National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

Natural Resource Condition Assessment for 

Cumberland Gap National Historical Park

Natural Resource Report NPS/CUGA/NRR—2013/620
ON THE COVER

Pinnacle Overlook 

Photograph by D. McPherson
Natural Resource Condition Assessment for 

Cumberland Gap National Historical Park

Natural Resource Report NPS/CUGA/NRR—2013/620

Gary Sundin, Luke Worsham, Nathan P. Nibbelink, Michael T. Mengak, Gary Grossman

Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources 

University of Georgia

180 E. Green St.

Athens, GA 30602

January 2013

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science 

Fort Collins, Colorado
ii

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

Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are 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 formal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly 

involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data, and whose background and expertise 

put them on par technically and scientifically with the authors of the information.

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.

Printed copies of reports in these series may be produced in a limited quantity and they are only 

available as long as the supply lasts. This report is also available from the Integrated Resource 

Management Applications website (http://irma.nps.gov/) and the Natural Resource Publications 

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

Please cite this publication as:

Sundin, G., L. Worsham, N. Nibbelink, G. Grossman, and M. T. Mengak. 2013. Natural resource 

condition assessment for Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. Natural Resource Report 

NPS/CUGA/NRR—2013/620. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

NPS 380/119657, January 2013
iii

Contents

Page

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

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

Appendices.................................................................................................................................... xv

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... xvii

Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................... xx

Prologue ........................................................................................................................................ xx

Acronyms and Abbreviations: ..................................................................................................... xxi

Purpose............................................................................................................................................ 1

Ranking Methodology .................................................................................................................... 3

Data Description ............................................................................................................................. 7

Park Resources and Introduction .................................................................................................. 13

Park Location and Significance ............................................................................................. 13

Park Objectives...................................................................................................................... 13

Climate, Geology, and Soils.................................................................................................. 15

Hydrology.............................................................................................................................. 16

History and Park Significance ............................................................................................... 17

Natural Resources and NPS Vital Signs................................................................................ 18

Vertebrate Assemblages.................................................................................................... 19

Vegetation Communities .................................................................................................. 19

Invasive Plants.................................................................................................................. 20

Forest Pests ....................................................................................................................... 20

Natural Resource Conditions........................................................................................................ 21

Air and Climate...................................................................................................................... 21
iv

Contents (continued)

Page

Ozone ................................................................................................................................ 21

Foliar Injury ...................................................................................................................... 25

Geology and Soils.................................................................................................................. 30

Cave Meteorology............................................................................................................. 30

Water Quality......................................................................................................................... 37

Overview and Parameters................................................................................................. 37

Temperature ...................................................................................................................... 39

Specific Conductance........................................................................................................ 39

pH...................................................................................................................................... 40

Dissolved Oxygen............................................................................................................. 40

Acid-Neutralizing Capacity .............................................................................................. 40

Microorganisms ................................................................................................................ 41

Hydrology ......................................................................................................................... 41

Summary........................................................................................................................... 42

CUGA Historical Water Monitoring ..................................................................................... 42

Methodology..................................................................................................................... 42

Temperature ...................................................................................................................... 43

Dissolved Oxygen............................................................................................................. 43

pH...................................................................................................................................... 43

Specific Conductance........................................................................................................ 45

Acid Neutralizing Capacity............................................................................................... 45

Microorganisms ................................................................................................................ 45

Hydrology ......................................................................................................................... 46
v

Contents (continued)

Page

Summary........................................................................................................................... 46

Invasive Plants....................................................................................................................... 55

Focal Species .................................................................................................................... 55

Threat Ranking.................................................................................................................. 59

Susceptible Areas.............................................................................................................. 61

Summary........................................................................................................................... 62

Infestations and Disease ........................................................................................................ 64

Hemlock Woolly Adelgid................................................................................................. 64

Focal Species and Communities............................................................................................ 75

Vegetation Communities .................................................................................................. 75

Fish Communities............................................................................................................. 83

Bird Communities............................................................................................................. 91

Mammal Communities...................................................................................................... 99

Herpetofauna Communities............................................................................................ 105

Cave Bats........................................................................................................................ 113

At-Risk Plants...................................................................................................................... 118

Rare Plants...................................................................................................................... 118

Commercially Valuable Plants ....................................................................................... 124

Summary......................................................................................................................... 125

Landscape Dynamics........................................................................................................... 125

Land Use ......................................................................................................................... 125

Conclusions................................................................................................................................. 135

Summary.............................................................................................................................. 135
vi

Contents (continued)

Page

Natural Resource Conditions............................................................................................... 135

Ozone .............................................................................................................................. 135

Foliar injury .................................................................................................................... 136

Cave Meteorology........................................................................................................... 136

Water Quality.................................................................................................................. 137

Invasive Plants................................................................................................................ 137

Infestations and Disease.................................................................................................. 138

Vegetation Communities ................................................................................................ 139

Fish Communities........................................................................................................... 139

Bird Communities........................................................................................................... 140

Mammal Communities.................................................................................................... 140

Herpetofauna Communities............................................................................................ 140

Cave Bats........................................................................................................................ 141

At-Risk Plants................................................................................................................. 141

Landscape Dynamics...................................................................................................... 142

Natural Resource Synthesis............................................................................................ 142

Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................... 145
vii

Figures

Page

Figure 1. Summary of condition ranks and trends assigned to 16 ecological attributes 

from five broad categories in Cumberland Gap National Historical Park................................... xix

Figure 2. Cumberland Gap National Historical Park is located along the tri-state border 

of KY, VA, and TN....................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 3. Diagrams showing the Cumberland (left) and Powell (right) rivers and their 

creation of the Cumberland Gap through the Pine (left) and Cumberland (right) ranges 

(McFarlan 1943). .......................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 4. Cumberland Gap NHP straddles the Powell and Upper Cumberland 

hydrologic cataloging units, which in turn fall respectively in the Tennessee River and 

Ohio hydrologic regions. .............................................................................................................. 17

Figure 5. Limestone caves in Cumberland Gap NHP are home to the endangered 

Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis). ........................................................................................................ 19

Figure 6. Passive ozone sampling took place at three locations in CUGA during 2005. ............ 22

Figure 7. Daily mean 8-hr ozone concentrations from two POMS sites during peak 

summer monitoring periods. ......................................................................................................... 24

Figure 8. Three-year mean 4th highest annual 8-hr concentrations from 2001-2009 at 

the Speedwell CASTNet site, which is located 9.8 km from the park in Clairborne 

County, TN. ................................................................................................................................ 24

Figure 9. Foliar injury summary metrics predicted by the Air Resources Division for 

1995-1999, and as reported by the GPMP based on portable ozone monitoring data for 

2007-2008. .................................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 10. Mean daily temperature from 2002-2011 from data loggers placed at five 

locations in Gap Cave, Cumberland Gap National Historical Park.............................................. 32

Figure 11. Mean temperature across years calculated using daily means from 2002-2011 

from data loggers placed at five locations in Gap Cave, Cumberland Gap National 

Historical Park. ............................................................................................................................. 32

Figure 12. Mean daily relative humidity from 2002-2011 from data loggers placed at 

five locations in Gap Cave, Cumberland Gap National Historical Park....................................... 33

Figure 13. Mean relative humidity across years calculated using daily means from 

2002-2009 from data loggers placed at five locations in Gap Cave, Cumberland Gap 

National Historical Park................................................................................................................ 33
viii

Figures (continued)

Page

Figure 14. Mean daily temperature collected 2001-2011 from data loggers placed in 

Cave A by the National Park Service and the Virginia Department of Inland Game and 

Fisheries. ....................................................................................................................................... 34

Figure 15. Mean daily relative humidity from 2002-2011 from a data logger placed in 

Cave A, an Indiana bat hibernacula in Cumberland Gap National Historical Park...................... 34

Figure 16. Mean temperature across years of the mean daily temperatures recorded from 

a VDGIF datalogger placed near an Indiana bat hibernacula in Cave A...................................... 35

Figure 17. Ten I&M water quality stations within CUGA were sampled monthly 

between 2006 and 2008. ............................................................................................................... 38

Figure 18. Data from stations available in EPAStoret were used to assess historical 

monitoring at CUGA..................................................................................................................... 44

Figure 19. Box and whisker water quality data at CUGA during the first round of 

monthly I&M sampling (’06-’08): Davis Branch (DB10), Gap Creek (GC7), Martin’s 

Fork (MF5), Railroad Creek (RR1), Shillalah Creek (SH10), Sugar Run (SRSR), 

Station Creek (ST9), Tunnel Creek (TC10), Upper Little Yellow Creek (YC1), and 

Little Yellow Creek (YC12). ........................................................................................................ 48

Figure 20. Annual series of historical monitoring data at CUGA from EPAStoret 

(1990-2007) plotting mean with standard error. ........................................................................... 51

Figure 21. E. coli concentrations were collected on Station Creek from 2003-2011, 

including the official I&M collections beginning in Oct. 2006.................................................... 54

Figure 22. Princesstree is a prolific seed-producer that can colonize hard-to-reach 

places. [Source: James H. Miller, USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org] .................................... 56

Figure 23. Mimosa, a legume with a propensity for resprouting, is among the invasives 

treated at CUGA. [Source: James H. Miller, USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org]................... 57

Figure 24. Kudzu can quickly invade and cover native vegetation. [Source: Kerry 

Britton, USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org]............................................................................. 57

Figure 25. Crown vetch is another exotic legume that requires considerable 

management attention at CUGA................................................................................................... 58

Figure 26. Exotic treatment sites along Wilderness Rd. since 2005............................................. 63

Figure 27. Treatments for hemlock woolly adelgid included pesticide drenches and 

predatory beetle releases from 2007 – 2011. ................................................................................ 66
ix

Figures (continued)

Page

Figure 28. As of 2011, 20 counties in NW KY and five counties in TN have been 

quarantined due to the presence of emerald ash-borer.................................................................. 67

Figure 29. Since 2008, the invasion front of gypsy moth continues to spread southwest 

into Kentucky, though no counties surrounding CUGA have reported gypsy moth 

sightings to the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS, NAPIS 2011)............................. 69

Figure 30. Southern pine beetle risk map produced by Forest Health Technology Enterprise 

Team (Ellenwood and Krist 2007) shown for the CUGA area shows forest stands of highest risk 

in the north-central section of the park, which closely coincides with the Blue Ridge Table 

Mountain Pine-Pitch Pine Woodland forest type.........................................................71

Figure 31. The CUGA Fire Use Module prescribes periodic burns in each of the 

different burn units in the park...................................................................................................... 72

Figure 32. As part of the recent NatureServe assessment by White (2006), 35 of 100 

plots recorded one of four main disturbances: southern pine beetle damage, evidence of 

logging, erosion, or evidence of fire. ............................................................................................ 74

Figure 33. Using the NatureServe (2005) classification scheme, 33 vegetation 

community types were identified in CUGA [Source: CRMS]. .................................................... 76

Figure 34. Four vegetation community types at CUGA are globally ranked as G2 or 

G1, representing globally imperiled and critically imperiled, respectively.................................. 78

Figure 35. Walker and Ballinger (2007) conducted plant and lichen community surveys 

along the White Rocks cliff system at 12 transects. [Figure taken from White et al. 

(2007)]........................................................................................................................................... 80

Figure 36. Streams in and around Cumberland Gap National Historical Park, showing 

locations of fish samples collected in 2004 by Remley (2005). ................................................... 84

Figure 37. Bird Community Index (BCI) scores for 49 individual point count bird lists 

(top figure) and for five-count bird lists (bottom figure), for bird counts taken during a 

2003-2004 survey at Cumberland Gap National Historical Park (Monroe 2005)........................ 96

Figure 38. Bird Community Index scores (O’Connell et al. 1998) for 0-10 stop BBS 

data collected from Cumberland Gap (bold series) and for nine other BBS routes within 

100 km of Cumberland Gap National Historical Park over a 10-year period (Sauer et al. 

2008). ............................................................................................................................................ 97

Figure 39. Conservation value index scores (Nuttle et al. 2003) for 0-10 stop BBS data 

collected from Cumberland Gap (bold series) and for nine other BBS routes within 100 

km of Cumberland Gap National Historical Park over a 10-year period (Sauer et al. 

2008). ............................................................................................................................................ 98
x

Figures (continued)

Page

Figure 40. Points sampled for mammals in the most recent CUGA mammal survey 

conducted by Gumbert et al. (2006). .......................................................................................... 100

Figure 41. Three pond clusters containing 16 ponds were monitored for breeding effort 

of wood frogs (Rana sylvatica) and spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) since 

1993............................................................................................................................................. 108

Figure 42. Total egg masses of Rana sylvatica and Ambystoma maculatum counted 

annually at three clusters of ponds (south, middle, and north) in Cumberland Gap 

National Historical Site. ............................................................................................................ 109

Figure 43. Total precipitation (cm) from November 1 of the previous year through April 

30 of the current year and total egg masses of Rana sylvatica and Ambystoma 

maculatum counted at all sites from 2003-2010 at Cumberland Gap National Historical 

Park. ............................................................................................................................................ 110

Figure 44. Total egg masses of Rana sylvatica and Ambystoma maculatum counted at 

constructed wetlands and at nearby reference ponds from 1993-2010 at Cumberland 

Gap National Historical Park...................................................................................................... 111

Figure 45. Numbers of Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) counted biennially, 1993-2011, in 

two winter hibernacula in Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. ...................................... 115

Figure 46. With each successive buffer perspective, developed and grassland/shrub 

landcover increase at the expense of forest under both NLCD and GAP landcover 

datasets........................................................................................................................................ 131

Figure 47. Mean species richness for each community type sampled by White (2006). 

Appalachian Oak-Hickory Forest was the most commonly sampled vegetation type (19 

plots), while the Ridge and Valley Limestone Oak-Hickory Forest showed the highest 

average plant biodiversity (1 plot). ............................................................................................. 132
xi

Tables

Page

Table 1. Hierarchical framework of ecological attributes assessed at Cumberland Gap 

National Historical Park for this Natural Resource Condition Assessment. .................................. 4

Table 2. Example condition assessments. .................................................................................... 6

Table 3. Summary of ecological attributes, assessment measures, and data sources used 

in a Natural Resource Condition Assessment of Cumberland Gap National Historical 

Park. ................................................................................................................................................ 8

Table 4. The condition status for ozone at CUGA was ranked fair with an improving 

trend. The data quality for this assessment was good.................................................................. 25

Table 5. Thirty-one species at CUGA were identified as sensitive to ozone by crossreferencing Porter’s (2003) general sensitivity list with the NPSpecies list for CUGA............... 27

Table 6. Set of foliar injury indices for CUGA (NPS ARD 2004).............................................. 28

Table 7. Palmer Z indices for Sum06 at CUGA (NPS ARD 2004).............................................. 29

Table 8. Palmer Z indices for W126 at CUGA (NPS ARD 2004). ............................................. 29

Table 9. The condition status for foliar injury at CUGA was ranked fair with a stable 

trend. The data quality ranking for this attribute was poor.......................................................... 30

Table 10. No rank was assigned to cave meteorology condition at Cumberland Gap 

National Historical Park................................................................................................................ 36

Table 11. The condition status for water quality is divided into three attributes: surface 

water, water chemistry, and microorganisms.. ............................................................................. 47

Table 12. Thirty-one plant species at CUGA are considered significantly or severely 

invasive by the TN and KY Exotic Pest Plant Councils based on their ability to invade 

and displace native vegetation communities................................................................................. 59

Table 13. CUGA was assigned a status of fair for invasive plants with no trend. Data 

quality was assigned a status a of good. ....................................................................................... 64

Table 14. The condition status for insect pests at CUGA was assigned a ranking of poor 

with a decreasing trend. The data quality was good. ................................................................... 75

Table 15. NatureServe conservation global status ranks are based on the rarity and risk 

of elimination for a vegetation community throughout its range (NatureServe 2011)................. 77

Table 16. Geographically disjunct lichen species identified by Walker and Ballinger 

(2007) at White Rocks in CUGA.................................................................................................. 82
xii

Tables (continued)

Page

Table 17. The condition status for vegetation communities at CUGA was not ranked. 

The data quality was good. communities at CUGA. .................................................................... 83

Table 18. Family and species of fishes reported from fish sampling efforts by Barbour 

et al. (1979), Stephens (2002a,b; 2007), and Remley (2005) in Cumberland Gap 

National Historical Park................................................................................................................ 86

Table 19. Individuals sampled (N), species richness (S) with number native species in 

parentheses, Kentucky Index of Biotic Integrity (KIBI) score, and KIBI interpretation, 

for sampling efforts reported in three fish survey reports at Cumberland Gap National 

Historical Park (Stephens 2002a,b; Remley 2005; Stephens 2007). ............................................ 90

Table 20. Physical habitat scores calculated by Remley (2005) based upon 

Environmental Protection Agency bioassessment techniques (Barbour et al. 1999). .................. 91

Table 21. The quality of fish communities at Cumberland Gap National Historical Park 

was good.. ..................................................................................................................................... 91

Table 22. Birds of conservation concern reported from CUGA during a 2003-2004 

survey (Monroe 2005)................................................................................................................... 93

Table 23. The condition of the bird community at Cumberland Gap National Historical 

Park was excellent......................................................................................................................... 99

Table 24. Mammals reported in Cumberland Gap National Historical Site by Barbour 

et al. (1979) and Gumbert et al. (2006)....................................................................................... 102

Table 25. Summary of trapping result for shrews, and native rats, mice, and voles for 

four studies in Kentucky and in the south and central Appalachian Mountains showing 

total species by category and number of species unique among the studies. ............................. 103

Table 26. Number of native species reported from a recent mammal inventory at 

CUGA, compared to number of native species expected (Gumbert et al. 2006)........................ 104

Table 27. The condition of the mammal community at Cumberland Gap NHP was good, 

with good data quality................................................................................................................. 105

Table 28. Herpetofaunal species expected to occur in Cumberland Gap National 

Historical Park, and those actually reported from sampling in the park..................................... 106

Table 29. Number of expected herpetofaunal species and number and percentage of 

species actually reported during recent sampling efforts at CUGA. .......................................... 107
xiii

Tables (continued)

Page

Table 30. The condition of the herpetofauna community at Cumberland Gap National 

Historical Park was good. ........................................................................................................... 113

Table 31. Cave-hibernating bats captured in mist nets or harp traps in Cumberland Gap 

National Historical Park during a general mammal survey by Gumbert et al. (2006), the 

relative abundance (RA) of each species in the total sample of captured bats, and the 

number of cave entrances of three sampled, in which each species was reported...................... 114

Table 32. The condition of cave bats was good at Cumberland Gap National Historical 

Park. .......................................................................................................................................... 117

Table 33. State or federally-listed and state-ranked plant species identified as Present in 

Park or Probably Present at CUGA. [table and definitions from Moore (2010); statuses 

current as of June 2008].............................................................................................................. 119

Table 34. Rare plant species previously found at CUGA by Pounds et al. (1989) and 

other sources that were not located by White and Littlefield (2008) in 2008............................. 122

Table 35. Management Guideline for Rare Plants. (from White and Littlefield 2008)............. 123

Table 36. The condition status of rare plants at CUGA was ranked as good with a 

declining trend. The data quality was fair.................................................................................. 125

Table 37. Comparison of park unit 2001 NLCD classifications, including Fern Lake 

watershed, with 400m and 1 km buffers (areas in ha). ............................................................... 126

Table 38. Comparison of park unit 2001 GAP classifications, including Fern Lake, with 

400m and 1 km buffers (areas in ha). ......................................................................................... 127

Table 39. Of the 33 vegetation communities identified by White (2006), 27 were 

represented by one of the 101 survey plots established during 2002-2004. ............................... 129

Table 40. The condition status for landscape dynamics at CUGA was not ranked, but 

was assigned a stable trend. ........................................................................................................ 133

xv

Appendices

Page

Appendix A. NPS Ecological Monitoring Framework table, with highlighted 

categories representing relevant vital signs and features specifically selected for 

CUGA—‘*’ denotes an official vital sign as identified by the CUPN for CUGA by 

the network monitoring plan....................................................................................................... 159

Appendix B. Bird species reported from Cumberland Gap National Historical Park 

during a 2003-2004 survey (Monroe 2005)................................................................................ 163

Appendix C. Certified species list of vascular plants listed as “Present” or 

“Probably Present” at CUGA...................................................................................................... 165

xvii

Executive Summary

This report provides a comprehensive assessment of the state of natural resources at Cumberland 

Gap National Historical Park (CUGA). It also addresses sets of stressors that threaten these 

resources and the biological integrity of habitats in the park. This assessment focuses on vital 

signs outlined by the Cumberland/Piedmont Network, and other attributes relevant to the park’s 

natural resources. Assessed attributes are roughly organized into broad groups of resources as 

follows: air and climate, geology and soils, water, biological integrity, and landscape dynamics. 

Data used in the assessment includes I&M reports and bio-inventories, spatial information, parkcommissioned reports, publicly-available data (EPA Storet, National Landcover Datasets), and 

personal communication. No new field data were collected for this report. When available, 

published criteria were used to derive a condition assessment based on available data, and when 

appropriate, we identify opportunities for improved data collection to allow for stronger 

assessment in the future. 

Cumberland Gap National Historical Park is a 9,800 ha area of natural beauty that runs linearly 

along Cumberland Mountain in the Southern Appalachians. Roughly 5,700 ha of this area is 

currently proposed as wilderness. The park receives over 900,000 visitors each year, with 

highest rates of visitation during spring, summer, and fall. Virtually all (97%) of the park area is 

forested, which serves as habitat to a large variety of flora and fauna. A total of 970 vascular 

plants have been documented in the park, including 90 species considered rare or sensitive. The 

park also represents a major corridor and refuge for bird species, and 145 were reported from 

recent inventories. Mammals total 40 species, including several state-listed species and the 

federally-listed Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) which depends on the extensive cave network found 

at the park. Over 100 km of streams flow through the park, virtually all of which also originate 

inside the park. Recent inventory efforts have reported 27 fish species including the federallylisted blackside dace (Chrosomus cumberlandensis). Reptiles and amphibians total 36 species

reported from inventory and monitoring efforts. Overall, several broad classes of potential 

threats and stressors to natural resources are applicable to CUGA and are addressed in this 

report. They include:

Decreased air quality – High ozone concentrations pose human health risks and can cause foliar 

injury to sensitive vegetation. 

Decreased water quality – High levels of bacterial contaminants and changes in water chemistry 

can pose human health risks, harm sensitive aquatic species, and can leave waters vulnerable to 

the effects of atmospheric deposition. 

Exotic plant species – The presence and proliferation of exotic plants can cause loss of native 

plant diversity and can negatively alter habitat for animal communities. 

Exotic/range-expanding/parasitic animal species – The presence and proliferation of exotic 

animal species, species outside of their native range, and parasitic species can cause loss of 

native animal diversity. 

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. xx) for more information.
xviii

Animal disease – Several threats or potential threats to vertebrate populations are recognized for 

the park. These diseases could have impacts at the population level.

Animal damage – Habitat damage caused by beavers can negatively impact habitat for aquatic 

species, including species of concern.

Insect pests – Insect pests can cause loss of native plant diversity and negatively impact 

ecosystems and wildlife habitat. 

Altered fire regimes – Loss of fire in an ecosystem can cause loss of plant and animal 

biodiversity and alter successional patterns. 

Landscape change – An expansive category including negative impacts from development, 

human population increases, agricultural land uses, and habitat alteration and fragmentation. 

Sixteen ecological attributes were assessed for this report (Figure 1). Of these, eight (50%) were 

ranked good or excellent, five (31%) were ranked as fair or poor, and three (19%) were not 

assigned a rank due to lack of appropriate data or lack of appropriate ranking protocols. 

Assessment method and data quality were both highly variable among assessed attributes. 

Therefore condition rankings are not necessarily directly comparable. Additional protocols are 

currently underway for vegetation and landscape dynamics monitoring (e.g. NPScape), which 

will aid future condition assessment efforts within CUPN parks.
xix

Figure 1. Summary of condition ranks and trends assigned to 16 ecological attributes from five broad 

categories in Cumberland Gap National Historical Park.

Key

No condition 

assigned

Fair

Good

Poor

Excellent

CUGA

Air and 

Climate Water Biological Integrity Landscapes

Geology 

and Soils

OzoneFoliar Injury

Cave Meteorology

Surface Water

Water Chemistry

Microorganisms

Invasive PlantsInsect Pests

Vegetation Communities

Fish

BirdsMammalsHerpetofauna Cave Bats

Rare Plants

Land Use

Air Quality Hydrology

Water 

Quality

Invasive 

Species

Infestation/ 

Disease

Focal 

Communities

At-Risk 

Biota

Landscape 

Dynamics

Subsurface 

Processes
xx

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank staff of the Cumberland/Piedmont Network, including Teresa Leibfreid, Bill 

Moore, and Shepard McAninch for their contributions, edits, and overall assistance with this 

project. We are also grateful to CUGA natural resource specialist Jenny Beeler and 

Superintendent Mark Woods, who provided much assistance. Helpful editorial comments for 

this report were provided by Kurt Helf, Steven Thomas, Rickie White, Johnathan Jernigan, and 

Tom Govus. Thanks also to Dale McPherson, for his invaluable logistical support throughout 

the NRCA process.

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.
xxi

Acronyms and Abbreviations:

ANC - Acid Neutralizing Capacity

ARD - National Park Service Air Resources Division

AVIP - Aviation Conservation Implementation Plan

BBS - Breeding Bird Survey

BCI - Bird Community Index

BOD - Biochemical Oxygen Demand

CASTNET - Clean Air Status and Trends Network

CERG - Cliff Face Ecology Research Group

COOP - Cooperative Observer Program

CRMS - Center for Remote Sensing and Mapping Science (UGA Department of Geography)

CUGA - Cumberland Gap National Historical Park

CUPN – Cumberland Piedmont Monitoring Network

DO - Dissolved Oxygen 

EMF - Ecological Monitoring Framework

EPA - Environmental Protection Agency

FAA - Federal Aviation Administration

GRSM - Great Smoky Mountains National Park

HUC - Hydrologic Unit Code

I&M - Inventory and Monitoring

MRLC - Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium

NAAQS - National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NHP – National Historical Park

NLCD - National Landcover Dataset

NPS - National Park Service

NRCA - Natural Resource Condition Assessment

NRCS - Natural Resource Conservation Service

NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Unit

NWS - National Weather Service

PIF - Partners in Flight

POMS - Portable Ozone Monitoring Station

PPM - Parts per million

RAWS - Remote Automated Weather Station

SAO - Surface Airways Observation Network

SSURGO - Soil Survey Geographic

UGA - University of Georgia

USGS - United States Geological Survey

VOC - Volatile Organic Compounds

1

Purpose

The objective of this Natural Resource Condition Assessment (NRCA) is to analyze existing data 

to provide an assessment of the current conditions of key ecological attributes at Cumberland 

Gap National Historical Park (CUGA). The National Park Service has initiated an Inventory and 

Monitoring (I&M) Program to collect and analyze data on park natural resources (NPS 2010a). 

Goals of this program include the collection of baseline inventory data on park resources, and the 

monitoring of key resource condition indicators (NPS 2010a). Based on location and natural 

resource characteristics, the NPS assigned park units to one of 32 ecoregional networks. Each 

network chose a subset of “vital signs” to represent “physical, chemical, and biological elements 

and processes of park ecosystems that...represent the overall health or condition of park 

resources, known or hypothesized effects of stressors, or elements that have important human 

values” (NPS 2010a). Cumberland Gap National Historical Park is a member of the Cumberland

Piedmont Network (CUPN), and the vital signs chosen by this Network (see Appendix A) 

received much of the focus of our efforts. This report will assist in establishing baseline 

conditions, will aid park personnel in future management decisions, and will serve as a summary 

of key biotic and abiotic ecological attributes.

The primary audience for our report includes park-level superintendents and resource managers, 

with a secondary focus on regional managers and coordinators. This report will be useful for 

several decision and management functions including near-term strategic planning, resource and 

budget allocation, General Management Plan (GMP) and Resource Stewardship Strategy 

development, and Desired Condition management objectives. In addition, this report will be a 

valuable contribution for broader directives including assessment of the Department of Interior’s 

“land health goals,” or the “resource condition scorecard” created by the Federal Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB).

3

Ranking Methodology

We based our ranking framework upon the National Park Service Ecological Monitoring 

Framework (EMF, Fancy et al. 2009, Table 1). The NPS framework divides monitoring into six 

general categories: air and climate, geology and soils, water, biological integrity, human use, and 

landscape pattern and processes (Fancy et al. 2009). Each of these general categories, referred to 

as level-one, is further subdivided into level-two and level-three categories (Appendix A). 

Identified NPS vital signs and other attributes assessed in this report were level-three categories. 

For example, the level-one category biological integrity is divided into four level-two categories: 

invasive species, infestations and disease, focal species or communities, and at-risk biota. 

Invasive species, in turn, includes two level-three categories: invasive/exotic plants and 

invasive/exotic animals. Using this framework assisted us in selecting a meaningful subset of 

ecological attributes from a comprehensive list. It provided an organized system to discuss 

attributes and present findings. And because it is hierarchical, results could be summarized at 

multiple levels.

To assess park natural resources we considered the current condition of resources, the trend of 

the current condition, and the quality of the data available for each resource. We developed a list 

of ecological attributes suitable for condition assessment using 1) level-three category attributes 

from the monitoring framework described above, 2) the inventory and monitoring goals for the 

Cumberland Piedmont Network (CUPN, Leibfreid et al. 2005), and 3) input from CUGA staff. 

Methods used to assess the condition of each attribute are described in the appropriate sections of 

this report. When appropriate, we performed statistical comparisons using a = 0.05. The 

condition of each attribute was graphically represented with a colored circle where the color 

indicated the condition on a four-tiered scoring system of excellent (dark green), good (light 

green), fair (yellow), or poor (red). For several attributes, a condition was not assigned because 

available data were insufficient or because we lacked a defensible ranking method. These 

attributes are indicated with a blue circle. 
4

Table 1. Hierarchical framework of ecological attributes assessed at Cumberland Gap National Historical 

Park for this Natural Resource Condition Assessment.

Ecological Monitoring Framework—CUGA 

Level 1 Category Level 2 Category Level 3 Category

Specific Resource / Area 

of Interest

Air and Climate Air Quality Ozone Ozone levels

Foliar Injury Ozone impact on native 

plants

Geology and Soils Subsurface Geologic 

Processes

Cave Meteorology Air temperature, relative 

humidity

Water Hydrology Surface water dynamics Discharge

Water Quality Water Chemistry Temp, pH, specific 

conductivity, DO, ANC

Microorganisms E. Coli and fecal coliforms

Biological Integrity Invasive Species Invasive/Exotic Plants Presence/absence, 

distribution, invasibility

Infestations and 

Disease

Forest Pests Hemlock woolly adelgid, 

emerald ash borer, Gypsy 

moths, Asian long-horned 

beetle, southern pine 

beetle

Focal Species and 

Communities

Vegetation Communities Forest vegetation 

communities, cliffline 

vegetation communities, 

wetland vegetation 

communities, structure, 

composition, extent

Fish Communities Diversity, IBIs

Bird Communities IBIs, richness, abundance

Mammal Communities Observed vs. expected 

community, comparison 

with comparable efforts

Reptile and Amphibian 

Communities

Reported vs. expected 

community, amphibian 

breeding effort

Cave Bats Cave use, relative 

abundance of cave 

obligates, reported vs. 

expected community,

At-risk Plants Rare Plants Presence and distribution 

of rare plants and plant 

communities

Landscape Landscape Dynamics Land Cover and Land Use 

Change

Changes within CUGA vs. 

changes in surrounding 

landscape
5

When possible, we assigned a trend to the condition of each assessed attribute. We graphically 

presented condition trend using an arrow within the condition circle. Arrow orientation indicated 

improving condition (arrow points up), stable condition (arrow points right), or deteriorating 

condition (arrow points down). As with condition status, we did not assign a trend in cases 

where data were insufficient, or when we lacked a defensible method to determine a trend. In 

cases where no trend was assigned, the arrow-shaped trend graphic was omitted from the 

condition ranking. 

