National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

George Washington Carver National Monument

Natural Resource Condition Assessment

Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—2011/425
ON THE COVER

Boyhood statue of George Washington Carver.

Photograph courtesy of George Washing Carver National Monument
George Washington Carver National Monument

Natural Resource Condition Assessment

Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—2011/425

Gust M. Annis1

, Michael D. DeBacker2, David D. Diamond1, Lee F Elliott

1

, Aaron J. Garringer1, 

Phillip A. Hanberry1, Kevin M. James2, Ronnie D. Lee1, Sherry A. Leis3, Michael E. Morey1, 

Dyanna L. Pursell1, and Craig C. Young2

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

3

Missouri State University

Biology Department

901 South National Avenue

Springfield, MO 65897

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, D. Pursell, and C. Young. 2011. George Washington Carver National 

Monument natural resource condition assessment. Natural Resource Report 

NPS/HTLN/NRR—2011/425. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado..

NPS 397/108220, July 2011
iii

Contents

Page

Contents.........................................................................................................................................iii

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

Tables........................................................................................................................................... xiii

Abstract....................................................................................................................................... xvii

Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................... xxi

Prologue ....................................................................................................................................... xxi

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

NRCA Approach for George Washington Carver National Monument ................................ 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.................................................. 10

Climate.............................................................................................................................. 11

Landform History.............................................................................................................. 16

Cultural History ................................................................................................................ 16

Natural Communities........................................................................................................ 17

Aquatic Resources In and Near George Washington Carver National 

Monument......................................................................................................................... 18

Wildlife ............................................................................................................................. 18

Resource Stewardship Context.............................................................................................. 18

Park Enabling Legislation................................................................................................. 18

Fundamental Resources and Values ................................................................................. 19
iv

Contents (continued)

Page

Other Important Resources and Values ............................................................................ 19

Desired Conditions for Natural Resources ....................................................................... 21

Chapter 3 Study Approach............................................................................................................ 23

Preliminary Scoping .............................................................................................................. 23

Assessment Framework Used in the Study ........................................................................... 23

Resource Types, Attributes and Indicators............................................................................ 25

Landscape Condition ........................................................................................................ 26

Biotic Condition................................................................................................................ 26

Chemical and Physical Characteristics............................................................................. 27

Hydrology and Geomorphology ....................................................................................... 29

Natural Disturbance Regime............................................................................................. 29

Chapter 4 Study Methods.............................................................................................................. 31

Landscape Condition ............................................................................................................. 31

Landscape Composition and Land Use/Land Cover ........................................................ 31

Biotic Condition..................................................................................................................... 33

Bird Community Composition.......................................................................................... 33

Invasive Exotic Plants....................................................................................................... 34

Plant Community Structure and Composition .................................................................. 34

Fish Community Composition.......................................................................................... 34

Aquatic Invertebrate Community ..................................................................................... 39

Chemical and Physical Characteristics.................................................................................. 41

Water Quality.................................................................................................................... 41

Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 41
v

Contents (continued)

Page

Hydrology and Geomorphology............................................................................................ 42

Surface Water Flow .......................................................................................................... 42

Natural Disturbance Regime.................................................................................................. 42

Fire Regime....................................................................................................................... 42

Chapter 5 Natural Resource Conditions ....................................................................................... 43

Reporting Units...................................................................................................................... 43

Condition Summaries by Reporting Units............................................................................. 44

Reporting Unit: Park-wide................................................................................................ 47

Reporting Unit: Persimmon Grove ................................................................................... 57

Reporting Unit: Upland Grassland.................................................................................... 58

Reporting Unit: Woodland................................................................................................ 59

Reporting Unit: Carver Branch......................................................................................... 60

Reporting Unit: Williams Branch ..................................................................................... 65

Reporting Unit: Harkins Branch ....................................................................................... 69

Chapter 6 Integrated Evaluation and Discussion.......................................................................... 75

Logic-based Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 75

Methods ................................................................................................................................. 75

Hierarchical framework .................................................................................................... 76

Logical operators .............................................................................................................. 78

Management target range.................................................................................................. 78

Evaluation ramp................................................................................................................ 78

Evaluation output.............................................................................................................. 80

Results.................................................................................................................................... 81
vi

Contents (continued)

Page

Reporting unit: Park Wide ................................................................................................ 83

Reporting unit: Upland Grassland .................................................................................... 84

Reporting unit: Woodland................................................................................................. 84

Reporting unit: Carver Branch.......................................................................................... 85

Reporting unit: Williams Branch...................................................................................... 86

Reporting unit: Harkins Branch........................................................................................ 87

Discussion.............................................................................................................................. 88

Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 91

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

Threat Index.................................................................................................................................. 99

Appendix B Summary of Information Sources for Current and Reference Conditions 

for Each Attribute/Indicator........................................................................................................ 129

Appendix C Descriptions of Pre-European Vegetation Communities for George 

Washington Carver National Monument, Missouri.................................................................... 133
vii

Figures

Page

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

Assessment for George Washington National Monument.............................................................. 4

Figure 2-1. Location of George Washington Carver National Monument within the 

state of Missouri.............................................................................................................................. 8

Figure 2-2. George Washington Carver National Monument........................................................ 9

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

the region around George Washington Carver National Monument............................................ 10

Figure 2-4. Land cover within and surrounding the watershed of George Washington 

Carver National Monument based on the 2001 NLCD. ............................................................... 12

Figure 2-5. Location of potential threats in George Washington Carver 10-digit 

watershed. ..................................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 2-6. Human Threat Index for the 10 digit hydrologic unit encompassing 

George Washington Carver National Monument with the 8 digit hydrologic unit inset.............. 15

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 (EPA 2002). ............................. 25

Figure 4-1. Process for assigning land cover classification to image objects on-screen. ............ 32

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

type (site potential) and current land cover................................................................................... 33

Figure 4-3. Fish survey locations during 2003 for Carver Branch, Harkins Branch, and 

Williams Branch (Justus and Peterson 2005a).............................................................................. 37

Figure 4-4. Fish survey locations during 2006, 2007, and 2010 for Carver Branch, 

Harkins Branch, and Williams Branch. ........................................................................................ 38

Figure 4-5. Invertebrate survey locations for Carver Branch, Harkins Branch, and 

Williams Branch during 2005-2007 (Bowles 2009)..................................................................... 40

Figure 5-1. Terrestrial reporting units for George Washington Carver National 

Monument were based on both current vegetation patterns and ecological site type 

(site potential) ............................................................................................................................... 43

Figure 5-2. Map of stream reporting units within George Washington Carver National 

Monument..................................................................................................................................... 44
viii

Figures (continued)

Page

Figure 5-3. George Washington Carver National Monument current (conceptual) 

vegetation cover types................................................................................................................... 48

Figure 5-4. George Washington Carver National Monument current landscape 

condition. ...................................................................................................................................... 49

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

averages of interpolated deposition estimates (NPS 2010)........................................................... 54

Figure 5-6. Map showing the risk of ozone injury to vegetation by park (NPS 2007d).............. 55

Figure 5-7. 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 2010).................................................................................................................... 56

Figure 5-8. Total wet and dry sulfate deposition based on five-year averages of 

interpolated deposition estimates (NPS 2010).............................................................................. 56

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

interpolated deposition estimates (NPS 2010).............................................................................. 57

Figure 5-10. Current landscape composition for the persimmon grove reporting unit................ 58

Figure 5-11. Current landscape composition for the upland grassland reporting unit................. 59

Figure 5-12. Current landscape composition for the woodland reporting unit............................ 60

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

Resource Condition Assessment................................................................................................... 76

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 ................. 77

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

resource types within reporting unit (blue) for the aquatic assessment. ....................................... 77

Figure 6-4. NetWeaver ramp function used to evaluate mean patch size in the upland 

grassland reporting unit of George Washington Carver National Monument, Missouri.............. 79

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

reporting unit’s of George Washington Carver National Monument, Missouri........................... 80

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

evaluation scores........................................................................................................................... 81
ix

Figures (continued)

Page

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

associated resource type and/or attributes..................................................................................... 82

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

associated resource types. ............................................................................................................. 82

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

HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA...................................................................................... 100

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

HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA........................................................................................................... 101

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

and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA. ................................................................................................... 102

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

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

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

10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA. .............................................................................................. 104

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

HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA...................................................................................... 105

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

(inset) for GWCA. ...................................................................................................................... 106

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

10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA. .............................................................................................. 107

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

8 (inset) for GWCA. ................................................................................................................... 108

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

HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA...................................................................................... 109

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

HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA........................................................................................................... 110

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

and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA. ................................................................................................... 111

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

10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA. .............................................................................................. 112
x

Figures (continued)

Page

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

10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA. .............................................................................................. 113

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

segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA. ............................................................ 114

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

and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA. ................................................................................................... 115

Figure A-17. Length of channelized/ditched streams above every stream segment in 

the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA................................................................................ 116

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

HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA........................................................................................................... 117

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

HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA........................................................................................................... 118

Figure A-20. Density of lead mines above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and 

HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA........................................................................................................... 119

Figure A-21. Density of other mines above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and 

HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA........................................................................................................... 120

Figure A-22. Density of leaking underground storage tanks above every stream 

segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA. ............................................................ 121

Figure A-23. Density of superfund sites above every stream segment in the HUC 10 

and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA. ................................................................................................... 122

Figure A-24. Density of toxic release inventory sites above every stream segment in 

the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA................................................................................ 123

Figure A-25. Density of hazardous permits above every stream segment in the HUC 

10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA. .............................................................................................. 124

Figure A-26. Density of hazardous generators above every stream segment in the 

HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA...................................................................................... 125

Figure A-27. Density of waste water treatment facilities above every stream segment 

in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA............................................................................ 126

Figure A-28. Density of confined animal feeding operations above every stream 

segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA. ............................................................ 127
xi

Figures (continued)

Page

Figure A-29. Density of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

sites above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA. .................... 128

xiii

Tables

Page

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

threat. ............................................................................................................................................ 14

Table 3-1. Team members for the George Washington Carver National Monument 

Natural Resource Condition Assessment...................................................................................... 23

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

Protection Agency's Framework for Assessing and Reporting Ecological Condition 

(2002)............................................................................................................................................ 24

Table 4-1. Land cover classes assigned to image objects for George Washington 

Carver National Monument. ......................................................................................................... 31

Table 4-2. Condition rating for wet deposition of either N or S. Source: (NPS 2007a). ............ 42

Table 5-1. Summary of natural resource condition indicators for George Washington 

Carver National Monument .......................................................................................................... 45

Table 5-2. Current (conceptual) vegetation type distribution. ..................................................... 48

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

George Washington Carver National Monument. ........................................................................ 49

Table 5-4. Bird species recorded during breeding bird surveys in 2008 at George 

Washington Carver National Monument (from Peitz 2009)......................................................... 50

Table 5-5. Invasive exotic plants at George Washington Carver National Monument. 

Management difficulty codes are from NatureServe (see http://www.natureserve.org/): 

high (H), medium (M), low (L), insignificant (I), and unknown (U). .......................................... 53

Table 5-6. Quantified threats for Carver Branch in George Washington Carver 

National Monument. Values are from the last stream segment downstream of the park. ............ 61

Table 5-7. Water quality indicators for Carver Branch................................................................ 61

Table 5-8. Ratings for five fish metrics computed for Carver Branch......................................... 63

Table 5-9. Fish species observed1 and predicted2 to occur in Carver Branch.............................. 63

Table 5-10. Jaccard Similarity computed for Carver Branch....................................................... 64

Table 5-11. Number of globally listed fish species (G-rank) and state listed fish 

species (S-rank) by actual collections and models in Carver Branch........................................... 64
xiv

Tables (continued)

Page

Table 5-12. Aquatic invertebrate indicators for Carver Branch................................................... 65

Table 5-13. Water quality indicators for Williams Branch.......................................................... 66

Table 5-14. Fish species observed1 in Williams Branch.............................................................. 67

Table 5-15. Ratings for five fish metrics computed for Williams Branch................................... 67

Table 5-16. Number of globally listed fish species (G-rank) and state listed fish 

species (S-rank) by actual collections in Williams Branch. ......................................................... 68

Table 5-17. Aquatic invertebrate indicators for Williams Branch............................................... 69

Table 5-18. Quantified threats for Harkins Branch in George Washington Carver 

National Monument ...................................................................................................................... 70

Table 5-19. Water quality indicators for Harkins Branch............................................................ 70

Table 5-20. Fish species observed1 and predicted2 to occur in Harkins Branch.......................... 71

Table 5-21. Jaccard Similarity computed for Harkins Branch..................................................... 71

Table 5-22. Ratings for five fish metrics computed for Harkins Branch within GWCA. ........... 72

Table 5-23. Number of globally listed fish species (G-rank) and state listed fish 

species (S-rank) by actual collections and models in Harkins Branch. ........................................ 72

Table 5-24. Aquatic invertebrate indicators for Harkins Branch................................................. 73

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

wide reporting unit of George Washington Carver National Monument, Missouri..................... 83

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

grassland reporting unit of George Washington Carver National Monument, Missouri.............. 84

Table 6-3. Rescaled NetWeaver output scores for the integrated analysis of the 

woodland reporting unit of George Washington Carver National Monument, Missouri............. 85

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

Branch reporting unit of George Washington Carver National Monument, Missouri. ................ 86

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

Branch reporting unit of George Washington Carver National Monument, Missouri. ................ 87
xv

Tables (continued)

Page

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

Harkins Branch reporting unit of George Washington Carver National Monument, 

Missouri. ....................................................................................................................................... 88

xvii

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 George Washington Carver National 

Monument (GWCA). NRCA's are intended to provide a synthesized assessment of current 

conditions in the park. The NCRA for GWCA 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).

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. xvi) for more information.
xviii

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

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. 

Terrestrial communities at GWCA consist mainly of restored grasslands on former croplands and 

woodlands, mainly near upland drainage ways. Past and on-going efforts at prairie restoration 
xix

have resulted in the re-establishment of many native grasses and forbs, and with continued effort 

these grasslands could add significant local or regional natural resource value. However, 

invasive species such as tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix), smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), and 

multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) are common. Habitat diversity within the park supports 

breeding bird species that require grassland, shrubland/edge, and woodland with understory 

habitats. Maintenance of this diversity would help populations of at least three species of 

continental concern that are fairly common breeding birds within park, including the Dickcissel 

(Spiza americana), Indigo Bunting (Passerina cyanea), and Carolina Wren (Thryothorus

ludovicianus). 

Floodplains generally support immature forests, and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) 

is a common invasive understory vine that may inhibit natural succession in these woodlands by 

preventing tree recruitment in light gaps. Upland streams, including Harkins Branch, Williams 

Branch, and Carver Branch, are shaded by the woodlands. 

These support fairly high quality, diverse fish communities. The diversity of native fish species 

that are sensitive to poor water quality, such as darters, including the rare Arkansas darter 

(Etheostoma cragini), sculpins, and madtoms is generally high. Only a small segment of 

Harkins Branch is contained within the park, and this stream has greater discharge and somewhat 

higher bank instability than the others on the park.

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

resource types.

xxi

Acknowledgements

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

document, and authored sections of the report within their area of expertise. Jim Heaney and 

Lana Henry of George Washington Carver National Memorial provided excellent support and 

input into the project. 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 

 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. xvi) for more information.
2

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. 

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. 

Management target ranges are suggested only as a necessary means of providing condition 

assessments. 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.

. 

 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 

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. 

NRCA Approach for George Washington Carver National Monument

Prior to beginning the NRCA for George Washington Carver National Monument (GWCA) 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 GWCA 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). 

