USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Cultural Resources Management”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

312 records · Page 18Linked to original sources
USGS2019

Managing effects of drought and other water resource challenges in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest

This is a Cooperator Report. As such, there is no specific abstract. The physical, ecological, and social environments of Alaska and the Pacific Northwest (PNW) region of the United States are extremely diverse. Alaska ranges from the Arctic Ocean and the very cold, dry environments of the North Slope to the cool and very rainy coastal North Pacific region of Southeast Alaska. Most precipitation falls as snow at higher elevations. In Arctic Alaska, average annual temperature is 14.6 F, and average annual precipitation is 11 inches. By contrast, in Southeast Alaska, average annual temperature is 35.8 F, and annual average precipitation is 143 inches. The PNW, defined here as Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, ranges from the Pacific Coast (annual precipitation of 200 inches) to interior semi-arid regions (annual precipitation of 8 inches). Precipitation patterns in the PNW are strongly governed by orographic phenomena, with high, persistent snowpack in the higher mountains (e.g., record annual snowfall of 1,130 in at Mount Baker, Washington in 1999-2000). Ecosystems in the PNW include productive temperate coniferous forests near the Pacific coast and along the (wet) west slope of the Cascade Range, less productive mixed-conifer forest along the (dry) east slope of the Cascades and in interior mountain ranges, and sagebrush-steppe and shrublands at lower elevations in much of the interior and mountain valleys. Large rivers and thousands of smaller tributaries form an extensive network of riparian, wetland, and estuarine systems that provide both critical hydrologic function and biological diversity at broad and fine spatial scales. Although Alaska and the Pacific Northwest differ in important physical, ecological, and social features, the importance of natural resources is evident in both regions. Water is important for wildlife and people. Water provides critical habitat for salmon, which are culturally and economically valuable species. Timber production has declined in recent decades. Recreation has emerged as a major revenue source.

Alaska, Oregon, Washington↗
USGS2025

North American Waterfowl Management Plan survey regional profile—Southeast region

Executive Summary Gaining a better understanding of the human dimensions of waterfowl management to inform the North American Waterfowl Management Plan is a valuable but challenging goal for the future success of waterfowl management. Increasing engagement with key stakeholder groups will lead to more support and effective waterfowl management. Social systems are complex because individual values and preferences may vary across geographic and cultural dimensions, so it is valuable to describe those differences rather than only looking at national-scale trends. Therefore, using broad engagement strategies that do not consider the differences among regional groups may do more harm than good. This study analyzed a subset of responses from waterfowl hunters (hereafter respondents) in the Southeast region of the United States from a national-scale survey (Patton, 2018). This study compared how respondents’ opinions differed among two subsections of the Atlantic and Mississippi flyways—the Atlantic subflyway and Mississippi subflyway—and responses from the national survey. Respondents in the Atlantic subflyway had a primary home ZIP Code in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Respondents in the Mississippi subflyway had a primary home ZIP Code in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, and Mississippi. Investigating these differences provides waterfowl managers decision-making support and a better understanding of how perceptions may differ among respondents in the Southeast region and the Nation. Responses from each group are presented for each for each survey topic, and statistical tests of homogeneity are included to inform how the differences may be considered when managing for waterfowl and waterfowl hunting. Respondents from the Mississippi and Atlantic subflyways did not differ substantially except in their perceptions and preferences of waterfowl harvest and harvest regulations. Respondents from the Mississippi subflyway consistently reported a higher average harvest of ducks and geese, emphasized the importance of higher harvest for their satisfaction with waterfowl hunting, and typically placed a greater emphasis on regulatory decisions that facilitated increased harvest opportunity than respondents from the Atlantic subflyway. This emphasis was especially true when preferring species-specific limits more than simpler aggregate limits. Respondents in the Mississippi subflyway were in direct opposition to respondents in the Atlantic subflyway and preferred the opportunity for increased harvest that species-specific bag limits provide. Respondents in the Mississippi subflyway placed greater emphasis on harvest and larger bag limits compared with respondents in the Atlantic subflyway and the national survey. Respondents in the Atlantic subflyway often aligned with the national survey respondents’ perceptions of harvest that placed a lower emphasis on the number of ducks or geese harvested in comparison to Mississippi subflyway respondents. The Atlantic and Mississippi subflyway respondents reported hunting ducks and geese to a much lower degree than the national survey respondents, who favored only hunting ducks or hunting neither ducks nor geese. Similarly, respondents in the Mississippi and Atlantic subflyways reported that overcrowding, high hunting pressure, and interference from other respondents limited their participation to a higher degree than respondents from the national survey. The trip-specific preferences for waterfowl hunting in the Southeast region were calculated using latent class analysis and three groups were determined based on individual estimates of attribute importance: generalist, seclusionist, and harvest oriented. The generalist group did not place a high degree of importance on any one attribute and was most likely to choose to not participate given suboptimal conditions. The seclusionist group placed a high degree of importance on lower levels of competition from other groups and felt their well-being was most affected by higher levels of competition. The harvest-oriented group placed a higher degree of importance on harvesting more than three birds and felt their well-being was most negatively affected if they only expected to harvest a single bird. These groups existed uniformly between the Mississippi and Atlantic subflyways, had a slightly higher membership of each group in rural areas, and an overall higher membership in the seclusionist group. Subsetting national survey data to profile regional differences provides key information to waterfowl managers seeking to make tailored decisions in their region or flyway. This investigation provides an important resource for informed management decisions in the Southeast region and will assist waterfowl managers by supporting engagement and communication with respondents in the Southeastern United States.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2019