For each assessed attribute, we also assessed the quality of the data used to determine the 

condition. This was done to provide context for the reliability of the rankings and to help 

identify areas where insufficient data exist. Specific data sources and characteristics are 

discussed within the narrative of each attribute section. Data quality was assessed using three 

pass-fail categories—thematic, spatial, and temporal—and was adopted from the data quality 

ranking utilized by Dorr et al. (2009). The “thematic” category refers to the relevance of the data 

used to make the assessment, such as whether the attribute of interest was measured directly or 

inferred from a secondary variable. The “spatial” requirement was met if the available data were 

spatially relevant for the assessment. The “temporal” requirement was met if the data were 

collected sufficiently recently to reflect the current condition at the time of publication. An 

overall data quality rank was assigned by summing the criteria that were met. Data quality was 

good (green bar) if all three criteria were met, fair (yellow bar) if two were met, or poor (red bar) 

if one was met. In rare cases where a good condition was assigned to an attribute for which data 

quality was poor, attention is drawn to the ranking with an asterisk. Data quality is graphically 

presented beside the condition and trend assessment of each attribute. Table 2 provides

examples of the data quality graphics used in this report.

We have provided a comprehensive assessment of park condition with the caveat that our 

analysis is limited by the type and quality of data available, and by the availability of evaluation 

methods and reference conditions. Although we attempted to assess conditions using relevant 

and defensible metrics for each attribute, it is important to note that condition rankings are 

relative for each condition, and identical rankings for different attributes may hold separate 

meanings and implications. When possible, we used published metrics and established reference 

thresholds to assign rankings. In cases where no published quantitative metric or standard was 

available, we used our own judgment, often basing our decision on similar metrics available in 

the literature.
6

Table 2. Example condition assessments. Attribute condition is indicated by the color of the circle. Dark 

green=excellent, light green=good, yellow=fair, red=poor, blue=no condition assigned. Condition trend is 

indicated by the arrow within the circle. Pointing up=improving condition, pointing right=stable condition, 

pointing down=declining/deteriorating condition, no arrow=no trend assigned. Checkmarks indicate 

whether data met the thematic, spatial, and temporal criteria for data quality, as described in the text. 

The colored bar under the check marks indicates the overall data quality score. Green (good) = 3 checks, 

yellow (fair) = 2 checks, red (poor) = 1 check. An asterisk (*) brings additional attention when an attribute 

was ranked as good with data meeting only one quality criterion.

Condition: None assigned

Trend: None assigned

Data Quality: Good

Example 5:

3 of 3: Good

Condition: Fair

Trend: Declining

Data Quality: Fair

Example 3: 

2 of 3: Fair

Condition: Poor

Trend: None assigned

Data Quality: Poor

Example 4:

1 of 3: Poor

3 of 3: Good

Condition: Good

Trend: Stable

Data Quality: Poor

Example 2:

1 of 3: Poor

Temporal

Condition: Excellent

Trend: Improving

Data Quality: Good

Example 1:

Thematic Spatial Interpretation

Condition 

Attribute & Trend

Data Quality

*
7

Data Description

We used a variety of data sources in this report. Data collected pursuant of I&M program goals 

were our most important source of information about park resources. We also used other data 

provided by NPS staff at CUGA (e.g. personal communication, unpublished reports, 

management plans), and relevant data available from non-NPS sources. In some cases, raw data 

were available in electronic spreadsheets or databases. In other cases, data were taken from

written documents. Other data were available for download in electronic form from online 

databases. Table 3 summarizes the data and sources that were used in the following condition 

assessments.
8

Table 3. Summary of ecological attributes, assessment measures, and data sources used in a Natural Resource Condition Assessment of

Cumberland Gap National Historical Park.

Attribute Assessment Measure Data Sources Data Description Data Period

Ozone 4th highest maximum 

8-hour average ozone 

concentration

Portable Ozone Monitoring System 

(POMS) in CUGA

Hourly measurements of ozone 

concentration within CUGA

May-September, 

2005-2010

NPS Air Resources Division (ARD) Model-interpolated ozone exposure 

maps using data from general region

1995-1999 period, 

1999-2003 period, 

2003-2007 period

Gaseous Pollutant and Monitoring Program 

(GPMP) summaries, (Air Resource 

Specialists 2009 a,b)

Monthly summary reports August and 

September 2009

Clean Air Status and Trends Network 

(CASTNet), EPA monitoring station in 

Speedwell

1999-2008

2nd highest 1-hr ozone 

concentration

Portable Ozone Monitoring System 

(POMS) in CUGA

Hourly measurements of ozone 

concentration within CUGA

May-September, 

2005-2008

Foliar injury risk 

predictions (3-metric 

index)

NPS report for the Cumberland Piedmont 

Monitoring Network (NPS ARD 2004)

Kriged predictions extracted from USwide ozone models1995-2003

Cave 

Meteorology

Air temperature and 

relative humidity

Data loggers placed in caves within CUGA 

(CUGA unpublished data; VDGIF 

unpublished data)

Measurements recorded regularly at 

several locations in two caves in 

CUGA

1998-2011

Surface Water 

Dynamics

Flow (l/sec) NPStoret data for CUGA Raw water quality monitoring data 

from sampling at 10 stations within 

CUGA

2006-2008

NPS Water Quality Monitoring Report for 

CUGA (Meiman 2009)

Summarized water quality data for 

CUGA

2006-2008

NPS Water Resources Division (WRD) Historical and current monitoring 

conducted by park

1980-2008

Water Chemistry Temperature (max, 

mean), pH (mean), 

specific conductance 

(mean), DO (mean), 

ANC (mean)

NPStoret data for CUGA Raw water quality monitoring data 

from sampling at 10 stations within 

CUGA

2006-2008

NPS Water Quality Monitoring Report for 

CUGA (Meiman 2009)

Summarized water quality data for 

CUGA

2006-2008

NPS Water Resourced Division (WRD) Historical and current monitoring 

conducted by park

1980-2008
9

Table 3. Summary of ecological attributes, assessment measures, and data sources used in a Natural Resource Condition Assessment of 

Cumberland Gap National Historical Park (continued).

Attribute Assessment Measure Data Sources Data Description Data Period

Microorganisms E. Coli (mean 

colonies/100mL), fecal 

coliforms (mean 

colonies/100 mL)

NPStoret data for CUGA Raw water quality monitoring data 

from sampling at 10 stations within 

CUGA

2006-2008

NPS Water Quality Monitoring Report for 

CUGA (Meiman 2009)

Summarized water quality data for 

CUGA

2006-2008

NPS Water Resourced Division (WRD) Historical and current monitoring 

conducted by park

1980-2008

Invasive/Exotic 

Plants

Presence, relative 

predominance, and 

invasability of exotics

NatureServe vegetation assessment (White 

2006)

Report, and discussion from CUGA 

vegetation survey

2003-2004

NPS Exotic vegetation survey (Butler et al. 

1981)

Survey of invasive woody vegetation 

at CUGA

1980

CUGA records Exotic plant treatment locations 2005-2009

Insect Pests Presence and 

distribution of Hemlock 

woolly adelgid

NatureServe vegetation assessment (White 

2006)

Report, and discussion from CUGA 

vegetation survey

2003-2004

CUGA GIS data Location of imidacloprid treatments, 

and predator beetle releases in CUGA

2007-2010

Presence or absence 

of emerald ash borer

USDA/APHIS Online insect pest distribution maps 2011

Presence or absence 

of Gypsy moths

KY Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey 

(CAPS)

Online summary of gypsy moth survey 

findings

2005-2011

USDA Forest Service Trapping records in park from 11-15 

traps

2004-2010

Presence or absence 

of Asian long-horned 

beetle

USDA Forest Service Online Asian long-horned beetle pest 

report

2009

Risk of infection by 

southern pine beetle

US Forest Service, Forest Health 

Technology Enterprise Team (Krist et al. 

2007) (add to bib)

Southern pine beetle hazard maps for 

US at several resolutions

2007

NatureServe vegetation assessment (White 

2006)

Report, and discussion from CUGA 

vegetation survey

2003-2004
10

Table 3. Summary of ecological attributes, assessment measures, and data sources used in a Natural Resource Condition Assessment of 

Cumberland Gap National Historical Park (continued).

Attribute

Assessment 

Measure Data Sources Data Description Data Period

Vegetation 

Communities

Presence of G1-G3 

ranked forest 

communities

NatureServe and Center for Remote Sensing 

and Mapping Science at UGA

NatureServe vegetation assessment (White 

2006)

Spatially explicit description of CUGA

vegetation communities

Report, and discussion from CUGA 

vegetation survey

2002

2003-2004

Presence of G1-G3 

ranked clifflline 

community 

assemblages

Walker and Ballinger (2007)) report: Physical 

Variables and Community Structure of the 

White Rocks Cliff System

Report of comprehensive survey conducted 

at White Rocks Outcrop in CUGA

2005-2006

NatureServe vegetation assessment (White 

2006)

Report, and discussion from CUGA 

vegetation survey

2003-2004

Function and 

composition of 

wetland community 

assemblages

Wetland mitigation site function assessments 

(Petranka 2002, 2005)

Reports on assessments of the function of 

constructed mitigation wetlands in CUGA

1999-2005

Fish 

Communities

Kentucky Index of 

Biotic Integrity (KIBI), 

adapted macrohabitat 

assessment scores

Survey of CUGA vertebrate fauna (Barbour 

et al. 1979)

Final report including fish sampling data from 

12 locations among eight streams

1978-1979

Surveys of Davis Branch for blackside dace 

(Stephens 2002a; 2007)

Report on blackside dace survey of Davis 

Branch

2002, 2007

Surveys of Gap Creek (Stephens 2002b) Report on fish surveys of Gap Creek 1996-2002

CUGA fish survey conducted by Third Rock 

Consultants (Remley 2005)

Final report of fish inventory of eight park 

streams using backpack electroshocking 

2004

Bird 

Communities

Bird community index 

(BCI), conservation 

value index, richness, 

abundance over time

Survey of CUGA vertebrate fauna (Barbour 

et al. 1979)

Final report including bird sampling from 

walking surveys and incidental sightings

1978-1979

CUGA bird inventory (Monroe 2005) Final report and raw data for point count 

surveys and incidental sightings throughout

the park

2003-2004

USGS, breeding bird survey data (Sauer 

2008)

Point count surveys at selected routes in 

CUGA and surrounding area

1993-2008
11

Table 3. Summary of ecological attributes, assessment measures, and data sources used in a Natural Resource Condition Assessment of 

Cumberland Gap National Historical Park (continued).

Attribute

Assessment 

Measure Data Sources Data Description Data Period

Mammal 

Communities

Comparisons of 

reported vs. expected

Survey of CUGA vertebrate fauna (Barbour 

et al. 1979)

Final report including mammal sampling from 

trapping and incidental sightings

1978-1979

CUGA mammal inventory conducted by 

Copperhead Environmental Consulting 

(Gumbert et al. 2006)

Final report of trapping and incidental 

sightings; including bats

2005-2006

Reptile and 

Amphibian 

Communities

Comparisons of 

reported vs. expected; 

amphibian breeding 

effort; mitigation 

wetland function

Survey of CUGA vertebrate fauna (Barbour 

et al. 1979)

Final report including reptile/amphibian 

sampling from trapping and incidental 

sightings

1978-1979

Long-term amphibian sampling program 

(Petranka et al. 2004; CUGA unpublished 

data)

Spring counts of focal amphibian species 

egg masses

1993-2009

Herpetofauna survey of CUGA conducted by 

Third Rock Consultants (Meade 2003)

Final report of herpetofaunal sampling using 

searching and coverboards

2003

RAWS data station for Cumberland Gap 

Visitor Center

Daily cumulative precipitation 2002-2011

Cave Bats Cave bat diversity; 

occurrence at CUGA 

caves; presence of 

T&E sp.; 

Indiana bat hibernacula sampling by VGDIF 

in CUGA (CUGA unpublished data)

Biennial counts of hibernating bats in two 

CUGA caves

1993-2007

CUGA mammal inventory conducted by 

Copperhead Environmental Consulting

(Gumbert et al. 2006)

Final report of mammal sampling including 

mist netting, harp trap sampling, Anabatt II 

acoustic sampling, and incidental sightings

2005-2006

Data loggers placed in caves within CUGA 

(CUGA unpublished data)

Measurements recorded every 10 or 15 

minutes at several locations in two caves in 

CUGA

1998-2009
12

Table 3. Summary of ecological attributes, assessment measures, and data sources used in a Natural Resource Condition Assessment of 

Cumberland Gap National Historical Park (continued).

Attribute

Assessment 

Measure Data Sources Data Description Data Period

Rare Plants Presence of G1/G2 

plant communities; 

presence of state 

listed plants

NatureServe vegetation assessment (White 

2006)

White and Littlefield (2008): Update of KY 

Rare Plants in Cumberland Gap NHP

Walker and Ballinger (2007)

Report, and discussion from CUGA 

vegetation survey

Report of resurvey efforts for previous rare 

plant locations in KY portion of CUGA

Discussion of rare plants/lichens at White 

Rocks

2003-2004

2008

2005-2006

Landscape 

Dynamics

Land use change Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics 

Consortium (MRLC 2009)

Retrofitted landcover change maps to 

compare 1992 to 2001 NLCD layers

1992-2001

National Land Cover Dataset Nationwide landcover datasets 1992-2001

CRMS Land cover dataset 2002-2003
13

Park Resources and Introduction

Park Location and Significance

Cumberland Gap National Historical Park (NHP) was designated in June 1940 and straddles the 

tri-state area that includes Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee, occupying a total of four different 

counties. Although the majority of the park is in Kentucky and Virginia, the closest metropolitan 

area is Knoxville, TN—about 60 km to the south. The park encompasses approximately 9,800

ha (24,000 acres), which includes 1,500 ha (3,700 acres) of the recent Fern Lake acquisition 

(Ehrlich 2008). This newly acquired area includes the drainage area of the Fern Lake reservoir, 

with the exception of the lake itself and the immediate vicinity. Currently, 5,700 ha (14,000 

acres) of the park are designated as wilderness. The park stretches linearly from southwest to 

northeast for about 32 km along the Cumberland Mountain Range, with a variable width ranging 

from as narrow as ~1 km (<1 mile) near its center section to a greatest width of about 6 km (4 

miles) in the northern and southern sections. The park unit is bounded by State Hwys 987 and 

217 to the north and US Hwy 58 to the south (Figure 2). Elevation ranges from 335 to 1067 m

(1100 to 3500 ft), while the Gap itself is located less than a mile north of the tri-state intersection 

of the KY, VA, and TN borders. The Tri-State Peak and The Pinnacle immediately surround the 

Gap to the south and north, respectively. Among many other geological attributes, the park

features one of the largest natural breaks in the Appalachian range, which served as a major point 

of access for early American settlers travelling west into the Kentucky frontier. Native 

Americans had also used the Gap as a gateway through the mountains for many years before 

European settlers arrived (NPS 2009a). 

One of the park’s primary manmade features is the Wilderness Road Trail, which leads from 

Virginia through Cumberland Gap to central Kentucky. This trail, eventually widened by Daniel 

Boone in 1775, originally served as a passage for the Native Americans. Today, Cumberland 

Gap NHP is working with the Wilderness Trail Corridor Alliance to obtain a National Historic 

Trail designation for the route.

Park Objectives

Cumberland Gap NHP (CUGA) recently completed a general management plan that provides a 

framework for park managers to follow regarding management of environmental impacts and 

visitor use over the next 15 – 20 years (NPS 2010a). The park, in addition to its historical and 

cultural significance, is important due to its wealth of natural resources and features, and as such 

one of the main objectives of the park management is stewardship of these assets. Specifically, 

the park is involved in efforts to control invasive plant and animal populations via removal and 

integrated pest management. The park is also pursuing opportunities with research scientists to 

study aspects of the park environment and how it responds to environmental change. 

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. xx) for more information.
14

Figure 2. Cumberland Gap National Historical Park is located along the tri-state border of KY, VA, and TN.
15

Currently, the park is carrying out plans to acquire the remainder of the Fern Lake watershed, an

1800 ha area at the southwestern tip of the park. Although most of the land is now under care of 

the NPS, approximately 240 ha are still under negotiation. 

Climate, Geology, and Soils

Cumberland Gap NHP falls within a region with a fairly mild climate, with hot and humid 

summers that have temperatures upwards of 32oC (90oF), while winters are generally mild with 

temperatures ranging from 0 – 10 oC (32 - 50oF). The average annual temperature is 13.8 oC

(57oF), while average precipitation is 93.5 cm (37 in)—July and April are typically the wettest 

months. 

Cumberland Gap NHP derives much of its historical and cultural significance from the unique 

geological history of the area. Out of only three east-west routes reported throughout the 

Appalachian chain, Cumberland Gap is the most famous, reportedly having served as passage for 

over 300,000 westbound settlers into Kentucky by 1810 (Luckett 1964). The Gap was formed as 

a result of a series of geological events. As the Pine Mountain thrust sheet shifted westward 

towards Cumberland Mountain, numerous local faults weakened and tilted the rock layers. One 

of these faults, the Rocky Face Fault, occurred perpendicularly to the Cumberland Gap area, thus 

weakening the area to weathering that eventually formed the Gap in Cumberland Mountain 

(Ehrlich 2008). To the west of the Pine Mountain thrust sheet, Pine and Cumberland mountains 

run parallel to each other, and were formed from Lee conglomerate material as part of the 

Middleboro syncline. The Cumberland River north of the syncline and a tributary to the Powell 

River south of the syncline were involved in carving the Cumberland Gap passageway through 

both ends of the syncline during the uplift period (Figure 3, McFarlan 1939). Cumberland Gap 

itself was formed as the Yellow Creek eroded away parts of Cumberland Mountain while the 

range was still being uplifted. Eventually, the creek changed direction, and ultimately ran dry 

before settlers began using the passage for migration. 

Figure 3. Diagrams showing the Cumberland (left) and Powell (right) rivers and their creation of the 

Cumberland Gap through the Pine (left) and Cumberland (right) ranges (McFarlan 1943).

Another important feature in the area, though not located in the park, is the 5km (3 mile)

diameter Middlesboro impact crater located immediately adjacent to the park. This crater also 

served as a portion of the overall Cumberland passageway to Kentucky. Shatter cone patterned 
16

rock fragments, typical of impact events, are abundant around the Middlesboro crater, as well as

concentric faults with brecciated and highly deformed material. Since the impact, the weakened 

material has eroded up to 300m (980 ft). Today, the town of Middlesboro, KY is located on the 

crater, and in 2003 the Kentucky Society of Professional Geologists designated Middlesboro as a 

Distinguished Geologic Site (Luckett 1964). 

Other geologic features of note include the Greenbrier Limestone Formation, which occurs along 

the south face of Cumberland Mountain and contains a series of caves up to 26 km (16 miles) in 

length, including the well-known Gap and Sand Caves (NPS 2009a). These caves were formed 

from the dissolution of cherts and limestones deposited during the Mississippian period (Ehrlich

2008). On the east side of the park, the White Rocks are a formation of sandstone cliffs that run

along the ridgeline forming the Virginia/Kentucky border, and also make up the highest part of 

the park. Upon seeing the White Rocks during his journey to widen the Gap trail into the 

Wilderness Trail, Daniel Boone offered the description that “the aspect of these cliffs is so wild 

and horrid, that it is impossible to behold them without terror.” The 34 km (21 mile) Ridge Trail 

runs along this border southwest to the Pinnacle on the north side of the Gap (Luckett 1964). 

The majority of the soils along the Cumberland Mountains are classified in either the AlticrestTotz-Helechawa or the Helechawa-Varilla-Jefferson complexes, which are rocky soils 

characteristic of mountainsides and steep slopes. These complexes are composed mainly of 

extremely stony Inceptisols and Entisols, which are poorly-developed soils demonstrating only 

slight differentiation among subsurface horizons. Their poor development in the Cumberland 

Mountains may be due to both the high rate of erosion associated with the steep slopes, as well 

as the weather-resistant sandstone parent material on which these series mainly occur. Jefferson 

soils, as well as several other Alfisols and Ultisols, are characteristic of more well-developed 

locations and are typically found in rocky colluvial deposits on lesser slopes or areas associated 

with sandstone escarpments. 

Hydrology

Cumberland Gap NHP is unique in that the ridge of the Cumberland Mountains straddles the 

boundary between the Ohio (Region 5) and Tennessee (Region 6) hydrologic regions (Figure 4). 

South of the Cumberlands is the Powell cataloging unit (HUC 06010206), which in turn is part 

of the Upper Tennessee accounting unit (HUC 060102). This portion of the park drains to the 

Powell River approximately 5 km (3 miles) below the park; while north of the ridge the drainage 

reaches the Cumberland River in about 16 km (10 miles). This northern portion falls within the 

Upper Cumberland cataloging unit (HUC 05130101), and the accounting unit of the same name 

(HUC 051301). In addition, with the exception of Little Yellow Creek, all streams occurring in 

the park, such as Sugar Run and Station Creek, originate inside the park (NPS 2009a). 

According to current EPA data, none of the streams in the park qualify as 303(d) status, 

indicating impaired water quality conditions. Cumberland Gap NHP is classified as a Category 

One park (Meiman 2009), which means that the water resources in the park played a central role

in its establishment and interpretation. It also acknowledges the existence of blackside dace

populations and habitat—a rare fish species (Leibfreid et al. 2005). In order to monitor water 

quality and help protect aquatic habitat, CUGA has been monitoring water quality since the early 

1990’s, while the I&M program began regular monthly sampling in 2006.
17

Figure 4. Cumberland Gap NHP straddles the Powell and Upper Cumberland hydrologic cataloging units, 

which in turn fall respectively in the Tennessee River and Ohio hydrologic regions.

History and Park Significance

Before settlers began using Cumberland Gap as a passage for westward migration, Native 

Americans used part of it as a hunting and trading route known as the Warrior’s Path. The first 

recorded passage through the Gap by a European was in 1750, when Thomas Walker of the 

Loyal Land Company began an official expedition to search for a habitable area beyond the 

Appalachian Mountains. Speculators sponsored expeditions after Walker’s journey, though 

permanent expansion was inhibited by frequent raids on settlers by the Shawnee and Cherokee

tribes. This eventually led to a declaration of war on the Shawnee by Virginia’s governor, Lord 

Dunmore, and subsequent defeat of the tribe four months later. A later agreement with the 

Cherokee resulted in the purchase of their land claim south of the Kentucky River, and Daniel 

Boone was soon hired to blaze a trail through the gap all the way to the river (Luckett 1964). 

Following Boone’s lead, hundreds of thousands of settlers passed through the Gap along the 

Wilderness Road in the years between 1780 and 1810, when the Ohio River route became the 

safest and most direct route west.

During the Civil War, strategic possession of Cumberland Gap alternated between the Union and 

Confederates armies, as it was particularly valued for the vantage point that the Pinnacle offered

as well as offering the most direct route between Union- and Confederate-held states. After the 

war ended in 1865, the spoiled landscape was mostly forgotten by outside interests until 

geological investigations in the 1880s sparked a renewed interest in the area due to its rich coal 

and iron deposits (Luckett 1964). Today, remnants of Civil War fortifications are still visible in 

the southeastern end of the park, including a crater near the Tri-State peak produced by 
18

detonation of powder kegs by retreating Union soldiers (Ehrlich 2008). Park staff also offer 

special tours of Hensley Settlement—an isolated settlement within the park and close to the 

Ridge Trail (NPS 2009a). The Hensley Settlement was occupied by the Hensley and Gibbons 

families from around the turn of the century until 1951. 

In 1922, a proposal at the Appalachian Logging Conference in Cincinnati outlined the adoption 

of a “mountain park” centered on Fern Lake, though two bills by Kentucky Congressman John 

Robison for the creation of Lincoln National Park at the tri-state intersection were not passed the 

following year. Another effort by Robison was also unsuccessful in 1929, even though it took a 

slightly different approach by suggesting the creation of war memorials for participants in battles 

around Cumberland Gap. In 1938, the Cumberland Gap National Historical Park Association 

was created, the renewed attention of which spurred a new round of unsuccessful bills by 

Kentucky representatives. Virginia Congressman John Flanagan was finally successful in 1939, 

and President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the bill authorizing Cumberland Gap NHP in 1940. 

Throughout 2008-2009, the park acquired around 1800 ha of additional land at its southern tip 

around Fern Lake.

Natural Resources and NPS Vital Signs

Just as the geology of the Cumberland Gap area played a large role in shaping its significant 

historical role, this naturally unique area also provides a wealth of resources that adds to its 

appeal. Based on recent inventories and review of extant data by taxonomic experts, over 1,200 

vascular plants and vertebrate species were determined to be present in CUGA, making it one of 

the most species rich parks within the Cumberland Piedmont Network (CUPN, Moore 2010). As 

part of the I&M monitoring plan, NatureServe established 36 sampling plots throughout the park 

on a 1.5 km2 grid plus an additional 24 plots in unique habitats off of the grid to help complete a

vegetation inventory (White 2006). 

Cave Ecosystems—One of the most distinctive features at CUGA is its cave system. A vital sign 

selected by the CUPN Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) network, cave meteorology, is relevant 

to cave related natural resources at CUGA. Cave meteorology addresses how environmental 

properties such as air temperature, humidity, and airflow can affect species communities found 

inside the caves, in addition to the cave formations (speleothems) that attract many visitors. 

Caves within the park provide habitat for the Allegheny woodrat (Neotoma magister)—a species 

of management concern that is a candidate for federal listing, and listed by Tennessee as 

“deemed in need of management” (TDEC 2009, USFWS 2011). Allegheny woodrats play an 

important and unique role in the nutrient cycling of cave ecosystems through transport of organic 

material from outside the caves. Due to their sensitivity to resource condition and availability, 

Allegheny woodrats are often regarded as indicators of health for terrestrial ecosystems outside 

the cave. At the time of publication, detailed data were not available about the distribution and 

abundance of woodrats in CUGA. 

Cumberland Gap NHP is home to nine species of bats, including the endangered Indiana Bat

(Myotis sodalis, Figure 5), which lives in several of the limestone cave formations within the 

park and probably uses surrounding forested habitat for summer and pre-hibernation roosting and 

foraging. Cave bats are a CUPN Vital Sign. Like Allegheny woodrats, cave bats are vital to the 
19

cave ecosystem because of their dual role in importing nutrients and serving as an indicator 

species (NPS 2008). 

Figure 5. Limestone caves in Cumberland Gap NHP are home to the endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis

sodalis).

Vertebrate Assemblages

Fishes, birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians have been inventoried in CUGA in recent 

years. Around 27 species of fish have been reported from stream inventories conducted since 

2002 (Stephens 2002a,b, Stephens 2007,Remley 2005). Fishes reported from the park include 

the federally threatened blackside dace (Chrosomuss cumberlandensis). Blackside dace habitat 

in the park has been negatively impacted by beaver activity, therefore while beaver are not 

currently managed in CUGA, it may be important in the future. The park contains a rich bird 

assemblage dominated by interior forest specialist species. A recent inventory reported 145 

species, including several species of management concern such as the Cerulean Warbler 

(Dendroica cerulea), and Worm-eating Warbler (Helmitheros vermivorum) (Monroe 2005). A 

rich assemblage of mammals occurs in CUGA, and 40 species were reported from a recent 

inventory (Monroe 2005). Bats are an especially important resource in the park, and CUGA has 

many caves providing habitat for cave roosting and hibernating bats. The endangered Indiana 

bat hibernates in the park and is discussed above. From recent inventory and monitoring efforts, 

36 species of reptiles and amphibians have been reported from CUGA (Meade 2003, Petranka 

2005). Breeding effort of spotted salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum) and wood frogs (Rana 

sylvatica) has been monitored in the park since 1993, as part of a long-term amphibian 

monitoring program (Petranka 2005). Three small mitigation wetlands were constructed in 1998, 

and have been included in the monitoring. These ponds have proven to provide habitat for at 

least 11 species (Petranka 2005). 

Vegetation Communities

Cumberland Gap NHP also contains many unique vegetation community types. From low 

elevation wetlands to mountain bogs, recent classification work by White (2006) found 33 

vegetation communities present in the park. These communities were also mapped by the Center 

for Remote Sensing and Mapping Science at the University of Georgia, which resulted in a total 
20

of 37 vegetation classes throughout the park (Jordan and Madden 2008). The steep cliff faces 

and alcoves such as those present at White Rocks also provide important habitat. A recent 

survey by Appalachian State University (Walker and Ballinger 2007) documented at least 14 

species of vascular plants in these areas. In addition, 48 species of lichen are known to live in 

the White Rock area, a few of which represent disjunct populations not previously known to 

occur in the region (Walker and Ballinger 2007).

Invasive Plants

Disturbance and historic development in areas of the park have also led to the introduction of 

invasive exotic species, and park staff are continually trying to reduce populations of the highest 

priority invasives. Many of these invasive species can interrupt ecological processes at multiple 

spatial scales and threaten the presence of sensitive species. In some highly disturbed areas of 

the park, invasive species such as autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), Japanese stiltgrass 

(Microstegium vimineum), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and privet (Ligustrum sp.) are 

outcompeting native species (White 2006). 

Forest Pests

The gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) is another exotic species that, though not yet throughout the 

park, is spreading towards the park and poses an imminent threat. Even more significant, the 

invasive hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae) was recently discovered in the park in 2006 

and is very destructive to both eastern (Tsuga canadensis) and Carolina hemlock (Tsuga 

caroliniana) species. The southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis), a native southeastern 

forest pest, has also already killed hundreds of acres of pines within the park (NPS 2009a). 

Preliminary monitoring objectives for these species dictate the collection of additional 

information on infestation levels with a focus on early detection followed by appropriate 

management responses (NPS 2008). 
21

Natural Resource Conditions 

Air and Climate

Ozone

Ozone is one of the main air quality considerations in the CUPN; the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) set by the EPA include two thresholds for primary and secondary 

pollutant limits. Primary limits are set with human health factors in mind, while secondary 

standards pertain to considerations relating to visibility, vegetation health, and building integrity. 

In the case of ozone, the NAAQS primary and secondary standard concentrations were lowered

starting on May 27, 2008 from 0.080 ppm to 0.075 ppm for ozone over 8-hr periods. As a result, 

violations of this standard are defined as 3-year averages of the 4th highest daily maximum 8-

hour average ozone concentration (4th Hi Max 8-hr means) that exceed 0.075 ppm (NPS 2006a). 

Portable Ozone Monitoring Stations

Ozone concentrations were collected using a Portable Ozone Monitoring Stations (POMS) at the 

Hensley Settlement in the northeast portion of the park beginning in 2006 and at the Pinnacle 

Overlook near highway 25E in 2005 (Figure 7). Monitoring continues at the Hensley Settlement, 

though the Pinnacle Overlook site was discontinued after only a few weeks. These stations 

collected hourly ozone concentrations during the summer ozone season (May-September), and as 

a result, CUGA meets the EPA data standards for 3-yr averages during 2007- 2010, which 

respectively had average 3-yr 4th Hi Max 8-hr means of 0.071, 0.075, 0.072, and 0.067 ppm. 

