National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

Pea Ridge National Military Park Natural Resource 

Condition Assessment

Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—2011/426 
ON THE COVER

Habitat at Pea Ridge National Military Park

Photo from Heartland Network Files
Pea Ridge National Military Park Natural Resource 

Condition Assessment

Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—2011/426

Gust M. Annis1

, Michael D. DeBacker2, David D. Diamond1, Lee F Elliott1, Aaron J. Garringer1, 

Phillip A. Hanberry1

, Kevin M. James2, Ronnie D. Lee1, Michael E. Morey1, and Dyanna L. 

Pursell1

1

Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership (MoRAP)

School of Natural Resources

University of Missouri

4200 New Haven Road

Columbia, MO 65201

2

National Park Service

Heartland I&M Network

6424 West Farm Road 182

Republic, MO 65738

July 2011

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

Fort Collins, Colorado
ii

The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, 

Colorado publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and 

applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource 

management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. 

The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource 

management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse 

audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management 

applicability.

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the 

information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended 

audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received informal 

peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, 

or reporting of the data.

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not 

necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.

This report is available from http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/htln/, and the Natural 

Resource Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/nrpm/). 

Please cite this publication as:

Annis G., M. DeBacker, D. Diamond, L. Elliott, A. Garringer, P. Hanberry, K. James, R. Lee, S. 

Leis, M. Morey, and D. Pursell. 2011. Pea Ridge National Military Park natural resource 

condition assessment. Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—2011/426. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

NPS 409/108233, July 2011
iii

Contents

Page

Figures........................................................................................................................................... vii

Tables............................................................................................................................................. xi

Abstract........................................................................................................................................ xiii

Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................... xvii

Prologue ...................................................................................................................................... xvii

Chapter 1 NRCA Background Information .................................................................................... 1

NRCA Approach for Pea Ridge National Military Park ........................................................ 3

Natural Resource Condition Assessment Terminology........................................................... 4

Chapter 2 Park Resource Setting and Resource Stewardship Context ........................................... 7

Park Resource Setting.............................................................................................................. 7

Description and Characterization of Park Natural Resources............................................. 7

Landscape and Watershed Context and Threat Assessment............................................... 9

Climate.............................................................................................................................. 10

Landform History.............................................................................................................. 10

Cultural History ................................................................................................................ 15

Natural Communities........................................................................................................ 15

Aquatic Resources In and Near Pea Ridge National Military Park .................................. 16

Wildlife ............................................................................................................................. 16

Resource Stewardship Context.............................................................................................. 16

Park Enabling Legislation................................................................................................. 16

Fundamental Resources and Values ................................................................................. 16

Other Important Resources and Values ............................................................................ 17

Desired Conditions for Natural Resources ....................................................................... 17
iv

Contents (continued)

Page

Chapter 3 Study Approach............................................................................................................ 19

Preliminary Scoping .............................................................................................................. 19

Assessment Framework Used in the Study ........................................................................... 19

Resource Types, Attributes and Indicators............................................................................ 22

Landscape Condition ........................................................................................................ 22

Biotic Condition................................................................................................................ 22

Chemical and Physical Characteristics............................................................................. 23

Hydrology and Geomorphology ....................................................................................... 25

Natural Disturbance Regime............................................................................................. 26

Chapter 4 Study Methods.............................................................................................................. 27

Landscape Condition ............................................................................................................. 27

Landscape Composition and Land Use/Land Cover ........................................................ 27

Biotic Condition..................................................................................................................... 29

Bird Community Composition.......................................................................................... 29

White-tailed Deer.............................................................................................................. 29

Invasive Exotic Plants....................................................................................................... 30

Plant Community Structure and Composition .................................................................. 30

Fish Community Composition.......................................................................................... 31

Aquatic Invertebrate Community ..................................................................................... 31

Chemical and Physical Characteristics.................................................................................. 33

Water Quality, Suspended Sediments, and Temperature.................................................. 33

Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 33

Hydrology and Geomorphology............................................................................................ 34
v

Contents (continued)

Page

Surface Water Flow .......................................................................................................... 34

Natural Disturbance Regime.................................................................................................. 34

Fire Regime....................................................................................................................... 34

Chapter 5 Natural Resource Conditions ....................................................................................... 35

Reporting Units...................................................................................................................... 35

Condition Summaries by Reporting Units............................................................................. 36

Reporting Unit: Park-wide................................................................................................ 40

Reporting Unit: Bottomland Forest .................................................................................. 51

Reporting Unit: Dry Woodland ........................................................................................ 52

Reporting Unit: Semi-natural Grassland........................................................................... 53

Reporting Unit: Typic Woodland ..................................................................................... 54

Reporting Unit: Pratt Creek .............................................................................................. 55

Reporting Unit: Winton Spring Branch ............................................................................ 57

Chapter 6 Integrated Evaluation and Discussion.......................................................................... 59

Logic-based Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 59

Methods ................................................................................................................................. 59

Logical operators .............................................................................................................. 61

Management target range.................................................................................................. 62

Evaluation ramp................................................................................................................ 62

Evaluation output.............................................................................................................. 64

Results.................................................................................................................................... 65

Reporting Unit: Park-wide................................................................................................ 66

Reporting Unit: Bottomland Forest .................................................................................. 69
vi

Contents (continued)

Page

Reporting Unit: Semi-natural Grassland........................................................................... 69

Reporting Unit: Dry Woodland ........................................................................................ 70

Reporting Unit: Typic Woodland ..................................................................................... 71

Reporting Unit: Pratt Creek .............................................................................................. 71

Reporting Unit: Winton Spring Branch ............................................................................ 72

Discussion.............................................................................................................................. 72

Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 75

Appendix A Data Source and Maps for All Potential Threats Included in the Human 

Threat Index.................................................................................................................................. 83

Appendix B Summary of References for Current and Target Conditions for Each 

Attribute/Indicator....................................................................................................................... 111

Appendix C Descriptions of Pre-European Vegetation Communities for Pea Ridge 

National Military Park, Arkansas ............................................................................................... 117
vii

Figures

Page

Figure 1-1. Assessment space used to design the Natural Resource Condition 

Assessment for Pea Ridge National Military Park. ........................................................................ 4

Figure 2-1. Location of Pea Ridge National Military Park within the state of 

Arkansas.......................................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 2-2. Pea Ridge National Military Park (NPS 2010b). ........................................................ 8

Figure 2-3. A buffered road network provides a visual index to development threats in 

the region around Pea Ridge National Military Park...................................................................... 9

Figure 2-4. Land cover within and surrounding the watershed of Pea Ridge National 

Military Park based on the 2001 NLCD. ...................................................................................... 11

Figure 2-5. Location of potential threats in the HUC 10 encompassing Pea Ridge 

National Military Park. ................................................................................................................. 12

Figure 2-6. Human Threat Index for the HUC 10 encompassing Pea Ridge National 

Military Park with the HUC 8 inset. ............................................................................................. 14

Figure 3-1. Schematic showing the one-to-many relationship between essential 

ecological attributes and stressors in the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Framework for Assessing and Reporting Ecological Condition (2002)....................................... 21

Figure 4-1. Process for assigning land cover classification to 1 m resolution image 

objects on-screen........................................................................................................................... 28

Figure 4-2. Current vegetation was assigned to image objects based on ecological site 

type (site potential) and current land cover................................................................................... 29

Figure 4-3. Fish survey location for surveys conducted in 2003 (Justus and Peterson 

2005b) and 2009 in Pratt Creek and Winton Spring Branch. ....................................................... 32

Figure 5-1. Terrestrial reporting units for Pea Ridge National Military Park were 

based on both current vegetation patterns and ecological site type (site potential)...................... 35

Figure 5-2. Map of stream reporting units within Pea Ridge National Military Park. ................ 36

Figure 5-3. Pea Ridge National Military Park current (conceptual) vegetation cover 

types. ............................................................................................................................................. 42

Figure 5-4. Pea Ridge National Military Park current landscape condition. ............................... 43

Figure 5-5. White-tailed deer population fluctuations between 2005 and 2009.......................... 47
viii

Figures (continued)

Page

Figure 5-6. Average of fourth Maximum 8-hour Ozone levels based on five-year 

averages of interpolated deposition estimates (NPS 2010a)......................................................... 49

Figure 5-7. Map showing the risk of ozone injury to vegetation by park (NPS 2007d).............. 49

Figure 5-8. Total nitrogen and sulfur from wet deposition of sulfate (S04), nitrate 

(N03), and ammonium (NH4) based on five-year averages of interpolated deposition 

estimates (NPS 2010a).................................................................................................................. 50

Figure 5-9. Total wet and dry sulfur deposition based on five-year averages of 

interpolated deposition estimates (NPS 2010a). ........................................................................... 50

Figure 5-10. Total wet and dry nitrogen deposition based on five-year averages of 

interpolated deposition estimates (NPS 2010a). ........................................................................... 51

Figure 5-11. Current landscape composition for the bottomland forest reporting unit. .............. 52

Figure 5-12. Current landscape composition for the semi-natural grassland forest 

reporting unit................................................................................................................................. 54

Figure 5-13. Current landscape composition for the typic woodland reporting unit................... 55

Figure 6-1. Hierarchical framework used in the integrated analysis of the Natural 

Resource Condition Assessment................................................................................................... 60

Figure 6-2. Higher levels of the model framework that reflect logical relationship of 

resource type (dark green) within reporting unit (blue) for the terrestrial assessment ................. 61

Figure 6-3. Higher levels of the model framework that reflect logical relationship of 

resource types within reporting unit (blue) for the aquatic assessment. ....................................... 61

Figure 6-4. NetWeaver ramp function used to evaluate area (ha) of semi-natural 

grassland at Pea Ridge National Military Park, Arkansas. ........................................................... 63

Figure 6-5. NetWeaver ramp function used to evaluate pH for all three aquatic 

reporting unit’s of Pea Ridge National Military Park, Arkansas.................................................. 64

Figure 6-6. Color coded evaluation score categories derived from rescaled NetWeaver 

evaluation scores........................................................................................................................... 65

Figure 6-7. Color coded evaluation results for each terrestrial reporting unit and its 

associated resource type and/or attributes..................................................................................... 66
ix

Figures (continued)

Page

Figure 6-8. Color coded evaluation results for each aquatic reporting unit and its 

associated resource types. ............................................................................................................. 66

Figure A-1. Percentage of impervious surfaces above every stream segment in the 

HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI. .......................................................................................... 84

Figure A-2. Percentage of cropland above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and 

HUC 8 (inset) for PERI................................................................................................................. 85

Figure A-3. Percentage of pasture/hay above every stream segment in the HUC 10 

and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.......................................................................................................... 86

Figure A-4. Density of water wells above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and 

HUC 8 (inset) for PERI................................................................................................................. 87

Figure A-5. Density of major impoundments above every stream segment in the HUC 

10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI..................................................................................................... 88

Figure A-6. Density of headwater impoundments above every stream segment in the 

HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI. .......................................................................................... 89

Figure A-7. Length of roads above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 

(inset) for PERI............................................................................................................................. 90

Figure A-8. Density of road/stream crossings above every stream segment in the HUC 

10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI..................................................................................................... 91

Figure A-9. Length of railroads above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 

8 (inset) for PERI.......................................................................................................................... 92

Figure A-10. Density of rail/stream crossings above every stream segment in the HUC 

10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI..................................................................................................... 93

Figure A-11. Length of pipelines above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and 

HUC 8 (inset) for PERI................................................................................................................. 94

Figure A-12. Density of crop pesticides above every stream segment in the HUC 10 

and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.......................................................................................................... 95

Figure A-13. Density of population in 1990 above every stream segment in the HUC 

10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI..................................................................................................... 96
x

Figues (continued)

Page

Figure A-14. Density of population in 2000 above every stream segment in the HUC 

10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI..................................................................................................... 97

Figure A-15. Change in population density from 1990 to 2000 above every stream 

segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI................................................................... 98

Figure A-16. Amount of livestock sales above every stream segment in the HUC 10 

and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.......................................................................................................... 99

Figure A-17. Density of airports above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and 

HUC 8 (inset) for PERI............................................................................................................... 100

Figure A-18. Density of dams above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 

(inset) for PERI........................................................................................................................... 101

Figure A-19. Density of other mines above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and 

HUC 8 (inset) for PERI............................................................................................................... 102

Figure A-20. Density of oil/gas wells above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and 

HUC 8 (inset) for PERI............................................................................................................... 103

Figure A-21. Density of leaking underground storage tanks above every stream 

segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI................................................................. 104

Figure A-22. Density of waste water treatment facilities above every stream segment 

in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI. .............................................................................. 105

Figure A-23. Density of confined animal feeding operations above every stream 

segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI................................................................. 106

Figure A-24. Density of landfills above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and 

HUC 8 (inset) for PERI............................................................................................................... 107

Figure A-25. Density of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

sites above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI......................... 108

Figure A-26. Density of Resource Conservation Recovery sites above every stream 

segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI................................................................. 109
xi

Tables

Page

Table 2-1. List of all potential human threats considered and the data source for each 

threat. ............................................................................................................................................ 13

Table 3-1. Team members for the Pea Ridge National Military Park Natural Resource 

Condition Assessment................................................................................................................... 19

Table 3-2. Six essential attributes and sub-categories defined by the Environmental 

Protection Agency's Framework for Assessing and Reporting Ecological Condition 

(2002)............................................................................................................................................ 20

Table 4-1. Land cover classes assigned to image objects for Pea Ridge National 

Military Park. ................................................................................................................................ 27

Table 4-2. Condition rating for wet deposition of either N or S. Source: (NPS 2007a). ............ 34

Table 5-1. Summary of natural resource condition indicators for Pea Ridge National 

Military Park ................................................................................................................................. 36

Table 5-2. Current (conceptual) vegetation type patch statistics and total area for Pea 

Ridge National Military Park........................................................................................................ 41

Table 5-3. Mean patch size, number of patches, and area for major land cover types at 

Pea Ridge National Military Park................................................................................................. 44

Table 5-4. Bird species recorded during breeding bird surveys at Pea Ridge National 

Military Park, Arkansas in 2008 ................................................................................................... 45

Table 5-5. Invasive exotic plants at Pea Ridge National Military Park. Management 

difficulty codes are from NatureServe (see http://www.natureserve.org/): high (H), 

medium (M), low (L), and unknown (U)...................................................................................... 48

Table 5-6. Quantified threats for Pea Ridge National Military Park ........................................... 56

Table 5-7. Water quality indicators for Pratt Creek..................................................................... 56

Table 5-8. Fish species observed1 in Pratt Creek......................................................................... 56

Table 5-9. Ratings for five fish metrics computed for Pratt Creek. ............................................. 56

Table 5-10. Number of globally listed (G-rank) and state listed (S-rank) fish species 

from actual collections for Pratt Creek in Pea Ridge National Military Park. ............................. 57
xii

Tables (continued)

Page

Table 5-11. Water quality indicators for Winton Spring Branch................................................. 58

Table 5-12. Fish species observed1 in Winton Spring Branch..................................................... 58

Table 6-1. Rescaled NetWeaver output scores for the integrated analysis of the park 

wide reporting unit of Pea Ridge National Military Park, Arkansas. ........................................... 68

Table 6-2. Rescaled NetWeaver output scores for the integrated analysis of the 

bottomland forest reporting unit of Pea Ridge National Military Park, Arkansas........................ 69

Table 6-3. Rescaled NetWeaver output scores for the integrated analysis of the seminatural grassland reporting unit of Pea Ridge National Military Park, Arkansas......................... 69

Table 6-4. Rescaled NetWeaver output scores for the integrated analysis of the dry 

woodland reporting unit of Pea Ridge National Military Park, Arkansas. ................................... 70

Table 6-5. Rescaled NetWeaver output scores for the integrated analysis of the typic 

woodland reporting unit of Pea Ridge National Military Park, Arkansas. ................................... 71

Table 6-6. Rescaled NetWeaver output scores for the integrated analysis of the Pratt 

Creek reporting unit of Pea Ridge National Military Park, Arkansas. ......................................... 72

Table 6-7. Rescaled NetWeaver output scores for the integrated analysis of the Pratt 

Creek reporting unit of Pea Ridge National Military Park, Arkansas. ......................................... 72
xiii

Abstract 

In accordance with National Park Service requirements, staff with the Missouri Resource 

Assessment Partnership and the Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network conducted a 

natural resource condition assessment (NRCA) for Pea Ridge National Military Park (PERI). 

NRCA's are intended to provide a synthesized assessment of current conditions in the park. The 

NCRA for PERI builds on methods developed for a similar effort for Effigy Mounds National 

Monument. Basic elements of the methodology include (1) reliance on a framework of essential 

ecological attributes provided by the Environmental Protection agency, (2) development of a list 

of resource types, indicators, and attributes for assessment, and (3) application of assessments by 

reporting unit, including park wide, major terrestrial landscapes types, and major streams and 

tributaries. Current condition was assigned to indicators based on contemporary data and 

management targets were defined based on best available information, which ranged from 

quantitative sampling data to expert opinion. 

A logic model-based framework was created to evaluate each indicator for which both current 

data and a management target were available. The framework is hierarchical so that indicators 

within an attribute are evaluated as well as attributes within a resource type and/or reporting unit. 

A hierarchical framework allows for integrated analysis among different components of the 

resource types and reporting units that are found within the park. The logic-based framework 

was designed to address the validity of the statement “the current condition approximates the 

management target”. For each level in the hierarchy, an assessment score is provided that 

corresponds to the degree that the statement is valid. A logic-based integrated analysis is not a 

quantitative analysis of the park resources; rather it is a method of qualitative reasoning. The 

framework reflects expert knowledge about the park resources and provides a formal structure of 

how the resource components can be arranged or summarized. This type of analysis is learning 

based and focused on supporting the decision making processes related to natural resource 

management. Result scores are on a [0 – 1] scale with zero reflecting that there is no validity to 

the statement while a score of one signifies that the statement is valid. In addition, scores 

between zero and one provide a continuum of degree of validity which allows for partial support 

to be recognized. Five partial support categories were created based on 0.2 breaks in scores 

between 0.01 and 0.99 (Figure A-A).

Figure A-A. Color coded evaluation score categories derived from rescaled evaluation scores.

Publisher’s Note: Some or all of the work done for this project preceded the revised guidance 

issued for this project series in 2009/2010. See Prologue (p. xvii) for more information.
xiv

Numerical evaluations of logic models provide a continuous range of results. The categorized 

output was used to build a dashboard for reporting to increase ease of interpretation (Fig. A-B).

Figure A-B. Color coded evaluation results for each terrestrial reporting unit and its associated resource 

type and/or attributes. 

Areas dedicated primarily to natural resource management at PERI are largely wooded, and are 

on the hilly northern and central side of the park or at the far south fringes, including areas 

associated with lower Pratt Creek and Winton Spring Branch. These two streams appear to be in 

generally good condition, with fauna characteristic of Ozark headwaters streams (Fig. A-C). 
xv

Figure A-C. Color coded evaluation results for each aquatic reporting unit and its associated resource 

types.

Natural resource conditions of oak-hickory woodlands are generally good except where welldefined eastern redcedar dominated old fields occur. Patch numbers are relatively high and 

patch size small, but these numbers are somewhat inflated due to interspersion of different 

community types, each of which may be of appropriate composition and structure. Prominent 

natural communities include typic oak-hickory woodlands, slope oak-hickory woodlands, and 

dry oak woodlands. These woodlands provide habitat for breeding birds that require mature 

forests, including Acadian Flycatchers and Yellow-throated Vireos, both species of continental 

concern. Few invasive and exotic plant species, aside from eastern redcedar, occur in this area. 

Areas of successional deciduous sparse woodland and shrubland may provide important local 

habitat diversity for breeding birds of continental concern such as Indigo Buntings and Eastern 

Towhees. The southern and central portions of the park are dedicated mainly to providing a 

representation of landscapes at the time of the battle for interpretive purposes. Large mowed 

grasslands meet patch number and size targets, but non-native and disturbance species are 

dominant across much of the area. Natural resource management options are limited, but 

grasslands on the eastern and northeastern side of the park that are not mowed during the 

breeding season do provide habitat for grassland obligate breeding birds, including Grasshopper 

Sparrows and Henslow's Sparrows.

xvii

Acknowledgements

All members of the condition assessment team (Table 3-1) made valuable contributions to the 

document, often by authoring sections within their area of expertise. Dyan Pursell deserves 

kudos for her development and attribution of the land cover map. Ronnie Lea, Phillip Hanberry, 

and Aaron Garringer each made significant contributions. Jeff Albright has provided valuable 

support throughout the project. Funding was provided by the Water Resources Division of the 

NPS Natural Resource Stewardship and Science. 

Prologue 

Publisher’s Note: This was one of several projects used to demonstrate a variety of study 

approaches and reporting products for a new series of natural resource condition assessments in 

national park units. Projects such as this one, undertaken during initial development phases for 

the new series, contributed to revised project standards and guidelines issued in 2009 and 2010 

(applicable to projects started in 2009 or later years). Some or all of the work done for this 

project preceded those revisions. Consequently, aspects of this project’s study approach and 

some report format and/or content details may not be consistent with the revised guidance, and 

may differ in comparison to what is found in more recently published reports from this series.

1

Chapter 1 NRCA Background Information

Natural Resource Condition Assessments (NRCAs) evaluate current conditions for a subset of 

natural resources and associated indicators in national park units, hereafter “parks”. For these 

indicator-level analyses they also report on trends (as possible), critical data gaps, and general 

level of confidence for study findings. The indicators targeted for evaluation depend on a park’s 

resource setting, status of stewardship planning and science in recommending priority indicators 

for that park, and availability of useful data and qualified expertise to assess current conditions 

for each of the indicators included on the list of potential study indicators.

NRCAs represent a relatively new approach to assessing and reporting park resource conditions. 

They are meant to complement, but not replace, traditional issue and threat-based resource 

assessments. As distinguishing characteristics, all NRCAs:

o are multi-disciplinary in scope1

o employ hierarchical indicator frameworks2

o identify or develop reference conditions/values to compare current condition data against, 

and to help in the development of management target conditions3,4

o emphasize spatial evaluation and GIS (map) products5

o should strive to provide a meaningful summary of overall findings by park areas6

o follow national NRCA guidelines and standards for study design and reporting products 

Although current condition reporting relative to reference conditions and values is the primary 

objective, NRCAs are encouraged to also report on trends for any study indicators where the

underlying data and methods support it. Resource condition influences (threats and stressors) are 

also considered. They can include historic resource conditions or land uses or activities as well as 

park or surrounding watershed and landscape-scale condition influences. 

 1 However, number and breadth of study indicators will vary by park 

2 Frameworks help guide indicator selection and subsequent reporting of condition findings 

3 NRCAs must consider ecologically-based reference conditions, must also consider applicable 

legal/regulatory standards, and can consider other management-specified condition objectives or targets; 

each study indicator can be evaluated against one or multiple types of reference conditions/values. 

