National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield Natural Resource 

Condition Assessment

Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—2011/427
ON THE COVER

Missouri State Guardsmen fighting on Bloody Hill 

Scene from interpretive film
Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield Natural Resource 

Condition Assessment

Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—2011/427

Gust M. Annis1, Michael D. DeBacker2, David D. Diamond1, Lee F Elliott1, Aaron J. Garringer1, 

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

July 2011

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

Fort Collins, Colorado

iii

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, M. 

Morey, D. Pursell, and C. Young. 2011. Wilsons Creek National Battlefield natural resource 

condition assessment. Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—2011/427. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

NPS XXX 410/108235 XXX, , July 2011 Month Year
iv

Contents

Page

Figures.......................................................................................................................................... viii

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

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

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

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

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

NRCA Approach for Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield ..................................................... 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

Landform History.............................................................................................................. 11

Cultural History ................................................................................................................ 11

Natural Communities........................................................................................................ 16

Aquatic Resources In and Near Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield.............................. 17

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

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

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

Fundamental Resources and Values ................................................................................. 18

Desired Conditions for Natural Resources ....................................................................... 19

Chapter 3 Study Approach............................................................................................................ 21
v

Contents (continued)

Page

Preliminary Scoping .............................................................................................................. 21

Assessment Framework Used in the Study ........................................................................... 21

Resource Types, Attributes and Indicators............................................................................ 23

Landscape Condition ........................................................................................................ 24

Biotic Condition................................................................................................................ 24

Chemical and Physical Characteristics............................................................................. 25

Hydrology and Geomorphology ....................................................................................... 27

Natural Disturbance Regime............................................................................................. 28

Chapter 4 Study Methods.............................................................................................................. 29

Landscape Condition ............................................................................................................. 29

Biotic Condition..................................................................................................................... 31

Bird Community Composition.......................................................................................... 31

White-tailed Deer.............................................................................................................. 31

Rare Species: Missouri Bladderpod (Lesquerella filiformis) ........................................... 32

Invasive Exotic Plants....................................................................................................... 32

Plant Community Structure and Composition .................................................................. 32

Fish Community Composition.......................................................................................... 33

Aquatic Invertebrate Community ..................................................................................... 37

Chemical and Physical Characteristics.................................................................................. 39

Water Quality.................................................................................................................... 39

Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 39

Hydrology and Geomorphology............................................................................................ 41

Surface Water Flow .......................................................................................................... 41
vi

Contents (continued)

Page

Natural Disturbance Regime.................................................................................................. 41

Fire Regime....................................................................................................................... 41

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

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

Reporting Unit: Park-wide................................................................................................ 50

Reporting Unit: Bottomland Forest .................................................................................. 61

Reporting Unit: Glade....................................................................................................... 62

Reporting Unit: Upland Grassland.................................................................................... 65

Reporting Unit: Upland Woodland................................................................................... 67

Reporting Unit: Wilson’s Creek ....................................................................................... 69

Reporting Unit: Skegg’s Branch (Shuyler Creek) ............................................................ 78

Reporting Unit: Terrell Creek........................................................................................... 81

Chapter 6 Integrated Evaluation and Discussion.......................................................................... 85

Logic-based Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 85

Methods ................................................................................................................................. 85

Hierarchical framework .................................................................................................... 86

Logical operators .............................................................................................................. 87

Management target range.................................................................................................. 88

Evaluation ramp................................................................................................................ 88

Evaluation output.............................................................................................................. 90

Results.................................................................................................................................... 91

Reporting unit: Park Wide ................................................................................................ 92

Reporting unit: Bottomland Forest ................................................................................... 94
vii

Contents (continued)

Page

Reporting unit: Glade........................................................................................................ 95

Reporting unit: Upland Grassland .................................................................................... 96

Reporting unit: Upland Woodland.................................................................................... 97

Reporting unit: Wilson’s Creek ........................................................................................ 98

Reporting unit: Skegg’s Branch...................................................................................... 100

Reporting unit: Terrell Creek.......................................................................................... 100

Discussion............................................................................................................................ 101

Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................... 105

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

Threat Index................................................................................................................................ 115

Appendix B Aquatic Invertebrate Indicators. ............................................................................. 147

Appendix C Summary of Information Sources for Current and Reference Conditions 

for Each Attribute/Indicator........................................................................................................ 155

Appendix D Descriptions of Pre-European Vegetation Communities for Wilson’s 

Creek National Battlefield, Missouri .......................................................................................... 162
viii

Figures

Page

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

Assessment for Wilson's Creek National Battlefield...................................................................... 4

Figure 2-1. Location of Wilson's Creek National Battlefield within the state of 

Missouri. ......................................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 2-2. Wilson's Creek National Battlefield (NPS 2010b)...................................................... 8

Figure 2-3. Urban development of the Springfield area, fewer than 10 miles northeast 

of Wilson's Creek National Battlefield, shows a 273% increase, or 66,571 acres 

between 1972 and 2000. ............................................................................................................... 10

Figure 2-4. A buffered road network provides a visual index to development threats in 

the region around Wilson's Creek National Battlefield. ............................................................... 10

Figure 2-5. Land cover within and surrounding the watershed of Wilson's Creek 

National Battlefield based on the 2001 NLCD. ............................................................................ 12

Figure 2-6. Location of potential threats in Wilson’s Creek 10-digit watershed......................... 13

Figure 2-7. Human Threat Index for the HUC 10 encompassing Wilson's Creek 

National Battlefield with the HUC 8 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). ............................. 23

Figure 4-1. Process for assigning land cover classification to 6 m resolution image 

objects on-screen........................................................................................................................... 30

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

type (site potential) and current land cover................................................................................... 31

Figure 4-3. Fish survey locations during 2003 for Wilson's Creek and Skegg's Branch 

(Peterson and Justus 2005b).......................................................................................................... 35

Figure 4-4. Fish survey locations for Wilson's Creek, Skegg's Branch, and Terrell 

Creek during 2007......................................................................................................................... 36

Figure 4-5. Invertebrate survey locations for Wilson's Creek, Skegg's Branch, and 

Terrell Creek during 1988-1989 (Harris et al. 1991) and 2005-2007 (Bowles 2010). ................. 38
ix

Figures (continued)

Page

Figure 4-6. Surface water monitoring station (Wilson’s Creek near Battlefield –

07052160) on Wilson's Creek used to assess water flow in Wilson's Creek National 

Battlefield...................................................................................................................................... 42

Figure 5-1. Terrestrial reporting units for Wilson's Creek National Battlefield were 

based on both current vegetation patterns and ecological site type (site potential)...................... 43

Figure 5-2. Map of stream reporting units within Wilson's Creek National Battlefield.............. 44

Figure 5-3. Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield current vegetation cover type. ........................ 51

Figure 5-4. Wilson's Creek National Battlefield current vegetation condition............................ 52

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

Wilson's Creek National Battlefield. ............................................................................................ 56

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

averages of interpolated deposition estimates (NPS 2010a)......................................................... 59

Figure 5-7. Map showing the risk of ozone injury to vegetation by park (NPS 2007d).............. 59

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

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

estimates (NPS 2010a).................................................................................................................. 60

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

interpolated deposition estimates (NPS 2010a). ........................................................................... 60

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

interpolated deposition estimates (NPS 2010a). ........................................................................... 61

Figure 5-11. Current landscape composition for the bottomland forest reporting unit. .............. 62

Figure 5-12. Current landscape composition for the glade reporting unit................................... 64

Figure 5-13. Current landscape composition for the upland grassland reporting unit................ 66

Figure 5-14. Current landscape composition for the upland woodland reporting unit................ 68

Figure 5-15. Wilson’s Creek flowing through Wilson’s Creek national Battlefield is 

classified as a 303(d) listed stream ............................................................................................... 71

Figure 5-16. Mean monthly discharge (cubic feet per second) for monitoring station 

on Wilson's Creek. ........................................................................................................................ 74
x

Figures (continued)

Page

Figure 5-17. Wilson’s Creek hydrologic index comparisons. Data normalized to 

period of record average baseline ................................................................................................ 74

Figure 5-18. Wilson's Creek hydrologic index range comparisons. Data normalized to 

period of record (POR) baseline. .................................................................................................. 75

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

Resource Condition Assessment................................................................................................... 86

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.................................................................................................. 87

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

resource types within reporting unit (blue) for the aquatic assessment. ....................................... 87

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

grassland reporting unit of Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri. ................................ 89

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

reporting unit’s of Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri............................................... 90

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

evaluation scores........................................................................................................................... 91

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

associated resource type and/or attributes..................................................................................... 92

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

associated resource types. ............................................................................................................. 92

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

HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR........................................................................................ 116

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

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

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

and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR...................................................................................................... 118

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

HUC 8 (inset) for WICR............................................................................................................. 119
xi

Figures (continued)

Page

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

10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR................................................................................................. 120

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

HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR........................................................................................ 121

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

(inset) for WICR. ........................................................................................................................ 122

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

10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR................................................................................................. 123

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

8 (inset) for WICR. ..................................................................................................................... 124

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

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

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

HUC 8 (inset) for WICR............................................................................................................. 126

Figure A-12. Application rates of crop pesticides above every stream segment in the 

HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR........................................................................................ 127

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

10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR................................................................................................. 128

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

10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR................................................................................................. 129

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

segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR. .............................................................. 130

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

and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR...................................................................................................... 131

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

the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.................................................................................. 132

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

HUC 8 (inset) for WICR............................................................................................................. 133

Figure A-19. Density of dams above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 

(inset) for WICR. ........................................................................................................................ 134
xii

Figures (continued)

Page

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

HUC 8 (inset) for WICR............................................................................................................. 135

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

HUC 8 (inset) for WICR............................................................................................................. 136

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

segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR. .............................................................. 137

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

and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR...................................................................................................... 138

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

the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.................................................................................. 139

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

10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR................................................................................................. 140

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

HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR........................................................................................ 141

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

in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.............................................................................. 142

Figure A-28. Density of landfills above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and 

HUC 8 (inset) for WICR............................................................................................................. 143

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 WICR....................... 144

Figure A-30. Density of Resource Conservation Recovery sites above every stream 

segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR. .............................................................. 145
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 Wilson's Creek Battlefield Natural Resource 

Condition Assessment................................................................................................................... 21

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

Protection Agency’s Framework for Assessing and Reporting Ecological Condition 

(2002)............................................................................................................................................ 22

Table 4-1. Land cover classes assigned to image objects for Wilson's Creek National 

Battlefield...................................................................................................................................... 29

Table 4-2. Condition rating for wet deposition of either N or S. Source: (NPS 2007a). ............ 40

Table 4-3. List of hydrological indices evaluated for a water monitoring station in 

Wilson's Creek National Battlefield. ............................................................................................ 41

Table 5-1. Summary of natural resource condition indicators for Wilson's Creek 

National Battlefield....................................................................................................................... 45

Table 5-2. Current vegetation type patch statistics and total area for Wilson's Creek 

National Battlefield....................................................................................................................... 50

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

Wilson's Creek National Battlefield. ............................................................................................ 53

Table 5-4. Bird species recorded during breeding bird surveys in 2008 at Wilson's 

Creek National Battlefield (from Peitz 2009)............................................................................... 54

Table 5-5. Invasive exotic plants as Wilson's Creek National Battlefield. Management 

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

(M), low (L), insignificant (I), and unknown (U). ........................................................................ 57

Table 5-6. Quantified threats for Wilson's Creek in Wilson's Creek National 

Battlefield. Values are from the last stream segment downstream of the park............................. 69

Table 5-7. Water quality indicators for Wilson's Creek............................................................... 72

Table 5-8. List of hydrological indicators with normalized values, mean values, and 

management targets from 2000-2004 for Wilson's Creek. ........................................................... 75

Table 5-9. Ratings for five fish metrics computed for Wilson's Creek........................................ 76
xiv

Tables (continued)

Page

Table 5-10. Fish species observed1 and predicted2 to occur in Wilson's Creek. ........................ 77

Table 5-11. Jaccard Similarity computed for Wilson's Creek...................................................... 77

Table 5-12. Number of globally listed fish species (G-rank) and state listed fish 

species (S-rank) by actual collections and models in Wilson's Creek.......................................... 77

Table 5-13. Quantified threats for Skegg's Branch in Wilson's Creek National 

Battlefield. Values are from the last stream segment before entering Wilson's Creek................ 78

Table 5-14. Water quality for Skegg's Branch. ............................................................................ 79

Table 5-15. Fish species observed1 and predicted2 to occur in Skegg's Branch......................... 80

Table 5-16. Jaccard Similarity computed for Skegg's Branch. .................................................... 80

Table 5-17. Ratings for five fish metrics computed for Skegg's Branch. .................................... 80

Table 5-18. Number of globally listed fish species (G-rank) and state listed fish 

species (S-rank) by actual collections and models for Skegg’s Branch. ...................................... 80

Table 5-19. Quantified threats for Terrell Creek in Wilson's Creek National 

Battlefield. Values are from the last stream segment before entering Wilson's Creek................ 81

Table 5-20. Water quality indicators for Terrell Creek................................................................ 82

Table 5-21. Fish species observed1 and predicted2 to occur in Terrell Creek. ........................... 83

Table 5-22. Jaccard Similarity computed for Terrell Creek......................................................... 83

Table 5-23. Ratings for five fish metrics computed for Terrell Creek......................................... 83

Table 5-24. Number of globally listed fish species (G-rank) and state listed fish 

species (S-rank) by actual collections and models for Terrell Creek. .......................................... 83

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

wide reporting unit of Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri......................................... 94

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

bottomland forest reporting unit of Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri. ................... 95

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

reporting unit of Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri. ................................................ 96
xv

Tables (continued)

Page

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

grassland reporting unit of Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri. ................................ 97

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

woodland reporting unit of Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri................................. 98

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

Wilson’s Creek reporting unit of Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri. ...................... 99

Table 6-7. Rescaled NetWeaver output scores for the integrated analysis of Skegg’s 

Branch reporting unit of Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri................................... 100

Table 6-8. Rescaled NetWeaver output scores for the integrated analysis of the 

Terrell Creek reporting unit of Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri. ........................ 101

Table B-1. Aquatic invertebrate indicators for Wilson's Creek. ................................................ 148

Table B-2. Aquatic invertebrate indicators for Skegg's Branch................................................. 151

Table B-3. Aquatic invertebrate indicators for Terrell Creek. ................................................... 153

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 Wilson's Creek National Battlefield (WICR). 

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

NCRA for WICR 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.

WICR terrestrial communities are mainly successional and disturbance grasslands, woodlands, 

and glades. Integrated evaluation of the assessment hierarchy illustrates those attributes for 

which the current condition approximates the management target for each terrestrial reporting 

unit (Figure A-B).
xix

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

type and/or attributes. 

Glades may represent the most important terrestrial natural community within the park, and they 

harbor several populations of the Federal endangered Missouri bladderpod (Lesqurella

filiformis). Control of eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana) is a primary concern in these 

areas. Landscape composition in terms of small patch size and a large number of patches is a 

concern throughout the park. Natural succession may improve these attributes, and may also 

result in improvements in woodland quality without much active management. Invasive and 

exotic species are relatively abundant, with species such as tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix), 

sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), and smooth sumac (Rhus glabra) common in grasslands, 

and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Osage orange (Malcura pomifera), and 

multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) common in woodlands. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus

virginianus) numbers appear high, and this may result in suppression of palatable plant species, 

including oaks. Finally, a diversity of habitats, including grassland, shrubland/brush, edges, and 

woodland has led to a good diversity of breeding birds within the park. Maintenance of this 

habitat diversity may be measured by maintenance of representative breeding bird species such 

as the Indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), Eastern Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), and the 

Dickcissel (Spiza americana).

The largest stream, Wilson's Creek, is heavily impacted by urbanization and a waste water 

treatment plant in Springfield upstream in the watershed, and is listed as an impaired stream by 
xx

the state Department of Natural Resources. Nonetheless, aquatic communities are generally in 

better condition based on analyses of indicators than terrestrial communities (Figure A-C).

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

types.

Skegg's Branch, a tributary to Wilson's Creek, has headwaters just south and west of the city of 

Republic, but most of the watershed is not urbanized. A second tributary, Terrell Creek, also 

flows mainly through a rural landscape and much of the base flow originates from Double Spring 

located within park boundaries. The upstream threats influence the water quality, physical 

habitat, and flow regime of the stream resources which in turn impact the biota. Wilson’s Creek, 

though certainly the most threatened and degraded stream on the park, may benefit from having 

tributaries that are in better condition which can serve as refuges or re-colonization pools for 

fauna during times of reduced water quality. 
xxi

Acknowledgements

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

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

kudos for her development and attribution of the land cover map. 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 future conditions for study indicators. Management target 

ranges are suggested only as a necessary means of providing condition assessments. Decisions 

about desired future conditions must be made through sanctioned park planning and management 

processes. The proper role for NRCAs is to provide information that will help park managers 

with an ongoing, longer term effort to describe and quantify their park’s desired resource 

conditions. In the near term, NRCA findings should be directly useful for strategic park resource 

planning7 and to help parks report to government “resource condition status” measures8

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

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

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

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

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

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

. 

 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 Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield

Prior to beginning the NRCA for Wilson's Creek National Battlefield, (WICR) 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: 

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 WICR NRCA. One can think of assessment space as a balloon and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Natural Resource Condition Assessment Terminology below). Ecological attributes were 

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

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

Figure 1-1. Assessment space used to design the Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Wilson's 

Creek National Battlefield.

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 – 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.

o Resource Type – 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).

o 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 – 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.

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

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

Chapter 6.)

o Management Target – Desired values for indicators derived by considering both 

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

Reference conditions, in turn, are benchmark quantitative, conceptual, or descriptive 

values that reflect the best estimate of prevailing historic conditions.

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 attribute or 

indicator and are summarized in Chapter 5.

7

Chapter 2 Park Resource Setting and Resource Stewardship 

Context

Park Resource Setting

Description and Characterization of Park Natural Resources

Wilson's Creek National Battlefield preserves the site of the Battle of Wilson's Creek, which was 

named for the stream crossing the battlefield area, about ten miles southwest of Springfield, 

Missouri (Figure 2-1, Figure 2-2). Union and Confederate forces fought on August 10, 1861 for 

control of Missouri during the first year of the Civil War. The National Park Service operates 

the Wilson’s Creek Civil War Museum and a visitor center featuring a film, battle map 

presentation, and a Civil War research library. Major features include Bloody Hill, the site of the 

battle, a 5 mile paved interpretive road, and the restored 1852 Ray house. The Ray house, which 

housed the Ray family, is the only structure left intact from the time of the battle. Additionally, 

off the tour road, there are five walking trails and a 7 mile trail for horseback riding and hiking

(NPS 2010b).

Figure 2-1. Location of Wilson's Creek National Battlefield within the state of Missouri.
8

Figure 2-2. Wilson's Creek National Battlefield (NPS 2010b). 
9

Landscape and Watershed Context and Threat Assessment

Wilson's Creek National Battlefield is on the James River Oak Savanna/Woodland land type 

association within the Springfield Plain Subsection of the Ozark Highlands Section (Nigh and 

Schroeder 2002). Historic landscapes were likely a mix of oak woodlands, savannas, and 

tallgrass grasslands, 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 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 wooded at any given point in time. Some shallow soil glades are present 

and these often support eastern redcedar co-dominated woodlands or shrublands on the modern

landscape. The modern landscape is characterized by tame tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix) 

pastures that have resulted from succession of old fields or heavy grazing by domestic livestock 

following land clearing. Successional woodlands, often associated with rougher topography, 

stream floodplains, or upland riparian zones, are also present. 

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

metropolitan area. In the core city area, urban land cover increased from 36,996 acres in 1972 to 

103,567 acres in 2000, or 273% (Figure 2-3; Diamond and Blodgett 2003.). A buffered road 

network provides an index to immediate threat of development, and shows urban encroachment 

threats, especially from northeast of the park (Figure 2-4).

Watershed health indices consider human threats such as land use and pollution discharges as 

influences on key aquatic indicators (Joubert and Loomis 2005). Knowing the suite of potential 

threats and those that are most pervasive on the landscape helps resource managers regulate 

human impacts on the environment by allowing managers to target specific threats at specific 

locations. 

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

partnership (MoRAP) for the EPA and Missouri DNR (see Annis et al. 2010). The data suite 

consists of approximately 36 datasets considered potential threats to aquatic ecological integrity 

from human activities. Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-6 show the land cover and selected threats 

within the Wilson’s Creek 10-digit watershed and surrounding James River Watershed. The 

complete list of the threats considered and their data sources are listed in Table 2-1. These data 

were 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 2-7). Larger HTI values indicate more potential threat. It should be noted that 

each potential human threat does not necessarily impact aquatic resources at all times, but each 

one does have the potential to impact aquatic resources at any given time. While the HTI is 

designed for larger spatial scales, it may still be used as a screening tool to gauge the 

vulnerability of watersheds to impairment (Joubert and Loomis 2005) and the degree and causes 

of impairment of streams and rivers in WICR.
10

Figure 2-3. Urban development of the Springfield area, fewer than 10 miles northeast of Wilson's Creek 

National Battlefield, shows a 273% increase, or 66,571 acres between 1972 and 2000.

Figure 2-4. A buffered road network provides a visual index to development threats in the region around 

Wilson's Creek National Battlefield.
11

Climate

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

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

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

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

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

1994).

Landform History

Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield topography consists of rolling hills with steep slopes along 

water courses. The highest elevation of the battlefield is 1250 feet, at several locations. Soils are 

deep, stony, and cherty silt loam or shallow with a great limestone fraction (Busch 1976). 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 woodland and forest, and savanna. 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

The Battle of Wilson's Creek, also known as the Battle of Oak Hills, was fought near Springfield, 

Missouri on August 10, 1861 between Union and Confederate forces over control of Missouri. 

At the beginning of the war, Missouri was neutral, and the Missouri General Assembly created 

the Missouri State Guard for defense. The governor, Claiborne Fox Jackson, sided with the 

Confederacy, and appointed Sterling Price as general of the Missouri State Guard. After several 

skirmishes with Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon, originally commander of the U.S. arsenal of 

St. Louis, Governor Jackson retreated to southwest Missouri, 75 miles from Springfield, with the 

State Guard, about 5200 soldiers. By the end of July, Brigadier Generals Ben McCulloch and N.

Bart Pearce, with Confederate troops, joined Governor Jackson and Major General Price, raising 

the coalition forces to over 12,000. Meanwhile, Unionist General Nathaniel Lyon moved about 

6,000 soldiers to Springfield. Both armies marched from their camps, the Confederates on July 

31 and the Union soldiers on August 1. The armies fought briefly at Dug Springs, Missouri on 

August 2, when General Lyon realized he was outnumbered and retreated back to Springfield. 

Confederate General McCulloch followed and by August 6, was encamped at Wilson's Creek, 

ten miles southwest of the city (NPS 2010b).
12

Figure 2-5. Land cover within and surrounding the watershed of Wilson's Creek National Battlefield based on the 2001 NLCD. 
13

Figure 2-6. Location of potential threats in Wilson’s Creek 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 2-7. Human Threat Index for the HUC 10 encompassing Wilson's Creek National Battlefield with the HUC 8 inset.
16

Lyon launched a surprise attack on the Confederate camp on August 10, leaving about 1000 men 

to supervise supplies and a retreat. The main body under Lyon struck from the north while a 

smaller force of 1200, under Colonel Franz Sigel, attacked from the south at about 5:00 a.m. 

Surprised, the Confederates moved back to Bloody Hill, where they stabilized their position. 