A draft decision framework for the National Park Service Interior Region 5 bison stewardship strategy

The Department of the Interior Bison Conservation Initiative calls for its bureaus to plan and implement collaborative American bison conservation and to ensure involvement by tribal, state, and local governments and the public in that conservation. Four independently managed and geographically separated National Park Service (NPS) units in Interior Region 5 (IR5) preserve bison and other components of a formerly contiguous Great Plains landscape. Management of bison in IR5 parks has historically been specific to each park, and livestock and range management science informed much of the decision making. In the past two decades, NPS has shifted away from managing bison from this livestock-based perspective towards a wildlife stewardship approach, including ensuring their long-term adaptive potential and considering them as just one part of a complex ecosystem. This shift requires a more holistic and cooperative approach to stewardship that is challenging not only because of limitations in funding and fluctuations in leadership priorities, but also because of the constraints imposed by the parks’ relatively small, fenced areas. The IR5 NPS Bison Stewardship Strategy (“Strategy”) will help the NPS to meet its responsibilities in cooperative stewardship of bison. The Strategy will serve to organize and consolidate the NPS’s legal and policy responsibilities within a framework of collectively defined values and objectives to support the careful and transparent decision-making processes that both guide and transcend park-specific planning. This report describes a preliminary decision framework for the Strategy, including the context, the fundamental objectives, and a range of alternative strategies developed and considered through two workshops and a series of conference calls with NPS personnel, stakeholders, and outside experts with an interest in IR5 NPS bison stewardship. Although not the Strategy itself, this framework serves as the Strategy’s starting point and identifies 14 fundamental objectives, falling in four major themes: Persistence of Wild and Healthy Bison 1. Maximize the long-term persistence of bison in IR5 parks 2. Maximize the long-term adaptive capacity of bison in North America 3. Maximize the wildness of the bison herds 4. Maximize humane treatment of bison, while allowing natural processes to occur Supporting Tribal Buffalo Culture 5. Improve relationships, trust, and communication with Tribes to enhance shared stewardship of bison within and beyond IR5 6. Maximize the number of live, healthy bison that can be transferred to tribal herds Persistence of Native Ecological Communities and Processes 7. Maximize structural and compositional heterogeneity of native prairie plant communities across space and time within each park 8. Maximize the abundance and diversity of animal species of special concern 9. Minimize the loss of native grassland within each park 10. Minimize the abundance of exotic plants in the park landscape 11. Maximize riparian area and wetland integrity Public Outreach 12. Maximize the number of healthy, wild bison that are visible to the public 13. Maximize the safety of visitors 14. Maximize public understanding of the past, present, and future of bison and Native Americans in the Great Plains The terms “minimize” and “maximize” in these objectives describe the desired direction for each individual objective. Finding the right balance among these objectives and any others identified in further work is one of the central challenges in developing the Strategy. To that end, this report also demonstrates and describes potential methods for evaluating how well alternative strategies would achieve each of the fundamental objectives.

