Park Science (ISSN-0735-9462) is a quarterly science and resource management bulletin that reports recent and ongoing natural and social science research, its implications for park planning and management, and its application in resource management. Content receives editorial review for completeness, clarity, usefulness, basic scientific soundness, and policy considerations--materials do not undergo refereed peer review. The bulletin is published in January, April, July, and October for distribution to interested parties. Visit Park Science on the World Wide Web at http://www.aqd.nps.gov/nrid/parksci.
Park Science accepts subscription donations from non-NPS readers. If you would like to help defray production costs, please consider donating $10 per subscription per year. Make check payable to the National Park Service and send to the editor.
The editor encourages submissions from all readers and would especially like to stimulate resource managers to write for the Highlights column. See current submission guidelines on page 5. Contact the editor at:
National Park Service
Natural Resource Information Division
P.O. Box 25287
Denver, CO 80225-0287
Phone (303) 969-2147
Printed on recycled paper
= = = = Contents = = = =
(2) News & Views
(3) Writing for Park Science
(4) Books in Profile
(6) Information Crossfile
(7) MAB Notes
(8) Meetings of Interest
(9) The Natural Resource Trainee Program: Professionalization Triumph of
(11) Maintaining a Water Quality Monitoring Program at Sleeping Bear Dunes
(12) Bald Eagle Research in the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore
(13) Leave No Trace Outdoor Skills and Ethics: An Educational Solution for
Reducing Visitor Impacts
(14) Turfgrass Research in Washington, D.C. Area National Parks
(15) A Primer for Choosing and Maintaining Healthy Turf
In the Next Issue.
This fall, we will take a look at the status of resource management for lepidoptera (moths and butterflies) in northeastern parks; a process to assess the condition of riparian and wetland areas; results from the Park Science reader survey; accounts of new paleontological finds in two parks; a new process for evaluating park construction proposals that benefit natural resource preservation; property rights to genetic resources; and a review of the book, Wildlife Policies in the U.S. National Parks.
(1) = = = =Editorial = = = =
On Being Prepared
As you may know, President Clinton recently announced a land swap between Canadian-held Crown Butte Mines, Inc., and the federal government, effectively killing the proposed New World Mine near Yellowstone. Had it gone through, this project would have developed an underground mining process to recover gold, silver, and copper from a mountain near the park's northeast boundary. The controversial project had the potential for long-term contamination of Soda Butte Creek in Yellowstone and also endangered the Clark's Fork of the Yellowstone River, a federal wild and scenic river.
The high-level deal did not come by politics alone and it did not come overnight. It was based on a steady stream of technical information and reasoned analysis that has been flowing from scientists and resource managers to park administrators and political representatives for several years. Certainly, the proposed mine was also an emotional issue, but geologists, biologists, hydrologists, and water resource specialists played the central role in making the scientifically based case against the project. They even suggested the land swap.
Not all threats facing parks are as prominent as this, yet the process to deal with them involves the application of information gained through research. This relationship, the core of this publication, is illustrated throughout this issue in articles that span the continuum from documenting park resources to resource manipulation.
We cannot possibly predict all threats to the natural resources in our care, but we can prepare for some as Toben Lafrancois points out in his article on the diverse aquatic life in rock pools at Capitol Reef National Park. A part of his study involved a resource inventory process, a fundamental building block for resource preservation that is the basis from which so many other resource activities are based. We also need to be prepared to examine our work critically from time to time and make midcourse corrections. Laurel Last and Richard Whitman share suggestions on this subject in their examination of the water quality monitoring program at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. Demonstrating the possibility of a strong marriage between science and interpretation, Jeff Marion and Susan Brame bring us up to date on the Leave No Trace backcountry ethics education program that is having success in minimizing impacts to wilderness.
If, as Louis Pasteur suggested, chance favors only the prepared mind, then nowhere is preparation more important than in our own workforce. As the lead article details, the Natural Resource Trainee Program was a successful investment in the future of NPS natural resource management. As a result of that course and a similar one just begun, we are continually preparing to handle future unknowns like the New World Mine.