Since the EPA decreased the NAAQS in 2008, these final 3-yr averages fall barely inside the 

threshold of compliance. Monitoring was completed for the full 5-month ozone season during 

2006-2010, during which only five days in 2007 recorded means greater than the threshold

(Figure 7). In addition to these full seasons, Gaseous Pollutant and Monitoring Program (GPMP) 

summaries are available for the park in August and September 2009, which report 4th highest 

daily 8-hour maximum concentrations of 0.053 and 0.050 ppm, respectively. Neither of these 

months recorded any measurements greater than the NAAQS limit (Air Resource Specialists 

2009a,b). The 2nd highest 1-hr concentration (another measure of ozone used to indicate 

variability) was 0.086, 0.092, and 0.093 ppm for 2006, 2007, and 2008, respectively.

Passive Ozone Samplers

During 2005, three passive ozone collectors recorded concentrations at Hensley Settlement, 

Pinnacle Overlook, and Civic Park in CUGA (Figure 6). The former two stations showed fairly 

comparable concentrations, which were higher than concentrations from Civic Park, though none 

of the stations approached the NAAQS limit. Of all the passive monitors in CUPN parks that 

year, those at Hensley Settlement and Pinnacle Overlook recorded the highest values. 

NPS Air Resources Division

Another source of air quality information pertinent to CUGA is available from the Air Resources 

Division (ARD) of the NPS. The ARD used existing data from NPS, EPA, state tribal, and local 

monitoring stations to produce interpolated exposure maps of the US for different air quality 

related variables, including ozone (NPS 2007). At CUGA, these predictions resulted in a mean 

4th highest 8-hr daily concentration of 0.087 ppm for the five-year period from 1995-1999, 0.086 
22

Figure 6. Passive ozone sampling took place at three locations in CUGA during 2005.

ppm for 1999-2003, 0.080 ppm for 2001-2005, and 0.076 ppm for 2003-2007 with respective 

predicted mean daily concentrations of 0.033-0.036, 0.031, and 0.029 ppm for the first three 5-

year periods. The first two 4th highest 8-hr daily concentrations exceed the NAAQS limit, 

although it is difficult to assess the accuracy of these estimates. 

Clean Air Status and Trends Network 

One of the sources of data for the ARD interpolations comes from the series of Clean Air Status 

and Trends Network (CASTNet) sites monitored by the EPA. These sites collect data on an 

hourly basis for various parameters including atmospheric deposition and ozone. The ARD uses 

ozone monitors within 16.1 km (10 miles) of the park boundary for interpolations, and at CUGA, 

the Speedwell CASTNet station, located 9.8 km from the park near Speedwell, TN, has 

monitored ozone since 1999. Because of the longevity of this record, data from this station may 

be used to gauge the adherence of CUGA to the ozone section of NPS Goal 1a3, which dictates 

the examination of an ozone concentration trend using 10-yr moving windows where at least six 

years of data are available. It is important to note, however, that the differences in elevation 

between the POMS location at Hensley Settlement (1,013 m) and the CASTNet site in 

Speedwell, TN (361 m) may affect the ozone measurements. 
23

Because data from this CASTNet station extends from 1999-2009, calculating 3-yr averages of 

4th highest annual 8-hr concentrations results in 2001 as the earliest year included in the trend. 

This trend, shown with fitted regression in Figure 7 shows a significant decrease (p = 0.0004, 

adjusted-R2 = 0.83) in average ozone concentration of 0.003 ppm/yr, though seven of the nine 3-

yr means exceed the NAAQS limit, including the final 3-yr mean of 0.076 ppm in 2009. In 

addition, NPS park units typically report ozone trends using Theil regressions for 3-yr averages 

over 10-yr moving windows (NPS ARD 2006). Theil regression is a non-parametric technique 

that is less sensitive to outlier points than typical least-squares linear regression. Using data from 

2001-2009, Theil regression also yielded a significantly decreasing trend of approximately 0.002

ppm/yr (p < 0.0001).

Summary

Overall, CUGA demonstrates a continued risk of elevated ozone concentration levels. Beginning 

in 2005, passive ozone samplers in two main areas of CUGA recorded higher concentrations 

compared to other CUPN park units. CASTNet monitoring showed a significant trend of 

improving concentrations for both linear and Theil regression fits, though the recent decrease in 

the EPA standard has resulted in the most recent 3-yr average (2007-2009) remaining above the 

limit as observed from the CASTNet station. Three-year averages from the POMS in the park 

also continue to decrease, and the most recent 3-yr mean (2008-2010) was the lowest since 

monitoring began, though still only slightly below the NAAQS. 

Because of the short history of borderline measurements from the POMS, the historic elevated 

estimates from the NPS ARD interpolations, and the history of levels above the NAAQS limit at 

the Speedwell CASTNet station, including the most recent monitoring period, CUGA is assigned 

an ozone condition status of fair. 

CASTNet observations at Speedwell represent the only dataset extensive enough to assess a 

trend, which is found to be significantly decreasing, and therefore the condition is listed as

improving. This trend is supported by the decrease of 3-yr 4th highest annual 8-hr concentrations 

observed at the CUGA POMS from 2007 – 2010. Continued monitoring will be required to 

determine whether ozone concentrations continue to decline and remain at levels below the new 

NAAQS threshold. 
24

Figure 7. Daily mean 8-hr ozone concentrations from two POMS sites during peak summer monitoring 

periods.

Figure 8. Three-year mean 4th highest annual 8-hr concentrations from 2001-2009 at the Speedwell 

CASTNet site, which is located 9.8 km from the park in Clairborne County, TN. Each data point 

represents an average of ozone data from that year and the two previous years (e.g. 2001 includes 1999-

2001). The Theil regression, though significantly decreasing (p < 0.001), is not included because the yintercept is variable.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Ozone (Daily 8-hr Mean ppm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Hensley Settlement

Pinnacle Overlook

EPA 3-yr 8-hr NAAQS limit

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Ozone (3-yr mean 4th highest 8-hr concentration, ppm) 

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

Speedwell CASTNET (3-yr, 8-hr)

CUGA POMS (3-yr, 8-hr)

3-yr 8-hr NAAQS limit (EPA)

10-yr Linear Regression
25

Table 4. The condition status for ozone at CUGA was ranked fair with an improving trend. The data 

quality for this assessment was good.

Foliar Injury

Ozone concentrations have been linked with deleterious growth or physiological effects in 

certain sensitive plant species (Ollinger et al. 1997, Lefohn and Runeckles 1987). The NPS 

ARD has also developed foliar injury maps to predict potential harm to vegetation in each of the

I&M parks included. Of the 14 parks in the CUPN, CUGA was one of ten parks to receive a 

high risk rating for ozone foliar injury (NPS ARD 2004). Ozone foliar injury metrics developed 

for CUGA are not measurements, but are kriged (interpolated) predictions extracted from ozone 

models for the entire US. These metrics are available as yearly predictions from 1995-1999 as 

part of a 2004 foliar injury assessment report for the CUPN, though predictions are only 

available as a single average over the period 1999-2003. In addition, two metrics are available as 

part of GPMP reports for 2007 and 2008 (Figure 9).

Ozone Sensitive Species

A list of ozone sensitive species was determined for CUGA from a general list developed by 

NPS and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Porter 2003). This list was cross-referenced 

with NPSpecies to determine which species were present at CUGA, the results of which are 

presented in Table 5. These sensitive species are described by Porter (2003) as species that 

“typically exhibit foliar injury at or near ambient ozone concentrations and for which ozone 

foliar injury symptoms have been documented in the field.”

Sum06

The first foliar injury metric, Sum06, is an index representing the maximum of the sum of ozone 

concentrations ≥ 0.060 ppm between 8 AM and PM over a 90-day period from June - August. 

The NPS Air Resources Division classifies 8 cumulative ppm-hours as the threshold for foliar 

injury, with the potential for growth reduction starting at 10 cumulative ppm-hr (NPS 2004). At 

CUGA, Sum06 prediction values averaged 23 cumulative hours > 0.060 ppm for 1995-1999, 27 

hours for the period from 1999-2003, and 38hours for 2007-2008, all of which are well above the 

threshold for foliar injury. 

W126

The second index, W126, is a twofold description that includes the sum of hourly concentrations 

from April through October, and also considers the number of hours where the concentration was 

≥ 0.010 ppm for the same period (LeFohn et al. 1997). For the hourly sum, this index weights 

the values using a sigmoidal function where higher ozone concentrations are weighted 

disproportionately greater because they present more of a threat for foliar injury (LeFohn and

Ozone

3 of 3: Fair

Thematic Spatial Temporal

Condition 

Attribute & Trend

Data Quality

3 of 3: Good
26

Runeckles 1987). For W126, highly-sensitive species are affected beginning at 5.9 cumulative 

ppm-hr, and moderately sensitive at 23.8 ppm-hr. Predictions at CUGA for this metric place it 

between the threshold affecting moderately and marginally sensitive species (Table 6) for each 

year between 1995 and 1999, as well as the average over 1999-2003 and 2007-2008. 

N-value

The final index is an N-value which corresponds to the number of hours that exceed 0.060, 

0.080, and 0.100 ppm. Although these thresholds are relatively arbitrary, ozone concentrations 

above 0.080 and 0.100 ppm are typically associated with risk for foliar injury (NPS 2004). Like 

the W126 metric, this one is also separated into three categories for N100 based on plant 

sensitivity: highly sensitive—6 cumulative ppm-hr, moderately sensitive—51 ppm-hr, and 

marginally sensitive—135 ppm-hr. Average predicted indices fell into the region affecting 

highly sensitive species for each year between 1995 and 1999 as well as the overall period from 

1999-2003 (Table 6). 

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Foliar Injury (ppm-hr)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Sum06

W126

Figure 9. Foliar injury summary metrics predicted by the Air Resources Division for 1995-1999, and as 

reported by the GPMP based on portable ozone monitoring data for 2007-2008.
27

Table 5. Thirty-one species at CUGA were identified as sensitive to ozone by cross-referencing Porter’s 

(2003) general sensitivity list with the NPSpecies list for CUGA. 

Species Family

Ailanthus altissima Tree-of-heaven Simaroubaceae

Apios americana Groundnut Fabaceae

Apocynum cannabinum Dogbane Apocynaceae

Asclepias exaltata Poke milkweed Asclepiadaceae

Asclepias incarnata Swamp milkweed Asclepiadaceae

Asclepias syriaca Common milkweed Asclepiadaceae

Aster acuminatus Whorled wood aster Asteraceae

Cercis canadensis Redbud Fabaceae

Clematis virginiana Devil’s darning needles Ranunculaceae

Corylus americana American hazelnut Betulaceae

Fraxinus americana White ash Fraxinaceae

Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash Fraxinaceae

Gaylussacia baccata Black huckleberry Ericaceae

Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum Hamamelidaceae

Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip-poplar Magnoliaceae

Lyonia ligustrina Maleberry Ericaceae

Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia creeper Vitaceae

Pinus rigida Pitch pine Pinaceae

Pinus virginiana Virginia pine Pinaceae

Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Platanaceae

Prunus serotina Black cherry Rosaceae

Robinia pseudoacacia Black locust Fabaceae

Rubus allegheniensis Allegheny blackberry Rosaceae

Rubus canadensis Smooth blackberry Rosaceae

Rubus cuneifolius Sand blackberry Rosaceae

Rudbeckia laciniata Cutleaf coneflower Asteraceae

Sambucus canadensis Elderberry Adoxaceae

Sambucus racemosa Red elderberry Adoxaceae

Sassafras albidum Sassafras Lauraceae

Solidago altissima Tall goldenrod Asteraceae

Verbesina occidentalis Yellow crownbeard Asteraceae
28

Table 6. Set of foliar injury indices for CUGA (NPS ARD 2004).

CUGA Ozone Foliar Injury Indices

Sum06 W126 N60 N80 N100

-----ppm-hr----- -----hr-----

1995 22 38 682 117 15

1996 17 33 595 104 9

1997 23 35 627 105 9

1998 27 49 842 200 38

1999 27 50 903 184 20

2007 52 38 - - -

2008 23‡ 9 - - -

1995-1999 Mean 23 41 730 142 18

1999-2003 Mean† 27 41 NA* NA* 12

1995-2003 Mean 25 41 NA* NA* 15

2007-2008 Mean† 38 24 - - -

* Not available

†

Foliar injury indices are provided as a mean prediction from 1999-2003 and 2007-2008 based on NPS ARD 

interpolations. 

‡Two differing Sum06 metrics were offered for CUGA in 2008—one from Jernigan et al. (2008) and one from Ray 

(2009), the former from a partial dataset. These values were averaged for the table.

Sum06 (ppm-hr): 8-10 (low), 11-15 (mid), 16+ (high)

W126 (ppm-hr): 5.9-23.7 (low), 23.8-66.5 (mid), 66.6+ (high)

N100 (hr): 6-50 (low), 51-134 (mid), 135+ (high)

Soil Moisture

In addition to these exposure indices, soil moisture conditions play a large role in mitigating or 

exacerbating the potential for foliar injury. During periods of higher soil moisture, injury risk is 

typically increased as leaf stomates open for gas exchange, thus increasing the chance of ozone 

uptake (Kohut 2007). Often, the danger of ozone to plants is less than what may be apparent 

from ozone conditions alone, as environmental conditions that facilitate the production of ozone 

such as a clear sky, high temperatures, and high UV levels also tend to reduce atmospheric gas 

exchange in plants. The Palmer Z index (Palmer 1965) attempts to describe soil moisture and its 

departure from long-term averages for a given month and location by assigning a number in the 

range ±4.0 based on temperature, precipitation, and available soil water content, with ±0.9 

representing the typical range for soil moisture (NPS ARD 2004, Wager 2003). This method 

was used to calculate drought indices for the same time periods used to calculate both the Sum06 

and W126 metrics (Table 7, Table 8) from 1995-1999. As the 2004 foliar injury report for the 

CUPN points out, soil moisture values were generally high when the Sum06 and W126 metrics 

were low, thus mitigating the overall risk of foliar injury. The only year without drought 

conditions during the Sum06 assessment period (1996) had the lowest foliar injury index values, 

while the years with the highest values, 1998-1999, had drought conditions during each of the 

three months of the assessment period. A similar pattern was observed during the period for 

W126, whereby 1997-1999 had the most number of drought months and the highest values, 

while 1996 had no drought periods and the lowest value. 

Field Studies

As part of Kohut’s (2007) general assessment of foliar injury in NPS units nationwide, field 

surveys were conducted for foliar injury in five NPS units, including CUGA, where damage was 

assessed from milkweed populations at eight different sites during the summer of 2006. Five of 
29

the populations showed damage, including two sites where all plants displayed injury. Overall, 

96 of 221 plants (43%) showed some damage.

Another field survey was conducted in August 2008 by CUPN at two CUGA locations—along 

the Daniel Boone Trail and at the Hensley Settlement (Jernigan et al. 2008). Out of a total of ten 

plant species and 227 individual plants inspected at CUGA, two specimens, both sassafras, were 

confirmed for foliar injury. Jernigan et al. (2009) suggested that more foliar injury may have 

been apparent had the survey at CUGA not been in a moderate drought at the time of the survey. 

This seems likely given the difference in injury rates between the 2006 and 2008 surveys.

Summary

Overall, every year for which there is an ozone metric shows some degree of elevated exposure 

with the potential for foliar injury. This would seem to support the high injury risk rating 

assigned to CUGA by the NPS ARD. However, this fact is mitigated slightly by the 

predominance of drought years during high ozone exposure periods, which mitigates plant gas 

exchange and risk for injury. Independent field surveys conducted by Kohut (2007) and Jernigan 

et al. (2009) also showed direct evidence of ozone foliar injury, the former much more than the 

latter, affirming that ozone does have an effect on vegetation at CUGA. As a result, the 

condition for foliar injury at CUGA is assigned a ranking of “fair” (Table 9). Because none of 

the metrics display a positive or negative tendency, the condition status is also assigned a stable 

trend. Continued ozone monitoring by the POMS at the Hensley Settlement Site will allow 

direct calculation of these metrics, as well as a reliable trend assessment. Foliar injury field 

surveys are scheduled to continue at CUPN parks on a six-year rotating schedule.

Table 7. Palmer Z indices for Sum06 at CUGA (NPS ARD 2004).

Sum06 June July August

1995 0.54 -2.95 -1.97

1996 2.73 1.04 0.35

1997 -1.33 0.35 -0.03

1998 -0.54 -1.49 -2.85

1999 -0.84 -3.26 -1.42

Palmer Z drought index: -1.00 to -1.99 (mild), -2.00 to -2.99 (moderate), -3.00 and below (severe)

1.00 to 1.99 (low wetness), 2.00 to 2.99 (mid wetness), 3.00 and above (high wetness)

Table 8. Palmer Z indices for W126 at CUGA (NPS ARD 2004).

 

Palmer Z drought index: -1.00 to -1.99 (mild), -2.00 to -2.99 (moderate), -3.00 and below (severe)

 1.00 to 1.99 (low wetness), 2.00 to 2.99 (mid wetness), 3.00 and above (high wetness)

W126 A M J J A S O

1995 -0.39 4.43 0.54 -2.95 -1.97 0.29 1.85

1996 1.39 2.73 1.04 2.03 0.46 3.08 1.33

1997 -1.65 1.41 4.17 -1.33 0.35 -0.03 -0.83

1998 5.46 1.07 4.96 -0.54 -1.49 -2.85 -1.62

1999 -0.97 -1.87 -0.84 -3.26 -1.42 -2.31 -0.23
30

Geology and Soils

Cave Meteorology

The geology of the region containing Cumberland Gap National Historical Park promotes the 

formation of caves and other karst features (Thornberry-Ehrlich 2008). The park contains at least 

30 caves and includes large, interlinking cave networks (Thornberry-Ehrlich 2008). Cave 

habitats are uniquely fragile and face multiple anthropogenic threats. A suite of threats is 

broadly related to land use and hydrologic alterations in regions surrounding caves, and another 

class of threats results from direct human disturbances within caves (Elliot 1998). Negative 

impacts may result from vandalism, looting of archaeological artifacts, or breaking or theft of 

cave formations (Thornberry-Ehrlich 2007). Most large caves in CUGA have experienced 

vandalism and are gated to prevent unauthorized entrance (Thornberry-Ehrlich 2007). The 

location of caves in the park is considered sensitive information. The caves of CUGA had not 

been exhaustively inventoried or monitored for climate conditions at the time of this report. 

Ongoing monitoring efforts included recording climate data from two caves.

Temperature and humidity monitoring were conducted by NPS at two caves in CUGA beginning 

in 1998. Monitoring was consistently conducted at five locations within Gap Cave. In order of 

closest to farthest from cave openings, the names of these locations were: Exit, Entrance, 

Upstream, Overlook, and Big Room. All stations were within 150 meters of a cave opening. 

Gap Cave, part of an extensive cave network, has a relatively greater rate of human visitation 

than other CUGA caves and is the only park cave where formal, supervised public tours are 

conducted. A second cave, reported here as Cave A, was monitored over a similar time period. 

Cave A is a hibernaculum for Indiana bats. Data were recorded every 10 to 30 minutes with data 

loggers placed at fixed positions within the caves. Campbell Scientific data loggers were 

originally placed at all stations. In 2002, HOBO® data loggers were placed at all stations, and 

the Campbell Scientific units were removed from all except two stations, where they were 

allowed to record concurrently with the new units. In 2008, all HOBO® units were replaced with 

newer HOBO® data logger models. To provide maximum consistency and interpretability, we 

used only data collected from HOBO® data loggers from 2002-2011 in this report. The Virginia 

Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) also conducted monitoring with HOBO®

loggers in Cave A from late 2001 through late 2006. This monitoring was conducted near the 

Indiana bat hibernaculum in the cave, and only temperature data were available from the 

received data.

Table 9. The condition status for foliar injury at CUGA was ranked fair with a stable trend. The data 

quality ranking for this attribute was good.

Foliar Injury

3 of 3: Fair

Thematic Spatial Temporal

Condition 

Attribute & Trend

Data Quality

3 of 3: Good 1 of 3: Poor
31

 

Environmental measuring devices are not perfectly accurate, and accuracy varies with time and 

across environmental conditions. Both models of HOBO® loggers used to collect the data 

analyzed in this report were constantly deployed within the temperature range reported by the 

manufacturer to provide maximum temperature accuracy for the units (Onset 2002, 2010). 

However, the units were frequently subjected to very high humidity outside the range of 

maximum accuracy for the units (Onset 2002, 2010). The models used from 2002 to mid-2008 

often reported relative humidities (RH) > 100%, indicating a condensing environment and high, 

though inaccurately measured, relative humidity (Onset 2002). The models used from mid-2008 

to 2011 were more robust to high humidity, but were still subject to errors in accuracy of > 4% in 

environments with RH > 90%, and often reported 100% humidity for long periods (Onset 2010). 

These issues resulted in relative humidity datasets showing artificially high or otherwise 

potentially inaccurate values during parts of the year, and an artificial drop in maximum relative 

humidity corresponding to the change in data logger models in 2008. Despite these significant 

caveats about the relative humidity data, we presented it in this report because it is useful for 

indicating that humidity is often “high”, for showing seasonal fluctuations in humidity, and for 

showing some relative differences among recording locations.

We calculated the mean daily temperature and mean daily relative humidity at each station for 

each date, and the mean of these daily means across years. Where extreme data outliers were 

obviously associated with the changing and servicing of the units, we removed these outliers. 

Relative humidity measurements from the Big Room of Gap Cave showed an unprecedented 

decrease followed by unseasonal irregularity starting in August 2010. Because these data did not 

correspond with the stable temperature regime otherwise observed at the site during the period, 

and because no human-caused explanation was readily available, we believe these data were 

likely the result of equipment malfunction and removed them from the dataset. Because Indiana 

bats are of particular importance in CUGA, we examined mean temperature profiles at a selected

cave location relative to the timing of hibernation and environmental requirements of the species.

The five monitored stations in Gap Cave had differing temperature profiles from 2002-2011

(Figure 10; Figure 11). Mean daily temperature at all stations remained above freezing during 

the monitored time period (Figure 10). The warmest temperatures occurred at the Exit location, 

which was the closest location to a cave opening. The coldest temperatures occurred at the 

Entrance location, which was the second closest station to a cave opening and consistently fell 

below 5oC (41°F) during the winter (Figure 10). The most stable temperature regime occurred at 

the Big Room location which was the farthest from a cave opening. Relative humidity remained 

high within Gap Cave at all monitored locations from 2002-2011 (Figure 12, Figure 13). Mean 

relative humidity at all sites generally stayed above 80% and was highest from early summer 

through early autumn. The monitoring locations closest to cave openings, Exit and Entrance, 

experienced the most variability, although much of the reported variability was within the range 

of error for the units in highly humid environments. Furthermore, the continuously high readings 

observed throughout portions of the time period, and change in maximum reported RH in 2008 

reflect limitations of the equipment, as discussed above (Onset 2002, 2010). 
32

Figure 10. Mean daily temperature from 2002-2011 from data loggers placed at five locations in Gap 

Cave, Cumberland Gap National Historical Park.

Figure 11. Mean temperature across years calculated using daily means from 2002-2011 from data 

loggers placed at five locations in Gap Cave, Cumberland Gap National Historical Park.
33

Figure 12. Mean daily relative humidity from 2002-2011 from data loggers placed at five locations in Gap 

Cave, Cumberland Gap National Historical Park.

Figure 13. Mean relative humidity across years calculated using daily means from 2002-2009 from data 

loggers placed at five locations in Gap Cave, Cumberland Gap National Historical Park.

Cave A had a generally consistent yearly temperature profile over the monitored time period, and 

the temperature regime varied between the location of the NPS logger and the logger placed by 

VDGIF (Figure 14). At the NPS logger locations, mean daily temperatures remained between 3 

and 17 oC during all but a few days over the time period, and never dipped below freezing. The 

temperature at the bat hibernacula was less variable and generally stayed between 7 and 12 oC 

throughout the year. Humidity data only were available from the NPS logger. Relative humidity 

in Cave A had a greater range of variability than relative humidity in Gap Cave (Figure 15). 
34

Although the relative humidity remained above 75% in Cave A much of the time, it regularly fell 

below 30% when air temperatures were lowest. 

Figure 14. Mean daily temperature collected 2001-2011 from data loggers placed in Cave A by the 

National Park Service and the Virginia Department of Inland Game and Fisheries. The dataloggers were 

placed at different locations in the cave and the VDGIF logger was located close to an Indiana bat 

hibernacula.

Figure 15. Mean daily relative humidity from 2002-2011 from a data logger placed in Cave A, an Indiana 

bat hibernacula in Cumberland Gap National Historical Park.

Because the VDGIF data logger was placed near an Indiana bat hibernacula, we examined 

temperature regimes from this logger relative to bat requirements. Relative humidity data were 

not available for this logger. For temperature, we took the mean across years of the daily means 

and plotted the values in relation to a theoretically optimal timing and temperature window 
35

(Figure 16). Optimal temperature regimes for hibernating Indiana bats are imperfectly 

understood. Most known hibernacula remain below 10 oC (50 °F) but rarely or never fall below 

freezing during the winter (USFWS 2007). Researchers have found that stable and increasing 

hibernating populations were found in caves where “midwinter” temperatures remained between 

3 and 7.2 oC (37.4 and 45.0 °F) (USFWS 2007) and that the mean ambient temperature in 

microhabitats of hibernating bats was 7.0 oC (44.6 °F) (Raesly and Gates 1987). Determining 

optimal hibernacula temperatures is confounded by the fact that micro-climates within caves 

vary considerably (Raesly and Gates 1987) and that tight clustering alters the temperature 

experienced by individuals and therefore larger colonies may be more cold-tolerant (USFWS 

2007). Based on findings in the literature, we used the period from November 15 to April 15 as 

the hibernation period, and temperatures between 3 and 10 oC (37.4 °F and 50 °F) as the 

preferred temperature range. The mean ambient temperature during the hibernation period, 

calculated as the mean of all the daily mean temperatures from November 15 to April 15, was 9

oC (48.2 °F). The daily mean temperature at this site fell largely within the preferred range 

during the hibernation period (Figure 16).

Figure 16. Mean temperature across years of the mean daily temperatures recorded from a VDGIF 

datalogger placed near an Indiana bat hibernacula in Cave A. Green box shows an approximate window 

of ideal time and temperature limits for Indiana bats (3 - 10 °C; November 15-April 15).

Relative humidity is important to hibernating bats. Hibernating bats experience greater 

evaporative water loss as air humidity decreases. Research suggests bats arouse from torpor 

more frequently in less humid environments, and that arousals account for over 70% of winter fat 

depletion (USFWS 2007). Cryan et al. (2010) suggested that the evaporative water loss from the 

wings of bats was greater for individuals infected with the fungus causing white-nosed 

syndrome. Raesly and Gates (1987) found that the mean relative humidity of microhabitats 
36

occupied by M. sodalis in caves in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia was 78% (95% 

CI: 76.3-79.8) which was significantly higher than three of four other species studied. Relative 

humidity varied among the sites examined for this report. Because the data from the logger 

placed at the Indiana bat hibernacula did not include relative humidity, we did not examine 

relative humidity relative to specific bat requirements. 

For natural resource management purposes, the quality of meteorological conditions within caves 

is defined relative to natural regimes and the requirements of various species. Temperature and

relative humidity regimes vary naturally among caves and among microenvironments within 

caves. Different meteorological regimes support uses by different organisms or communities. 

Some areas may have less climate variability than nearby areas outside the cave, and this 

stability is an important environmental quality for some cave-dwelling species. In CUGA, the 

existence of caves that maintain winter temperatures that are cool yet above freezing is important 

for some species of hibernating bats. However, probably the best general indication of good 

meteorological regimes in caves is the existence of a regime that is free from anthropogenic 

alteration. For the caves monitored in CUGA, this historical baseline is not known. In Gap 

Cave, three openings and an interior connection have been altered by humans (Jenny Beeler

personal communication), but the effects of this on cave climate are not known. Future cave 

management in the park may include restoration of these altered areas, and the data collected 

could provide a valuable baseline to monitor any effects.

We did not assign a rank to the condition of cave meteorology at CUGA (Table 10). No obvious 

new human-caused climate disruptions were observed during the monitoring period, although the 

effect of alterations persisting from before monitoring began are unknown. Within both 

monitored caves, temperature regimes existed that did not preclude Indiana bat hibernation. 

However, the understanding of other natural species assemblages and accompanying 

meteorological requirements is not well-developed. We ranked the quality of the data as poor. 

The data were recently collected using appropriate methods within park boundaries. However, 

data were only available from two of at least 30 known caves in the park and therefore the spatial 

coverage was not adequate to give a comprehensive assessment of park caves. Although the data 

were collected using broadly appropriate methods, there are concerns about the accuracy of the 

relative humidity data. We ranked the trend of cave meteorology condition as stable. The 

seasonality of temperature and RH fluctuations was consistent throughout the analyzed time 

period. The maximum and minimum yearly temperature did not show an obvious trend over the 

time period. 

Table 10. No rank was assigned to cave meteorology condition at Cumberland Gap National Historical 

Park. The trend of cave meteorology was stable. The quality of the data used in the assessment was 

poor.
37

Water Quality

Overview and Parameters

Water quality monitoring began at each of the CUPN park units in 2004. Each park unit in the 

network was assigned a significance category pertaining to their water resources—CUGA is a 

category one park, meaning that the park’s water resources are central to its establishment or

mission, and that monthly sampling lasts for 24 months with five years off between sampling 

periods. At CUGA, the first round of monthly sampling lasted from October 2006 until 

September 2008. Of the ten monitoring stations within CUGA, eight are located in Kentucky 

within the Upper Cumberland accounting unit, which straddles the regional watershed divide 

with the Upper Tennessee unit along the Cumberland Mountains (Figure 17). The remaining 

two stations fall within Tennessee and Virginia, respectively. Monitoring station locations were 

chosen in 2001 to coincide with previous monitoring efforts. In addition, most of the locations 

are along the boundary of the park to serve as “an integrator of the basin,” meaning they are 

intended to capture water quality characteristics of the whole watershed (Meiman 2009). Five 

stations are located close to the park boundary near Middlesboro, KY and just downstream from 

Fern Lake Reservoir. The other monitoring stations are on Gap Creek and Station Creek in 

Tennessee and Virginia, respectively, which are located just upstream from Shawanee, TN.

 
38

Figure 17. Ten I&M water quality stations within CUGA were sampled monthly between 2006 and 2008. 
39

As part of the CUPN I&M plan, the NPS Water Resources Division requires monitoring of water 

temperature, pH, specific conductance, and DO, referred to as the core parameters, in addition to 

any other parameters deemed necessary by the Vital Signs process (Leibfreid et al. 2005). Parks 

in CUPN also collect field measurements of Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) and bacterial 

contamination, usually in the form of Escherichia coli and fecal coliform concentrations. At 

CUGA, turbidity is additionally stipulated in the monitoring plan. 

Meiman (2009) completed a comprehensive analysis of each of the parameters for the first 

period of water quality monitoring. In it, he points out that each of the creeks are assigned a use 

status according to individual state standards. These use classifications help inform which water 

quality parameters are most important for monitoring. All the I&M streams except two in KY at 

CUGA are classified for warmwater aquatic habitat, primary contact recreation, and secondary 

contact recreation. Both Martin Fork and Davis Branch are additionally included as outstanding 

state resource waters. The two exceptions are Tunnel Creek and Railroad Creek, which were 

specified by Meiman (2009) as coldwater aquatic habitat and warmwater aquatic habitat, 

respectively. Gap Creek, the only I&M sampled stream in TN, is classified for 1) fish and 

aquatic life, 2) irrigation, 3) livestock watering and wildlife, 4) trout, and 5) recreation. Station 

Creek in VA is classified as Class vi, or natural trout waters (Meiman 2009). Davis Branch is 

unique in that it is the only stretch of stream in the park unit with a documented population of

blackside dace (Chrosomus cumberlandensis), a federally threatened fish species. 