We designed this assessment to be fairly narrow in breadth (i.e. a limited number of indicators), 

but very rigorous (i.e. a lot of effort quantifying current and target conditions). 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 George 

Washington National Monument.

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

The monument is located near Diamond, MO (Figure 2-1, Figure 2-2) and consists of the 

original 240 acre Moses Carver homestead. According to the Springs of Genius study (Harrinton 

et al. 1999) by the 1860-1870s “the conversion of prairie to agricultural purposes would have 

been nearly complete......by the late 1870s there was probably very little uncompromised prairie 

left on the Carver farm. At least 100 acres had been developed as fields. The remaining open 

land was probably intensely grazed. ... What prairie remained on the Carver farm would most 

likely have been restricted to fence rows, hedges and patches of marginal land used for pasture 

and hay production. These remnants would be significantly different from pre-settlement prairie, 

but because the composition of the pre-settlement prairie is unknown, the full extent of the 

changes cannot be determined.” 

In 1985, NPS began a prairie restoration program on two patches totaling six acres of rocky land 

believed to be unplowed prairie remnant. As mowing and grazing contracts with local farmers 

ended, additional acres were incorporated as restored prairie units. The program’s goal is to 

recreate a high quality pre-settlement prairie with high wildlife habitat value.

The questions of prairie plantings and proposed native plantings in the woodlands remain 

difficult. From a historical perspective, there was probably very little high quality prairie or 

woodland left on the farm during George Washington Carver’s lifetime. As an adult, Carver did, 

however, recall wandering in the local woods, collecting and nurturing “floral beauties” as a boy. 

He practiced a wide array of domestic stills and crafts, learning the medicinal and economic uses 

of the wild resources of the farm and surrounding region. Throughout his life, Carver was a 

passionate naturalist, wondering daily in search of interesting botanical and geological finds. In 

his work, he displayed an unending interest in the potential economic and nutritional benefits of 

the South’s native vegetation. Enhancing and interpretive part of the monument’s woodland and 

prairie communities could offer significant insight into the development and achievements of 

George Washington Carver.
8

Figure 2-1. Location of George Washington Carver National Monument within the state of Missouri.
9

Figure 2-2. George Washington Carver National Monument.
10

Landscape and Watershed Context and Threat Assessment

George Washington Carver National Monument is on the Spring River Prairie/Savanna 

Dissected Plain land type association of the Springfield Plain Subsection of the Ozark Highlands 

Section (Nigh and Schroeder 2002). Historic landscapes were likely a mix of prairies and oak 

savannas depending on soil depth and water holding capacity, and on fire frequency. Fire 

frequency was in turn governed by both larger scale (e.g. roughness, the presence of streams) and 

more local conditions (e.g. the presence of steep-sided drainages or shallow soils with exposed 

bedrock). Prevailing vegetation patterns probably varied with time and chance events, so a given 

site might have been more or less open or wooded at any given point in time. Relatively deeplyentrenched drainages punctuate an otherwise generally gently rolling landscape. The modern 

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

fields or heavy grazing by domestic livestock following land clearing for row crop agriculture. 

Successional woodlands, often associated with rougher topography, stream floodplains, or 

upland riparian zones, are also present, together with small remnants of unbroken prairie sod. 

The modern landscape is largely rural, and the largest nearby city, Joplin, is 10 km to the 

northwest and poses only moderate threat from urban expansion (Figure 2-3).

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

George Washington Carver National Monument.

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 
11

managers to target specific threats at specific locations. It is noted that the Diamond Seed 

Company used a methyl mercury fungicide to treat seeds between 1963 and 1971. Dye traces in 

a nearby loosing stream indicate that runoff from the facility may have appeared in Carver 

Spring (Aley and Aley 1988).

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). 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 GWCA 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). 

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 and rivers in GWCA. 

Climate

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

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

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

of 40-50 days above 90°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).
12

Figure 2-4. Land cover within and surrounding the watershed of George Washington Carver National Monument based on the 2001 NLCD.
13

Figure 2-5. Location of potential threats in George Washington Carver 10-digit watershed.
14

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 MoDNR Wellhead Information Management System

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 GDT Dynamap/2000

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 Minerals Information Team

Oil and Gas Wells MoDNR (Provisional Data)

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks MoDNR - Air and Land

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 Subset of NPDES dataset from MoDNR

Landfills EPA Basins 2001

NPDES MoDNR, Missouri NPDES Operating Permits

RCRIS EPA Geodata dataset

Hazardous Waste Generators MoDNR - Air and Land

Hazardous Waste Permits MoDNR - Air and Land
15

Figure 2-6. Human Threat Index for the 10 digit hydrologic unit encompassing George Washington Carver National Monument with 

the 8 digit hydrologic unit inset.
16

Landform History

George Washington Carver National Monument is in the Springfield Plateau physiographic 

section of the Ozark Plateaus in southwestern Missouri (Bottomley 2000). Topography consists 

of gently rolling uplands, heavily dissected by stream channels. Elevation ranges from about 

1,000-1,800 feet. 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).

Cultural History

Although George Washington Carver only spent around 10 years on the Carver farm, the Moses 

Carver family and land greatly influenced his life (Dilebo 1972, Toogood 1973). The monument 

memorializes the life of George Washington Carver and preserves the setting of the Moses 

Carver farm where George spent his formative years. According to the park’s Cultural 

Landscape Inventory, interpretation at the park relates features of the park in a commemorative 

nature, relative to its period of installation. It was acknowledged early on that the structural 

elements of the landscape had changed a great deal since Carver’s boyhood years. Research 

showed that only the Moses Carver Family Cemetery actually dated to the boyhood period. An 

associated structure, the Moses Carver Late Period Dwelling – which George is known to have 

visited later in life – is also extant. 

With few historic structures and little documentation to work with, the NPS early on decided to 

focus on the vegetative surroundings that would have been present during Carver’s boyhood 

period given how influential the environment, both natural and agricultural, was to him. This 

setting also had to be co-sympathetic with any constructed amenities that would be added to the 

landscape for interpretive or commemorative purposes. To help visitors understand Carver and 

experience nature the way he experienced it from childhood into adulthood, one of the first 

amenities to the site was a nature trail developed in order to provide visitors an opportunity to 

experience nature within the setting. One of the unique aspects of the monument’s development 

is how it slowly evolved and revealed itself as the place of solitude, reflection, and learning it has 

become. 

The Carvers settled the farm in the 1830s, and purchased George Washington Carver’s mother in 

1855 (Toogood 1973). George Washington Carver was born into slavery during the Civil War. 

He and his mother were abducted by raiders soon after his birth. Moses Carver was only able to 

recover George Washington Carver (Dilebo 1972). As a child, Carver was allowed time to 

develop as a naturalist and observer. In addition, he learned good farming practices and 

thriftiness from the Carvers. George Washington Carver moved away around 1877 to pursue an 

education from schools that allowed blacks. Eventually, he earned a B.S. in 1894 and an M.S. in 
17

agriculture in 1896 from Iowa State University. During 1896, Booker T. Washington, founder of 

the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama, hired Carver as the school's director of agriculture. George 

Washington Carver lived there until his death in January 1943(Dilebo 1972, Toogood 1973).

George Washington Carver recognized, partially due to his experience on the Carver farm, that 

poor land use, due to widespread cotton monocultures across the South, was causing soil erosion 

and depletion of fertility, and ultimately, cotton crops were contributing to poverty (Dilebo 1972, 

Burchard 2005). Therefore, Carver worked to restore soil, and resolve associated economic and 

social issues, through improved agricultural practices. He encouraged use of organic mulches 

and compost to reduce erosion and restore topsoil, as he believed commercial fertilizers were not 

viable for long-term soil enrichment. He launched crop rotation, alternating cotton crops with 

soil-enriching crops, such as sweet potatoes, pecans, and most importantly, nitrogen-fixing 

legumes including peanuts and soy beans. He then created markets for these products, by 

developing hundreds of new uses, from food products to dyes (Burchard 2005). 

Carver concentrated on sustainable agriculture as a means to a self-sufficient and healthy 

existence. Although he supported the farm-grown plastic and biofuels movement promoted by 

Henry Ford and others, and eventually suppressed by the oil industry, he found factories to be far 

removed from the farmer’s lifestyle. Instead, Carver focused on practices and products that were 

immediately useful and economical for farmers, rather than commercial or industrial operations. 

He educated the public about soil and forest conservation, organic farming, growing a variety of 

crops locally, eating a nutritional diet based on whole grains and vegetables, and using 

homemade nontoxic products. Remarkably, Carver was able to overcome slavery, prejudice, and 

poverty, while remaining indifferent to personal fame and fortune, in his dedication to improve 

the world (Burchard 2005).

Carver’s work was progressive, and as relevant today as it was in the past. His philosophy that 

living gently on the land, through nourishment of soil, crops, resources, and species, is the only 

way to sustain economic prosperity, could heal prevalent environmental and social problems. 

Currently, erosion and loss of soil fertility, monocultures, soil compaction, abandonment of crop 

rotation and cover crops, dependence on commercial fertilizers and pesticides, unrestrained 

water use, as well as rapid loss of species and habitat, greenhouse gases, ozone depletion, 

pollution, exotic species, desertification, not to mention, the associated loss of human 

livelihoods, demands the involvement and guidance of people like George Washington Carver.

Natural Communities

George Washington Carver National Monument currently contains a variety of habitats including

restored tallgrass prairie, fescue and disturbance grasslands, young woodlands, and three small 

streams (James and Rowell 2009, Jones 2004, Sasseen 2005). A man-made pond and a small 

garden plot also add diversity to the park. The southwestern corner of the park contains 

remediated mine tailings and highly disturbed woodlands and grasslands. Jones (2004) 

subjectively noted that woodlands in the northwest corner are in better condition that other 

woodlands, and surmised that about 120 acres of the park has had some level of restoration, 

though records are not entirely complete.

The historic landscape may have consisted almost entirely of tallgrass prairie or open savanna, 

with wetter prairies occurring along upland drainage ways. However, drainages may have been 
18

wooded (Nigh and Schroeder 2002). Jones (2004) also noted that some areas within the resorted 

prairie were wetter than others, and soils grouped into historic site types also suggested some 

variation in the original prairies (Nigh and Schroeder 2002). Burfield and Nilon (2009) 

suggested that as much as 111 acres of the original Moses Carver land was unplowed prairie 

during George Washington Carver's early years on the farm, but that essentially all of the area of 

the park was plowed in the early 1900's.

Aquatic Resources In and Near George Washington Carver National Monument

There are three small streams that flow through George Washington Carver National Monument 

and two spring branches that are completely contained within the park. Carver Branch, Harkins 

Branch, and Williams Branch are all tributaries to Shoal Creek. Carver Branch is classified as a 

losing stream by the state of Missouri. Williams Spring is inundated by Williams Pond. Carver 

Spring consists of a very short spring branch that flows into Carver Branch. Stream condition in 

GWCA is generally good, though there may be mild impairment from threats outside of the park 

boundaries (Bowles 2009). 

Pooled data from 2003, 2006, 2007, and 2010 document 22 fish species known to GWCA. 

These species generally were typical of small headwater streams, including southern redbelly 

dace (Phoxinus erythrogaster), central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum), and green sunfish 

(Lepomis cyanellus; Justus and Peterson 2005a). However, the Arkansas darter (Etheostoma 

cragini) is a species of conservation concern (Missouri Natural Heritage Program 2010). The 

grass carp is an introduced species, and potentially detrimental to native species.

Wildlife

Fauna of George Washington Carver National Monument are typical of old fields and disturbed 

woodlands in the Ozark Highlands. Birds are a major visitor attraction, and are the best studied of 

the park’s vertebrates. Forty-nine species of birds were recorded during site visits in May of 2008 

(Peitz 2009). The most common and widely distributed species was the Dickcissel (Spiza 

americana). The blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), northern 

mockingbird (Minus polyglottos), American robin (Turdus migratorius), American crow (Corvus 

brachyrhynchos), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), and tufted titmouse (Baeolophus 

bicolor) are seen in the forest, developed areas, and forest edges. Common mammals include the 

opossum (Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster), and 

hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus; Robbins 2005). The herpetofauna community is typical for 

disturbed prairies with some common deciduous forest species. Common species include the 

American bull frog (Rana catesbeiana), southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala), ringneck 

snake (Diadophis punctatus), and three-toed box turtle (Terrapene carolina triunguis).

Resource Stewardship Context

Park Enabling Legislation

George Washington Carver National Monument was established to memorialize the birthplace 

and childhood of Dr. George Washington Carver and to preserve the setting of the Moses Carver 

farm. The monument was founded in 1943, however after World War II ended, issues including 

inflation and unwillingness of the owner to sell, delayed dedication until 1953 (Ortega 1976). 
19

The following purpose statements are developed from the enabling legislation (from NPS 1997):

• Memorialize the life of George Washington Carver as a distinguished African American, 

scientist, educator, humanitarian, Christian, artist, and musician.

• Preserve the setting of the Moses Carver farm and birthplace of George Washington 

Carver.

• Interpret the life, accomplishments, and contributions of George Washington Carver, 

using a museum, wayside exhibits, and other interpretive strategies. 

Fundamental Resources and Values

The following significance statements “capture the essence of the monuments importance...” 

(NPS 1997)

• George Washington Carver National Monument is significant because it was the 

birthplace and home where Carver spent his formative years that set him on the road to 

becoming one of this nation’s most distinguished scientists and humanitarian.

• Although born a slave and orphaned as a baby, his early years were spent in a nurturing 

atmosphere with his adoptive white parents in an agrarian setting. Here he was given the 

opportunity to pursue his curiosity about the world around him. 

Other Important Resources and Values

The NPS is legislatively-mandated to preserve the site of the birthplace of George Washington 

Carver and the Moses Carver farm. The park’s legislation directs the monument to be a 

memorial to Carver’s entire life, not just his boyhood. According to the General Management 

Plan (NPS 1997), within the setting of the Moses Carver farm and birthplace of Carver, the 

public will have an opportunity to learn about the life, accomplishments, and contributions of the 

distinguished African American scientist, educator, humanitarian, Christian, artist, and musician. 

Natural and cultural resources will serve as symbols of significant events and influences on the

character and life of this great American. The interpretative program will enable people to use 

tangible resources to consider the abstract implications of the Carver story. The landscape and 

visitor facilities will support a memorial-like atmosphere, providing opportunities for the public 

to spend time reflecting upon their lives and experiences, and those of George Washington 

Carver.

George Washington Carver Monument works with its partners, including the Carver Birthplace 

District Association, Iowa State University, Tuskegee University, Newton County 4-H, 

University of Missouri, and the Northwest Newton County Conservation Opportunity Area, to 

develop interactive educational opportunities promoting stewardship of natural and cultural 

resources through web sites, interpretive facilities, an updated interpretative film, and a master 

repository of materials related to George Washington Carver. Future goals, in cooperation with 

educators, will be to provide knowledge about national parks, conservation, environmental 

leadership, and cultural and social issues, for students of all ages. In particular, the monument 

hopes to continue George Washington Carver’s vision of the connection between humans and 
20

nature. Online learning will encourage environmental awareness, while on-site programs will 

demonstrate environmental practices and show how to incorporate practices into daily lives. The 

National Monument grounds can supply both agricultural demonstration plots of Carver's work 

as well as visitor involvement in inventory of species and communities. A further objective 

includes creating a master repository for information related to Carver. 