4 Reference values can be single-point values or ranges, represent conditions to be achieved or threshold 

“triggers” to avoid, and can be expressed in semi-quantitative to highly quantitative terms; in many cases 

they are identified as best professional judgment estimates or interim values 

5 As appropriate and possible, NRCAs describe condition gradients or differences across the park for 

each study indicator and develop GIS coverages and maps that depict those differences 

6 In addition to reporting indicator-level findings, investigators are asked to take a bigger picture view and 

summarize key findings by park areas; each park identifies the reporting areas to be used for this purpose 

Publisher’s Note: Some or all of the work done for this project preceded the revised guidance 

issued for this project series in 2009/2010. See Prologue (p. xvii) for more information.
2 

For this type of resource assessment, credibility derives from the data, methods, and reference 

values used in the project work—are they appropriate for the stated purpose and adequately 

documented? For each study indicator where current condition or trend is reported it is important 

to identify critical data gaps and express “level of confidence” in at least qualitative terms. Input 

and review from park staff and National Park Service (NPS) subject matter experts at critical 

points during the project timeline is also important: 1) to assist identification and selection of 

study indicators; 2) to recommend or comment on data sets, methods, and reference conditions 

and values proposed for use in the study; 3) to help provide a multi-disciplinary review and 

accuracy check for draft study findings and products, ; and 4) to assist the spatial delineation of 

resources within the park boundary and surrounding area of interest 

NRCAs provide a useful complement to more rigorous NPS science support programs such as 

the NPS Inventory and Monitoring Program. For example, NRCAs can provide current condition 

estimates and help establish reference conditions or baseline values for a park’s monitoring “vital 

signs”. They can also bring in additional (non NPS) data relevant to understanding current 

conditions for those vital signs. In some cases, NPS inventory data sets are also incorporated into 

NRCA analyses and reporting products. 

In-depth analysis of climate change impacts on park natural resources is not a priority objective 

for NRCAs. However, the existing condition analyses and data sets developed in an NRCA 

should be directly useful in subsequent climate change studies and planning efforts. 

NRCAs do not establish desired conditions for study indicators. Decisions about desired 

conditions must be made through sanctioned park planning and management processes. The 

proper role for NRCAs is to provide information that will help park managers with an ongoing, 

longer term effort to describe and quantify their park’s desired resource conditions. In the near 

term, NRCA findings should be directly useful for strategic park resource planning7

 and to help 

parks report to government “resource condition status” measures8

Due to their modest funding, relatively quick timeframe for completion and reliance on existing 

data and information, NRCAs are not expected to be exhaustive. Indicators will be analyzed 

using rigorous and statistically repeatable methods where existing data and expertise allow. In 

many cases the study methods will involve an informal synthesis of existing data from diverse 

sources. A successful NRCA delivers science-based information that is both credible and 

practically useful for a variety of park decision making, planning, and partnership activities. 

. 

Over the next several years, NPS hopes to fund an NRCA project for each of the 270 parks 

served by the NPS Inventory and Monitoring Program. Additional NRCA information can be 

found at: http://www.nature.nps.gov/water/NRCondition Assessment Program/Index.cfm. 

 

7 NRCAs are an especially useful lead-in to working on a park Resource Stewardship Strategy(RSS) but 

study scope can be tailored to also work well as a post-RSS project 

8 While reporting requirements can fluctuate over time, spatial and reference-based condition data as 

provided by NRCAs will help parks report to some current (and anticipated) National Park Service, 

Department of Interior, and Office of Management and Budget accountability measures. 
3

NRCA Approach for Pea Ridge National Military Park

Prior to beginning the NRCA for Pea Ridge National Military Park (PERI) we completed a 

NRCA for Effigy Mounds National Monument (EFMO). As part of that study, we identified

three areas of compromise in various approaches to natural resource condition assessments 

(NRCAs): breadth, rigor, and focus. 

o Breadth reflects the amount and disparity of information considered in the assessment. 

A project with wide breadth would seek to examine many indicators of various types (e.g. 

biological, processes, landscape), and/or a broad consideration of multiple threats and 

stressors.

o Rigor reflects the effort devoted to developing reference conditions, defining stressors, or 

characterizing resources. 

Breadth and rigor are generally inversely related. That is, as the number of indicators 

increases, so does the difficulty of addressing each one rigorously. 

o Focus reflects the distribution of effort between: 1) characterization of the resource and 

threat assessment, and 2) selection of indicators and determination of reference condition. 

Ideally projects would characterize the resource and threats, as well as select indicators 

and determine reference conditions. 

We used these three gradients to form a three-dimensional "assessment space" as a heuristic 

framework for designing the PERI NRCA. One can think of assessment space as a balloon and 

the air inside as the funding limit. As the balloon is squeezed to expand one area, another area 

necessarily shrinks proportionately. This reflects the trade-off in focus, breadth and rigor given 

limited funding. This approach provides a range of “good models” for future assessments, the 

selection of which will depend on the starting point and emphases of a particular project. 

Combinations of breadth, rigor, and focus that are not obtainable given limited funding or not 

ambitious enough can be judged within the assessment space (Figure 1-1). 

For the NRCA at PERI, we opted for slightly more narrow breadth but greater rigor and focus 

versus the early EFMO assessment. This was mainly due to lessons learned during the EFMO 

NRCA process in terms of limitations on availability of meaningful, spatially-specific data and in 

term of performing assessments at meaningful scales of resolution. The approach retains a focus 

on development of reference condition targets. These reference conditions allowed a 

hierarchical assessment of ecological attributes within reporting units using logic models (see 

Natural Resource Condition Assessment Terminology below). Ecological attributes were 

classified generally in accordance with an Environmental Protection Agency framework, while 

reporting units were defined based on major land and aquatic features within the park. 
4

Figure 1-1. Assessment space used to design the Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Pea 

Ridge National Military Park.

Natural Resource Condition Assessment Terminology

This NRCA uses several terms in a very specific way, and these terms are critical for 

understanding the NRCA. While many conservation planning efforts use the same or similar 

terminology, we have defined several terms of importance here for reference while using the 

NRCA.

o Reporting Unit

o

– A spatially defined area which serves as the unit of analysis for a 

natural resource condition assessment (NRCA). Natural, cultural, or management-based 

criteria may be used to define reporting units. The number of reporting units must be 

reasonable in order to limit the complexity of the NRCA.

Resource Type

o

– A natural resource that is of interest to park managers and that can be 

assessed based on attributes and indicators (see “attribute” and “indicator” below). 

Resource types are generally spatially nested within reporting units and are the subjects 

of analysis in a natural resource condition assessment (NRCA).

Attribute – A category of interest in an ecological system. Intended as a generic term, 

attributes are generally non-spatial ecological categories that describe natural resources 

and may be assessed using one or many indicators (see “indicator” below).
5

o Indicator

o

– Indicators are variables of interest in an ecological system that can be 

characterized with a single, direct measurement. They are the finest level of detail at 

which data are collected.

Current Condition

o

– The current measurement of an indicator. (To assess the current 

condition of attributes, we use logical operators to synthesize multiple indicators; see 

Chapter 6.)

Management Target

We focus on management targets because they are often more easily defined in quantitative 

terms, since these are inferred both from known and surmised reference conditions, and from 

practical and interpretive considerations defined by park management goals. Quantifying 

reference conditions is often difficult or impossible due to the limited and fragmentary nature of 

historical data (Swetnam et al. 1999). Management targets are defined for each indicator and are 

summarized in Chapter 5.

– Desired future values for indicators derived by considering both 

reference conditions and practical and interpretive considerations defined by park goals. 

Reference conditions are benchmark quantitative, conceptual, or descriptive values that 

reflect the best estimated of prevailing historic conditions.

7

Chapter 2 Park Resource Setting and Resource Stewardship 

Context

Park Resource Setting

Description and Characterization of Park Natural Resources

Pea Ridge National Military Park interprets and commemorates sites of the critical March 1862 

Civil War battle near Pea Ridge, Arkansas (Figure 2-1, Figure 2-2). The park is approximately 

4,300 acres, encompassing the entire series of engagements as well as part of the original 

trenches at the Federal camp. Pea Ridge National Military Park was created by an Act of 

Congress in 1956. The park is split between the Springfield Plains and Dissected Springfield 

Plateau-Elk River Hills (southern half), of the Ozarks, and is dominated by Pea Ridge Mountain. 

Areas indirectly connected to the battle provide a historical backdrop for this battle, and 

management of oak forest, bottomland forest, and grassland enhances battlefield scene 

restoration (NPS 2010b).

The park boundaries contain sites of engagements and strategic importance, including marching 

routes, and a recreation of the Elkhorn Tavern. Trenches from the conflict have eroded, and the 

only remnants are of earthworks about two miles long, dug by Union soldiers to the south side of 

their camp on the high bluffs north of Little Sugar Creek. There is a paved interpretive trail to 

the trenches. Several historic roads used during the course of the battle are still visible, including 

Telegraph Road, named for its telegraph line, which was inoperative at the time of the battle. 

Telegraph Road crosses the park along a north-south line, passing to the east of Pea Ridge and in 

front of Elkhorn Tavern. The Battle of Pea Ridge was focused around Elkhorn Tavern and the 

village of Leetown, to the north of Little Sugar Creek. Elkhorn Tavern was a two-story log 

house built in 1833. After the battle, rebels burned the building to the ground, leaving the 

foundation and the two chimneys. A new tavern, a one-story wood frame structure, was built on 

the foundation immediately after the War, and by the 1880s, a second story was added. Further 

alterations were removed by the Park Service, in 1966, to restore the structure to its welldocumented 1880s appearance. Leetown, the site of the other major engagement in the Battle of 

Pea Ridge, was a small village, and most of the buildings were destroyed after the battle (NPS

2010b). 
8

Figure 2-1. Location of Pea Ridge National Military Park within the state of Arkansas.

Figure 2-2. Pea Ridge National Military Park (NPS 2010b).
9

Landscape and Watershed Context and Threat Assessment

Pea Ridge National Military Park (PERI) is within the Ozark Highlands level III ecoregion, on 

the border between the relatively flat Springfield Plains and more hilly Dissected Springfield 

Plateau-Elk River Hills level IV Ecoregion (see Environmental Protection Agency web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iii_iv.htm). The northern and northeastern 

sides of the park contain high ridges and steep slopes whereas areas to the south and southwest 

are generally lower and flatter. Historic upland landscapes were likely a mix of oak or oakhickory woodlands and forests. Wet prairies or flatwoods may have provided local diversity on 

the west side of the park, and nearby areas may have been kept more open by more frequent 

ground fires. Prevailing vegetation patterns probably varied with time and chance events, so a 

given site might have been more or less densely wooded at any given point in pre-European 

times. More mesic forests occur on floodplains of small streams and on wet slopes and ravine 

bottoms, especially near the northern and northeastern border of park. Drier forests dominate the 

high ridge running east to west on the northern side of the park. The contemporary landscape to 

the south is characterized by tame tall fescue pastures that have resulted from succession of old 

fields or heavy grazing by domestic livestock following land clearing. To the north, fewer 

pastures, more grazed woodlands and cleared valleys, and areas dedicated to forestry, are 

characteristic of the more rugged topography. 

The area near PERI is under intense development pressure from the growth of the 

Bentonville/Rogers metropolitan area, less than 10 km to the southeast. Bella Vista, about 10 km 

to the east, is a large, mainly retirement community with golf courses and sparse housing that 

covers more than 50 square kilometers. A buffered road network provides an index to immediate 

threat of development, and shows urban encroachment threats, especially from west and 

southwest of the park (Figure 2-3).

Figure 2-3. A buffered road network provides a visual index to development threats in the region around 

Pea Ridge National Military Park.
10

Considering human threats such as land use and pollution discharges as indicators of watershed 

health provides context for understanding the condition of key aquatic indicators (Joubert and 

Loomis 2005). Knowing the suite of potential threats and those that are most pervasive on the 

landscape helps resource managers regulate human impacts on the environment by allowing 

managers to target specific threats at specific locations. 

The watershed threats assessment relies on data developed by the Missouri Resource Assessment 

partnership (MoRAP) for the EPA and Missouri DNR (see Annis et al. 2010) coupled with 

additional data specific to the state of Arkansas that was quantified for use in this assessment. 

The data suite consists of approximately 36 datasets considered potential threats to aquatic 

ecological integrity from human activities. Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5 show the land cover and 

selected threats within the PERI watersheds. The complete list of the threats considered and 

their data sources are listed in Table 2-1. This data was used to create a human threat index 

(HTI) that helps to “score” every stream segment with regard to the full complement of threat 

data used by considering both local and upstream character (Figure 2-6). Larger HTI values 

indicate more potential threat. It should be noted that each potential human threat does not 

necessarily impact aquatic resources at all times, but each one does have the potential to impact 

aquatic resources at any given time. While the HTI is designed for larger spatial scales, it may 

still be used as a screening tool to gauge the vulnerability of watersheds to impairment (Joubert 

and Loomis 2005) and the degree and causes of impairment to streams in PERI. 

Climate

In the Ozark Highlands, winter snowfall averages 10 inches with normal January low/high 

temperatures of 12/24o F with 100 days below freezing (McNab and Avers 1994, Missouri 

Climate Center 2010). July average high temperatures are between 87-90o F, with a yearly range 

of 40-50 days above 90o F (Missouri Climate Center 2010). The growing season lasts between 

180-200 days and average annual precipitation ranges from 40-48 inches (McNab and Avers 

1994).

Landform History

Pea Ridge National Military Park is on the Springfield Plateau, of the Ozark Highlands 

ecological subsection. The area is locally dominated by Pea Ridge, a long mountain that rises to 

1600 feet in the northern part and runs from east to west almost the width of the park. Round 

Top, a smaller mountain is just to the south. Soils within the park are mostly silt loams 

(Hinterthuer 2003). The Springfield Plateau is primarily underlain with Mississippian and 

Pennsylvanian age rocks, which also underlie the northern edge of the Ozarks along the Missouri 

River. The distributional limit of many species characteristic of the Ozarks correspond with the 

Mississippian-age geologic formations, separating younger Pennsylvanian formations that 

dominate the Central Plains from the older Ordovician formations that are the primary type 

found in the central Ozarks. The sedimentary rock of this subregion is dominated by cherty 

limestone and dolomite, with smaller contributions of sandstone and shale. The geology in the 

region consists of limestone, dolomite, sandstone, chert, shale, and rhyolite with numerous karst 

formations, such as sinkholes, springs, seeps, and losing streams. Potential vegetation within the 

Springfield plateau features a mixture of tallgrass prairie, deciduous forest, and savannah. As 

such, the region forms a transition zone between prairies to the north, mountainous areas to the 

south, and deciduous forests to the east (Chapman et al. 2002).
11

Figure 2-4. Land cover within and surrounding the watershed of Pea Ridge National Military Park based on the 2001 NLCD.
12

Figure 2-5. Location of potential threats in the HUC 10 encompassing Pea Ridge National Military Park.
13

Table 2-1. List of all potential human threats considered and the data source for each threat.

Potential Threats Source

Impervious Surfaces 2001 NLCD

Cropland 2001 NLCD

Pasture/Hay 2001 NLCD

Impervious in stream buffer 2001 NLCD

Cropland in stream buffer 2001 NLCD

Pasture/Hay in stream buffer 2001 NLCD

Water Wells Arkansas Natural Resources Commission

Major Impoundments 1:100,000 NHDPlus, 1:24,000 NWI, and modified 1:100,000 NHD

Headwater Impoundments Elevation Derivatives for National Applications, NLCD, NWI, and modified 1:100,000 NHD

Distance downstream to lakes 1:100,000 NHDPlus, 1:24,000 NWI, and modified 1:100,000 NHD

Fragmentation of streams 1:100,000 NHDPlus, 1:24,000 NWI, and modified 1:100,000 NHD

Road Length TIGER/line roads file

Road/Stream Crossings TIGER/line roads file and modified 1:100,000 NHD

Railroad Length TIGER/line rail file

Rail/Stream Crossings TIGER/line rail file and modified 1:100,000 NHD

Pipelines (crude oil) EPA Region 7

Pipelines (liquid fuels) EPA Region 7

Pipelines (gases) EPA Region 7

Powerlines Geocomm Data Clearinghouse

Crop Pesticides NLCD and US Agricultural Census data

Population Density U.S. Census Bureau

Livestock Sales Dunn and Bradstreet 2003

Ditch/Channelized Streams 1:24,000 NHD, NWI, and modified 1:100,000 NHD

Airports National Transportation Atlas Databases 2007

Dams National Inventory of Dams 1993-1994

Military sites Bureau of Transportation Statistics-1998-2001

Coal Mines EPA Basins 2001

Lead Mines EPA Basins Version 3.0

Other Mines Arkansas Dept. of Environmental Quality

Oil and Gas Wells Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Arkansas Dept. of Environmental Quality

Superfund Sites EPA Geodata dataset

Toxic Release Sites EPA Geodata dataset

Wastewater Treatment Facilities EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/ Permit Compliance System

Confined Animal Feeding Operations Dunn and Bradstreet 2003

Landfills EPA Basins 2001

NPDES Subset EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/ Permit Compliance System

RCRIS EPA Geodata dataset
14

Figure 2-6. Human Threat Index for the HUC 10 encompassing Pea Ridge National Military Park with the HUC 8 inset.
15

Cultural History

The Battle of Pea Ridge occurred on March 7 and 8, 1862, in northwestern Arkansas, when the 

Federal Army of the Southwest defeated the combined Confederate Army of the West. Pea 

Ridge was a decisive victory, particularly considering Federal forces at Pea Ridge were 

outnumbered by the Confederates, by about 16,000 Confederates to 10,000 Union soldiers. The 

battle confirmed Missouri’s position in the Union, rather than joining the Confederacy, and 

reduced Confederate strength during the Civil War (Scott and Pitcaithley 1979).

Brigadier General Samuel R. Curtis, along with other capable Union leaders who would continue 

successful military careers, were able to adapt to the plan by the Confederates, led by 

Confederate Major General Earl Van Dorn, to invade and gain control of Missouri. On March 7, 

General Earl Van Dorn marched to attack the Union camp near Pea Ridge, Arkansas, while two 

brigadier generals, Ben McCulloch and James McQueen McIntosh, marched to a flanking 

position. Federal troops, after learning of Van Dorn’s approach, marched north from their camp 

to meet the Confederate advance in the Elkhorn Tavern and Tanyard area east of Pea Ridge. In 

addition, General Samuel Curtis sent a smaller force, led by Colonel Peter Osterhaus, northwest 

toward Lee Town. The Confederates controlled Elkhorn Tavern and Telegraph Road by 

nightfall, but the next day, General Samuel R. Curtis counterattacked and forced the 

Confederates back, and after running short of ammunition, the Confederates retreated eastward 

and scattered. Near Lee Town, Confederate and Federal troops fought until two Confederate 

generals, Ben McCulloch and James McQueen McIntosh were killed, and capture of the 

remaining ranking colonel reduced Confederate leadership, ending the engagement (Scott and 

Pitcaithley 1979).

The Confederate Army of the West entered battle with more soldiers and more artillery than the 

Federal Army of the Southwest, who were 250 miles from their supply base. However, 

Confederate General Earl Van Dorn marched his men too hard during a freezing storm. 

Additionally, he neither had adequate supplies for the campaign nor sent for supply trains. 

McCulloch and McIntosh were killed while out of position as division commanders, and after 

their deaths, no one was capable of leading the division (Scott and Pitcaithley 1979). 

Natural Communities

Pea Ridge National Military Park (PERI) currently supports vegetation that matches reasonably 

with conditions at the time of the civil war in order to illustrate battlefield conditions. Stands of 

oak (Quercus velutina, Q. stellata, Q. rubra, Q. alba) and hickory (Carya ovata, C. texana) form 

relatively dense woodlands or forests on the northern side of the park (Chapman et al. 2002, 

James 2008). Elkhorn Mountain supports drier woodlands whereas slopes and lower-lying areas 

over limestone and dolomite support dry-mesic woodlands and forests where these have not been 

too recently cleared. Mowed grasslands dissected by roadways and depicting the location of 

historical fields occupy lower uplands on the southern half of the park (Hinterthuer 2003, NPS

2010b). In forested areas, a number of small fields have been abandoned within the past 80 

years and currently are dominated or co-dominated by eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana;

James 2008). No known federally threatened or endangered plant or animal species occur in the 

park, but several Ozark endemics occur. This includes several populations of Ozark chinquapin 

(Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis), a state species of concern (Hinterthuer 2003). Ozark endemic 

fish species present include the cardinal shiner (Luxilus cardinalis) and stippled darter 
16

(Etheostoma punctulatum; Justus and Peterson 2005b). On the other hand, there are over 40 

documented invasive plant species (Hinterthuer 2003).

Aquatic Resources In and Near Pea Ridge National Military Park

Pea Ridge National Military Park contains portions of three small streams that originate within 

the boundaries of the park including Lee Creek, Winton Spring Run, and Pratt Creek. In 

addition, Little Sugar Creek flows along the southern boundary of the southern park unit. All of 

these streams are part of the Arkansas River Basin. Surveys from 2003 document 16 fish species 

occurring in these four streams, though most of these are from Little Sugar Creek (Justus and 

Petersen 2005b). Most of the documented fish species are generally associated with small 

streams of the Ozark Plateau. 

The Oklahoma salamander (Eurycea tynerenis) was recently discovered in three small spring-fed 

streams in PERI by HTLN staff (Bowles et al. 2010) and as Bowles et al. describe, its presence 

generally indicates that the streams have good water quality. The Oklahoma salamander 

typically inhabits relatively undisturbed small woodland streams or spring-brooks with thermal 

constancy. The salamander is endemic to the central United States including northeastern 

Oklahoma and southwest Missouri to northwestern Arkansas. 

Wildlife

Fauna of Pea Ridge National Military Park, Arkansas (PERI) are typical of grasslands, old fields, 

and deciduous woodlands in the Ozark Highlands. For example, sixty-three species of birds 

were recorded at PERI during site visits in May 2008, and the most common species was the 

Yellow-throated Vireo (Vireo flavifrons; Peitz 2009). Most bird habitat sampled was deciduous 

forest, although a few relatively large patches of grassland did support breeding pairs of 

grassland obligate birds (see Breeding Birds, Chapter 5). An inventory report on the 

presence/absence of mammals at PERI lists 44 mammals as present or probably present at the 

park (Williams 2009). No Federal or State listed mammals are reported. However, three species 

are listed by the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission as species of conservation status. These 

three species, eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius), little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), and 

southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris) are considered to be “probably present” in the park 

(Williams 2009).

Resource Stewardship Context

Park Enabling Legislation

Pea Ridge National Military Park covers about 4,300 acres in the foothills of northwestern 

Arkansas in Benton County. National Park Service administrates the park, which also is on the 

Civil War Discovery Trail, the Lower Missouri Civil War Heritage Trail, and the Trail of Tears 

National Historic Trail. The park was founded by Congress in 1956 and dedicated in 1963 (NPS

2010b).

Fundamental Resources and Values

The future strategy for Pea Ridge National Military Park is to restore cultural areas to battle-era 

conditions, while restoring natural areas. The park has formed partnerships with the Pea Ridge 

Military Park Foundation, Unilever and Wal-Mart, and citizen volunteers involved in restoration. 
17

The park will encourage stewardship of cultural resources and active environmental practices by 

visitors, and provide activities and education for local young people (NPS 2007c).