Temperature

State maximum temperatures are comparable for TN and KY, which are 30.5oC and 31.7oC, 

respectively. None of these stations exceeded the state limit. Station Creek (ST9) in VA is 

limited to 20.0oC due to its status as a trout water stream. This station exceeded the maximum a 

total of 5 times in 2007 and 2008, though its mean was comparable to all other CUGA I&M 

stations (Figure 19).

Specific Conductance

Specific conductance is collected using a dip-cell electrode sensor, which gives an estimate of 

the amount of dissolved inorganic solids that conduct electricity (EPA 1997). Higher amounts of 

solids increase conductance levels, which are measured as the reciprocal of electrical resistance 

and expressed in micro-Siemens per cm (μS/cm). Generally, specific conductance measures are 

closely related to the parent material of the stream. Although no state standards exists for this 

parameter, the EPA (1997) sampling methods manual identifies an ideal range of 150 to 500 

μS/cm for “inland fresh waters...supporting good mixed fisheries,” and furthermore indicates 

that “conductivity out of this range could indicate that the water is not suitable for certain species 

of fish or macroinvertebrates.”

Values for specific conductance at CUGA averaged well into the EPA recommended range at 

most stations, except for YC1, MF5, SH10, and SR10, where they were invariably low (Figure 

19). Meiman (2009) reports that these low conductance values indicate “limited contact with 

carbonate strata” and are therefore the result of natural conditions.
40

pH

Measurements of pH are important to water quality because it affects multiple biological 

processes within aquatic ecosystems. Low levels of pH can potentially increase the mobility of 

toxic elements, and in turn, their uptake by aquatic plants and animals (EPA 1997). Even at only 

slightly acidic levels (6.0-6.5), species richness of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and benthic 

invertebrates can be inhibited, while levels between 5.0 and 6.0 can result in mortality of several 

fish species. In addition, algal growth increases at these acidic levels, which translates into an 

increased risk of mortality for macroinvertebrate species. Levels of pH below 5.0 can result in 

the loss of most fish species, decreased rate of nutrient cycling and organic matter 

decomposition, and can result in reproductive failure of certain acid-sensitive amphibians 

(Driscoll et al. 2003). 

All three state standards for pH specify the range 6.0 to 9.0 standard units (SU). Means at I&M 

stations were generally within the range 6.5 to 8.0 SU, with the exception of MF5 and SH10, 

which averaged 4.9 and 5.5, respectively (Figure 19). Again, Meiman (2009) suggests these 

values are due to minimal contact with carbonate strata and instead reflect the acidity of 

rainwater, the main source of flow for those mountain streams. He supports this claim in the 

latest water quality monitoring report (2009) with plots showing a correlation between depressed 

pH and flow from rainfall on Shillalah Creek and Martin’s Fork.

Dissolved Oxygen

The importance of dissolved oxygen (DO) as a water quality parameter derives from its 

sensitivity to natural or anthropogenic alterations to the stream, because sensitive aquatic plants 

are one of the main sources of oxygen, along with aeration and mixing of atmospheric O2. As a 

result, concentrations of DO are important to the survival of virtually all aquatic species 

(Meiman 2007). Taxa such as Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera 

(caddisflies) are particularly vulnerable to hypoxic waters, though these conditions may also be 

lethal to other benthic macroinvertebrates. Under hypoxic conditions, certain organisms may 

divert energy from growth and reproduction to oxygen uptake, which may in turn lower 

fecundity rates (Garvey et al. 2007). Several sources of runoff such as agriculture, urban areas, 

septic fields, or wastewater discharge can result in high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) 

from microorganisms that break down their constituents, which can in turn deplete oxygen 

available to aquatic species (EPA 1997).

Standards for TN and KY stipulate concentrations of DO no less than 5.0 mg/L, while VA 

stipulates 6.0 mg/L. Tunnel Creek, Shillalah Creek, and Martin’s Fork have the special 

distinction of coldwater habitat classification, and as a result have a minimum DO threshold of 

6.0 mg/L. Although all means were relatively similar and above these thresholds for I&M data 

at the park, Yellow Creek (Upper and Lower), Martin’s Fork, Shillalah Creek and Station Creek 

all dip below their respective standards for some samples (Figure 19).

Acid-Neutralizing Capacity

Acid-neutralizing capacity (ANC) values, measured in mg/L of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), are 

collected to assess the relative ability of the water to buffer acidic loading resulting from 

precipitation or other sources. Higher values of ANC, or alkalinity, are influenced by 

concentrations of carbonates (CO3

2-

), bicarbonates (HCO3

-

), phosphates (PO4

3-

), and hydroxides 

(OH-

). Although there are no state standards for this parameter, the EPA Goldbook recommends 
41

values greater than 20 mg/L CaCO3 to benefit aquatic life. Like measurements for specific 

conductance and pH, measurements for ANC at Upper Little Yellow Creek, Martin’s Fork, 

Shillalah Creek, and Sugar Run were depressed, representing the lack of carbonate parent 

material. 

Microorganisms

In addition to the core water quality parameters outlined above, measurements of microorganism 

contamination were also collected through measurements of Escherichia coli, a type of fecal 

coliform bacteria. Coliform are a group of bacteria that live in the intestines of both warm and 

cold-blooded organisms and are typically used as indicators of health risks presented by 

associated pathogenic bacteria and viruses. 

Criteria for microorganism concentration are variable and depend in large part on the use 

classification of a waterbody. Waters with high recreational use receive more stringent limits 

due to the potential danger towards human health. The EPA specifies an E. coli limit of 576 

colony forming units (CFU) per 100ml for infrequent contact recreation, whereas the individual 

sample limit in TN is 941 CFU/100ml for recreation, and 1173 CFU/100ml for secondary 

contact recreation in VA. Data collected at CUGA showed overall low concentrations of E. coli, 

except for Gap Creek and Station Creek, which both showed elevated concentrations. 

Respectively, these stations exceeded the EPA standard 15% and 33% of the time.

Meiman further analyzed a time series of discharge, E. coli, and precipitation data for these sites, 

and determined that Station Creek is mainly the result of a point-source contamination, while 

Gap Creek demonstrates signs of both point and non point-source contamination. Station Creek 

is the only park sampling location in Virginia, and is located just downstream of one of the park 

campgrounds that utilizes a septic system, which may explain the high bacterial contamination. 

Recent sampling at two locations above and below the campground seem to reinforce this notion 

(Figure 21). As of this writing, a new septic system is scheduled for installation beginning in 

November 2011 (NPS 2010b). 

At Gap Creek, a wastewater treatment plant was recently constructed upstream in the town of 

Cumberland Gap, TN. According to Meiman (2009), that facility was previously found to be 

discharging untreated effluent into Gap Creek, which likely contributed to these elevated 

bacterial concentrations. He also offers that high flow events may exceed the capacity of the 

treatment plant and result in bacterial contamination. Since these elevated measurements, 

however, the treatment facility has been updated, and more recent sampling has shown no 

evidence of continued contamination (J. Beeler personal communication). 

Hydrology

Turbidity

Turbidity is a measure of the loss of light transmission in water due to scattering or absorption. 

During high flow events, solids can become suspended in the water column and raise turbidity 

levels, along with concentrations of plankton and organic detritus. Turbidity is usually measured 

using a nephelometer and expressed in nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs). Although no 

quantitative turbidity criteria are offered in the tri-states surrounding CUGA, aquatic species are 

sensitive to changes in the amount of suspended sediment and can be affected in numerous ways. 
42

For fish, these effects may include reduced reproductive ability and feeding success, increased 

predation and parasitism risk, and direct gill damage (Hazelton 2008). Although suspended 

sediment may not always be the only source of turbidity, measurements of turbidity are 

commonly used due to their easy determination in the field (Waters 1995). Increases of only five 

NTUs above natural conditions may prove deleterious, resulting in losses of up to 13% in gross 

primary production (Lloyd et al. 1987, Waters 1995). Overall, turbidity levels in the park appear 

to present little concern. All stations average less than 10 NTUs, though Lower Little Yellow 

Creek, Railroad Creek, and Gap Creek show somewhat higher values, possibly reflecting higher 

amounts of runoff (Figure 19). Both Little Yellow Creek stations as well as Railroad Creek

showed high outliers >40 NTUs, probably representing extreme flow events.

Flow

Flow is also monitored at sampling stations to scale the flux of other parameter concentrations. 

Flows at Martin’s Fork, Little Yellow Creek, Gap Creek, and Shillalah Creek are slightly higher 

than other stations, averaging ~100 l/sec discharge, while the others are ≤20 l/sec. The highest 

outliers occurred on both stations of Little Yellow Creek.

Summary

Overall, Meiman (2009) assesses the condition of waters within CUGA as quite good, with a few

instances of standards violations. Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia all have water quality 

standards stipulating pH no lower than 6.0, which sampling stations at Martin’s Fork and 

Shillalah Creek regularly fell below during monitoring (Figure 19). Meiman (2009) interprets 

this as a natural condition of the sites, which includes a lack of carbonate rocks upstream of these 

locations to buffer natural acidity levels. Nevertheless, Meiman (2009) indicates that additional 

sampling is underway to make that determination.

CUGA Historical Water Monitoring

Methodology

In addition to the ten I&M water quality stations at CUGA, the park has conducted periodic 

sampling since 1980 on many of the major streams within the park. Unlike the I&M monitoring 

that started in 2006, however, many of the sampling locations are not located in the same place 

each year, and the data and parameters collected at these stations do not always include the four 

core parameters that inform the I&M sampling. Using the monitoring data available from the 

EPA Storet database, historical sampling locations were aggregated to streams and areas 

matching the ten official I&M stations. Samples collected on the same stream segment as I&M 

data were combined and labeled according to the I&M station name, whereas outlying sites were 

excluded. The I&M data collected from Oct. 2006 – Sept. 2008 were also included for analysis. 

Results from this aggregation are shown in Figure 20. Each parameter was averaged on an 

annual basis and included for analysis when there were at least ten observations for a particular 

attribute for at least two consecutive years at a given site. As a result, there are some attributes 

for which some stations and years are excluded from the analysis. Generally, standard errors for 

all attributes were fairly small and represent minimal variability and sufficient confidence. Data 

within the vicinity of I&M stations at (lower) Little Yellow Creek, Railroad Creek, and Shillalah 

Creek were not well-represented in past monitoring, and thus these locations are not included for 

any of the parameters. 
43

Temperature

Temperature observations were within acceptable limits for each of the three states during all 

years of monitoring (1990-1997, 2003-2007), though means showed high standard errors during

the latter years of observations (Figure 20). Mean annual temperatures were typically in the 

range of 10-15 oC, which closely aligns with the means observed at each of the ten I&M stations 

from 2006-2008. 

Dissolved Oxygen

Dissolved oxygen varied consistently across sites when data was available from 1990-1996, 

reaching a minimum in 1994 at all sites except Sugar Run due to a low flow year. Overall 

means, though, fell within the same range as they did for sites during the I&M period a decade 

later (Figure 20), which ranged from around 7 – 10 mg/L. None of the sites consistently 

demonstrated the highest or lowest concentrations, and only the low year at Sugar Run (5.4 

mg/L) was based on a single sample. With this exception, none of the sampling stations fell 

below respective state standards.

pH

Past monitoring for pH has also shown similar values to the I&M period. Using data mostly 

available from 1990-1997 and 2003-2007, means and standard errors for all sites fell within the 

tri-state limits with the exception of Martins Fork, which consistently had pH values of 5 or less

(Figure 20). This was the same pattern observed in the I&M data, which Meiman (2009) 

attributes to a lack of carbonate rocks in the upstream of the watershed which would otherwise 
44

Figure 18. Data from stations available in EPAStoret were used to assess historical monitoring at CUGA. Stations were aggregated along the 

streams they occurred to match official I&M stations.
45

buffer acidity levels. He also notes that rainwater is the primary source of flow for this site, 

which as a result moderates the pH of the creek flow. Because of the sub-standard acidity levels 

at both Martin’s Fork and Shillalah Creek (for which historical data was not available), Meiman 

(2009) reports the planning of additional efforts at these locations to determine how parent 

material affects acidity levels. The resemblance of the historical data at Martin’s Fork to current 

I&M results for pH, however, further supports the basis of a natural source of low pH levels, and 

perhaps somewhat alleviates the need to explicate this effect with much additional sampling.

Specific Conductance

Values for specific conductance from historical monitoring were extremely variable (Figure 20)

among sites and across the sampling record. Overall sample means ranged from 10 to ≥300 

μS/cm, with a notable separation of Martin’s Fork, Shillalah Creek, Upper Little Yellow Creek, 

and Sugar Run, all of which showed steady, low values, consistent with those observed during 

I&M sampling (’06-’08). None of these stations ever reached the EPA recommended range of 

150 μS/cm, and thus further support the notion that these low specific conductance values are a 

result of natural conditions.

Acid Neutralizing Capacity

Sampling data for ANC showed variable values on Station Creek, but relatively consistent data 

among other sites, ranging from 5 to 150 mg/L CaCO3. Overall historical data for this parameter 

was sparse. Very low values for ANC were observed at Martin’s Fork, Shillalah Creek, and 

Sugar Run. 

Microorganisms

Data for bacterial monitoring at CUGA was available for E. coli concentrations from 2003-2007 

for three monitoring branches, and for fecal coliform from 2003-2006 at five monitoring 

branches. Station Creek, a common monitoring location for both parameters, showed the highest 

overall concentrations of both E. coli and fecal coliform. In 2003, average fecal coliform 

exceeded the VA limit of 200 colonies/100mL, though the state sampling protocol was not 

followed and thus does not constitute an official violation (Figure 21). This pattern matches that 

observed in the I&M data from Oct. 2006 – Sept. 2008, which showed highest E. coli levels 

among all ten monitoring sites at Station Creek. Meiman (2009) suggests that the high bacterial 

contamination levels present at Station Creek may be due in part to its proximity to the septic 

field of the nearby campground. Although historical monitoring did collect samples at Station 

Creek both below and above the septic field, there is unfortunately only sufficient and reliable 

data at five downstream locations located within 400m of each other. Since I&M collections 

began for Station Creek in Oct. 2006, three measurements have exceeded the VA secondary 

contact recreation limit for E. coli of 1173 colonies/100mL (Figure 19). Prior to this, only one 

sampling date in 2005 exceeded the limit. The trend appears to show increasing concentrations 

during the total six years of monitoring; linear regression shows an average increase of 60 

colonies/100mL per year (p = 0.06), which may reflect increased usage of the campground over 

the years of monitoring. As suggested by Meiman (2009), these data support the addition of 

monitoring locations to examine the source of bacterial loading, especially on Station Creek 

upstream of the campground.
46

Hydrology

Historical monitoring for turbidity and flow both consist of data for 1990-1996 and 2003-2008 

with relative consistency of local minima and maxima among stations. Each station experienced 

a local maximum for turbidity measurements in 1991, though Tunnel Creek showed particularly 

high values. This might be due in part to the fact that groundwater discharge is the only source 

of flow at the station. As for flow, the overall maximum for all monitoring stations occurred in 

1997, though this phenomenon does not appear to correspond with any of the other monitored

attributes. 

Summary

Overall, the recently collected I&M water quality data at CUGA generally reflects historical 

monitoring. Data for pH falls below the standard of 6 SU for past monitoring at Martin’sFork, 

and would probably show a similar pattern for Shillalah Creek if past data were available. 

However, these low values are most likely natural for these waters, as Meiman (2009) points out. 

E. coli also exceeded limits during and before the I&M period at Station Creek, though again, 

this might be due to a point-source contamination, such as the septic field of the nearby 

campground. Because of the lack of large-scale and consistent violations of water quality 

standards, as well as the consistency between historical monitoring and current I&M water data, 

water chemistry is assigned a stable and good condition status rating (Table 11). 

In addition, because of the elevated bacterial concentrations observed at Gap Creek and Station 

Creek, microorganisms is assigned a fair condition status, though an expansion of sampling at 

those two sites has been recommended to isolate contamination sources. Trend analysis of E. 

coli concentrations revealed evidence, though not strong, that contamination is increasing, which 

may be tied with increased campground use since monitoring began. As a result, a degrading

trend is assigned for microorganisms (Table 11).

Finally, virtually all flows at CUGA originate inside the park. One of two exceptions to this are 

Little Yellow Creek, which flows from the southern end of the Fern Lake acquisition into the 

reservoir, exiting the park briefly before reentering below Hwy 25. The other exception is Gap 

Creek, which begins in the park, but exits and reenters twice before ultimately flowing out of the 

boundary. As a result, the flow rate of streams generally reflect natural conditions that are free 

from impoundments or increased runoff due to impervious surfaces. Historical flow monitoring 

shows consistency among sites, and thus surface water is assigned a condition status of good 

with a stable trend (Table 11).
47

Microorganisms 

3 of 3: Good

3 of 3: Good

Water 

Chemistry

3 of 3: Good

Temporal

Surface 

Water

Thematic Spatial

Condition 

Attribute & Trend

Data Quality

Table 11. The condition status for water quality is divided into three attributes: surface water, water 

chemistry, and microorganisms. Respectively, these attributes received condition statuses of good, good, 

and fair, with respective trends stable, stable, and declining. The data quality for each of the attributes 

was ranked good.
48

DB10 YC1 YC12 MF5 RR1 SH10 SR10 TC10 GC7 ST9

Water Temp. (oC)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

VA Class vi limit (TN 

and KY limits 30.5oC 

 and 31.7oC) TN VA

Upper Cumberland (KY) Powell

 

 

Figure 19. Box and whisker water quality data at CUGA during the first round of monthly I&M sampling (’06-’08): Davis Branch (DB10), Gap Creek 

(GC7), Martin’s Fork (MF5), Railroad Creek (RR1), Shillalah Creek (SH10), Sugar Run (SRSR), Station Creek (ST9), Tunnel Creek (TC10), Upper 

Little Yellow Creek (YC1), and Little Yellow Creek (YC12). All stations are in Kentucky except where noted, and state standards are listed for 

each parameter where available. Boxes represent 25th to 75th percentiles, whiskers 5th to 95th percentiles, central solid line is the median, and 

detached dots are outliers. Horizontal dotted lines within boxes represent mean values over sampling period.

DB10 YC1 YC12 MF5 RR1 SH10 SR10 TC10 GC7 ST9

Specific Conductance (mS/cm)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Upper Cumberland (KY) Powell

TN VA

EPA recommended 

range 

DB10 YC1 YC12 MF5 RR1 SH10 SR10 TC10 GC7 ST9

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)

TN Fish & Aquatic

Life, KY ONRW min

VA (Class vi)

Trout Waters/ 

KY coldwater min

Upper Cumberland (KY) Powell

TN VA

DB10 YC1 YC12 MF5 RR1 SH10 SR10 TC10 GC7 ST9

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Upper Cumberland (KY) Powell

TN VA

Upper limit (KY, TN, VA)

Lower limit (KY, TN, VA)

pH
49

DB10 YC1 YC12 MF5 RR1 SH10 SR10 TC10 GC7 ST9

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

VA Secondary Contact

Recreation limit, TN

Fish & Aquatic Life

TN VA

Upper Cumberland (KY) Powell

E. coli (#/100mL)

 

 Figure 16 continued. Box and whisker water quality data at CUGA during the first round of monthly I&M sampling (’06-’08): Davis Branch (DB10), 

Gap Creek (GC7), Martin’s Fork (MF5), Railroad Creek (RR1), Shillalah Creek (SH10), Sugar Run (SRSR), Station Creek (ST9), Tunnel Creek 

(TC10), Upper Little Yellow Creek (YC1), and Little Yellow Creek (YC12). All stations are in Kentucky except where noted, and state standards 

are listed for each parameter where available. Boxes represent 25th to 75th percentiles, whiskers 5th to 95th percentiles, central solid line is the 

median, and detached dots are outliers. Horizontal dotted lines within boxes represent mean values over sampling period.

DB10 YC1 YC12 MF5 RR1 SH10 SR10 TC10 GC7 ST9

Flow (l/sec)

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400 Upper Cumberland (KY) Powell

TN

VA

DB10 YC1 YC12 MF5 RR1 SH10 SR10 TC10 GC7 ST9

Total Coliform (#/100mL)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Upper Cumberland (KY) Powell

TN VA

DB10 YC1 YC12 MF5 RR1 SH10 SR10 TC10 GC7 ST9

Turbidity (NTUs)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Upper Cumberland (KY) Powell

TN

VA
50

Figure 16 continued. Box and whisker water quality data at CUGA during the first round of monthly I&M sampling (’06-’08): Davis Branch (DB10), 

Gap Creek (GC7), Martin’s Fork (MF5), Railroad Creek (RR1), Shillalah Creek (SH10), Sugar Run (SRSR), Station Creek (ST9), Tunnel Creek 

(TC10), Upper Little Yellow Creek (YC1), and Little Yellow Creek (YC12). All stations are in Kentucky except where noted, and state standards 

are listed for each parameter where available. Boxes represent 25th to 75th percentiles, whiskers 5th to 95th percentiles, central solid line is the 

median, and detached dots are outliers. Horizontal dotted lines within boxes represent mean values over sampling period. 

DB10 YC1 YC12 MF5 RR1 SH10 SR10 TC10 GC7 ST9

Acid Neutralizing Capactiy (mg/l CaCO3)

0

50

100

150

200

EPA recommended 

min for FAQ

Upper Cumberland (KY) Powell

TN VA
51

Figure 20. Annual series of historical monitoring data at CUGA from EPAStoret (1990-2007) plotting mean with standard error. Points are 

grouped by location to match official I&M stations where data is available.

1990 1992 1994 1996 2004 2006 2008

Temperature (Co)

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Martins Fork

Shilliah Creek

Railroad Creek 

Station Creek 

Gap Creek

VA (class vi),TN, and 

KY limits 21Co, 30.5Co, 

and 31.7oC, respectively)

Tunnel Creek

Davis Branch

Sugar Run 

Upper Yellow Creek

Lower Yellow Creek

1990 1992 1994 1996 2004 2006 2008

Specific Conductance (uS/cm)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Tunnel Creek

Davis Branch

Sugar Run

Upper Yellow Creek

Lower Yellow Creek

Martins Fork

Shilliah Creek 

Railroad Creek 

Station Creek

Gap Creek

1990 1992 1994 1996 2006 2008

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

6

8

10

12

14 Tunnel Creek

Davis Branch

Sugar Run

Upper Little Yellow Creek

Lower Little Yellow Creek

Martins Fork 

Shillalah Creek

Railroad Creek 

Station Creek

Gap Creek 

TN (FAQ) and KY (ONRW) DO 

min 5 mg/L; VA min 6 mg/L

1990 1992 1994 1996 2006 2008

Acid Neutralizing Capacity(mg/L CaCO3)

0

50

100

150

200

250 Tunnel Creek

Davis Branch

Sugar Run

Upper Yellow Creek

Lower Yellow Creek

Martins Fork 

Shillalah Creek

Railroad Creek

Station Creek

Gap Creek 
52

Figure 20 continued. Annual series of historical monitoring data at CUGA from EPAStoret (1990-2007) plotting mean with standard error. Points 

are grouped by location to match official I&M stations where data is available.

1990 1992 1994 1996 2004 2006 2008

pH

4

6

8

10

Tunnel Creek

Davis Branch

Sugar Run

Upper Yellow Creek

Lower Yellow Creek

Upper limit (KY, TN, VA)

Lower limit (KY, TN, VA)

Martins Fork

Shilliah Creek

Railroad Creek 

Station Creek

Gap Creek 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

E. coli (#/100mL)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Tunnel Creek

Davis Branch 

Sugar Run

Upper Yellow Creek

Lower Yellow Creek 

VA Secondary Contact 

Recreation Upper Limit 

Martins Fork 

Shilliah Creek

Railroad Creek

Station Creek

Gap Creek 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Fecal Coliform (#/100mL)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Martins Fork 

Shilliah Creek 

Railroad Creek 

Station Creek 

Gap Creek 

KY and VA limit (5 samples/30 days)

*samplin g sch edule do es no t meet

 standard requirements

Tunnel Creek

Davis Branch

Sugar Run

Upper Yellow Creek

Lower Yellow Creek

1990 1992 1994 1996 2004 2006 2008

Turbidity (NTUs)

0

20

40

60

80

Martins Fork

Shilliah Creek

Railroad Creek 

Station Creek 

Gap Creek 

Tunnel Creek

Davis Branch

Sugar Run 

Upper Yellow Creek

Lower Yellow Creek
53

Figure 20 continued. Annual series of historical monitoring data at CUGA from EPAStoret (1990-2007) plotting mean with standard error. Points 

are grouped by location to match official I&M stations where data is available.

1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 2004 2006 2008

Flow (l/sec)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Tunnel Creek

Davis Branch

Sugar Run 

Upper Yellow Creek

Lower Yellow Creek

Martins Fork 

Shilliah Creek 

Railroad Creek 

Station Creek 

Gap Creek 
54

Figure 21. E. coli concentrations were collected on Station Creek from 2003-2011, including the official 

I&M collections beginning in Oct. 2006.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

ST5 (above Wilderness Rd. campground)

ST9 (below Wilderness Rd. campground)

EPA limit for

infreq. contact rec.

TN rec. limit

VA sec. contact

rec. limit

E. coli (#/100mL)
55

Invasive Plants

According to results from the NatureServe vegetation assessment conducted by White (2006), 

108 total non-native species were documented during 2003-2004 field work at CUGA. The 

current total exotics shown in NPSpecies (2011) is 123, or 13% of species documented in the 

park. This includes 31 species considered highly aggressive/invasive based on assessments by 

the Tennessee and Kentucky Exotic Plants Pest Councils (EPPC 2001) and NatureServe I-ranks 

(Morse et al. 2009, Table 12). White (2006) further suggests that, collectively, these invasive 

species are currently the single greatest threat to the overall ecological health of the park. 

As part of the vegetation assessment, White (2006) selected a top-six list of species whose 

removal would be the most beneficial to the ecological health of the park. These species include: 

1) Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum)

2) Autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata)

3) Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense)

4) Princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa)

5) Tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima)

6) Mimosa (Albizia julibrissin)

Another 1980 survey conducted by Butler et al. (1981) documented 20 exotics in the park, and 

listed the top five most abundant exotics, in order, as follows:

1) Japanese honeysuckle

2) Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora)

3) Mimosa 

4) Apples/Peaches (Pyrus malus, Prunus persica)

5) Kudzu (Pueraria montana)

6) Privet (Ligustrum spp.—presumably L. sinensis).

These species, as well as those that pose a particular ecological threat, are abundant, or result in 

frequent management efforts at the park are discussed further below.

Focal Species

Autumn olive

Throughout its range, autumn olive was frequently replanted over strip mine and disturbed areas, 

and seems to be a particular problem in areas where it was planted in stands or rows within the 

last 10-20 years. As a result, is has spread to various ecoregions, and currently occurs in all 

eastern US states. It unfortunately still continues to be planted for wildlife and soil stabilization 

projects in certain areas (NatureServe 2011). The Fern Lake acquisition at CUGA also contains 

an abundance of autumn olive and will necessarily require significant management attention (J. 

Beeler personal communication).

Chinese privet

One of the most troublesome characteristics of privet is that it easily invades multiple habitat 

types, including wetland forests, wet meadows, forest edges, prairies/old fields, and ravines. In 

these areas, it can create dense layers that shade out other native species (Munger 2003). It 
56

Figure 22. Princesstree is a prolific seedproducer that can colonize hard-to-reach 

places. [Source: James H. Miller, USDA 

Forest Service, Bugwood.org]

currently is distributed in the Southeast and most midAtlantic states, and usually requires a minimum of 

three to five years of repeated treatments for 

eradication (NatureServe 2011).

Johnsongrass

Johnsongrass, a frequently listed noxious weed 

throughout the US, also has the ability to invade a 

variety of habitats, most typically including disturbed 

areas, flooded bottomlands, forest edges, or roadsides. 

On roadsides in particular, it can establish quickly 

using rhizomatous movement to eventually 

outcompete native plants. Johnsongrass is easily 

spread via field cultivation and is difficult and 

expensive, though necessary, to control (NatureServe 

2011). At CUGA, Johnsongrass is mostly found along 

roadsides and in old field habitat (R. White personal 

communication).

Princesstree

Princesstree is another species that is still planted 

throughout the US for its fast growth and can adapt to 

many different environments (Figure 22). The 

extremely rapid growth of this tree—up to 15 ft a 

year—necessitates quick treatment before it is able to

produce seeds and outcompete surrounding native 

vegetation. Seed production per tree can reach up to 

20 million every year (NatureServe 2011). Princesstree is also able to colonize steep rocky 

slopes where other species may be unable to adapt, thus making treatment in these locations 

particularly difficult. At CUGA, this is a salient issue due to the frequency of rare species that 

grow along rocky slopes, especially in the White Rocks cliff system in the northern portion of 

the park (SEEPPC 2011, R. White personal communication).

Tree-of-heaven

Tree-of-heaven is already a widespread species and 

primarily invades habitat of low quality or disturbed areas. These disturbed areas may be the 

result of human activity or natural disturbance, such as a tree fall (R. White personal 

communication). It is able to tolerate extreme conditions including acidic soils, stony and thin 

topsoils, and high levels of air pollution. This species is also allelopathic, meaning it secretes 

chemicals from its roots that can negatively impact the shrub layer or other competing species in 

its vicinity. At CUGA, it may occur most frequently around roadsides and in cultivated 

meadows. Although seed production is high, persistent root sprouts also make this species 

particularly difficult to eradicate (NatureServe 2011). 
57

Figure 23. Mimosa, a legume with a propensity for resprouting, 

is among the invasives treated at CUGA. [Source: James H. 

Miller, USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org]

Figure 24. Kudzu can quickly invade and cover native 

vegetation. [Source: Kerry Britton, USDA Forest Service, 

Bugwood.org]

Mimosa

Mimosa is a predominant invasive in the southern US, where it is planted frequently as an 

ornamental (Figure 23). It usually invades human-disturbed areas, though it can also grow in

riparian areas and forest edges, adapting to several types of soil conditions. Because of its 

lasting seed viability, quick growth, and propensity for resprouting, treatment of this species 

proves difficult and usually necessitates herbicidal control in addition to manual cutting. Besides 

the ability to outcompete native vegetation, it also can alter the native growing environment by 

fixing nitrogen into the soil (SEEPPC 2011, NatureServe 2011).

Garlic mustard

Although White (2006) did not 

find garlic mustard (Alliaria 

petiolata) during his inventory, he 

warns that it could potentially 

arrive at the park in the near 

future and would most likely 

adversely affect the bottomland 

and cove forests such as the 

Northern Mixed Mesophytic 

Forest Type. In recent years, 

garlic mustard was discovered 

and eradicated in a single location 

along a park road by the 

Southeast Exotic Pest Plant 

Management Team (SEEPMT

2011) and currently, no other 

infestations are known in the park 

(J. Beeler personal 

communication). Garlic mustard 

generates allelopathic compounds 

that are harmful to the 

germination of other species, and 

can eventually create too much 

shade for the success of native 

understory species. 

Kudzu

Another significant problem in 

the park is kudzu, which is a fastgrowing vine that can quickly 

form an impenetrable blanket 

over existing vegetation and 

fundamentally alter the existing 

community by outcompeting 

native species (Figure 24). Vines 

can grow up to 15m each season, 
58

while roots can penetrate to depths of 3m (SEEPPC 2011).

Treating kudzu infestations can require considerable investment, including repeated cutting, 

digging, and herbicide application to prevent spread via runners. Currently, this species is one of 

the main targets for management attention in the park (J. Beeler personal communication). 