The staff at GWCA have incorporated prairie restoration and the maintenance of a small garden 

plot into management of the park (see review in Burfield and Nilon 2009, Jones 1995). Other 

aspects of the natural environment are interpreted as having influenced the young George 

Washington Carver, including the presence of wildflowers, fruit and nut trees, and the Carver 

Spring. Natural resource management therefore emphasizes maintenance and restoration of 

native flora and fauna

Plant Community Restoration

Restoration of native prairie recognizes the importance of the natural environment on George 

Washington Carver as a boy. Other aspects of the natural environment are interpreted as having 

influenced the young George Washington Carver, including the presence of wildflowers, fruit 

and nut trees, and the Carver Spring. Natural resource management therefore emphasizes 

maintenance and restoration of native flora and fauna

Approximately 80 acres (32 ha) of GWCA were farmed in the last 30 years under a variety of 

special use permits. These areas are currently undergoing restoration to native prairie. 

Management activities including seeding, planting, mowing, haying, and prescribed burning are 

used as restoration treatments. In recent years, restoration activities have consisted mainly of 

mowing, haying and prescribed burning. GWCA has conducted 17 prescribed burns between 

1982 and 2008. 

While prairie vegetation has been established, exotic plant species have also become established 

and may impede successful prairie restoration. Management objectives include restoring prairie 

through planting native species, removing invasive species, prescribed burning, and monitoring 

species abundance and richness. The restoration results will be compared with a reference site, 

Diamond Grove Prairie, which is a privately-owned prairie near GWCA. 

The springs, creeks and adjacent forest also were a curiosity to George Washington Carver. 

GWCA’s riparian forest canopies have closed in recent years. Management objectives include 

restoring woodlands and savannah through selectively removing trees to increase canopy 

openness and increase understory growth, controlling invasive species, and potentially 

introducing prescribed fire. 

Invasive, Exotic Plant Management

The invasive Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), tartarian honeysuckle (Lonicera 

tartarica) are abundant in the woodlands; while Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), crown 

vetch (Securigera varia), and lespedza (Lespedeza cuneata ) have colonized prairies at GWCA. 

The high abundance of thistles (Cirsium spp.) on adjacent lands is also a potential problem. 

Extensive grazing on surrounding farms invites exotic species establishment and growth. 

GWCA staff are writing a Fire Management Plan to use prescribed burning for control of exotic 
21

plant species. Prescribed fire will ideally provide a viable native seed bed and reduce the 

number of exotic plant species and encroaching native woody plants such as sumac (Rhus spp.), 

blackberries (Rubus spp.), woody briars (Smilax spp.), and grape vine (Vitus spp.), which are also 

invading restored prairies.

Wildlife Management 

Aquatic habitats are an important part of the natural and cultural interpretive programs at the 

park. Two springs, a small spring-fed pond, and three streams that flow through the park (two of 

which originate off park grounds) are home to several species of reptiles and amphibians. Plant 

and animal life within these waters are of great interest to visitors and are excellent education 

tools for park interpreters. Park waters are influenced by adjacent land use such as agriculture

and pasture. Because of the role water plays in the life cycle of many reptiles and amphibians, 

these species are good indicators of water quality. Amphibians are of particular interest due to 

their sensitivity to pollutants. 

Desired Conditions for Natural Resources

The Long Range Interpretive Plan for GWCA (2007) provides some direction with regards to the 

natural resources and their use in interpreting the life of George Washington Carver. According 

to the plan, natural resources will serve as symbols of significant events and influences on the 

character and life of George Washington Carver. The landscape will support a memorial-like 

atmosphere, providing opportunities for the public to spend time reflecting upon their lives and 

experiences, and those of George Washington Carver.

Woodlands, savannahs, prairie, and streams will be managed to help visitors understand that 

GWC discovered beauty in nature, communed with the Creator through nature, and gained 

inspiration for artistic creations through nature. Visitors will forge connections between the 

natural environment of George’s formative years on the farm, the curiosity and creativity it 

inspired, and the rejuvenation it provided to him throughout his life. The woodlands, savannahs, 

and prairie, and streams will provide opportunities for visitors to gain inspiration and serenity 

from the natural environment – and reflect upon Carver gaining inspiration from the natural 

environment. 

Woodlands, savannahs, and prairie will be managed to provide visitor’s the opportunity to 

understand George’s excitement about plants and talent for caring for plants – which began on 

the Moses Carver farm. “Day after day I spent in the woods alone in order to collect my floral 

beauties and put them in my little garden I had hidden in brush not far from the house, as it was 

considered foolishness in that neighborhood to waste time with flowers." George Washington 

Carver, 1897

Natural resources will be managed in a manner which helps visitors realize that, fundamentally, 

George Washington Carver was a conservationist -- envisioning all things in nature as useful.

Other desired conditions for natural resources at GWCA are:

o Manage cultural and natural resources to memorialize Carver’s life in a dignified and 

inspirational setting

o Interpret how the boyhood farm and surrounding area influenced Carver as an adult. 
22

o Manage the park’s resources so they can be used to help interpret how the boyhood farm 

and surrounding area influenced Carver as an adult.

o To preserve the agrarian setting.

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. 

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.

o George Washington Carver was a soil conservationist, conducting scientific research to 

improve soil conservation and farming methods across the South. The management of 

soil resources aims 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.

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. 
23

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 George Washington 

Carver National Monument (GWCA) comprised the assessment team (Table 3-1). We used 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 GWCA. 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 George Washington Carver National Monument 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

Lee Elliott Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership

Jennifer Haack NPS, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network

Phillip Hanberry Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership

Jim Heaney George Washington Carver National Monument

Lana Henry George Washington Carver National Monument

Kevin James NPS, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network

Ronnie Lea Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership

Sherry Leis NPS, Fire Management Program

David Peitz NPS, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network

Dyan Pursell Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership

Gareth Rowell NPS, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network

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). 

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 
24

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).
25

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 (EPA 2002).

Resource Types, Attributes and Indicators

For GWCA, 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.
26

Landscape Condition

Landscape Composition

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. 

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, dense woodlands on site types that were historically forested often 

indicate past cultivation, overgrazing, a reduction in ground fire frequency, or a combination of 

these human-associated disturbance factors. 

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 

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 

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

among the public (Peitz 2009). 

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).
27

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 2009). This indicator 

seeks to determine the condition of the aquatic macroinvertebrate community using seven 

common invertebrate metrics. 

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). Such 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. Additionally, 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 

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. 
28

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 GWCA streams are vulnerable to increased 

sedimentation and runoff from land use activities including urban development, grazing, 

deforestation, riparian zone clearing in tributaries, and road building. 

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 is affecting 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 2010). 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 

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 
29

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 determine 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.

Water Flow: 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, 

Schlosser 1990, Poff et al. 1997). 

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 native 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 
30

requires planning for its eventuality and promoting the use of fire as a land management tool. 

Natural fires have been all but eliminated from GWCA and surrounding areas. Most ecologists 

assert that burning promoted dominance of fire-tolerant species and kept pre-European 

grasslands and savannas more open than second growth woodlands in the modern landscape.
31

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.

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. Finally, conceptual 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 George Washington Carver National 

Monument.

Land Cover Classes

Impervious

Low Density Urban

Barren or Sparsely Vegetated

Grassland

Deciduous Forest

Deciduous Woody/Herbaceous

Open Water
32

Figure 4-1. Process for assigning land cover classification to image objects on-screen.
33

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

Breeding birds are monitored at GWCA to track changes in bird community composition and 

abundance, and their response to changes in habitat structure and other habitat variables related 

to management activities. An intensive breeding bird survey was done at GWCA in the summer 

of 2008 using standardized protocol (Peitz et al. 2008, Peitz 2009). Breeding birds and their 

habitat were sampled at 70 permanent sites arranged in a systematic grid of 100 X 100 m. 

Variable circular plot methodology was used, wherein all birds seen or heard at plots during 5-

min sampling periods were recorded along with their corresponding distance from the observer 

(Peitz et al. 2008). Birds were recorded during a period when it was light enough to observe 

birds to four hours after sunrise for a total of approximately 12 hours over the three days of 

surveys. 

Quantitative bird habitat data were collected following Peitz (2008) at each listening station. 

Habitat data include abiotic measures (e.g. slope and aspect) and biotic measures (e.g. vegetation 

structure, foliar cover of six plant guilds, horizontal vegetation cover, and ground cover). We 

used Partners in Flight (1991) to identified species of continental importance. We used the initial 
34

survey as a baseline with the management goal of retaining the current number of species, 

particularly grassland obligates and species of continental importance. 

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 GWCA. A park-based watch list of possible invasive exotic 

species has been generated, and data were collected from a 6-m belt within 97 units (Cribbs et al. 

2007). The units consisted of a grid modified by vegetation cover type (e.g. units consisted 

either of grassland or forest, not a mixture of both). Presence of target species was noted and 

cover estimated by cover class. 

Plant Community Structure and Composition

Woodlands and upland grasslands are tracked by the Heartland Inventory and Monitoring 

Network at GWCA. These communities 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 et al. 2009). 

In addition, plant communities are sampled in conjunction with breeding bird surveys at 38, 50-

meter radius plots (Peitz et al. 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. 

Management targets for vegetation composition such as canopy cover, basal area, and density 

were taken from literature on similar communities. 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. 

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 using five 

common indicators of fish community condition and by comparing an observed community to a 

modeled baseline community within GWCA. These comparisons give a measure of “fish faunal 

intactness” using a taxon with a relatively long historical record. 

Actual fish collection data for streams within GWCA was collected by seining and backpackelectrofishing using direct current during July 2003 (Figure 4-3; Justus and Petersen 2005a); and 

more recently from 2006, 2007, and 2010 via electrofishing by the Heartland network (Figure 4-

4; Dodd et al. 2011). 
35

We developed current conditions from Dodd et al. (2011). Five metrics were used to assess the 

current condition and establish reference conditions for the three watershed based reporting units 

(Carver Branch, Williams Branch, and Harkins Branch). These included a fish Index of Biotic 

Integrity (IBI), Simpson’s Diversity Index, and the composition of sucker, sunfish, and 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). The percentage of sucker 

and sunfish were used to assess the streams because similar metrics are used in the IBI as well as 

other warm water IBIs in the Midwest (Karr 1981, Fausch et al. 1984, Karr et al. 1986) and can 

be used to make comparisons with adjacent warm water streams. It should be noted that for the 

analyses in this report the sunfish composition was computed by excluding bluegill and green 

sunfish (very tolerant species). 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 

GWCA we used the mean values from data collected in 2006 and 2007 as the management 

target. The reference condition used for the sucker, sunfish, and benthic species metrics was 

computed using the mean plus one standard deviation. The reference condition for the 

Simpson’s Diversity Index was computed using the mean from 2006 and 2007 minus one 

standard deviation because this index has an inverse relationship with diversity. The fish IBI

including the management target and reference condition was developed for the Ozark Highlands 

by Dauwalter et al. (2003). 

We also used fish species models developed for the Missouri Aquatic Gap Project to predict 

expected fish community composition in GWCA streams. The Aquatic Gap predictive models 

for fish were developed using 3,723 community samples across Missouri ranging in date from 

1900 through 1999. These species collections were joined to stream segments with information 

about stream size, gradient, temperature, and flow regime. Each fish species was modeled 

individually. The actual models were constructed using decision tree analysis and the final 

results were applied to individual stream segments meeting the model parameters within the 

range of each species. A final ‘hyperdistribution’ database file was created by combining all the 

individual models into a single file. This database provides a list of all fish predicted to occur in 

each stream segment across Missouri. Counting the number of fish predicted to occur in each 

stream segment allows the creation of richness maps. The models assumed that most of the 

species predicted to occur at a site could be collected if sampling took place during multiple 

seasons over multiple years on relatively undisturbed sites (Sowa et al. 2005). If sampling is 

more limited than this or the ecosystem is impaired a smaller percentage of the predicted species 

would be expected to be found. This data was used to help establish baseline conditions inside 

of GWCA. 

Ideally, the present day fish community would be compared to the community that existed before 

degradation or to the community in a comparable reference stream. Lacking this information we 

compared the present day community to our modeled baseline. The Jaccard Index of Similarity 

is one method for comparing the community composition between two datasets. The Jaccard 

Similarity Index is computed by dividing the intersection, or overlap, of two datasets by the 
36

union of the same two data sets and then multiplying the result by 100 to give a percentage of 

faunal similarity. Two data sets are considered more similar as Jaccard Similarity values 

approach 100%. We compared pooled data collected in 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2010 to Missouri

Aquatic Gap Project fish species models which served as a baseline with which to compare. 
37

Figure 4-3. Fish survey locations during 2003 for Carver Branch, Harkins Branch, and Williams Branch (Justus and Peterson 2005a).
38

Figure 4-4. Fish survey locations during 2006, 2007, and 2010 for Carver Branch, Harkins Branch, and Williams Branch.
39

Aquatic Invertebrate Community

Aquatic invertebrate collection data for streams within GWCA were acquired using a Surber 

stream bottom sampler. Generally, data was available for 2005-2007 with one or two additional 

years of earlier data for some indicators. Collections made in 2005-2007 consisted of sampling 

three successive riffles with three benthic invertebrate samples collected at each riffle following 

Bowles et al. (2008), Monitoring Protocol for Aquatic Invertebrates of Small Streams in the 

Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network (Figure 4-5). 

Seven metrics were used to assess the current condition and establish reference conditions for the 

three watershed based assessment units (Carver Branch, Williams Branch, and Harkins Branch). 

These included Family Richness, Taxa (genus) Richness, EPT Richness, EPT Ratio, Shannon 

Index (Genus), Shannon Evenness Index, and the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index. The management 

target and reference conditions were derived from Rabeni at al. (1997). 

o Family Richness and Genus Richness reflect the health of the community through a 

measure of the number of families or genera present. Generally, the total number 

increases with improving water quality and habitat conditions. 

o EPT Richness is the total number of Ephemeroptera/Plecoptera/Trichoptera taxa present. 

EPT richness generally declines as the aquatic community is degraded. 

o EPT Ratio or EPC/C ratio is the total number of Ephemeroptera/Plecoptera/Trichoptera 

individuals divided by the total number of Chironomidae individuals. Good water quality 

is generally represented with EPT ratios greater than 0.75. 

o Shannon Index (Genus) takes into account both richness and evenness. The Shannon 

Index decreases with increasing impairment. 

o With the Shannon Evenness Index lower evenness indicates a stream may have been 

subjected to disturbance and is populated by fewer, pollution tolerant genera. As values 

approach 1 the observed diversity approaches perfect evenness. 

o Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) uses tolerance values to weight abundance for an estimate 

of pollution. The HBI increases with increasing pollution. 
40

Figure 4-5. Invertebrate survey locations for Carver Branch, Harkins Branch, and Williams Branch during 2005-2007 (Bowles 2009).
41 

Chemical and Physical Characteristics

Water Quality

Data for water quality were available and reported on for temperature, specific conductance, 

dissolved oxygen, pH, and turbidity. Water quality information is based on Core 5 indicators for 

2006, 2007, and 2010 taken from Dodd et al. (2011). Dodd et al. (2011) reports that data 

collected in 2006, 2007, and 2010 were collected continuously with data loggers. It should be 

noted that stream discharge was higher in 2007 than in 2006 or 2010. NPS established 

management targets based on Brown and Czarnecki (undated). 

Temperature, Specific Conductance, Dissolved Oxygen, pH, and Turbidity:

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 is 

affecting 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 GWCA 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 GWCA 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 
42

2007a). Nutrient sensitive ecosystems respond to wet deposition levels of approximately 1.5 

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 GWCA 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 GWCA. We 

inferred historic fire return intervals for grasslands by referring to state and transition models for 

similar communities prepared for the LandFire project (see 

http://www.landfire.gov/NationalProductDescriptions13.php).
43

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). These included 

park-wide, upland grassland, woodland, and persimmon grove. Potential vegetation for each 

terrestrial community was based on pre-european communities that were primarily associated 

with the reporting unit type (see Appendix D. for community descriptions). The persimmon 

grove reporting unit is conceptual, and is an area of cultural importance to George Washington 

Carver during the time he spent on the Carver farm. Cultural areas such as buildings, parking 

lots, and associated lawns and grounds were also identified and separated from areas that will be 

managed for more natural or semi-natural vegetation.

