PARK SCIENCE 

A RESOURCE MANAGEMENT BULLETIN 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

4 VOLUME 9 - NUMBER 3 SPRING 1989 
’ PARK SPRING 1989 

3 

SCIENCE 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

A report to park managers of recent and ongoing research in parks with emphasis on its 

implications for planning and management 

is 

)cded With Deep Benthic Moss 

cientific Excitement at Crater Lake 3 

\lien - Either Defines ‘Pest’ 5 

oice of the Grey Tree Frog Was 

IinintheLand... 6 

Migratory Bird Watch 

pass Research, Monitoring 

relation 6 

am Finds Fire Policy Sound But 

1 Needs Changing’ 9 

? Mountain Goat Management 

n at Olympic National Park 10 

Natural Areas Get Hard Look 

ntists and Managers 11 

y Seagrasses Are Dying Off.. 11 

ley Files Environmental Suit 14 

lx Park Health? 16 

; First GIS Conference 16 

le Elk and Bison: 

:er fleporf 19 

Research Seeks to 

rk Resources .21 

WENTS 

s from Nape Shelton .4 

Corner 9 

iighllghts 12 

7 Crossfife 13 

Ident’s Corner: Let’s Bet the 

i Learn the Game 15 

,.,.,,..,,.....,,................ 16 

ews 20 

I Interest.. 23 

.ANEOUS 

late of Leopold Report to 

fry on March 19 7 

Academy of Underwater Sciences .6 

ants for Field Research 14 

articipates in China Conference 15 

?votes Issue to Greenhouse Effect 15 

Protocols Documented 

oks 22 

Restoration Society Organized 23 

* Managers, Interpreters Focus on 

Seashore Parks 23 

* Fire Ecology Symposium 23 

Cover: A filament of the diatom Melosira [the thinner 

strand) is shown here (magnified 106 fimesj attached 

by a gel extrusion [left of and just below centeri to the 

surface of a “leaf” of benthic moss. The association 

was discovered during deep explorations of Crater 

Lake. See story pages 3-4. 

Editorial 

El Nino, global warming, ozone holes, acid precipitation, loss of genetic diversity-almost every major impact on 

humanity’s life support systems is rooted m a scale of size that lkes far outside of our everyday range of vision. 

There are worlds within worlds. all of them interlocked and interdependent, and this issue’s lead story is our first 

journey into another level of these myriad scales. Dr. Phinney’s fascinating story of a new assoctation of organisms 

describes what was found when two dives were made at Crater Lake last summer-one dive via submersible 

vehicle into a hitherto unexplored world deep in the lake, the other dive via microscope into a world inaccessible to 

our naked eyes-the world of the very tiny. 

The jelly-laced jungle shown on thecovar requiresmagnification 106times to present itsefftoourlimitedeyesight. 

lnsteadofsimplyoohingandaahingovertheslendersliceof microscopic life itsviewaffords,wemlghtdowell to let it 

lead us intothinkingofthethousandsoflevelson down-thesubatomicworld where”things are happening”-things 

that aHect us all. 

Those things that we can see and deal with directly, at a tesource management level, are indeed “only the tip of 

the iceberg:‘The “tao”of science -the “way”of research and experiment and varied application-provides us with 

glimpses and hints of a’total picture” that hides most of its connections, but constanffy reveals its connectedness. 

The National Parks, our responsibility, are pari of acosmic blueprint that is currently demanding our attention with 

a gigantic “ahem:’ Look at the cover again, and marvel at the intelligence expressed in this tiny world. Have we the 

wits to match it in our own? 

WILLIAM PENN MOTT, JR., Director 

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Editorial Board: 

Gary E. Davis, Marine Research Scientist, Channel Islands NP 

John Dennis, Biologist, Washington OHice 

James W. Larson, Editorial Board Chairman and Chief Scientist, Pacific Nollhwest Region 

Hawey Fleet, Chief, Digital Cartography, GIS Division, Denver 

Jean Manhews, Editor: Oregon State University NPSICPSU, Room 110 Forestly Sciences Lab, 

3200 JeHerson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331 (503) 757-4579; 6-420-4579 

ISSN-0735.9462 

Anderson, William H. 

NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION 

1100 Ohio Dive, SW. Washington, D.C. 20242 

8(202)342.1443 

Regional Chief Scientists 

Gary Willsan. Acting 

MIDWEST REGION 

1709 Jackson St. Omaha, NE 66102 

8-864-3438 (402) 221.3438 

Soukup, Michael 

NORTH ATLANTIC REGION 

15 state street 

Boston. MA 02109 

6-635-8805 (617) 565-8805 

Eoltavio, Dominic 

SOUTHEAST REGION 

75 Spring St. SW. 

Atlanta. GA 30303 

8-242.4916 (404) 221.4916 

Karish, John R. 

MID ATLANTIC REGION 

Ferguson Bldg, Room 209-B 

Pennsylvania Slate University 

University Park, PA 16802 

8(814)865-7974 

Huff Dan 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION 

PO. Box 25827 

Denver, CO 80225 

6-327-2650 (303) 9692650 

Larson, James W. 

PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION 

63 S. King St., Suite 212 

Seattle, WA 96104 

8-399-4176 (206) 442-4176 

Fletcher, Milford 

SOUTHWEST REGION 

PO. 53x 728 

Santa Fe, NM 87501 

8-476-1870 (505) 9884870 

Lows, Allan L. 

ALASKA REGION 

2525 Gambell St., Rwm 107 

AK 99503.2692 

Anchorage, 8 (907) 257.2568 

Kilgore, Bruce 

WESTERN REGION 

450 Golden Gate Ave. 

PO. Box 36063 

San Franasco, CA 94102 

B-556-4968 (415) 556-4988 
Biota Associated With Deep Benthic Moss 

Creates Scientific Excitement at Crater Lake 

‘Yes, I’llbe glad to lx& at it-butthefeb really 

nr paint in R. I’ve seen so many of these samples 

and thav’re all basicaltv common&x%: 

En&us Professor harry K. f&ay of the 

Oregon State University Department of Botany 

was understandably bored at the prospect of 

having to look at yet another sample of what 

some young college professor thought was a 

strange and wonderful new find. 

Gary Larson, NPS limnoiogist at the NPS 

Cooperative Park Studies Unit at OSU, was 

standing n Dr. Phinney’s office with a carefully 

packaged bit of material mllected by Dr. Sylvia 

Earle of the California Academy of Sciences 

from 725 feet down the wail of the Crater Lake 

basin. Larson was prettvsure this wassomething 

really big. 

Dr. Phinnev ambled over to his microscope I 

placed the &nple on a slide, squinted through 

the eyepiece, and murmured “Umhmm, ummhummm, well,, wait a minute.. .‘and his voice 

began to rise with excitement. 

What he was seeing in addition to a possible 

world record (for depth) mat of moss @rep 

anociadus uncinatus), was a possibly unique 

association of attached epiphytic flora, some 

unattached butthoroughly interlacedfilamentsof 

various green algae, and a smattering of tiny 

animals-an intricate congregation of living matter, and at a dapth that few scientists would have 

expected 

Dr. Phinney’s following account of the truly 

thdlling “find,” is so thoroughly professional that 

we felt it necessary to reinject the note of triumph and discovery the story deserves. Dr. 

Phinney is preparing arbcles for scientific iournals, as probably are others who participated in 

the summer 1968 Deep Rover exploration of Crater Lake. But for those of us who do not read the 

journals - rasource managers and intarpreterstheexcitement needstobaspetledout. So hereit 

is. Now read w?. 

By Harry K. Phinney 

The history of the discovery and identiftcation of the 

moss growing deep in Crater Lake is half a century 

long and, by thistime. the details are somewhat murky, 

In his undated “Preliminary Report on Bottom Flora 

and Fauna,” A.D. Hasler in 1937 recounted the coltection of random bottom samples by Ekman dredge “at 

depths down to 375 It:’ in the vicinity of Wizard Island. 

He reported “the most astonishing result was to find a 

green plant (Elodea)” (Angiospermae, Hydrocharitaceae) ‘growing at the greatest depth dredged.” 

Hasler also reported here that “This same plant 

furnishes such dense matting of growth at depths of 

60-200 ft east of Wizard Island, that the dredge was 

not heavy enough to penetrate to the bottom below 

them:‘In a letter to Dr. John C. Merriam, then Director 

of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, dated Oct. 

26, 1937, Hasler described “dredging green plants 

(Fonfinafisj” (Bryophyta, Fontinalaceae) from a depth 

of 375 ft. and accompanied this information with a 

Secchi disc reading of 120 feet. However, in his published report Hasler (1936) reported the plant to be 

both Fontinalis and Drepanocladus (Bryophyta, 

Amblystegiaceae). 

The reason Hasler simultaneously ascribed the 

deep growing moss to two genera is unclear. The fact 

that a sample of moss found floating but completely 

submerged near Wizard Island, 13 July 1935, had 

been submitted by Robert H. DuVall to Dr. Winona 

Welch of DePauw University who identified that moss 

as Fontinafis howellii Ren. & Card. ( = F: anfipyretica v. 

oregonensis Red. & Card.) may have influenced the 

author to use the name Fon~inaf;s. However, J.S. Erode 

(1936) published an article in which he described “the 

water moss Fontinalis” as occurring in the sublittoral 

and states that “it covers much of the lake bottom 

from just below the visibility line to 200 meters or more 

The only place where it comes near the surface is 

on the ‘Old Man of the Lake:” The latter appellation 

refers to a deadhead log that has been observed 

floating in the lake for many years. 

In fact the moss on the log was sent by C. Warren 

Fasbanks, then Assistant Park Naturalist to Dr. Henry 

Gelatinous strands, apparently coming horn the 

pores of the epiphytic diatom Melosira undulata, can 

be seen in the fop photo aciually connecting two 

separate strands of the organism. This picture (msg. 

106X) shows clearly fhe bracket shape of the two 

valves that make up each cellof Melosira and the light 

area between, known as the girdle. In the photograph 

below, a single cell has been separated at the girdle, 

leaving only half a cell, aftached again by gel strands, 

to a moss leaf. 

S. Conard formerly of Grinnell College who identified it 

as Sckropodium obtusifolium (Min.) Klndb. (Crater 

Lake Nature Notes Vol. 16, pp. 21.25,1953). Fairbanks 

alsosent asampleofthe mossdredged (grapnel) from 

425 ft. (129 m) lo Dr. Francis Drouet, then Curator of 

Crytogramic Plants at the Chicago Museum of Natural 

History (Field Museum), who identified the moss to be 

Drepanocladus fluitans (Hedw.) Warnst. (Crater Lake 

Nature Notes, Vol. 20, pp. 34-36. 1954). 

During the early 1950s a survey was made to determine the distribution of the deep benthic moss on the 

bottom of Crater Lake. This was accomplished using 

grapnels operated from a power winch. The participants in this survey were Dr. Richard M. Brown, C. 

Warren Fairbanks, Dr. John R. Rowley of the Department of Botany of the University of Minnesota and 

Joanne Rowley. 

In a letter to Warren Fairbanks dated Dec. 10,1952, 

John Rowley said “We have not established the maximum depth at which Drepanocladus occurs on the 

steeply sloping sides of Crater Lake.. we have taken 

over 100 bottom samples in Crater Lake at depths from 

10 feet to over 1900 feet. D. fluiitans has been 

recovered in all quadrants of the lake. The pattern of 

recovery indicates that the occurrence of the moss in 

Crater Lake is non-random:’ 

Richard M. Brown, then Chief Park Naturalist sent 

two samples of the moss from deep in Crater Lake to 

Dr. Elva Lawion of the University of Washington and in 

a letter dated Nov. 5,1965, thanking her for her identification of the moss as Drepanociadus adoncus 

(Hedw.) Warnst., Brown mentioned that the moss previously had been so identified by Herman Persson (of 

the Riksmuseet Paleobotaniska, Stockholm, Sweden). 

A sample of the moss from 221 m (725 ft.) taken in 

August 1966 was sent by Dr. Gary L. Larson to Dr. W.B. 

Schofield of the University of British Columbia who 

identified it as Drepanocladus uncinatus (Hedw.) 

Warnst. 

The apparent confusion over the specific identity of 

this moss is understandable. The existing descriptions 

of the moss species were taken from specimens growing under very different conditions from those which 

the deep benthic plants experience in Crater Lake. 

These plants have grown at a year-round temperature 

of 3+ C, at light intensities estimated to be as low as 

approximately 0.01% of the intensity available at the 

surface or the equivalent of 20 FE sq m-j sec. -I, 

The primary, perhaps the only, causes of the slight 

water movement at these depths would be convection 

and turbidity currents. As the only means of reproduction of the moss that have been observed are vegetative, it appears entirely possible that the moss populationon the bottom of Crater Lake is aclonal culture, i.e. 

the vegetatively developed progeny of a single plant or 

spore, that survived transport to the bottom of the lake 

and found it possible to grow there, surprisingly successfully. 

The plants observed during the summer of 1966 

were c&&d by Dr. Sylvia Earle of the California 

Academy of Sciences while piloting the submersible 

Deep Rover. The sample studied was growing 

attached to the surface of a rock detached by the 

mechanical arm of the submersible, from the wall of 

the basin at a depth of 221 m (725 11.). 

In the laboratory the moss plants were observed to 

Continued on page 4 
Crater Lake 

Continued from page 3 

be 3-5 (-8) cm in height and ranged in color from bright 

green through greenish golden to a dark brownish red 

that occawnally was so dark that the plants appeared 

black. Near the tips of the translucent green axes 

(“stems”) the “leaves” were usually closely overlap 

ping and strongly turned to one side (lalcate-second). 

On the lower portions 01 such axes and particularly on 

the darker, presumably older axes, the “leaves” were 

more remote, at times the tip of a “leaf” did not even 

reachto the baseofthe”leaf”nextabave. The”feaves” 

were long acuminate lanceolate with entIre margw 

and a costa (mid-rib) that extends well beyond the 

middle of the “leaf.” The cells of the Costa were distinguished primarily by a pigmentation in the walls that 

appeared to accumulate more rapidly there than in the 

walls of the cells of the lamina (blade) of the “leaf” 

generally. 

Thecellsof both theaxasand”leaves”ofgreenaxes 

exhibit numerous, prominent, discoidllenticular chloroplasts. In plants that had aged and darkened, the 

plastids in the cells of the axis were difficult to impossible to discern. The ceils of the darker leaves 

appeared to have reduced cell contents including 

reduced numbers of plastids. Even some of the cells 

with more lightly pigmented cell walls appeared to lack 

plastids. Insomecasestheplastidswere missing in the 

more marginal cells of the lamina while still visible in 

cells adjacent to the Costa. The “leaves”of the darkest 

axes had usually lost theirtips and commonly all of the 

lamina had been erodedexceptforthevery baseofthe 

leaf. 

Three means of vegetative reproduction were 

observed; no other means of reproduction, i.e. sexual 

or asexual, were noted. First, most numerous and most 

obvious were the dark, essentially leafless, horizontal 

lateral branches that not only tended to weave the 

mass of plants into a mat, but also occasionally gave 

rise to erect young, bright green axes. Second, a number of exampleswereobserved of old, erect, very dark 

axes from which fresh, bright green horizontal 

branches erupted. The leaves produced on such 

young branches were elliptical, spoon-shaped, lacked 

both the costa and the acuminate tips. Third, there 

were occasional, seldom branched, protonemal, i.e. 

vegetative, filaments whose origins were doubtful. 

The moss sample from 221 m supported a rather 

uniform attached epiphflic flora as well as some unattached but intimately entwined and entangled filaments. The entangled filaments consisted 01 an 

unbranched green alga Ffhizoclonium and a branched 

siphonaceous alga Vaucheria (Xanthophyceae). The 

attached epiphytes were a fifamentous diatom Melosira and three species of filamentous green algae, two 

Oedogonium species and a Bulbochaete. In addition 

to the fifamentous diatom Melosira, a number of pennate diatoms were seen, attached primarily to the 

leaves of the Drepanocladus and to a lesser extent to 

the Rhizocloniun, Melosira and Vaucheria. A complete 

species list of all the epiphytic diatoms presently is 

being prepared. 

Observed to be livingonoraboutthe moss plantwas 

a very sparse fauna in terms both of numbers al individuals and of species. Asingle tardigrade (waterbear), 

2 unidentified nematodes (roundworms), 2 species of 

rotifer (wheel animalcules), one of which was a Collotheca and the other probably a Philodina were 

observed. Several ciliates were seen, the more highly 

mobile forms were nearly impossible to identify under 

the conditions of observation. The most freely motile 

form appeared to be a species of Stichofricha while a 

mab notes from Nape Shelton 

The biggest recent news out of U.S. MAB is the 

decision to resfrucfure the program. At its Jan. 6,1989 

meeting, the U.S. National Committee approved consolidating the 10 existing directorates into 5 biogeographically oriented directorates: Temperate Ecosystems, Tropical Ecosystems, High Latitude 

Ecosystems, Human Settlements, and Marine and 

Coastal Ecosystems. Seven cross-cutting themes 

have been identified that will be addressed, as appropriate, by the directorates: Aquatic Areas and Wetlands, Arid LandslDesertification, Biological Diversity, 

Cultural Diversity, Global Change, and Sustainable 

Use/Development. 

The chairmen of the existing directorates have been 

requested to identify current program activities that 

should be continued and supported during the transition. Bill Gregg, NPS MAB Coordinator, believes the 

new structure will strengthen the biosphere reserve 

program because biosphere reserveswill beacompoI strand of Melosira undulata is shown here in 

fiagram, drawn by Friedrich Hustedt in 1930 for 

)ie Kieselalgen - Part VII of DC 1. Rubenhorst’s 

book, Kryptoglamen-Flora. The view shows a 

?ngthwise view of the strand. Each cell is comhosed of two so-called “valves” that fit together 

afherlike a medicine boffk and ifs top. Each valve 

,ontafns dot-like pores, from which the gelatinous 

fands apparently are extruded. 

species of Vorticella and a species of stentorid were 

observed attached to the moss plants usually in the 

axils of the “leaves:’ 

Dr. Phinney, Professor Emeritus af Oregon State 

University Department of Eofany, wishes to acknowledge the assistance and encouragement of Dr. Gary 

Larson and Dr. David Mclnfire and the technical 

assistance of Mary Debacon and Dean DeNicola. 

Publications Cited 

Erode, J.S. 1938. The denizens of Crater Lake. Northwest Science, 12:56-52 

Hasler, A.D. 1938. Fish biologyandlimnologyof Crater 

Lake, Oregon. Jour. of Wildlife Management 

2:94-103. 

4 

nent of the activities of each directorate. A biosphere 

reserve coordinating committee that would include 

many members of the present biosphere reserve 

directorate is being considered. 

Among other actions, the U.S. National Committee 

approved the allocation of $50,000 for support to 

establtsh priorities for the U.S. biosphere reserve pro. 

gram and to fund new feasibility studies and selection 

panels; and $15,000 for bilateral exchanges of scientists wolved in the developing cooperative ecological 

research programs in the biosphere reserves of the 

U.S. and U.S.S.R. A group of Soviet scientists is 

expected in May for a joing workshop at Pinedale, 

Wyoming to initiate field studies. 

Mexican and American participants at a MAB workshop held last November at Big Bend NP during the 

Third Symposium on Resources of the Chihuahuan 

Desert Region discussed possibilities for cooperation 

among the Chihuahuan Desert biosphere 

reserves. The managers of the three Chlhuahuan 

Desert biosphere reserves - Mapiml (Mexico). Big 

Bend NP, and the Jornada Experimental Range - 

agreed to collaborate. Principal saentists, managers, 

and interpreters from the three reserves will meet in 

March to discuss projects. 