Sericea

Lespedeza, also known as sericea, is an herbaceous species that, like kudzu, can form dense 

monotypic mats that completely exclude other native species. Originally introduced as forage 

and a means of erosion control, this species also produces allelopathic chemicals and fixes 

nitrogen into the soil, further suppressing growth of competing species. Treatment options 

include herbicide, mowing, or burning, though each of these might also negatively affect native 

species. Management attention for this species may be required for upwards of five years due to 

its long seed viability, prolific resprouting, and ability to spread vegetatively (NatureServe 2011, 

SEEPPC 2011). 

Crown vetch

Like mimosa, kudzu, and sericea, crown vetch is another leguminous species that requires 

substantial management attention from the park (J. Beeler personal communication). Crown 

vetch is a vine that spreads vegetatively through adventitious roots as well as via seeds, which 

can remain viable for multiple years. Treatment commitments are estimated to be at least 3-5 

years, and manual removal through pulling and mowing may prove successful (NatureServe 

2011, SEEPPC 2011).

Oriental Bittersweet

A woody deciduous vine, oriental 

bittersweet shares several traits 

with other invasive vines, 

including a high reproductive rate, 

rapid growth, and the ability to 

outcompete native vegetation 

either by direct mortality from 

girdling, or indirectly from 

shading. Unlike many of the other 

invasives commonly treated at 

CUGA, oriental bittersweet can 

adapt to a wide variety of light

conditions, leading it to occupy 

roadsides, open wooded areas, or 

interior forests. 

In addition to these species already outlined, Chinese silvergrass (Miscanthus sinensis) and teasel 

(Dipsacus fullonum) represent emerging threats in the Wilderness Road area (J. Beeler personal 

communication). In other areas, species of concern include burningbush (Euonymus alatus), 

Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), pear (Pyrus calleryana), and coltsfoot (Tussilago 

farfara).

Figure 25. Crown vetch is another exotic legume that requires 

considerable management attention at CUGA.
59

Threat Ranking

Morse et al. (2004) developed a methodology to quantify the threat posed by exotics to native 

species and ecosystems, called the I-rank (Table 12). The overall I-rank consists of 20 questions 

which together cover four main subranks: ecological impact, current distribution and abundance, 

trend in distribution and abundance, and management difficulty. We recalculated the I-ranks for 

each species, excluding consideration of current distribution and abundance, because that metric 

is relevant to the rangewide status and we desired a park unit-level status. These rankings are 

shown in Table 12 and are expressed on a scale of zero to three, with three representing the 

greatest threat to park resources. Following this approach, only one species, Japanese 

honeysuckle, resulted in an I-Rank in the highest category (>2.00). 

Table 12. Thirty-one plant species at CUGA are considered significantly or severely invasive by the TN 

and KY Exotic Pest Plant Councils based on their ability to invade and displace native vegetation 

communities. VA Dept. of Conservation and Recreation (VADCR) invasiveness rankings are also 

provided. These classifications are shown with nationwide I-ranks adapted from Morse et al. (2004).

I-Rank is calculated as a mean of ecological impact, trend in distribution and abundance, and general management 

difficulty, each of which is assigned a value of 1 to 3 (Morse et al., 2003). Each category is assigned a number based 

on its categorical rating and mean to give the overall I-Rank: low (0.01-1.00), medium (1.01-2.00), or high (2.01-3.00). 

Ranks do not reflect overall abundance within the park unit.

EPPC Rank DCR Rank

Species TN KY VA I-Rank

Lonicera maackii Amur honeysuckle Severe Severe Moderate 2.5

Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle Severe Severe High 2.3

Elaeagnus umbellata Autumn olive Severe Severe High 2.2

Lespedeza cuneata Chinese bushclover Severe Severe High 2

Microstegium vimineum Japanese stiltgrass Severe Severe High 2

Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed Severe Severe High 2

Rumex acestosella Sheep sorrel - Significant Moderate 2

Dioscorea oppositifolia Chinese Yam - Severe High 1.8

Pueraria montana Kudzu Severe Severe High 1.8

Sorghum halepense Johnsongrass Severe Severe High 1.8

Miscanthus sinensis Chinese silvergrass Significant - Occasional 1.7

Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass - Significant - 1.7

Albizia julibrissin Mimosa Severe Significant Moderate 1.7

Carduus nutans Musk thistle Significant Severe Moderate 1.7

Coronilla varia Common crown-vetch Significant Severe Occasional 1.7

Leucanthemum vulgare Oxeye Daisy Lesser Significant - 1.7

Ailanthus altissima Tree-of-heaven Severe Severe High 1.5

Verbascum thapsus Common mullein Significant - - 1.5

Berberis thunbergii Japanese barberry Significant Significant Moderate 1.3

Kummerowia stipulacea Korean clover Lesser Significant -

Paulownia tomentosa Princess tree Severe Significant Moderate 1.3

Ipomoea purpurea Purple morning-glory - Significant Moderate 1.2

Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose Severe Severe High 1.2

Glechoma hederacea Ground ivy Lesser Significant Moderate 1

Stellaria media Chickweed - Severe Moderate 1

Vinca minor Common periwinkle Significant Significant Occasional 1

Daucus carota Queen Anne’s Lace Severe Significant - 0.3

Torilis arvensis Field hedge-parsley Significant - - Not Ranked

Bromus japonicus Japanese brome Significant - - Not Ranked

Clematis terniflora Leatherleaf clematis Significant - - Not Ranked

Eleusine indica Indian goosegrass - Significant - Not Ranked

Setaria viridis Green bristle grass Significant Significant Moderate Not Ranked
60

The first category—ecological impact—generally relates to the effects of the species on 

community structure and composition, or to more general ecosystem processes. The second 

category—current distribution and abundance—considers the broad-scale range of the species 

and the diversity of communities it invades. The greater the area and amount of habitat a species 

invades, the more damage it can potentially cause. However, this abundance measure does not 

address localized presence, such as at the scale of CUGA. As a result, widespread species with a 

high ranking for this category may in fact be sparse at CUGA, or species with relatively 

constrained broad-scale distributions may be common and widespread in the park, resulting in 

conflicting influence on the overall I-Rank. Consequently, this category is not used to recalculate 

the quantitative I-Rank for species at CUGA. The third category—trend in distribution and 

abundance—is used to inform the I-Rank because it is scale-independent, and generally 

addresses its rate of spread and increase in abundance. Lastly, management difficulty addresses 

how hard the species is, once identified, to eradicate or control. This category also addresses the 

potential of common control methods to cause collateral damage to other native species (Morse 

et al. 2004).

Three species had an overall I-rank between moderate and severe: Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera 

maackii), Japanese honeysuckle, and autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata). Amur honeysuckle is 

predominant in most of the states in the eastern US, where in forested areas it can lead to 

decreased species richness and suppression of native tree species (Collier et al. 2002). In 

addition, Gould and Gorchov (2002) showed that the presence of Amur honeysuckle reduced the 

fecundity and survival of three native annuals—stickywilly (Galium aparine), pale jewelweed 

(Impatiens pallida), and Canadian clearweed (Pilea pumila)—depending on the level of 

disturbance present at the site. Each of these species was documented at CUGA by White 

(2006). In addition to affecting these three species, it is assumed that Amur honeysuckle likely 

affects other native species negatively as well. Repeated control measures are recommended to 

eliminate this invasive, including repeated clipping in forested areas at least once a year, and 

clipping in combination with herbicide application in open areas (Luken and Mattimiro 1991). 

Japanese honeysuckle is also reported to change forest structure, which may include suppression 

of understory herbs, a simplified understory, and death for various trees and shrubs due to the 

amount of biomass it can accumulate (NatureServe 2011). This species is noted as particularly 

difficult to remove, especially after it is established, due to its extensive rhizome, root system,

and ability to resprout after hand-pulling or mowing. Again, manual removal is recommended in 

combination with herbicide application (Bravo 2005). 

The third highest ranked species, autumn olive, is a nitrogen-fixer that occurs commonly in wet 

or riparian areas where it also can suppress understory plants. Suggested treatment options 

include cutting, girdling, and hand removal either alone or in combination with herbicide 

application (SEEPPC 2009).

Despite their high I-Rank, these species may not necessarily represent the top management 

priorities for invasives in the park. Amur honeysuckle, especially, is limited to rich/basic soils, 

and thus will have a limited range in the acidic soils (R. White personal communication). 
61

Susceptible Areas

Of the 33 ecological community types within the vicinity of the park, there are three that appear 

to have the highest level of invasion by invasive exotics: Virginia pine successional forest 

(CEGL2591), Red-Cedar successional forest (CEGL7124), and Sycamore-Sweetgum swamp 

forest (CEGL7340), the former two of which are considered to be early successional forests 

(2591 and 7124), and the third (7340) is often early successional in nature. Each of these types 

comprise <1% of the overall park area. The cultivated meadow vegetation community 

(CEGL4048), another early successional community, also contains European fescues and 

Kentucky bluegrass—a species that, surprisingly, is not native to Kentucky and is included on 

the KY EPPC list as a significant invasive threat (Table 12). These maintained communities are 

most frequent along the main park roads and at the Hensley Settlement, which is maintained as a 

cultural site. Several of the old homesites in the park have also served as sources of exotic 

species after they were allowed to return to natural woodland without removing non-natives

(White 2006). In general, it appears that communities that are most disturbed (i.e., early 

successional), also generally have some of the largest problems with invasive exotics. In 

contrast, examples of stands that are less disturbed by humans and further away from “edges” 

generally have less invasive exotic presence (R. White personal communication).

Butler et al. (1981) reports that exotic species were most clustered around the Gap itself, in 

addition to the area between the visitor’s center and the wilderness road campground—all of 

which are areas close to roads with higher rates of fragmentation. In general, most occurrences, 

especially for princess tree and tree-of-heaven, were along roadsides (mainly HWY-25) and 

developed areas with high levels of human impact. As such, there were virtually no occurrences 

of exotic species documented east of Gibson Gap. Butler et al. (1981) documented 16 forest 

types in the park, and 69% of exotics found in natural areas occurred in either the tulip-poplar—

oak-hickory (~CEGL7220/7221) or tulip-poplar—sycamore (~CEGL7340) forest types. Most of 

the remainder occurred in the mixed Virginia/pitch pine forest type (~CEGL2591). Although 

several non-native fruit trees were observed as well, most were located at the Hensley Settlement

where they likely add to the cultural interpretation of the area. Butler et al. (1981) also noted that

the invasibility of these trees is minimal, and predicted their eventual decline as a result of low

replacement rates. Today, exotic species are much more widespread at CUGA than just along 

Wilderness Rd., and have been found in Shillalah Creek Rd., Civic Park, Ewing Trail, and along 

the Ridge Trail (J. Beeler personal communication). 

A main difference between White (2006) and Butler et al. (1982) was the lack of Chinese privet

documented by White (2006) in the recent assessment, while Butler et al. (1981) had 

acknowledged privet by genus as the sixth most abundant exotic species at CUGA. Privet does 

occur at CUGA (J. Beeler personal communication)—likely Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense)-

-which occurs frequently throughout the southeastern US where it has become naturalized. It 

seems unlikely that CUGA would not contain occurrences of this species, especially if it was 

identified during the initial Butler et al. (1981) survey. 

Treatments for exotics since 2005 have occurred in many locations along the Wilderness Road 

Trail. GPS readings show a virtually continuous stretch of invasion where treatments have 

occurred along the Wilderness Road Trail. (Figure 26). This stretch of the Wilderness Road

Trail. originates from its intersection with highway 58 near Cumberland Gap to its intersection 

with highway 25E in Middlesboro. Part of the reason for the predominance of exotics in this 
62

area is the large number of roads that were once present along this corridor. Despite revegetation 

with native species during restoration, exotics quickly invaded and now represent a significant 

management concern in this area. 

Taken as a whole, CUGA represents a large contiguous tract of relatively undisturbed land, the 

result of which is high vegetation diversity in most areas with specific locations of concentrated 

invasives. Though quite a few exotic species have been documented at CUGA, including 31 

species considered highly invasive, exotics represent only 13% of vascular plants documented at 

CUGA, which is low compared to other park units in the CUPN (Moore 2010). 

White (2006) mentions that four high priority forest types may be threatened by the incursion of 

exotics, though collectively they are quite rare and comprise <1% of the park. The Dry 

Calcareous Forest/Woodland (CEGL8458) faces a threat from tree-of-heaven and princess tree, 

while the Hi Lewis Pitch Pine Barrens (CEGL3617) may be susceptible to exotic invasion after 

widespread pine mortality from the southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis). Generally, 

White (2006) recommends controlling all instances of highly invasive exotics and devoting 

particular effort to protecting the high quality and rare communities in the park. 

Summary

Although invasive plants represent a relatively small proportion of vascular plant species

identified at CUGA, they still represent one of the biggest expenditures of management effort by 

the park. Treatments are concentrated on hotspots, mainly along the Wilderness Road Trail, but 

invaded sites also exist in other locations such as Hensley Settlement and Civic Park. For these 

reasons, the condition status at CUGA is assigned a ranking of “fair” (Table 13). Although the 

number of exotic species documented in surveys by White (2006) compared to Butler et al. 

(1981) represents a fivefold increase much of this is likely due to a difference in survey methods, 

such as Butler’s concentration woody species. As a result, we find insufficient information to 

assign a trend to this ranking.
63

Figure 26. Exotic treatment sites along Wilderness Rd. since 2005.
64

Infestations and Disease

Hemlock Woolly Adelgid

Cumberland Gap NHP monitors for several non-native insect pest species. Currently, one of the 

most serious and threatening pests to hemlock communities in the region and the park itself is the 

hemlock woolly adelgid, which was first discovered at the park in 2006 along the Martin’s Fork 

drainage (J. Beeler personal communication). Since that time, Bell, Harlan, and Lee counties in 

KY and VA have reported infestation, and most recently in Clairborne county in TN (NPS

2009b, NAS&PF 2008). Native to southern Japan, this species of adelgid preys upon species of 

eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and Carolina hemlock (Tsuga caroliniana), usually 

resulting in fatal damage to the tree within 3 to 10 years of infestation (USDA 2005). 

In his 2006 vegetation assessment, White reports that the Cumberland/Appalachian HemlockHardwood Cove Forest at CUGA is particularly susceptible to woolly adelgid due to the high 

concentration of hemlocks in this forest type. This community is predominant along the 

floodplains of many of the streams throughout the northern side of the ridgeline, overall 

encompassing 212 ha. Hemlock functions as a keystone species in this community, meaning that 

its role in the community is essential to their function. Numerous studies predicted a multitude

of effects on the structure and function of hemlock riparian and cove hardwood communities due

to adelgid-induced decline, including transpiration rates, carbon cycling, vegetation dynamics, 

structural complexity, wildlife, and potential spread of exotic species (Ford and Vose 2007,

Cleavitt et al. 2008, Nuckolls et al. 2009, Daley et al. 2007, Eschtruth et al. 2006). While the 

park continually monitors infestation rates and health of trees throughout the park, it is especially 

important that treatments reach hemlocks in the uncommon communities where they serve such 

a vital function. Large-scale application of pesticides would not be feasible for the park, and the 

efficacy of bio-control projects is still being tested throughout the Southern Appalachians. 

Although the hemlock-hardwood cove forest area at CUGA covers a small proportion of area, 

the loss of this species could be potentially devastating to this important and diverse 

ecosystem.CUGA resource managers are implementing ongoing efforts to control the spread of 

the adelgid throughout this small, but important, community. 

Beginning in 2007, resource managers implemented two aggressive treatment measures in an 

attempt to control and eliminate the spread of the adelgid: imidacloprid pesticide treatments and 

predatory beetle releases. Pesticide control focused primarily on the Cumberland/Appalachian 

Hemlock-Hardwood Cove Forest (CEGL8407) in the southwest of the park (total 140 acres), as 

well as a few stands of Southern Appalachian Eastern Hemlock Forest (CEGL7136, total 37 

Table 13. CUGA was assigned a status of fair for invasive plants with no trend. Data

quality was assigned a status of good.

3 of 3: Fair

Thematic Spatial Temporal

Condition 

Attribute & Trend

Data Quality

3 of 3: Good

Invasive 

Plants
65

acres, Figure 27). Overall, this encompasses almost the entire Sugar Run drainage within the 

park, in addition to several spot treatments around more conspicuous road and trail areas. 

Treatments have been conducted every year since 2007, with particular concentration this year 

(2011) on backcountry areas. Starting in 2010, an additional pesticide, dinotefuran, was 

incorporated into treatment as both a soil drench and basal bark spray.

Besides imidacloprid treatments, 16 predatory beetle releases have been conducted along riparian 

corridors such as Davis Branch, Laurel Branch, Sugar Run, and Shillalah Creek. These beetle 

releases involve two species—Pseudoscymnus tsugae and Laricobius nigrinus. As of this 

writing, the treated areas appear to be doing well, though no beetles have been released since the 

2009 season (J. Beeler personal communication). 
66

Figure 27. Treatments for hemlock woolly adelgid included pesticide drenches and predatory beetle releases from 2007 – 2011.
67

Emerald Ash-Borer

Emerald ash-borer (Agrilus planipennis), another invasive insect pest, is currently on the watch 

list at CUGA (NPS 2009a). Emerald ash-borer (EAB) is native to NE Asia, and was first 

discovered in the US in 2002. It attacks only ash trees (Fraxinus spp.), which are usually killed

3-4 years after infestation (McCullough and Usborne 2008). In 2007, the Kentucky Division of 

Forestry noted that the borer had been found in Hamilton County, OH just north of the KY 

border. A subsequent placement of 2,500 traps in northern Kentucky between 2007 and 2008 

resulted in no catches. However, in May 2009, the borer was confirmed in KY in two counties 

and in three months, the list of infested counties had expanded to eight (Townsend 2009). As of 

this writing, 20 counties in northern Kentucky and five counties in Tennessee have been 

quarantined for Emerald ash-borer, including Clairborne County adjacent to the park. No 

infestations have been documented in the park unit (J. Beeler personal communication). 

Figure 28. As of 2011, 20 counties in NW KY and five counties in TN have been quarantined due to the 

presence of emerald ash-borer.

European Gypsy Moth

The European gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) is another invasive insect that stays on the watch 

list of invasive pests at CUGA. The larva of these moths can quickly defoliate trees and portions 

of forests, and feed on a variety of common tree species. Originating in the US from an 
68

introduction to Massachusetts, the invasion front of gypsy moths, according to the Cooperative 

Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS), continues to spread southwest towards CUGA (Figure 29). 

The US Forest Service has also monitored 11-15 traps in CUGA since 2004, from which it 

reported a single capture in Virginia in 2007 (J. Beeler personal communication). During 2002-

2005, Claiborne County in TN, which encompasses the southern portion of CUGA, underwent 

eradication efforts, but has not reported gypsy moth presence since that time (NAPIS 2011). 

Although the pest has not been identified close to the park at this time, it seems likely that the 

invasion front will eventually reach southeastern Kentucky and the park.
69

Figure 29. Since 2008, the invasion front of gypsy moth continues to spread southwest into Kentucky, though no counties surrounding CUGA have 

reported gypsy moth sightings to the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS) (NAPIS 2011).
70

Asian Long-Horned Beetle

The Asian long-horned beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis) is another pest on the watch list of exotic insects posing a threat to the park. 

The beetles threaten a variety of deciduous hardwoods, which most notably includes several maple species. However, the beetles have 

yet to be discovered in KY, VA, or TN, and most likely pose the least threat to the park of the insects currently included on the watchlist (USFS 2009). 

Southern Pine Beetle

Southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis), a native forest insect to the southern US, has caused pine mortality over several 

hundred acres at CUGA in the past, largely affecting Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana, NPSa 2009). Krist et al. (2007), as part of the 

Forest Health Technology and Enterprise Team (FHTET), produced a prediction map for the US showing potential basal area loss for 

southern pine beetle for the next 15 years, which showed virtually no risk for the CUGA region. 

A separate spatial model produced for a finer resolution, also by the FHTET, used a combination of pine species composition, slope, 

shadow effect, and basal area to predict the susceptibility and vulnerability for forested regions using a categorical ranking from no 

risk to very high risk. Again, the overall risk for the park was quite low, with small patches of forest ranked from moderate to high 

risk (Figure 30). These small patches of high risk most closely correspond to forest regions classified as Blue Ridge Table Mountain 

Pine-Pitch Pine Woodland (CEGL7097) by the Center for Remote Sensing and Mapping Science (CRMS) at the University of 

Georgia. This particular vegetation type typically occurs on the ridgelines at higher elevations. In his report on the vegetation 

communities at CUGA, White (2006) mentions that this community, which totals 194 hectares at CUGA, has already been heavily 

impacted by pine beetle, and whose regeneration may currently be limited by fire suppression. If this continues, White (2006) notes 

that this particular community is in danger of extirpation from the park. 

The CUGA Fire Use Module does conduct prescribed burning that can help minimize fuel loads and facilitate natural regeneration, 

though it is not an objective to target areas specifically to combat pine beetle (NPS 2003). The park is divided into five main burn 

areas which are further subdivided into 16 individual units. Four of the main areas are along the exterior region of the park in the 

west, while the Lookout Tower area is centralized in the eastern part of the park adjacent to the White Rocks area (Figure 31). 

Burning within the units began mainly in 2005, with each unit targeted using periodic cycles. 
71

Figure 30. Southern pine beetle risk map produced by Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team (Ellenwood and Krist 2007) shown for the 

CUGA area shows forest stands of highest risk in the north-central section of the park, which closely coincides with the Blue Ridge Table Mountain 

Pine-Pitch Pine Woodland forest type. 
72

Figure 31. The CUGA Fire Use Module prescribes periodic burns in each of the different burn units in the park.
73

Thousand Cankers Disease

Another potential threat at CUGA is thousand cankers disease, which affects black walnut trees 

(Juglans nigra) and is spread by a combination of fungus (Geosmithia sp.) and the walnut twig 

beetle (Pityophthorus juglandis). As the beetle bores into the bark, it facilitates fungal infection 

and canker formation at each of the numerous tunnels it creates. Tree death typically occurs 

within 3 years of onset (USFS 2011). 

TN is the only state in the southeast reporting an infestation, which is currently centered around 

Knoxville. The TN Dept. of Agriculture has invoked a quarantine that includes Campbell and 

Claiborne counties near CUGA, which prohibits the transfer of walnut tree products or hardwood 

firewood outside these areas (TN Dept. Agr. 2011). Though the disease has not been detected 

inside the park, its potential to spread represents a management concern.

Summary

Overall, CUGA faces threats from several insects and a single fungal infection. Though the 

emerald ash-borer has yet to be found at CUGA, the invasion front of this insect continues 

towards the park region, and infestation within the park is likely within coming years. The gypsy 

moth appears to represent even more of an immediate threat, having been trapped at CUGA in 

2007, and whose invasion front is much closer than the ash-borer. Also threatening the park in 

the near term is the thousand cankers disease, which has been identified near the park, but not yet 

within it.

Southern pine beetle has already inflicted damage on hundreds of acres in the park, which 

includes the G3-ranked Blue Ridge Table Mountain Pine-Pitch Pine Woodland. White (2006) 

also noted evidence of southern pine beetle damage, among other disturbance types, at eight of 

100 NatureServe plots. These eight sites were mainly clustered in the western and less remote 

sections of the park (Figure 32).

The most aggressive and detrimental forest pest at CUGA, however, is the hemlock woolly 

adelgid, which has the potential to permanently alter forest communities, particularly in the 

vulnerable mesic cove hardwood forests where eastern hemlock plays a keystone role. 

Compounding this issue is the difficulty of eradicating this pest, which most likely would include 

both chemical treatments (e.g. imidacloprid, horticultural oils) over smaller areas and individual 

trees in combination with bio-control (e.g. predator beetles) over larger regions and in forest 

stands. The stands of eastern hemlock that might be the most vulnerable and susceptible at

CUGA are mostly found within the Cumberland/Appalachian Hemlock-Hardwood Cove Forest 

and the Southern Appalachian Eastern Hemlock Forest types. Together, these types comprise 

roughly 380 ha—mostly riparian areas. With the exception of the Davis Branch, these riparian 

hemlock communities comprise virtually all streamside areas north of the ridgeline. 

Because of the major threat posed to these riparian ecosystems from hemlock loss, and to a much 

lesser degree the ongoing threat posed by the southern pine beetle, the condition status for forest 

pests at CUGA receives a “poor” ranking (Table 14). Furthermore, because of the recent 

discovery of HWA in the park, its history of quick spread and infestation, difficulty of treatment, 

and the imminent presence of gypsy moth and emerald ash-borer in counties near the park, the 

condition status is assigned a degrading trend.
74

Figure 32. As part of the recent NatureServe assessment by White (2006), 35 of 100 plots recorded one of four main disturbances: southern pine 

beetle damage, evidence of logging, erosion, or evidence of fire. Stacked boxes in the map represent presence (colored) or absence (white) of a 

total of four specific disturbances according to the ordered legend.
75

Focal Species and Communities

Vegetation Communities

Forest Communities

NatureServe’s Southeast office in Durham, NC collaborated with the Center for Remote Sensing 

and Mapping Science (CRMS) at the University of Georgia to classify photo imagery into a 

spatially explicit description of the vegetation communities at CUGA, in accordance with the 

national standards outlined by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC 2008). In fall 

2002, aerial color infrared photos were collected during leaf-on by US Forest Service Air 

Photographics. These images were in turn orthorectified and interpreted using software and 

manual analysis to assign vegetation types to specific signatures, in addition to repeated groundtruthing to agree on and modify vegetation classifications. 

Overall, there were 37 community map classes outlined at CUGA by CRMS out of almost 2100

patches, which includes 24 natural vegetation types and 9 successional or exotic-dominated 

communities (Figure 33). These community types are the same NatureServe associations as 

those described by White (2006). For comparison, Hinkle (1975) outlined 15 major plant 

communities and noted that they all were altered from their original composition due to changing 

fire regimes, logging, and chestnut blight. Hinkle (1975) observed that chestnut oak-dominated 

communities were the most common throughout the park, which he suggested, might be areas of 

former Oak-Chestnut (Castanea dentata) forest where chestnut oak (Quercus prinus) became the 

dominant replacement. Although CUGA contains multiple vegetation types, there exists a 

slightly higher diversity of communities on the north side of the main ridgeline that divides the 

park. The overall predominant community is the Appalachian Montane Oak-Hickory Forest

(CEGL7692), which is divided into the chestnut oak type north of the ridgeline and a rich type 

with more mixed species to the south. Throughout the park, these two forest types comprise 

2820 ha, or about 35% of the park.

3 of 3: Good

Attribute Thematic Spatial Temporal

Data Quality

Condition 

& Trend

 

Table 14. The condition status for insect pests at CUGA was assigned a ranking of poor with a 

decreasing trend. The data quality was good.

Forest Pests
76

Figure 33. Using the NatureServe (2005) classification scheme, 33 vegetation community types were identified in CUGA [Source: CRMS].
77

Rare Communities

Of the 15 vegetation types outlined by Hinkle (1975), he mentions that the only community 

unique to CUGA is the Red Maple-Blackgum-Hemlock Community, which is most likely 

comparable to NatureServe’s Southern Appalachian Eastern Hemlock Forest (CEGL7136)

(White 2006). White (2006) notes that this community contains over 50% hemlock cover and 

usually occurs on lower slopes and terraces. Overall, this G3G4 (Table 15) community 

encompasses 166 ha—mainly north of the ridgeline in the northeastern portion of the park. 

Hinkle (1975) also describes the Northern Red Oak-Hickory community type as unique to the 

park, which most likely matches the Red Oak Type of the Appalachian Montane Oak-Hickory 

Forest (CEGL6192) described by White (2006). 

Table 15. NatureServe conservation global status ranks are based on the rarity and risk of elimination for 

a vegetation community throughout its range (NatureServe 2011). Combination ranks (e.g. G3/G4) 

indicate uncertainty about the exact status of a community type. A “?” qualifier denotes inexact ranks.

Global Rank Description 

G1 Critically Imperiled—Very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often ≤5 pop.), very steep 

declines, or other factors. 

G2 Imperiled—At high risk of extinction or elimination due to very restricted range, very few pop., steep 

declines, or other factors. 

G3 Vulnerable—At moderate risk of extinction or elimination due to a restricted range, relatively few pop., 

recent and widespread declines, or other factors. 

G4 Apparently Secure—Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or 

other factors. 

G5 Secure—Common; widespread and abundant. 

In his 2006 report on the ecological communities at CUGA, White notes that the park contains 

the largest tract of roadless land (5700 ha) of any of the units in the CUPN. As a result, many of 

the natural communities in the park are considered high quality examples of certain forest types, 

several of which are globally-ranked as significant communities. The highest ranked community 

is the Dry Calcareous Forest/Woodland (G1?; Figure 34), which exists at a single location in VA 

other than CUGA. Overall, the UGA map shows that it occupies 169 ha in the park and 

generally extends linearly for its length along a band of limestone below the ridgeline (Figure 

34). However, it is possible that this community is much rarer in the park than its mapping 

showed, because the accuracy assessment of the map showed that this community was only 

mapped correctly 11% of the time (Smart et al. 2010). This community is dominated by white 

ash (Fraxinus americana), shag-bark hickory (Carya ovata), and northern red oak (Quercus 

rubra), and also includes a diverse understory. As a result, this community is highly susceptible 

to damage from the emerald ash borer. In addition, invasives like princess tree and tree-ofheaven are adapted to the rocky slopes and medium/high light conditions typical of this 

community (White 2006), and therefore close monitoring is necessary to protect the current 

distribution of these sensitive areas. 

Another rare community is the Cumberland Streamside Bog (CEGL7771, G2), which has been 

upgraded from a G1? ranking since the original report by White (2006). This community totals 

just over 1 ha in four different parcels, including one near the northern terminus of Davis Branch
78

Figure 34. Four vegetation community types at CUGA are globally ranked as G2 or G1, representing globally imperiled and critically imperiled, 

respectively. Overall, these communities collectively represent 255 ha, or ~3% of the total park area.
79

and three in the extreme northeast corner along Martin’s Fork, overall at elevations around 750 

m. Understory of this community is typified by shrubs such as maleberry (Lyonia ligustrina), 

black chokeberry (Photinia melanocarpa), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), and royal 

fern (Osmunda regalis). NatureServe (2009) notes that instances of the Cumberland Streamside 

Bog face a particular threat from vegetative succession, and that in some places the exotic 

broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), which is present at CUGA, can become invasive and displace 

native vegetation. Most patches of this vegetation community were threatened in the past by 

forest clearing or flooding during farmland conversion. These communities are generally 

adapted to some kind of natural disturbance (most likely occasional fire), without which they 

tend to be of lower diversity (White 2006). 

The Swamp-Forest Bog Complex (CEGL7565) is also ranked a G2 community, mainly due to 

the infrequency of its occurrence. This community occurs alongside the streamside bog in 

several places along the Davis Branch and Shillalah Creek. At CUGA it totals 21 ha in 10 

patches mainly around the Martin’s Fork region in poorly drained bottomlands. Vegetation in 

this type includes a varying canopy of hemlock with an understory of rosebay rhododendron 

(Rhododendron maximum). As a result, this community is particularly susceptible to infestation 

by hemlock woolly adelgid. Most occurrences of this community have been altered or destroyed 

via hydrologic alterations, so the patches remaining at CUGA represent particularly valuable

examples of this vegetation type (NatureServe 2011). 

