline? 

Comments to be of interest for SEAN. 

Taiya Watershed Reconnaissance Geohazards Survey 

No No Capps 2003 study; descriptive 

Nourse Lake Morainedam assessment No No BLM 2004-05 study (Denton et al). Purpose to sound morainal dam for b

Comment: Problems with equipment developed during the study. Currendetermined a need for followup visit to site for additional information. 

 Water Quality 

Items in this section only flagged. For more information, see Nagorskon Water Quality 

Water quality investigation/analysis 

 USGS/WRD took baseline WQ measurements at stream gage sites on Ta

Streamflow Gages USGS & NPS- historic gages on Taiya and West Creek. New gage on Ta

General 

Ecology 

Ecological recon inventory 

No No This extensive USFS inventory of park resources has a great deal of recon

sample sites are pinned down only to the quarter-section. 

Coastwalker project No (B1) Yes (A2,B) 

(A2,B) 

What? Systematic characterization of biota, Substrate, morphology and eHow? Using standard coastwalker protocol developed at GLBA Where? Entire park intertidal zone When? 1999 Ref? Data archived at GLBA/RM with copy at KLGO Comment: The coastwalker data are not intended for baseline use, but the accompanying each shore segment can be used to document gross changeinvertebrate cover, as well as in shore morphology. 

Ecological surveys No No Comment: Reports and notes by Streveler provide background on geology

but do not contain repeatable data 

Dyea Wetland inventory No (B1) Yes? 

(A2?,B) 

What? Characterized and mapped wetlands in the Dyea area of KLGO How? Using FWS wetland inventory protocol Where? in the lower Taiya valley When? 1999 Who? Koren Bosworth Ref: Bosworth, K. 2000. Wetlands of the Dyea area of the lower Taiya R
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-109 

Project Ongoing 

Monitoring? 

Potential Baseline? 

Comments NPS. 37p. Comment: Careful list of dominant plants and special delineations should changes in these parameters 

Natural history observation database 

No No Comment: Opportunistic observations 

Photography 

Repeat photography No (B2) PRIME 

(A2, B) 

What? Reoccupation and re-photography of sites from which historical pWhere? Retakes of 7 1895 - early 1900’s photos from vantages in the TaiWhen? 2005, 2 days Who? Richard Carstensen & Cathy Pohl Ref: Carstensen’s illustrated field notes and report provided to KLGO Comments: would be very valuable to expand this program 

Lidar, historical and aerial photos 

No (B2) PRIME 

(Ba) 

What? Most of the park photographed by LIDAR technology in 2003. Several generations of black/white color and infrared photography exists of the park and environs A large and systematically curated collection of historical phots is housed Comment: Data have not been extracted from the LIDAR, but this set has many aspects of vegetation and geomorphology. This is true to a lesser dphotography. Historical photos have great potential for monitoring changphotography for one example). 

Chilkoot trail campsite monitoring 

No (B1) Yes? 

(A2?,B) 

What? Large amount of undigested but systematic data on campsite condHow? Mapped, described vegetation and visual conditions, using standarWhere? Campgrounds at Dyea and along trail When? 1994-95 Who? NPS (Rangers) Refs: Large binder of data in RM office Comment: hard to judge whether data are sufficiently relocatable after the 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-110 

SITK project Evaluation Table FINAL 10/17/06 

Greg Streveler, in consultation with Geof Smith, SITK 

 (Codes follow outline in a companion document, “Identifying Baseline Candidates and Ongoing Monitoring for 

Project Ongoing 

Monitoring? 

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Atmosphere Weather stations, Sitka Yes (A1,B2) PRIME 

(A2,B) 

What? 1) Magnetic Observatory Site near SITK has kept weather records intelongest continuous records being from 1908-1926 and 1949-1982. Site has mperiod.  2) Japonski Airport, 1930-present  3) Three other stations in area with data beginning from 1996 to 2005Comment: together, these stations provide the longest weather record in the st

 Birds Eagle nest survey Yes 

(A1,B1) 

Yes (A2,B) 

What? The one eagle nest in the park is monitored for activity and fledgling pother active nests Where? Throughout park How? Visual check from ground When? 2002-2005 Who? NPS (Smith) Ref: Data kept at park Comments: This one nest is an important indicator of park ecosystemic health

Bird Observation & Inventory 

No No What? Bird observation records for park 

Where? Throughout park How? Opportunistic observation When? From 1980 Who? NPS (Smith), Ward, Tedin Comments: Ward & Tedin have additional data that the park needs to get holPurpose of project is construction and updating of qualitative checklist 

Breeding bird survey Yes (A2,B1) No (A1) What? A standard breeding bird survey route annually that includes 12 points 

Where? Only 6 points in the park How? Per national BBS protocol, using 3 minute and longer obs intervals When? 2000-2005 (except 2001) 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-111 

Project Ongoing 

Monitoring? 

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization Who? NPS (Smith) Ref: Data archived by NPS Comments: not enough data to be considered a baseline, but it is part of a largfor the general area.

Migratory bird reconnaissance 

No No Comment: These periodic patrols of the park and intertidal zone during peak m

sufficiently rigorous for monitoring purposes. 

Christmas bird count Yes (A2, B1) No (A1) Comments: Counts not systematic or strictly comparable from year to year; n

monitoring on a national scale 

 Mammals Small mammal inventory 

No No Ref: Muldoon, C. 1987. Small Mammal Inventory, SITK, May-Aug, 1987. 

Comment: 749 trap nights, but no exact location data. Intended to document 

 Land Plants Vascular plant inventory (ANHP) 

No No What? Inventory of vascular species presence in park, with notes on species o

(including exotics) How? Standard Ak Natural Heritage Program inventory When? 2002 Who? ANHP (Lipkin, Carlson) Ref: Lipkin, R & M. Carlson. 2004. SITK Vascular Plant Inventory. Ann. TAnchorage. 10p. Comments: Park has not received the final species list not herbarium specimeThis work is intended to extend the SITK species list, and is not quantitative. 

Vegetation inventory and forest health 

No (B2) Yes? 

(A1?,B) 

What? 11 permanent plots on which detailed tree mensuration and semi-quanare given. Forest pathogens present are described and in some cases roughly When? 1994. Who? USFS (Russell, Dougan) Ref: Russell, J. & B.Dougan. 1994. Vegetative Inventory and Forest Health Chatham Area. 15p. Comments: There will be an effort this year to relocate the plots, and if succedata. 

Nonvascular plant survey 

No No Ref: LaBounty, K. 2005. Non-vascular plants to SITK: bryophyte inventory, 

Comment: designed for construction of a species list 

Exotic plant surveys Yes (A1,B1) PRIME 

(A2,B) 

What? Densmore, et al.: General work that includes cursory surveys in a num Spencer: did some work but never provided a report  McKee: Records and precisely delimits extent of 9 species in an “ex
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-112 

Project Ongoing 

Monitoring? 

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization  Rapp: Records and precisely delimits extent of 27 spp; probably the mHow? McKee: Says thoroughly covered the park; accurately delimits extent ovia GPS with “sufficient accuracy to monitor yearly change”.  Rapp: Redescribed areas found in 2004; identified and precisely locafollows NPS (Heys) EPMT protocol. When? 2004 was the fourth year of exotic plant surveys, but this is the first oWho? NPS (Rapp, McKee, Roland, Densmore) Refs: Densmore, R., P. McKee & C. Roland. 2001. Exotic Plants in AK Nat127p. McKee, C. 2004. Exotic Plant Surveys at SITK, Alaska: Summer 2004 Field 10p.  Rapp, W. 2005. Invasive Plant Management in SITK, Sitka, Alaska: suNPS/GLBA. 40p. 

Rapp data archived electronically at GLBA and SITK 

Comments: The last two years of this survey effort has provided important an

Marine/Intertidal SEAN Marine/estuarine fish inventory 

No No? 

(A2?, B) 

What? Inventory of nearshore fishes along SITK forefront How? By beach seine. Two precisely located sample sites; 4 sets at each in JWhen? 2001 Who? Brewer, Arimitsu, Litzow Ref: Litzow, M., J. Piatt, and M. Arimitsu. 2002. Inventory of Marine and EAlaskan National Parks during summer, 2001. NPS, ANC. Intended to extend species list; replicable albeit very small sample size 

Intertidal monitoring Yes? 

(A2,B2?) 

PRIME (Bd) 

What? Monitor distribution and abundance of intertidal zone macrobiota Where? On park shore, exclusive of estuary How? Using protocol developed by Gail Irvine. Includes 15 transects along wdata are obtained; visual count of mobile predators make in band along transeWhen? 1999, 2002, 2003 Who? USGS (Irvine), NPS (Smith) Ref: Terastat Consulting. 2006. Draft Statistical Review of Sampling and AnMonitoring at SITK. Comment: report gives general ok; recommends setting permanent transects a
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-113 

Project Ongoing 

Monitoring? 

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization transect length. This is one of the park’s best baselines, and I give it a PRIME question remains on methodology. 

Coastwalker project No (B2) Yes 

(A2,B) 

What? Systematic characterization of biota, Substrate, morphology and expoHow? Using standard coastwalker protocol developed at GLBA Where? Entire park intertidal zone When? ~2000 Who? NPS (Sharman & Eichenlaub) Ref: Data archived at GLBA/RM Comment: The coastwalker data are not intended for baseline use, but the rel

each shore segment can be used to document gross changes in plant and encru

as in shore morphology. 

Eelgrass community ecology 

No (B2) Yes? 

(A1?, B) 

What? Characterizing structure of eelgrass community, with special reference indicator of community intactness, and to presence of pollutants in tissues of How? Systematic sampling of invertebrates and algae, and bioassay at selecWhere? Sitka Sound (one station in park) When? 2004-2005 (on pilot basis) Who? Baldwin Ref: Shirley, T & A. Baldwin. 2003. Eelgrass habitat and associated fauna ato SITK as part of Ph.D dissertation study Comment: this work should be a reasonable basis for monitoring on the scale whether it will be for SITK specifically. 

Chemistry/physics of a tidepool 

No (B2) Yes? 

(A1?, B) 

What? Describes chemical/physical conditions in a small tidepool How? Sampled water temp, salinity, d.o. in water column, two places within t

Where? Indian River estuary When? Fall/winter, 1997-1998 Who? Logue (Sheldon Jackson student) Ref: Logue, J. 1998. Chemical and Physical Characteristics of a small Tidal System. Sheldon Jackson College. 8p. Comments: This is a long-lived pool and could be reoccupied rather precisely sites. But the data set is quite small, and there are no plans for reoccupation. 

Indian River 

Stream ecology Water Quality and Streamflow of the 

No (B1) Yes 

(A1,B) but 

What? Contains systematic information on macroinvertebrates and algae as wHow? Random Surber plots and algal measurement stations, allowing estimaWhere? On reaches OUTSIDE OFTHE PARK 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-114 

Project Ongoing 

Monitoring? 

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

Indian River, Sitka, Alaska, 2001-2002. 

outside park 

When? 2001-2002 Ref: Neal, E, T. Brabets & S. Frezel. 2004. Water Quality and Streamflow o

USGS Comment: (I AM ONLY FLAGGING WATER QUALITY STUFF) 

Freshwater macroinvertebrates 

No No Comment: This work by NPS (Smith) for over 4 years provides a database rep

extensive bibliography of relevant literature. It is intended to refine the park’order idea of species abundance. Doesn’t fit the criteria used here, but is a va

Salmon escapement database 

No No ADF&G does opportunistic and semi-quantitative escapement surveys every y

peaks of species runs. They give only a first order estimate of abundance 

Chinook salmon study No No What & How?: Summary of history of adult escapement data and minnow tra

accounts of observations When? 1985-2001 minnow trapping; historical accounts going back to time o

Where? Indian River Who? NPS (Brewer) Ref: Brewer, B. 2001. Origin and History of Chinook Salmon in the Indian R

22p. Comment: doesn’t rise to level of monitoring, but valuable background in evand any attempts at eradication. 

Aquatic Resource Survey: Indian River, SITK 

No (B1) Yes? 

(A2?, B?) stream profile data only 

What? Lots of hydrology information (deferred to Eckert), but also contains mand 5 channel profiles. Includes analysis of the macroinvertebrate data by Mawater quality. How? Surber sampling, 3-5 samples per station Where? Several sample stations, in park and upstream. Sample profiles in paWhen? Spring/fall,1994 Refs: Paustian, S. and T.Hardy. 1995. Aquatic Resource Survey, Indian Rivearea. 60p. Major,E. and A. Milner III. 1994. Macroinvertebrate Analysis Summary of dEnvironmental and Natural Resource Institute, For the USFS. 10p. Comments: Invert sample sites not relocatable, but stream profile sites appeaprecision to allow reoccupation. The Major/Milner analysis gives a pronouninvert presence/absence. 

General Ecology Ecological inventory No No? What? Thorough characterization of upland communities in park 

How? Using standard USFS survey and mensuration techniques for plant com
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-115 

Project Ongoing 

Monitoring? 

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization characteristics. When? 1993 Who? FS team led by Trull. Ref: Krieckhaus, B., R. Foster & S. Trull. 1993. Ecological Inventory of SITComment: much data here, including some quantitative measurement of silviquantitative estimation of shrubs and forbs on standard plots. Original plot caThe forms are presumably similar to those used at KLGO, and if so will not abe an effort this year by NPS to relocate the the permanent forest inventory pl

resampling them. 

Natural history observation database 

No No Comment: Opportunistic observations. 

Ecosystem observations No No Streveler. General, cursory  Landscape  History Physical & cultural landscapes and landscape history 

No No What & where?: Data-driven description of present physical/biological lands

hypothesis on the evolution of park landscapes. When? Field work in 1994 Who? Vanguard Research Ref: Cheney, G., R.Betts & D. Longenbaugh. 1995. Physical and Cultural LResearch, Douglas, Ak. 160p. Comment: Major work. Marvelous background work with much information monitoring 

Landscape history No Yes (A2, 

B) (the photos) 

What& where? Landscape history from a landscape architect’s point of view

How? Synthesis based on the Cheney work, some original observation, and a more modern period. When? Field work in 1997. Who? NPS? (Smith-Middleton, Alanaen) Ref: Smith-Middleton, H. & A. Alanen. 1998. Impressions of Indian River: NPS/RO. 326p. Comment: Some of the historical photos could be re-taken; would be a good wchange. 

Asphalt Plant 

Asphalt plant site Yes (in What? Original assessment of site and adjacent bank of river for hydrocarbon 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix A Page A-116 

Project Ongoing 

Monitoring? 

Potential Baseline? 

Characterization 

environmental assessment 

concert with the next project) 

(see next project) 

How? Took series of samples from pits dug onsite, and from along riverbankaromatic hydrocarbons. When? Fall, 1994 Who? Contractors Ref: Shannon& Wilson, Inc. 1995. Environmental Site Assessment, Indian 

Ak. Shannon & Wilson, Fairbanks. 95p. Comments: Sample sites relocatable. Cites report by Molnia, 1980, on erosion by the Indian River. Report not foun

Asphalt plant site monitoring 

Yes? (A2,B2) 

Yes (A1?, B) 

What? Water quality monitoring protocol set up; portions of it followed by NHow? Deschu set up 3 monitoring sites; NPS has reoccupied 2 of these sites quality parameters monitored, with specific reference to hydrocarbons. When? Monitoring from 1996-1999 and 2001-2005. Probably will not be donRef: Deschu report not seen. Data entered into a database. I review data for ano money to continue this monitoring. Nothing alarming has resulted from thsuch as asphalt chunks and metal pieces continue to erode from the site. Give

planned to be discontinued. Some question whether the small number of monitoring sites gives a sufficien

 Water Quality Assessment of Coastal Water Resources and Watershed Conditions of SITK 

-- -- (Eckert et al. 2006) Hot off the presses. Comprehensive assessment of the Ind

and threats, including marine, estuarine, and freshwaters. 

(I HAVE DEFERRED WATER QUALITY MAT

AUTHORS, who are preparing a report similar to mi

(EXCEPT FOR THE ASPHALT PLANT MONITORIN

I will just flag these reports: Nadeau, R. & S. Lyons. 1987. Instream Flow Investigations, Indian River, SIUSGS/WRD (Williams) 2000. Progress Report for Indian River Water Resonot rec’d final) USGS/WRD. 1998. Baseline Water Quality Data, Inventory and Analysis, SSee also Paustian and Hardy, 1995, and Neal, et al.,2004, both discussed abo
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-1 

Appendix B 

Historical Documentation of 

Vital Signs Selection for 

The Southeast Alaska Network 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-2 

 

Introduction

This document was compiled by Barbara Sheinberg (Sheinberg Associates, Juneau, AK) 

who served an active role as a facilitator for SEAN from 2005 through 2007. In many 

ways, Barb performed some aspects of the role of Network Coordinator during the period 

from 2006-2007 when the Network Coordinator position was vacant. This document is 

her historical record of the reasoning and intentions behind each vital sign discussed by 

the SEAN Technical Committee. This March 2007 document does not include some 

information, such as updated monitoring objectives from the Protocol Development 

Summaries. It represents the state of the SEAN at the time when the Network 

Coordinator position was filled by Brendan Moynahan in July 2007. 

Vital-Sign Specific Information 

Presented in this Document Source 

EMF Level 1 Table 3.3 draft chapter 3/Phase 2 Report-Fastie 

EMF Level 2 Table 3.3 draft chapter 3/Phase 2 Report-Fastie 

EMF Level 3 Table 3.3 draft chapter 3/Phase 2 Report-Fastie 

Vital Sign Number 

SEAN VITAL SIGN SEAN Technical Committee 

Justification April & May 2006 SEAN Technical Committee meeting reports 

Access database 

Threats Access database 

Comments on Threats Access database 

Management Concerns Access database 

Comments on Management Concerns Access database 

Monitoring Objectives May 2005 Freshwater Scoping Workshop report 

March 2006 Marine Scoping Workshop report 

March 2006 Terrestrial Scoping Workshop report. 

Monitoring Questions April & May 2006 SEAN Technical Committee meeting reports 

Access database 

May 2005 Freshwater Scoping Workshop report 

March 2006 Marine Scoping Workshop report 

March 2006 Terrestrial Scoping Workshop report 

Example of Measures April & May 2006 SEAN Technical Committee meeting reports 

Access database 

Possible Partners April & May 2006 SEAN Technical Committee meeting reports

Relevant Monitoring or Study April & May 2006 SEAN Technical Committee meeting reports

Comments April & May 2006 SEAN Technical Committee meeting reports 

Access database 

GLBA/KLGO/SITK April & May 2006 SEAN Technical Committee meeting reports

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats March 2006 Scoping Meeting Reports 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-3 

 

Southeast Alaska Network 

Vital Signs Selection Documentation 

 (Organized by Ecological Monitoring Framework [EMF] Level 1, 2 and 3) 

Table of Contents 

Visibility and Particulate Matter..................................................................................... B-4 

Air Contaminants............................................................................................................ B-6

Weather and Climate..................................................................................................... B-11 

Glacial Dynamics.......................................................................................................... B-16 

Landform Dynamics ..................................................................................................... B-21 

Surface Water Dynamics .............................................................................................. B-25 

Marine Physiochemical and Biological Water Mass Characteristics ........................... B-30 

Freshwater Physiochemical Water Quality................................................................... B-39 

Freshwater Contaminants.............................................................................................. B-42 

Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Algae...................................................... B-45 

Invasive Exotic Plants................................................................................................... B-48 

Invasive Exotic Animals............................................................................................... B-52 

Pests and Diseases......................................................................................................... B-55

Marine Mammals and Seabirds .................................................................................... B-59 

Intertidal Communities ................................................................................................. B-62 

Wetland Communities .................................................................................................. B-65 

Salmonids...................................................................................................................... B-68 

Forage Fishes ................................................................................................................ B-71 

Western Toads .............................................................................................................. B-74

Murrelets....................................................................................................................... B-76 

Breeding Landbird Populations .................................................................................... B-78 

Bald Eagles ................................................................................................................... B-82 

Bears ............................................................................................................................. B-84 

Harbor Seals.................................................................................................................. B-86 

Ungulates ...................................................................................................................... B-88 

Killer Whales ................................................................................................................ B-90 

Biodiversity of Select Groups or Assemblages ............................................................ B-92 

Steller Sea Lions ........................................................................................................... B-95 

Humpback Whales........................................................................................................ B-97 

Consumptive Use........................................................................................................ B-100 

Human Uses and Mode of Access .............................................................................. B-104 

Plant Communities...................................................................................................... B-111 

Landcover and Land Use ............................................................................................ B-118 

Phenology ................................................................................................................... B-124 

Airborne Sound........................................................................................................... B-126 

Underwater Sound ...................................................................................................... B-129
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-4 

 

EMF Level 1 - Air and Climate

EMF Level 2 - Air Quality

EMF Level 3 - Visibility and particulate matter

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

VISIBILITY AND PARTICULATE MATTER 

Justification 

Threats 

From visibility and particulate

GLBA -- Within Glacier Bay air emission sources include exhaust from fuel combustion 

during vessel operations, fuel combustion for heating of buildings at Bartlett Cove, fuel 

use by vehicles in the park, occasional campfires, exhaust from electric power generators, 

and vessel traffic emissions. Emissions from motorized vessels contain respirable PM10 

(particulate matter that can be taken into the lungs) and particulate matter smaller than 

2.5 microns in diameter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and 

ozone. Visibility reductions occasionally occur in the park during certain unique weather 

conditions that trap air pollution within a layer of cold air near the surface. 

KLGO -- Cruiseships docked in the Skagway harbor generate power by running their 

engines in port all day. On days with little wind, a brownish haze (cruiseship emissions) 

is visible over the town of Skagway and upper Taiya Inlet. 

SITK -- Local sources such as cruise ships and motor vehicles produce emissions that 

effect visibility such as sulfur dioxide and produce particulate matter. 

Comments on Threats 

Management Concerns 

From visibility and particulate

GLBA -- There is no historical data regarding visibility within the park, other than 

personal observations. Daily emission totals, visible plumes of smoke from vessel stacks, 

and weather conditions contribute to reductions in visibility. During temperature 

inversions or days with low winds, stack emissions do not dissipate quickly and can 

result in long plumes from vessel stacks that block views. Visible vessel emissions can 

produce haze within the park. Increases in vessel quotas could increase the particulate 

and pollutant load entering the air column and have a detrimental effect on air quality and 

visibility. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-5 

 

KLGO -- Impacts to the viewshed can be expected with reduced visibility. Reduced 

visibility would impact both the Skagway/White Pass and Dyea/Chilkoot Trail National 

Historic Landmarks and visitors to KLGO. 

SITK -- Reduced visibility in and around the park could impact scenic vistas and visitor 

experience. 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

Understand the natural range of variability in air quality across SEAN parks and 

determine if there are any air quality concerns. 

Monitoring Questions 

• Is the particulate matter content of air or the composition of aerosols changing in or 

near SEAN parks? 

• Are anthropogenic sources of aerosols or particulate matter reducing visibility below 

historic levels? 

Example of Measures 

• Opacity of cruise ship plumes. 

• Opacity of air over harbors of towns. 

• Composition of aerosols. 

Possible Partners 

CAKN has a large air monitoring program run out of Denali. 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Comments 

Dan -- Baseline data lacking; may be difficult to acquire cheaply; difficult to monitor 

efficiently in GLBA 

Dan -- Baseline data lacking; may be difficult to acquire cheaply in KLGO and SITK 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

9 SITK

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 
Air contaminants 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-6 

 

EMF Level 1 - Air and Climate

EMF Level 2 - Air Quality

EMF Level 3 - Air contaminants

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

AIR CONTAMINANTS 

Justification 

A set of air quality data is needed over the long term as a baseline for park conditions 

both to enable change detection and as a backdrop against which other change detection 

may be considered. 

Threats 

From air contaminants

GLBA -- Fallout of air contaminants may cause foliar damage in plants (look at lichen 

tissue for elemental content) and bioaccumulate in terrestrial and marine apex predators. 

Persistent organic pollutants and mercury are the contaminants of concern. The 

contaminants may originate from cruise ships, smaller diesel and 2-stroke engines, or 

urban/industrial pollution from Asia. 

KLGO -- Far-field and near-field sources of air contaminants may be impacting park 

resources and pose threats to human health and safety in the park/Skagway. 

SITK -- Air contaminants from cruise ship emissions, local emissions, and long-range 

transport across the Gulf of Alaska may be reaching the park and impacting park 

ecosystems. 

From wet and dry deposition

GLBA -- If air quality is not pristine (less-than-Class-I-quality), and wet/dry deposition 

of contaminants is significant or increasing, multiple biological resources dependent upon 

a contaminant-free environment are at risk. Mercury and POPs are especially important 

to know about because of their effects on biota. For example, some lichen species are 

highly sensitive (directly) to contaminants in precipitation, and surface/soil/water 

substrates can be contaminated to the detriment of other taxa. Direct foliar damage 

(vascular plants) was also identified as a potential impact. Many aquatic species are 

sensitive to certain contaminants in very low concentrations, some of which can 

accumulate in sediments and/or biooaccumulate up the trophic web. Natural processes of 

plant primary succession (terrestrially and in lakes) following deglaciation are sensitive 

to soil and water pH which can be perturbed by wet/dry deposition (which typically 

result in increased acidification). Natural phytoplankton community composition 

similarly is sensitive to ocean surface water pH; relatively small changes (decreases) in 
Air contaminants 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-7 

 

pH can cause substantial changes that can cascade through the marine system. The vector 

would be low-pH precipitation ("acid rain"). The Level 3 category of "wet and dry 

deposition" was explicitly identified only in the Marine Scoping Workshop, but could be 

considered a potential threat in both freshwater (lakes) and terrestrial (re. lichens and soil 

dynamics/biota) ecosystems as well. 

KLGO -- A pilot lichen-air quality study conducted in 1998/9 (Furbish et al. 2000) found 

elevated levels of sulfur and heavy metals in lichen tissues from the Skagway/Klondike 

area. The presence of sulfur in lichen tissues indicates on-going pollution, while the 

timing of heavy metal accumulation in lichens is less certain since metals can 

bioaccumulate in lichens. Historic exposure may have occurred during the time when 

lead/zinc ore was transported via the WP&YR trains from mines in Canada to the port in 

Skagway then barged south. Ore transport ceased in the 1980s, but contaminants may still 

be present in the environment and recirculated due to winds and construction activity. 

Other sources of air contaminants include cruiseship and other vessel emissions, 

incinerator, diesel powered trains, tour buses, vehicles, wood smoke, and transpacific 

sources of air pollutants such as mercury and POPs. 

SITK -- Contaminants from multiple sources may be born on the wind and deposited in 

and around the park and enter park ecosystems. These include emissions from cruise 

ships and other water craft, motor vehicle traffic emissions, and long-distance transport of 

industrial or agricultural pollution. 

Comments on Threats 

From air contaminants

GLBA -- Statement regarding air contaminant threats (left) taken from marine and 

terrestrial workshop notes. Ozone was removed as potential vital sign because it is 

believed to be an urban pollutant, not expected to be an issue in SEAN parks. Measures 

noted: mercury content in mussels, carcasses of apex predators, seabird eggs, Engstrom's 

precipitation station already at Bartlett Cove, and microlayer measurements using 

SPMDs. 

Management Concerns 

From air contaminants

GLBA -- Air quality in the parks is presumed to be pristine, but this is not really 

documented. Vessel management schemes may influence air quality with potential 

effects on vascular and non-vascular plants, animals, and visitor experience. Visible 

emissions / opacity are already monitored and regulated. However, the amount of 

emissions is not accounted for, as vessel traffic of all kinds increases and as cruise ships 
Air contaminants 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-8 

 

become increasingly large, and air contamination could increase and would not be 

detected by current measures. 

KLGO -- Air contaminants may be impacting park biota, aquatic systems and cultural 

resources. 

SITK -- Airborne compounds that produce acid rain, heavy metals, persistent organic 

compounds, other pollutants may be damaging SITK ecosystems. 

From wet and dry deposition

GLBA -- Lack of data, especially re: mercury, POPs, and pH. There is a lack of 

information (except for Hg at Barlett Cove in the early '00s) re: past/present composition 

or rates of contaminant deposition. We lack a baseline against which to judge future 

changes/trends. GLBA should have pristine air quality ("natural" levels of wet/dry 

deposition), and we intend to manage and maintain our air quality as if we were a Class I 

airshed. In order to accomplish this we need to confirm that the park indeed possesses 

Class I-level air quality (i.e., "natural" levels of deposition). Cruise ship emissions may 

be a significant local source (internal to the park) of wet/dry deposition. GLBA reports to 

GPRA Air Quality Goal I(a)(3). 

KLGO -- Lichen-air quality pilot study showed that air pollutants are present in the 

Skagway/Klondike area. ADEC monitored PM2.5 (particulate matter) in Skagway in 

2004 and found no exceedences but data have not been formally reported to the public. 

KLGO is receiving funding from WASO-ARD in 2008 for follow up air quality work. In 

May 2006, the Canadian Government installed a passive air sampler (PASD) in KLGO 

(Dyea) to monitor transpacific mercury deposition. 

SITK -- Acid rain, heavy metals, persistent organic compounds, other pollutants may be 

damaging SITK ecosystems. 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

Monitoring Questions 

• What is being emitted from cruise ship air stacks? 

• What is the normal range of variation in the concentration of atmospheric 

contaminants? 

• Are there long term trends in these concentrations? 

From wet and dry deposition

• What airborne contaminants are being deposited in SEAN parks? 
Air contaminants 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-9 

 

• Where are they being deposited? 

• Is there a trend in the amount or spatial cover or concentration of these deposits? 

• Is there a trend in the amount or spatial cover or concentration of these deposits? 

From scoping workshops

• Are contaminants brought by airborne vectors affecting marine organisms? 

Example of Measures 

From wet and dry deposition

• Concentrations (in foliage, lichens, or sampler surfaces) of sulfur, nitrogen, mercury, 

signature pollutants from cruiseship fuel, indices of Asian pollution, persistent 

organic compounds. 

Possible Partners 

Is the one regional air quality monitoring station in Petersburg, the Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual Environment (IMPROVE), adequate for SEAN parks 

needs, or are local monitoring stations needed? The worst air contaminants are coming 

from across the Pacific Ocean, so this may be adequate. It is suspected that local cruise 

ship point sources are not causing air pollution, but do not know for certain. SEAN needs 

expert advice on air contaminants to establish a monitoring program. 

CAKN has a large air monitoring program run out of Denali. 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Regional air quality monitoring station in Petersburg, IMPROVE. 

Comments 

Concentrations in the air of sulfates, nitrates, mercury, persistent organic compounds, 

suites of elements specific to different passive samplers, signature pollutants from cruise 

ship fuel, indices of Asian pollution. What does Denali do for its AQ monitoring 

program? Lichen tissue assays as a proxy for air contamination. 

Dan -- Baseline data are non-existent; for determining future changes which may have 

deleterious effects on ecosystems, acquire for long term monitoring? 

Scott -- Note the problems with relating estimates in lichen with biologically relevant 

(NOTE: rest of comment missing) 

Greg -- Ranked Sitka higher because of its proximity to the Gulf of Alaska and Asian 

pollution sources 
Air contaminants 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-10 

 

Dan -- Baseline data are non-existent; for determining future changes which may have 

deleterious effects on ecosystems, this increases my ranking med high to high. 

From wet and dry deposition

Dan -- KLGO and SITK local impact potentially more severe than GLBA that may 

reflect global sources; creative monitoring or sampling (e.g. snow chemistry) may be 

required to accomplish baseline data acquisition. 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

9 SITK

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 
Weather and Climate 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-11 

 

EMF Level 1 - Air and Climate

EMF Level 2 - Weather & Climate

EMF Level 3 - Weather and Climate

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

WEATHER AND CLIMATE 

Justification 

This is a primary driver in SEAN park ecosystems. This is the most important baseline 

dataset to obtain. Reliable consistent baseline weather data is very important for park 

management. 

Threats 

From weather and climate

GLBA -- Relatively small changes in weather patterns/parameters can have very large 

effects environmentally, potentially fundamentally altering very basic processes such as 

marine circulation, phytoplankton bloom dynamics (and thereby the entire marine 

production cycle), as well as (for example) terrestrial vegetative phenology which could 

have cascading effects throughout the terrestrial ecosystem. 

KLGO -- Local climate in Skagway/KLGO varies significantly from the other SEAN 

parks and the rest of SE AK. Skagway receives approx. 26 inches of precip each year, 

making it one of the driest places in SE AK. Fire is a natural part of the park's ecology 

and is directly influenced by climate/weather patterns. 

SITK -- Weather drives the function of park ecosystems. Disruptions in weather patterns 

such as those caused by global climate change may be negatively impacting park 

ecosystems. 

From extreme disturbance

GLBA -- Extreme weather and accelerated glacial melting associated with climate 

change could cause an increase in extreme disturbance events. 

SITK -- Extreme weather events are a major element that shapes the SITK terrestrial 

environment. The small terrestrial area of the park magnifies their effect. 

Comments on Threats 

Management Concerns 
Weather and Climate 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-12 

 

From weather and climate

GLBA -- Lack of data. GLBA has a thin long-term dataset of weather/climate that is 

mostly restricted (until the last decade) to records from Gustavus, Yakutat, Cape 

Spencer(?), and Bartlett Cove. Data from elsewhere in the park is notably sketchy or 

nonexistent. Data from within the park generally is limited to temperature and 

precipitation only. In order to more clearly detect local trends and place them within the 

context of regional and global trends, we require additional weather/climate data of more 

types from more locations. These types of data provide essential context for 

understanding trends in other VSs. Weather/climate is likely the factor(s) that will most 

confound efforts to distinguish natural variability from anthropogenic effects. Without a 

good understanding of weather/climate, this distinction will likely be impossible. 

KLGO -- Changes in the park's weather/climate will affect the frequency and intensity of 

wildfire and other natural disturbance processes including flooding. Current climatic 

conditions and geographic factors are responsible for the park's diverse flora/fauna. 

SITK -- Weather events such as floods and wind events often determine the direction of 

terrestrial succession and alter river course and hydrology. 

From extreme disturbance

GLBA -- Human safety could be at risk if slope failures or outburst floods happen in 

areas where Park visitors are when they occur. An increase in the occurrence of extreme 

disturbance events could have ecological impacts. 

KLGO -- Human health and safety, cultural resources and park infrastructure are all at 

risk from extreme disturbance events. 

SITK -- Although extreme disturbance events such as floods and damaging wind storms 

are part of the natural ecosystem process in the temperate rainforests of Southeast Alaska, 

the damage of such events can be magnified in the park because its area is small and it is 

surrounded by development that can exacerbate the problem. 

From coastal/oceanographic

GLBA -- Ecological changes that could result from oceanographic changes (due to 

climate change) are largely unknown, but likely would have far-reaching impacts on the 

marine, terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. 

Comments on Management Concerns 
Weather and Climate 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-13 

 

From extreme disturbance

SITK -- A major wind storm occurred in December 2004. Over 30 large trees were 

uprooted or snapped off. The Manager of a bordering trailer park decided to cut and drop 

an additional number of large trees into the park, causing additional severe damage. One 

of those trees hung up in a tree in the park and it also had to be cut down. 

Monitoring Objectives 

Understand the natural range of variability in climate patterns across SEAN parks to 

provide context for research. 

Monitoring Questions 

• What are the long term trends in weather at SEAN parks? 

• What are the long term trends in weather offshore (upstream) from SEAN parks? 

• Is the spatial variability in weather within parks constant? 

• Are regional climatic patterns changing? 

Example of Measures 

• Snow depth. 

• Hourly means of temperature, precipitation, wind speed and direction, barometric 

pressure, relative humidity, light (PAR) at stations at and above sea level on land, and 

also at sea (moorings.) 

• Trends of PDO and sea surface temperature in the Gulf of Alaska. 

Possible Partners 

KLGO has a weather station near the mouth of the Skagway River, but obtaining data 

from National Weather Service is not easy. It would be helpful to institutionalize NPS 

obtaining of this data. This one weather station may be adequate, would be nice to have 

one in Taiya valley. A weather station in Bartlett Cove may be being established. 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

KLGO has been measuring snow depth for 10 years at treeline. 

Snow depth also measured at hundreds of sites around state, generally to predict spring 

flooding. 
Weather and Climate 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-14 

 

Comments 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

9 SITK

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 

• There is extremely deficient weather and climate data in GLBA; only available for 

the southern periphery. 

• Paleodata can be obtained from lake, ice and marine cores. 

• There is no weather climate station in KLGO's Taiya Inlet. 

• Climate Data Sources: Use existing climate sampling stations: National Weather 

Service (NWS) at Skagway; Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) snow 

course and weather station at Skagway, NOAA station near Sitka, State Climate 

Centers. There are weather stations in Yakutat, Juneau, Gustavus, Bartlett Cove and 

Sitka. Fill-in gaps with new stations; be careful about picking sites - scale and sitespecific variability should be considerations. 

• Alaback and McClellan predict increased blowdown with global warming. 

• Possible to use climate monitoring sites established in GLBA by Dan Lawson for 

glacial studies? Uncertain as to longevity, elevation coverage? 

• Sitka has 200 years of historic weather records, Skagway may too. 

• Need more weather monitoring stations in GLBA to capture the microclimatic range. 

• Noted that weather and climate high service-wide in selection of vital signs. Very 

important to have paleoclimatic data, to provide a baseline from which to evaluate 

current climatic trends. Paleoecology and historical geology are ways of extending 

the baseline back in time, increasing the power of current monitoring. 

• Climate data are important to all monitoring/research efforts. If I&M does nothing 

else, monitor local weather data because there is so much spatial variability. BUT, if 

we do nothing but monitor climate, we’ll KNOW only climate! 

• Use remote sensing tools. 

• For the “Big Picture,” look as far out as the Gulf of Alaska - the location of the 

bifurcation of the west wind drift, where it hits Southeast Alaska. 

• Weather patterns are complicated by topography when they get near shore; that is 

why weather needs to be measured offshore. 

• Continuous recording of data are valuable. Add moorings with continuous recording 

capability. Solar radiation (not just daylength, but the amount of light, PAR) is a data 

gap. Important because it influences the phytoplankton bloom and ecosystem 

productivity. 

• Air/Sea Interactions is key - Effect on current, Mesoscale features, and Island effect. 

• Sources of offshore climate data -- Need to look at what other agencies can provide to 

see whether it answers the questions of the SEAN network. If not, supplement, as 

possible. - Satellite data – look at Gulf data sources (UAF GOA [Gulf of Alaska]), - 

AK Ocean Observing System, - Pacific Marine Environmental Lab (PMEL), Seattle, 
Weather and Climate 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-15 

 

-NODBC (National Oceanographic Data Buoy Center) Fairweather Grounds buoy, 

Sitka buoy, need one in the Park. 

• Source for nearshore climate data: - Cape Spencer weather station. 

• Again, historic climate data and paleoclimatic data are important. Need to look 

retrospectively at climate so that current climate changes can be put in context of the 

magnitude of changes that have occurred over geologic timescales. 

• The 3 vital signs: PDO, where Alaska Coastal current bifurcates, timing of the spring 

bloom, are also directly connected to hydrology.T3 
Glacial dynamics 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-16 

 

EMF Level 1 - Geology and Soils

EMF Level 2 - Geomorphology

EMF Level 3 - Glacial features and processes

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

GLACIAL DYNAMICS 

Justification 

Whales, bears and glaciers are the popular signatures of GLBA, there will always be a 

need for knowledge and understanding of glaciers. 

Threats 

From glacial features

GLBA -- The local population(s) of harbor seals heavily utilizes/is dependent (for 

pupping habitat) upon icebergs calved from active tidewater glaciers. Their population 

dynamics certainly relate to the availability of preferred pupping habitat. Glacial lake 

outburst floods could threaten human lives/property within the park. Some species (e.g., 

Kittlitz' murrelets, red-throated loons) are highly adapted to periglacial environments 

which may be decreasing in character and/or extent. Conversely, glaciers could readvance! 

KLGO -- Both the Skagway and Taiya Rivers are glacial river systems strongly affected 

by glacial patterns and processes. Glacial lake outburst floods have historically shaped 

the Taiya River valley and may change in frequency and magnitude as the glaciers retreat 

up valley. 

SITK – NA 

From coastal/oceanographic

GLBA -- Eventual grounding of tidewater glaciers will have large but unknown effects 

on oceanography and other coastal processes. 

From marine features

GLBA -- Glaciers in Glacier Bay continuously shape the seafloor and many 

oceanographic characteristics, but accelerated changes due to climate change may take 

things in an entirely different direction. 
Glacial dynamics 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-17 

 

Comments on Threats 

Management Concerns 

From glacial features

GLBA -- At GLBA, glaciers (particularly tidewater ones) - and opportunities for the 

scientific study thereof - are values explicitly referenced in the park's enabling legislation. 

Visitors come to Glacier Bay in large part to view tidewater glaciers. The public expects 

us to have a deep and relatively complete knowledge of glacial dynamics. Recently this 

has become manifest in visitors' questions about the park's glaciers re. the larger global 

phenomena of warming and climate change and its effects. Knowledge of glaciers, 

although relatively robust compared to some other resources, is by no means 

comprehensive and is insufficient to provide managers with a sense that they can explain 

or predict glacial behavior and its effects on other park resources/values. Like 

weather/climate, glaciers are a driver of many other potential VSs (all 3 systems, perhaps 

most broadly in the marine), and an understanding of their influences is important to our 

ability to distinguish between natural variation and human-caused change. The park 

possesses a valuable and possibly unique opportunity to contribute knowledge to science 

in general re. glaciology, catastrophic glacial retreats, highly dynamic tidewater glacial 

systems, etc. Knowledge about local glacial history (and associated landscape evolution) 

is essential to the understanding/appreciation of the history of the Huna Tlingit people 

and their ties to the park. Glaciers rule! 

KLGO -- Glacial processes are significant drivers of aquatic and floodplain ecosystems in 

the park. Likewise, the affects of glaciers on park fluvial systems have direct effects on 

cultural resources (archeological sites, artifacts) and infrastructure (trails, campgrounds). 

SITK – NA 

From coastal/oceanographic

GLBA -- Grounding of formerly tidewater glaciers will reduce visitor opportunities to 

view tidewater glaciers. 

From marine features

GLBA -- Changes in seafloor shape and turbidity may create hazards for marine 

operations and human safety. 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

• Understand effects of Pleistocene, Little Ice Age and active glaciations on SEAN 

ecosystems. 
Glacial dynamics 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-18 

 

• Understand short- and long-term changes in the physical, biological and chemical 

features of glaciers. 

