Olympic National Park
Country
United States of America (USA)
Inscribed in
1981
Criteria
(vii)
(ix)
The conservation outlook for this site has been assessed as "good with some concerns" in the latest assessment cycle. Explore the Conservation Outlook Assessment for the site below. You have the option to access the summary, or the detailed assessment.
Located in the north-west of Washington State, Olympic National Park is renowned for the diversity of its ecosystems. Glacier-clad peaks interspersed with extensive alpine meadows are surrounded by an extensive old growth forest, among which is the best example of intact and protected temperate rainforest in the Pacific Northwest. Eleven major river systems drain the Olympic mountains, offering some of the best habitat for anadromous fish species in the country. The park also includes 100 km of wilderness coastline, the longest undeveloped coast in the contiguous United States, and is rich in native and endemic animal and plant species, including critical populations of the endangered northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet and bull trout. © UNESCO
Summary
2020 Conservation Outlook
Finalised on
02 Dec 2020
Good with some concerns
Current state and trend of VALUES
Low Concern
Overall THREATS
Overall PROTECTION and MANAGEMENT
Full assessment
Description of values
The Western Hemisphere’s largest stands of temperate rainforest
Criterion
(vii)
Olympic National Park is the largest and best example in the western hemisphere of virgin temperate rainforest. The coastal Olympic rainforest reaches its maximum development within the property and has a living standing biomass which may be the highest anywhere in the world (World Heritage Committee, 2018).
Remarkable combination of habitats
Criterion
(vii)
Olympic National Park is of remarkable beauty, and is the largest protected area in the temperate region of the world that includes in one complex ecosystems from ocean edge through temperate rainforest, alpine meadows and glaciated mountain peaks (World Heritage Committee, 2018).
Glaciers
Criterion
(vii)
The mountains contain about 60 active glaciers; the area is unique because it is the lowest latitude in the world in which glaciers begin at an elevation lower than 2,000 m and exist below 1,000 m (World Heritage Committee, 2018).
Diversity of flora and fauna which continues to evolve in a relative natural state
Criterion
(ix)
The park contains 981 species of native, terrestrial, vascular plants and 342 species of native aquatic plants, 205 species of marine algae 301 species of birds, 59 species of terrestrial mammals, and 11 species of marine mammals, 536 species of marine invertebrates, 65 species of intertidal fish that collectively are continuing to evolve in a relative natural state.
Habitats of unmatched diversity on the Pacific coast
Criterion
(ix)
Within the park boundary, there are 10 major watersheds, 311 glaciers, and 112 km of roadless coastline. Topographic characteristics of Olympic Mountains results in dramatic climate gradients within and immediately outside park. The park’s varied topography from seashore to glacier, affected by high rainfall has produced complex and varied vegetation zones, providing habitats of unmatched diversity on the Pacific coast (World Heritage Committee, 2018).
Endemic species associated with park’s isolation
Criterion
(ix)
The park’s isolation has allowed the development of endemic wildlife. The park is rich in native and endemic animal and plant species, including critical populations of the endangered northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet and bull trout (World Heritage Committee, 2018). Endemic species and subspecies in the park also include 2 sensitive plants and 6 others, 3 mammals, including the Olympic marmot (full species), 3 subspecies of endemic fish, and 7 endemic insects (Olympic National Park General Management Plan 2010).
Wilderness coastline
Criterion
(vii)
The park includes 100 km of wilderness coastline, the longest undeveloped coast in the contiguous United States (World Heritage Committee, 2018)
Endangered species
The park contains 22 threatened and endangered animal species, 4 candidates for listing, and 17 species of federal concern. The Whitebark Pine is a candidate species for listing. There are 11 species of plants listed as threatened and 42 listed as sensitive by the State of Washington, but none are federally designated. Olympic National Park General Management Plan 2010.
Roosevelt Elk
The park protects the largest population of Roosevelt elk in its natural environment in the world. Olympic National Park General Management Plan 2010
Native fish populations
The park’s 10 major watersheds and over 200 streams support 22 breeding native fish species, including anadromous as well as resident populations of 7 salmonid species. Olympic National Park General Management Plan 2010 http://www.nps.gov/olym/parkmgmt/olympic-fun-facts.htm
Assessment information
In general, resources at Olympic National Park are effectively managed and protected. However, a significant number of currently identified threats fall into the high threat category. Until the mountain goat management plan is successfully completed, the presence of mountain goats in the park generates negative impacts to the park’s ecosystems. The noise from aircraft, firearms and other equipment, disturbance from human activity, limitations on public access and safety issues during the translocation and lethal removal of goats also generate a current negative impact to this site. Decline of endangered species, climate change impacts, impact of invasive species, commercial and recreational fishing are considered the most important current threats to the park. Illegal collection of plants, illegal poaching and pollution are additional current threats that also need to be monitored and managed.
Invasive Non-Native/ Alien Species
(Exotic mountain goats)
Other invasive species names
mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
Outside site
The introduced population of mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus, LC) in Olympic National Park and Olympic National Forest has increased through the years and has caused ecological concern for their impact on the sensitive vegetation communities in the area (National Park Service 1995). In 2010, safety concerns increased when a visitor hiker was fatally gored in Olympic National Park (Tsong, 2010). In 2018 the Final Mountain Goat Management Plan/Environmental Impact Assessment was released, expressing the goal of reducing or eliminating the impact of exotic mountain goats on park resource while reducing potential public safety issues over the course of 3 to 5 years (National Park Service, 2018a). The protection and preservation of the integrity of the International Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Site designations was included in the objectives for the management of mountain goats on the Olympic Peninsula (National Park Service, 2018a). In 2018, 725 mountain goats were estimated to occupy the Olympic Mountains and by August 2020, after 3 years and 4 translocation sessions, 381 of them were removed from the Olympic Peninsula and 85% (325 ind.) of those were translocated to the nearby Cascade Mountains where the goats are native (Happe and Harris, 2018; National Park Service, 2018a, 2020a). Since the goal of removing 50% of the population by translocation was reached, lethal removal of the reminding individuals is planned to start during the Fall of 2020 (Carman, 2020; Shipley, 2019). These management actions are expected to result in long-term beneficial impacts in Olympic National Park World Heritage Site. Nevertheless, until the management plan is successfully completed, the presence of Mountain goats generates a negative impact to the ecosystems of Olympic National Park.