Figure 5-1. Terrestrial reporting units for George Washington Carver National Monument were based on 

both current vegetation patterns and ecological site type (site potential). The Persimmon Grove reporting 

unit is essentially continuous with the Woodland Reporting unit, but has cultural significance.

Because stream character and condition can vary dramatically with drainage area (Vannote et al. 

1980), we developed reporting units for Harkins Branch, Williams Branch, and Carver Branch
44

(Figure 5-2). Air quality, which is largely reflective of global or regional processes, was 

reported at the park-wide scale. 

Figure 5-2. Map of stream reporting units within George Washington Carver National Monument.

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, however, the management targets 

may differ for the same resource type in different reporting units. Table 5-1 summarizes 

resource types and their indicators/attributes by reporting units. 
45 

Table 5-1. Summary of natural resource condition indicators for George Washington Carver National 

Monument. Current conditions and management targets are based on a variety of sources, including field 

data, literature, and expert judgment. (App. B summarizes how current condition and target values were 

determined.) Indicator(s) characterize resource types and their attributes within reporting units. 

 

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator Management Target

Current 

Condition Current Year

Park-wide

Vegetation

Landscape composition

patch count < 50 105 2010

mean patch size (ha) > 3 1.09 2010

Land use/Land cover

semi-natural and natural types (ha) > 75 25 2010

successional types (ha) < 18 68 2010

cultural types (ha) ≤ 3 3 2010

Breeding bird community

species richness ≥ 47 47 2008

Partners in Flight target species ≥ 6 6 2008

number of grassland obligate species ≥ 3 3 2008

Invasive exotic plant impact

number of taxa < 30 35 2006

frequency on transects (%) < 50 91.9 2006

park-wide minimum cover estimate (%) < 10 9.0 2006

Air quality

Ozone

ozone (ppb) ≤ 60 72.9 2003 - 2007

Atmospheric deposition

nitrogen (kg/ha/yr) ≤ 1 13.03 2003 - 2007

sulfur (kg/ha/yr) ≤ 1 10.6 2003 - 2007

Upland grassland

Landscape composition

patch count for grassland < 10 0 2010

mean patch size for grassland (ha) > 5 0 2010

Land use/Land cover

prairie (ha) > 55 0 2010

successional types (ha) < 15 65 2010

Diversity

native species richness ≥ 71 74 2008

total species richness ≥ 135 143 2008

Herbaceous guild composition

native grass (%) > 30 5 47.2 2008

native forbs (%) > 17 5 37.6 2008

native woody shrub and vine (%) < 41.8 22.4 2008

Woodland

Landscape composition

patch count for woodland < 10 18 2010

mean patch size for woodland (ha) > 2 1.1 2010

Land use/Land cover

natural and semi-natural woodland (ha) ≥ 20 20 2010

successional types (ha) < 1 0.9 2010

Structural class

hardwood canopy cover (%) > 50 85 2008

hardwood basal area (m2/ha) 14 - 25 7.5 2008
46 

Table 5.1. Continued

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator Management Target

Current 

Condition Current Year

density (stems/ha, trees > 8 cm dbh) 125 - 600 111 2008

Regeneration

Total hackberry relative density (% of 

stems/ha, < 8 cm dbh) < 50 41 2008

Herbaceous guild composition

native grass (%) 10 - 70 13 2008

native forbs (%) 1 - 45 18 2008

native woody shrub (%) 20 - 50 20 2008

Structure

hardwood tree height (m) 9 - 22 18.6 2008

Carver Branch

Water quality 

temperature (oC) 0 - 34 15.3 2010

specific conductance (μS/cm) 100 - 400 282.1 2010

dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 5 - 15 7.9 2010

pH 6.5 - 9.0 7.4 2010

turbidity (NTU) < 10 2.2 2010

Fish community

Composition

Simpson's Diversity ≤ 0.49 0.97 2010

sucker composition (%) > 52 0.50 2010

benthic species composition (%) > 13.4 19.8 2010

Condition

Index of Biotic Integrity > 60 55 2010

Aquatic invertebrates

Biotic integrity

family richness ≥ 14 2 16.0 2007

genus richness > 15 17.6 2007

EPT richness > 4 6.9 2007

EPT ratio ≥ 0.85 0.68 2007

Shannon Index (Genus) > 1.77 2.26 2007

Shannon Evenness Index ≥ 0.75 0.79 2007

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index < 6.6 4.6 2007

Williams branch

Water quality

temperature (oC) 0 - 34 17.1 2010

specific conductance (μS/cm) 100 - 400 228.0 2010

dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 5 - 15 10.8 2010

pH 6.5 - 9.0 7.8 2010

turbidity (NTU) < 10 3.0 2010

Fish community

Composition

Simpson's Diversity < 0.34 0.21 2010

benthic species composition (%) > 74.4 80.7 2010

Condition

Index of Biotic Integrity > 60 81 2010

Aquatic invertebrates

Biotic integrity

family richness ≥ 14 2 14 2007

genus richness > 15 15.4 2007

EPT richness > 4 6 2007

EPT ratio ≥ 0.85 0.68 2007
47 

Table 5.1. Continued

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator Management Target

Current 

Condition Current Year

Shannon Index (Genus) > 1.77 2.03 2007

Shannon Evenness Index ≥ 0.75 0.79 2007

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index < 6.6 4.4 2007

Harkins branch

Water quality

temperature (oC) 0 - 34 17.3 2010

specific conductance (μS/cm) 100 - 400 214.3 2010

dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 5 - 15 7.3 2010

pH 6.5 - 9.0 7.1 2010

turbidity (NTU) < 10 3.6 2010

Fish community

Composition

Simpson's Diversity < 0.27 0.15 2010

benthic species composition (%) > 18 3 33.1 2010

Condition

Index of Biotic Integrity > 60 52 2010

Aquatic invertebrates

Biotic integrity

family richness ≥ 14 2 15.1 2007

genus richness > 15 16.1 2007

EPT richness > 4 7.6 2007

EPT ratio ≥ 0.99 0.79 2007

Shannon Index (Genus) > 1.77 2.27 2007

Shannon Evenness Index ≥ 0.75 0.83 2007

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index < 6.6 4.3 2007

Reporting Unit: Park-wide

Overall, GWCA has ten different current conceptual cover types, and about 22 ha (23%) are 

natural or semi-natural, whereas 65 ha (68%) are successional types. The remaining 9 ha (9%) 

are cultural cover types, including cover such as buildings, lawns, roads, and parking lots (Table 

5-2, Figure 5-4). Wooded types are considered semi-natural and grassy types successional for 

this summary, but this distinction is somewhat misleading, since essentially the entire park is in 

some stage of disturbance and recovery from past land use, mainly row crop agriculture. Finally, 

current cover types are conceptual in nature, and are not based on field sampling. Current 

vegetation will be classified and mapped by NPS under a separate project.

Vegetation
48

Table 5-2. Current (conceptual) vegetation type distribution.

Current Vegetation Class

Mean Patch Size 

(ha)

# of 

Patches

Class Area 

(ha)

% Class 

Area

Barren or Sparsely Vegetated 0.07 1 0.07 0.08

Bottomland Oak-Hardwood Forest 1.12 11 12.36 12.89

Bottomland Successional Deciduous Sparse Woodland and Shrubland 0.07 2 0.14 0.14

Bottomland Successional Herbaceous Vegetation 0.47 12 5.63 5.87

Open Water 0.31 1 0.31 0.32

Trails and Roads 0.10 13 1.27 1.32

Upland Prairie and Savanna (wooded) 0.27 45 12.28 12.80

Upland Successional Deciduous Sparse Woodland and Shrubland 0.11 17 1.85 1.93

Upland Successional and Disturbance Grassland 4.03 15 60.50 63.08

Urban Low Intensity 0.17 9 1.50 1.57

Figure 5-3. George Washington Carver National Monument current (conceptual) vegetation cover types.
49

Figure 5-4. George Washington Carver National Monument current landscape condition.

Landscape Composition

There are 105 patches of different land cover types in the park, with an average patch size of 

0.90 ha. Grassland patches are the larger on average (3.48 ha) than deciduous forest (0.57 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). 

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

Washington Carver National Monument.

Land Use/Land Cover Class Mean Patch Size (ha) # of Patches Class Area (ha) % Class Area

Impervious 0.10 13 1.27 1.32

Low Density Urban 0.17 9 1.50 1.56

Barren or Sparsely Vegetated 0.07 1 0.07 0.07

Grassland 3.48 19 66.13 68.95

Deciduous Forest 0.57 43 24.64 25.69

Decid. Woody/Herbaceous 0.10 19 1.99 2.07

Open Water 0.31 1 0.31 0.32
50 

Land Use/Land Cover 

Grasslands occupy 66 ha of the park and were designated as successional, while deciduous 

woodlands and forests occupied 25 ha and were designated as semi-natural (Table 5-3). All 

other land cover types occupied no more than two hectares of the park. Successional sparse 

woodland and shrubland occupies only about 2 ha, but may be important for birds of concern 

such as the Indigo bunting (see Breeding Birds, below). The management goals are based on 

expert opinion, and relate to increases in the area of semi-natural types, and reduction in the area 

of successional types, in this case low quality grasslands. 

Forty-nine species were recorded during the 2008 survey, and the most common bird was the 

Dickcissel (Spiza Americana; Peitz 2009). The Brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), Indigo 

bunting (Passerina cyanea), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), and Northern cardinal 

(Cardinalis cardinalis) were moderately abundant (Table 5-4).

Breeding Bird Community

Table 5-4. Bird species recorded during breeding bird surveys in 2008 at George Washington Carver 

National Monument (from Peitz 2009).

 

Common name1 Species name2 AOU 

code

Residency3

American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos AMCR R 

American goldfinch Carduelis tristis AMGO R 

American robin Turdus migratorius AMRO R 

American woodcock Scolopax minor AMWO SR

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica BARS SR

Belted kingfisher4 Ceryle alcyon BEKI R 

Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata BLJA R 

Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea BGGN 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 passerina CHSP SR

Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor CONI SR

Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas COYE SR

Dickcissel Spiza americana DICK SR

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens DOWO R 

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
51 

 

Common name1 Species name2 AOU 

code

Residency3

Field sparrow Spizella pusilla FISP R 

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum GRSP SR

Great blue heron4 Ardea herodias GBHE R 

Great crested flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus GCFL SR

House sparrow Passer domesticus HOSP R 

Indigo bunting Passerina cyanea INBU SR

Kentucky warbler Oporornis formosus KEWA SR

Killdeer Charadrius vociferous KILL R 

Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus LASP 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

Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus PIWO R 

Purple martin Progne subis PUMA SR

Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus RBWO R 

Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus REVI SR

Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus RSHA R 

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis RTHA R 

Ruby-throated hummingbird Archilochus colubris RTHU SR

Scissor-tailed flycatcher4 Tyrannus forficatus STFL SR

Song sparrow Melospiza melodia SOSP WR

Summer tanager Piranga rubra SUTA SR

Turkey vulture Cathartes aura TUVU R 

(Eastern) Tufted titmouse Baeolophus bicolor ETTI R 

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus YBCU SR

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens YBCH 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.

Six species found at GWCA are on Partners in Flight lists of birds of concern (see Peitz 2009; 

Table 5-4). Three grassland obligate birds, the Dickcissel, Eastern meadowlark (Sturnella 

magna), and grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), were recorded at the park. No 

forest obligate species were recorded, and hence most of the species within the park do well in 

fragmented habitat. Management targets are based on expert opinion and focus on maintenance 

of the current level of biodiversity, including overall richness, species of concern, and grassland 
52

obligate species. The three most frequent species of concern and their habitats include the 

Dickcissel (tallgrass prairie or weedy fields), Indigo bunting (brush and low trees of overgrown 

fields), and Carolina wren (woodland understory). These habitats may deserve special attention 

in terms of vegetation management on the park. However, management of specific plots may 

not be practical since an action designed to benefit one species may harm another, and thus 

management within the context of communities may be most practical. In this regard, 

maintenance of tallgrass prairie across relatively large areas, some shrubby vegetation in 

different patches, and understory within woodlands, would benefit grassland obligates and all 

three species of concern.

Twenty-five invasive or exotic species were identified during surveys conducted in 2006, and 

they cover a minimum of 8.9% of the total area of the park (Table 5-5, Cribbs et al. 2007). 

Management targets are based on expert opinion, and focus on reducing, or not allowing further 

expansion, numbers and cover within the park if possible.

Invasive Exotic Plant Impact
53

Table 5-5. Invasive exotic plants at George Washington Carver National Monument. Management 

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

insignificant (I), and unknown (U).

Scientific Name Common Name

Park-wide 

Cover 

(acres)

Frequency 

(percent)

Management 

Difficulty

Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle 18.9 - 47.2 27.80% HM

Bromus racemosus Bald brome 7.3 - 27.5 33.00% ----

Schedonorus phoenix Tall fescue 5.0 - 15.0 20.60% ----

Maclura pomifera Osage orange 3.3 - 12.3 19.60% L

Poa spp. Bluegrass species 1.6 - 7.7 7.20% ----

Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose 1.5 - 5.9 37.10% L

Rhus glabra Smooth sumac 1.4 - 3.8 19.60% ----

Bromus inermis Smooth brome 1.3 -3.8 21.60% ML

Sorghum halepense Johnsongrass 1.0 - 4.0 28.90% HM

Lespedeza cuneata Sericea lespedeza 0.7 - 2.8 35.10% ML

Securigera varia Crownvetch 0.6 - 1.2 1.00% L

Torilis japonica Erect hegeparsley 0.6 - 1.2 1.00% ----

Bromus sterilis Poverty brome <0.75 9.30% U

Euonymus fortunei Winter creeper < 0.50 13.40% LI

Ligustrum vulgare Common privet < 0.5 14.40% HM

Dactylis glomerata Orchardgrass < 0.25 13.40% ML

Melilotus officinalis Sweetclover < 0.25 5.20% M

Morus alba White mulberry < 0.25 9.30% ML

Glechoma hederacea Ground ivy < 0.1 2.10% U

Verbascum thapsus Common mullein < 0.1 6.20% L

Celastrus orbiculatus Oriental bittersweet < 0.01 2.10% M

Lonicera maackii Amur honeysuckle < 0.01 1.00% M

Potentilla recta Sulphur cinquefoil < 0.01 5.20% ML

Arctium minus Lesser burdock < 0.001 1.00% MI

Euonymus alatus Burning bush < 0.001 1.00% L

In grasslands, tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix), a cool-season perennial, and bald brome 

(Bromus racemosus), a cool-season annual, both cover at least two hectares, but their distribution 

is patchy. Smooth sumac (Rhus glabra) is a common native invasive shrub in the grasslands. In 

woodlands, Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), a perennial vine, forms the dominant 

ground cover across most of the park, at least 8 hectares, and is difficult to control. Osage 

orange (Malcura pomifera) is a common invasive tree, particularly in the woodlands on the 

northwest side of the park. Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) is common in both woodland and 

grassland habitats on the park. 
54

Air Quality

Ozone Assessment

Results of the ozone assessment presented in (Figure 5-5) show that ozone concentrations have 

declined slightly in recent years with data for most of the available period of record rated as high 

risk. 

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 GWCA is moderate (Figure 5-6). NPS indicates that there are from 8 to 20 ozone 

sensitive plant species in GWCA (NPS 2001, NPS 2004, and NPS 2006). 