The battle continued for five hours. Meanwhile, the Confederates routed Colonel Sigel's 

column, as the Union soldiers thought Confederate General McCulloch's approaching lines were 

Union reinforcements and did not realize they were hostile. On Oak or Bloody Hill, at about 

9:30 a.m., General Lyon was killed and Major Samuel Sturgis took over command. At 11 a.m., 

both forces withdrew, and with ammunition low, Sturgis retreated to Springfield rather than face 

a fourth Confederate attack. Although Confederate troops had control of the battlefield, they 

were not able to pursue the Union forces. Casualties were equal, about 1,320 Union and 1,220 

Confederate lives (Elkins 2007, NPS 2010b). 

The Battle of Wilson's Creek gave the Confederates control of southwestern Missouri. However, 

Missouri formed a Union government at the end of July, during the campaign leading up to the 

battle. As a separate Confederate state government was not accepted, the state remained in the 

Union throughout the war. For the next three and a half years, the state was the scene of small 

scale guerrilla warfare, by bushwhackers outside of the military chain of command (NPS 2010b). 

Natural Communities

Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield is at the ecotone of eastern deciduous forest and western 

prairie. Historically, the landscape was a mixture of oak woodland, savanna, and tallgrass 

prairie, with small areas of steep slope woodlands and glades. Denser and more mesic forests 

were present along riparian areas and on steep, protected slopes (Sasseen 2003). By 1861, 

farmers had developed land for cultivation, and after the battle, until the National Battlefield was 

created in 1960, agricultural use, overgrazing by cattle, and fire suppression resulted in almost 

complete loss of savanna, replacement of native vegetation with exotic grasses such as tall 

fescue, and denser forests with considerable shrub presence. Eastern redcedar (Juniperus 

virginiana) additionally has invaded into old fields and pastures, as well as fire-suppressed 

woodlands (NPS 2004b)

The park contains both exotic species and rare native species. Exotic species are a pressing 

issue, as 500 acres are filled with exotic plant species such as common mullein (Verbascum 

thapsus), honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), and tall fescue

(Schedonorus phoenix). Three species of brome (Bromus spp.), and Chinese bushclover 

(Lespedeza cuneata) are invading the habitat of the Missouri bladderpod (Lesquerella filiformis). 

Missouri bladderpod is a federally endangered plant found in limestone glades and outcrops of 

four Missouri counties and two counties in Arkansas. Bloody Hill Glade contains one of the 

largest protected populations, while four smaller populations are present on other glades within 

the park. In addition, there are five plants that are state imperiled or critically imperiled in 

Missouri: greenthread (Thelesperma filifolium var. filifolium), buffalograss (Buchloe 

dactyloides), blue gramma grass (Bouteloua gracilis), royal catchfly (Silene regia), and false 

gaura (Stenosiphon linifolius; NPS 2004b). There also is a colony of federally endangered gray 

bats, discovered during a cave inventory in 1996. Similarly, the grotto salamander (Typhlotriton

spelaeus), a species of concern to the state, was documented during cave research in 1985. Bald 

eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are migrants and occasionally are winter residents (Gale et al. 

2004).
17

Water quality is a continuing concern at Wilson’s Creek. Water quality has been very poor due 

to Springfield’s southwest wastewater treatment plant, agricultural and storm water runoff, and 

nearby development. Macro-invertebrate sampling demonstrates a decline of pollution-sensitive 

species and dominance of pollution-tolerant species (Bowles 2010). Communities in Wilson’s 

Creek are impoverished, but there is one fish species of interest, the Ozark sculpin, (Cottus 

hypselurus) due to its limited range and specific habitat requirements (Peterson and Justus 

2005b).

Aquatic Resources In and Near Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield

Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield contains three streams, Wilson’s Creek, Terrell Creek, and 

Skegg’s Branch (Figure 2-2). Wilson’s Creek, which originates in Springfield, Missouri, is 

located in Greene and Christian County and is the main stream flowing through the park. 

Wilson’s Creek is one of largest tributaries of the James River. Wilson’s Creek has a drainage 

area above the park of 58.3 square miles and average annual flow rates generally are 90.9 cubic 

feet per second, as measured by a gauge (07052160) near Wilson’s Creek Battlefield (USGS 

2010). 

In 1959, a wastewater treatment facility was constructed on Wilson's Creek to help process 

wastewater from Springfield. The plant initially had a flow capacity of 12 million gallons per 

day. The facility has since undergone two major upgrades in 1978 and 1993. In 1978 the plant 

was upgraded to increase flow capacity to 30 million gallons per day and increase the overall 

level of water treatment. Following these upgrades, Berkas (1980, 1982) reported improvements 

downstream for dissolved oxygen concentrations. Further expansion and major improvements 

were completed in 1993 with the addition of a second treatment train. In 2001, improvements 

were further expanded to include biological and chemical removal of phosphorus that reduced 

phosphorus discharge by 40%. Currently the wastewater treatment facility is capable of 

continually treating 42.5 million gallons per day and 90 million gallons per day for shorter 

periods. The average daily flow from Springfield at this time is approximately 35 million gallons 

per day. The wastewater treatment facility removes approximately 70,000 pounds of pollutants 

from the wastewater per day before it is discharged. However, even with the removal of those 

pollutants, Wilson’s Creek remains a distressed stream.

Wilson’s Creek has poor water quality and is classified as a 303(d) stream (Missouri Department 

of Natural Resources 2009). Sampling has shown water toxicity from unknown pollutants and 

bacteria, due to drainage from the city of Springfield (Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

2009). Toxicity comes from point sources such as the wastewater treatment facility and 

nonpoint sources such as urban stormwater (Richards and Johnson 2002). Studies since 1968 

(Harvey and Skelton 1968, Kerr 1969, Emmett et al. 1978, Richards and Johnson 2002) have 

shown that effluent from the wastewater treatment facility and urban runoff during storms 

release inorganic chemicals and nutrients into Wilson’s Creek. The impact of the resulting 

dissolved oxygen depletion has reduced animal populations, but overall the extent of damage is 

presently unknown. Bowles (2010) reported that even with stream degradation, invertebrate 

populations have not decreased from the levels recorded in earlier surveys by Harris et al. (1991) 

and Peitz and Cribbs (2005).
18

Wildlife

Fauna of WICR are typical of old fields and disturbed woodlands and forests in the eastern 

Ozark Highlands. Forty-seven species of birds were recorded at Wilson’s Creek National 

Battlefield during site visits in May 2008. The most common and widely distributed species was 

the Indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea). The Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) and Bluegray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea) occurred frequently as well. Partners in Flight, a coalition 

of agencies and individuals whose mission is to conserve North America’s declining bird 

populations, classify ten species found at WICR as species of continental importance. Two 

grassland obligate species were recorded, the Dickcissel (Spiza Americana) and the Eastern 

meadowlark (Sturnella magna). No woodland obligates were reported. Grasslands, deciduous 

woodlands, and shrub habitat dominate at WICR. 

An inventory of the presence/absence of mammals at Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield was 

conducted in June 2004. An initial expected species list suggested 37 terrestrial species as 

present or probably present at the park. Seven species of mammals were added to the list, two 

were excluded, and five species have a questionable status at the park. One species is considered 

extirpated. After revising the list, the inventory documented 21 of 37 (57 %) terrestrial species 

listed as either present or probably present. 

No state or federally listed species were observed. Five of the undocumented species are small 

carnivores and may be present occasionally or in small numbers although the spotted skunk is 

presently listed as endangered in the state and has recently experienced a significant decline in 

numbers. Three species are aquatic and should be present in Wilson’s Creek. The other five 

species are rodents and all of these species have been documented in similar habitats in 

southwest Missouri. The black bear has been documented in nearby areas, and the mountain lion 

has been reported from the Battlefield, but the sightings have not been confirmed from physical 

evidence. 

Resource Stewardship Context

Park Enabling Legislation

Wilson's Creek, near Springfield in southwestern Missouri, was established as Wilson’s Creek 

National Battlefield Park on April 22, 1960, and became a National Battlefield in 1970, with 

1750 acres (Busch 1976, NPS 2010b). The park contains significant natural resources in rare 

native species, but also is managing against the invasion of many exotic species, poor water 

quality, and degraded habitat for native vegetation (Sasseen 2003, Bowles 2010). Management 

goals include restoring the landscape to historical battle-era conditions of oak savanna and 

agricultural fields, to enhance visualization of tactics and troop movements through the area

(NPS 2010b).

Fundamental Resources and Values

Wilson's Creek National Battlefield Park’s mission is to illustrate the Battle at Wilson’s Creek, 

through collaborative partnerships such as Wilson's Creek National Battlefield Foundation. The 

park will continue to protect the site and historical structures, create educational programs, and 

connect people to nature, history, and culture. Furthermore, the park intends to restore the 

battlefield to the historical landscape of the 1860s, which will help provide appreciation of battle 

strategies and troop movements through the area (NPS 2007c). 
19

WICR supports examples of both aquatic and terrestrial Ozark Highlands natural communities. 

Management and restoration of these resources includes re-vegetation of oak woodland and 

savanna, native grass seeding to recover grasslands and open spaces, and reduction of eastern 

redcedar, mesic tree species, and shrubs through regular prescribed burns in forest, grassland,

and glades (NPS 2004b).

Desired Conditions for Natural Resources

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

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

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

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

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

o Cultural landscape inventories are conducted to identify landscapes potentially eligible 

for listing in the national register, and to assist in future management decisions for 

landscapes and associated resources, both cultural and natural. A Cultural Landscape 

Report (CLR; NPS 2004c) clearly identifies the landscape characteristics and associated 

features, values, and associations that make a landscape historically significant. The 

content of a CLR provides the basis for making sound decisions about management, 

treatment, and use. The management of cultural landscapes focuses on preserving the 

landscape’s physical attributes, biotic systems, and use when that use contributes to its 

historical significance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

environmental effects associated with the occupancy and modifications of floodplains are 

avoided. 

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

plants and animals.

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

possible except where special considerations are warranted. Native species populations 

that have been severely reduced in or extirpated from the battlefield 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 
20

resources or public health and when control is prudent and feasible. Federal and statelisted threatened and endangered species and their habitats are protected and sustained. 

Native threatened and endangered species populations that have been severely reduced in 

or extirpated from the national monument are restored where feasible and sustainable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

monument.

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

CLR outlines historic and existing conditions and management issues (NPS 2004c). 

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

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

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

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

conservation and restoration of streams, glades, upland grasslands, savannas and woodlands, and 

floodplain forests concomitant with interpretation of conditions at the time of the battle. 
21

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 Wilson’s Creek National 

Battlefield (WICR) 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 Wilson's Creek. 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 reviewed management plans and natural resource 

studies to ensure that the selected indicators complimented these efforts.

Table 3-2. Team members for the Wilson's Creek Battlefield 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

Ted Hillmer NPS, Wilson's Creek National Battlefield

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

Gary Sullivan NPS, Wilson's Creek National Battlefield

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). 
22

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

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

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

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

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

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

Framework for Assessing and Reporting Ecological Condition (2002).
23

Figure 3-8. 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 WICR, 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. Thus, each resource type may have a unique 

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

indicators.
24

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, grasslands or shrublands on site types that were historically forested 

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

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

fire regime. 

Biotic Condition

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

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

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

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

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

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

on ecosystem health or condition (Kirkpatrick and Brown 1994, Noss 2004, Diamond et al. 

2005). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

among the public (Peitz 2009). 

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

considerable interest from visitors. Since European settlement, populations have fluctuated 
25

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

ecosystems across the nation (Waller and Alverson 1997). 

Rare species are most subject to possible extinction and are often among the most sensitive 

indicators of changes in environmental conditions and land management (Noss 1990). At 

WICR, the primary focus has been on the Missouri bladderpod (Lesqurella filiformis), a winter 

annual that is sensitive to increases in the density of woody species, especially eastern redcedar. 

At least two aquatic or semi-aquatic cave-associated species, the grotto salamander (Typhlotriton 

spelaeus) and bristly crayfish (Cambarus setosus), are also present and are sensitive to changes 

in water quality. 

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, Eyre 

1980).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

valuable interpretive topic for parks. 

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

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

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). Temperature increases can limit 

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

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

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

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

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

in streams during the winter can cause severe metabolic stress on fish (Cunjak 1988), while 
26

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. 

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 ability 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 WICR 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. 

Air quality 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/permits/aris/networks/htln.cfm) for more information about air 
27

quality monitoring. Ozone, sulfur dioxide, and dry deposition are collected by the Clean Air 

Status and Trends (CASTNet) network. Ozone is also monitored with passive samplers and 

portable continuous analyzers. Wet Deposition is monitored through cooperation with National 

Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network (NADP/NTN).

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

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

affects plants through diffusion into leaf stomata (Hogsett and Anderson 1998) and may cause 

foliar injury and reduced growth in some sensitive plant species (NPS 2002). Ozone is formed in 

the atmosphere when pollutants, especially nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic 

compounds (VOCS), react with sunlight. Anthropogenic sources of NOx and VOCS are emitted 

from industrial facilities, electric utilities, vehicle exhaust, and chemical solvents. Human health 

effects associated with ozone include reduced lung function, irritated throat and airways, 

increased susceptibility to respiratory infection, and aggravation of lung diseases. 

Atmospheric deposition: Atmospheric deposition refers to the process in which airborne 

chemicals, including pollutants, are deposited to the earth. Atmospheric deposition includes wet 

deposition in rain or snow, occult deposition in cloud or fog, and dry deposition from settling, 

impaction, and adsorption (NPS 2007b). Atmospheric deposition of sulfur and nitrogen 

compounds can cause significant ecosystem effects such as acidification or eutrophication of soil 

and water (NPS 2007a). Acidification of soils, lakes, and streams can result in changes in 

community structure, biodiversity, reproduction, and decomposition. Documented impacts in 

some parks include stressed trees, acidified streams, and reduction in species of fish and other 

aquatic life in affected waters (NPS 2002). 

Although nitrogen is an essential plant nutrient, increased levels of atmospheric nitrogen 

deposition can stress ecosystems. Excess nitrogen acts as fertilizer, favoring some types of plants 

and leaving others at a competitive disadvantage. This creates an imbalance in natural 

ecosystems, and long–term effects of these changes may include shifts in types of plant and 

animal species, increase in insect and disease outbreaks, and disruption of ecosystem processes 

such as nutrient cycling, and changes in fire frequency. Wet deposition occurs when pollutants 

are deposited in combination with precipitation, predominantly by rain and snow, but also by 

clouds and fog. 

Hydrology and Geomorphology

The hydrology and geomorphology of ecological systems reflect the dynamic interplay of water 

flow and landforms. In river systems, for example, water flow patterns and the physical 

interaction among a river, its riverbed, and the surrounding land determines whether a diverse 

array of natural habitats and native species are maintained. Characteristics included in this 

category include channel morphology and shoreline characteristics, channel complexity, 

distribution and extent of connected floodplain, and aquatic physical habitat complexity.

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 
28

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 nonnative species, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and avalanches. The frequency, intensity, 

extent, and duration of the events taken together are referred to as the “disturbance regime.” 

Wildland fire is a natural disturbance process that has great potential to change park landscapes. 

Many plants and animals cannot survive without the cycles of fire to which they are adapted. 

National Park Service policy stresses managing rather than simply suppressing fire, which 

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

Natural fires have been all but eliminated from WICR and surrounding areas, even though most 

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

glades, grasslands, and savannas more open than second growth woodlands in the modern 

landscape.
29

Chapter 4 Study Methods

In this chapter we describe the specific methods, data sets, and information resources used to 

evaluate individual attributes and indicators. Appendix C provides a summary of references for 

current condition and target condition for each attribute/indicator.

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, including park-wide, bottomland forest, glade, 

upland grassland, and upland woodland. 

The current vegetation classification was produced by considering land cover and ecological site 

type. Land cover was coded by hand on-screen to 6 m resolution image objects generated using 

e-Cognition software from merged leaf-on and leaf-off air photos (Table 4-1, Figure 4-1). 

Abiotic site type was defined by merging similar ecological land types, which in turn were 

generated from digital county soil survey map unit polygons. In addition, we identified steep 

slopes (>20%) using 10 m resolution digital elevation models. Finally, current vegetation was 

assigned to each combination of land cover and abiotic site type (Figure 4-2).

Table 4-4. Land cover classes assigned to image objects for Wilson's Creek National Battlefield.

Land Cover Classes

Impervious

Low Intensity Urban

Barren or Sparsely Vegetated

Cropland

Grassland

Deciduous Forest

Evergreen Forest

Mixed Forest

Deciduous Woody/Herbaceous

Evergreen Woody/Herbaceous

Mixed Woody/Herbaceous

Open Water
30

Figure 4-9. Process for assigning land cover classification to 6 m resolution image objects on-screen.
31

Figure 4-10. 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 WICR 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. The initial breeding bird survey was done at WICR in May of 2008 

(Peitz 2009). Breeding birds and their habitat were sampled at 36 permanent sites arranged in a 

systematic grid of 400 X 400 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 

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

particularly grassland obligates and species of continental importance. 

White-tailed Deer

Populations of white-tailed deer are monitored each year during the winter at WIRC using 

spotlight surveys from the 7.90 km tour road (Peitz et al. 2007). Surveys are conducted using 
32

two 1,000,000 candlepower spotlights from a vehicle moving no more than 16 km/hr. All deer 

seen along the survey route are counted and their location recorded using GPS. Deer counts are made 

by two observers, one seated on the left and the other on the right side of the vehicle. Distances from 

the stopped survey vehicle to all deer are determined by a rangefinder or, for deer < 20 m from the 

vehicle, by visual estimates. Deer are usually observed in groups, in which case distance is taken or 

estimated to the center most deer in the group. In order to map locations of deer, the direction and 

angle of all deer or deer groups from the survey vehicle are recorded as well. 

Weather permitting, deer counts are made once a week for six consecutive weeks beginning in 

January. Three replicate counts are made during each evening of the survey. The maximum 

evening count among the three replicates is averaged across sample evenings to calculate an 

index of relative deer density. Counting deer along the road corridor yields an index of relative deer 

abundance, which is correlated with the absolute abundance of deer on the battlefield. The ecological 

carrying capacity for deer is considered to be 8 individuals/km2

.

Rare Species: Missouri Bladderpod (Lesquerella filiformis)

The Missouri bladderpod is listed as a threatened plant under the Endangered Species Act. 

Monitoring of the Missouri bladderpod at seven glades or glade-like sites at WICR is on-going 

and consists of annual estimated counts of individual plants,(Young et al. 2006, 2008, 2009). 

The number of plants within a grid of 5 X 5 meter plots or 15 X 15 meter plots is estimated 

using density classes: 0 = no plants, 1 = 1-9 plants, 2 = 1-49 plants, 3 = 50-99 plants, 4 = 100-

499 plants, 5 = 500-999 plants, and 6 = >1000 plants. Up to six workers, working 

independently, make visual estimates. Workers calibrate estimates against complete counts for 

the population in Bloody Hill Glade.Monitoring is conducted between mid-April and early 

Mayduring peak flowering.

Invasive Exotic Plants

The Heartland Network Inventory and Monitoring Program tracks invasive species in a 

systematic way at WICR. During surveys, observers search for plants designated as invasive and 

included on either the early-detection or park-established watch list These lists include plant 

species that may colonize tha park and plants that have colonized the park, respectively. 

Observers survey 173 transects which are 200 m long, unless intersected by the park boundary, 

and 3 to 12 m wide. (Presence of target species was noted and cover estimated by cover class 

using a cover-class scale: =0, 1=0.1-0.9 m2

, 2=1-9.9 m2, 3=10-49.9 m2, 4= 50-99.9 m2, 5=100-

499.9 m2, 6= 499.9-999.9 m2, 7= >1000m2

Plant Community Structure and Composition

Three plant communities are tracked by the HTLN at WICR, including glades, upland 

oak/hickory woodlands, and tallgrass prairie/savanna restoration types. 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). 
33

In addition, plant communities have been sampled in conjunction with breeding bird surveys at 

35, 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 10

meter square 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 (see references by reporting unit, Chapter 5). 

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 by using 

five common indicators of fish community condition and by comparing an observed community 

to a modeled baseline community within WICR. These comparisons give a measure of “fish 

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

Actual fish collection data for Wilson’s Creek within the WICR boundary was acquired from 

several sources for different years. Collections made via seining in January and February 1984 

came from Donegan (1984); collections via electrofishing and seining made in October 1988 and 

July 1989 were from Hoefs and Boyle (1990); electrofishing collections from July 2003 were 

from Petersen and Justus (2005b) (Figure 4-3); and more recent collections from May 2007 via 

electrofishing were from unpublished Heartland Network data (Figure 4-4). Data for Skegg’s 

Branch within the WICR boundary came from two sources including both the Petersen and 

Justus (2005b) and unpublished 2007 Heartland Network described above. The only collection 

data available for Terrell Creek within WICR was the unpublished 2007 Heartland Network data. 

We developed current conditions from Dodd (unpublished data). Five metrics were used to 

assess the current condition for the three watershed based reporting units (Wilson’s Creek, 

Skegg’s Branch, and Terrell Creek). 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. 
34

Because there is limited information published on fish communities in watersheds close to 

WICR, we used the mean from data collected in 2006 and 2007 as the management target. The 

reference condition used for the sucker, sunfish, and benthic species metrics was generally 

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

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

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

of biotic integrity including the management target and reference condition was developed for 

the Ozark Highlands by Dauwalter et al. (2003). 

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

expected fish community composition in WICR 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 establish baseline conditions inside of 

WICR. 

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 

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 data collected in 1984-1989 and 2003 – 2007 to Missouri 

Aquatic Gap Project fish species models which served as a baseline with which to compare. 
35

Figure 4-11. Fish survey locations during 2003 for Wilson's Creek and Skegg's Branch (Peterson and Justus 2005b). 
36

Figure 4-12. Fish survey locations for Wilson's Creek, Skegg's Branch, and Terrell Creek during 2007. 
37

Aquatic Invertebrate Community

All aquatic invertebrate collection data for streams within WICR were acquired using a Surber 

stream bottom sampler. For Wilson’s Creek and Skegg’s branch data were available from 1988-

2007. Collections made in 1988-2004 consisted of five replicate samples conducted at three 

monitoring sites (two in Wilson’s Creek and one in Skegg’s Branch). Collections made in 2005-

2007 consisted of sampling three successive riffles with three benthic invertebrate samples 

collected at each riffle which resulted in a total of nine samples per stream (Figure 4-5; Bowles 

2010). Terrell Creek had data available for 2006 and 2007. The Terrell Creek data also 

consisted of sampling three successive riffles with three benthic invertebrate samples collected at 

each riffle which resulted in a total of nine samples per stream. 

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

three watersheds based assessment units (Wilson’s Creek, Skegg’s Branch, and Terrell Creek). 

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 The Shannon Evenness Index is lower if 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. 
38

Figure 4-13. Invertebrate survey locations for Wilson's Creek, Skegg's Branch, and Terrell Creek during 1988-1989 (Harris et al. 1991) and 2005-

2007 (Bowles 2010). 
39

Chemical and Physical Characteristics

Water Quality

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

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

dissolved oxygen, pH, and turbidity. Additional information is reported from a variety of 

literature sources. 

The analytical data presented in this report were collected from several different time periods by 

various sources. Data from 1979 and 1999-2006 were acquired from the USGS gauging station 

07052160 (Wilson’s Creek near Battlefield). Data from 1989 were taken from Harris et al. 

(1991). Data from 2005-2007 was from Bowles (2010). When two datasets had overlapping 

years (i.e. 2005 and 2006) the data presented are the average from the two sources. It should be 

noted that Bowles (2010) points out that the data from 2005-2007 should not be used as an 

analytical tool. NPS established management targets based on Brown and Czarnecki (undated).