Other Ecosystem Modifications
(Decline of endangered and/or endemic species)
Inside site
, Widespread(15-50%)
Outside site
The federally threatened species northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina, NT) and marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus, EN) continue to decline at alarming levels despite in-park protections (National Parks and Conservation Association, 2004; Wilk et al., 2018; Lorenz et al., 2017). Studies of breeding and nesting habitat requirements for marbled murrelets point to the need for management actions that improve their marine and terrestrial habitat (Wilk et al., 2016; Lorenz et al. 2017). Protection of the old growth forest is essential for nesting of northern spotted owls (Wilk, 2018).
Continued loss of apex predators alters wildlife and plant community composition and relative abundance (National Parks and Conservation Association, 2004; National Park Service, 2010; McCaffery et al. 2018; Beschta and Ripple, 2018).
The Olympic marmot (Marmota Olympus, LC) was listed as the only state endemic mammal in 2009 (Washington State Legislature, 2009). Most of its habitat is within Olympic National Park. A historical decline in its distribution and an ongoing decline in the southwestern area of the park was recently confirmed, generating high conservation concern for this endemic marmot population (McCaffery et al., 2018). Direct and indirect impacts of climate change and coyote predation are the main causes of concern for this species long-term survival (McCaffery et al., 2018).
Trend information for endangered fish species within the park is either lacking or shows populations to be relative stable in the short term. Though uncertain, threats to listed fish species without intervention are high (National Parks and Conservation Association, 2004, McCaffery et al., 2018).
Continued loss of apex predators alters wildlife and plant community composition and relative abundance (National Parks and Conservation Association, 2004; National Park Service, 2010; McCaffery et al. 2018; Beschta and Ripple, 2018).
The Olympic marmot (Marmota Olympus, LC) was listed as the only state endemic mammal in 2009 (Washington State Legislature, 2009). Most of its habitat is within Olympic National Park. A historical decline in its distribution and an ongoing decline in the southwestern area of the park was recently confirmed, generating high conservation concern for this endemic marmot population (McCaffery et al., 2018). Direct and indirect impacts of climate change and coyote predation are the main causes of concern for this species long-term survival (McCaffery et al., 2018).
Trend information for endangered fish species within the park is either lacking or shows populations to be relative stable in the short term. Though uncertain, threats to listed fish species without intervention are high (National Parks and Conservation Association, 2004, McCaffery et al., 2018).
Habitat Shifting/ Alteration, Droughts, Temperature extremes, Storms/Flooding
(Climate change impacts)
Inside site
, Throughout(>50%)
Outside site
Glacier retreat, disappearance and thinning has already been documented in Olympic National Park. Through a glacier inventory in the park it was reported that from 266 glaciers existing in 1982, only 184 were still observed in 2009 (National Park Service, 2019a). Anderson Glacier was essentially gone by 2015. Its receding progression was reported to less than 10% between 1927 and 2009 (National Park Service, 2019a).
Increasingly extreme flooding due to climate change is causing acute threats to park infrastructure, especially roads and culverts, and increases erosion well beyond traditional weather events. KCPQ, a television station in Seattle reported a flood damage event that resulted in partial closing of Olympic National Park (Q13 Fox, 2018).
Rising temperatures from climate change impacts are causing an increase in wild land fire scale and intensity, as well as an increase in insect infestations for native trees, with increased mortality from both causes (McCaffery et al. 2018).
Increasingly extreme flooding due to climate change is causing acute threats to park infrastructure, especially roads and culverts, and increases erosion well beyond traditional weather events. KCPQ, a television station in Seattle reported a flood damage event that resulted in partial closing of Olympic National Park (Q13 Fox, 2018).
Rising temperatures from climate change impacts are causing an increase in wild land fire scale and intensity, as well as an increase in insect infestations for native trees, with increased mortality from both causes (McCaffery et al. 2018).
Invasive Non-Native/ Alien Species
(Invasive species)
Other invasive species names
Barred owl (Strix varia, LC), mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus, LC), balsam woolly adelgid (Adelges piceae), several plant species.
Inside site
, Widespread(15-50%)
Outside site
The population of the invasive barred owl (Strix varia, LC) is rapidly increasing in Olympic National Park generating high concern for its impact on northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina, NT). The northern spotted owl population is rapidly decreasing and local extinction rates has been reported since 1990s. The competition between these two owls is considered the primary cause of its decline (McCaffery et al. 2018).
The sensitive vegetation communities in Olympic National Park have been negatively impacted by the introduced mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus, LC) causing high ecological concern. The 2018 Mountain Goat Management Plan is currently being implemented with the goal of reducing or eliminating the impact of exotic mountain goats on park resource while reducing potential public safety issues over the course of its 3 to 5 year lifespan (National Park Service, 2018a).
Many fir trees (Abies spp) have died in Olympic National Park due to the infestation with balsam woolly adelgid (Adelges piceae), an invasive European insect that is widespread in the park and was detected around 1970 (McCaffey et al. 2018).
Invasive plant species in waterways and lakes in Olympic National Park are impacting the ability of endangered fish species to reproduce successfully (Northwest Treaty Tribe, 2018). Invasive plant species in Lake Ozette are clogging up the gravels used by Lake Ozette sockeye to spawn. The following are considered the worst invasive plant species in the Olympics, Scot’s broom (Cytisus scoparius), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), English ivy (Hedera helix), English Holly (Ilex aquifolium), Herb Robert (Geranium robertianum), Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica), information about each one can be find online (National Park Service, 2020d).
The park has increased staffing for treatment of invasive plants and enhanced coordination between working groups within the park and collaboration with partners including tribes, counties, other federal agencies and visitors (Olson et. al, 1991; Frey and App, 2013; National Park Service, 2012; Mason County Noxious Weed Control Board 2017; National Park Service, 2020d). However, at present the park’s resources are not adequate to treat all known occurrences of invasive, exotic plants (National Park Service, 2010).