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

1995-1999 1999-2003 2001-2005 2003-2007 2004-2008

Parts Per Billion

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

deposition estimates (NPS 2010). Greater than or equal to 76 ppb is considered poor, between 61-75 

fair, and below 61 good (NPS 2007a). 
55

Figure 5-6. Map showing the risk of ozone injury to vegetation by park (NPS 2007d). 

Atmospheric Deposition

Average interpolated estimates of wet deposition for nitrogen ranged from 13.02 to 14.89 

kg/ha/yr., and estimates of wet deposition of sulfur ranged from 10.6 to 12.7 kg/ha/yr. All 

estimates far exceeded the threshold of 3 kg/ha/yr(Figure 5-7). Wet deposition from sulfates, 

nitrates, and ammonium account for a majority of total sulfur and nitrogen deposition (Figure 5-

8, Figure 5-9). 
56

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1999-2003 2001-2005 2003-2007 2004-2008

N

S

Figure 5-7. 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 2010). 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 5-8. Total wet and dry sulfate deposition based on five-year averages of interpolated deposition 

estimates (NPS 2010).
57

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 5-9. Total wet and dry nitrogen deposition based on five-year averages of interpolated deposition 

estimates (NPS 2010).

Reporting Unit: Persimmon Grove

The persimmon grove reporting unit is conceptual and is a subset of the main woodland 

reporting unit (Figure 5-4, 5-10). The current vegetation of this reporting unit is not different 

from the adjacent woodland. In terms of patch count, patch size, and overall cover, management 

goals do not differ from current conditions. For interpretive purposes, management goals in the 

future might include re-establishment of persimmons, which are rare or may be absent in the 

current forest, along with other native fruit and nut trees that may have inspired George 

Washington Carver's interest in natural history and agronomy.
58

Figure 5-10. Current landscape composition for the persimmon grove reporting unit.

Reporting Unit: Upland Grassland

Grasslands at GWCA are in various states of restoration, but the spatial extent and type of past 

restoration efforts have not been well-documented. Some areas are dominated by tall grasses 

such as Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans) and big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), whereas 

others are dominated by tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix), but again the differences among 

patches are not well mapped. Overall, we designated all grasslands as successional (Figure 5-

11), although some areas are in much more natural condition than others, and they do contain a 

reasonable compliment of native grasses and forbs (Table 5-1; Jones 2004). 

Management goals are from the professional judgment that the region was once tallgrass prairie, 

and therefore the desire for improvement in grassland condition to a "semi-natural" rather than 

"successional" state. For areas that are in poor condition, this process will require continuous 

effort over decades. Fescue grassland patches that are currently within and adjacent to sparse 

woodlands and shrublands on the southwest side of the park might reasonably be left to succeed 

to shrubby vegetation that favors some target breeding birds of concern (see Breeding Birds,

above). 
59

Figure 5-11. Current landscape composition for the upland grassland reporting unit.

Reporting Unit: Woodland

Woodlands at GWCA are generally young, semi-natural types and are mainly associated with 

upland drainages (Figure 5-12). Hackberry (Celtic occidentalis) and American elm (Ulmus

americana), both generally early successional species, are dominant throughout the park (NPS 

Unpublished, Undated). Some sites do contain later successional species such as black walnut 

(Juglans nigra) and overcup oak (Quercus macrocarpa). Recruitment of the early successional 

hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) is less than the management target of 50% of overall sapling 

density (see Table 5-1). Overall structure (e.g. height, canopy cover) is generally within the 

range expected for these types of woodlands. Sapling density is generally low, which is 

expected in young woodland. 

Overall, woodland patch size is smaller and number of patches larger than management targets, 

which were arrived at subjectively based on professional judgment. Management targets for 

other structural characteristics such as height, basal area, hardwood canopy cover, and density

are based on professional judgment informed by data from similar communities described mainly 

by Nelson (2005) and Missouri forest and woodland natural 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). Woodlands 
60

might be expected to continue to improve in overall composition over time, although the 

pervasive presence of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) in the ground cover layer may 

tend to limit recruitment of desirable trees into light gaps when they appear.

Figure 5-12. Current landscape composition for the woodland reporting unit.

Reporting Unit: Carver Branch

Land cover and land use impact water quality and aquatic life. Watersheds with approximately 

10% impervious surface typically have degraded aquatic communities (Center for Watershed 

Protection 2003). Carver Branch drains much of the city of Diamond, Missouri which had a 

population of 808 people in 2000. Based on year 2000 census data there are approximately 683 

people residing in the Carver Branch watershed (44 people per km2). Seventy-eight percent of 

the watershed above the park is classified as pasture/hay, while only 1.6% and 1.1% of the area 

is classified as impervious surface and cropland respectively (Figure 2-1, Table 5-6). There is 

one known leaking underground tank and one waste water treatment facility in the watershed. 

Although certainly not representative of all threats to aquatic systems, Table 2-1 includes the set 

of potential threats to aquatic ecological integrity quantified for Carver Branch. 

Aquatic Threats
61

Table 5-6. Quantified threats for Carver Branch in George Washington Carver National Monument. 

Values are from the last stream segment downstream of the park.

Human Threat # or amount % or Density

Impervious Surfaces 251100 m2 1.62%

Cropland 171000 m2 1.11%

Pasture/Hay 12052800 m2 77.93%

Road/Stream Crossings 15 0.97 pkm2

Roads 26743 m 1729 pkm2

Water Wells 22 1.42 pkm2

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 1 0.06 pkm2

Pipelines 5400 m 349 pkm2

Waste Water Treatment Facilities 1 0.06 pkm2

Crop Pesticides 38.36 kg 2.48 pkm2

Headwater Impoundments 7 0.45 pkm2

NPDES 1 0.06 pkm2

2000 Population 683 44.19 pkm2

Based on the Core 5 water quality measurements assessed for this report, only pH from 2007 is 

rated as being off target (Table 5-7). Temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and 

turbidity are all rated as on target over their respective periods of record. Generally, the 

parameters measured are fairly typical for regional streams and do not suggest impairment 

(Bowles 2009 cites Brown and Czarnezki undated). Dodd et al. (2011) suggests that the higher 

turbidity in 2007 occurred during the nighttime hours and may be due to terrestrial animal 

activity in the stream or along the bank. Any additional growth or development in the city of 

Diamond, Missouri could potentially impact water quality in Carver Branch. 

Water Quality

Table 5-7. Water quality indicators for Carver Branch.

Indicator Management Target Mean1 Rating

Temperature (°C)

 2006 0-34 o

C 18.2 On Target

 2007 0-34 o

C 16.0 On Target

 2010 0-34 oC 15.3 On Target

 Mean 0-34 oC 16.5 On Target

Specific Conductance ( μS/cm @ 25°C)

 2006 100-400 μS/cm 331.5 On Target

 2007 100-400 μS/cm 215.3 On Target

 2010 100-400 μS/cm 282.1 On Target

 Mean 100-400 μS/cm 276.3 On Target

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

 2006 5-15 mg/liter 7.6 On Target

 2007 5-15 mg/liter 7.6 On Target

 2010 5-15 mg/liter 7.9 On Target

 Mean 5-15 mg/liter 7.7 On Target

pH

 2006 6.5-9.0 7.2 On Target

 2007 6.5-9.0 9.8 Off Target

 2010 6.5-9.0 7.4 On Target

 Mean 6.5-9.0 8.1 On Target

Turbidity (NTU)

 2006 <10 NTU 1.1 On Target

 2007 <10 NTU 9.3 On Target

 2010 <10 NTU 2.2 On Target

 Mean <10 NTU 4.2 On Target 1

 Mean from Dodd et al. (2011).
62

Justus and Petersen (2005a) report that the fish collected from sites in George Washington 

Carver National Monument are typical of small headwater streams. Collections made during 

2010 record 12 species from Carver Branch, while pooling data collected in 2003, 2006, 2007, 

and 2010 document 17 species occurring in the creek within GWCA. Two species of potential 

interest in Carver Branch are the cardinal shiner (Luxilus cardinalis) and the stippled darter 

(Etheostoma punctulatim) because they are endemic to the Ozark Plateau; however they are 

fairly common in certain parts of the Ozark Plateau (Justus and Peterson 2005a). In addition, the 

Arkansas darter is a species that is at risk of extirpation throughout its range (Dodd et al. 2011). 

Fish Community Composition and Condition

Reviewing Table 5-8 reveals that, based on data collected in 2010 the IBI of 55 is off target 

despite being on target during 2006 and 2007. Benthic species composition is the only indicator 

rated as being on target for 2010. Sunfish composition could not be computed for analyses. 

Although the bluntnose minnow has not been collected in Carver Branch, predictive models 

indicate that this species could be expected to occur under relatively undisturbed conditions. The 

Jaccard Similarity between the observed and predicted fish communities is 72% indicating that 

species present may be very similar to the potential community (Table 5-9, Table 5-10). 

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 

Carver Branch are designated as critically imperiled (G1) or imperiled (G2) on a global scale

(Table 5-11). In addition, there are no S1 or S2 fish species known to occur in Carver Branch in 

the park. A single species, the Arkansas darter (Etheostoma cragini) is listed as G3 and S3. 
63 

Table 5-8. Ratings for five fish metrics computed for Carver Branch. 

Indicator Management Target Reference Condition Current Condition1 Rating

Simpson's Diversity

 2006 ≤0.49 0 38 0.41 Off Target

 2007 ≤0.49 0 38 0.56 Off Target

 2010 ≤0.49 0 38 0.97 Off Target

 Mean ≤0.49 0 38 0.65 Off Target

Sucker Composition (%)

 2006 >0.52 0.63 0.45 Off Target

 2007 >0.52 0.63 0.60 On Target

 2010 >0.52 0.63 0.50 Off Target

 Mean >0.52 0.63 0.52 Off Target

Sunfish Composition (%)

 2006 N/A N/A 0.00 N/A

 2007 N/A N/A 0.00 N/A

 2010 N/A N/A 0.00 N/A

 Mean N/A N/A 0.00 N/A

Benthic spp. Composition (%)

 2006 >13.4 13.74 13.65 On Target

 2007 >13.4 13.74 13.20 Off Target

 2010 >13.4 13.74 19.80 On Target

 Mean >13.4 13.74 15.55 On Target

Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)

 2006 >60 80 63 On Target

 2007 >60 80 68 On Target

 2010 >60 80 55 Off Target

 Mean >60 80 62 On Target

1 Current condition from Dodd et al. (2011).

Table 5-9. Fish species observed1 and predicted2 to occur in Carver Branch. 

Collected Not Predicted Predicted Not Collected Shared

Banded Sculpin Bluntnose Minnow Arkansas Darter

Duskystripe Shiner Bluegill

Rainbow Darter Cardinal Shiner

Slender Madtom Central Stoneroller3

Creek Chub

Fantail Darter

Green Sunfish

Largemouth Bass

Orangethroat Darter

Southern Redbelly Dace

Stippled Darter

Western Mosquitofish

 White Sucker

1 Observed species from Justus and Peterson (2005a) and Dodd et al. (2011).

2 Predicted species based on Aquatic GAP species distribution models. 

3 Data recorded as Stoneroller sp. was assumed to be Central Stoneroller.
64

Table 5-10. Jaccard Similarity computed for Carver Branch.

Carver Branch Number

Total Species Collected 17

Total Species Modeled 14

Collected not Predicted 4

Predicted not Collected 1

Collected and Predicted (Shared) 13

Introduced Species 0

Jaccard Similarity 72%

Table 5-11. Number of globally listed fish species (G-rank) and state listed fish species (S-rank) by actual 

collections and models in Carver Branch.

Carver Branch

Rank Collection Model

G3 1 1

G4 2 2

G5 14 11

S3 1 1

S? 16 13

The seven aquatic invertebrate community indicators assessed for this report indicate that aquatic 

invertebrate communities are in generally good condition. Family richness ranged between 14.2 

and 16 over the four years of data assessed for this report, all of which are at or above the 

management target value (Table 5-12). Genus richness values have generally increased over the 

last three years. EPT richness has remained constant at 6.9 for 2006 and 2007, though is 

somewhat lower than previous years. The EPT ratio, Shannon Index, Shannon Evenness Index 

have all increased over the latest three years of available data indicating stable to improving 

conditions, although the EPT ratio is off target for the available period of record (POR). The 

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index values have been variable over the available POR. It should be noted, 

however, that Bowles (2009) caution against using these data for trend assessments. 

Aquatic Invertebrates
65 

Table 5-12. Aquatic invertebrate indicators for Carver Branch. 

Indicator Management Target Reference Condition Mean1 Rating

Family Richness

 1996 ≥14 2 14.2 14.6 On Target

 2005 ≥14 2 14.2 14.2 On Target

 2006 ≥14 2 14.2 15.3 On Target

 2007 ≥14 2 14.2 16.0 On Target

 Mean ≥14 2 14.2 15.0 On Target

Genus Richness

 1989 >15 26.2 33.0 On Target

 2005 >15 26.2 15.9 On Target

 2006 >15 26.2 17.0 On Target

 2007 >15 26.2 17.6 On Target

 Mean >15 26.2 20.9 On Target

EPT Richness

 1989 >4 7.8 11.0 On Target

 2005 >4 7.8 7.4 On Target

 2006 >4 7.8 6.9 On Target

 2007 >4 7.8 6.9 On Target 

 Mean >4 7.8 8.1 On Target

EPT Ratio

 1996 ≥0.85 N/A 0.48 Off Target

 2005 ≥0.85 N/A 0.38 Off Target

 2006 ≥0.85 N/A 0.48 Off Target

 2007 ≥0.85 N/A 0.68 Off Target

 Mean ≥0.85 N/A 0.51 Off Target

Shannon Index

 1989 >1.77 2.39 2.14 On Target

 1996 >1.77 2.39 1.84 On Target

 2005 >1.77 2.39 1.74 Off Target

 2006 >1.77 2.39 2.11 On Target

 2007 >1.77 2.39 2.26 On Target

 Mean >1.77 2.39 2.02 On Target

Shannon Evenness Index

 2005 ≥0.75 N/A 0.64 Off Target

 2006 ≥0.75 N/A 0.74 Off Target

 2007 ≥0.75 N/A 0.79 On Target

 Mean ≥0.75 N/A 0.72 Off Target

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index

 1996 <6.6 <4.3 4.75 On Target

 2005 <6.6 <4.3 5.23 On Target

 2006 <6.6 <4.3 4.23 On Target

 2007 <6.6 <4.3 4.62 On Target

 Mean <6.6 <4.3 4.71 On Target

1 Mean from Harris et al. (1991) and Bowles (2009).

 

Reporting Unit: Williams Branch

Because of the mapping scale, threats in Williams Branch were not directly assessed. However, 

because Williams Branch is entirely within the boundary of GWCA threats to this stream are 

likely minimal. 

Aquatic Threats
66 

Based on the Core 5 water quality measurements analyzed for this report only pH for a single 

year (2007) is rated as being off target. This is likely due to the fact that Williams Branch is 

entirely within the boundary of GWCA, and is therefore relatively undisturbed (Table 5-13). 

Water Quality

Table 5-13. Water quality indicators for Williams Branch.