The final community at CUGA to achieve a rating of imperiled or critically imperiled from 

NatureServe is the Hi Lewis Pitch Pine Barrens (G2?), which White (2006) refers to as the most 

threatened community in the park due to its vulnerability after a recent pine beetle outbreak. The 

uncertainty in the ranking, according to NatureServe, refers to the limited number of areas 

assessed for the occurrence of this community. Like the Blue Ridge Table Mountain Pine-Pitch 

Pine Woodland forest type, this community type contains pitch pine and Virginia pine, which are 

both preferred pine beetle hosts. White (2006) suggests additional study of this particular 

community to determine what management actions, if any, would be most effective in its 

recovery. This community is fire-adapted (NatureServe 2011) and occurs on approximately 25 

ha on south-facing slopes in the park, mainly in the southern portion on the Kentucky side of the 

ridgeline. It is dominated by pitch pine (Pinus rigida), and includes a diverse and unique 

understory which typically includes horseflyweed (Baptisia tinctoria), little bluestem 

(Schizachyrium scoparium), poverty oatgrass (Danthonia spicata), and Virginia tephrosia

(Tephrosia virginiana) (NatureServe 2011). White (2006) outlines the danger that the 

community may be altered by colonization of red maple and/or exotics, and that prescribed fire 

may help facilitate the regeneration of pines. 

Cliffline Community Assemblages

At CUGA, the White Rocks cliff system, though not specifically recognized with a unique 

community type classification, contains a distinct and fragile ecosystem that includes several rare 

lichens and bryophytes, in addition to vascular plants (Walker 2007). The cliffs are located on 

the east side of the park and reach 150 m in height. Surrounding the base of the cliff is typically 

the Appalachian Oak Forest type, while adjacent to the cliff edge is the Southern Appalachian 

Mountain Laurel Bald—a rare (G2G3) community characterized by a diverse and thick 

shrubland, but also with areas of exposed rock, lichens, and herbs (NatureServe 2011). White 
80

(2006) indicates that the stability of this community is largely dependent on solum thickness, 

whereby deeper soils are more likely to support recruitment of trees like sourwood (Oxydendrum 

arboreum) or blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica) that may eventually form a canopy over the shrub 

layer. A comprehensive 2005-2006 survey conducted by the Walker and Ballinger (2007)

documented 14 vascular plants, 9 bryophyte species, and 48 lichen species throughout the White 

Rocks cliff system (Figure 35). Twelve vertical transects were located along the cliff system, 

with each transect containing various 1m2 survey plots separated by 3m. Similar surveys 

conducted at the Obed Wild and Scenic River cliff systems yielded slightly lower lichen 

diversity for all six systems compared to the single system at CUGA (Walker and Ballinger 

2007). 

Figure 35. Walker and Ballinger (2007) conducted plant and lichen community surveys along the White 

Rocks cliff system at 12 transects. [Figure taken from White et al. (2007)]

Overall, Walker et al.’s (2007) analysis found that vascular plant, bryophyte, and lichen 

communities were collectively affected mostly by slope, soil volume, and local heterogeneity, 

whereby areas with lower slopes and greater surface heterogeneity were more apt to accumulate 

and retain moisture and nutrients. These areas supported vascular plants, whereas areas without 

these characteristics were more often occupied by non-vascular species. As a result, areas in the 

cliff system with southerly aspects were more likely to have higher temperatures and lower 

moisture availability, and therefore were particularly conducive to abundant lichen assemblages. 
81

Of the 14 vascular plants documented in the cliff system, silvery nailwort (Paronychia 

argyrocoma) is one of the rarest species, listed as S1 and endangered in Kentucky. Throughout 

its range, this species is particularly vulnerable to trampling in vista areas, such as at White

Rocks (NatureServe 2011). Wavy hairgrass (Deschampsia flexuosa), also documented at the 

sites, is listed as an S2 species in Kentucky. And although it was not specifically included in any 

of the surveys, Michaux’s saxifrage (Saxifraga michauxii) was documented along the cliff base 

along perennial streams, a species listed as S2 in Kentucky. Finally, wild lily-of-the-valley 

(Maianthemum canadense), an S2 species in Kentucky, was documented in one location near a 

cliff ledge (Walker and Ballinger 2007).

The White Rocks cliff system provides unique habitat for species that would otherwise face 

environmental stress and competition in other areas. Other shade-tolerant species, for instance, 

could likely outcompete species of lichen and bryophyte, were they not limited to other sites. 

Walker and Ballinger (2007) note that the collection of lichen species found at White Rocks is 

particularly unique, and that many species represent disjunct or previously undocumented 

specimens for that particular region. One of the most significant examples of this is the navel 

lichen (Umbilicaria torrefacta) which was documented at White Rocks, but known previously to 

only occur outside the southeastern US region in the Rocky Mountains and through Canada and 

Alaska (Walker and Ballinger 2007). Table 16 shows the complete list of disjunct species found 

at White Rocks and their origins. In addition to these disjunct species, three species of lichen 

found in the southeast US (Hypotrachyna croceopustulata, Dirinaria aegialita, and 

Canoparmelia texana) were found on the rock cliff face habitats, whereas before they were only 

known to exist on the bark of trees (Walker and Ballinger 2007).

Walker and Ballinger (2007) also point out that these cliff areas are generally protected from 

anthropogenic and natural disturbances, though areas along the cliff tops have already been 

impacted by trampling, possibly eliminating previously existing populations of silvery nailwort 

and Appalachian sandwort (Minuartia glabra), which is also listed as a Kentucky S1 species. In 

contrast to the cliff edges, Walker and Ballinger (2007) reports that the face and talus areas of the 

cliff are relatively pristine and unimpacted. As part of its management implications, Walker and 

Ballinger (2007) recommends continuing to restrict access to the cliff face at CUGA. The report 

notes evidence of previous illegal climbing activity on the cliffs. In addition, they recommend 

discontinuing unrestricted hiking at the cliff edge not only at White Rocks, but at all cliff 

systems in the park until vegetation surveys are performed for those areas. At Obed Wild and 

Scenic River, the report cites the construction of boardwalks and wooden platforms as a 

successful method of preventing access to the fragile cliff edges. These protective structures 

ultimately resulted in a recovery of previously impacted plant and lichen communities at that 

park unit. 

 
82

Table 16. Geographically disjunct lichen species identified by Walker and Ballinger (2007) at White 

Rocks in CUGA.

Species Original Distribution

Navel lichen Umbilicaria torrefacta Rocky Mountains, Canada, Alaska

Wyoming xanthoparmelia lichen Xanthoparmelia wyomingica Rocky Mountains

No common name Arctoparmelia centrifuga Arctic/boreal regions in NE US

No common name Arctoparmelia incurva Arctic/boreal regions in NE US

Rim lichen Lecanora rupicola Rocky Mountains

Cup lichen Cladonia pocillum NE US, Rocky Mountains

Artificial Wetland Community

Although several streamside bog wetland areas are present at CUGA, the only NPS-monitored

wetland area located within CUGA is an artificial 1.0 acre mitigation site created near Little 

Yellow Creek in collaboration with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This 

mitigation site was created in part to adhere to the FHWA’s 2001 Strategic Plan and 

Performance Agreement that the agency will compensate for area of impacted wetlands by 

constructing wetland mitigation sites at a rate of 1.5 acres for every 1.0 acre impacted (FHWA

2001). The wetland at CUGA encompasses 0.5 acres and was constructed in response to wetland 

loss and degradation from the construction of the Cumberland Gap Tunnel (Petranka 2002). The 

constructed habitat is ideally intended to function as a forested hardwood floodplain that 

provides habitat for the four-toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum), wood frog (Rana 

sylvatica), spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), in addition to other amphibians. 

Petranka (2005) notes that the mitigation wetland is particularly important for survival and 

reproduction of amphibian species, because small seasonal wetlands are generally rare 

throughout CUGA. After the construction of the mitigation site in 1998, annual assessments of 

several variables were used to gauge the success of wetland function starting in 2000. These 

variables included hydroperiod, focal species breeding success, and proportion of facultative or 

obligate wetland species.

Overall, the requirements for hydroperiod were met, and breeding amphibians successfully 

colonized and reproduced in the three holding ponds composing the mitigation site during all 

years of documented monitoring by Petranka (2000-2005). During these years, eleven species 

were observed breeding in the artificial wetland area, though that did not include the targeted 

four-toed salamander. Petranka (2005) predicts that the four-toed salamander may potentially 

colonize the site after canopy closure, since this species prefers habitat under mature, shaded 

forest canopies, though it is also possible this species was simply not detected. Petranka (2005) 

also notes that one regionally rare species—the eastern spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus holbrooki)—

was noted in a single pond in 2004. The community did not meet the requirements for 

proportion of wetland obligate and facultative species (14% coverage), but instead mainly 

consisted of upland and facultative upland species (Petranka 2002). In fact, greater than 75% of 

the herbaceous coverage in the mitigation area was comprised by perennial ryegrass (Lolium 

perenne) and tall fescue (Lolium arundinaceum), both of which are remnant species from prior 

use as pastureland (Petranka 2005). In 10-15 years, Petranka (2005) predicts that the mitigation 

site will most likely undergo canopy closure, which would improve likelihood of colonization by 

the four-toed salamander.
83

Summary

Because there is no recommended protocol or ranking system in place for vegetation 

communities, we did not assign a ranking to this vital sign as it pertains to forest and wetland 

areas at CUGA (Table 17). Data collected by NatureServe and Walker and Ballinger (2007), as 

well as vegetation classifications performed by the CRMS provide a thorough baseline 

knowledge of vegetation resources at CUGA. As of this writing, the CUPN continues to work 

with NatureServe to develop a vegetation monitoring protocol for the network. This protocol 

will likely provide methods to evaluate condition objectives for vegetation communities within 

the park unit (T. Leibfreid personal communication).

Fish Communities

The southeastern United States supports the richest fish diversity in North America, north of 

Mexico (Warren et al. 2000), and contains multiple drainages with faunal assemblages noted for 

high endemism (Sheldon 1988). Cumberland Gap National Historical Park contains headwater 

streams from two of the Southeast’s richest drainages in terms of fish species (Sheldon 1988). 

The park straddles the roughly east-west oriented ridge of Cumberland Mountain. North-slope 

streams flow into the Cumberland River drainage, and south-slope streams flow into the Powell 

River drainage of the Upper Tennessee River basin (Figure 36). Most park streams are located on 

the north slope, and all south slope streams are small first order flows. The park contains over 50 

kilometers of surface flowing, high gradient streams with habitat suitable for a variety of species. 

Martin’s Fork, a north-slope stream flowing eastward out of CUGA, is one of three primary 

headwater flows of the Cumberland River. Recent land acquisitions in the western portion of 

CUGA include the watershed surrounding the109-acre impoundment Fern Lake. 

Vegetation 

Communities

3 of 3: Good

Thematic Spatial Temporal

Condition 

Attribute & Trend

Data Quality

Table 17. The condition status for vegetation communities at CUGA was not ranked and no trend 

was assigned. The data quality was good. 
84

Figure 36. Streams in and around Cumberland Gap National Historical Park, showing locations of fish 

samples collected in 2004 by Remley (2005). Gap Creek is not shown because it was sampled in its 

subterranean section. Inset shows broader area, including portions of the Cumberland River watershed 

and the Powell River watershed (which is part of the Upper Tennessee River watershed). 

Several survey efforts have reported 35 species of fishes from eight families in CUGA (Table 

18). Barbour et al. (1979) sampled fish as part of a general vertebrate survey of the park. They 

sampled 12 locations, from eight park flows, using seine-netting, and reported 27 species from 

eight families (Barbour et al. 1979). In 1995, the Tennessee Department of Environment and 

Conservation (TDEC) conducted fish surveys of Little Lellow Creek in an area which was not 

then part of the park. This team used backpack electroshocking equipment and seining at four 

locations and reported eight species, including the federally threatened blackside dace 

(Chrosomus cumberlandensis, TDEC 1995). Beginning in 1990, Stephens (2002a, 2007) 

conducted frequent fish surveys in Davis Branch to monitor the status of the blackside dace. In 

2002, he sampled seven locations on the creek using backpack electroshocking equipment, and 

reported 15 species (Stephens 2002a). In 2006 he sampled the same seven locations and reported 

18 species (Stephens 2007). In spring of 2007, Stephens sampled Davis Branch upstream from 

previous sample locations and reported six species, of which blackside dace were the fourth most 

abundant species (Stephens 2007). From 1996 to 2002 Stephens (2002b) used backpack 

electroshocking to sample fish from Gap Creek near the southern border of the park and reported 

15 species from four years of sampling (Stephens 2002b). Remley (2005) conducted a parkwide survey of CUGA streams in 2004. This effort sampled eight park flows and reported 22 

species from five families (Remley 2005). Remley (2005) only sampled Gap Creek in a 

subterranean section of the flow. Fourteen species were common among surveys by all research 
85

teams listed above, and seven were reported only by Barbour et al. (1979). The NPSpecies 

online database for CUGA lists 25 fish species certified as present in CUGA (NPSpecies 2010), 

all of which were reported by Stephens (2002 a,b) and Remley (2005).

Differences in species assemblages are expected and have been observed between north-slope 

streams and south-slope streams in CUGA. The silverjaw minnow (Ericymba buccata), rosyface 

shiner (Notropis rubellus), blackside dace, and arrow darter (Etheostoma sagitta) have been 

reported only from north-slope, Cumberland River drainage flows in the park, and are not native 

to the south-slope Upper Tennessee River drainage flows (Warren et al. 2000). Stargazing 

minnow (Phenacobius uranops), and bigeye chubs (Hybopsis amblops) have only been reported 

from single sampling occasions on Gap Creek (Stephens 2002b) although they are reported to be 

native to both the Cumberland and Upper Tennessee drainages (Warren et al. 2002). The banded 

sculpin (Cottus carolinae) is also native to both drainages but has only been reported from Gap 

and Station Creeks, where it has been consistently reported in relatively high densities from 

survey efforts (Barbour et al. 1979, Warren et al. 2000, Stephens 2002b, Remley 2005). The 

Tennessee snubnose darter (Etheostoma simoterum simoterum), reported only from Gap Creek 

(Stephens 2002b), is unique to the Tennessee River drainage; the related Cumberland snubnose 

darter (Etheostoma s. atripinne) has not been reported from the park.
86

Table 18. Family and species of fishes reported from fish sampling efforts by Barbour et al. (1979), 

Stephens (2002a,b; 2007), and Remley (2005) in Cumberland Gap National Historical Park.

Scientific Name Common name

Barbour et 

al. 1979

Stephens 

2002a,b; 2007

Remley 

2005

Atherinopsidae

Labidesthes sicculus Brook silverside X

Catostomidae

Catostomus commersoni White sucker X X X

Hypentelium nigricans Northern hogsucker X X X

Centrarchidae

Ambloplites rupestris Rock bass X X X

Lepomis auritus* Redbreast sunfish X X

Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish X

Lepomis gulosus Warmouth X X

Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill X X X

Lepomis megalotis Longear sunfish X

Micropterus punctulatus Spotted bass X X

Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass X X

Cottidae

Cottus carolinae Banded sculpin X X X

Cyprinidae

Campostoma anomalum Central stoneroller X X X

Chrosomus cumberlandensis Blackside dace X X X

Cyprinella galactura Whitetail shiner X

Cyprinus carpio* Common carp X

Ericymba buccata Silverjaw minnow X X

Hybopsis amblops Bigeye chub X

Notropis chrysocephalus Striped shiner X X X

Notropis rubellus Rosyface shiner X

Phenacobius uranops† Stargazing minnow X

Phoxinus erythrogaster Southern redbelly dace X X X

Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow X X X

Rhinichthys atratulus Blacknose dace X X X

Semotilus atromaculatus Creek chub X X X

Percidae

Etheostoma blennioides Greenside darter X

Etheostoma caeruleum Rainbow darter X X X

Etheostoma flabellare Fantail darter X X

Etheostoma kennicotti Stripetail darter X X X

Etheostoma sagitta Arrow darter X X

Etheostoma simoterum TN snubnose darter X

Perca flavescens* Yellow perch X

Petromyzontidae

Lampetra sp. Lamprey X

Salmonidae

Oncorhynchus mykiss*† Rainbow trout X

Salvelinus fontinalis** Brook trout X

* Non-native

** Native to Tennessee River drainages, but not the Cumberland River drainage

† Reported in Stephens 2002b from his previous collections, but not collected in 2002
87

The blackside dace, a federally threatened minnow (Federal Register 1987), was reported within 

current park boundaries from Davis Branch (Barbour et al. 1979, Stephens 2002a, Remley 2005), 

from Little Yellow Creek by TDEC (1995), and from Sugar Run downstream of park boundaries 

(Jenny Beeler personal communication). The collection from Little Yellow Creek occurred prior 

to park’s recent acquisition of this property. Blackside dace are only native to the Cumberland 

River basin (Warren et al. 2000). They occupy pool habitats in small, canopied, relatively cool 

streams with relatively low riffle-area:pool-area ratios (Starnes and Starnes 1981). General 

threats to blackside dace populations include coal mining, timber harvesting, and land 

development (Starnes and Starnes 1981, Etnier and Starnes 1993, McAbee 2008). Since 1993, 

beavers have expanded into Davis Branch, reducing optimal blackside dace habitat by creating 

more pools with greater levels of silt deposition and potentially higher maximum water 

temperature (Stephens 2002a, 2007). Beaver activity has coincided with a reduction in observed 

numbers of dace (Stephens 2002a; 2007). Both Stephens (2002a, 2007) and Remley (2005) 

commented on the presence of beavers in the creek and stated that beaver activity was having a 

negative impact on blackside dace habitat. Surveys of Davis Branch in 2008 and 2009 failed to 

report blackside dace, and a single individual was found in June of 2010 (Jenny Beeler personal

communication). 

Salmonids have been introduced in the park, but were not reported during the 2004 survey 

(Remley 2005). The US Fish and Wildlife Service introduced brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) 

into Martin’s Fork and Shillalah Creek in the 1960s, and the state of Kentucky expanded brook 

trout introductions in these flows in 1980-81 (KDFWR 2009c). Brook trout are not believed to 

be native to these headwaters of the Cumberland River, although they are native to the adjacent 

Upper Tennessee River drainage (Warren et al. 2000). The KDFWR verified brook trout in the 

county in the late 1980s and in 2001 (KDFWR 2009a). Both Martins Fork and Shillalah Creek 

were listed as wild brook trout water in 2008 fishing regulations (KDFWR 2009c). Remley 

(2005) did not report brook trout from these creeks and reported they were nearly devoid of fish. 

The apparent decline or extirpation of brook trout from these flows may result from high water 

acidity. Martins Fork and Shillalah Creek had the lowest pH among 10 streams monitored by the 

NPS (Figure 19), and Remley (2005) recorded pH values of 4.9 and 4.1, respectively for these 

streams. Brook trout are relatively acid tolerant, although sustained pH values less than 4.5 may 

cause lethal and sublethal effects (Dunson and Martin 1973; Dively et al. 1977). Another 

potential contributing factor to the decline of brook trout in Martins Fork and Shillalah Creek 

could be higher average stream temperatures in recent years. Mean annual temperatures for 

Martins Fork were higher, on average, for the 2003-2008 period than for the 1991-1995 period 

(Figure 19). Rainbow trout (Onchoryhchus mykiss), a non-native species, have not been 

introduced in the park, but have been placed in Gap Creek near park boundaries (Stephens 

2002b). They were reported by Stephens (2002b) from sampling in 1996 and 2001 and were not 

sampled in 2002, though Stephens observed them in Gap Creek near park boundaries in 2002.

Several exotic fish species have been reported from CUGA. Rainbow trout have been discussed 

above, and their occurrence in the park is sporadic and results from introductions occurring on 

private land outside park boundaries (Stephens 2002b). Barbour et al. (1979) reported single 

observations of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and yellow perch (Perca flavescens) from lower 

Little Yellow Creek. They noted that the yellow perch probably escaped from Fern Lake where 

the species had been introduced to support recreational fishing (Barbour et al. 1979). The 
88

common carp was also reported from a sampling station that included habitat outside the park, 

and was probably a rare upstream migrant (Barbour et al. 1979). Neither of these species has 

been reported in recent decades. Redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus) were not reported by 

Barbour et al. (1979), but were commonly reported from Davis Branch and Little Yellow Creek 

in more recent surveys (Stephens 2002a, Remley 2005, Stephens 2007). This species may have 

replaced the longear sunfish (Lepomis megalotis) and has probably been aided in its expansion 

by habitat alterations caused by beavers (Remley 2005). Redbrest sunfish occurred in all Davis 

Branch samples collected from 2002 onward, and were the only exotic species occurring in the 

samples collected by Stehpens (2002a, 2007) and Remley (2005). 

Fish are good indicators of freshwater habitat quality. They are nearly ubiquitous in freshwater 

streams, occur in diverse communities including multiple trophic levels, are relatively easy to 

sample and identify, and are widely studied (Karr 1981). We used the Kentucky Index of Biotic 

Integrity (KIBI; Compton et al. 2003) to explore the quality of CUGA fish communities. The 

IBI approach to evaluating aquatic resources assesses fish assemblages based upon relative 

density and diversity of sampled populations, as well as the life history attributes and the 

ecological roles of community species (Karr 1981). Generally, good conditions are indicated 

when communities contain a diversity of trophic specialists, and relatively high proportions of 

specialists and sensitive species. The KIBI was developed for use in Kentucky wadeable and 

headwater streams, including the streams of the Cumberland River drainage (Compton et al. 

2003). The Upper Tennessee River system flows found in the Virginia and Tennessee portions 

of the park are not part of the published application region of the KIBI. However, because the 

habitat is similar, and because all species found in the Upper Tennessee flows were included on 

the list of KIBI species, we felt that the index was robust to use on Station Creek and Gap Creek. 

We applied the KIBI to the individual site samples collected by Remley (2005), and to the 

individual site samples collected in Davis Branch and Gap Creek by Stephens (2002a, 2002b,

2007). We applied the KIBI to samples with catchments within the recommended size range of 

5 - 777 km2 (Compton et al. 2003). This precluded from analysis many of the samples collected 

in the park.

We found that KIBI scores varied from 43-62 for the samples evaluated, corresponding with 

quality interpretations from “fair” to “excellent” (Table 19). The sites on Davis Branch scored in 

the good or excellent categories for samples evaluated from 2002, 2005, and 2006. Despite the 

negative impact of beavers are having on blackside dace habitat, the general quality of Davis 

Branch fish communities, as indicated by KIBI scores, was good. A single site on Gap Creek 

was large enough to evaluate with the KIBI, and scored as good using the KIBI. Portions of Gap 

Creek flow through small communities on private land, and therefore do not enjoy the level of 

watershed protection of other CUGA streams. There are anecdotal reports of historical sewage 

pollution in the creek (Barbour et al. 1979) and some water is withdrawn from Gap Creek for 

bottling by a private company (Stephens 2002b). However, Stephens (2002b) suggested that the 

quality of the fish community in Gap Creek had improved since the Barbour et al. (1979) survey. 

Remley (2005) only sampled subterranean portions of Gap Creek, and did not report any fish 

from those sections. Little Yellow Creek scored in the good or excellent KIBI category. This 

stream’s watershed area places it within a “gray area” for KIBI interpretation, allowing it to be 

classified as either a headwater or a “wadeable” flow (Compton 2003). It has the largest 

watershed among CUGA streams and had the greatest species richness in the most recent survey 
89

(Remley 2005). This creek is the source and outflow of Fern Lake. The watershed above the 

lake has been recently acquired by CUGA and current status of fishes there is not known. 

However, a population of blackside dace existed there in 1995 (TDEC 1995), and this reach has 

great potential value as a refuge for this threatened species. Excepting two creek chubs sampled 

from Shillalah Creek, Martin’s Fork and Shillalah Creek did not contain fish populations in the 

recent survey (Remley 2005) and were not assessable using the KIBI. The high acidity of these 

flows may preclude viable fish communities. Station Creek and Sugar Run scored as fair on the 

KIBI and had lower richness than Little Yellow Creek, Davis Branch, or the surface flowing 

portions of Gap Creek.

Remley (2005) also evaluated seven of his fish sampling locations using an adapted physical 

habitat assessment protocol for wadeable streams (Barbour et al. 1999). He found that six of the 

seven sites met the ecoregional criteria to be categorized as “fully supporting” of biotic integrity 

(Table 19, KDOW 2002, Remley 2005). The only site not ranked in this category was on upper 

Davis Branch, which scored in the “not supporting” range, primarily because of habitat 

alterations caused by beavers (Remley 2005).
90

Table 19. Individuals sampled (N), species richness (S) with number native species in parentheses, 

Kentucky Index of Biotic Integrity (KIBI) score, and KIBI interpretation, for sampling efforts reported in 

three fish survey reports at Cumberland Gap National Historical Park (Stephens 2002a/b, Remley 2005,

Stephens 2007). For Davis Branch 2002 samples, Station 1a was the most downstream site and Station 

4 was the most upstream site (Stephens 2002a). For Gap Creek 2002 samples, Station 1 was the most 

upstream site and Station 4 was the most downstream site (Stephens 2002b). See text for description of 

survey efforts.

Study Location N S KIBI Interpretation

Stephens 

2007 Davis Branch headwaters 474 6(5) N/A

Stephens 

2006

Davis Branch 2006 (Sta. 1a) 250 16(15) 53 Good

Davis Branch 2006 (Sta. 1b) 193 14(13) 58 Excellent

Davis Branch 2006 (Sta. 2) 348 14(13) N/A

Davis Branch 2006 (Sta. 3) 258 11(10) N/A

Davis Branch 2006 (Sta. 3a) 116 8(7) N/A

Davis Branch 2006 (Sta. 4) 116 7(6) N/A

Davis Branch 2006 (Sta. 4a) 138 6(5) N/A

Remley 

2005

Davis Branch (upper) 351 9(8) N/A

Davis Branch (lower) 452 13(12) 61 Excellent

Little Yellow Creek 471 17(16) 48/61* Good/Excellent

Station Creek 460 4 43 Fair

Sugar Run 210 5 46 Fair

Martin's Fork 0 0 N/A

Shillalah Creek 2 1 N/A

Gap Creek 0 0 N/A

Stephens 

2002a

Davis Branch 2002 (Sta. 1a) 261 11(12) 55 Good

Davis Branch 2002 (Sta. 1b) 246 9(10) 62 Excellent

Davis Branch 2002 (Sta. 2) 166 11(10) N/A

Davis Branch 2002 (Sta. 3) 375 7(6) N/A

Davis Branch 2002 (Sta. 3a) 324 8(7) N/A

Davis Branch 2002 (Sta. 4) 151 6(5) N/A

Stephens 

2002b

Gap Creek 1996 (all sites) 590 11 N/A

Gap Creek 2000 (all sites) 1463 10 N/A

Gap Creek 2001 (all sites) 931 12 N/A

Gap Creek 2002 (Sta. 1) 0 0 N/A

Gap Creek 2002 (Sta. 2) 299 10 N/A

Gap Creek 2002 (Sta. 3) 213 9 N/A

Gap Creek 2002 (Sta. 4) 202 11 52 Good

* Sample catchment area places it within the “gray area” identified by the KIBI. Therefore sample was 

scored for both headwater stream and wadeable streams.
91

Table 20. Physical habitat scores calculated by Remley (2005) based upon Environmental Protection 

Agency bioassessment techniques (Barbour et al. 1999). Scores of 165 or greater indicate full support of 

biotic integrity for the region.

Location Habitat Score

Davis Branch (upper) 122

Davis Branch (lower) 182

Little Yellow Creek 168

Station Creek 166

Sugar Run 165

Martin's Fork 175

Shillalah Creek 172

Gap Creek N/A

We ranked the condition of fish communities at Cumberland Gap National Historical Site as 

good (Table 21). The park provides protection for headwater streams feeding into two major 

drainages. Endemic species with small native ranges have been reported from both drainages 

within the park (Table 18). An index of biotic integrity applied to fish samples taken from 

CUGA showed that park flows had fish assemblages indicative of fair, good, and excellent 

habitat (Table 19). Little Yellow Creek and Davis Branch, the largest park streams with the 

richest fish assemblages, had IBI scores indicative of high quality habitat (Table 19). Habitat 

assessments taken from fish sampling points indicated that the park contains physical 

macrohabitat suitable for a diversity of fish species (Table 20). There were several issues 

potentially affecting the quality of CUGA fish habitat. Beavers in Davis Branch were altering 

the habitat of the stream and negatively impacting the habitat of the federally threatened 

blackside dace. Blackside dace had declined in abundance because of these alterations. Two 

high-elevation coldwater streams in the park, Martin’s Fork and Shillalah Creek, exhibit high 

acidity. We assigned a trend of stable to the CUGA fish community. The assemblages reported 

from a general fish survey in 2004, were similar to those reported from a survey conducted in 

1978-79 (Barbour et al. 1979, Remley 2005). The data used to make the assessment were good.

Bird Communities

Birds specialize in a variety of habitats and are relatively easy to monitor, making them valuable 

indicators of terrestrial ecosystem quality and function (Maurer 1993). Cumberland Gap 

National Historical Park provides breeding and nesting habitat for interior forest species, and is 

3 of 3: Good

Temporal

Fish 

Community

Thematic Spatial

Condition 

Attribute & Trend

Data Quality

Table 21. The quality of fish communities at Cumberland Gap National Historical Park was good. The 

trend of fish condition was stable. The data used to make the ranking was good.
92

an important flyway for migrating birds. The publically available park bird checklist included 

159 species reported to occur, at least occasionally, in the park (NPS 2007). Although we 

discuss results of multiple bird-surveying efforts in CUGA, and considered alternate sources for 

determining a trend, we primarily used data from the 2003-2004 survey to determine our 

condition ranking (Monroe 2005).

There have been several bird sampling efforts at CUGA. Barbour et al. (1979) conducted bird 

counts as part of a wider vertebrate survey of CUGA. This team sampled during the breeding 

season by walking park trails and noting all birds heard or seen, reporting 87 species from 

CUGA (Barbour et al. 1979). Monroe (2005) conducted a comprehensive bird survey in the park 

during 2003-2004. Sampling included breeding season point counts at 49 locations throughout 

the park, driving and walking surveys during winter spring and fall, and fall raptor observations 

from a high elevation overlook (Monroe 2005). Monroe (2005) reported 145 bird species on or 

in close proximity to the park, including 63 breeding season species, at CUGA (Appendix B). A 

small portion of a Breeding Bird Survey route also intersects the park (Sauer 2008). The BBS is 

a long-term bird monitoring program, overseen by the USGS, in which volunteer surveyors drive 

set routes during the breeding season and conduct point counts at 0.5-mile intervals. The first 10 

stops of the Cumberland Gap route, sampled sporadically since 1966, were located in or very 

near the borders of CUGA. Since the inception of this route, 85 bird species have been reported 

from it.

Cumberland Gap contains a number of birds of potential management concern (Table 22). Of 

the 145 species reported by Monroe (2005), 20 were listed by at least one of the three CUGA 

states as threatened, endangered, or of special concern (TNHP 2009, VDGIF 2009, KSNPC 

2011). In the last 10 years, to be eligible for certain wildlife management funds, states were 

required to develop Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies (CWCS) indicating species 

of greatest conservation concern (CWCS 2005). Thirty-nine bird species were included on at 

least one of the three CUGA state’s CWCS as species of priority conservation concern (KDFWR 

2010, TWRA 2005, VDGIF 2005). Partners in Flight (PIF), an organization of cooperating 

federal, state, academic, and NGO partners, uses available data to create conservation scores for 

North American birds (Panjabi et al. 2005). These scores indicate the level of perceived threats 

to persistence of individual species at regional and national levels (Panjabi et al. 2005). Nuttle et 

al. (2003) used regional PIF scores to create a ranking of conservation importance with four 

being the highest-priority rank. Nine birds from the CUGA 2003-2004 survey had PIF-based 

ranks of four (Nuttle et al. 2003, Panjabi et al. 2005). The park harbors several high-elevation 

specialist bird species and several species near the edge of their geographic range (Monroe 

2005). 
93

Table 22. Birds of conservation concern reported from CUGA during a 2003-2004 survey (Monroe 2005). 