(2) = = = =News & Views = = = =
Director Kennedy Honors Natural Resource Stewards
National Park Service Director Roger Kennedy recently announced the 1996 winners of the prestigious Director's Award for Natural Resource Management. Given annually, the awards recognize and foster outstanding contributions to natural resource management and research. The honorees include a NPS park superintendent, an NPS resource manager, and a federal government scientist whose work supports park natural resource preservation. The awards were presented at a ceremony in San Francisco in August. All winners received a plaque and a $2,500 monetary award.
Superintendent of the Year for Natural Resource Stewardship
Bryan Harry, Superintendent of the Pacific Island System Support Office, is the recipient of this award, which recognizes innovative resource management and support by a NPS superintendent. An outstanding leader, Bryan has demonstrated an ability to protect and restore native ecosystems in Hawaii and the Pacific islands during the last 25 years. His influence has resulted in realistic prospects for conserving highly significant vestiges of native Pacific ecosystems. As Superintendent of Hawaii Volcanoes National Park from 1970-1974, he and his staff changed the mindset in Hawaiian parks from accepting "inevitable" resource deterioration to proactive management that reverses deterioration and restores biological diversity. Upon returning to the islands as Pacific Area Director from 1982 to the present, Bryan presided during an era of tremendous progress in coping with resource issues in Hawaiian parks and expanded proactive management to parks throughout the Pacific.
"I am happy to accept this award," Harry stated, "because it recognizes the accomplishments of park crews and resource managers working with the cooperative park studies unit (CPSU) to mitigate the impacts of nonnative species in the Pacific Island parks. The 'mindset' we changed was to integrate the work of resource managers, park crews, and the scientists at the CPSU. We also shifted our concept of measuring success from how many alien animals we killed to basing removal decisions and efforts on the overall impacts the nonnative species have on the native populations. We have had some success, particularly with large mammals, but have lost the avifauna on Guam to a tree snake. Another difficult area is fire-adapted nonnative grasses." Harry continued, "Hawaii may be providing the national park system with a taste of things to come. While island ecosystems are the first to feel the severity of effects of nonnative species, I think the mainland will face the same challenges in the future; the mainland is just a bigger island."
Natural Resource Manager of the Year
Terry Hofstra was chosen for his contributions in guiding the Redwood National and State Parks resource management staff as they forged important working relationships between neighbors, parks, and private entities. A leading proponent and facilitator of interagency and intra-agency and private sector cooperation, Terry has helped the parks advance toward ecosystem management. Using this approach, the parks have been able to address a broader range of issues over the past 6 years. Pleased to be recognized, Hofstra pointed out that "an award like this is an indication that the entire staff is effective in working toward park preservation goals."
One of the largest resource management operations in the national park system, this staff of more than 40 have concentrated on restoration activities, including mitigating erosion, as a result of logging. While 170 miles of logging roads within the park have been restored under his leadership, an additional 3,000 miles of roads within the watershed have the potential to cause severe erosion and damage to park resources downstream. Hofstra's staff, including archeologists, fish and wildlife biologists, botanists, ecologists, geologists, hydrologists, fire specialists, and maintenance and administrative personnel, have slowly begun to garner the trust and interest of the neighboring private landholders and have started to inventory the condition of the roads in the watershed. A measure of their progress is that the park is now routinely invited to review logging plans before they are filed and is able to address park concerns before logging or other activities on adjacent private lands begin. To aid in communication between the partner parks, Hofstra has also helped arrange for a full-time state parks resource manager to be integrated into the operation.
Hofstra has also applied the principles of managing the complete range of resources into a cohesive, large-scale program that includes wildlife management and planning. Redwood National and State Parks are home to the endangered Marbled Murrelet, an ocean-feeding bird that nests atop old-growth trees. When an adjacent landowner recently petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a permit to log the remaining 564 acres of old-growth redwood from its property, Hofstra, ironically, foresaw the potential for long-term benefit to the murrelets within the park. By preparing a second-growth forest management plan in the interim, the parks are now poised to accept funds, mandated by the Endangered Species Act, to counter habitat disruption from the logging company. If its request for a permit is approved, the firm would pay for thinning 10 acres of second-growth forest within the parks for every acre disturbed on private land. Thinning a second-growth forest increases the speed by which the woods return to old-growth, providing increased future habitat for murrelets. If this comes to pass, Hofstra sees it as "a timely and much needed example of the flexibility of the Endangered Species Act in providing for endangered species preservation while accommodating some commercial activities."
This award is given to the federal employee who has made the most significant scientific contribution to the NPS natural resource program through the development of creative research projects, published research, or the initiation of science programs. Dr. Paul A. Buckley, Senior Scientist (Ecology) with the National Biological Service Cooperative Park Studies Unit at the University of Rhode Island, was recognized for research and natural resource preservation accomplishments that have greatly assisted the National Park Service in achieving its preservation goals. His personal research program, leadership in many areas of natural resource preservation, and influence on national preservation policy span nearly 25 years in association with the National Park Service.
"Winning this award is extremely satisfying, because my colleagues and I have been very persistent over the years pursuing what we knew were critically needed park research projects," Buckley commented. "Nearly all of my own research," he continued, "has been management driven. I have been entranced, captivated by great personal satisfaction from the successful application of research results to park management."
Buckley enjoys tackling some of the most vexing research questions today-those that involve looking at the interplay between various resource recreation uses and their impacts on the population numbers and health of plants and animals. His expertise in this regard is population biology of shorebirds and the biodiversity of birds throughout the northeastern national parks. His work typically results in providing information to managers who must make difficult decisions about resource protection and visitor use.
Working as a shorebird ecologist in the late 1970s, Buckley assisted the National Park Service in gaining colonial waterbird and Piping Plover habitat protection in the face of numerous beach nourishment projects proposed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers along Fire Island National Seashore, New York. In addition, Dr. Buckley is still involved with investigations he initiated in the 1980s concerning the interrelationships among waterbirds, including Laughing Gulls in the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge Unit of Gateway National Recreation Area, and aircraft on the adjacent John F. Kennedy International Airport. Buckley also began funding and doing some of the first work on the ecology and management of Piping Plovers, an endangered eastern U.S. bird species that, thanks in large measure to NPS management in coastal parks and seashores, is now making a comeback. He is quick to warn, however, that "if we make poor decisions [regarding uses of plover nesting beaches], recovery could be set back in a hurry."
While Dr. Buckley acknowledges the importance of applied research in meeting park management needs, he also observes that "there is tremendous need for much more site-specific inventory and general ecosystem research in our parks. Such research might not have obvious immediate application, but is nonetheless essential to the long-term management of the natural resources under our care."
Moving away somewhat from the kinds of projects he has worked on over the last 25 years, Buckley is currently involved in a massive, 5-year, multi-investigator study at Fire Island quantifying, for the first time, the relative roles of migratory and resident birds, deer, small mammals, and ticks, in the ecology of Lyme disease. Here, too, he has succeeded in maintaining that elusive, but critical mixture of research that is at once the most basic, and yet still the most applied.
(3) = = = =Writing for Park Science = = = =
What is Park Science?
Park Science is a quarterly, 32-page, research and resource management bulletin of the National Park Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior. The publication strives to strengthen the links between research and park management. Articles describe both experiments that relate to resource conservation and the application of science in resource management practices. Technical in nature, Park Science is edited for the educated lay reader. It is published four times per year (April, July, October, and January) and is also available on the Internet World Wide Web at http://www.aqd.nps.gov/nrid/parksci.
What Kinds of Articles are Published in Park Science?
Park Science articles are popularized, field-oriented accounts of general interest research and resource management topics. Articles consist of case studies (specific park-applied research and resource management project write-ups), feature stories (personalized reports on research and its application or professional growth experiences), and short stories (brief articles of broad interest and applicability). Repeating columns include editorials (relevant opinions about current trends in research and resource management), Information Crossfile (synopses of longer, often scholarly works relevant to resource managers), Meetings of Interest (a calendar of important upcoming conferences), Notes from Abroad (accounts of international resource management and research experiences), Man and Biosphere Notes (a report on the MAB program of UNESCO), book reviews and profiles of new publications, 15 Years Ago in Park Science (a look back at an earlier story), and Highlights from around the national park system.