The sensitive vegetation communities in Olympic National Park have been negatively impacted by the introduced mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus, LC) causing high ecological concern. The 2018 Mountain Goat Management Plan is currently being implemented with the goal of reducing or eliminating the impact of exotic mountain goats on park resource while reducing potential public safety issues over the course of its 3 to 5 year lifespan (National Park Service, 2018a).
Many fir trees (Abies spp) have died in Olympic National Park due to the infestation with balsam woolly adelgid (Adelges piceae), an invasive European insect that is widespread in the park and was detected around 1970 (McCaffey et al. 2018).
Invasive plant species in waterways and lakes in Olympic National Park are impacting the ability of endangered fish species to reproduce successfully (Northwest Treaty Tribe, 2018). Invasive plant species in Lake Ozette are clogging up the gravels used by Lake Ozette sockeye to spawn. The following are considered the worst invasive plant species in the Olympics, Scot’s broom (Cytisus scoparius), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), English ivy (Hedera helix), English Holly (Ilex aquifolium), Herb Robert (Geranium robertianum), Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica), information about each one can be find online (National Park Service, 2020d).
The park has increased staffing for treatment of invasive plants and enhanced coordination between working groups within the park and collaboration with partners including tribes, counties, other federal agencies and visitors (Olson et. al, 1991; Frey and App, 2013; National Park Service, 2012; Mason County Noxious Weed Control Board 2017; National Park Service, 2020d). However, at present the park’s resources are not adequate to treat all known occurrences of invasive, exotic plants (National Park Service, 2010).
Fishing, Harvesting & Controlling Aquatic Species
(Commercial and recreational fishing)
Other targeted species names
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Outside site
Intensive commercial and recreational harvest outside the park influence the number of adult salmonids that return to the park. Commercial gill-net fisheries exist at river mouths most weeks of the year and sport anglers come from around the world to fish in the park. Salmon destined for the park are also harvested in commercial and sport fisheries in the ocean from Alaska to California, including Canada. Additionally, hatchery fish pose threats to wild fish populations in the park. Federal, state, and tribal hatcheries annually release millions of hatchery fish in portions of rivers located outside park boundaries. The relatively conservative fisheries management regulations implemented by the park are not enough to minimize impacts to park resources (National Parks and Conservation Association 2004, National Park Service, 2010; McCaffery et al., 2018).
Seasonal recreational fisheries closures have been implemented in the Hoh and South Fork Hoh Rivers due to concerns about the status, trends, and escapement of Hoh River Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Closures have been designed to maximize the protection of wild spring/summer Chinook salmon (National Park Service, 2015).
Seasonal recreational fisheries closures have been implemented in the Hoh and South Fork Hoh Rivers due to concerns about the status, trends, and escapement of Hoh River Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Closures have been designed to maximize the protection of wild spring/summer Chinook salmon (National Park Service, 2015).
Logging, Harvesting & Controlling Trees
(Logging and collection of other forest products adjacent to park boundary, and illegally from inside park)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
The activity most relevant to this category of threat is illegal harvest inside the park of shrubs, ferns, and mosses for the floral trade (Hutten et al., 2005). This harvesting is sporadic and localized; park law enforcement staff are aware of the problem and work to identify and respond to incidents, though staff reductions impede management response to this threat (National Parks Conservation Association, 2015). There is a strong demand from the European floral trade for temperate rainforest plants, known as "specialized forest products”, which have increased through shadowy illegal operations, with illegal traffickers that are armed and dangerous” (Bleakney, 2012).
Recreational Activities
(Illegal Poaching)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Outside site
Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) are protected in their natural habitat in Olympic National Park. Nevertheless, there is concern about illegal poaching incidents. In one incident in 2010 the poacher of a trophy bull was identified and fined (Burgess, 2010). In 2019 only the carcass of a cow Roosevelt elk with no meat harvested was found on Upper Hoh Road in Olympic National Park (National Park Service, 2019b). Illegal poaching of Roosevelt elk occurs not only in the Olympic National Park, but also on the west side of the North Olympic Peninsula (Ollikainen, 2019).
Other Human Disturbances
(Mountain Goat removal)
Inside site
, Widespread(15-50%)
The alternative decided for Mountain goat management that started in 2018 was a combination of capture and translocation and lethal removal (National Park Service, 2018a). This alternative is expected to result in long-term, beneficial impacts on most park resources and have less impact than other alternatives considered. Nevertheless, there are temporary adverse impacts on resources during the initial management phases, including; noise from aircraft, firearms and other equipment, disturbance from human activity, limitations on public access and safety issues. According to the Mountain Goat Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement (plan/EIS), the resources affected include wilderness character, wildlife and wildlife habitat including special-status species, such as northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina, NT) and marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus, EN); vegetation, including special status plant species; threatened or endangered species; the acoustic environment; visitor use and experience; and visitor and employee safety. Most of the adverse impacts would be temporary, intermittent, and minimal.” (National Park Service, 2018a). Monitoring and reporting of these impacts is recommended.
Other Human Disturbances
(Pollution)
Inside site
, Widespread(15-50%)
Outside site
The perception of Olympic National Park as a place with excellent air quality, has proven to be wrong after extensive monitoring and research (McCaffery et al. 2018). The National Park Service monitors air pollution and works to address their effects at this Park (National Park Service, 2020f). According to the last Periodic Report for this site, air pollution is considered one of the negative factors affecting the park, nevertheless no management actions apply because this is caused from outside sources and although it is widespread, its impact was considered minor (State Party of United States of America, 2014). Natural visual range reduction in the park due to pollution caused mainly from power plants and urban emissions, affects visitor experience (National Park Service, 2020f, McCaffery et al. 2018).
The concentration of mercury in fish from contaminated lakes in Olympic National Park exceed safe consumption threshold for humans and wildlife and is affecting fish population health (Landers et al. 2008, Eagles-Smith et al. 2014, McCaffery et al. 2018).
The concentration of mercury in fish from contaminated lakes in Olympic National Park exceed safe consumption threshold for humans and wildlife and is affecting fish population health (Landers et al. 2008, Eagles-Smith et al. 2014, McCaffery et al. 2018).