• Understand how glaciers influence short- and long-term changes in the physical, 

biological and chemical features of freshwater ecosystems. 

• Understand the short- and long-term changes in the physical, biological and chemical 

features of permanent snow packs. 

• Understand how permanent snow packs affect short- and long-term changes in the 

physical, biological and chemical features of freshwater ecosystems. 

Monitoring Questions 

• Are glaciers in and near SEAN parks growing or shrinking? 

• Are the flow rates of glaciers changing? 

• Are calving rates of tidewater glaciers changing? 

• What is the rate of volume change in park glaciers? 

• How is the glaciers' mass balance changing? 

From scoping meetings

• How have past and ongoing glacial cycles affected marine environments? 

• How do tidewater glaciers affect marine ecosystems? 

Example of Measures 

• Annually measure the terminal position and firn line position. 

• Measure how glaciers influence and interact with rivers, streams and at the marine 

margin. 

• Measure nutrient value of glacially-derived sediment and water. 

• Locations of glacier termini. 

• Locations of lateral boundaries of glaciers. 

• Elevation profiles of glaciers. 

• Glacier mass balance (firnline is a measure of this, capture in late September before 

snow falls). 

• Glacier flow rates. 

• Glacial retreat. 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Burroughs Glacier has been studied for decades. 
Glacial dynamics 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-19 

 

Comments 

Do we want retrospective data sets from ice and sediment cores. Remember how much 

we talked about that during the workshops? 

Glacial dynamics includes process, hydraulics, hydrology, the physical interaction, three 

dimensional nature and processes. Glacial dynamics is a connector between ecosystems. 

Just because a glacier is slowly receding doesn't tell you anything about how it influences 

the environment or the ecosystem. People think about mapping when you say glacial 

extent, and that's really not what's important. 

Some glaciers mass balance changes are due to micro-climatic influences, for example 

the configuration of the ice shed makes a huge difference. If you monitor a suite of 

glaciers you would see more long term effect, not micro-climatic induced effects. Is the 

annual variation in mass balance likely more dynamic for those glaciers that are more 

responsive to micro climatic changes? Topography might cause snow to drift over ice, 

even in bad snow years you'd get a high snow content, therefore, it would have a higher 

ratio of accumulation compared to times where it was a bad snow year and you didn't 

have that factor. So I'm not sure how the sensitivity would respond. But if you want to 

know what is going on with glaciers in any park, you would pick something like a Brady 

Icefield where there are less of these influences. One thing you can do now that is simple 

and very inexpensive is to use aerial photography to measure the terminal position and 

the firnline position yearly. And there are photography records going back 100 years. 

Use this baseline data, it may be critical in terms of the long term records of (whatever 

the parameter is). 

Dan -- Glaciers are sensitive indicators of changes in climate and affect each of the three 

ecosystems; strong influence on biological and physical systems and processes. SEAN 

technical committee notes that as a group this is true, but it may not be true for individual 

glaciers; in Kenai they are not finding this to be true (Hahr), not true for Harding Icefield. 

Greg -- Not pervasive in park, but very important "lateral" contributors; easy to monitor. 

Dan -- Alpine and small valley glaciers are sensitive indicators of climate change; less 

extensive here than GLBA, still very important in affecting freshwater and (NOTE: rest 

of comment is missing). 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 

• Tidewater glacial face hydrodynamics (especially carbon, dissolved nutrients, 

sediment) are really important. 

• Use remote sensing, mapping for current glacial extent. 
Glacial dynamics 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-20 

 

• Geomorphology is a significant driver in the ecosystem, it is linked to climate. 

• Some suggest that glacial activity is not geomorphology. 

• Is the goal to understand dynamics and changes in the parks or to address impacts in 

the parks? Answer: both. 
Landform dynamics 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-21 

 

EMF Level 1 - Geology and Soils

EMF Level 2 - Geomorphology

EMF Level 3 - Hillslope features and processes

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

LANDFORM DYNAMICS 

Justification 

The landcover and land use vital sign focuses on documenting the extent of vegetation 

and features; the landform dynamics vital sign focuses on geomorphology and their 

processes. This will document landforms and how they change through time. Much in 

GLB. 

Threats 

From extreme disturbance

KLGO -- Glacial lake outburst floods, forest fires, tsunamis have shaped KLGO's 

landscapes up until the present. 

From coastal/oceanographic

GLBA -- Eventual grounding of tidewater glaciers will have large but unknown effects 

on oceanography and other coastal processes. 

Comments on Threats 

From extreme disturbance

GLBA -- According to vital sign list notes: This vital sign includes slope failures, glacial 

outburst flooding and other extreme disturbances. This potential vital sign is meant to 

imply documenting the specifics of these events after they occur. Measures of the 

ecological impacts of extreme disturbance events may or may not be measurable in a 

systematic fashion, since each one will be unique. 

Management Concerns 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

• Understand the non-glacial physical processes effecting terrestrial ecosystem stability 

and change. Understand how geomorphic processes affect the terrestrial ecoystem. 
Landform dynamics 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-22 

 

• Understand landscape processes well enough to reconstruct the paleo-landscape and 

project landscapes into the future. 

• Understand how extreme disturbance events affect terrestrial communities and 

processes. 

• Understand how changes in marine and terrestrial topography affect park terrains. 

Monitoring Questions 

• How are selected landforms changing over time? 

From floodplain dynamics

• How are river channels migrating across their floodplains? 

From scoping meetings

• How much (and which) change is attributable to natural successional processes? 

(“Succession” - community development through time, distance from influence of 

tidewater glaciers/turbid outwash streams). 

• What other processes affect landscape dynamic components in a marine system? 

• How do changes in terrestrial ecosystems and landscapes affect the marine landscape 

and ecosystems? 

• Are coastal shorelines changing by erosion, uplift, earthquakes or other processes? 

• How do extreme disturbance events such as marine storms, tsunamis and earthquakes 

affect park lands, especially coastal areas? 

Example of Measures 

• Rate of isostatic rebound. 

• Geomorphologic map with location and extent of various (or select areas of) 

landforms: floodplains, river channels and course, fault lines, shoreline, estuaries, 

periglacial features, avalanche shoots, break-out lakes, rock slides etc. 

• Location, extent, geometry, surface shape. 

• Rate of change for select erosional and depositional processes. 

• Results of extreme events. 

• Maps of stream channel courses. 

• Rates of bank erosion and channel migration. 

• In SITK and KLGO take vital signs in the watershed, not just the park. 

• Tools: Lidar, repeat mapping, aerial and satellite imagery. 

• Sampling design may be to focus on subset of park. Need DEM elevation data on 

map. Use USGS protocol. 

• Estimate changes in outer coast beaches, in periglacial environment, lakes that are 

going extinct (Nunatak Cove, Birdbay North). 

• Need to design a SOP/protocol to set up a database to document anecdotal 

information (e.g. pilot observations w/ reports of landslides and other extreme 
Landform dynamics 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-23 

 

disturbances). Need to define what goes in database (e.g. do we want to document 

avalanches, which happen all the time?). 

From scoping meetings

• What are the changes in the landscape that are having measurable effects on 

vegetative distribution? 

• How do extreme disturbance events, such as storms, tsunamis, floods, and 

earthquakes, affect park lands (especially coastal areas?) 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

There is a long database on glacial extent available. Need to reoccupy some past 

monitoring stations and take measurements. 

Comments 

This vital sign crosses over with landcover in that both care about and document extreme 

disturbance events. Also crosses over with surface water dynamics, relative to floodplain 

dynamics. 

KLGO wants to determine erosion rates to assist with management. 

Greg: Flood plain dynamics is a 'biggie,' especially in KLGO. 

Lakes are disappearing at Dry Bay and dramatically changing the ecology of the valley. 

Different scales are relevant and different dynamics are at play in each park. For changes 

in beach geomorphology you need one scale and frequency of data, for landcover 

changes due to fire you need a different one. 

250 years ago Dundas Valley was one big floodplain; it is on its way to becoming like 

Excursion Valley now. The whole ecology of the valley will change. 

KLGO -- Coastal processes affect the nature and productivity of the Taiya River estuary 

thereby influencing the use of the area by fish and wildlife including eulachon, bald 

eagles, migrating waterbirds, river otters, salmon, and harbor seals. 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

9 SITK 
Landform dynamics 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-24 

 

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 

• KLGO is interested in the sediment load in park glacial streams; this effects channel 

movements, flood plain dynamics, and management of infrastructure in the 

floodplain. The more sediment, the more braided the rivers. The floodplains are 

where the salmon spawning habitat is and the deciduous riparian forest. 

• Way to monitor episodic/drastic events is to document after they occur. 

• Document small events on a yearly basis to feed into future models. 

• Document when extreme disturbance events occur and results; these events are 

difficult to “monitor.” Use post-event mapping/satellite imagery. 

• Can use seismic stations (one is located in Deception Hills on the fault just southeast 

of Dry Bay) for detecting extreme disturbance events. 
Surface water dynamics 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-25 

 

EMF Level 1 - 

EMF Level 2 - 

EMF Level 3 - 

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

SURFACE WATER DYNAMICS 

Justification 

Threats 

From surface water dynamics

GLBA -- Without a reasonable understanding of surface currents, our ability to protect 

marine and intertidal resources from spill impacts will continue to be limited. 

KLGO -- Changes in the characteristics of surface waters through the year directly affect 

the distribution and abundance of associated biota including salmon, eulechon, beaver, 

river otters, harlequin ducks, bald eagles, bears, macroinvertebrates and mink. 

SITK -- Only the lower 0.6 miles of the Indian River is within the park boundary, yet the 

surface water the park receives represents the entire Indian River Basin and all the 

impacts to the entire system as the result of human activity. 

From stream/river channel

GLBA -- Abundance and distribution of spawning salmon and their predators 

(seasonally) is strongly influenced by stream channel characteristics. As channels 

evolve, salmon/predators will appropriately respond. It is important to understand the 

degree to which changes in these biotic resources are primarily attributable to natural 

channel evolution, vs. human-caused impacts. 

 

KLGO -- The Taiya River is a highly dynamic glacial river that dominates the Dyea and 

Chilkoot Trail Units of KLGO. Channel morphology and dynamics are of great interest 

to the park. Past development has altered lower portions of the river and future planned 

developments may also result in direct impacts to the river and its tributaries. 

SITK -- Human activities in and outside the Indian River channel outside the park 

boundary can alter the hydrological process of the river, causing changes in erosion rates 

and locations that could impact park resources and its tributaries. 

Comments on Threats 

Management Concerns 
Surface water dynamics 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-26 

 

From surface water dynamics

GLBA -- Spilled contaminants (e.g., petroleum) are transported largely by surface 

currents. Surface water physical dynamics (freshwater and marine), including flow and 

general character, can be an essential driver of surface water biota (e.g., marine 

hytoplankton blooms) which in turn powers the entire marine ecosystem and ultimately 

has some important effects on some portions of the terrestrial and FW systems. For 

Glacier Bay proper we currently possess a decent dataset for surface and near-surface 

oceanographic parameters (except currents), and this trend monitoring must continue. 

Although crude qualitative models of marine surface current dynamics have been 

developed, our empirical knowledge is extremely scant. GLBA reports to 3 GPRA Goals 

that might have relevance to this Vital Sign: Surface Water Quality (Ia4A), Water Quality 

(Ia4B), and Water Quantity (Ia4C). There is also the Goal for Land Health - Marine and 

Coastal (Ia1F) that might pertain.GLBA -- Spilled contaminants (e.g., petroleum) are 

transported largely by surface currents. 

KLGO -- Management of the White Pass & Yukon Route railroad/tracks and plans for 

future development of a trail to White Pass City may affect surface water dynamics 

within the White Pass Unit. Proposed development within the Taiya River Watershed 

will have significant effects on surface waters within the watershed. 

SITK -- Human subdivision and other developments that have the potential for adding 

contaminants and increasing siltation to the river, water extraction (instream flow 

reduction), recreation activity, and other upstream impacts threaten the integrity of the 

Indian River surface water which the park receives. 

 

From stream/river channel

GLBA -- GLBA park enabling legislation references opportunities for scientific study of 

environmental changes (like primary stream development) associated with dynamic 

glaciation. GLBA has become fertile ground for research on stream physical (and 

community) development following glacial recession (Milner et al.). Long-term 

monitoring provides the fundament for this important and valuable (to science) work; this 

research can also provide information to managers regarding stream response to human 

disturbance. Understanding of channel trajectories can provide information for 

predicting quality of critical spawning habitat quality of economically valuable salmon 

resources. Importantly, this category includes discharge characteristics of streams and 

tidewater glaciers (including sedimentation) - which strongly influence an abundance of 

park resources and VSs. Management must recognize and understand trends in order to 

respond appropriately to change. GLBA reports to 3 related GPRA Goals that might 

have relevance to this VS: Surface Water Quality (Ia4A), Water Quality (Ia4B), and 

Water Quantity (Ia4C). 
Surface water dynamics 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-27 

 

KLGO -- Bank stabilization, bridge construction, roads, gravel extraction and 

recreational activities affect river dynamics, erosional process and floodplains within the 

park. 

SITK -- River bed gravel extract and the fill that extended the trailer park adjacent to the 

boundary have altered the river channel in the park, resulting in increased erosion that 

threatens park resources. These activities continue periodically to the present day. 

 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

• Understand how hydrologic processes affect the terrestrial ecosystem. 

• Understand short and long term changes in physical, chemical and biological features 

of rivers, streams and other moving water (lotic) systems (watersheds, stream channel 

characteristics, groundwater dynamics, surface water dynamics, water quality, water 

chemistry, aquatic macroinvertebrates, exotic plants and animals, fish, benthic algae, 

benthic invertebrates). 

• How is the connectivity among different freshwater bodies and ecosystems changing 

over time? 

Monitoring Questions 

• Are there long terms trends in annual rate or seasonality of streamflow? 

• Is in-stream flow adequate to support aquatic life? (particularly important to SITK) 

• Is the amount of discharge of freshwater into seawater changing? 

• Is the sediment load of discharge changing? 

• Is the nutrient or carbon load of discharge changing? 

From floodplain dynamics

• Are changing discharge characteristics making rivers more erosive? 

• Is flood frequency or severity changing? 

From scoping meetings

• How do groundwater processes affect intertidal communities? 

• How do changing water sources influence freshwater bodies, e.g., influence of glacial 

melt, snow melt, rainfall, and ground water? 

• How are water sources changing temporally and spatially, i.e., what are the relative 

contributions of various water sources to freshwater systems (same vital signs as in 

previous question)? 

• How do freshwater inputs influence near-shore marine productivity? 

• What is the influence of marine-derived nutrients on freshwater systems over time? 

Example of Measures 
Surface water dynamics 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-28 

 

• Stream discharge (rate [volume/time]) of stream flow. 

• Stage height of flood events. 

• Modeled flow from tidewater glaciers (e.g., based on mass balance.) 

• Periodic analysis of sediment concentration in streamwater. 

• Need to know what is in the discharge too; sediment load is important. Continue 

(Chris Larson) work that is determining how many cubic kilometers of ice we've lost 

in GLBA. All that exited the marine system and had a huge estuarine-marine effect, 

which is continuing. That freshwater exit is a huge physical and chemical driver. It 

is noted that the best opportunity to detect oxides in nitrogen and sulfur is when snow 

melts and you measure it in freshwater streams (rather than measuring soils.) 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Comments 

Chris G - For all parks: Not sure of the distinction between floodplain and surface water 

dynamics. Combine? 

Greg - Freshwater dominates much of park. 

Greg - Discharge integrates many things from physical world. 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

9 SITK 

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 

• Tidewater glacial face hydrodynamics (especially carbon, dissolved nutrients, 

sediment) are really important. 

• How does freshwater input change in space and time? What is it transporting? How 

does the pattern change over time? 

• Use stream gauges - instrument a few streams and model from there. 

• On a watershed basis, you would want to know what is coming off the hillsides and 

what is being generated by the ice itself. Once you have a benchmark for how much 

the watershed is inputting, then glacial mass balance will provide an indication of 

change. See Lawson, Arendt’s work. If you have a system that is not glacially 

influenced, you may want information on temperature, nutrients and volume. 

• There has been a lot of stream mapping in Southeast Alaska. Obtain stream gauge 

data. Other sources of basic hydrologic data: monitoring wells, piezometers (Bishop, 

Streveler). 
Surface water dynamics 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-29 

 

Types of water body 

• Wetlands (bogs, fens, marshes, forested wetlands; occupied by macroscopic plants) 

• Glaciers and ice fields (glacier-associated water bodies: ponds, trap, supra-, en- and 

sub-glacial, stagnant and buried ice, proglacial lakes) 

• Seasonal snow pack 

• Liquid water bodies 

• Ground water (minus hyporheic flow, karst hydrology) 

• Permafrost (ground ice) 

• Ponds (ephemeral, high-elevation bedrock, inter-morainal, kettle, dredge {amphibian 

habitat}, ponds on glaciers, trap lakes and ponds, supraglacial {see glaciers list}) 

• Permanent snow pack
Marine physicochemical and biological water mass characteristics 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-30 

 

EMF Level 1 - Water

EMF Level 2 - Hydrology

EMF Level 3 - Marine hydrology

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

MARINE PHYSIOCHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WATER MASS 

CHARACTERISTICS 

Justification 

A set of marine water data is needed over the long term as a baseline for the condition of 

this park ecosystem, to enable change detection, and as a backdrop against which other 

change detection may be considered. This vital sign is important to GLBA and SITK. 

Threats 

From water chemistry

GLBA -- Legal and illegal discharges from marine vessels have the potential to 

negatively affect Park resources. 

From toxics

GLBA -- Marine water quality threats include potential impacts caused by wastewater 

discharges (treated wastewater, bilge and ballast water), antifouling paints, air emissions 

that may precipitate into marine water and accidental oil discharges. 

From marine hydrology

GLBA -- An inadequate understanding of GLBA oceanography (how upwelling, large, 

medium and small scale ocean currents affect marine processes) leaves us unable to 

distinguish change, not to mention determine the causes of change, at the ecosystem 

level. Climate change and management actions may result in oceanographic changes that 

are difficult to detect but have far-reaching effects on the marine ecosystem. Need to 

determine whether the turbidity caused by cruise ship prop wash affects the distribution 

of small schooling fishes. Information on the correlation between oceanography and the 

relative abundance and distribution of zooplankton and forage fish is needed to account 

for natural change. 

 

KLGO – NA 

SITK -- NA 
Marine physicochemical and biological water mass characteristics 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-31 

 

From point-source human

GLBA -- Pollution from shipboard wastewater (blackwater and graywater) effluent from 

small and large vessels may affect marine life. Non-regulated endocrine disrupters and 

toxic flame retardants are found even in the highly treated wastewater from cruise ships, 

which may have biological effects on a variety of marine species. Petroleum leakage 

from outboard engines and exhaust at low levels may affect marine life. 

From non-point source human

GLBA -- Pollution a threat from non-point source human impacts, including vessel 

wastewater discharges. 

From coastal/oceanographic

GLBA -- Changes in water column stratification that could result from climate change 

and glacial retreat would likely change plankton species composition and biomass, timing 

of spring bloom, timing and volume of freshwater input and ocean temperature with 

cascading effects on marine vertebrates and other taxa. The Pacific Decadel Oscillation 

(PDO) and where the Alaska Coastal Current bifurcates will have an effect on this vital 

sign. 

Comments on Threats 

From water chemistry

GLBA -- Marine workshop report says: tidewater glacial face hydrodynamics are really 

important, especially carbon, dissolved nutrients, sediment. Not sure how to interpret this 

into a management concern or threat 

Management Concerns 

From water chemistry

GLBA -- Monitoring of water quality in Glacier Bay is needed to determine whether 

legal or illegal discharges from marine vessels are occurring and have the potential to 

negatively affect Park resources. 

From toxics

GLBA -- Potential impacts of toxics both in the marine and freshwater systems are a 

management concern. The park needs to determine whether legal or illegal discharges 

from marine vessels are occurring. 
Marine physicochemical and biological water mass characteristics 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-32 

 

From marine hydrology

GLBA -- Managers currently lack the data necessary to detect oceanographic change or 

determine causal factors. Changes in marine hydrology will affect T&E species, at-risk 

biota, anadromous fish and terrestrial and freshwater taxa in profound but unknown ways. 

Management actions may be having direct but unmeasured effects on marine hydrology. 

For example, de-stratification of the water column by cruise ship turbulence in transit and 

as they sit at the glaciers, may have effects on habitat suitability for marine species 

ranging from plankton to fish, with effects throughout the ecosystem, from larval fish to 

harbor seals. Oceanographic system is foundation for all other marine processes in 

Glacier Bay. Present studies need to continue in order to maintain contemporary 

oceanographic data, attempt to account for observed variability in biological resources, 

and additional studies are needed to identify effects vessels might have on certain 

oceanographic parameters. 

KLGO -- NA 

SITK -- NA 

From point-source human

GLBA -- Human health and safety is a concern related to chemical contaminants, heavy 

metals, and sewage contamination of surface waters. The impacts of chemical 

contaminants (e.g. reproductive failure, change in endocrine function, tissue damage) are 

of most concern in relation to marine species. 

From marine features

GLBA -- Ecological changes that occur in response to changes in marine processes and 

features could impact habitats for biota at risk, T&E species, anadromous fish and coastal 

vegetation. 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

• Understand oceanographic processes influencing the marine ecosystem. 

• Understand the natural range in variability of marine water quality parameters. 

• Determine the concentration of contaminants in marine ecosystems. 

Monitoring Questions 

• How do currents change in speed, direction and timing? 

• How do the physical characteristics of the water mass change in space and time (and 

how does that affect dependent biology)? 
Marine physicochemical and biological water mass characteristics 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-33 

 

• Why do marine hotspots, where large numbers of marine mammals and seabirds 

aggregate and feed, shift in time and space? 

• What will the impact be to the marine ecosystem when the terminus of retreating 

tidewater glaciers is no longer in marine waters? 

From scoping meetings 

• How do the three levels of ocean currents (large-Alaska Coastal Current, mediume.g. the bifurcation near Sitka, small-those within or in front of parks) affect marine 

processes? 

Questions about circulation and upwelling

• Are the temporal and spatial patterns of marine upwelling changing? 

• Are the temporal and spatial patterns of marine circulation changing? 

• Is the nutrient and energy content of upwelling water masses changing? 

From bioaccumulated toxics

• Has there been a change in the level of target contaminants in top level predators? 

From marine and freshwater primary productivity

• Has there been a change in the location or amount of marine primary productivity in 

park waters? 

• Is there a long term trend associated with the annual spatial variability of the spring 

phytoplankton bloom in GLBA? 

• Has there been a change in the species composition of the phytoplankton blooms in 

Glacier Bay? 

From marine contaminants

• Are there long term trends in the concentration of contaminants in marine waters? 

• Are there long term trends in the concentration of contaminants in marine sediments? 

from marine derived nutrients 

• Has there been a change in the amount of marine-derived nutrients introduced to focal 

streams in SEAN parks? 

• Has there been a change in the amount of marine-derived nutrients introduced into the 

riparian zone of focal streams? 

• Has there been a change in the response of stream or riparian communities to 

introduced marine-derived nutrients? 

From scoping meetings: 

• What are the concentrations of contaminants being released into the marine 

environment from known pollution sources? 
Marine physicochemical and biological water mass characteristics 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-34 

 

• What are the biological indicators of the health of marine water quality (marine 

ecosystem)? 

• What are the biological indicators of toxicity and pathology in marine water quality 

(marine ecosystem)? 

From water column core parameters

• How do depth profiles of physical and chemical characteristics of seawater change? 

• How do biotic, chemical, and physical characteristics of seawater vary spatially? 

From scoping meetings: 

• How are marine biological processes affected by the water column’s physical 

properties and dynamics? 

• What are the changes in the nearshore geomorphic features? 

• How do longshore currents affect shoreline processes? 

From hydrocarbons

• Is there a change in the contamination of marine water by engine fuels or lubricants? 

From sewage

• Is there a change in the incidence or degree of contamination of marine waters by 

sewage? 

• Is there a change in the effects of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization of plants or 

animals in marine waters near wastewater outflows? 

• How do currents change in speed, direction and timing? 

Example of Measures 

You can monitor some of this suite of parameters at once: 

• CTDs (temp, salinity, DO, turbidity, nutrients, others). 

• Contaminants (toxics, hydrocarbons, sewage); gather from water, sediments, tissues 

(mussels, etc.) 

• Primary production (chlorophyll A); could be with CTDs. 

• Water mass characteristics -- location and timing of upwelling; vessel transects of 

temp, salinity, nitrate, ammonia, phosphate, silicate, pH, DO, chlorophyll-A, 

turbidity, sediment load; seasonal maps of estuarine currents; nutrient and carbon 

concentrations in upwelling water masses; simultaneous measures of discharge flow 

rates and circulation patterns. 
Marine physicochemical and biological water mass characteristics 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-35 

 

From bioaccumulated toxics

• Concentration of target contaminants in predator tissue.

From marine and freshwater primary productivity

• Distribution and concentration of chlorophyll-a. 

• Time course of chlorophyll-a (or other productivity indicator) at moorings. 

• Phytoplankton species composition. 

From marine contaminants

• Concentrations of target inorganic and organic compounds in seawater. 

• Concentrations of target inorganic and organic compounds in marine sediments. 

From marine derived nutrients

• Isotopic ratios of carbon and nitrogen in stream organisms and riparian zone 

organisms and soil. 

• Nitrogen content, biomass, and growth rates of stream and riparian zone organisms. 

From water column core parameters

• Depth profiles of temperature, salinity, nitrate, ammonia, phosphate, silicate, pH, 

dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll-a, turbidity, sediment load. 

• Stationary measures of above parameters from moorings. 

• Transects of above parameters from vessels. 

From hydrocarbons

• Reports of fuel or lubricant spills. 

• Observations of hydrocarbon slicks on soil or water. 

• Concentration of hydrocarbon in water samples. 

From sewage

• Presence of coliform bacteria in marine waters. 

• Difference in biomass, growth rate, or element content of marine organisms near 

versus far from wastewater outflows. 

• Need a mixed sampling protocol. Target both problem areas and baseline stations. 

• Whenever a marine mammal and seabird hotspot is observed, collect distribution and 

relative abundance data and marine physiochemical and biological water mass data. 
Marine physicochemical and biological water mass characteristics 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-36 

 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Robars 2003: near-glacier productivity should be monitored. 

Comments 

Sampling design; Collect data in select areas to include hotspots, at face of tidewater 

glaciers where enter marine ecosystem. 

Protocol/sampling design for first three measures (CTDs, contaminants, primary 

production) and parts of the fourth (water mass characteristics) is the same; monitor 

whole suite of measures at once. But, protocol for measuring water mass characteristics 

would be to obtain data from remotely sensed map. Therefore, some scientists suggest 

that fourth set of measures belong with vital sign 33, land (and ocean) cover and land use. 

From remotely sensed map and/or satellite data, can get sea surface water temp, surface 

salinity, chlorophyll distribution, surface discharge patterns, vertical fronts, sea level 

altimetry, seasonal sediment plumes, etc. Oceanographers can learn interesting things 

from remotely sensed maps of the nearshore environment. This could be a very 

inexpensive way to get outer coast data. Not sure how often one would repeat this - 

every season, annually, every 10 years? How would one ground-truth remotely sensed 

marine data (ask NOAA/use NOAA’s data, ask Dave Douglas)? 

Have we sufficiently covered marine primary productivity? It seems like we always skip 

over zooplankton and calcareous things. One of the global threats that may be coming is 

ocean acidification. Should we have a vital sign that includes measuring this? 

From bioaccumulated toxics

Greg -- One of the best! 

Dan -- Baseline data are virtually non-existent; should such baseline data be acquired 

now and re-sampling not done for 10-20 years? 

From marine and freshwater primary productivity

Scott -- Productivity is driven by other lower order things (nutrients, light) and 

zooplankton grazing dynamics; good linkages but not sure how sensitive as an indicator. 

From marine contaminants

Dan -- Important to know but limited help in detecting ecosystem change - baseline 

lacking; cost of sampling to acquire baseline? 
Marine physicochemical and biological water mass characteristics 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-37 

 

Greg -- Ranked higher because of proximity of sources; why is KLGO not in the mix? 

from marine derived nutrients 

Scott -- Difference here is the potential to serve as an indicator vs. what we know about 

dynamics of delN or delC values and their reflection of SDN in freshwater or riparian 

ecosystems... 

If anyone reads this comment, they deserve a badge for commitment... 

Greg -- impoverished 

Greg -- ranks a little lower than GB because marine source offsite mostly 

From water column core parameters

Greg -- a 'biggie' 

Dan -- Change detection will be limited to regional scale; major changes may be 

detected; locations of water masses more dependent on local conditions and processes 

(e.g. glacier margin or stream mouths) 

From hydrocarbons

Dan - Baseline data needed but monitoring hydrocarbons as an ecosystem indicator of 

change does not seem justified; could be included in comprehensive water quality 

sampling scheme with 10 or more year frequency repetition? 

Greg - Indicator high because of SKG harbor proximity 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 SITK 

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 

• Refer to results of December 2005 workshop on GLBA oceanography. 

Information regarding ocean currents is essential. GLBA has a long-term dataset on 

physical oceanography (24 sampling stations). However, dataset is not related to 

known sites and does not include current data. Use existing dataset to model currents 

and identify information gaps. There should be data at the park specific to Muir 

Glacier, where oceanographic data was collected for 10 years. Should be a report in 

park library. 

• Use data from Icy Strait (outside GLBA). Source: NOAA Auke Bay Lab, SE Coastal 

Monitoring program. 

• Park equipment is being used to some extent. CTD (conductivity-temperature-depth) 

data could be used to model currents. 
Marine physicochemical and biological water mass characteristics 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-38 

 

• Install moorings. 

• May be able to use Water Quality program funding for current data. 

• A recurring theme is that a challenge for the marine ecosystem is that it's a highly 

protected area in a non-protected region. This is particularly true for the marine 

ecosystem, and the connectivity is so high between what is happening in the marine 

ecosystem within the parks and outside of the parks and in the region. The vital signs 

picked may well be outside the park; very few marine species spend their entire lives 

within the parks. 

• Partners for current monitoring: NOAA-Southeast Coastal Monitoring program 

(SECM); NOAA’s old drift card data; Alaska Ocean Observing System (AOOS, little 

money for Southeast); Dr. John Whitney-NOAA, has computer trajectory models; 

University researchers; National Pacific Research Board (work with oceanographic 

priorities for Gulf of Alaska and Southeast Alaska). 

• Install thermosalinographs on ships of opportunity (with flourometer nutrient sensor). 

Add moorings for temporal component. 

• Nutrients drive phytoplankton bloom dynamics and marine productivity dynamics 

generally. 

• Look at NOAA Auke Bay SE Coastal Monitoring program data. 

• EMAP (EPA) program sampled Southeast Alaska in 2004 - all water chemistry and 

nutrients measured, 40 stations. 

• Talk to Deb Rudis & Jeff Short about means to monitor (think in terms of Oilspill 

Protection Act 1990). 

• Mussel Watch (NOAA) is an existing bioassay program. Establish sites in SEAN 

parks. Nice time integrator. May be very cheap, or even at no cost to parks. 

• Sitka notes that there are a lot more barnacles than mussels in the park. Wonder 

about utility of Mussel Watch there? 

• There are well-established protocols for sediment contamination. 

regarding productivity hotspots:

• Limited nutrient data collected in GLBA (summer 2002 - Taggart; summer 2004 - 

Piatt not yet analyzed) 

• Sonar fish school tracking/mapping (USGS/Piatt/Dragoo surveys)
Freshwater physicochemical water quality 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-39 

 

EMF Level 1 - Water

EMF Level 2 - Water Quality

EMF Level 3 - Water chemistry

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

FRESHWATER PHYSIOCHEMICAL WATER QUALITY 

Justification 

A set of freshwater data is needed over the long term as a baseline for park conditions, to 

enable change detection, and as a backdrop against which other change detection may be 

considered. 

Threats 

GLBA -- Groundwater quality can indicate soil contamination from petroleum products 

and other toxics; contaminant sources and high concentrations can be located via 

groundwater. 

KLGO -- groundwater dynamics determine the location, distribution and types of 

wetlands and surface waters in the park. Groundwater quality may be affected by human 

waste management (pit toilets, septic systems) and fuel storage within the watershed. 

SITK -- Little is know about the groundwater processes that effect park resources. 

Human development around the park and in the Indian River Basin has the potential to 

radically alter ground water dynamics in the park. 

Comments on Threats 

Management Concerns 

GLBA -- Lack of data. The only knowledge of GLBA hyporheic character come from a 

handful of currently unmonitored (except at Dry Bay) wells in Bartlett Cove associated 

with groundwater contamination studies at the solid waste depot and the fuel farm/VIS 

area. Also an additional small handful at Dry Bay, and a triple handful in Gustavus. 

Knowledge of groundwater character/dynamics is key to understanding certain processes 

of stream and lake development (nutrients and C flow within and between ecosystem 

types, especially from the terrestrial system). GLBA reports to 2 GPRA Goals that might 

have relevance to this VS: Water Quality (Ia4B), and Water Quantity (Ia4C). 

KLGO -- The park knows very little about the characteristics of groundwater within the 

Taiya and Skagway watersheds. Groundwater dynamics appear to be closely linked to 

wetland dynamics and western toad breeding phenology. Isostatic rebound is altering 

groundwater dynamics within KLGO with an average uplift rate of 3/4" per year. 
Freshwater physicochemical water quality 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-40 

 

SITK -- Human activities outside the park could have drastic impacts to the groundwater 

dynamics within the park. 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

• Understand short and long term changes in physical, chemical and biological features 

of rivers, streams and other moving water (lotic) systems (watersheds, stream channel 

characteristics, groundwater dynamics, surface water dynamics, water quality, water 

chemistry, aquatic macroinvertebrates, exotic plants and animals, fish, benthic algae, 

benthic invertebrates). 

• Understand short and long term changes in physical, chemical and biological features 

of lakes, ponds and other still water (lentic) systems. 

Monitoring Questions 

• What are the long term trends in water quality of streams and lakes? 

• What is the status of the “health” of large rivers (water quality, macroinvertebrates)? 

• What are the (present) conditions of freshwater bodies (water quality)? 

• How do marine derived nutrients affect freshwater systems? 

 

Example of Measures 

Repeated measures of: 

• dissolved oxygen 

• temperature 

• pH 

• oxygen 

• siltation 

• nutrients (phosphorous, nitrogen, etc.) 

• alkalinity 

• hardness 

• silica 

• dissolved organic carbon 

• conductivity 

• turbidity 

• sediment load 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Dan - Limited data exist on freshwater parameters; baseline acquisition needed. 
Freshwater physicochemical water quality 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-41 

 

Comments 

Greg - A 'biggie' in all parks. 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

9 SITK

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 

• How does freshwater input change in space and time? What is it transporting? How 

does the pattern change over time? 

• Have we lost the concept of freshwater productivity, with the vital sign lumping and 

nesting? If so, does this matter?
Freshwater contaminants 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-42 

 

EMF Level 1 - Water

EMF Level 2 - Water Quality

EMF Level 3 - Toxics

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

FRESHWATER CONTAMINANTS 

Justification 

Freshwater contaminant data integrates information about the entire watershed and 

impact of humans. 

Threats 

From water chemistry

KLGO -- Due to the linear nature of both the Chilkoot Trail and White Pass units of 

KLGO, these park units are dominated by valley bottom and floodplain ecosystems. 

Water chemistry is a major driver of aquatic systems and the biota present within these 

systems. 

SITK -- Only the lower 0.6 miles of the Indian River is within the park boundary, yet the 

surface water the park receives represents the entire Indian River Basin and all the 

impacts to the entire system as the result of human activity. 

 

From toxics

KLGO -- Toxins may be released into park aquatic systems from a number of sources: 

WPYR, fuels spills, stormwater runoff, and intentional dumping. 

SITK -- Upstream development in the Indian River Basin has been rapid and continues to 

accelerate. This development increases the risk that toxic chemicals will be released into 

the Indian River. 

From point-source human

KLGO -- Point sources such as pit toilets, septic systems, grey water disposal WP&YR, 

and stormwater runoff could negatively impact surface water quality in KLGO. 

From non-point source human

GLBA -- Pollution a threat from non-point source human impacts. 

Comments on Threats 
Freshwater contaminants 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-43 

 

Management Concerns 

From water chemistry

KLGO -- WP&YR railroad, Chilkoot Trail recreational use, inholdings, surrounding development 

(subdivisions with septic systems), and stormwater runoff from homes/roads are management 

concerns. 

SITK -- Human subdivision and other developments that have the potential for adding 

contaminants and increasing siltation to the river, gravel extraction, and dam maintenance 

threaten the integrity of the Indian River water chemistry, the accumulative impacts of which are 

received in the park in the lower 0.6 miles of the river. 

From toxics

KLGO -- Discharges of toxins into park aquatic systems are a management concern. Potential 

sources should be identified and monitored. 

SITK -- Upstream development in the Indian River Basin may result in the release of toxic 

chemicals into the Indian River which may impact the stream ecosystem included the portion of 

the river within the park. 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

Monitoring Questions 

• Are there trends in the concentration of contaminants in the water of streams and 

lakes (water, sediments or biological tissues)? 

• Is there a change in the incidence or degree of contamination of surface waters or 

groundwater by sewage? 

• Is there a change in the effects of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization of plants or 

animals near wastewater outflows? 

• Is there a change in the contamination of soil or water by engine fuels or lubricants? 

• What is the level of contaminants in freshwater systems? 

Example of Measures 

• fecal coliform (in groundwater or surface water) 

• heavy metals 

• concentrations of target inorganic and organic compounds 

• persistent organic pollutants 

• difference in biomass, growth rate, or element content of organisms near versus far 

from wastewater outflows 

• concentrations of hydrocarbons (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) 
Freshwater contaminants 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-44 

 

• reports of fuel or lubricant spills 

• observations of hydrocarbon slicks on soil or water 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Comments 

Monitor freshwater contaminants because we know they are not supposed to be there. 

But a problem is, what levels are unhealthy? It is hard to get a dose response effect as a 

measure of an impact from contaminants. But you could say that monitoring this is 

reflective of something you might want to tackle. 

Greg - Freshwater contaminants a 'biggie,' especially for Sitka. 

Dan - Baseline data limited on freshwater contaminants; may be useful to acquire data 

now for future. 

The Hydrocarbon issue is quite important in SITK and KLGO as they are adjacent to 

urban areas. 

Greg - Hydrocarbon indicator high because of SKG harbor proximity. 

Dan - Baseline data on hydrocarbons needed, but monitoring as an ecosystem indicator of 

change does not seem justified; could be included in comprehensive water quality 

sampling scheme with ten or more year frequency repetition? 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

9 SITK 

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 
Freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates and algae 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-45 

 

EMF Level 1 - Water

EMF Level 2 - Water Quality

EMF Level 3 - Aquatic macro-invertebrates and algae

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

FRESHWATER BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES AND 

ALGAE 

Justification 

Threats 

From aquatic macroinvertebrates

GLBA -- The vital sign here is freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates and algae. These 

comprise an essential element of the freshwater ecosystem. No known immediate (or 

likely potential) threats. 

 

KLGO -- Good indicators of water quality and aquatic health in clearwater systems. No 

indices have yet been developed for glacial systems, which the Taiya and Skagway rivers 

are. 

SITK -- Aquatic macroinvertebrates and benthic algae (diatoms, etc.) are good indicators 

of water quality and the health of stream ecosystems. Human development that has the 

potential for adding contaminants and increasing siltation to the river, gravel extraction, 

and water diversion (instream flow reduction) in the Indian River Basin threaten to shift 

macroinvertebrates and benthic algae species composition to that representing a degraded 

stream. Species diversity may also be reduced.

Comments on Threats 

Management Concerns 

From aquatic macroinvertebrates

GLBA -- Benthic macroinvertebrate/algal dynamics comprise an important driver of 

freshwater (especially stream) systems. Fishes, including rearing salmon, rely heavily 

upon benthic macroinvertebrates (some of which graze upon algae) for food and are 

sensitive to their composition, abundance, and distribution. 

 

KLGO -- Much work would need to be done within park glacial river systems in order to 

use macroinverts and algae as indicators of WQ and stream health. 

SITK -- Human development that has the potential for adding contaminants and 

increasing siltation to the river, gravel extraction, and water diversion (instream flow 
Freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates and algae 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-46 

 

reduction) in the Indian River Basin could degrade the Indian River, the accumulated 

effects of which would be seem in the final 0.6 miles of the river within the park. Aquatic 

macroinvertebrates and benthic algae would be some of the first organism to be effected 

and the most sensitive species to these changes would be lost or reduced. 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

Understand short and long term changes in physical, chemical and biological features of 

rivers, streams and other moving water (lotic) systems (watersheds, stream channel 

characteristics, groundwater dynamics, surface water dynamics, water quality, water 

chemistry, aquatic macroinvertebrates, exotic plants and animals, fish, benthic algae, 

benthic invertebrates). 

Monitoring Questions 

From freshwater algae

• Are there long term changes in the community of freshwater algae in streams or 

lakes? 

• Are there long term changes in the abundance of indicator taxa of freshwater algae in 

streams and lakes? 

From freshwater macroinvertebrates

• Are there long term changes in the community of stream invertebrates? 

• Are there long term changes in the abundance of indicator taxa of stream 

invertebrates? 

• What is the status of the “health” of large rivers (water quality, macroinvertebrates)? 

Example of Measures 

From freshwater algae

• Area of stream bottom occupied by each species of freshwater algae. 

• Concentration (individuals/volume) of diatoms and phytoplankton in lake water. 

• Diversity, community composition, and biomass of freshwater algae in streams or 

lakes. 

From freshwater macroinvertebrates

• Counts per area of stream bottom of aquatic insect and other invertebrate taxa. 

• Diversity, community composition, and biomass of invertebrate taxa. 
Freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates and algae 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-47 

 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Comments 

Freshwater macroinvertebrates are a biological index that is very sensitive to change. 

Measure caddis fly, may fly, stone fly etc. If change is detected, then increase water 

quality parameters being measured to determine cause. If sole reason to measure is to 

determine water chemistry, why not just do water quality measures? Measuring 

macroinvertebrate levels is complementary with water quality monitoring, nor redundant. 

Only monitor macroinvertebrates in clear water streams. 