Air Quality

Air quality is an important environmental issue facing most National Parks. Data collected 

through the NPS air quality programs show that park units are not islands isolated from urban, 

agricultural, and industrial pollutants. Manmade and natural air pollutants are transported long 

distances and have been detected at all NPS monitoring sites (NPS 2002). Air pollution affects

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

biological and human health effects, and degradation of historic structures and artifacts. 

The National Park Service is interested in achieving the best possible air quality in its parks 

because air quality impacts ecological health, scenic views, human health, and visitor enjoyment. 

The NPS generally considers stable or improving air quality as signs of success, but also strives 

to comply with national air quality standards with the ultimate goal clean clear air in national 

parks (NPS 2007a). It is important to note that stable trends are not necessarily indicative of 

good air quality if an area is already experiencing poor quality air. 

Ozone

We used data from NPS’s Air Resources Division available at

http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Maps/AirAtlas/IM_materials.cfm. These ozone values represent 

estimates for WICR 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). 

Wet Deposition

We used data from NPS’s Air Resources Division available at

http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Maps/AirAtlas/IM_materials.cfm. Deposition estimates represent 
40

estimates for WICR based on interpolations calculated as a 5-year average concentration. We 

established a condition rating using thresholds for N (total inorganic nitrogen from ammonium

and nitrate ions in wet deposition) and S (total sulfur from sulfate ions in wet deposition) as 

described by NPS. Estimates for natural background wet deposition rates for either N or S are 

0.13 kg/ha/yr in the Western United States and 0.25 kg/ha/yr in the Eastern United States (NPS 

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

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 4-5. 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

Dry Deposition

We used data from NPS’s Air Resources Division available at

http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Maps/AirAtlas/IM_materials.cfm. Deposition estimates represent 

estimates for WICR 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. 
41

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.

The monitoring station at Wilson Creek near Battlefield, Missouri (07052160) was the only 

relevant station available for WICR (Figure 4-6). Discharge, measured as cubic feet per second 

(cfs), was collected and summarized using USGS’s National Hydrology Assessment Tool 

Software (NATHAT). The monthly discharge means (cfs) were graphed in Microsoft Excel as 

monthly averages. Peak flow data were also obtained from the USGS for the monitoring station, 

so that time period analyses could be conducted using NATHAT. Ten hydrologic indices were 

computed and then compared and normalized for the different time periods against the period of 

record (POR) (Table 4-3). Stream flow data were analyzed in NATHAT for 1969-1970, 1973-

1982, and 2000-2004. These three time periods were rated based on their deviation from the 

baseline of the POR. To determine the rating categories, the data were normalized for every 

index at each monitoring station and the most recent time period was compared to the period of

record. Ratings were based on deviation 1.0, either higher or lower. Thus, if an index from the 

most recent time period fell within 0.25 of 1.0, the rating was Good; >.25 but <.75 was Fair, and 

>.75 was Poor. 

Table 4-6. List of hydrological indices evaluated for a water monitoring station in Wilson's Creek National 

Battlefield. 

Index Variables Definition

MA1 Mean daily flow (cfs) for the period of record

ML8 Mean minimum flow (cfs) for August

MH5 Mean maximum flows (cfs) for May

FL1 Low flood pulse count (#)

FH4 High flood pulse count (#)

DL3 Annual minimum of 7-day moving average flow (cfs)

DH3 Annual maximum of 7-day moving average flow (cfs)

TL1 Julian date of annual minimum

TH1 Julian date of annual maximum

RA3 Fall rate (cfs/day)

Natural Disturbance Regime

Fire Regime

Fire was the primary natural disturbance impacting the natural communities at WICR. We 

inferred historic fire return intervals by reporting unit (major community type) by referring to 

state and transition models for similar communities prepared for the LandFire project (see 

http://www.landfire.gov/NationalProductDescriptions13.php).
Figure 4-14. Surface water monitoring station (Wilson’s Creek near Battlefield – 07052160) on Wilson's Creek used to assess water flow 

in Wilson's Creek National Battlefield.
43

Chapter 5 Natural Resource Conditions

Reporting Units

The assessments for breeding birds, white-tailed deer, invasive exotic plants, and air quality were 

park-wide. For terrestrial communities, we developed reporting units based on potential 

vegetation and on current condition (Figure 5-1). These included bottomland forest, glade, 

upland grassland, and upland woodland reporting units. 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). Cultural areas, including 

buildings, grounds, interpretive crop fields, and cemeteries were also identified and were not 

included for further condition assessment. Because stream character and condition can vary 

dramatically with drainage area (Vannote et al. 1980), we developed reporting units for Wilson’s 

Creek, Skegg’s Branch, and Terrell Creek (Figure 5-2). 

Figure 5-15. Terrestrial reporting units for Wilson's Creek National Battlefield were based on both current 

vegetation patterns and ecological site type (site potential).
44

Figure 5-16. Map of stream reporting units within Wilson's Creek National Battlefield.

Condition Summaries by Reporting Units

In chapters 3 and 4, we organized the discussion of indicators and attributes used to characterize 

natural resources by the EPA assessment framework. In chapter five, we report the condition of 

natural resources by reporting unit, with a focus on indicators. Reporting units typically 

encompass multiple natural resources (i.e., resource types) and their related attributes/indicators. 

A resource type may occur in one or many reporting units, and management targets may differ 

for the same resource type in different reporting units (Table 5-1, Figure 5-1, Figure 5-2). 
45

Table 5-7. Summary of natural resource condition indicators for Wilson's Creek National Battlefield. Current conditions are based on 

contemporary data, and management targets are based on a variety of sources, including expert judgment (see text). Indicators are presented 

within park reporting units (Figure 5-1, Figure 5-2) and relate to resource types and/or ecological attributes.

Table 5.1. Continued

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator

Management 

Target

Current 

Condition Current Year

Parkwide

Vegetation

Landscape composition

patch count 1125 - 750 1819 2010

mean patch size (ha) > 1 0.4 2010

Land use/Land cover

semi-natural and natural types (ha) > 750 425 2010

successional types (ha) < 50 336 2010

cultural types (ha) ≤ 40 38 2010

Breeding bird community

species richness ≥ 47 47 2008

Partners in Flight target species ≥ 10 10 2008

number of grassland obligate species ≥ 2 2 2008

White-tailed deer

index of relative abundance (individuals/km2) < 8 56.6 2010

Invasive exotic plant impact

number of taxa < 30 35 2006

frequency on transects (%) < 50 91.9 2006

park-wide minimum cover estimate (%) < 10 15.4 2006

Air quality

Ozone

ozone (ppb) ≤ 60 72.2 2004 - 2008

Atmospheric deposition

nitrogen (kg/ha) < 1 12.6 2004 - 2008

sulfur (kg/ha) < 1 10.7 2004 - 2008

Bottomland forest

Landscape composition

patch count for forest 53 - 35 75 2010

mean patch size for forest (ha) > 2 0.7 2010

Land use/Land cover

bottomland forest (ha) > 90 54 2010

successional types (ha) < 19 59 2010
46

Table 5.1. Continued

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator

Management 

Target

Current 

Condition Current Year

Glade

Landscape composition

patch count for all glade types 75 - 50 79 2010

mean patch size glade types (ha) > 0.25 0.14 2010

Land use/Land cover

glade types (ha) > 15 10 2010

successional types (ha) < 10 15 2010

Missouri Bladderpod

Abundance

Bloody Hill population size (3 yr average, count) > 71847 5934 2010

Wire Road population size (3 yr average, count) > 48791 592 2010

Terrell Creek population size (3 yr average, count) > 14 5 2010

Walnut Glade population size (3 yr average, count) > 848 343 2010

North Bloody Hill glade population size (3 yr average, count) > 1009 128 2010

Manley Woods glade (3 yr average, count) > 617 252 2010

Upland grassland

Landscape composition

patch count for grassland 60 - 40 80 2010

mean patch size for grassland (ha) > 10 3.4 2010

Land use/Land cover

restored prairie (ha) > 250 145 2010

successional types (ha) < 55 161 2010

Herbaceous guild composition

native grass (%) > 60 54.4 2008

native forbs (%) 10 - 40 27.8 2008

native woody shrub and vine (%) < 10 37 2008

Upland woodland

Landscape composition

patch count for woodland 188 - 125 275 2010

mean patch size for woodland (ha) > 2 0.8 2010

Land use/Land cover

natural and semi-natural woodland (ha) > 250 192 2010

successional types (ha) < 33 91 2010

Structural class
47

Table 5.1. Continued

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator

Management 

Target

Current 

Condition Current Year

hardwood canopy cover (%) 45 - 80 72 2008

hardwood basal area (m2/ha) 14 - 23 15 2008

density (stems/ha, trees > 8 cm dbh) 125 - 600 149 2008

Cover type

oak species basal area (m2/ha) 9 - 18.2 4.3 2008

hickory and walnut species basal area (m2/ha) 2.1 - 8 3.6 2008

Regeneration

cover type small saplings (>1.5 m tall, < 2.5 cm dbh) relative 

density (% of stems/ha) > 50 37 2008

cover type large saplings (>1.5 m tall; > 2.5 and < 8 cm dbh) 

relative density (% of stems/ha) > 50 19.4 2008

total cover type sapling relative density (% of stems/ha) > 50 21.2 2008

Herbaceous guild composition

native grass (%) 10 - 80 15.4 2008

native forbs (%) 1 - 40 15 2008

native woody shrub (%) 15 - 50 21 2008

Structure

hardwood tree height (m) 13 - 21.3 13.5 2008

Wilson's Creek

Water quality

temperature (oC) 0 - 34 18.5 2007

specific conductance (μS/cm) 100 - 400 643.0 2007

dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 5 - 15 9.2 2006

pH 6.5 - 9.0 7.8 2006

turbidity (NTU) < 10 4.2 2007

Surface Water Flow

mean daily flow (cfs) for the period of record 68.1 - 113.6 91.4 2000-2004

mean min flow (cfs) for August 25.2 - 42.1 45 2000-2004

mean max flows (cfs) for May 450.1 - 750 716.2 2000-2004

low flood pulse count (#) 9.1 - 15.1 15 2000-2004

high flood pulse count (#) 4.5 - 7.6 4.2 2000-2004

annual min of 7-day moving average flow (cfs) 22.8 - 38.0 38.8 2000-2004

annual max of 7-day moving average flow (cfs) 366.1 - 610.2 486.7 2000-2004

Julian date of annual minimum 217.6 - 362.7 293.8 2000-2004

Julian date of annual maximum 73.9 - 123.2 130 2000-2004

fall rate (cfs/day) 17.4 - 29.1 22.9 2000-2004
48

Table 5.1. Continued

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator

Management 

Target

Current 

Condition Current Year

Fish community

Composition

Simpson's diversity ≤ 0.15 0.09 2007

sucker composition (%) > 1.3 1.20 2007

sunfish composition (%) > 11 17.9 2007

benthic species composition (%) > 34 49.1 2007

Condition

index of biotic integrity > 60 93 2007

Aquatic invertebrates

Biotic integrity

family richness ≥ 14.2 10.8 2007

genus richness > 15 14.9 2007

EPT richness > 4 3.8 2007

EPT ratio ≥ 0.23 0.18 2007

Shannon Index (Genus) > 1.77 1.93 2007

Shannon Evenness Index ≥ 0.9 0.72 2007

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index < 6.6 6.7 2007

Skegg's Branch

Water quality

temperature (oC) 0 - 34 15.3 2007

specific conductance (μS/cm) 100 - 400 489.5 2007

dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 5 - 15 8.8 2006

pH 6.5 - 9.0 7.9 2006

turbidity (NTU) < 10 2.1 2007

Fish community

Composition

Simpson's diversity < 0.23 0.16 2007

benthic species composition (%) > 34.3 52.9 2007

Condition

index of biotic integrity > 60 73 2007

Aquatic invertebrates

Biotic integrity

family richness ≥ 14.2 11.9 2007

genus richness > 15 21.7 2007

EPT richness > 4 3.8 2007

EPT ratio ≥ 0.23 0.18 2007
49

Table 5.1. Continued

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator

Management 

Target

Current 

Condition Current Year

Shannon Index (Genus) > 1.77 2 2007

Shannon Evenness Index ≥ 0.9 0.66 2007

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index < 6.6 5.7 2007

Terrell Creek

Water quality

temperature (oC) 0 - 34 18.6 2007

specific conductance (μS/cm) 100 - 400 466.9 2007

dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 5 - 15 7.8 2007

pH 6.5 - 9.0 7.8 2007

turbidity (NTU) < 10 1.5 2007

Fish community

Composition

Simpson's diversity < 0.44 0.73 2007

sucker composition (%) > 1.5 0.4 2007

benthic species composition (%) > 61.7 90.4 2007

Condition

index of biotic integrity > 60 61 2007

Aquatic invertebrates

Biotic integrity

family richness ≥ 14.2 14.8 2007

genus richness > 15 22.4 2007

EPT richness > 4 4.6 2007

EPT ratio ≥ 0.23 0.15 2007

Shannon Index (Genus) > 1.77 2.19 2007

Shannon Evenness Index ≥ 0.9 0.71 2007

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index < 6.6 5.3 2007
50

Reporting Unit: Park-wide

Vegetation

Overall, WICR has 28 different current cover types, and about 425 ha (53%) are natural or seminatural, whereas 336 ha 42% are clearly successional types. The remaining 38 ha (<5%) are 

cultural, including cover types such as trails and roads, buildings, interpretive croplands, and 

lawns (Table 5-2, Figure 5-4).

Table 5-8. Current vegetation type patch statistics and total area for Wilson's Creek National Battlefield.

Current Vegetation Class 

Mean Patch 

Size (ha)

# of 

Patches

Class Area 

(ha)

% Class 

Area

Barren or Sparsely Vegetated 0.01 10 0.14 0.00%

Bottomland Oak-Hardwood Forest 0.34 188 63.94 8.00%

Bottomland Successional Deciduous Sparse Woodland and Shrubland 0.07 156 11.43 1.40%

Bottomland Successional Eastern Redcedar Sparse Woodland and 

Shrubland 0.02 1 0.02 0.00%

Bottomland Successional Eastern Redcedar Woodland and Forest 0.34 5 1.70 0.20%

Bottomland Successional Eastern Redcedar-Deciduous Mixed Woodland 

and Forest 0.11 21 2.39 0.30%

Bottomland Successional Herbaceous Vegetation 0.79 34 26.76 3.30%

Cropland 2.15 7 15.02 1.90%

Fescue Grasslands 1.27 136 173.07 21.60%

Glade/Woodland Complex (grassy) 0.02 4 0.06 0.00%

Glade/Woodland Complex (invasive eastern redcedar woodland and 

forest) 0.12 16 1.91 0.20%

Glade/Woodland Complex (invasive eastern redcedar-hardwood 

woodland and forest) 0.08 50 3.95 0.50%

Glade/Woodland Complex (sparse deciduous woodland and shrubland) 0.10 31 3.09 0.40%

Glade/Woodland Complex (sparse eastern redcedar woodland and 

shrubland) 0.07 8 0.53 0.10%

Open Water 0.03 39 1.20 0.20%

Prairie Restoration 0.91 173 157.50 19.70%

Trails and Roads 0.20 108 21.20 2.70%

Upland Dry Oak-Hickory Woodland and Forest 0.38 398 152.09 19.00%

Upland Mesic Oak-Hickory Woodland and Forest 0.32 15 4.78 0.60%

Upland Oak-Bluestem Flatwoods (wooded) 0.02 2 0.04 0.00%

Upland Prairie and Savanna (wooded) 0.12 58 7.22 0.90%

Upland Successional Deciduous Sparse Woodland and Shrubland 0.10 624 60.88 7.60%

Upland Successional Eastern Redcedar Sparse Woodland and Shrubland 0.08 37 3.13 0.40%

Upland Successional Eastern Redcedar Woodland and Forest 0.20 63 12.53 1.60%

Upland Successional Eastern Redcedar-Hardwood Woodland and Forest 0.35 108 38.24 4.80%

Upland Typic Slope Oak-Hardwood Woodland and Forest 0.16 150 24.73 3.10%

Upland Wet Slope and Valley Hardwood Forest 0.13 77 9.89 1.20%

Urban Low Intensity 0.06 32 2.00 0.30% 
51

Figure 5-17. Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield current vegetation cover type.
52

Figure 5-18. Wilson's Creek National Battlefield current vegetation condition.

Landscape Composition

There are 1819 patches of different land cover types in the park, with an average patch size of 

0.44 ha. Among land cover types that cover more than 75 hectares, or slightly less than 10% of 

the park, grassland patches are the largest on average at 1.32 ha, and shrubland patches are 

among the smallest at 0.10 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). 
53

Table 5-9. Mean patch size, number of patches, and area for major land cover types at Wilson's Creek 

National Battlefield.

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

Impervious 0.20 108 21.20 2.65

Low Density Urban 0.06 32 2.00 0.25

Barren or Sparsely Vegetated 0.02 11 0.20 0.03

Cropland 2.15 7 15.02 1.88

Grassland 1.32 270 357.34 44.70

Deciduous Forest 0.65 403 262.69 32.86

Evergreen Forest 0.26 61 16.14 2.02

Mixed Forest 0.42 106 44.58 5.58

Decid. Woody/Herbaceous 0.10 741 75.41 9.43

Evergreen Woody Herbaceous 0.05 4 0.18 0.02

Mixed Woody/Herbaceous 0.09 37 3.49 0.44

Open Water 0.03 39 1.20 0.15

Land Use/Land Cover 

The most abundant natural and semi-natural types include bottomland forest (64 ha), prairie 

restorations (157 ha), and upland dry oak-hickory forest (152 ha). Most of the successional 

vegetation is relatively large patches of fescue grassland. Successional eastern redcedar 

shrubland or woodland (57 ha) and successional deciduous sparse woodland or shrubland (60 ha) 

are also common. 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. This process will 

take decades of effort and is constrained by funding and by other park goals (Table 5-1). 

Breeding Bird Community

Forty-seven species were recorded during surveys in 2008. The most common birds park-wide 

were the Indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), and 

Blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea) (Table 5-4). Ten species found at WICR are on 

Partners in Flight lists of birds of continental importance (Table 5-4). Two grassland obligate 

birds, the Dickcissel (Spiza americana) and the Eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), were 

recorded. Volunteers surveyed 33 of the 36 established plots in 2010, and observed 16 birds of 

continental importance to Partners in Flight, including 15 resident species (surveys from Dorothy 

O. Thurman, Myra Scroggs, and April McDonough, unpublished). Summer resident or resident 

species encountered in 2010 but not in 2008 included the Acadian Flycatcher (Empidonax

virescens), Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii), Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), Grasshopper Sparrow

(Ammodramus savannarum), Louisiana Waterthrush (Parkesia motacilla), Prothonotary Warbler

(Protonotaria citrea), and Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus). Sample plots with the highest 

diversity, and highest diversity of species of importance to Partners in Flight, have been 

documented, and are scattered across the park. 

Management targets are based on expert opinion and focus on maintenance of the current level 

of biodiversity. Management efforts to maintain a diversity of habitats on the park will benefit 

multiple species. Three species of continental importance, that are currently common at the 

park, have a strong habitat affinity. Two of these, the Indigo bunting and Eastern Towhee 

(Pipilo erythrophthalmus), require brushy or forest edge habitats. The Dickcissel is a grassland 

obligate species (Peitz 2009).
54

Table 5-10. Bird species recorded during breeding bird surveys in 2008 at Wilson's Creek National 

Battlefield (from Peitz 2009).

Table 5.4. Continued

Common name1 Species name2 AOU code Residency3

American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos AMCR R

American goldfinch Carduelis tristis AMGO R

Bank swallow Riparia riparia BANS SR

Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii BEWR R

Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata BLJA R

Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea BGGN SR

Blue-winged warbler Vermivora pinus BWWA SR

Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum BRTH R

Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater BHCO R

Canada goose Branta canadensis CAGO R

Carolina chickadee Parus carolinensis CACH R

Carolina wren

Thryothorus 

ludovicianus CARW R

Cliff swallow4 Hirundo pyrrhonota CLSW SR

Cedar waxwing4 Bombycilla cedrorum CEDW WR

Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula COGR R

Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas COYE SR

Dickcissel Spiza americana DICK SR

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens DOWO R

Eastern (Rufous-side) towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus EATO R

Eastern bluebird4 Sialia sialis EABL R

Eastern kingbird4 Tyrannus tyrannus EAKI SR

Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna EAME R

Eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe EAPH R

Eastern wood-pewee Contopus virens EAWP SR

Field sparrow Spizella pusilla FISP R

Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis GRCA SR

Great blue heron Ardea herodias GBHE R

Great crested flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus GCFL SR

Indigo bunting Passerina cyanea INBU SR

Kentucky warbler Oporornis formosus KEWA SR

Northern bobwhite Colinus virginianus NOBO R

Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis NOCA R

Northern mockingbird Minus polyglottos NOMO R

Northern parula Parula americana NOPA SR

Ovenbird Seirus aurocapillus OVEN SR

Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus PIWO R

Prairie warbler Dendroica discolor PRAW SR
55

Table 5.4. Continued

Common name1 Species name2 AOU code Residency3

Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus RBWO R

Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus REVI SR

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis RTHA R

Song sparrow Melospiza melodia SOSP R

Summer tanager Piranga rubra SUTA SR

Turkey vulture Cathartes aura TUVU R

(Eastern) Tufted titmouse Baeolophus bicolor ETTI R

White-eyed vireo Vireo griseus WEVI SR

Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo WITU R

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.

White-tailed Deer

From 2005 to 2010, an index of deer density dipped from just under 60 individuals/ km2 in 2005 

to 15 individuals/ km2 in 2007, probably due to an outbreak of hemorrhagic disease. The 

population density has rebounded to just under 60 individual/ km2 since 2007. At this density, 

the deer herd is expected to heavily browse palatable woody and herbaceous species, and hence 

may have an impact on development of the vegetation. Hemorrhagic disease is often related to 

high population densities, and might therefore be cyclic. Maintenance of the deer herd nearer to 

the ecological carrying capacity of about 8 individuals/km2 (Tilghman 1989) may not be 

possible, but reduction in numbers would benefit the development of healthier deer herd and 

plant communities. 
56

Figure 5-19. White-tailed deer population fluctuations between 2005 and 2009 at Wilson's Creek National 

Battlefield.

Invasive Exotic Plant Impact

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

cover a minimum of 15.4% of the total area of the park (Table 5-5; Young et al. 2007). 

Management targets are based on expert opinion, and focus on reducing the numbers of invasive 

species in the park if possible (Table 5-1).
57

Table 5-11. Invasive exotic plants as Wilson's Creek National Battlefield. Management difficulty is 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

Lespedeza cuneata Sericea lespedeza 479 – 851 44.7 M/L

Bromus racemosus Bald brome 257 – 434 34.0 U

Maclura pomifera Osage orange 120 – 250 32.5 L

Bromus inermis Smooth brome 63 – 105 4.0 M/L

Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle 48 – 79 37.6 H/M

Schedonorus spp. Fescue species 9 – 25 20.8 --

Lonicera maackii Amur honeysuckle 5 – 21 1.0 M

Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose 6 – 17 48.2 L

Rhus glabra Smooth sumac 2 – 6 22.8 --

Torilis spp. Hedgeparsley species 0.6 – 2.3 25.4 --

Bromus sterilis Poverty brome < 1.0 11.2 U

Poa spp. Bluegrass species (incl. 

Kentucky bluegrass)

< 1.0 4.1 --

Sorghum halepense Johnsongrass < 1.0 5.1 H/M

Dactylis glomerata Orchardgrass < 0.75 13.2 M/L

Elaeagnus umbellata Autumn olive < 0.75 3.6 L

Verbascum thapsus Common mullein < 0.75 15.7 L

Ailanthus altissima Tree-of- heaven < 0.5 2.0 M/L

Carduus nutans Nodding plumeless thistle < 0.5 2.0 H/M

Melilotus officinalis Sweetclover < 0.5 9.6 M

Morus alba White mulberry < 0.5 4.6 M/L

Securigera varia Crown vetch < 0.5 2.0 L

Celastrus orbiculatus Oriental bittersweet < 0.25 2.0 M

Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle < 0.25 1.5 M/L

Euonymus alata Burningbush < 0.25 3.6 L

Euonymus fortunei Winter creeper < 0.25 6.6 L/I

Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass < 0.1 1.0 H/M

Dipsacus fullonum Fuller’s teasel < 0.1 1.0 M/L

Humulus japonicus Japanese hop < 0.1 1.5 --

Ligustrum vulgare Common privet < 0.1 1.5 H/M

Vinca minor Common periwinkle < 0.1 1.0 U

Arctium minus Lesser burdock < 0.01 0.5 M/I

Dioscorea oppositifolia Chinese yam < 0.01 0.5 M/I

Miscanthus sinensis Chinese silvergrass < 0.01 0.5 H/L

Poa compressa Canada bluegrass < 0.01 1.0 H/L

Potentilla recta Sulphur cinquefoil < 0.01 0.5 M/L

Tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix), a cool-season perennial, dominates a number of relatively 

large grassland patches. Other invasive and exotic species common in grasslands include sericea 

lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), bald brome (Bromus racemosus), Japanese honeysuckle 

(Lonicera japonica), and smooth sumac (Rhus glabra). Sericea lespedeza is a relatively tall 
58

(near 1 m), warm-season perennial that competes with warm season grasses, whereas bald broom 

is a cool-season (winter/spring) annual. Japanese honeysuckle is a vine that remains green much 

of the year, from early spring through late fall and into winter, and smooth sumac is a short-lived

perennial shrub or small tree. All of these species inhibit the re-establishment of native grasses 

and forbs, and can be managed to some extent via prescribed fire. In forests and woodlands, 

Japanese honeysuckle, multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and Osage orange (Malcura pomifera) 

were most common. These four species can be expected to become less frequent as woodlands 

mature and shading favors native species, and none are very fire-tolerant. However, both 

honeysuckle and rose may persist in relatively mature woodlands and forests. 

Cave Resources

At least two caves have been reported to support populations of rare species at WICR. The 

Missouri state Heritage database lists records for Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens) and grotto 

salamander (Eurycea spelacea) from a cave on the north side of the park. Slay et al. (2004) did 

not find Gray bat at these caves, but did mention that the bristly cave crayfish (Cambarus 

setosus) had been documented from the south cave. Furthermore, since both caves are wet, this 

species along with the grotto salamander, cave isopods (Caecidotea sp.) and cave amphipods 

(Stygobromus sp., Bactrurus sp.) are likely associated with both caves. Since little is known 

about the fauna of these caves, specific management goals cannot be identified, although 

certainly human disturbance should be avoided. 

Air Quality

Ozone Assessment

Results of the ozone assessment presented in show that ozone concentrations have declined 

slightly in recent years with data from most time periods rated as moderate. 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 2004a) indicates that the risk of foliar injury to plants in 

WICR is low. In fact WICR is rated among the lowest risk for ozone injury to vegetation for 

parks across the United States (Figure 5-7). Despite being low risk for ozone injury to 

vegetation NPS indicates that there are from 8 to 14 ozone sensitive plant species in WICR (NPS 

2001, NPS 2004a, and NPS 2006). 
59

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

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

Parts Per Billion

Figure 5-20. Average of fourth Maximum 8-hour Ozone levels based on five-year averages of 

interpolated deposition estimates (NPS 2010a). Greater than or equal to 76 ppb is considered poor, 

between 61-75 fair, and below 61 good (NPS 2007a). 

Figure 5-21. Map showing the risk of ozone injury to vegetation by park (NPS 2007d). 
60

Atmospheric Deposition

Average interpolated estimates of wet deposition of nitrogen ranged from 12.6 to 13.6 kg/ha/yr., 

and estimates of wet deposition of sulfur ranged from 10.29 to 12.06 kg/ha/yr. All estimates far 

exceeded the threshold for "poor" of 3 kg/ha/yr. Wet deposition of from sulfates, nitrates, and 

ammonium account for the majority of total nitrogen and sulfur deposition.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

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

N

S

Figure 5-22. Total nitrogen and sulfur from wet deposition of sulfate (S04), nitrate (N03) and ammonium 

(NH4) based on five-year averages of interpolated deposition estimates (NPS 2010a) Greater than 3 ppb 

is considered poor, between 1 and 3 ppb fair, and below 1 ppb good. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

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

Wet SO4

Dry SO4

Figure 5-23. Total wet and dry sulfur deposition based on five-year averages of interpolated deposition 

estimates (NPS 2010a).
61

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

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

Wet NO3

Wet NH4

Dry NO3

Dry NH4

Figure 5-24. Total wet and dry nitrogen deposition based on five-year averages of interpolated deposition 

estimates (NPS 2010a).

Reporting Unit: Bottomland Forest

Bottomlands of WICR contain more area of successional types (55 ha) than natural forest types 

(52 ha). Essentially all of the woodlands are young and disturbed. Most of the successional 

vegetation consists of fescue grassland or other successional herbaceous vegetation (45 ha). 

Mean patch size for forest is 0.68 ha in 75 patches. Management goals are based on expert 

judgment, and relate to conversion of existing successional types to semi-natural types.
62

Figure 5-25. Current landscape composition for the bottomland forest reporting unit.

Reporting Unit: Glade

Glades at WICR cannot be easily circumscribed since they occupy variable habitats that can be 

defined either as open woodlands or glades. They cover from about 25 to 37 ha, depending on 
63

how they are circumscribed, in several relatively small patches (Figure 5-1; Young et al. 2006). 

For the purposes of this report, we selected a conservative approach toward circumscribing 

glades. 

About 10 ha of the 25 ha reporting unit is in sparse woody or open habitat, whereas 15 ha is in 

more closed woodlands. The number of different land cover patches (79) and patch size (0.14 

ha) are indicative of the inherently variable habitat, with exposed rock and thin soils alternating 

with deeper soils. Management goals, based on expert judgement, might include reducing the 

overall number of patches and patch size somewhat, but patchiness is expected within the 

reporting unit. The primary management focus should be on reduction in the amount of eastern 

redcedar (Juniperus virginiana) dominated or co-dominated communities, which now comprise 

>9 ha of the reporting unit. Herbaceous glade species, including the Missouri bladderpod 

(Lesquerella filiformis), would benefit from a more open habitat (Young et al. 2009). However, 

eastern redcedar is a natural component of glades, especially those associated with rim-rocks and 

steep slopes.

Missouri bladderpod is a rare winter annual plant that is endemic to glades, or xeric limestone 

prairies, of the Ozark Highlands (Young et al. 2008, 2009). The largest populations are on 

Bloody Hill Glade and on Wire Road GladePopulation sizes vary significantly from year to year, 

presumably due to precipitation and temperature variation. Young et al. (2009) found that soil 

depth and competition for light with Eastern redcedar and possibly other woody and herbaceous 

species was a primary factor limiting populations of this species to naturally open microsites on 

Bloody Hill Glade. Competition from herbaceous species may be relatively limited in naturally 

open microsites. 

To define management targets for Missouri bladderpod, we compared the current size of six 

Missouri bladderpod populations at WICR to the population size ranges observed in each of 

those populations over an extended time period. The time periods varied for each population: 

Bloody Hill Glade (2001-2010); Manley Woods, Walnut, and Wire Road Glades (2002-2010);

North Bloody Hill Glade (2003-2010); and Terrell Creek Glade (2007-2010). To account for 

naturally high annual variability, the current Missouri bladderpod population size was calculated 

as the three-year (2008-2010) average of the population size interval midpoints. A population 

size range, which defined management targets for each population, was based on the minimum 

and maximum values observed during the given time period. The end points of the range were 

calculated as the minimum and maximum population size interval midpoints observed with 10% 

of the difference between the maximum and minimum added to the minimum and subtracted 

from the maximum, respectively. This range effectively covers 80% of the difference between 

the observed minimum and maximum population sizes for each Missouri bladderpod population 

in the park.
64

Figure 5-26. Current landscape composition for the glade reporting unit. 
65

Reporting Unit: Upland Grassland

Upland grasslands at WICR are essentially all disturbed, but management activities have restored 

some compliment of native species to about 145 ha, whereas about 138 ha are successional

grasslands dominated by tall fescue or other herbaceous species and low shrubs, or are other 

successional types (23 ha). Grassland condition is highly variable across both restorations and 

disturbance grasslands, and all may be more or less heavily dominated by early successional 

shrubs and vines such as Rubus spp, smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), Prunus spp., and multiflora 

rose (Rosa multiflora). Currently, based on limited sampling, average native shrub and vine 

cover (37%) exceeds average native grass cover (22.3%; Table 5-1) within the reporting unit. 

Management goals were based on professional judgment, and relate to establishment of more 

prairie restorations with native warm-season grasses and forbs and fewer shrubs and vines. 

However, efforts along these lines may be costly, and some species, such as selected bird 

species, may benefit from woody-dominated patches within the recovery unit (Peitz 2009). 

Efforts to improve existing restored prairie may be most efficient, with some areas simply 

mowed to favor herbaceous species over shrubs or allowed to succeed to shrublands and 

woodlands to provide early successional habitat in the landscape. At best, restoration of high 

quality prairies will require many decades of effort (see Jordan et al. 1987).
66

Figure 5-27. Current landscape composition for the upland grassland reporting unit. 

 
67

Reporting Unit: Upland Woodland

Upland woodlands at WICR are almost all young and disturbed, but slopes tend to be in slightly 

better condition than flatter areas. About 192 ha represent semi-natural young woodlands and 

forests, whereas 91 ha are successional types, mainly eastern redcedar woodland, sparse 

woodland, and shrubland (46 ha), or deciduous sparse woodland or shrubland (33 ha). Mean 

patch size is 0.84 ha in 275 patches. 

In terms of woody species structure and composition, the most striking feature is the relatively 

low basal area of oak species and relatively low mean hardwood tree height (Table 5-1). This is 

indicative of young woodlands with young trees, and with early successional species instead of 

oaks more dominant. Cover of large saplings is also relatively low, indicating possibly low tree 

recruitment, although this was not strongly indicated by the data. Finally, herbaceous flora, 

where present, consists of many shrubs and vines within grassy areas and relatively low cover of 

native grasses.

Management target numbers for vegetation structure and cover were gleaned mainly from 

Nelson (2005) and from Missouri forest and woodland natural community profiles posted at 

http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/17524.doc, accessed 10/15/2010. The proportional range 

of cover type species composition was multiplied by the lower and upper range of total basal 

area to derive the management targets. Target numbers for regeneration were from Jenkins et al. 

(1997) and from Rice and Penfound (1955). Management goals should aim to reduce the 

number of successional types and allow the forests to mature. Natural succession toward older 

growth woodlands will proceed without a great deal of active management. For example, eastern 

redcedar cover will likely be reduced over time via successional processes (e.g. shading by taller 

deciduous trees). Lack of tree recruitment may be a management concern, especially if whitetailed deer numbers are too high over long time intervals.
68

Figure 5-28. Current landscape composition for the upland woodland reporting unit. 
69

Reporting Unit: Wilson’s Creek

Aquatic Threats

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). Wilson’s Creek drains much of Springfield, Missouri which is a rapidly 

growing urbanized area. Based on year 2000 census data there are 101,042 people residing in 

the watershed (413 people per km2). Thirty-two percent of the watershed above the park is 

classified as impervious surface (Figure 2-5, Figure 2-6 and Table 5-6). As such, most of the 

threats to aquatic resources in the park stem from impervious surface and point source discharges 

that originate upstream and outside of the park proper. There are two wastewater treatment 

facilities, 74 documented leaking underground storage tanks, and 46 hazardous waste generators 

in the drainage area above the park. Additionally, there are 227 road-stream crossings and 21 

railroad-stream crossings. The 174 headwater impoundments have the potential to both alter 

flows and alter the biological integrity of streams. Cropland is not significant in the watershed, 

but pasture/hay makes up 41% of the watershed’s land use. Although certainly not 

representative of all threats to aquatic systems, Table 5-6 includes the set of potential threats to 

aquatic ecological integrity quantified for Wilson’s Creek. 

Table 5-12. Quantified threats for Wilson's Creek in Wilson's Creek National Battlefield. Values are from 

the last stream segment downstream of the park.

Human Threat # or amount % or Density

Impervious Surfaces 77040000 m2 31.50%

Cropland 2572200 m2 1.05%

Pasture/Hay 99634500 m2 40.74%

Airports 4 0.02 pkm2

Roads 1116667 m 4566 pkm2

Road/Stream Crossings 227 0.93 pkm2

Railroads 85979 m 352 pkm2

Railroad/Stream Crossings 21 0.09 pkm2

Water Wells 1286 5.25 pkm2

CERCLIS 1 0.004 pkm2

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 74 0.30 pkm2

Mines (not Lead or Coal) 1 0.004 pkm2

Pipelines 23630 m 97 pkm2

Waste Water Treatment Facilities 2 0.008 pkm2

Toxic Releases 10 0.04 pkm2

RCRIS 2 0.008 pkm2

Crop Pesticides 2127 kg 8.70 pkm2

Landfills 1 0.004 pkm2

Headwater Impoundments 174 0.71 pkm2

NPDES 37 0.15 pkm2

Livestock Sales $220,850,000 902988 pkm2

Channelized Stream/Ditch 9392 m 38.40 pkm2

2000 Population 101042 413 pkm2

Hazardous Generators 46 0.19 pkm2

Hazardous Permits 3 0.01 pkm2

Water Quality

Wilson’s Creek is one of the largest tributaries in the James River basin and drains a large 

portion of the city of Springfield, Missouri. Wilson’s Creek has poor water quality with 29 km 
70

classified as a 303(d) stream (Figure 5-155; Missouri Department of Natural Resources 2009). 

This impairment has contributed to biological impoverishment on the stream which has been 

attributed to non-point source pollution and urban development. A Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) as required by the Clean Water Act is currently under development for Wilson’s Creek. 

Sampling has shown water toxicity from unknown pollutants and bacteria, due to drainage from 

the city of Springfield (Missouri Department of Natural Resources 2009). Toxicity comes from 

point sources such as the wastewater treatment facility and nonpoint sources such as urban 

stormwater (Richards and Johnson 2002). In the past summer rainfall events, combined with 

wastewater effluent, severely depleted dissolved oxygen levels in Wilson’s Creek (Emmett et al. 

1978). Studies since 1968 (Harvey and Skelton 1968, Kerr 1969, Emmett et al. 1978, Richards 

and Johnson 2002) have shown that effluent from the wastewater treatment facility and urban 

runoff during storms release inorganic chemicals and nutrients into Wilson’s Creek. The impact 

of the resulting dissolved oxygen depletion has reduced animal populations, but overall the 

extent of damage is presently unknown. 

Wilson’s Creek presently receives approximately 42.5 million gallons of treated sewage per day 

(Bowles 2010). Improvements to the wastewater treatment facility in 2001 have improved water 

quality in recent years. Richards and Johnson (2002) reported that contaminant concentrations 

are typically below their state limits for protecting aquatic life. However, fecal indicator bacteria 

densities can exceed the state limit for whole-body contact during base-flow conditions and can 

be markedly higher during storm events. 

Phosphorus and nitrogen compounds in Wilson’s Creek remain relatively high (Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources 2007) which can encourage algal growth. The water treatment 

plant currently reduces phosphorus discharge levels to an average of 0.5 mg/L (Bowles 2010 cite 

http://www.springfieldmo.gov/sanitary/phosphorus.html), however the EPA recommends that 

total phosphorus should not exceed 0.1 mg/L in streams that do not discharge directly into lakes 

or reservoirs. Bowles (2010), citing Mueller and Helsel (1996), reports that nitrate 

concentrations in streams are usually less than 0.6 mg/L. The Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources (2007) reports that in Wilson’s Creek nitrate-nitrite and total nitrogen concentrations 

are 1.73 mg/L and 1.93 mg/L respectively. 

Bowles (2010) reported that even with stream degradation, invertebrate populations have not 

decreased from the levels recorded in earlier surveys by Harris et al. (1991) and Peitz and Cribbs 

(2005). Based on the five water quality parameters analyzed for this report, only specific 

conductance is rated as being off target over most of the period of record (Table 5-7). 

Temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and turbidity are all rated as being on target over their 

respective periods of record. 
71

Figure 5-29. Wilson’s Creek flowing through Wilson’s Creek national Battlefield is classified as a 303(d) 

listed stream. Data source: 303(d) Listed Impaired Waters NHD Indexed Dataset Extracted on August 1, 

2010 (http://www.epa.gov/waters/data/downloads.html). 
72

Table 5-13. Water quality indicators for Wilson's Creek.

Indicator Management Target Mean1,2 Rating

Temperature (°C)

 1989 0-34 o

C 22.3 On Target

 1999 0-34 oC 22.4 On Target

 2000 0-34 oC 14.7 On Target

 2001 0-34 oC 19.5 On Target

 2002 0-34 oC 17.0 On Target

 2003 0-34 oC 16.2 On Target

 2004 0-34 oC 23.2 On Target

 2005 0-34 oC 19.8 On Target

 2006 0-34 oC 21.0 On Target

 2007 0-34 oC 18.5 On Target

 Mean 0-34 oC 19.5 On Target

Specific Conductance ( μS/cm @ 25°C)

 1979 100-400 μS/cm 320.0 On Target

 1999 100-400 μS/cm 741.0 Off Target

 2000 100-400 μS/cm 457.4 Off Target

 2001 100-400 μS/cm 797.3 Off Target

 2002 100-400 μS/cm 791.1 Off Target

 2003 100-400 μS/cm 893.1 Off Target

 2004 100-400 μS/cm 576.7 Off Target

 2005 100-400 μS/cm 774.4 Off Target

 2006 100-400 μS/cm 760.0 Off Target

 2007 100-400 μS/cm 643.0 Off Target

 Mean 100-400 μS/cm 675.4 Off Target

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

 1999 5-15 mg/liter 7.6 On Target

 2000 5-15 mg/liter 9.2 On Target

 2001 5-15 mg/liter 8.9 On Target

 2002 5-15 mg/liter 9.3 On Target

 2003 5-15 mg/liter 9.1 On Target

 2005 5-15 mg/liter 9.2 On Target

 2006 5-15 mg/liter 7.9 On Target

 Mean 5-15 mg/liter 8.7 On Target

pH

 1989 6.5-9.0 7.6 On Target

 1999 6.5-9.0 7.4 On Target

 2000 6.5-9.0 7.5 On Target

 2001 6.5-9.0 7.6 On Target

 2002 6.5-9.0 7.4 On Target

 2003 6.5-9.0 7.3 On Target

 2004 6.5-9.0 7.4 On Target

 2005 6.5-9.0 7.5 On Target

 2006 6.5-9.0 7.7 On Target

 Mean 6.5-9.0 7.5 On Target

Turbidity (NTU)

 2006 <10 NTU 5.9 On Target

 2007 <10 NTU 4.3 On Target

 Mean <10 NTU 5.1 On Target 1

 Mean from USGS stream gauge 07052160, Harris et al. (1991), Bowles (2010), and

 unpublished Heartland data.

2

 Years with data from more than one source were averaged.
73

Surface Water Flow

Storm water from urban areas is known to contribute pollutants to streams as well as increase the 

magnitude, duration, and frequency of storm water flows. The modified stream flows can alter 

the stream channel through scouring, channelization, and incision, and can modify substrate 

types. Wilson’ Creek is generally considered to be a stream with surface water flows that are 

impacted by the effects of urbanization and discharges of a waste water treatment plant. The 

altered hydrograph for Wilson’s Creek generally exhibits increased peak flows and reduced 

baseflows (EPA Undated). Because Wilson’s Creek drains much of Springfield, it is prone to 

flashiness after even modest rainfall amounts (Richards and Johnson 2002). 

Reviewing reveals that Wilson’s Creek has high spring flows with the months of August, 

September and October exhibiting the lowest mean monthly flows over the available period of 

record. Discharge from the Springfield Southwest Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP), 

located on the confluence of Wilson Creek and South Creek, affects stream hydrology in a 

number of ways and increases daily average flows over all flow ranges. t is important to note 

that below the WWTP nearly all baseflow is provided by the plant. Low flow effects of 

urbanization are somewhat mitigated for areas below the WWTP because the constant discharge 

of the plant provides adequate flow during dryer periods (EPA Undated). Because Wilson Creek 

is a losing stream over much of its length comparing its lower flows to reference streams is not 

applicable (EPA Undated). 

Because of some of the flow caveats associated with impervious surface and the WWTP, the 

analysis below should be interpreted with some caution as the entire period of record is impacted 

by both urban impervious cover and the WWTP. These analyses results report on the most 

recent four years of record compared to a baseline from the period of record. The baseline is not 

based on a natural or unaltered flow condition, but on a somewhat intermittent POR from 1969 

to 2004. 

Figure 5-177 and Figure 5-188 present the hydrologic index comparisons normalized to a POR 

baseline. Management targets and ratings were derived from Figure 5-17. Final ratings were 

established using the most recent period of record for the monitoring station. To determine the 

rating categories, the data were normalized for every index and the most recent period of record 

was compared to the POR. Ratings were based on deviation 1.0, either higher or lower. Thus if 

an index for the most recent POR fell within 0.25 of 1.0, the rating was good; >.25 but <.75 was 

fair, and >.75 was poor. 

Recognizing that the management and ratings are based on a period of record that is influenced 

by the city of Springfield over the entire period, hydrologic indicators that deviate the most from 

the POR baseline, thereby receiving a “fair” rating, include mean minimum flow for August, 

high flood pulse count, annual minimum of 7-day moving average, and the Julian date of the 

annual maximum (Table 5-8). Assessed in this manner, 60% of the flow indicators are rated as 

good while the remaining 40% are rated fair. 
74

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Discharge (cfs)

Monthly Mean Flow

Wilson's Creek

Figure 5-30. Mean monthly discharge (cubic feet per second) for monitoring station on Wilson's Creek.

Figure 5-31. Wilson’s Creek hydrologic index comparisons. Data normalized to period of record average 

baseline. The ratings for the park are classified into three categories, the first is Good (green) the second 

is Fair (yellow) and the last is Poor (red). To determine the categories, the data were normalized for 

every index at each monitoring station and the most recent time period was compared to the period of 

record. Ratings were based on deviation 1.0, either higher or lower. Thus, if an index from the most 

recent time period fell within 0.25 of 1.0, the rating was Good; >.25 but <.75 was Fair, and >.75 was Poor.
75

Figure 5-32. Wilson's Creek hydrologic index range comparisons. Data normalized to period of record 

(POR) baseline.

Table 5-14. List of hydrological indicators with normalized values, mean values, and management targets 

from 2000-2004 for Wilson's Creek. 

Indicators Definition

Normalized 

Value Values

Management 

Target Rating

MA1 Mean daily flow (cfs) for the period of record 1.006 91.3 68.1 - 113.6 On Target

ML8 Mean minimum flow (cfs) for August 1.337 45.0 25.2 - 42.1 Off Target

MH5 Mean maximum flows (cfs) for May 1.193 716.2 450.1 - 750.1 On Target

FL1 Low flood pulse count (#) 1.238 15.0 9.1 - 15.1 On Target

FH4 High flood pulse count (#) 0.693 4.2 4.5 - 7.6 Off Target

DL3 Annual minimum of 7-day moving average flow (cfs) 1.274 38.8 22.8 - 38.0 Off Target

DH3 Annual maximum of 7-day moving average flow (cfs) 0.997 486.7 366.1 - 610.2 On Target

TL1 Julian date of annual minimum 1.013 293.8 217.6 - 362.7 On Target

TH1 Julian date of annual maximum 1.32 130.0 73.9 - 123.2 Off Target

RA3 Fall rate (cfs/day) 0.987 22.9 17.4 - 29.1 On Target

Fish Community Composition and Condition 

The fish species commonly collected in Wilson’s Creek are fairly typical of an Ozark stream 

(Peterson and Justus 2005b). Collections made between 1984 and 2007 indicate that 42 fish 

species have been collected from the creek within WICR. 

Reviewing Table 5-9 reveals that, based on data collected in 2007, only sucker composition is 

rated as being off target. The current IBI value of 93 is very good and is notably higher than the 

base management target. This implies that despite the fact the water quality in Wilson’s Creek 

can be poor and the stream is listed as a 303(d) stream, fish are still able to utilize the available 

habitats when water quality conditions improve. It is important to note that for all fish 

community indicators other than IBI the management target and reference condition values were 

derived from the mean values from two years of data (2006 and 2007). 
76

Results of the Jaccard Similarity analyses reveal that more fish species were collected from 

stream segments in Wilson’s Creek than were modeled to occur in those same areas for any of 

the assessed time periods (Table 5-10 and Table 5-11). This information further supports the 

conclusion that the fish community in Wilson’s Creek is still able to utilize the available habitat 

when not severely impacted by problems with water quality. The common carp is an introduced 

species known to inhabit Wilson’s Creek. 

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 

Wilson’s Creek are designated as critically imperiled (G1) or imperiled (G2) on a global scale 

(Table 5-12). A single species, the Ozark chub (Erimystax harryi) is listed as G3G4Q with a 

rounded global status of G3 (NatureServe 2010). There are no S1, S2, or S3 fish species known 

to occur in Wilson’s Creek in the park.

Table 5-15. Ratings for five fish metrics computed for Wilson's Creek.

Indicator Management Target Reference Condition Current Condition Rating

Simpson's Diversity <0.15 0.07 0.09 On Target

Sucker Composition (%) >1.26 1.37 1.20 Off Target

Sunfish Composition (%) >11.03 20.7 17.87 On Target

Benthic spp. Composition (%) >34.10 55.37 49.14 On Target

Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) >60 80 93 On Target
77

Table 5-16. Fish species observed1 and predicted2 to occur in Wilson's Creek.

Collected Not Predicted Predicted Not Collected Shared

Banded Darter Brook Silverside Banded Sculpin

Black Redhorse Creek Chubsucker Bigeye Shiner

Channel Catfish Golden Shiner Black Bullhead

Fantail Darter Grass Pickerel Blackspotted Topminnow

Fathead Minnow4 Bluegill

Gizzard Shad Bluntnose Minnow

Golden Redhorse Central Stoneroller

Greenside Darter Common Carp3

Hornyhead Chub Creek Chub

Largescale Stoneroller Duskystripe Shiner

Mottled Sculpin5 Green Sunfish

Northern Hog Sucker Largemouth Bass

Ozark Bass Logperch

Ozark Chub Longear Sunfish

Ozark Sculpin Orangethroat Darter

Rainbow Darter Ozark Minnow

Rosyface Shiner Smallmouth Bass

Southern Redbelly Dace Stippled Darter

Striped Shiner Western Mosquitofish

Telescope Shiner White Sucker

Yellow Bullhead

Yoke Darter

1

 Observed species from Donegan (1984), Hoefs and Boyle (1990), Peterson 

 and Justus (2005b), and unpublished Heartland data.

2

 Predicted species based on Aquatic GAP species distribution models. 

3

 Introduced species

4

 Likely escaped from bait bucket - recorded in 1989.

5

 Not typically found in this region - recorded in 1984, 1985, and 1989.

Table 5-17. Jaccard Similarity computed for Wilson's Creek.

Wilson's Creek Overall 1984-19891 2003-20072

Total Species Collected 42 34 32

Total Species Modeled 24 24 24

Collected not Predicted 22 16 17

Predicted not Collected 4 6 9

Collected and Predicted (Shared) 20 18 15

Introduced Species 1 1 1

Jaccard Similarity3 44% 45% 37%

Jaccard Similarity4 42% 44% 38% 1

 Data from Donegan (1984) and Hoefs and Boyle (1990).

2

 Data from Peterson and Justus (2005b) and unpublished Heartland data.

3

 Jaccard Similarity computed using all species.

4

 Jaccard Similarity computed after removing introduced species.

Table 5-18. Number of globally listed fish species (G-rank) and state listed fish species (S-rank) by actual 

collections and models in Wilson's Creek.

Rank Collection Model

G3G4Q 1 0

G4 3 1

G5 38 23

S4 3 0

S? 38 23

SE 1 1

Wilson's Creek
78

Aquatic Invertebrates 

Bowles (2010) provides a complete discussion of aquatic invertebrate community metrics for 

Wilson’s Creek. As evidenced in Table B-1 the invertebrate metrics are quite variable over the 

years sampled. Considering trends in the data record for each metric reveals that family richness 

has generally declined over the POR, but data from the last three years have shown marked 

improvements. Trends in genus richness, EPT richness, and EPT ratio have been variable 

without a pronounced trend. Shannon Index and Shannon Evenness Index both exhibit 

improving trends while the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index has stayed very close to the management 

target. As discussed in Bowles (2010), despite being an impaired creek, invertebrate collections

from recent years indicate that the condition of the stream has not declined compared to 

conditions earlier in the POR. 

Reporting Unit: Skegg’s Branch (Shuyler Creek)

Aquatic Threats

Skegg’s Branch drains much of the city of Republic, Missouri and as such approximately 30% of 

the Skegg’s Branch watershed is classified as impervious surface mostly in the upper portions of 

the watershed (Figure 2-5, Figure 2-6, and Table 5-13). Threats associated with urban areas are 

prominent in the upper portions of the watershed. Fifty-two percent of the watershed is 

represented in land cover classed as pasture/hay which is the principal land cover class below 

Republic, Missouri. There are four leaking underground storage tanks and 19 headwater 

impoundments. Table 5-13 provides a list of all potential threats that were quantified in Skegg’s 

Branch. Based on the year 2000 population data, approximately 6,235 people live in the 

watershed (321 people per km2). 

Table 5-19. Quantified threats for Skegg's Branch in Wilson's Creek National Battlefield. Values are from 

the last stream segment before entering Wilson's Creek.

Human Threat # or amount % or Density

Impervious 5817600 m2 29.93%

Cropland 160200 m2 0.82%

Pasture/Hay 10125000 m2 52.09%

Road/Stream Crossings 32 1.65 pkm2

Roads 90809 m 4672 pkm2

Railroads 1443 m 74 pkm2

Water Wells 69 3.55 pkm2

CERCLIS 1 0.05 pkm3

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 4 0.21 pkm2

Pipelines 5367 m 276 pkm2

Crop Pesticides 133 kg 6.83 pkm2

Headwater Impoundments 19 0.98 pkm2

Livestock Sales $180,000 9261 pkm2

2000 Population 6235 321 pkm2

Hazardous Generators 3 0.15 pkm2

Water Quality 

Despite draining much of the city of Republic, Skegg’s Branch water quality and invertebrate 

communities are in relatively good condition (Bowles 2010). Based on data assessed for this 

report, water quality in Skegg’s Branch is on target for all years and all parameters except 

specific conductance (Table 5-14). Although rated as on target in 2005, specific conductance 
79

was off target in 2006 and 2007 which were the last two years for which data weres available. 

The City of Republic, Missouri in the upper portion of the Skegg’s Branch watershed is presently 

experiencing rapid growth which raises concerns about future water quality. 

Table 5-20. Water quality for Skegg's Branch.

Indicator Management Target Mean1,2 Rating

Temperature (°C)

 1989 0-34 o

C 18.5 On Target

 2005 0-34 o

C 16.4 On Target

 2006 0-34 o

C 18.7 On Target

 2007 0-34 o

C 15.3 On Target

 Mean 0-34 o

C 17.2 On Target

Specific Conductance ( μS/cm @ 25°C)

 2005 100-400 μS/cm 399 On Target

 2006 100-400 μS/cm 495.8 Off Target

 2007 100-400 μS/cm 489.5 Off Target

 Mean 100-400 μS/cm 467.4 Off Target

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

 2005 5-15 mg/liter 9.3 On Target

 2006 5-15 mg/liter 8.8 On Target

 Mean 5-15 mg/liter 9.1 On Target

pH

 1989 6.5-9.0 7.9 On Target

 2005 6.5-9.0 7.4 On Target

 2006 6.5-9.0 7.9 On Target

 Mean 6.5-9.0 7.7 On Target

Turbidity (NTU)

 2006 <10 NTU 0.7 On Target

 2007 <10 NTU 2.1 On Target

 Mean <10 NTU 1.4 On Target 1

 Mean from Harris et al. (1991), Bowles (2010), and unpublished Heartland data.

2

 Years with data from more than one source were averaged.

Fish Community Composition and Condition 

Fish collections made in 2003 and 2007 document nine fish species in Skegg’s Branch within 

WICR (Table 5-15 and Table 5-16). Fish predictive distribution models indicate that 17 fish 

species could be expected to occur in Skegg’s Branch under relatively undisturbed conditions. 

The Jaccard Similarity between the observed and predicted fish communities is 30%. 

Reviewing Table 5-17 reveals that of the three indicators with a condition rating all are within 

the established management target. Sucker composition and sunfish composition had no data 

and therefore could not be given a rating. No introduced species have been collected from 

Skegg’s Branch in WICR. 

No fish species collected from Skegg’s Branch are designated as critically imperiled (G1) or 

imperiled (G2) on a global scale (Table 5-18). There are no S1, S2, or S3 fish species known to 

occur in Skegg’s Branch within the park. 
80

Table 5-21. Fish species observed1 and predicted2 to occur in Skegg's Branch.

Collected Not Predicted Predicted Not Collected Shared

Banded Sculpin Black Bullhead Central Stoneroller3

Ozark Sculpin Bluegill Creek Chub

Rainbow Darter Bluntnose Minnow Duskystripe Shiner

Creek Chubsucker Orangethroat Darter

Golden Shiner Southern Redbelly Dace

Grass Pickerel Stippled Darter

Green Sunfish

Largemouth Bass

Ozark Minnow

Western Mosquitofish

White Sucker 1

 Observed species from Peterson and Justus (2005b), and unpublished Heartland data.

2

 Predicted species based on Aquatic GAP species distribution models. 

3

 Data recorded as Stoneroller sp. was assumed to be Central Stoneroller.

Table 5-22. Jaccard Similarity computed for Skegg's Branch.

Skegg's Branch Number

Total Species Collected 9

Total Species Modeled 17

Collected not Predicted 3

Predicted not Collected 11

Collected and Predicted (Shared) 6

Introduced Species 0

Jaccard Similarity 30%

Table 5-23. Ratings for five fish metrics computed for Skegg's Branch.

Indicator Management Target Reference Condition Current Condition Rating

Simpson's Diversity <0.24 0.13 0.16 On Target

Sucker Composition (%) N/A N/A 0.00 N/A

Sunfish Composition (%) N/A N/A 0.00 N/A

Benthic spp. Composition (%) >34.3 60.64 52.92 On Target

Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) >60 80 73 On Target

Table 5-24. Number of globally listed fish species (G-rank) and state listed fish species (S-rank) by 

actual collections and models for Skegg’s Branch. 

Rank Collection Model

G3G4Q 0 0

G4 2 1

G5 7 16

S4 0 0

S? 9 17

SE 0 0

Skegg's Branch

Aquatic Invertebrates

As reported by Bowles (2010) the aquatic invertebrate metrics presented in Table B-2 do not 

definitively point to impairment. Looking at trends in the data reveal that genus richness has 

improved over the last three years. EPT richness is too variable to draw any firm conclusions, 

however consistently declining EPT ratios indicate that the more pollution tolerant 

Chironomidae make up an increasingly large portion of the benthic community (Bowles 2010). 

Both the Shannon Index and Shannon Evenness Index are variable, but have stable to slightly 
81

increasing linear trends. The Shannon Evenness Index is however off target for the entire period 

of record (POR). The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index trend is variable, but within the management 

target for the entire POR. As Bowles (2010) suggests the condition of the invertebrate

communities in Skegg’s Branch are not obviously degraded, but conditions should continue to be 

monitored due to continued development in the watershed. 

Reporting Unit: Terrell Creek

Aquatic Threats 

Unlike Wilson’s Creek and Skegg’s Branch, Terrell Creek does not drain an urban area and as 

such has a very small amount of impervious surface in the watershed (Figure 2-5, Figure 2-6, 

Figure 2-7 and Table 5-19). Most of the Terrell Creek watershed is comprised of Pasture/Hay 

land use (73%). Cropland is not a significant land use in the watershed. There are 219 water 

wells and 72 headwater impoundments in the drainage. Based on the year 2000 census data,

2,215 people reside in the watershed (31 people per km2). Table 5-19 provides a complete list of 

the potential threats quantified in the Terrell Creek watershed. 

Table 5-25. Quantified threats for Terrell Creek in Wilson's Creek National Battlefield. Values are from 

the last stream segment before entering Wilson's Creek.

Human Threat # or amount % or Density

Impervious 1221300 m2 1.73%

Cropland 488700 m2 0.69%

Pasture/Hay 51690600 m2 73.16%

Road/Stream Crossings 48 0.68 pkm2

Roads 121619 m 1721 pkm2

Railroad/Stream Crossings 6 0.08 pkm2

Railroads 10532 m 149 pkm2

Water Wells 218 3.09 pkm2

Other Mines (not lead or coal) 1 0.01 pkm2

Pipelines 9208 m 130 pkm2

Crop Pesticides 398 kg 5.63 pkm2

Headwater Impoundments 72 1.02 pkm2

NPDES 4 0.06 pkm2

Livestock Sales $330,000 4670 pkm2

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 1 0.01 pkm2

2000 Population 2215 31 pkm2

Water Quality

Water quality in Terrell Creek is generally good with most of the watershed draining 

undeveloped rural areas and, as importantly, much of the stream flow comes from Double Spring 

located within the boundaries of WICR (Bowles 2010). All indicators except specific 

conductance are rated as on target for the available POR (Table 5-20). 
82

Table 5-26. Water quality indicators for Terrell Creek.

Indicator Management Target Mean1,2 Rating

Temperature (°C)

 2006 0-34 o

C 16.3 On Target

 2007 0-34 o

C 14.8 On Target

 2008 0-34 o

C 13.6 On Target

 Mean 0-34 o

C 14.9 On Target

Specific Conductance ( μS/cm @ 25°C)

 2006 100-400 μS/cm 471.7 Off Target

 2007 100-400 μS/cm 472.3 Off Target

 2008 100-400 μS/cm 375.2 On Target

 Mean 100-400 μS/cm 439.7 Off Target

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

 2006 5-15 mg/liter 9.0 On Target

 2007 5-15 mg/liter 7.2 On Target

 2008 5-15 mg/liter 11.3 On Target

 Mean 5-15 mg/liter 8.9 On Target

pH

 2006 6.5-9.0 7.4 On Target

 2007 6.5-9.0 7.8 On Target

 2008 6.5-9.0 7.9 On Target

 Mean 6.5-9.0 7.7 On Target

Turbidity (NTU)

 2006 <10 NTU 2.7 On Target

 2007 <10 NTU 1.1 On Target

 Mean <10 NTU 1.9 On Target 1

 Mean from Bowles (2010) and unpublished Heartland data.

2

 Years with data from more than one source were averaged.

Fish Community Composition and Condition

Terrell Creek fish community collections within WICR from 2007 documented eleven species of 

fish (Table 5-21 and Table 5-22). Fish species predictive distribution models from the Missouri 

Aquatic Gap Project indicate that as many as 25 species could inhabit the creek within WICR. 

Jaccard Similarity between the observed and predicted fish communities is 39%. 

In 2007, Simpson’s Diversity and sucker composition were outside of the management target

(Table 5-23). Although less than the generally accepted reference condition of >80, the fish IBI 

of 61 for Terrell Creek is still considered good (Dauwalter et al. 2003). It should be noted 

though that Terrell Creek has the lowest computed fish IBI (based on data from 2007) of the 

three streams considered in the WICR analyses. 

No fish species collected from Terrell Creek are designated as critically imperiled (G1) or 

imperiled (G2) on a global scale (Table 5-24). There are no S1, S2, or S3 fish species known to 

occur in Terrell Creek within the park. 
83

Table 5-27. Fish species observed1 and predicted2 to occur in Terrell Creek.

Collected Not Predicted Predicted Not Collected Shared

Blackspotted Topminnow Black Bullhead Banded Sculpin

Bluegill Central Stoneroller

Creek Chubsucker Creek Chub

Grass Pickerel Duskystripe Shiner

Green Sunfish Largescale Stoneroller

Hornyhead Chub Orangethroat Darter

Largemouth Bass Ozark Sculpin

Northern Hogsucker Southern Redbelly Dace

Ozark Bass Stippled Darter

Ozark Minnow White Sucker

Rainbow Darter

Rainbow Trout 3

Slender Madtom

Striped Shiner

Telescope Shiner 1

 Observed data from unpublished Heartland data.

2

 Predicted species based on Aquatic GAP species distribution models. 

3

 Introduced species

Table 5-28. Jaccard Similarity computed for Terrell Creek.

Terrell Creek Number

Total Species Collected 11

Total Species Modeled 25

Collected not Predicted 1

Predicted not Collected 15

Collected and Predicted (Shared) 10

Introduced Species 1

Jaccard Similarity1 39%

Jaccard Similarity2 40% 1

 Jaccard Similarity computed using all species.

2

 Jaccard Similarity computed after removing introduced species.

Table 5-29. Ratings for five fish metrics computed for Terrell Creek.

Indicator Management Target Reference Condition Current Condition Rating

Simpson's Diversity <0.50 0.16 0.73 Off Target

Sucker Composition (%) >1.53 3.09 0.42 Off Target

Sunfish Composition (%) N/A N/A 0.00 N/A

Benthic spp. Composition (%) >61.64 61.65 90.36 On Target

Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) >60 80 61 On Target

Table 5-30. Number of globally listed fish species (G-rank) and state listed fish species (S-rank) by 

actual collections and models for Terrell Creek. 

Rank Collection Model

G3G4Q 0 0

G4 2 2

G5 9 23

S4 0 1

S? 11 23

SE 0 1

Terrell Creek
84

Aquatic Invertebrates 

The relatively short two year data record for aquatic invertebrates in Terrell Creek make 

assessments of the resource condition difficult (Table B-3). As evidenced in the table, data from 

2007 indicated a reduction in community condition for every indicator considered. However, as 

(Bowles 2010) indicates, the data suggest that the communities and therefore the water quality 

conditions are generally good. The Terrell Creek watershed is mostly rural with a majority of 

stream flow coming from a spring within WICR. Higher richness and diversity values for Terrell 

Creek compared to Wilson’s Creek or Skegg’s Branch may be due to the substantial spring flow 

inputs. 
85

Chapter 6 Integrated Evaluation and Discussion

Logic-based Evaluation

Bringing together many 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.
86

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 (Fig. 6.1) to the NRCA creates a framework that 

illustrates the relationships of all reporting units to their resource types, attributes and indicators 

(Figs. 6.2 and 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.
87

Figure 6-2. Higher levels of the model framework that reflect logical relationship of resource type (dark 

green) within reporting unit (blue) for the terrestrial assessment. Attributes are labeled light green.

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

reporting unit (blue) for the aquatic assessment.

Logical operators

Indicators, attributes and resource types are evaluated at their next higher level in the model 

according to logical operators. These operators reflect the logical relationship within levels and 

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 
88

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.

For each aquatic reporting unit, the overall evaluation is conditional upon the stream being listed

as a 303(d) stream. If the stream is listed, then the overall current condition does not approximate 

the management condition. If the stream is not listed, then the reporting unit is evaluated 

according to the other resource types.

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 
89

(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 10 ha or greater provides full support for the statement while a 

mean patch size of 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 6-4).

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

unit of Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, 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. 
90

Figure 6-5. NetWeaver ramp function used to evaluate pH for all three aquatic reporting unit’s of Wilson’s 

Creek National Battlefield, 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.
91

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

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

categorized output can be used to build dashboard reporting to increase ease of interpretation. 

The logic model, as implemented in NetWeaver, is focused on interpretation rather than 

prediction of the current conditions.

Results

The results of the integrated analysis reflect the evaluation of validity of the statement: “the 

current condition approximates the management target”. The direct evaluation of current 

conditions is performed at the indicator level only. Above this level, evaluation scores are a 

function of the direct evaluation score below and the logical operator linking the indicators. 

Together, scores are passed upward in the hierarchy which allows for the evaluation of attributes, 

resource types and reporting units indirectly. As the NetWeaver output scores approach 1.0 the 

degree of support for the validity of the statement increases while scores closer to zero point to 

less support for the current condition approximating the management target. Even though this is 

not a quantitative analysis of indicators, it is a qualitative evaluation of the best available 

knowledge as identified by the Natural Resource Condition Assessment. 

Results are presented and summarized to the reporting unit. Evaluation scores are presented for 

each level of the hierarchy up to the reporting unit level of the framework (Figure 6-7, Figure 

6-8).
92

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

type and/or attributes.

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

types.

Reporting unit: Park Wide

Overall support for the park wide reporting unit is moderately low (output score = 0.31). The 

number of community patches throughout the park was too high while their mean patch size was 
93

too small, which resulted in no support (output score = 0) for landscape composition at the park 

wide scale (Table 6-1). This reflects a fragmented landscape composed of numerous small 

patches. There was moderate support (output score = 0.4) for the composition of those patches, 

primarily because of the amount of cultural land cover type in the park. However the amount of 

semi-natural or natural community types was low while there was a large amount of successional 

community types detected at the park wide scale. 

The overabundance of deer in the park was offset by the number of breeding birds observed. 

Invasive exotic plants, while low in number of species detected (output score = .67) were 

observed in a both greater frequency and abundance as measured by foliar cover than their 

minimum management targets.

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 greater than the management target.
94

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

of Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri.

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator No Support Full Support Input Score

0.31

0.2

0

patch count ≥ 1313 or ≤ 562 1125 - 750 1819 0

mean patch size (ha) 0.5 1 0.4 0

0.4

semi-natural and natural types (ha) 350 750 425 0.19

successioanal types (ha) 75 50 336 0

cultural types (ha) 60 40 38 1

1

species richness 24 47 47 1

Partners in Flight target species 5 10 10 1

number of grassland obligate 

species 1 2 2 1

index of relative abundance 

(individuals/km2

) 12 8 56.6 0

0.22

number of taxa 45 30 35 0.67

frequency on transects (%) 75 50 91.9 0

park-wide min cover estimate (%) 15 10 15.4 0

0.12

Ozone

ozone (ppb) 75 60 72.2 0.24

0

nitrogen (kg/ha/yr) 3 1 12.6 0

sulfur (kg/ha/yr) 3 1 10.7 0

Atmoshperic deposition

Park-wide

Vegetation

Landscape composition

Land use/Land cover

Breeding bird community

White-tailed deer

Invasive exotic plant impact

Air quality

Reporting unit: Bottomland Forest

The bottomland forest reporting unit was evaluated according to the spatial arrangement and 

composition of patches within the delineated area of the community only (Table 6-2). Within the 

forest, there were too many small patches (landscape composition output score = 0). 

Furthermore, the bottomland forest was composed by nearly equal amounts of bottomland forest 

and successional types.
95

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

reporting unit of Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri.

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator No Support Full Support Input Score

Bottomland forest 0.05

Landscape composition 0

patch count for forest ≥ 62 or ≤ 26 53 - 35 75 0

mean patch size for forest (ha) 1 2 0.7 0

Land use/Land cover 0.1

bottomland forest (ha) 45 90 54 0.2

successional types (ha) 29 19 59 0

Reporting unit: Glade

Glades are not only a unique type scattered throughout the park they have special management 

concerns as indicated by their reporting unit designation. The number of glade patches nearly 

approximates the management target (output score = .69, Table 6-3). However the mean patch 

size of glade patches is small, resulting in low support for the evaluation statement (output score 

= .08). For those glade areas, a greater amount of successional community types were detected 

than glade community types (land use/land cover output score = .17).

Missouri bladderpod populations are associated with a number of glades in the park. Their 

abundance serves as an indicator of glade condition. The management target range for each 

population was based on 80% of the minimum-maximum population size range over a ten year 

period (2001-2010) for that population. Overall support for abundance within each population 

approximating the management target is low (output score = 0.1). 
96

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

Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri.

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator No Support Full Support Input Score

Glade 0.12

Landscape composition 0.11

patch count for all glade types ≥ 88 or ≤ 38 75 - 50 79 0.69

mean patch size glade types (ha) 0.13 0.25 0.14 0.08

Land use/Land cover 0.17

glade types (ha) 7.5 15 10 0.33

successional types (ha) 15 10 15 0

Missouri Bladderpod

Abundance 0.1

Bloody Hill population size (count) 11470 71847 5934 0

Wire Road population size (count) 5527 48791 592 0

Terrell Creek population size (count) 9 14 5 0

Walnut Glade population size (count) 130 848 343 0.3

North Bloody Hill glade population size (count) 117 1009 128 0.01

Manley Woods glade population size (count) 121 617 252 0.26

Reporting unit: Upland Grassland

Overall support for the upland grassland reporting unit approximating the management target 

was low (output score = .09, Table 6-4). Again, this community type consisted of too many 

patches that were on average too small. Furthermore, most of the area within the reporting unit 

was currently classified as successional type rather than restored prairie type. However, there 

was high support for native grass abundance (output score = .81) and moderate support for native 

forb abundance (output score = .59). This support was offset within the herbaceous guild 

composition attribute by the large abundance of native woody shrub and vine guild (no support). 

The current input values for herbaceous guild composition indicators were based on a small 

sample area relative to the extent of the reporting unit. The monitoring sites from which the input 

values were compiled were considered to be representative of the larger prairie restoration areas 

within the park.
97

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

reporting unit of Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri.

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator No Support Full Support Input Score

Upland grassland 0.09

Landscape composition 0

patch count for grassland ≥ 70 or ≤ 30 60 - 40 80 0

mean patch size for grassland (ha) 5 10 3.4 0

Land use/Land cover 0.08

restored prairie (ha) 125 250 145 0.16

successional types (ha) 83 55 161 0

Herbaceous guild composition 0.19

native grass (%) 30 60 54.4 0.81

native forbs (%) 10 40 27.8 0.59

native woody shrub and vine (%) 15 10 37 0

Reporting unit: Upland Woodland

Overall support for the upland woodland reporting unit is low (output score = .16, Table 6-5). Of 

all of the indicators within this reporting unit, hardwood canopy cover is the closest to 

approximating the management target (output score = .77). Of the hardwoods in the canopy, 

there is low support for their height approximating the management target (output score = .06). 

Moderate support was found for both the area occupied by natural and semi-natural woodland 

and the relative density of small saplings. However the reporting unit still consists of too many 

patches that are on average too small. Of note is the lack of support for oak and low support for 

hickory and walnut species basal area. These three genera make up the overstory composition 

cover type for the reporting unit. There is low support for the evaluation statement for the 

understory attributes (regeneration and herbaceous guild composition).
98

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

reporting unit of Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri.

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator No Support Full Support Input Score

Upland woodland 0.16

Landscape composition 0

patch count for woodland ≥ 220 or ≤ 93 188 - 125 275 0

mean patch size for woodland 

(ha) 1 2 0.8 0

Land use/Land cover 0.27

natural and semi-natural 

woodland (ha) 125 250 192 0.54

successional types (ha) 50 33 91 0

Structural class 0.31

hardwood canopy cover (%) 45 80 72 0.77

hardwood basal area (m2

/ha) 14 23 15 0.11

density (stems/ha, trees > 8 cm 

dbh) 125 600 149 0.05

Cover type 0.13

oak species basal area (m2

/ha) 9 18.2 4.3 0

hickory and walnut species basal 

area (m2

/ha) 2.1 8 3.6 0.25

Regeneration 0.16

cover type small saplings (>1.5 

m tall, < 2.5 cm dbh) relative 

density (% of stems/ha) 25 50 37 0.48

cover type large saplings (>1.5 

m tall; > 2.5 and < 8 cm dbh) 

relative density (% of stems/ha) 25 50 19.4 0

total cover type sapling relative 

density (% of stems/ha) 25 50 21.2 0

Herbaceous guild composition 0.2

native grass (%) 10 80 15.4 0.08

native forbs (%) 1 40 15 0.36

native woody shrub (%) 15 50 21 0.17

Structure

hardwood tree height (m) 13 21.3 13.5 0.06

Reporting unit: Wilson’s Creek

Since Wilson’s Creek is a 303(d) listed stream, overall support for reporting unit was low (output 

score = 0, Table 6-6). However, for each of the other four resource types output scores ranged 

from .76 (aquatic invertebrates) to .91 (fish community and flow regime). Current water quality 

and flow regime for Wilson’s Creek nearly match the management targets. Overall high output 

scores in the hierarchy reflect moderate or better support for most lower levels in the reporting 

unit logic model. Even though Wilson’s Creek is an impaired stream, resources within the creek 

were still evaluated and found to be close to approximating management conditions.
99

Table 6-6. Rescaled NetWeaver output scores for the integrated analysis of the Wilson’s Creek reporting 

unit of Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri.

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator No Support Full Support Input Score

Wilson's creek 0

303(d) listed 0 1 0 0

Water quality 0.8

temperature (°C) ≤ -17 or ≥ 51 0 - 34 18.5 1

specific conductance (μS/cm) 0 or ≥ 550 100 - 400 643 0

dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 0 or ≥ 20 5 - 15 9.2 1

pH ≤ 5.2 or ≥ 10.3 6.5 - 9.0 7.8 1

turbidity (NTU) 15 10 4.2 1

Surface Water Flow 0.91

mean daily flow (cfs) for the period of 

record ≤ 45.3 or ≥ 136.4 68.1 - 113.6 91.4 1

mean min flow (cfs) for August ≤ 16.7 or ≥ 50.6 25.2 - 42.1 45 0.66

mean max flows (cfs) for May ≤ 300.1 or ≥ 900 450.1 - 750 716.2 1

low flood pulse count (#) ≤ 6.1 or ≥ 18.1 9.1 - 15.1 15 1

high flood pulse count (#) ≤ 2.9 or ≥ 9.2 4.5 - 7.6 4.2 0.81

annual min of 7-day moving average flow 

(cfs) ≤ 15.2 or ≥ 45.6 22.8 - 38.0 38.8 0.9

annual max of 7-day moving average 

flow (cfs) ≤ 244 or ≥ 732.3 366.1 - 610.2 486.7 1

Julian date of annual minimum ≤ 145 or ≥ 435.3 217.6 - 362.7 293.8 1

Julian date of annual maximum ≤ 49.2 or ≥ 147.9 73.9 - 123.2 130 0.72

fall rate (cfs/day) ≤ 11.5 or ≥ 35 17.4 - 29.1 22.9 1

Fish community 0.91

Composition 0.81

Simpson's diversity 0.23 0.15 0.09 0.57

sucker composition (%) 1 1.3 1.2 0.81

sunfish composition (%) 1.4 11 17.9 1

benthic species composition (%) 13 34 49.1 1

Condition

index of biotic integrity 30 60 93 1

Aquatic invertebrates

Biotic integrity 0.76

family richness 7.1 14.2 10.8 0.5

genus richness 7.5 15 14.9 1

EPT richness 2 4 3.8 0.9

EPT ratio 0.14 0.23 0.18 0.45

Shannon Index (Genus) 0.89 1.77 1.93 1

Shannon Evenness Index 0.54 0.9 0.72 0.5
100

Reporting unit: Skegg’s Branch

Overall support for the entire Skegg’s Branch reporting unit was high (output score = .92, Table 

6-7). Skegg’s Branch is not an impaired listed stream, therefore all resource scores contributed to 

the overall evaluation score of the reporting unit. There was full support for the fish community 

resource type (output score = 1). Overall water quality was similar to Wilson’s Creek with an 

output score of .88. All indicators of biotic integrity had at least moderate support for the 

evaluation statement, with EPT ratio having the lowest output score of .45.

Table 6-7. Rescaled NetWeaver output scores for the integrated analysis of Skegg’s Branch reporting 

unit of Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri.

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator No Support Full Support Input Score

Skegg's branch 0.92

303(d) listed 0 1 1 1

Water quality 0.88

temperature (°C) ≤ -17 or ≥ 51 0 - 34 15.3 1

specific conductance (μS/cm) 0 or ≥ 550 100 - 400 489.5 0.4

dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 0 or ≥ 20 5 - 15 8.8 1

pH ≤ 5.2 or ≥ 10.3 6.5 - 9.0 7.9 1

turbidity (NTU) 15 10 2.1 1

Fish community 1

Composition 1

Simpson's diversity 0.33 0.23 0.16 1

benthic species composition (%) 8 34.3 52.9 1

Condition

index of biotic integrity 30 60 73 1

Aquatic invertebrates

Biotic integrity 0.79

family richness 7.1 14.2 11.9 0.68

genus richness 7.5 15 21.7 1

EPT richness 2 4 3.8 0.89

EPT ratio 0.14 0.23 0.18 0.45

Shannon Index (Genus) 0.89 1.77 2 1

Shannon Evenness Index 0.54 0.83 0.66 0.49

Reporting unit: Terrell Creek

The overall assessment for Terrell Creek reporting unit is similar to the other aquatic reporting 

units in the park (output score = .87, Table 6-8). Terrell Creek is not an impaired listed stream, 

therefore all resource scores contributed to the overall evaluation score of the reporting unit. 

There is high support for current water quality condition approximating the management targets 

(output score .91) with specific conductance being the only indicator without full support. Even 

though overall fish community support is high, Simpson’s diversity measure and sucker 

composition have low support (output scores of .24 and .23, respectively). The overall biotic 

integrity of Terrell Creek is a bit higher than both Wilson’s creek and Skegg’s branch, with an 

output score of .83.
101

Table 6-8. Rescaled NetWeaver output scores for the integrated analysis of the Terrell Creek reporting 

unit of Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri.

Reporting 

Unit

Resource 

Type Attribute Indicator No Support Full Support Input Score

Terrell creek 0.87

303(d) listed 0 1 1 1

Water quality 0.91

temperature (oC) ≤ -17 or ≥ 51 0 - 34 18.6 1

specific conductance (μS/cm) 0 or ≥ 550 100 - 400 466.9 0.6

dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 0 or ≥ 20 5 - 15 7.8 1

pH ≤ 5.2 or ≥ 10.3 6.5 - 9.0 7.8 1

turbidity (NTU) 15 10 1.5 1

Fish community 0.75

Composition 0.49

Simpson's diversity 0.82 0.44 0.73 0.24

sucker composition (%) 0.1 1.5 0.4 0.23

benthic species composition (%) 21 61.7 90.4 1

Condition

index of biotic integrity 30 60 61 1

Aquatic invertebrates

Biotic integrity 0.83

family richness 7.1 14.2 14.8 1

genus richness 7.5 15 22.4 1

EPT richness 2 4 4.6 1

EPT ratio 0.13 0.19 0.15 0.33

Shannon Index (Genus) 0.89 1.77 2.19 1

Shannon Evenness Index 0.54 0.89 0.71 0.49

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. Although landscape composition at the park wide scale is supported, the 

spatial arrangement of patches within specific community types is lacking. 

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 

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 
102

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.

Glades and slope woodlands at Wilson's Creek National Battlefield represent the most significant 

terrestrial natural communities. Glades support populations of the rare Missouri Bladderpod

(Lesquerella filiformis) along with other species of interest such as slender sandwort (Arenaria 

patula), green milkweed (Asclepias viridiflora), and downy gentian (Gentiana puberula). This 

habitat is naturally patchy with areas of deeper soils alternating with shallow soils and exposed 

rock across small areas.

Woodlands at WICR are mainly early successional and disturbance types, but slope woodlands 

are generally in better condition than upland woodlands. They are usually dominated by oaks

(Quercus spp.) and hickories (Carya spp.). Oaks and hickories also dominate some upland areas 

but are interspersed with more disturbed woodlands with species such as eastern redcedar, Osage 

orange, hackberry (Celtis spp.), and honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos). Bottomland 

woodlands are generally dominated by early successional species such as hackberry (Celtis

occidentalis), ash (Fraxinus spp.), and American elm (Ulmus americana). Grasslands are 

generally in poor condition. Areas where restoration efforts have been made do have a 

compliment of native grasses, but many areas are still invaded by species such as smooth sumac

(Rhus glabra), blackberries (Rhus spp.), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Prunus spp., and 

Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). Grasslands where restoration has not been applied 

may be dominated by tall fescue (Schedonordus phoenix) or by a variety of annual cool season 

grasses and forbs together with the shrubs and vines mentioned above. 

Natural resource management options are limited in such a disturbed landscape. Where funds 

and time are limited, focus on a few areas may be warranted. Eastern redcedar (Juniperus

virginiana) reduction in glades may promote higher populations of glade-associated herbaceous

species, including Missouri bladderpod. Increasing native grass and forb diversity in grasslands 

that already have a compliment of native species may increase the population of grassland 

endemic birds of interest. Early successional shrublands may also provide valuable habitat to 

wildlife species, including selected bird species, both in the winter and summer seasons. In this 

regard, creation of a patchwork of grassland and shrubland habitats, possibly by mowing 

different areas in different years, may be beneficial. Tall fescue grasslands that are very 

regularly mowed offer little value to native wildlife. Disturbance woodlands on better soils with 

eastern redcedar and other early successional species may be replaced over decades with 

woodlands that contain a higher compliment of desirable species without much active 

management. Likewise, existing bottomland and slope woodlands may become more valuable 

old-growth communities in time. Some bird species benefit from larger patches of woodland, 
103

which creates woodland interior habitat. Overall, however, breeding bird diversity is good 

because of the diversity of grassland, shrubland, edge, and woodland habitats on the park. 

The aquatic resources of both Wilson’s Creek and Skeggs Branch are impacted by upstream 

urbanization from Springfield and Republic respectively. Terrell Creek is less threatened overall 

with most of the upstream watershed comprised of pasture/hay land use. These upstream threats 

influence the water quality, physical habitat, and flow regime of the stream resources which in 

turn impact the biota. Wilson’s Creek, though certainly the most threatened and degraded stream 

on the park, may benefit from having tributaries that are in better condition which can serve as 

refuges or re-colonization pools for fauna during times of reduced water quality. 

The results of Chapter 6’s aquatic assessment of Wilson’s Creek should be interpreted with some 

caution and it is important to note that the assessment relies on a limited number of indicators 

based on data from a single year. Chapter 5 provides additional information which should be 

interpreted in conjunction with the results of the NetWeaver assessments. Water quality issues, 

especially in Wilson’s Creek, have been well documented and it has been listed as a 303(d)

stream by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources for failure to meet clean water 

standards under the federal Clean Water Act. Phosphorus, nitrogen, and fecal bacteria levels are 

often high. Most of the threats to Wilson’s Creek are related to the urban influence of the city of 

Springfield and the wastewater treatment facility located upstream from WICR. 

The numbers of options to park managers for improving water quality and other aquatic 

indicators in streams flowing through WICR are limited because most sources of degradation 

originate upstream outside of the park boundaries. As Bowles (2010) points out, maintaining 

and widening riparian buffers along the streams in WICR will help to protect aquatic life and instream habitat from localized chemical runoff and sedimentation. Maintaining the riparian 

buffers with native trees and grasses in conjunction with limiting impervious surfaces in the park 

will help stabilize the riparian zones and in-stream habitat. 

105

Literature Cited

Alabaster, J.S., and R. Lloyd. 1982. Water quality criteria for freshwater fish. Butterworth 

Publisher, London, UK.

Annis, G.M., S.P. Sowa, D.D. Diamond, M.D. Combes, K.E. Doisy, A.J. Garringer, and P. 

Hanberry. 2010. Developing synoptic human threat indices for assessing the ecological 

integrity of freshwater ecosystems in EPA Region 7. Final Report, EPA Project CD98768101-0, Columbia, Missouri.

Bain, M.B., J.T. Finn, and H.E. Booke. 1988. Streamflow regulation and fish community 

structure. Ecology 69: 382-392.

Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid bioassessment 

protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrate, 

and fish, 2nd edition. EPA 841-B-99-002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, D.C.

Berkas, W.R. 1982. Streamflow and water quality conditions, Wilson’s Creek and James River, 

Springfield area, Missouri. Water-Resources Investigations 82-26. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Rolla, Missouri.

Berkas, W.R. 1980. Effects of urban runoff and wastewater effluent on Wilson’s Creek and 

James River near Springfield, Missouri. Water-Resources Investigations 80-27. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Rolla, Missouri.

Berkman, H.E., and C.F. Rabeni. 1987. Effect of siltation on stream fish communities. 

Environmental Biology of Fishes 18:285-294.

Binkley, D., and T.C. Brown. 1993. Forest practices as nonpoint sources of pollution in North 

America. Water Resources Bulletin 29:729-740.

Bowles, D.E. 2010. Aquatic invertebrate monitoring at Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield: 

2005-2007 trend report. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR2010/287. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.

Brown, D., and J. Czarnezki. Undated. Missouri streams fact sheet-chemical monitoring. 

Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri.

Busch, T.P. 1976. National Register of Historic Places nomination form for Wilson’s Creek 

National Battlefield. < http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/66000113.pdf>. 

Accessed 1 February 2010.

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.
106

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.

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., and C. Blodgett. 2003. Urban remote sensing for land use change and impacts. 

Final Report, US EPA, Office of Research and Development, Las Vegas, Nevada.

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.

Donegan, D.S. 1984. Wilsons Creek fish species diversity. National Park Service, Republic, 

Missouri.

Elkins, K. 2007. The battle: A brief account of the battle of Wilson’s Creek, its significance, and 

the Civil War in Missouri. National Park Service, Republic, Missouri.

Emmett, L.F., J. Skelton, R.R. Luckey, D.E. Miller, T.L. Thompson, and J.W. Whitfield. 1978. 

Water resources and geology of the Springfield area, Missouri. Water Resources Report 

34. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Rolla, Missouri.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Undated. Wilson and Jordan Creeks (MO_2375 and 

3374) Christian and Greene Counties, Missouri: Total Maximum Daily Load. Draft 

Report, EPA Region 7, Kansas City, Missouri.

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.

Eyre, F.H. 1980. Forest Cover Types of the United States and Canada. Society of American 

Foresters, Washington, D.C.
107

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.

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.

Gale, C., R. Shaw, and G. Sullivan. 2004. Fire management plan for Wilson’s Creek National 

Battlefield. National Park Service, Republic, Missouri.

Harris, M.A., B.C. Kondratieff, and T.P. Boyle. 1991. Invertebrate assemblages and water 

quality in six National Park units in the Great Plains. National Park Service, Water 

Resources Division, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Harvey, E.J., and J. Skelton. 1968. Hydrology study of a waste-disposal problem in karst area at 

Springfield, Missouri. Professional Paper 600-C. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, 

Virginia.

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., M.D. DeBacker, G.A. Rowell, J.L. Haack, and L.W. Morrison. 2009. Vegetation 

community monitoring protocol for the Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network. 

Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR-2009/141. National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, Colorado.

James, K.M., and M.M. Guck. 2010. Logic-based approach to evaluating plant communities at 

Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa. Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR2010/181. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Jenkins, S.E., R. Guyette, and A.J. Rebertus. 1997. Vegetation -site relationships and fire history 

of savanna-glade-woodland mosaic in the Ozarks. Pages 184-201 in S.G. Pallardy, R.A.

Cecich, H.E. Garrett, P.S. Johnson, editors. Proceedings of 11th Central Hardwood Forest 

Conference. General Technical Report NC-188. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota. 

Jordan, W.R.,III, M.E. Gilpin, and J.D. Aber. 1987. Restoration ecology: A synthetic approach to 

ecological research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
108

Joubert, L., and G. Loomis. 2005. Chepachet Village decentralized wastewater demonstration 

project. University of Rhode Island, College of the Environment and Life Sciences, 

Kingston, Rhode Island.

Justus, B.G., and J.C. Peterson. 2005a. The fishes of George Washington Carver National 

Monument, Missouri, 2003. Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5128. National Park 

Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Justus, B.G., and J.C. Peterson. 2005b. The fishes of Pea Ridge National Military Park, 

Arkansas, 2003. Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5129. National Park Service, U.S. 

Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Karr J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6:21-27.

Karr, J.R., 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.

Kerr, R.S. 1969. James River-Wilsons Creek study. U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Water 

Pollution Control Administration, Ada, Oklahoma.

Kirkpatrick, J.B., and M.J. Brown. 1994. A comparison of direct and environmental domain 

approaches to planning reservation of forest higher plant communities and species in 

Tasmania. Conservation Biology 8:217-224.

Krupa, S.V. 2003. Effects of atmospheric ammonia (NH3) on terrestrial vegetation: a review. 

Environmental Pollution 124: 179-221.

Liu, J., and W.W. Taylor, editors. 2002. Integrating landscape ecology into natural resource 

management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Matthews, W.J. 1987. Physicochemical tolerance and selectivity of stream fishes as related to 

their geographic ranges and local distributions. Pages 111-120 in J.W. Matthews. and 

D.C. Heins, editors. Community and Evolutionary Ecology of North American Stream 

Fishes. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

McNab, W.H., and E.A. Avers. 1994. Ecological Subregions of the United States. U.S. Forest 

Service, Washington D.C.

Missouri Climate Center. 2010. Climate of Missouri. <http://climate.missouri.edu/climate.php>. 

Accessed 14 October 2010.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 2009. Proposed Missouri 2008 Section 303(d) list as 

approved by the Missouri Clean Water Commission, May 6, 2009. 
109

<http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/waterquality/303d/50609cwc-approvedlist.pdf>. 

Accessed 11 October 2010.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 2007. Springfield urban streams, Clear Creek, 

Jordan Creek, Wilson Creek, and Galloway Creek, Greene County. Biological 

Assessment Report. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 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.

Mueller, D.K., and D.R. Helsel. 1996. Nutrients in the Nation’s waters-too much of a good 

thing? U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1136. <http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1136>. 

Accessed 16 November 2010.

National Park Service (NPS). 2010a. Air quality estimates for the Inventory and Monitoring 

Program. <http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Maps/AirAtlas/IM_materials.cfm>. Accessed 7

February 2011.

National Park Service (NPS). 2010b. Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield. 

<http://www.nps.gov/wicr/>. Accessed 1 February 2010.

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.

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 Wilson’s Creek 

National Battlefield. 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). 2004a. 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.
110

National Park Service (NPS). 2004b. Environmental assessment Wilson’s Creek National 

Battlefield fire management plan. National Park Service, Republic, Missouri.