Pea Ridge National Military Park continues progress in opening historical roads, building 

historical fences, and removing modern developments such as utility poles. As for natural 

resources, the park is establishing native grasses and controlling invasive species (NPS 2007c). 

Under a Fire Management Plan, the park is restoring and maintaining fire-adapted oak-hickory 

forests with a natural disturbance regime, while controlling eastern redcedar encroachment

(James 2008).

Other Important Resources and Values

The park contains nearly 90% of the battlefield. Within the 4300 acres are numerous 

archeological sites, historic sites, structures, and cultural landscapes associated with the battle. 

The park was established to commemorate the Battle of Pea Ridge and preserve the area in 

which it occurred. Along with preservation are management efforts focused on visitor 

experiences. The natural setting of the battle is integrated into interpreting the historic events of 

the park. Developed management zones focus on preserving historic characteristics of the battle, 

both natural and cultural landscape. These zones include the natural communities of the Ozark 

Plateau, the cultural areas of the battleground, and sensitive resources such as roads and trenches. 

Desired Conditions for Natural Resources

Desired conditions are qualitative descriptions of the integrity and character for a set of resources 

and values, including visitor experiences, which the NPS has committed to achieve and maintain. 

Area-specific desired conditions include these qualitative descriptions as well as guidance on 

visitor experience opportunities and appropriate kinds and levels of management, development, 

and access for each area of the park. The desired conditions for natural resources at PERI are:

o Inventories are conducted to identify landscapes potentially eligible for listing in the 

national register, and to assist in future management decisions for landscapes and 

associated resources, both cultural and natural. Most reports are cited and briefly 

reviewed in Chapter 4, and note-worthy inventories include those by Bearss (1962) on 

conditions at the time of the battle, James (2009) on forests, Peitz (2009) on birds and 

their associated habitats, and Wright et al. (1970) on existing vegetation. Together, these 

assessments provide the basis for making sound decisions about management, treatment, 

and use. The management of cultural landscapes focuses on preserving the landscape’s 

physical attributes, biotic systems, and use when that use contributes to its historical 

significance.

o The National Park Service actively seeks to understand and preserve the soil resources, 

and to prevent, to the extent possible, the unnatural erosion, physical removal, or 

contamination of the soil, or its contamination of other resources. Natural soil resources 

and processes function in as natural a condition as possible, except where special 

considerations are allowable under policy. When soil excavation is an unavoidable part 

of an approved facility development project, the National Park Service will minimize soil 

excavation, erosion, and offsite soil migration during and after the activity.
18

o Surface water and groundwater are protected, and water quality meets or exceeds all 

applicable water quality standards. NPS and NPS-permitted programs and facilities are 

maintained and operated to avoid pollution of surface water and groundwater. 

o Natural floodplain values are preserved or restored. Long-term and short-term 

environmental effects associated with the occupancy and modifications of floodplains are 

avoided. 

o The National Park Service will maintain, as part of the natural ecosystem, all native 

plants and animals.

o Populations of native plant and animal species function in as natural a condition as 

possible except where special considerations are warranted. Native species populations 

that have been severely reduced in or extirpated from the national monument are restored 

where feasible and sustainable. The management of exotic plant and animal species, 

including eradication, will be conducted wherever such species threaten national 

monument resources or public health and when control is prudent and feasible. Federal 

and state-listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats are protected and 

sustained. Native threatened and endangered species populations that have been severely 

reduced in or extirpated from the national monument are restored where feasible and 

sustainable.

o Cultural and natural resources are conserved “unimpaired” for the enjoyment of future 

generations. Visitors have opportunities for forms of enjoyment that are uniquely suited 

and appropriate to the superlative natural and cultural resources found in the national 

monument. No activities occur that would cause derogation of the values and purposes 

for which the park has been established. For all zones, units, or other management 

divisions in the monument, the types and levels of visitor use are consistent with the 

desired resource and visitor experience conditions prescribed for those areas. NPS staff 

will identify implementation commitments for user capacities for all areas of the national 

monument.

Park staff at PERI actively work to preserve and manage cultural and natural resources. 

Interpretation of the battlefield and restoration of natural resources are primary considerations. 

Natural resource management and restoration is balanced with the need to provide for accurate 

interpretation of conditions at the time of the battle, including the maintenance of viewsheds and 

historic structures and selected cropland areas. Therefore, PERI seeks to contribute toward the 

conservation and restoration of streams, upland woodlands, upland grasslands, and floodplain 

forests concomitant with interpretation of conditions at the time of the battle. 
19

Chapter 3 Study Approach

Preliminary Scoping

Scientists from the Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership (MoRAP), NPS Heartland 

Inventory and Monitoring Network (HTLN), and park managers from Pea Ridge National 

Military Park (PERI) comprised the assessment team (Table 3-1). We use the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s Scientific Advisory Board’s Ecological Framework for 

Assessing and Reporting on Ecological Condition (SAB framework, EPA 2002) to guide the 

NRCA. The breadth and logical organization of indicators led us to adopt the framework to 

select and organize indicators for PERI. With the SAB Framework as a guide, the assessment 

team collectively agreed on the most important resource types, attributes, and indicators for 

inclusion in the NRCA. We also reviewed management plans and natural resource studies to 

ensure that the selected indicators complimented these efforts.

Table 3-1. Team members for the Pea Ridge National Military Park Natural Resource Condition 

Assessment.

Name Affiliation

Gust Annis Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership

David Bowles NPS, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network

Mike DeBacker NPS, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network

David Diamond Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership

Hope Dodd NPS, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network

Kevin Eads Pea Ridge National Military Park

Lee Elliott Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership

Jennifer Haack NPS, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network

Phillip Hanberry Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership

Kevin James NPS, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network

Ronnie Lea Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership

Sherry Leis NPS, Fire Management Program

Nolan Moore Pea Ridge National Military Park

David Peitz NPS, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network

Dyan Pursell Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership

Gareth Rowell NPS, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network

John Scott Pea Ridge National Military Park

Diane True Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership

Craig Young NPS, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network

Assessment Framework Used in the Study

The SAB framework provided a hierarchical checklist of essential ecological attributes (EEAs), 

categories/subcategories, and indicators that should be considered when evaluating the health of 

ecological systems (EPA 2002, Table 3-2). The conceptual EEAs include three ecological 

attributes that are primarily patterns—landscape condition, biotic condition, and 

chemical/physical characteristics—and three that are primarily processes—

hydrology/geomorphology, ecological processes, and natural disturbance. The hierarchical 

organization of the EEAs was developed from a conceptual model of ecological structure, 

composition, and function at a variety of scales (EPA 2002). 
20

In some assessments, indicators of ecological condition are included with indicators of stressors

(e.g., road density) (EPA 2002). In the NRCA, we focused on indicators of condition given the 

one-to-many relationship between stressors and condition (EPA 2002, Figure 3-1). The 

watershed stressor assessment may be used in parallel with the condition indicators to begin to 

understand the relationship between anthropogenic activities and the condition of park resources.

Table 3-2. Six essential attributes and sub-categories defined by the Environmental Protection Agency's 

Framework for Assessing and Reporting Ecological Condition (2002).
21

Figure 3-1. Schematic showing the one-to-many relationship between essential ecological attributes and 

stressors in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Framework for Assessing and Reporting Ecological 

Condition (2002).
22

Resource Types, Attributes and Indicators

For PERI, we attempted to identify ecological indicators by attribute and resource type that 

reflect the quality or condition of park resources. In addition, the indicators are generally 

selected such that they are practically measurable and can be impacted by reasonable levels of 

management effort. Thus, each resource type may have a unique suite of attributes and 

indicators. Also, each reporting unit may have different attributes and indicators.

Landscape Condition

Landscape patch indicators may provide a measure of habitat quality. For example, a change in 

the extent and composition of natural habitat patches (i.e., vegetation condition) or a change in 

connectivity between habitat patches (i.e., vegetation patterns) may affect the probability of local 

extinction, loss of diversity of native species, and regional persistence of species (EPA 2002). 

Consequently, managing entire landscapes, not just individual habitat types, may be required to 

maintain native plant and animal diversity (Liu and Taylor 2002). To evaluate landscape 

condition we used two simple, basic indicators: patch count and mean patch size. Non-natural 

fragmentation on the landscape is evidenced by an increase in the number of patches of a given 

vegetation type coupled with a decrease in mean patch size. 

Landscape Composition

Land Use/Land Cover

Land use and land cover are indications of the overall degree of disturbance of the landscape. 

Prevailing dominant land cover (e.g. grassland, deciduous forest) can be defined by site type 

(e.g. dry upland, floodplain) within a landscape (Nigh and Schroeder 2002, Nelson 2005). Land 

cover types that were not historically present on a given site type may indicate past or on-going 

disturbance. For example, grasslands or shrublands on site types that were historically forested 

often indicate past or on-going cultivation or mowing; evergreen juniper woodlands or 

shrublands on deciduous forest site types indicate past cultivation or the absence of the historical 

fire regime. 

Biotic Condition

Biodiversity, defined as the variety and variability among living organisms and the environments 

in which they occur, is recognized at genetic, population, species, community, and ecosystem 

levels of biological organization (U.S. Congress 1987, Noss 1990). As a result, the SAB 

framework characterized biotic condition at various levels as measures of composition and 

structure that relate directly to functional integrity (EPA 2002). Because environmental factors 

and human activities affect taxonomic groups differently, each group provides a different view

on ecosystem health or condition (Kirkpatrick and Brown 1994, Diamond et al. 2005). 

For this reason, a variety of attributes and indicators represented biotic composition. For the 

terrestrial environment, these included the breeding bird community composition, abundance of 

deer, rare species, invasive/exotic plant species, and composition of plant communities in terms 

of structure and species dominance. These elements are important indicators for unique reasons. 

Bird species distribution and abundance are tightly linked to habitat type and workers have 

identified species of concern via analysis of datasets collected nationwide (Canterbury et al. 

2000, see http://www.partnersinflight.org/). Management activities aimed at specific bird 
23

species or guilds impact entire ecosystems. Moreover, birds enjoy a tremendous following 

among the public (Peitz 2009). 

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are viewed as a valuable park natural resource with 

considerable interest from visitors. Since European settlement, populations have fluctuated 

greatly. They are recognized as keystone herbivores that impact the composition and structure of 

ecosystems across the nation (Waller and Alverson 1997). 

Invasive and exotic species are recognized as among the most significant threats to global 

biodiversity (see Mooney and Hobbs 2000). Finally, plant communities have been altered or 

eliminated across vast areas of the modern landscape, and dominant cover types and their 

structural characteristics explain recent disturbance history (Oliver and Larson 1996). 

Monitoring of structure and recruitment can also predict future composition (Collins 2000).

Fish community composition was a focus for assessment of lotic environments, because many 

species are considered intolerant of habitat alterations (Karr 1981, Robison and Buchanan 1988, 

Pflieger, 1997, Barbour et al. 1999) and their assemblages can serve as a useful tool to assess 

changes in water and habitat quality (Hoefs and Boyle 1990, Justus and Peterson 2005a, 2005b, 

Peitz 2005, Petersen and Justus 2005a, 2005b). Accordingly, the composition and abundance of 

fish populations historically have been used to assess the biological integrity of streams (Barbour 

et al. 1999; Moulton et al. 2002). Moreover, the intrinsic value of fish to the public as 

environmental indicators and as a recreational opportunity makes the status of fish diversity a 

valuable interpretive topic for parks. 

Aquatic invertebrates are often used to detect changes in the integrity of aquatic ecosystems over 

time and can be used as a surrogate for water quality conditions (Bowles 2010). This indicator 

was not included in the assessment of PERI because of a lack of data. 

Chemical and Physical Characteristics

Water quality 

Water temperature: Water temperature affects biological and chemical characteristics of streams 

(Binkley and Brown 1993). For example, temperature changes can shift the structure of aquatic 

communities (Karr and Schlosser 1978, Matthews 1987). Temperature increases can limit 

residence to those species able to tolerate increased temperatures (Karr and Schlosser 1978). 

Sowa and Rabeni (1995) found temperature to be an important factor determining the 

distribution and abundance of smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) and largemouth bass 

(Micropterus salmoides) in Missouri and suggested that elevated stream temperatures would 

allow largemouth bass to replace resident smallmouth bass populations. Reduced temperatures 

in streams during the winter can cause severe metabolic stress on fish (Cunjak 1988), while 

extreme temperature fluctuations can lead to direct thermal shock of eggs and fry as well as 

cause changes in reproductive behavior (Shuter et al. 1980).

Specific conductance: Specific conductance (SC) is a measure of the ability of water to conduct 

an electrical current. Conductivity increases with an increasing amount and mobility of ions. 

These ions, the byproduct of the breakdown of larger compounds, conduct electricity because 
24

they are negatively or positively charged when dissolved in water. Therefore, SC is an indirect 

measure of the presence of dissolved solids such as chloride, nitrate, sulfate, phosphate, sodium, 

magnesium, calcium, and iron, and can be used as an indicator of water pollution.

Dissolved oxygen: An adequate supply of dissolved oxygen (DO) is a basic requirement for 

healthy aquatic ecosystems. While some aquatic organisms are adapted to low oxygen 

conditions, most species require DO levels greater than 5 or 6 mg/L. Larval and juvenile fish 

often require even higher concentrations of dissolved oxygen. DO levels fluctuate in the water 

column under natural conditions, but severe depletion usually results from introduction of large 

quantities of biodegradable organic materials into surface waters or during prolonged periods of 

hot weather that reduce the oxygen retention capacity of water. 

pH: The pH of water is the standard measure of the concentration of hydrogen ions. A pH value 

of 7 represents a neutral condition. A low pH value (less than 5) indicates acidic conditions; a 

high pH (greater than 9) indicates alkaline conditions. Acidic and alkaline waters may limit 

many biological processes, such as reproduction, in freshwater ecosystems. Acidic conditions 

may result in increased lability of toxics that are normally bound to sediments. 

Turbidity/Suspended sediments: Sediment additions affect primary production through reduced 

light penetration and increased scour of periphyton from streambed substrates during periods of 

high flow (Alabaster and Lloyd 1982, Newcombe and MacDonald 1991). Reductions in primary 

production can lead to subsequent reductions in secondary production since many invertebrates, 

primarily grazers, depend on periphyton for food (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991). Sediment 

increases also degrade fish spawning areas, which may lead to behavioral changes in spawning, 

increased egg mortality, or decreased larval growth and development (Rabeni 1993). These 

direct effects on fish populations may eventually reduce fish diversity (Berkman and Rabeni 

1987). Similar to temperature, species inhabiting Ozark streams are typically adapted to crystal 

clear waters with minimal suspended sediments, even during elevated discharges (Smale and 

Rabeni 1991). Watersheds contributing flow to PERI streams are vulnerable to increased 

sedimentation and runoff from land use activities inside and outside of the park. 

Given that NPS air quality monitoring programs have shown that air pollutants are transported 

long distances and have been detected at all NPS monitoring sites (NPS 2002), we included 

ozone and atmospheric deposition as indicators in the NRCA. Air pollution affects natural and 

cultural resources throughout much of the park system through visibility reduction, biological 

and human health effects, and degradation of historic structures and artifacts. The NPS generally 

considers stable or improving air quality as signs of success, but also strives to comply with 

national air quality standards (NPS 2007a). See: 

(

Air quality 

http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/permits/aris/networks/htln.cfm) for more information about air 

quality monitoring.

Ozone: Ozone is a very widespread air pollutant in urban and rural areas that at high 

concentrations is harmful to human health and damaging to vegetation (NPS 2010a). Ozone 

affects plants through diffusion into leaf stomata (Hogsett and Anderson 1998) and may cause 

foliar injury and reduced growth in some sensitive plant species (NPS 2002). Ozone is formed in 

the atmosphere when pollutants, especially nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic 
25

compounds (VOCS), react with sunlight. Anthropogenic sources of NOx and VOCS are emitted 

from industrial facilities, electric utilities, vehicle exhaust, and chemical solvents. Human health 

effects associated with ozone include reduced lung function, irritated throat and airways, 

increased susceptibility to respiratory infection, and aggravation of lung diseases. 

Atmospheric deposition: Atmospheric deposition refers to the process in which airborne 

chemicals, including pollutants, are deposited to the earth. Atmospheric deposition includes wet 

deposition in rain or snow, occult deposition in cloud or fog, and dry deposition from settling, 

impaction, and adsorption (NPS 2007b). Atmospheric deposition of sulfur and nitrogen 

compounds can cause significant ecosystem effects such as acidification or eutrophication of soil 

and water (NPS 2007a). Acidification of soils, lakes, and streams can result in changes in 

community structure, biodiversity, reproduction, and decomposition. Documented impacts in 

some parks include stressed trees, acidified streams, and reduction in species of fish and other 

aquatic life in affected waters (NPS 2002). 

Although nitrogen is an essential plant nutrient, increased levels of atmospheric nitrogen 

deposition can stress ecosystems. Excess nitrogen acts as fertilizer, favoring some types of plants 

and leaving others at a competitive disadvantage. This creates an imbalance in natural 

ecosystems, and long–term effects of these changes may include shifts in types of plant and 

animal species, increase in insect and disease outbreaks, and disruption of ecosystem processes 

such as nutrient cycling, and changes in fire frequency. 

Wet deposition occurs when pollutants are deposited in combination with precipitation, 

predominantly by rain and snow, but also by clouds and fog. The NPS monitors wet deposition 

through the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) and is the only component 

monitored extensively across the United States. Dry deposition of particles and gases occurs by 

complex processes such as settling, impaction, and adsorption. Dry deposition is monitored 

through the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet). 

Hydrology and Geomorphology

The hydrology and geomorphology of ecological systems reflect the dynamic interplay of water 

flow and landforms. In river systems, for example, water flow patterns and the physical 

interaction among a river, its riverbed, and the surrounding land determines whether a diverse 

array of natural habitats and native species are maintained. Characteristics included in this 

category include channel morphology and shoreline characteristics, channel complexity, 

distribution and extent of connected floodplain, and aquatic physical habitat complexity.

The timing, magnitude, and variability of surface and groundwater flows control the transport of

nutrients, salts, contaminants, and sediments, while also determining the inundation period of 

aquatic and wetland habitats. Water flow and sediment movement controls structural 

characteristics in streambeds, banks, and riparian wetlands. Native species have adapted 

accordingly; for example, many anadromous fish require clean gravels for spawning, and 

invertebrates choose particular particle sizes for attachment or burrowing. Disturbances in 

stream flow (i.e., severe fluctuations in flow resulting from floods, drought, or hydrological 

alteration) are important abiotic factors structuring fish and invertebrate communities (Starrett 

1951, Schlosser 1985, Coon 1987, Bain et al. 1988, Resh et al. 1988, Schlosser and Ebel 1989, 

Water Flow
26

Schlosser 1990, Poff et al. 1997). This indicator was not included in the assessment of PERI 

because of a lack of data. 

Natural Disturbance Regime

All ecological systems are dynamic, due in part to discrete and recurrent disturbances that may 

be physical, chemical, or biological in nature. Examples of natural disturbances include wind and 

ice storms, wildfires, floods, drought, insect outbreaks, microbial or disease epidemics, invasions 

of nonnative species, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and avalanches. The frequency, intensity, 

extent, and duration of the events taken together are referred to as the “disturbance regime.” 

Wildland fire is a natural disturbance process that has great potential to change park landscapes. 

Many plants and animals cannot survive without the cycles of fire to which they are adapted. 

National Park Service policy stresses managing rather than simply suppressing fire, which 

requires planning for its eventuality and promoting the use of fire as a land management tool. 

Natural fires have been all but eliminated from PERI and surrounding areas. Periodic ground 

fires may have promoted dominance of fire-tolerant species in pre-European times, especially in 

dry woodlands and upland flats at PERI. 
27

Chapter 4 Study Methods

Landscape Condition

Landscape Composition and Land Use/Land Cover

A fine-resolution current vegetation map formed the basis for calculation of landscape condition 

metrics such as patch count and mean patch size, which are associated with landscape 

composition, and area of natural or semi-natural, successional, and cultural types. These 

variables were summarized by reporting unit, which were defined based on potential and current 

vegetation and land use (see Reporting Units, Chapter 5).

The current vegetation classification was produced by considering land cover and ecological site 

type. Land cover was coded by hand on-screen to 2 m resolution image objects generated using 

e-Cognition software from merged leaf-on and leaf-off air photos (Table 4-1, Figure 4-1). 

Abiotic site type was defined by merging similar ecological land types, which in turn were 

generated from digital county soil survey map unit polygons. In addition, we identified steep 

slopes (>20%) using 10 m resolution digital elevation models. Finally, current vegetation was 

assigned to each combination of land cover and abiotic site type (Figure 4-2).

Table 4-1. Land cover classes assigned to image objects for Pea Ridge National Military Park.

Land Cover Classes

Impervious

High Intensity Urban

Low Intensity Urban

Barren or Sparsely Vegetated

Grassland

Deciduous Forest

Evergreen Forest

Mixed Forest

Deciduous Woody/Herbaceous

Evergreen Woody/Herbaceous

Mixed Woody/Herbaceous

Herbaceous-Dominated Wetland

Open Water
28

Figure 4-1. Process for assigning land cover classification to 1 m resolution image objects on-screen.
29

Figure 4-2. Current vegetation was assigned to image objects based on ecological site type (site 

potential) and current land cover.

Biotic Condition

Bird Community Composition

PERI is in a transition zone between grassland and woodland, is topographically relatively 

diverse, and therefore has a diversity of different habitat types. Bird community monitoring at 

PERI aims to identify changes over time due to management activities or natural causes. An 

intensive breeding bird survey was done at PERI in the summer of 2008 using a standardized 

protocol (Peitz et al. 2008, Peitz 2009). Habitat variables and birds were both sampled at 38 

permanent 400 X 400 m cells located 200 m apart along parallel transects. Variable circular plot 

methodology was used, wherein observers look and listen for birds during 5-minute sampling 

periods, and corrections are made based on delectability by species. In addition, bird habitat data 

were collected from 50-m radius plots at each listening station, including data on abiotic (e.g. 

%slope) and biotic (e.g. vegetation structure) variables.

White-tailed Deer

Populations of white-tailed deer are monitored each year during the winter at PERI using 

spotlight surveys from the 10.17 km loop road. This road was selected as a monitoring route 

because it is easily accessible and traverses all of the major habitat types within the park. 

Surveys are conducted using two 1,000,000 candlepower spotlights from a vehicle moving no 

more than 16 km/hr. Two observes, one on the left and one on the right side of the vehicle, spot 

deer and determine distance using a rangefinder, or for individuals <20 m from the vehicle, by 

visual estimates. 
30

Invasive Exotic Plants

Invasive and exotic plants are recognized by the NPS as a threat to native biodiversity across the 

nation. In response, the Heartland Network Inventory and Monitoring Program tracks invasive 

species in a systematic way at PERI. A park-based watch list of possible invasive exotic species 

has been generated, and 101, 6 m wide, 400 m long (some were shorter based on park boundaries 

and other constraints) belt transects have been sampled (Young et al. 2007). Presence of target 

species was noted and cover estimated by cover class. Grassy habitats were excluded from the 

samples, so results mainly provide an index to invasive and exotic species within woodlands and 

forests at PERI.