From freshwater algae

Greg -- benthic algae small part of GLBA freshwater ecosystems; same at KLGO 

From freshwater macroinvertebrates

Greg -- Generally a good index to water quality 

Greg -- Great index to water quality on Indian river at SITK 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

9 SITK 

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 
Invasive exotic plants 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-48 

 

EMF Level 1 - Biological Integrity

EMF Level 2 - Invasive Species

EMF Level 3 - Invasive/Exotic plants

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

INVASIVE EXOTIC PLANTS 

Justification 

If not controlled immediately, invasive and exotic plant entry to the park ecosystem will 

cause huge change to the vegetation community and all that depend upon it. This could 

be an ecosystem controller. This is an immediate concern in SITK, and a management 

concern for all SEAN parks.

Threats 

From invasive plants

GLBA -- Replace native flora, cascading disturbance throughout the natural system. 

Invasive plants appear to be on the cusp of a rapid expansion in the GLBA terrestrial 

ecosystem. They could also invade FW systems. Invasive scan threaten the integrity of 

entire ecosystems and are viewed as a good indicator of overall ecosystem health. They 

can out compete native plants and perturb an entire flora (and thereby the fauna), 

fundamentally altering the ecosystem. 

 

KLGO -- Big problem. Number of new species is increasing and distribution throughout 

park may be increasing as well. Exotic/invasives are second to habitat loss worldwide 

and the top threats to biodiversity and causes of species imperilment worldwide. As AK 

climate warms, the threat from exotic species will likely increase as well. 

SITK -- Exotic plants are threatening to disrupt the terrestrial ecosystems of the park. 

Over 14 species are now present in the park of which at least four are or have the 

potential to spread rapidly. Others such as spotted knapweed and garlic mustard may 

arrive on Baranof Island any time and get transported into the park from the over 300,000 

visitors that come to the park each year. 

From terrestrial complex

KLGO -- Invasive species are a threat to the terrestrial complex.

From point-source human

GLBA -- Exotic species from bilges may invade marine ecosystems or transmit disease. 

Invasive plants may travel in with people via various means. 

Comments on Threats 
Invasive exotic plants 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-49 

 

Management Concerns 

From invasive plants

GLBA -- GLBA has only a token inventory of invasive plants. We understand the 

composition, distribution, and relative abundance of exotics from only a few select sites, 

and have only two years of data. Our concentration of effort has been focused on lowelevation sites near tidewater; we have no information from higher-elevation 

communities. It is likely that human activity is the primary cause of the spread of 

invasive plants, so invasive plant status can be a good indicator of human influence on 

otherwise pristine ecosystems. GLBA reports to GPRA Goal Ia1B, Invasive (non-native) 

Vegetation. 

 

KLGO -- Numerous species have been detected within the park and several especially 

noxious species have shown up in Skagway - bird vetch and white sweetclover. Lots of 

vectors for introductions and difficult to manage potential sources due to mixed 

ownership within park boundary and multitude of uses. 

SITK -- Highly aggressive exotic plants present in the park included Japanese knotweed, 

creeping buttercup, dandelion, and European mountain ash. The buttercup is moving into 

forested areas rapidly and needs to be immediately controlled. Other highly aggressive 

species, like reed canary grass, have been found just outside the park boundary in the 

2005 survey. 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

• Determine if any invasive species are present in the parks. 

Monitoring Questions 

• Are there any near- or offshore marine invasive plant species present, and are they 

increasing in area or abundance? 

• Which terrestrial invasive plant species are present in SEAN parks? 

• What is the abundance and distribution of invasive plant species in SEAN parks? 

• What is the rate of increase of abundance and distribution of invasive species? 

• What is introducing invasive/exotic plants and what measures can be taken to limit or 

control invasion? 

• To what extent are exotic species affecting freshwater systems? 

Example of Measures 

• Distribution and extent of invasive and exotic plants. 
Invasive exotic plants 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-50 

 

Marine

• Population sizes and locations of marine exotic eelgrasses and exotic algae. 

Terrestrial/aquatic

• Population sizes and locations of dandelions, European mountain ash, creeping 

buttercup. 

• National protocol being developed. 

Possible Partners 

Hope to rely on Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for eradication efforts; NPS 

needs to coordinate with them. NPS role may be to take EMP data and summarize it 

every five years, and keep an early eye out for invasion in SEAN parks. 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Comments 

Monitor invasive plants and animals because we know that they can cause huge 

destruction in many ways and that they're not supposed to be there. We don't know the 

mechanism, but we do know if they start showing up with greater frequency we better 

identify it right away because we could potentially have a disaster. We may not have an 

invasives problem at SEAN parks now, but 100 years from now we probably will. 

Dan -- Seems this falls under another NPS program and can be considered there, given 

limited resources for I&M? 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

9 SITK 

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 

• Presence of invasive species can be indicative of overall park health. 

• Invasive species change with time. One can’t predict which plant will become the 

aggressive invasive. A patch can sit there for six months, then suddenly explode. 

• Build on NPS Exotic Plant Management Team (EPMT) work. Note that EPMT may 

not be sufficient -- it will implement treatment, but parks would be expected to 

monitor the results of that treatment. 

• USFS just completed a white paper on invasive species for the Alaska region -- both 

current and potential invasive species. Will send that report to the NPS. 
Invasive exotic plants 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-51 

 

• USFS has funding, has done a lot of surveys. They will be a good partner, coordinate 

with them. 

• There is a central databank with USFS S&PF, Alaska Natural heritage Center, and 

NPS to a smaller degree. 

• The definition between exotic and invasive is not straight-forward. It is suggested 

that exotic is non-native, and invasive is a particularly aggressive non-native. Spatial 

scale and time are factors in the definition. One groups states that for NPS purposes, 

“invasives” are species exotic to an ecosystem. 

• Distribution is critical. 

• Invasives are coming down the Alsek/Tat Rivers. 

• Do paired studies-an invasive species and vectors of distribution (boats, boat drop off 

sites, wind, trucks/cars, ferries/vehicles, rafters, kayakers). 

• KLGO is most at risk for plant invasions. 

• Can we identify techniques to reduce invasive species transmission (e.g. wash boots 

in water before coming ashore)? 

• What would protocol and sample design be if parkwide inferences were desired on 

the degree of invasiveness, or the level of exotic species and invasive species that are 

in the Park, and monitor that over time? This would be a good indicator of how 

intact the park’s native plant community was, whether it was being impacted by a 

number of different species. There would be interruptions to natural processes, 

included successional dynamics, if invasive species were having a large impact. 

• GLBA is a rapidly changing environment. How do we distinguish an invasive 

species from something that would normally colonize the area? 

• Exotic versus invasive.
Invasive exotic animals 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-52 

 

EMF Level 1 - Biological Integrity

EMF Level 2 - Invasive Species

EMF Level 3 - Invasive/Exotic animals

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

INVASIVE EXOTIC ANIMALS 

Justification 

Concerns include Atlantic salmon, introduction of exotics by bilge water, exotic slugs 

and their impact on vegetation, starlings in SITK and GLBA. 

Threats 

From invasive animals

GLBA -- GLBA invasive animals include a slug (terrestrial) that may be outcompeting 

native slugs and overgrazing native plants. Another known exotic is Atlantic salmon that 

may be outcompeting native salmon both at sea and for spawning habitat, may interbreed 

with and genetically alter native salmon, and may introduce disease into native salmon 

populations. Invasives can threaten the integrity of entire ecosystems and are viewed as a 

good indicator of overall ecosystem health. 

 

KLGO -- domestic cats, dogs, rabbits have all been documented within KLGO. 

Bobwhite quail, eastern grey squirrel, starling, pigeons, turkeys, turtles, a lizard have 

been seen. 

SITK -- SITK has several exotic animals that could be negatively affecting the park’s 

ecosystems. 

 

From terrestrial complex

KLGO -- Invasive species are a threat to the terrestrial complex. 

From point-source human

GLBA -- Exotic species from bilges may invade marine ecosystems or transmit disease. 

Comments on Threats 

Management Concerns 

From invasive animals
Invasive exotic animals 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-53 

 

GLBA -- There has been no directed focus on the status/trends of invasive animals in 

GLBA. We do not understand the magnitude of the potential threat of invasive animals to 

native biota. We suspect that other exotics so far unknown within the park may in fact 

occur there or be poised to invade. GLBA reports to GPRA Goal Ia2C, Invasive Animal 

Species. 

 

KLGO -- Doesn't appear to be a significant concern at the moment, but things could 

change. 

SITK -- Little is know of the effects that exotic animal infestations are having on park 

ecosystems. Species know to be present include European starlings, pigeons, exotic slugs, 

domestic dogs, cats, and possibly rats. Starling populations appear to be increasing 

rapidly. Large flocks are using the park for feeding and some starlings may even be 

breeding in the park. 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

• Determine if any marine invasive species are present. 

Monitoring Questions 

• Are there any near- or offshore marine invasive animal species present, and are they 

increasing in abundance?

• Which terrestrial invasive animal species are present in SEAN parks?

• What is their abundance and distribution?

• What is the rate of increase of invasive animal species abundance and distribution?

• What is the ecological relationship between exotic and natural animals?

• Are invasive/exotic animals causing a detrimental effect on natural animals?

• Are there places that are particularly prone to invasion by invasive/exotic animals?

Example of Measures 

• Distribution and extent of invasive and exotic animals. 

• Population sizes and locations of Atlantic salmon, green crab, European starlings, 

pigeons, domestic (and feral?) dogs and cats, rats, rabbits, northern bobwhite, exotic 

slugs, wild turkeys. 

• Marine invertebrates in ballast water 

Protocol could be to set up a database to document anecdotal reports of 

invasive/exotic animals. 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 
Invasive exotic animals 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-54 

 

Comments 

Greg -- not much in the way of animals. 

Dan -- Does this fall under another NPS program and can be considered there, given 

limited resources for I&M? Are new species to GLBA invasive or due to ecosystem 

changes?

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

9 SITK

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 

• Invasives are important. Track colonization events or processes. 

• Ballast water not discharged in SEAN parks (per MARPOL). 

• Hull fouling organisms are mostly an issue for sedentary ships, rather than moving 

vessel traffic. 

• It would be very difficult to monitor anything disengaging from a hull and entering 

marine waters in the parks. 

• Be aware of potential invasives (e.g., those affecting Gulf of Alaska). 

• ADFG program is monitoring for Atlantic salmon. 

Also see comments for 11 Invasive/exotic 
Pests and diseases 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-55 

 

EMF Level 1 - Biological Integrity

EMF Level 2 - Infestations and Diseases

EMF Level 3 - Insect pests

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

PESTS AND DISEASES 

Justification 

When pests and diseases attack it can reorganize the ecosystem. They drive change. Pest 

or disease outbreaks will typically be park management concerns. Pests and diseases can 

be from native and non native species. 

Threats 

From insect pests

GLBA -- The "threats" here are those posed to natural terrestrial vegetation assemblages 

by epidemic outbreaks of spruce bark beetles, aphids, hemlock looper. The potential vital 

sign is one of these insect "pests" or a suite of them. These are not threats if they occur 

naturally under natural conditions, but they ARE threats if they occur anthropogenically. 

A Sitka spruce weevil (Pissodes strobei) is currently moving northward through B.C. (not 

in Southeast AK yet); this beetle infests young spruce leaders, with major impacts to 

spruce regeneration. 

 

KLGO -- Western balsam bark beetle (White Pass subalpine fir), lodgepole pine needle 

miner (Dyea). Native species that have had localized outbreaks. 

SITK -- Insect pest like aphids have the potential to kill large numbers of mature trees in 

the area. Infestations seem particularly bad after warm winters. Warm winters are more 

common then in the past, possibly because of global climate change. 

From animal diseases

GLBA -- Toxic algal blooms have the potential to kill marine organisms. Algal blooms 

may be naturally-occurring or caused by pollution. Avian flu and West Nile virus have 

the potential to decimate wild bird populations in Alaska. Parasites originating from 

farmed Atlantic salmon may affect wild salmon stocks. Genetic changes in populations 

may occur as a result of animal diseases. Climate change is expected to change animals' 

susceptibility to disease. 

 

KLGO -- Avian Influenza, West Nile Virus, Chytrid Fungus (detected in western toads in 

KLGO), huntavirus. 
Pests and diseases 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-56 

 

SITK -- Diseases that are carried by birds and have the potential to spread rapidly around 

the world through migratory bird flyways or visitor use could reach SITK and cause 

ecosystem distributions and present a health hazard for visitors and staff. 

From point-source human

GLBA -- Exotic species from bilges may invade marine ecosystems or transmit disease. 

Comments on Threats 

Management Concerns 

From insect pests

GLBA -- In light of the "Threats" from insect pests, it is essential to distinguish between 

natural outbreaks and those triggered anthropogenically. Currently we have little ability 

to accomplish this, and no knowledge upon which to base a determination of cause and 

effect. These events are of considerable concern because of their ability to fundamentally 

alter the character of large portions of terrestrial habitat (witness lower G.B. following 

the spruce bark beetle outbreak of the early 1980s). If such an event could be linked to 

human activity, management would doubtless consider some reaction (and/or some 

preventative actions). GLBA reports to GPRA Goal Ia1E (Land Health - Upland) that 

might have relevance to this VS. 

 

KLGO -- Non-native species may become a concern or unnatural behaviors of natives. 

Work with Mark Schultz of the Tongass N.F. to monitor. 

SITK -- Aphids have killed many large spruce and hemlock trees in the park in recent 

years. 

From animal diseases

GLBA -- Human safety is at risk when animal diseases affect humans, including 

poisoning from the consumption of tainted meat, fish or shellfish, or through direct 

disease transmission to people. Animal diseases may decimate populations of T&E 

species, at-risk biota and other taxa, bringing about profound ecological change in some 

cases. Visitor access and experience could be constrained by concerns about animal 

diseases, depending on the situation. Pollutants resulting from management actions are 

sometimes a factor in animal disease. 

 

KLGO -- Could have significant impacts on park wildlife and implications for human 

health and safety. 
Pests and diseases 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-57 

 

SITK -- Diseases such as the Avian Influenza could reach the park when infected birds 

arrive after breeding in Asia or travel on overlapping migratory flyways with Asian 

routes. West Nile Virus could reach the park from migratory birds that come from the 

south. 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

• Understand effects of marine infestations and diseases. 

• Determine if there are any native insect or disease outbreaks adversely affecting the 

terrestrial ecosystem. 

Monitoring Questions 

From insect pests

• Has there been a change in the population size of spruce bark beetles, or an increase 

in the areal extent of infestation? 

• Has there been a change in the population size of spruce aphid, or an increase in the 

areal extent of infestation? 

From scoping meetings:

• Are there any infestations or diseases or changes in genetic structure of organisms 

prevalent in the marine ecosystem from either human-caused pollution or ecosystemrelated changes? 

• Are harmful algae blooms (HABs) affecting marine ecosystems? 

• Are there any insect or disease outbreaks affecting the terrestrial ecosystem? 

Example of Measures 

• Map extent of outbreak areas

• Map distribution of outbreak areas

• Document early warning signs for avian flu

From insect pests

• Number of bark beetles captured in traps.

• Areal extent of dying or dead spruce trees in outbreak areas.

• Distribution of trees affected by spruce aphid.

Protocol should include monitoring where outbreaks could be expected. 

Key pests/diseases to monitor: aphids, red tide, spruce bark beetle, spruce root fungus, 

avian flu, chytrid fungus
Pests and diseases 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-58 

 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Comments 

From insect pests

What to do with Spruce bark beetles and other insect pests in the park? USFS will be all 

over it if there's an eruption in one of the parks. Maybe we should put them on the list? It 

is not worth monitoring them to see if the population is ready to erupt - it's not going to 

happen that way. You just wait for it to erupt. 

Greg -- ranked lowest because of generally youthful forests

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

9 SITK

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 

• ADFG program is monitoring for Atlantic salmon/disease. There are more parasites 

showing up in farmed salmon than in wild fish. 

• ADFG Palmer (or Homer?) Lab has new monitoring capabilities for paralytic 

shellfish poisoning. 

• Larval surveys with PCR analyses or bio-chemical analyses. 

• Taggart commented on diseases and infections. He said there are changes in genetics 

with the structure of populations. He passed out reference material about Traits 

Acquired from Results of Commercial Fishing. 

• In GLBA, spruce bark beetle is currently the only insect pathogen in the park. 

• There are native species that go through episodic outbreaks. How to distinguish 

whether it is a natural infestation or occurrence or part of succession or habitat 

evolution? 

• Hennon et al (FSL) can predict what insects will increase with a warming climate. 

• Hennon has noted Sitka spruce weevil, Pissodes strobei, are moving north through 

British Columbia. The weevils infest young spruce leaders, with major impacts to 

spruce regeneration. 

• Sitka and Excursion Inlet (near GLBA) both have aphids. 

• It may be harder for invasives to colonize islands so they may be less at risk, but once 

colonization has occurred, extinctions are more common on islands. 

• The MOST important things to do are education and establish a warning system. 

• USFS S&PF will be a good partner, has a program. Encourage them to continue their 

work.
Marine mammals and seabirds 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-59 

 

EMF Level 1 - Biological Integrity

EMF Level 2 - Focal Species or Communities

EMF Level 3 - Marine communities

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

MARINE MAMMALS AND SEABIRDS 

Justification 

Marine mammals are long lived, some species are resident, and all are good integrators of 

ecological information. We need information on a guild of marine mammals and 

seabirds, not just single species. There is a single protocol, predator surveys, for 

monitoring this suite of marine mammals and seabirds. It is important to monitor a suite 

of species in our most trampled environment, within their habitat. This is important 

baseline monitoring information to acquire and maintain. This dataset is important for 

cruise ship management. The relative abundance of species to each other provides 

another set of information. 

Changes in relative abundance of seabirds that are divers versus those that feed at higher 

levels in the water column informs us about conditions at those differing trophic levels 

and can serve as a proxy for forage fishes. It has been said that "the best plankton nets are 

seabirds." 

Threats 

From mammals

GLBA -- Apparent decline in harbor porpoise numbers is unconfirmed. 

"Determine if vessel wakes change the behavior of whales ..., rafting sea otters and other 

marine mammals to determine the biological significance of these effects" (from VQOREIS). 

From birds

GLBA -- Seabird populations will be affected by oceanographic changes caused by 

global climate change. Pressure to open Bartlett Cove to all traffic, not subject to vessel 

permit limits would negatively affect the many seabirds that use Bartlett Cove. 

Comments on Threats 

From birds

GLBA -- Harlequin ducks, Black oystercatchers, Kittlitz's murrelets and marbled 

murrelets mentioned specifically in Marine Report. 
Marine mammals and seabirds 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-60 

 

Management Concerns 

From mammals

GLBA -- Sea otter re-colonization of GLBA will have far reaching effects on other 

marine species (kelp, urchins, clams, crabs). 

We need to determine if the observed decline in harbor porpoise sightings indicates a true 

population decline and whether aspects of NPS and regional vessel management policies 

can reverse any negative trends. 

From birds

GLBA -- Visitor experience will be negatively affected if we lose charismatic seabird 

species, such as puffins. Traditional Tlingit gull egg collection at South Marble Island 

may not be sustainable if climate change reduces the viability of the gull population. 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

Monitoring Questions 

• Why do marine hotspots, where large numbers of marine mammals and seabirds 

aggregate and feed, shift in time and space? 

• How are the relative abundance and distribution of different species changing? 

Example of Measures 

• Relative abundance of species and guilds.

• Distribution of species and guilds.

• Whenever a marine mammal and seabird hotspot is observed, collect distribution and 

relative abundance data and marine physiochemical and biological water mass data.

From seabirds

Choose K-selected species to monitor that spend most of their life in the parks.

Possible Partners 

NRPP proposal and funding. 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Continue predator surveys; have about 10 years of data. 
Marine mammals and seabirds 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-61 

 

Comments 

From seabirds

Is this a gap if we don't include? Choose K-selected seabird species to monitor that 

spend most of their life in the parks. 

K-Selected marine mammals

Monitor K-selected marine mammals. Look at numbers of marine mammals in the park, 

think about the measures that would give information about park specific versus non park 

specific matters. There is no mechanistic link there unless you couple it with something 

else on the cause and effect of marine mammal decline, because it could be so many 

things. 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 

• Harbor seals and sea otters best to monitor (park-specific processes).
Intertidal communities 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-62 

 

EMF Level 1 - Biological Integrity

EMF Level 2 - Focal Species or Communities

EMF Level 3 - Intertidal communities

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

INTERTIDAL COMMUNITIES 

Justification 

Threats 

From intertidal communities

GLBA -- Spills and trampling. Marine intertidal communities’ habitats comprise the 

boundary between the marine and terrestrial ecosystems, and are the 

concentration/accumulation areas for "floating" pollutants such as petroleum and marine 

debris - both of which are damaging not only to intertidal communities but also to other 

biota. Marine vessel spills are a constant threat. Intertidal communities are vulnerable to 

human trampling, and the intertidal zone is an area of focused human activity because of 

easy human access/travel and because they attract human investigation. Much human 

activity in the park (that doesn't occur on marine waters) happens in the intertidal zone. 

 

KLGO -- Threats to intertidal communities include visitor use, oil spills, and toxins. 

SITK -- Intertidal communities in the park are at risk from human activity, including ship 

and boat traffic, oil spills, boat groundings, visitor use, and proposed developments such 

as a deepwater cruise ship dock to be built adjacent to the park boundary. 

From point-source human

SITK -- Point-source pollution, such as the waste water treatment plant and the fish 

processing plant outfall, may be negatively affecting the park's intertidal zone. 

From non-point source human

SITK -- No point pollution sources such as the discharges from ships and boats and oil 

emissions from outboard engines may be effecting the park's intertidal zone. 

Contaminants could be entering and bioaccumulating in the intertidal ecosystem. 

From coastal/oceanographic

SITK -- Human alterations and activity can alter the shoreline processes that would have 

direct and indirect effects on the SITK's intertidal zone. 

From Threats in Access, when we were considering “estuarine communities” as a vital 

sign: 
Intertidal communities 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-63 

 

KLGO -- The Taiya River estuary appears to be quite productive as is evidenced by the 

year.

Comments on Threats 

Management Concerns 

From intertidal communities

GLBA -- Negative impacts of spills/trampling cannot be accurately recognized, assessed, 

and effectively rehabilitated/restored without good information on the natural condition. 

The known range of natural variability is very broad, so long-term monitoring is essential 

if we hope to distinguish between that kind of variability and anthropogenic impacts. 

GLBA reports to GPRA Goal Ia1F (Land Health - Marine and Coastal) that might have 

relevance to this VS. 

 

KLGO -- There's little info on KLGO's intertidal communities. Most are outside of the 

park's management jurisdiction although they are within the park boundary. 

SITK -- Little is known about the intertidal community of the park. This zone comprises 

almost half of the park acreage. Monitoring the health of the intertidal zone is crucial in 

detecting impacts that might be occurring to theses critical park resources. 

From point-source human

SITK -- The outfall from the fish processing plants in Sitka may be adding nutrient 

loading to the intertidal ecosystem. 

From non-point-source human

SITK -- The park intertidal zone may be experiencing negative impacts from nonpoint 

pollution sources unknown to park managers. 

From coastal/oceanographic

SITK -- Proposed developments such as a deep water dock for cruise ships to be built 

adjacent to the SITK boundary could alter shoreline processes including longshore drift 

and the deposition/erosional process. This could severely impact the park's intertidal 

zone. 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

Monitoring Questions 
Intertidal communities 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-64 

 

• Have there been changes in the species composition of marine intertidal 

communities?

• Has there been a change in the biomass or productivity of marine intertidal 

communities?

Example of Measures 

• Species composition of intertidal communities. 

• Biomass of intertidal community components. 

• Productivity of intertidal community components. 

When picking what to monitor, consider cause and effect. Intertidal communities are 

resilient; they are subject to high disturbance. What is not changeable in the marine 

communities? What comes back quicker? What is the natural range of oscillation? What 

is the natural response and variability? If you know this, then if there is a natural or 

anthropogenic change that causes a disturbance outside the normal range, this would be 

important to detect and understand. 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Comments 

Greg - Ranked highest because of relative prevalence in park. 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

9 SITK

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 

• Because of global recognition of oil spills as a major impact to marine communities, 

should have a specific question related to this potential cause of change in the marine 

environment. Need to have data on the status and trends of the communities before a 

spill event, to be able to assess effect of a spill on the environment. In response to the 

question: “Isn’t this just doing inventory?” the response was: “Inventory becomes 

your first data point in a monitoring program.” Need a physical model of what would 

happen in event of an oil spill. Use this modeling to select areas that are most 

susceptible to spill impact, and gather baseline data in those locations. Recent 

information shows that offshore weather in the Gulf of Alaska heads southward, then 

east through Icy Strait and north into GLBA. Organisms most likely to be impacted 

are those in contact with the sea surface (e.g., sea ducks) and those in contact with the 

intertidal zone. 
Wetland communities 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-65 

 

EMF Level 1 - Biological Integrity

EMF Level 2 - Focal Species or Communities

EMF Level 3 - Wetland communities

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

WETLAND COMMUNITIES 

Justification 

Threats 

From wetland communities

GLBA -- Wetlands in the park provide important resting habitat for migratory waterfowl, 

notably cranes; and ground-nesting birds. Wetlands also support unique plant species. For 

example, the "poor fen" type wetland or open shrub and herb wetlands contain some rare 

plant species and also supports plant diversity that may be important. The relative 

scarcity of this habitat type in southeast Alaska, its low level of disturbance, and its easy 

access enhance these wetlands value for education and scientific study. 

 

The preserve supports extremely concentrated ORV use during the commercial and 

subsistence fishing seasons. ORV access is through wetlands and adjacent shorelines that 

support a high density of nesting shore and seabirds and serves as a major migratory 

stopover for waterfowl and shorebirds. The preserve is also the sole take-out point for 

rafters floating the Tatshenshini-Alsek River corridor and receives international attention 

as part of a World Heritage Site. 

 

Access road to Bartlett Cove passes through a variety of wetlands. Threats to both 

wetlands and fish habitat because of the poor road design and inadequate erosion control 

has been a concern to the park. There have been threats to the wetlands and salmonid 

spawning and rearing habitat from erosion and sedimentation problems in ditches and 

waterways adjacent to the entrance road. 

 

KLGO -- Unlike most of SE AK, KLGO has a limited number of wetlands. Wetlands in 

the Dyea area may be drying and diminishing in area as a result of isostatic rebound. 

SITK -- Most of the terrestrial area of the park is a form of wetland. Threats include 

change in climate (warming and drying), negative groundwater interactions from outside 

the park as the result of development, and building structures and increasing the breath of 

the trail system in the park as the result of park management decisions. 
Wetland communities 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-66 

 

Comments on Threats 

GLBA -- Clean Water Act, Executive Order 11990 ("Protection of Wetlands") and 11988 

("Floodplain Management"). 

GPRA Ia1C Land Health-Wetlands

Management Concerns 

From wetland communities

GLBA -- Motorized use in support of commercial and subsistence fishing is authorized 

and occurs extensively in the park preserve. Routes and areas for ORV use have not been 

formally designated. The park needs accurate information regarding existing routes, 

sensitive wetlands, natural hydrological processes, and long-term monitoring. 

Management has concerns to wetlands adjacent to the park road. Best management 

practices to stabilize exposed soil, minimize erosion and sedimentation has continued and 

the park has made considerable progress. 

 

KLGO -- Chytrid fungus has been detected in western toads in KLGO. This non-native 

aquatic fungus has been implicated in amphibian die-offs around the world. Need to 

collect info on the distribution of the pathogen in park wetlands. Wetlands contribute to 

the heterogeneity of habitats within the park and susceptible to human disturbances. 

SITK -- Protecting wetlands in the park is a GPRA goal (Ia01C) and the NPS is directed 

to protect wetlands from Executive Order 11990. 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

Understand short- and long-term changes in the physical, biological and chemical 

features of wetlands. 

Monitoring Questions 

• Are individual wetlands changing in size, hydrology, or species composition? 

• Is the total area of wetlands in a park changing? 

Example of Measures 

• Land cover of wetland vegetation types. 

• Hydrology of selected wetlands. 

• Plant community composition of wetlands. 
Wetland communities 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-67 

 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Comments 

There is a GRPA goal addressing wetlands. 

There is wetland damage from ORV use in Dry Bay. 

Greg - but change is kind of slow to monitor 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

9 SITK

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 

• Hydrology drives vegetation if landscape doesn’t interfere. 

• Flow regime is a driver of riparian vegetation. Riparian vegetation is at the 

intersection of hydrology and the terrestrial environment.
Salmonids 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-68 

 

EMF Level 1 - Biological Integrity

EMF Level 2 - Focal Species or Communities

EMF Level 3 - Fishes

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

SALMONIDS 

Justification 

Threats 

From fishes

GLBA -- Marine pollution may affect populations of marine fishes. Parasites and 

diseases from escaped farmed fish may affect wild populations. Exotic parasites and 

diseases originating from ship bilge/ballast water may spread to wild fish populations. 

Underwater sound from vessels may affect the distribution and behavior of marine fishes, 

with effects on marine mammals and seabirds. Sport harvest in small systems such as the 

Bartlett River may be occurring at too high a level for steelhead cutthroat trout and other 

small populations. Invasion of farm-escaped Atlantic salmon (one has already been 

caught in East Alsek river system). Natural ecosystem processes driven by uplift like in 

East Alsek River may have profound effects on local populations of salmonids and other 

fish. Sport harvest of largest individual marine fish may lead to decreasing fish size over 

time through natural selection and other forces. Remnant population of Dolly Varden 

trout upstream of the Falls Creek hydroelectric dam will be affected by the hydro plant. 

 

KLGO -- Native Coho, pink and chum salmon occur in the Taiya River. Salmon runs are 

important for the park's black and brown bears. There are no hatcheries or human-made 

barriers to fish passage along the Taiya River. 

SITK -- New regulations proposed by Alaska Department of Fish and Game would open 

the Indian River to salmon fishing, including subsistence and person take fishing. This 

means a daily harvest of as many as 50 pinks and 20 kings per person per day would be 

allowed depending on the type of fishery. Equipment that will be allowed for taking fish 

will include hook and line, gaff, purse seine, and dip net. 

 

Comments on Threats 

Management Concerns 

From fishes

GLBA -- Threats to some fishes will affect T&E species and other at-risk biota with 

ecosystem wide effects. Sport fishery harvest levels are set by State ADFG so Park may 

not be able to control over harvest of small or vulnerable populations. GLBA 
Salmonids 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-69 

 

Commercial fishing closures in 1990s created rifts between the Park and many local 

residents. Increasing marketing of Icy Strait waters as a sport fishing haven may increase 

fishing effort in and near Park waters. Actual sport fishing effort in Park waters is 

difficult to document because ADFG statistical areas don't match up with Park 

administrative boundaries. 

 

KLGO -- As glacial inputs to the Taiya River decrease through time, salmon population 

and nearshore fishes (herring spawn [Sitka], gunnels): relative abundance, distribution 

dynamics would be expected to alter. Proposals to build a very large fish hatchery in 

Skagway could negatively impact native fish populations in the Taiya River. 

SITK -- Salmon populations may be considerably altered by the new proposed ADF&G 

fishing regulations on the Indian River.

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

Monitoring Questions 

• Has there been long term changes in the presence of salmon species in park streams? 

• Has there been a long term change in the timing, reproduction, or numbers of 

returning salmon of each species in park streams? 

• Has there been a change in the diet of salmon in park waters? 

• How are juvenile salmon densities changing over time in the Indian River? 

Example of Measures 

• Presence/absence of salmon in park streams. 

• Number of returning fish at selected park streams. 

• Number of recruits per spawner, freshwater residence time, and body condition. 

• Diet from stomach contents. 

• Spring spawner numbers. 

• If relevant, this can include monitoring of cutthroat or steelhead. 

• Density, absolute and relative abundance, growth rates, and species compositions. 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Comments 

Some life history stages of salmon occur exclusively within a park. 

For salmon, which life history stage are we talking about? Fry, smolt, adult, etc.? Are we 

separating the marine derived nutrients, which are primarily from salmon, versus any 
Salmonids 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-70 

 

other ecological effect from adult salmon in freshwater? Are salmon important for 

ecological or management reasons? Adult salmon are not that important for their 

ecological role in marine communities. Adult salmon may have a prominent role in 

freshwater, but that's mostly covered through marine derived nutrients (unless concern is 

behavioral response of predators moving in). 

Landcover dynamics are not going to be that sensitive for adult salmon but would be for 

fry; the fry: smolt ratios, or fry weights or in-stream processes, for example, that may be 

influenced by overland or land cover management issues. So there are a number of 

management issues, depending on which life history stage of salmon are of concern. 

GLBA may be more concerned about population dynamics. SITK may be concerned 

about water quality parameters, which may influence scour, which would influence egg 

production. Salmon rated highly for different reasons for each rater and each park. 

The adult spawning numbers and behavior dramatically influence algae and the 

distribution and density of benthic macro invertebrates in the stream. Just from the 

amount of redds that they dig up and the amount of gravel that they move plays an 

important role. 

Should we measure some of those effects, or should we measure marine-derived nutrients 

through isotopic signatures? There are differing issues based on which life history stage 

is being considered. 

Hatchery is biggest issue for SITK; is the population in Indian River an induced run? 

ADFG does not do juvenile salmon counts, which we need as this is life stage when 

salmon is in the SITK park. 

Scott -- I think population dynamics of adult salmon are a function of things outside the 

park and thus are not a useful indicator of park change. Juvenile salmon (fry:smolt ratios; 

survival or body mass) may be a better indicator

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

9 SITK

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 
Forage fishes 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-71 

 

EMF Level 1 - Biological Integrity

EMF Level 2 - Focal Species or Communities

EMF Level 3 - Fishes

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

FORAGE FISHES 

Justification 

Threats 

From fishes

GLBA -- Marine pollution may affect populations of marine fishes. Parasites and 

diseases from escaped farmed fish may affect wild populations. Exotic parasites and 

diseases originating from ship bilge/ballast water may spread to wild fish populations. 

Underwater sound from vessels may affect the distribution and behavior of marine fishes, 

with effects on marine mammals and seabirds. Weathervane scallop dredge fishery on 

GLBA outer coast may have negative effects on benthic and demersal fish. Over harvest 

of commercial and sport lingcod and rockfish may be occurring. Natural ecosystem 

processes driven by uplift like in East Alsek River may have profound effects on local 

populations of salmonids and other fish. Sport harvest of largest individual marine fish 

may lead to decreasing fish size over time through natural selection and other forces. 

Killing and mutilation of spiny dogfish by sport and commercial fishermen may have 

population level effects. 

 

KLGO -- NA 

SITK -- NA 

Comments on Threats 

GLBA -- From marine report: Are the composition, distribution or abundance of 

organisms within the apex trophic level of the pelagic (forage fishes) marine food web 

changing and, if so, how? 

Management Concerns 

From fishes

GLBA -- Threats to some fishes will affect T&E species and other at-risk biota with 

ecosystemwide effects. Sport fishery harvest levels are set by State ADFG so Park may 

not be able to control overharvest of small or vulnerable populations. Weathervane 

scallop harvest is managed by ADFG so park has limited control on its effects on fishes 

or other benthic inhabitants. GLBA Commercial fishing closures in 1990s created rifts 
Forage fishes 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-72 

 

between the Park and many local residents. Increasing marketing of Icy Strait waters as a 

sportfishing haven may increase fishing effort in and near Park waters. Actual 

sportfishing effort in Park waters is difficult to document because ADFG statistical areas 

don't match up with Park administrative boundaries. 

KLGO -- As glacial inputs to the Taiya River decrease through time, nearshore fishes 

(herring spawn [Sitka], gunnels): relative abundance, distribution dynamics would be 

expected to alter. 

SITK -- NA 

 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

Monitoring Questions 

• Have there been changes in the distribution of forage fishes in park waters? 

• Have there been changes in the species composition of forage fishes in park waters? 

• Have there been changes in the population structure of forage fishes in park waters? 

Example of Measures 

• Distribution and abundance of forage fish species in park waters. 

• Size or age structure of forage fish species in park waters. 

• Changes in relative abundance of seabirds can serve as a proxy for forage fishes. 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Comments 

Lots of K-selected species feed on forage fishes. Marine mammal success may depend 

upon their health and abundance. It is hard to conceive of a protocol for measuring 

forage fishes; there are different groups with differing and unknown life histories. 

Presumably rated highly in some parks because euchalon run in rivers there. There are so 

many things that rely on the forage fish, they would provide some insight into what some 

of the top level predators are doing. 

Greg -- A big deal at GLBA; only drawback is it is hard to monitor. 

Scott -- would focus on anadromous species (eulachon etc. in KLGO) which are quite 

ephemeral in space and time. 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 
Forage fishes 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-73 

 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 

Forage fish diet (stomach contents) could be an indirect measure of zooplankton. 

• It was noted that forage fish and krill need to be a vital sign somewhere in this series 

of questions on productivity in order to capture nearshore information because most 

vital signs we listed focus on offshore.
Western toads 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-74 

 

EMF Level 1 - Biological Integrity

EMF Level 2 - Focal Species or Communities

EMF Level 3 - Amphibians and Reptiles

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

WESTERN TOADS 

Justification 

Threats 

From amphibians and reptiles

GLBA -- The vital sign of interest here is the western toad. Just as many amphibians are 

in deep trouble globally, toads are declining rather precipitously throughout their Alaskan 

range, and this decline appears to hold for the GLBA population. The causes are 

completely unknown (although chytrid fungus was just recently isolated from a toad in 

SE Alaska). 

 

KLGO -- Western Toads have apparently declined in the park over the last 15-20 years 

based on anecdotal observations by park staff and local residents. Western toads are the 

only species of amphibian in the park. 

SITK -- It is reported that the Sitka area once had a large boreal toad population. The 

species is now scarce in the region. The loss of this population could be an indication of 

habitat alteration, climate change, or some other anthropogenic agent. 

 

Comments on Threats 

Management Concerns 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

Monitoring Questions 

• Has there been a change in the local population size or distribution of the western 

toad? 

• Has there been a change in the local reproductive rate of the western toad? 

• How is amphibian distribution and abundance changing? 
Western toads 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-75 

 

Example of Measures 

• Number of documented breeding sites of western toads. 

• Counts of adults, tadpoles, or egg masses. 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Comments 

This may be important. Toads are very sensitive to change, good indicators of change. 

But they're not controllers, toads could disappear and the ecosystem probably wouldn’t 

change much. 

Greg - great indicator, that's all. 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 

• It is noted that there is anecdotal evidence to suggest a decline in the western toad, 

but there is no research or long-term monitoring data set to substantiate this.
Murrelets 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-76 

 

EMF Level 1 - Biological Integrity

EMF Level 2 - Focal Species or Communities

EMF Level 3 - Birds

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

MURRELETS 

Justification 

Kittlitz’s murrelets are a candidate threatened and endangered (T&E) species and will be 

listed soon. They are a park management concern. They are the only rare species on the 

SEAN vital sign list. The protocol for monitoring them is different from other marine 

mammals or seabirds. Their population is dramatically declining and no one knows why; 

it may be a decline in their food, habitat or other. Half the global population is in GLBA. 

They are closely associated with tidewater glaciers, but no one knows why. 

Threats 

Comments on Threats 

From birds

GLBA -- Kittlitz's murrelets mentioned specifically in Marine Workshop Report. 

Management Concerns 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

Monitoring Questions 

• Has there been a long term change in the local population size of Kittlitz's murrelet? 

• If so, why is kittlitz's murrelet population declining? 

• Has there been a long term change in the nesting area or reproductive success of 

Kittlitz's murrelet? 

• Has there been a long term change in the local distribution of Kittlitz's murrelet? 

• Has there been a long term change in the diet of local Kittlitz's murrelet? 

• Where do Kittlitz's murrelets nest, where are they foraging, what are they eating? 

• Are Kittlitz's murrelets a 'mine canary'? 

Example of Measures 

• Distribution. 

• Relative abundance. 
Murrelets 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-77 

 

• Nesting habitat. 

• Breeding surveys. 

• Diet, from stomach contents. 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Piatt has population data. 

Comments 

The possibility of expanding this vital sign to include Marbled murrelets was discussed. 

Some researchers find it hard to distinguish between the two species when monitoring. 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA l 

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 
Breeding landbird populations 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-78 

 

EMF Level 1 - Biological Integrity

EMF Level 2 - Focal Species or Communities

EMF Level 3 - Birds

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

BREEDING LANDBIRD POPULATIONS 

Justification 

Landbirds per se are not a good indicator of park health because they spend much time 

outside park, but reproductive success for those breeding in SEAN parks is a good 

indicator of park health. This is a ‘1st order’ indicator – if a change is documented it 

alerts us that other types of investigations or monitoring is needed (e.g. decline in 

sparrows now attributed to decline in caterpillars). 

Threats 

From birds

GLBA -- Camper disturbance of nesting shorebirds in popular camping areas like the 

Beardslees may eventually have population level effects. Receding glaciers may reduce 

the abundance of periglacial species, such as the red-throated loon and Kittlitz's murrelet. 

Increasing landscape fragmentation may affect populations of terrestrial breeding birds. 

Poor understanding of how species composition and population of breeding birds are 

changing in parks, in response to local and global pressures. 

KLGO -- KLGO has been monitoring breeding landbirds since 1995. Large numbers of 

migrating waterbirds pass through the park each spring and fall, stopping over in the 

Taiya River estuary. Harlequin ducks breed in the park. 

SITK -- Neotropical, shore birds, and other migratory birds face many threats on their 

migratory routes, including habitat destruction, exposure to pollution and pesticides, 

storm events, and habitat fragmentation. 

Comments on Threats 

From birds

GLBA -- Terr Wksp Report: The breeding birds listed as “species of concern” are listed 

due to limited population size, or because their migratory route or breeding grounds 

brings them to places where they are at risk (e.g., the wandering tattler breeding habitat is 

in a zone that could be influenced by oil spills, putting breeding population at risk.) 
Breeding landbird populations 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-79 

 

Management Concerns 

From birds

GLBA -- Five species of terrestrial birds in SE Alaska (Bald Eagle, Queen Charlotte 

Goshawk, Western Screech-Owl, Northern Saw-whet Owl, and Black Merlin) have been 

identified as being of high conservation concern at the continental level by Partners in 

Flight. All of these have been identified as high priority birds within Alaska and the 

nation (Boreal Partners in Flight 1999, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). Concerns 

related to the availability of nesting habitat and suspected prey species have elevated 

Western Screech-Owl and Northern Saw-whet Owl as management issues at the state and 

national level. Blue grouse, red-breasted sapsucker, varied thrush, and Pacific slope 

flycatcher were also listed as being of concern at the continental level because large 

proportions of the global population of each breeds in SE Alaska. Birds on the parks’ 

existing “species of concern” list: peregrine falcon (GLBA), blackpoll warbler (KLGO), 

golden eagle (KLGO), olive-sided flycatcher (KLGO), Queen Charlotte goshawk 

(GLBA), wandering tattler (KLGO) also continue to be of concern. Falls Creek 

hydroelectric project roads and recreational trails will increase access to "yellowlegs 

savannah" and other previously inaccessible bird habitats. 