Indicator Management Target Mean1 Rating

Temperature ( C)

 2006 0-34 oC 21.2 On Target

 2007 0-34 oC 14.7 On Target

 2010 0-34 oC 17.1 On Target

 Mean 0-34 oC 17.7 On Target

Specific Conductance ( μS/cm @ 25 C)

 2006 100-400 μS/cm 256.6 On Target

 2007 100-400 μS/cm 178.8 On Target

 2010 100-400 μS/cm 228.0 On Target

 Mean 100-400 μS/cm 221.1 On Target

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

 2006 5-15 mg/liter 8.6 On Target

 2007 5-15 mg/liter 7.9 On Target

 2010 5-15 mg/liter 10.8 On Target

 Mean 5-15 mg/liter 9.1 On Target

pH

 2006 6.5-9.0 7.9 On Target

 2007 6.5-9.0 9.4 Off Target

 2010 6.5-9.0 7.8 On Target

 Mean 6.5-9.0 8.4 On Target

Turbidity (NTU)

 2006 <10 NTU 4.3 On Target

 2007 <10 NTU 5.0 On Target

 2010 <10 NTU 3.0 On Target

 Mean <10 NTU 4.1 On Target

1 Mean from Dodd et al. (2011).

Because of the mapping scale, predicted fish communities were not available for Williams 

Branch. 

Fish Community Composition and Condition

Collections made during 2010 record nine species from Williams Branch. Pooled collections 

from 2003, 2006, 2007, and 2010 document a total of fourteen species as present in Williams 

Branch within GWCA (see Table 5-14 for species list). 

Reviewing Table 5-15 reveals that the observed IBI of 81 is very good and above the commonly 

accepted reference condition value of 80. Both Simpson’s Diversity and benthic species 

composition are rated as being on target for 2010. Sucker and sunfish composition had no data 

and therefore could not be given a rating. A species of interest is the stippled darter (Etheostoma 

punctulatim) because it is endemic to the Ozark Plateau; however they are fairly common in 

certain parts of the Ozark Plateau (Justus and Peterson 2005a). Another species of interest may 

be the Arkansas darter which is at risk of extirpation throughout its range (Dodd et al. 2011). 

No introduced species were reported from Williams Branch in 2007. 
67 

No fish species collected from Williams Branch are designated as critically imperiled (G1) or 

imperiled (G2) on a global scale or state scale (Table 5-16). The Arkansas darter (Etheostoma 

cragini) is listed as G3 and S3. 

Table 5-14. Fish species observed1 in Williams Branch.

Collected Species

Arkansas Darter

Banded Sculpin

Central Stoneroller

Creek Chub

Fantail Darter

Green Sunfish

Largemouth Bass

Orangethroat Darter

Rainbow Darter

Slender Madtom

Southern Redbelly Dace

Stippled Darter

Western Mosquitofish

White Sucker

1 Observed species from Justus and Peterson (2005a) and Dodd et al. (2011).

Table 5-15. Ratings for five fish metrics computed for Williams Branch. 

Indicator Management Target Mean1 Rating

Temperature ( C)

 2006 0-34 oC 21.2 On Target

 2007 0-34 o

C 14.7 On Target

 2010 0-34 oC 17.1 On Target

 Mean 0-34 oC 17.7 On Target

Specific Conductance ( μS/cm @ 25 C)

 2006 100-400 μS/cm 256.6 On Target

 2007 100-400 μS/cm 178.8 On Target

 2010 100-400 μS/cm 228.0 On Target

 Mean 100-400 μS/cm 221.1 On Target

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

 2006 5-15 mg/liter 8.6 On Target

 2007 5-15 mg/liter 7.9 On Target

 2010 5-15 mg/liter 10.8 On Target

 Mean 5-15 mg/liter 9.1 On Target

pH

 2006 6.5-9.0 7.9 On Target

 2007 6.5-9.0 9.4 Off Target

 2010 6.5-9.0 7.8 On Target

 Mean 6.5-9.0 8.4 On Target

Turbidity (NTU)

 2006 <10 NTU 4.3 On Target

 2007 <10 NTU 5.0 On Target

 2010 <10 NTU 3.0 On Target

 Mean <10 NTU 4.1 On Target

1 Mean from Dodd et al. (2011).
68

Table 5-16. Number of globally listed fish species (G-rank) and state listed fish species (S-rank) by actual 

collections in Williams Branch.

Williams Branch

Rank Collection

G3 1

G4 1

G5 12

S3 1

S? 13

The Williams Branch aquatic invertebrate community is in generally good condition. Family 

richness in Williams Branch is on target for 2006, but off for both 2005 and 2007. Genus 

richness is on target for the last two years for which data is available. EPT richness increased 

progressively from 2005 – 2007 as did the EPT ratio, though the EPA Ratio is off target for the 

entire POR. Both the Shannon Index and the Shannon Evenness Index remained fairly high and 

constant from 2005 – 2007 indicating stable conditions and minimal disturbance. The mean 

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index scores were below 5.0 for both 2006 and 2007 which indicates that the 

taxa represented were only moderately tolerant of pollution (Table 5-17).

Aquatic Invertebrates
69 

Table 5-17. Aquatic invertebrate indicators for Williams Branch.

Indicator Management Target Reference Condition Mean1 Rating

Family Richness

 2005 ≥14 2 14.2 11.8 Off Target

 2006 ≥14 2 14.2 15.3 On Target

 2007 ≥14 2 14.2 14.0 Off Target

 Mean ≥14 2 14.2 13.7 Off Target

Genus Richness

 1989 >15 26.2 37.0 On Target

 2005 >15 26.2 13.9 Off Target

 2006 >15 26.2 17.0 On Target

 2007 >15 26.2 15.4 On Target

 Mean >15 26.2 20.8 On Target

EPT Richness

 1989 >4 7.8 15.0 On Target

 2005 >4 7.8 5.3 On Target

 2006 >4 7.8 5.9 On Target

 2007 >4 7.8 6.0 On Target

 Mean >4 7.8 8.1 On Target

EPT Ratio

 2005 ≥0.85 N/A 0.48 Off Target

 2006 ≥0.85 N/A 0.52 Off Target

 2007 ≥0.85 N/A 0.68 Off Target

 Mean ≥0.85 N/A 0.56 Off Target

Shannon Index

 1989 >1.77 2.39 2.29 On Target

 2005 >1.77 2.39 1.80 On Target

 2006 >1.77 2.39 2.04 On Target

 2007 >1.77 2.39 2.03 On Target

 Mean >1.77 2.39 2.04 On Target

Shannon Evenness Index

 2005 ≥0.75 N/A 0.74 Off Target

 2006 ≥0.75 N/A 0.72 Off Target

 2007 ≥0.75 N/A 0.79 On Target

 Mean ≥0.75 N/A 0.75 Off Target

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index

 2005 <6.6 <4.3 5.54 On Target

 2006 <6.6 <4.3 4.30 On Target

 2007 <6.6 <4.3 4.44 On Target

 Mean <6.6 <4.3 4.76 On Target

1 Mean from Bowles (2009).

Reporting Unit: Harkins Branch

Unlike Carver Branch, Harkins Branch does is not influenced by urban areas and, as such, has a low 

population density and relatively limited threats. The dominant land use in the watershed is pasture/hay 

which comprises approximately 90% of the area (Table 5-18). 

Aquatic Threats
70 

Table 5-18. Quantified threats for Harkins Branch in George Washington Carver National Monument. 

Values are from the last stream segment before entering Carver Branch. 

Human Threat # or amount % or Density

Cropland 54900 m2 0.81%

Pasture/Hay 6081300 m2 89.93%

Road/Stream Crossings 4 0.59 pkm2

Roads 7626 m 1128 pkm2

Water Wells 7 1.04 pkm2

Pipelines 5400 m 799 pkm2

Crop Pesticides 13 kg 1.92 pkm2

Headwater Impoundments 1 0.15 pkm2

2000 Population 38 5.64 pkm2

The Core 5 water quality indicators for Harkins Branch all fall within the management target for 

the three years for which data was available, thus water quality can be interpreted as being 

generally good (Table 5-19). 

Water Quality

Table 5-19. Water quality indicators for Harkins Branch.

Indicator Management Target Mean1 Rating

Temperature ( C)

 2006 0-34 oC 20.3 On Target

 2007 0-34 oC 16.1 On Target

 2010 0-34 o

C 17.3 On Target

 Mean 0-34 oC 17.9 On Target

Specific Conductance ( μS/cm @ 25 C)

 2006 100-400 μS/cm 296.4 On Target

 2007 100-400 μS/cm 164.0 On Target

 2010 100-400 μS/cm 214.5 On Target

 Mean 100-400 μS/cm 225.0 On Target

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

 2006 5-15 mg/liter 5.9 On Target

 2007 5-15 mg/liter 9.8 On Target

 2010 5-15 mg/liter 7.3 On Target

 Mean 5-15 mg/liter 7.7 On Target

pH

 2006 6.5-9.0 7.2 On Target

 2007 6.5-9.0 6.6 On Target

 2010 6.5-9.0 7.1 On Target

 Mean 6.5-9.0 7.0 On Target

Turbidity (NTU)

 2006 <10 NTU 0.7 On Target

 2007 <10 NTU 5.2 On Target

 2010 <10 NTU 3.6 On Target

 Mean <10 NTU 3.2 On Target

1 Mean from Dodd et al. (2011).

Collections during 2010 document 14 fish species in Harkins Branch within GWCA, while 

pooled collections from 2003, 2006, 2007, and 2010 record 18 species as being present. 

Predictive models place thirteen fish species in Harkins Branch within GWCA adding three fish 

that have not been documented in recent collections. The Jaccard Similarity between the 

Fish Community
71

observed and collected fish species is only 48%, however collections record eight additional fish 

that the models do not place in the stream (Table 5-20, Table 5-21). This further supports 

evidence in Dodd et al. (2011) that the fish communities within Harkins Branch are generally 

diverse and healthy. 

Table 5-20. Fish species observed1 and predicted2 to occur in Harkins Branch.

Collected Not Predicted3 Predicted Not Collected Shared

Banded Sculpin Bluntnose Minnow Arkansas Darter

Black Bullhead Largemouth Bass Bluegill

Duskystripe Shiner Orangespotted Sunfish Cardinal Shiner

Rainbow Darter Central Stoneroller4

Slender Madtom Creek Chub

Southern Redbelly Dace Fantail Darter

Stippled Darter Green Sunfish

Stonecat Orangethroat Darter

Western Mosquitofish

White Sucker

1 Observed species from Justus and Peterson (2005a) and Dodd et al. (2011).

2 Predicted species based on Aquatic GAP species distribution models. 

3 Species class Non-carp minnow species were removed from HTLN collection 

because they were not comparable.

4 Data recorded as Stoneroller sp. was assumed to be Central Stoneroller.

Table 5-21. Jaccard Similarity computed for Harkins Branch.

Harkins Branch Number

Total Species Collected1 18

Total Species Modeled 13

Collected not Predicted 8

Predicted not Collected 3

Collected and Predicted (Shared) 10

Introduced Species 0

Jaccard Similarity 48%

1 Species class Non-carp minnow species were removed from 

HTLN collection because they were not comparable.

Reviewing Table 5-22 reveals that Simpson’s Diversity and benthic species composition are both 

rated as being on target in 2007 and 2010. It is interesting to note, however, that the IBI has 

declined over the three years for which data was available and in 2010 received a rating of off 

target. Sucker and sunfish composition had no data and therefore could not be given a rating. 

No introduced species have been collected from Harkin’s Branch in GWCA. 

As with Carver Branch, the cardinal shiner (Luxilus cardinalis) and the stippled darter 

(Etheostoma punctulatim) may be of special interest because they are endemic to the Ozark 

Plateau; (Justus and Peterson 2005a). In addition, the Arkansas darter which is a species that is 

at risk of extirpation throughout its range is present in Harkins Branch (Dodd et al. 2011). No 

fish species collected from Harkin’s Branch are designated as critically imperiled (G1) or 

imperiled (G2) on a global scale nor are there any S1 or S2 fish species known to occur in 

Harkin’s Branch within the park (Table 5-23). 
72 

Table 5-22. Ratings for five fish metrics computed for Harkins Branch within GWCA. 

Indicator Management Target Reference Condition Current Condition Rating

Simpson's Diversity

 2006 <0.27 0 13 0.38 Off Target

 2007 <0.27 0 13 0.17 On Target

 2010 <0.27 0 13 0.15 On Target

 Mean <0.27 0 13 0.23 On Target

Sucker Composition (%)

 2006 N/A N/A 0.00 N/A

 2007 N/A N/A 0.00 N/A

 2010 N/A N/A 0.00 N/A

 Mean N/A N/A 0.00 N/A

Sunfish Composition (%)

 2006 N/A N/A 0.00 N/A

 2007 N/A N/A 0.00 N/A

 2010 N/A N/A 0.00 N/A

 Mean N/A N/A 0.00 N/A

Benthic spp. Composition (%)

 2006 >18.3 29.34 10.55 Off Target

 2007 >18.3 29.34 26.10 On Target

 2010 >18.3 29.34 33.10 On Target

 Mean >18.3 29.34 23.25 On Target

Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)

 2006 >60 80 73 On Target

 2007 >60 80 67 On Target

 2010 >60 80 52 Off Target

 Mean >60 80 64 On Target

1 Current condition from Dodd et al. (2011).

Table 5-23. Number of globally listed fish species (G-rank) and state listed fish species (S-rank) by actual 

collections and models in Harkins Branch.

Harkins Branch

Rank Collection Model

G3 1 1

G4 2 1 

G5 15 11

S3 1 1 

S? 17 12

Family richness increases progressively from 2005 thorough 2007 and received a rating of on 

target for 2007, likewise genus richness was on target for the last two years of the POR (Table 5-

24). EPT richness, Shannon Index, and the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index were rated as being on target 

for all years in which data was available. The relatively high Shannon Evenness Index scores 

suggest minimal disturbance while the relatively low Hilsenhoff Biotic Index scores indicate that 

the taxa represented in the samples are only moderately tollerant of pollution (Bowles 2009). 

Aquatic Invertebrates
73 

Table 5-24. Aquatic invertebrate indicators for Harkins Branch.

Indicator Management Target Reference Condition Mean1 Rating

Family Richness

 1996 ≥14 2 14.2 17.8 On Target

 2005 ≥14 2 14.2 10.6 Off Target

 2006 ≥14 2 14.2 14.0 Off Target

 2007 ≥14 2 14.2 15.1 On Target

 Mean ≥14 2 14.2 14.4 On Target

Genus Richness

 2005 >15 26.2 12.1 Off Target

 2006 >15 26.2 15.1 On Target

 2007 >15 26.2 16.1 On Target

 Mean >15 26.2 14.4 Off Target

EPT Richness

 2005 >4 7.8 6.4 On Target

 2006 >4 7.8 7.3 On Target

 2007 >4 7.8 7.6 On Target

 Mean >4 7.8 7.1 On Target

EPT Ratio 

 1996 ≥0 99 N/A 0.51 Off Target

 2005 ≥0 99 N/A 0.51 Off Target

 2006 ≥0 99 N/A 0.65 Off Target

 2007 ≥0 99 N/A 0.79 Off Target

 Mean ≥0 99 N/A 0.62 Off Target

Shannon Index 

 1996 >1.77 2.39 2.03 On Target

 2005 >1.77 2.39 1.88 On Target

 2006 >1.77 2.39 1.99 On Target

 2007 >1.77 2.39 2.27 On Target

 Mean >1.77 2.39 2.04 On Target

Shannon Evenness Index 

 2005 ≥0.75 N/A 0.74 Off Target

 2006 ≥0.75 N/A 0.74 Off Target

 2007 ≥0.75 N/A 0.83 On Target

 Mean ≥0.75 N/A 0.77 On Target

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 

 1996 <6.6 <4.3 4.87 On Target

 2005 <6.6 <4.3 5.04 On Target

 2006 <6.6 <4.3 4.82 On Target

 2007 <6.6 <4.3 4.30 On Target

 Mean <6.6 <4.3 4.76 On Target

1 Mean from Bowles (2009). 

75

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.
76

Hierarchical framework

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. 
77

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.
78

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 

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 
79

(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

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 a mean patch size of 5 ha or greater provides full support for the statement while a 

mean patch size of 2.5 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 mean patch size in the upland grassland reporting 

unit of George Washington Carver National Monument, Missouri.