Plant Community Structure and Composition

Three separate, complimentary monitoring efforts document plant community composition at 

PERI. Fourteen sites are monitored as part of the fire management plan, seven sites (all forested) 

are monitored by the Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network as part of the forest 

community monitoring effort, and data from 99 sites were collected as part of the breeding bird 

monitoring protocol (See James 2008, Peitz 2009). The Heartland Network’s effort focused on 

the natural forested areas of the park. Forest stands are sampled using a set of ten nested circular 

plots along two, 50 m parallel lines that are 20 m apart. Five sets of nested circular plots are 

located along each of the two lines, or ten sets of nested plots. Four plot sizes, 10 square meters, 

1 square meter, 0.1 square meter, and 0.01 square meter, are sampled. Data collected vary by 

plot size, and summary statistics on species richness and diversity, the ratio of exotics to native 

species, species abundance and frequency, woody species density and basal area, overstory 

canopy cover, and ground cover are calculated (James 2008). Fire monitoring plots are designed 

to determine change over both short and longer periods, and plot information collected focuses 

on dominance by species by tree basal size class (See National Park Service 2003).

The breeding bird vegetation data set was collected from 50-meter radius plots at 99 sites placed 

at regular intervals along a grid (Peitz 2008; see Bird Community Composition, above). Overall 

habitat type (e.g. woodland, shrub, field/prairie, etc.) was estimated by cover class within the 

plot. Within 5 meter subplots, canopy cover, height, and basal area were estimated by life form 

(e.g. hardwood, conifer), as was vegetation density at different height intervals and stems per 

hectare of trees by family. Finally, ground and foliar cover (<1.5 m tall) was estimated within 

1.78 meter sample plots by plant guild, including warm- and cool-season grasses, forbs, moss 

and lichens, shrubs and vines, tree seedlings, and total foliar cover. 

The breeding bird vegetation data set was selected to further analysis because it contains the 

largest volume of uniformly collected information. Management targets for vegetation 

composition such as canopy cover, basal area, and density were taken from literature on similar 

communities (see Nelson 2005, Nigh and Schroeder 2002, and especially Missouri forest and 

woodland natural community profiles posed at http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/17524.doc, 

accessed 10/15/2010). These values generally represent a fairly wide range, since natural 

communities are quite variable over time and space based both on disturbance regimes and 

abiotic site type. 
31

Fish Community Composition

For aquatic ecosystems fish data are often the most readily available source of aquatic 

community data. This indicator seeks to examine the condition of the fish community by using 

five common indicators of fish community condition. 

Actual fish collection data for streams within the PERI boundary was acquired from two sources. 

Collections made via electrofishing in September of 2003 came from Justus and Petersen 

(2005b). More recent collections from 2009 also via electrofishing were from unpublished 

Heartland Network data (Figure 4-3). We developed current conditions from Dodd (unpublished 

data). 

A total of five potential metrics were used to assess the current condition, though only three 

metrics could be computed for a single reporting unit (Pratt Creek). These included a fish Index 

of Biotic Integrity (IBI), Simpson’s Diversity Index, and the composition of benthic (darters, 

sculpins, madtoms) species. The IBI was used to give an overall rating of the stream quality 

based on characteristics (i.e. metrics) of the fish community. The Simpson’s Index uses species 

richness and abundance to estimate the diversity of the fish community and decreases with 

increasing diversity (0 = completely diverse; 1 = no diversity). Benthic species (darters, 

sculpins, and madtoms) represent species that are intolerant to human disturbance and are 

therefore a good indicator of stream health. 

Because there is limited information published on fish communities in watersheds close to PERI, 

we used the mean from data collected in 2003 and 2009 as the management target. The 

reference condition used for benthic species metrics was generally computed using the mean plus 

one standard deviation. The reference condition for the Simpson’s Diversity Index was 

computed using the mean from 2003 and 2009 minus one standard deviation because this index 

has an inverse relationship with diversity. The fish index of biotic integrity including the 

management target and reference condition was developed for the Ozark Highlands by 

Dauwalter et al. (2003). 

Aquatic Invertebrate Community

Data was not available on the aquatic invertebrate community in PERI therefore this indicator 

was not reported on. 
32

Figure 4-3. Fish survey location for surveys conducted in 2003 (Justus and Peterson 2005b) and 2009 in Pratt Creek and Winton Spring Branch. 
33 

Chemical and Physical Characteristics

Water Quality, Suspended Sediments, and Temperature 

Temperature, Specific Conductance, Dissolved Oxygen, pH, and Turbidity

Data for water quality were available and reported on for temperature, specific conductance, 

dissolved oxygen, pH, and turbidity. Water quality information for 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2009 

is based on Core 5 indicators taken from Moore and Keaton (undated) and unpublished 

Heartland data. Data for 2009 was collected continuously with data loggers using the monitoring 

protocol described in Dodd et al. (2008). NPS established management targets based on Brown 

and Czarnecki (undated). 

: 

Air Quality

Air quality is an important environmental issue facing most National Parks. Data collected 

through the NPS air quality programs show that park units are not islands isolated from urban, 

agricultural, and industrial pollutants. Manmade and natural air pollutants are transported long 

distances and have been detected at all NPS monitoring sites (NPS 2002). Air pollution affects 

natural and cultural resources throughout much of the park system through visibility reduction, 

biological and human health effects, and degradation of historic structures and artifacts. 

The National Park Service is interested in achieving the best possible air quality in its parks 

because air quality impacts ecological health, scenic views, human health, and visitor enjoyment. 

The NPS generally considers stable or improving air quality as signs of success, but also strives 

to comply with national air quality standards with the ultimate goal clean clear air in national 

parks (NPS 2007a). It is important to note that stable trends are not necessarily indicative of 

good air quality if an area is already experiencing poor quality air. 

We used data from NPS’s Air Resources Division available at 

Ozone

http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Maps/AirAtlas/IM materials.cfm. These ozone values represent 

estimates for PERI based on interpolations calculated as a 5-year average concentration. Ozone 

concentrations were measured as the 4th highest 8-hour average and expressed as parts per 

billion (ppb), which allowed comparison to the ozone standard of 75 ppb established by EPA in 

March 2008. A rating of poor was assigned to concentrations greater than or equal to the 

standard (≥ 76 ppb). A fair rating was assigned to concentrations greater than 80% of the 

standard (61 to 75 ppb). A good rating was assigned to concentrations less than 80% of the 

standard (less than or equal to 60 ppb). 

We used data from NPS’s Air Resources Division available at 

Wet Deposition

http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Maps/AirAtlas/IM materials.cfm. Deposition estimates represent 

estimates for PERI based on interpolations calculated as a 5-year average concentration. We 

established a condition rating using thresholds for N (total inorganic nitrogen from ammonium 

and nitrate ions in wet deposition) and S (total sulfur from sulfate ions in wet deposition) as 

described by NPS. Estimates for natural background wet deposition rates for either N or S are 

0.13 kg/ha/yr in the Western United States and 0.25 kg/ha/yr in the Eastern United States (NPS 

2007a). Nutrient sensitive ecosystems respond to wet deposition levels of approximately 1.5 
34 

kg/ha/yr (NPS cites Fenn et al. 2003, Krupa 2003). NPS (2007a) reports that wet deposition 

amounts of less than 1 kg/ha/yr do not cause ecosystem harm. As a result, we assigned a rating 

of good for wet deposition rates less than 1 kg/ha/yr; a rating of fair for wet deposition rates of 

from 1 to 3 kg/ha/yr; and a rating of poor wet deposition rates greater than 3 kg/ha/yr (Table 

4-2). 

Table 4-2. Condition rating for wet deposition of either N or S. Source: (NPS 2007a).

Deposition Condition Wet Deposition (kg/ha/yr)

Poor > 3

Fair 1-3

Good < 1

We used data from NPS’s Air Resources Division available at 

Dry Deposition

http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Maps/AirAtlas/IM materials.cfm. Deposition estimates represent 

estimates for PERI based on interpolations calculated as a 5-year average concentration. We 

plotted combined wet and dry deposition of nitrogen and sulfur through time over the available 

period of record. We did not provide condition ratings for dry deposition. 

Hydrology and Geomorphology

Surface Water Flow 

The hydrology and geomorphology of ecological systems reflect the dynamic interplay of water 

flow and landforms. In river systems, for example, water flow patterns and the physical 

interaction among a river, its riverbed, and the surrounding land determine whether a naturally 

diverse array of habitats and native species are maintained. 

Surface and groundwater flows determine which habitats are wet or dry, and water flow 

transports nutrients, salts, contaminants, and sediments. It is less widely recognized, however, 

that the variability of water flows (in addition to their timing and magnitude) exerts a controlling 

influence on the creation and succession of habitat conditions. 

Because of a lack of available data this indicator was not included in the analysis. 

Natural Disturbance Regime

Fire Regime

Fire was the primary natural disturbance impacting the natural communities at PERI. We 

inferred historic fire return intervals by reporting unit (major community type) by referring to 

state and transition models for similar communities prepared for the LandFire project (see 

http://www.landfire.gov/NationalProductDescriptions13.php).
35

Chapter 5 Natural Resource Conditions

Reporting Units

For terrestrial communities, we developed reporting units that included the whole park, plus subdivisions based on potential vegetation and on current condition (Figure 5-1). Thus the reporting 

units were park-wide, bottomland forest, dry woodland, semi-natural grassland, and typic 

woodland. The typic woodland recovery unit is based primarily on site potential, and thus 

circumscribes some areas that are currently grassland but where woodlands are the prevailing 

pre-European condition (see Appendix C). The dry woodland recovery unit is likewise based on 

site potential, but circumscribes little area that is current grassy. The semi-natural grassland 

recovery unit mainly circumscribes areas that are currently semi-natural grassland. Cultural 

areas such as buildings, parking lots and associated lawns and grounds, and interpretive 

croplands were also identified and separated from areas that will be managed for more natural or 

semi-natural vegetation.

Because stream character and condition can vary dramatically with drainage area (Vannote et al. 

1980), we developed reporting units for Pratt Creek and Winton Spring Branch (Figure 5-2). It 

should be noted that Lee Creek and Williams Hollow were not used as reporting units because of 

a general lack of available data. Air quality, which is largely reflective of global or regional 

processes, was reported at the park-wide scale. 

Figure 5-1. Terrestrial reporting units for Pea Ridge National Military Park were based on both current 

vegetation patterns and ecological site type (site potential).
36 

Figure 5-2. Map of stream reporting units within Pea Ridge National Military Park. 

Condition Summaries by Reporting Units

In chapters 3 and 4, we organized the discussion of indicators and attributes used to characterize 

natural resources by the EPA assessment framework. In chapter five, we report the condition of 

natural resources by reporting unit, with a focus on indicators. Reporting units typically 

encompass multiple natural resources (i.e., resource types) and their related attributes/indicators. 

A resource type may occur in one or many reporting units, and management targets may differ 

for the same resource type in different reporting units (Table 5-1, Figure 5-1, Figure 5-2). 

Table 5-1. Summary of natural resource condition indicators for Pea Ridge National Military Park. 

Current conditions are based on contemporary data, and management targets are based on a variety of 

sources, including expert judgment (see text). Indicators are presented within park reporting units (Figure 

5-1, Figure 5-2) and relate to resource types and/or ecological attributes.

 

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator Management Target

Current 

Condition Current Year

Parkwide

Vegetation

Landscape composition

patch count < 1000 1697 2010

mean patch size (ha) > 2 1.01 2010
37

Table 5.1 Continued

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator Management Target

Current 

Condition Current Year

Land use/Land cover

semi-natural and natural types (ha) > 1200 946 2010

successional types (ha) < 500 748 2010

cultural types (ha) < 35 22 2010

Breeding bird community

grassland composition

grassland species richness ≥ 35 35 2008

Partners in Flight target grassland species ≥ 12 12 2008

number of grassland obligate species ≥ 3 3 2008

grassland habitat

litter cover (%) ≥ 35 39.5 2008

bare ground cover (%) ≤ 50 47.6 2008

total foliar cover (%) ≥ 40 44 2008

woodland composition

woodland species richness ≥ 43 43 2008

Partners in Flight target woodland species ≥ 11 11 2008

woodland habitat

canopy cover (%) ≥ 75 87.8 2008

basal area (m2/ha) 7 - 15 7.8 2008

mid-story structural diversity index (%) 25 - 40 30.4 2008

White-tailed deer

index of relative abundance (individuals/km2) < 8 33.7 2010

Invasive exotic plant impact

number of taxa < 30 35 2006

frequency on transects (%) < 50 84.2 2006

park-wide minimum cover estimate (%) < 10 4.5 2006

Air quality

Ozone

ozone (ppb) ≤ 60 70.4 2004 - 2008

Atmospheric deposition

nitrogen (kg/ha/yr) < 1 11.7 2004 - 2008

sulfur (kg/ha/yr) < 1 9.8 2004 - 2008

Bottomland forest

Landscape composition

patch count for bottomland forest < 45 66 2010

mean patch size for bottomland forest (ha) > 1 0.38 2010

Land use/Land cover

bottomland forest (ha) > 28 25 2010

successional types (ha) < 3 15 2010

Semi-natural grassland
38 

Table 5.1 Continued

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator Management Target

Current 

Condition Current Year

Landscape composition

patch count for grassland ≤ 7 7 2010

mean patch size for semi-natural grassland (ha) ≤ 22 22 2010

Land use/Land cover

semi-natural grassland (ha) > 150 158 2010

successional types (ha) ≤ 10 1.24 2010

Herbaceous guild composition

native grass (%) > 60 28.5 2008

native forbs (%) 10 - 40 8.6 2008

native woody shrub and vine (%) < 10 1 2008

Dry woodland

Landscape composition

patch count for dry woodland < 40 59 2010

mean patch size for dry woodland (ha) > 3 1.3 2010

Land use/Land cover

dry woodland (ha) > 100 77 2010

successional types (ha) < 15 40 2010

Structural class

hardwood canopy cover (%) 30 - 90 86.5 2008

hardwood basal area (m2/ha) 6.5 - 21.5 4.29 2008

density (stems/ha, trees > 8 cm dbh) 150 - 500 313.3 2008

Cover type 2008

oak species basal area (m2/ha) 4.2 - 17.2 1.23 2008

hickory and walnut species basal area (m2/ha) 0.65 - 7.5 0.813 2008

Regeneration

cover type small saplings (>1.5 m tall, < 2 5 cm dbh) 

relative density (% of stems/ha) > 30 0 2008

cover type large saplings (>1.5 m tall; > 2.5 and < 8 

cm dbh) relative density (% of stems/ha) > 30 20 2008

total cover type sapling relative density (% of 

stems/ha) > 30 18.8 2008

Herbaceous guild composition

native grass (%) 10 - 90 10 2008

native forbs (%) 1 - 30 3 2008

native woody shrub (%) < 50 5.7 2008

Structure

hardwood tree height (m) ≥ 10 11.1 2008

Typic woodland

Landscape composition

patch count for typic woodland < 175 483 2010

mean patch size for typic woodland (ha) > 2.5 1.68 2010
39 

Table 5.1 Continued

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator Management Target

Current 

Condition Current Year

Land use/Land cover

typic woodland (ha) > 1050 811 2010

successional types (ha) < 200 455 2010

Structural class

hardwood canopy cover (%) 70 - 100 88.14 2008

hardwood basal area (m2/ha) 14 - 29 9.5 2008

density (stems/ha, trees > 8 cm dbh) 175 - 600 322.8 2008

Cover type 2008

oak species basal area (m2/ha) 9 - 23.5 4.5 2008

hickory and walnut species basal area (m2/ha) 2 - 10 2 2008

Regeneration

cover type small saplings (>1.5 m tall, < 2 5 cm dbh) 

relative density (% of stems/ha) > 30 5.6 2008

cover type large saplings (>1.5 m tall; > 2.5 and < 8 

cm dbh) relative density (% of stems/ha) > 30 25.7 2008

total cover type sapling relative density (% of 

stems/ha) > 30 21.7 2008

Herbaceous guild composition

native grass (%) 10 - 80 6.8 2008

native forbs (%) 1 - 40 7.4 2008

native woody shrub (%) 15 - 50 4.1 2008

Structure

hardwood tree height (m) ≥ 15 18 2008

Pratt Creek

Water quality

temperature (oC) 0 - 34 13.2 2009

specific conductance (μS/cm) 100 - 400 230.0 2009

dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 5 - 15 9.6 2009

pH 6.5 - 9.0 7.3 2009

turbidity (NTU) < 10 8.2 2009

Fish community

Composition

Simpson's Diversity ≤ 0.64 0.62 2009

benthic species composition (%) ≥ 12.8 21.8 2009

Condition

Index of Biotic Integrity > 60 53 2009

Aquatic invertebrates

Biotic integrity

family richness > 22 NA 2009

genus richness increase NA 2009

EPT richness > 9 NA 2009
40

Table 5.1 Continued

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator Management Target

Current 

Condition Current Year

EPT ratio increase NA 2009

Shannon Index (Genus) > 2.47 NA 2009

Shannon Evenness Index increase NA 2009

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index < 5.3 NA 2009

Winton Spring Branch

Water quality

temperature (oC) 0 - 34 13.6 2009

specific conductance (μS/cm) 100 - 400 272.1 2009

dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 5 - 15 9.6 2009

pH 6.5 - 9.0 7.0 2009

turbidity (NTU) < 10 2.1 2009

Aquatic invertebrates

Biotic integrity

family richness > 22 NA 2009

genus richness increase NA 2009

EPT richness > 9 NA 2009

EPT ratio increase NA 2009

Shannon Index (Genus) > 2.47 NA 2009

Shannon Evenness Index increase NA 2009

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index < 5.3 NA 2009

Reporting Unit: Park-wide

Overall, PERI has 24 different current cover types, and about 946 ha (55%) are natural or seminatural, whereas 748 ha (44%) are clearly successional types. The remaining 22 ha (<1.5%) are 

cultural cover types, including cover types such as trails and roads, buildings, and lawns (

Vegetation 

Table 

5-2, Figure 5-3, Figure 5-4).
41

Table 5-2. Current (conceptual) vegetation type patch statistics and total area for Pea Ridge National 

Military Park.

Current Vegetation Class 

Mean Patch 

Size (ha)

# of 

Patches

Class Area 

(ha)

% Class 

Area

Barren or Sparsely Vegetated 0.02 1.00 0.02 0.00

Bottomland Oak-Hardwood Forest 0.35 72.00 25.44 1.48

Bottomland Successional Deciduous Sparse Woodland and 

Shrubland 0.06 4.00 0.25 0.01

Bottomland Successional Eastern Redcedar Sparse Woodland 

and Shrubland 0.54 18.00 9.74 0.57

Bottomland Successional Eastern Redcedar Woodland and 

Forest 0.07 1.00 0.07 0.00

Bottomland Successional Eastern Redcedar-Deciduous Mixed 

Woodland and Forest 0.15 17.00 2.54 0.15

Bottomland Successional Herbaceous Vegetation 0.08 6.00 0.47 0.03

Herbaceous-dominated Wetlands (non-riverine) 0.18 1.00 0.18 0.01

Open Water 0.03 6.00 0.17 0.01

Trails and Roads 0.66 33.00 21.92 1.28

Upland Dry Oak-Hickory Woodland and Forest 1.12 69.00 77.36 4.51

Upland Typic Oak-Hickory Woodland and Forest 0.96 360.00 344.13 20.04

Upland Oak-Bluestem Flatwoods (grassy) 0.21 10.00 2.15 0.12

Upland Oak-Bluestem Flatwoods (wooded) 0.16 1.00 0.16 0.01

Upland Successional and Disturbance Grassland 1.49 235.00 350.80 20.43

Upland Successional Deciduous Sparse Woodland and 

Shrubland 0.20 326.00 65.74 3.83

Upland Successional Eastern Redcedar Sparse Woodland and 

Shrubland 0.05 143.00 7.77 0.45

Upland Successional Eastern Redcedar Woodland and Forest 0.35 214.00 75.63 4.40

Upland Successional Eastern Redcedar-Hardwood Woodland 

and Forest 0.62 342.00 212.39 12.37

Upland Successional Eastern Redcedar-Mixed Deciduous 

Sparse Woodland and Shrubland 0.17 132.00 23.00 1.34

Upland Typic Slope Oak-Hardwood Woodland and Forest 3.16 157.00 496.01 28.89

Upland Wet Slope and Valley Hardwood Forest 0.03 26.00 0.76 0.04

Urban High Intensity 0.05 1.00 0.05 0.00

Urban Low Intensity 0.03 11.00 0.37 0.02
42

Figure 5-3. Pea Ridge National Military Park current (conceptual) vegetation cover types.
43

Figure 5-4. Pea Ridge National Military Park current landscape condition.

Landscape Composition

There are 1697 patches of different land cover types in the park, with an average patch size of 

1.01 ha. Among land cover types that cover more than 75 hectares, or slightly more than 5% of 

the park, deciduous forest patches are the largest on average at 3.67 ha, and evergreen forest 

(juniper) patches are smallest at 0.36 ha (Table 5-3). The landscape is more fragmented overall 

than in historic times, and management targets were established based on subjective expert 

opinion. These relate to reducing the number of patches and increasing mean patch size (Table 

5-1). 
44

Table 5-3. Mean patch size, number of patches, and area for major land cover types at Pea Ridge 

National Military Park.

Land Use/Land Cover Class Mean Patch Size (ha) # of Patches Class Area (ha) % Class Area

Impervious 0.66 33 21.92 1.28%

High Intensity Urban 0.05 1 0.05 0.00%

Low Intensity Urban 0.03 11 0.37 0.02%

Barren or Sparsely Vegetated 0.02 1 0.02 0.00%

Grassland 1.50 235 353.42 20.58%

Deciduous Forest 3.67 257 943.87 54.97%

Evergreen Forest 0.36 220 78.17 4.55%

Mixed Forest 0.68 327 222.13 12.94%

Deciduous Woody/Herbaceous 0.20 329 65.98 3.84%

Evergreen Woody/Herbaceous 0.05 144 7.84 0.46%

Mixed Woody/Herbaceous 0.17 132 23.00 1.34%

Herbaceous-Dominated Wetland 0.18 1 0.18 0.01%

Open Water 0.03 6 0.17 0.01%

Land Use/Land Cover 

The most abundant natural and semi-current vegetation types include upland typic slope oakhardwood and forest (496 ha), upland successional and disturbance grassland (350 ha), and 

upland typic oak-hickory woodland and forest (344 ha). These types all account for >20% of the

park, and together comprise 69% of the current vegetation cover. The upland successional and 

disturbance grassland occurs mainly in large blocks on the southern and eastern part of the park, 

and many areas are maintained as grassland for interpretation of historic conditions at the time of 

the battle. Successional eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana) dominated or co-dominated 

types together make up 331 ha, or 19.3% of the park (Figure 5-4). The management goals are 

based on expert opinion, and relate to increases in the area of natural and semi-natural types and 

reduction in the area of successional types. For eastern redcedar dominated areas, this process 

may occur due to natural succession without much management effort over time (Figure 5-1). 