KLGO -- Habitat loss and the introduction of non-native species (e.g., starlings, pigeons) 

due to increasing human development may impact bird populations. Increasing numbers 

of corvids (crows, jays, ravens) have also been noted in association with expanding 

human developments. Corvid abundance is negatively correlated with song-bird 

reproductive success due to increased predation. There is a great deal of local interest in 

birds from the Skagway Bird Club members. 

SITK -- SITK has a rich complement of neotropical migrants and resident passerines that 

breed and/or overwinter in the park. Monitoring records can be used to compare and be 

incorporated in regional and larger scale studies that evaluate the health of neotropical 

and other bird populations. 

Comments on Management Concerns 

From birds

GLBA -- Terrestrial birds info from BPIF letter to Tongass managers in winter 2006 

(circulated by Meg Hahr). 

Monitoring Objectives 

Monitoring Questions 

• Has there been a long term change in the number of local breeding land birds?

• Has there been a long term change in the local population sizes of breeding land 

birds?
Breeding landbird populations 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-80 

 

• Has there been a long term change in the local reproductive success of land birds?

From scoping meetings: 

• How are species composition and population of breeding birds changing in our parks, 

in response to local and global pressures?

• How is increasing landscape fragmentation affecting populations of breeding birds?

Example of Measures 

• Relative abundance of encounters from breeding bird surveys.

• Capture-recapture results from banding program.

• Association of habitats.

When selecting species to monitor, consider species for which there is past data that are 

at edges of their range (e.g. Caspian terns at edge just moving in). 

When selecting species to monitor, use guilds that represent different niches (seed eaters, 

insect eaters) to learn about the health of different communities for which they are 

dependent. They are proxies for the health of these different habitat types, and species 

for which they are prey depend upon them. 

Data on plant communities (vital sign 32) is needed for protocol to monitor breeding land 

birds. This vital sign must be linked with the plant community’s vital sign. 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Kessel has habitat classification and protocol to use for breeding bird studies; use this. 

Comments 

This is of low importance for GLBA; high importance for SITK and KLGO. 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

9 SITK 

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 

• To select birds for vital signs, consider species with smaller habitats, nesting success, 

population status. 

• There are well-established protocols for breeding songbirds in a statewide monitoring 

effort. KLGO participates in this program. The reason that breeding birds tend to be 
Breeding landbird populations 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-81 

 

monitored in parks is because they are impacted in the rest of their range, and their 

numbers can be measured in parks as an indicator of how they are faring globally. 

• Note: Some species are at risk due to changes in the SEAN park(s) that affect their 

habitat. Others are at risk due to impacts outside of the park (or even outside of 

Alaska) that are not within park control. 

• The breeding birds listed as “species of concern” are listed due to limited population 

size, or because their migratory route or breeding grounds brings them to places 

where they are at risk (e.g., the wandering tattler breeding habitat is in a zone that 

could be influenced by oil spills, putting breeding population at risk.) 

• For breeding birds, use data from statewide breeding bird surveys. There are wellestablished protocols for breeding songbirds in a statewide monitoring effort. KLGO 

participated in this program.
Bald eagles 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-82 

 

EMF Level 1 - Biological Integrity

EMF Level 2 - Focal Species or Communities

EMF Level 3 - Birds

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

BALD EAGLES 

Justification 

The public is quite interested in bald eagles. They are a charismatic watchable wildlife 

species. Until very recently they were a T&E species. There is decades of baseline data 

available. They are an abundant top predator. They may affect bird diversity. Monitoring 

distribution, relative abundance and breeding success is relatively easy to accomplish. 

Jacobson hypothesizes that Southeast Alaska is now at carrying capacity; things 

impacting their food and habitat would show up quickly in changed numbers or breeding 

success. 

Threats 

Comments on Threats 

Management Concerns 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

Monitoring Questions 

• Has there been a long term change in the local population size of bald eagles? 

• Has there been a long term change in the local reproductive success of bald eagles? 

• Has there been a long term change in the local distribution of bald eagle breeding 

sites? 

Example of Measures 

• Distribution.

• Relative abundance.

• Successfully breeding pairs.

• Shoreline counts of active bald eagle nests.

• Occupancy of nesting territories.

• Census of bald eagle nesting success.

• Brood sizes, population productivity, eggshell thickness, contaminant concentrations.

Use USFWS protocols; boat or aerial surveys.
Bald eagles 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-83 

 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Comments 

Greg -- Major top predator; great integrator since preys broadly 

Meg - Do have 3 nests in KLGO, one is active in 2006 

Greg - Nests in SITK park; is good indicator and integrator; ranked lower than GLBA 

because park eagles at SITK are so influenced by circumstances outside of park. 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

9 SITK

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 
Bears 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-84 

 

EMF Level 1 - Biological Integrity

EMF Level 2 - Focal Species or Communities

EMF Level 3 - Mammals

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

BEARS 

Justification 

Bears are one of two signature animals for GLBA. 

Threats 

From mammals

GLBA -- Climate change may affect bear denning behavior and food supply. 

KLGO -- Brown and black bears are present in the Park. 

Comments on Threats 

Management Concerns 

From mammals

GLBA -- Bear distribution and abundance and behavior can be a human safety concern. 

Conversely, campers and boaters may disturb bears on shorelines. 

KLGO -- Defense of life and property (DLP) killings of bears negatively impact 

population in the Park.

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

Monitoring Questions 

• Has the range of brown or black bears within a park changed? 

• Has the size of brown or black bear populations within a park changed? 

• Has the incidence or nature of human encounters with brown or black bears changed? 

Example of Measures 

• Distribution and density of brown and black bears. 

• Records of human-bear encounters. 
Bears 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-85 

 

• Measure changes in density. 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Comments 

Bears are a K-selected species; they are a top level predator. 

Are bears indicative of the health of the ecosystem? They are very important from a 

management perspective; they are a charismatic animal and ‘watchable wildlife.’ Bears 

hibernation habits may change as snow level and duration changes. 

Greg -- common throughout; great integrator and well linked. 

Scott -- population dynamics could be function of park specific processes; important 

ecologically in terrestrial community. 

Greg -- bears common some places in park; see GB 

Greg -- no bears 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

9 SITK

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 
Harbor seals 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-86 

 

EMF Level 1 - Biological Integrity

EMF Level 2 - Focal Species or Communities

EMF Level 3 - Mammals

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

HARBOR SEALS 

Justification 

There has been a major decline in SEAN harbor seal populations (we’ve lost 3000 since 

___), they are a charismatic species, they are an important part of the upper trophic level 

food chain. We want to know different things about them than the data that will be 

gathered for the marine mammal and seabird vital sign, for harbor seals we want to know 

about haul-outs (location, use). 

Threats 

From mammals

GLBA -- The causes of the substantial decline in harbor seal numbers in Glacier Bay are 

unknown. "Determine if vessel wakes change the behavior of ... hauled-out pinnipeds, ... 

to determine the biological significance of these effects" (from VQOR-EIS). 

KLGO -- Harbor seals are present in the park. 

Comments on Threats 

Management Concerns 

From mammals

GLBA -- Harbor seal decline is of concern to Hoonah Tlingit tribe. Vessel traffic in 

harbor seal pupping and breeding habitat may disturb the seals at sensitive times in their 

life history. Native hunting of harbor seals outside the Park will have an effect on seal 

population inside the Park. 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

Monitoring Questions 

• What is the distribution and relative abundance of harbor seals? 

• Has the distribution of harbor seal feeding areas changed? 

• Has the distribution or number of pupping sites changed? 
Harbor seals 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-87 

 

• Have there been changes in the number of pups produced each year? 

• Has there been a change in forage area selection? 

• Has there been a change in mortality patterns? 

• Has pup survival changed? 

• What do harbor seal population trends tell us about the availability of forage food? 

Example of Measures 

• Distribution and relative abundance of harbor seals. 

• Distribution and number of pupping sites. 

• Counts of pupping success. 

• Pup survival. 

• Count how many pups are born on land and how many are born on ice. 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Comments 

Greg -- Seals: what are they trying to tell us? 

Dan -- Monitoring harbor seal population may reveal change, but cause may be changes 

to physical environment; monitoring of glacier extent, marine water quality, iceberg 

discharge, etc., may prove useful to understand. 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 
Ungulates 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-88 

 

EMF Level 1 - Biological Integrity

EMF Level 2 - Focal Species or Communities

EMF Level 3 - Mammals

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

UNGULATES 

Justification 

Moose and goats are the two primary species of interest. They affect the structure of the 

food base, they are landscape transformers. Moose are a large, charismatic species in 

GLBA. Most of their range is in the park, a small part is out of the part which is where 

they are heavily harvested. Park managers will continue to need to know about moose 

hunting and the impact on the population and ranges even if that activity occurs outside 

the park. Vegetative communities are linked to moose. 

Threats 

From mammals

GLBA -- Moose hunting outside the park, managed by ADFG, will affect populations 

inside the Park. 

KLGO -- Mountain goats and, more recently, moose are present in the Park.

Comments on Threats 

Management Concerns 

From mammals

GLBA -- Moose hunting outside the park, managed by ADFG, will affect populations 

inside the Park. 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

Monitoring Questions 

• What is the effect of hunting during the rutting season on moose populations and 

disbursement? 

Example of Measures 
Ungulates 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-89 

 

• Distribution 

• Relative abundance 

• Use and extend ADFG mensuration techniques. 

• Use BLM baseline data and techniques for goats at KLGO. 

• Don't want to collar moose. 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Comments 

GLBA added this for consideration, but on May 3-4 we eliminated moose. Did we decide 

to eliminate herbivores as a VS? 

Without moose willows would dominate; moose make a difference in plant community 

successional trajectories. 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 
Killer whales 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-90 

 

EMF Level 1 - Biological Integrity

EMF Level 2 - Focal Species or Communities

EMF Level 3 - Mammals

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

KILLER WHALES 

Justification 

Killer whales are a top predator. They feed on other marine life (seals, salmon), and are 

an indicator about the marine species they feed on. Killer whales are a K-selected 

species. 

Threats 

From mammals

GLBA -- Bioaccumulation of marine contaminants may affect health of apex predators 

like the killer whale. Killer whales are at risk of lethal or serious injury from 

entanglement with sport or commercial fishing gear. "Determine if vessel wakes change 

the behavior or whales ... to determine the biological significance of these effects" (from 

VQOR-EIS).

Comments on Threats 

Management Concerns 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

Monitoring Questions 

• Has the distribution and number of transient and resident killer whales using park 

waters changed? 

• Has the diet of transient and resident killer whales using park waters changed? 

Example of Measures 

• Relative abundance. 

• Distribution. 

• Reproductive rate. 

• Type and level of contaminants. 

• Location of killer whale sightings. 

• Diet from feeding observations. 
Killer whales 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-91 

 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Comments 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 
Biodiversity of select groups or assemblages 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-92 

 

EMF Level 1 - Biological Integrity

EMF Level 2 - Focal Species or Communities

EMF Level 3 - Terrestrial complex

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

BIODIVERSITY OF SELECT GROUPS OR ASSEMBLAGES 

Justification 

Indices of species richness can be a good indicator of ecosystem health. One of the 

National Park Service’s duties is to protect biodiversity. 

Threats 

From terrestrial complex

GLBA -- Vital sign of interest here is biological diversity. Connectivity. Species 

dispersal. 

Comments on Threats 

Management Concerns 

From terrestrial complex

GLBA -- Management's major concern is maintaining biological diversity in the Park. 

The key is to concentrate on protecting the most sensitive components of the terrestrial 

complex. In addition, connectivity between ecosystems is also essential. Despite 

uncertainty (global warming; major ecological disturbance; species decline.) 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

Understand trends in biodiversity. 

We want to know what certain cohorts are doing; for example, what is happening with 

the GLBA shallow subtidal community (Bodkin’s crew’s work)? 

Monitoring Questions 

• Is species richness or diversity of major plant or animal groups changing?

• Is the genetic variability of key populations or species changing?

• Is the genetic structure of key metapopulations changing? 
Biodiversity of select groups or assemblages 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-93 

 

From scoping meetings: 

• What are the trends in biodiversity at a variety of organizational levels (e.g., species 

diversity, genetic diversity)?

Example of Measures 

• Species Richness, indices of select communities (monitoring the 'middle' of the 

range)

• Indices of biodiversity.

• Indices of genetic variation of key groups.

• Metapopulation dynamics.

• When selecting assemblages to monitor, consider including some that are: 1) ‘mine 

canaries’ throughout the ecosystem and monitor them for relative abundance at both 

ends of the range (e.g., in KLGO this could be pica, arctic ground squirrels and other 

animals at the edge of their range); 2) at the southern and northern end of their range 

that are moving in or out (e.g. red cedar).

Set up an index of species richness; need a standardized effort, every 'x' number of years. 

(Can do this by keeping a good species list.)

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Comments 

From May 18-19 meeting summary: 

Are ‘select’ and ‘diversity’ oxymoronic? 

We have 3 or 4 assemblages on our vital sign list; consider measuring species richness 

for those. This focuses on the ‘obvious’ ones. One scientist raises a question about 

whether we should also be measuring some of the ‘non-obvious’ ones? Southeast’s 

island biogeography may confound things, or, conversely may help determine what we 

monitor. It is noted that the marine ecosystem is not bound to island biographic 

parameters, it is an open system. 

From May 2-4 Attachment A: 

This is so broad, what do we measure? Depending on the scale, you measure a carefully 

selected list or area(s) for number of species, species density, species richness, species 

evenness. Classically you measure immigration and extinction rates. Can look at 

metapopulations and genetic diversity. 

Biological inventories have value. 

The diversity of organisms is indicative of change. 

Biodiversity at its simplest is species richness over time. 
Biodiversity of select groups or assemblages 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-94 

 

Biodiversity may fail at times to capture/indicate change and ecosystem health (e.g., 

Robinson work in Midwest on migratory birds – no change to species richness and 

diversity over 15 years but reproductive success plummeted due to edge predators 

moving in). Are we capturing the right process? If this remains a selected vital sign we 

must be convinced that there is a good way to measure it. Ecosystem-wide biodiversity is 

a good ‘umbrella’ vital signs, many other vital signs can fit ‘under’ it, such as subtidal 

communities. Is how biodiversity changes something that is useful to know? 

Should biodiversity of animals be included, or only plants? 

Scale is a factor in what to measure, for example may be able to assess species richness in 

Sitka because area is small. 

Pick an area carefully then identify a suite of species (plants, animals or birds) to 

monitor; determine which community if monitored will help us to understand change. 

Greg - biodiversity is a key index of insularity 

Scott - just not sure how to monitor this in a useful way. 

Sara - I can see getting at this for plant biodiversity, but would we actually measure 

faunal biodiversity? Of all animal species? Seems beyond our reach.

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

9 SITK

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 
Steller sea lions 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-95 

 

EMF Level 1 - Biological Integrity

EMF Level 2 - At-risk Biota

EMF Level 3 - T&E species and communities

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

STELLER SEA LIONS 

Justification 

They are top level carnivores, long-lived, easy to observe, and easy to enumerate. 

They’re relative abundance and distribution is indicative of underwater conditions and 

informs about vessel disturbance. 

Threats 

From T&E species

GLBA -- Steller sea lions are at risk of mortality and serious injury from entanglement in 

sport and commercial fishing gear. Steller sea lions are at risk of behavioral disturbance 

from close approaches by tour vessels to South Marble Island haulout sites. Climate 

change and its effects on the marine ecosystem will have unknown effects on Steller sea 

lions. Steller sea lions travel outside Park boundaries where they are subject to a variety 

of other threats. 

KLGO – NA 

SITK -- NA 

Comments on Threats 

Management Concerns 

From T&E species

GLBA -- The number of Steller sea lions from the endangered Western stock that uses 

Glacier Bay waters needs to be tracked in order to determine the extent that GBNP 

management policies have on that population. 

KLGO -- NA 

SITK -- NA 

Comments on Management Concerns 
Steller sea lions 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-96 

 

Monitoring Objectives 

Monitoring Questions 

• Is the number of steller sea lions using park waters changing? 

• Is the seasonality of steller sea lions use of park waters changing? 

• Has there been a change in the location of areas used by stellar sea lions for feeding, 

breeding or haulouts? 

• Is the age structure of stellar sea lions in park waters changing? 

Example of Measures 

• Relative abundance. 

• Distribution. 

• Reproductive rate. 

• Type and level of contaminants. 

• Location of areas used by stellar sea lions for feeding, breeding or haulouts. 

• Counts of adults and young at haul-outs. 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Comments 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 

At risk biota- Sea lion in GLBA?
Humpback whales 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-97 

 

EMF Level 1 - Biological Integrity

EMF Level 2 - At-risk Biota

EMF Level 3 - T&E species and communities

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

HUMPBACK WHALES 

Justification 

Humpback whales are an endangered species, a charismatic ‘watchable wildlife’ species, 

popular with the public, and of concern to park management. Humpback whales are one 

of two signature animals for GLBA. The number of Humpback whales in GLBA has 

tripled in the last five years and because they are huge mammals that eat large quantities 

of food their impact on the ecosystem has also increased. More needs top be know about 

their distribution and ecological impact. 

Threats 

From mammals

GLBA -- "Determine if vessel wakes change the behavior or whales ... to determine the 

biological significance of these effects" (from VQOR-EIS). 

From T&E species

GLBA -- Humpback whales are at risk of fatal or injurious vessel collisions within the 

Park and outside of it. Humpback whales are at risk of behavioral disturbance and 

temporary or permanent hearing loss due to acute or chronic exposure to vessel noise. 

Humpback whales are at risk of mortality and serious injury from entanglement in sport 

and commercial fishing gear. Climate change and its effects on the marine ecosystem will 

have unknown effects on humpback whales. Humpback whales travel outside Park 

boundaries where they are subject to a variety of other threats. 

KLGO – NA 

SITK -- NA 

Comments on Threats 

Management Concerns 

From T&E species

GLBA -- Vessel management actions including cruise ship numbers, whale waters areas, 

and baywide cruise ship speed limits are made routinely and need to be based on sound, 
Humpback whales 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-98 

 

objective criteria. Pressure to increase cruise ship traffic can result in increases regardless 

of scientific justifications. Pressure to open Bartlett Cove to all traffic, not subject to 

vessel permit limits would negatively affect the many whales that use Bartlett Cove. 

Vessel and fishery management outside the park (or the lack thereof) affects whales that 

also use Park waters. Humpback whales are one of the prime charismatic species that 

visitors come to see in GLBA, so negative effects on humpbacks will diminish visitor 

experience. 

KLGO -- NA 

SITK -- NA 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

Monitoring Questions 

• Is the number of humpback whales using park waters changing? 

• Is the seasonality of humpback whale use of park waters changing? 

• Has there been a change in the location of feeding areas used by humpback whales? 

• Is the age structure of humpback whales in park waters changing? 

• Is the diet of humpback whales in park waters changing? 

• What is the duration of residency of whales in GLBA? 

Example of Measures 

• Locations and dates of individual whale sightings. 

• Ages of individual whales. 

• Diet from feeding observations and deciduous epidermis. 

• Duration of residency 

• Reproductive success 

• Mortality (from direct observation) 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Comments 

Greg -- Not a controller, not a great linker 

Scott -- Population dynamics and feeding drives sightings of humpback whales; how 

much do park specific processes influence population dynamics? Distribution mostly 

management concern... 
Humpback whales 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-99 

 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 

• Humpback whales are increasing in abundance.
Consumptive use 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-100 

 

EMF Level 1 - Human Use

EMF Level 2 - Consumptive Use

EMF Level 3 - Consumptive Use

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

CONSUMPTIVE USE 

Justification 

A huge but currently unquantified amount of biomass is being removed annually from 

park ecosystems through commercial and sport harvest of all types of fish and marine 

life, birds, animals and plants. 

Threats 

From consumptive use

GLBA -- GLBA Preserve - sport and subsistence hunting, fishing, and trapping is 

allowed. Commercial Fishing (outer coast, Dry Bay). Sport Fishing. 

 

KLGO -- Hunting, fishing and trapping are all allowed within the park. 

SITK -- NA

Comments on Threats 

Management Concerns 

From consumptive use

GLBA -- Lack of info on populations of species of traditional/cultural concerns: Bear, 

Mountain goats, and glaucous-winged gull. 

 

KLGO -- Black and brown bear, beaver, marten, wolf, wolverine, mountain goat, moose, 

salmon?, dolly varden char. Hunting appears to be limiting ability of some species to 

colonize the park - especially moose and deer. May significantly lower population levels 

of fur-bearers as well. Limited info.

SITK – NA 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 
Consumptive use 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-101 

 

Understand if human consumption of natural resources is adversely affecting SEAN 

ecosystem components. 

Monitoring Questions 

From migratory bird and egg harvest

• Have there been changes in the number of eggs and birds harvested in SEAN parks. 

From commercial harvest of fish and invertebrates

• How are the numbers of commercially harvested marine organisms changing? 

• How are the sizes of commercially harvested organisms changing? 

• How is the bycatch of commercial harvest changing? 

From moose, marten, bear harvest

• How are the numbers and sizes of harvested moose, marten and bear changing in and 

near SEAN parks? 

From scoping meetings

• Are the current levels of resource harvest sustainable? 

• What are the levels of consumptive use, both within and adjacent to the parks? 

• Are the levels and patterns of consumptive use changing, both within and adjacent to 

the park? 

• How do populations change in the absence of harvest? 

• What is the movement of harvested species in and out of the parks? 

Example of Measures 

• Type and amount (numbers, weight) of what is being caught, hunted, harvested or 

gathered.

• Date that it was taken.

From migratory bird and egg harvest

• Counts of harvested eggs and birds.

From commercial harvest of fish and invertebrates

• Estimates of numbers, sizes, and bycatch from harvest reports and sample inspections
Consumptive use 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-102 

 

From moose, marten and bear harvest

• Counts and size of harvested animals.

• Do not need a region-wide sampling effort; do a directed sampling effort in focused 

areas.

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Comments 

Crab pot lines are thought to be a major source of whale entanglement. 

From commercial harvest of fish and invertebrates

Greg - Not a useful indicator of ecological conditions 

Scott - Mostly for intrusive or degrading practices such as dredge fishery or weathervane 

scallop fishery 

Sara - I think commercial and sport harvest of fish should be a single vital sign 

From moose, marten and bear harvest

Greg - Not a good indicator; driven by politics and harvest philosophy as much as 

ecology 

Greg - Not enough harvest 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 

• Need to consider what consumption of marine resources is occurring outside of the 

SEAN parks and how that consumption is affecting marine resources in the parks. 

• ADFG data source for commercial and sport harvest data. 

• Want quantity of sport and commercial harvest, population trends, age and size 

structure and numbers. 

• How do we obtain bycatch data? May not be able to get that data from ADFG. This 

is very important, and for some species is more important than data on the harvested 

species. Don’t discount sport (charter) fish harvest. Data so far shows that noncharter sport fishing in marine waters is pretty minimal in GLBA, with the exception 
Consumptive use 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-103 

 

of Dungeness crab in Bartlett Cove. Note, however, that the recreation use could 

continue to grow and become more important. 

• Marine mammal data sources: USFWS otter; NOAA harbor seals. 

• Regional numbers and scale are important. 

• Dry Bay - leave to ADF&G 

• ADF&G good partner, source for harvest data. 

• Use ADFG harvest data; ADFG and NPS data re: defense of life & property kills 

(bear); State fish and wildlife population data
Human uses and mode of access 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-104 

 

EMF Level 1 - Human Use

EMF Level 2 - Visitor and Recreation Use

EMF Level 3 - Visitor usage

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

HUMAN USES AND MODE OF ACCESS 

Justification 

One of the purposes of the monitoring program is to detect change in the health of park 

resources, and to determine whether that change is caused by anthropogenic or natural 

processes. Human use and mode of access is a primary and fundamental dataset against 

which change detection will be evaluated to determine whether it is induced by 

anthropogenic means. 

The demand for a variety of human uses and access to SEAN parks is expected to 

increase over time. 

Need data on all human users - all types of visitors; researchers; fishers, harvesters, and 

gatherers; and others. 

Threats 

From visitor usage

GLBA -- Threats from visitor usage are the increasing numbers of visitors on private and 

commercial vessel trips, backcountry visitors, kayak drop-offs, camp sites, pollutants, 

vessel wastewater discharges, and vegetation impacts. Increasing visitation is not under 

the direct control of Park managers despite planning processes (e.g. VQOR-EIS) due to 

political pressure from outside sources, as well as legal mandates arising from 

conveyance of Native allotments inside Park boundaries. 

 

KLGO -- 3,000 people a year hike the entire Chilkoot Trail. Thousands more day hike 

along the lower portion of the trail each summer. 400,000 travel through the White Pass 

unit via the WP&YR. Several commercial operators (horse, bike, raft, hike) bring 

thousands into the Dyea area each summer. Visitation is high in the Dyea/Chilkoot Trail 

unit. 950,000 visitors to the Skagway Unit. 

SITK -- SITK averages about 300,000 visitors a year that utilize just 50 acres of 

terrestrial habitat and 50 acres of intertidal zone. This concentrated use has the potential 

to degrade park habitats over time. 

 
Human uses and mode of access 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-105 

 

From terrestrial complex

KLGO -- Habitat fragmentation is a threat to the terrestrial complex. 

From point-source human

GLBA -- Light pollution from NPS structures affects the night sky and may attract birds 

and moths. Campers may be a source of pollution. Marine debris from vessels is a source 

of pollution that can be ingested by marine animals or litter the beaches. 

From non-point source human

GLBA -- Non-point source human impacts can include increasing numbers of 

backcountry visitors, kayak drop-offs, and camp sites. 

KLGO -- Impacts from visitors in backcountry areas of the park. Surrounding land uses 

and development. 

From coastal/oceanographic

SITK -- Human alterations and activity can alter the shoreline processes that would have 

direct and indirect effects on the SITK's intertidal zone. 

From Threats in Access, when we were considering “estuarine communities” as a vital 

sign: 

SITK -- Human-altered stream bed dynamics, floods, and a degraded stream ecosystem 

could negatively influence the estuary of the park where freshwater interacts with the 

ocean tidal cycle.

Comments on Threats 

Management Concerns 

From visitor usage

GLBA -- Development and use of native allotments adds to this threat because of legal 

mandates for providing access to inholdings and these are wild cards so it is difficult to 

predict what will happen. Along with air and water pollution, vessel based visitation has 

the potential to disturb marine and terrestrial wildlife, as well as threaten them with 

collision. Vegetation impacts and disturbance of shore-nesting birds will occur from 

camping. 

 
Human uses and mode of access 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-106 

 

KLGO -- KLGO is preparing a VERP for Dyea. Plans to increase visitation to 

backcountry, undisturbed areas of White Pass Unit. Visitation along Chilkoot Trail is 

controlled by Parks Canada limit of 50 hikers/day but increases are possible in shoulder 

season. Helicopter overflights also an issue. 

SITK -- Little is known about the impacts SITK's concentrated visitation (300,000/yr) is 

having on park habitats. 

 

From terrestrial complex

KLGO -- Development outside of the park could alter habitat connectivity, 

metapopulation dynamics, edge effects, migration/travel corridors, and mortality factors. 

From point-source human

GLBA -- Concern related to point source light (see also noise concerns under 

soundscape) relates to primarily to degradation of visitor experience and preservation of 

wilderness values. There are also potential impacts to other wildlife. Marine debris on 

beaches as well as carcasses of animals that died from marine debris encounters will 

diminish visitor experience. 

From non-point source human

GLBA -- Major management concerns with walk-in campground at Barlett Cove that 

provides land-based overnight accommodations. 

From coastal/oceanographic

KLGO -- Increased development within the Taiya River watershed and recreational 

activities on the Dyea Flats could affect coastal processes and associated biota. 

SITK -- Proposed developments such as a deep water dock for cruise ships to be built 

adjacent to the SITK boundary could alter shoreline processes including longshore drift 

and the deposition/erosional process. This could severely impact the park's intertidal 

zone. 

From groundwater dynamics

SITK -- Human activities outside the park could have drastic impacts on the groundwater 

dynamics within the park. 

From Management Concerns in Access, when we were considering “estuarine 

communities” as a vital sign:
Human uses and mode of access 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-107 

 

KLGO -- The Taiya River estuary is one of a limited number of estuaries where eulachon 

breed in SE AK. Anything that impacts the estuary or its marine and riverine influences 

is a management concern for KLGO. 

SITK -- A healthy estuary depends on a healthy and unaltered river system and its 

interaction with the ocean. Alterations in the stream channel and the banks outside and 

inside the park have caused drastic chances in erosion, flow, and other dynamics of the 

Indian River estuarine area. 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

• Understand how park and preserve ecosystems are affected by local and regional 

human use (visitor, recreation and park research/ administrative activities).

• Understand how park and preserve ecosystems are affected by both point and nonpoint source activities.

Monitoring Questions 

• How is the number of visitors changing in SEAN parks? 

• How is the type of visitor use, timing of visits, and areas of use changing in SEAN 

parks? 

• How are visitors accessing SEAN parks and where are modes of access changing? 

From scoping meetings: 

• How are human use numbers and activities changing and which resources are at risk? 

• What are the frequency, distribution and intensity of fires? (KLGO) 

• How is the type and volume of marine debris changing on park beaches? 

• How frequently do seabird and marine mammal mortalities relate to ingestion of or 

entanglement in marine debris? 

From camp sites and drop-off points

• Has there been a change in the frequency or intensity of use of camp sites and dropoff points? 

• Has there been a change in the soil, vegetation, water quality or debris near frequently 

used camp sites and drop-off points? 

Example of Measures 

Need to do a comprehensive analysis on all uses and means of access. 

Use data is already being collected. Measures include: 
Human uses and mode of access 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-108 

 

• Counts or estimates of different types of visitors. 

• Counts of visitors at different entry points. 

• Logs of park activities by park personnel, contractors, or researchers. 

• Group size 

• Area user is going 

• Number, size, and type of transportation device (e.g. one 32’ fishing vessel, four 

single kayaks, one 1000 foot cruise ship, one ATV, one 24’ research vessel, one 4-

seat floatplane, two Bell helicopters, etc.) 

• Route to destination(s) 

• Condition of route, if applicable 

• Length of stay at each destination 

• Miles of trails 

• Need data on admin. & research vessels (data gap) 

From camp sites and drop-off points

• Need number using camp sites and drop-off points 

• Need surveys of soil compaction (% bare soil) and debris near camp sites and dropoff points 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

NPS job is to collect and analyze existing data. 

Comments 

ANILCA opened up floatplane landings in the parks; floatplanes require an entry permit 

in GLBA. 

From camp sites and drop-off points

Greg - Camping pervasive enough that sites begin to become ecologically consequential; 

not so for KLGO 

Scott -- may be more important for trampling etc on trail; unknown impacts on wildlife. 

From boating impacts

GLBA is always going to be accessed by boats (cruise ships, private vessels, tour boats, 

kayaks). We don't know exactly what and where the impacts will be, especially since 

they are getting cleaner - could be hydrocarbons will become less a concern. Could be 

related sport fishing, or where they moor and what is disturbed, or lack of treated 

sewage? We should monitor the level of boating impact relative to the type of boats and 

what the potential impacts would be. 
Human uses and mode of access 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-109 

 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

9 SITK

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 

Should permanent vessel moorings in GLBA be considered a point source? Park gets 

considerable pressure to install them. Other point sources could include discharge 

outfalls (e.g., wastewater treatment, fish processing plant). 

• Could use a simple, relatively inexpensive protocol for monitoring beach debris, 

search for one in use at another location. Directly describes a Park management 

value. 

• Annual survey, beach debris collection at natural collection areas, visitor survey 

cards, opportunistic observer opportunities. 

• NMFS (and NPS GLBA for lower GB proper) old marine debris study on the outer 

coast. 

• These are essential questions. Link to the results of ecological monitoring. 

• Need to monitor disturbance levels and indicators, with links to demographic 

information. 

• Sitka impact -- intertidal trampling. 

• Issue: disturbance and displacement of marine mammals and birds (impacts nesting, 

rearing, molting). 

• It was noted that the CAKN vital signs for this objective (how park resources are 

affected by non-point source human effects) are related to tracking the population of 

gateway and adjacent communities (e.g., Gustavus, Yakutat, Haines, Skagway, 

Sitka). 

• Non-point source human effects are more important than point-source human effects. 

• Use park data characterizing users; special use permits; administrative permits, 

concessionaire data. 

• Monitor the human use that’s causing the change AND monitor the monitoring 

resources potentially affected - conduct a paired study. 

• One group talked a lot about whether wilderness was or was not included. A scientist 

shared that he attended a kayak symposium in Juneau about 10 years ago where, due 

to human impact on animals, Donald Lawrence proposed a system of anchored barges 

be used for overnights instead of camping onshore. This would lesson impacts to 

vegetation and wildlife including bear problems. He ventured that he had never spent 

a night onshore as a researcher on GLBA. When asked to show hands for those that 

would be willing to spend the night on an anchored barge during trips to GLBA, 5 out 

of 50 said yes. This suggested it is all about wilderness, not animals. 
Human uses and mode of access 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-110 

 

• This is an issue for KLGO: historically, fire is a major organizing feature of the 

KLGO ecosystem. Over the last 200 years, the entire KLGO system has burned, 

except for a few gulches and above 2,000 feet elevation. Also a factor in SITK. 

• Discussion of whether fire suppression has had an impact on plant succession. This is 

a research question (KLGO is looking into this via repeat aerial photography), not a 

monitoring question for vital signs.
Plant communities 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-111 

 

EMF Level 1 - Landscapes (Ecosystem Pattern and Processes)

EMF Level 2 - Landscape dynamics

EMF Level 3 - Land cover and use

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

PLANT COMMUNITIES 

Justification 

Threats 

From vegetation complex

GLBA -- The vital signs of interest here are rare vascular and non-vascular plants (per the 

ANHP list), along with general ecosystem-wide plant biodiversity. We are presently 

unaware of declines/changes in any of these (but we haven't really looked, either). 

KLGO -- Due to its geographic position and unique climate, KLGO has a very diverse 

vascular and non-vascular flora. Lichen inventory will be conducted in 2007. 

SITK – NA 

From "sparsely vegetated" 

GLBA -- The VS of interest here (for GLBA) is periglacial barrens (and the species that 

depend on them). This community type will almost certainly decline as low-elevation 

glaciers "ground out" and cease or slow their retreats. These young communities will 

cease to be exposed/produced as rapidly as natural plant succession proceeds, such that 

the communities will succeed to older communities having different habitat conditions 

that are less suitable to specialized species such as Kittlitz's murrelets and red-throated 

loons. 

KLGO -- NA 

SITK -- NA 

From grassland/herbaceous

GLBA -- Loss of grasslands and herbaceous communities. Invasive species, recreation 

activities (camping); global warming; disease 

SITK -- NA 

KLGO -- Beach meadows and uplifted tidelands on the Dyea Flats are a unique habitat 

and limited type within KLGO. Several species of passerines breed in these meadows. 

Small mammals likely occur here in some abundance, attracting coyotes and raptors. 
Plant communities 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-112 

 

SITK -- NA 

From forest/woodland

GLBA -- No response given. 

KLGO -- Deciduous riparian forest is a habitat type that is considered limited in 

Southeast Alaska. Due to an active floodplain and frequent flooding (as well as periodic 

catastrophic glacial lake outburst floods), the Taiya Valley has extensive deciduous 

riparian forests (black cottonwood - Sitka spruce). This habitat is important for several 

species of breeding landbirds. 

SITK -- NA 

From non-point source human

GLBA -- Vegetation impacts could result from non-point source human activities. 

From Threats in Access, when we were considering “estuarine communities” as a vital 

sign: 

GLBA -- The potential VS of interest here is eelgrass beds. Eelgrass is rare in G.B. 

proper, and the most likely threat here is petroleum spills. 

Comments on Threats 

Management Concerns 

From vegetation complex

GLBA -- Rare plants, because they may be already "living on the edge" (that's why 

they're rare), may be sensitive indicators of environmental change. Therefore, it is 

important to understand the status of their populations, and to monitor trends in their 

distribution/relative abundance. Currently we have virtually no information on status or 

trends. We do have a good baseline for basic vascular plant biodiversity (species 

richness) courtesy of the Vascular Plants Biological Inventory, but no plans to monitor it. 

GLBA's enabling legislation strongly suggests that long-term monitoring may be 

appropriate because it recognizes the value of studying changing vegetation associated 

with glacial retreat and landscape development. GLBA reports to the following GPRA 

Goals that might have relevance to this VS: Ia01C (Land Health - Wetlands), Ia1D (Land 

Health - Riparian), Ia1E (Land Health - Upland), and Ia02B (Other Species of Concern, 

without park mgmt. objectives). 

KLGO -- Changing climate, invasive species, herbivore immigrations, and air pollutants 

may have significant effects on park flora. Species richness and rare species may be 

altered by these changing drivers. 
Plant communities 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-113 

 

SITK -- NA 

From "sparsely vegetated" 

GLBA -- This process of landscape evolution is in this case natural, predictable, and 

inevitable. The big issues for management are 1) ensuring that the drivers are indeed 

natural ones (not anthropogenic), and 2) accepting the potential loss of some obligate 

species (or at least substantial declines in local abundance) or, alternatively, taking 

management action to preserve diversity/relative abundance potentially through active 

habitat manipulation. GLBA reports to GPRA Goal Ia1E (Land Health - Upland) that 

might have relevance to this VS. 

KLGO – NA 

SITK -- NA 

From grassland/herbaceous

GLBA -- Increasing abundance and distribution of invasive species. Lack of baseline 

information addressing "current condition" and predicting "future condition". Lack of 

inventory data (species of management concern Where are they? Populations? Natural 

versus anthropogenic causes. Lack of info to detect external and internal threats. 

Identifying minimum and maximum ranges of variability. Can we do this? Modeling 

efforts. What steps do we need to take to more effectively protect the 

grassland/herbaceous communities from external and internal threats. 

KLGO -- Impacts to beach meadows from OHV use. Removal of driftwood for 

firewood. Invasive species. 

SITK -- NA 

From forest/woodland

GLBA -- No response for forest woodland. 

KLGO -- As glaciers retreat and floodplain dynamics change through time, large-scale 

disturbance patterns in the Taiya River floodplain may be altered. The cottonwood forest 

is gradually succeeding to Sitka spruce and over time, habitat suitability for deciduous 

riparian forest associated species may decrease. 

SITK -- NA 

From Management Concerns in Access, when we were considering “estuarine 

communities” as a vital sign:

GLBA -- Eelgrass is known to be important to certain invertebrates and fishes as 

preferred nursery/rearing habitat. This community type is relatively rare in GLBA. 
Plant communities 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-114 

 

Distribution and eelgrass patch dynamics are poorly known within the park. GLBA 

reports to GPRA Goal Ia1F (Land Health - Marine and Coastal) that might have 

relevance to this VS. 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

To understand the range and variation of select plant communities in response to natural 

disturbance, so we can distinguish anthropogenic induced disturbance. 

Monitoring Questions 

• How is vegetation type, stand structure and composition changing across the 

landscape over time, in response to changes in landscape/terrain? 

Example of Measures 

• Plant composition and structure for select areas or assemblages. (What is there, how 

much is there, where is it)

• Measure biodiversity - specifically species types and densities, evenness of diversity 

and how this changes

• Age and size structure of woody plants in selected vegetation types

• Species composition of selected vegetation types (e.g., riparian vegetation, yellow 

cedar, or similar old growth community)

• Rare vascular and non-vascular plants

From deciduous riparian forests

• Species composition in permanent plots or along transects.

• Tree sizes or ages from permanent plots or along transects.

From pro-glacial barrens at risk

• Plant species composition of pro-glacial barrens communities

• Animal species using pro-glacial barren communities

From rare vascular/non-vascular plants

• Census results for target species

• Measures of encroachment on known populations of target species.

From floodplain dynamics

• Floodplain (including riparian) vegetation maps.
Plant communities 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-115 

 

From eelgrass beds

• Location of eelgrass beds.

• Spatial extent of eelgrass beds.

• Density and biomass of eelgrass beds.

From yellow cedar

• Land cover of yellow cedar forest types.

• Tree density in yellow cedar stands.

• Growth rate of yellow cedar trees.

• Rates of mortality and recruitment.

Consider mapping at Dry Bay, Bartlett Cove, Falls Creek. 

Focal types may include pro-glacial barrens, eelgrass. 

When designing protocol and working on sampling design, think about selecting plots 

that: 1) could capture exotic plant data, 2) are communities prone to invasion, 3) include 

“training plots,” 4) are areas that need to be ground-truthed to improve land cover maps, 

5) are where change is expected, and 6) include some permanent and some temporary 

plots. 

Plant succession is occurring at the same time that other change is occurring, which 

confounds our understanding. Change we observe may or may not be induced by natural 

causes. To help sort this out, pick some plots that are likely to change and some that are 

not likely to change to sample. 

The landcover map tells you where to go, and then plant community investigations and 

mapping are needed to ground truth and provide detail. 

There are linkages among this vital sign (plant communities) and biodiversity, invasive 

plants, phenology, herbivores. Keep this in mind during protocol development; this may 

be a case where we can do many things with one protocol. 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

KLGO has 24 plots where they measure breeding birds every year; their protocol may 

include some of the measures listed here. 

Comments 

This vital sign is like a tool to get information about other vital signs. 

Plant community and structure is a more detailed, dynamic, smaller scale analysis than 
Plant communities 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-116 

 

land cover and land use. It includes community changes over time, mortality, 

recruitment, and other things that are lost in a land cover map. Plant community and 

structure analysis in select plots or areas might be done to ground truth land cover maps, 

to focus on areas where we suspect we will detect change, or to lengthen the baseline by 

redoing areas done 10-20 years ago. Identify community types or areas where we would 

focus this work. What are the specific environments where plant composition is critical as 

an indicator of change (alpine? pro-glacial barrens? wetlands? forest fuels in areas w/ 

fires?) All three of the other park networks rated this highly. Setting up permanent plots 

that you monitor long term is a hugely important dataset to detect change and as an 

indictor of forest health. 