Natural Resource Report↗
USGS2006

Surficial sediment character of the Louisiana offshore continental shelf region: A GIS compilation

The Louisiana coastal zone, comprising the Mississippi River delta plain stretching nearly 400 km from Sabine Pass at the Texas border east to the Chandeleur Islands at the Mississippi border, represents one of North America’s most important coastal ecosystems in terms of natural resources, human infrastructure, and cultural heritage. At the same time, this region has the highest rates of coastal erosion and wetland loss in the Nation due to a complex combination of natural processes and anthropogenic actions over the past century. Comparison of historical maps dating back to 1855 and recent aerial photography show the Louisiana coast undergoing net erosion at highly variable rates. Rates have increased significantly during the past several decades. Earlier published statewide average shoreline erosion rates were >6 m/yr; rates have increased recently to >10 m/yr. The increase is attributable to collective action of storms, rapid subsidence, and pervasive man-made alterations of the rivers and the coast. In response to the dramatic landloss, regional-scale restoration plans are being developed by a partnership of federal and state agencies for the delta plain that have the objectives of maintaining the barrier islands, reducing wetland loss, and enhancing the natural sediment delivery processes. There is growing awareness that the sustainability of coastal Louisiana's natural resources and human infrastructure depends on the successful restoration of natural geologic processes. Critical to the long term success of restoration is scientific understanding of the geologic history and processes of the coastal zone region, including interactions between the rivers, wetlands, coast, and inner shelf. A variety of geophysical studies and mapping of Late Quaternary sedimentary framework and coastal processes by U.S. Geological Survey and other scientists during the past 50 years document that the Louisiana delta plain is the product of a complex history of cyclic delta switching by the Mississippi River and its distributaries over the past ~10,000 years that resulted in laterally overlapping deltaic depocenters. The interactions among riverine, coastal, and inner shelf processes have been superimposed on the Holocene transgression resulting in distinctive landforms and sedimentary sequences. Four Holocene shelf-phase delta complexes have been identified using seismic reflection data and vibracores. Each delta complex is bounded by transgressive surfaces. Following each cycle of deposition and abandonment, the delta lobes undergo regional subsidence and marine reworking that forms transgressive coastal systems and barrier islands. Ultimately, the distal end of each of the abandoned delta lobes is marked by submerged marine sand bodies representing drowned barriers. These sand bodies (e.g. Ship Shoal, Outer Shoal, Trinity Shoal, Tiger Shoal, St. Bernard Shoal) offer the largest volumes and highest quality sand for beach nourishment and shoreline and wetlands restoration. These four large sand shoals on inner continental shelf, representing the reworked remnants of former prograded deltaic headlands that existed on the continental shelf at lower sea level, were generated in the retreat path of the Mississippi River delta plain during the Holocene transgression. Penland and others (1989) have shown these sand bodies represent former shoreline positions associated with lower still stands in sea level. Short periods of rapid relative sea-level rise led to the transgressive submergence of the shorelines which today can be recognized at the -10 m to -20 m isobaths on the Louisiana continental shelf. Trinity Shoal and Ship Shoal represent the -10 m middle-to-late Holocene shoreline trend, whereas Outer Shoal and the St. Bernard Shoals define the -20 m early Holocene shoreline trend (Penland and others, 1989). Collectively, these sand shoals constitute a large volume of high quality sandy sediment potentially suitable for barrier island nourishment and coastal restoration. The USGS has actively supported coastal and wetlands geologic research for the past two decades in partnership with universities (e.g., Louisiana State University, University of New Orleans), state agencies (e.g. Louisiana Geological Survey, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources), and private organizations (Williams and others, 1992a,b; Williams and Cichon, 1993; List and others, 1994). These studies have focused on regional-scale mapping of coastal and wetland change and developing a better understanding of the processes that cause coastal erosion and wetlands loss, particularly the rapid deterioration of Louisiana's barrier islands, estuaries, and wetlands environments. With a better understanding of these processes, the ability to model and predict erosion and wetlands loss will improve. More accurate predictions will, in turn, allow for proper management of coastal resources. Improved predictions will also allow for better assessments of the utility of different restoration alternatives.