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. 
80

Figure 6-5. NetWeaver ramp function used to evaluate pH for all three aquatic reporting unit’s of George 

Washington Carver National Monument, Missouri.

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.
81

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. The Persimmon Grove reporting 

unit was treated as part of the Woodland 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).
82

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.
83

Reporting unit: Park Wide

Overall support for the park wide reporting unit is moderate (output score = 0.44). The number 

of community patches throughout the park was too high while their mean patch size was too 

small, which resulted in no support (output score = 0) for landscape composition at the park wide 

scale (Table 6-1).

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

of George Washington Carver National Monument, Missouri.

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator

No 

Support

Full 

Support Input Score

Park-wide 0.44

Vegetation 0.17

Landscape composition 0

patch count 75 50 105 0

mean patch size (ha) 1.5 3 1.09 0

Land use/Land cover 0.33

semi-natural and natural types (ha) 36 75 25 0

successional types (ha) 27 18 68 0

cultural types (ha) 4.5 3 3 1

Breeding bird community 1

species richness 24 47 47 1

Partners in Flight target species 3 6 6 1

number of grassland obligate 

species 2 3 3 1

Invasive exotic plant impact 0.56

number of taxa 45 30 35 0.67

frequency on transects (%) 75 50 91.9 0

park-wide minimum cover 

estimate (%) 15 10 9.0 1

Air quality 0.01

Ozone

ozone (ppb) 76.0 60 72.9 0.19

Atmospheric deposition 0

nitrogen (kg/ha/yr) 3.0 1 13 0

sulfur (kg/ha/yr) 3.0 1 10.6 0

This reflects a fragmented landscape composed of numerous small patches. There was moderate 

support (output score = 0.33) for the composition of those patches, primarily because of the 

amount of cultural land cover type in the park. Park wide, the landscape is dominated by 

successional community types rather than natural or semi-natural types.

Across the park, there was full support for the breeding bird indicators approximating the 

management targets. The number of grassland obligate species, target species of concern, and 

overall species richness all had output scores = 1.
84

Invasive exotic plants, while low in abundance as measured by foliar cover (output score = 1) 

were high in number of taxa (output score = 0). The low abundance of a high number of invasive 

plants, coupled with their low frequency across the park results 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.

Reporting unit: Upland Grassland

Overall support for the upland grassland reporting unit approximating the management target 

was moderate (output score = .5, Table 6-2). This reporting unit was split between no support 

for the spatial arrangement and composition of grassland patches and full support for the plant 

community composition as measured by native guild abundance and species diversity. The 

decision to describe the grassland areas as a successional community type rather than a seminatural type is reflected in the overall score for the land use/land cover attribute.

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

reporting unit of George Washington Carver National Monument, Missouri.

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator

No 

Support

Full 

Support Input Score

Upland grassland 0.5

Landscape composition 0

patch count for grassland 15 10 0 0

mean patch size for grassland (ha) 2.5 5 0 0

Land use/Land cover 0

prairie (ha) 27.5 55 0 0

successional types (ha) 22.5 15 65 0

Diversity 1

native species richness 36 71 74 1

total species richness 68 135 143 1

Herbaceous guild composition 1

native grass (%) 15.3 30.5 47.2 1

native forbs (%) 8.8 17.5 37.6 1

native woody shrub and vine (%) 62.7 41.8 22.4 1

Reporting unit: Woodland

Overall support for the woodland reporting unit is moderately high (output score = .72, Table 6-

3). Although the landscape composition is fully supported for the reporting unit and the canopy 

height and cover of the woodland is good, the woodland composition and structure reflects a

successional woodland community recovering from stand level disturbances. The abundance of 

native guilds in the understory approximates the management targets. Furthermore, the relative 

density of hackberry in the regeneration layer (stems < 8.0 cm dbh) is less than the management 

target. The high degree of support for the area occupied by natural woodland and low support 

for the overstory structural indicators may be an artifact of breeding bird monitoring sites from 

which the current values were derived.
85

Table 6-3. Rescaled NetWeaver output scores for the integrated analysis of the woodland reporting unit 

of George Washington Carver National Monument, Missouri.

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator No Support Full Support Input Score

Woodland 0.72

Landscape composition 0

patch count for woodland 15 10 18 0

mean patch size for woodland (ha) 1 2 1.1 0

Land use/Land cover 1

natural and semi-natural woodland 

(ha) 10 20 20 1

successional types (ha) 2 1 0.9 1

Structural class 0.33

hardwood canopy cover (%) 25 50 85 1

hardwood basal area (m2/ha) 14 25 7.5 0

density (stems/ha, trees > 8 cm dbh) 125 600 111 0

Regeneration 0

total hackberry relative density (% of 

stems/ha, < 8 cm dbh) 75 50 41 1

Herbaceous guild composition 1

native grass (%) ≤ 5 or ≥ 85 10 - 70 13 1

native forbs (%) < 1 or ≥ 67 1 - 45 18 1

native woody shrub (%) ≤ 5 or ≥ 65 20 - 50 20 1

Structure

hardwood tree height (m) ≤ 2.5 or ≥ 28.5 9 - 22 18.6 1

Reporting unit: Carver Branch

Overall support for Carver Branch reporting unit was high (output score = .94, Table 6-4). For 

each of the three resource types output scores ranged from 1 (water quality) to .9 (fish 

community). Overall high output scores in the hierarchy reflect moderate or better support for 

most lower levels in the reporting unit logic model. Only three indicators did not have full 

support for the evaluation statement (sucker species composition, IBI, and EPT ratio).
86

Table 6-4. Rescaled NetWeaver output scores for the integrated analysis of the Carver Branch reporting 

unit of George Washington Carver National Monument, Missouri.

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator No Support Full Support Input Score

Carver Branch 0.94

Water quality 1

temperature (oC) ≤ -17 or ≥ 51 0 - 34 15.3 1

specific conductance (μS/cm) 0 or ≥ 550 100 - 400 282.1 1

dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 0 or ≥ 20 5 - 15 7.9 1

pH ≤ 5.2 or ≥ 10.3 6.5 - 9.0 7.4 1

turbidity (NTU) 15 10 2.2 1

Fish community 0.90

Composition 0.97

Simpson's diversity 0.25 0.49 0.97 1

sucker composition (%) 0.26 0.52 0.50 0.92

benthic species composition (%) 6.7 13.4 19.8 1

Condition

index of biotic integrity 30 60 55 0.83

Aquatic invertebrates 0.93

Biotic integrity

family richness 7.1 14.2 16.0 1

genus richness 7.5 15 17.6 1

EPT richness 2 4 6.9 1

EPT ratio 0.51 0.85 0.68 0.5

Shannon Index (Genus) 0.89 1.77 2.26 1

Shannon Evenness Index 0.5 0.75 0.79 1

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 9.9 6.6 4.6 1

Reporting unit: Williams Branch

Overall support for the Williams Branch reporting unit was high (output score = .97, Table 6-5). 

There was a full support for the fish community resource type (output score = 1). Overall water 

quality was similar to Carver Branch with an output score of 1. As with Carver Branch, all 

aquatic invertebrate indicators were fully supported except for EPT ratio (moderate support with 

output score = .5).
87 

Table 6-5. Rescaled NetWeaver output scores for the integrated analysis of Williams Branch reporting 

unit of George Washington Carver National Monument, Missouri.

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator No Support Full Support Input Score

Williams Branch 0.97

Water quality 1 

temperature (oC) ≤ -17 or ≥ 51 0 - 34 17.1 1 

specific conductance (μS/cm) 0 or ≥ 550 100 - 400 228.0 1 

dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 0 or ≥ 20 5 - 15 10.8 1 

pH ≤ 5.2 or ≥ 10.3 6.5 - 9.0 7.8 1 

turbidity (NTU) 15 10 3.0 1 

Fish community 1 

Composition 1 

Simpson's diversity 0.51 0 34 0.21 1 

benthic species composition (%) 37.2 74.4 80.7 1 

Condition

index of biotic integrity 30 60 81 1 

Aquatic invertebrates 0.92

Biotic integrity

family richness 7.1 14.2 14 1 

genus richness 7.5 15 15.4 1 

EPT richness 2 4 6 1 

EPT ratio 0.51 0.85 0.68 0.5

Shannon Index (Genus) 0.89 1.77 2.03 1 

Shannon Evenness Index 0.5 0.75 0.79 1 

 Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 9.9 6.6 4.4 1 

Reporting unit: Harkins Branch

Output for Harkins Branch was similar to both Carver Branch and Williams Branch. The overall 

score for the reporting unit was .96 (Table 6-6). As with the other aquatic reporting units, water 

quality was fully supported while aquatic invertebrates was fully satisfied as well. The Index of 

Biotic Integrity was lowest among all three reporting units in Harkins Branch (output score = 

.73). 
88 

Table 6-6. Rescaled NetWeaver output scores for the integrated analysis of the Harkins Branch reporting 

unit of George Washington Carver National Monument, Missouri.

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator No Support

Full 

Support Input Score

Harkins Branch 0.96

Water quality 1 

temperature (oC) ≤ -17 or ≥ 51 0 - 34 17.3 1 

specific conductance (μS/cm) 0 or ≥ 550 100 - 400 214.5 1 

dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 0 or ≥ 20 5 - 15 7.3 1 

pH ≤ 5.2 or ≥ 10.3 6.5 - 9.0 7.1 1 

turbidity (NTU) 15 10 3.6 1 

Fish community 0.87

Composition 1 

Simpson's diversity 0.41 0.27 0.15 1 

benthic species composition (%) 9 2 18.3 33.1 1 

Condition

index of biotic integrity 30 60 52 0.73

Aquatic invertebrates 1 

Biotic integrity 

family richness 7 1 14.2 15.1 1 

genus richness 7 5 15 16.1 1 

EPT richness 2 4 7.6 1 

EPT ratio 0 59 0.79 0.79 1 

Shannon Index (Genus) 0.89 1.77 2.27 1 

Shannon Evenness Index 0 5 0.75 0.83 1 

 Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 9 9 6.6 4.3 1 

Overall, the integrated analysis for reporting units in the NRCA show terrestrial systems that 

currently do not reflect management targets and aquatic systems that nearly approximate the 

management targets. The lack of designated semi-natural or natural grasslands and overstory 

composition of the woodlands are the two biggest factors affecting the terrestrial reporting units 

in the monument. 

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 

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 
89

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 George Washington Carver National Monument have developed 

mainly from former croplands. Some of the current woodlands were likely too wet or steep to be 

converted to crop production, or were kept as pasture land for other reasons. Since native 

species were apparently never eliminated from the woodlands, they are designated as seminatural, whereas grasslands, where the native flora and fauna was essentially entirely eliminated 

by row crop production, are called successional.

National Park Service staff have re-established some compliment of native grasses and forbs 

across much of the park. Despite a history of crop production, the remnants of mima mounds, 

common on native prairies such as Diamond Prairie nearby, are still evident in grasslands across 

much of the park. Also, three grassland obligate bird species nest in the park. Continued 

grassland restoration efforts seem warranted, and these will likely result in restored prairies of 

local or regional significance. However, progress may be slow. 

Young woodlands occur mainly along upland drainage ways or in areas where mining activity 

has left highly disturbed soils. These areas may mature over time if Japanese honeysuckle 

(Lonicera japonica) does not restrict recruitment of oaks and hickories into the canopy. Since 

woodland patches are small, the management of this and other invasive species in the future 

seems doable given reasonable funding and effort. 

The park holds enough habitat diversity to support breeding bird species that use grassland, 

woodland edge, and woodland habitats with dense understory. Management in favor of 

shrubland or edge type habitat on old mined lands in the southwest part of the park might be 

advised to provide this bird habitat as well. Also, grassland mowing patterns that promote some 

shrub composition in some areas or years would add to the overall habitat diversity of the park.

Three small streams flow through GWCA, and the floodplains are generally wooded. Harkins 

Branch in the north is larger in terms of discharge, and Williams Branch flows into Carver 

Branch, with which it shares a floodplain, in the central part of the park. Although the 

watersheds of these streams exist in a generally agricultural landscape, the water quality and 

physical habitat is generally good. Diversity of darter, sculpin, and madtom species is generally 

high, and the Arkansas darter (Etheostoma cragini), a rare species, is present. Harkins Branch 

shows greater stream bank instability than the other two streams, and only a small segment is 

contained within the park, so impacts from off-site may be a concern. Likewise, a spring on 
90

Carver Branch that tends to mitigate impacts from seasonal or annual variations in precipitation 

and temperature is likely fed from areas off the park, so land use changes in nearby may impact 

this resource. 
91

Literature Cited

Alabaster, J.S., and R. Lloyd. 1982. Water quality criteria for freshwater fish. Butterworth 

Publisher, London, UK.

Aley, T., and C. Aley. 1988. Delineation of recharge areas for springs in George Washington 

Carver National Monument. Ozark Underground Laboratory unpublished report.

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.

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.

Bottomley, B.R. 2000. Mapping rural land use and land cover change in Carroll County, 

Arkansas utilizing Multi-temporal Landsat Thematic Mapper satellite imagery. Thesis, 

University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Bowles, D.E. 2009. Aquatic invertebrate monitoring at George Washington Carver National 

Monument: 2005-2007. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR2009/243. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Bowles, D.E., M.H. Williams, H.R. Dodd, L.W. Morrison, J.A. Hinsey, C.E. Ciak, G.A. Rowell, 

M.D. DeBacker, and J.L. Haack. 2008. Monitoring protocol for aquatic invertebrates of 

small streams in the Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network. Natural Resource 

Report NPS/HTLN/NRR-2008/042. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

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/17767.pdf

Burchard, P.D. 2005. George Washington Carver: For his time and ours. National Park Service, 

Denver, Colorado.
92

Burfield, M.P., and C.H. Nilon. 2009. George Washington Carver National Monument prairie 

restoration management review. Unpublished report. 

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.

Center for Watershed Protection. 2003. Impacts of impervious cover on aquatic systems. Center 

for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, Maryland.

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.

Coon, T.G. 1987. Interaction of disturbances in tallgrass prairie: a field experiment. Ecology 

68:1243-1250.

Cribbs, J.T., C.C. Young, J.L. Haack, and H.J. Etheridge. 2007. Invasive exotic plant monitoring 

at George Washington Carver National Monument: Year 1 (2006). Natural Resource 

Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2007/017. National Park Service, Fort Collins, 

Colorado.

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.

Dilebo, G. 1972. The life and character of George Washington Carver, 1860-1943. Howard 

University, Washington, D.C.

Dodd, H.R., D.E. Bowles, S.K. Mueller, and M.K. Clark. 2011. Fish community monitoring at 

George Washington Carver: 2006-2007, 2010 status report. Natural Resource Data Series 

NPS/HTLN/NRDS-2011/124. 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.

Fausch, K.D., J.R. Karr, P.R. Yant. 1984. Regional application of an index of biotic integrity 

based on stream fish communities. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

113:39-55.
93

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.

Harrington, J., S. Haswell, E. Howell, and A. Alanen. 1999. Springs of genius: an integrated 

management plan for George Washington Carver National Monument, Diamond, 

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, Netherlands.

James, K.M., and G.A. Rowell. 2009. Plant community monitoring baseline report, George 

Washington Carver National Monument. Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/HTLN/NRTR-2009/190. 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, 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. 