Two that have been suggested are applying grassland restoration methods developed at Jornada to 

overgrazed areas at Big Bend, and reestablishing the 

desert tortoise, which now survives only in the Maptml 

region, at Big Bend. This slow-moving, colonial tortoise 

was extirpated from the Big Bend region m prehistoric 

times, most likely as a result 01 overharvesting for its 

meat by early Indian populations. 

Regional enthusiasm for a proposed Arizona. 

Sonora Biosphere Reserve is accelerating, reports 

Carlos Nagel, President of Friends of Pronatura. 

Funded by U.S. MAB. Nagel isdiscussing enwonmental concerns and the biosphere reserve idea with community leaders and representatives of government 

agencies and organizations concerned with the conservation and sustainable useof a large region roughly 

centered on Organ Pipe Cactus NP A fall workshop is 

planned to bring such people together to consider 

ways to institutionalize regional cooperation under 

MAB. Nagel will be preparing a feasibility report documenting the issues of regional concern, interest in 

MAB as a lramework for cooperation, and options for 

establishing a regional MAB program. The recently 

established Southern Appalachian MAB Cooperative 

will serve as one model. 

Designation certificates are being sent to the 

seven administrative units of the Central California 

Coast BR, which includes Point Reyes NS and parts of 

Golden Gate NRA; the Southern Appalachian BR, 

which includes three existing BRs - Oak Ridge 

National Environmental Research Park, Great Smoky 

Mountains NP, and Coweeta Hydrological Laboratory; 

and the New Jersey Pinelands BR, now designated 

separately as a biosphere reserve from the South 

Atlantic Coastal Plain BR, which formerly included it. 

The Proceedings of the Symposium on Biosphere 

Reserves, held during the World Wilderness Conference in September 1987, should be published in 

Marchofthis year. Copieswill besenttoeach Regional 

Office, each CPSU, and each biosphere reserve unit 

For further distribution, contact Bill Gregg, MAB Coordinator, National Park Service (490), PO. Box 37127, 

Washington, D.C. 20013-7127. Phone: (202) 343.8122 

or FTS 343-8122. 
Exotic or Alien - Either Defines ‘Pest’ 

Environmental threats posed by exotic pest plants 

have been seriously recognized and addressed in 

southern Florida only in the last 20 years or so. This 

may well be due to the fact that alien (exotic) plants 

haven’t been around much longer than that. Of those 

that have, few have had the opportunity to spread. 

Other factors such as population dynamics and desirable invasion sites also have a large impact on the rate 

of spread from initial introduction. 

Most of southern Florida’s alien pest plants were 

brought here, ostensibly, to “do good things” for the 

environment. Many were brought to help “reclaim”the 

wetlands, todry up the”swamp,“and toallow people to 

live and farm these otherwise “useless”places. This is 

often the case of such imported pests. Such plants are 

almost never conceived of as potential problems, but 

as assets. Still today, lhough the numbers are fewer, 

there remain some who argue against control of these 

pests because of special interests. 

Most of the problems first noted with alien pest 

plants were related to difticulties encountered by people, such ascanalsorlakes that became”choked”with 

aquatic weeds. Eventually environmental problems 

became evident as loss of native habitat, through 

alteration of plant and animal communities, was seen 

in natural preserves. People responded to these early 

problems, but usually as Indlwduals. Sometimes a single State or county park, one agency or even one 

person in an agency reacted, but usually without any 

other participation or communication. Most of the work 

was isolated and done virtually alone. Occasionally 

individuals within an agency might share information, 

but coordinated effortson a broaderscalewereessentially non-existent. Addltlonally, the size of the alien 

problem and the fact that alien pest plants dtd not 

recognize politIcal boundaries made the whole issue 

(at least as far as woody weeds were concerned) 

unmanageable on the scale at which they had become 

problems. A concerted effort was called for. 

No coordinated effort to begm such a program 

existed until the formation of the Exotic Pest Plant 

Council. It began at first through informatton contacts, 

the sharing of information and ideas about the issues, 

and eventually meetings among people Involved with 

themanagement,controlandresearchof exotics. After 

several attempts and some hard work, the Council 

was formed. Its purposes are outlmed in the 

bylaws: 

a) tofacilitatecommunication andexchangeof information regarding all aspects of exotic pest plant control 

and management: 

b) to provide a forum where all interested parties 

may parlicipateinandshare in the meetingsand benefits from the information generated and promulgated by 

this Council; 

c) to promote an understanding regarding exotic 

pest plants and their control; 

d) to serve as an advisory council for the continued 

needs for funding, research, management and control 

of exotic pest plants; 

e) to serve as an advisory panel for various interests concerned with exotic pest plants and suggest 

possible management actions to meet specific management needs; 

f) to provide a focus for the issues and concems 

John Giftord proudly stands in front of the first 

Melaleuca introductions in south Florida. Planting 

located at the Gifford home. Photo 1906, Courtesy of 

The Historical Museum of Southern Florida. 

regarding exotic pest plants; 

g) topromotedissemination of pertinent information 

regarding exotic pest plant management; 

h) to review exotic pest plant management problems and activities and provide updated information to 

interested parties. 

Some of the ways the Council has been effective in 

pursuing these goals include: 

- development of a model county ordinance as a 

guide for local governments in writing exotic pest plant 

control legislation; 

- supportforan interagency agreement for a biological control program for Mefaleuca; 

- a complete, prioritized listing of exotic pest species for Florida; 

- productionofamanagement handbookforcontrol 

of exotics; 

- provisionofnewsinformation tothemediaregarding exotic pest plant problems; 

- aid in the development of an integrated management plan for interagency funding and control of 

Melaleuca on natural lands outside Everglades NP 

Boundary, that has procured over $300,000.00 of outside funds to help protect the park; 

- aid in the coordlnafion of a mitigration plan for 

control of Schinus in Everglades NP that has procured 

over $500,000.00 of outside funding for the study. 

On November 2.4,1988the Exotic Pest Plant Council, National Park Service, University of Miami, Florida 

Division of Forestry, Fairchild Tropical Garden, The 

Nature Conservancy and the USDA Agricultural 

5 

Research Service sponsored a symposium on the 

worldwide problems of exotic pest plants. The symposium was organized to discuss the biological, ecological, and socio-political problems that occur when 

exotic plant species become pests in natural areas. 

A proceedings will be available sometime this 

summer for persons interested in the specifics on the biological implications and management strategies and initiatives regarding 

exotic pest plants. 

Nat Reed, former Assistant Secretary of the Department of Interior, led oft the symposium, labeling this 

action “a last ditch effort,” and calling for “an all-out 

initiative to fund these programs.” Said Reed: “I 

rememberwater hyacinth astheonce dreaded plant 

it palls when compared to Melaleuca or Brazilian Pep 

per ., and, excepting Agent Orange, we should be 

bold inour experiments.” Hisimplicationsareclear, that 

if action isn’t taken now, we may well have lost our last 

opportunity. 

Case studies from Hawaii, California, Florida and 

Australia presented the scope of the problem. Dr. Ron 

Myers, an ecologist with The Nature Conservancy, and 

long involved with exotic plant research, summarized 

the symposium with these observations: alien plants 

like Melaleuca, significantly and permanently alter 

community structure and ecosystem properties; “if 

species like Melaleuca, Schinus, Casuarina, and 

Mimosa pigra are allowed to go unchecked the 

Everglades will be no more we know it will happen, 

but I wonder if we have the resolve to prevent it.” 

Dr. Myers first asked, ‘“Is there a solution?” and went 

on to say, “I contend there is:’ The State of Florida, he 

pointed out, successfully controls aquatic weed species on Florida’s waterways by spending $13 million 

annually. “The ultimate cause for lack of success with 

things like Melaleuca,” Dr. Myers said, “is insufficient, 

inconsistent and poorly directed funding, not only to 

proceed but also to monitor past efforts. It would take 

consistent funding and direction to provide a long-term 

control strategy.” 

Do we commit to Nat’s last ditch effort 01 do we 

simply allow much ol our natural heritage to be lost - 

there will be no options after-the-fact; it will have gone 

too far. Many people fail to see the seriousness of the 

alien weed problem because “a plant is a plant” and 

exotic plant problems develop slowly and do not have 

the dramatic impact of a fire in Yellowstone. It seems 

ironicthat so much effort and moneywasspent on one 

such issue as the Yellowstone fires 01 1988, even 

though scientists consider it a natural and positive 

thing for Yellowstone’s ecology, while a real threat so 

great as to someday mean the literal end of places like 

Everglades NP continues almost unchallenged. 

I, lor one, vote with Nat Reed, but the final effort 

requires something new. We need not just the Exotic 

Pest Plant Council, oranothersymposium. but a coalition to undertake the political action necessary to fund 

acoordinated control program. Without taking this new 

direction, wecan’t beserious about our efforts, and we 

will only fail for the final time. 

Doren is Supervisory Botanist at Everglades NP 
a 

And the Voice of the Grey Tree Frog 

Was Heard Again in the Land I n n 

By Robert P. Cook 

II was the summer 01 1988 and a long-silenced 

sound pulsed in lhe air over Jamaica Bay. It was juvenile grey treefrogscalling at dusk from woodlands near 

the pond within Gateway National Recreation Area, 

and it was a thrilling moment for park employees, who 

had transplanted the tiny singers as ladpoles in 1987. 

Gateway NRA, 26,000 acres scatiered among four 

counties and two stales, lies within and adjacent to 

New York City. Its lands range from relatively intact 

natural landforms such as Sandy Hook and Breezy 

Point, to the dredge spoil and landfill that underly most 

oftheupland habilatsoltheStalen Island andJamaica 

Bay units. Of these “human created” lands, habitats 

such as freshwater ponds and marshes, grasslands, 

shrub thickets, and pioneering woodlands have developed the result of planting programs and plant 

colonization. Gateway management now is directed 

toward preservation and restoration of natural processes. 

Inventory Shows Declines 

Inventory eHorts have shown that compared 10 historic records for the area, the herpetofauna (amphibians and reptiles) of Gateway is impoverished. For 

example, Noble (1927) lisied37species as indigenous 

to Long Island. In the Jamaica Bay unit, on western 

Long Island. only four species were found recently to 

occur as viable populations. This pattern, repeated al 

the other Gateway units, is partially due to the coastal 

nature of the park and the lack of certain habitats (e.g. 

cold, rocky streams). However the major lactors are 

human related. 

On Sandy Hook, the eastern hognose snake and its 

primary food, the Fowler’s load, have been extirpated, 

with pesticides the suspected cause. For the Staten 

Island and Jamaica Bay units, the upland habitats 

have developed on substrate deposited atop what 

once was salt marsh. While these habitats were being 

created. rapid urbanization of the surrounding areas 

was eliminating habitats and local populations 

(Schlauch 1976. 1978). Some species managed to 

survive in remnant habitats, but for most. the highways, urban neighborhoods, and tidal creeks proved to 

be eHective barriers to dispersal. Thus, few of the 

sulyivors of urbanization were able 10 colonize the 

recently-created habitats that eventually became 

Gateway. 

Transplanting Begun 

In 1980, a pilot program of transplanting locally 

collected native herpetofauna began at Gateway’s 

Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, based on the belief that 

“restoration” should include all components of an 

area’s biota, not simply cleanup and revegetation. It 

was recognized that local gene pools of native species 

we still being lost to urbanization at the same time 

that Gateway habitats capable of supporting many of 

these species were going unoccupied. 

Gateway now is undertakingtorestoreorrecteate to 

the extent possible the community of amphibians and 

reptiles native to the habitats now present. Similar 

programs had been proposed in theory (Campbell 

1974) or undertaken for the purpose of protecting or 

enhancing a single endangered species (Beebe 1973, 

Gates et a/ 1985). This program differs only in its 

attempt 10 transplant several species rather than just 

one. 

Northern Brown Snake, an urban loleranfspecies, IS 

easily transplanted and has been released in three 

Gateway areas. [Photo by WA. Tompkins) 

From 1980 10 1986, Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge 

staffcarried out the pilot program, whichnowservesas 

the basis for Gateway-wide implementation. At the 

Bay, candidate species for transplanting were those 

native to Long Island and adapted to the habitats present. Only individuals collected on Long Island would be 

released. 

Collections Made With Care 

Animals used in the transplant program are collected from populations facing imminent destruclion 

from habitat lossorfromsecure populationscapableof 

sustaining collection. Depending on the species, dinerent lhfe stages or a combination of lhfe stages are 

released. The northern spring peeper, for example, is 

most easily collected as larvae whereas the spotted 

salamander is most easily transported as egg masses. 

Prior to release, all snakes and turtles are marked, 

using scale branding and carapace notching, respectively. Due to their relatively short lifespan, their larger 

numbers, and the Inherent difficulties in long term 

marking, amphibians are released unmarked. Monitoring efforts consist of observations at breeding ponds, 

live trapping, searching under boards and logs, and 

miscellaneous encounters (e.g. road kills and animals 

found by visitors.) 

In monitoring these transplants, we usually documenl overwinter survival and then confirm breeding or 

production of offspring. The latter is determined by 

records of neonates, metamorphs, and unmarked indlviduals of species marked prior to release. Offspring 

records, however, do not necessarily prove establishment because gravid females sometimes are released. We have been conservative about deciding 

when a specfes is established, but when a pattern 

emerges of continuing progeny, recorded over a few 

years and combined with evidence of a spread from 

the introdutiion point, it is fairly safe to assume establishment. 

Early Results Encouraging 

Early results at Jamaica Bay were encouraging. 

Spring peeper and northern brownsnake were established within three and four years. respectively. By 

1986.11 species had been released and survival and 

reproduction had been documented lor most. 

Tablel. Populationstatusof amphibiansand reptilesreleasedon Ruler’s Bar Hassock island, JamaicaBay Wildlile 

Refuge, New York, New York, 1980 - 1987. 

Species No. of Overwinter Breading 

Released Year Individuals Survival Records Established 

Spring peeper 

Gray tree frog 

Green frog 

Spotted salamander 

Redback salamander 

Northern brown 

snake 

Smooth green snake 

Eastern hognose 

snake 

Eastern milk snake 

Black racer 

Snapping tultle 

Eastern painted tultle 

Eastern box turtle 

80-83 

1987 

85-87 

1987 

83-86 

80.84 

81-86 

84.85 

8487 

05.87 

03-87 

02.87 

80-86 

58 adult 

3600 larvae 

1000 larvae 

130 adult 

212 larvae 

14,000 embryos 

361 juvenile 

1443 adult 

23 juvenile 

49 adult 

17juvenile 

64 adult 

21 hatchling 

4 adult 

19 juvenile 

13 adult 

6 juvenile 

18 adult 

320 hatchling 

12juvenile 

36 adult 

28 juvenile 

361 adult 

12 juvenile 

183 adult 

a = Insufficient elapsed time or data to determine. 

6 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

a 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Ye5 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Innumerable Yes 

a a 

a a 

a a 

12 oHsprIng a 

recorded 

42 offspring Yes 

recorded 83.84 

10 offspring a 

recorded 

a a 

1 offspring a 

recorded 

25 offspring a 

recorded 

3 offspring a 

recorded 

8 offspring a 

recorded 

6 oHspring a 

recorded 
In 1997, aided by lunds from the Natural Resources 

Protection Program, Gateway’s Office of Resource 

Management and Compliance expanded the project 

parkwide. For each unit, the above process of historic 

research. inventory, habitat suitability assessment, 

collection, release, and monitoring was begun. For 

each site, a list of candidate species for release was 

developed. 

At the New York Zoological Society’s Bronx Zoo, the 

curator of herpetology, Dr. John Behfer, and his staff 

entered into a cooperative agreement. The zoo’s reptile house is currently rearing eastern hognose snakes 

for release Into the coastal dune habitats of Breezy 

Point unit The hognose, once common, has long been 

etiirpated locally, and on Long Island not enough exist 

in the wilds for the usual collection and release 

methods. In summer 1998, 16 hatchlings were produced and 10 were released at Breezy Point. The 

remaining six will be used to supplement the wildcaught breeding stock. Within another year or two the 

annual release of hognose snakes should double and 

a population become established. 

Restoration Started 

Work has begun oh restortng the Fowfer’s toad to 

Sandy Hookandonceestablished. the hognosesnake 

will follow. Meanwhile, at Jamaica Bay Refuge with its 

greater habitat diversity and acreage, the program is at 

its most advanced stage. Individuals of 13 specres 

have been released and records of survival, dispersal, 

and reproduction continueto grow. (Table 1). It is hoped 

that the juvenile gray tree frogs who sang last summer 

at Jamaica Bay will begin breeding in 1999. 

Gateway inherited lands with a history of initial 

abuse for which recent efforts at restoration are 

attempting to compensate. It is unrealisbc tc expectthe 

entire pre-urbanization fauna can be restored here, but 

as a result of this program, continued existence of 

many of these species in the metropolitan New York 

area will be ensured. By adapting the principles of this 

program, other urban areas may also be able to preserve and manage local herpetofauna gene pools and 

thus provide visrtors the opportunity to experience 

greater wildlife vanety. 

Coohis a NaturalResource Management Specialist 

at Gateway NRA. 

Literature Cited 

Beebe, 1J.C. 1973. Observations concerning the 

decline of the British amphibia. Biological Conservation. 5:20-24. 

Juvenile Black Racer, a species that has produced successfully at both Jamaica Bay Wi/dlifs Ffefuge and Floyd 

Benneft Field. (Photo by Don Riepe) 

Campbell, CA. 1974. Survivalofreptiles andamphibians in urban environments. Pages 61-66 in J.H. 

Noyes and CR. Progulske eds. Wildlife in an 

urbanizing environment. Univ. of Mass. Coop. Ext. 

Serv., Amherst. 183 pp. 

Gates, J.E., R.H. Stouffer. Jr, J.R. Stasuffer Jr., and 

C.H. Hocuff. 1985 Dispersal patterns of transloCatedCryptobranchus alleghaniensisina Maryland 

stream. J. Herpetol. 19:436-438. 

Noble, G. K. 1927 Distributional list of the reptiles and 

amphibians of the New York City region. Guide 

Leafl. Ser. No. 69. Am.Mus.Nat.Hist., New York. 

9PP. 

Schlauch, EC. 1976. City snakes, suburban salamanders. Natural History 8546-53. 

Schlauch, FC. 1978. Urban geographical ecology of 

the amphibians and reptiles of Long Island. Pages 

25-41 in C.M. Kirkpatrick, ed. Wildlife and people. 

John S. Wright Forestry Conf. Proc, Dep. of For, and 

Nat. Resour., Purdue Univ. and the Indiana Coop. 

Ext. Serv., West Lafayette. 

NPCA Update of Leopold 

Report to DI Secretary 

on March 19 

The results of one year’s deliberations on NPS 

research and management polrcy for the 2ist Century 

were scheduled to go to the Interior Department Secretary on March 19 - presstrme for Park Science’s 

Spring 1989 issue. Current NPS policies for wildlife 

have been largely based on a 1963 report by an 

advisoryboard headed byDr.A. Starker Leopold. A17- 

member panel, convened early in 1988 and chaired by 

Dr. John C. Gordon, dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, has produced a 

“Successor to the Leopold Report,” which was presented at the opening session of the 54th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference in 

Washington, D.C., March 19. 

A detailed look at this report and its reception at 

Interior will be carried in the summer issue of Park 

Science. 

Spotted Salamander. Transplanted egg masses of this specres have successfully 

hatched and mefamorphosed at Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge. (Photo by W.A. 