To check effects of global warming, make a list of all the species in the park and look at 

their ranges, say which communities have the largest share at the southern margins of 

their range. Then figure out protocol for watching maybe one or two of those 

communities. But, unless you define what changing phenomenon you are trying to catch, 

it's a 'pig in a poke,' extremely general question. 

It is noted that lichens are a food source for many animals. 

Non-vascular plants are important in SITK, their diversity could be a vital sign. 

Nutrients are released when soils are disturbed. 

From plant communities

Scott -- Natural vegetation changes in Sitka may be much lower than changes in GLBA, 

so differences in sensitivity as such, IF we aren’t including invasive plants. 

From rare vascular/non-vascular plants

Greg -- Rare vascular/non-vascular plants are a great indicator, but ecologically minor. 

From eelgrass beds

May be a good indicator of change for SITK 

From yellow cedar

Yellow cedar is typical of late successional communities, systems that are more at risk. It 

may be a ‘mine canary’ for older systems. Or, is there something else to monitor that 

gives information about late successional communities? 

Potentially declining only in GLBA. 

Yellow cedar is now assumed to be an early indicator of a particular kind of climate 

change. Apparently when there is less snow and the snow cover has a shorter season, the 

roots get cold and the trees die. It might be interesting to monitor yellow cedar but not 

sure how important it is really. Treeline is an excellent indicator of past regional climate 
Plant communities 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-117 

 

change, but so are thermometers. 

Greg - may be more important than I'm indicating.

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

9 SITK

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 

• Ground truth plots, long-term plot establishment. 

• Hydrology drives vegetation if landscape doesn’t interfere. 

• Flow regime is a driver of riparian vegetation. Riparian vegetation is at the 

intersection of hydrology and the terrestrial environment. 

• Note that AKNHP is producing a classification of all plant communities in the park, 

and in association with Landfire doing the same for the Tongass. These lists will be 

ranked for species at risk based on sensitivity to disturbance and rarity. A scientist 

notes that one must worry about plants that can be easily changed by human 

activities, whether they are rare or not. 

• Monitor bounds of deciduous riparian forest (low elevation, low slope). This is a 

forest type that is particularly productive. Many more insects, which attract birds for 

breeding. Relatively uncommon throughout Southeast Alaska. Common for GLBA, 

but that is changing with vegetative succession. 

• Yellow cedar is added to mid-elevation list: It is declining in southern and midSoutheast Alaska, but not declining in northern SE Alaska (not present in KLGO). It 

is a long-lived, slow reproducing species in the mid-elevation, and could be a good 

indicator of change. USFS is currently doing a lot of research into yellow cedar 

decline. 

• Shrub-line, and possibly treeline, is moving up in elevation, although this has not 

been measured. Evidence that this is true for alder, also reasonable evidence for 

spruce and hemlock. Could be in relation to localized climate change (e.g., general 

retreat of glaciers affects microclimates), or changes in hydrology, dewatering, less 

snow, drying out. (Connects to suggestion, under weather & climate section, to 

monitor snow pack longevity and distribution of snow beds.)
Landcover and land use 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-118 

 

EMF Level 1 - Landscapes (Ecosystem Pattern and Processes)

EMF Level 2 - Landscape dynamics

EMF Level 3 - Land cover and use

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

LANDCOVER AND LAND USE (includes freshwater bodies) 

Justification 

Vegetation and community types are both responding variables and controllers of other 

variables. Land use immediately adjacent to and in park inholdings is important in all 

three parks. In SITK and KLGO it will drive some change in park ecosystems; in KLGO 

adjacent and land use will cause habitat fragmentation in the park. 

Land cover includes (but not limited to) landcover and land use such as beach meadows, 

deciduous riparian forest, shrub and treeline, pro-glacial barrens, freshwater bodies. Also 

includes physical and geomorphic processes such as (but not limited to) snow cover and 

depth, isostatic rebound, periglacial landforms, coastal and riparian geomorphology. 

Threats 

From landcover and use

GLBA -- Intensively managed areas that exist outside the boundaries of the park 

(fragmentation from logging and road building). Pollution. Climate change. Changes in 

critical habitat, connectivity, and pathways of migration. Insect outbreaks. Loss of 

keystone species. 

 

KLGO -- Land use changes at the watershed scale could have significant impacts on park 

natural resources. 

SITK -- Indian River basin developments have a potential to impact park aquatic and 

terrestrial ecosystems. Landcover and use changes rapidly in the area do to the high 

demand for suitable land for development. 

Comments on Threats 

Management Concerns 

From landcover and use

GLBA -- Defining the current condition of the landscape. What should the landscape of 

the future look like? The role GLBA landscape as a core protected area (affects of 

climate change). How to maintain biological diversity including the health and integrity 

of entire ecosystem. Understanding how the structure of ecosystems and landscapes 
Landcover and land use 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-119 

 

influence key processes. Understanding the rate at which threats such as wind, insects, 

and disease may have on the landscape. Understanding the most threatening disturbances. 

Which landscapes are most fragile/susceptible to change? Which landscapes are not? 

 

KLGO -- Development within park watersheds could result in increased fragmentation, 

habitat loss, invasive species, disturbance, noise, air/water pollution, human-triggered 

fires, etc. 

SITK -- The park needs to continually update landcover and use maps and aerial photos 

of the Indian River Basin to assess the potential impacts that may occur to the Indian 

River water quality and hydrology. 

 

From terrestrial complex

KLGO -- Distribution of terrestrial landcover types and vegetation associations directly 

relates to the distribution and abundance of wildlife populations.

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

Understand how the pattern and distribution of freshwater features is changing across the 

landscape (land cover). 

Monitoring Questions 

From land cover

• How has the proportion of land cover types changed in SEAN parks?

• How has the distribution of major land cover types changed in SEAN parks?

• How has the number of units (patches) of land cover types changed in SEAN parks?

• Has the vegetation composition and structure within major landcover types changed 

in SEAN parks?

From extreme disturbance events

• Is the frequency of extreme disturbance events in or near SEAN parks changing?

• Is the severity of extreme disturbance events in or near SEAN parks changing?

From deciduous riparian forests

• Have there been changes within the parks in the aerial extent of deciduous riparian 

forest?

• Have there been changes within the parks in the species composition of deciduous 

riparian forest?
Landcover and land use 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-120 

 

• Have there been changes within the parks in the age- or size-structure of deciduous 

riparian forest?

From pro-glacial barrens at risk

• What is the distribution and area of pro-glacial barrens communities?

• What is the species composition or pro-glacial barrens communities?

• Is the rate of loss of pro-glacial barrens communities a threat to their existence or to 

the existence of key community members?

From shrub/treeline communities

• Have there been changes in the elevation of alpine treeline or shrubline?

• Is the mosaic of alpine and subalpine vegetation patches changing?

From freshwater bodies

• Are there long-term trends in means or seasonal patterns of lake level or lake extent?

From glacier extent and dynamics

• What percent of each park is covered by ice and snow?

Example of Measures 

From landcover

• Area of selected landcover type

• Distribution and number of individual units of each land cover type

• Glacial extent

• Change in extent and distribution of vegetative community types

From extreme disturbance events

• Date, intensity and size of individual disturbance events

• Frequency of events from long term record

From deciduous riparian forests

• Land cover of deciduous riparian forest types

From pro-glacial barrens at risk

• Distribution of pro-glacial barrens communities
Landcover and land use 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-121 

 

From shrub/treeline communities

• Land cover delineating the treeline or shrubline

• Land cover of alpine and subalpine vegetation types

From freshwater bodies

• Annual time course of lake level and lake extent

From glacier extent

• Aerial mapping documentation of glacial extent (need to see whole profile)

• Extent of ice accumulation

• Number and size of icebergs

Want park-wide and watershed-wide coarse-scale landcover map, with finer-scale maps 

for selected areas. 

This vital sign crosses over with landform dynamics in that both care about and document 

extreme disturbance effects. 

Data will be gathered with remotely sensed maps; a landcover map will be created, and it 

is a tool. This gives information on everything from glacial extent to various vegetation 

communities to size of lakes to documenting extreme disturbance events, etc. These are 

all coarser data/categories - plant communities and structure mapping will give you a 

finer level of data. A landcover map captures what you can see from the air. Note that 

beach meadows and tree and shrub line and riparian forests are all dynamic and landcover 

will show the dynamism. Also, they are all either rare or the treeline is an indicator. 

For landcover, 1:250,000 scale mapping doesn't tell anything; at KLGO and Sitka, use 

1:12,000 mapping. Land use is important KLGO and SITK, because there's going to be 

tremendous development in Dyea and Skagway over the next 20 years that will cause 

habitat fragmentation issues in the park. In SITK park fragmentation is NOT a concern; 

it is outside of the park though.

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Each SEAN park has some type of land cover map, as a starting point: 

• GLBA has a photo-interpretation map (not a satellite map) at a 1:63,360 scale for its 

300,000 acres, based on a 1996 photograph. Smallest unit is 20 acres. They also have 

more recent imagery available. 

• KLGO has a plant association map from 1990(?) USFS aerial photos for its 13,000 

acres. It identifies 7 plant associations. This may be okay for a basic landcover map, 
Landcover and land use 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-122 

 

but for long term monitoring something much more accurate with more than 7 plant 

associations is needed. NPS did random stratification and found its accuracy on the 

ground to be limited. KLGO also has very high resolution DOQs 2003 digital 

imagery for the park, and LIDAR with elevation data too. 

• SITK has an ecological units map, produced by USFS using infrared (IR) imagery at 

1:12,000 scale. The imagery is from the late 1990’s. It identifies 10-11 plant 

associations and identifies landforms.

Comments 

This is a biologic map, the landform dynamics map (vital sign #5) is a physical map. 

Landcover mapping and landscape dynamics are identified as the top priority vital sign in 

KLGO; can’t do anything without a good land cover map. 

If land cover map scale is too coarse, it simply does not have the accuracy needed for a 

monitoring program. Too refine it for a monitoring program, need to identify the places 

for which you need more detailed data, then do plan community mapping (a different 

vital sign) for these areas. 

There is a spectrum: from land cover maps, to flying areas with a digital camera, to onthe-ground plant community (structure and composition) mapping. BLM and USFS use 

digital photography now; don't know about USGS. 

This is data from a point in time; it is what a satellite can see. 

From landcover

Greg -- a 'biggie;' however, as indicator of some things, changes may be too slow or 

small to detected 

From extreme disturbance events

Greg -- would be a 'biggie' if not essentially unmonitorable due to infrequency and 

unpredictability 

Dan -- Although large area of wilderness, but magnitude and frequency of 

events(landslides, floods, earthquakes, storms) may have significant consequence 

Dan -- Glacier outburst floods may have severe impact on flood plain ecosystems 

From deciduous riparian forests

Greg -- not good indicators, as are impinged upon by many things 
Landcover and land use 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-123 

 

Dan -- Land cover mapping can be useful to assess deciduous forest distribution and done 

over longer time periods ( 15 - 25 years?) 

Scott -- just seems that the dynamic nature of riparian (Note, appears to be incomplete 

comment)

From pro-glacial barrens at risk

Greg -- excellent indicator of change, but ecologically minor 

Scott -- The 'at risk' implies management emphasis 

Sara -- I couldn't see these as controllers, indicators, or linkages to network ecosystems. 

However, they are of interest in and of t (NOTE incomplete comment)

Data will be gathered with remotely sensed maps, a landcover map will be created, and it 

is a tool. This gives information on everything from glacial extent to various vegetation 

communities to size of lakes to documenting extreme disturbance events, etc. These are 

all coarser data/categories - plant communities and structure mapping will give you a 

finer level of data. A landcover map captures what you can see from the air. Note that 

beach meadows and tree and shrub line and riparian forests are all dynamic and landcover 

will show the dynamism. Also, they are all either rare or the treeline is an indicator. 

For landcover, 1:250,000 scale mapping doesn't tell anything at KLGO and Sitka, use 

1:24,000 1:12,000 mapping. Land use is important KLGO and SITK because there's 

going to be tremendous development in Dyea and Skagway over the next 20 years that 

will cause habitat fragmentation issues in the park. In SITK fragmentation is NOT a 

concern, it is all outside of the park though.

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

9 SITK

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 

Need to finish the benthic map for GLBA. Fill data gap in benthic mapping (between 

greater depth and shallow benthic map, there is an unmapped “gap”). 

• Aerial photos best source to track landscape changes. 

• Most effects on animal species from landscape changes would be indirect, through 

changes in plant communities/habitats. However, some might be direct, such as uplift 

draining areas that were breeding ponds for western toads. Or, mass wasting 

changing a route of a game trail. 

• We know that we’re losing some periglacial habitat and vegetation communities. 

Will lose some guilds and species that live there. 

• Use remote sensing as primary tool for monitoring. +T31
Phenology 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-124 

 

EMF Level 1 - Landscapes (Ecosystem Pattern and Processes)

EMF Level 2 - Landscape dynamics

EMF Level 3 - Land cover and use

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

PHENOLOGY 

Justification 

Phenology is both a driver and a recipient. It is a result of global weather and climate, 

tectonics and human activity, and it drives productivity and the timing thereof in the 

marine and terrestrial ecosystems. 

Threats 

Comments on Threats 

Management Concerns 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

Monitoring Questions 

• Has there been a shift in the timing of critical seasonal events in SEAN parks? 

• Has there been a change in the length of the growing season in SEAN parks? 

• Has there been a change in the time of migrational arrivals or departures for focal 

species in SEAN parks? 

Example of Measures 

• Times of vegetation green-up, blooming, ripening, and leaf fall. 

• Times of migrational arrivals and departures. 

• Times of reproductive behavior. 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Comments 

Phenology and its direct effect to the ecosystem is manifest in riparian areas where it is a 

big driver of biomass. In the terrestrial system, phenology doesn't seem as important? 
Phenology 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-125 

 

Greg -- a 'biggie' as it integrates general climate 

Dan -- Perhaps can be monitored through climate and weather data acquisition? 

Scott -- phenology likely linked to climate changes or snow cover, etc., which should 

thus be more important than phenology

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

9 SITK 

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 

• Changes in productivity and phenology will effect changes in flora and fauna species 

and in biological communities. If you’re going to model or monitor the potential for 

certain species that haven’t occurred in the parks to date, which species will depend 

on the length of the growing season? hat information may also be relevant to 

invasive species of concern, as well as species that are native. 

• Source of remote sensing data is NDVI – infer productivity or phenology from 

greenness (looking at different spectral bands). 

• USGS data (contact Dave Douglas). 

• NPS developing national methodologies for monitoring phenology (per Meg). 

• Leverage SEAN network funding to enlist universities to do work on this issue. Get 

the experts in this to give SEAN a good picture of what is going to happen with park 

productivity and seasonality, and what to monitor. There are places in GLBA that are 

going to green up, that were never green before.
Airborne sound 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-126 

 

EMF Level 1 - Landscapes (Ecosystem Pattern and Processes)

EMF Level 2 - Soundscape

EMF Level 3 - Soundscape

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

AIRBORNE SOUND 

Justification 

The soundscape is an extremely important attribute in SEAN parks. Impact of airborne 

sounds on goats, nesting birds and other animals is at issue, in addition to impact on 

social and human enjoyment. Soundscape is a park management issue - if there were no 

remote areas with only natural sound in 20 years in SEAN and KLGO parks, park 

management have failed. 

Threats 

From soundscape

GLBA -- Airborne noise from unrestricted numbers of aircraft overflights over 

wilderness areas diminishes the experience of campers seeking wilderness experience. 

Airborne noise from aircraft and vessels masks the natural sounds in backcountry areas. 

Airborne noise from Bartlett Cove facilities and activities masks the natural sounds in 

front-country and nearby backcountry in the Beardslee Islands. Increasing vessel traffic 

generates airborne vessel noise that can disturb terrestrial wildlife and wilderness users. 

KLGO -- Helicopters, fixed wing aircraft, trains, vehicle traffic, visitors, and boats 

impact KLGO's soundscape.

SITK -- Noise from ships and boats, vehicle highway traffic, float planes, jets, shooting 

ranges, etc. make SITK a very noisy place. 

 

Comments on Threats 

Management Concerns 

From soundscape

GLBA -- Wilderness experiences of visitors are diminished by noise pollution in 

backcountry (and 

 front country) settings. GLBA lacks any real information on airborne soundscapes with 

which to judge the severity of threats. Changes in wildlife distribution and behavior 

resulting from diminished airborne soundscapes are nearly impossible to measure. 

 
Airborne sound 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-127 

 

KLGO -- Human generated noise impacts the visitor's experience and disturbs park 

wildlife. 

SITK -- Technical assistance was requested to abate human noise in SITK. It is difficult 

to find a place in the park that is free from human-generated noise. 

 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

Understand how the terrestrial ecosystem responds to human generated sound. 

Monitoring Questions 

• Is the level, duration, frequency, location, or type of airborne sound changing in 

SEAN parks?

• Has there been a change in the response of park visitors or wildlife to airborne sound?

• Do creatures that gather food by streams depend on the soundscape to ensure food 

gathering success?

Example of Measures 

• Level, frequency, location, type of sound, and duration of human-caused airborne 

sounds at focal locations. 

• Reports of visitor response to sound. 

• Observations of wildlife response to sound. 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Comments 

Greg -- sound probably doesn't control much, and is not a sensitive indicator, nor is it 

linked to a lot of important phenomena. Land critters acclimate well to sound, generally. 

Same for all parks 

Greg -- will assume: KLGO & SITK are more trammeled than GLBA and therefore not 

as sensitive to noise pollution 

Dan -- KLGO may be impacted in future as road from Juneau is constructed; may be 

useful as evidence of human impacts 

Dan -- Given the setting of Sitka, this may be important sign of human impacts or 

potential for human impacts 
Airborne sound 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-128 

 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

9 SITK

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 

• Above-water sound could play into bear management plan. How does human sound 

from drop-off sites and camping areas affect bears. Animal behavior can’t be a vital 

sign for this though, it is too difficult to make the connection to above-water sound. 

• If dose-response (re: goats for example) is issue, then jet noise does not matter; if 

wilderness is issue, then all sound matters. 

• If studying goats, adopt- don’t invent protocols; they are available. 

• This is a research question, not a monitoring question applicable on a landscape scale. 

Or, perhaps targeted monitoring program in specific areas where noise is occurring 

next to sensitive terrestrial populations (e.g., helicopter overflight paths in mountain 

goat habitat). 

• Monitoring above-water sound could be very expensive because areas are so large, 

must be selective. 
Underwater sound 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-129 

 

EMF Level 1 - Landscapes (Ecosystem Pattern and Processes)

EMF Level 2 - Soundscape

EMF Level 3 - Soundscape

SEAN VITAL SIGN 

UNDERWATER SOUND 

Justification 

GLBA has been and will always be accessed and traversed by a variety of vessels 

generating underwater sound. Vessel noise dominates underwater sound where it is being 

monitored. Underwater sound is a measure being used for cruise ship management. 

GLBA has a six year baseline dataset on ambient underwater sound taken from a 

hydrophone in Bartlett Cove, using an already established protocol. Comparable baseline 

datasets are rare. A National Academy of Sciences panel and NOAA are developing a 

national centralized effort on underwater sound. GLBA needs to expand its program, 

have some sites farther up bay. The effect of underwater sound on anything other than 

marine mammals is unknown. 

Threats 

From soundscape

GLBA -- Underwater noise from vessels (increasing in size and in number) generates 

noise that masks natural underwater sounds. Underwater vessel noise has the potential to 

result in behavioral change, masking of communication signals, temporary or permanent 

hearing loss in a variety of marine species including endangered whales and other biota at 

risk such as harbor seals. 

KLGO -- Helicopters, fixed wing aircraft, trains, vehicle traffic, visitors, and boats 

impact KLGO's soundscape.

SITK -- Noise from ships and boats, vehicle highway traffic, float planes, jets, shooting 

ranges, etc. make SITK a very noisy place. 

 

Comments on Threats 

From soundscape

GLBA -- From Marine workshop: Underwater: What does the bay sound signature look 

like during the presence of vessels of different types (cruise ships versus small vessels)? 

What does the sound signature look like without vessels? What percentage of time will 

the bay's signature be altered by vessel noise, and is this percentage greater when ships 

travel at different speeds? Are whale vocalizations different during this noisy period and 

if so, what type of vocalizations are they (stress, contact attempts with others, 
Underwater sound 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-130 

 

navigational attempts)? Are the percentages of different vocalizations altered in the 

presence of large ships? From VQOR: Information on the presence and extent of 

'acoustic shadows' in front of cruise ships, and the possible role of these shadows in 

whale vessel collisions is needed to determine the optimal operating requirements for 

cruise ships in Glacier Bay. A better estimate of acoustic output of private and 

commercial vessels smaller than cruise ships is needed to estimate the distances at which 

they influence the underwater environment. A better estimate of acoustic output of cruise 

ships using new propulsion technology is needed to estimate the distances at which they 

influence the underwater environment.

Management Concerns 

From soundscape

GLBA -- Background noise in the underwater soundscape may play a role in whale 

confusion that leads to ship strikes. Changes in wildlife distribution and behavior 

resulting from diminished underwater soundscapes are nearly impossible to measure. 

GLBA lacks underwater soundscape information in all areas except lower Glacier Bay. 

Diversity of private, vessel characteristics makes it difficult to choose a representative 

sound signature necessary to modeling their effects. New propulsion technologies in 

cruise ships necessitate continuous updating of sound signature information, needed for 

modeling their acoustic effects on soundscape and whales. It is unknown whether there 

are side-effects of decreasing ship speed (which would decrease ship loudness), such as 

decreased fuel efficiency, increased stack emissions, increased duration, that would make 

speed limits a bad idea. 

 

KLGO -- Human generated noise impacts the visitor's experience and disturbs park 

wildlife. 

SITK -- Technical assistance was requested to abate human noise in SITK. It is difficult 

to find a place in the park that is free from human-generated noise. 

Comments on Management Concerns 

Monitoring Objectives 

Understand how the marine ecosystem responds to human generated sound. 

Monitoring Questions 

• Is the magnitude, durations, frequencies, locations or types of underwater sound 

changing in SEAN park waters? 

• Is underwater sound masking the ability of underwater animals to find each other, 

breed, forage? 

• Are there detrimental health effects? 
Underwater sound 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix B Page B-131 

 

• Does underwater sound effect fish disbursement to such an extent that it would make 

it hard for prey species to get food? 

Example of Measures 

• Magnitude, durations, frequencies, locations and types of sound 

Possible Partners 

Relevant Monitoring or Study 

Comments 

To date, there are no acoustic standards for unhealthy underwater sound for marine 

mammals. 

Scott - A better indicator is the number and type of boats and their sound output rather 

than monitoring sound per se... 

Chris G -- SITK has threats and management concerns entered, but SITK is not 

"checked" for this resource. 

Parks Where Vital Sign will be Monitored 

9 GLBA 

9 KLGO 

Comments, Possible Partners or Threats from Scoping Workshops 

• GLBA - permanent (seasonal) underwater monitoring stations. 

• SITK- community noise factor, monitoring around Indian River mouth? 

• Important research question. Need to research cause and effect. 

• Install an upbay GLBA station to complement the Bartlett Cove station? 

• GLBA - USGS survey data. 
This page intentionally left blank.
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-1 

Appendix C 

Protocol Development Summaries 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-2 

Contents

Airborne Contaminants................................................................................................................... 3 

Freshwater Contaminants................................................................................................................ 6 

Freshwater Water Quality............................................................................................................... 9 

Streamflow.................................................................................................................................... 12 

Glacial Dynamics.......................................................................................................................... 14 

Intertidal Communities ................................................................................................................. 16 

Kittlitz’s Murrelets........................................................................................................................ 19 

Landform and Landcover Dynamics ............................................................................................ 21 

Marine Contaminants.................................................................................................................... 25 

Marine Predators........................................................................................................................... 26 

Oceanography ............................................................................................................................... 28 

Weather and Climate..................................................................................................................... 30 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-3 

Airborne Contaminants 

Justification/Issues Being Addressed 

The low population densities, lack of large-scale industrial development, proximity to Pacific 

Ocean, and vast stretches of wild-lands lead many people believe the air quality of Southeast 

Alaska is among the most pristine in the world. However, a lichen-based air quality study 

completed in 1999 demonstrated that sulfur, nitrogen, and heavy metal concentrations in the 

KLGO-Skagway area exceeded nutrient enhancement and heavy metal concentration thresholds 

established by the USDA for the adjacent Tongass National Forest (Geiser et al. 1994, Furbish et 

al. 2000, Dillman pers. com.). All SEAN parks may be impacted by near-field mobile sources 

including cruise ships and other marine traffic, near-field point source such as diesel fired 

generators, and far-field industrial sources in Eurasia. 

In addition to air contamination degrading visibility and impacting the parks’ scenic beauty, 

deposition of air contaminants in sensitive park ecosystems has the potential to contribute to 

foliar damage (Fenn 2006), terrestrial and marine community compositions shifts (Geiser 1994, 

Fenn 2006) and bioaccumulation of contaminants in marine and terrestrial organisms (Goodyear 

and McNeil 1998, Pedersen and Lierhagen 2006). While all parks are required to preserve the 

scenery unimpaired (NPS 1916), Glacier Bay has the additional requirement of maintaining a 

Class 1 airshed, which requires the highest level of protection under the federal Clean Air Act 

passed in 1963 (PL 91-604) as amended in 1977 (PL 95-9) and reaffirmed in 1990 amendments. 

Thus, measurable air quality parameters are of high value to natural area managers. 

Mercury (Hg) may be an important contaminant in Southeast Alaska due to its proximity to 

Eurasian sources and the prevailing weather patterns. Once Hg becomes bioavailability in an 

organic form, methyl mercury (MeHg) it is 100 time more toxic and can bioaccumulate in a 

variety of taxa and reaching concentrations one-million times greater than environmental 

concentrations (Wolfe et al. 1998). Because the use of lichen to monitor Hg deposition is not 

fully developed, and a well established network of wet-deposition Hg monitoring stations 

already exists across the country, we intend to join the national Mercury Deposition Network 

(MDN) for an initial period of 3-years. 

Specific Monitoring Objectives Addressed by the Protocol 

1. Determine long-term trends in the concentrations of selected chemical elements in lichen 

tissue. Join a regional network of lichen collection sites allowing SE Alaska wide 

inferences. 

2. Track actual concentration (ppm or ppb) of SO2, NHO3, NH3, NO2 and NOx in ambient 

air. 

3. Track total deposition (total wet and dry in kg/ha/yr) for N & S compounds. 

4. Determine long-term trends in lichen community composition through measurement of 

permanent lichen plots. 

5. Determine deposition of mercury as part of the National MDN program by establishing 

and maintaining an MDN monitor in GLBA. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-4 

Basic Approach 

Because most sources of airborne pollution in the region are currently unregulated mobile 

sources (marine traffic) or are transported from far-field sources, and funding is limited, this 

protocol focuses on easily obtainable measures of air quality and ecological effects rather than 

the much more costly air quality parameters that are currently used in the regulatory arena. 

However, elemental concentrations in lichens and their ecological effect on lichen communities 

may enter the regulatory arena in the near future in determining critical loads (Porter et al. 2004, 

Leith et al. 2006). A long-term, 10 year revisit cycle is warranted due to slowly increasing levels 

of tourism, low levels of industrial development and slow population grown in the region. One 

data point per decade will provide managers and researchers with a broad picture of trends in air 

quality and how park conditions compare to other sites conducting comparable monitoring across 

the region (Tongass National Forest) and in the Pacific Northwest. 

SEAN will determine the concentrations of selected chemical elements in tissue of three lichen 

species (Hypogymnia heteromorphy, H. inactive, Platismatia glauca) from 5 sites / collection 

plots across the network (two that were previously used in KLGO (Furbish 2000), two in GLBA 

and one in SITK). These data will be the site specific reference conditions against which future 

samples will be compared. These lichen collection plots will be part of a region wide monitoring 

program run by the USDA Forest Service. By leveraging the 73 plot already in place on Forest 

Service Land, course spatial resolution inferences can be made throughout Southeast Alaska. 

Fine-scale, park-wide inferences would require additional intra-park sample sites.SEAN 

elemental concentration results will be compared with reference data from the greater Southeast 

Alaska area and the Pacific Northwest. 

SEAN will measure actual concentration (ppm or ppb) of SO2, NHO3, NH3, NO2 and NOx in 

ambient air with Ogawa passive air samplers, and will measure deposition (total wet and dry in 

kg/ha/yr) by deploying passive through-fall samplers. Passive throughfall samplers following the 

methods of Fenn and Poth (2004) will be deployed at each lichen plot. Passive air chemistry and 

throughfall measurement data will be used to create model(s) tying pollutant concentrations in 

ambient air with elemental concentration in lichens. This will expand on active work in this area 

(Blum and Tjutjunnik 1992, Geiser pers. com.). Note: Most of this component is already funded 

by WASO-AQD at KLGO for FY08-09. 

To track lichen community structure over time, SEAN will establish lichen community plots 

following methods used in the Tongass National Forest and Forests in the Pacific Northwest 

(Geiser et al 1994, Geiser 2004) as reference data for inter site comparisons and future intra site 

trend analysis and comparisons. Two lichen community plots per collection macro-plot will be 

read once per decadal sampling cycle. Metrics include standard site information (percent cover 

of dominant species by strata, abiotic data, etc.), abundance categories per lichen species, species 

richness, and other diversity metrics for lichens. 

To track mercury wet deposition, SEAN will re-establish the wet-deposition monitoring station 

in GLBA and run it continuously for at least 3 years following MDN protocols 

(http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/mdn/). Precipitation samples are collected weekly, year-round. 

Mercury will be reported in ng/l. This Hg monitoring site will be part of a region wide 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-5 

monitoring network run by the NADP MDN program and funded by the NPS and the State of 

Alaska Department of Environmental Quality. The NPS will have a site in Gates of the Arctic 

National Park and the State of Alaska has sites on Kodiak Island and Dutch Harbor. Spatial 

inference may be possible at the State wide level depending on the intra-site variation and 

correlation in Hg concentrations. These data will be analyzed after 3 years specifically to look at 

Alaska wide spatial and temporal patterns in Hg wet deposition. Fine-scale, parkwide inferences 

are not an expect outcome. 

Principal Investigators and NPS Lead 

NPS: Dave Schirokauer, Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, Brendan Moynahan, 

SEAN 

Other Agency: US Forest Service Dr. Linda Geiser, National Deposition Monitoring Network 

Development Schedule, Budget, and Expected Interim Products 

Schedule and Budget:

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY18 FY19 

Item 

Protocol dev 

pilot sampling 

SEAN 

Protocol dev 

WASO-AQD 

& KLGO 

Protocol dev 

& pilot 

sampling 

SEAN 

Protocol dev 

WASO AQD 

& KLGO 

Protocol writing 

SEAN & KLGO 

Future 

Sample 

year 1 

Future 

Sample 

year 2 

GS-7 Bio Tech 4.5pp @ $1,625 

pp 

 $7,312 $7,500 10,000 10,000 

USFS Linda Geiser Travel 7 

day 

 $1,000 $3,000 0 0 

USFS L. Geiser Salary (0.5 pp) 1,600 $4,500 1,600 $2,700 $4,500 0 0 

UFSU Lichenologist Karen 

Dillman: Set up and read 4 

lichen community biomonitoring plots 

$3,200 $2,200 0 0 0 6,000 0 

Lichen elemental analysis for 5 

sites (45 samples @ $150) 

setup 

$6,750 $6,750 $6,750 $6,750 0 $14,100 $14,100 

Ogawa sampler analysis for 5 

sites - SO2, NO2, NOX, HNO3, 

NH3 26 weeks @ 10 samples 

per week for 6 sites (1300) and 

an additional 20 samples for 

18 days from two sites (360). 

USFS cost of $7 per sample. 

$11,620 $11,620 $12,620 $12,620 0 0 0 

Throughfall sampling resins 

filters and analysis for 5 sites 

(15 collectors per site) 

$4,500 $4,500 $5,250 $1,000 $1,500 0 0 

MDN Station $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 

MDN Equipment $ 6,000 0 0 0 0 

Supplies: Sample bags, 

shipping 

$ 2,500 $1,500 $ 1,500 $500 0 $500 $500 

Total $49,170 $39,382 $40,720 $34,070 $19,000 $43,600 $37,600 

Interim products include annual reports and field and lab data. Data on weekly ambient 

concentrations of nitrogen and sulfur oxides, seasonal deposition rates, annual elemental 

concentration data from lichen tissue and decadal data lichen community composition – plot 

data. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-6 

Freshwater Contaminants 

Justification/Issues Being Addressed 

Contaminants can enter Alaskan freshwater ecosystems from local or global sources via longrange atmospheric transport and marine-derived contaminants delivered to freshwaters during 

anadromous fish spawning runs (Blais et al. 2007). Mercury (Hg) and a suite of persistent 

organic pollutants (POPs) are not produced in SE Alaska, but these long-range global 

contaminants are probably entering the ecosystems of all SEAN parks. 

 

Mercury is emitted primarily by fossil fuel burning, from which global emissions continue to 

increase, particularly in Asia (Pacyna and Pacyna 2002). Specifically, China is dramatically 

increasing its coal consumption (+14% annually in 2006 and 2007), and mercury released in the 

process is carried to Alaska along trans-Pacific atmospheric flow currents (Bradsher and Barboza 

2006; Dastoor and Larocque 2004; Pacyna and Pacyna 2005). Sediment cores collected from 

lakes in GLBA and in neighboring Chichagof Island show that modern Hg accumulation rates in 

sediments are 2-3 times preindustrial accumulation rates and continue to rise (Engstrom and 

Swain 1997; Fitzgerald et al. 2006). Furthermore, bacteria common in wetland environments are 

known to convert even low levels of inorganic Hg to highly toxic methylmercury (MeHg). 

Wetland-generated methylmercury can readily be transported to near-shore marine systems by 

organic-rich outflowing streams, thereby making it bioavailable to freshwater and marine 

organisms. A 2007 NPS survey provided the first baseline dataset on Hg in SEAN streams from 

a one-time sampling event of streamwater, benthic macroinvertebrates, sediments, and juvenile 

fish of 17 streams with variable landscape characteristics (Nagorski et al. results pending). The 

establishment of a Mercury Deposition Network site in Bartlett Cove in 2008 will provide 

valuable information on atmospheric mercury inputs to the region, and marine contaminants 

(including Hg and POPs) will be conducted under the Oceanography vital sign. Therefore, the 

monitoring activities under this vital sign provide a critical link between airborne and marine 

contaminant monitoring 

 

POPs comprise a long list of toxic and stable organic compounds derived from pesticides (both 

historic and current use), industrial/urban-use compounds, and combustion byproducts. POPs 

have been identified in arctic- and subarctic seawater, lake sediments, zooplankton, various 

fishes, whales, seals, bears, eagles, and indigenous peoples who rely on subsistence harvests 

(AMAP, 2004). Like mercury, POPs are carried via long-range atmospheric transport pathways 

and, upon deposition, can bioaccumulate as they pass across trophic levels. POPs of particular 

concern in high latitudes include dieldrin, Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane (DDT), 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlordane, and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) 

(NPS 2007). A new generation of POPs (or more broadly, semi-volatile organic compounds or 

SOCs) has been measured in high latitude air, seawater, and freshwater sediments as well (Van 

Oostdam et al., 2003). These include brominated flame retardents (in particular polybrominated 

diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), perfluorinated alkane compounds (PFAs), short chain chlorinated 

paraffins (SCCPs), and polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs). Studies in Southeast Alaska and 

adjacent areas include an evaluation of POPs imported to lakes in the Copper River basin (just 

north of GLBA) by migrating sockeye salmon (Ewald et al., 1998); an evaluation of POPs in 

seabird eggs (Vander Pol et al., 2004); a study of POPs levels in vegetation and air in GLBA and 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-7 

the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness, Tongass National Forest, as part of the Western Airborne 

Contaminants Assessment Project (WACAP) (results pending), and a survey of POPs in juvenile 

coho salmon in 19 SEAN streams during 2007 (Nagorski et al. results pending). 

Specific Monitoring Objective to be Addressed by the Protocol 

Track levels of selected contaminants in selected lotic and lentic waterbodies through analysis of 

sediment and fish tissue samples, with an emphasis on paired lakes that do and do not support 

anadromous fish populations (i.e., sockeye salmon) that may deliver marine-derived 

contaminants.

Basic Approach 

Freshwater, marine/intertidal, and precipitation/air contaminant monitoring in SEAN parks will 

be closely integrated, particularly for Hg monitoring in the Bartlett Cove area of GLBA. 

Testing for freshwater contaminants will be most effective (in terms of both cost and 

interpretation) by sampling parameters that integrate contaminant exposure over relatively long 

periods of time (e.g. lakebed sediments and resident fish) rather than relying on water samples 

that represent narrow temporal conditions. Sediments accumulate contaminants, especially in 

lakes, where cores may be sampled and dated to examine changes over the course of decades or 

centuries (e.g. work by Engstrom and Swain [1997] and Fitzgerald et al. [2006]). Streambed 

sediments represent a much more recent signature of contaminants in the watershed but may be 

complicated by grainsize variations and the inability to date them. Resident fish (e.g., 

threespined stickleback, cutthroat trout, rainbow trout and Dolly Varden) and juvenile salmon 

that have not yet migrated out of their natal streams (coho, sockeye, and chinook) would stay in 

freshwater systems long enough to bioaccumulate toxins specific to their watersheds and may 

prove to be excellent indicators of contaminant loads in SEAN parks. Benthic 

macroinvertebrates (BMI) may also have the potential to accumulate contaminants. 

The three watersheds (Bartlett River in GLBA, Taiya River in KLGO, and Indian River in SITK) 

that will be monitored for other freshwater vital signs (Freshwater physicochemical 

characteristics, Streamflow, and Benthic Macroinertebrates and Algae) will be sampled for Hg 

(total and methyl) and POPs every 5-10 years (frequency depending on budget availability) using 

resident or juvenile anadromous fish, macroinvertebrates, streambed sediments, and water; we 

expect that POPs would be detectable only in fish tissues. In addition, resident fish and 

sediments will be sampled from several GLBA lakes. Priority lakes in GLBA should be in the 

Bartlett River watershed, including a lake in the mid-watershed reach accessible to anadromous 

salmonids, and Bartlett Lake (or other isolated aquatic system components devoid of 

anadromous salmonids, e.g. DV in the Falls Creek watershed), in order to compare the effects of 

atmospheric deposition (as collected under the Airborne Contaminants vital sign) with 

atmospheric deposition plus anadromous fish contaminant contributions. At least five 

individual fish will be taken from each lake/isolated system, with the addition of several water 

samples and soil samples from the contributing watershed. Contaminants will be measured at a 

glacially dominated lake as well. In this case, end-of-season snowpack samples will also be 

included in order to measure the contaminants in precipitation over the course of the winter, as 

the Bartlett Cove Hg deposition site may not be representative of colder, drier areas of the bay. 

An auxiliary component to the monitoring of this vital sign may include coring of the lake 

sediments for historical contaminant deposition profiles (ideally once every ~10 years), 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-8 

continuing the efforts in the region by Daniel Engstrom’s research group to track Hg deposition 

trends in the Glacier Bay region since global industrialization. 

Sampling sites in all parks will be selected with an emphasis on collocation of sites monitored 

under the other freshwater vital signs (Physicochemical Water Quality, Macroinvertebrates and 

Algae, and Streamflow).

Principal Investigators and NPS Lead 

GLBA: Chad Soiseth, Fisheries Biologist; SITK: Geoffrey Smith, Biologist; KLGO: Dave 

Schirokauer, Natural Resources Program Manager 

Sonia Nagorski, Ph.D., Environmental Science Program, University of Alaska Southeast 

Development Schedule, Budget, and Expected Interim Products 

Detailed protocol development, including various cost scenarios, will take place in 2010-2012. 

Results of the studies by the WACAP group and Nagorski et al.’s 2007 contaminants survey 

(results pending for both) in the SEAN will help evaluate protocols, identify baseline 

concentrations, and location of potential focus study areas. Because of the high expense 

associated with contaminants analyses, this protocol will be implemented not annually but on a 

5-10 year rotating interval, depending on funding. The estimated costs are: 

 

Item Estimated Cost 

Monitoring in 3 study streams (Bartlett, Taiya, Indian 

Rivers) Each watershed: 

(1) Triplicate Hg samples ($300/ea) of fish, BMI, 

sediments, and water 

(2) Triplicate POPs samples ($750/ea) in fish) 

$17,600 every 5-10 years 

Monitoring in 3 GLBA lakes: Each lake system: 

(1) 5 Hg samples ($300/ea) of fish, soils, and 

duplicates of water 

(2) 5 fish samples for POPs ($750/ea) 

(3) 2 water samples for full chemistry ($350/ea) 

(4) 2 snowpack samples for Hg ($300/ea) for the 

glacial lake watershed) 

$28,000 every 5-10 years 

Lake coring for chronological deposition profiles. Each 

of 2 lakes:

(1) 6 cores sectioned into 10 sections, analyzed for 

Hg and 210Pb; air and boat access to and on 

lake). 

$30,000-50,000 every 10 years 

 

Costs associated with travel and ancillary water quality parameters for the 3 study streams are 

additional and can be combined with the Freshwater Physicochemical Water Quality vital sign 

monitoring efforts. The above estimates also do not account for expenses associated with travel, 

salary (in-house or contractor), overhead, and other potential costs outside of chemical analyses. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-9 

Freshwater Water Quality 

Justification/Issues Being Addressed 

The quality of freshwaters is critical to the functioning of aquatic, terrestrial, and nearshore 

marine ecosystems across SEAN. Water body types in SEAN are diverse and abundant, 

comprising upland and subalpine lakes, wetlands and ponds, groundwater resources, glacial 

streams, and nonglacial (clear water) streams. Each is influenced by a local and regional 

complex of geology, climate, glacial history, and other factors. All SEAN units are concerned 

about the potential effects on water quality due to climate change, visitor impacts, and longrange atmospheric contaminants. Other potential threats to water quality on at least some SEAN 

water resources include urban development of watershed areas outside park boundaries and 

potentially invasive/nuisance freshwater species. Current and historical water quality 

information for SEAN is very limited in terms of both spatial and temporal scope (Nagorski and 

Hood 2007). While a variety of water quality studies have been conducted in each park, only a 

small subset has specifically aimed to provide baseline water quality monitoring data, and none 

included long-term and/or continuous monitoring efforts. Therefore, monitoring of this vital 

sign will largely require a novel effort in each SEAN unit. The only SEAN stream designated as 

303(d) impaired is Pullen Creek, a portion of which flows through the Skagway Historic Unit (in 

KLGO) but is not under the jurisdiction of the NPS. 