Louisiana↗
USGS2026

Colocating artificial intelligence data centers with energy infrastructure on Federal public lands—A science synthesis and spatial analysis to inform decision making

Executive Summary Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming industries and economies, creating an urgent need to strategically plan for the energy and infrastructure required to support increasing AI use. U.S. Federal agencies and bureaus have been directed to explore ways to accelerate permitting, development, and deployment of energy resources and AI technologies, including encouraging the colocation of energy infrastructure and data centers. To inform these initiatives, this report synthesizes relevant scientific information and presents a spatial analysis of existing energy infrastructure and data centers on or near U.S. Federal public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The purpose of this science synthesis and spatial analysis is to provide the BLM with foundational information for considering potential colocation of data centers with energy infrastructure on Federal public lands to support evidence-based decisions. Additionally, this report provides insight into current (2025) and potential future energy demands by providing projections of a range of potential future environmental conditions relevant to maintaining industry-recommended cooling temperature standards necessary for efficient data center operations. As a part of this effort, a rapid response literature review was conducted of the best available science on the topic of data center development and energy infrastructure in July–August 2025, supplemented by additional resources recommended by U.S. Federal agency and bureau subject matter experts (hereafter experts; including the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory of the Rockies) and peer reviewers. To better understand current conditions relevant to AI data center development, a spatial analysis was conducted across Alaska and 11 States in the Western United States, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, all of which contain extensive BLM-managed surface lands (hereafter referred to as “BLM lands”) that could be considered for the colocation of energy infrastructure and AI data centers. This effort identified BLM lands within 10 miles of existing transmission lines, consistent with methods used in previous BLM programmatic environmental impact statements. This report describes the types of data centers operating within the United States, which vary in ownership, size, technology, and proximity to end users. This report then outlines the primary considerations of data center development, including reliable energy supply, natural resources (such as water availability to support cooling requirements), and relevant policy and regulatory considerations. Energy supply considerations are pivotal for data center operation. Between 2014 and 2018, data centers in the United States accounted for nearly 2 percent of the Nation’s total electricity consumption, and data center energy consumption is projected to increase from 2 to 6.7–12 percent of total U.S. electricity use by 2028. These energy requirements necessitate careful consideration of energy supply when considering potentially suitable locations for data center development. Experts anticipate that an increase in renewable energy generation will likely support most potential future power demand needs, including for data centers, followed by increases in natural gas, nuclear, and geothermal energy production. Additional capacity in the form of battery storage will likely not generate electricity, but may improve the reliability and flexibility of supply, helping to ensure that growing data center loads can be met. However, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the United States will need, on average, 57 percent more energy transmission infrastructure by 2035 to account for the growing power demand introduced by development such as data centers. Cooling server equipment in data centers requires large amounts of electricity and water, and this demand can be exacerbated by hot and humid conditions. Energy efficient water-based cooling technologies may reduce electricity consumption onsite but require more water consumption. This additional water demand has the potential to increase water stress and competition with other users. As such, developing data centers will likely need a thorough assessment of current and potential future water availability, as well as consideration of how water demand may change across other sectors. Data center development involves policy and regulatory considerations, as projects must undergo environmental review and authorization processes that can take 18–24 months. Coordinating these environmental reviews and authorizations with other energy development projects, such as building new transmission lines, may cause additional delays. Recent efforts by the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of the Interior aim to expedite environmental reviews and authorizations and improve coordination across agencies. The spatial analysis identified 771 existing AI data centers and more than 3,300 power plants. The spatial analysis found that 6 percent of AI data centers and 22 percent of power plants in the Western United States were on or within 1 mile of BLM lands, and California had the largest number of facilities. Most existing AI data centers were near high-voltage transmission lines and close to power plants, supporting efficient energy delivery. More than 90,000,000 acres of BLM lands were within 10 miles of existing high-voltage transmission lines, representing 38 percent of BLM lands in the study area. Available transmission infrastructure and the overlap with BLM lands varied by State, and Alaska had limited overlap compared to the rest of the Western United States. To operate most efficiently, data center temperatures must be at or below 80.6 degrees Fahrenheit. This analysis of future temperature and precipitation projections indicated increasing cooling demands for data centers, particularly in Arizona, California, and Nevada, where rising temperatures are expected to increase energy and operational costs while potentially stressing current regional electrical grid infrastructure. This report highlights relevant energy supply, natural resources, and regulatory considerations for data center development on BLM lands. This report does not provide a comprehensive ecological, regulatory, land suitability, or permitting analysis. The factors described here are contextual considerations only and are not intended to identify, rank, quantify, or recommend optimal areas for data center colocation. This spatial analysis focused solely on energy considerations relevant to data centers and did not consider water availability, critical habitats, BLM National Conservation Lands, areas of cultural or historical significance, and other sensitive resources. These topics are recognized as critical but were not within the scope of this science synthesis and spatial analysis.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2014