Recreational Activities
(Visitation by tourists and associated developments)
Inside site
, Extent of threat not known
Increased visitation and crowding in certain areas of the park's frontcountry and backcountry, although potentially a low to moderate threat at this time, be considered as an identifiable concern for monitoring (IUCN Consultation, 2020). Visitor use management has the potential for impacts on park resources, wilderness character, and visitor experiences, and although concrete data is lacking, this threat can be identified as contributing to deleterious conditions of a parks natural and cultural resource values (IUCN Consultation, 2020).
While many of the potential threats fall into the low threat category, important exceptions include climate change and pollution. Climate change will be gradual, but from available data is considered a critical threat to the OUV of Olympic National Park. According to recent projections only a few isolated thermal refugia for the survival of endemic alpine plant species will remain in the Olympic Peninsula due to the negative impact of climate change. Changes in the alpine habitat could lead to extinction of endemic species such as Olympic marmots (Marmota olympus, LC) and Olympic Masama pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama melanops, LC). Some threats that fall into the low threat category should be paid close attention to in order to avoid future damage to park ecosystems. For example, the early alert system for potential oil spills should remain in place as past accidents in the region have revealed the negative impact they can cause.
Unknown Threats
(Pollution)
Inside site
, Widespread(15-50%)
Outside site
Highway 101 lies very close to both Lake Crescent and the ocean coastline. It is heavily used by both recreational and commercial traffic with potential for runoff that contaminates adjacent waters. Research to date has shown that automobile traffic on the highway adjacent to the lake is responsible for 5% of the annual total lake nitrogen inputs (Moran et. Al. 2013). Motor vehicle exhaust was corroborated as an important source of nitrogen input to Lake Crescent (Cox et al., 2016). Along this busy commercial route, the possibility of a major input of toxic material also exists.
There is concern about the potential negative effects of excess nitrogen and sulfur compounds deposited from the air on plant communities and acidification of surface waters and soils (National Park Service 2020f, McCaffery et al. 2018).
There is concern about the potential negative effects of excess nitrogen and sulfur compounds deposited from the air on plant communities and acidification of surface waters and soils (National Park Service 2020f, McCaffery et al. 2018).
Residential Areas
(Urban pressures)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
Outside site
Puget Sound is a rapidly growing urban area with increasing construction of primary residences and increasing demands for recreational areas. Localized high levels of human recreation leads to habituation of wildlife and food conditioning, leading to alteration of behavior and movement patterns.
Recreation & Tourism Areas
(Commercial Development)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
Outside site
There are multiple sites in and adjacent to the park on which lodges and other tourism facilities, as well as staff offices and residences, have been built. They are generally well planned and managed, but nevertheless provide focal points for intense use with local resource degradation and exotic plant establishment sites.
Shipping Lanes
(Off-shore oil spills)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Outside site
Negative effects on sea otters (Enhydra lutris, EN), seabirds (key nesting colonies on offshore islands), peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus, LC) and bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus, LC) occurred as a result of spills is 1988 and 1991 (de Place and Stroming, 2015). An emergency response tugboat was established in 1999 and is still in place (Howard, 2018: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Makah Tribe, 2020). The potential for future oil spills continues to exist.
Unknown Threats
(Off-shore fish farms)
Outside site
The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) lies off-shore from Olympic National Park and has no strict prohibitions on off-shore fish farming. While the threat of non-native fish-farming (especially Atlantic salmon) in off-shore waters surrounding Olympic National Park is relatively high, the current regulatory framework would likely prevent permitting of these uses. The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) would consider fish-farming an offshore commercial development project subject to the ONMS permitting process. Any proposed project in the sanctuary would require an ONMS permit based on OCNMS regulations related to seabed disturbance (for anchoring/mooring aquaculture structures) and discharge (Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 2011).
Habitat Shifting/ Alteration, Droughts, Ocean acidification, Temperature extremes
(Climate Change)
Inside site
, Throughout(>50%)
Outside site
Potential effects of climate change on vegetation on federal lands on the Olympic Peninsula have been described by Aubry et al. (2011) and Halofsky et al. (2011). Climate change is expected to result in altered geographic ranges of dominant plant species, increases in the probability of establishment of regeneration failures, and increased drought stress leading to decreased growth of forests. Habitats most at risk include wetlands, alpine and subalpine areas, temperate rainforests with Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), and high-elevation forests dominated by Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis), subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), and Alaska yellow-cedar (Callitropsis nootkatensis).
Wershow and DeChaine (2018) projected that only a few isolated thermal refugia for the survival of endemic alpine plant species will remain in the Olympic Peninsula due to the negative impact of climate change. Based on their projections, the authors proposed management measures such as limiting impacts from hikers on the thermal refugial areas. They also highlight the importance of the Olympics as a model for endemics around the world.
Loss of alpine and subalpine habitat could lead to extinction of Olympic marmots (Marmota Olympus, LC) listed as the only state endemic mammal in 2009 and Olympic Masama pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama melanops, LC) listed as federally threatened in 2014 (Washington State Legislature, 2009; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2019; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2020). Loss of subalpine habitat will also lead to diminished forage available for Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti), North American black bear (Ursus americanus), Columbian black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), subalpine birds, small animals and numerous other species (Halofsky et al. 2011).
Olympic National Park resource managers monitor the potential impact of ocean acidification, water temperatures, and other environmental variables on coastal organisms (National Park Service, 2020c). There is an increasing interest in the negative impact of ocean acidification on marine species sensitive to changes in carbonate chemistry. Jones et al. (2018) found that most of the intertidal taxa at Olympic National Park are at risk from ocean acidification and they proposed new methodological approaches for research and management related to ocean acidification. Olympic National Park has been monitoring intertidal ocean acidification since 2010 (National Park Service, 2020b).
The park has developed some capacity to identify which potential consequences of climate change are occurring most rapidly through the development of long-term monitoring with other NPS units in western Washington (National Park Service, 2020g). Effective responses will require reevaluation of agency policy, increased collaboration with other agencies and an increase in staff and funding.
Wershow and DeChaine (2018) projected that only a few isolated thermal refugia for the survival of endemic alpine plant species will remain in the Olympic Peninsula due to the negative impact of climate change. Based on their projections, the authors proposed management measures such as limiting impacts from hikers on the thermal refugial areas. They also highlight the importance of the Olympics as a model for endemics around the world.
Loss of alpine and subalpine habitat could lead to extinction of Olympic marmots (Marmota Olympus, LC) listed as the only state endemic mammal in 2009 and Olympic Masama pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama melanops, LC) listed as federally threatened in 2014 (Washington State Legislature, 2009; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2019; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2020). Loss of subalpine habitat will also lead to diminished forage available for Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti), North American black bear (Ursus americanus), Columbian black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), subalpine birds, small animals and numerous other species (Halofsky et al. 2011).
Olympic National Park resource managers monitor the potential impact of ocean acidification, water temperatures, and other environmental variables on coastal organisms (National Park Service, 2020c). There is an increasing interest in the negative impact of ocean acidification on marine species sensitive to changes in carbonate chemistry. Jones et al. (2018) found that most of the intertidal taxa at Olympic National Park are at risk from ocean acidification and they proposed new methodological approaches for research and management related to ocean acidification. Olympic National Park has been monitoring intertidal ocean acidification since 2010 (National Park Service, 2020b).
The park has developed some capacity to identify which potential consequences of climate change are occurring most rapidly through the development of long-term monitoring with other NPS units in western Washington (National Park Service, 2020g). Effective responses will require reevaluation of agency policy, increased collaboration with other agencies and an increase in staff and funding.
Invasive Non-Native/ Alien Species, Pathogens
(Invasive species)
Other invasive species names
Barred owl (Strix varia, LC), mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus, LC), balsam woolly adelgid (Adelges piceae), several plant species.
Inside site
, Throughout(>50%)
Outside site
The exotic flora of the park includes species with the potential to degrade habitat for the native plants and animals in habitats including riparian/aquatic areas, non-forested uplands, and forests (National Park Service, 2020d). Noxious weeds becoming established along the gravelly shores of Lake Crescent would have potential negative impacts to the two isolated endangered fish species, Beardslee trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus var. beardsleei) and the Crescenti cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki var. crescenti) (National Park Service, 2020e).
It is very unlikely that invasive species in Olympic National Park will be fully eradicated, with the exception of mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus, LC), which is currently being eradicated after the mountain goat management plan was implemented after its release in 2018 (National Park Service, 2018a).
It is very unlikely that invasive species in Olympic National Park will be fully eradicated, with the exception of mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus, LC), which is currently being eradicated after the mountain goat management plan was implemented after its release in 2018 (National Park Service, 2018a).
The existing management system is highly effective. The development of the management plan / environmental impact statement for the park was the result of an almost seven year process involving three public consultation periods and over 500 public comments resulting in a 15-20 year plan (National Park service, 2008a).
Management effectiveness is highly efficient.
The resource protection effectiveness of the existing boundaries is improved by the surrounding buffering effect of U.S. Forest Service lands. Much of the site’s OUV is well protected by the existing boundaries, but some resources, such as anadromous fish, are not protected over their full life cycle.
Several minor boundary adjustments (expansions) are proposed in the approved General Management Plan. This is offset by the removal of two parcels of land (both small) along the coast to allow local Indian tribes to relocate key facilities to sites above the tsunami exposure zone. (National Park Service, 2010).
Several minor boundary adjustments (expansions) are proposed in the approved General Management Plan. This is offset by the removal of two parcels of land (both small) along the coast to allow local Indian tribes to relocate key facilities to sites above the tsunami exposure zone. (National Park Service, 2010).
Integration into the regional and national park service planning systems is generally effective.
Key stakeholders have been identified and are generally supportive of the park. For a variety of reasons there are individuals and small groups that oppose park and world heritage status. The park undertook a significant public consultation process in drafting its most recent management plan (National Park Service, 2008b).
The legal framework under which the park is managed and protected is highly effective. The remaining law enforcement effort is generally effective, though law enforcement staff has been reduced over the past years, and current and anticipated budget reductions will further limit the park’s ability to patrol and enforce park regulations. (National Park Service, 2010, National Parks Conservation Association, 2015).
Law enforcement staff has been cut over the past years (National Parks Conservation Association, 2015), although this reduction is somewhat offset by existing reciprocal enforcement agreements with local county and state agencies (National Park Service, 2016; National Parks Traveler, 2019).
The park has been responsive to Committee decisions for expanding boundaries and developing emergency response mechanisms for oil spills off the coast (World Heritage Committee, 1990, 1991, 1992)
Sustainable use affecting the site includes recreational fishing inside the site boundary and commercial fishing outside. Intensive commercial and recreational harvest outside the park influence the number of adult salmonids that return to the park. Commercial gill-net fisheries exist at river mouths most weeks of the year and sport anglers come from around the world to fish in the park. Salmon destined for the park are also harvested in commercial and sport fisheries in the ocean from Alaska to California, including Canada. Additionally, hatchery fish pose threats to wild fish populations in the park. Federal, state, and tribal hatcheries annually release millions of hatchery fish in portions of rivers located outside park boundaries. The relatively conservative fisheries management regulations implemented by the park are not enough to minimize impacts to park resources (National Parks and Conservation Association 2004, National Park Service, 2010; McCaffery and Jenkins, 2018).
Seasonal recreational fisheries closures have been implemented in the Hoh and South Fork Hoh Rivers due to concerns about the status, trends, and escapement of Hoh River Chinook salmon. Closures have been designed to maximize the protection of wild spring/summer Chinook salmon (National Park Service, 2015).
Seasonal recreational fisheries closures have been implemented in the Hoh and South Fork Hoh Rivers due to concerns about the status, trends, and escapement of Hoh River Chinook salmon. Closures have been designed to maximize the protection of wild spring/summer Chinook salmon (National Park Service, 2015).
Annual budgets rise and fall with different federal administrations, but have generally been sufficient to maintain the site’s OUV.
This relates directly to funding and the same pattern described above also fits this category.