Breeding Bird Community

Of 63 breeding bird species identified, the most frequent in 99 sample grids included the Yellowthroated Vireo (Vireo flavifrons), Indigo Bunting (Passerina cyanea), and Northern Cardinal 

(Cardinalis cardinalis; Peitz 2009). Partners in Flight, a coalition of agencies and individuals 

whose mission is to conserve North America’s declining bird populations, classify sixteen 

species found at PERI as species of continental importance (

 

Table 5-4). Three grassland obligate 

species were recorded, the Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna), Grasshopper Sparrow 

(Ammodramus savannarum), and Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii). No woodland 

obligates were reported. Deciduous woodlands (1279.7 ha) dominate the bird habitat at PERI, 

with 76% of the plots surveyed located in this habitat type, and 24% located in habitat dominated 

by various grassland types and old fields (414.9 ha combined). 

The bird fauna includes species that require a diversity of habitats, from mature deciduous forest, 

to forest with dense understory, to open brushy areas and edges, to grasslands. Six species of 

continental concern are common enough to serve as barometers of the different important 

habitats within the park (Peitz 2009). Acadian Flycatchers (Empidonax virescens) and Yellow-
45 

throated Vireos require mature deciduous forest, Carolina Wrens (Thryothorus ludovicianus) 

require woodlands and forests with abundant understory, Indigo buntings and Eastern Towhees 

(Pipilo erythrophthalmus) require edges or shrubby habitat, and Red-bellied Woodpeckers 

(Melanerpes carolinus) require a variety of woodland types. In addition, two grassland obligate 

species of continental concern, the Grasshopper Sparrow and Henslow’s Sparrow, might serve as 

indicators of grassland habitat quality. 

Management targets are based on expert opinion and focus on maintenance of the current level 

of biodiversity. Management of specific plots may not be practical, and thus management within 

the context of communities may be most appropriate, with a focus on maintaining populations of 

the eight species outlined above. 

Table 5-4. Bird species recorded during breeding bird surveys at Pea Ridge National Military Park, 

Arkansas in 2008. The American Ornithologists' Union Code (AOU code) and residency status of each 

species is given.

 

Common name1 Species name2 AOU 

code Residency3

Acadian flycatcher Empidonax virescens ACFL SR

American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos AMCR R

American goldfinch Carduelis tristis AMGO R

American redstart Setophaga ruticilla AMRE SR

American robin Turdus migratorius AMRO R

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica BARS SR

Barred owl4 Strix varia BDOW R

Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii BEWR R

Black-and-white warbler Myniotilta varia BAWW SR

Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata BLJA R

Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea BGGN SR

Blue-winged warbler Vermivora pinus BWWA SR

Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum BRTH R

Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater BHCO R

Carolina chickadee Parus carolinensis CACH R

Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovicianus CARW R

Chipping sparrow Spizella passerine CHSP SR

Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas COYE SR

Eastern (Rufous-side) towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus EATO WR

Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis EABL R

Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus EAKI SR

Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna EAME R

Eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe EAPH R

Eastern wood-pewee Contopus virens EAWP SR

Field sparrow Spizella pusilla FISP R

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum GRSP SR

Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis GRCA SR
46

Table 5.4 Continued

Common name1 Species name2 AOU 

code Residency3

Great crested flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus GCFL SR

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus HAWO R

Henslow’s sparrow Ammodramus henslowii HESP M

Indigo bunting Passerina cyanea INBU SR

Kentucky warbler Oporornis formosus KEWA SR

Louisiana waterthrush Seiurus motacilla LOWA SR

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura MODO R

Northern (Baltimore) oriole4 Icterus galbula BAOR SR

Northern bobwhite Colinus virginianus NOBO R

Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis NOCA R

Northern mockingbird Minus polyglottos NOMO R

Northern parula Parula Americana NOPA SR

Ovenbird Seirus aurocapillus OVEN SR

Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus PIWO R

Prairie warbler Dendrocia discolor PRAW SR

Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus RBWO R

Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus REVI SR

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis RTHA R

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus RWBL R

Ruby-throated hummingbird Archilochus colubris RTHU SR

Scarlet tanager Piranga olivacea SCTA SR

Song sparrow Melospiza melodia SOSP WR

Summer tanager Piranga rubra SUTA SR

Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus SWTH M

Turkey vulture Cathartes aura TUVU R

(Eastern) Tufted titmouse Baeolophus bicolor ETTI R

Veery Catharus fuscescens VEER M

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferous WPWI SR

White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis WBNU R

White-eyed vireo Vireo griseus WEVI SR

Wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina WOTH SR

Worm-eating warbler Helmitheros vermivorus WEWA SR

Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia YWAR SR

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus YBCU SR

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens YBCH SR

Yellow-throated vireo Vireo flavifrons YTVI SR

1 Bolded names are those Partners in Flight species considered of continental importance.

2 Species names are valid and verified names taken from ITIS (Integrated Taxonomic 

Information System). Http://www.itis.gov/.

3 Residency: SR = summer resident; R = year around resident; WR = winter resident; 

According to Stokes and Stokes (1996).

4 Species recorded only while traveling between point transects or at other times outside of 5-

min survey periods.
47

White-tailed Deer

From 2005 to 2010, deer density dipped from about 43 individuals/km2 in 2005 to less than 15 

individuals/km2 in 2007, probably due to an outbreak of hemorrhagic disease (Figure 5-5).

Figure 5-5. White-tailed deer population fluctuations between 2005 and 2009.

The population density rebounded to more than 40 individuals/km2 in 2009, but then dipped 

again in 2010 to about 34 individuals/km2. At this density, the deer herd is expected to heavily 

browse palatable woody and herbaceous species, and hence may have an impact on development 

of the vegetation. Hemorrhagic disease is often related to high population densities, and might 

therefore be cyclic. Starvation of individuals in unfavorable years may result from high 

population densities. Maintenance of the deer herd nearer to the ecological carrying capacity of 

about 8 individuals/km2 (see Peitz 2006) may not be possible, but reduction in numbers would 

benefit the development of healthier deer and plant communities. Recruitment of oak species

and palatable shrubs may be enhanced insofar as deer may graze on these species during the 

winter and early spring.

Fourteen invasive or exotic species were identified during surveys conducted in 2006, and 

covered a minimum of 4.5% of the park (

Invasive Exotic Plant Impact

Table 5-5; Young et al. 2007). Management targets are 

based on expert opinion, and focus on reducing the numbers of invasive species and overall 

cover in the park if possible.
48

Table 5-5. Invasive exotic plants at Pea Ridge National Military Park. Management difficulty codes are 

from NatureServe (see http://www.natureserve.org/): high (H), medium (M), low (L), and unknown (U).

Species Common Name Park-wide cover 

(acres)

Frequency 

(percent)

Management 

difficulty

Juniperus virginiana Eastern redcedar 671.8 – 1151.7 42.8 ----

Lespedeza cuneata Sericea lespedeza 6.8 – 19.9 19.1 ML

Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle 2.9 – 13.9 18.5 HM

Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose 2.2 – 9.2 19.1 L

Lolium spp Fescue 0.8 – 2.7 5.2 ----

Microstegium vimineum Nepalese browntop 0.3 – 2.1 8.1 HM

Robinia pseudoacacia Black locust 0.3 – 1.6 6.4 M

Sorghum halepense Johnsongrass 0.2 – 1.1 3.5 HM

Centaurea stoebe ssp. micranthos Spotted knapweed < 0.75 2.9 HL

Dactylis glomerata Orchardgrass < 0.75 5.2 ML

Verbascum thapsus Common mullein < 0.25 2.3 L

Ligustrum spp Privet < 0.1 0.6 ML

Bromus inermis Smooth brome < 0.01 1.7 ----

Poa compressa Canada bluegrass < 0.01 0.6 HL

Grasslands were excluded from sampling, so results relate only to woodlands and forests at 

PERI. In this context, eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana) covered by far the most area 

(Table 5-5). No other species covered more than 8 hectares as a maximum estimate. However, 

that species, sericea lespediza (Lespedeza cuneata), is more common in grasslands than 

woodlands, and mainly occurred in the small amount of brushy and grassy habitat included 

within the sample. This species, along with tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix), a cool-season 

perennial, are often among the dominants in grasslands at PERI. Only two other species, 

Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), covered at least 

one hectare in woodlands at PERI. The area dominated by eastern redcedar will most likely be 

greatly reduced over time due to natural succession and will be replaced by deciduous species. 

Early control efforts for other invasive and exotic species at PERI offer good prospects for 

positive outcomes. 

Air Quality

Ozone Assessment 

Results of the ozone assessment presented in (Figure 5-6) show that ozone concentrations have 

declined slightly in recent years with data from the most recent time period rated as fair. A 

number of plant species are susceptible to damage from ozone and NPS assesses the risk of 

ozone injury to vegetation by park. The report Assessing the risk of foliar injury from ozone on 

vegetation in parks in the Heartland Network (NPS 2004) indicates that the risk of foliar injury 

to plants in PERI is low. In fact PERI is rated among the lowest risk for ozone injury to 

vegetation for parks across the United States (Figure 5-7). Despite being low risk for ozone 

injury to vegetation NPS indicates that there are from 10 to 17 ozone sensitive plant species in 

PERI (NPS 2001, NPS 2004, and NPS 2006). 
49

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

1995-1999 1999-2003 2001-2005 2003-2007 2004-2008

Parts Per Billion

Figure 5-6. Average of fourth Maximum 8-hour Ozone levels based on five-year averages of interpolated 

deposition estimates (NPS 2010a). Greater than or equal to 76 ppb is considered poor, between 61-75 

fair, and below 61 good (NPS 2007a). 

Figure 5-7. Map showing the risk of ozone injury to vegetation by park (NPS 2007d).

Atmospheric Deposition

Average interpolated estimates of wet deposition of nitrogen ranged from 11.69 to 14.49 

kg/ha/yr, and estimates of wet deposition of sulfur ranged from 9.26 to 12.73 kg/ha/yr. All 
50

estimates far exceeded the threshold for "poor" of 3 kg/ha/yr (Figure 5-8). Wet deposition of 

from sulfates, nitrates, and ammonium account for the majority of total nitrogen and sulfur 

deposition (Figure 5-9, Figure 5-10). 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1999-2003 2001-2005 2003-2007 2004-2008

N

S

Figure 5-8. Total nitrogen and sulfur from wet deposition of sulfate (S04), nitrate (N03), and ammonium 

(NH4) based on five-year averages of interpolated deposition estimates (NPS 2010a). Greater than 3 

ppb is considered poor, between 1 and 3 ppb fair, and below 1 ppb good. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1999-2003 2001-2005 2003-2007 2004-2008

Wet SO4

Dry SO4

Figure 5-9. Total wet and dry sulfur deposition based on five-year averages of interpolated deposition 

estimates (NPS 2010a). 
51

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1999-2003 2001-2005 2003-2007 2004-2008

Wet NO3

Wet NH4

Dry NO3

Dry NH4

Figure 5-10. Total wet and dry nitrogen deposition based on five-year averages of interpolated deposition 

estimates (NPS 2010a). 

Reporting Unit: Bottomland Forest

Bottomlands at PERI contain 25 ha of bottomland oak-hardwood forest and an additional 7.5 ha 

or typic slope oak-hardwood woodland and forest. Dominant trees include white oak (Quercus

alba), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), and American elm (Ulmus americana; Wright et al.

1970). Essentially all of the 15 ha of successional types consists of eastern redcedar dominated 

or co-dominated woodlands and forests (Figure 5-11). These successional woodlands consist of 

old fields, and most of the eastern redcedar will likely be out-competed on these moist soils 

within the next several decades without active management. Bottomland forests are more 

fragmented, and in smaller patches, than management goals indicate. Management goals center 

on reducing the area of successional types, increasing patch size, and reducing patch number. 

Numbers were based on expert opinion informed by literature on similar communities (see 

Nelson 2005 and especially community profiles posted at 

http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/17524.doc, accessed 10/15/2010).
52

Figure 5-11. Current landscape composition for the bottomland forest reporting unit.

Reporting Unit: Dry Woodland

This recovery unit is underlain by sandstone or shale in contrast with the limestone or dolomite 

for the rest of the park. Soils are relatively well-drained and nutrient-poor. Many stands of 

upland dry oak-hickory woodland and forest are of relatively high quality with a diverse 

herbaceous understory common (Wright et al. 1970). Dominate species of this community type 

include post oak (Quercus stellata), blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica), and back hickory 

(Carya texana; Wright et al. 1970). Well-defined old fields are dominated or co-dominated by 

eastern redcedar, and about 40 ha consist of successional cover types. Deciduous trees will 

likely replace the eastern redcedar over time, but succession may take many decades in these 

relatively dry soils unless management actions designed to reduce evergreen trees are applied. 

Many of the stands are relatively open with good herbaceous cover, and this may facilitate the 

use of fire to help control redcedars.

Management goals center on reduction of successional cover types, reducing the number of 

patches, and increasing mean patch size. Numbers were based on expert opinion informed by 

literature on similar communities (see Nelson 2005 and especially community profiles posted at 

http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/17524.doc, accessed 10/15/2010). Target numbers for 

regeneration were from Jenkins et al. (1997) and from Rice and Penfound (1955). 
53

Reporting Unit: Semi-natural Grassland

Upland grasslands at PERI are essentially all disturbed. Restoration has been attempted on at 

least two patches, most notably the northern of two semi-natural grassland recovery unit patches 

on the west side of the park consists of a grassland restoration where a compliment of native 

species has been successfully established. The majority of the grasslands are mowed for 

interpretive purposes, and most of these mowed areas currently extend from the semi-natural 

grassland to the cultural recovery unit across continuous landscapes. North of the northern-most 

patch on the west side of the park, mowed grassland extends north from the semi-natural 

grassland recovery unit into the typic forest recovery unit (see Figure 5-3). Tall fescue 

(Schedonorus phoenix) is the prevailing dominant of most areas, but native species such as 

purpletop tridens (Tridens flavus), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), broomsedge 

(Andropogon virginicus), and Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutas) are also present (personal 

observation). Patches are relatively few and large, mainly due to extensive mowing in areas 

where battlefield interpretation is the main goal (Figure 5-12). Thus, these large patches, though 

they do match management targets for patch number and size, consist mainly of highly disturbed 

and relatively low quality, homogeneous communities.

Natural resource management options are limited because much of the area is mowed to facilitate 

interpretation of battlefield conditions. Thus, management goals are generally met within this 

recovery unit (Table 5-1). Re-establishment of native grasslands across most of the area may 

prove problematic in the face of other park goals. Less than 1.5 ha is in successional types other 

than semi-natural grassland. One management option may prove feasible: minimization of 

mowing frequency, particularly in the northern-most, partially restored grassland on the west 

side of the park and the continuous grassland to the north within the typic forest recovery unit. 

This, coupled with allowing grasslands to succeed to woodlands within the typic forest recovery 

unit on the northwest side of the park, might improve conditions for target grassland obligate and 

shrubland/edge bird species (see Breeding Bird Community, above) and add to the overall 

habitat diversity within the park. 
54

Figure 5-12. Current landscape composition for the semi-natural grassland forest reporting unit.

Reporting Unit: Typic Woodland

This recovery unit is based mainly on site potential and thus circumscribes some grassland areas, 

most notably on the western, northwestern, and south-central portions of the park (see Figure 5-

3). Overall, upland typic oak-hardwood and typic slope oak-hardwood woodlands and forests

dominate the recovery unit, and many areas are of relatively high quality (Wright et al. 1970). 

Dominant species include black oak (Quercus velutina), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), and 

hickories (Carya spp.). White oak (Quercus alba) is important on slopes only. As in the dry oak 

woodland reporting unit, well-defined old fields are apparent (281.4 ha), and are dominated or 

co-dominated by eastern redcedar. Substantial areas of successional grassland and deciduous 

sparse woodland, at total of 173.6 ha, also occur (Figure 5-13). 

Management goals center around reducing the number of forest patches and increasing patch 

size, and on reduction in the area of successional types. We should note that the number of 

forest patches and patch size in the current landscape do not meet management goals, but these 

numbers are somewhat inflated because typic upland woodlands and typic slope woodlands are 

interspersed within the recovery unit. A continuous forested area may be recorded as two or 

more patches composed of these two types, and both the typic upland and typic slope types are 

often in relatively good condition in terms of composition and structure. 

Retention of successional deciduous open woodlands and shrublands may add to the overall 

habitat diversity of the park and benefit some breeding bird species of continental concern (see 
55

Breeding Bird Community, above). The area immediately north of the northern-most patch of 

semi-natural grassland reporting unit is currently grassland, and might reasonably be managed as 

a continuous unit with the adjacent grassland to the south (see Semi-natural Grassland Reporting 

Unit, above). Numbers were based on expert opinion informed by literature on similar 

communities (see Nelson 2005 and especially community profiles posted at 

http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/17524.doc, accessed 10/15/2010). Target numbers for 

regeneration were from Jenkins et al. (1997) and from Rice and Penfound (1955). 

Figure 5-13. Current landscape composition for the typic woodland reporting unit.

Reporting Unit: Pratt Creek

It is important to point out that the threat assessment for Pratt Creek is based on a stream 

catchment polygon assessment unit that goes outside of the park boundary (

Aquatic Threats

Figure 2-6). As 

such, the threat metrics presented in Table 5-6 reflect this additional area. Because Pratt Creek’s 

drainage area initiates within the boundaries of PERI threats to the stream within the park are 

fairly limited (Table 5-6, Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5). 
56 

Table 5-6. Quantified threats for Pea Ridge National Military Park. Values represent human threats within 

the stream catchment for Pratt Creek above the confluence with Lee Creek. 

Human Threat # or amount % or Density

Pasture/Hay 1392300 m2 48.41%

Road/Stream Crossings 3 1.04 pkm2

Road Length 8509 m 2959 pkm2

2000 Population 36 12.5 pkm2

Water quality information collected by the Heartland network in 2009 indicate that all indicators 

are presently on target for Pratt Creek (

Water Quality

Table 5-7). 

Table 5-7. Water quality indicators for Pratt Creek.

Indicator Management Target Mean1 Rating

Temperature ( C)

 2009 0-34 oC 13.2 On Target

Specific Conductance ( μS/cm @ 25 C)

 2009 100-400 μS/cm 230 On Target

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

 2009 5-15 mg/liter 9.6 On Target

pH

 2009 6.5-9.0 7.3 On Target

Turbidity (NTU)

 2009 <10 NTU 8.2 On Target

1 Mean from unpublished Heartland data.

The fish species that have been collected from Pratt Creek are generally associated with small 

streams in the Ozarks (Justus and Peterson 2005b). Based on the available collections, only five 

species have been documented to occur in the stream (

Fish Community Composition and Condition

Table 5-8). Of the three indices computed 

for Pratt Creek Simpson’s Diversity and benthic species composition are rated as on target, while 

only the IBI value of 53 is off target (Table 5-9). 

Table 5-8. Fish species observed1 in Pratt Creek.

Collected Species

Banded Sculpin

Creek Chub

Orangethroat Darter

Redspot Chub

Southern Redbelly Dace

1 Observed species from Justus and Peterson (2005b) and unpublished Heartland data.

Table 5-9. Ratings for five fish metrics computed for Pratt Creek. 

Indicator Management Target Reference Condition Current Mean Rating

Simpson's Diversity ≤0.64 0.61 0.62 On Target

Sucker Composition (%) N/A N/A 0.00 N/A

Sunfish Composition (%) N/A N/A 0.00 N/A

Benthic spp. Composition (%) ≥12.8 25.5 21.80 On Target

Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) >60 80 53 Off Target
57

The conservation status of a species is designated by a number from 1 to 5, preceded by a letter 

designating the geographic scale of the assessment (G = Global; S = State). The five point scale 

ranges from 1 (critically imperiled) to 5 (demonstrably secure). Additional qualifiers may be 

applied to the scale. The conservation status numbers designate the following (NatureServe 

2008):

1= Critically imperiled

2 = imperiled

3 = Vulnerable to extirpation or extinction

4 = Apparently secure

5 = Demonstrable widespread, abundant, and secure

Determining which and how many species are secure or imperiled is important for understanding 

the condition of an ecosystem and for targeting conservation. No fish species collected from 

Pratt Creek are designated as critically imperiled (G1), imperiled (G2), or vulnerable to 

extirpation (G3) on a global scale (Table 5-10). There are no S1, S2, or S3 fish species known to 

occur in Pratt Creek in the park. 

Table 5-10. Number of globally listed (G-rank) and state listed (S-rank) fish species from actual 

collections for Pratt Creek in Pea Ridge National Military Park.

Rank Collection

G4 1

G5 4

S? 5

Because of a lack of available data aquatic invertebrate could not be assessed for Pratt Creek.

Aquatic Invertebrates

Reporting Unit: Winton Spring Branch

Because of the mapping scale threats in Winton Spring Branch were not directly assessed. 

However, because Winton Spring Branch is entirely within the boundary of PERI threats to this 

spring branch are likely minimal. 

Aquatic Threats

Like Pratt Creek, all of the water quality indicators assessed of Winton Spring Branch are rated 

as being on target over the available period of record (

Water Quality

Table 5-11). Temperature, dissolved 

oxygen and pH readings have been fairly stable of the available three years of data, while 

specific conductance and turbidity have exhibited more variability. 
58 

Table 5-11. Water quality indicators for Winton Spring Branch.

Indicator Management Target Mean1 Rating

Temperature ( C)

 2004 0-34 oC 14.3 On Target

 2005 0-34 o

C 14.4 On Target

 2006 0-34 oC 14.0 On Target

 2009 0-34 oC 13.6 On Target

 Mean 0-34 o

C 14.1 On Target

Specific Conductance ( μS/cm @ 25 C)

 2004 100-400 μS/cm 181.0 On Target

 2005 100-400 μS/cm 300.0 On Target

 2006 100-400 μS/cm 347.5 On Target

 2009 100-400 μS/cm 272.1 On Target

 Mean 100-400 μS/cm 275.2 On Target

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

 2004 5-15 mg/liter 8.0 On Target

 2005 5-15 mg/liter 8.2 On Target

 2006 5-15 mg/liter 8 3 On Target

 2009 5-15 mg/liter 9.6 On Target

 Mean 5-15 mg/liter 8.5 On Target

pH

 2004 6.5-9.0 7 1 On Target

 2005 6.5-9.0 7 1 On Target

 2006 6.5-9.1 7.8 On Target

 2009 6.5-9.0 7.0 On Target

 Mean 6.5-9.0 7 3 On Target

Turbidity (NTU)

 2004 <10 NTU 8 9 On Target

 2005 <10 NTU 1.4 On Target

 2006 <10 NTU 0.7 On Target

 2009 <10 NTU 2 1 On Target

 Mean <10 NTU 3 3 On Target

1 Mean from Moore and Keaton (undated) and unpublished Heartland data.

Only as single fish species, the banded sculpin, has been documented to occur in Winton Spring 

Branch which limits any assessment (

Fish Community Composition

Table 5-12). 