National Park Service (NPS). 2004c. Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield: Cultural Landscape 

Report. National Park Service, Republic, Missouri.

National Park Service (NPS). 2002. Air quality in the National Parks, 2nd edition. National Park 

Service, Air Resource Division, U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2001. Air quality monitoring considerations for the Heartland 

Network. 

<http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/permits/aris/networks/docs/htlnAirQualitySummary.pdf

>. Accessed 16 November 2010. 

NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1. 

NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. <http://www.natureserve.org/explorer>. Accessed 16 

November 2010.

NatureServe. 2008. <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.

Noss, R.F. 2004. Conservation targets and information needs for regional conservation planning. 

Natural Areas Journal 24:223-231.

Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation 

Biology 4:355-354.

Oliver, C.D., and B.C. Larson. 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics, updated edition. John Wiley and 

Sons, Inc., New York, New York.

Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at Wilson's Creek National Battlefield, Missouri. 2008 Status 

Report. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR-2009/195. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Peitz, D.G. 2006. White-tailed deer monitoring at Wilson's Creek National Battlefield, Missouri: 

2005-2006 status report. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR2006/016. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
111

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 

Inventory and Monitoring Network and Prairie Cluster Prototype Monitoring Program, 

Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Republic, Missouri. 

Peitz, D.G., and J.T. Cribbs. 2005. Bio-monitoring of water quality using aquatic invertebrates 

and in-stream habitat and riparian condition assessments: Status report for Wilson’s 

Creek and Skegg’s Branch, Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri 1988-2004. 

National Park Service, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network and Prairie Cluster 

Prototype Monitoring Program, Republic, Missouri.

Peitz, D.G., J.T. Cribbs, J.L. Haack, G.A. Rowell, L.W. Morrison, and M.D. DeBacker. 2007. Whitetailed deer monitoring protocol for the Heartland Network Inventory and Monitoring 

Program. Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—2007/014. National Park service, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 

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.

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.
112

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.

Richards, J.M., and B.T. Johnson. 2002. Water quality, selected chemical characteristics, and 

toxicity of base flow and urban stormwater in Pearson Creek and Wilsons Creek Basins, 

Greene County, Missouri, August 1999 to August 2000. Water Resources Investigations 

Report 4124. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Robison, H.W., and T.M. Buchanan. 1988. Fishes of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press, 

Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Sasseen, A.N. 2003. Monitoring summary and tornado damage assessment for Manley Woods 

Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield. National Park Service, Prairie Cluster Prototype 

Long-Term Ecological Monitoring Program, Republic, Missouri.

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.

Slay, M.E., C.J. Bitting, J.D. Wilhide. 2004. A bat inventory at Buffalo National River, Pea 

Ridge National Military Park, and Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield. National Park 

Service, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network, Republic, Missouri.

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.
113

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.

Tilghman, N.G. 1989. Impacts of White-tailed Deer on forest regeneration in northwestern 

Pennsylvania. J. Wildlife Management 53(3):524-532.

U.S. Congress. 1987. Technologies to maintain biological diversity. Office of Technology 

Assessment, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2010. National Water Information System: Mapper. 

<http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/nwisgmap/>. Accessed 21 September 2010.

Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E. Gushing. 1980. The river 

continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:130-137.

Waller, D.M., and W.S. Alverson. 1997. The white-tailed deer: a keystone herbivore. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 25:217-226.

Young, C.C., J.L. Haack, and H.J. Etheridge. 2007. Invasive exotic plant monitoring at Wilson’s 

Creek National Battlefield: Year 1 (2006). Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2007/013. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Young, C.C., L.W. Morrison, and H.J. Etheridge. 2006. Missouri bladderpod population size 

and initial habitat assessment for the Bloody Hill glade population at Wilson's Creek 

National Battlefield. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR-2006/017. 

National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Young, C.C., L.W. Morrison, and J.L. Haack. 2009. Habitat relationships and management 

implications for Lesquerella filiformis Rollins (Missouri bladderpod) on a xeric limestone 

prairie. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Survey 136:233-241.

Young, C.C., L.W. Morrison, M.I. Kelrick, and M.D. DeBacker. 2008. Monitoring Lesqurella 

filiformis Rollins (Missouri bladderpod): application and evaluation of a grid-based 

survey approach. Natural Areas Journal 50:417-425.

115

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

Threat Index
116

Figure A-9. Percentage of impervious surfaces above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
117

Figure A-10. Percentage of cropland above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
118

Figure A-11. Percentage of pasture/hay above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
119

Figure A-12. Density of water wells above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
120

Figure A-13. Density of major impoundments above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
121

Figure A-14. Density of headwater impoundments above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
122

Figure A-15. Length of roads above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
123

Figure A-16. Density of road/stream crossings above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
124

Figure A-17. Length of railroads above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
125

Figure A-18. Density of railroad/stream crossings above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
126

Figure A-19. Length of pipelines above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
127

Figure A-20. Application rates of crop pesticides above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
128

Figure A-21. Density of population in 1990 above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
129

Figure A-22. Density of population in 2000 above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
130

Figure A-23. Change in population density from 1990 to 2000 above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
131

Figure A-24. Amount of livestock sales above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
132

Figure A-25. Length of channelized/ditched streams above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
133

Figure A-26. Density of airports above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
134

Figure A-27. Density of dams above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
135

Figure A-28. Density of lead mines above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
136

Figure A-29. Density of other mines above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
137

Figure A-30. Density of leaking underground storage tanks above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
138

Figure A-31. Density of superfund sites above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
139

Figure A-32. Density of toxic release inventory sites above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
140

Figure A-33. Density of hazardous permits above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
141

Figure A-34. Density of hazardous generators above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
142

Figure A-35. Density of waste water treatment facilities above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
143

Figure A-36. Density of landfills above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
144

Figure A-37. Density of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) sites above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8

(inset) for WICR.
145

Figure A-38. Density of Resource Conservation Recovery sites above every stream segment in the HUC 10 and HUC 8 (inset) for WICR.
147

Appendix B Aquatic Invertebrate Indicators.
148

Table B-1. Aquatic invertebrate indicators for Wilson's Creek.

Table B-1. Continued

Indicator Management Target Reference Condition Mean1 Rating

Family Richness

 1988 >14.1 14.2 10.0 Off Target

 1989 >14.1 14.2 12.5 Off Target

 1990 >14.1 14.2 9.6 Off Target

 1996 >14.1 14.2 10.8 Off Target

 1997 >14.1 14.2 12.2 Off Target

 1998 >14.1 14.2 11.8 Off Target

 1999 >14.1 14.2 8.9 Off Target

 2000 >14.1 14.2 5.8 Off Target

 2001 >14.1 14.2 8.6 Off Target

 2002 >14.1 14.2 8.5 Off Target

 2003 >14.1 14.2 7.7 Off Target

 2004 >14.1 14.2 7.2 Off Target

 2005 >14.1 14.2 10.0 Off Target

 2006 >14.1 14.2 9.5 Off Target

 2007 >14.1 14.2 10.8 Off Target

 Mean >14.1 14.2 9.6 Off Target

Genus Richness

 1988 >15 26.2 12.0 Off Target

 1989 >15 26.2 16.4 On Target

 1990 >15 26.2 13.6 Off Target

 1996 >15 26.2 21.0 On Target

 1997 >15 26.2 18.8 On Target

 1998 >15 26.2 18.5 On Target

 1999 >15 26.2 14.5 Off Target

 2000 >15 26.2 10.3 Off Target

 2001 >15 26.2 14.6 Off Target

 2002 >15 26.2 13.4 Off Target

2003 >15 26.2 12.6 Off Target

 2004 >15 26.2 9.9 Off Target

 2005 >15 26.2 17.6 On Target

 2006 >15 26.2 13.6 Off Target

 2007 >15 26.2 14.9 Off Target

 Mean >15 26.2 14.8 Off Target

EPT Richness

 1988 >4 7.8 3.9 Off Target

 1989 >4 7.8 3.1 Off Target

 1990 >4 7.8 1.4 Off Target

 1996 >4 7.8 5.2 On Target

 1997 >4 7.8 4.6 On Target

 1998 >4 7.8 5.7 On Target

 1999 >4 7.8 3.1 Off Target

 2000 >4 7.8 2.5 Off Target

 2001 >4 7.8 4.6 On Target

 2002 >4 7.8 3.8 Off Target

 2003 >4 7.8 3.8 Off Target

 2004 >4 7.8 1.9 Off Target

 2005 >4 7.8 3.6 Off Target

 2006 >4 7.8 2.5 Off Target

 2007 >4 7.8 3.8 Off Target

 Mean >4 7.8 3.6 Off Target

EPT Ratio

 1988 >0.22 N/A 0.61 On Target
149

Table B-1. Continued

Indicator Management Target Reference Condition Mean1 Rating

 1989 >0.22 N/A 0.26 On Target

 1990 >0.22 N/A 0.01 Off Target

 1996 >0.22 N/A 0.27 On Target

 1997 >0.22 N/A 0.25 On Target

 1998 >0.22 N/A 0.56 On Target

 1999 >0.22 N/A 0.37 On Target

 2000 >0.22 N/A 0.11 Off Target

 2001 >0.22 N/A 0.39 On Target

 2002 >0.22 N/A 0.28 On Target

 2003 >0.22 N/A 0.37 On Target

 2004 >0.22 N/A 0.33 On Target

 2005 >0.22 N/A 0.29 On Target

 2006 >0.22 N/A 0.57 On Target

 2007 >0.22 N/A 0.18 Off Target

 Mean >0.22 N/A 0.32 On Target

Shannon Index (Genus)

 1988 >1.77 2.39 1.12 Off Target

 1989 >1.77 2.39 0.22 Off Target

 1990 >1.77 2.39 1.14 Off Target

 1996 >1.77 2.39 0.90 Off Target

 1997 >1.77 2.39 1.76 Off Target

 1998 >1.77 2.39 1.09 Off Target

 1999 >1.77 2.39 1.64 Off Target

 2000 >1.77 2.39 1.44 Off Target

 2001 >1.77 2.39 1.45 Off Target

 2002 >1.77 2.39 1.35 Off Target

 2003 >1.77 2.39 1.88 On Target

 2004 >1.77 2.39 1.49 Off Target

 2005 >1.77 2.39 1.94 On Target

 2006 >1.77 2.39 2.03 On Target

 2007 >1.77 2.39 1.93 On Target

 Mean >1.77 2.39 1.43 Off Target

Shannon Evenness Index

 1988 >0.8 N/A 0.49 Off Target

 1989 >0.8 N/A 0.12 Off Target

 1990 >0.8 N/A 0.57 Off Target

 1996 >0.8 N/A 0.46 Off Target

 1997 >0.8 N/A 0.69 Off Target

 1998 >0.8 N/A 0.56 Off Target

 1999 >0.8 N/A 0.70 Off Target

 2000 >0.8 N/A 0.66 Off Target

 2001 >0.8 N/A 0.67 Off Target

 2002 >0.8 N/A 0.63 Off Target

 2003 >0.8 N/A 0.76 Off Target

 2004 >0.8 N/A 0.62 Off Target

 2005 >0.8 N/A 0.71 Off Target

 2006 >0.8 N/A 0.77 Off Target

 2007 >0.8 N/A 0.72 Off Target

 Mean >0.8 N/A 0.61 Off Target

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index

 1988 <6.6 <4.3 5.33 On Target

 1989 <6.6 <4.3 5.61 On Target

 1990 <6.6 <4.3 6.61 Off Target

 1996 <6.6 <4.3 5.85 On Target

 1997 <6.6 <4.3 5.94 On Target
150

Table B-1. Continued

Indicator Management Target Reference Condition Mean1 Rating

 1998 <6.6 <4.3 5.50 On Target

 1999 <6.6 <4.3 6.17 On Target

 2000 <6.6 <4.3 6.61 Off Target

 2001 <6.6 <4.3 5.77 On Target

 2002 <6.6 <4.3 5.87 On Target

 2003 <6.6 <4.3 5.83 On Target

 2004 <6.6 <4.3 5.24 On Target

 2005 <6.6 <4.3 5.98 On Target

 2006 <6.6 <4.3 5.37 On Target

 2007 <6.6 <4.3 6.72 Off Target

 Mean <6.6 <4.3 5.89 On Target

1 Mean from Bowles (2010).
151

Table B-2. Aquatic invertebrate indicators for Skegg's Branch.

Table B-2. Continued

Indicator Management Target Reference Condition Mean1 Rating

Family Richness

 1988 >14.1 14.2 12.0 Off Target

 1989 >14.1 14.2 17.3 On Target

 1990 >14.1 14.2 17.0 On Target

 1997 >14.1 14.2 17.3 On Target

 1999 >14.1 14.2 12.5 Off Target

 2001 >14.1 14.2 10.9 Off Target

 2002 >14.1 14.2 8.0 Off Target

 2003 >14.1 14.2 8.2 Off Target

 2004 >14.1 14.2 8.7 Off Target

 2005 >14.1 14.2 9.8 Off Target

 2006 >14.1 14.2 11.0 Off Target

 2007 >14.1 14.2 11.9 Off Target

 Mean >14.1 14.2 12.1 Off Target

Genus Richness

 1988 >15 26.2 14.0 Off Target

 1989 >15 26.2 23.5 On Target

 1990 >15 26.2 23.8 On Target

 1997 >15 26.2 25.8 On Target

 1999 >15 26.2 20.0 On Target

 2001 >15 26.2 18.7 On Target

 2002 >15 26.2 15.7 On Target

 2003 >15 26.2 14.0 Off Target

 2004 >15 26.2 11.9 Off Target

 2005 >15 26.2 18.6 On Target

 2006 >15 26.2 20.0 On Target

 2007 >15 26.2 21.7 On Target

 Mean >15 26.2 19.0 On Target

EPT Richness

 1988 >4 7.8 3.8 Off Target

 1989 >4 7.8 6.2 On Target

 1990 >4 7.8 5.6 On Target

 1997 >4 7.8 5.1 On Target

 1999 >4 7.8 2.8 Off Target

 2001 >4 7.8 4.9 On Target

 2002 >4 7.8 2.8 Off Target

 2003 >4 7.8 4.4 On Target

 2004 >4 7.8 2.5 Off Target

 2005 >4 7.8 3.0 Off Target

 2006 >4 7.8 3.9 Off Target

 2007 >4 7.8 3.8 Off Target

 Mean >4 7.8 4.1 On Target

EPT Ratio

 1988 >0.22 N/A 0.72 On Target

 1989 >0.22 N/A 0.55 On Target

 1990 >0.22 N/A 0.58 On Target

 1997 >0.22 N/A 0.27 On Target

 1999 >0.22 N/A 0.29 On Target

 2001 >0.22 N/A 0.45 On Target

 2002 >0.22 N/A 0.33 On Target

 2003 >0.22 N/A 0.45 On Target

 2004 >0.22 N/A 0.44 On Target

 2005 >0.22 N/A 0.36 On Target
152

Table B-2. Continued

Indicator Management Target Reference Condition Mean1 Rating

 2006 >0.22 N/A 0.28 On Target

 2007 >0.22 N/A 0.18 Off Target

 Mean >0.22 N/A 0.41 On Target

Shannon Index (Genus)

 1989 >1.77 2.39 1.90 On Target

 1990 >1.77 2.39 1.73 Off Target

 1997 >1.77 2.39 1.86 On Target

 1999 >1.77 2.39 1.63 Off Target

 2001 >1.77 2.39 1.73 Off Target

 2002 >1.77 2.39 1.33 Off Target

 2003 >1.77 2.39 1.27 Off Target

 2004 >1.77 2.39 1.95 On Target

 2005 >1.77 2.39 1.59 Off Target

 2006 >1.77 2.39 2.34 On Target

 2007 >1.77 2.39 2.00 On Target

 Mean >1.77 2.39 1.76 Off Target

Shannon Evenness Index

 1989 >0.8 N/A 0.67 Off Target

 1990 >0.8 N/A 0.63 Off Target

 1997 >0.8 N/A 0.65 Off Target

 1999 >0.8 N/A 0.74 Off Target

 2001 >0.8 N/A 0.72 Off Target

 2002 >0.8 N/A 0.67 Off Target

 2003 >0.8 N/A 0.66 Off Target

 2004 >0.8 N/A 0.80 Off Target

 2005 >0.8 N/A 0.69 Off Target

 2006 >0.8 N/A 0.77 Off Target

 2007 >0.8 N/A 0.66 Off Target

 Mean >0.8 N/A 0.70 Off Target

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index

 1988 <6.6 <4.3 5.81 On Target

 1989 <6.6 <4.3 5.69 On Target

 1990 <6.6 <4.3 5.70 On Target

 1997 <6.6 <4.3 6.12 On Target

 1999 <6.6 <4.3 5.50 On Target

 2001 <6.6 <4.3 5.21 On Target

 2002 <6.6 <4.3 5.41 On Target

 2003 <6.6 <4.3 6.24 On Target

 2004 <6.6 <4.3 4.95 On Target

 2005 <6.6 <4.3 4.39 On Target

 2006 <6.6 <4.3 5.49 On Target

 2007 <6.6 <4.3 5.72 On Target

 Mean <6.6 <4.3 5.52 On Target

1 Mean from Bowles (2010).
153

Table B-3. Aquatic invertebrate indicators for Terrell Creek.

Indicator Management Target Reference Condition Mean1 Rating

Family Richness

 2006 >14.1 14.2 15.9 On Target

 2007 >14.1 14.2 14.8 On Target

 Mean >14.1 14.2 15.3 On Target

Genus Richness

 2006 >15 26.2 25.4 On Target

 2007 >15 26.2 22.4 On Target

 Mean >15 26.2 23.9 On Target

EPT Richness

 2006 >4 7.8 7.8 On Target

 2007 >4 7.8 4.6 On Target

 Mean >4 7.8 6.2 On Target

EPT Ratio

 2006 >0.18 N/A 0.43 On Target

 2007 >0.18 N/A 0.15 Off Target

 Mean >0.18 N/A 0.29 On Target

Shannon Index (Genus)

 2006 >1.77 2.39 2.69 On Target

 2007 >1.77 2.39 2.19 On Target

 Mean >1.77 2.39 2.44 On Target

Shannon Evenness Index

 2006 >0.8 N/A 0.83 On Target

 2007 >0.8 N/A 0.71 Off Target

 Mean >0.8 N/A 0.77 Off Target

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index

 2006 <6.6 <4.3 5.00 On Target

 2007 <6.6 <4.3 5.30 On Target

 Mean <6.6 <4.3 5.15 On Target 1

 Mean from Bowles (2010).

155

Appendix C Summary of Information Sources for Current and Reference Conditions 

for Each Attribute/Indicator

Reporting Unit

Resource Type

Attribute Data/Information Sources Reference/Target Conditions

Park-wide

Vegetation

Landscape 

composition

Vegetation cover types were mapped from high resolution aerial 

imagary, potential vegetation, and soil map units

Targets based on professional judgement. Generally fewer 

patches of larger size are desirable.

Land use/Land 

cover

Vegetation cover types were assigned to three classes: natural, 

successional, and cultural

Targets based on professional judgement with the goal of 

increasing the area of natural vegetation while decreasing 

successional vegetation.

Breeding bird community

Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at Wilson’s Creek National 

Battlefield, Missouri 2008 status report. Natural Resource 

Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/195. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Targets represent 2008 baseline data collection. The goal is to 

maintain or enhance the breeding bird community. 

White-tailed deer http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/htln/library/Wildlife/Deer/WICR_Deer_2

005_2010_r.pdf 

Peer reviewed literature reports that the ecological carrying 

capacity for deer is 8 indifividuals/km2 

Tilghman, Nancy G. 1989. Impacts of White-tailed Deer on 

forest regeneration in northwestern Pennsylvania. J. Wildlife 

Management 53(3):524-532.

Young, C.C., J.L. Haack, and H.J. Etheridge. 2007. Invasive 

exotic plant monitoring at Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield: 

Year 1 (2006). Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2007/013 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.c

fm

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.c

NPS (2007a) reports that wet deposition amounts of less than 1 

kg/ha/yr do not cause ecosystem harm. 

Invasive exotic plant 

impact
156

Reporting Unit

Resource Type

Attribute Data/Information Sources Reference/Target Conditions

Upland woodland reporting unit

Landscape 

Composition

Vegetation cover types were mapped from high resolution aerial 

imagary, potential vegetation, and soil map units

Targets based on professional judgement. Generally fewer 

patches of larger size are desirable.

Land Use/Land 

Cover

Vegetation cover types were assigned to three classes: natural, 

successional, and cultural

Targets based on professional judgement with the goal of 

increasing the area of natural vegetation while decreasing 

successional vegetation.

Structural class

Habitat data from Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at 

Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri 2008 status 

report. Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/195. National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 

Professional judgement was used to set targets for the 

woodland. Professional Judgement was informed by 

community descriptions in Appendix D, 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. 
157

Reporting Unit

Resource Type

Attribute Data/Information Sources Reference/Target Conditions

The lower limit of oak composition was multiplied by the lower 

limit of total basal area. The upper limit of oak composition was 

multiplied by the uppder limit of total basal. Proportional range 

of oak species composition (0.65-0.80) and range of total basal 

area for the reporting unit from Nelson (2005) and Missouri 

Forest and Woodland Natural Community Profiles 

(http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/17524.doc, accessed: 

10/15/2010). 

The lower limit of hickory and walnut composition was multiplied 

by the lower limit of total basal area. The upper limit of hickory 

and walnut composition was multiplied by the uppder limit of 

total basal. Proportional range of hickory and walnut species 

composition (0.15-0.30) and range of total basal area for the 

reporting unit from Nelson (2005) and Missouri Forest and 

Woodland Natural Community Profiles 

(http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/17524.doc, accessed: 

10/15/2010). 

Regeneration

Habitat data from Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at 

Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri 2008 status 

report. Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/195. National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 

Professional judgement was used to set targets for the 

woodland. Professional Judgement was informed by 

community descriptions in Appendix D, 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. 

Cover type

Habitat data from Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at 

Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri 2008 status 

report. Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/195. National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 
158

Reporting Unit

Resource Type

Attribute Data/Information Sources Reference/Target Conditions

Structure

Habitat data from Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at 

Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri 2008 status 

report. Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/195. National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 

Height of canopy from Nelson (2005) and Missouri Forest and 

Woodland Natural Community Profiles 

(http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/17524.doc, accessed: 

10/15/2010). Weighted by areal extent of different woodland 

types. To be measured as average over all upland woodlands.

Bottomland forest

Landscape 

Composition

Vegetation cover types were mapped from high resolution aerial 

imagary, potential vegetation, and soil map units

Targets based on professional judgement. Generally fewer 

patches of larger size are desirable.

Land Use/Land 

Cover

Vegetation cover types were assigned to three classes: natural, 

successional, and cultural

Targets based on professional judgement with the goal of 

increasing the area of natural vegetation while decreasing 

successional vegetation.

Upland grassland (restored priairie) reporting unit

Landscape 

Composition

Vegetation cover types were mapped from high resolution aerial 

imagary, potential vegetation, and soil map units

Targets based on professional judgement. Generally fewer 

patches of larger size are desirable.

Land Use/Land 

Cover

Vegetation cover types were assigned to three classes: natural, 

successional, and cultural

Targets based on professional judgement with the goal of 

increasing the area of restorede prairie with native warm-season 

grasses and forbs and fewer shrubs and vines. 

Herbacous guild 

composition

Cover of native grass and forbs from Nelson (2005) and 

Missouri Forest and Woodland Natural Community Profiles 

(http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/17524.doc, accessed: 

10/15/2010) weighted by areal extent of type, and professional 

judgement.

Total woody cover (understory) from Missouri Forest and 

Woodland Natural Community Profiles 

(http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/17524.doc, accessed: 

10/15/2010) weighted by areal extent of type.

Habitat data from Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at 

Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri 2008 status 

report. Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/195. National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 
159

Reporting Unit

Resource Type

Attribute Data/Information Sources Reference/Target Conditions

Diversity and 

herbacous guild 

composition

2008 unpublished data following - James, K. M., M. D. 

DeBacker, G. A. Rowell, J. L. Haack and L. W. Morrison. 2009. 

Vegetation community monitoring protocol for the Heartland 

Inventory and Monitoring Network. Natural Resource Report 

NPS/HTLN/NRR — 2009/141. National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 

Habitat data from Peitz, D.G. 2009. Bird monitoring at 

Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri 2008 status 

report. Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2009/195. National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 

Professional judgement was used to set targets for the upland 

grasslands with the goal of increasing the cover of native warmseason grasses and forbs, and decreasing the cover of shrubs 

and vines. Professional Judgement was informed by community 

descriptions in Appendix D. 

Glade reporting unit

Landscape 

Composition

Vegetation cover types were mapped from high resolution aerial 

imagary, potential vegetation, and soil map units

Targets based on professional judgement. Generally fewer 

patches of larger size are desirable.

Land Use/Land 

Cover

Vegetation cover types were assigned to three classes: natural, 

successional, and cultural

Targets based on professional judgement with the goal 

reducing the overall number of patches and patch size 

somewhat, but patchiness is expected within the reporting unit; 

and to reduce the foliar cover or red cedar 

Missouri 

Bladderpod

2010 unpublished monitoring data following - Young, C.C., M.I. 

Kelrick, L.W. Morrison, M.D. DeBacker, J.L. Haack, and G.A. 

Rowell. 2008. Missouri Bladderpod Monitoring Protocol for 

Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield. Natural Resource Report 

NPS/MWR/HTLN/NRR—2008/043. National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 

To define management targets for Missouri bladderpod, we 

compared the current size of six Missouri bladderpod 

populations to the population size ranges observed in each of 

those populations over an extended time period. To account 

for naturally high annual variability, the current Missouri 

bladderpod population size was calculated as the three-year 

(2008-2010) average of the population size interval midpoints. A 

population size range, which defined management targets for 

each population, was based on the minimum and maximum 

values observed during the given time period. 
160

Reporting Unit

Resource Type

Attribute Data/Information Sources Reference/Target Conditions

Wilson's Creek, Skeggs Branch, and Terrell Creek

Fish community

Composition

2007 unpublished data following - Dodd, H.R., D.G Peitz, G.A. 

Rowell, D.E. Bowles, and L.M. Morrison. 2008. Protocol for 

Monitoring Fish Communities in Small Streams in the Heartland 

Inventory and Monitoring Network. Natural Resource Report 

NPS/HTLN/NRR - 2008/052. National Park Service, Fort Collins, 

Colorado.

2007 data serves as baseline with the goal to maintain or 

improve the fish community.

Sowa, S.P., D.D. Diamond, R. Abbitt, G. Annis, T. Gordon, 

M.E. Morey, G.R. Sorensen, and D. True. 2005. A gap 

analysis for riverine ecosystems of Missouri. U.S. Geological 

Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Columbia, Missouri. 

Condition

2007 unpublished data following - Dodd, H.R., D.G Peitz, G.A. 

Rowell, D.E. Bowles, and L.M. Morrison. 2008. Protocol for 

Monitoring Fish Communities in Small Streams in the Heartland 

Inventory and Monitoring Network. Natural Resource Report 

NPS/HTLN/NRR - 2008/052. National Park Service, Fort Collins, 

Colorado.

Reference condition is based on peer reviewed index in: 

Dauwalter, D.C., E.J. Pert, and W.E. Keith. 2003. An index of 

biotic integrity for fish assemblages in Ozark Highland streams 

of Arkansas. Southeastern Naturalist 2:447-468.

Aquatic invertebrates

Bowles D. E. 2010. Aquatic invertebrate monitoring at Wilson’s 

Creek National Battlefield: 2005-2007 trend report. Natural 

Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2010/287. 

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.

Water quality (medians)

Bowles D. E. 2010. Aquatic invertebrate monitoring at Wilson’s 

Creek National Battlefield: 2005-2007 trend report. Natural 

Resource Technical Report NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2010/287. 

National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Reference conditions based on State of Missouri 

recommendations in: Brown, D., and J. Czarnezki. Undated. 

Missouri streams fact sheet-chemical monitoring. Missouri 

Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. 

http://www.mostreamteam.org/Documents/Fact%20Sheets/177

67.pdf 

Current condition is value based upon the entire period of record 

(POR) for stream gauge on Wilson's Creek (Wilson's Creek 

near Battlefield - 07052160). Management target was based on 

standard deviation from the POR value for that index. 

Management Target were based on deviation 25th and 75th 

percentiles of the POR.

Management target was based on standard deviation from the 

POR value for that index. Management Target were based on 

deviation 25th and 75th percentiles of the POR.

Flow Regime (Wilson's 

Creek only)


163

Appendix D Descriptions of Pre-European Vegetation 

Communities for Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, 

Missouri

Descriptions of Pre-European Vegetation Communities for Wilson’s Creek 

National Battlefield, Missouri

Lee F. Elliott, Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership

27 April 2010

Primarily associated with the Upland 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 

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 Woodland Reporting Unit

Dominant Species: black oak/post oak-hickory 

General Historical Vegetation: dry-mesic slope woodland (acidic)

Ecological Land Type: Alfic Chert Exposed Backslope Woodlands AND 

Limestone/Dolomite Exposed Backslope Glade/Woodland Complex

Ecological System: Ozark-Ouachita Dry Oak Woodland

Description: The woodland communities of this complex tend to occur on deeper soils and the 

glade communities are more likely to occur on thin-soiled sites over limestone or dolomite. The 

glade community will be described separately. Woodlands over cherty substrates are dominated 

by Quercus alba (white oak), Quercus stellata (post oak), and Quercus velutina (black oak), and 

Carya alba (mockernut hickory). The canopy is relatively open (canopy cover of 60 to 80%) at a 
164

height of 20 to 70 feet, with a basal area between 50 and 90 sq. ft./acre. Sites over limestone 

substrate may have Quercus muehlenbergii (chinquapin oak) and Fraxinus quadrangulata (blue 

ash) or Fraxinus americana (white ash) as codominants. The shrub canopy has a cover of 10 to 

40%, with species such as Rhus aromatica (fragrant sumac), Vaccinium spp. (blueberries), 

Parthenocissus quinquefolia (Virginia creeper), and Ceanothus americana (New Jersey tea). 

Species such as Sideroxylon lanuginosum (gum bumelia), Juniperus virginiana (eastern 

redcedar) and Frangula caroliniana (Carolina buckthorn) are more likely to be encountered on 

limestone substrates. Herbaceous cover may range from 50 to 100% 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 Glade Reporting Unit

Dominant Species: little bluestem/sideoats grama-blackjack oak

General Historical Vegetation: open herbaceous glade/woodland complex

Ecological Land Type: Limestone/Dolomite Upland Glade/Woodland Complex AND 

Limestone/Dolomite Upland Post Oak Woodlands

Ecological Systems: Central Interior Highlands Calcareous Glade and Barrens; OzarkOuachita Dry Oak Woodlands

Description: The glades portion of this glade/woodland complex is dominated by perennial and 

annual forbs, grasses and sedges with woody cover often stunted and gnarled. Overstory canopy 

cover is generally less than 30%, with low basal areas (often less than 50 sq. ft./acre). Species of 

the limited overstory may include Quercus muehlenbergii (chinquapin oak), Quercus stellata 

(post oak), Carya texana (black hickory), and Juniperus virginiana (eastern redcedar). Shrub 

species such as Sideroxylon lanuginosum (gum bumelia), Rhus aromatica (fragrant sumac), and 

Frangula caroliniana (Carolina buckthorn) may be present but typically have little overall 

canopy cover (less than 20%). The cover of herbaceous vegetation is variable, depending on soil 

depth. On deep-soiled sites, Schizachyrium scoparium (little bluestem) and Bouteloua 

curtipendula (sideoats grama) dominate the site. Conspicuous forbs such as Rudbeckia 

missouriensis (Missouri orange coneflower), Silphium terebinthinaceum (prairie dock), 

Symphyotrichum sericeum (western silver aster), Psoralidium tenuiflorum (slimflower scurfpea), 

Heliotropium tenellum (pasture heliotrope) and numerous other species are common. On sites 

with shallower soils, Croton monanthogynus (prairie tea), Ophioglossum engelmannii (limestone 

addertongue), Sedum pulchellum (widowscross), Sporobolus neglectus (puffsheath dropseed), 

Sporobolus vaginiflorus (poverty dropseed), and lichens are more likely to be encountered. The 

woodlands portion of the complex is open (30 to 60% cover) and short (20 to 50 feet in height), 

but may have a basal area between 30 and 60 sq. ft./acre. Dominant overstory species include 

species similar to those of the glade portion. Fraxinus quadrangulata (blue ash) and/or Fraxinus 

americana (white ash) may also be present. Shrub cover is less than 30% with similar species to 

those found in the glade. Herbaceous cover may be patchy to continuous (30 to 90% cover) and 
165

consists of forbs and grasses similar to those found on deep-soiled sites of the glades. Other 

species that might be encountered in the woodlands include Lithospermum canescens (hoary 

puccoon), Arnoglossum plantagineum (groovestem Indian plantain), Astragalus distortus (Ozark 

milkvetch), Astragalus crassicarpus var. trichocalyx (groundplum milkvetch), and numerous 

other species.

Primarily associated with the Upland Woodland Reporting Unit

Dominant Species: post oak-bluestem

General Historical Vegetation: flatwoods

Ecological Land Type: Loess Fragipan Upland Flatwoods

Ecological System: Ozark-Ouachita Dry Oak Woodland

Description: This open woodland is characterized by a subsurface soil layer of reduced 

permeability leading to brief periods of flooding during rainy periods, followed by extended dry 

periods. The overstory is often open (cover between 30 and 80%), relatively short (30 to 50 feet 

in height), and with a basal area between 30 and 70 sq. ft/acre. The overstory is typically 

dominated by Quercus stellata (post oak), though Quercus marilandica (blackjack oak) and 

Carya texana (black hickory) may also be present. The shrub/understory is poorly developed 

(less than 40% cover) and contains species such as Rubus spp. (blackberries) and Toxicodendron 

radicans (eastern poison ivy). The herbaceous canopy may be dense and dominated by grasses 

and sedges, particularly Schizachyrium scoparium (little bluestem). Cinna arundinacea (sweet 

woodreed), Carex spp. (sedges), Juncus interior (inland rush), and Symphyotrichum patens (late 

purple aster) are among the many other species that may be present.

Primarily associated with the Upland Woodland Reporting Unit

Dominant Species: post oak/black oak-blackjack oak

General Historical Vegetation: dry oak woodland

Ecological Land Type: Ultic Chert Upland Mixed Oak Woodlands

Ecological System: Ozark-Ouachita Dry Oak Woodland

Description: Open to relatively closed-canopy woodland (30 to 80 % canopy cover, to a height 

of 35 to 50 feet) dominated by Quercus stellata (post oak), Quercus marilandica (blackjack oak), 

and Quercus velutina (black oak). Basal area for these woodlands is typically between 30 and 70 

sq. ft./acre. Carya texana (black hickory) may also be a conspicuous to co-dominant canopy 

species. The shrub and woody understory layers generally has a canopy cover less than 40% and 

may include species such as Vaccinium arboreum (farkleberry), Vaccinium pallidum (lowbush 

blueberry), Rhus aromatica (fragrant sumac), Sassafras albidum (sassafras), Ulmus alata 

(winged elm), Viburnum rufidulum (rusty blackhaw), and Ceanothus americanus (New Jersey 

tea). The herbaceous layer may be open to closed (60 to 100% cover). If open, lichens may be a 

conspicuous element of the ground flora. Herbaceous species common to the community include 

Schizachyrium scoparium (little bluestem), Andropogon gerardii (big bluestem, Lespedeza hirta 

(hairy lespedeza), Lespedeza violacea (violet lespedeza), Lespedeza procumbens (trailing 

lespedeza), Dichanthelium acuminatum (tapered rosette grass), Dichanthelium sphaerocarpon 

(roundseed panicgrass), Dichanthelium linearifolium (slimleaf panicgrass), Parthenium 

integrifolium (wild quinine), Tephrosia virginiana (goat’s rue), Dalea spp. (prairie clovers), 

Desmodium spp. (ticktrefoils), Solidago spp. (goldenrods), Symphyotrichum spp. (asters), and 

Liatris spp. (blazingstars) among others. 
166

Primarily associated with the Bottomland Forest Reporting Unit

Dominant Species: red oak/sugar maple-bitternut hickory 

General Historical Vegetation: floodplain forest

Ecological Land Type: Mesic High Floodplain Forest

Ecological System: Ozark-Ouachita Mesic Hardwood Forest

Description: These forests have an almost closed canopy (80 to 100% canopy closure) to a 

height of 80 to 120 feet and a basal area from 80 to 110 sq. ft./acre. The overstory canopy is 

dominated by a variety of species including Quercus rubra (northern red oak), Acer saccharum 

(sugar maple), Quercus alba (white oak), Juglans major (black walnut), Ulmus americana 

(American elm), and Carya cordiformis (bitternut hickory). Other canopy species include Tilia 

americana (American basswood), Ulmus rubra (slippery elm), Quercus shumardii (Shumard’s 

oak), Fraxinus americana (white ash), and Gymnocladus dioicus (Kentucky coffeetree). An 

understory (to a height of 5 to 25 feet) of saplings of the overstory as well as Asimina triloba 

(pawpaw), Aesculus glabra (Ohio buckey), Carpinus caroliniana (American hornbeam), and 

Diospyros virginiana (common persimmon) is present. Shrubs are also present with a cover from 

30 to 60% and include species such as Lindera benzoin (spicebush), Staphylea trifolia (American 

bladdernut), Corylus americana (American hazelnut), Campsis radicans (trumpet creeper), and 

Toxicodendron radicans (eastern poison ivy). The herbaceous layer is diverse, with a canopy 

cover between 30 and 70%. Various species may be encountered in the herbaceous layer, 

including Laportea canadensis (Canadian woodnettle), Carex spp. (sedges), Asarum canadense 

(Canadian wildginger), Hydrophyllum virginianum (eastern waterleaf), Enemion biternatum 

(eastern false rue anemone), Arisaema dracontium (green dragon), Trillium spp. (trilliums), and 

numerous other species.

Primarily associated with the Upland Woodland Reporting Unit

Dominant Species: red oak/sugar maple-bitternut hickory 

General Historical Vegetation: mesic upland forest

Ecological Land Type: Mesic Footslope/High Terrace Forests

Ecological System: Ozark-Ouachita Mesic Hardwood Forest

Description: These forests have an almost closed canopy (90 to 100% canopy closure) to a 

height of 80 to 120 feet and a basal area from 90 to 120 sq. ft./acre. The overstory canopy is 

dominated by a variety of species including Quercus rubra (northern red oak), Acer saccharum 

(sugar maple), Quercus alba (white oak), Carya cordiformis (bitternut hickory), and Carya ovata 

(shagbark hickory). Other canopy species include Tilia americana (American basswood), 

Juglans nigra (black walnut), and Gymnocladus dioicus (Kentucky coffeetree). An understory 

(to a height of 5 to 25 feet) of saplings of the overstory as well as Asimina triloba (pawpaw), 

Aesculus glabra (Ohio buckey), Ulmus rubra (slippery elm), Carpinus caroliniana (American 

hornbeam), and Diospyros virginiana (common persimmon) is present. Shrubs are also present 

with a cover from 30 to 60% and include species such as Lindera benzoin (spicebush), Staphylea 

trifolia (American bladdernut), Corylus americana (American hazelnut), and Toxicodendron 

radicans (eastern poison ivy). The herbaceous layer is diverse, with a canopy cover between 30 

and 70%. Various species may be encountered in the herbaceous layer, including Laportea 

canadensis (Canadian woodnettle), Erigenia bulbosa (harbinger of spring), Cardamine 

concatenata (cutleaf toothwart), Erythronium albidum (white fawnlily), Enemion biternatum 
167

(eastern false rue anemone), Arisaema dracontium (green dragon), Trillium spp. (trilliums), 

numerous ferns, and numerous other species.

Primarily associated with the Upland Woodland and Upland Grassland Reporting Units

Dominant Species: white oak/black oak-hickory

General Historical Vegetation: dry-mesic oak woodland

Ecological Land Type: Alfic Chert Upland Woodlands AND Ultic Chert Upland Mixed 

Oak Woodland 

Ecological System: Ozark-Ouachita Dry-Mesic Oak Forest

Description: This open to closed woodland (50 to 80% canopy cover) may have a canopy 

reaching to 50 to 80 feet in height and a basal area between 80 and 100 sq. ft./acre. Dominant 

species of the overstory are Quercus alba (white oak), Quercus velutina (black oak), and Carya 

alba (mockernut hickory). The cover of the sapling/shrub layer varies from 20 to 40% cover and 

is often dominated by species such as Rhus aromatica (fragrant sumac), Vaccinium pallidum 

(lowbush blueberry), Parthenocissus quinquefolia (Virginia creeper), and Vaccinium arboreum 

(farkleberry). Other shrub species that may be present include Ceanothus americanus (New 

Jersey tea), Vitis aestivalis (summer grape), and Amorpha canescens (leadplant). The herbaceous 

layer has a cover from 60 to 90% and often contains more forbs than the drier post oak 

woodlands. Species dominant in the herbaceous layer may include Schizachyrium scoparium 

(little bluestem), Andropogon gerardii (big bluestem), Desmodium nudiflorum (nakedflower 

ticktrefoil), Desmodium marilandicum (smooth small-leaf ticktrefoil), Desmodium glutinosum 

(pointedleaf ticktrefoil), and Amphicarpaea bracteata (American hogpeanut). Monarda 

bradburiana (eastern beebalm), Helianthus hirsutus (hairy sunflower), Solidago ulmifolia (elmleaved goldenrod), Silene virginica (fire pink), Maianthemum racemosum (feathery false lily of 

the valley), and Geranium maculatum (spotted geranium) may also be common.

Primarily associated with the Upland Woodland Reporting Unit

Dominant Species: white oak/blackoak-hickory/dogwood

General Historical Vegetation: dry-mesic slope forest (acidic)

Ecological Land Type: Alfic Chert Protected Backslope Forests AND Limestone/Dolomite 

Protected Backslope Glade/Woodland Complex

Ecological System: Ozark-Ouachita Dry-Mesic Oak Forest

Description: This forest and woodland is dominated by Quercus alba (white oak), Quercus 

velutina (black oak), and Carya alba (mockernut hickory) with a relatively closed canopy 

(greater than 70% canopy closure), reaching heights of 60 to 80 feet, with a basal area of 

between 80 and 100 sq. ft./acre. Other canopy species that may be encountered include Quercus 

rubra (northern red oak), Quercus stellata (post oak), and Carya ovata (shagbark hickory). The 

understory and shrub layer is patchy with cover between 20 and 60% and containing species 

from the overstory as well as Cornus florida (flowering dogwood), Corylus americanus 

(American hazelnut), Ostrya virginiana (hophornbeam), Rhus aromatica (fragrant sumac), 

Parthenocissus quinquefolia (Virginia creeper), and Vitis spp. (grapes). The herbaceous layer is 

generally less than 40% cover and contains species such as Schizachyrium scoparium (little 

bluestem), Amphicarpaea bracteata (American hogpeanut), Desmodium nudiflorum (nakedleaf 

ticktrefoil), Desmodium glutinosum (pointedleaf ticktrefoil), Geranium maculatum (spotted 

geranium), and Maianthemum racemosum (feathery false lily of the valley).
168

Primarily associated with the Bottomland Forest 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 Quercus alba (white oak), with 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). 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).

Primarily associated with the Upland Woodland Reporting Unit

Dominant Species: white oak/bur oak-pecan

General Historical Vegetation: mesic slope forest

Ecological Land Type: Dry-Mesic Footslope/High Terrace Forests AND Dry-Mesic Upland 

Drainageway Woodlands

Ecological System: Ozark-Ouachita Dry-Mesic Oak Forest

Description: This mesic woodland or forest has a relatively closed canopy (70 to 80% canopy 

cover) to a height of 60 to 90 feet, with basal area ranging from 50 to 100 sq. ft./acre. On better 

drained terraces and footslopes, the dominant species of the canopy includes Quercus alba 

(white oak) and Quercus rubra (northern red oak). Other overstory species commonly 

encountered include Carya ovata (shagbark hickory), Carya alba (mockernut hickory), Ulmus 

americana (American elm), and Nyssa sylvatica (blackgum). The shrub and understory layer is 

typically not well-developed (0 to 30% canopy cover) and contains species such as Lindera 

benzoin (spicebush), Carpinus caroliniana (American hornbeam), Corylus caroliniana 

(American hazelnut), and Parthenocissus quinquefolia (Virginia creeper). Forbs, sedges, and 

grasses contribute to a variable herbaceous cover (30 to 70% cover) with species such as Elymus 

virginicus (Virginia wildrye), Carex amphibola (eastern narrowleaf sedge), Elephantopus 

carolinianus (Carolina elephantsfoot), Chasmanthium latifolium (Indian woodoats), 

Campanulastrum americanum (American bellflower), and Desmodium spp. (tick trefoils). Lower 
169

landscape positions that may be subject to periodic but brief flooding may have Carya 

illinoinensis (pecan), Quercus macrocarpa (bur oak), Carya cordiformis (bitternut hickory), and 

Quercus shumardii (Shumard’s oak). Such sites may also have Acer negundo (boxelder), Acer 

saccharinum (silver maple), and Fraxinus pennsylvanica (green ash) in the overstory.

Primarily associated with the Upland Woodland Reporting Unit

Dominant Species: white oak/red oak-black oak/sugar maple

General Historical Vegetation: mesic slope forest

Ecological Land Type: Very Mesic Slope Forest

Ecological System: Ozark-Ouachita Mesic Hardwood Forest

Description: This forest has a relatively closed canopy (70 to 100% canopy cover) with canopies 

reaching to 100 feet in height and basal areas ranging from 80 to 100 sq. ft./acre. Dominant 

species include Quercus alba (white oak), Quercus rubra (northern red oak), Acer saccharum 

(sugar maple), Quercus velutina (black oak), Carya ovata (shagbark hickory) and Carya 

cordiformis (bitternut hickory). Other canopy species include Quercus muehlenbergii

(chinquapin oak), Carya alba (mockernut hickory), and Quercus shumardii (Shumard’s oak). 

The understory and shrub canopy varies from 30 to 60% and contains saplings of the overstory 

species in addition to such species as Cercis canadensis (eastern redbud), Asimina triloba 

(pawpaw), Lindera benzoin (spicebush), Corylus americana (American hazelnut), Carpinus 

caroliniana (American hornbeam), and Cornus florida (flowering dogwood). The herbaceous 

layer is variable (from 30 to 60% cover) and contains numerous forbs, along with grass such as 

Elymus virginicus (Virginia wildrye) and Chasmanthium latifolium (Indian woodoats), and 

Carex spp. (sedges). 

Primary References:

Nelson, P. W., 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)

Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership. 2010. MoRAP Project: Ecological Classification for 

Missouri. 

http://www.cerc.usgs.gov/MoRAP/Assets/UploadedFiles/Projects/ecs/EcologicalClassificationS

ystemPoster.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 410/108235, 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