 

Detection of long-term trends and short-term fluctuations will be most meaningful by employing 

a high-frequency (continuous, ideally) sampling design, because changes in water quality 

typically occur rapidly and can be short-lived. The four core parameters chosen for monitoring 

by the NPS Water Resources Division (WRD) are temperature, pH, specific conductance, and 

dissolved oxygen (Irwin 2004b; NPS, 2002; Roman et al. 2003). Additional parameters that will 

be monitored in SEAN include turbidity, nutrients (TN, TP, nitrates, ammonia, orthophosphate), 

dissolved and total organic carbon (DOC/TOC), major anions and cations, alkalinity, and trace 

elements.

Specific Monitoring Objective to be Addressed by the Protocol 

Track core water quality parameters (temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, pH) in select 

SEAN streams. 

Basic Approach 

Streams monitored for physicochemical water quality characteristics will be those that are also 

the subject of related vitals signs (Streamflow, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Algae, and 

Freshwater Contaminants): (1) the Bartlett River in GLBA; (2) the Taiya River in KLGO; and 

(3) the Indian River in SITK. In addition, the NPS will work with the USGS to obtain samples 

from the Alsek River (GLBA) during regularly scheduled USGS site visits to the Alsek River 

stream gage when water quality samples would otherwise not be collected. 

 

Water quality sampling is a well developed scientific field, although technological improvements 

in both field instruments and laboratory analytical capabilities are rapidly driving changes in 

sampling designs and methods. Many water quality monitoring protocols have been developed 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-10 

and extensively tested by federal agencies; therefore, development of this protocol will not 

require the development of novel methods, but will focus on tailoring established protocols to 

meet the needs of the specific waterbody and the individual park unit. The NPS WRD provides 

guidance on monitoring protocol development, including quality assurance/quality control and 

on collection of core water quality parameters (Irwin, 2004a, b; NPS, 2002, 2003). Several other 

national monitoring programs also provide detailed methodologies, statistical sampling 

protocols, and quality control protocols that will provide useful information to the SEAN. 

At the monitoring sites (to be selected on each stream based on access, location above tidal 

influence, current/historical use as a monitoring site, and suitability for a stream gage), water 

quality measurements will be two-tiered: (1) those composed of continuous, in-situ monitoring, 

and (2) those that require visits by personnel to collect grab samples for laboratory analysis. The 

continuously measureable (e.g. every 15 minutes, from May-October) parameters include the 

required core parameters (pH, specific conductance, temperature, and dissolved oxygen) plus to 

turbidity. The remaining parameters, which cannot be monitored continuously with in-situ 

meters, will require site visits by NPS and/or contracted personnel who will follow established 

protocols (e.g. USGS) for collecting, handling, and storing water samples that will be sent off for 

analysis to certified labs. Sampling frequency for grab samples should be at a range of 

discharges and seasonal climatic conditions. Collection of water samples will follow a rigorous 

QA/QC protocol that includes chain of custody records for samples, and samples will be 

analyzed by a laboratory that follows standard, federally-approved methods for water quality 

analyses and QA/QC procedures. 

Data Analysis. Continuously monitored data will be downloaded at each site visit and compiled 

in a database that is compatible with statistical analytical programs and STORET. The Time 

Series Standard Aquarius program (by Aquaticinformatics Inc.) is an appropriate software 

package that can manage and analyze high volume water quality time-series data and is 

recommended for purchase by the network, as data management demands will be considerable. 

Data will be analyzed for diel, weekly, seasonal, annual, and longer term patterns and trends. 

Data will be evaluated for trend detection, for conformity with water quality aquatic life and 

human health criteria, and will be related to discharge measurements (for calculating chemical 

fluxes), to benthic macroinvertebrate and algae monitoring, freshwater contaminants, and other 

relevant vital signs monitoring that may be co-located at the sample sites. 

Principal Investigators and NPS Lead 

GLBA: Chad Soiseth, Fisheries Biologist 

SITK: Geoffrey Smith, Biologist 

KLGO: Dave Schirokauer, Natural Resources Program Manager 

Sonia Nagorski, PhD. Environmental Science Program, University of Alaska Southeast. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-11 

Development Schedule, Budget, and Expected Interim Products 

This monitoring protocol is one of the first planned for full development. The full protocol will 

be developed in the next year with field testing of instruments to commence as soon as funds 

become available. After two years, the protocol should be reviewed and evaluated. The estimated 

costs for monitoring of this vital sign are as follows: 

Item Estimated Cost 

In-situ continuous meters (core 

parameters + turbidity) 

$14,000 x 3= $42,000 

Installation and maintenance of 

continuous meter 

$ 500/yr 

Aquatic informatics software $4000 

Analysis of grab samples for 

nutrients, DOC/TOC, other 

chemistry. 

$ 150-350/sample; 

10 samples/site/yr x 3 sites 

= $4,500-10,500/yr 

Temperature loggers for sites 

without continuous meters 

$350 x 2 = $700 

 

Not included above is the cost associated with personnel needed to install and maintain meters, 

to collect grab samples, and analyze data. A more detailed budget, including various cost 

scenarios, will be developed in the full protocol.
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-12 

Streamflow 

Justification/Issues Being Addressed 

Streamflow is a critical monitoring component of aquatic ecosystems and habitats because many 

chemical and physical variables are influenced directly or indirectly by discharge volume. For 

instance, changes in water quality, eutrophication, nutrient and sediment transport are all 

dependent on streamflow. Decreases in streamflow are associated with increased water 

temperatures, decreased concentrations of dissolved oxygen, and increased concentrations of 

chemicals. Streamflow also has important implications for receiving marine ecosystems and 

habitats. Coastal habitats are important rearing and feeding grounds for many species of fish, 

mammals, and birds. Variation in the volume and temporal patterns of release of freshwater and 

nutrients into these important habitats can have profound impacts on coastal marine ecosystems. 

For example, marine habitats where glaciers or glacial streams meet the sea have been shown to 

be regions of exceptionally high productivity and biodiversity within Glacier Bay National Park 

and Preserve (Robards and others, 2003). Streamflow has also been identified as important to 

estuarine and marine circulation patterns, salinity stratification, and primary productivity (Royer 

1982; Royer et al. 2001; Etherington et al. 2007). 

 

It is also important to describe a stream’s flow regime, a factor which is cited with increasing 

frequency as a critical variable that structures aquatic ecosystems and habitat (Poff and Ward 

1989; Richter et al.1996; Baron et al. 2002). An ecologically relevant definition of flow regime 

includes the frequency, magnitude, duration, and timing of high and low flows, as well as the 

rate of change and interannual variation of streamflow. Changes in streams or streamflow can be 

used as indicators of changes in climate, basin dynamics, and land use, but only with an accurate 

and long-term analysis of streamflow regime.

Specific Monitoring Objective to be Addressed by the Protocol 

Determine status and trends of streamflow in select SEAN streams – the Indian River (SITK), 

the Taiya River (KLGO), and the Bartlett River (GLBA). 

Basic Approach 

Streamflow is measured as discharge of water within a river channel past a specific point for a 

given time interval. Streamflow gaging stations typically consist of a pressure sensing transducer 

fixed to the stream bed at a known elevation. The transducer measures the elevation of the 

stream’s water surface, which is recorded by a data logger. A relation between water surface 

elevation (stage) and discharge is established by measuring streamflow over a range of stage. 

Once this relationship is well defined, a rating curve can be developed and streamflow can be 

computed from the stage data and rating curve. Periodic streamflow measurements are required 

to adjust for changes in channel morphology, debris, and aquatic vegetation growth, all of which 

may significantly alter the relation between stage and discharge. In order to keep discharge 

estimates accurate, six to nine discharge measurements spanning the full range of flow should be 

taken each year. Moderate and low flows can be measured by wading using current meters and 

top setting wading rods, however, measuring high flows or flood flows is essential to 

development and refinement of rating curves. These measurements will need to be conducted by 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-13 

boat or from bridges using conventional current meters in combination with a bridge crane, reel, 

and sounding weight or using acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCP). The ADCP is capable 

of measuring discharge from a moving boat and would be essential to making discharge 

measurements when no bridge is available from which to suspend a traditional current meter. 

The USGS has developed extensive protocols for making discharge measurements and operating 

stream gages (Rantz et al. 1982a, 1982b). Protocol developed for SEAN streamflow monitoring 

will draw from these protocols.

Principal Investigators and NPS Lead 

U.S. Geological Survey, Juneau and Anchorage offices 

SITK: Geoffrey Smith 

GLBA: Chad Soiseth 

KLGO: Dave Schirokauer

Development Schedule, Budget, and Expected Interim Products 

Optimally, streamflow monitoring should be continuous. Continuation of streamflow monitoring 

on streams previously gaged by the USGS (Indian River and Taiya River) is recommended for 

the following reasons: 1) stage/discharge ratings may already be available 2) the value of 

streamflow data increases with longer time series, and 3) the location of these gages facilitates 

frequent visits, which are essential to producing accurate and complete data sets. An additional 

gage will be installed on the Bartlett River near Gustavus. 

 

Maintaining a USGS stream gage in Alaska presently costs between $25,000 and $40,000 

annually, which is cost-prohibitive for the network. SITK has engaged in a partnership with the 

City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and possibly the USFS to 

reestablish gages on the Indian River. This process requires local personnel conducting 

discharge measurements and downloading data and contracting to have stage and discharge data 

computed and archived. Initial cost for SEAN was $10,000, which represented 59% of the total 

cost of $17,000 for the first year of the project. SEAN’s contribution in FY 2008 will be $8,000. 

The City and Borough of Sitka and Alaska Department of Fish and Game are expected to 

contribute about $3,000 each. KLGO is considering a similar arrangement for the Taiya River 

and has submitted a NRPP funding proposal to initiate the process. The Cost of a Teledyne RD 

Instruments Rio Grande ADCP meter for high discharge measurements is about $23,400. 

Ideally, additional stream gages in remote locations would be established; however, the necessity 

of frequent visits and the costs associated with maintaining remote stream gages is likely to 

preclude gaging of additional streams.
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-14 

Glacial Dynamics 

Justification/Issues Being Addressed 

Glaciers are principal raisons d’etres for the initial establishment of GLBA, and are fundamental 

backdrops for both GLBA and KLGO history and biology. In both parks, glaciers have been and 

continue to be principal direct and indirect determinants of landforms, scenery, successional 

state, and ecological pattern/process. In GLBA, glaciers are key interpretive resources. 

Ice is a habitat unto itself. It mediates the release of freshwater into marine and terrestrial 

systems, and continues to be responsible for occasional catastrophic meltwater releases in both 

parks. Changes in glacial extent and mass balance serve as proxies for climate change, and 

historically and prehistorically have had major influences on the congeniality of the landscape 

for human habitation and trade routes to the continental interior. 

This protocol is directly related to several other Vital Signs (e.g., Weather and Climate, 

Landform and Landcover, Freshwater Physiochemical Water Quality, Freshwater Streamflow, 

Oceanography, and Kittlitz’s Murrelets), but will be limited to specific properties and outputs of 

ice masses. For the purposes of this vital sign, “Glacial Dynamics” is defined as “changes in 

extent, configuration, mass balance and meltwater/iceberg output of glaciers within or directly 

influencing GLBA and KLGO”. SEAN recognizes the considerable cost and technical 

challenges associated with mass balance estimation. For that reason, SEAN will focus on 

monitoring glacial extent, but will retain detailed plans contained in the Phase 3 Report in the 

event that future funding becomes available for more detailed measurements. Glacier extent will 

be measured in conjunction with the VS for Landform and Landcover.

Specific Monitoring Objective to be Addressed by the Protocol 

Determine (by direct measurement or modeling/proxy) changes in glacial extent and 

configuration of selected glaciers in GLBA and KLGO. 

Basic Approach 

This general photogrammetric survey will be conducted by way of targeted analysis of the 

decadal remote imagery described in the Landform and Landcover PDS. It applies to all GLBA 

glaciers and all glaciers that contribute meltwater to either unit of KLGO. 

The survey will be conducted once each decade, using the best available satellite or high-altitude 

imagery. This survey will occur at the end of the summer ablation season to allow accurate 

placement of the equilibrium line and to take advantage of the maximum yearly exposure of 

lowland features. The extent of contributory snowfields, equilibrium line position, extent and 

configuration of ice below that line, and terminal position of each glacier will be mapped with 

accuracy of at least +10m. The first iteration of this survey will produce a basemap to which 

future changes can be compared. More frequent attention will be considered on a case-by-case 

basis for capturing details of events such as surges and outburst floods. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-15 

Rationale: 1) Given recent rates of change in the extent, elevation and mass balance of the 

region’s glaciers, and given that the proposed measures for the most part integrate multi-year 

changes, this interval should be adequate to capture major variations in aerial extent in most 

systems. 2) Satellite or high-altitude photogrammetry is chosen for its cost-effectiveness, and it 

is entirely benign in terms of impacts to ecosystems or users. 3) A decadal timescale will capture 

most significant change except for specific cases. 

Particular attention (finer-scale documentation) will be paid to certain low-elevation 

glaciers/features in order to capture important details of ice frontal character and associated 

geomorphic and vegetational change. In order of relative priority these are: 1) Burroughs 

Glacier (two ends); 2) termini of Rendu and Carroll Glaciers; 3) Topeka Glacier; 4) Hugh Miller 

and Geikie Glacier remnants; and 5) the ice-filled portion of the Desolation Valley currently 

separating the lower Alsek River and Grand Plateau Glacial Lake. Rationale: 1) These isolated, 

low-elevation ice systems are particularly sensitive to (and will effectively reflect) detailed 

changes in ice frontal character and associated glacial geomorphology and vegetational 

succession. 2) These important changes can be readily observed by more detailed analyses of the 

same remote imagery used above. 3) In particular, glaciologists have recently theorized that with 

continued thinning of Grand Plateau Glacier, it may be possible that the lower channel of the 

Alsek River could be “pirated” to the east of the Deception Hills sometime in the future, to enter 

the Gulf of Alaska via the current Grand Plateau Glacial Lake outlet; such an event would have 

profound effects upon the Dry Bay ecosystem. 

The present work by Molnia (in prep, 2007) extending the long series of on-the-ground 

monitoring of glacial termini in Glacier Bay proper begun by Field in 1925 (data in park files) 

will be continued. This will also be repeated on a decadal timescale (independent of the 

Landform and Landcover PDS). Rationale: This work complements the above remote approach 

and is important for capturing details of ice frontal character and associated geomorphologic and 

vegetational change. 

Principal Investigators and NPS Lead 

Expert glaciologist/hydrologist (to be determined) 

NPS: Sharman (GLBA) and/or Schirokauer (KLGO) 

Development Schedule, Budget, and Expected Interim Products 

See Landform and Landcover PDS. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-16 

Intertidal Communities 

Justification/Issues Being Addressed 

SITK has approximately 50 acres of foreshore intertidal zone within the city of Sitka. The low 

gradient, cobble/gravel, semiprotected beach provides an arguably unique habitat for the area. It 

hosts a diverse marine fauna and flora, with over 219 species of invertebrates and 85 species of 

marine algae. The northernmost known populations of two red algae have been observed at the 

site: Chondracanthus exasperatus (Turkish towel) and Scinaia confusa. The area contributes to 

the productivity and diversity of the local area, which is situated within one of the richest in the 

northeast Pacific. The SITK intertidal zone comprises nearly half the acreage of the park. 

Intertidal areas are biologically sensitive habitats and vulnerable to disturbance. Threats to the 

intertidal resources of the park include trampling from intense visitor use. A high percentage of 

the park’s 300,000 annual visitors explore this zone. Other threats to the integrity of the intertidal 

zone include a proposed deepwater cruise ship dock to be built adjacent to the park boundary, 

which would stand 24 feet high and extend 300 feet into Sitka Sound. Continuous vessel traffic 

occurs in the area, and cruise ships anchoring just off the park shore. Together they present a risk 

of oil spills and other discharges. Boat groundings are also a constant threat and several have 

occurred in the park in recent years. 

The park’s General Management Plan states that protection of the intertidal zone is one of the 

highest natural resource priorities. Desired future conditions in the plan state that “..intertidal 

habitats and resources are preserved, protected, and interpreted” and natural processes “..are 

allowed to continue unimpeded in the tidal zone.” Inventorying and monitoring the intertidal 

zone also helps the park achieve the Marine Water Quality GPRA goal (Ia4B). Intertidal 

monitoring protocols are being developed and tested by USGS (Irvine and Madison 2008) to 

give the park the tools to detect species distribution trends over time, information necessary to 

assure these resources remain healthy. If particular intertidal zones are determined to be at risk, 

GLBA could adopt similar intertidal monitoring methods. 

Specific Monitoring Objectives to be Addressed by the Protocol 

1. Determine the status and trends of intertidal species composition and distribution for the 

SITK intertidal zone. 

2. Determine trends in the occurrence and distribution of invasive/non-native intertidal 

invertebrates and macroalgae 

Basic Approach 

The goal of this vital sign is to develop probability-based sampling plan and protocols that would 

enable robust monitoring of the intertidal invertebrate biota of SITK. A probability-based design 

will allow the results of the discrete sampling to be extrapolated to the entire defined intertidal 

region of the park. Also, the particular sampling methods will be designed to target different 

elements of the intertidal biota, such as sessile plants (primarily marine algae) and invertebrates, 

small mobile invertebrates, and select large mobile invertebrates. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-17 

 

The sampling frame is defined as the intertidal region extending from the western side of the 

park to the Indian River and encompassing the area from the mean higher high water (MHHW) 

level to the 0 m (0 ft) tide level. The horizontal length of the beach at the MHHW level was 

measured in 1999 and was approximately 1 km; this line is termed the “horizontal segment line” 

and defines the uppermost border of the sampling frame. This length included extents of beach 

that were judged as not available for sampling due to the presence in the intertidal zone of large 

depressions (i.e., pools at low tide) that were the result of historic gravel excavations. These 

areas were excluded from the sampling frame. 

Fifteen permanent, vertical transects from the MHHW to the 0 tide level will be systematically 

selected across the one kilometer beach each year. Three types of sampling along each transect 

are used to accommodate different types of species. In brief: 

• Sessile species – point samples are taken every meter along each transect, and cover for 

each species is estimated by the total counted on the transect divided by the number of 

points sampled. 

• Large macroinvertebrates – total counts are taken for one-meter wide bands on both sides 

of each transect. The variable of interest is density of species (counts/ area sampled). 

• Small mobile species – quadrats (size varies by species) are taken systematically along 

transect and counts/area or density are monitored. Six or more quadrats will be sampled 

on each transect. 

The sampling units (i.e., transects) differ in length as the width of the intertidal zone varies 

across the beach. The number of point samples and the size of sampled area for band samples 

will be proportional to transect lengths. For quadrat sampling, equal numbers of samples will be 

taken regardless of transect length. Using density as the monitoring measure (transect count/total 

number of points or transect count/band area) will standardize units across transects, but will not 

correct for the fact that each transect contains a different amount of information. That is, longer 

transects provide more information than shorter transects. The selected analysis method will be 

adjusted for this difference. 

Principal Investigators and NPS Lead 

SITK: Geoffrey Smith, NPS Lead 

USGS:BRD: Dr. Gail Irvine 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-18 

Development Schedule, Budget, and Expected Interim Products 

It is anticipated that intertidal monitoring in SITK will be completed every two to three years.

The protocol is still being tested; final parameters and methods have not yet been determined. A 

power analysis on initial sampling data has allowed assessment of the protocol to detect trends 

for predominant species. Results indicate an 80% probability to detect +10% annual changes in 

abundance with an alpha of 0.05; the ability to detect -10% is not as uniformly satisfactory. 

 

Estimated costs: 

Item Cost 

Marine Ecologist (familiar with sampling 

method and knowledgeable of intertidal flora 

and fauna) 

$6,500 

Biotechnician $2,000 

Equipment $500 

Data Analysis $1,000 

Total (every 2-3 years) $10,000 

In-kind support from SIKT will include the participation of the park biologist and volunteers as 

part of the sampling teams, logistics support, and use of the park’s meter tapes, GPS unit, and 

other equipment. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-19 

Kittlitz’s Murrelets 

Justification/Issues Being Addressed 

The Kittlitz’s murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris), hereafter KIMU, is a small rare seabird 

(Family Alcidae) that ranges across coastal Alaska and parts of the northeast coast of Russia 

(Day et al. 1999). During the summer breeding season, KIMU forage on pelagic schooling fish 

or invertebrates near the outflows of tidewater glaciers or glacial streams (Day and Nigro 2000). 

Nesting behavior is also associated with glacial habitats, with the few nests ever found located in 

recently de-glaciated areas with sparse vegetation (Day 1996). Because of their strong 

association with glacial habitats, KIMU are closely linked to several national parks in Alaska. In 

fact, the National Park Service is a steward to the global population of KIMU: the best estimates 

indicate that over 20% of the world’s population reside seasonally or year-round within Glacier 

Bay and Wrangell-St. Elias National Parks alone (van Vliet 1993). KIMU are a species of 

management concern as a result of substantial declines across their range, including some areas 

where declines have exceeded 70% (USFWS 2006). In 2007, the USFWS upgraded KIMU to a 

Listing Priority 2 for listing under the Endangered Species Act due to widespread and dramatic 

declines across their range. The population in Glacier Bay National Park is estimated to have 

declined 80% since the early 1970’s. As KIMU are intricately linked to glacial habitats (both 

marine and terrestrial), their trends in abundance and productivity likely reflects the changes in 

marine productivity and glacial dynamics (both of which are proposed for monitoring under the 

Oceanography, Marine Predators, and Glacial Dynamics vital signs). 

Specific Monitoring Objectives to be Addressed by the Protocol 

1. Generate population abundance estimates that, at a minimum, achieve 90% power (at 

α=0.05) to detect a 50% change in population within the next 10 years. 

2. Determine annual and long-term trends in KIMU within Glacier Bay proper by generating 

population estimates every summer using at-sea surveys and a line transect methodology. 

3. Quantify annual variation in spatial distribution of KIMU occurrence within Glacier Bay 

proper. 

4. Adapt and implement the existing KIMU monitoring design developed in Icy Bay, WRST, 

(Kissling et al. 2007) for Glacier Bay proper to achieve the monitoring and sampling 

objectives identified above and to maximize inference scope. 

Basic Approach 

KIMU are highly patchily distributed within their habitats, and thus it is important to develop a 

survey protocol that captures this variability. Sampling will involve a series of at-sea surveys 

conducted on several occasions during the summer months. Multiple surveys throughout the 

summer will help identify the peak in numbers of KIMU for timing of future surveys and ensure 

that surveys capture temporal variability of KIMU within the park. Surveys will consist of two 

types of transects to capture the spatial variability in distribution: Shoreline transects will be 

placed within 200 m parallel to shore for individuals distributed ‘along shore’. Pelagic transects 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-20 

will be placed perpendicular to shore approximately 2 km apart, varied in length according to 

width of the bay or fjord, and ended at 200 m from shore (following Kissling et al. 2007). 

Surveys will be conducted during two one-week survey periods with transect direction and order 

changing among surveys; surveys will not occur if weather conditions are unacceptable (high 

winds or sea state/Beaufort scale > 2. Surveys will occur between 0700 and 2100 using a vessel 

at least 6 m boat in length moving at a speed of about 10 km/hr using two observers and one boat 

driver. For both shoreline and pelagic surveys, observers will record all Brachyramphus

murrelets within an unlimited distance on either side of the boat and 300 m ahead of the boat. 

For each observation, the following data will be recorded: group size, age category (see below), 

location (air or water), activity (e.g., flying, on water), and distance (m) to the group. Based on 

plumage characteristics, each murrelet will be categorized as definite AHY, probable AHY, 

unknown, probable HY, or definite HY (following Kuletz and Kendall 1998); it will also be 

noted if murrelets are holding fish in their bills. Depth (m), sea conditions (Beaufort scale), 

precipitation, ice cover (%), and swell height will be recorded every 30 minutes or as conditions 

changed. A voice-activated recording system that integrates geodata (from geographicpositioning system) will be used by recording observational data with location and time. 

 

The data from the initial surveys will then be compared with historical surveys conducted within 

Glacier Bay proper and from other surveys in Icy Bay, WRST (Kissling et al., 2007) and utilized 

in a power analysis to estimate sampling design power under different conditions of sampling 

(detectability, transect length, size of population change, etc.). 

Principal Investigators and NPS Lead 

NPS: Scott Gende and Brendan Moynahan 

USFWS: Michelle Kissling 

UAF: Mark Lindberg 

Development Schedule, Budget, and Expected Interim Products 

2008- NPS collaborate with UAF, USFWS, ADF&G, and CDFW to develop a survey protocol 

in GLBA using previous survey results conducted by USGS and ADF&G, and from 

surveys conducted in Icy Bay, WRST. 

2009 Surveys in GLBA for protocol development ($ provided by SEAN and USFWS); 

Analysis of pilot data, conduct power analysis, meet with partners to discuss survey 

design. 

2009- Peer review, finalize, and implement monitoring protocols ($ to be determined) 

2010 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-21 

Landform and Landcover Dynamics 

Justification/Issues Being Addressed 

Landscape structure is the base upon which physical and ecosystem processes function. The 

composition, quantity, patch configuration, and juxtaposition of terrestrial landscape components 

(landcover and landform types) control energy and material flow, inputs to marine systems, 

habitat availability, and wildlife movement patterns. Changes in landform and landcover types 

occur rapidly in SEAN parks in response to climate-mediated glacial retreat and primary 

succession, isostatic rebound, tectonic activity, wild-land fire, and insect outbreaks. 

Anthropogenic change adjacent to parklands (such as stream bank hardening, development, road 

construction, and timber production) also influence landscape dynamics, albeit at lower intensity 

and rates than parks in more developed parts of the country. 

 

Monitoring long-term changes in landforms and landcover types will help managers establish the 

‘big-picture’ view of the parks and the surrounding landscapes on which park resources and 

processes depend. The National Park System Advisory Board suggested “resource management 

should be addressed in a broader context” (NPS 1993). 

Selecting the appropriate temporal frequency, spatial extent, spatial resolution, and thematic 

detail is challenging without first prioritizing the landscape attributes of interest and 

understanding the rate and magnitude at which these landscape components change. In many 

cases the rate and scale of change of landscape components are poorly understood or 

unpredictable. Climate change is adding uncertainty to the dynamics of broad scale physical and 

ecologic processes. 

Cost issues are also important considering the need to monitor other vital signs through the 

SEAN I&M program. Development of a cost effective protocol will advance our knowledge on 

the rate at which landscape components are changing, and quantify changes in the abundance 

and juxtaposition of important landscape components and patterns. However, some landscape 

attributes are likely to be missed due to the timing, spatial resolution, or technical constraints of 

image interpretation or image coverage (e.g. cloud cover). 

Landform dynamics was ranked 5th among all of the potential vital signs evaluated by the SEAN. 

Key reasons for monitoring landscapes include: 

1. Parks are exceptionally dynamic: they experience rapid rates of glacial retreat, and 

isostatic rebound rates are the highest in the world, and rapid rates of succession occur on 

newly ice-free lands 

2. Proglacial lakes on newly exposed land represent potential geohazards 

3. Watercourse morphology evolves rapidly due to glacial outburst floods, highly variable 

sediment loads, isostatic rebound, tectonic activity, and changing climate 

4. The parks include tsunami-affected coast-line 

5. Shifts in the amount and juxtaposition of habitat types are driven by climate change, 

isostatic rebound, glacial retreat, and dynamic water courses 

6. Parks need early warning of large-scale community shifts and vegetative life-form 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-22 

changes to allow for responsive management 

Specific Monitoring Objectives to be Addressed by the Protocol 

1. Determine long-term status and decadal trends in the areal extent and configuration of 

key land-forms within, and on lands influencing, SEAN parks. 

2. Complete the extent mapping component of the Glacial Dynamics monitoring protocol. 

3. Determine status and long-term trends in the areal extent and configuration of plant 

community types at broad botanical levels within, and on lands influencing, SEAN parks. 

4. Determine status and long-term trends of selected key landscape metrics (e.g., proportion 

of area in different cover types, number and density of patches, mean patch size) of NPS 

lands within and on adjacent lands influencing SEAN parks. 

Basic Approach 

This protocol requires periodic mapping of the landscape components of interest. Ideally, 

monitoring landscape dynamics would use two basic approaches. The first approach would 

focus on a retrospective analysis to evaluate historic changes of landscape patterns and 

conditions. Although this is not an essential part of developing this protocol, it would inform the 

development of the protocol by refining and helping to prioritize the list of landscape 

components for future mapping efforts. The second step would focus on mapping current 

through future conditions by obtaining current satellite imagery, and classifying and mapping 

landscape components. Minimum resolution of imagery used would be comparable to IKONOS 

imagery (4 meter 4 band or better). Key landform types targeted for change detection include: 

a. Moraine deposits 

b. Glacier extent 

c. Firn-lines 

d. Terraces 

e. Fluvial deposits 

f. Proglacial lakes 

g. Alluvial deposits 

h. Accretion zones on river systems 

i. Shoreline features 

j. Erosion zones on river systems 

k. River channel migration 

l. Plant communities 

 

Available information concerning landscape change work already being conducted in Southeast 

Alaska would be gathered prior to initiating any new work. All historic interpretation would be 

conducted as funding became available. 

Every 10 years full mapping of landcover and landform types and analysis would be conducted 

for all network parks using high-resolution spacebourne imagery. Each decadal iteration will 

likely take two years to complete. Steps include: 1) image acquisition, 2) mapping/image 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-23 

processing, 3) accuracy assessment, 4) change analysis, and 5) reporting and publication of 

results. 

Protocol development will also consider whether to increase temporal resolution and decrease 

spatial resolution to detect change in a key set of landscape attributes that may change quickly, 

or to assess effects of unpredictable or catastrophic events (e.g., outburst floods) that occurred 

since the preceding mapping cycle. This approach would use LandSat, ASTER or other course 

resolution spacebourne imagery to map a subset of features during the mid-point of each decadal 

cycle. 

Seasonality of images would be determined to maximize the ability to differentiate between 

major plant community types and identify all key landform types. Remote sensing methods are 

also use to detect firn-line (an important glacial feature used to calculate mass-balance); 

however, more investigation is needed to see if the same imagery can be used effectively for 

landcover/landform mapping. Acquisition of cloud free imagery is difficult in Southeast Alaska. 

Commercial satellites will be tasked for multiple years until cloud free scenes of the area of 

interest are acquired during appropriate phonological condition. NPS staff in the Alaska 

Regional Office would be the most efficient at acquiring imagery for the I&M networks and 

could be responsible for submitting imagery requests and contracting. 

 

A description of the area of inference is not relevant to this vital sign, because monitoring is 

ultimately a census, not a probabilistic sample. The full boundary extent, plus a significant 

buffer, will by mapped for GLBA. For KLGO and SITK, the protocol will describe mapping the 

entire watersheds in which the parks occur. 

Principal Investigators and NPS Lead 

To be determined. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-24 

Development Schedule, Budget, and Expected Interim Products 

Development of protocol could be closely linked to development of regional or national protocol. 

Budget figures are rough estimates.

YEAR BUDGET TASKS/PRODUCTS PERSONNEL 

YEAR 1 $0 Protocol Development: 

Coordinate with other networks and the 

Regional and National programs to select 

methods. Craft a regional plan and schedule 

of imagery acquisition that leverages cyclic 

regional mapping funds to match with I&M 

network’s imagery needs. 

SEAN Lead & Coordinator, Regional 

Coordinator 

YEAR 2 $0 

$50,000 

Protocol Development: 

Hold scoping meeting to determine 

landscape attribute of interest. Work with 

National, regional and other Networks to 

develop SEAN draft protocols and plan to 

refine protocols. Acquire Imagery 

SEAN Lead, Coordinator, Regional 

Coordinator, AK Regional GIS Staff 

YEAR 3 $75,000 Protocol Development: 

Implement mapping program. Hire GS-9/11 

for 11 months or use the CESU to implement 

program and finalize draft protocols. 

Produce reference condition GIS dataset for 

future (or past to present) change detection 

analysis. 

Mapping specialist or CESU 

Agreement for mapping and protocol 

documentation, SEAN Lead & 

Coordinator, Regional Coordinator, 

AK Regional GIS/I&M Staff 

YEAR 4 $20,000 Protocol Development: 

Peer review and finalize and publish 

protocols. Finalize GIS and map products. 

Mapping specialist or CESU 

Agreement for mapping and protocol 

documentation, SEAN Lead & 

Coordinator, Regional Coordinator, 

AK Regional GIS/I&M Staff 

YEAR 7 $30,000 Optional Protocol Development: 

Acquire and interpret LandSat ASTER 

imagery 

Mapping specialist or CESU 

Agreement for mapping and protocol 

documentation, SEAN Lead & 

Coordinator, Regional Coordinator, 

AK Regional GIS/I&M Staff 

YEAR 11 $60,000 Protocol Implementation: 

Acquire Imagery 

YEAR 12 $85,000 Protocol Implementation: 

Implement mapping program. Hire GS-9/11 

for 12 months or use the CESU to implement 

program and finalize draft protocols. 

Produce time point 2 condition GIS dataset. 

Conduct change detection analysis and 

complete final report 

Mapping specialist or CESU 

Agreement for mapping and protocol 

documentation, SEAN Lead & 

Coordinator, Regional Coordinator, 

AK Regional GIS/I&M Staff 

YEAR 17 $30,000 Optional Protocol Development: 

Acquire and interpret LandSat ASTER 

imagery 

YEAR 21 $60,000 Protocol Implementation: 

Acquire Imagery 

YEAR 22 $85,000 Protocol Implementation: 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-25 

Marine Contaminants 

Justification/Issues Being Addressed 

It is believed that SEAN’s marine waters are of exceptional quality, and that park marine waters 

can serve as a pristine reference against which other NPS marine waters can be compared. 

Marine contaminants are clearly anthropogenic and are widely recognized as threats to pristine 

marine ecosystems. Monitoring marine contaminants serves 2 primary purposes: (1) tracking 

contaminant loads over time, in coordination with Airborne and Freshwater Contaminants), and 

(2) maintaining a biannually updated baseline assessment of contaminant levels, useful in the 

event of an acute impact (e.g., vessel spill).

Specific Monitoring Objectives to be Addressed by the Protocol 

Document and track marine contaminant levels through long-term sampling of blue mussels in 

GLBA and SITK and in conformance with methods in-place at the MusselWatch site at KLGO. 

Basic Approach 

The recommended approach consists monitoring of select contaminants through assays of blue 

mussels at selected sites in GLBA and SITK. In 2007, SEAN funded a baseline marine 

contaminants project (Tallmon 2007) sampled intertidal blue mussels (Mytilus trossulus) from 

several sites in GLBA (both within Glacier Bay and in outside waters) and at SITK and KLGO. 

Mussels provide an excellent time-integrating bio-proxy for a broad spectrum of marine water 

pollutants (persistent organic pollutants, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and metals). The 

protocol followed was similar to that of NOAA’s nationwide Mussel Watch Program 

(http://www8.nos.noaa.gov/cit/nsandt/download/mw_monitoring.aspx). A single representative 

site will be selected from the Glacier Bay locations, and a SITK site will be similarly selected. 

These sites will be monitored in alternate years (mid-summer), starting in 2009. Every attempt 

will be made to encourage NOAA to add these sites to its larger Mussel Watch Program. 

Principal Investigators and NPS Lead 

GLBA: Lewis Sharman 

SITK: Geof Smith 

Development Schedule, Budget, and Expected Interim Products 

YEAR TASK/PRODUCTS PERSONNEL SEAN BUDGET ($) 

Year 1 Acquire existing (NOAA) marine 

contaminants protocol, select sampling 

locations, purchase sampling supplies, and 

contract a laboratory for analyses. Develop 

data harvesting strategy. Collect bi-annual 

contaminants samples, and report results. 

GLBA/SEAN 

staff 

$500 for contaminant 

sampling supplies. $7,500 (3 

samples x 2,500) for 

contaminants sample 

analysis/shipping. 

Year 3 Repeat sampling every other year. GLBA/SEAN 

staff; USGS; 

SITK staff 

$500 for contaminant 

sampling supplies. $7,500 (3 

samples x 2,500) for 

contaminants sample 

analysis/shipping. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-26 

Marine Predators 

Justification/Issues Being Addressed 

Marine mammals and seabirds in GLBA are among the most emblematic and readily observable 

wildlife in the park. A large proportion of these species are also of particular management 

concern, due either to conservation status iconic or charismatic characteristics. Many visitors to 

GLBA both aspire and expect to observe a variety of seabirds, cetaceans, and pinnipeds. Top 

trophic-level predators (including marine mammals and seabirds) can serve as an index of 

ecosystem health because they assimilate and reflect the dynamics of populations at lower 

trophic-levels. 

Specific Monitoring Objective to be Addressed by the Protocol 

Determine long-term trends in the abundance and spatial distribution of marine birds and 

mammals within GLBA proper using grid-based sampling of at-sea surveys twice each summer 

stratified by along-shore (shoreline) and pelagic line transects that covers approximately 10% of 

the marine habitat. 

Basic Approach 

Two approaches can be taken for surveys of top marine predators. First, a monitoring program 

can focus on the dynamics of a single species, with a sampling design focused on maximizing 

precision in population estimates by accounting for spatial and temporal process error and 

minimizing observation error. Although single-species approaches tend to maximize precision 

and minimize time needed for trend detection, they do not, by definition, account for changes in 

the dynamics of other species. Too, because population trends of a single species probably will 

not reflect the dynamics of all components of an ecosystem, it is problematic to use of such 

trends to infer ecosystem state or condition. A second, alternative approach is to survey a 

number of upper trophic species simultaneously using systematic transects. This approach is not 

likely to generate high-precision population estimates for any single species with concomitant 

rapid trend detection. However, the marine predator community simultaneously results in trend 

estimates for large number of species or guilds, which, together, are more likely to reflect 

ecosystem dynamics. This approach would also generate data on species that may not currently 

be of management concern but might ultimately be of significance as management or 

understanding of ecosystem linkages evolves. 

Between 1999 and 2003 boat-based surveys for marine birds and mammals were conducted 

annually in and around Glacier Bay proper by USGS. These surveys were originally designed to 

inventory forage fish and associated predators such as seabirds and marine mammals, and to 

assess important areas of marine predator concentration in Glacier Bay. However, they also 

served as a means of surveying multiple species of marine birds and mammals for understanding 

long-term trends. These systematic surveys were conducted in June of each year covering nearly 

30% of total marine habitat, covering the entire shoreline and sampling the offshore with a finescale grid. A subset of June transects was surveyed in November of 1999 and repeated in March 

for four years (2000-2003). 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-27 

Recent analysis of this data by USGS (Drew et al. 2007) revealed that for most species transect 

lengths in the 4-8 km range are the best statistical compromise between low variance among a 

small number of sample units with more normally distributed properties (long transects) and high 

variability among a large number of sample units with binary properties (short transects). 

Transect lengths of 4-8km also reflect typical patch sizes for marine bird species present in 

GLBA. Not surprisingly, stratification (2 levels: nearshore and offshore) increases precision of 

estimates for many species. Also, simulations showed that sampling approximately 30% of the 

original survey area provided fairly consistent population estimates for most species, with the 

exception of highly aggregated species such as Surf Scoters (Melanitta perspicillata). For all 

species, coefficients of variation (CVs) increased rapidly as coverage decreased below 30% of 

the original effort, suggesting that reasonable power to detect change could occur with a 

reduction of survey effort by 70%. Monitoring cost would be reduced somewhat, though not 

nearly proportionate to the reduction in effort; samples would be collected over the same spatial 

area (Glacier Bay proper), and travel time would not change dramatically. Although this 

approach will provide trend data for a larger number of species, because marine bird and 

mammal surveys are inherently variable, if sampling continued at levels used in the 1999-2003 

baseline surveys, sufficient power to detect, a 50% decline in abundance would require 15-25 

years. Protocol development will focus first on identifying the species of greatest interest to 

GLBA, then designing the sampling effort to maximize power to detect changes in those species. 

Principal Investigators and NPS Lead 

NPS: Brendan Moynahan 

USGS: John Piatt 

USGS: Gary Drew 

Development Schedule, Budget, and Expected Interim Products 

2008-2012: NPS collaborates with USGS to develop and refine survey protocol and 

implement surveys. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-28 

Oceanography 

Justification/Issues Being Addressed 

GLBA is quintessentially a marine park. Along with weather, glaciers, and landform, 

oceanography drives the park’s ecosystems and entirely dominates the dynamics of many 

biological communities. A number of the SEAN Vital Signs applicable to GLBA (e.g., Marine 

Predators, Intertidal Invertebrate Communities, Kittlitz’s Murrelets) are themselves directly or 

indirectly influenced by oceanography. By monitoring marine water mass characteristics, 

managers can detect changes that are likely to influence the condition of resources of many types 

throughout the region. Oceanographic monitoring is important to understanding the Southeast 

Alaska marine system, the linkage between atmospheric and oceanic systems, and the 

implications of climate change in high-latitude systems. 

Standard oceanographic data are universally recognized among marine scientists as essential to 

understanding how ocean waters move and behave, and thereby drive the associated biology. 

Along with water column stability and nutrient availability, the availability of light drives 

primary productivity which then controls the dynamics of secondary productivity and indeed the 

entire marine trophic web. Ocean acidification (declining pH) is one result of global 

warming/climate change (increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration) that may have 

profound effects on marine ecosystems. 

An excellent long-term (15 y) dataset of oceanographic parameters has accumulated from a 

series of 2-7 cruises per year during which standard CTD (Conductivity, Temperature, Depth) 

casts have been made at 24 permanent stations in Glacier Bay and adjacent waters in Icy Strait. 

It is believed that GLBA’s marine waters are of exceptional quality, and that park marine waters 

can serve as a pristine reference against which other NPS marine waters can be compared. 

Specific Monitoring Objective to be Addressed by the Protocol 

Measure spatial and temporal oceanographic trends in water temperature, salinity, turbidity, pH, 

dissolved oxygen, light penetration, and primary productivity in marine waters of Glacier Bay 

proper. 

Basic Approach 

The recommended approach consists of two elements: (1) periodic measurement of standard 

oceanographic parameters in Glacier Bay proper, and (2) development and implementation of a 

system to harvest others’ oceanographic data from outside Glacier Bay proper. 