Shown are listings by individual states as threatened (T), endangered (E), special concern (S), or deemed 

in need of management (D; TN equivalent of special concern), indication of species with PIF-based 

conservation ranks of four, and inclusion on each state’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

(CWCS) as birds of conservation concern.

Scientific Name Common Name

KY 

List

VA 

List

TN 

List

PIF 

4 CWCS

Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk D KY,TH

Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron S

Bonasa umbellus Ruffed Grouse X

Caprimulgus carolinensis Chuck-will’s-widow TN

Caprimulgus vociferus Whip-poor-will TN

Carpodacus purpureus Purple Finch S 

Catharus guttatus Hermit Thrush S 

Certhia americana Brown Creeper E S KY,TN

Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier T S D KY,TN,VA

Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed Cuckoo TN

Contopus cooperi Olive-sided Flycatcher D X TN

Contopus virens Eastern Wood-Pewee TN

Corvus corax Common Raven T T KY,TN

Dendroica caerulescens Black-throated Blue Warbler TN

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S D X KY,TN,VA

Dendroica discolor Prairie Warbler KY,TN

Dendroica dominica Yellow-throated Warbler TN

Dendroica fusca Blackburnian Warbler T KY

Dendroica magnolia Magnolia Warbler S 

Empidonax minimus Least Flycatcher E TN

Empidonax virescens Acadian Flycatcher KY,TN

Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon E S E X KY,TN,VA

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle T T D KY,TN,VA

Helmitheros vermivorus Worm-eating Warbler KY,TN

Hylocichla mustelina Wood Thrush KY,TN

Icterus spurius Orchard Oriole TN

Junco hyemalis Dark-eyed Junco S

Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson’s Warbler S D X KY,TN,VA

Melanerpes erythrocephalus Red-headed Woodpecker X KY,TN

Oporornis formosus Kentucky Warbler KY,TN

Pandion haliaetus Osprey S KY

Parula americana Northern Parula TN

Pheucticus ludovicianus Rose-breasted Grosbeak S KY,TN

Poecile atricapillus Black-capped Chickadee D

Regulus satrapa Golden-crowned Kinglet S TN

Scolopax minor American Woodcock KY,TN

Seiurus motacilla Louisiana Waterthrush X KY,TN

Sitta canadensis Red-breasted Nuthatch E S KY,TN

Sphyrapicus varius Yellow-bellied Sapsucker D TN,VA

Troglodytes troglodytes Winter Wren TN,VA

Vermivora chrysoptera Golden-winged Warbler T S D X KY,TN,VA

Vermivora pinus Blue-winged Warbler X KY,TN

Vireo flavifrons Yellow-throated Vireo TN

Vireo griseus White-eyed Vireo TN

Wilsonia canadensis Canada Warbler S KY

Wilsonia citrina Hooded Warbler KY,TN

Several general plans have been prepared to address bird management in the region containing 

CUGA. Watson (2005) prepared an Avian Conservation Implementation Plan (ACIP) for 

CUGA, and a larger-scale regional bird conservation plan has been prepared by PIF (Rosenberg 
94

2003). Birds of management concern for the park include the Cerulean Warbler, the WormEating Warbler, and the Wood Thrush for forest interior species, the Golden-Winged Warbler 

and the Prairie Warbler for early successional scrub species, and the Louisiana Waterthrush for 

forest riparian species (Rosenberg 2003). All of these species occurred in the most recent bird 

survey (Monroe 2005).

Based on recent inventory efforts (Monroe 2005), forest interior species such as Ovenbirds, Redeyed Vireos, tanagers, etc. were the most commonly observed species both during the breeding 

season and migration. Conversely, waterfowl, with the exception of flyovers, and grassland 

species were virtually absent due to a lack of habitat (Monroe 2005). Five Cerulean Warblers 

(Dendroica cerulea) were reported, three during breeding season point counts (Monroe 2005). 

Cerulean Warblers are declining throughout much of their range and are especially sensitive to 

landscape level habitat changes (Rosenberg 2003 Hamel 2000). They are canopy foragers that 

specialize in large tracts of tall, mature, mixed hardwoods with scattered openings, especially 

preferring stream valleys (Hamel 2000). They may seek out the most mature forest available in 

the region for breeding purposes (Rosenberg 2003). In the Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S., 

Cerulean Warblers may require at least 700 hectares of habitat to maintain a breeding population 

(Hamel 2000). Forty-two Wood Thrushes (Hylocichla mustelina) were reported during breeding 

season point counts in the 2003-2004 survey (Monroe 2005). This interior forest species has 

been well-studied and has declined in abundance over much of its range since the 1970s (Roth et 

al. 1996). Although it also nests near edges and in small forest patches, it shows a marked 

preference for the interior of mature, mixed hardwood forests (Roth et al. 1996). The Wood 

Thrush is vulnerable to nest predation and nest parasitism, and experiences lower nest success in

smaller fragments (Roth et al. 1996). Fourteen Worm-eating Warblers (Helmitheros 

vermivorum) were sampled during breeding season point counts (Monroe 2005). Though 

populations may be stabilizing now, this species declined in abundance over three decades

(Rosenberg 2000). The Cumberland Plateau is a significant breeding area for this warbler. This 

species is a ground nester preferring mature, deciduous, forested slopes with a dense shrub layer 

and requires large tracts for successful breeding (Hanners and Patton 1998).

Riparian and early successional specialist species were reported less commonly than forest 

species in the 2003-2004 survey (Monroe 2005). Three Louisiana Waterthrushes (Seiurus 

motacilla) were sampled in the park, two during breeding season point counts. This species 

nests in hardwood canopied riparian zones (Mattsson et al. 2009). It prefers low order, high 

gradient flows with robust macroinvertebrate communities (Mattsson et al. 2009). A single 

Golden-winged Warbler (Vermifora chrysoptera) and a single Prairie Warbler (Dendroica 

discolor) were sampled during migratory periods, and not noted in breeding season efforts 

(Monroe 2005). Evidence suggests that both species have been rare in the park for decades. 

Barbour et al. (1979) did not report Golden-winged warblers during his survey, but offered 

second-hand reports of breeding season individuals from 1968 and 1969. He stated that the 

habitat where the species were noted in 1969 had matured out of preferred condition by the time 

of his survey (Barbour et al. 1979). Barbour et al. (1979) reported a single nesting pair of Prairie 

Warblers. Northern Bobwhites (Colinus virginianus), another early successional habitat 

specialist species, were not seen in the recent survey and were rare in the Barbour et al. (1979) 

survey. These findings are not surprising because early successional habitat is rare in 

Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. 
95

We used an index of biotic integrity to explore the condition of the CUGA bird community and 

park bird habitat. Bird community assemblage data can be used to assess ecological integrity 

and level of anthropogenic habitat disturbance (Bradford et al. 1998, Canterberry et al. 2000, 

O’Connell et al. 2000). O’Connell et al. (1998) developed a breeding bird community index 

(BCI) for the region of the eastern U.S. containing Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. 

To apply this BCI, bird species are grouped into guilds based upon breeding season life history 

traits, and the relative proportions of species in each guild are used to create overall scores

ranging from 20 (low integrity) to 77 (highest integrity, O’Connell 1998). The index was 

developed in reference to undisturbed habitats. Higher scores result when disturbance-sensitive 

species and species with forest-specialist life history traits are more commonly present in a bird 

list relative to nest parasite, nest predator, urban-tolerant, and exotic species (O’Connell 1998). 

We applied the regional bird community index to the 2003-2004 CUGA baseline point count 

data. During this CUGA survey, each plot was sampled a single time (Monroe 2005). We 

applied the BCI to individual point counts to explore the relationship among individual plots and 

to assess relative quality of bird habitat across the park (Figure 37a). The mean score of all 

individual point counts from the survey was 59.7 (SD±8.0), corresponding to an interpretation of 

“high integrity” (O’Connell et al. 1998). The BCI was developed using species lists compiled 

from sets of five 10-minute, unlimited radius point counts spaced along 1-km transects 

(O’Connell et al. 1998). To more closely match these methods, and to provide more 

independently interpretable scores, we applied the BCI to 5-count bird lists compiled from each 

plot and its four nearest neighbors (Figure 37b). Some adjacent plots had identical 5-plot lists 

and there were 36 unique lists among the 49 plots. The mean of all the 5-plot BCI scores across 

the 49 plots was 61.6 (SD±5.5), corresponding to an interpretation of “highest integrity” for the 

park. Generally, the BCI scores indicated that CUGA had high quality forest bird communities 

and habitat, relative to reference sites across the Mid-Atlantic region. This resulted because the 

CUGA sample contained a greater proportion of interior forest specialists and disturbancesensitive species relative to exotic, urban-tolerant, and nest-disrupting species. 
96

Figure 37. Bird Community Index (BCI) scores for 49 individual point count bird lists (top figure) and for 

five-count bird lists (bottom figure), for bird counts taken during a 2003-2004 survey at Cumberland Gap 

National Historical Park (Monroe 2005).

To explore the CUGA breeding bird community in a broader regional context, we used the BCI 

to compare BBS data collected in the park to data collected in the surrounding region. Breeding 

Bird Survey routes were sampled once a year, in June, using 3-minute point-count observations 

at 0.80-km intervals along the length of each 40-km route, for a total of 50 counts per route

(Sauer et al. 2008). O’Connell et al. (2007) found that 10-stop sub-samples of BBS data were 

useful in applying the BCI to indicate relative differences in habitat disturbance across broad 

landscape scales. Consecutive 10-stop BBS data summaries were available for download from 

the BBS website (Sauer et al. 2008). Eight of the first 10 stops on the Cumberland Gap BBS 

route were located in CUGA; the first and tenth stops were located adjacent to park boundaries 

(Sauer et al. 2008). Therefore, the BBS Cumberland Gap 0-10 stop sub-sample represented a 

park bird sample that was suitable for comparison with identically-collected data from the 
97

broader region. We selected active BBS routes within 100 km of CUGA and calculated the BCI 

score for 0-10 stop data collected in the last 10 years. We found nine routes within the 100 km 

radius suitable for comparison to the Cumberland Gap BBS route. Cumberland Gap data 

resulted in the highest BCI score among the 10 routes in eight of the 10 years analyzed (Figure 

38). The mean BCI score for the CUGA route over the 10-year period was 55.1 (SD±2.4) which 

was higher than any of the mean scores for the comparison routes. This indicated that bird 

samples collected in CUGA generally contained a greater proportion of forest specialists than 

similarly-collected samples from the region within 100 km of the park.

Figure 38. Bird Community Index scores (O’Connell et al. 1998) for 0-10 stop BBS data collected from 

Cumberland Gap (bold series) and for nine other BBS routes within 100 km of Cumberland Gap National 

Historical Park over a 10-year period (Sauer et al. 2008).

We further explored the BBS 10-stop data described above using a “conservation value index”. 

This index is designed to give a greater relative score to samples whose composition is more 

heavily weighted toward species that face greater threats (Nuttle et al. 2003). We used a ranking 

system designed by Nuttle et al. (2003) and based upon regional PIF scores (Panjabi et al. 2005). 

For each sample, we calculated the rank for each species, with “0” representing exotic species 

and “4” representing species facing the greatest threats to persistence (Nuttle et al. 2003). We 

multiplied each species rank by the sample relative abundance of the species, and the index was 

the sample composite of this value (Nuttle et al. 2003). The Cumberland Gap sample scored 

highest among the 10 samples for five of the 10 years, and scored second or third highest for 

each of the other five years (Figure 39). This suggested that CUGA contained a relatively high 

proportion of birds that managers and natural resource professionals have identified as targets of 

conservation concern.

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

BCI Score

CUGA BBS Route

Regional BBS Routes
98

Figure 39. Conservation value index scores (Nuttle et al. 2003) for 0-10 stop BBS data collected from 

Cumberland Gap (bold series) and for nine other BBS routes within 100 km of Cumberland Gap National 

Historical Park over a 10-year period (Sauer et al. 2008).

We used park-wide survey data from two bird survey efforts to explore changes in the CUGA 

bird community over time. Because of disparities in type and amount of effort between the 

Barbour et al. (1979) survey and the Monroe (2005) survey, quantitative comparisons of the 

studies were not possible. Qualitatively, the samples were similar. Barbour et al. (1979) 

reported five species not reported by Monroe (2005). Four of these—the Grasshopper Sparrow 

(Ammodramus savannarum), Northern Bobwhite, Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), and 

Green Heron (Butorides virescens)—prefer habitat not common in CUGA and their absence 

from the Monroe (2005) survey is unremarkable. Conversely, Monroe (2005) reported 61 

species not reported by Barbour et al. (1979), but used greater sampling effort over all seasons. 

Barbour et al. (1979) stated that Bachman’s Sparrows (Aimophila aestivalis), and Red-cockaded 

Woodpeckers (Picoides borealis) had been reported from the park since 1969, but did not find 

these species in 1978-1979. Both of these species have experienced significant range 

contractions in recent decades and neither is expected to occur in the region (Jackson 1994, 

Dunning 2006). 

We found the condition of the bird community at Cumberland Gap National Historical Park to be 

excellent (Table 23). About one third of the bird species reported from the park in the most 

recent bird survey were identified by states or NGOs as species with some level of conservation 

priority (Table 22). Park point count data used in a Bird Community Index (O’Connell et al. 

1998) indicated that the CUGA bird habitat was, on average, of the “highest integrity” relative to 

reference sites used to develop the index (Figure 37). A comparison of BBS data collected in the 

park with identically-collected BBS data from the surrounding region suggested that forest bird 

habitat in CUGA was generally less disturbed and hosted a greater proportion of mature forest 

specialist species than did sites within 100 km of the park (Figure 38). Similarly, comparisons of

a conservation value index among CUGA and regional BBS data indicated that the park breeding 

bird population consisted of a greater proportion of threatened birds than did the surrounding 

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

Conservation Index Score

CUGA BBS Route

Regional BBS Routes
99

habitat (Figure 39). Threats to birds include the loss of some of the hemlock habitat in the park. 

Hemlock wooly adelgid occurs in the park, and will result in the death of some hemlocks despite 

ongoing efforts to mitigate the pest (Jenny Beeler personal communication). Species specifically 

adapted to this habitat may decline in abundance in the future.

 

We found the trend of bird populations at CUGA to be stable (Table 23). Monroe (2005) 

observed a similar population to that observed by Barbour et al. (1979) over two decades 

previously. We found that the BCI for 0-10 stop BBS data from the park was stable over a 10-

year period (Figure 38). 

 

Table 23. The condition of the bird community at Cumberland Gap National Historical Park was excellent. 

The trend of bird community condition was stable. The quality of the data used to make the condition 

assessment was good.

The apparent high quality of the bird community reported from Cumberland Gap National 

Historical Park is consistent with expectations for a large, protected hardwood forest. The 

increase in richness and density of BBS sample data is interesting and worthy of further study to 

determine if this trend is observable in the park generally. We recommend that future bird 

surveys be conducted using standardized point count methods at set plots, similar to the methods 

used by Monroe (2005). Ideally, the same points utilized by Monroe (2005) should be resampled where feasible, allowing the results from Monroe to serve as baseline for future efforts. 

Mammal Communities 

Two comprehensive mammal surveys have been conducted at Cumberland Gap National 

Historical Site. Barbour et al. (1979) conducted mammal surveys between the autumns of 1977 

and 1979 documenting 36 species. This effort included around 6140 trap nights using standard 

mouse and rat traps, an unreported number of trap nights using around 70 “beer can” pit traps, 

intermittent use of several mole traps and small live traps, and mist-netting at the mouths of 

selected caves (Barbour et al. 1979). Other mammal records resulted from incidental sightings, 

from tracks and scat observations, from skeletal remains, and from road-killed specimens 

(Barbour et al. 1979). Barbour et al. (1979) further reported that the park was “plagued with 

numerous free ranging dogs and abandoned pets”. Gumbert et al. (2006) conducted a 

comprehensive mammal survey during 2005 and 2006 documenting 40 species. This effort 

included sampling at 24 sites (Figure 40) with 11,348 combined trap nights using Museum 

Special snap traps, Sherman live traps, Tomahawk box traps, pitfall cup traps, drift fence bucket 

pitfall traps, and mole traps (Gumbert et al. 2006). Bats were sampled during 27 nights using 

mist nets or harp nets and also with Anabat II bat detectors (Gumbert et al. 2006). Further 

mammal records resulted from 213 nights with automatic trail cameras, and from visual 

3 of 3: Good

Temporal

Bird 

Community

Thematic Spatial

Condition 

Attribute & Trend

Data Quality
100

observations of animals or sign (Gumbert et al. 2006). Combined, these surveys have verified 43 

species of mammals within CUGA, including 9 bats and 34 non-volant species.

Figure 40. Points sampled for mammals in the most recent CUGA mammal survey conducted by Gumbert 

et al. (2006).

The findings from these two mammal surveys indicate an ecologically diverse native mammal 

community including habitat specialists and generalists from all trophic levels. Eight carnivore 

species have been documented at CUGA. Of these, three species are obligate or near-obligate 

carnivores, and five species are significantly omnivorous (Trani et al. 2007). Since the 

extirpation of large apex mammalian predators, smaller carnivores fill the role of apex predators 

in many communities (Roemer 2009). Although the evolving ecological role of these 

“mesocarnivores” is poorly understood, there is evidence of classic top-down trophic effects 

when members of this guild are excluded or removed (Roemer 2009). Barbour et al. (1979) 

reported that bears were rare transients in the park, but Gumbert et al. (2006) found that bears 

were common in high-elevation areas.

Nine species of bats, including the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), have been 

documented at CUGA. Of these, at least six species are probably full-year residents. Most of 

these species may use caves as roosts or hibernacula. The documented bat species exhibit a range 

of insectivore foraging behaviors including foraging above the forest canopy, below the canopy, 

along edges, riparian zones, and in open spaces (Trani et al. 2007). Twenty-two species of 

shrews and rodents, of which one is exotic, have been documented at CUGA. This group of 

“small mammals” consists of a diversity of habitat specialists and generalists including at least 

nine species that are near the southern extent of their range or are Appalachian specialists (Trani 

et al. 2007). Preferred habitats range from early successional to mature, high-elevation,

hardwood forests (Trani et al. 2007). Diets include obligate insectivores, seed and mast eaters, 

herbivores, fungivores, and extreme generalists (Trani et al. 2009).

Exotic and range expanding mammal species were rare in the park. Feral hogs (Sus scrofa), 

house mouse (Mus musculus), and Norway rats (rattus norvegicus) were not seen during the 
101

most recent survey. Feral hogs have been expanding their range in North America, and a 

population has existed approximately 70-100 km west of the park for over 20 years (Gipson et al. 

1998, SCWDS 2004). The house mouse is a peridomestic exotic species that was sampled in 

the1979 survey near human structures in the park (Barbour et al. 1979). Although it may still 

occur in the park, its rarity is not surprising given the lack of human development. The Norway 

rat is also a peridomestic exotic pest and has never been documented in the park. Barbour et al. 

(1979) mentions dogs and abandoned pets in the park, but gives no further explanation. 

Although feral or free-ranging domestic pets were not noted in the most recent survey, they 

occur in the park and sometimes cause wildlife damage issues. Feral cats have depredated 

summer roosting bats in Gap Cave on more than one occasion (Jenny Beeler personal

communication). Coyotes (Canis latrans) were not seen during the 1979 survey, but were noted 

in the 2006 survey. This may result from recent expansion into the park, or the species may have 

been missed in the 1979 survey. Coyotes were introduced in Tazewell, Virginia as early as 

1952, and there have probably been unrecorded introductions in the region as well (Hill et al. 

1987). Coyotes are native to North America and their continuing range expansion may be 

partially into ecological niches left un-filled following the extirpation of native apex predators.
102

Table 24. Mammals reported in Cumberland Gap National Historical Site by Barbour et al. (1979) and 

Gumbert et al. (2006). Shown are official listings as threatened (T), endangered (E), special concern (S), 

candidate species (C), or deemed in need of management (D) by the federal government (F), Kentucky 

(K), Tennessee (T), or Virginia (V), and inclusion as a priority concern species on each state’s 

comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy (CWCS).

Scientific Name Common Name Barbour 

et al. 

1979

Gumbert 

et al. 

2006

Listing CWCS

Blarina brevicauda short-tailed shrew X X

Canis latrans coyote X

Castor canadensis beaver X

Clethrionomys gapperi (maurus) red-backed vole X X S(K) K

Cryptotis parva least shrew X

Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum X X

Eptesicus fuscus big brown bat X X

Glaucomys volans southern flying squirrel X X

Lasionycteris noctivagans silver-haired bat X X

Lasiurus borealis eastern red bat X X

Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat X

Lynx rufus bobcat X X

Marmota monax woodchuck X X

Mephistes mephistes striped skunk X X

Microtus pinetorum pine vole X X

Mus musculus house mouse X

Mustela vison mink X

Myotis leibii eastern small-footed bat X X T(K) K,T,V

Myotis lucifugus little brown bat X X

Myotis septentrionalis northern bat X X

Myotis sodalis Indiana bat X X E(F,K,T,V) K,T,V

Napaeozapus insignis woodland jumping mouse X X T

Netotoma magister Allegheny woodrat X X D(T) K,T

Ochrotomys nuttalli golden mouse X X T

Odocoileus virginianus white-tailed deer X X

Ondatra zibethicus muskrat X

Parascalops breweri hairy-tailed mole X X T

Peromyscus leucopus white-footed mouse X X

P. maniculatus nubiterrae cloudland deer mouse X X

Pipistrellus subflavus eastern pipistrelle X X

Procyon lotor raccoon X X

Scalopus aquaticus eastern mole X

Sciurus carolinensis gray squirrel X X

Sigmodon hispidus hispid cotton rat X X

Sorex cinereus masked shrew X S(K) K,T

Sorex fumeus smoky shrew X X T

Sorex hoyi pygmy shrew X T

Spilogale putorius eastern spotted skunk X X S(K) K,T

Sylvilagus floridanus eastern cottontail X X

Synaptomys cooperi southern bog lemming X X T

Tamias striatus eastern chipmunk X X

Urocyon cinereoargenteus gray fox X X

Ursus americanus black bear X X S(K) K
103

We compared the species list of shrews and native mice and rats from the most recent survey 

(Gumbert et al. 2006) with species lists from other southeastern Appalachian and Kentucky

mammal studies conducted across a variety of habitats using similar methods. The CUGA 

survey resulted in a greater number of species overall, and an equal or greater number of shrews 

and native rats, mice, and voles (Table 25). Among CUPN parks, CUGA had the greatest 

number of confirmed and probably present mammals (Moore 2010). These findings are not 

suitable for rigorous statistical comparisons because of disparities in sampling effort and 

differences in location. Nevertheless, they suggest that the CUGA mammal community is 

diverse relative to communities found in other forest habitats in the broad region.

Table 25. Summary of trapping result for shrews, and native rats, mice, and voles for four studies in 

Kentucky and in the south and central Appalachian Mountains showing total species by category and 

number of species unique among the studies.

Gumbert et al. 

2006 Mitchell et al. 1997 Menzel et al. 1999 Thomas 2012

Location Cumberland Gap 

National Historical 

Park, eastern 

Kentucky

George Washington 

National Forest, 

northern Virginia

Nantahala National 

Forest, western 

North Carolina

Mammoth Cave 

National Park, 

western-central 

Kentucky

Habitat All types including 

fields, wetlands, 

forests

Gradient from recent 

clearcut to climax 

hardwood forest

Gradient from 

wildlife openings to 

deep forest

All types including 

fields, wetlands, 

forests

Effort 11,348 trap nights 

including snap, 

Sherman, box, and 

pitfalls 

12,600 trap days 

using drift fence 

pitfall arrays

12,000 trap nights 

using live traps and 

pitfall traps

117,121 trap nights 

using live traps, 

pitfalls, and drift 

fence pitfall arrays

Total Species 14 11 7 12

Shrew Species 5 5 2 5

Native 

Rats/mice/voles 9 6 5 7

Unique Species 3 2 0 4

We compared native species observed in the most recent mammal inventory (Gumbert et al. 

2006) to native species expected for various components of the reported mammal assemblages 

(Table 26). Gumbert el al. (2006) used previous work and a variety of literature sources to 

prepare a list of 60 mammal species that could be expected to occur in the park. Because the 

purpose of our comparisons was to explore quality, we removed exotic and range expanding 

species from all lists to avoid artificially inflating the “good” observed richness or the “ideal” 

expected richness. Around 70% of the overall expected native mammal assemblage was 

reported from CUGA (Table 26). Many of the expected species not found, such as the fox 

squirrel, red fox, meadow vole, and river otter, were considered rare, had limited ranges, were 

cryptic, or had limited preferred habitat available (Gumbert et al. 2006, Trani et al. 2007). The 

least represented group examined was the carnivores with six of 11 (55%) expected species 

reported. Of the five species missing, long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), the least weasel 

(Mustela nivalis), and the mink (Mustela vison) were considered rare or highly cryptic (Gumbert 

et al. 2006, Linehan et al. 2008). River otters (Lontra canadensis) have been re-introduced into 

the region, but the primarily small headwater streams found in the park may not be attractive 
104

habitat to this mammal. Of the four missing insectivores, the southeastern shrew (Sorex 

longirostris), and eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), have localized ranges (Gumbert et al. 

2006). Elk (Cervus elapus) have been re-introduced in the region and this animal has been noted 

by park staff near the borders of the park, indicating that elk may be at least transient residents 

(Jenny Beeler personal communication). 

Table 26. Number of native species reported from a recent mammal inventory at CUGA, compared to 

number of native species expected (Gumbert et al. 2006). Exotic and range expanding species (ie. 

coyote) are not included in expected or reported lists.

Comparison Reported Expected

% Expected 

Observed

All Native Species 39 56 70

Bats 9 11 82

Carnivores 6 11 55

Insectivores (Shrews and Moles) 6 10 60

Rodents 15 19 79

We found the condition of the mammal community at Cumberland Gap National Historical Site 

to be good (Table 27). This was indicated by the occurrence of at least 13 species of regional 

conservation concern, the high native richness of the CUGA mammal sample relative to 

similarly-collected regional samples (Table 25), and by the similarity of the observed CUGA 

community to an idealized regional community (Table 26). We did not assign a trend for CUGA 

mammal community condition. A previous comprehensive survey was three decades old and 

was not conducted with similar effort to the recent inventory. The existence of a single wellconducted recent survey is not sufficient to determine even a qualitative trend. The data used to 

make this assessment were good. Because of their importance in CUGA, cave bats were 

assessed in a separate section of this report.

Cumberland Gap National Historical Site has benefited from two well-conducted comprehensive 

mammal surveys. The recent survey by Copperhead Environmental Consulting, Inc. provided 

good coverage of park habitat although fewer points were located on the southern slopes of 

Cumberland Mountain and future researchers may wish to include this area. The survey 

included sufficiently intense and diverse effort to collect a representative mammal sample. We 

recommend that future efforts conform closely to the design used in this survey. At the least, 

future comprehensive mammal surveys should include sampling in all significant park habitats 

with several varieties and sizes of traps, sampling with pitfall arrays, sampling with automated 

cameras, and sampling with baited sign stations. Future researchers may desire to conduct 

special efforts directed towards mustelids, shrews, and native mice and rats. There are 

approximately 10 expected members of these groups that have not been found in CUGA. 

Mammal communities are inherently more difficult to sample than bird or fish communities and 

several surveys may be necessary to adequately document 90% of the species occurring in 

CUGA, which contains a large area of diverse and remote habitat.
105

Table 27. The condition of the mammal community at Cumberland Gap NHP was good, with good data 

quality. No trend was assigned to mammal community condition. Cave bats were assessed separately.

Herpetofauna Communities

Amphibians and reptiles are important components of southeastern US ecosystems. The 

southeastern US contains the highest diversity of herpetofauna in North America (Gibbons and 

Buhlmann 2001), and the southern and central Appalachian region is characterized by high 

amphibian diversity (Dodd 2003). Global declines in amphibians (Stuart et al. 2004) and reptiles 

(Gibbons et al. 2000) have been noted for decades, and herpetofauna have become the focus of 

increasing management concern and effort. Known threats to herpetofauna include habitat loss 

and fragmentation, habitat degradation, pollution, disease, and invasive species (Gibbons et al. 

2000, Semlitsch 2000). Wetland habitats are of particular importance to amphibians (Semlitsch 

2000) and are important to many species of reptiles as well (Gibbons et al. 2000).

Several efforts have examined herpetofaunal communities in CUGA. Barbour et al. (1979) 

sampled reptiles and amphibians as part of a comprehensive vertebrate fauna survey of the park. 

This effort consisted of active searches, incidental sightings, and several second-hand reports 

from park personnel made during the two-year period of the study (Barbour et al. 1979). This 

survey reported 45 species of reptiles and amphibians in the park (Barbour et al. 1979). Meade 

(2003) conducted a 12-month herpetofaunal survey of CUGA including sampling in pre-existing 

vegetation sampling plots and sampling in specifically chosen habitats. Meade (2003) used areaconstrained searches, coverboards, road cruising, and incidental observations and reported 35 

species from CUGA. In 1993, Petranka et al. (2004) began monitoring wood frog (Rana 

sylvatica) and spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) breeding use of small ponds in 

CUGA and in three other southeastern national parks. In 1999, monitoring was expanded to 

include three small ponds created as mitigation for wetlands lost to highway construction 

(Petranka 2005). These efforts reported 11 species using the wetlands, including the regionally 

rare eastern spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus holbrooki), that had not been previously reported from 

CUGA (Petranka 2005). Combined, these efforts have reported 47 species in the Cumberland 

Gap National Historical Park (Table 28). The NPSpecies online database of NPS biodiversity 

lists 35 species of herpetofauna (those reported by Meade 2003) as verified present in the park 

(NPSpecies 2010). 

Mammal 

Community

3 of 3: Good

Thematic Spatial Temporal

Condition 

Attribute & Trend

Data Quality
106

Table 28. Herpetofaunal species expected to occur in Cumberland Gap National Historical Park, and those actually reported from sampling in the 

park. B=reported by Barbour et al. (1979); M=reported by Meade (2003); P=reported by Petranka (2005).

Scientific Name Common Name Obs. Scientific Name Common Name Obs.

Anurans Salamanders

Bufo americanus American toad B,M,P Ambystoma maculatum spotted salamander B,M,P

Bufo fowleri Fowler’s toad B Ambystoma opacum marbled salamander B,M,P

Hyla chrysoscelis Cope’s gray treefrog B,M,P Aneides aeneus green salamander B,M

Pseudacris brachyphona mountain chorus frog B,M,P Desmognathus fuscus northern dusky salamander B,M

Pseudacris c. crucifer northern spring peeper B,M,P Desmognathus monticola seal salamander B,M

Pseudacris feriarum upland chorus frog B,M,P Desmognathus welteri black mountain salamander B,M

Rana catesbeiana bullfrog B,M Eurycea cirrigera southern two-lined salamander B,M

Rana clamitans melanota green frog B,M Eurycea l. longicauda long-tailed salamander B

Rana palustris pickerel frog B,M,P Eurycea lucifuga cave salamander B,M

Rana sylvatica wood frog B,M,P Gyrinophilus porphyriticus duryi Kentucky spring salamander B,M

Scaphiopus holbrooki eastern spadefoot toad P Hemidactylium scutatum four-toed salamander B,M

Snakes Notophthalmus v. viridescens red-spotted newt B,M,P

Agkistrodon contortix mokasen northern copperhead B,M Plethodon glutinosus northern slimy salamander B,M

Carphophis a. amoenus eastern worm snake B,M Plethodon kentucki Cumberland Plateau salamander M

Coluber c. constrictor northern black racer B,M Plethodon richmondi southern ravine salamander B,M

Crotalus horridus timber rattlesnake B,M Pseudotriton diastictus midland mud salamander B

Diadophis punctatus edwardsii northern ringneck snake B,M Pseudotriton ruber ruber northern red salamander B

Lampropeltis getula nigra black kingsnake B Turtles

Lampropeltis t.triangulum eastern milk snake B Chelydra serpentina common snapping turtle B

Nerodia s. sipedon northern water snake B,M Sternotherus odoratus common musk turtle B

Opheodrys aestivus rough green snake B Terrapene carolina eastern box turtle B,M

Scotophis spiloides midland rat snake B,M Lizards

Storeria o. occipitomaculata northern redbelly snake B,M Eumeces fasciatus five-lined skink B,M

Thamnophis s. sirtalis eastern garter snake B,M Sceloporus undulatus eastern fence lizard B,M

Virginia v. valeriae eastern earth snake B Scincella lateralis ground skink B
107

We compared lists of reptiles and amphibians reported from recent sampling efforts by Meade 

(2003) and Petranka (2005) to lists of herpetofauna expected to occur in the park. Meade (2003) 

prepared an expected list using several sources relying primarily upon the inventory of Barbour 

et al. (1979). This expected list included 47 species, all of which were reported by Barbour et al. 