Elk monitoring in Lewis and Clark National Historical Park: 2008-2012 synthesis report

Maintaining elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) herds that frequent Lewis and Clark National Historical Park (NHP) is central to the park’s purpose of preserving the historic, cultural, scenic, and natural resources associated with the winter encampment of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Elk were critically important to the Lewis and Clark expedition in providing food and hides that sustained the expedition during the winter of 1805-06 and supplied them for their return east during 1806. Today, elk remain a key component of interpreting the Lewis and Clark story to over 200,000 park visitors each year at the Fort Clatsop visitor center. In 2008, the US Geological Survey (USGS) began collaborating with Lewis and Clark NHP and the NPS North Coast and Cascades Network to develop a protocol for monitoring long-term changes in the magnitude and spatial patterns of elk use within and adjacent to Lewis and Clark NHP (Griffin et al. 2011). Specific objectives of the monitoring program were to measure trends in (1) relative use of the Fort Clatsop unit by elk during winter; (2) the proportion of areas where elk sign is present in the Fort Clatsop unit in winter; and (3) the frequency of elk sightings from roads in and around the Fort Clatsop unit. This report synthesizes the results of the first four years of monitoring elk distribution and use in Lewis and Clark NHP from 2008-2012. We also present data from FY2012 (Appendix 1), in lieu of an annual report for that year. We used fecal pellet group surveys as the cornerstone for monitoring trends in both relative use of the Fort Clatsop Unit by elk and the proportion of areas where elk sign was present at the end of winter. We estimated pellet group density based on data collected from a network of fecal pellet plots distributed systematically throughout the unit. We developed a double observer sampling scheme that enabled us to estimate detection biases and improve the accuracy of pellet group density estimates. We computed the estimated detection probability for any pellet group observed; this probability was a function of the pellet group size and stage of decay, as well as lighting and vegetation conditions, and the number of observers (one or two) searching for pellets in that subplot. We then used these estimated detection probabilities to adjust the raw counts of the detected pellet groups to account for groups that likely went undetected under similar pellet and environmental conditions (each observed pellet group was weighted by the inverse of its estimated detection probability). We also used results from the late winter fecal pellet surveys to quantify the proportion of areas where elk pellets occurred (PAO), which was based on the presence of fecal pellet groups and estimation of detection biases (i.e., accounting for pellet groups that likely went undetected by both observers). In this synthesis, we report temporal trends in both pellet group density and PAO from 2008-2012, based on weighted linear regression analyses as well as spatial variation of pellet group densities over time. We completed late winter fecal pellet surveys at 61-66 plots annually, depending on yearly variation in access. We cleared fecal pellets at survey points in late October / early November each year and returned in late February / early March to count pellet groups left by elk over the winter. The estimated probability that a pellet group was detected by any one observer during late winter was affected most by the pellet group size and was less affected by decay class and lighting conditions. Per-observer detection probabilities ranged from as low as ~10-15% for single pellets to ~85-90% for pellet groups with 50 pellets. Average pellet group density in the Fort Clatsop unit ranged annually from 0.58 (+/- 1.43 standard error [SE]) to 0.93 (+/- 2.25 SE) pellet groups per 3-m radius subplot. Pellet group density declined over time, at approximately 8.8% per year (+/- 2.5% SE), but that slope was not statistically distinguishable from zero (2- tailed P=0.16). Following correction for detection biases, the proportion of surveyed points used by elk (i.e., PAO) ranged from 0.44 (+/- 0.07 SE) to 0.53 (+/- 0.07 SE) during the 4 winters. The estimated proportion of areas where elk pellets occurred (PAO) declined at a rate of 2.6% per year (+/- 1.2% per year SE), but that trend also was not statistically distinguishable from zero (2- tailed P=0.17). Statistical significance of a measure’s trend depends on both the magnitude (i.e., slope) of the observed trend and the number of years the trend continues in the same