Table 5-12. Fish species observed1 in Winton Spring Branch. 

Collected Species

Banded Sculpin

1 Observed species from Justus and Peterson (2005b).

Because of a lack of available data aquatic invertebrate could not be assessed for Winton Spring 

Branch. 

Aquatic Invertebrates
59

Chapter 6 Integrated Evaluation and Discussion

Logic-based Evaluation

Bringing together lots of metrics from numerous natural systems with the intention of assessing 

the condition of the park natural resources yields an impressive amount of information to 

interpret. To facilitate the interpretation of the condition assessment, a logic-based evaluation 

was undertaken. Integrating multiple evaluations into a single model requires an ecological 

understanding of the relationships among all of the model components. The ecological 

relationships are reflected in the logical connections used to create a unified framework. 

A logic model-based framework was created to evaluate each indicator for which both current 

data and a management target were available. This type of framework is focused on the logical 

relationship of components within and among reporting units as presented in the previous 

chapter. The framework is hierarchical so that indicators within an attribute are evaluated as 

well as attributes within a resource type and/or reporting unit. A hierarchical framework allows 

for integrated analysis among different components of the resource types and reporting units that 

are found within the park. The logic-based framework was designed to address the validity of the 

statement “the current condition approximates the management target”. If the statement is valid, 

then there is full support for the current condition approximating the management target. For

each level in the hierarchy, an assessment score is provided that corresponds to the degree that 

the statement is valid. Result scores are on a [0 – 1] scale with zero reflecting that there is no 

validity (i.e. no support) to the statement while a score of one signifies that the statement is valid

(i.e. full support). In addition, scores between zero and one provide a continuum of degree of 

validity which allows for partial support to be recognized. Evaluation scoring is based on fuzzy 

logic sets in which all degrees of support, not just binary “yes/no”, are reported. Here each level 

in the hierarchy can be presented individually or as a partial assessment for all reporting units. 

A logic-based integrated analysis is not a quantitative analysis of the park resources; rather it is a 

method of qualitative reasoning. The framework reflects expert knowledge about the park 

resources and provides a formal structure of how the resource components can be arranged or 

summarized. Such a method represents only one interpretation of the relationships within and 

among levels of the hierarchical framework. The core of the logic model evaluation is the 

knowledge base. Here we refer to a knowledge base as a formal and logical representation of 

best available information. Integrating data from many different attributes into a single 

knowledge base allows for a transparent synthesis and evaluation of park resources. This type of 

analysis is learning based and focused on supporting the decision making processes related to 

natural resource management. 

Methods

The Natural Resource Condition Assessment per the national guidance represents the most up-todate knowledge base of the parks resources. The logic model for evaluating all reporting units 

and associated resource types was graphically designed with NetWeaver Developer software 

(Rules of Thumb, Inc., North East, PA). This software uses a logic engine, similar to a database 

engine found in relational database software, to run the analysis. The knowledge base reflects the 

relationships between reporting units, resource types, attributes and indicators as presented in 

earlier chapters and tables included therein.
60

Components of the knowledge base have been arranged into a hierarchical framework. Topics 

within each level of the hierarchy are joined together by logical operators. These operators form 

a logic model upon which the knowledge base is evaluated. The complete logic model for 

evaluating the current condition of resource types represents one possible logical interpretation 

of attributes and indicators. The reporting unit and all lower levels in the hierarchy can be 

modified to include new management objectives or logical relationships. The flexibility of the 

model means that any topic can be removed or added and most importantly, reference conditions 

can be updated throughout the adaptive management process. 

The hierarchical framework reflects the nested arrangement of both spatially delineated areas 

within the park boundary (i.e. reporting unit) and assessment metrics (i.e. attributes and 

indicators) arranged within natural resource types in those areas (Figure 6-1).

Figure 6-1. Hierarchical framework used in the integrated analysis of the Natural Resource Condition 

Assessment.

Applying the hierarchical arrangement (Figure 6-1) to the NRCA creates a framework that 

illustrates the relationships of all reporting units to their resource types, attributes and indicators 

(Figure 6-2, Figure 6-3). All topics in the logic-model correspond to the NRCA. Each node or 

level in the hierarchy represents the relationship of attributes and/or indicators within a resource 

type or reporting unit. 
61

Figure 6-2. Higher levels of the model framework that reflect logical relationship of resource type (dark 

green) within reporting unit (blue) for the terrestrial assessment. Attributes are labeled light green.

Figure 6-3. Higher levels of the model framework that reflect logical relationship of resource types within 

reporting unit (blue) for the aquatic assessment.

Logical operators

Indicators, attributes and resource types are evaluated at their next higher level in the model 

according to logical operators. These operators reflect the logical relationship within levels and 
62

how each topic contributes to the evaluation of the resource condition. Nearly all model topics 

are joined by the union operator. Topics related by a union incrementally contribute to the 

overall evaluation of the next higher level of the model. All metrics connected by a union 

operator contribute equally to the evaluation. Here the assumption is that each topic in the 

knowledge base contributes equally to the ability of the current condition to approximate the 

management target.

In a single case, indicators are related by an and operator. This type of operator requires that all 

indicators must be fully supported in order for the overall attribute evaluation to be supported. 

The landscape composition indicators are joined by the and operator. Therefore for current 

landscape condition to approximate the management target both patch count and mean patch size 

must be fully supported. If either indicator is not fully satisfied, then the landscape composition 

attribute will evaluate to no support.

Management target range

For each indicator within the hierarchical knowledge base an assessment is performed to 

determine how closely the current condition (input) coincides with the range of management 

targets (no support and full support columns in Table 6-1). Again, level of support reflects the

degree to which the evaluation statement is valid. This target range was derived from 

management targets presented at the indicator level in Table 5-1. Converting management targets 

into a range of values from which the degree of support for the evaluation statement can be 

assessed is the basis of the integrated analysis. A conservative approach was used to develop the 

evaluation range of values from the initial management targets in chapter 5. Full support for the 

evaluation statement corresponds to the management target value(s) in Table 5-1. For those 

indicators with a management target greater than (>) or equal to (≥) a target number in Table 5-1, 

the “no support” management target value was set to 50% less than the stated target. This 

resulted in a range of values from no support (management target – 50%) to full support 

(management target). The opposite methodology was applied to those indicators with 

management target less than (<) or equal to (≤) a target number in Table 5-1, the “no support” 

management target value was set to 50% more than the stated target. For these indicators the 

target range is from no support (management target + 50%) to full support (management target). 

In some cases the management target is a range of values (i.e. pH). Therefore full support 

corresponds to any value within the management target range presented in Table 5-1. No 

support values are derived from ± 50% of the range of full support values. For example, the 

range of full support for pH is 6.5 – 9.0, which is a spread of 2.5. Half of this spread (1.3) was 

subtracted from 6.5 and added to 9.0 to provide no support values of ≤ 5.2 or ≥ 10.3. This 

method was used in order to provide the most information as to how closely the current condition 

approximates the management target when the statement is not supported. The type of 

management target range is indicative of the type of evaluation ramp function used in the 

assessment.

Evaluation ramp

For each topic in the model (from reporting unit to resource type and down to indicator) there is 

an evaluation statement. The statement defines what is being evaluated at that level in the model 

(e.g. mean patch size or total area occupied by a community type) and always reflects the degree 

of validity for the statement. Full support (strength of evidence = 1.0) for the statement that mean 

patch size approximates the management target in the upland grassland community is determined 
63

by comparing the current input value against the management target (Figure 6-4). The 

management target range is the evaluation ramp function in NetWeaver. The ramp function 

indicates that an area of 150 ha or greater provides full support for the statement while an area of 

75 ha or smaller provides no support (zero strength of evidence) for the condition being valid. 

This is the most common evaluation ramp function used in the analysis. All indicators with a 

target composed of a range between two values have this type of ramp function and subsequent 

analysis is similar to mean patch size (Figure 6-1).

Figure 6-4. NetWeaver ramp function used to evaluate area (ha) of semi-natural grassland at Pea Ridge 

National Military Park, Arkansas.

Ramp functions reflect the type of evaluation required to assess the specific indicator and are 

based on ecological understanding of the underlying data being evaluated. For certain aspects of 

water quality too much or too little of a condition may not be appropriate for the community 

(Figure 6-5). A middle range of pH best reflects a valid pH condition for all three streams within 

the park. 
64

Figure 6-5. NetWeaver ramp function used to evaluate pH for all three aquatic reporting unit’s of Pea 

Ridge National Military Park, Arkansas.

Indicators with management targets and associated ramp functions similar to pH (Figure 6-5) 

represent the idea that more is not always better. For these indicators, an optimum range of 

values have been identified. Therefore full support (strength of evidence = 1.0) is achieved when 

the input value is between 6.5 and 9.0. No support (strength of evidence = 0) reflects any input 

value ≤ 5.2 or ≥ 10.3. Input values for pH between 5.2 and 6.5 or between 9.0 and 10.3 evaluate 

to partial support for the current condition of pH approximating the management target. 

Evaluation output

Evaluation results obtained from NetWeaver are rescaled to [0 -1] to facilitate interpretation. The 

continuous normalized scores have been divided into seven color coded categories that reflect 

the degree to which the current condition approximates the management target (Figure 6-6). No 

support (output score = 0) is red while full support (output score = 1) is dark blue. Five partial 

support categories were created based on 0.2 breaks in scores between 0.01 and 0.99.
65

Figure 6-6. Color coded evaluation score categories derived from rescaled NetWeaver evaluation scores.

Numerical evaluations of fuzzy logic models provide a continuous range of results. The 

categorized output can be used to build dashboard reporting to increase ease of interpretation. 

The logic model, as implemented in NetWeaver, is focused on interpretation rather than 

prediction of the current conditions.

Results

The results of the integrated analysis reflect the evaluation of validity of the statement: “the 

current condition approximates the management target”. The direct evaluation of current 

conditions is performed at the indicator level only. Above this level, evaluation scores are a 

function of the direct evaluation score below and the logical operator linking the indicators. 

Together, scores are passed upward in the hierarchy which allows for the evaluation of attributes, 

resource types and reporting units indirectly. As the NetWeaver output scores approach 1.0 the 

degree of support for the validity of the statement increases while scores closer to zero point to 

less support for the current condition approximating the management target. Even though this is 

not a quantitative analysis of indicators, it is a qualitative evaluation of the best available 

knowledge as identified by the Natural Resource Condition Assessment. 

Results are presented and summarized to the reporting unit. Evaluation scores are presented for 

each level of the hierarchy up to the reporting unit level of the framework (Figure 6-7, Figure 

6-8).
66

Figure 6-7. Color coded evaluation results for each terrestrial reporting unit and its associated resource 

type and/or attributes.

Figure 6-8. Color coded evaluation results for each aquatic reporting unit and its associated resource 

types.

Reporting Unit: Park-wide

Overall support for the park wide reporting unit was moderately low (output score = 0.4). The 

number of community patches throughout the park was too high while their mean patch size was 
67

too small, which resulted in no support (output score = 0) for landscape composition at the park 

wide scale (Table 6-1). This reflects a fragmented landscape composed of numerous small 

patches. There was moderately high support (output score = 0.78) for the composition of those 

patches, primarily because of the amount of cultural land cover type in the park. Park wide, the 

landscape contained more successional community types over natural or semi-natural types.

Across the park, there was full support for the breeding bird indicators approximating the 

management targets for both species composition and habitat. Indicators for grassland and 

woodland composition as well as grassland and woodland bird habitat all had output scores = 1.

Invasive exotic plants, while low in abundance as measured by foliar cover (output score = 1) 

were high in frequency of taxa (output score = 0). The number of invasive exotic taxa provided 

moderately high support for the evaluation (output score = .67). The high frequency of invasive 

plants offset the low abundance evaluation which resulted in an overall moderate support for the 

impact of invasive exotic plants approximating the management target.

Air quality, while beyond the scope of the park boundary, had low support for approximating the 

management target. Atmospheric deposition did not provide any support while the amount of 

ozone detected was nearly greater than the management target.

High deer abundance impacted the overall park-wide evaluation (output score = 0) and offset 

higher output scores of other resource types in the reporting unit.
68 

Table 6-1. Rescaled NetWeaver output scores for the integrated analysis of the park wide reporting unit 

of Pea Ridge National Military Park, Arkansas.

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator No Support

Full 

Support Input Score

Parkwide 0.4

Vegetation 0.26

Landscape composition 0

patch count 1500 1000 1697 0

mean patch size (ha) 1 2 1.01 0.01

Land use/Land cover 0.78

semi-natural and natural types (ha) 600 1200 946 0.58

successional types (ha) 750 500 748 0.01

cultural types (ha) 52.5 35 22 1

Breeding bird community 1

grassland composition 1

grassland species richness 18 35 35 1

Partners in Flight target grassland species 6 12 12 1 

number of grassland obligate species 1 3 3 1 

grassland habitat 1 

litter cover (%) 17.5 35 39.5 1 

bare ground cover (%) 75 50 47.6 1 

total foliar cover (%) 20 40 44 1 

woodland composition 1 

woodland species richness 22 43 43 1 

Partners in Flight target woodland species 6 11 11 1 

woodland habitat 1 

canopy cover (%) 37.5 75 87.8 1 

basal area (m2/ha) ≤ 3 or ≥ 19 7 - 15 7.8 1 

mid-story structural diversity index (%) ≤ 17 5 or ≥ 52.5 25 - 40 30.4 1 

White-tailed deer 0 

index of relative abundance 

(individuals/km2) 12 8 33.7 0 

Invasive exotic plant impact 0.56

number of taxa 45 30 35 0.67

frequency on transects (%) 75 50 84.2 0 

park-wide minimum cover estimate (%) 15 10 4.5 1

Air quality 0.18

Ozone

ozone (ppb) 76.0 60 70.4 0.35

Atmospheric deposition 0

nitrogen (kg/ha/yr) 3.0 1 11.7 0

sulfur (kg/ha/yr) 3.0 1 9.8 0
69 

Reporting Unit: Bottomland Forest

Overall support for the bottomland forest reporting unit was low (output score = .2, Table 6-2).

This reporting unit was evaluated only for landscape vegetation attributes, of which there was 

little support for the current condition approximating the management targets. In the bottomland 

forest, patch count was high while mean patch size was low. In addition too much of the 

reporting unit was identified as successional community type rather than a natural bottomland 

forest community type. 

Table 6-2. Rescaled NetWeaver output scores for the integrated analysis of the bottomland forest 

reporting unit of Pea Ridge National Military Park, Arkansas.

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator

No 

Support

Full 

Support Input Score

Bottomland forest 0.2

Landscape composition 0

patch count for bottomland forest 68 45 66 0.09

mean patch size for bottomland 

forest (ha) 0.5 1 0.38 0

Land use/Land cover 0 39

bottomland forest (ha) 14 28 25 0.79

successional types (ha) 4.5 3 15 0

Reporting Unit: Semi-natural Grassland

Overall support for the semi-natural grassland reporting unit approximating the management 

target was moderately high (output score = .87, Table 6-3). Unlike other terrestrial reporting 

units both the landscape composition and land use/land cover attributes fully support the current 

condition approximating the management targets for each indicator. However the low amount of 

native grass cover across the grassland reduced the overall evaluation score of the herbaceous 

guild composition attribute. This might have resulted from a large amount of non-native grass 

cover or the timing of data collection before warm-season grass cover peaks.

Table 6-3. Rescaled NetWeaver output scores for the integrated analysis of the semi-natural grassland 

reporting unit of Pea Ridge National Military Park, Arkansas.

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator No Support

Full 

Support Input Score

Semi-natural grassland 0.87

Landscape composition 1

patch count for grassland 12 7 7 1

mean patch size for semi-natural 

grassland (ha) 33 22 22 1

Land use/Land cover 1

semi-natural grassland (ha) 75 150 158 1

successional types (ha) 15 10 1.24 1

Herbaceous guild composition 0.61

native grass (%) 30 60 28.5 0

native forbs (%) ≤ 2 or ≥ 55 10 - 40 8.6 0.83

native woody shrub and vine (%) 15 10 1 1
70 

Reporting Unit: Dry Woodland

Overall support for the dry woodland reporting unit is moderate (output score = .5, Table 6-4). 

Landscape composition and land use/land cover attributes had no support and low support, 

respectively for the current condition approximating the management targets. Even though the 

numerous small patches were not all in the dry woodland community type, they did have the 

appropriate amount of hardwood canopy cover and stem density (output scores = 1). Overall 

canopy height of hardwood trees showed full support for the management target. There was only 

moderate support for hardwood basal area (output score = .51). The basal area of cover type oak 

species did not show any support while basal area for hickory and walnut cover type species had 

full support. In the understory, native guild composition support was moderately high while 

regeneration of oak, hickory and walnut cover type species was low. 

Table 6-4. Rescaled NetWeaver output scores for the integrated analysis of the dry woodland reporting

unit of Pea Ridge National Military Park, Arkansas.

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator No Support

Full 

Support Input Score

Dry woodland 0.5

Landscape composition 0

patch count for dry woodland 60 40 59 0.05

mean patch size for dry woodland (ha) 1.5 3 1 3 0

Land use/Land cover 0.27

dry woodland (ha) 50 100 77 0.54

successional types (ha) 22.5 15 40 0

Structural class 0.84

hardwood canopy cover (%) ≤ 5 or ≥ 95 30 - 90 86.5 1

hardwood basal area (m2/ha) ≤ 2 or ≥ 29 6.5 - 21.5 4 29 0.51

density (stems/ha, trees > 8 cm dbh) ≤ 25 or ≥ 675 150 - 500 313 1

Cover type 0.5

oak species basal area (m2/ha) ≤ 2 or ≥ 29 4.2 - 17.2 1 23 0

hickory and walnut species basal area 

(m2

/ha) ≤ .25 or ≥ 11 0.65 - 7.5 0.81 1 

Regeneration 0.20

cover type small saplings (>1.5 m tall, < 2.5 

cm dbh) relative density (% of stems/ha) 15 30 0 0

cover type large saplings (>1.5 m tall; > 2.5 

and < 8 cm dbh) relative density (% of 

stems/ha) 15 30 20 0.67

total cover type sapling relative density (% 

of stems/ha) 15 30 18.8 0.25

Herbaceous guild composition 0.67

native grass (%) ≤ 5 or ≥ 95 10 - 90 10 1 

native forbs (%) ≤ .99 or ≥ 45 1 - 30 3 1 

native woody shrub (%) 25 50 5.7 0 

Structure

 hardwood tree height (m) 5 10 11.1 1 
71 

Reporting Unit: Typic Woodland

Overall support for the upland woodland reporting unit is moderate (output score = .5, Table 

6-5). The typic woodland had similar levels of support as the dry woodland for the landscape 

and overstory structural attributes. However the typic woodland showed greater support for 

cover type and regeneration attributes than the dry woodland reporting unit. The two types 

differed in the level of support for native guild composition in the understory with the typic 

woodlands being less than the dry woodland (0.35 vs. 0.67) due to the lack of native woody 

species and native grass in the typic woodland.

Table 6-5. Rescaled NetWeaver output scores for the integrated analysis of the typic woodland reporting 

unit of Pea Ridge National Military Park, Arkansas.

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator No Support

Full 

Support Input Score

Typic woodland 0.5

Landscape composition 0 

patch count for typic woodland 263 175 483 0 

mean patch size for typic woodland (ha) 1.25 2 5 1.68 0.34

Land use/Land cover 0.27

typic woodland (ha) 525 1050 811 0.54

successional types (ha) 300 200 455 0 

Structural class 0.8

hardwood canopy cover (%) 55 70 88.1 1 

hardwood basal area (m2/ha) ≤ 6.5 or ≥ 36.5 14 - 29 9.5 0.4

density (stems/ha, trees > 8 cm dbh) ≤ 69 or ≥ 706 175 - 600 323 1 

Cover type 0.69

oak species basal area (m2/ha) ≤ 1.8 or ≥ 30.8 9 - 23.5 4.5 0.38

hickory and walnut species basal area 

(m2/ha) ≤ 1 or ≥ 14 2 - 10 2 1

Regeneration 0.39

cover type small saplings (>1.5 m tall, < 2.5 

cm dbh) relative density (% of stems/ha) 15 30 5.6 0 

cover type large saplings (>1.5 m tall; > 2.5 

and < 8 cm dbh) relative density (% of 

stems/ha) 15 30 25.7 0.71

total cover type sapling relative density (% 

of stems/ha) 15 30 21.7 0.45

Herbaceous guild composition 0.35

native grass (%) ≤ 5 or ≥ 95 10 - 80 6.8 0.03

native forbs (%) ≤ .99 or ≥ 60 1 - 40 7.4 1 

native woody shrub (%) ≤ 5 or ≥ 67.5 15 - 50 4.1 0 

Structure

 hardwood tree height (m) 7.5 15 18 1 

Reporting Unit: Pratt Creek

Overall support for Pratt Creek reporting unit was high (output score = .94, Table 6-6). For each 

of the two resource types output scores ranged from 1 (water quality) to .88 (fish community).
72

Overall high output scores in the hierarchy reflect moderate or better support for most lower 

levels in the reporting unit logic model. Only a single indicator did not have full support for the 

evaluation statement (IBI output score = .77).

Table 6-6. Rescaled NetWeaver output scores for the integrated analysis of the Pratt Creek reporting unit 

of Pea Ridge National Military Park, Arkansas.

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator No Support

Full 

Support Input Score

Pratt Creek 0.94

Fish community 0.88

Composition 1

Simpson's Diversity 0.96 0.64 0.62 1

benthic species composition 

(%) 6.4 12.8 21.8 1

Condition 0.5

Index of Biotic Integrity 30 60 53 0.77

Water quality 1

temperature (oC) ≤ -17 or ≥ 51 0 - 34 13.2 1

specific conductance 

(μS/cm) 0 or ≥ 550 100 - 400 230.0 1

dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 0 or ≥ 20 5 - 15 9.6 1

pH ≤ 5.2 or ≥ 10.3 6.5 - 9.0 7.3 1

turbidity (NTU) 15 10 8.2 1

Reporting Unit: Winton Spring Branch

Winton Spring Branch reporting unit was evaluated only on water quality resource type. For all 

indicators in the reporting unit there was full support for the current condition approximating the 

management target (Table 6-7).

Table 6-7. Rescaled NetWeaver output scores for the integrated analysis of the Pratt Creek reporting unit 

of Pea Ridge National Military Park, Arkansas.