Jomhins) 

Eastern Hognose snake, shown here hatching wt. Jhe Bronx Zoob Reptile House 

is captive rearing hognose snakes for release at Breezy Point. 

7 
I I 

Proposed Migratory Bird Watch To Encompass 

Research, Monitoring and Interpretation 

By Ted Simons, John Peine, 

and Richard Cunningham 

Concern over the impending free-fall in global bio. 

logical diversity is based primarily on the unprece. 

dented destruction of natural habitats currently underway worldwide. Neotropical migrant passerlnes (North 

American songbirds) are particularly vulnerable to 

this phenomenon due to the pell-mell destructlon of 

their wintering grounds in the tropics, urban development of their migratory stopover habitat in coastal 

areas, and the fragmentation of breeding habitat in 

North America. 

Migratory birds provide a uniquely compelling sub. 

ject to showcase the global biological diversity issue. 

Their heroic journeys are an inspiration of will and 

physical ability. Their dependence on critical habitats is 

not well known. We feel that populations of neotropical 

migratory birds provide a model system for interpreting 

and studying biological diversity wues in national 

parks. Their life cycles illustrate the interconnection of 

global ecosystems and the need for a broad, cooperatlve approach in addressing threats to biological diversity. 

A monitoring and interpretive program is proposed 

as a joint initiative between the National Park Service 

(NPS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS). Efforts will be concentrated in four areas: 

population monitoring, habitat assessment. interpretation, and international cooperation. 

As the focus of a long-term monitoring effort, migratory bird populations should provide a useful umbrella 

forotherspecies.Theycompriseadiversegroupwitha 

wide range of ecological requirements, and are sensitive to a variety of factors that can affect biodiversity. 

Theseinclude:changing competitive relationships, the 

loss, alteration or fragmentation of habitats, and a species’abilitytoadaptto achanging environment.Therefore their populations serve well as indicators of 

environmental change. 

In addition to identifying changes within parks, 

monitoring migrant populations should provide insights 

intothe broader problems this issue reflects. A network 

of national parks will provide a unique opportunity to 

standardize methods and experimental designs, conduct long term research, and provide for the information exchange necessary to address an issue of this 

scale. 

initial population mmitoring pmtocols will be based 

on the USRn/S Breeding Bird Survey. Data management and analysis will be the responsibility of the 

Migratory Bird Office. Data from parks will be compared to results from over 2000 surveys conducted 

each year by the USFWS nationwide. As the program 

matures, standardized park-specific bird census protocols will be developed and incorporated into park 

inventory and monitoring programs. Applied to a network of parks, representing a wide range of habitats, 

sizes, and boundary configurations, this work will provide important insights into the role these factors play 

in structuring natural communities. Many parks will be 

able to build on substantial historic databases on bird 

populations, on-going research, and local expertise. 

We anticipate that much of the field work in this project 

could be conducted with the assistance of volunteers 

recruited through local Audubon chapters. 

Ananalysisof 15yearsofdatafrom the NorthAmerican Sreedlng Bird Survey by USFWS scientists has 

revealed that most neotropical migrant bird species 

that breed in the eastern United States and Canada 

have declined in abundance during the last 10 years. 

Most scientists attnbute these losses to changes in 

critical habttat ranging from forest fragmentation in the 

breeding range, to loss of stopover habitat, to total 

deforestation in thewinter range. Coastal development 

in recent decades has reduced enormously the stop 

over habitat for migrants. These habitat areas provide 

refuge and nourishment for many North American 

migrants during a critical phase of their annual cycle. 

They are the jumping off point for literally hundreds of 

thousands of birds that cross the Gulf of Mexico every 

fall, and the tirst landfall for individuals returning north 

each spring. 

The habitat component of this project will assess 

changes m migratory bird habitats in and around 

selected parks, and attempt to correlate those 

changes with changes in bird populations. Our goal is 

to engage other agencies, including NASA and USGS, 

in a project that will demonstrate the transfer of remote 

sensing technology to a conservation issue of global 

importance. Anticipated products would include a continental scale mapofcritical habitats for migrantsanda 

trend analysis of habitat change at selected parks. 

Although research and monitoring efforts will provide valuable information, the interpretive component 

is by far the most important element in this program. 

Clearly the greatest contribution the National Park Service can make to the conservation of migratory birds 

and their habitats will be through its unparalleled 

opportunity to educate and motivate more than 300 

million visitors a year. 

A network of “Linkage Parks” will form the nucleusof 

the migratory bird interpretive intiiative. Representative 

migratory birds have been selected that link NPS areas 

during their annual cycles. For example Blackpoll Warblers may be found in the Virgin Islands, Gulf islands, 

Everglades, Great Smokies, Cape Cod, and Acadia 

during their annual trek from Venezuela to eastern 

Canada. Interpretive programs in linkage parks will 

focus on the ecology of these birds during their annual 

cycle, and their dependence on healthy ecosystems 

from the tropics to the arctic. Linkage parks would then 

be encouraged to exchange interpretive materials from 

their park with others in the network. Additional interpretive elements will include the production of a traveling exhibit and slide file on migratory bird conservation 

issues, and the development of a “Kids Net” educational module on migratory birds in cooperation with 

the National Geographic Society. 

The flnal objectiveoftheprogram istofoster international cooperation by involving the participation of 

parks in Canada and Latin America and the establishment of complementary linkages through the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Initially we hope to have a representative of a Canadian and Costa Rican park participate in an interpretive workshop on migratory bird 

issues to be held at Gulf Islands in April 1989. 

Our goal is to begin work in a representative network 

of 10 U.S. parks, and one Canadian, and one Costa 

Rican park in 1989. We have submitted a request for 

start-up funding through the Washington Office. We 

hope to highlight a fully operational program in 1992 as 

part of formal ceremonies commemorating the Quincentennial of the Columbus landing. We anticipate participation by National Audubon, the World Wildlife 

Fund, National Geographic, andotherorganizationsas 

the program evolves, and hope to establish linkages to 

additional parks and resewes in Canada and Latin 

America. 

Our objective is to demonstrate how a relatively 

modest commitment of resources can be leveraged to 

elevate awareness of critical conservation issues. We 

have put together a packet of material on the program 

including the funding proposals, a comprehensive 

ovewiewoftheissueprepared by DickCunninghamas 

an interpreter’s reference, and a questionnaire soliciting interest and park-specific information. We would 

welcome your comments, ideas, and especially your 

pardcipabon. Please contact us il you are interested 

and would like more information. 

Simon& (601) 875905i: is Research Biologist at 

GullIslands National Seashore; Peine (615) 436-7120, 

is Research Administrator at Great Smoky Mountains 

NF) and Cunningham (FTS 556-3184) is Chief Interpreter for the NPS Western Region. 

American Academy of 

Underwater Sciences 

The 1988 symposium was held Sept. 30. Oct. 1 at 

Scripps Institute of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif., 

attended by approximately 130 people. Twenty-six 

papers were presented at concurrent sessions and 

proceedings were distributed at the meeting. 

Primary focus was on diving technology, but papers 

on dive program management and scientific applications of diving also were delivered. Prior to the symposium, Sept. 26-28, the Academy co-sponsored a 

workshop on decompression computers with Sea 

Grant. The results of the workshop and a draft set of 

guidelines for decompression computer use in scientific diving were presented by Dr. W. Hamilton. Proceedings will be published by the Academy. 

Workshops on dry suit construction and repair, 

remote duty first aid, emergency oxygen administration, and dive accident management were conducted 

on October 3-4. 
Review Team Finds Fire Policy Sound 

But ‘Application Needs Changing’ 

On Sept. 28, 1988, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior appointed a 10. 

person interagency Fire Management Policy Review 

Team to investigate and recommend modifications to 

agencies’currentfiremanagement policiesfarnational 

parks and federally designated Wilderness Areas. 

NPS representatives on that team were Boyd Evison, 

Alaska Regional Director, and Bruce Kilgore, Western 

Regional Chief Scientist. 

In its 12114188 report, the Team indicated the objectives and the philosophy behind the current prescribed 

natural fire policies in national parks and wilderness 

areas are fundamentally sound. But these policies, 

which permit lightning-caused fire to burn under predetermined conditions (prescribed natural fire), need 

to be refined, strengthened. and reaffirmed. 

The lo-page report, publIshed in the 12120188 

Federal Register, noted that the ecological effects of 

prescribed fire support resource objectives in parks 

and wilderness, but in some cases the social and 

economic effects may be unacceptable. Prescribed 

natural fires may affect permitted uses of parks and 

wilderness, such as recreation, and may also Impact 

areas outside parks through such phenomena as 

smoke and stream sedimentation. The report called for 

major changes in policy Implementation to limit 

application to legitimate prescribed fire programs and 

to prevent any inappropriate uses of these policies. 

The reporl contains 14 specific recommendations 

for strengthening and reaffirming existing fire management polictes in wilderness and national parks. For 

example, it noted that many current fire management 

plans do not meet current policy, and that so-called 

weather and fuel “prescriptions” for use of prescribed 

fire do not place enough limits on fire management 

decisions. To meet these deficiencies, the panel report 

recommends plans be strengthened by joint interagency planning along common boundaws, by 

improving weather and fuel prescriptions, and by 

clearly identifying areas needing protection from fire - 

including developments within or adjacent to wildetness and parks. 

To ensure implementation of these concepts at the 

field level, the report recommends a certification process whereby each line manager confirms daily that 

adequate suppression resources are available to 

assure that a prescribed natural fire will remain in 

prescription, given reasonably forseeable weather 

conditions and fire behavior, or that the fire will be 

declared a wildfire, and appropriate suppression will 

be initiated. 

Other important changes in policy implementation 

include: 

- Federal agencies will reaffirm their policy that fires 

are either prescribed fires or wildfires. 

- No prescribed natural fires wll be allowed to burn 

until fire management plans meet the revised implementation requirements contained in the report 

- Federal agencies will develop regional and 

national contingency plans to provide necessary program monitoring anddirection, including curtailment of 

prescribed fire activities when necessary. 

- Agencies will re-evaluate opportunities to use 

agency-ignited fires (prescribe burns) to complement 

prescribed natural fires (lightning-ignited) programs 

By Bruce M. Kifgore 

and to reduce hazard fuels, particularly around developments and near boundaries where there are high 

values at risk. 

- Agencies will strengthen training programs and 

establish additional full-time regional fire coordinators 

to ensure the availability of fully qualified staff and 

knowledgeable line officers for developing, implementing, and managing prescribed fire programs. 

- The National Wildfire Coordinating Group should 

take the lead in developing common terminology for 

prescribed burning programs and wildfire suppression 

alternatives. 

- Agencies will develop joint criteria for selecting 

appropriate suppression tactics in wilderness and 

parks. Preplanning should include these tactics. 

- Agencies will improve the understanding and 

acceptance of the policy of using suppression tactics 

that meet fire management objectives and minimize 

impacts on wilderness and parks. 

- The National Wildfire Coordinating Group needs 

to develop interagency guidelines for light-hand-onthe-land suppression tactics. 

- Agencies will ensure that the NEPA process is 

followed for fire management plans. 

- The Departments of the Interior and Agriculture 

will review methods of funding prescribed fire and fire 

protection programs to improve interagency effectiveness. Planning and presuppresslon activities need 

program funds rather than emergency funds. 

- Interpretation and public information before and 

during fires will be improved to provide timely, accurate, and consistent informabon on the purpose, presence, and status of prescribed natural fires. 

- Joint research, involving both USDI and USDA, 

will seek to improve the ability to predict severe fire 

behavior, to forecast long-term fire weather, and to 

find ways to prescribe burn forests using standreplacement fires. 

The 12/20/88 report was the subject of ii public 

meetings held throughout the country the first two 

weeksof February, 1989; writlencommentsweresolicited until February 21, 1989. A careful review will be 

made of such public input-both from the public meetings and from wrinen submissions, and the Review 

Team will meet again to consider what additional modifications may be appropriate in view of such suggestions from the public and any additional review 

considered necessary by individual land management 

agencies. It is expected that approved policy implementation changes can be in place prior to the 1989 

western fire season. 

The NPS Branch of Fire Management at Boise is 

gearing up to review all NPS fire management pfans; 

individual prescribed natural fire programs will besuspended until plans have been certified as being in 

conformance with NPS and DOI pal&s. A comprehensive wildland fire management program called 

FIREPR03 is in itsfinalstagesofdevelopment. Based 

on a thorough analysis of fire occurrence on lands 

managed by the NPS, the program will prolessionalize 

this high-risk program throughout the agency. For 

example, full-time regional fire coordinators would 

have responsibility for allocating fire management 

resources on a regionwide basis. The program would 

also provide for a substantial increase in presuppres9 

sion activities to reduce hazardous fuels near park 

boundaries and developed areas. 

In transmttting the report to the Secretaries, the 

Review Team noted the important role of fire in natural 

ecosystems, but indicated that it believed that the sug 

gested improvementsinfiremanagementpolicyimplementation will reduce the risk of repealing the experience of this past summer. Everyone realizes, however, 

there are limitations to what any fire management program can accomplish when extremely dry and windy 

condttions occur in forests with the heavy fuel loads 

found in Yellowstone and similar forest types in 1988. 

Some high intensity fires will occur in these forests, 

regardlessofourbest efforts, butweneed to becertain 

to have used our best efforts. 

Kilgore is Chief, Division of Natural Resources and 

Research, Western Region. 

computer 

corner 

A National Park Service bibliographic database proposal, developed by Pacific Northwest Regional 

Librarian Ellen Traxel at the request of the NPS Information Management Diviston in Washington, D.C., has 

been submitted to the NPS Director by PNR Director 

Charles H. Odegaard. 

A standard format in COMMON was devised to combineihreeexistingdatabasesourcesintoone camputeraccessible “BIBNET” containing input from the Denver 

Service Center, the Washington Office Cultural 

Resources Division, and NP libraries. The database 

would be furlher enriched by citations from a variety of 

sources by an “Other Sources Manager,” whose work 

would be on-going as new information becomes available. 

Benefits would include potenbal for increased efflciency of managers and planning staffs Servicewide. 

Implementationwould bein threephases,overtwofiscal 

years, at an estimated Servicewide cost of $244,000, 

with recurring annual operating costs of $80,000. Basic 

requtrement for hooking Into the system is an IBM compatible PC with hard disk at the park level, and a 286 ATtype computer with a large hard disk at the Regional 

offIce level. The required software already has been 

programmed by Richard Aroksaar of the PNRO Library 

staff 10 accommodate a variety of local-option park 

computer operations. 

The basic ingredients and strategies were formulated 

by Traxel and Glenn Hinsdale, PNRO Interpretive Specialist. Principal project participants in addition, are Edie 

Ramey. DSC Technical Inform&on Center, Alicia 

Weber, WAS0 Cultural Resources Management Bibleography, and Kevin Kllleen, WAS0 Information and 

Data Systems Division. Susan Smith (WASO), David 

Nathanson (Harpers Ferry Center), Jeff Marion (Delaware Water Gap), Patt Dienna (Mid-Atlantic Region). 

and Anne Frondorf (WASO) complete the task force. 
Non-Native Mountain Goat Management 

Undertaken at Olympic National Park 

By Bruce B. Moorhead 

After extensive research and public review, a Decision Record was issued on March 18, 1988, by Supt. 

Robert S. Chandler of Olympic NP. outlining a program 

to eliminate non-native mountain goats (Oreamnos 

americanus) from most of the park and to control their 

numbers elsewhere. This report briefly describes the 

goat problem, the new management initiative, and progress made in 1988. 

The Problem 

About a dozen mountain goats from Alaska and 

Canadawere released in the Olympic Mountains in the 

1920% 10 years before the park was created. There is 

no prior record of mountain goats in the Olympics. A 

detailed aerial census in 1983 revealed a widespread 

population of approximately 1,200 animals; mote than 

80 percent - about 1,000 goals - were within the 

national park. 

The Olympic Mountains have long been isolated 

from other ranges. The fauna is less diverse than in the 

nearby Cascade range; a number of mounfaindwelling mammals found elsewhere in Washington but 

absent in the Olympics are bighorn sheep, grizzly bear, 

lynx, wolverine, golden-mantled ground squirrel and 

pika. 

The introduced mountain goats now occur throughout the Olympic range, but in particular in subalpine 

and alpine plant communities that comprise about 30 

percent of the park. Nine endemic plant species and 

varieties have been Identified in these mountains; 

most occur in goat habitat. Studies over the last 10 

years have documented goat impacts on a number of 

subaiplnecommunitiesand endemicspecies. Soil erosion due to goat wallowing also has been measured. 

The Management Program 

The new program goals are to eliminate mountain 

goats from Ihe park interior and to control their numbers along the eastern boundary. A priority will be to 

remove animals from the core of the park, where most 

of the populatton now occurs. Alongside fhe eastern 

boundary, goats are managed by the Washington 

Department of Wildlife (WDW) to sustain an archery 

hunt annually in Olympic National Forest. Within a 

specified near-boundary zone, goats will be reduced 

but not eliminated in the park to a level thal reverses 

habitat damage and inhibits recruitment to the interior 

population. 

Live-capture will be used exclusively to manage the 

population in the first three years of the program. Cap 

lured animals will be turned over to the WDW for 

relocation in Washington, or other western states and 

possibly Canada. All live trapped animals will be 

turned over to the Washington State Dept. of Wildlife 

for release in native habitat areas of Washington or 

provided to other states for release on native range. 

Consideration also will be given to transferring some 

goats to qualifted zoos and other wildlife organizations, 

as appropnate. 

Field Testing Extensive 

Various restraint and handling procedures for goats 

have been field tested In the park since 1980, including 

capture and relocation of over 230 animals using dropnet, netgun. and chemical immobilization techniques. 

Helicopter supporf has been essential in such operations. Management of goats by fertility control, orsferifization. also has been tested. Available treatment 

methods, however, were not found to be widely applicable in the mountainous circumstances. The park 

staff will continue to monitor the technology of wildlife 

fertility control and its possible application to the problem. 

Afterthree years, progress in managing the population by capture and relocation will be assessed. If it is 

no longer feasible to caplure goats, those remaining in 

the park interior may be removed through a shooting 

program by park rangers or other federal wildlife control agents. Live-capture will remain a preferred 

method where possible. 

A technical advisory committee has been eslablished 10 monitor the overall conduct of the program. 

Included are representatives from major interest 

groups and agencies involved in the issue. The cornmiftee also will serve as liaison with interested organizations and agencies. It will meet annually with the 

Medication is administered by Nalurai Resource Specialist Cal Hawkins ano Research Biologist Ooug Houston 

to a captured mountain goat at frontcountry staging area. (NPS photo by Janrs E. Burg& 

Authorreadyinggoat for transport crate. Leg hobbles and blindfoldare removed prior to loadmg: floor of crate IS 

Red with snow as coolant and water source during transport. (NPS photo by Janis E. BurgerJ 

10 
Captured goats in hekcoptei transit lo frontcountry 

stagrng area. Note special ha&g bags that hold 

animal upright during Ilight to allow exhalation of 

rumen gases and prevent bloating. [Photo by R. W, 

OISO~J 

park staff to review program results and make recommendations on possible modifications. 

Progress in 1966 

Eighty goats were removed from the park in capture 

and relocationoperationsfrom MaylGto Julyl9,1966. 

Captures were carried out by a team of three park 

rangers and a pilot with a Hughes 500-D helicopter. 

Most of the goats (72) were captured by chemical 

immobifizahon through darts fired from the helicopter. 

Eight animals were captured with a netgun fired from 

the helicopter. 