Jones, B.A. 2004. Vascular plant inventory, George Washington Carver National Monument. 

Unpublished report. Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network, National Park 

Service.

Jones, B.A. 1995. Prairie restoration action plan, George Washington Carver National 

Monument. Unpublished report. 

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.
94

Karr, J.R., K.D. Gausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing 

biological integrity in running water: A method and its rationale. Special Publication 5. 

Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois.

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. 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.

Missouri Natural Heritage Program. 2010. Missouri species and communities of conservation 

concern checklist. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri.

Mooney, H.A., and R.J. Hobbs. 2000. Invasive species in a changing world. Island Press, 

Washington, D.C.

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 WaterQuality Assessment Program. Open-file Report 02-150, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, 

Virginia.

National Park Service (NPS). 2010. 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). 2007a. 2006 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.
95 

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 George Washington 

Carver National Monument. 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). 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. 

National Park Service (NPS). 1997. George Washington Carver National Monument, General 

Management Plan.

National Park Service (NPS). Undated. Comprehensive tree survey. George Washington Carver 

National Monument, 1994-1997. Report of methods and results. Unpublished report. 

George Washington Carver National Monument files. 

NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Conservation Status Ranks. 

<http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.htm#interpret>. Accessed 11 October 

2010. 

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. 
96

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.

Ortega, R.T. 1976. National Register of Historic Places nomination form for George Washington

Carver National Monument. 

<http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/66000114.pdf>. Accessed 26 January 

2010.

Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at George Washington Carver National Monument, Missouri. 

2008 status report. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR-2009/193.

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.

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.

Rabeni, C.F., R.J. Sarver, N. Wang, G.S. Wallace, M. Weiland, and J.T. Peterson. 1997. 

Development of regionally-based biological criteria for Missouri streams. Final Report, 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, Missouri.
97

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.

Robbins, L. 2005. Inventory of distribution, composition, and relative abundance of mammals at 

George Washington Carver National Monument. Technical Report, National Park 

Service, NPS/HTLN/GWCA/J6370040013.

Robison, H.W., and T.M. Buchanan. 1988. Fishes of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press, 

Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Sasseen, A. 2005. Status report, vegetation community monitoring, George Washington Carver 

National Monument. Unpublished report. Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network, 

National Park Service.

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.

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., 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. 

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.
98

Stokes, D.W., and L.Q. Stokes. 1996. Stokes Field Guide to Birds: Eastern Region. Little, Brown 

and Company, New York, New York.

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.

Toogood, A.C. 1973. Historic resource study and administrative history: George Washington 

Carver National Monument, Diamond, Missouri. National Park Service, Denver, 

Colorado.

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.
99

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

Threat Index
100

Figure A-1. Percentage of impervious surfaces above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
101

Figure A-2. Percentage of cropland above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
102

Figure A-3. Percentage of pasture/hay above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
103

Figure A-4. Density of water wells above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
104

Figure A-5. Density of major impoundments above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
105

Figure A-6. Density of headwater impoundments above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
106

Figure A-7. Length of roads above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
107

Figure A-8. Density of road/stream crossings above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
108

Figure A-9. Length of railroads above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
109

Figure A-10. Density of railroad/stream crossings above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
110

Figure A-11. Length of pipelines above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
111

Figure A-12. Density of crop pesticides above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
112

Figure A-13. Density of population in 1990 above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
113

Figure A-14. Density of population in 2000 above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
114

Figure A-15. Change in population density from 1990 to 2000 above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
115

Figure A-16. Amount of livestock sales above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
116

Figure A-17. Length of channelized/ditched streams above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
117

Figure A-18. Density of airports above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
118

Figure A-19. Density of coal mines above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
119

Figure A-20. Density of lead mines above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
120

Figure A-21. Density of other mines above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
121

Figure A-22. Density of leaking underground storage tanks above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
122

Figure A-23. Density of superfund sites above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
123

Figure A-24. Density of toxic release inventory sites above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
124

Figure A-25. Density of hazardous permits above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
125

Figure A-26. Density of hazardous generators above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
126

Figure A-27. Density of waste water treatment facilities above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
127

Figure A-28. Density of confined animal feeding operations above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for GWCA.
128

Figure A-29. Density of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) sites above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 

(inset) for GWCA.
129

Appendix B Summary of Information Sources for Current and Reference Conditions 

for Each Attribute/Indicator 

Reporting Unit

Resource Type

Attribute Current Condition Reference/Target Condition

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 George Washington Carver 

National Monument, Missouri 2008 status report. Natural 

Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/193. 

National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Targets represent 2008 baseline data collection. The goal is to 

maintain or enhance the breeding bird community. 

Cr bbs, J.T., C.C. Young, J.L. Haack, and H.J. Etheridge. 2007. 

Invasive exotic plant monitoring at George Washington Carver 

National Monument: Year 1 (2006). Natural Resource Technical 

Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2007/017. 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.cf

m

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.cf

m

NPS (2007a) reports that wet deposition amounts of less than 1 

kg/ha/yr do not cause ecosystem harm. 

Upland grassland 

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
130

Reporting Unit

Resource Type

Attribute Current Condition Reference/Target Condition

Diversity and 

herbacous guild 

composition

James, K.M. and G.A. Rowell. 2009. Plant Community Monitoring 

Baseline Report, George Washington Carver National Monument. 

Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/190. National Park Service, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. 

Habitat data from Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at George 

Washington Carver National Monument, Missouri 2008 status 

report. Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/193. National Park Service, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. 

Professional judgement was used to set targets for a "seminatural" prairie condition as opposed to the current successional 

state. Professional Judgement was informed by community 

descriptions in Appendix C. 

Woodland

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 George 

Washington Carver National Monument, Missouri 2008 status 

report. Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/193. 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. 
131

Reporting Unit

Resource Type

Attribute Current Condition Reference/Target Condition

Regeneration

Habitat data from Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at George 

Washington Carver National Monument, Missouri 2008 status 

report. Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/193. 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. 

Structure

Habitat data from Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at George 

Washington Carver National Monument, Missouri 2008 status 

report. Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/193. 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). 

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).

Total woody cover (understory) from Missouri Forest and 

Woodland Natural Community Profiles 

(http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/17524.doc, accessed: 

10/15/2010).

Herbacous guild 

composition

Habitat data from Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at George 

Washington Carver National Monument, Missouri 2008 status 

report. Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/193. National Park Service, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. 
132

Reporting Unit

Resource Type

Attribute Current Condition Reference/Target Condition

Carver Creek, Williams Branch and Harkins Branch

Water quality (medians)

Dodd, H.R., D.E. Bowles, and S.K. Mueller, and M.K. Clark. 2011. 

Fish community monitoring at George Washington Carver: 2006-

2007, 2010 status report. Natural Resource Data Series 

NPS/HTLN/NRDS—2011/124. 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/17767

.pdf 

Fish community

Composition

Dodd, H.R., D.E. Bowles, and S.K. Mueller, and M.K. Clark. 2011. 

Fish community monitoring at George Washington Carver: 2006-

2007, 2010 status report. Natural Resource Data Series 

NPS/HTLN/NRDS—2011/124. National Park Service, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. 

Current data is compared to baseline data collected in 2006/2007 

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

Dodd, H.R., D.E. Bowles, and S.K. Mueller, and M.K. Clark. 2011. 

Fish community monitoring at George Washington Carver: 2006-

2007, 2010 status report. Natural Resource Data Series 

NPS/HTLN/NRDS—2011/124. 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.

Aquatic invertebrates

Bowles, D. E. 2009. Aquatic invertebrate monitoring at George 

Washington Carver National Monument, 2005-2007 Report. 

Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/243. National Park Service, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. 

Reference condition is based on peer reviewed index in:

Rabeni, C.F., R.J. Sarver, N. Wang, G.S. Wallace, M. Weiland, 

and J.T. Peterson. 1997. Development of regionally-based 

biological criteria for Missouri streams. Final Report, Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, Missouri.
133

Appendix C Descriptions of Pre-European Vegetation 

Communities for George Washington Carver National 

Monument, Missouri

Descriptions of Pre-European Vegetation Communities for George 

Washington Carver National Monument, Missouri

Lee F. Elliott, Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership

27 April 2010

Primarily associated with the Upland Grassland Reporting Unit

Dominant Species: big bluestem/prairie cordgrass-switchgrass

General Historical Vegetation: mesic tallgrass prairie

Ecological Land Types: Wet-Mesic Footslope/High Terrace Prairies; Wet-Mesic Low 

Floodplain Prairies

Ecological System: Southeastern Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie

Description: Herbaceous cover of this community is high (>80%) and woody cover is low 

(generally <10%). The herbaceous layer is dominated by tallgrass species such as Andropogon 

gerardii (big bluestem), Panicum virgatum (switchgrass), and Spartina pectinata (prairie 

cordgrass) and may be 4 to 7 feet tall. Graminoids such as Tripsacum dactyloides (eastern 

gamagrass), Carex crus-corvi (ravenfoot sedge), Carex stipata (awlfruit sedge), and Carex 

oklahomensis (Oklahoma sedge) may be conspicuous. Forbs and sedges form a sublayer of the 

herbaceous canopy and may include species such as Helianthus grosseserratus (sawtooth 

sunflower), Eryngium yuccifolium (rattlesnake master), Potentilla simplex (common cinquefoil), 

Arnoglossum plantagineum (groovestem Indian plantain), Pediularis canadensis (Canadian 

lousewort), Lilium michiganense (Michigan lily), Veronicastrum virginicum (Culver’s root), 

Lysimachia lanceolata (lanceleaf loosestrife), Liatris pycnostachya (common water hemlock), 

Teucrium canadense (Canada germander), and Eupatorium perfoliatum (common boneset).

Primarily associated with the Woodland Reporting Unit

Dominant Species: black oak/post oak-hickory

General Historical Vegetation: dry-mesic slope forest

Ecological Land Type: Slope forest (>20% slopes)

Ecological System: Ozark-Ouachita Dry Mesic Hardwood 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 
136

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 Upland Grassland Reporting Unit

Dominant Species: little bluestem/prairie dropseed-big bluestem

General Historical Vegetation: bluestem prairie

Ecological Land Type: Chert Upland Prairie

Ecological System: Southeastern Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie

Description: This community is characterized by a grass and forb cover of greater than 85%, 

reaching a height of 3 to 6 feet tall. Woody cover is low (generally <10%). Grasses dominate 

this community with species such as Schizachyrium scoparium (little bluestem), Sorghastrum 

nutans (yellow Indiangrass), Andropogon gerardii (big bluestem), and Sporobolus heterolepis

(prairie dropseed) dominant among the grasses. Other graminoid species that may be present to 

co-dominant include Danthonia spicata (poverty grass), Dichanthelium acuminatum (tapered 

rosette grass), Dichanthelium oligosanthes var. scribnerianum (Scribner’s panic grass), Isolepis 

carinatus (keeled bulrush), Fimbristylis puberula (hairy fimbry), Carex meadii (Mead’s sedge), 

and Andropogon virginicus (broomsedge). Forbs are generally present in this community, 

usually having a cover of <40%. Forb species characteristic of this community may include 

Callihroe digitata (fringed poppy mallow), Silene regia (royal catchfly), Vernonia arkansana

(Arkansas ironweed), Silphium laciniatum (compass plant), Echinacea pallida (pale purple 

coneflower), Pycnanthemum tenuifolium (slender mountain mint), Tephrosia virginiana (goat’s 

rue), Coreopsis palmata (finger coreopsis), Comandra umbellata (bastard toadflax), and 

Helianthus mollis (ashy sunflower) among many others. Shrubs that may be encountered include 

Rubus spp. (blackberry), Rhus copallinum (shining sumac), and Rosa carolina (pasture rose), but 

cover for these species should be low. 

Primarily associated with the Upland Grassland Reporting Unit

Dominant Species: post oak/chinquapin oak-bluestem

General Historical Vegetation: post oak-bluestem prairie or savanna

Ecological Land Type: Loess Over Residuum Upland Prairies and Savannas

Ecological System: Ozark-Ouachita Dry Oak Woodland 

Description: Overstory canopy consists of trees 30 to 60 feet tall, with a canopy cover less than 

30%, and trees may have been nearly absent across large patches (>50 ha) of the landscape. 

Dominant overstory canopy species include Quercus stellata (post oak), Quercus marilandica 

(blackjack oak), Quercus velutina (black oak), and Carya texana (black hickory). On more 

alkaline soils (loess over limestone/dolomite), species such as Quercus muehlenbergii 

(chinquapin oak), Fraxinus americana (white ash), and Juniperus virginiana (easter redcedar) 

are more common. The shrub layer is generally sparse (<25%) with species such as Amorpha 

canescens (lead plant), Ceanothus americanus (New Jersey tea), and Rosa carolina (pasture 

rose). Shrubs on more alkaline sites may include Rhus aromatica (fragrant sumac), and Frangula 
136

caroliniana (Carolina buckthorn). The herbaceous layer is variable, depending on local overstory 

canopy conditions (70 to 100% cover). The herbaceous layer is consistent with the description 

for Chert Upland Prairie and includes species such as Andropogon gerardii (big bluestem), 

Sorghastrum nutans (yellow Indiangrass), and Schizachyrium scoparium (little bluestem). Forbs 

encountered in this community include species such as Liatris squarrosa (scaly blazing star), 

Liatris aspera (tall blazing star), Helianthus occidentalis (fewleaf sunflower), Cunila 

origanoides (common dittany), and other species of the surrounding prairie.

Primarily associated with the Woodland Reporting Unit

Dominant Species: white oak/bur oak-pecan

General Historical Vegetation: floodplain forest (small drainages)

Ecological Land Type: Mesic Upland Drainageway Woodlands AND Dry-Mesic Upland 

Drainageway Woodlands

Ecological System: North-Central Interior Floodplain 

Description: These woodlands have relatively closed canopies (80 to 100% canopy cover) to a 

height sometimes exceeding 70 feet, with basal areas of overstory species around 80 to 110 sq. 

ft./acre. Dominant species include Quercus macrocarpa (bur oak), Carya illinoinensis (pecan), 

Carya laciniosa (shellbark hickory), and Ulmus americana (American elm), with Quercus alba 

(white oak) becoming more dominant at higher landscape positions. Stands may have significant 

cover of Fraxinus pennsylvanica (green ash), Celtis laevigata (sugarberry), Gleditsia triacanthos 

(honeylocust), and Platanus occidentalis (American sycamore), especially along stream margins. 

A subcanopy of Morus rubra (red mulberry), Acer negundo (boxelder), and Acer rubrum (red 

maple) may commonly be encountered. Shrubs cover is variable (30 to 60% canopy cover) with 

saplings of the canopy and subcanopy species, and other species including Ilex decidua 

(possumhaw), Diospyros virginiana (common persimmon), Corylus americana (American 

hazelnut), Toxicodendron radicans (poison ivy), Campsis radicans (trumpet creeper), and 

Crataegus spp. (hawthorns) also present. The herbaceous layer is typically open (20 to 50% 

cover) and may include species such as Elymus virginicus (Virginia wildrye), Chasmanthium 

latifolium (Indian woodoats), Cinna arundinacea (sweet woodreed), Diarrhena americana 

(American beakgrain), Packera obovata (roughleaf ragwort), Impatiens capensis (jewelweed), 

and Campanulastrum americanum (American bellflower).

Primary References:

Nelson, P. W., et al. 2005. The Terrestrial Natural Communities of Missouri, Revised ed. The 

Missouri Natural Areas Committee. Jefferson City, Missouri. 550 pp.

Nigh, T. A. and W. A. Schroeder. 2002. Atlas of Missouri Ecoregions. Missouri Department of 

Conservation. 212 pp.

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)
136

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 397/108220, 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