 

(1) Standard Oceanography 

With technical assistance from the USGS, GLBA has developed and implemented a detailed 

protocol describing CTD casts to measure water temperature, salinity, photosynthetically active 

radiation (PAR), optical backscatterance (OBS – turbidity), and chlorophyll-a fluorescence 

(proxy for phytoplankton concentration = primary productivity index) throughout the water 

column at 24 permanent stations (Hooge et al. 2003, Etherington et al. 2007). The stations 

extend from just outside the mouth of Glacier Bay proper (the Bay’s source waters in Icy Strait) 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-29 

up to the heads of both the East and West Arms. They are generally mid-channel and 

equidistant, sampling a range of depths from sills to deep basins across the Glacier Bay distancefrom-tidewater-glaciers/turbid-outwash-streams gradient. Stations are visited seasonally every 

year, generally during spring (Mar.-Apr.), summer (July), fall (Oct.), and winter (Dec.-Jan.). 

Initially the cruises were made using a large (50-ft.), relatively slow (10 kts.) vessel, but in recent 

years it has been discovered that the cruises can usually be accommodated by an adequatelyequipped smaller (30-ft.), faster (25 kts.) vessel, allowing the entire transect to be accomplished 

in two days during all but the winter season. In winter, poor weather and limited daylight often 

require a larger vessel and/or an additional day. This protocol, with the modifications/additions 

immediately below, will be adopted by the SEAN. 

Important revisions to this protocol include addition of dissolved oxygen and pH probes to the 

CTD instrument. Two stations (Geikie Inlet) should be removed from the current transect to 

reduce sampling time, to be replaced by 1-2 new stations (Icy Strait source water). 

(2) Data Harvest 

Collecting oceanographic data from outside Glacier Bay proper requires a large vessel and is 

cost-prohibitive for the SEAN. Nevertheless, these “outer waters” mix freely with adjacent park 

waters and are critically important to understanding the dynamics of the park’s marine 

ecosystem. Any data from Icy Strait, Cross Sound, or the Outer Coast (out to 100 km) will be 

harvested from other agencies/institutions (e.g., NOAA, University of Alaska, ADF&G) and 

analyzed/archived to become part of a long-term record used to elucidate trends. An example 

data source is the Alaska Ocean Observing System (AOOS). 

Principal Investigators and NPS Lead 

NPS: Lewis Sharman 

USGS: John Piatt, Alaska Science Center

Development Schedule, Budget, and Expected Interim Products 

YEAR TASK/PRODUCTS PERSONNEL SEAN BUDGET ($) 

Year 1 Refine existing GLBA oceanographic 

protocol to include added probes/parameters 

and stations. Purchase dissolved oxygen and 

pH sensors and add to CTD instrument 

package. GLBA provides vessel support and 

CTD. Develop SEAN oceanographic data 

archive. Continue annual sampling (4 

cruises/year). Develop data harvesting 

strategy. 

GLBA/SEAN 

staff; USGS 

$5,000 for DO and pH 

probes. 

$10,000 for quarterly 

sampling operation (annual 

cost) 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-30 

Weather and Climate 

Justification/Issues Being Addressed 

Climate – the average weather conditions over a long period of time – is widely recognized as 

one of the most fundamental drivers of ecological condition. Accordingly, SEAN identified 

weather and climate as an important Vital Sign. SEAN encompasses strong climate gradients 

driven by elevation and geography and driven by maritime influences. These climate gradients 

are intrinsic to the ecosystem patterns and vegetative and faunal communities found in network 

parks. In general, Alaska has a sparse dispersion of climate monitoring sites (Simpson et al. 

2002). Currently, the few permanent long-term climate monitoring sites in SEAN region are 

biased towards low elevation areas of human habitation bordering the parks, and there are large 

regions within SEAN parks (particularly GLBA, due to size and topography) with no climate 

monitoring stations at all. Strategic deployment of climate stations in the SEAN parks will 

provide data not heretofore available on the climate patterns in the parks. This dataset is a 

covariate of fundamental importance when analyzing observed changes in the freshwater, 

marine, and terrestrial plant and animal communities. In addition, the climate stations may 

provide real-time weather data, which would be of immediate use in park operations. Climate 

data from the SEAN will also contribute significantly to understanding of Alaska climate by 

filling in some of the big gaps in the existing multi-agency climate monitoring station network, 

and by contributing to accurate measurement of winter precipitation. 

Specific Monitoring Objective to be Addressed by the Protocol 

Determine variability and long-term trends in climate for all SEAN parks through monthly and 

annual summaries of descriptive statistics for selected weather parameters, including air 

temperature, precipitation, snow depth, and wind speed and direction. 

Basic Approach 

The SEAN Weather and Climate protocol will mirror the approved protocols produced by the 

Central Alaska and the Southwest Alaska Networks. The basic approach for meeting the 

objectives will be to (1) ensure that all existing long-term stations in and around the network 

continue to operate and produce high quality data; (2) add new climate stations in areas that are 

not currently represented, including year-round precipitation gauges; (3) ensure that the 

maintenance and calibration of the stations and sensors is a priority; (4) engage in partnerships 

with state and federal agencies involved in climate and weather monitoring in SEAN and also 

with university researchers interested in high latitude climate changes; (5) ensure that the data 

produced by the new SEAN stations is available for use by NPS staff, researchers, and the public 

via the internet, and (6) archive the digital data with the Western Regional Climate Center 

(WRCC). 

The Alaska Region climate monitoring issues are consistent statewide and benefit from shared 

resources and established partnerships. SEAN will use foundation documents drafted by the 

WRCC (Davey et al. 2007) to design and develop a strategy that will focus on high latitude 

climate issues and remote operations. A robust, integrated Alaska NPS climate monitoring 

program will be more valuable and efficient and serve to describe the climate of Alaska 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix C Page C-31 

holistically and provide a more complete understanding of the complexities of this system that 

affects Alaska National Parks.

The WRCC will archive and disseminate the data. The hourly data from the automated stations 

will be disseminated for public viewing and use (in near real-time) via the internet. WRCC 

maintains a dynamic website complete with data querying capacity. Data products available on 

the WRCC website are daily summary (with wind chill and heat index), monthly summary, time 

series graphs, wind rose graphs and tables, data lister, data inventory, and station metadata. We 

have entered into a MOU with WRCC through which they will develop web-based tools to 

develop reports and analysis that is specific each user’s needs, as well as a standard template for 

annual reporting. 

Principal Investigators and NPS Lead 

Principal Investigators and Park Leads: 

GLBA: Lewis Sharman 

KLGO: Dave Schirokauer 

SITK: Geoffrey Smith 

Collaborator:

Pam Sousanes, Denali National Park and Preserve 

Development Schedule, Budget, and Expected Interim Products 

In 2008, SEAN will begin identifying candidate weather station sites (3-5 candidate sites in 

GLBA and 2-4 sites in KLGO) and will select equipment for purchase in 2009. The NWS 

station at the Sitka airport will meet the weather monitoring needs for SITK. Also in 2008, 

SEAN will draft the monitoring protocol and establish a partnership with the WRCC to formalize 

the implementation and data reporting processes. Final site selection will occur in 2009 and 

stations will be deployed in 2010. 

 
This page intentionally left blank.
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix D Page D-1 

Appendix D 

Southeast Alaska Network 

Board of Directors Charter 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix D Page D-2 

I. Introduction 

This document establishes a Board of Directors for the Southeast Alaska Inventory and 

Monitoring Network. Its purpose is to outline the procedures by which the Board will 

implement and manage the long-term vital signs monitoring program and thereby fulfill one 

component of the Natural Resource Challenge. 

The Southeast Alaska Network consists of three units of the National Park Service, Glacier Bay 

National Park and Preserve, Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, and Sitka National 

Historical Park. A four-member Board of Directors will consist of the superintendent of each 

park, and the Alaska Regional Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Coordinator. The Southeast 

Alaska Network I&M Coordinator and the Alaska Regional Science Advisor will serve as nonvoting members of the Board. 

II. Responsibilities of the Board of Directors 

The Board of Directors (The Board) shall oversee the development and implementation of a 

comprehensive long-term monitoring program for the Southeast Alaska Network. It shall be 

responsible for directing the inventory and monitoring program of the network and for decisions 

concerning planning, budgets, personnel, schedules, reporting, and program accountability. The 

Board shall insure that the monitoring program is built upon a collaborative vision for the 

network and considers the mandates, needs, interests, and goals of all park units. 

The Board shall work to maintain the integrity of Vital Signs Monitoring funds and staff and 

assure that monitoring resources are not diverted or reassigned to other programs. Additionally, 

The Board shall ensure that park staff selected to participate in the Southeast Alaska Network are 

fully committed to vital signs monitoring and establish personnel appraisal systems that reward 

Network cooperation. Ultimately, The Board shall respond to what we have learned through 

long-term monitoring and instigate new management actions or modify existing management 

actions where necessary to protect or restore park ecosystems. 

III. Procedures 

Board Meetings: Any member can call meetings of the Board, but there will be at least one 

formal meeting annually. Meetings may be held in person or by teleconference. The Board may 

also choose to decide matters by electronic mail with the consent of all voting members. At the 

first meeting, the Board shall elect a Chair who shall be responsible for calling and conducting 

future meetings. The Southeast Alaska Network I&M Coordinator shall serve as staff to the 

Chair to arrange meetings and logistics, produce agendas, record and distribute the minutes of 

board meetings, and coordinate efforts between the Board and the Technical Committee. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix D Page D-3 

Alternates and Quorums: If either park superintendent cannot attend or otherwise participate in 

a meeting of the board, they may assign an alternate. The attendance of both superintendents or 

their alternates shall be required to constitute a quorum. 

Decision Making: Actions of the Board will require the unanimous consent of the voting 

members. If the Board cannot reach a consensus decision, the matter will be referred to the 

Regional Director. All decisions will be documented with responsible individuals and deadlines 

identified, as appropriate. 

Technical Advisory Committee: The Board shall create a Technical Advisory Committee to 

provide technical assistance and advice to the Board. The Technical Advisory Committee is a 

linkage between scientists and managers, between NPS and other natural resources agencies, and 

is crucial to establishing a shared vision of desired ecosystem conditions, for specifying how the 

vision can be achieved, and for monitoring and measuring progress toward goals. The Technical 

Advisory Committee is comprised of natural resource managers and scientists (including 

scientists from outside of the NPS who work in the parks and are familiar with park issues) and 

chaired by the Southeast Alaska Network I&M Coordinator. The Committee is a working group, 

decision-making, and technical oversight body. The Alaska I&M Coordinator, Southeast Alaska 

Network Coordinator, the Chief of Resources from Glacier Bay, the Natural Resources 

Specialists from Klondike Gold Rush and Sitka are the core decision-making body. Park and 

Alaska Support Office (AKSO) scientists named to the committee will contribute technical 

support and attend meetings as needed. The Board, with guidance from the Southeast Alaska 

Network Coordinator, will ensure that membership of the technical committee is reflective of the 

resource issues, management challenges, and ecological breadth encompassed by the Southeast 

Alaska Network. 

Specific tasks of the Technical Advisory Committee will include: 

1. Compile and summarize existing information about park resources, 

2. Plan and conduct a scoping workshop to develop a strategic monitoring plan, 

3. Develop a strategic monitoring plan, 

4. Evaluate proposals, sampling designs, methods and protocols, 

5. Provide guidance and resources needed to sustain on-the-ground inventory and 

monitoring efforts, 

6. Assist the Southeast Alaska Network I&M Coordinator in the preparation of the Annual 

Work Plan and Annual Report, 

7. Assist the Southeast Alaska Network I&M Coordinator in planning and conducting a 

Five Year Program Review. 

The products and recommendations of the Technical Advisory Committee will be presented to 

the Board for discussion and approval or modification. Sustained collaboration, interaction, and 

commitment among members of the Technical Advisory Committee are essential for the 

Network to achieve the goals of long-term vital signs monitoring. To facilitate this process, The 

Board delegates the Network I&M Coordinator with the responsibility for establishing protocols 

for the operation and performance of the Technical Advisory Committee. This responsibility 

will include setting standards for: 1) communication among Committee members; 2) procedures 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix D Page D-4 

for reviewing and commenting on plans and reports; 3) establishment of timelines; and 4) 

making final determinations on the selection of sampling designs, monitoring strategies, and 

implementation schedules. 

Monitoring Plan: The Network Coordinator and the Technical Advisory Committee shall 

prepare a strategic monitoring plan for the network that identifies vital signs to be monitored, 

justification for why these were selected, sampling protocols, staffing needs, and data 

management strategy. This plan shall be developed in accordance with WASO guidelines as to 

content and timeline for delivery of interim and final products.

Annual Work Plan: Working with appropriate subgroups and others, the Southeast Alaska 

Network I&M Coordinator will present a proposed Draft Annual Work Plan to the Board for 

discussion, modification and approval in time to meet the due dates outlined below. The Annual 

Work Plan will identify specific accomplishments and products, responsible individuals and 

deadlines, an I&M program budget to which park or office funds are assigned, and additional 

and potential funding sources (both NPS and others). The Draft Annual Work Plan will follow 

WASO specifications for such work plans, and will be submitted to WASO, through the 

Regional Director, by November 8th each year. A Final Annual Work Plan will be submitted to 

WASO by January 31 each year. 

Annual Report: Working with appropriate subgroups and others, the Southeast Alaska Network 

I&M Coordinator will present a proposed Annual Report to the Board for discussion, 

modification and approval. The Annual Report will detail specific accomplishments and 

products, lessons learned, coordination with others and a budget summary and will follow 

WASO specifications for such reports. A detailed accounting of all I&M program funds 

assigned to each park and office will be appended to the Annual Report. This Annual Report 

will be widely distributed and posted at appropriate websites on the Internet. The Annual Report 

will be submitted to WASO, through the Regional Director, by November 8th each year. 

Five Year Program Review: Beginning at the end of fiscal year 2009 and every five years 

thereafter, the Network will undertake a comprehensive program review to be conducted by 

national and regional NPS specialists, as well as qualified independent specialists from other 

agencies and organizations. The purpose of this review will be to evaluate accomplishments and 

products, protocols used for gathering data, data management, fiscal management, and staffing. 

The Program Review shall provide the principal basis for any significant changes in program 

direction, as well as reassignment of resources to any park or office. 

IV. Amendments 

The Board may amend this Charter at any time by unanimous vote. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix D Page D-5 

Amendment 1 (October 2005) 

This amendment designates a Point of Contact (POC) for the Southeast Alaska Network (SEAN) 

NPSpecies database as follows: 

I. Justification 

The National Park Species database (NPSpecies) is one of a suite of Service-wide databases 

developed by the Inventory and Monitoring Program (I&M). NPSpecies is designed to 

document the occurrence of vertebrate, vascular plant and other species in national park units, 

and to substantiate these occurrence records by scientifically credible, high-quality references, 

vouchers, and observations. The master version of NPSpecies is a password-protected, webbased system which is accompanied by a PC-based version that can be run from an individual 

computer using Microsoft Access. 

The National Park Service-wide I&M Program has requested that parks designate Points of 

Contact (POC) for managing NPSpecies data for each park. This amendment designates the 

SEAN Data Manager as the POC for all three park units within Southeast Alaska Network. In 

July 2004 the SEAN Data Technician, under the guidance of the Data Manager, began to 

populate the NPSpecies and verify information. By the end of FY 2005 it is anticipated that a 

first iteration of vascular plant and vertebrate species lists will be completed and can be reviewed 

and certified. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix D Page D-6 

II. SEAN NPSpecies Point of Contact Roles 

The SEAN POC will: 

1. Manage web-based NPSpecies access. The POC will acquire login and password codes for 

all network park staff needing access to NPSpecies; 

 

2. Advise park staff on NPSpecies use. The POC will assist with questions users may have on 

how to query or manipulate NPSpecies data; 

3. Oversee conversion of legacy data sets into formats compatible with NPSpecies. The POC 

will work with park staff to add any appropriate information to NPSpecies; 

4. Ensure any new NPSpecies-related data collected from I&M or park projects are 

incorporated into NPSpecies. The POC will work with I&M cooperators, WASO staff, and 

park resource management staff to ensure that NPSpecies is updated to reflect new data; 

5. Ensure that sensitive data identified by park/network scientists are designated as such, and 

that access to these data are restricted to the appropriate level. The POC will ensure that 

these sensitive records are appropriately coded in NPSpecies and distribution limited 

appropriately; 

6. Make species lists available for review by appropriate individuals. The completeness and 

accuracy of species-list data in NPSpecies will be assessed by qualified reviewers as needed; 

7. Work with the network parks to ensure that new species vouchers destined for entry into 

Automated National Catalogue System (ANCS+) are also entered into NPSpecies; and 

8. Ensure that current species nomenclature is used for park species lists and is compatible 

among network parks. 

III. NPSpecies Point of Contact Designation 

By this amendment the SEAN I&M Program Data Manager is designated as the NPSpecies POC 

on NPSpecies issues and management for each of the three park units within SEAN. As POC 

for each park the SEAN Data Manager will fill the roles listed under Section II of this agreement. 

A centralized effort at the network level helps ensure high quality control standards and relieves 

park resource management staff from many of the ongoing tasks related to NPSpecies database 

management. The SEAN Data Manager will serve in the POC role for each park until such time 

that park species list development and certification is complete. At this juncture individual parks 

will have the choice of taking over the role of POC or continuing with designation of the SEAN 

Data Manager as the park POC. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix D Page D-7 
This page intentionally left blank.
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix E Page E-1 

Appendix E 

Justification, Policies, and Legislative Authorities 

for Long-Term Monitoring 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix E Page E-2 

Justification for Integrated Long-Term Monitoring 

Knowing the condition of natural resources in national parks is essential to the NPS’s mission to 

manage park resources “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” Park managers 

entrusted with stewardship of our public lands have long known that decision-making related to 

protecting ecosystems is complex. They need relevant, up-to-date information to understand how 

the condition of park resources is changing over time in response to natural processes and human 

activities. At the most basic level, we cannot evaluate appropriate ecosystem function, assess 

impairment, or develop an appropriate management responses when the bounds of natural 

variability are not known, because we cannot identify when conditions are outside an expected 

range of variation. Similarly, without the fundamental perspective, reliable identification of 

resource trends is difficult. 

In 1992, the National Research Council (1992) reviewed the natural resource management 

program of the NPS and concluded that “if the National Park Service is to meet the scientific and 

resource management challenges of the twenty-first century, a fundamental metamorphosis must 

occur within its core.” That metamorphosis materialized when the NPS implemented a strategy 

to standardize inventories and monitoring of natural resources on a programmatic basis 

throughout the agency. The effort was undertaken to ensure that the approximately 270 park 

units with significant natural resources possess the resource information needed for effective, 

science-based, managerial decision-making and resource protection. The national strategy 

consists of a framework comprising three major components: 

1. Completion of basic natural resource inventories in support of future monitoring efforts; 

2. Creation of experimental Prototype Monitoring Programs to evaluate alternative 

monitoring designs and strategies; and 

3. Implementation of operational vital signs monitoring in all natural resource parks. 

A fundamental goal of the NPS is to protect or maintain natural ecosystem structure and function 

in national parklands. Alaska national park units are among the last remaining wilderness areas 

in the world—large enough to support naturally occurring ecological and evolutionary processes. 

These parks have been viewed as ecological reference sites that provide us with unique insights 

into the functioning of ecosystems, in which the effects of humans are minimized (Arcese and 

Sinclair 1997). 

National park managers across the country confront increasingly complex and challenging 

issues, and are asked to provide scientifically credible data to defend management actions. 

Protecting and managing parks’ natural resources requires a coordinated, ecosystem-level 

approach because most parks are open systems, with threats such as air and waterborne 

contaminants or invasive species originating outside of park boundaries. Furthermore, no single 

spatial or temporal scale is appropriate for all system components and processes (Levin 1992); 

the appropriate scale for understanding and effectively managing a particular resource will likely 

vary with the subject resource, and in some cases may require a regional, national, or 

international effort to understand and effectively manage. National parks themselves are part of 

larger ecosystems and must be managed in that context. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix E Page E-3 

Natural resource monitoring provides site-specific information necessary to understand and 

identify changes in complex, variable, and imperfectly understood natural systems. This assists 

scientists and managers in determining whether observed changes are within natural ranges of 

variability or may be indicators of unwanted human influences. Thus, monitoring provides a 

basis for understanding and identifying meaningful change in natural systems characterized by 

complexity, variability, and surprises. Monitoring data help to define the normal limits of 

natural variation in park resources and provide a basis for understanding observed changes. 

Monitoring results may also be used to detect trends that may lead to impairment and to identify 

the need to initiate or change management practices. Understanding the dynamic nature of park 

ecosystems and the consequences of human activities is essential for management decisionmaking to maintain, enhance, or restore the ecological integrity of park ecosystems and to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate ecological threats to these systems (Roman and Barrett 1999). 

The intent of the NPS monitoring program is to track a subset of park resources and processes, 

known as “vital signs.” Vital signs are determined to be the most significant indicators of the 

ecological condition of a specific resource that is important to each park. This subset of resources 

and processes is part of the total suite of natural resources that park managers are directed to 

preserve “unimpaired for future generations,” and the various ecological, biological, and physical 

processes that act on these resources. In situations where natural areas have been so highly 

altered that physical and biological processes no longer operate (e.g., control of fires and floods 

in developed areas), information obtained through monitoring can help managers understand 

how to develop the most effective approach to restoration or, in cases where restoration is 

impossible, ecologically sound management. The broad-based, scientifically sound information 

obtained through natural resource monitoring will have multiple applications for management 

decision-making, research, education, and promoting public understanding of park resources. 

Role of Inventory, Monitoring, and Research in Resource Management 

Monitoring is a central component of natural resource stewardship in the National Park Service 

and, in conjunction with natural resource inventories and research, provides the information 

needed for effective, science-based managerial decision-making and resource protection (Figure 

1.2). The network approach facilitates collaboration, information sharing, and economies of 

scale in natural resource monitoring and provides parks with a minimum infrastructure for 

natural resource monitoring that can be built upon in the future. 

The most widely identified application of monitoring is that of enabling managers to make better 

informed management decisions (White and Bratton 1980, Croze 1982, Jones 1986, Davis 1989, 

Quinn and van Riper 1990). For example, monitoring rates of coastal shoreline erosion and 

accretion can help park managers assess risks to archeological sites or aid in decisions regarding 

the placement of backcountry cabins or other structures. 

Monitoring provides a tool to address issues that occur at multiple sites in a park or multiple 

parks within a network, rather than addressing site-specific problems individually. From such a 

holistic view, managers can develop general principles and guidelines that can be applied 

broadly to a particular type of issue. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix E Page E-4 

In large wilderness park units, an important application of monitoring information is simply to 

gain insight into how complex park ecosystems function (Croze 1982). By gathering data over 

long periods, correlations between different attributes (such as predator and prey populations) 

become apparent, and resource managers gain a better general understanding of the ecosystem. 

In turn, this knowledge may support the development of desired conditions and management 

actions when resource conditions fall outside of a desirable state. 

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.. Relationships between monitoring, 

inventories, research, and natural resource management activities in national parks (from 

McCluskie and Oakley 2005). 

Similarly, some authors suggest that it is important to document changes for the sake of 

familiarity with the resources (Halvorson 1984, Croze 1982). The responsibility of resource 

managers includes an awareness of changes in resources under their stewardship, even if no 

specific management decisions or actions are involved. For example, a park may want to 

monitor succession in areas where glaciers are retreating even if resource managers do not 

contemplate active management of the vegetation. Understanding of such natural processes 

better allows managers to detect changes that may be anthropogenic and appropriate for direct 

management decision or action. 

Another use of monitoring information involves convincing others to make decisions benefiting 

national parks (Johnson and Bratton 1978, Croze 1982). Some aspects of monitoring may focus 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix E Page E-5 

on documenting specific internal or external threats. For example, parks and neighboring coastal 

landowners may monitor concentrations of hydrocarbons in marine benthic invertebrates to 

document the effects of offshore oil and gas activities on nearshore intertidal communities. In 

that case, the information may convince local governments, Native corporations, industries, or 

even courts of law to make or enact regulations benefiting national parks. 

Monitoring sensitive species, wilderness-dependent species, or entire communities in relatively 

undisturbed wilderness park units can provide park managers, stakeholders, and the public with a 

kind of “canary in the mine”—an early warning of the effects of human activities before they 

become noticeable in more impacted areas (Davis 1989, Wiersma 1984). For example, locations 

initially free from local sources of pollution may show a more pronounced response to the effects 

of long-range transport and deposition of airborne contaminants than adjacent developed areas. 

Early detection may allow managers to take successful remedial action that would be difficult or 

impossible later on. 

Finally, a monitoring program can provide basic background information that is needed by park 

researchers, public information officers, interpreters, and those wanting to know more about the 

area around them (Johnson and Bratton 1978). Data such as basic weather and climate 

information, plant phenology, and records of major disturbances (such as volcanic eruptions and 

landslides) are useful on a periodic basis to those working in or visiting the parks. 

NPS Policies and Mandates that Link Monitoring and Management of Parks 

The enabling legislation establishing the NPS and its individual park units clearly mandates, as 

the primary objective, the protection, preservation, and conservation of park resources in 

perpetuity for the use and enjoyment of future generations (NPS 1980). NPS policy and 

pertinent legislation (National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998) require that park 

managers know the condition of natural resources under their stewardship and monitor long-term 

trends in those resources to fulfill the NPS mission of preserving parks unimpaired (Figure 1.1; 

see Summary of Laws, Policies, and Guidance). The laws and management policies that follow 

provide the mandate for inventories and monitoring in national parks. 

 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix E Page E-6 

Figure 2. Relationship between park mandates, resource protection, and long-term monitoring. 

The mission of the NPS (NPS Organic Act, 1916) is:

“...to promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, 

and reservations hereinafter specified by such means and measures as conform to the 

fundamental purposes of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to 

conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide 

for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired 

for the enjoyment of future generations.” 

Congress strengthened the NPS’s protective function and provided language important to recent 

decisions about resource impairment when it amended the Organic Act in 1978 to state that “the 

protection, management, and administration of these areas shall be conducted in light of the 

high public value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not be exercised in 

derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established....” 

More recently, the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 established the framework 

for fully integrating natural resource monitoring and other science activities into the management 

processes of the National Park System. The act charges the Secretary of the Interior to 

“continually improve the ability of the National Park Service to provide state-of-the-art 

management, protection, and interpretation of and research on the resources of the National 

Park System,” and to “assure the full and proper utilization of the results of scientific studies for 

park management decisions.” Section 5934 of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to 

develop a program of “inventory and monitoring of National Park System resources to establish 

baseline information and to provide information on the long-term trends in the condition of 

National Park System resources.” 

Congress reinforced the message of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 in its 

text of the FY 2000 Appropriation Bill: 

“The Committee applauds the Service for recognizing that the preservation of the diverse 

natural elements and the great scenic beauty of America’s national parks and other units should 

be as high a priority in the Service as providing visitor services. A major part of protecting 

those resources is knowing what they are, where they are, how they interact with their 

environment and what condition they are in. This involves a serious commitment from the 

leadership of the National Park Service to insist that the superintendents carry out a systematic, 

consistent, professional inventory and monitoring program, along with other scientific activities, 

that is regularly updated to ensure that the Service makes sound resource decisions based on 

sound scientific data.” 

The 2006 NPS Management Policies updated previous policy and specifically directed the 

Service to inventory and monitor natural systems: 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix E Page E-7 

“Natural systems in the national park system, and the human influences upon them, will be 

monitored to detect change. The Service will evaluate possible causes and effects of changes 

that might cause impacts on park resources and values. The Service will use the results of 

monitoring and research to understand the detected change and to develop appropriate 

management actions.” 

Further, “The Service will: 

• Identify, acquire, and interpret needed inventory, monitoring, and research, including 

applicable traditional knowledge, to obtain information and data that will help park managers 

accomplish park management objectives provided for in law and planning documents; 

• define, assemble, and synthesize comprehensive baseline inventory data describing the natural 

resources under NPS stewardship, and identify the processes that influence those resources; 

• Use qualitative and quantitative techniques to monitor key aspects of resources and processes 

at regular intervals; 

• Analyze the resulting information to detect or predict changes ( including interrelationships 

with visitor carrying capacities) that may require management intervention and to provide 

reference points for comparison with other environments and time frames; and 

• Use the resulting information to maintain--and, where necessary restore-- the integrity of 

natural systems (2006 NPS Management Policies). 

Additional statutes that provide legal direction for expending funds to determine the condition of 

natural resources in parks, and that specifically guide the natural resource management of 

Network parks include the following: 

• Taylor Grazing Act 1934; 

• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Acts, 1958 and 1980; 

• Marine Mammal Protection Act 1972; 

• Wilderness Act 1964; 

• National Historic Preservation Act 1966; 

• National Environmental Policy Act 1969 

• Clean Water Act 1972, amended 1977, 1987; 

• Endangered Species Act 1973, amended 1982; 

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act 1974; 

• Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Acts, 1974 and 1976; 

• Mining in the Parks Act 1976; 

• American Indian Religious Freedom Act 1978; 

• Archaeological Resources Protection Act 1979; 

• Federal Cave Resources Protection Act 1988; 

• Clean Air Act, amended 1990; and 

• Wild and Scenic River Act 1990. 
This page intentionally left blank.
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix F Page F-1 

Appendix F 

The Conceptual Foundations for Monitoring 

In the Southeast Alaska Network 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix F Page F-2 

Conceptual Foundation for Monitoring 

The SEAN embodies a vast, diverse, and dynamic landscape that changes through space and 

time in response to inputs of energy and materials, natural events, and the influence of humans. 

Monitoring at such large geographic scales requires a framework for understanding relationships 

between components and processes of interacting ecosystems and the human activities that affect 

them. For example, to understand how park ecosystems respond to adverse effects arising from 

human activities we need to be able to distinguish between changes that fall within and outside 

the range of natural variability for a reference time period. This requires scientifically sound 

information on ecosystem status and trends acquired through long-term monitoring. Short-term 

monitoring provides an incomplete picture because annual fluctuations may reflect variables that 

cycle through decades such as precipitation patterns, temperature regimes, or predator and prey 

populations. This is particularly true in subarctic regions, such as in Southeast Alaska, where 

biological processes are relatively slow. In consideration of this, our conceptual foundation 

provides a guide for monitoring and research. 

Landscape-Based Monitoring: Why is it Important to Have a Landscape 

Perspective? 

Theories developed to support studies of ecosystems are different from those that form a basis 

for studies of the ecology of landscapes (Sanderson and Harris 2003). A key difference is that 

time and space are rarely independent variables in ecosystem studies, even in watersheds. The 

SEAN landscape is a heterogeneous land area composed of interacting ecosystems that differ 

structurally in the distribution of species, communities, energy, and materials. This perspective is 

important for park managers in that the organisms that can exist (including their movement 

patterns, interactions, and influence on ecosystem processes) are constrained by the sizes, shapes, 

and patterns of interspersion of habitat across the landscape. 

Landscape ecology is a science that explores how a heterogeneous combination of ecosystem 

attributes is structured, functions, and changes. Four principles of landscape ecology have 

particular importance for long-term monitoring in large Alaska national parks. These landscape 

principles deal with time, place, disturbance, and species. We discuss each principle below.

Time Principle 

Ecological processes function at many timescales, some long and some short; and ecosystems 

change through time. The time principle has several important implications for monitoring. 

First, the current composition, structure, and function of park ecosystems are, in part, a 

consequence of previous events or conditions that occurred decades to centuries to millennia 

earlier. Second, the full ecological effects of human activities often remain unseen for many 

years because of the time it takes for a given action to propagate through components of the 

system. Finally, the imprint of natural disturbance or a land use may persist on the landscape, 

constraining processes or species occurrence and abundance for decades or centuries (Dale et al. 

2000). 

We need to understand how the temporal dynamics of landscape change in parks affect 

ecological structure and process. Short-term ecological events that we observe every day often 

have their origins in transient, rare, slow, or subtle processes. Similarly, ecosystem response to 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix F Page F-3 

natural and human-induced events may be cyclical, directional, episodic, or catastrophic. It is 

extremely difficult for humans to sense changes occurring over decades. Magnuson (1990) 

coined the term “the invisible present” to refer to the loss of information and tendency for 

misinterpretation when we fail to observe the present in appropriate timescales. 

In the invisible present one finds timescales of the invasion of non-native plants and animals; 

bioaccumulation of toxins such as mercury; shifts in metapopulation dynamics of large 

mammals; and carbon dioxide-induced global climate change. These and other events move too 

slowly to be appreciated in real time, yet their accumulation results in real change over decades. 

In the past, natural resource research and management in Alaska parks has been characterized by 

short-term (1 to 3 year) projects, and in most cases, frequent staff turnover. Short-term projects 

or breaches in continuity associated with park staff turnover confound interpretation of annual 

fluctuations in populations that may reflect such variables as precipitation patterns, temperature 

regimes, predator populations, or natural cycles. 

Place Principle 

Local climatic, hydrologic, edaphic, and geomorphologic factors as well as biotic interactions 

strongly affect ecological processes and the abundance and distribution of plants and animals at 

any one place. Local environmental conditions reflect location along gradients of elevation, 

temperature, salinity, longitude and latitude, and the multitude of mesoscale physical, chemical, 

and edaphic factors that vary within these gradients. 

Ecological systems are characterized by multiple drivers acting at multiple scales, complex 

patterns of spatial variability, and unidentified thresholds. Because ecological processes and 

responses depend on the spatial context of an observation as well as on its temporal context, the 

analogy of an “invisible place,” as with the invisible present, may be appropriate. 

Park resource studies often are conducted at small spatial scales due to logistical constraints and 

costs, and often in response to management issues that are perceived to be localized. In field 

surveys, park biologists often make observations at different sites with the aim of relating 

biological response variables (i.e., the abundance of a species or the structure of an ecological 

community) to environmental variables. However, the ability to take a Network-wide view is 

important because when the same system is observed at several spatial scales, completely 

different characteristics in the distribution of organisms can be revealed (Turner et al. 1989). 

Reciprocal relationships often exist among landscape structure and composition and ecological 

processes (Dale et al. 2000). To understand the relation between pattern and process requires that 

we move beyond simple descriptions at local scales to a broader assessment at multiple spatial 

scales. For example, monitoring programs that target a few parameters or a single entity, such as 

brown bear distribution or glacial extent, have limited value for understanding ecological 

processes, modeling, forecasting change, and developing scenarios to protect park resources. By 

monitoring a range of physical, chemical, and biological variables through time, it is possible to 

gain an understanding of how ecosystems function and respond to change. Additionally, 

coupling monitoring with research and modeling makes it possible to predict what might happen 

in the future and, where possible, devise appropriate management response strategies. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix F Page F-4 

Disturbance Principle 

It is imperative that we understand, and in some cases quantify, the drivers of change in 

ecological systems. These drivers include both ongoing natural processes, such as weather and 

interannual climatic variability, and random disturbances. Understanding the importance of the 

influence and magnitude of different drivers of change, the collective influence of multiple 

stresses, the ecological consequences of the changes, and the feedbacks between ecosystems and 

their physical environments (e.g., composition of the atmosphere or ocean, land use, water 

quality, sediment flux) is critical to the development of strategies for monitoring. 

A disturbance is an event that disrupts ecological systems, changes landscape patterns, and can 

impose both temporal and spatial heterogeneity on ecological systems. Disturbance events are 

usually episodic, such as avalanches or wildfires, or stochastic (random), such as earthquakes. 

Episodic disturbances are part of the natural variability of a system, whereas stochastic 

disturbances change the trajectory of a system and may promote changes outside of a reference 

range of natural variability. 

Disturbance has many important effects on communities and ecosystems, including enhancing or 

limiting biological diversity, initiating succession, and creating landscape patterns that influence 

many ecological factors, from movements and densities of organisms to functional attributes of 

ecosystems (Forman 1995). 

Major natural disturbances, such as earthquakes or floods, can have sudden and widespread 

effects on Network parks. The concept of geoindicators describes common earth processes that, 

in less than a century, are liable to change in magnitude, direction, or rate, enough to affect 

ecosystem condition and landscape structure (Berger and Iams 1996). In addition, humaninduced disturbances, such as oil spills, have similar potential to exert sudden, widespread, and 

long-lasting change. 

Species Principle 

Species respond to change, signal change, or directly affect ecological systems and landscapes in 

diverse ways. Indicator species (such as harbor seals, Phoca vitulina) are important because their 

condition indicates the status of a larger functional group of species, reflective of the status of 

key habitats, or symptomatic of the action of a stressor. Keystone species (such as sea otters, 

Enhydra lutris) have greater effects on ecological processes than would be predicted from their 

abundance or biomass alone (Power et al. 1996). Ecological engineers (such as beavers, Castor 

canadensis) alter the habitat and, in doing so, modify the fates and opportunities of other species 

(Naiman and Rogers 1997). Umbrella species (such as brown bears) either have large area 

requirements or use multiple habitats and thus overlap the habitat requirements of many other 

species. Link species (such as sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka) exert critical roles in the 

transfer of matter and energy across trophic levels or provide critical links for energy transfer 

within complex food webs. Trophic cascades occur when changes in the abundance of a focal 

species or guild of organisms at one trophic level propagate across other trophic levels, resulting 

in dramatic changes in biological diversity, community composition, or total productivity. 

Changes in the abundance and distribution of focal species are diverse and can affect ecosystems 

through such processes as competition, mutualism, dispersal, pollination, and disease and by 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix F Page F-5 

modifying habitats and abiotic factors. For example, brown bears are an important vector for 

transferring marine nutrients to riparian forests, through dissemination of partially eaten salmon 

carcasses and salmon-enriched wastes (Ben-David et al. 1998, Hilderbrand et al. 1999a). To the 

extent that this process affects productivity and species composition in riparian forests, 

interactions of salmon and bears may be characterized as keystone interactions controlling the 

long-term structure and dynamics of riparian communities (Helfield and Naiman 2002). 

Because effects of keystones are diverse and involve multiple steps, they are often unexpected 

despite their fundamental importance to biological diversity and ecosystem dynamics (Paine 

1995, Power et al. 1996). The depletion or removal of a keystone species can radically change 

the diversity and trophic dynamics of a system. Changes in land use that affect keystone species 

may spread well beyond the boundaries of a land-use unit. Because the SEAN parks adjoin 

international, state, National Forest, Native American, and private lands, developments or 

management actions taken outside parks may create habitats unfavorable to some species and 

favorable to others, create barriers to movement or dispersal, introduce new predators or 

competitors, or change existing trophic relationships. 

A non-native species can assume a focal species role and cause numerous effects on an 

ecosystem. Nonnative species have altered community composition and ecosystem processes via 

their roles as predators, herbivores, competitors, pathogens, or vectors of disease and through 

effects on water balance, productivity, and habitat structure (Drake et al. 1989). 

Conceptual Ecological Models 

Most generally, ecology is the study of the distribution and abundance of plants and animals and 

their interaction with the environment on levels from cellular to ecosystem (Krebs 1985). Other 

variables – both biotic and abiotic elements of the ecosystems – may be useful in learning about 

a vital sign and explaining distribution and abundance. In this Appendix, we discuss our use of 

conceptual models to represent our understanding of the basic structure and function of SEAN 

ecosystems. 

Ecological monitoring programs are designed and implemented based on an understanding of 

how the subject ecosystems function. Based on both knowledge and assumptions, this 

understanding should be explicitly presented in conceptual models, so that it is available for 

discussion, evaluation, and ultimately for refinement through incorporation of information 

gained through monitoring (Maddox et al. 1999). Indeed, development of conceptual models is a 

key requirement of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program for each network. Conceptual models 

play several useful roles in monitoring program design, including: 

• Formalizing current understanding of the context and scope of the ecological processes 

important in the area of interest; 

• Expanding our consideration across traditional discipline boundaries; 

• Integrating biotic and abiotic information and processes; and 

• Facilitating communication among scientists from different disciplines, between 

scientists and managers, and between managers and the public (Thomas 2001). 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix F Page F-6 

Within the SEAN monitoring program, the development of conceptual models had the specific 

purpose of guiding the process of vital signs selection. A critical role of the models is to identify 

the principal drivers of change – both natural and anthropogenic – in network ecosystems. With 

the drivers of change identified, the types of ecological changes most important for park 

managers to detect can be determined, based on their inherent importance or their influence on 

receptors of particular significance. The process of deciding which changes (and of what 

magnitude) the network wants to be able to detect will help form the foundation for vital sign 

selection. 

This appendix, then, represents our current understanding of the salient elements and processes 

of ecosystems of the SEAN parks. In this appendix, we present 12 conceptual ecosystem models 

developed with several cooperating researchers. Two pervasive themes of these models are (1) 

the linkages between the physical and biotic realms, and (2) the substantial interactions among 

terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystem components in Southeast Alaska. The overlap of 

terrestrial, freshwater, and marine environments is represented by mapping the major habitat 

types in the SEAN parks in Figure 2.1. Most of the habitats shown depend on more than one 

environment. Although this is not unique to Southeast Alaska, deep marine incursions and 

abundant precipitation make marine and freshwater influences equal to the terrestrial in coastal 

areas of this region, where all three SEAN parks are located. This relationship among 

environments represented by the three overlapping ovals of Figure 2.1 is carried forward in 

several of the conceptual models that follow. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix F Page F-7 

Figure 1 Important ecological features within the three ecosystem components in Southeast 

Alaska. Habitats can be associated with a single ecosystem component or with an overlap where 

two or three of the components come in contact. Most habitats exist in mature states and also in 

earlier stages of primary or secondary succession. 

Ecological Context 

Global Setting of Southeast Alaska Parks: Far-field Drivers of Change 

Many habitats in Southeast Alaska are as wild and pristine as any in the world. However, human 

enterprise has caused changes that affect every place on earth (Vitousek et al. 1997). Thus, the 

relatively natural environments of Southeast Alaska operate within a regional and global system 

of physical and biological drivers that have been altered by human activity. Human enterprise 

has transformed much of the Earth’s surface, altered its biogeochemical processes, and 

eliminated or redistributed species and populations (Vitousek et al. 1997). Three important 

consequences of these changes are climate change, loss of ecosystem processes and habitats, and 

loss of species, populations and communities (Figure 2). 