Captured animals were “sling-lined” in specially 

designed hauling bags by helicopter to a frontcountry 

staging areawheretheyweretreatedfor injuries, given 

a standard protocol of medications, placed in wooden 

crates (packed wtth snow as coolant), and trucked as 

soon as possible to release sites. Seventy-three goats 

(91%) were successfully released elsewhere in Washington and Utah. Seven goats (9%) died or were 

destroyeddue tomajor injuriesincurredduring capture 

operations. Minor lacerations and bruises were evident 

on 31 of the animals shipped (39%). No injuries were 

apparent on 42 animals (52%). 

Although the capture operations spanned 65 days, 

capture attempts were possible on only 33 days (51% 

of the time involved). And successful captures 

Research Natural Areas Get Hard Look 

From Scientists and Managers 

“Do not speak of oceans to a well frog, creature of 

another sphere. Do not speak of winter to a summer 

insect, creature of another season.” 

Old Chinese Proverb 

More than 50 researchers and managers - 

creatures of different spheres and seasons-met Feb. 

1-3 in Portland, Ore., to discuss research natural areas 

(RNAs), their mission and management. The untypical 

blast of snow-laden wind and deep freeze temperature 

that persisted doggedly all week outside the meeting 

room were balanced by the heated discussions taking 

place inside. 

The different values that drive research scientists 

and land managers can usefully be separated under 

the headings long-term and short-term. Of the more 

than 600 RNAs now either existing or on the verge of 

establishment, most lie within the boundaries ol either 

USFS or BLM lands - lands whose managers are 

under tremendous pressure from timber, grazing, and 

mining interests to “turn a profit:’ To a lesser extent, 

even the RNAs within U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuges 

and Nations Parks are feeling the hot breath of an 

increasingly numerous and recreation-hungry population. Recommendations for how to handle this conflicting clamor for immediate, as opposed to long-range, 

gratification, was the workshop objective. 

The burning need, according tothescientists, isfora 

management plan that spells out specific objectives for 

RNAs and makes it part of the manager’s job descrip 

tion to see that those objectives are carried out. 

Greater commitment, betler definition of “natural,” 

inclusion of RNAs in the area land management plans, 

and line item funding for long-term research were 

among the most urgent needs to emerge. Secondary, 

but vastly important, was the felt need to educate the 

public and the parent agencies themselves as to the 

vital role RNAs can play in monitoring national and 

even global environmental health. 

The managers present, although not averse to the 

goals and objectives of RNAs as described by the 

researchers, deplored the “fuzziness” of the RNA concept and seemed almost to be pleading for the same 

kind of specific objectives for RNAs that they have for 

timber, grazing, and mining activities. 

Words describing RNAs and their Intended uses are 

not lacking. In a document titled Standards and Policy 

Guidelines for RNAs, written for all Federal landmanaging agencies, a Research Natural Area is 

defined as “a physical or biological unit inwhich current 

natural condittons are maintained insofar as possible:’ 

The need for a comprehensive RNA system, representing all biomes and ecotypes, is based primarily on 

three factors: Science and education, base line studies, and germ plasm reservoirs. 

Two days of presentations and intensive discussion 

were followed by a half-day of formulating recommendations. The product of six work groups, while not yet 

finalized, achieved rough unanimity on the needs 

described above. Sarah Greene, Research RNA Scientist with the USFS, coordinated the workshop and is 

working with the steering committee to gel the recommendations and devise an aCtion plan. 

Jean Matthews, Editor 

Park Science 

Florida Bay Seagrasses Are Dying Off 

Seagrasses in western Florida Bay, the base of the 

complex food web that extends 10 shrimp, game fish, 

and wading birds, are rapidly dying. No one yet knows 

why. 

About 30 percent of the western part of the Bay, 

56,000 acres, may be on the sick list, according to Dr. 

Michael Robblee, Marine Ecologist with Everglades 

NP Florida Bay is within the park’s boundaries. Mike 

occurred on only 16 days (25%). Unsafe flying wndilions (weather) forced shutdowns on 20 days; 

weekends-holidays, logistical delays, and conflicting 

ranger or helicopter duties (e.g., search and rescue) 

shutdown operations on another 29 days. Such problems suggest a rather limited “window of opportunity” 

for goat captures during even the most optimal period 

of the year. 

Over 1,500 staff workhours were required to plan 

and capture 60 animals, or about 19 hours per goat. 

Each capture required approximately 0.9 hours of helicopter flight time. Total park costs (personnel, aircraft, 

drug supplies, etc.) were at least $66,000, or > $650 

per goat. 

A critique of the capture operations suggested a 

number of relatively minor planning and equipment 

changes that could assist in future efforts. All in all, the 

program was considered a successful step in a direction consistent with the National Park mission. 

Moorhead is Wildlife Management Biologist at 

Olympic NP 

11 

Finley, park superintendent, feels this situation is sig 

nificant and that ii is necessary to determine whether it 

is naturally caused or induced by water management. 

Dr. Robblee reported on Nov. 15, 1966, the fall emergency field sampling of the seagrass die-off had just 

beencompleted. Four groupsof researchers looked at 

the situation, including Dr. Ron Jones of Florida Intetnational University, Dr. David Porter of the University of 

Georgia, Dr. Joseph Zieman of the University of Virginia, and Drs. Michael Durako and Paul Carson of the 

Florida Institute of Marine Research. Those who had 

seen the die-off were struck by how much it had 

changed. Die-off now is present in three new basins 

and has spread tremendously in those basins previouslyknovmto beimpacted. Recoveryrnolderdie-off 

patches has occurred. 

Dr. David Porter and his graduate student, Lisa 

Muehlstein, felt that they were seeing disease in association with die-off in the Bay, although whether it is the 

cause of the die-off or a secondary effect resulting 

because of other stresses remains unknown. They 

took numerous samples backwith them to analyze. Dr. 

Zieman visited the lower keys where he has done a 

great deal of work over the past decade and confirmed 

that die-off waspresent in Big PineChannel.This isthe 

first reported die-off outside the park. Dr. Brian 

Lapointe mentioned that he has taken pictures of mass 

movement of floating seagrass leaving Flonda Bay 

past the Seven Mile bridge. All ol these observations 

indicate that die-off is continuing. 
regional highlights 

Alaska Region 

Temperatures plummeted to -50 degrees F at 

Chena Hot Springs, near Fairbanks, during a Feb. 

23-27, 1989 workshop Ior Alaska Region Natural 

Resource Management Specialists. The lodge, 

cabins, and pool all rely on water from the hot springs 

for heating - and so did the participants! 

The workshop emphasized inventory and long-term 

monitoring techniques. Scientists invited to attend 

came from the Hubbard Brook and J.H. Andrew 

Experimental Forests, the Universities of Vermont and 

Alaska, Michigan Tech University, the Idaho National 

Engineering Lab, and Channel Islands NP Also participating were NPS Assoc. Dir. Gene Hester, Alaska 

Reg. Dir. Boyd Evison, and hrs associate director, Paul 

Haertel. 

Pacific Northwest 

A six-member team of NPS rangers and scientists 

from Oregon State University is continuing to sample 

the water quality of Crater Lake throughout the winter 

weather there. The team flies to Wizard Island by 

helicopter when weathercoodit!ons permit tostudyihe 

physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of 

the winter lake. This is part of the lo-year Congressionally-mandated study of the lake. 

Midwest Region 

Ronald Hiebert, formerly Chief, Divrsion of Science 

al IndIana Dunes National Lakeshore, became 

Regional Chief Scientist on Nov. 20, 1988. 

t 1 I 

Dan Fagre, formerly on the faculty at Texas A&M 

University, has jomed the research staff at Indiana 

Dunes as the Animal Ecologist. 

t I * 

Six proposals were received in response 10 an RFP 

for a Great Lakes Cooperatrve Park Studies Unit 

(CPSU). The top proposals were from the University of 

Minnesota and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 

CPSUs will be established at both universities. UlMinn 

wrll function as the Social Science Field Un~i for the 

Midwest and Rocky Mountain Regions. The LbWisc 

CPSU will emphasize ecosystem restoration and special species studies. It is planned for bolh units to be 

operational by the fall of 1989. 

Southwest Region 

The DIVISION of Nalural Resource Management and 

Science has been transferred from Park Operations to 

Planning and Resource Management in a reorganization that admtnistratively combines cultural and natural 

resource activities. The divisron’s fire management 

and forestry responstbilities are being lransferred to 

the Division of Ranger Activities. 

* . . 

A natural resources management workshop is being 

held April 3 in San Antonio, Tex., for all Southwest 

Region natural resource managemenl personnel. 

Agenda covers IPM, cave management and cave WIIderness, air qualtty, water resources. fire management, computer applications, contract development 

and management, GISs, biodiversity and global climate change, and resource management interpretatton. 

Addltron of the Harte Ranch to Big Bend NP wtll 

necessitate an extensive Resource Baw Inventory 

effort. A largevscale RBI effort in the Davrs Mountains 

of West Texas will be coordinated by the Denver Service Center. 

I . t 

A GIS has been installed at Big Thicket operating on 

UNIX, using GRASS as the language to assist in processing oil and gas leasing requests and to maintain an 

extensive resource data base. The system was 

assembled through an agreement with Texas A&M. 

Similar systems, operating wrthdatamounted byTexas 

A&M. will be inslalled this summer at Padre Island and 

Big Bend. 

Southeast Region 

Stephen Nodvin. CPSU leader at U/Term, has organized a serrrnar, “Environmental Impacts to Forest 

Ecosystems,” offered through the Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries. The course introduces 

students to current research initiatives I” the enwonmental sciences. Presentationsare made by scientists 

actively pursuing research I” fields such as acrdic dep 

osition. air pollution, global climate change, and alien 

and endangered species. Students also survey and 

dtscuss current literature. The cowsa seeks to foster 

interest. in both the students and the presenters, in the 

environmental problems asthey relate to NatIonal Park 

lands. A locus of the seminar is potential impacts of 

climate change. 

I) * t 

Research projects recently begun al the UlTenn 

CPSU are: (1) A Georeferenced Ecosystem Database 

for the Southern Appalachians, funded through MAB; 

Hazard Prediction and Assessment of Gypsy Moth 

Infestations at Great Smoky Mountains NP and Blue 

Ridge Parkway, and Potential Impacts of Global Climate Change to Southeastern Region Units of the 

National Park System. 

t * . 

John Peine, the research administrator of Great 

Smoky Mountains NP, spent January 1989 in New Zealand, touring the national parks and universibes to 

study how research is conducted in the national park 

system there. This opportunity was created by the 

Horace Albright Employee Development Fund. 

t t t 

From Oron (Sonny) Bass, Wildlife Biologist al Everglades NP, comes an update on their project Ecology 

and Population Dynamics of the Florida Panther in the 

Everglades, aimed at determining the status of the 

Florida panther (Fe/is concolor coryi) in the park. The 

study is part of a research program to evaluate the 

overall status and recovery needs of the Florida panther, in corporatron with the ongoing Florida panther 

research program of the Florrda Game and Fresh 

Water Fish Commission and USFWS. 

In this, the third year of a 5.year project in Everglades NP, 9 individuals have been documented, of 

which 7 have been radio-collared. Reproduction by the 

females indicates that an adult male Inhabits the park; 

however, he has not yet been captured. 

Three new TechnIcal Reports, published out of the 

South Florida Research Center, are: 

12 

SFRC-87101: Abundance and Distribution of Ichthyoplankton in Florida Bay and Adjacent Walers, by 

Allyn 8. Powell, Donald E. HOSS, William F Henler, 

David S. Peters, Larry Simoneaux. and Stephanie 

Wagner. NOAA Southeast Fisheries Center Beaufort 

Laboratory. Beaufort NC. 

SFRC-87102: Distribution and Abundance of Fish 

Commuxtres Among Selected Estuarine and Marine 

Habitats in Everglades NP, by Gordon W. Thayer, 

Wrlliam F Hetller, Jr., Alexander J. Chester, David R. 

Colby. and Patt J. McElhaney. NOAA Southeast Fisherie;Beaufort Laboratory. Beaufort NC. 

SFRC-88101: Hvdrolooic Effects of the 1984 throuah 

19.56 L-31 Canal bra&w on the Northern Taylor 

Slough Basin of Everglades NP, Robert A. Johnson, 

Joel I. Wagner, Deborah J. Grigsby, and Virginia A. 

Stern. South Florida Research Center, Everglades Nl? 

Homestead, FL. 

Western Region 

From Gary Fellers, NPS Research Biologist at Point 

Reyes NS in California comes word of a new book that 

“looks very good and might be of assistance to NPS 

field biologists. Many of the animals and diseases are 

wrdespread and hence the book’s focus on the southeast IS not a serious problem for the rest of us.” 

The book is Field Manualot Wildl;le Drseases in the 

Southeastern United Stales, by William R. Davidson 

and Victor F Nettles of the University of Georgia, and is 

available lor $10 from the Southeastern Cooperative 

Wildlife Disease Study group in the U/GA College of 

Veterinary Medicine, Athens, GA 30602. 

. . . 

Thomas L. Siohlgren (U/Cal Davis CPSU) recently 

published two papers titled “Litter dynamics in Iwo 

Sierran mixed conifer forests I, and II” in the Canadian 

JournalofForestResearch. Thefirstpaper, “I. Litterfall 

and decomposttton rates” (l&1127-1135), detarls a 

4.year study of lrtter dynamics rn a giant sequoia-fir 

and fir-prne forest in Sequora and Kings Canyon NPs. 

The second paper, “.. II. Nutrrent release n decomposing leaf litter!‘(18:1136-11441, describes the chemical factors influencing leaf litter decomposition. 

t . . 

A personal note from Btll Halvorson, research brologist al Channel Islands NP, accompanied his report 

(see page 23) on the organizational meetlng of the new 

Society for Ecological Restoration and Management in 

Oakland, Calif., rn January. “The conference,” he 

wrote, ‘was exceptional in that it focused on the NPS 

by having park people talk about what they were doing 

and how they perceived the world of natural area management. Then they had interested outsiders talk 

aboutthairviewsof howmanagementshould bedone. 

All this was done in the context of everybody learning 

new restoration/rehabilitation techniques and procedures. 

“It was a discussion 01 management right down to 

the orass roots. literallv.” Halvorson continued. “What 

was”so refreshing to me is that the debate came down 

from lofty idealism to the practical and applicable. I 

think everyone who went with an interest in natural 

area management came away with a more balanced 

realization thatlhere are no easy or universal answers. 

‘Let it be’ or ‘Let it burn’ are not always lhe highest 

good, and nellher is manipulation. What we need is 

more and better information, better monitoring, and 

more informed decisions about the state and management of our always changing resources.’ 
E 

information 

crossfile 

How about a bacterium that lives with and “fixes” nitrogen for certain plants, but uses the sun’s energy 

instead of the plant’s to survive?!? 

The discovery highlights nature’s unexplored biolog 

ical diversity, according to Ralph W.F. Hardy, president 

of the Ithaca, NY-based Boyce Thompson Institute for 

Plant Research where the scientific research was 

done. 

Other photosynthetic nitrogen-fixing bacteria are 

known to exist, Hardy said, but these are the first 

known to form symbiotic relationships with leguminous 

plants-a family including soybeans, alfalfa and pea. 

nuts. Hardy suggests that the discovery could some 

day be used to increase the yield al these crops. The 

story is highlighted in Science News, Vol. 135, p, 36. 

*** 

“The Appalachian Trail-A Never-ending Story” by 

Pamela Underhill of the Appalachian Trail Project 

Office, delivered in Tucson, Ariz.. at the November 

1966 George Wright Society conference on Sctence in 

the National Parks, appears in Volume 6. No. 2, the 

Spring ‘89 issue of FORUM, the GWS journal. Under. 

hill, who is Trail Project coordinator, describes the 

evolving management story that has covered more 

than half a century and the maturing strategies with 

which volunteer Trail Club members have established 

and perpetuated what amounts to “a long, skinny, vulnerable national park.” The cooperative management 

she describes makes a unique case follow-up to the 

Superintendent’s Corner by Everglades NP Assistant 

Superintendent Robert Amberger, carried in the Winter 

1966 issue of Park Science. 

Regional Highlights 

Continued from page 12 

Technical Report No. 33, Avian Speoes of Management Concern: Mill and Deer Creek Drainages, 

Tehama County, California, by A. Sidney England, 

Mark K. Sogge, and Charles van Riper Ill, is the latest 

in this series of U/Cal Davis CPSU publications. The 

report details a two-year survey to identify and map 

significant avian resources and is complete with 15 

foldout maps and extensive field notes. It describes 

numerous raptorial species found, their habitat. and a 

number of management acbons that can contribute to 

long-term maintenance of the many significant avian 

resources documented. 

North Atlantic 

Managing Public Lands in the Public Interest, 

edited by Benjamin Dysart and Marion Clawson. is the 

latest of the Praeger Press’s Environmental Regeneration series. Its 10 papers grew out of the 1963 conference In New York City sponsored by the Rene 

DuBos Centerforthe Human Environment and Rockefeller University. It includes a chapter by John T Tanacredion”Policy RestraintsandTrade-olfsin an Urban 

Nattonal Recreational Area:’ Tanacredi is a Natural 

Resource Management Specialist and is responsible 

for coordinating research, natural resource management, and environmental compliance activities at 

Gatewav NRA. 

Robert M. Pyle ot Grays Harbo( Wash., authorofthe 

Audubon Society’s Field Guide to North American 

Butterflies and Handbook for Butterfly Watchers, has 

come out with a new book, Wintergreen: Rambles in a 

RavagedLand. This profileofthe debilitating effectsof 

logging in the Willapa Hills of southwest Washington 

was awarded the prestigious John Burrough’s medal 

for distinguished efforts in conservation. 

In the late 197Os, Pyle helped establish a program of 

both farming and habitat preservation for butterflies in 

Papua, New Guinea-the world’s second largest island 

and home to many rare species of butterflies, including 

a giant btrdwing butterfly whose wing span is nearly a 

foot. Pyle is presently chairman of the Monarch Project, an effortlosave that butterfly’s wintering grounds 

in Mexico and Southern California. He is founder of the 

XerxesSociety, anational butterfly conservation group 

now headquartered in Portland, Ore. 

**r 

The Autumn 1966 issue 01 NPS Interpretation, 

assembled by contributing editors Sam Vaughn of 

National Capitol Region and Dan Murphy of Southwest 

Region, focuses on “magic, or creativity, or provocation:’ Descriptions of magic moments in interpretation 

come from Anna Castellina at Kenai Fjords NP, from 

Robert Fudge at Independence NHP, from Glen Kaye 

of the Southwest Region, from Jack de Golia at Yellowstone NP, from Bill Clark at Harpers Ferry, from Joe 

Geary a! National Capital Park, and from RilaCantu at 

Guadalupe Mountains NP. Just reading the issue 

brings tears to the eyes. Imagine what “being there” 

must have been like. (General editor is Julia Holmass 

of Harpers Ferry Center, West Virginia.) 

t 

The value of a tree is at least $193,250, says a 

University of Calcutta professor quoted in Northwest 

Landscape Professional. He itemized the value as 

follows: Living for 50 years, a tree generates $31,250 

worth of oxygen, recycles $37,500 worth of water, provides $31,250 worth of soil erosion control and fertility, 

provides $62,000 worth of air pollution control, and 

provides 531,250 worth of shelter for animals Side 

effectsare rts contributions of fruit, lumber and beauty. 