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator No Support

Full 

Support Input Score

Winton Spring Branch 1

Water quality 1

temperature (oC) ≤ -17 or ≥ 51 0 - 34 13.6 1

specific conductance 

(μS/cm) 0 or ≥ 550 100 - 400 272.1 1

dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 0 or ≥ 20 5 - 15 9.6 1

pH ≤ 5.2 or ≥ 10.3 6.5 - 9.0 7.0 1

turbidity (NTU) 15 10 2.1 1

Discussion

The integrated analysis provides one way to evaluate a large number of NRCA components in a 

simplified manner. The logic-based evaluation achieves this level of simplification by first 
73

arranging all of the variables into a hierarchical framework which represents their ecological 

relationships. Secondly, this analysis makes the assumption that all variables within each level of 

the hierarchy contribute equally to the overall evaluation. Building off quantitative measures and 

expert reasoning that were employed in the NRCA to develop reference conditions, a qualitative 

evaluation of how closely the current condition approximates the management target was 

undertaken. Here the emphasis is on the evaluation statement, or the idea of how closely the 

current condition approximates the management target, and the logical relationship among the 

variables. The strength of this analysis is that it provides formal structure to a multi-faceted 

natural resource so that an orderly interpretation of the entire knowledge base can be performed. 

Ultimately it allows numerous components from multiple systems to be evaluated in a way that 

creates the foundation for future decision making processes. It is important to remember that the 

logic model represents only one of many different examples of the ecological relationships 

within the natural system. However, due to the modular nature of designing logic models within 

NetWeaver and the transparency of the logical relationships, it is easy to iterate on various 

logical relationships such that all aspects of the natural resources are best evaluated. 

Color coded output categories allow for quick interpretation of the framework. Looking at 

specific output scores provides greater detail for understanding the degree of departure for 

support for the evaluation statement. Together, these two types of reporting evaluation results 

can be used to direct decision making priorities or taken as input for decision making software.

Terrestrial communities at PERI consist broadly of two types that correspond with geology and 

topography. Generally hillier areas in the central and northern part are covered with a mix of 

fairly good quality upland oak-hickory woodlands and forests and lower quality, well-defined 

old fields with eastern redcedar. Dry oak woodlands on Pea Ridge (Elkhorn Mountain) itself and 

slopes on the north side appear to be in especially good condition, with appropriate species 

composition and structure. Patchiness within the forest is a concern, but patch numbers may be 

somewhat inflated by interdigitation of different good quality forest types within a continuously 

forested landscape. Also, the woodland reporting unit was defined based primarily on site 

potential, with most areas that were likely wooded in pre-European times included. This leads to 

the inclusion of grasslands within the reporting unit, and adds to the patch count and area of 

successional types. In contrast, the semi-natural grassland reporting unit was circumscribed 

based primarily on current vegetation, which tends to reduce patch count and the area of 

successional types other than semi-natural grassland. 

Flatter and generally lower central and southern areas of the park are generally dominated by 

mowed semi-natural tall fescue grasslands, some currently within the cultural recovery unit, 

some within the semi-natural grassland recovery unit, and some even within the typic woodland 

reporting unit on the far western. Many of these areas are maintained to facilitate interpretation 

of battlefield conditions, and the composition includes many non-native and disturbance species 

across large, continuous, often-mowed areas. Prairie restoration efforts have been partially 

successful in at least two patches, most notably the northern-most patch of the semi-natural 

grassland recovery unit on the west side of the park, which forms a continuous grassland 

landscape with lower quality areas immediately to the north and east (see Figure 5-3). 

Most eastern redcedar stands in old fields are likely to be over-topped by deciduous trees over 

time, even in the absence of much active management (Nelson 2005). Few invasive and exotic 
74

species occur in woodlands, and relatively continuous stands of forest provide some areas of 

mature habitat important to breeding birds of continental concern such as the Acadian Flycatcher 

and the Yellow-throated Vireo. Management options for most of the successional grasslands are 

limited by park interpretive goals. Two grassland obligate species, the Grasshopper Sparrow and 

the Henslow's Sparrow, are generally restricted to areas that are not mowed too frequently 

overall, and not during the breeding season. Successional deciduous sparse woodlands and 

shrublands, which comprise <4% of the park, may provide habitat diversity important to 

breeding birds of continental concern. In this regard, active management to increase the amount 

of successional deciduous woody vegetation may be at the expense of semi-natural grassland 

(not woodland) may be advisable. 

Data availability was limited for the aquatic assessments in PERI, but indicates that stream 

condition is generally good. The fish species found in PERI are generally associated with very 

small Ozark Plateau streams. Most streams flowing through PERI benefit from originating 

within the confines of the park and are thereby subject to fewer potential threats. Because both 

streams assessed in this report originate within the park most management can be focused on the 

lands managed by NPS. Management options include maintaining and widening riparian buffers 

with native trees and vegetation and limiting impervious surfaces throughout the park.

Additional aquatic inventories are needed which would help present a more complete picture of 

the condition of aquatic resources within PERI and make the assessment of additional aquatic 

reporting units possible.
75

Literature Cited

Alabaster, J.S., and R. Lloyd. 1982. Water quality criteria for freshwater fish. Butterworth 

Publisher, London, UK.

Annis, G.M., S.P. Sowa, D.D. Diamond, M.D. Combes, K.E. Doisy, A.J. Garringer, and P. 

Hanberry. 2010. Developing synoptic human threat indices for assessing the ecological 

integrity of freshwater ecosystems in EPA Region 7. Final Report, EPA Project CD98768101-0, Columbia, Missouri.

Bain, M.B., J.T. Finn, and H.E. Booke. 1988. Streamflow regulation and fish community 

structure. Ecology 69: 382-392.

Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid bioassessment 

protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrate, 

and fish, 2nd edition. EPA 841-B-99-002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, D.C.

Bearss, E.C. 1962. Documented narrative to support historical features and vegetative cover 

shown on the Pea Ridge Historical Base Map. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 

Berkman, H.E., and C.F. Rabeni. 1987. Effect of siltation on stream fish communities. 

Environmental Biology of Fishes 18:285-294.

Binkley, D. and T.C. Brown. 1993. Forest practices as nonpoint sources of pollution in North 

America. Water Resources Bulletin 29:729-740.

Bowles, D.E. 2010. Aquatic invertebrate monitoring at Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield: 

2005-2007 trend report. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR2010/287. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Bowles, D., N. Moore, and K. Eads. 2010. Salamanders as indicators of water quality. The 

Weather Vane: The Newsletter of the Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network 6:1.

Brown, D., and J. Czarnezki. Undated. Missouri streams fact sheet-chemical monitoring. 

Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri.

Canterbury, G.E., T.E. Martin, D.R. Petit, L.J. Petit, and D.F. Bradford. 2000. Bird communities 

and habitat as ecological indicators of forest condition in regional monitoring. 

Conservation Biology 14:544-558.

Chapman, S.S., J.M. Omernik, G.E. Griffith, W.A. Schroeder, T.A. Nigh, and T.F. Wilton. 2002. 

Ecoregions of Iowa and Missouri. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Collins, S.L. 2000. Disturbance frequency and community stability in native tallgrass prairie. 

The American Naturalist 155:311-325.
76

Coon, T.G. 1987. Interaction of disturbances in tallgrass prairie: a field experiment. Ecology 

68:1243-1250.

Cunjak, R.A. 1988. Physiological consequences of overwintering: the cost of acclimatization? 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:443-452.

Dauwalter, D.C., E.J. Pert, and W.E. Keith. 2003. An index of biotic integrity for fish 

assemblages in Ozark Highland streams of Arkansas. Southeastern Naturalist 2:447-468.

Diamond, D.D., C.D. True, S.P. Sowa, W.E. Foster, and K.B. Jones. 2005. Influence of targets 

and assessment region size on perceived conservation priorities. Environmental 

Management 35:130-137.

Dodd, H.R., D.G. Peitz, G.A. Rowell, D.E. Bowles, and L.M. Morrison. 2008. Protocol for 

monitoring fish communities at small streams parks in the Heartland Inventory and 

Monitoring Network. Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—2008/052. National 

Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. A framework for assessing and reporting on 

ecological condition: Executive summary. 

<http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/epec02009a.pdf>. Accessed 25 January 2011.

Fenn, M.E., J.S. Baron, E.B. Allen, H.M. Rueth, K.R. Nydick, W.D. Bowman, J.O. Sickman, T. 

Meixner, D.W. Johnson, and P. Neitlich. 2003. Ecological effects of nitrogen deposition 

in the Western United States. BioScience 53:404-420.

Hinterthuer, B. 2003. An invasive exotic plant inventory of Pea Ridge National Military Park. 

Technical Report NPS/HTLN/P6370010724. Nation Park Service, Republic, Missouri.

Hoefs, N.J., and T.P. Boyle. 1990. Fish community survey, Wilson’s Creek, MO. Water 

Resource Division, Applied Research Branch, National Park Service, Colorado State 

University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Hogsett, W.E., and C.P. Anderson. 1998. Ecological effects of tropospheric ozone: a U.S. 

perspective – past, present, and future. Pages 419-437 in T. Schneider, editor. Air 

Pollution in the 21st Century, Priority Issues and Policy. Studies in Environmental 

Science 72, Elsevier, Amsterdam.

James, K. 2008. Forest community monitoring baseline report, Pea Ridge National Military Park. 

Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2008/082. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Jenkins, S.E., R. Guyette, and A.J. Rebertus. 1997. Vegetation-site relationships and fire history 

of savanna-glade-woodland mosaic in the Ozarks. Pages 184-201 in S.G. Pallardy, R.A. 

Cecich, H.E. Garrett, P.S. Johnson, editors. Proceedings of 11th Central Hardwood Forest 

Conference. General Technical Report NC-188. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota. 
77

Joubert, L., and G. Loomis. 2005. Chepachet Village decentralized wastewater demonstration 

project. University of Rhode Island, College of the Environment and Life Sciences, 

Kingston, Rhode Island.

Justus, B.G., and J.C. Peterson. 2005a. The fishes of George Washington Carver National 

Monument, Missouri, 2003. Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5128. National Park 

Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Justus, B.G., and J.C. Peterson. 2005b. The fishes of Pea Ridge National Military Park, 

Arkansas, 2003. Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5129. National Park Service, U.S. 

Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Karr J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6:21-27.

Karr J.R., and I.J. Schlosser. 1978. Water resources and the land-water interface. Science 201: 

229-234.

Kirkpatrick, J.B., and M.J. Brown. 1994. A comparison of direct and environmental domain 

approaches to planning reservation of forest higher plant communities and species in 

Tasmania. Conservation Biology 8:217-224.

Krupa, S.V. 2003. Effects of atmospheric ammonia (NH3) on terrestrial vegetation: a review. 

Environmental Pollution 124:179-221.

Liu, J., and W.W. Taylor, editors. 2002. Integrating landscape ecology into natural resource 

management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Matthews, W.J. 1987. Physicochemical tolerance and selectivity of stream fishes as related to 

their geographic ranges and local distributions. Pages 111-120 in J.W. Matthews. and 

D.C. Heins, editors. Community and Evolutionary Ecology of North American Stream 

Fishes. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

McNab, W.H., and E.A. Avers. 1994. Ecological Subregions of the United States. U.S. Forest 

Service, Washington D.C.

Missouri Climate Center. 2010. Climate of Missouri. <http://climate.missouri.edu/climate.php>. 

Accessed 14 October 2010.

Mooney, H.A., and R.J. Hobbs. 2000. Invasive species in a changing world. Island Press, 

Washington, D.C.

Moore, N., and K. Keaton. Undated. Water quality study: Pea Ridge National Military Park Fall 

<http://faculty.nwacc.edu/lsuchy/Water Quality At Pea Ridge Military Park (Main 

Report).pdf>. Accessed 14 March 2011. 

Moulton, S.R., III, J.G. Kennen, R.M. Goldstein, and J.A. Hambrook. 2002. Revised protocols 

for sampling algal, invertebrate, and fish communities as part of the National Water-
78 

Quality Assessment Program. Open-file Report 02-150, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, 

Virginia. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2010a. Air quality estimates for the Inventory and Monitoring 

Program. <http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Maps/AirAtlas/IM materials.cfm>. Accessed 7 

February 2011. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2010b. Pea Ridge National Military Park home page. 

<http://www.nps.gov/peri/>. Accessed 4 February 2010. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2007a. Annual performance and progress report: Air quality in 

National Parks; Final October 2007. National Park Service Air Resource Division, U.S. 

Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2007b. Ecological effects of air pollution. 

<http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/AQBasics/ecologic.cfm/>. Accessed 21 September 2010. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2007c. First annual centennial strategy for Pea Ridge National 

Military Park. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2007d. Ozone risk assessment map. 

<http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/permits/aris/networks/ozoneriskassessmentmap.cfm/>. 

Accessed 8 October 2010. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2006. Ozone sensitive plant species, by park. 

<http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/permits/aris/docs/Ozone Sensitive ByPark 3600.pdf>. 

Accessed 16 November 2010. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2004. Assessing the risk of foliar injury from ozone on vegetation 

in parks in the Heartland Network. 

<http://www.nature.nps.gov/Pubs/pdf/03Risk/htlnO3RiskOct04.pdf>. Accessed 16 

November 2010. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2003. Fire monitoring handbook. Fire Management Program 

Center, National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, Idaho. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2002. Air quality in the National Parks: Second edition. National 

Park Service Air Resource Division, U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2001. Air quality monitoring considerations for the Heartland 

Network.

<http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/permits/aris/networks/docs/htlnAirQualitySummary.pdf

>. Accessed 16 November 2010. 

NatureServe. 2008. <http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.htm#interpret>. Accessed 11 

October 2010. 
79

Nelson, P.W. 2005. The terrestrial natural communities of Missouri. Missouri Natural Areas 

Committee, Jefferson City, Missouri.

Newcombe, C.P., and D.D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic 

ecosystems. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11:72-82.

Nigh, T.A., and W.A. Schroeder. 2002. Atlas of Missouri ecoregions. Missouri Department of 

Conservation, Columbia, Missouri.

Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation 

Biology 4:355-354.

Oliver, C.D., and B.C. Larson. 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics, updated edition. John Wiley and 

Sons, Inc., New York, New York.

Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at Pea Ridge National Military Park, Arkansas. 2008 status 

report. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR-2009/194. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Peitz, D.G. 2006. White-tailed deer monitoring at Pea Ridge National Military Park, Arkansas: 

2005-2006 status report. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR2006/015. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Peitz, D.G. 2005. Fish community monitoring in prairie park streams with emphasis on Topeka

Shiner (Notropis Topeka): summary report 2001-2004. National Park Service, Heartland 

I&M Network and Prairie Cluster Prototype Monitoring Program, Wilson’s Creek 

National Battlefield, Republic, Missouri. 

Peitz, D.G., G.A. Rowell, J.L. Haack, K.M. James, L.W. Morrison, and M.D. DeBacker. 2008. 

Breeding bird monitoring protocol for the Heartland Network Inventory and Monitoring 

Program. Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR-2008/044. National Park Service, 

Fort Collins, Colorado.

Peterson, J.C., and B.G. Justus. 2005a. The fishes of Hot Springs National Park, Arkansas, 2003. 

Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5126. National Park Service, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Peterson, J.C., and B.G. Justus. 2005b. The fishes of Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, 

Missouri, 2003. Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5127. National Park Service, U.S. 

Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Pflieger, W.L. 1997. The fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson 

City, Missouri.

Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L. Prestegaard, B.D. Richter, R.E. Sparks, and 

J.C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime. Bioscience 47:769-784.
80

Rabeni, C.F. 1993. Warmwater streams. Pages 427-443 in C.C. Kohler and W.A. Hubert, 

editors. Inland Fisheries Management in North America. American Fisheries Society, 

Bethesda, Maryland.

Resh, V.H., A.V. Brown, A.P. Covich, M.E. Gurtz, H.W. Li, G.W. Minshall, S.R. Reice, A.L. 

Sheldon, J.B. Wallace, and R.C. Wissmar. 1988. The role of disturbance in stream 

ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7:433-455.

Rice, E.L., and W.T. Penfound. 1955. An evaluation of the variable-radius and paired-tree 

methods in the Blackjack-Post Oak forest. Ecology 36:315-320.

Robison, H.W., and T.M. Buchanan. 1988. Fishes of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press, 

Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Schlosser, I.J. 1990. Environmental variation, life history attributes, and community structure in 

stream fishes: Implications for environmental management and assessment. 

Environmental Management 14:621-628.

Schlosser, I.J. 1985. Flow regime, juvenile abundance, and the assemblage structure of stream 

fishes. Ecology 66:1484-1490.

Schlosser, I.J., and K.K. Ebel. 1989. Effects of flow regime and cyprinid predation on a 

headwater stream. Ecological Monographs 59:41-57.

Scott, J.E., and D.T. Pitcaithley. 1979. National Register of Historic Places nomination form for 

Pea Ridge National Military Park. 

<http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/66000199.pdf>. Accessed 28 January 

2010.

Shuter, B. J., J.A. MacLean, F.E.J. Fry, and H. A. Regier. 1980. Stochastic simulation of 

temperature effects on first-year survival of smallmouth bass. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 109:1-34.

Smale, M.A., and C.F. Rabeni. 1991. The effects of special area land treatment (SALT) 

agricultural practices on the biological health of headwater streams. Missouri Department 

of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, Missouri.

Sowa, S.P., and C.F. Rabeni. 1995. Regional evaluation of the relation of habitat to distribution 

and abundance of smallmouth bass and largemouth bass in Missouri streams. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124:240-251.

Starrett, W.C. 1951. Some factors affecting the abundance of minnows in the Des Moines River, 

Iowa. Ecology 32:13-24.

Swetnam, T.W., C.D. Allen, and J.L. Betancourt. 1999. Applied historical ecology: Using the 

past to manage for the future. Ecological Applications 9:1189-1206.
81

U.S. Congress. 1987. Technologies to maintain biological diversity. Office of Technology 

Assessment, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E. Gushing. 1980. The river 

continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:130-137.

Waller, D.M., and W.S. Alverson. 1997. The white-tailed deer: a keystone herbivore. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 25:217-226.

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: Sources, biological effects, and control. American 

Fisheries Society, Monograph 7, Bethesda, Maryland.

Williams, M. H. 2009. An evaluation of biological inventory data collected at Pea Ridge 

National Military Park: Vertebrate and vascular plant inventories. Natural Resource 

Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/261. National Park Service, Fort Collins, 

Colorado.

Wright, C.A., G.E. Bradford, and D.E. Classen. 1970. Final report on vegetation of Pea Ridge 

National Military Park, Benton County, Arkansas. National Park Service, [Place of 

publication unknown].

Young, C.C., J.T. Cribbs, J.L. Haack, and H.J. Etheridge. 2007. Invasive exotic plant monitoring 

at Pea Ridge National Military Park: Year 1. Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/HTLN/NRTR-2007/019. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

83

Appendix A Data Source and Maps for All Potential Threats Included in the Human 

Threat Index
84

Figure A-1. Percentage of impervious surfaces above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.
85

Figure A-2. Percentage of cropland above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.
86

Figure A-3. Percentage of pasture/hay above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.
87

Figure A-4. Density of water wells above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.
88

Figure A-5. Density of major impoundments above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.
89

Figure A-6. Density of headwater impoundments above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.
90

Figure A-7. Length of roads above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.
91

Figure A-8. Density of road/stream crossings above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.
92

Figure A-9. Length of railroads above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.
93

Figure A-10. Density of rail/stream crossings above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.
94

Figure A-11. Length of pipelines above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.
95

Figure A-12. Density of crop pesticides above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.
96

Figure A-13. Density of population in 1990 above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.
97

Figure A-14. Density of population in 2000 above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.
98

Figure A-15. Change in population density from 1990 to 2000 above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for 

PERI.
99

Figure A-16. Amount of livestock sales above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.
100

Figure A-17. Density of airports above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.
101

Figure A-18. Density of dams above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.
102

Figure A-19. Density of other mines above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.
103

Figure A-20. Density of oil/gas wells above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.
104

Figure A-21. Density of leaking underground storage tanks above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.
105

Figure A-22. Density of waste water treatment facilities above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.
106

Figure A-23. Density of confined animal feeding operations above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.
107

Figure A-24. Density of landfills above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.
108

Figure A-25. Density of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) sites above every stream segment in the HUC 10 

and HUC 8 (inset) for PERI.
109

Figure A-26. Density of Resource Conservation Recovery sites above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for 

PERI.

111

Appendix B Summary of References for Current and Target Conditions for Each 

Attribute/Indicator 

Reporting Unit

Resource Type

Attribute Data/Information Sources Reference/Target Conditions

Park-wide

Vegetation

Landscape 

composition

Vegetation cover types were mapped from high resolution aerial imagary, 

potential vegetation, and soil map units

Targets based on professional judgement. Generally fewer 

patches of larger size are desirable.

Land use/Land 

cover

Vegetation cover types were assigned to three classes: natural, successional, 

and cultural

Targets based on professional judgement with the goal of 

increasing the area of natural vegetation while decreasing 

successional vegetation.

Breeding bird community

Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at Pea Ridge National Military Park, 

Arkansas 2008 status report. Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/194. National Park

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Targets represent 2008 baseline data collection. The goal is to 

maintain or enhance the breeding bird community. 

White-tailed deer http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/htln/library/Wildlife/Deer/PERI Deer 2005 2010 r.pdf

Peer reviewed literature reports that the ecological carrying 

capacity for deer is 8 indifividuals/km2 

Tilghman, Nancy G. 1989. Impacts of White-tailed Deer on 

forest regeneration in northwestern Pennsylvania. J. Wildlife 

Management 53(3):524-532.

Young, C.C, J.T. Cribbs, J.L. Haack, and H.J. Etheridge. 2007. Invasive exotic 

plant monitoring at Pea Ridge National Military Park: Year 1 (2006). Natural 

Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2007/019. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Targets are based on professional judgement, and focus on 

reducing, or not allowing further expansions, in the numbers and 

foliar cover of invasive plant speices within the park.

Air quality

Ozone 

Five-year average of the annual 4th-highest 8-hour ozone concentration from 

interpolated data between 2004 - 2008. 

See:http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Maps/AirAtlas/IM_materials.cfm

EPA standard of < 75ppb established in 2008

Atmoshperic 

deposition

Five-year average concentration from interpolated data between 2004 - 2008. 

See:http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Maps/AirAtlas/IM_materials.cfm

NPS (2007a) reports that wet deposition amounts of less than 1 

kg/ha/yr do not cause ecosystem harm. 

Bottomland forest

Landscape 

Composition

Vegetation cover types were mapped from high resolution aerial imagary, 

potential vegetation, and soil map units

Targets based on professional judgement. Generally fewer 

patches of larger size are desirable.

Land Use/Land 

Cover

Vegetation cover types were assigned to three classes: natural, successional, 

and cultural

Targets based on professional judgement with the goal of 

increasing the area of natural vegetation while decreasing 

successional vegetation.

Invasive exotic plant 

impact
112

Reporting Unit

Resource Type

Attribute Data/Information Sources Reference/Target Conditions

Semi-natural grassland reporting unit

Landscape 

Composition

Vegetation cover types were mapped from high resolution aerial imagary, 

potential vegetation, and soil map units

Targets based on professional judgement. Generally fewer 

patches of larger size are desirable.

Land Use/Land 

Cover

Vegetation cover types were assigned to three classes: natural, successional, 

and cultural

Targets based on professional judgement with the goal of 

increasing the area of restorede prairie with native warm-season 

grasses and forbs and fewer shrubs and vines. 