Education and interpretation programs are frequently among the first to be reduced during tight fiscal times. To some extent the reduction in government programs is being offset by education provided by non-profit organizations within and around the park.
There is an increasing recognition in the region surrounding the park of the monetary value that park related tourism brings to the region. A portion of park entrance fees are returned to the park. In 2019, 3,245,805 total recreation visits were registered and total visitor spending was estimated at USD 276,115,000 at Olympic National Park supporting 3,131 jobs (Cullinane et al., 2020). Visitor use management varies across different zones of the park (IUCN Consultation, 2020), and therefore requires careful monitoring in order to inform effective management approaches.
Monitoring of the values, and the threats facing them, in the National Park are currently effective and improving. Of particular note, monitoring of visitation is an important consideration to identify areas of concern regarding visitor experiences and resource damage (IUCN Consultation, 2020).
About 80 research permits issued annually. There is a vibrant research program in park.
Assessment of the effectiveness of protection and management in addressing threats outside the site
Mostly Effective
The effectiveness of management responses to threats is generally high, but there are many legal and fiscal restraints that limit the extent to which these threats can be mitigated.
Good practice examples
There are excellent best practice examples on display everywhere in the park. Three notable examples are the removal of the two Elwha river dams (U.S. Geological Survey, 2018; National Park Service, 2020h), re-introduction of native the fisher (Pekania pennanti) (National Park Service, 2018b), Mountain goats management plan (National Park Service, 2018a).
Assessment of the current state and trend of World Heritage values
Deteriorating
Assessment of the current state and trend of other important biodiversity values
Low Concern
Deteriorating
Some listed species, notably the marbled murrelet and spotted owl continue to decline, while native fishers have been reintroduced to the park. Some salmon runs, including Chinook salmon are threatened by recreational fishing.
Additional information
Outdoor recreation and tourism
A major element and critical justification for the park, as previously described.
Importance for research
This includes contrasting the character of largely pristine environments with disturbed areas outside park boundaries, as well as monitoring long term trends such as global warming
Contribution to education
Educating targeting visitors, local and regional students, and offering a source of academic study to scientist from a wide variety of disciplines
Outdoor recreation and tourism
It is estimated that visitation to the park, directly and indirectly, generates over 150 million dollars in regional income, supporting several thousand jobs.
The presence of a major national park on the Olympic Peninsula, coupled with the higher recognition for Olympic NP due to the world heritage site designation, have continued to greatly enhance the local economy, provide ample spaces for healthful outdoor recreation for all visitors, and builds strong public support for the park.
| № | Organization | Brief description of Active Projects | Website |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Park staff | Restoration of Elwha River watershed following removal of two dams (now in progress) |
https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/elwha-ecosystem-restoration.htm
https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/restoration-and-current-research.htm
|
| 2 | Park staff | Monitor and assess endangered Native American sites, especially along the park coastline | |
| 3 | Park staff | Inventory and Monitoring program that is assessing 9 vital indicators | |
| 4 | Park staff/contract and university associated scientists | Process and manage approximately 80 research projects annually | |
| 5 | Park staff | Skokomish river anadromous fish restoration following modification of hydro dam structures to allow more effective fish passage |
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/skokomish-river-estuary-restoration-helps-salmon-and-steelhead-return-home
|
| 6 | park staff | Park staff will continue to remove invasive Barred Owls that have moved into endangered Spotted Owl habitat in the park. While the few remaining pairs of Spotted Owls in the park may well not survive, no recovery plan can be undertaken while the more aggressive Barred Owls are present in the park. |
https://nps.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=89ed9a4189d241f987273f156746b509
https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Documents/BarredOwl-EIS-ExecSum.pdf
|
| 7 | The NPS (lead agency) - USDA Forest Service and WDFW (cooperating agencies) | Mountain Goat Management Plan (2018-in progress). Purpose: to allow the NPS to reduce or eliminate impacts on park resources from exotic mountain goats, while reducing potential public safety issues associated with the presence of mountain goats in the park. The goal of removing 50% of the mountain goat population by translocation was reached by 2020, lethal removal of the reminding individuals is planned to start during the Fall of 2020. |
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/mountain-goat-capture-and-translocation.htm
|
References
| № | References |
|---|---|
| 1 |
Aubry, C., Devine, W., Shoal, R., Bower, A., Miller, J. and Maggiulli, N. (2011). Climate Change and Forest Biodiversity: A Vulnerability Assessment and Action Plan for National Forests in Western Washington, USDA Forest Service, PNW Region.
|
| 2 |
Beschta, R. L. and Ripple, W.J. (2018). Wolf‐triggered trophic cascades and stream channel dynamics in Olympic National Park: a comment on East et al.(2017). Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 43(4), pp.930-935.
|
| 3 |
Bleakney (2012) Pirates of the Rainforest. [Online] Sierra Club. Sierra. Available at: <http://vault.sierraclub.org/sierra/201207/olympic-national-…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 4 |
Burgess, K. (2010). Olympic National Park elk poacher fined $2,500 for killing trophy bull. [Online] Los Angeles Times. Available at: <https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/outposts/2010/01/national-…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 5 |
Carman, M. (2020). Olympic National Park seeks sharpshooters for goat culling. [Online] HeraldNet. Everett, Washington. Available at: <https://www.heraldnet.com/northwest/olympic-national-park-s…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 6 |
Cox, S.E., Moran, P.W., Huffman, R.L. and Fradkin, S.C. (2016). Monitoring plant tissue nitrogen isotopes to assess nearshore inputs of nitrogen to Lake Crescent, Olympic National Park, Washington. [Online] U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5054, 20 p., Available at: <https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2016/5054/sir20165054.pdf>; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 7 |
Cullinane Thomas, C. and Koontz, L. (2020). 2019 National park visitor spending effects: Economic contributions to local communities, states, and the nation. Natural Resource Report
|
| 8 |
Eagles-Smith, C.A., Willacker, J.J. and Flanagan Pritz, C.M. (2014). Mercury in fishes from 21 national parks in the Western United States: Inter and intra-park variation in concentrations and ecological risk. [Online] U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1051, 54 p. Available at: <http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141051.>; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 9 |
Frey, M., and R. App. (2013). Exotic Plant Management Team Program: 2013 annual report. [Online] Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/BRMD/NRR—2014/781. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. Available at: <http://npshistory.com/publications/vegetation/epmt-annual-r…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 10 |
Halofsky, J.E., Peterson, D.L.; O’Halloran, K.A., Hawkins Hoffman, C. (2011). Adapting to climate change at Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-844. Portland, OR. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 130 p.
|
| 11 |
Happe, P. and Harris, R. (2018). Olympic National Park Mountain Goat Removal and Translocation to the North Cascades Progress Report I. Olympia, USA: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. [online] Available at: https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/02036/…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 12 |
Howard, S. (2018). Remembering our oil spills legacy: Why Washington has an emergency response tug at Neah Bay. [Online] Department of Ecology State of Washington. Available at: <https://ecology.wa.gov/Blog/Posts/May-2018/Remembering-our-…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 13 |
Hutten, M., Woodward, A. and Hutten, K. (2005). Inventory of the Mosses, Liverworts, Hornworts, and Lichens of Olympic National Park. [Online] Washington: Species List. U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5240, 78 p. Available at: < https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20055240>; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 14 |
Jones, J.M., Passow, U. and Fradkin, S.C. (2018). Characterizing the vulnerability of intertidal organisms in Olympic National Park to ocean acidification. Elem Sci Anth, 6.
|
| 15 |
Landers, D.H., Simonich, S.L., Jaffe, D.A., Geiser, L.H., Campbell, D.H., Schwindt, A.R., Schreck, C.B., Kent, M.L., Hafner, W.D., Taylor, H.E., Hageman, K.J., Usenko, S., Ackerman, L.K., Schrlau, J.E., Rose, N.L., Blett, T.F. and Erway, M.M. (2008). The Fate, Transport, and Ecological Impacts of Airborne Contaminants in Western National Parks (USA). [Online] EPA/600/R-07/138. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, NHEERL, Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, Oregon. Available at: <https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/DownloadFile/514681>; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 16 |
Lohan., T. (2018). The Elwha’s Living Laboratory: Lessons From the World’s Largest Dam-removal Project. [online] 1 October, The Revelator. Available at: https://therevelator.org/elwha-dam-removal/ [Accessed 14 October 2020].
|
| 17 |
Lorenz, T.J., Raphael, M.G., Bloxton, T.D., Cunningham, P.G. (2016) Low breeding propensity and wide‐ranging movements by marbled murrelets in Washington. The Journal of Wildlife Management 81(2):306–321.
|
| 18 |
Mason County Noxious Weed Control Board (2017). Olympic Peninsula Cooperative Noxious Weed Control 2016 Project Report [Online] Available at: <https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/2064/2014/02/2016-Mason…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 19 |
McCaffery, R.M., Jenkins, K.J., (2018). Natural Resource Condition Assessment. Olympic National Park. [Online] National Park Service NPS/OLYM/NRR—2018/1826, p. 510. Available at: < http://npshistory.com/publications/olym/nrr-2018-1826.pdf>; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 20 |
Moran, P.W., Cox, S.E., Embrey, S.S., Hufffman, R.L., Olsen, T.D. and Fradkin, S.C. (2013). Sources and sinks of nitrogen and phosphorus to a deep, oligotrophic lake, Lake Crescent, Olympic National Park, Washington. [Online] U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5107, 56 p., Available at: <https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5107/pdf/sir2012-5107.pdf>; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 21 |
NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRR—2020/2110. [Online] National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. Available at: <https://www.nps.gov/nature/customcf/NPS_Data_Visualization/…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 22 |
National Park Service (1995). Goats in Olympic National Park: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Mountain Goat Management within Olympic National Park, Washington. Department of the Interior. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. State of Washington, Department of Fish and Wildlife.
|
| 23 |
National Park Service (2008a). Olympic National Plan General Management Plan [Online] Available at: <https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?parkID=329&…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 24 |
National Park Service (2008b). Olympic National Park Final General Management Plan Released Today. [Online] Available at: <https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/news/olympic-national-park-f…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 25 |
National Park Service (2010). General Management Plan Summary Presentation. Olympic National Plan. [Online] Washington. Department of the Interior. 165 pp. Available at: < https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=329&pr…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 26 |
National Park Service (2012). Help Stop the Spread of Invasive Species. [Online] Available at: <https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/stopinvasives.htm>; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 27 |
National Park Service (2015). Emergency Closure of Recreational Fishing in the Hoh and South Fork Hoh Rivers within Olympic National Park. [online] Available at: <https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/news/closure-of-recreational…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 28 |
National Park Service (2016). Donate. [Online] Available at: <https://www.nps.gov/olym/getinvolved/donate.htm>; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 29 |
National Park Service (2018a). Final Mountain Goat Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement. Washington. Department of the Interior. 283 pp. Available at: <https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=329&pr…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 30 |
National Park Service (2018b). Fisher Reintroduction. [Online] Available at: < https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/fisher-reintroduction…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 31 |
National Park Service (2019a) Glaciers and Climate Change. [Online] Available at: <https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/glaciers.htm>; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 32 |
National Park Service (2019b). Olympic National Park Rangers Seek Information in Illegal Elk Poaching Incident. [Online] Available at: <https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/news/olympic-national-park-r…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 33 |
National Park Service (2020a). Mountain Goat Capture and Translocation. [Online] Available at: <https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/mountain-goat-captur…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 34 |
National Park Service (2020c). Ocean Acidification. Oceans, Coasts & Seashores. [Online] Available at: <https://www.nps.gov/subjects/oceans/acidification.htm>; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 35 |
National Park Service (2020d). Invasive Exotic Plants. Olympic National Park. [Online] Available at: < https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/invasiveplants.htm>; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 36 |
National Park Service (2020e). Speciation via Isolation. [Online] Available at: <https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/education/upload/Speciation-…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 37 |
National Park Service (2020f). Park Air Profiles - Olympic National Park. [Online] Available at: <https://www.nps.gov/articles/airprofiles-olym.htm>; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 38 |
National Park Service (2020g). Climate Change and Western National Parks. [Online] Available at: <https://www.nps.gov/idp/interp/ClimateChange%20in%20Western…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 39 |
National Park Service (2020h). Elwha River Restoration. [Online] Available at: <https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/elwha-ecosystem-resto…. > [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 40 |
National Park Service. (2017). Olympic National Park Foundation Document. [online] Available at: https://www.nps.gov/olym/upload/OLYM_FD_2017_508.pdf (Accessed 14 October 2020).
|
| 41 |
National Parks Conservation Association (2015). Park on the Edge: Funding Shortfalls at Olympic National Park. [Online] Available at: <https://www.npca.org/resources/3152-park-on-the-edge-fundin…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 42 |
National Parks Service (2020b). Oceans, Coasts & Seashores. Ocean Acidification. [Online] Available at: <https://www.nps.gov/subjects/oceans/acidification.htm>; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 43 |
National Parks Traveler (2019). Washington's National Park Fund Funnels $1.5 Million to Mount Rainier, North Cascades, and Olympic National Parks [Online] Available at: <https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2019/02/washingtons-n…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 44 |
National Parks and Conservation Association (2004). State of the Parks. Olympic National Park. A Resource Assessment. [Online] Washington. 32 pp. Available at: < https://www.npca.org/resources/1163-center-for-state-of-the…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 45 |
Northwest Treaty Tribe (2018). Noxious Weed Removal Results in Improved Salmon Habitat. [Online] Available at: <https://nwtreatytribes.org/noxious-weed-removal-results-in-…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 46 |
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (2011). Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. Final Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. [online] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Available at: <https://olympiccoast.noaa.gov/management/managementplan/man…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 47 |
Ollikainen (2019). Cow elk killed in Olympic National Park. [Online] Peninsula Daily News. Available at: <https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/crime/cow-elk-killed-in-…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 48 |
Olson, R.W., Schreiner, E.G and Parker, L. (1991). Management of exotic plants in Olympic National Park (Draft). [Online] Port Angeles, Washington. 47 pp. Available at: <http://npshistory.com/publications/olym/exotic-plants-mgt-1…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 49 |
Q13 Fox (2018). Flood damage closes portion of Olympic National Park. [Online] Available at: <https://www.q13fox.com/news/flood-damage-closes-portion-of-…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 50 |
Shaffer, J. A., Juanes, F., Quinn, T. P., Parks, D., McBride, T., Michel, J., ... & Byrnes, C. (2017). Nearshore fish community responses to large scale dam removal: implications for watershed restoration and fish management. Aquatic Sciences, 79(3), 643-660.
|
| 51 |
Shipley, J. (2019). Goats Go Home. [Online] National Parks Conservation Association. Available at: <https://www.npca.org/articles/2023-goats-go-home>; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 52 |
State Party of United States of America (2014). Periodic Report Second Cycle Section II: Olympic National Park. [Online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, pp. 1-10. [Online] Available at: < https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/151/documents/>; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 53 |
Tsong, N. (2010). A 63-year-old hiker was fatally injured in Olympic National Park and rangers suspect an encounter with a mountain goat is to blame. [Online] The Seattle Times. Available at: <https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/mountain-goat-kil…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 54 |
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2019). Mazama Pocket Gophers in Western Washington – Frequently Asked Questions [Online] Available at: <https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/documents/Mazama%20pocket%20gophe…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 55 |
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2020). Federally Protected Subspecies of Mazama Pocket Gopher in Washington [Online] Available at: <https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/articles.cfm?id=149489588>; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 56 |
U.S. Geological Survey (2018). Moving Mountains: Elwha River Still Changing Five Years After World’s Largest Dam-Removal Project: More than 20 million tons of sediment flushed to the sea. [Online] Available at: <https://www.usgs.gov/news/moving-mountains-elwha-river-stil…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 57 |
US army 2020 tug regulation [Online] Available at: <https://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Portals/27/docs/environmenta…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 58 |
Washington State Legislature (2009). State endemic mammal. [Online] Available at: <https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=1.20.038>; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 59 |
Wershow, S.T. and DeChaine, E.G., (2018). Retreat to refugia: Severe habitat contraction projected for endemic alpine plants of the Olympic Peninsula. American Journal of Botany, 105(4), pp.760-778.
|
| 60 |
What can the past tell us about the future? [Online] Sightline Institute. Available at: <https://www.sightline.org/2015/01/12/fifty-years-of-oil-spi…; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 61 |
Wilk, R.J., Lesmeister, D.B., Forsman, E.D. (2018). Nest trees of northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) in Washington and Oregon, USA. PLoS ONE 13(5): e0197887.
|
| 62 |
Wilk, R.J., Raphael, M.G., Bloxton, T.D. (2016). Nesting habitat characteristics of Marbled Murrelets occurring in near-shore waters of the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Journal of Field Omithology 87(2): 162-175.
|
| 63 |
World Heritage Committee (1990). Decision 14 COM VII.E. Boundary Modifications: Olympic National Park (United States of America). [Online] In: Report of decisions of the 14th session of the World Heritage Committee (Banff, 1990). [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, p.13. Available at: <https://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/14COM/decisions/>; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 64 |
World Heritage Committee (1991). Decision 15 COM VIII. SOC: Olympic National Park (United States of America). [Online] In: Report of decisions of the 15th session of the World Heritage Committee (Carthage, 1991). [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, p.15. Available at: < https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/3501>; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 65 |
World Heritage Committee (1992). Decision 16 COM VIII. SOC: Olympic National Park (United States of America). [Online] In: Report of decisions of the 16th session of the World Heritage Committee (Santa Fe, 1992). [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, p. 31. Available at: < https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/3426>; [Accessed 11 September 2020].
|
| 66 |
World Heritage Committee (2018). Decision : 42 COM 8E Olympic National Park Adoption of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value. In: Report of decisions of the 42nd session of the World Heritage Committee (Manama, Bahrain, 2018). [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/7164 [Accessed 1 December 2020].
|
| 67 |
de Place and Stroming, A. (2015). Fifty Years of Oil Spills in Washington’s Waters.
|