The following guidelines should clarify most of the submission criteria for case studies, feature-length articles, and cluster highlights. However, please contact the editor if you would like to discuss these guidelines in more detail or if you would like help in developing a specific story.
Case Study and Feature Article Submission Guidelines
Focus and Tone
Case studies and feature articles should emphasize the implications of natural or social science research for the management of natural, cultural, and human resources. A broad readership calls for clear communication-highlight main concepts, explain project significance and methods, and detail applicability to management. Write primarily in the active voice and explain technical terms.
Target Audience and Primary Authors
Principal readers and contributors comprise national park system area superintendents, resource managers, natural and social science researchers, interpreters, maintenance staff, visitor and resource protection rangers, and other technical and nontechnical personnel. Circulation also includes other federal agencies; state departments of fish and game, parks and recreation, and natural resources; international parks; private conservation organizations; the academic community; and interested public.
Feature articles and case studies may include (1) a description of the resource management problem(s) that prompted the research; (2) an explanation of the significance of the resource management project; (3) discussion of management considerations related to the problem(s), such as relevant legislation (enabling, NEPA, ARPA, Endangered Species Act, etc.), pertinent park planning documents (GMP, SFM, FMP, RMP, etc.), planning procedures, and political considerations; (4) a summary of the methodology of the experiment; (5) the results and ramifications of resource management implementation options; (6) a description of how the findings were applied in the field; and (7) an appraisal of the scope of applicability of the findings to other park areas. As additional information about a project accrues, follow-up reports (one or more years later) may be very useful in fine tuning conclusions.
Flexible, but aim for 1,500 words.
In addition to a byline, include position title, park area or affiliation, a brief biography, work address, phone and fax numbers, and e-mail address.
Report measurements in metric (using abbreviations for units) followed by English in parentheses. Time is to be reported using A.M. and P.M.
Fall issue--August 1; Winter--November 1; Spring--February 1; Summer--May 1.
Submit several illustrations. Show personnel at work, project equipment, techniques used, locator maps, species portraits, etc., to illustrate the major points of the article. Color slides (35mm) are best, but original line art, photostats, high quality photocopies, black and white photographic prints (glossies preferred), and color prints are also acceptable. Computer-generated illustrations (i.e., scanned art, ArcView maps, etc.) can be forwarded through cc:Mail, on floppy disc, or on laser-printer originals (600 dpi if possible). Include the name of the artist or photographer and documentation of approved use if the illustration is copyright-protected. Label each illustration with park name, article title, any placement information (e.g., fig. 1), and the file format (e.g., TIF, EPS, etc.).
Include a description for each illustration that describes the relationship of the illustration to the theme of the article.
Send contributions to the editor using these methods in priority order:
(1) by cc:Mail with the word-processed document and any illustration files attached. Indicate the word-processing software and version in the cover message (e.g., WordPerfect 5.1);
(2) over the Internet. First save the word-processed document as a text file (i.e., *.TXT);
(3) by fax. Use double-spaced, laser-printed originals if possible. Illustrations may not be faxed.
(4) by mailing the hard copy (double-spaced) and a floppy disc containing the word-processed document (indicate the software and version) and any illustrations;
(5) by mailing the double-spaced hard copy (laser-printed originals if possible) and any illustrations alone;
Prior to submission to the editor, submit courtesy copies to both the area manager (superintendent) for policy considerations and the appropriate associate field director for natural resource stewardship and science. The editor and editorial board review articles for general appeal, relevance, usefulness, technical credibility, solution-oriented discussion, and agreement with submission criteria. Following editorial review, the editor will contact the author to discuss revisions and finalize the article.
Contributing to the Park Science Highlights Column
The Highlights department presents an overview of the diversity and complexity of research and resource management work undertaken by the National Park Service on a cluster by cluster basis. An entry may, for example, summarize a research or resource management project; detail a noteworthy accomplishment; relate a new development, technique, or trend; discuss a challenge or complication; describe project implementation under a national resource management initiative; or profile a principal investigator. Ideally, these synopses focus on work conducted at parks rather than at the system support office in support of parks. In many cases, highlights items would make terrific feature articles, but are presented in brief as a snapshot of the research and resource management work being accomplished cluster by cluster.