*** 

The extensive summer drought in 1966 in the United 

States is traced to its 1987 origins and associations 

with the 1966 and 1967 El Nino in the tropical Pacific 

Ocean by three scientists writing in Science, Vol. 242, 

pp. 1640-44. K.E. Trenberth and Grant W. Branstatorof 

the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Cola., and PA Arkin at the Climate Analysis Center, NASA, Camp Springs, Md., concede that land sw 

face processes “probably contributed to the severity 

and persistence of the drought; however, the largescale atmospheric circulation perturbations associated with natural variations in the coupled atmosphere. 

ocean system in the tropical Pacific were most likely 

the primary cause:’ 

*** 

Eugene P Odum, Callaway Professor Emeritus of 

Ecology at the University of Georgia and author of 

threewidely usedecologytextbooks, hascomeup with 

another, Ecology and Our Endangered Life-Support 

Systems. The publishers, Sinauer Associates, Inc., of 

Sunderland, Md.. call it “accessible to the beginning 

student and layperson.” in its description of how natural and domesticated ecosystems provide us with air, 

water, and food. The 266 page book contains 65 

illustrations and is available in paperback for $14.95. 

13 

The 1969 Wilderness Work Skills programs of the 

Student Conservation Association begin this year on 

April 10 withafowdayworkshopat Pinnacles National 

Monument in California, hosted by the National Park 

Service. The 13 programs scheduled for this year 

include a new offering - Wilderness Management 

School -five days of lectures, discussions, and comprehensive field studies in Greater Yellowstone. The 

school will be held June 5-9, hosted by the USFS, 

Reglonl, and NPS. Tutionfortheschool, as wellasfor 

all 12 workshops, is $325, with 15% tuition discount for 

SCA alumni and members and for parties of three or 

more registering together. 

For a complete listtng of programs offered and registration forms, write The Student Conservation Assn., 

Inc., Wilderness Work Skills Program, PO. Box 31969, 

Seaale, WA 96103. 

*** 

Proceedings of the Third International Conference 

on Lyme Disease and Related Disorders is now available from the New York Academy of Sciences. It offers 

the most current research on Lymedisease, its biology 

and ecology. Two of the alticles resulted from work 

conducted for NPS at Fire Island National Seashore: 

“Presence of Lyme Disease in a Barrier Island Deer 

Population” by Allan O’Connell, Mark Sayre, and 

Edward Bosler, and “A Model of the Spring of Lyme 

Disease in Natural Populations” by Howard Ginsberg. 

*** 

“Lurking in every researcher, an interpreter strug 

gling to get out; consuming every interpreter, a desrre 

to know what he/she is talking about.’ 

With this “Olde Instant Proverb,” Bill Brown, NPS 

Historian at Denali NP in Alaska, dives headlong into 

the subject of “Research and Interpretation - and 

Reintegration” .., his title for a solicited arlicle in the 

Spring 1988 issue of Interpretation. The result is an 

eloquent plea for ‘communicalion cum substance via 

gifted interpretive leadership by people doubly gifted in 

art and knowledge:’ 

Brown describes with painful clarity the general 

trend of “interpretive exhibits” over the past 20 years 

and ends with the comment that “This process is a 

formula for formulaic products. Design, flash, and 

hyperbole substitute for substance and the simple profundities of the park. Empty excellence is the best 

result; vacuous mediocrity the worst:’ 

Where, he asks, is the old individualized, distilled 

essence of the park? “Until art and substance are 

reintegrated beginning at the park level and progressing to the top level, interpretive integrity will elude us, 

except as the exception.” 

*** 

Chrrstine Schonewald-Cox, NPS Research Scientist atthe U/Cal Davis Cooperative Park Studies Unit, is 

the author of “Boundaries in the Protection of Nature 

Reserves,” carried recently in BioScience, Vol. 36 No. 

7, pp. 460-466. The boundary model she describes 

“suggests that management pay close attention to 

localized breakdown (biological leakage points) either 

in filter of protection or to sites where gradients of 

change across the generated edge are so steep and 

narrow that localized collapse 01 protection is likely,” 

Enforcement of respect for buffer regions around 

nature reserves can encourage obedience, she notes, 

but the buffer region concept “should be pushed furthertomakethe buffer (or experimental) areas strongly 

reflect the spattal, natural, and cultural (including economic) heterogeneity along the boundary’s length.” 
Information Crossfile 

Continued from page 13 

*** 

A 6300square foot traveling exhibit entitled “Tropical Rainforests: ADisappearing Treasure” isopeninga 

four-year nationwide tour March 12 in Portland, Ore. - 

offering an opportunity for visitors actually to experience such a rainforest. Organized by the Smithsonian 

Institution Traveling Exhibition Service (SITES) in 

cooperation with the World Wildlife Fund, the exhibit 

educates the public to the dangers of deforestation of 

the world’s tropical rainforests and presents solutions 

to the problem. 

Dioramas, photo murals, back-lit transparencies, 

video statrons, interactive devices, models, ethnographic objects and scientific specimens - all are 

used to involve visitors in the drama and beauty of the 

world’s jungles, as well as the specter of destruction. It 

teaches the visitor about the fragility of tropical forest 

ecosystems and why it is necessary to marntain their 

enormous biological diversity. 

The exhibition will remain tn Portland through June 

4, 1969 and IS scheduled for 13 other cities over the 

ensuing four years. 

*a* 

“Technology could easily develop means that would 

allow us to live in peace with our planet. All we have to 

do is plan with the Earth instead of against” 

The speaker was Elliott Norse, Wilderness Society 

ecologist. HIS audience was a week-long biodiversity 

seminar sponsored by the U.S. EPA and the general 

science department of Oregon State University in Corvallis, where the seminar was held. 

Sandra Henderson, a geologist contracted to EPA, 

told the group that “We are scientists and vie don’t 

recommend policies. We provide scientific answers to 

questions concerning EPA policy and regulatory 

issues and information on possible consequences. 

Then it’s up to the policy makers:’ 

The Corvallis EPA lab is convening a conference in 

Washington, LX, in May, todeterminethe EPAsrolein 

the biodiversity arena. 

Private Grants for Field 

Research 

In 1990, EARTHWATCH will award grants of $10,000 

to $100,000 for 110 projects addressing significant 

questions in the sciences and humanities. The Center 

for Field Research invites scholars engaged in 

resource management to apply for awards of funds 

and volunteer staff Proposals will be considered from 

scholars of any nationality, covering any geographical 

region. 

All funds are derived from the contributions of participating volunteers selected from the EARTHWATCH 

membership; therefore, non-specialist volunteers 

must be integrated into the research design. 

Preliminary proposals can be made by telephone or 

by a detailed letter to The Center. Upon favorable 

review, full proposals will be invited to be submitted 12 

months before the proposed fielding date of the pro. 

ject 

For further information contact: The Center for Field 

Research, 660 Mount Auburn Street, PO. Box 403, 

Watertown, MA 02272. (617) 926-6200. 

A nationwide survey by the National Science Foundation has revealed that only 26 percent of American 

adults understand basic scientific terms, only 12 percent understand the scientific process well enough to 

realize that astrology is not a science, and only 6 

percent know enough about scientific terms and process to make intelligent decisions about issue as complex as nuclear power or acid rain. Almost two-thirds 

think the earliest human beings shared the Earth with 

dinosaursand more than half think an electron is larger 

than an atom. 

Thomas Lovejoy of the Smithsonian Institution told 

Science magazine that allocation of $250 million to 

$500 million for a “quick and dirty”survey of areas still 

rich in biodiversity overthe nexttwoorthree years was 

the only way - because of the rate of extinction -to 

protect species before they disappear. According to a 

1967-66 survey by the Center for Plant Conservation, a 

national botanical organization, more than 250 US 

plants may become extinct in the next five years, and 

425 more by the year 2000. No matter what conservation policies are developed, it is already too late for 52 

species that are too decimated to save, according to 

Science News (Vol. 134, No. 24, p. 372). 

Sills that would support funding for surveys of plant 

and animal species and create protection policies were 

still in committee when Congress adjourned last sessron. The bills will be reintroduced in both houses this 

session. 

*‘* 

Jerry Franklin, USFS Research Forester and professorof forestry at the University of Washington, challenged a conference on “Oregon’s Forests in 2010’ 

with his own vision of the direction in which the forestry 

of the future should be moving. 

‘Is an ecologist,” he said, “I see, as essential, a 

‘kinder, gentler forestry’ a forestry which may be less 

efficient (on a per unit basis) in producing wood fiber 

but which accommodates a full range of ecological 

values while yielding economic benefits:’ 

Society wants and needs commodities from forest 

lands, Franklin conceded. But socrety also wants 

amenities maintained, as exemplified by concerns 

about biological diversity and threatened and 

endangered species and increasing concerns about 

sustainable productivity. In short, “Society wants a 

longer view:’ 

*** 

Copies of Endangeredand Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12) are now available 

from the Publication Unit, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser. 

vice, Washington, DC 20240. The 34page publication 

is current as of Jan. 1, 1969 and lists individuals by 

common name, scientificname. historic range, status, 

when listed, critical habitat, and special rules. It also 

contains a listing for vertebrate population where 

endangered or threatened. 

:* 

The word “polynya” is pronounced “pa-lean-ya”- a 

Russian word that is used to identify an area in an ice 

field that IS persistently free of ice. Arnold Gordon, a 

professor of physical oceanography at Columbia University in New York, is an authority on such holes, and 

believes that they may be contributing significantly to 

the global greenhouse effect. 

The Antarctic zone where these holes are occurring 

14 

U.S. Attorney Files 

Environmental Suit 

A lawsuit was filed Oct. 11,1966 by Attorney Dexter 

Lehtinen of Miami, Fla., against two state agencies. 

Florida Department of Environmental Regulations and 

South Florida Water Management Distract. The complaint alleges that the State farled to enforce State law 

and protect Everglades NP and Loxahatchee National 

Wildlife Refuge from damage. 

Wh!le the Department of the Interior (DI) did not 

request the lawsuit, DI has repeatedly expressed concern about this issue in the admirwtratrve record to 

these two agencies. DI has stated in testimony and m 

the print and broadcast media for years that nutrientinduced biological changes have been destroying 

native Everglades habitat rn Loxahatchee, and that 

without long-term control of nutrient loading into the 

Everglades, the ecological integrity of Everglades NP 

is seriously and irreparably threatened. This suit is in 

the Dl’s interest and should be expanded to embrace 

the Endangered Species Act and Wilderness Act, 

according to the Departmental position set forth in the 

lawsuit. 

Issues Background 

The Everglades NP resource IS dependent upon 

waterdeliveredfroman intenswely managed systemof 

upstream canals, levees, and structures. The Everglades wetlands are known to require pristine water for 

their ecologrcal integrity to remain intact. Highly polluted nutrient-rich water originating from a 500,000 

acre agricultural area has been pumped for years into 

the adjacent Everglades system through structures 

operated by the State of Florida. The result has been 

severe changes to the Everglades system in Loxahatchee and adjacent marshes, including but not limited to, major changes in the algal community, which is 

at the base of the aquatic food web, the loss of more 

than 25,000 acres of native plant communities, and the 

lossofwaterdissolvedoxygen, whichdrrectlysupports 

fisheries and other fauna and indirectly supports Everglades wading birds. 

The State of Florida to date has not regulated the 

agricultural Industry, including the qualityorquantityof 

polluted water pumped from the agricultural areato the 

Everglades via state canals and structures. The state 

does have regulatory means to solve the problem. The 

State of Florida has convened numerous committees 

and technical groups to address the issue, but to date 

no comprehensive permanent solution is proposed 

and no action has been taken to reduce the quantity of 

nutrients that continue to destroy Federal property and 

ultimately will destroy Everglades NP 

is where, according to Gordon, theocean loses heat to 

the atmosphere. Polynyas, by venting excess ocean 

heat and providing outlets for excess carbon dioxide 

that could kill marine life, are “acting like our burning of 

fossil fuels and putting more CO, into the atmosphere,” Gordon suggests. These ice-free regions, 

some as large as all of France, were discovered only in 

1974 from satellite images and little is known about 

them. Teams of scientists from the Soviet Union, the 

United States, and West Germany have worked on 

learning more since 1961. 
Superintendent’s Corner 

Let’s Bet the Ranch and Learn the Game 

Winston Churchill once advised, “Play for more than 

you can afford to lose and you will learn the game.” He 

wasn’t talking about park management at the time, but 

he certainly could have been. 

At MammothCaveweare in similar straits to thosein 

which most national parks find themselves. We have 

no complete baseline inventory. We have endangered 

species that probably are inadequately protected. We 

have visitors who have an “effect”on the resource. but 

we’re not always sure what or how much. We’re a 

Class I airshed, which seems meaningless while we 

monitorever-thickening “haze.“Inshort, we-likeyouhave more problems than answers. 

But we have teamed one thing: the quantity and 

quality of our groundwater is absolutely integral to the 

ecological health of the park. And we came to that 

conclusion through research. We have subsurface 

drainage basins that bear IiHle resemblance to surface 

basins. We found the old saying that the ‘“solution to 

pollutcon is difulion” is far from true, for when many 

small sources find their way to underground watercourses, the opposite effect occurs. The sewage is 

carried away by water but then coalesces as various 

sources combine until it becomes concentrated in the 

underground rivers typical of karst terranes. That 

seems simple, until you stop to consider that the whole 

theory behind “percolation tests” IS that those pollutants will disperse. 

Good, solid research gave us that critical information. 

As a result. Mammoth Cave has become involved in 

an unprecedented partnership with three nearby communitles to butld aregionalsewage treatment system. 

The Service has contributed major funding and sits on 

the board of directors. Once completed, it will go a long 

way toward protecting the underground water on which 

the park and surrounding communities all are dependent. The partnershlp has led to working with a local 

area development dlstnct; involvement in the location 

of solid waste disposal sites in surrounding counties; 

cooperation with agricultural programs to study the 

eflects of farm chemical applications on water quality; 

and an enhanced staff awareness that the park is not 

an island. 

This partnershlp will allow sustainable economic 

development to occur, but development that is compatible wth and cognizant of those park values that are 

water dependent. It’s the Man and the Biosphere program in fact not theory. We will help insure the development that does occur will neither pollute nor pose a 

threat to park values. 

We did not look beyond park boundaries because a 

law requires us to, or because of some “good neighbor” policy. Rather, solid research gave us the right 

informatIon to make proper decisions in managIng 

park resources. We know the addition of the sewer 

infrastructuremayallowdevelopment to whichwe may 

object in the future. But in terms of resource preservation, the tradeoff of thepotentialforfuture development 

that may be ecologically disastrous against the potential for increased, but environmentally compatible 

development, is worth our current efforts. Plus, we now 

havea”seatatthetable”ofa basic resource regulating 

agency. 

How did all this come about? The basis is good 

research - done by the park’s hydrogeologist, Jim 

@inIan. ‘Applied” research in that Dr. Quinlan had the 

foresight to realize implications long before park management, but “basic” in the sense that it began long 

before the problem became apparent. This was basic 

research that doesn’t even have a charge in our Service’s enabling legislatton basic research that had 

to occur outside park boundaries - “had to” because 

that is where the need was to answer the research 

question. 

But that’s not the point. It seama most research 

we do is begun after the problem has become 

acute. That didn’t happen in this instance. What 

occurred is how research in the Service should be: 

the potential is recognized; dollars are budgeted; 

top minds are put to work; results are achieved. 

But there’s more: management decisions must be 

made. You sea, management at the park, region and 

Washington levels had to realize that research only 

pointed out the problem, the potential for disaster, and 

possible solutions. 

The point is that research is not the end it’s the 

means. We can’t just say “spend X percent of the 

budget on research” and expect current problems to 

disappear. In a perfect world I believe that is how we 

should manage parks. Any smart industry will put a 

percentage of its budget into “research and develop 

ment:‘That’s known asaninvestment in thefuture. But 

what about our existing problems, the ones we already 

have more ofthananswers? Givenourcurrent budgetary constraints. 5, 10 or 15 percent of our budget for 

research~snotlikelytooccurwhenasimilarcasecouid 

be stated for all our other programs. 

But we do have options. There is nothing that says 

wecan’tchangetherules. And the rulechangeneeded 

right now is one giving the National Park Service a 

basic research mandate. We can always point to the 

obvious-the water problems at Everglades or at Old 

Faithful. Or, we can appeal for that which has appeal - 

the wolf, bear, or bison. But in doing so, we will always 

insure the survival of the “mega-charismatic” to the 

detriment of whatever it is that isn’t, 

We need a baw research mandate. But when we 

go after 11, let’s go for the research dollars as well. 

That’s where we can use the mega-chansmatic to 

justify the need! The fact is, we don’t have enough 

money to study the problems we have now. My fear is 

that we may get what we want, withoutthe wherewithal 

to accomplish what we need. A research mandate will 

be just one more charge to our growing list of responsibilities and we’ll end up trying to do even more with 

less. 

As a superintendent, perhaps I find It easier to see 

the backlog in maintenance, the Interpretive Challenge’s charge to “double the budget,” the crumbling 

fabric of historic resources and lost artifacts, and the 

plea for just “x” percent of the budget. But the latter - 

the “(5,10, ori5) percent”-could apply equally to any 

of the former. What that really tells me is that the 

Service, and the resources in its charge, are all in the 

same boat and it’s leaking. 

The underground water of Mammoth Cave is out of 

sight.. andoutof mind. Werelt not for basic research, 

15 

park managers’ finally realizlng the potential for disaster, the support of park neighbors, money to contribute 

to the solution, and a lot of luck, we might have a 

different story to tell. 

It seems to me we could follow a similar scenario on 

a national level to identify park problems, point out the 

potential, garner support, and change the rules. After 

all, we have a leaky boat, we’re loaded to the gunnels, 

and the wind is picking up.. We seem to be arguing 

over whose leak gets fixed first. Maybe we need a 

bigger boat. 

Let’s appeal for that which has appeal. “Megacharismatic .I’ hey, what’s the most charismatic 

federal agency you know? 

David A. Mihalic, Supt. 

Mammoth Cave National Park 

Editor’s Note: lhe complete paper from which this 

Supehtendenf’s Corner was condensed appears in 

the Spring 1989 issue of the George Wright Society 

FORUM. Vol. 6 No. 2. 

Quinlan Participates 

In China Conference 

James F Quinlan, Research Geologist, Mammoth 

Cave NP, Kentucky, visited Guilin, China, and vicinity 

from Oct. Z-27, 1988. to participate in the Zlst Congrass of the International Association of Hydrogeoiaousts. Theme of this Conoress was Karst Hydrology 

and Karst Environment Protection. 

Dr. DunIan presented an invited paper, “Protocol for 

reliable monitoring of groundwater quality for karst terraw.” He gave two additional papers at related meetings: “Problems of land use in karst terranes and 

methods to maximize protection of the environment,” 

and”Methodsof study of karst in Kentucky.“He partiopated in technical sessions and field excursions to 

learn applications of research for solving problems of 

spill-response and for detecting and monitoring 

groundwaler pollution that threaten Mammoth Cave 

and other national parks also in karst terranes. New 

techniques were learned for tracing groundwater, for 

interpretation of water quality data, and for design of 

research studies in karsi terranes. 

Quinlan was requested to return to Chlna to conduct 

tramng in electromagnetic techniques for locating 

cave streams and low-technology techniques for traclng groundwater. 

Journal Devotes Issue 

To Greenhouse Effect 

In response to a request from Congress, EPA has 

produced a reporl on potential consequences of the 

greenhouse effect, under Scenarios developed using 

three different global circulation models. The January/ 

February issue of the EPA Journal, titled “The Green. 

house Effect: How It Can Change Our Lives.” presents 

nontechnical summaries of EPA’s fmdings. Bill Gregg, 

an NPS representative to the Interior Department Task 

Force on Global Change, obtained 500 copies of this 

Issue and has distributed them to WAS0 Divisions, 

Regional Chief Scientists. and Regional Chiefs of 

Interpretation, for further distribution to park units. 
Why Monitor Park Health? 

By Gary E. Davis and William L. Halvorson 

Some pragmatic park managers are asking “Why 

should I monitor park resources? I already know about 

more problems than I can afford 10 address for a long 

time, why spend money looking for additional problems?” 

Theseareseriousquestions, especiallywhen asked 

in the fiscal climate of Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction and eroding park budgets. The immediate answer 

stems from our profound lack of knowledge of park 

resources and the forces that sustain them. With the 

current level of knowledge we cannot be certain we are 

addressing the most critical issues. We may find ow 

selves treating ingrown toenails while our patient is 

dying of undiagnosed cancer. 

The authors have been prolessionally concerned 

about the conditions of natural resources m national 

parks for nearly a quarter of a century as fire control 

aid, park ranger, resource management specialist, and 

research scientist. Our experience and research in 

aquatic and coastal ecosystems provided early opportunities to witness, in short time periods, the dynamic 

nature 01 such systems. We witness firsthand how 

importantwereextreme”catastrophic” eventsin shaping long-term resource conditions in places like New 

England, the Virgin Islands, South Florida. and the 

California Channel Islands. From this perspective, it 

was apparent that the Service was trying to preserve 

natural systems without understanding how they were 

constantly changing. 

In addition to natural dynamics. we also saw the 

ecological integrity of parks threatened because the 

NPS did not have adequate information upon which to 

act or with which to compete in polibcal banles over 

urban encroachment and allocations of water and fishery resources. It became clear to us that if the parks 

were to survive into the 2151 century as anything more 

than pleasuring grounds and emotional retreats from 

urban landscapes, the NPS must obtain and maintain 

evidence that is defensible !n a court of law on the 

condition of park resources. 

What is needed is nothing less than a continuous 

program for monitoring natural resources, equivalent 

to those programs that already exist for monitoring 

lacilitles. personnel, and fiscal resources. In 1980, 

Congress provided a legislative mandate to inventory 

and monitor population dynamics of marine and terrestrial species in Channel Islands NP. We used that 

opportunity to develop a park-based ecological 

monitoring program. Based on that experience, we will 

share with you our ideas about WHY the National Park 

Service needs to monitor natural resources, WHAT 

natural resources should be monitored, and HOW to 

monitor them. Furthermore, we propose that the Channel Islands NP program could serve as a useful model 

for other parks. 

WHY Monitor 

In addition to being pleasuring grounds and emotional retreats, national parks as natural ecosystems 

also provide society with the greatest possible diversity of wild gene pools and serve as ecological standards of “miner’scanaries”lorthe biosphere. The NPS 

mission is to maintain healthy park ecosystems by 

preserving and protecting unimpaired parks and 

restorlng others to produce vignettesof primitive Amer0x 

Healthy parks, just like healthy people, maintain 

themselves. However, the NPS must play the role of 

family physician for parks by: 

1. Determining when the park is sick by monitoring 

ecological health with regular checkups. 

2. Treating illness (disfunction) and repairing 

damage, and 

3. Preventing illness and mitigating threats. 

A natural resource monitoring program must provide 

the same kinds of information to park managers that 

health monitoring provides to physicians. It must indicate current health, predict future conditions, be sensitive to subtle chronic stresses, identify overt lethal 

threats, and suggest effective treatments for disfunction. An effective monitoring program also will help 

identify causes of system disfunction in addition to 

identifying signs and symptoms. 

Development of modern medicine proudes a good 

analogy to understand the “state of the arl” of natural 

resource management. Diagnosis and treatment of 

dread diseases llke cancer have come a long way in 

the 400 years since William Harvey discovered the 

functionofthe heart andcirculatorysystem. In thel7th 

century, people died of cancer without diagnosis or 

treatment of underlying causes. Fifty years ago cancers were diagnosed posthumously but not treated. 

Twenty years ago, with late diagnosis, radical surgery, 

and harsh chemical and radiation treatments, few people survived cancer. Today we monitor our bodies, 

diagnose earlier, treat with minor surgery and chemotherapy, and many survive. In the next generation, 

more reliable monitoring, precursor diagnosis, and 

more effective treatment will ‘cure’ourch~ldren’s generation of cancer. And in the near luture, we hope to 

understand cancer’s cause and prevent it from occurring in our grandchildren. 

Natural ecosystems are dying in parks and we can’t 

even diagnose the illnesses, let alone identify their 

causes. prescribe treatments, or begin preventive 

actions. Our present level of knowledge of ecosystem 

management is equivalent to the 17th century level of 

human medicine. Long-term ecological monitoring IS 

the first step in learning how to assess ecosystem 

health, establish normal limits of wation, diagnose 

Illness, and develop preliminary treatments. We have 

to learn what and how to monitor, and how to use the 

results before we can develop our first generation of 

treatments. Development of effective treatments for 

ecosystem disfunction require knowledge of causes. 

Clinical observation and experimental research identified causes of human disease, but causes of change in 

natural systems are poorly known. Monitoring identifies potential agentsolchange by correlation, like clinicalobservation, and helpsframeexperimental designs 

to identify actual causes that will lead to development 

of effective treatments. 

WHAT To Monitor 

We need to discover the “vital signs” of park ec@ 

systems, learn how to monitor them, define normal 

conditions, and develop treatments to mitigate human 

impacts. Just as a physician monitors patients’ vital 

signs we need to monitor ecosystem parameters. Phy 

sicians measure pulse, blood pressure, temperature, 

weight, height, age and can determine prresent health 

and prolect near-term future health from these and 

other baste parameters of human physiology. 

There are several legitimate ways to describe ecosystems. Among the more popular and potentially useful for long-term monitoring are biodiversity. energy 

flux, nutrient cycles, and population dynamics. BIO16 

diversity is an important attribute of the biosphere that 

functions at many levels: genetic, individual, population, community, and even ecosystem. The repeated 

inventories required to monitor biodiversity are expensiveanddifficulttoconduct. They require highly skilled 

surveyors to identify the elements of diversity. The 

most common level of ecological diversity, the species, 

is not very sensitive to environmental stresses and 

providesonly arecordofthepast. Changes tn diversity 

are difficult to assess and ambiguous to interpret m 

terms of system changes. They are also difficult to 

apply to management issues. 

Energy flux provides a common currency for comparisons among system elements by reducing every 

thing to kilocalories. Measurements 01 energy in ecosystems is often complex and dlfftcult in the field. and 

frequently requires destructive sampling (e.g. estimatIng biomass !n root systems). Changes in energy flux 

also are difficult to interpret in terms of system health. 

Ecological limiting factors, such as nutrients, can be 

used to characterize ecosystems. Drawing on an 

important management pnnciple. this approach to system monitoring selects a few critical control points In 

the system and evaluates the flow of selected constituents through those points. This approach requires an 

extensive a priori understanding of ecosystem structure and function. and as with energy flux. measuiements are often complex and difficult to conduct in 

wilderness settings. The results also are difftcult and 

ambiguous to interpret. 

Population dynamics, the ways in which populations 

change, oHers the best solution to the biological component of NPS ecosystem monltonng. Parameters of 

populations like abundance. distribution, age structure, reproductive enart. and growth rate are eastly 

measured, sensitive to subtle, chronic stress, and can 

project future conditions. This approach also reflects a 

wide variety of environmental conditions because 

organisms Integrate effects 01 influences like predation, competition, and food condition, and express their 

responses as easily measured population parameters. 

Parameters such as age structure and reproduction 

permit projections of future conditions, providing early 

warnings of pending problems. Subtle, chronic 

stresses are reflected in reduced growth and 

reproductive rates. Interpretation of these parameters 

is direct and can be synthewed into system level 

applications, and most management controls operate 

at the population level, so applicant to management 

issues is direct and measurable. 

The selection of taxa to monitor may be one of the 

most perplexing aspects of designing a monitoring pro. 

gram. At Channel Islands NP we took a Delphi 

approach, with selectlonguidelines. Afterdividing park 

resources into an exhaustive list of large, mutually 

exclusive. classical taxonomic categories, experts in 

each taxon were asked to select species that represented a broad array of ecological roles. with examples 

of many trophic levels and life forms from primary 

producers to top carnivores and sessile invertebrates 

towide ranging birdsand mammals. Species wlthlegal 

status or specifically mentioned in park enabling legislation were included, as were endemic5 and aliens, 

harvested taxa, dominants characteristic of whole 

commuwties, common taxa, and heroic orcharlsmatlc 

species. Major environmental factors, such as weather 

and sea temperature are also important determinants 

of system dynamics, and must be monitored. Some 

professional judgment IS required to determlne if exist- 
1 

ing resource inventories are sufficient to identify syslem “vital signs,” but we suspect that most parks have 

enough information with which to proceed. 

Site selection is also important. It is important to put 

the lhermometer under your tongue every time to get 

reliable body temperature readings, but it is not necessaryto measure body temperature on a uniform grid all 

over your body to get an accurate reading. Monitoring 

locations need to be stratified to efhciently sample 

selected populations. Sites need to be representative 

oftheentire system to be monitored, but il’stooexpensive to sample on uniform gnds just to satisfy GIS 

software. 

HOW To Monitor 

At Channel Islands NP astep-down plan was used to 

describe the tactics of monitoring system design (Fig. 

1). The maior activities were a literature review funded 

by the Man-in-the-Biosphere Program, monitoring 

population, dynamics, and report preparation. Design 

and testing of monitoring protocols was the major 

research effort, which consisted of two activrlies: 1) 

species selection, accomplished through literature 

reviews, lield surveys (inventories) and application of 

selectron criteria, and 2) a series of design studres to 

develop monitoring protocols. Each design study summarized historical data, selected or designed sampling 

systems, established data management procedures, 

established reporting procedures, and field tested and 

documented the protocol in a handbook. 

Long-term programs must be capable of adapting to 

changing conditions and improved technology without 

losing continuity. Changes in monitoring protocols are 

documented in the annual report on the condition of 

each resource category and the handbooks are 

updated accordingly. Ten handbooks have been completed to date: pinnipeds, sea birds, rocky intertidal 

communities, kelp forest, terrestrial vertebrates, land 

birds, terrestrial vegetation, fishery harvest, weather, 

and visitors. Two more are in production: terrestrial 

invertebrates and sandy beaches and estuaries. 

Even though this approach divides park ecosystems 

into arbitrarily defined, but manageable units, applicalion of results will require synthesis, Into ecologically 

complete units. This synthesis requires collaboration 

01 both resource management and research person. 

nel. Natural resource monitoring must be conducted as 

a scientific endeavor, but it is conducted as a basefunded resource management operation, not as 

research. 

The populalion dynamics based system deesigned 

for Channel Islands NP is a good model for other NPS 

units. Channel Islands NP faces overt threats to park 

ecosystems that are common to many parks: alien 

species, air and water pollution, and direct human 

impacts, such as fishery harvest trampling and collecting, trail erosion, and wildlife disturbance. The 

diversity of marine and terrestnal resources at Channel Islands also assures analogs with most other park 

units. 

Summary 

Natural resources need to be monitored to assess 

the health of park ecosystems, to determine normal 

limits of variation, to identify illnesses early enough to 

effectively and economically treat them, and to understand parksystems well enough to prevent disfunction. 

The biological components of natural resource 

monitoring in national parks should be based on population dynamics of key species. These populations 

integrate environmental conditions and respond with 

changes in easily measured parameters, project future 

conditions for early warnings, are sensitive to subtle 

chronic stresses, permit direct interpretation of 

resource conditions and can be synthesized into system level applications, 

In addition, many management controls on the system function at the population level. The Channel 

Islands model can be adapted for Service-wide 

application. The next great challenge is implementation and institutionalization. Now that we have begun 

determining why, what, and how to monitor, we need a 

commitment to scientrfic management and park-level 

base-funding to do it. If accountability for knowing the 

condition ot park ecosystems were made equal to that 

for facilities, personnel, and fiscal resources, managers will find the best solutions for their units. 

Davis is Marine Biologist and Halvorson is a 

Research Biologist al Channel Islands NF! 
letters 

Expansion of NPS Science? 

Should the NPS science program seek broader (outside NPS) fields? Is this an idea whose time has 

come? I believe it at least needs exploration and 

thought, tar if NPS science is ever to seek to expand 

outside the parks, now may be a good time. The 

National Parks and Conservation Association blue ribbon committee is contemplating, inventory and 

monitoring guidelines and natural resource management guidelines are in preparation, the Hill-Soukup 

Report recommends internal changes, a”white paper” 

oncooperative parkstudiesunitsIsindraft,and biolog 

ical diversity and global climate change are buzz considerations heard almost daily. 

Why should NPSscienceexpandoutside the parks? 

I believe only one basic reason is valid-service to the 

nation. What does NPS science have to offer the 

nation? Arguably, leadership in inventory and monitoring, wildlands research, natural fire research, and 

research in park management and preservation such 

as “landscape ecology”ala Noe and Hammitt’s Scientific Monograph No. 18 and restoration of cultural landscapes to those of historic eras, perhaps several more; 

I don’t have a good grasp of this from my big, but 

isolated, corner of the world. 

What are some expected benefits of expansion to 

NPS science? Hopefully, added personnel, funding, 

prestige and, most of all and related to all, increased 

capability. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USF!%) does wildlife research nationwide, not just in 

National Wildlife Refuges; the U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS) researches torestry nationwide, not just in 

National Forests, and both science programs are 

stronger because 01 those added responsibilities. We 

are now contemplating establishing research centers 

but USFWS, a smaller agency, already has nearly a 

dozen ranging from the Patuxent Center to the Northern Prairie Center to the National Fisheries Center. The 

sizeand importanceof USFS research needs noelaboration. 

What are possible drawbacks? One is dispersion of 

effort. NPS Science does not have the means now to 

dothejobthat hastobedonejust in the National Parks. 

Another is possible isolation of science from parks and 

their managers. I said expansion is an idea, I didn’dn’t say 

it’s necessarily a good idea, only that we should consider It; whether it would turn out to be good or bad 

would depend on many factors and decisions. 

For added perspective, consider NPS archeology: 

Our cultural colleagues, by law and executive order, 

have a national role. According to their brochure “Artheological Assistance Program” (1986). they maIntain close liaison wth other federal agencies to identify 

and plan needed archeological projects; awst federal 

agencies in planning for archeological resource preservation and management; offer technical assistance 

to other agencies I” training, review of program documents, contracting and other activities; and investigate 

notifications that federal actions may destroy archeological data. And those are only “Archeological 

Assistance Field Operations” (there are more). 

Would NPS archeologists want to abandon those 

responsibilities? Not the ones I talked to. Is the program of value to the nation? Of course. I believe NPS 

Science should explore the possibility of performing 

stmilar national service for living things. The Service’s 

land base draws outside researchers now, often with 

benchmark studfes of value to many other areas. 

NPS Holds First GIS Conference 

The National Park Service held I!S ftrst national GIS 

conference in Luray, Va., Oct. 12.14,1988. Participants 

included current and potential users of GIS and related 

technology from around the country. About 100 

attended - nearly double the number anticipated. 

TheobjectivesweretobringtogetherGISusersfrom 

throughout the Service to discuss their applications 

and concerns and to provide direction for the GIS 

Division in Denver. Parks making presentations 

included Shenandoah, Yosemite, Gulf Islands, Capitol 

Reef, Indiana Dunes, Everglades, Santa Monica 

Mountains, Mount Rainier, Great Smokies, Grand 

Teton, Glacier, Wind Cave, Lake Mead, Death Valley, 

Natchez Trace, and George Washington Memorial 

Parkway. 

Other units making presentations were the National 

Capital and Alaska Regional Offices, the Denver Service Center, the Interagency Resources Division in 

Washington, D.C., and North Carolina State University. 

One evening was devoted to hardware and sofhvare 

demonstrations and discussion groups on such topics 

as GIS data sources, GIS plans, new remote sensing 

technologies, and global positioning systems. 

Users presented papers on actual and intended 

applications of GIS and CADD technology. GIS 

applications were almost exclusively devoted to natural resource issues-management of exotics (aliens), 

fire, pests, fisheries, wildlife, and water; management 

of rare, threatened, and endangered species; analysis 

of island geomorphology; distribution and habitat map 

ping; and habitat modeling. 

Other GIS applicattons included site restoration, 

impact analyses, land use planning, boundary assessments, analysis of disturbance history, and location of 

archeological resources. CADD applications included 

cave mapping, minerals leasing, buildings and 

grounds management, development siting, highway 

planning and maintenance, and impact assessment. 

One yearagofour sites were upand running with the 

technology. Today, the number is about three dozen 

and growing. Roles, requirements, and responsibilities 

are changing rapidly, and an important segment of the 

conference was a free-wheeling discussion of the 

exploding use of GIS technology in the Service. 

1. GIS institutionalization. This involves Regional 

support roles and communication. In most Regions, 

the Regional GIS Coordinators’ roles need to be 

strengthened and given greater priority. GIS responslbilitias should be recognized as primary duties, 

rather than as duties as assigned. Reporting responsibilities, forcommunicationand understanding among 

the coordinators, their parks and other units, and the 

Denver GIS Division, need to be formalized. ResponI suggest the concept of expansion needs thought, 

not only by NPS scientists and science administrators 

but by resource managers, rangers, superintendents 

and others both within and outside the Service. Maybe 

we should make “Parkery” an equivalent to “Forestry.” 

Should expansion consist of an extension role and/or 

conduct of actual projects? Maybe expansion will hap 

pen (or won’t happen) despite what we want. Maybe 

such things are only decreed from above in response 

to identified needs, not by design, but we can help with 

the identification. Maybe the Act at June 23, 1936 “To 

authorize a study of the park, parkway, and recreational-area programs in the United States. and for 

other purposes” provides at least partial authority. 

What do you think? 

Al Lovaas, Chief Scientist, NPS Alaska Region 

18 

sibilitlas for Al6 (USGS annual request for mapping 

support) and Regional annual GIS workplan priorities 

need to be strengthened and better documented. 

The relation of the GIS coordinator to the various 

Regional divisions should be more clearly articulated. 

Using the GIS coordinators as Regional technical GIS 

specialists also should be considered. 

2. Continuing support from the G/S Division. There 

isrisingapprehension thatwith the rapidgrowth in NPS 

use of GIS technology the Denver GIS Division will not 

be able to provide and maintain an adequate level of 

support for users. The Division’s staving and funding 

levels are stagnant, or even slightly declining, in the 

face of a roughly order-of-magnitude increase in 

demand for such support It was recommended that 

theGlSDseekadditiona1 staff and funds tocontinue its 

centralized park and Region support. It also was suggested that reigonal centers (Regional Offices, DSC, 

CPSUs) could be expanded to provide support under 

the GISD umbrella of Servicewide standards and 

improved communications. 

3. Training. The GISD should continue to provide 

training for developing GIS plans, data base construction, image processing, and GIS use. The growth in 

users is accompanied by a growth in training requirements. Greater GISD support for operational park 

GlSs means less training support available for new 

park GISs. A standing program in a standing facility 

should be established to provtde ongoing training. 

4. Soflware. The consensus over dlrections for 

future software development requested improvements 

in usability of existing capabilitles and continuation of 

central technical support rather than relying on commercial software and accompanying support Work 

already is in progress on a menu-driven SAGIS interface, online help, and up-to-date documentation. 

Other suggested SAGIS improvements were an 

integrated interface for SAGIS and GRASS, hardware 

independence, online tutorials, simplified vector data 

editing, improved handling of graphics text, easiertransitions to and from relational data base systems, 

dBASE link and support, and facilitated data base 

exchanges (between GIS and CADD systems.) 

5. Data securify The creation and potential availabiltty of digital data bases on park resources have 

raised the Issue of data security. Parks and the GIS 

Division must give attention to preventing mdiscriminate access to sens!tive data, such as archeological 

sites and endangered species. Adequate archiving 

and backing up also must be done. Satellite-derived 

datapresenttheir ownspecial case, becausecommercial copyright and licensing agreements control certain 

aspects of their distnbution. 

6. Role of the GIS Division. Users reanirmed the 

role 01 the Division: (a) technical assistance in acquiring and analyzing remote sensing data, in constructing 

GIS data bases, and in operating GISs; (b) establishment of GIS policy, standards, and guidelines; (c) 

providing technical consultation in selecting hardware 

and sottware for remote sensing and GIS; (d) providing 

training; (e) developing, enhancing, and supporting 

software: and (f) acting as liaison with other agencies. 

7. AlternativesfoGIS. Several parksareusing map 

ping and CADD systems as altemattves to GIS. The 

simplicity of use, flexbility of display, and low cost of 

these systems were pointed out as their attractive features. Parks with limited staff and budget for GIS 

activities were urged to look into these alternatives. 

Harvey Fleet, Chief, Digital Cartography Branch 
I 1 

Yellowstone Elk and Bison: A Micbwinter Report 

By Paul Schulfery 

Yellowslone Park natural resource issues are once 

again in the news. Media attention is now focusing on 

both the hunter harvest and natural mortality of elk and 

bison on the park’s northern range. 

The situation is typically complex, and much reporting is regrettably stmplistic. A brief summary of the 

situation follows. Readers are of course welcome to 

contact the park for more details. 

Since the late 196Os, Yellowstone’s wildlife populations have been under experimental management to 

determine to what extent these populations are “selfregulating,” that is to what extent human manipulation 

of their numbersis necessary Elkespecially have long 

been the focus of controversy in Yellowstone Park. 

Both elk and bison were drastically reduced within the 

park in the 1960s for a variety of reasons. relating 

especially to contemporary perceptions of the condition of the northern range. Current management seeks 

to test a series of hypotheses concerning the inierrelationships of elk and other ungulates on the northern 

range, as well as to study the animals’ effects on their 

range. 

The 1966 winter census of elk showed 3,172 animals Without reductions, the elk popufabon grew to a 

counted 12,607 by 1975, and stayed between 10,000 

and 12,000 until the early 1960s. The January, 1962 

count was about 16,000. By January of 1966, the herd 

had increased to a counted 19,000. 

There are three bison herds in Yellowstone Park: the 

Pelican Valley herd, the Mary Mountain herd, and the 

Lamar herd on the northern range. During bison reductions in the 196Os, in cooperation with a federal brucellosis control program, the NPS reduced the norlhem herd to fewer than 100 animals. Brucellosis is a 

bacterium that causes abollions in domestic cattle, 

and there has long been a fear that Yellowstone bison 

would infect livestock near the park. Since the concfusion of the 1960s reduction program, the park’s bison 

population has grown to about 2,700 animals. 

This winter, 1966-1969. both elk and bison have 

migrated down the Yellowslone Valley and out of lhe 

park m unusually high numbers. Media reports have 

routinely ascribed these movements to the enects of 

the fires of 1966, saying that the animals had no 

unburned range, and thus were forced to leave the 

park. This is an unfortunately casual interpretation of 

events. 

Elk and bison occupy and use new range in fascinatingly different ways. In summary, while the elk of 

the northern herd have gradually “niched in” to avaifable range, the bison, because of their gregarious. 

ness, are more likely IO suddenly move en masse to a 

different part of the available range. This unpredictability is important to an understanding of the present 

situation. These are not uniformly stable movements, 

and one should not have the impression that the bison 

andelkare engaged instately, picture-perfecttextbook 

migrations. We are still learning, after all these years of 

research, just how these things work. 

For the past 10 Yeats, Yellowstone’s northern range 

has experienced a series of 10 relatively mild, open 

winters, allowing high survival rates among animals 

that normally would have succumbed to winter stress. 

The summers of 1983.1987 were unusually wet, 

providing these survivors with a rich forage base and 

further bofstering the population. This temporary 

increase in the northern range’s carrying capacity 

resulted in the elk population increase from 16,000 to 

more than 19,000, and contributed to the increase of 

the bison herdstoatotalof2,700.The summer of 1986 

witnessed one of the most severe droughts in Yellow. 

stone’s recorded history That, coupled with the fires, 

substantially reduced forage. 

Though it is difficult lo quantify the effects exactly, it 

is probable that the drought’s effects on the northern 

range were much more significant than the effects of 

the fires. As Dr. Mary Meagher, an NPS research biologist, has said, drought affects everylhing; fire only 

affects what it burns. Media reports that 34 percent of 

the northern range burned seemed to stem from a 

desire to use the most impressive number available. 

Much of that 34 percent is forested land, not of special 

concem in trying to assess how much forage is avallable. Only about 10-H percent of the primary grazing 

areas - sage, meadows, and grasslands - on the 

northern range was affected by fire, and the burned 

areas were not necessarily the most important to the 

animals. The winter of 1986-1969 is the first in 10 years 

on the northern range to approach average severity 

and snow depths. A decade of mild winters means, 

among other things, that a large percentage of the elk 

nowlivingon the northern range have littleornoexpenence with even normal winter conditions. 

Thus it was that a complex suite of factors over 

nearly a decade set up the present situation. As one 

state of Montana biologist put it, many of these animals 

were living on borrowed time before this winter began. 

The annual late elk hunl, which harvests some portion of the northern herd most years, took 2,351 animals between December 9 and February 20; the 

hunter success rate was 94.6 percent. In 1965, the 

state of Montana established a sport hunt to eliminate 

bison that moved north from the park. The previous 

winter, 1964.1965, Montana wardens had shot 66 

bison to keep them from wandering north down the 

Yellowstone Valley. Pnor to the present winter, hunter 

harvests were usually a few dozen animalsorless. But 

over the past few years, more and more of the northern 

herd has learned the migration routes, and these 

highly gregarious anlmafs have developed a strong 

urge tomovedown therangeevenm mild winterswhen 

food was readily available on the upper end of the 

winter range. This winter, most moved early, and more 

than ever before left the park. As of Feb. 27,1969,515 

bison had been taken in the Montana hunt, 446 by 

hunters and 67 by state wardens. Permits had been 

issued for another 250, though it seemed unlikely that 

all the remaining animals in the northern herd would 

leave the park. 

As of February 24,301 elk carcasses-the result of 

natural mortality- had been identified on the northern 

rangeinthepark. Compared10 the hunter harvest, that 

number might seem small, but the time of heaviest 

winter mortality is just approaching, and scientists, 

managers, and media are now wailing to see what the 

remainder of the winter holds. As of that date bison 

natural mortality was low, no more than 5 carcasses 

19 

having been sighted. 

It is too early to tell what percentage of these herds 

will die this winter. The March-April period is critical, 

and weather conditions could turn favorable to survival 

orworsen. Butatthisstage,afewgeneralobservations 

are in order. SensatIonal headlines aside, Yelfowstone’s bison and elk are not threatened with doom. 

They are experiencing one of a multitude of possible 

winters, just as they have done for centuries. The irony 

of present concems is that most of the time the park is 

criticized for having “too many” of these animals. Even 

the northern bison herd, which probably will be 

reduced by hunting to a small fraction of its former 

numbers, has historically proven its resilience and ability to repopulate park ranges in a matter of years. And 

visitors will still have numerous opportunities to 

observe some ofthe 1,600 bison in the park’s other two 

herds. The ecologtcal effects of suddenly removing 

most of the northern herd from its range will merit 

attention, as will the process by which the herd 

reestablishes itself (and, alas, relearns the migration 

routes down the valley to the Montana state line). 

But there are other concerns than the survival of 

wildlife populations. The bison is a powerful and emotional American symbol, and the public does not take 

kindly to television news footage of hunters crippling 

cow bison 30 yards away. The bison hunt has been 

very popular among hunters, but has outraged animal 

rights groups, and has revealed the political inadequacies of current understandings among the various 

agencies lrying to manage these animals. 

Humanilarian concems also may pose a serious 

threat to park experimental management. Some large 

segment of the public is uncomfortable with the idea 

that winter mortality must occur at all. Pressures to 

feed park animals have so far been resisted, parlly 

because there is an unprecedented unanimity of opinion among agencies and independent observers that 

feeding would be a bad idea. The state of Montana, the 

USFS, the NPS, and a special panel of independent 

eulogists convened in the fall of 1966 to assess just 

such issues, all agreethat feeding would, among other 

things, short circuit important natural culling processes, concentrate animals on feed grounds and 

increase risk of disease transmission (elk also carry 

brucellosis, at lower percentages than bison), and do 

irreparable harm to numerous scientific research projects that depend on the uninterrupted function of nalural processes within the park. 

But ecological and scientific issues ate not the only 

ones being dealt with here. This new “Yellowstone 

problem,“commgsocloseon the heelsofthegreatfire 

controversies (which are by no means over), again 

puts Yellowstone Park and its ecological setting in a 

polttical and even cultural spotlight, as the public is 

once again confronted with complex natural resource 

issues that are not widely understood beyond resource 

management circles. The stakes are high, and it promises to be an interesting spring and summer. 

Schullery is with the Research Division of Yellowstone NP 
book reviews 

Our Common Lands: Defending the National 

Parks. Edited by David J. Simon. National Parks 

and Conservation Assn., island Press, Washington, D.C. 1966. xiii + 569 PP. $24.95. ISBN 

O-933280-57-2. $45.00. ISBN 0.933260.560 

Our Common Lands is about law but, the editor 

continues, it is intended for the much broader audience 

of all those interested in parks and park protection. The 

book contains 496 pages, 16 individually authored 

chapters divided into four parts: The Realities of Park 

Protecl~on (one paper), General Authorities (six 

papers), Protecting Specific Park Resources (six 

papers), and Regulating Development in and Around 

National Parks (five papers). Also included are four 

appendices, 51 pages in length, containing a list of 

National Park Service (NPS) environmental impact 

statements, a list of Bureau of Land Management wilderness study areas adjacent to NPS units, approximately 150 selected referencesforthose Interested in 

more detailed study, and A Basic Primer on Legal 

Source Materials for Non-lawyers. The book has an 

excellent index; extensivedocumentationfor each arlicle comprises 100 pages of footnotes, notes and references. 

The 16 chapters vary considerably in length and !n 

detail. The abrupt endings result from placing concfusions and recommendations in the beginning rather 

than at the end. Many readers will read only select 

portions that are of most personal interest or will use 

the book only as a reference. This, however, does not 

detract from the book’s utility. 

The work is mixed in its presentation of legal possibilities, legislative musts, and present authorities; it 

contains a wealth of well-documented information and 

thought-provoking ideas. 

The editor states in the preface the book’s three key 

messages: (1) the National Park Service has substantial existing authority to protect park resources, (2) 

existingauthority”permits-andrequires-the NPS’to 

be a pro-active land management agency, and (3) 

litigation should be used as a last resort Working to 

meet thesegoals, theauthorspointtopastandpresent 

failures to fully use numerous existing authorities to 

protect parks. They present, in detail, specific existing 

legislation and legal precedent and specify a number 

of laws that provide powerful and useful authority for 

use in protecting parks. 

As one reads through the book. however, one gets a 

clear sense that it would be much easier to protect 

parks with specific legislation. This argument begins 

with JosephSax’sdiscussionofthedifficultiesencountered in attempting to enact park protection legislation 

in support of “resources based, natural system management:‘The topic is expanded by William Lockhart, 

with a plea for specific modern legislation that would 

provide clear-cut jurisdictional authority to NPS to protect park resources from the complex threats posed by 

both private development and other government agencies. In lieu of this option, other authors endeavor to 

argue with varying degrees of strength that other laws 

or authorities are available. These laws are discussed 

in detail in Chapters 2 through 16. Thus, Joe Sax 

describes this book as being about the use of “de facto 

park protection legislation:’ 

Another Important message which may escape the 

casual reader but IS supported by a number of the 

authors IS that the NPS is llmited in its ability to protect 

resources by its lack of resource information. This is 

true whether we are dealing with the very specific 

requirements of the Endangered Species Act, the 

Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act, the Park Specific 

Authorities of the Park Planning, Historic Resources or 

the National Historic Preservation Act, the Organic Act 

and the Geothermal Steam Act, or the potential protection provided by the Nabonal Environmental Policy Act 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, or the Federal 

Reserved Water Rights Doctrine. A number of examples are cited of the need to enter into adversary proceedings, both administrative determinations and litigation, where the Service’s options were, and are, 

limited under existing statutes because the necessary 

inventory and monitoring data do not exist, making it 

impossible to establish a clean-cut cause and effect 

relationship between resource threats and resource 

deterioration. 

In summary, this work is pro-preservation and often 

critical of past actions or lack of action on behalf of the 

long-term preservation of National Park resources. Our 

Common Lands should be must reading for NPS personnel and others in the public or private sectors 

responsible for, or interested in, preserving park 

resources. 

Ray Herrmann 

NPS Wafer Resources Division 

Jerry F. Franklin, William H. Moir, Miles A. 

Hemstrom, Sarah E. Greene and Bradley G. Smith. 

1966. The forest communities of Mount Rainier 

National Park. U.S.D.I. National Park Service, Scientific Monograph Series No. 19. U.S. Government 

Printing Office, Washington D.C., 194 p. 2 maps. 

This easy-to-read and well organized book is 

directed toward park managers and visitors to Mount 

Rainier National Park. 

A brief Introduction into the climate. geology, soils 

and topography is followed by a description of major 

vegetation patterns within the Park. Wildfires, snow 

and rock avalanches, volcanic eruptions, mudflows, 

floods and wind are discussed as natural disturbance 

factors which influence the structure and composition 

of the forested ecosystems. Field sampling methods, 

data analysis and termmology employed in the forest 

classification are clearly and concisely summarized in 

a manner that is understandable to a general readership. Unlike much ofthe workdonetodayonvegetation 

classification. this book goes to great length to explain 

the procedures and types of analyses undertaken to 

derive the classification units. 

The classification comprises 14 plant associations 

and 5 community types. Each type is discussed in 

detail under one of four broad environmental group 

ings: moist forest ecosystems, modal forest ecosystems, dry forest ecosystems, and cold forest ecosystems. Field data providing structural and 

compositional information on each type are clearly 

summarized intablesandcrossreferenced toawrinen 

text. A wealth of information is presented in each written teut, typically including information on: geography 

within the Park; elevalion range; solIs and landforms: 

forest structure; major dominant or characteristic 

trees; understory shrubs and herbs; bordering community types and the nature of the transition; and the 

relationship of the type to others within the Park and 

elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest. Each written 

description is accompanied by a black and white photograph of a representative stand. Two high quality, 

wlor plates depict the distribution of habitat types and 

forest age classes in the Park. 

Following the classification and discussion of individual plant associations, a chapter is devoted to 

20 

exploring environmental and floristic patterns in six 

major drainage basins within the Park. Forest associations are arrayed and discussed in generalized, 

P-dimensional diagrams. The horizontal axis depicts a 

generalized topographic gradient; the vertical axis 

depicts an elevational gradient. The chapter closes 

with a discussion of statistical and analytical procedures employed in construction and refinement of 

the classification. This later section is somewhat esoteric, but has heuristicvalue not only to the classifiers 

themselves, but to managers and the general public 

who are not often given a full view of the complexities 

and mysteries of classificabon. 

The role of large-scale natural disturbance (especially wildfire) is examined in terms of its effect on 

natural succession within the Park. Fire frequency and 

natural fire rotation are determined for each plant association. The successional role that each major tree 

species plays within each habitat type is presented in a 

summarytable.Ashortdiscusstonon the roleof smallscale disturbance (tree gaps) in forest succession 

completes the chapter. 

The final chapter, “Management Interpretation of the 

Habitat Types,” is where one of the important by 

products of forest classification becomes most evident. Classification of the landscape into habitat types 

(all of the land capable of supporting the same association) providesthe land manager with an ecologically 

basedclassifIcation which accentuatestheconstraints 

or potential of a given piece of land. The power of th!s 

approach as a planning tool is revealed in the discussion of the forest habitat types in relation to physical 

conditions (growing season. drainage, snowpack), biological conditions (productivity, plant diversity, wIldlife). 

natural disturbances (fire, pathogens, wind), and 

development potential (resistance, resilience). 

The visitor to the Park, especially those curious 

about natural history will be exposed to ideas usually 

missed or glossed over in species-oriented accounts 

of natural history. The ‘big picture,” landscape oriented approach offered in this volume is a welcome 

addition to the science, managment, and natural history of Mount Rainier. 

Reid Schuller 

Natural Area Scientist 

Washington Department of Natural Resources 

Chris Maser. 1998. The Redesigned Forest. R&E 

Miles, PO Box 1916, San Pedro, CA 90733,234 p, 

$9.95 

Chris Maser, trained as a vertebrate zoologist and 

with 20 years experience as a research scientist in 

natural history and ecology in forest, range, subarctic, 

desert, and coastal settings, writes in a way that is 

superbly accessible to the lay reader. Here he tackles 

the challenge of changing our approach to natural 

resources (in this case using forests as the example) in 

response to a worldwide population that threatens to 

use up most of our remaining resources within the next 

few generations. 

This lively, extremely readable book is divided into 

four sections: (1) Nature’s design of a forest vs. our 

design of a forest; (2) As we think, so we manage; (3) 

Changs,whyareweafraidofit?,and(4)Weareasfree 

as our imaginations. 

“It isacritical time.“saysMaser in his preface, ‘toreevaluate our philosophical foundation and to reemphasize human dignity in management decisions. 

“The Redesigned Forest is a unique literary gem.. 

(It) presents an extraordinary perception of forests in 

hard terms. Beyond this, theauthor’sanalysisisawork 

of art There is a balance of philosophic, psychologic, 
With a renewed focus on human dignity as a ‘product 

of the resource decision-making process, we can 

broaden the philosophical basis of management to 

include forests and grasslands, oceans and societies 

rather than only a few selected commodities that they 

produce:’ Maser rejects an approach that produces 

battles that force choices between, for instance, oldgrowih treesorwoodfiberornativetroutorclean water. 

Instead, he proposes that we recast our goals in inclusive terms-“a healed, healthy, sustainable forest that 

includes old growth trees and woodfiber and wilder. 

ness and native trout and clean water, and . ..” 

The message is clear: We must have sustainable 

forests before we can have sustamable forest products, and the things that sustain a forest are clean air, 

clean water, clean soil. and sunshine. It is no accident 

that three of these essentials are also among the 

“products” (or outgrowlhs of the processes) of healthy 

forests. 

This is no clarion call to arms and battle. This is a 

passionate, poetic look at where we are and where we 

will arrive eventually if we continue in the same direction. Beyond that, it is full of suggestions as to how we 

can eliminate controversy and plan together for a productive. healthy worth of “and’s rather than a splintered, acnmonious world of “or”b. 

The Redesigned Forest provides a look at where 

we are today, the kind of decision-making that put us 

here, what we have left to work with, and how we can 

apply what we know toward achieving “a collective 

dream -(one that is) large enough to encompass tne 

transcend all our small, individual dreams in a way that 

gives them meaning and unity:’ 

Maser describes the flexible, timeless continuum of 

species that go to make up nature’s forest, and compares this to the rigid, time-constramed monocultures 

that most foresters prefer, He details the make-up of 

nature’s forests-diverse, unpredictable, consisting of 

interrelated components “all of which are neutral”and 

processes that act themselves out over the long term, 

resulting in a self-sustainmg, self-repairing entity. 

Our present preferred design for forests, Maser suggests, assigns “good” and “bad” values to essential 

forest components (timber trees are good, insects are 

bad) and focuses only on desired forest products for 

their immediate payoff value. 

“It is critical,” he writes, “that we both understand 

and accept the effects we cause by redesigning global 

forests, because we are simultaneously redesigning 

the structural and functional processes of the world, 

such as soil fertility, cycles in quality, quantity, and 

belowground storage of water, and cycles in climate. At 

risk IS human survival on earth and in the universe,” 

Jean Matthews, Editor 

Park Science 

Some additional views 01 the book: 

“Chris Maser’s The Redesigned Forest should be 

compulsory reading for all those in a position to control 

the destiny of the world’s forests, for it provides a 

glimmer of hope that short term exploitation of our 

precious forestry resource some day will be replaced 

by enlightened custodianshipinvolving conservationof 

the whole of the forest ecosystem, not just commercially viable tree species.” E.G. Baillie, barristerat& 

Adelaide, South Australia. 

“Thisisan eruditeand beautiful book, but is far more 

It is a triumph in revolutionary environmental thinking and a light in a darkening world. I would rate The 

Redesigned Forest alongside Aldo Leopold’s A Sand 

County Almanac.” David Chapman, Regional ranger 

and bead of wilderness trails, Kruger Nalional Park, 

South Africa. 

Air Quality Research Seeks 

To Protect Park Resources 

By Christine L. Shaver, Darwin (Dee) W. Morse, 

and Keith A. Yarborough 

Air pollution can damage and destroy the very 

resources and values that NPS units have been created to protect and preserve. Data from the NPS air 

quality research and monitoring program show that 

park units are not islands isolated from the by-products 

of an urban and industrial society. Man-made air pollutams are transported long distances and have been 

detected at all NPS monitoring sttes. Air pollution 

effects often are subtle and insidious. 

The report Air Quality in fhe National Parks, July 

1989, summarizes the significant findings from the 

economic, and emotional basis of decision-making 

It is not a book of argumentation, but aseries of essays 

of beauty” Dr. Murray Johnson, The Burke Museum, 

Seab, WA. 

“Maser’s personal, down-to-earth style promises to 

make thesubjectofforest ecologyaccessibletoawide 

and diverse audience. Yet this work goes far beyond 

the study of old growth forestsperse. For in his forays 

into a stand of western red cedar or Douglas fir, Maser 

is also guiding the reader towards a greater understandmg of the sorts of cultural snags and personal 

entanglements that prevent us from forming healthy 

relationships towards each other and the natural 

world:’ Dr. Duncan M. Taylor, Environmental studies 

program, University of Victoria, B.C. Canada. 

Ecosystem Management for Parks and Wilderness. Edited by James K. Agee and Darryl1 R. 

Johnson. University of Washington Press 

#96817-6, $20 t 9.1% tax if WA resident and $2 

handling charge. 

The need for cooperation among government agencies as well as an interdisciplinary approach to the 

increasingly challenging and complicated problem of 

managing park and wilderness areas prompted the 

Unrversityof Washtngton College of Forest Resources, 

the NPS, and the USFS to sponsor an ecosystem 

management workshop for saentists, planners, and 

managers in April of 1987. This workshop was 

attended by 33 nationally prominent scientists and 

managers of Park and Wilderness areas. 

To develop an improved conceptual approach to 

managing change in ecosystems crossing natural and 

politrcal boundaries, the workshop focused on defining 

terms, uncovering areas of misunderstanding and barriers to cooperations. and developing methods to 

determine the most important problems and issues. 

The results 01 these efforts represent the substance 

of this timely book. The book includes an introductory 

chapter by the editors and a summary in which they 

outline a direction for ecosystem management in the 

next critical decades. The other chapters, by individual 

contributors, include studies on laws governing park 

and wilderness lands, paleoecological records that 

reveal the historic effects of climatic variations on vegetation change, succession and natural disturbances 

in relation to the problems of what can and should be 

preserved, managing ecosystems for large populations of vertebrates, the management of large carnivores, effects of air pollution, lake acidification, 

human ecology and environmental management, the 

role of economics, cooperation in ecosystem management, and management challenges in Yellowstone NP. 

21 

NPS air quality research and monitoring program. Collected from 1977 through 1987, this information helps 

the NPS to remedy and prevent rasource degradation. 

The research and monitoring focuses on: 

l Visibility and particulate characteristics in the air. 

l Visitorexperiencesasaffected byvisibilityimpairment. 

l Gaseous pollutant concentrations in the air. 

. Modeling of major air mass/pollutant transport 

0 Biological effects on flora and fauna. 

The program relies heavily on park personnel to 

COllect the data on a day-to-day basis and to ensure 

that these data are reliable. Without this dedicated 

work, the NPS would not be so well armed to protect 

park units containing some of the world’s most spectacularscenery, unique cultural and historicresources, 

and diverse wildlife and vegetative communihes. 

These oeooledeserveaooreciationfortheircontinuing 

fine efiorti. 

To provtde detailed technical operation of _. the NPS 

air quality program, a team of experts has b Neen established in Denver and in Fort Collins, Cola. These peoDie resoond to the air oualitv needs of the oarks and 

bversee the research and ionitoring activiiies. 

The Research and Monitoring Program 

Air quality research is conducted to determine the 

current status of air quality in NPS units, to identify any 

effects atr pollution is having or may have on NPS 

resources or visitor experiences, and to determme 

sources of air pollution in the parks and the sensitivity 

of park resources to air pollution. 

Air quality modeling is developed and used to study 

the transport and transformation of pollutants in the 

atmosphere. Information from the visibility monitoring 

network along with air quality models is used to determine the effect of man-made air pollutants on visibility 

at NPS sites. 

Visibility monitoring has shown that, in addition to 

natural sources of visibility impairment, varying 

degrees of visibility impairment result from man-made 

pollution in virtually all monitored parks. NPS research 

findings suggest that line sulfate particles are the single most important contributor to visibility impairment 

in most park units. Fine sulfate particles can be transported long distances in the atmosphere. They are 

primarily the result of sulfur oxide emissions from 

energy and industrial sources. Levels of sulfur dioxide 

as high as 40 percent of the short-term National 

Ambient Air Quality standards are found in some 

parks. 

In the Colorado Plateau area, where Grand Canyon 

NP and several other units are located, fine sulfate 

particles are responsible for 40 to 60 percent of the 

visibility impairment. In eastern areas of the country, 

fine sulfates play an even larger role in visibility impatrment. In the Pacific Northwest, sulfates are not the 

primary cause of visibility impairment; instead, fine 

carbon from controlled burning of timber and agri. 

cultural lands and natural forest fires play a prominent 

role. 

Research on effects of visibility on the visitor experience in five NPS units indicates that clean, clear air is 

one of the parks’ most important features. It appears 

that visitors value an environment undisturbed by man 

above all other features. Research findings on the 

effects of changes in visual air quality suggest that a 

Continued on page 22 
Air Quality Research 

Continued from page 21 

John Sacklin, at Redwood NP, is shown wrth the IMPROVE [interagency Monilormg of PROtected Visual 

EnvKonmeolsJparticulatesampler The IMPROVEprogramrs designed todetermrneextentandcausesolvisibility 

;mpairment al selected Class I clean air areas throughout the United Stales. The cooperative program involves 

severalfederalagenciesinciud~ng the NPS. Themoniforautomaficaliytakes24-hoursampleson Wednesdaysand 

Saturdays. These are analyzed for trace elements, mass, ions, and carbon. 

small increase in air pollution is more easily noticed 

and more disturbing to the human observer where the 

atmosphere IS ntlally relatively clean. 

Ambient air quality monitoring has found that ozone 

concentrations are high in some NPS units and even 

exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards in several of these areas. These high concentrations occur 

not only in units located near urban areas, but also in 

areas that are relatively remote, such as Acadia, Great 

Smoky Mountains, Guadalupe Mountains, Mammoth 

Cave, Sequoia/Kings Canyon, Shenandoah, and 

Yosemite NPs, and Joshua Tree and Pinnacles 

National Monuments. Some ozone occurs naturally, 

but most of the ozone in the atmosphere results from 

the photochemical reaction of man-produced hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and sunlight. 

Even Admissible Concentrations Hurt 

It is especially significant that some injury to sensitive plant species has been documented at ozone and 

sulfur dioxide concentrations below the National 

Ambient Air Quality standards. Biological effects 

research has found ozone effects, which appear as 

characteristic foliar injury on one or more species of 

plants and trees in virtually every park surveyed. This 

suggests that ozone injury is a widespread problem 

that occurs even at NPS units remote from urban 

areas. 

There also is evidence suggesting that reduced 

growth and increased mortality of some sensitive spe 

ties are owning in some of the more heavily affected 

areas. Research has found an apparent loss of lichens 

in two urban parks and effects on these sensitive 

plants in many parks located near sources of sulfur 

dioxide. Elevated levels of sulfur and heavy metals 

have been found in vegetation in several parks. 

The Park Serwce uses the information obtained 

from the air quality research and monitoring program 

to guide its participation in the following: 

l Resource management planning within the 

National Park Service. 

l Permit review concerning potential effects from 

increased emissions from proposed new major industrial and energy facilities outslde park boundaries. 

. Participation with state and local officials and 

industry in reaching decisions to minimize or eliminate 

potential Impacts to the park resources and to the 

visitor experience. 

l Reviews of environmental impact statements 

developed by other federal agencies concerning 

activities that might alfect NPS units. 

. Regulatory and legislative analyses. 

l Development of interpretive programs to inform 

visitors about the importance and value of the air 

resource in parks. 

22 

. Development of NPS educational courses and 

materials to inform personnel about air quality roles, 

responsibilities, and management programs for the 

protection of park resources from air pollution. 

Research’s Role in Decisions 

Information from the air quality research program is 

used to support NPS participation in decisions for protecting and managing air resources. In most cases, the 

air pollution affecting park resources and values 

comes from outside the parks. NPS concerns and 

recommendations regarding proposed or existing air 

pollution sources are directed to the governmental 

agency that has perminIng or regulatory authority. 

Cooperation also IS elicited from industry to ensure 

protection of NPS resourcas. 

The Clean Air Act requires that the National Park 

Service be involved in reviewng state implementation 

plans and designed to prevent significant deterioration 

of air quality and to protect visibility. The Park Service 

also is required to evaluate the effects lhat a new air 

pollution source might have on nearby park resources. 

The NPS Air Quality Division has Servicewde responsibillty for ensuring compliance with Clean Air Act 

requirements. in coordination with NPS regional 

olfices and park units. 

Thisisjust oneoftheways the Service is working “to 

conserve the scenery and natural and historic objects 

andthe wlldlifethereinandto provideforthe enjoyment 

of the same in such manner and by such means as wit 

leave them unimpaired for the enloyment of future 

generat!ons:‘(16 U.S.S.l). Our hope is to maintain the 

Park System’s national treasures at a qualtty level that 

will continue to astound and inspire witors. We hope 

they will also place a high value on knowing these 

resources are being protected and preserved for future 

generations. 

Shaver is Chief, Policy, Planning and Permit Review 

Branch, Air Quality Division; Morse is an Environmen. 

tal Prelection Specialist with the same branch; Yar. 

borough is a Physical Scientist working out of the NPS 

Southwest Regional office. 

Monitoring Protocols 

Documented in Handbooks 

In October, 1988, a team of 32 research scientists 

and park managers, under the direction of Nancy 

Ehorn, Gary Davis, and Bill Halvorson, completed a 

comprehenwe set of natural resource monitoring 

handbooks for Channel Islands NP Ten handbooks 

and an overview document formalize the population 

dynamics monitormg protocols used in the park. Each 

handbookdescribesdetailed proceduresforsampllng, 

data management, and reporting Information on a discrete resource category, such as sea birds, terrestrial 

vegetation, or kelp lorests. 

The designof this program mayserveasa model for 

other parks. ProductIon of the handbooks was made 

possible by funding from the WAS0 Inventory and 

Monitoring Initiative administered by Al Greene in the 

Office of the Senior Scientist. Copies of the overview, 

entitled “Inventory and Monitoring of Natural 

Resources in Channel Islands National Park, Califotnia” were sent to 150 parks, CPSUs, and central 

offices. 
Ecological Restoration 

Society Organized - - 

“Restoration: The New Management Challenge,” 

the first conference to be conducted by the now one 

year old Society for Ecological Restoration and Man. 

agement @ERM) was held Jan. 16-20, 1989, at the 

Claremont Hotel I” Oakland, Callf. It was attended by 

over 400 professionals in the field of ecosystem restoration. Represented were universities, nurseries, private consulting firms, landscaping companfas, and 

local, state and federal governments. A conference 

proceedings will be published cn 1989. 

Because of the pre-conference interest generated 

within the National Park Service, the meeting organizers chose to highlight the Service at this year’s 

meeting and they wara not disappoinled. Of the 89 

contributed papers presen!ed, 14 (ca. 16%) were by 

the NPS. Most of these contributed papers dealt with 

descriptions of individual restoration projects. The 

NPS areas represented included Channel Islands, 

Denali, Indiana Dunes, Lake Mead, North Cascades, 

Olympic, Redwood, Rocky Mountain, and Sequoiai 

Kings Canyon. Rellecting the size of their restoration/ 

rehabrlitation program. Redwood NP presented the 

largest number of papers. In addition to contributed 

paperssessions, theconference included two half-day 

symposia. The first was on the aftermath of this sum. 

mer’sftres in Yellowstoneand thesecondwason Stan. 

dards for Restoration projects. 

A number of workshops featured computer applications and restoration methods. One of these was con. 

ducted by Bill Weaver of Redwood NP, dealing wtlh 

removal of roadbeds and restoring natural slopes and 

drainages. At one poster session, Glacier, Mount Rainier, and Redwood parttclpated. 

The formal meeting concluded with a banquet at 

which Alston Chase discoursed for an hour on his 

belief that Yellowstone has been and continues to be 

msmanaged. Much of what he said to this group was 

from his book, flaying God in yellowstone, but 

directed at the point that restoration or management is 

extremely dinicult without good scientific information 

and withoutcleargoals. In this regard, he lamented the 

fact that NPS support for research is so meager 

(approximately Z%oftheNPS budget). Asdidothetsat 

the conference, he spoke enthusiastically against the 

“let nature take its course” school of management, 

believing that the world has been too dramattcally 

altered by the hand of man to allow a “hands oft” 

approach to be effective in long-term maintenance of 

ecosystems. 

Society business discussions included the need for 

a journal for articles in restoration and management of 

naturalecosystemsandfortheSocietytotakearole in 

improving the standards that govern restoration and 

mibgation projects. These topics will be primary concerns for the Society as it seeks members and ways to 

focus the growing interest in natural area restoration 

and management. 

The next SERM meeting will be in the spring of 1990 

in Chtcago. Anyone interested in further informatlon or 

in joinmg may write Ihe Society for Ecological Restoralion and Management, University of Wisconsin 

Arboretum, 1207 Semmole Highway, Madison, WI 

53711. 

Bill Halvorson 

Channel islands NP 

meetings of interest 

1969 

April 14-16, THE AVANT-GARDE AND THE LANDSCAPE: CAN THEY BE RECONCILED? at UIMinn, Twin Cities campus. Contact: Landscape Conference, School of 

Architecture, UiMinn, 89 Church St. S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455. 

April 17-21, INTERREGIONAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INTERPRETATION CONFERENCE ON SEASHORE PARKS, at Gulf Islands National Seashore; Contact: Dick 

Cunningham, NPS Western Regional Office, (415) 556.3184. 

April 21, GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE AND NATURAL RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS FOR 

THE INTERMOUNTAIN WEST, at Utah State University, Logan, covering water 

resources, animal habitat, fire regime, rangeland and agriculture, and land management policy. COntaCt: Dean’s Office, College of Natural Resources, U/St/U, Logan, UT 

64322.5200 or (801) 750.2445. 

May 16-20, RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION OF GREAT LAKES COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS, at Indiana Univ. Northwest, Gary, sponsored by Indiana Dunes National 

Lakeshore and Illlfnd Sea Grant; chaired by Alan Mebane of Indiana Dunes NL, 1100 

N. Mineral Springs Rd., Porter, IN 46304; (219) 926.7561. 

May 30-June 2, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GREAT LAKES RESEARCH, 32nd 

Annual Conference; at Madison, WI, Contact: Dr. Gary Glass, EPA, 6201 Congden 

Blvd., Duluth, MN 55604; (218) 720-5526. 

1990 

March 20-24, FIRE AND THE ENVIRONMENT: ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES, an international symposium to be held in Knoxville, Term., muftisponsored including NPS, UTTenn, USFS, and the Society of American Foresters. 

Contact: Fire Ecology Symposium, Dept. of FW&F, U/Term, Knoxville, TN 37901-1071, 

(615) 974-7964. 

Managers, Interpreters Focus on Seashore Parks 

Seven National Park Service Regions-those with 

seashore parks-have been invited to attend the sixth 

Interregional Resource Management Interpretation 

Conference in a series initiated and led by Dick Cunningham, Chief Interpreter in the Western Regional 

Off Ice. 

The conference will be held April 17-21 at Gulf 

Islands National Seashore. As with Ihe previous conferences, emphasis will be on informalion interchange 

among research scientists, resource managers, and 

those who are charged with interpretation to the public, 

The premise is that the best interpretation is that which 

tells the story of the basic resources for which the park 

Fire Ecology Symposium 

An international symposium on - “Fire and the 

Environment: Ecological and Cultural Perspectives,” 

will be held in Knoxville, Ten”., on March 20.24,199O. II 

will be sponsored by several units of the University of 

Tennessee, Clemson Univewty, the USFS, the NPS, 

the Society of American Foresters and others. 

The ecological roles of fire as a natural part of the 

environment will be considered, as will man’s regard 

for it as an agent of desirutiion in forest and other 

wildland environments. This conference will provide a 

current statement on fire in the ecosystem and society 

which will be useful as policies are formulated and 

implemented. An agenda and a call for papers will be 

forthcoming shortly. For further information write: Fire 

Ecology Symposium, Department of Forestry, Wildlife 

& Fisheries, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 

37901-1071 USA, or call (615) 974.7984. 

was created and the processes that keep those 

resowas in good working order. 

The focusof prior such meetings has been on Pacific 

Mountain parks, Soulhwest Desert parks, Pacific 

Coastal parks, Fossil Area parks, and Island parks. 

Regions attending are North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, 

Southeast, Southwest, Western, Pacific Northwest, 

and Alaska. 

“In the end we will conserve only what we love; we will 

bve only what we understand; we will understand only 

what we are taught.” 

- African ecologist 

Biological diversity isn’t something we inherited from 

our parents - it’s on loan from our children. 

In the 

Next Issue 

“CAD Appllcat~ons at Wind Cave NP’ by Jim 

Nepstad, “Superglue - Tagged Stoneflies Aid Aquatic 

Food Web Research” by Jerry Freilich, “White-lailed 

Deer Ecology on Fire Island” by Allen F. O’Connell, Jr., 

Mark W. Sayre, Edward M. Bosler, and Henry Art, and 

“Environmental Effects and Monitoring of Abandoned 

Drilling Muds: The Wrangell-St. Elias Approach” by 

Timothy E. Law. 

23