Diversity and 

herbacous guild 

composition

Habitat data from Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at Pea Ridge National 

Military Park, Arkansas 2008 status report. Natural Resource Technical 

Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/194. National Park

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Professional judgement was used to set targets for the upland 

grasslands with the goal of increasing the cover of native warmseason grasses and forbs, and decreasing the cover of shrubs 

and vines. Professional Judgement was informed by 

community descriptions in Appendix C. 

Dry woodland reporting unit

Landscape 

Composition

Vegetation cover types were mapped from high resolution aerial imagary, 

potential vegetation, and soil map units

Targets based on professional judgement. Generally fewer 

patches of larger size are desirable.

Land Use/Land 

Cover

Vegetation cover types were assigned to three classes: natural, successional, 

and cultural

Targets based on professional judgement with the goal of 

increasing the area of natural vegetation while decreasing 

successional vegetation.

Structural class

Habitat data from Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at Pea Ridge National 

Military Park, Arkansas 2008 status report. Natural Resource Technical 

Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/194. National Park

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Professional judgement was used to set targets for the 

woodland. Professional Judgement was informed by 

community descriptions in Appendix C, and:

Canopy cover and basal area from Nelson (2005) and Missouri 

Forest and Woodland Natural Community Profiles 

(http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/17524.doc, accessed: 

10/15/2010). 

Stem density range of values from Jenkins, S.E., R. Guyette, 

and A.J. Rebertus. 1997. Vegetation-site relationships and fire 

history of savanna-glade-woodland mosaic in the Ozarks. 

Pages 184-201 in S.G. Pallardy, R.A. Cecich, H.E. Garrett, and 

P.S. Johnson, editors. Proceedings of 11th Central Hardwood 

Forest Conference. General Technical Report NC-188. U. S. 

Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest 

Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota. 
113

Reporting Unit

Resource Type

Attribute Data/Information Sources Reference/Target Conditions

The lower limit of oak composition was multiplied by the lower 

limit of total basal area. The upper limit of oak composition was 

multiplied by the uppder limit of total basal. Proportional range 

of oak species composition (0.65-0.80) and range of total basal 

area for the reporting unit from Nelson (2005) and Missouri 

Forest and Woodland Natural Community Profiles 

(http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/17524.doc, accessed: 

10/15/2010). 

The lower limit of hickory composition was multiplied by the 

lower limit of total basal area. The upper limit of hickory 

composition was multiplied by the uppder limit of total basal. 

Proportional range of oak species composition (0.15-0.30) and 

range of total basal area for the reporting unit from Nelson 

(2005) and Missouri Forest and Woodland Natural Community 

Profiles (http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/17524.doc, 

accessed: 10/15/2010). 

Regeneration

Habitat data from Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at Wilson’s Creek 

National Battlefield, Missouri 2008 status report. Natural Resource Technical 

Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/195. National Park Service, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. 

Professional judgement was used to set targets for the 

woodland. Professional Judgement was informed by 

community descriptions in Appendix C, and: 

Jenkins, S.E., R. Guyette, and A.J. Rebertus. 1997. Vegetationsite relationships and fire history of savanna-glade-woodland 

mosaic in the Ozarks. Pages 184-201 in S.G. Pallardy, R.A. 

Cecich, H.E. Garrett, and P.S. Johnson, editors. Proceedings 

of 11th Central Hardwood Forest Conference. General Technical 

Report NC-188. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North 

Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Rice, E.L., and W.T. Penfound. 1955. An evaluation of the 

variable-radius and paired-tree methods in the Blackjack-Post 

Oak forest. Ecology 36:315-320.

Structure

Habitat data from Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at Pea Ridge National 

Military Park, Arkansas 2008 status report. Natural Resource Technical 

Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/194. National Park

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Height of canopy from Nelson (2005) and Missouri Forest and 

Woodland Natural Community Profiles 

(http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/17524.doc, accessed: 

10/15/2010). Weighted by areal extent of different woodland 

types. To be measured as average over all upland woodlands.

Habitat data from Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at Pea Ridge National 

Military Park, Arkansas 2008 status report. Natural Resource Technical 

Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/194. National Park

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Habitat data from Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at Wilson’s Creek 

National Battlefield, Missouri 2008 status report. Natural Resource Technical 

Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/195. National Park Service, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. 

Cover of native grass and forbs from Nelson (2005) and 

Missouri Forest and Woodland Natural Community Profiles 

(http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/17524.doc, accessed: 

10/15/2010) weighted by areal extent of type, and professional 

judgement.

Total woody cover (understory) from Missouri Forest and 

Woodland Natural Community Profiles 

 

Cover type

Herbacous guild 

composition
114

Reporting Unit

Resource Type

Attribute Data/Information Sources Reference/Target Conditions

Typic woodland reporting unit

Landscape 

Composition

Vegetation cover types were mapped from high resolution aerial imagary, 

potential vegetation, and soil map units

Targets based on professional judgement. Generally fewer 

patches of larger size are desirable.

Land Use/Land 

Cover

Vegetation cover types were assigned to three classes: natural, successional, 

and cultural

Targets based on professional judgement with the goal of 

increasing the area of natural vegetation while decreasing 

successional vegetation.

Structural class

Habitat data from Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at Pea Ridge National 

Military Park, Arkansas 2008 status report. Natural Resource Technical 

Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/194. National Park

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Professional judgement was used to set targets for the 

woodland. Professional Judgement was informed by 

community descriptions in Appendix C, and:

Canopy cover and basal area from Nelson (2005) and Missouri 

Forest and Woodland Natural Community Profiles 

(http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/17524.doc, accessed: 

10/15/2010). 

Stem density range of values from Jenkins, S.E., R. Guyette, 

and A.J. Rebertus. 1997. Vegetation-site relationships and fire 

history of savanna-glade-woodland mosaic in the Ozarks. 

Pages 184-201 in S.G. Pallardy, R.A. Cecich, H.E. Garrett, and 

P.S. Johnson, editors. Proceedings of 11th Central Hardwood 

Forest Conference. General Technical Report NC-188. U. S. 

Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest 

Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota. 

The lower limit of oak composition was multiplied by the lower 

limit of total basal area. The upper limit of oak composition was 

multiplied by the uppder limit of total basal. Proportional range 

of oak species composition (0.65-0.80) and range of total basal 

area for the reporting unit from Nelson (2005) and Missouri 

Forest and Woodland Natural Community Profiles 

(http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/17524.doc, accessed: 

10/15/2010). 

The lower limit of hickory composition was multiplied by the 

lower limit of total basal area. The upper limit of hickory 

composition was multiplied by the uppder limit of total basal. 

Proportional range of oak species composition (0.15-0.30) and 

range of total basal area for the reporting unit from Nelson 

(2005) and Missouri Forest and Woodland Natural Community 

Profiles (http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/17524.doc, 

accessed: 10/15/2010). 

Cover type

Habitat data from Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at Pea Ridge National 

Military Park, Arkansas 2008 status report. Natural Resource Technical 

Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/194. National Park

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
115

Reporting Unit

Resource Type

Attribute Data/Information Sources Reference/Target Conditions

Regeneration

Habitat data from Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at Wilson’s Creek 

National Battlefield, Missouri 2008 status report. Natural Resource Technical 

Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/195. National Park Service, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. 

Professional judgement was used to set targets for the 

woodland. Professional Judgement was informed by 

community descriptions in Appendix C, and: 

Jenkins, S.E., R. Guyette, and A.J. Rebertus. 1997. Vegetationsite relationships and fire history of savanna-glade-woodland 

mosaic in the Ozarks. Pages 184-201 in S.G. Pallardy, R.A. 

Cecich, H.E. Garrett, and P.S. Johnson, editors. Proceedings 

of 11th Central Hardwood Forest Conference. General Technical 

Report NC-188. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North 

Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Rice, E.L., and W.T. Penfound. 1955. An evaluation of the 

variable-radius and paired-tree methods in the Blackjack-Post 

Oak forest. Ecology 36:315-320.

Structure

Habitat data from Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at Pea Ridge National 

Military Park, Arkansas 2008 status report. Natural Resource Technical 

Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/194. National Park

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Height of canopy from Nelson (2005) and Missouri Forest and 

Woodland Natural Community Profiles 

(http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/17524.doc, accessed: 

10/15/2010). Weighted by areal extent of different woodland 

types. To be measured as average over all upland woodlands.

Cover of native grass and forbs from Nelson (2005) and 

Missouri Forest and Woodland Natural Community Profiles 

(http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/17524.doc, accessed: 

10/15/2010) weighted by areal extent of type, and professional 

judgement.

Total woody cover (understory) from Missouri Forest and 

Woodland Natural Community Profiles 

 

Herbacous guild 

composition

Habitat data from Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at Wilson’s Creek 

National Battlefield, Missouri 2008 status report. Natural Resource Technical 

Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/195. National Park Service, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. 
116

Reporting Unit

Resource Type

Attribute Data/Information Sources Reference/Target Conditions

Pratt Creek and Winton Spring Branch (water quality only)

Fish community

Composition

2009 unpublished data following - Dodd, H.R., D.G Peitz, G.A. Rowell, D.E. 

Bowles, and L.M. Morrison. 2008. Protocol for Monitoring Fish Communities in 

Small Streams in the Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network. Natural 

Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR - 2008/052. National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 

Justus, B.G., and J.C. Peterson. 2005b. The fishes of Pea Ridge National 

Military Park, Arkansas, 2003. Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5129. 

National Park Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

2007 data serves as baseline with the goal to maintain or 

improve the fish community.

Sowa, S.P., D.D. Diamond, R. Abbitt, G. Annis, T. Gordon, 

M.E. Morey, G.R. Sorensen, and D. True. 2005. A gap 

analysis for riverine ecosystems of Missouri. U.S. Geological 

Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Columbia, Missouri. 

Condition

2009 unpublished data following - Dodd, H.R., D.G Peitz, G.A. Rowell, D.E. 

Bowles, and L.M. Morrison. 2008. Protocol for Monitoring Fish Communities in 

Small Streams in the Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network. Natural 

Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR - 2008/052. National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, Colorado.

Reference condition is based on peer reviewed index in: 

Dauwalter, D.C., E.J. Pert, and W.E. Keith. 2003. An index of 

biotic integrity for fish assemblages in Ozark Highland streams 

of Arkansas. Southeastern Naturalist 2:447-468.

Water quality (medians)

Moore, N., and K. Keaton. Undated. Water quality study: Pea Ridge National 

Military Park Fall <http://faculty.nwacc.edu/lsuchy/Water Quality At Pea 

Ridge Military Park (Main Report).pdf>. Accessed 14 March 2011. 

2009 Unpublished data following Bowles, D. E., M. H. Williams, H. R. Dodd, 

L. W. Morrison, J. A. Hinsey, C. E. Ciak, G. A. Rowell, M. D. DeBacker, J.L. 

Haack. 2008. Monitoring Protocol for Aquatic Invertebrates of Small Streams 

in the Heartland Inventory & Monitoring Network. Natural Resource Report 

NPS/HTLN/NRR—2008/042. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Reference conditions based on State of Missouri 

recommendations in: Brown, D., and J. Czarnezki. Undated. 

Missouri streams fact sheet-chemical monitoring. Missouri 

Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. 

http://www.mostreamteam.org/Documents/Fact%20Sheets/177

67.pdf 
117

Appendix C Descriptions of Pre-European Vegetation 

Communities for Pea Ridge National Military Park, Arkansas

Descriptions of Pre-European Vegetation Communities for Pea Ridge 

National Military Park

Lee F. Elliott, Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership

27 April 2010

Primarily associated with the Typic Woods and Forest Reporting Unit

Dominant Species: black oak/post oak-hickory

General Historical Vegetation: dry-mesic slope woodland

Site Type: Slope forest (>20% slopes)

Ecological System: Ozark-Ouachita Dry-Mesic Oak Forest

Description: Woodlands over cherty substrates are dominated by Quercus velutina (black oak), 

Quercus alba (white oak), Quercus stellata (post oak), and Carya alba (mockernut hickory). 

The canopy is relatively closed (canopy cover of 70 to 100%) at a height of 30 to 90 feet, with a 

basal area between 60 and 100 sq. ft./acre. Sites over limestone substrate may have Quercus 

muehlenbergii (chinquapin oak) and Fraxinus quadrangulata (blue ash) or Fraxinus americana 

(white ash) as codominants. The shrub canopy has a cover of 10 to 40%, with species such as 

Rhus aromatica (fragrant sumac), Vaccinium spp. (blueberries), Parthenocissus quinquefolia 

(Virginia creeper), and Ceanothus americana (New Jersey tea). Species such as Sideroxylon 

lanuginosum (gum bumelia), Juniperus virginiana (eastern redcedar) and Frangula caroliniana 

(Carolina buckthorn) are more likely to be encountered on limestone substrates. Herbaceous 

cover may range from 40 to 80% cover with species such as Schizachyrium scoparium (little 

bluestem), Andropogon gerardii (big bluestem), Bouteloua curtipendula (sideoats grama), 

Sorghastrum nutans (yellow Indiangrass), Dalea spp. (prairie clovers), Desmodium spp. 

(ticktrefoils), Lespedeza spp. (lespedezas), Dichanthelium spp. (panic grasses), and Helianthus 

hirsutus (hairy sunflower). On sites with limestone substrate, species such as Muhlenbergia 

sobolifera (rock muhly), Taenidia integerrima (yellow pimpernel), Lithospermum canescens 

(hoary puccoon), Astragalus distortus (Ozark milkvetch), and Astragalus crassicarpus var. 

trichocalyx (groundplum milkvetch) are more commonly encountered.

Primarily associated with the Dry Woodland Reporting Unit

Dominant Species: post oak-blackjack oak/hickory

General Historical Vegetation: dry oak woodland

Site Types: Linker fine sandy loam (high landscape positions), Mountainburg very stony 

sandy loam, Enders very stony loam (over sandstone or shale)

Ecological System: Ozark-Ouachita Dry Oak Woodland

Description: Canopy of these woodlands range in cover from 30 to 80 percent, canopy height is 

typically 20 to 60 feet in height, and basal area is relatively low (30 to 70 sq. ft./acre). The 

overstory is dominated by Quercus stellata (post oak), Quercus marilandica (blackjack oak), 

Carya texana (black hickory), and Quercus velutina (black oak). Quercus alba (white oak) and 

occasionally Quercus falcata (southern red oak) may be present. Shrub cover is relatively low 

(less than 40% canopy cover) and is composed of species such as Rhus aromatica (fragrant 
118

sumac), Vaccinium pallidum (lowbush blueberry), Amelanchier arborea (common serviceberry), 

Ceanothus americanus (New Jersey tea), and stunted members of the overstory canopy. The 

herbaceous cover may be variable, from 30 to 90% cover, sometimes with rocky ground and 

lichens conspicuous. In areas with deeper soil, the herbaceous layer is dominated by species such 

as Schizachyrium scoparium (little bluestem), Danthonia spicata (poverty grass), Carex spp. 

(sedges), and forbs such as Clitoria mariana (butterfly pea), Desmodium rotundifolium (prostrate 

tick trefoil), Solidago hisipida (hairy goldenrod), and Cunila origanoides (common dittany).

Primarily associated with the Semi-natural Grassland Reporting Unit

Dominant Species: post oak-bluestem

General Historical Vegetation: flatwoods

Site Types: Taloka silt loam

Ecological System: Ozark-Ouachita Dry Oak Woodland

Description: This open woodland is characterized by a subsurface soil layer of reduced 

permeability leading to brief periods of flooding during rainy periods, followed by extended dry 

periods. The overstory is often open (cover between 30 and 80%), relatively short (30 to 50 feet 

in height), and with a basal area between 30 and 70 sq. ft/acre. The overstory is typically 

dominated by Quercus stellata (post oak), though Quercus marilandica (blackjack oak) and 

Carya texana (black hickory) may also be present. The shrub/understory is poorly developed 

(less than 40% cover) and contains species such as Rubus spp. (blackberries) and Toxicodendron 

radicans (eastern poison ivy). The herbaceous canopy may be dense and dominated by grasses 

and sedges, particularly Schizachyrium scoparium (little bluestem). Cinna arundinacea (sweet 

woodreed), Carex spp. (sedges), Juncus interior (inland rush), and Symphyotrichum patens (late 

purple aster) are among the many other species that may be present.

Primarily associated with the Bottomland Forest Reporting Unit

Dominant Species: red oak/sugar maple-white oak/bitternut hickory

General Historical Vegetation: floodplain forest

Site Types: Britwater gravelly silt loam, Elsah soils, Jay silt loam, Secesh gravelly silt loam, 

low mesic slopes

Ecological System: Ozark-Ouachita Mesic Hardwood Forest

Description: These forests have an almost closed canopy (90 to 100% canopy closure) to a 

height of 80 to 110 feet and a basal area from 90 to 110 sq. ft./acre. The overstory canopy is 

dominated by a variety of species including Quercus rubra (northern red oak), Acer saccharum 

(sugar maple), Quercus alba (white oak), Carya cordiformis (bitternut hickory), and Carya ovata 

(shagbark hickory). Other canopy species include Quercus shumardii (Shumard’s oak), Tilia 

americana (American basswood), Juglans nigra (black walnut), and Gymnocladus dioicus 

(Kentucky coffeetree). An understory is present to a height of 5 to 25 feet of saplings of the 

overstory as well as Asimina triloba (pawpaw), Aesculus glabra (Ohio buckey), Ulmus rubra 

(slippery elm), Carpinus caroliniana (American hornbeam), and Diospyros virginiana (common 

persimmon). Shrubs are also present with a cover from 30 to 60% and include species such as 

Lindera benzoin (spicebush), Staphylea trifolia (American bladdernut), Corylus americana 

(American hazelnut), and Toxicodendron radicans (eastern poison ivy). The herbaceous layer is 

diverse, with a canopy cover between 30 and 70%. Numerous species may be encountered in the 

herbaceous layer, including Laportea canadensis (Canadian woodnettle), Erigenia bulbosa 

(harbinger of spring), Cardamine concatenata (cutleaf toothwart), Erythronium albidum (white 
119

fawnlily), Enemion biternatum (eastern false rue anemone), Arisaema dracontium (green 

dragon), Trillium spp. (trilliums), numerous ferns, and other numerous others.

Primarily associated with the Typic Woods and Forest and Semi-natural Grassland

Reporting Unit

Dominant Species: white oak/post oak-black oak/hickory

General Historical Vegetation: dry-mesic oak woodland

Site Types: Cane loam, Captina silt loam, Cherokee silt loam, Enders very gravelly loam, 

Enders very stony loam (over limestone, less steep), Johnsburg silt loam, Mayes silty clay 

loam, Nixa very gravelly silt loam, Noark very gravelly silt loam, Pearidge silt loam, 

Summit silty clay, Tonti gravelly silt loam, Linker fine sandy loam (at lower landscape 

positions)

Ecological System: Ozark-Ouachita Dry-Mesic Oak Forest

Description: This forest with a relatively closed canopy (70 to 100% canopy cover) may have a 

canopy reaching to 70 to 100 feet in height and a basal area between 80 and 100 sq. ft./acre. 

Dominant species of the overstory are Quercus alba (white oak), Quercus velutina (black oak), 

and Carya alba (mockernut hickory). Other canopy species that may be present are Quercus 

muehlenbergii (chinquapin oak) and Quercus stellata (post oak). The cover of the sapling/shrub 

layer varies from 30 to 60% cover and is often dominated by species such as Rhus aromatica 

(fragrant sumac), Cornus florida (flowering dogwood), Frangula caroliniana (Carolina 

buckthorn), Parthenocissus quinquefolia (Virginia creeper), Vitis spp. (grapes), Vaccinium 

pallidum (lowbush blueberry), and Vaccinium arboreum (farkleberry), the latter two species 

more likely in soils over sandstone. Other shrub species that may be present include Ceanothus 

americanus (New Jersey tea), Vitis aestivalis (summer grape), and Amorpha canescens 

(leadplant). The herbaceous layer has a cover from 60 to 90% and often contains more forbs than 

the drier post oak woodlands. Species dominant in the herbaceous layer include Schizachyrium 

scoparium (little bluestem), Andropogon gerardii (big bluestem), Carex spp. (sedges), 

Desmodium nudiflorum (nakedflower ticktrefoil), Desmodium marilandicum (smooth small-leaf 

ticktrefoil), Desmodium glutinosum (pointedleaf ticktrefoil), and Amphicarpaea bracteata 

(American hogpeanut). Monarda bradburiana (eastern beebalm), Helianthus hirsutus (hairy 

sunflower), Solidago ulmifolia (elm-leaved goldenrod), Silene virginica (fire pink), 

Maianthemum racemosum (feathery false lily of the valley), and Geranium maculatum (spotted 

geranium) may also be common.

Primarily associated with the Typic Woods and Forest Reporting Unit

Dominant Species: white oak/red oak-black oak/sugar maple

General Historical Vegetation: mesic slope forest

Site Types: Clarksville extremely gravelly silt loam, Noark very gravelly silt loam (both on 

steep slopes)

Ecological System: Ozark-Ouachita Mesic Hardwood Forest

Description: This forest has a relatively closed canopy (70 to 100% canopy cover) with canopies 

reaching to 100 feet in height and basal areas ranging from 80 to 100 sq. ft./acre. Dominant 

species include Quercus alba (white oak), Quercus rubra (northern red oak), Acer saccharum 

(sugar maple), Quercus velutina (black oak), Carya ovata (shagbark hickory) and Carya 

cordiformis (bitternut hickory). Other canopy species include Quercus muehlenbergii

(chinquapin oak), Carya alba (mockernut hickory), and Quercus shumardii (Shumard’s oak). 
120

The understory and shrub canopy varies from 30 to 60% and contains saplings of the overstory 

species in addition to such species as Cercis canadensis (eastern redbud), Asimina triloba 

(pawpaw), Lindera benzoin (spicebush), Corylus americana (American hazelnut), Carpinus 

caroliniana (American hornbeam), and Cornus florida (flowering dogwood). The herbaceous 

layer is variable (from 30 to 60% cover) and contains numerous forbs, along with grass such as 

Elymus virginicus (Virginia wildrye) and Chasmanthium latifolium (Indian woodoats), and 

Carex spp. (sedges). 

Primary References:

Nelson, P.W. 2005. The terrestrial natural communities of Missouri. Missouri Natural Areas 

Committee, Jefferson City, Missouri.

Nigh, T.A., and W.A. Schroeder. 2002. Atlas of Missouri ecoregions. Missouri Department of 

Conservation, Columbia, Missouri.

Natureserve. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 

Version 7.0. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. U. S.A. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. 

(Accessed: 1 April 2010)

Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership. 2010. MoRAP Project: Ecological Classification for 

Missouri. 

http://www.cerc.usgs.gov/MoRAP/Assets/UploadedFiles/Projects/ecs/EcologicalClassific

ationSystemPoster.pdf. 
The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and 

other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and 

affiliated Island Communities.

NPS 409/108233, July 2011
National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150

Fort Collins, CO 80525

www.nature.nps.gov

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM