Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Andrea Woodward

Publications and source records attributed to Andrea Woodward.

31 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
USGS2011

Ecoregional-scale monitoring within conservation areas, in a rapidly changing climate

Long-term monitoring of ecological systems can prove invaluable for resource management and conservation. Such monitoring can: (1) detect instances of long-term trend (either improvement or deterioration) in monitored resources, thus providing an early-warning indication of system change to resource managers; (2) inform management decisions and help assess the effects of management actions, as well as anthropogenic and natural disturbances; and (3) provide the grist for supplemental research on mechanisms of system dynamics and cause-effect relationships (Fancy et al., 2009). Such monitoring additionally provides a snapshot of the status of monitored resources during each sampling cycle, and helps assess whether legal standards and regulations are being met. Until the last 1-2 decades, tracking and understanding changes in condition of natural resources across broad spatial extents have been infrequently attempted. Several factors, however, are facilitating the achievement of such broad-scale investigation and monitoring. These include increasing awareness of the importance of landscape context, greater prevalence of regional and global environmental stressors, and the rise of landscape-scale programs designed to manage and monitor biological systems. Such programs include the US Forest Service's Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program (Moser et al., 2008), Canada's National Forest Inventory, the 3Q Programme for monitoring agricultural landscapes of Norway (Dramstad et al., 2002), and the emerging (US) Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (USDOI Secretarial Order 3289, 2009; Anonymous, 2011). This Special Section explores the underlying design considerations, as well as many pragmatic aspects associated with program implementation and interpretation of results from broad-scale monitoring systems, particularly within the constraints of high-latitude contexts (e.g., low road density, short field season, dramatic fluctuations in temperature). Although Alaska is the focus of most papers in this Special Section, we posit that many of the issues that characterize the remote, relatively undisturbed ecosystems of high northern latitudes are widespread and thus applicable to natural-resource management and conservation across northern portions of the Holarctic ecozone and indeed anywhere broad-scale monitoring is contemplated.

Biological Conservation↗
USGS2011

Predicting spread of invasive exotic plants into dewatered reservoirs after dam removal on the Elwha River, Olympic National Park, Washington

The National Park Service is planning to start the restoration of the Elwha River ecosystem in Olympic National Park by removing two high head dams beginning in 2011. The potential for dispersal of exotic plants into dewatered reservoirs following dam removal, which would inhibit restoration of native vegetation, is of great concern. We focused on predicting long-distance dispersal of invasive exotic plants rather than diffusive spread because local sources of invasive species have been surveyed. We included the long-distance dispersal vectors: wind, water, birds, beavers, ungulates, and users of roads and trails. Using information about the current distribution of invasive species from two surveys, various geographic information system techniques and models, and statistical methods, we identified high-priority areas for Park staff to treat prior to dam removal, and areas of the dewatered reservoirs at risk after dam removal.

Washington↗
USGS2011

Conceptual ecological models to support detection of ecological change on Alaska National Wildlife Refuges

More than 31 million hectares of land are protected and managed in 16 refuges by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in Alaska. The vastness and isolation of Alaskan refuges give rise to relatively intact and complete ecosystems. The potential for these lands to provide habitat for trust species is likely to be altered, however, due to global climate change, which is having dramatic effects at high latitudes. The ability of USFWS to effectively manage these lands in the future will be enhanced by a regional inventory and monitoring program that integrates and supplements monitoring currently being implemented by individual refuges. Conceptual models inform monitoring programs in a number of ways, including summarizing important ecosystem components and processes as well as facilitating communication, discussion and debate about the nature of the system and important management issues. This process can lead to hypotheses regarding future changes, likely results of alternative management actions, identification of monitoring indicators, and ultimately, interpretation of monitoring results. As a first step towards developing a monitoring program, the 16 refuges in Alaska each created a conceptual model of their refuge and the landscape context. Models include prominent ecosystem components, drivers, and processes by which components are linked or altered. The Alaska refuge system also recognizes that designing and implementing monitoring at regional and ecoregional extents has numerous scientific, fiscal, logistical, and political advantages over monitoring conducted exclusively at refuge-specific scales. Broad-scale monitoring is particularly advantageous for examining phenomena such as climate change because effects are best interpreted at broader spatial extents. To enable an ecoregional perspective, a rationale was developed for deriving ecoregional boundaries for four ecoregions (Polar, Interior Alaska, Bering Coast, and North Pacific Coast) from the Unified Ecoregions of Alaska. Ecoregional models were then developed to illustrate resources and processes that operate at spatial scales larger than individual refuges within each ecoregion. Conceptual models also were developed for adjacent marine areas, designated as the North Pacific, Bering Sea, and Beaufort-Chukchi Sea Marine Ecoregions. Although many more conceptual models will be required to support development of a regional monitoring program, these definitions of ecoregions and associated conceptual models are an important foundation.

Alaska↗
USGS2011

Monitoring habitat restoration projects: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Region Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and Coastal Program Protocol

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Pacific Region (Region 1) includes more than 158 million acres (almost 247,000 square miles) of land base in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Hawai`i, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Region 1 is ecologically diverse with landscapes that range from coral reefs, broadleaf tropical forests, and tropical savannahs in the Pacific Islands, to glacial streams and lakes, lush old-growth rainforests, inland fjords, and coastal shoreline in the Pacific Northwest, to the forested mountains, shrub-steppe desert, and native grasslands in the Inland Northwest. Similarly, the people of the different landscapes perceive, value, and manage their natural resources in ways unique to their respective regions and cultures. The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (Partners Program) and Coastal Program work with a variety of partners in Region 1 including individual landowners, watershed councils, land trusts, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, non-governmental organizations, Tribal governments, Native Hawaiian organizations, and local, State, and Federal agencies. The Partners Program is the FWS's vanguard for working with private landowners to voluntarily restore and conserve fish and wildlife habitat. Using non-regulatory incentives, the Partners Program engages willing partners to conserve and protect valuable fish and wildlife habitat on their property and in their communities. This is accomplished by providing the funding support and technical and planning tools needed to make on-the-ground conservation affordable, feasible, and effective. The primary goals of the Pacific Region Partners Program are to: Promote citizen and community-based stewardship efforts for fish and wildlife conservation Contribute to the recovery of at-risk species, Protect the environmental integrity of the National Wildlife Refuges, Contribute to the implementation of the State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies, and Help achieve the objectives of the National Fish Habitat Partnerships and regionally based bird conservation plans (for example, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, U.S. Pacific Island Shorebird Conservation Plans, Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan, etc.). The Partners Program accomplishes these priorities by: Developing and maintaining strong partnerships, and delivering on-the-ground habitat restoration projects designed to reestablish habitat function and restore natural processes; Addressing key habitat limiting factors for declining species; Providing corridors for wildlife and decrease impediments to native fish and wildlife migration; and Enhancing native plant communities by reducing invasive species and improving native species composition. The Coastal Program is a voluntary fish and wildlife conservation program that focuses on watershed-scale, long-term collaborative resource planning and on-the-ground restoration projects in high-priority coastal areas. The Coastal Program conducts planning and restoration work on private, State, and Federal lands, and partnerships with other agencies-Native American Tribes, citizens, and organizations are emphasized. Coastal Program goals include restoring and protecting coastal habitat, providing technical and cost-sharing assistance where appropriate, supporting community-based restoration, collecting and developing information on the status of and threats to fish and wildlife, and using outreach to promote stewardship of coastal resources. The diversity of habitats and partners in Region 1 present many opportunities for conducting restoration projects. Faced with this abundance of opportunity, the Partners Program and Coastal Program must ensure that limited staffing and project dollars are allocated to benefit the highest priority resources and achieve the highest quality results for Federal trust species. In 2007, the Partners Program and Coastal Program developed a Strategic Plan to guide program operations and more efficiently conserve habitat by focusing partnership building and habitat improvement actions within 35 Partners Program Focus Areas and 9 Coastal Program Focus Areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). The Strategic Plan also contains four other goals: broaden and strengthen partnerships; improve information sharing and communications; enhance workforce; and increase accountability to ensure that program resources are used efficiently and effectively. This protocol will help achieve all goals of the Strategic Plan.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2010

Framework for ecological monitoring on lands of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges and their partners

National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska and throughout the U.S. have begun developing a spatially comprehensive monitoring program to inform management decisions, and to provide data to broader research projects. In an era of unprecedented rates of climate change, monitoring is essential to detecting, understanding, communicating and mitigating climate-change effects on refuge and other resources under the protection of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and requires monitoring results to address spatial scales broader than individual refuges. This document provides guidance for building a monitoring program for refuges in Alaska that meets refuge-specific management needs while also allowing synthesis and summary of ecological conditions at the ecoregional and statewide spatial scales.

Alaska↗
USGS2010

Great Basin Integrated Landscape Monitoring Pilot Summary Report

The Great Basin Integrated Landscape Monitoring Pilot project (GBILM) was one of four regional pilots to implement the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Science Thrust on Integrated Landscape Monitoring (ILM) whose goal was to observe, understand, and predict landscape change and its implications on natural resources at multiple spatial and temporal scales and address priority natural resource management and policy issues. The Great Basin is undergoing rapid environmental change stemming from interactions among global climate trends, increasing human populations, expanding and accelerating land and water uses, invasive species, and altered fire regimes. GBLIM tested concepts and developed tools to store and analyze monitoring data, understand change at multiple scales, and forecast landscape change. The GBILM endeavored to develop and test a landscape-level monitoring approach in the Great Basin that integrates USGS disciplines, addresses priority management questions, catalogs and uses existing monitoring data, evaluates change at multiple scales, and contributes to development of regional monitoring strategies. GBILM functioned as an integrative team from 2005 to 2010, producing more than 35 science and data management products that addressed pressing ecosystem drivers and resource management agency needs in the region. This report summarizes the approaches and methods of this interdisciplinary effort, identifies and describes the products generated, and provides lessons learned during the project.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2010

Conceptual ecological models to guide integrated landscape monitoring of the Great Basin

The Great Basin Integrated Landscape Monitoring Pilot Project was developed in response to the need for a monitoring and predictive capability that addresses changes in broad landscapes and waterscapes. Human communities and needs are nested within landscapes formed by interactions among the hydrosphere, geosphere, and biosphere. Understanding the complex processes that shape landscapes and deriving ways to manage them sustainably while meeting human needs require sophisticated modeling and monitoring. This document summarizes current understanding of ecosystem structure and function for many of the ecosystems within the Great Basin using conceptual models. The conceptual ecosystem models identify key ecological components and processes, identify external drivers, develop a hierarchical set of models that address both site and landscape attributes, inform regional monitoring strategy, and identify critical gaps in our knowledge of ecosystem function. The report also illustrates an approach for temporal and spatial scaling from site-specific models to landscape models and for understanding cumulative effects. Eventually, conceptual models can provide a structure for designing monitoring programs, interpreting monitoring and other data, and assessing the accuracy of our understanding of ecosystem functions and processes.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2009

Forest Vegetation Monitoring Protocol for National Parks in the North Coast and Cascades Network

Plant communities are the foundation for terrestrial trophic webs and animal habitat, and their structure and species composition are an integrated result of biological and physical drivers (Gates, 1993). Additionally, they have a major role in geologic, geomorphologic and soil development processes (Jenny, 1941; Stevens and Walker, 1970). Throughout most of the Pacific Northwest, environmental conditions support coniferous forests as the dominant vegetation type. In the face of anthropogenic climate change, forests have a global role as potential sinks for atmospheric carbon (Goodale and others, 2002). Consequently, knowledge of the status of forests in the three large parks of the NCCN [that is, Mount Rainier (MORA), North Cascades (NOCA), and Olympic (OLYM) National Parks] is fundamental to understanding the condition of Pacific Northwest ecosystems. Diverse climate and soil properties across the Pacific Northwest result in a variety of forest types (Franklin and Dyrness, 1973; Franklin and others, 1988; Henderson and others, 1989, 1992). The mountainous terrain of Mount Rainier, North Cascades, and Olympic National Parks create steep elevational and precipitation gradients within and among the parks: collectively, these parks span from sea level to more than 4,200 m; and include areas with precipitation from 90 to more than 500 cm. The resulting forests range from coastal rainforests with dense understories and massive trees draped with epiphytes; to areas with drought-adapted Ponderosa pines; to high-elevation subalpine fir forests interspersed with meadows just below treeline (table 1). These forests, in turn, are the foundation for other biotic communities constituting Pacific Northwest ecosystems.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2005

Inventory of the mosses, liverworts, and lichens of Olympic National Park, Washington- Species list

The identification of non-vascular cryptogam species (lichens, mosses, liverworts, and hornworts) is especially challenging because of their small size, their often microscopic or chemical distinguishing features, and their enormous diversity. Consequently, they are a poorly known component of Olympic National Park, despite their ecological and aesthetic importance. This project is the first attempt at a systematic, comprehensive survey of non-vascular cryptogams in the Park and presents the current species list with descriptions of the substrate and vascular vegetation type where they were observed. The authors strove to collect from as many park environments as feasible, and distributed collections along important environmental gradients in different regions of the park using vascular vegetation as an environmental indicator. They also collected opportunistically when interesting habitats or microhabitats were encountered. Finally, the authors updated the nomenclature in the Park’s previous collection of nonvascular plants. This study identified approximately 13,200 bryophyte and lichen species, adding approximately 425 new species to the Olympic National Park Herbarium. These data, combined with select literature reports and personal data from Martin and Karen Hutten, added more than 350 species to the previously documented Olympic Peninsula lichen and bryophyte list. The authors discuss the list in a local, regional, and global context of rarity, as well as cryptogam conservation and further work needed in Olympic National Park. The improved inventory of Olympic National Park cryptogams represented by this project enables Olympic National Park to protect populations of rare and sensitive species, assess the damage caused by illegal harvest, and contribute information to the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Species Programs.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2003

A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park: Prototype for the Coniferous Forest Biome

This report is the result of a five-year collaboration between scientists of the U.S. Geological Survey Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Olympic Field Station, and the natural resources staff of Olympic National Park to develop a comprehensive strategy for monitoring natural resources of Olympic National Park. Olympic National Park is the National Park Serviceʼs prototype monitoring park, representing parks in the coniferous forest biome. Under the umbrella of the National Park Serviceʼs prototype parks program, U.S. Geological Survey and Olympic National Park staffs are obligated to: develop strategies and designs for monitoring the long-term health and integrity of national park ecosystems with a significant coniferous forest component. design exportable monitoring protocols that can be used by other parks within the coniferous forest biome (i.e., parks having similar environments), and create a demonstration area and ʻcenter of excellenceʼ for assisting other parks in developing ecological monitoring programs. Olympic National Park is part of the North Coast and Cascades Network, a network of seven Pacific Northwestern park units created recently by the National Park Serviceʼs Inventory and Monitoring Program to extend the monitoring of ʻvital signsʼ of park health to all National Park Service units. It is our intent and hope that the monitoring strategies and conceptual models described here will meet the overall purpose of the prototype parks monitoring program in proving useful not only to Olympic National Park, but also to parks within the North Coast and Cascades Network and elsewhere. Part I contains the conceptual design and sampling framework for the prototype long-term monitoring program in Olympic National Park. In this section, we explore key elements of monitoring design that help to ensure the spatial, ecological, and temporal integration of monitoring program elements and discuss approaches used to design an ecosystem-based monitoring program. Basic monitoring components include ecosystem drivers, (e.g., climate, atmospheric inputs, human pressures), indicators of ecosystem integrity (e.g., biogeochemical indicators), known threats (e.g., impacts of introduced mountain goats), and focal or ʻkeyʼ species (e.g., rare or listed species, Roosevelt elk). Monitoring system drivers and key indicators of ecosystem integrity provide the long-term baseline needed to judge what constitutes ʻunnaturalʼ variation in park resources and provide the earliest possible warning of unacceptable change. Monitoring effects of known threats and the status of focal species will provide information useful to park managers for dealing with current park issues. In Part I we describe the process of identifying potential indicators of ecological condition and present conceptual models of park ecosystems. In addition we report results from several workshops held in conjunction with Olympic National Park aimed at identifying potential indicators of change in the parkʼs ecosystem. First, we describe the responses of Olympic National Park staff to the generic question, “What is the most important resource to monitor in Olympic National Park and why?” followed by the responses from resource and land managers from areas adjoining the park. We also catalogue the responses of various expert groups that we asked to help identify the most appropriate system drivers and indicators of change in the Olympic National Park ecosystems. Results of the workshops provided the justification for selecting basic indicators of ecosystem integrity, effects of current threats to park resources, and focal resources of parks to detect both the currently evident and unforeseeable changes in park resources. We conclude Part I by exploring several generic statistical issues relevant to monitoring natural resources in Olympic National Park. Specifically we discuss trade-offs associated with sampling extensively versus sampling intensively in smaller geographic regions and describe a conceptual framework to guide development of a generic sampling frame for monitoring. We recommend partitioning Olympic National Park into three zones of decreasing accessibility to maximize monitoring efficiency. We present examples of how the generic sampling frame could be used to help ensure spatial integration of individual monitoring projects. Part II of the report is a record of the potential monitoring questions and indicators identified to date in our workshops. The presentation is organized according to the major system drivers, components, and processes identified in the intermediate-level working model of the Olympic National Park ecosystem. For each component of the park system, we develop the need and justification for monitoring, articulate park management issues, and describe key resources and ecosystem functions. We also present a pictorial conceptual model of each ecological subsystem, identify monitoring questions, and list potential indicators for each monitoring question. We conclude each section by identifying linkages of indicators to other ecological subsystems in our general ecosystem model, spatial and temporal contexts for monitoring (where and how often to monitor), and research and development needs. Part II represents the most current detailed listing of potential indicators—the material for subsequent discussions of monitoring priorities and selection of indicators for protocol development. Collectively, the sections of this report contain a comprehensive list of the important monitoring questions and potential indicators as well as recommendations for designing an integrated monitoring program. In Part I, Chapter 6 we provide recommendations on how to proceed with the important next steps in the design process: establishing priorities among the many possible monitoring questions and indicators, and beginning to research and design effective long-term monitoring protocols.

Information and Technology Report↗
USGS2002

Bryophytes and lichens: Small but indispensable forest dwellers

* What is a Bryophyte? * Bryophytes are the small green plants commonly known as mosses, liverworts and hornworts. Compared to plants, they have primitive tissues for conducting food and water, and they lack a protective outer surface to maintain water balance. Most bryophytes, because they lack tissues such as roots, obtain their water through direct surface contact with their environment. During dry weather they have the capacity to withstand complete dehydration. Bryophytes that are dry may appear dead but will regain normal function when moisture is available. Instead of producing seeds, bryophytes can either reproduce sexually by means of spores, or asexually when small pieces break off and grow into new individuals. * What is a Lichen? * Lichens are dual organisms consisting of a fungus and an alga or a cyanobacterium. The fungus provides the alga with structure, protection, nutrients, and water absorbed from the atmosphere and the substrate (e.g., soil, rotten logs, tree branches). In return, the alga provides carbohydrates from photosynthesis to the fungus. Algae from some lichens grow independently of the fungus, but in lichen form, the algae can inhabit more challenging environments than when growing alone. Most lichens can reproduce asexually. They either produce specialized propagules containing both partners, or parts of the lichen simply break, allowing both the fungus and the alga to disperse together. In some lichens, the fungal partner reproduces sexually by releasing spores, but the partner alga must be present in order for a lichen to reform.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS1998

Relationships among environmental variables and distribution of tree species at high elevation in the Olympic Mountains

Relationships among environmental variables and occurrence of tree species were investigated at Hurricane Ridge in Olympic National Park, Washington, USA. A transect consisting of three plots was established down one north-and one south-facing slope in stands representing the typical elevational sequence of tree species. Tree species included subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), and Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis). Air and soil temperature, precipitation, and soil moisture were measured during three growing seasons. Snowmelt patterns, soil carbon and moisture release curves were also determined. The plots represented a wide range in soil water potential, a major determinant of tree species distribution (range of minimum values = -1.1 to -8.0 MPa for Pacific silver fir and Douglas-fir plots, respectively). Precipitation intercepted at plots depended on topographic location, storm direction and storm type. Differences in soil moisture among plots was related to soil properties, while annual differences at each plot were most often related to early season precipitation. Changes in climate due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will likely shift tree species distributions within, but not among aspects. Change will be buffered by innate tolerance of adult trees and the inertia of soil properties.

Northwest Science↗