 

Beach Meadows

Early-successional shrublands & forests

Lowland Rainforest

Midslope Rainforest

Subalpine Forest

Alpine Tundra

Cove

Bay

Passage

Near-shore

Marine Trench

Continental Shelf

Nonglacial Stream & River

Glacial Stream & River

Pond

Lake

Glacier

Riparian Forest

Riparian shrubland

Forested Wetland

Nonforested Wetland

Snowfield

Intertidal Zone

Beach Fringe

Sand Dune

Fjord

Salt marsh

Marine-enriched

riparian zone

Estuary

River mouth

Stream mouth

Terrestrial

ecosystem components

Marine

ecosystem components

Freshwater

ecosystem components
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix F Page F-8 

Figure 2. Resource preservation concerns. Far-field (top) and near-field (bottom) drivers of 

change that are likely to threaten resources in Southeast Alaska (thicker arrows indicate greater 

concern). The transformation of the earth’s surface, oceans, and atmosphere has driven changes 

in global biogeochemical cycles and the biotic makeup of ecosystems. The interaction of these 

types of changes has resulted in global climate change, and the loss of ecosystems, communities, 

populations and species around the world. At the local and regional level, park use and 

development can result in stresses on natural systems. 

Land transformation around the world has altered global biogeochemical cycles by transferring 

large quantities of carbon from fossil fuels and biomass into the atmosphere, and by fixing 

nonreactive atmospheric nitrogen (N2) into reactive compounds (e.g., nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, 

ammonia) that contribute to the greenhouse effect and can alter plant nutrient status. The effects 

of carbon- and nitrogen-based greenhouse gases have already contributed to global climate 

change (Houghton et al. 2001), and continued changes threaten to alter natural competitive 

balances in plant and animal communities and initiate new disturbance regimes. 

Land transformation is also responsible for global biotic changes caused by the harvest of plants 

and animals, habitat conversions and fragmentation, and freshwater diversion. Although 

Marine Freshwater

Terrestrial

Changes to global

biogeochemical

cycles

Global biotic

changes

Land and water

transformations

Loss of species

and populations

Loss of 

ecosystems

Climate

change

Interacting consequences of global human activity

(Far-field drivers)

Interacting consequences of local and regional human activity

(Near-field drivers)

Development Park use by

 people

Nonconsumptive

use

Consumptive

use In parks Adjacentto parks
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix F Page F-9 

Southeast Alaska has been generally insulated from the loss of local species, populations, and 

ecosystems, it is not immune to this type of damage. 

Local Resource Preservation Concerns: Near-field Drivers of Change 

At the local and regional scale there are several activities that have the potential to negatively 

impact park resources. Human activity in and near the parks is a primary resource preservation 

concern. Local human activity is unlike other resource preservation concerns because there is 

greater potential for managing human activity to modify environmental effects. There are two 

categories of human activity that are most likely to affect natural and cultural resources in 

network parks: development in and near parks, and use by park visitors (Figure 2.2). 

Consumption of natural resources by park visitors can be responsible for damage to and/or 

overharvest of plants or animals, leaving waste and refuse in parks, soil compaction, and 

introduction of invasive or exotic species to park habitats (Figure 2.2). In the SEAN parks, the 

most important potential environmental effect of these stressors is disturbance of wildlife and 

subsequent changes in plant and animal populations. Other important effects include the 

establishment and spread of invasive species and altered successional pathways. The noise, 

crowding, or refuse left by park visitors in formerly pristine areas can be an aesthetic concern for 

other visitors. 

Although generally less threatening than other concerns, research activity or resource 

management activity can influence natural environments. Field-based research activity may 

result in changes in populations and communities, alterations in successional pathways, and 

degraded visitor experiences. Research and management can also lead to increased public 

awareness of ecological issues, ecological restoration projects, and protection of threatened 

resources. 

Drivers of Environmental Change 

Holistic Model 

We have identified four broad categories of environmental factors that influence the current 

environmental conditions in Southeast Alaska and that are most likely to drive ecological 

changes in the future (Figure 2.3). These four drivers are climate, geologic processes, ocean 

processes, and human activity. 

1) Climate. The regional climate has a controlling affect on the landscape of Southeast 

Alaska, supporting the highly productive coastal rainforest and its denizens, supplying 

snowfall to feed alpine glaciers, creating myriad wetland and freshwater ecosystems, and 

influencing marine processes. 

2) Geological processes and patterns. The geology, geography, and landforms of the 

coastal region determine how the regional climate interacts with the land or water to 

shape a particular ecosystem. Dramatic coastal mountains and islands of the Alexander 

Archipelago dominate the landscape and create a spatially complex system of marine and 

terrestrial environments. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix F Page F-10 

3) Ocean processes and patterns. The processes and patterns of the ocean support 

productive and diverse marine ecosystems and strongly influence the weather, 

biochemistry, and biota of freshwater and terrestrial systems. All SEAN parks are 

adjacent to marine waters, and Glacier Bay includes an internationally significant marine 

reserve with strong connections to surrounding unprotected marine systems.

4) Human activity. Human activity (past and present, near and far) has affected all 

ecosystem components in Southeast Alaska and has great potential to drive changes in 

those components in the future. For example, human effects on global climate and the 

unpredictable risk of resulting climate changes may produce the most serious future 

concern. 

Figure 3. Holistic model: Drivers of change. Climate, geologic processes, ocean processes, 

and human activity are the four major driving forces shaping landscapes and ecosystems in 

Southeast Alaska. Thicker radial arrows indicate greater influence. 

Marine

enterprises

Geologic patterns

and processes

Ocean patterns

and processes

Island

biogeography

Climate

change

Human activity

Glaciers

Global and

regional climate

Marine Freshwater

Terrestrial
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix F Page F-11 

Interactions among the four major drivers in Figure 2.4 produce four more specific influences on 

ecosystem components in Southeast Alaska: 

1) Climate change. The long-term influence of humans on global and regional climate 

(Houghton et al. 2001) is expected to cause substantial changes in the climate of 

Southeast Alaska during the current century. We consider the potential for climate 

change to be the most important anthropogenic driver of landscape change. The potential 

environmental stresses caused by the predicted course of global warming could cause 

unprecedented change in all of the ecosystems of Southeast Alaska. 

 

2) Island biogeography. The geographic interaction between land and sea in the coastal 

landscape of Southeast Alaska creates a unique spatial matrix of islands, peninsulas, 

mainland landmasses, and the marine and freshwater ecosystem components that connect 

them. The natural fragmentation of the land and marine waters in Southeast Alaska 

makes the concept of island biogeography useful for prediction of undesirable change and 

identification of management strategies to mitigate that change. 

3) Glaciers. The interaction of regional climate and geography produces the conditions 

responsible for Southeast Alaska’s extensive glaciation. Glaciers, in turn, influence the 

local climate, modify terrain, produce unique wildlife habitats, and discharge water, ice, 

sediment, and organic material into freshwater and marine systems. Glaciers have 

strongly influenced the natural and cultural resources of all three SEAN parks. 

4) Marine enterprise. Coastal habitats in direct contact with marine waters are vulnerable to 

the environmental impacts of human activity at sea. Oil spills and other impacts resulting 

from commercial fishing, maritime transport (including cruise ship traffic), and coastal 

development in support of this maritime activity are potential threats throughout 

Southeast Alaska. 

Physical Drivers in Southeast Alaska 

Key Environmental Drivers 

Two dominant drivers – wetness and disturbance – influence the major ecological communities 

in Southeast Alaska (Figure 4.4). On land, near-constant wetness drives the development of 

plant communities and soils that are strongly influenced by autogenic (self-produced) processes. 

For example, leaching of rainwater through continuously accumulating organic soil horizons 

drives the development of an impervious soil horizon. This paludification leads to poorly 

drained soils and the plant communities that can tolerate them. Disturbance – whether by 

glaciers, downslope movement, windstorms, or insects – drives ecosystems in the opposite 

direction, creating younger, simpler systems. Compared to mature ecosystems, recently 

disturbed successional systems are able to sequester fewer resources, and nearby hydric systems 

receive the exported nutrients and energy. The results are lakes and streams that are more 

productive than their young successional setting would suggest. Adding to this temporal trend is 

the pronounced effect of large populations of anadromous fish which bring marine nutrients and 

energy into young and old streams, lakes, and adjacent terrestrial ecosystems. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix F Page F-12 

Figure 4. Key environmental drivers. Disturbance and wetness are two fundamental drivers of 

the development of environments in Southeast Alaska. Wetness allows for abundant lakes, 

streams, wetlands, and mesic or hydric terrestrial environments. Disturbance modifies all 

environments and replaces mature communities with simpler, more productive, young 

communities. Adapted from G. Streveler, unpublished. 

Origins of Terrestrial and Freshwater Features 

A combination of factors has given rise to the Southeast Alaska landscape of small, complex 

watersheds, and a great diversity of habitat types and community ages. Primary among these 

factors is a geographic location where moist, temperate air masses produce a maritime climate 

coupled with complex lithology and extreme topography associated with an active tectonic plate 

boundary (Figure 2.5). Glacial activity is an important consequence of these factors. Glaciers 

are a conspicuous element of today’s environments and have been modifying the landscape for 

millennia. Long histories of intense glacial activity and relative sea level fluctuation have further 

increased the topographic and geomorphic diversity. 

The result is a variety of terrestrial environments from lowland to alpine, and from well-drained 

to wetland (Figure 2.5). Steep terrain, active glaciers, lethal forest insect pests, and severe 

Disturbance

Allogenic processes

that (re)start succession

Environmental drivers

Young communities Succession Older communities

Disturbance

Wetness

Autogenic processes that

dominate later in succession

Complex, 

less productive, 

nutrient sequestering

systems

Simple, 

productive, 

nutrient exporting

systems
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix F Page F-13 

Figure 5. Origins of Southeast Alaska Network terrestrial and freshwater features. The 

geography and geological processes of Southeast Alaska produce a unique suite of environments 

characterized by small, complex watersheds, diverse mesic and hydric communities, and a 

complex mosaic of community ages. Adapted from G. Streveler, unpublished. 

weather subject these diverse plant communities to repeated disturbances and produce a complex 

mosaic of community ages, further enhancing landscape and biotic diversity. 

Regional Influences on Marine Systems of Southeast Alaska 

A combination of factors has given rise to the high productivity and community diversity in 

marine environments of Southeast Alaska. Primary among these factors are a regional maritime 

climate with strong seasonality, and the deeply divided coastline which generates insularity, 

complex circulation, and diverse benthic habitats (Figure 2.6). At Glacier Bay, glacial activity 

has produced a fjord system with cold, sediment-rich freshwater input that contributes to 

complex water-mass structure and strong seasonal stratification. Diverse nektonic, benthic, and 

demersal communities are supported by high productivity of phytoplankton or macroalgal 

populations. 

Geography Geology

West margin

of continent

60° latitude

northern 

hemisphere

Converging

plate boundary

Moist temperate

westerlies Complex

lithology

Maritime

climate

Intense

glacial history

Complex

topography

History of relative

sea level change

Complex

community

age mosaics

Varied alpine

communities

Ecological features of

terrestrial systems

Extensive,

diverse 

wetlands

Diverse nearshore

upland communities

Physical features of the landscape

Numerous lakes

and ponds

Small, complex

watersheds

Ecological features of

freshwater systems
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix F Page F-14 

Geography Geology

West margin

of continent

60° latitude

northern 

hemisphere

Converging

plate boundary Moist temperate

westerlies

Active

tectonics

Complex Maritime lithology climate

Extensive

ongoing

glaciation

Tidal

turbulence

Complex

topography

Cold, abundant

freshwater input

Warm, saline

oceanic input Complex fjordal

circulation

High

primary

productivity

Patchily abundant

benthic and demersal

communities

Ecological features of marine systems

Coriolis

effect

Strong

seasonality

High sediment

input Diverse benthic

habitat

Complex water-mass

structure

Upbay/downbay

variation

Strong

seasonal

stratification Frontal

systems

Abundant

nektonic

communities

Physical features of marine systems

Strong

trophic

connectivity

Strong links 

to Gulf

of Alaska

Figure 6. Influences on marine systems in Southeast Alaska. The geography and geology of 

Southeast Alaska’s coastal waters produce a unique suite of physical influences which allow 

high productivity and diversity in marine habitats. This diagram is based primarily on the 

environments at Glacier Bay. Adapted from G. Streveler, unpublished. 

Ecosystem Interactions 

In this section, we discussed the key ecological processes and settings that generate the patterns 

and processes that we observe today, and we describe the mechanisms by which processes 

occurring in one realm (i.e., freshwater, marine, or terrestrial) are interconnected with those in 

another. In Southeast Alaska, many of these processes are closely related to active primary 

succession in a post-glacial context. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix F Page F-15 

Succession in Freshwater 

Successional development in SEAN streams 

New streams and lakes are created as retreating glaciers expose fresh terrain (Figure 2.7), and a 

delay in biotic development in those waterways is mediated by high sediment load and variable 

flow rates associated with unvegetated watersheds. These processes are dampened by upstream 

lakes, which trap sediment and moderate flow, allowing stream communities to stabilize sooner 

(Milner 1997). The successional development of aquatic plant and animal communities is closely 

tied to the concurrent development of adjacent terrestrial plant communities (Milner et al. 2000). 

As vegetation colonizes stream banks, the addition of organic matter into streams promotes 

invading communities of stream invertebrates. The early input of leaves and catkins from shrubs 

is followed by the accumulation of coarse woody debris in stream channels. This debris provides 

cover for fishes and supports colonization by anadromous salmonids. The input of marine 

nutrients and energy from spawning salmonids to stream and riparian environments accelerates 

the development of stream invertebrate communities and creates a positive feedback to stream 

primary and secondary productivity. 

Figure 7. Primary succession in streams. The productivity and diversity of fish and invertebrate 

communities in streams is strongly linked to nearby terrestrial, hyporheic, lake, and marine 

environments. The strength of the relationships (represented by arrow thickness) changes with 

time from this early successional snapshot. Adapted from Milner et al. 2000. 

Lake

Buffer flow regimes

Settle sediment

Development of CWD

cottonwoods & spruce

Riparian vegetation

Primary

productivity

Carcasses

Terrestrial Arthropods Macroinvertebrates & 

meiofauna

Juvenile salmonids

Birds

Soil Development

Anadromous

salmon

Stream

Terrestrial

Marine

Hyporheic

retention

cover

catkins

Bankside deposition (floods) & terrestrial consumers (bears)

DOC, N & P

Allochthonous carbon

plan

kto

n
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix F Page F-16 

Glacial activity in the upper reaches of a watershed can affect stream development for hundreds 

or thousands of years after streamside surfaces become ice-free. In Glacier Bay and Klondike 

Gold Rush, sediment-rich glacial streams traverse lowlands occupied by forest ecosystems that 

have been developing for more than 10,000 years. Productivity in these streams will remain low 

until sediment sources are reduced. Where lakes associated with active alpine glaciers are in the 

watershed of such streams, rapid ablation (the reduction in volume of a glacier due to melting 

and evaporation) of glaciers and snowfields in the last 30 years may have increased the potential 

for glacial-lake outburst flooding. Catastrophic downstream flooding and debris flows have 

resulted from increased meltwater and higher lake levels behind loosely consolidated and 

saturated alpine moraines. The Taiya River in Klondike Gold Rush has experienced at least 

three glacial lake outburst floods in the last 120 years, most recently in 2003. 

Southeast Alaska watersheds that have been free of major glaciation for thousands of years, such 

as the Indian River in Sitka, tend to have mature riparian forests, and rivers tend to flow clear 

during most of the year. These mature rivers generally drain steep topography and are cold and 

swift. Their beds tend to be made up of gravel, cobbles, and boulders with a low amount of fine 

deposits such as silt. This provides multiple surfaces and habitat for a diverse benthic 

community. The silt-free interstitial spaces within gravel and cobble substrates allow surface 

water to flow through the hyporheic zone which delivers dissolved oxygen to invertebrates, 

salmonid eggs and newly emerged fry, removes waste products, and provides protection from 

strong current and predators (Edwards 2001). 

In mature rivers, rock and other underwater surfaces exposed to sunlight in swift, clear, welloxygenated streams develop a thick biofilm matrix consisting of diatoms, cyanobacteria, 

bacteria, fungus, protozoans, and other organisms. This biofilm collectively becomes a food 

source for benthic macroinvertebrates, particularly for scraper-grazer aquatic insects such as flatbodied mayflies and some caddisflies (Murphy 2001). Dense coniferous and alder forests along 

streams like the Indian River drop a considerable amount of leaves, bark, catkins, cones and 

other types of coarse particulate organic matter (CPOM) into the waterway. Microbial action 

begins to break down this material, making it more palatable as food for a diverse array of 

shredder aquatic insects (e.g., caddisflies, craneflies, and stoneflies) (Wiggins 2004). Some 

macroinvertebrates from the shredder group opportunistically shift feeding habits to utilize 

salmon carcasses (which supply marine-derived nutrients) when they are present in the stream. 

As this large quantity of CPOM is broken down and digested, it becomes fine particulate organic 

matter (FPOM) and is a food source for collector-gatherer and filter-collector aquatic insects 

(e.g., mayflies, caddisflies, blackflies). The energy sources of biofilm and terrestrial plant inputs 

in the stream support a diverse macroinvertebrate community which, in turn, supports several 

aquatic insect predator species (e.g., stoneflies and caddisflies). Invertebrates are the major 

energy transfer link between sun-based primary production (biofilm and riparian forest) and fish 

in stream ecosystems. Juvenile salmonids feed primarily on drifting invertebrates belonging 

mainly to the scraper-grazer and collector-gatherer functional feeding groups (Murphy 2001). 

The Indian River and other rivers with old-growth and mature secondary growth forests in their 

riparian zones are significantly influenced by large trees that fall directly into and across the 

stream. This large woody debris (LWD) creates relatively immobile log barriers, log jams, and 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix F Page F-17 

root wads that stabilize the river channel, provide cover, and form pools, all of which are critical 

for juvenile salmonid survival (Naiman et al. 2000, Montgomery and Buffington 2001). Stable 

submerged wood surfaces provide an important substrate for macroinvertebrates and the rich 

biofilm that grows on it is an important food source for scraper-grazer insects. Large woody 

debris also helps to physically retain CPOM and FPOM. 

Successional Development of Lakes 

A study of 33 lakes at Glacier Bay ranging in age from 10 to 13,000 years has indicated how 

their successional development is closely tied to the ecological development of the land in the 

surrounding watershed (Engstrom et al. 2000). Water arriving in very young lakes travels 

through a sparsely vegetated watershed with poorly developed soils (Figure 2.8). In this 

environment, overland flow and groundwater flow become rich in soil carbonates and dissolved 

solids (base cations including Ca2+ and Mg2+), which are carried into streams and lakes. As 

terrestrial succession proceeds in the watershed, vegetation and soils develop and nitrogen and 

organic carbon are dissolved in surface and subsurface water and carried into lakes. This causes 

lakes to become more acidic, more fertile, richer in dissolved organic carbon (DOC), and capable 

of supporting diverse aquatic food chains. After 1,000 to 3,000 years, soil hardpans form 

beneath organic soil horizons in the watershed and reduce penetration of precipitation into 

groundwater. Increased overland flow and interflow through highly organic, mature soils brings 

additional acidic and organically enriched water to lakes. This causes further increases in DOC, 

continued decreases in pH and dissolved solids, and reduced biological activity. Thus, lakes 

eventually become less fertile and less productive as they mature, even as carbon and nutrients 

accumulate in the surrounding landscape. These results emphasize the dependence of lake 

development on plant succession and soil development in the surrounding terrestrial environment 

(Engstrom et al. 2000). 

There are no true lakes in Sitka or Klondike Gold Rush, however, intermittent ponds are 

seasonally present in both parks. Sitka ponds are dependant on rainfall and may completely dry 

up in the summer. When late summer and fall rains return to the area, ponds refill and are 

colonized by caddisflies adapted to life in temporary water bodies (Lenarchus and Limnephilus). 

Adaptations included diapause that delays sexual maturity in adults until the shorter days of late 

summer triggers egg development during the season when rains become more frequent, eggs 

deposited in damp substrates or on the underside of damp logs, eggs and larvae that remain 

within a thick gelatinous (mucopolysaccharide) matrix that can resist dissociation for several 

months until ponds refill, rapid larval development, and wide dispersal of adults (Wiggins 2004). 

These caddisflies put on most of their growth in the fall and winter and complete their larval life 

cycle by early summer when ponds begin to dry up. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix F Page F-18 

Figure 8. Lake and watershed primary succession. Early in terrestrial succession at Glacier 

Bay, soil carbonates and dissolved solids (e.g., Ca2+ and Mg2+) are transported into streams 

and lakes. As vegetation and soils develop, more nitrogen and organic carbon are carried into 

lakes. After 1000-3000 years, soil hardpans reduce penetration of precipitation into 

groundwater. Adapted from Engstrom et al. 2000. 

Primary Succession on Land 

Terrestrial Plant Succession Following Glacial Recession 

Two centuries of glacial recession at Glacier Bay has produced a landscape with plant 

communities in various stages of primary succession. These communities allow inference about 

the processes that determine how plant communities are assembled through time, both at GLBA 

and at the relatively older communities of SITK and KLGO. The geographic location of a site 

recently exposed by retreating glaciers influences the site’s climate, soil characteristics, and 

landscape position (Figure 2.9). Landscape position (a site’s spatial relationship to physical and 

ecological features) affects the rate of substrate stabilization and the proximity of mature 

vegetation which could supply seeds for colonizing plant populations (Fastie 1995). At Glacier 

Bay, these factors have varied from place to place, resulting in substantial variability in the 

composition of early plant communities. As succession proceeds, the ability of early plant 

Precipitation

on young surfaces

High groundwater flow

Overland flow

 across bare soil

Low groundwater flow

Overland flow across

 vegetated surface

High interflow

 through organic soil

Little vegetation.

Developed vegetation.

high pH

many cations

low DOC

low pH

high DOC

few cations

No interflow

Mature

] Soil

Well developed,

 impermeable soils. Poorly developed,

 porous soils.

Precipitation

on old surfaces

Young

soil
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix F Page F-19 

populations to fix atmospheric nitrogen and the activity of herbivores influence interactions 

among plants (e.g., competition and facilitation) (Chapin et al. 1994). Differences among sites in 

early nitrogen fixation and in the consequent accumulation of soil nitrogen lead to long-term 

differences in ecosystem function. Therefore, predicting the pathways and endpoints of 

terrestrial ecological succession at any site requires knowledge of landscape-scale patterns. 

Figure 9. Terrestrial plant succession following glacial recession. At SEAN parks, the location 

of a site recently exposed by retreating glaciers influences the site’s climate, soil characteristics, 

and landscape position. The variability of these factors at Glacier Bay can produce multiple 

successional pathways. Biotic interactions (e.g., competition, facilitation, herbivory) influence 

the developing plant communities. Adapted from Chapin et al. 1994 and Fastie 1995. 

The Marine Environment 

The Glacier Bay Marine Ecosystem 

At least six major ecosystem processes are recognized as important determinants of the structure 

and function of the Glacier Bay marine ecosystem. A model focusing on these processes was 

Geographic

location

Glacial

recession

Climate

Landscape

position

Precipitation

Wind

Substrate

stabilization

Soil

parent

material

Proximity to

mature

vegetation

Seed

rain Herbivory

Disturbance

Facilitation

Competition

Multiple

mature plant

communities

Multiple

colonizing plant

populations

N-fixation

Insect

outbreaks

Windthrow

Multiple pathways

Soil

hydrology
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix F Page F-20 

developed for Glacier Bay by Bodkin et al. (2004). The generality of this model makes it useful 

for describing ecological interactions in any marine system in Southeast Alaska. The six 

processes included in the model (Figure 2.10) are: 

1. Human influences 

2. Oceanography 

3. Trophic interactions 

4. Production dynamics 

5. Transportation 

6. Disturbance (e.g. glaciation) 

The application of this model is based on current understanding of the relative importance of 

each of the ecosystem processes in regulating the abundance and structure of populations. The 

model is intended to be used to answer the question: What is the relative magnitude of influence 

of each ecosystem process on the population abundance and structure of a species? Through a 

process of repeatedly asking this question for individual species, it is possible to identify 

populations for which there is either a relatively good or a relatively poor understanding of 

structuring processes, and to identify processes that are important across populations. These 

processes are broadly defined (e.g., production dynamics can incorporate reproduction as well as 

survival), and other processes (e.g., competition, life history traits, sources of propagules) may 

be fundamental in structuring some populations. These processes often are not independent, and 

complex interactions can be expected. 

The Transfer of Marine-derived Nutrients and Energy to Riparian Systems 

Anadromous salmonid fishes return annually to streams in each of the network parks. Adult 

salmon return after multiple years as marine predators and die in the streams after spawning 

(Figure 2.11). These large runs of fish bring important nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorous) 

and energy (caloric food value) from the ocean to the freshwater ecosystem (Gende et al. 2004). 

Some of these nutrients and energy become part of the aquatic food web through scavenging by 

invertebrates (Lessard et al. 2003), predation on eggs, or uptake by plants. Terrestrial animals, 

including brown and black bears, river otters, gulls, and bald eagles, prey on live fish or 

scavenge dead fish. Animal waste and uneaten fish on and near the stream banks provide marine 

nutrients to riparian vegetation and the terrestrial food web (Ben-David et al. 1998). The water 

current flushes uneaten carcasses back to marine waters, and in combination with the eventual 

out-migration of young salmonids, much of the marine-derived nutrients and energy in the 

stream may be eventually returned to the ocean. Nevertheless, a portion becomes incorporated in 

the terrestrial ecosystem and gradually migrates even beyond riparian areas. 

Productivity in the Intertidal Zone 

The intertidal zone is a component of all three parks. Although the areal extent of the intertidal 

zone is small relative to the marine or terrestrial ecosystems it borders, its high species diversity 

and productivity make it ecologically important to a large number of terrestrial and marine 

animals. The particular combination of plants and animals present in the intertidal zone depends 

in part on a variety of physical factors, including latitude, exposure to the open sea, ocean 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix F Page F-21 

currents and fronts, and proximity to tidewater glaciers and turbid outwash or clearwater streams 

(Figure 2.12). Biotic interactions within the communities and interactions with land and sea 

animals (e.g., predation, herbivory) further modify the biotic diversity. Communities of 

intertidal plants and animals are subject to environmental stresses associated with daily tidal 

fluctuations, physical disturbance by weather events, and predation or herbivory from marine or 

terrestrial animals. The influx of cold, sediment-laden freshwater and icebergs from nearby 

tidewater glaciers influences the composition, structure, and productivity of these communities 

(Sharman 1988). Although they are well adapted to natural disturbance, these communities are 

highly vulnerable to new types of disturbance caused by human activity on land or at sea. For 

example, trampling by foot or vehicle traffic, changes in nearshore currents caused by docks and 

other shore-fast structures, and marine oil spills are threats to intertidal communities. 

Figure 10. Influences on Marine Populations. Six major processes that are thought to be 

significant influences in determining the species composition, abundance, and age composition 

of the marine organisms that compose up the biological component of the Glacier Bay marine 

ecosystem. This model also applies well to the marine environments associated with SITK and 

KLGO. From Bodkin et al. 2004. 

Production Production 

Dynamics Dynamics

Trophic Trophic 

Interactions Interactions

Transport Transport 

Imm / Em

Disturbance Disturbance

(glaciation) (glaciation)

Human 

Influences Influences

Marine

Oceanography Oceanography

Populations Populations
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix F Page F-22 

 

Figure 11. Marine-derived nutrients. Beginning with marine predators such as anadromous 

salmonids (left), energy and nutrients are accumulated at sea, delivered to streams, cycled 

through freshwater and terrestrial organisms, and are ultimately returned to the sea to begin the 

cycle again. Thickness of arrow represents the relative input of marine derived nutrients, which 

are gradually diluted by terrestrial or aquatic nutrient sources. 

 

Marine

ecosystem components

Freshwater

ecosystem components

Terrestrial

ecosystem components

Anadromous salmonids at sea 

accumulate marine nutrients

and energy Salmonids enter

streams to spawn

Salmonids die

in streams

Predation

and scavenging Stream

invertebrates

Predation by fish

(eggs, fry,

invertebrates)

Riparian

vegetation

Riparian

herbivores

Leavings,

waste

Forest songbirds

and other animals

Gulls

River otters

Eagles

Bears

Much of the marine energy and nutrients

returns to the ocean via the stream

Stream

primary productivity
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix F Page F-23 

Figure 12. Intertidal zone. Productivity in the intertidal zone depends on the particular biotic 

community present at the site and the disturbances that stress that community. Adapted from 

Sharman 1988. 

Intertidal

productivity

Intertidal biotic

Human enterprise diversity at sea

Intertidal

disturbance

Marine

animal

use

Land animal

use

Sedimentation,

pollution

Salinity

Exposure to

open ocean

Freshwater

input

Human enterprise

on land

Substrate

Storms,

wave action

Latitude

Proximity to

glacier

Marine

ecosystem components

Freshwater 

ecosystem components

Terrestrial

ecosystem components

Tides &

currents

Transport
This page intentionally left blank.
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix G Page G-1 

Appendix G 

Sampling Design Considerations for 

Long-term Monitoring in the Southeast Alaska Network: 

Concepts and Definitions 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix G Page G-2 

Status and Trend 

A common objective for all SEAN monitoring is to determine the status and trends in Vital 

Signs. Status is defined as a measure of an attribute, condition, or state, and applies to specific 

points in time. Trend is a directional change over time in an attribute, condition, or state. Status 

estimates inform management of current levels or amounts of a resource attribute, and determine 

departure from desired conditions and remediation needs. Trend estimates indicate direction and 

rate of change, which in turn inform management of potential levels of an indicator in the near 

term, and the need for remediation planning and implementation. Both status and trend are 

statistical estimates, and are typically reported as a mean and variance. 

Defining the Population of Interest 

Statistically valid survey designs are the most defensible means to make inference from samples 

to a larger population (Schreuder et al. 2004, Edwards 1998, Neusser et al. 1998, Cochran 1977). 

Central to survey designs is the explicit identification and description of this larger, finite 

population, which is termed the target population. The target population explicitly bounds the 

basis for selecting samples and for making inference. In some situations, however, areas of the 

target population cannot be sampled (e.g., due to accessibility issues, cost, or safety concerns). 

In such situations these areas are eliminated from consideration, and the remaining area is termed 

the sampled population. Sample selection, and inference of status and trend then are bounded by 

the finite, sampled population. This process of identifying and defining the target and sample 

population is an initial and critical step in crafting a reliable sampling design. 

Drawing a Sample 

Because a sample is used to make inference to a larger population, it is imperative that the 

sample be representative of the population of interest (Lohr 1999). Three broad approaches to 

obtaining samples of a population include probability-based, judgment, and convenience 

sampling. Probability-based sampling is the most defensible, because it applies sampling theory 

and some form of randomization to the selection of sampling units (EPA 2002). Randomization 

ensures a reduction in potential bias compared to judgment or convenience sampling, thus 

increasing the validity of extending inference from a sample to the finite population. Each 

sampling unit in the finite population has a known probability of being included in sample. This 

probability can be uniform, or it can vary among groups of units, and it can be used to weight 

observations when making inference to the larger population. 

With judgment and convenience sampling, statistical inference is limited to the sites actually 

sampled. Making inference beyond these sites is subject to selection bias, which can be 

mitigated if the relationship between sampled and unsampled units is reasonably modeled (e.g., 

known environmental associations). Bias may be minimal if a large portion of the finite 

population is actually used in these sampling approaches and if sampling units are spatially 

balanced. Typically, there is no credible way to determine the degree of bias of non-random 

selection methods, thus it is best to limit the scope of inference to the areas sampled. 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix G Page G-3 

Types of Sample Frames 

A sample frame is the collection of all possible, non-overlapping sample units of the finite 

population, and is used in the selection of sample locations. There are various types of sample 

frames. The SEAN uses three types of frames: 

1) An area frame uses geographic boundaries to delineate a given sample unit. An example 

of an area frame is a map of all intertidal areas in the SEAN park units. The map serves 

as the basis for drawing a probability sample. 

2) A list-based frame is a list of possible sample units, derived from inventories or intimate 

knowledge of the extent of a resource. An example would be a list of all glaciers in the 

SEAN park units. The list-based frame is used to draw probability samples, or all units 

of the list are selected for monitoring (i.e., census). 

3) Index sites are a special case of the list-based frame, used to collect information on areas 

or points that were based on judgment in order to yield adequate data on a particular Vital 

Sign. These samples are usually selected as “representative” sites, and – given the lack 

of probability sampling - statistical inference is limited to the areas monitored given. 

Given limited monitoring resources and large, inaccessible land areas, the SEAN 

employs this type of frame in monitoring 5 of the 12 Core Program Vital Signs. 

Spatial Allocation of Samples 

Many approaches can be used to select a sample over space, but most are variations on a few 

basic themes. The SEAN monitoring effort will use three approaches: simple random sampling, 

systematic sampling, and a Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified sampling scheme. 

In simple random sampling, units are selected from the population of sample units via a random 

process. Each sample unit has the same probability of being included in the sample. 

Systematic sampling is a method in which one sample unit is typically selected at random, and 

subsequent units are selected according to a systematic pattern. Systematic sampling is often 

used to achieve spatial balance and to avoid the potential for clusters of samples in close 

proximity. This can occur through a purely random process such as simple random sampling. 

However, systematic sampling can introduce some bias if the properties of interest are aligned 

along a gradient. When prior information about a resource is known, systematic sampling also 

may be less efficient, and stratification is sometimes warranted (see below). 

Stratification 

Stratification consists of dividing a population into subsets (strata) and selecting an independent 

sample from each. Stratification can result in substantial gains in the precision of parameter 

estimates when samples from within strata are more homogeneous than between strata (Cochran 

1977). Common strata include elevation (e.g., low, high), aspect, or habitat type. Additionally, 

stratification is often used when there is a desire for separate parameter estimates for individual 

strata. 

For the initial set of the SEAN’s monitoring protocols, stratification was not deemed necessary. 

As protocols are developed, stratification needs will be evaluated as part of protocol research and 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix G Page G-4 

development. This is typically performed by examining for differences in variance estimates 

among plausible strata. 

Temporal Allocation of Samples 

The temporal allocation of samples is specified as the revisit design. The revisit design indicates 

the time of the initial visit and the frequency of subsequent visits to sampling units of a panel. A 

panel is a collection of sample units which are visited in the same monitoring event. Multiple 

panels often are used to spread out sampling units in space and in time. Sample effort can be 

rotated among panels through time, which effectively rotates field effort among sample units 

and, therefore, space. The way in which units in the population become members of a panel is 

called the membership design (McDonald 2003). The notation commonly used for revisit 

designs is a pair of digits, where the first digit is the number of consecutive occasions on which a 

panel is sampled and the second is the number of consecutive occasions on which a panel is not

sampled (McDonald 2003). For example, if a single panel is visited on every sampling occasion, 

its revisit design can be expressed as [1-0]. The notation [1-0, 1-4] signifies that units in one 

panel are visited on every occasion, and units in a second set of panels are visited once every five 

occasions. 

Revisit designs must ensure an ability to retain a representative sample across time. Temporal 

shifts in resource conditions (e.g., variation in population density) due to localized natural (e.g., 

successional development) and anthropogenic processes (e.g., social trailing) can degrade the 

representativeness of the original sample. Additionally, the act of monitoring can inadvertently 

introduce bias into status and trend estimates, such as trampling in vegetation monitoring plots. 

Balancing these considerations with optimal approaches to status and to trend estimation further 

complicates revisit designs. Repeat visits to sampling units emphasize trend estimation, because 

trend determination requires information from the same unit(s) over time. Frequently visiting 

sampling units to optimize trend estimation can risk sample-unit fatigue and resultant bias and 

may also fail to buffer against localized temporal shifts in patchy resource conditions (because 

spatial balance is compromised when a frequent revisits to capture temporal variation is favored 

over spatial distribution of samples to capture spatial variation). A large sample size and a high 

degree of spatial balance, however, can guard against the latter. Conversely, monitoring different 

units each sampling occasion to reduce observer impacts and localized effects is inefficient for 

detecting a trend because of the additional among-unit variance component. A combination of 

panels with varying levels of revisit frequency (e.g., relatively frequent to only once) with a 

spatially balanced membership design is a prudent approach to limit the effects of localized 

changes (i.e., maintain sample representativeness) and observer impacts while balancing the 

efficiency of status and trend estimates. 

Sample Size and Power 

Sample size and power are major concerns in monitoring efforts. In general, sample size 

should be large enough for a reasonable probability of detecting changes of management or 

conservation importance, but not unnecessarily large (Fry 1992). Where appropriate, a priori 

power analyses and/or simulations are used to estimate sample sizes. An a priori power analysis 

is a statistical calculation using existing data that is made prior to initiating monitoring (Thomas 

and Krebs 1997). Because these data provide an estimate of variability captured by proposed 

metrics, power analyses can be used to estimate sample sizes needed to detect trends in the data 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix G Page G-5 

with a desired level of precision. An important interplay exists between cost, sample size, and 

sampling methods. Different sampling methods have different costs, and yield data of differing 

quality and reliability. Variation within data reflects a combination of process (or “true”) natural 

variation in the parameter of interest, and sampling variation (or sampling error, caused by 

imprecision in measurement, sample size, observation error, or faulty data recording). 

Where existing data are available, a priori power analysis is employed to determine sample-size 

needs for the SEAN monitoring. Where data are not available, frequent assessment of ongoing 

monitoring (e.g., frequent estimation of the coefficient of variation as data are collected and 

sample size increases) is used to ensure adequate samples or to adjust sampling efforts. 

Integrative Considerations 

Where possible, and primarily for the four freshwater water quality Vital Signs, the SEAN 

monitoring program emphasizes colocation of Vital Sign monitoring locations, and covisitation. 

Colocation refers to monitoring multiple Vital Signs at the same physical locations. Covisitation 

refers to recording observations on multiple Vital Signs during a sampling occasion. Both offer 

an obvious benefit of operational efficiency. Overall time and costs for plot set up and sampling 

are reduced when measuring multiple Vital Signs at the same place and time. 

Synoptic measures can provide important insights into ecological processes with direct 

application to management, in three ways. First, monitoring both drivers and receptors aids in 

interpreting mechanisms of observed changes. This information could lead to the identification 

of resource conditions for which mitigation actions would be effective (e.g., understanding 

whether patterns of invasive plant establishment are due to human disturbance vs. climate-driven 

change). Second, synoptic measures enhance the understanding of causes and consequences of 

interactive behaviors. Interactions among ecological attributes will manifest as one of two 

primary behaviors. Additive behaviors are expressed as opposing or parallel trends among 

indicators. Complex behaviors vary from nonlinear to chaotic, and occur in response to 

exceedance of thresholds, for particular combinations of state conditions, or as a response to 

exceeded thresholds (Michener et al. 2001). Third, where lack of precision masks statistically 

significant change, the collective consistency in trends among Vital Signs can provide a weightof-evidence indication of change. Taken together, synoptic measures minimize confounding 

factors and enhance assessments of such subtle (but potentially important) trends. These weightof-evidence approaches (see Burton et al. 2002) will be used to maximize inference strength and 

data integration across Vital Signs. Similarly, we will also explore options for constructing and 

using Bayes Nets (Marcot et al. 2006, McCann et al. 2006) for integrating and updating 

knowledge over time; Bayes Nets would be useful both in using monitoring data to support parklevel decision-making and also to test and refine the conceptual models that serve as the 

underpinnings to our monitoring approach. 

Response Design 

A response design directs how to record the response (Vital Sign metric) within each sampling 

unit, which includes choosing a method of measurement and an optimum shape and size of units 

(Stevens and Urquhart 2000). In area sampling, for instance, a complete count or measurement 

of elements within a sampling unit often is not possible, especially when elements are mobile 

organisms. Even sessile organisms such as plants may be overlooked if sampled during a time 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix G Page G-6 

when features used for identification are not present or if organisms are present but below 

ground (e.g., in dormancy). A probability sample of units may still result in a biased estimator of 

trend if bias is associated with the response design. 

The probability of detecting an individual or species within a sampling unit, given it is present, is 

called probability of detection or detectability. Incomplete detectability occurs due to perception 

and availability bias, both of which contribute to sampling error (Marsh and Sinclair 1989, 

Pollock et al. 2004). 

Perception bias arises when there is a failure to detect an individual or species that is available 

for detection (i.e., detection probability is nonzero). For instance, individuals left unrecorded 

due to their lack of identification features at the time of recording observations and measures 

results in perception bias. Methods such as capture-recapture (Pollock 2000) and distance 

sampling (Buckland et al. 2001) account for this component of individual detectability (see also 

Williams et al. 2002). Nichols et al. (1998) offered an approach to estimate this component of 

species detectability in community metrics such as species richness. 

Availability bias results when individuals or species are present but unavailable for detection 

(i.e., detection probability is zero). For example, an availability bias would result from the 

failure to record plant species because they were dormant and underground during a sampling 

occasion. Conducting surveys from the same platform when multiple platforms are more 

appropriate may induce availability bias. For instance, repeat aerial surveys of bald eagle nests 

may miss more nests than a combination of aerial and ground surveys, where the latter method 

may detect nests obscured by dense vegetation. There has been recent activity in developing 

methods to account for availability bias (e.g., Pollock et al. 2004). 

Failing to properly account for individuals’ or species’ detectability will lead to biased trend 

estimation. The magnitude of this bias relative to the specified level of change and to the 

variability of the estimator will determine whether the level of bias should be a concern. 

However, estimates or a realistic range of estimates of detectability bias and variability are 

required to confirm this relationship. Bias also may be ignored if the observed change is 

proportional to the true change (and if the relationship between observed change and true change 

does not vary over time), but this relationship is far from guaranteed, even if standardized 

methods are used, because relationships between parameters of interest are often complex 

(Thompson 2002). If detection bias has a large influence on the performance of a trend 

estimator, a true change cannot be distinguished from a false trend generated by temporal 

changes in detection rates. Biases of this sort can have a deleterious effect on natural resource 

decisions (Moore and Kendall 2004). Attention to incomplete detectability is critical to ensure 

that SEAN monitoring results are unbiased. Whenever possible, the SEAN response designs will 

incorporate methods to properly account for incomplete detectability. 
Appendix H 

The 36 Priority Vital Signs for the Southeast Alaska Network 

SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix H Page H-1 
SEAN Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Appendix H Page H-2 
The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and 

other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and 

affiliated Island Communities. 

NPS D-171, September 2008
National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150 

Fort Collins, CO 80525 

www.nature.nps.gov 

(;3(5,(1&(<285$0(5,&$ 70