increasing or decreasing direction. Through simulation modeling we determined how many additional years of surveys would be required to reveal a statistically significant trend, based on the same trends in pellet group density and PAO, and associated variation, observed from 2009-2012. Assuming the same trends persist in the future, simulations indicated that there is a 70% probability that a statistically significant trend would be detected after two more years of conducting pellet group surveys. Relative use by elk during winter, as indexed by elk pellet group density, was generally greatest in the southeast region of the Fort Clatsop unit in or near the large freshwater marsh at the mouth of Colewort Creek and adjacent upland areas. Pellet group density was also higher than average in the north-central forested area, not far from a privately-owned pasture north of the park boundary. This spatial pattern in pellet group densities across the Fort Clatsop unit was consistent across all four years, although specific pellet group densities varied from year to year. Pellet group density declined significantly over time at two points in the southeast of the Fort Clatsop unit, even though pellet group density at those points remained higher than the unit average. Pellet group density increased significantly over time at one point in the north-central region, and at one point in the south-central region of the unit, indicating a slight shift in the distribution of elk use within the Fort Clatsop Unit over the four years. As an index of visitors’ opportunities to see elk in and around the Fort Clatsop Unit, we conducted replicated roadside elk surveys 3-5 times monthly during February, April, June, August, October and December 2008-2012. During each morning of survey, we searched for elk along four routes that totaled 32 km. We examined bimonthly trends in the numbers of elk groups seen, the total number of elk seen, and the observed composition ratios for those six months of the year. The average number of elk groups seen per survey ranged from 0.75 (+/- 0.32 SE) during February to a peak of 1.95 (+/- 0.36 SE) during June. Despite this seasonal variation in numbers of elk groups seen, the average total number of elk seen per morning was less variable. The average ratios of antlered elk to antlerless adult elk (i.e., bulls:cows) and calves to antlerless adult elk (i.e. calves:cows) varied seasonally, with the highest of both average ratios observed in August. We detected no significant trends in the average number of elk groups and total numbers of elk seen per survey from 2008-2012. Similarly, ratios of calves and antlered elk per antlerless elk did not differ over time. Elk groups were frequently seen from January to August in the southeast region of the Fort Clatsop unit, in the vicinity of Colewort Creek. Outside of NPS lands, we observed elk most frequently in open areas near the Astoria regional airport, in the pastures and forests immediately north of the Fort Clatsop unit and, prior to the construction of a residential development, in a pasture northwest of the Fort Clatsop unit. Elk monitoring at Lewis and Clark NHP is still in its initial years and additional monitoring will be required to verify trends that appear to be emerging. For example, the initial monitoring suggested incipient declining trends in both pellet group density and proportion of plots with pellets present, as well as, potentially, a small shift in elk distribution away from a new trail that was recently constructed in the southeast portion of the Fort Clatsop unit. Continued monitoring will aid in determining whether this local change in distribution persists (or, alternatively, resulted from short-term random variation), and whether there will be any positive or negative effect in the northern portion of the unit where a new trail has been constructed. High variability in road counts prevented our ability to find any clear trend in numbers or composition of elk observed in and near Fort Clatsop, but changes in the patterns of observations of elk from roadways suggest that residential development outside the park has reduced the available habitat for elk in some of the areas surveyed, and may have affected spatial use patterns of elk adjacent to some areas of the park. In addition to monitoring future effects of land use changes outside the park, continued monitoring may also prove useful for assessing elk responses to natural succession in forests disturbed by windthrow in December 2007 and to NPS vegetation management activities such as variable density thinning in the forest, trail development, and restoration at Otter Point tidal area and Colewort Creek Slough.

Oregon;Washington↗