(1979) or Meade (2003, Table 28). Around 77% of expected herpetofaunal species were 

reported from the park (Table 29). Amphibians were better-represented than reptiles, with 86% 

of expected amphibians and 63% of expected reptile species actually reported from the park. 

Frogs and toads were the best represented amphibian group, with only one expected species not 

reported from the park. 

Table 29. Number of expected herpetofaunal species and number and percentage of species actually 

reported during recent sampling efforts at CUGA.

Comparison Expected Reported

% Expected 

Reported

All species 47 36 77

Reptiles 19 12 63

Amphibians 28 24 86

Snakes 13 9 69

Lizards 3 2 67

Turtles 3 1 33

Salamanders 17 14 82

Anurans 11 10 91

Long-term efforts have monitored amphibian breeding activity at ponds in Cumberland Gap 

National Historical Park. In 1993 researchers began a project to monitor the number of egg 

masses of spotted salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum) and wood frogs (Rana sylvatica) at 

small ponds in CUGA and in three other southeastern national parks (Petranka 2005, Petranka et 

al. 2004). In 1998 the NPS and Federal Highways Administration constructed a wetland in 

CUGA as mitigation for a wetland lost during construction of a highway through the park 

(Petranka 2005). Three ponds were constructed and an existing ditch was altered on a 0.40-ha 

site in the Little Yellow Creek watershed below Fern Lake (Petranka 2005). Existing monitoring 

efforts were expanded in 1999 to include the new sites (Petranks et al. 2004). In 2006, NPS 

personnel took over monitoring duties at all sites. Sixteen monitored ponds occurred in three 

distinct clusters, termed here “north ponds,” “middle ponds,” and “south ponds” (Figure 41). 

The constructed wetlands were in the south cluster, with included seven ponds in the floodplain 

of Little Yellow Creek below Fern Lake. The middle cluster of ponds included seven ponds in 

the Little Yellow Creek floodplain downstream of the south ponds. The north cluster included 

two sites on upper Davis Branch.
108

Figure 41. Three pond clusters containing 16 ponds were monitored for breeding effort of wood frogs 

(Rana sylvatica) and spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) since 1993. In 1999, four ponds were 

constructed in the south cluster and were included in long-term monitoring (inset). 

We plotted the total number of egg masses of wood frogs and spotted salamanders counted 

annually at each pond cluster from 1993-2010, and included counts from the mitigation sites 

established in 1999 (Figure 42). The breeding activity of both species was greatest in the 

southern cluster of ponds, and breeding activity was highly variable among years. Wood frog 

egg mass counts decreased during 2006-2009, but showed signs of increasing in 2010. Drought 

and extreme cold in 2007 lowered egg success, and the timing of counts in 2009 caused early 

breeding efforts to be missed and thus counts this year were artificially low (unpublished CUGA 

data). Spotted salamander egg mass counts were relatively stable during the period. Weather 

patterns, flooding from streams, fish predation, alterations by beavers, successional changes, and 

other variables, affect amphibian breeding in small ponds (Petranka et al. 2004, Petranka 2005). 

A. maculatum and R. sylvatica exhibit different specific breeding strategies and respond to 

different environmental cues during the breeding season (Petranka et al. 2004). Petranka (2005) 

reported that the region experienced mild drought conditions from 1998-2001. The region also 

experienced a drought from 2006-2008. We compared 2002-2010 precipitation data from the 

collection site located at the CUGA Visitor Center to egg mass counts of wood frogs and spotted 

salamanders in the park. For each year, we plotted the total centimeters of precipitation from 

November 1 of the previous year, through April 30 of the current year, alongside park-wide total 

egg mass counts (Figure 43). Precipitation data were missing for the 2005 breeding season. 
109

Breeding effort of the two species was asynchronous over the time period, though low counts 

were observed for both species in 2007-2008 (Figure 43).

Figure 42. Total egg masses of Rana sylvatica and Ambystoma maculatum counted annually at three 

clusters of ponds (south, middle, and north) in Cumberland Gap National Historical Site. Data shown 

include all counts at all ponds, including constructed mitigation ponds filled in 1999.
110

Figure 43. Total precipitation (cm) from November 1 of the previous year through April 30 of the current 

year and total egg masses of Rana sylvatica and Ambystoma maculatum counted at all sites from 2003-

2010 at Cumberland Gap National Historical Park.

We examined the amphibian activity and success of mitigation ponds. Criteria for the successful 

mitigation of the constructed wetlands included specific goals for hydroperiod, amphibian use, 

and plant community structure (Petranka 2005). For amphibian use, the criterion was that wood 

frogs and spotted salamanders use the pond for five of 10 years. This goal was met and these 

species were found in all years of monitoring. From 1999-2009, 12 amphibian species were 

reported from the ponds during breeding season counts. Richness ranged from 5 to 9 species 

with a mean richness of 6.8 species (SD±1.2). A long term objective for the constructed 

wetlands was to provide breeding habitat for the four-toed salamander (Hemidactylium 

scutatum). Petranka (2005) suggested this goal would most likely be met following canopy 

closure of the new wetlands. Four-toed salamanders had not been reported from the ponds by 
111

2009. Following their construction, the mitigation wetlands were compared to three nearby 

reference ponds that were part of the long-term amphibian monitoring project (Petranka 2005). 

Wood frogs showed evidence of habitat shifting in the cluster because significant portions of the 

population moved to the newly constructed ponds (Petranka et al. 2004, Figure 44). Across the 

mitigation ponds, spotted salamander breeding activity increased steadily over the time period 

(Figure 44), though activity varied among sites.

Figure 44. Total egg masses of Rana sylvatica and Ambystoma maculatum counted at constructed 

wetlands and at nearby reference ponds from 1993-2010 at Cumberland Gap National Historical Park.

Potential threats to the persistence of amphibians in CUGA include infestations of pathogens 

including Ranavirus and the chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis). Both pathogens 

are implicated in the decline or failure of amphibian populations in the U.S. The chytrid fungus 

is an emerging disease that is the cause of local declines and extinctions of anuran populations in 

the western U.S. (Briggs et al. 2005). The fungus has been found to be widely occurring in 

anuran populations in the northeastern (Longcore et al. 2007) and southeastern (Rothermel et al. 
112

2008) U.S. where it has not been specifically implicated in large-scale amphibian die-offs and is 

believed to result in sub-clinical infestations in many cases. The chytrid fungus was reported 

from 33% of wood frog samples collected in CUGA in 2009 (unpublished CUGA data). 

Ranavirus is known to kill larval amphibians, including wood frogs and spotted salamanders, 

and caused high mortality from 1997-2006 in populations of these amphibians in the Tulula 

Wetland Mitigation Site in western North Carolina (Petranka et la. 2007). Further exploration 

into the presence and effects of these pathogens may be warranted in CUGA.

Recent efforts at documenting herpetofaunal diversity in CUGA have relied significantly upon 

active searching, and have not included drift fence-pitfall arrays (Meade 2003). Because 

behavior and habitat associations vary widely among herpetofaunal species, multiple methods 

should be used when sampling an assemblage (Gibbons et al. 1997, Tuberville et al. 2005). 

Total effort expended, sample method, sample timing, and the microhabitat sampled all affect the 

results of herpetofaunal surveys (Greenberg et al. 1994, Gibbons et al. 1997, Metts et al. 2001,

Floyd et al. 2002, Ryan et al. 2002). Drift fencing with pitfall traps is among the most effective 

and commonly used methods of sampling herpetofauna assemblages, particularly salamanders 

(Greenberg et al. 1994; Ryan et al. 2002; Wilson and Gibbons 2009). Funnel trapping on drift 

fences is also effective at sampling some herpetofauna, and may be particularly effective for 

sampling species such as large snakes that are relatively poorly sampled by pitfalls (Greenberg et 

al. 1994, Todd et al. 2007). Additional metal coverboards in the low-lying areas of the park may 

also be useful at sampling some of the missing snakes.

We ranked the condition of reptile and amphibian communities in CUGA as good (Table 30). 

Around 77% of expected herpetofaunal species were reported from the park in recent years 

(Table 29). Amphibians, a group of special importance in the southeastern Appalachian region, 

were well-represented in the CUGA with 86% of expected species reported in recent inventories 

(Table 29). The most recent herpetofauna inventory of the park (Meade 2003) had fewer species 

than did an earlier survey (Barbour et al. 1979), but the new survey was conducted over a single 

12-month period and the older survey was conducted over multiple years. Habitat in the park had 

likely become more forested over the time period between the studies, altering animal 

assemblages. Furthermore, Barbour et al. (1979) reported some species only from second-hand 

reports, so more uncertainty exists in the results of this survey. Monitoring of the breeding effort 

of wood frogs and spotted salamanders at small ponds in the park suggested that the populations 

of these species, though variable, remained relatively stable over the long term (Figure 42). The 

marked decrease in wood frog breeding effort from 2006-2009 may have resulted from drought 

conditions or from variances in sampling timing. The species has shown a possible reversal of 

this trend and should continue to be monitored carefully. Mitigation ponds filled in 1999 have 

been used annually by breeding amphibians. These ponds have met short-term objectives for 

breeding amphibians. 

We did not assign a trend to CUGA reptile and amphibian community condition. Long-term 

monitoring data was only available for two species of amphibians. The two comprehensive 

inventories of reptiles and amphibians were widely separated in time and used different 

techniques and sampling effort. Of the amphibian species monitored, spotted salamanders have 

been relatively stable with recent reported declines, and possible signs of rebound.
113

Table 30. The condition of the herpetofauna community at Cumberland Gap National Historical Park was 

good. No trend was assigned to herpetofauna community condition. The data used to make the 

assessment was good.

If further herpetofaunal sampling is conducted at CUGA with the goal of documenting most of 

the species present, we recommend the use of significant effort with several sampling methods. 

We recommend that future comprehensive inventories include active searches as well as 

sampling with drift fences combined with pitfalls and funnel traps. Drift fence pitfall arrays are 

labor intensive to install and are easily visible if placed in areas with high human visitation. 

However, once in place they can be used over long time periods with minimal maintenance and 

can be periodically deactivated during non-sampling periods. Furthermore, this method is also 

effective at sampling small mammals, a community that may be of interest to park managers.

Cave Bats

Caves provide habitat for many unique organisms and biological communities. Over 1,300 caveadapted species are known from the United States and many more probably remain undescribed 

(Elliot 1998). Cave species are highly endemic, and many are known only from individual caves 

or cave systems (Elliot 1998). In CUGA, ongoing monitoring efforts for cave biota included 

biennial monitoring of two hibernacula for the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). 

Recent inventory efforts of vertebrate groups had included limited sampling directed at 

discovering cave herpetofauna (Meade 2003), fish (Remley 2005), and bats (Gumbert et al. 

2006). Because data were not available for multiple cave species, we focused our assessment on 

cave bats. 

Of nine species of bats reported by Gumbert et al. (2006) in a general park mammal inventory, 

seven species were cave-hibernating bats (Table 31). All seven of these species had been 

previously reported by Barbour et al. (1979). Gumbert et al. (2006) prepared a list of expected 

bats for the park including 11 species. The two species on this expected list not reported from 

the park, gray bat (Myotis grisescens) and Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus 

rafinesquii), are cave hibernating species. Both species are rare and the gray bat is federally 

endangered. Therefore, seven of nine (77.8%) potential cave bats have been reported from 

CUGA. Six of these seven species accounted for 95% of the total individual bats captured using 

mist nets and harp traps during the survey (Gumbert et al. 2006). Gumbert et al. (2006) used live 

capture methods at 10 sites, of which three were cave openings. Sampling at cave openings 

resulted in 73% of the total bats captured at all sites. The eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), 

reported from the survey, may occasionally use caves as roosts (Shump and Shump 1982), but 

was not considered a cave-using species in this assessment. The silver-haired bat, though not 

normally considered a cave bat, occasionally roosts in cave entrance zones in winter, and was 

considered with the cave bats in this report (Kunz 1982). The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), a 

Herpetofauna 

Community

3 of 3: Good

Thematic Spatial Temporal

Condition 

Attribute & Trend

Data Quality
114

federally endangered species, was not captured alive in the park during the recent mammal

inventory, but was recorded using Anabat II electronic bat detectors swarming at the entrance of 

Gap Cave (Gumbert et al. 2006). From other efforts, Indiana bats are known to hibernate in the 

park. A female Indiana bat from Gap Cave was banded as part of a banding project with Rick 

Reynolds of VADGIF on (10/21/09). (Jenny Beeler personal communication).

The endangered Indiana bat is known to hibernate in two CUGA caves. Based on the numbers 

reported from CUGA, the hibernacula in the park are classified as “Priority 3” by the USFWS 

and considered to be of minor importance in the overall survival of the species (USFWS 2007). 

Indiana bats hibernate from approximately mid-November to mid-April in the southern part of 

their range (USFWS 2007). Resource managers from the VDGIF have conducted counts of 

hibernating Indiana bats at these caves on a biennial schedule since 1993 (NPS unpublished 

data). From 1993-2011 numbers of hibernating Indiana bats in CUGA initially declined, then 

remained constant or increased slightly (Figure 45). Indiana bats declined generally throughout 

their range between 1965 and 2000, but populations may be stabilizing in recent years (USFWS 

2007, King 2009). Much of the apparent population stabilization results from increasing 

numbers in a few of the largest known hibernacula (USFWS 2007). Indiana bats hibernate in 

large, dense colonies, making populations uniquely vulnerable to disturbances during 

hibernation. Anthropogenic alterations of hibernacula are a primary cause of decline for the 

species (USFWS 2007). 

Table 31. Cave-hibernating bats captured in mist nets or harp traps in Cumberland Gap National 

Historical Park during a general mammal survey by Gumbert et al. (2006), the relative abundance (RA) of 

each species in the total sample of captured bats, and the number of cave entrances of three sampled, in 

which each species was reported.

Common Name Scientific Name RA CUGA Cave Presence

Northern bat Myotis septentrionalis 43.8 3

Eastern pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus 19.2 3

Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus 19.2 2

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus 10.8 3

Small-footed myotis Myotis leibii 1.5 1

Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans 0.8 0

Indiana bat Myotis sodalis * 0

* Species was only reported from electronic Anabat II detection.
115

Figure 45. Numbers of Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) counted biennially, 1993-2011, in two winter 

hibernacula in Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. The asterisk indicates that a greater area was 

searched in Cave A in 2011, and this value may be artificially elevated relative to other years.

In addition to Indiana bats, six other species of cave-hibernating bats have been reported from 

CUGA, although their use of park caves has not been described or quantified. The small-footed 

myotis (Myotis leibii) is a rare bat documented at CUGA. Rarely sampled in CUGA (Table 31), 

it was captured at the mouth of a park cave in late October (Gumbert et al. 2006), suggesting that 

it may hibernate within the park. M. leibii is listed as threatened in Kentucky (KSNPC 2011)

and generally recognized as a species of concern (Erdle and Hobson 2001) with a NatureServe 

global rank of G3 (vulnerable). It is easily overlooked in cave surveys because it often 

hibernates under rocks or talus on the cave floor or in small crevices (Erdle and Hobson 2001). 

Research suggests it is more cold tolerant than many other bats and can occupy spaces in 

hibernacula that fall below freezing (Erdle and Hobson 2001). It typically begins hibernation 

around mid-November and leaves hibernacula by March (Erdle and Hobson 2001). 

The silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans) was captured a single time at a non-cave 

location during the recent survey (Gumbert et al. 2006), and was the least-commonly captured 

bat from mist netting and harp trapping efforts (Table 31). It occasionally uses caves as 

hibernacula, though it is not an obligate cave hibernator and has been reported hibernating in a 

variety of other structures (Kunz 1982). This species is migratory, but the timing and nature of 

its migrations are poorly understood. Gumbert et al. (2006) suggest it is likely that L.

noctivagans hibernates in CUGA.

The eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus becoming known as Perimyotis subflavus) was 

found in the park during the recent survey, (Gumbert et al. 2006), was captured at all three cave 
116

sites sampled, and accounted for 19.2% of captured bats (Table 31). This bat typically 

hibernates singly in caves, mines, and man-made structures, often near mixed-species groups of 

hibernating bats (Fujita and Kunz 1984). Although it hibernates in the same caves with other 

species, it selects the deeper, more temperately stable passages (Fujita and Kunz 1984). In caves 

in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, it selected microhabitats with significantly higher 

mean relative humidity (84.8%) and mean ambient temperatures (10.9 oC) than four other 

temperate cave species (Raesly and Gates 1987). Among five species surveyed across multiple 

hibernacula, it was the only bat for which the mean minimum temperature of occupied sites was 

significantly greater than for unoccupied sites (Raesly and Gates 1987). It emerges from 

hibernations later than most other species and shows fidelity to specific hibernacula (Fujita and 

Kunz 1984). 

Little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) were found in the park during the recent survey (Gumbert et 

al. 2006), were captured at two of the three cave sites sampled, and accounted for 19.2% of 

captured bats (Table 31). This species typically hibernates from mid-November to mid-March in 

the southern part of its range, and remains in torpor for long periods during winter hibernation 

without arousing (Fenton and Barclay 1980). Although all bats may suffer decreased survival 

with increasing number of arousals, this species may be uniquely susceptible to mortality from 

disturbance during hibernation (Fenton and Barclay 1980). It has been found hibernating in 

microhabitats within caves with mean ambient temperatures of 7.5 °C (45.5 °F) and mean 

relative humidity of 73.2% (Raesly and Gates 1987). Other research suggests that M. lucifugus 

hibernacula were characterized by high humidity and temperatures above freezing (Fenton and 

Barclay 1980). 

Big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) were found in the park during the recent survey (Gumbert et 

al. 2006), were captured at each of the three cave sites sampled, and accounted for 10.8% of 

captured bats (Table 31). A very widely distributed generalist, E. fuscus seems to prefer larger 

volume caves with noticeable airflow (Agosta 2002). This species hibernates singly or in small 

clusters and prefers hibernacula with ambient temperatures above freezing (Agosta 2002). It has 

been found hibernating in microhabitats within caves with mean ambient temperatures of 7.1 °C

(44.8 °F) and mean relative humidity of 67.3% (Raesly and Gates 1987). 

The northern bat (Myotis septentrionalis) was the most commonly captured bat in CUGA during 

the recent survey (Gumbert et al. 2006). It was captured at each of the three sampled cave 

habitats and accounted for 43.8% of the total bats captured (Gumbert et al. 2006, Table 31). It 

hibernates in caves and abandoned mines in mixed-species groups where it usually makes up a 

relatively small proportion (<10%) of the overall hibernating bat population (Caceres and 

Barclay 2000). It prefers to hibernate singly or in clusters in tight crevices and can easily be 

overlooked in surveys of hibernacula (Caceres and Barclay 2000). The timing of hibernation 

varies with latitude, but starts during September-November and ends from March-May (Caceres 

and Barclay 2000). This species has been found hibernating in microhabitats within caves with 

mean ambient temperatures of 6.9 oC (44.4 °F) and mean relative humidity of 65.2% (Raesly and 

Gates 1987). 

White-nose syndrome (WNS) is a severe and emerging threat to hibernating bats throughout the 

eastern U.S. (Cyran 2011). This disease, caused by infection with the Geomyces destructans
117

fungus (Lorch et al. 2011), was discovered in New York in 2006, and has spread rapidly 

westward including occurrences in Virginia (2009), Tennessee (2010), and Kentucky (2011)

(Cryan 2011). The disease affects hibernating bats and may result in catastrophic declines of 

>75% in local hibernating populations (Blehert et al. 2009). Of nine species of bats reported 

from CUGA, six are hibernating species at risk from WNS and the disease has been found in all

of these species (Cryan 2011). Given the steady advance of this pathogen across the eastern 

U.S., its eventual arrival in CUGA is very likely and may be inevitable. A VDGIF team 

searching Gap Cave in 2011 found no evidence of the disease at that time (unpublished data). 

More cave hibernating species could become federally listed throughout their range as a result of 

the disease. The park has placed information about WNS on its website and practices 

decontamination measures to decrease the risk of the spread of the disease, and park managers 

have created a WNS response plan (WNS Response Plan 2011). All visitors inquiring about 

cave tours receive information from park staff regarding decontamination, and individuals with 

items that have been in other caves or mines since 2005 must remove or decontaminate those 

items prior to the cave tour (Jenny Beeler personal communication).

We ranked the condition of CUGA cave bats as good (Table 32). Seven of nine potential cave

species were reported from the park in widely separated surveys (Table 31, Barbour et al. 

1979,Gumbert et al. 2006). These species comprised the majority of bats captured in a recent 

survey and sampling at cave entrances resulted in the highest capture rates among all sites where 

live-capture sampling techniques were used (Gumbert et al. 2006). The park harbors at least two 

species identified as species of conservation concern, including the federally endangered Indiana 

bat. The Indiana bat had declined since it was first monitored, but numbers may be leveling off 

in recent years (Figure 45). The rangewide decline of this species is driven by factors outside of 

park control. The trend of cave bat condition was declining. This trend is assigned because of 

the severe and inevitable threat of WNS. Although not found in the park by 2011, the future 

condition of cave-hibernating species in the park will almost certainly be affected. The quality 

of the data was fair. Although the data were collected recently within the park, only two of at 

least 30 known caves were monitored for temperature, and only three caves were sampled for 

bats in the recent mammal survey. Furthermore, the use of caves by bats had not been 

quantified, except for the case of Indiana bats at two sites.

Table 32. The condition of cave bats was good at Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. The trend of 

cave bat condition was declining. The quality of the data used to make this assessment was fair.
118

At-Risk Plants

Rare Plants

The vegetation assessment conducted by White (2006) is the most recent comprehensive 

contribution to the inventory of flora at CUGA. In the survey, White (2006) identified 882 plant 

species in the park, including 127 new species not collected in previous surveys. Although none 

of the species are federally-listed, several are listed as significant in one or a combination of the 

three states comprising the park. In his evaluation of biological inventory data at CUGA, Moore 

(2010) updated this rare species list to include a total of 90 plant species that were, as of 2008, 

federally or state-listed or state-ranked (S1 or S2), and Present or Probably Present in the park 

(Table 33).

In 1984, Pounds et al. (1989) conducted a general flora survey at CUGA and documented 59 rare 

plant species, defined as state-listed species or species not known previously to occur in a 

specific state. Pounds et al. (1989) recommended continued monitoring of six species: 1) fly 

poison (Amianthium muscaetoxicum), 2) Appalachian stitchwort (Arenaria glabra), 3) Purple 

disk sunflower (Helianthus atrorubens), 4) Rough blazingstar (Liatris aspera), and 5) Prairie 

Dock (Silphium terebinthinaceum). These recommendations were based on accessibility, which 

reflects both the ease of monitoring and threat of decline. In 2008, White and Littlefield (2008) 

conducted a survey to verify locations of rare plants previously documented by Pounds et al. 

(1989) and other sources. Ten of the species previously found at CUGA were not located by 

White and Littlefield (2008, Table 34). They also note that fire historically played a role in the 

persistence of certain species, such as fly poison and veiny peavine (Lathyrus venosus). These 

species occur along the Ridge Trail and have declined in this area, possibly due to the lack of fire 

and change in cover (White and Littlefield 2008).

Fortunately, White and Littlefield (2008) noted that exotic plants in general did not pose a threat 

to rare plants in the park, though the closest exception might be the threat posed by periwinkle 

(Vinca minor), which could potentially outcompete American lily-of-the-valley (Convallaria 

montana) and Porter’s reedgrass (Calamagrostis porteri) along the Cumberland and Ridge trails. 

Overall, White and Littlefield (2008) noted that the potential loss of eastern hemlock from HWA 

might be one of the most significant impacts on the persistence of rare plants at CUGA, 

particularly in riparian and mesic communities. To a lesser degree and only in certain areas, they 

warn that recreational use could also negatively affect plants like American lily-of-the-valleyand 

veiny peavine. Specific areas susceptible to overuse include White Rocks, Sand Cave, and the 

Ewing Trail. Overall, White and Littlefield provide management guidelines for 26 rare plant 

species at CUGA according to their anticipated response/susceptibility to fire, recreation, and 

hemlock decline. 
119

Table 33. State or federally-listed and state-ranked plant species identified as Present in Park or Probably Present at CUGA. [table and definitions 

from Moore (2010); statuses current as of June 2008].

Species State1/Federal Status3/Rank2 Global Rank4 Park Presence Status

Adlumia fungosa Climbing fumitory KY=E, S1; TN=T, S2 G4 Present in Park

Agrimonia gryposepala Tall hairy groovebur KY=T, S1 G5 Present in Park

Allium tricoccum Wild leek TN=S-CE, S1 G5 Present in Park

Amianthium muscitoxicum Fly-poison KY=T, S1 G4 Present in Park

Aralia nudicaulis Wild sarsaparilla KY=E G5 Present in Park

Boykinia aconitifolia Brook saxifrage KY=T, S2 G4 Present in Park

Calamagrostis porteri Porter's reedgrass KY=N, S2; TN=E, S1 G4 Present in Park

Calamagrostis porteri ssp. porteri Porter's reedgrass KY=T, S2 T4 Present in Park

Cardamine rotundifolia Round-leaf water cress TN=S, S2 G4 Present in Park

Carex appalachica Appalachian sedge KY=T, S2; TN=S1 G4 Present in Park

Carex austrocaroliniana Tarheel sedge KY=S; TN=S2 G4 Present in Park

Carex interior Inland sedge VA=S1 G5 Present in Park

Carex purpurifera Purple sedge VA=S2 G4 Present in Park

Carex radiata Stellate sedge KY=N, S2 G4 Present in Park

Castanea dentata American chestnut KY=E, S1; TN=S, S2 G4 Present in Park

Castanea pumila Allegheny chinkapin KY=T, S2 G5 Present in Park

Castanea pumila var. pumila Allegheny chinkapin KY=S1 T5 Present in Park

Cheilanthes alabamensis Alabama lipfern KY=H, SHS1 G4 Present in Park

Clematis catesbyana Satincurls KY=H, SHS1 G4 Present in Park

Cocculus carolinus Carolina coralbead VA=S1 G5 Present in Park

Convallaria majuscula Convallaria KY=E, S1 G4 Present in Park

Corydalis sempervirens Pale corydalis KY=S; TN=E, S1 G4 Present in Park

Crataegus calpodendron Pear hawthorn VA=S1 G5 Present in Park

Cypripedium acaule Pink lady's-slipper TN=S-CE, S4 G5 Present in Park

Cypripedium parviflorum Small yellow lady's-slipper KY=T, S2 G5 Present in Park

Deschampsia flexuosa Wavy hairgrass KY=T, S2 G5 Present in Park

Desmodium cuspidatum Largebract ticktrefoil VA=S2 G5 Present in Park

Desmodium strictum Pinebarren ticktrefoil VA=S2 G4 Present in Park

Elymus canadensis Nodding wild-rye VA=S2 G5 Present in Park

Eriophorum virginicum Tawny cottongrass KY=E, S1; TN=E, S1 G5 Present in Park

Eryngium yuccifolium Rattlesnake-master VA=S2 G5 Present in Park

Eupatorium incarnatum Pink thoroughwort VA=S2 G5 Present in Park

Eupatorium steelei Steele's eupatorium KY=T, S2 G4 Present in Park

Euphorbia mercurialina Mercury spurge KY=T, S1 G4 Present in Park

Eurybia surculosa Creeping aster VA=S1 G4 Present in Park

Gentiana decora Showy gentian KY=S G4 Present in Park

Hexastylis contracta Mountain heartleaf KY=E, S1 G3 Present in Park

Hieracium scabrum Rough hawkweed TN=T, S2 G5 Present in Park

Houstonia canadensis Canadian summer bluet VA=S2 G4 Present in Park

Huperzia porophila Rock clubmoss VA=S1 G4 Present in Park

Hydrastis canadensis Golden-seal TN=S-CE G4 Present in Park
120

Species State1/Federal Status3/Rank2 Global Rank4 Park Presence Status

Hydrophyllum virginianum Shawnee salad KY=T, S2; TN=T G5 Present in Park

Juglans cinerea Butternut KY=S, S3; TN=T G4 Present in Park

Juncus subcaudatus Woods-rush KY=N, S1 G5 Present in Park

Lathyrus venosus Smooth veiny peavine KY=S, S2 G5 Present in Park

Lilium canadense Canada lily TN=T, S3 G5 Present in Park

Listera smallii Kidney-leaf twayblade KY=T, S2 G4 Probably Present

Lonicera dioica Limber honeysuckle TN=S, S2 G5 Present in Park

Lycopodium clavatum Running clubmoss KY=E, S1 G5 Present in Park

Lysimachia tonsa Southern loosestrife TN=S2 G4 Present in Park

Magnolia macrophylla Bigleaf magnolia VA=S1 G5 Present in Park

Maianthemum canadense False lily-of-the-valley KY=T, S2 G5 Present in Park

Melampyrum lineare American cow-wheat KY=N, S2 G5 Present in Park

Melampyrum lineare var. latifolium American cowwheat KY=T, S2 T5 Present in Park

Melanthium parviflorum Small-flowered false helleborne KY=E, S1 G4 Present in Park

Minuartia glabra Appalachian sandwort KY=T, S1 G4 Present in Park

Minuartia groenlandica Appalachian sandwort TN=E, S1S1 G5 Present in Park

Oclemena acuminata Whorled wood aster KY=T, S2 G5 Present in Park

Oligoneuron rigidum var. rigidum Stiff goldenrod VA=S2 T5 Present in Park

Panax quinquefolius American ginseng TN=S-CE; VA=T G3 Present in Park

Paronychia argyrocoma Silvery nailwort KY=E, S1; TN=T, S1 G4 Present in Park

Penstemon calycosus Longsepal beardtongue VA=S1 G5 Present in Park

Phlox amplifolia Large-leaved phlox VA=S2 G4 Present in Park

Polygonatum biflorum var. commutatum Smooth Solomon’s seal TN=S2 T5 Present in Park

Polygonum arifolium Halberd-leaf tearthumb TN=T, S1 G5 Present in Park

Prosartes maculata Nodding Mandarin KY=S G3 Present in Park

Ranunculus allegheniensis Allegheny mountain buttercup TN=S1 G4 Present in Park

Rhododendron catawbiense Catawba rhododendron KY=N, S2 G5 Present in Park

Rhododendron minus Carolina rhododendron TN=S2 G4 Present in Park

Robinia hispida var. rosea Bristly locust KY=N, S2 T3 Present in Park

Rosa setigera Prairie rose VA=S1 G5 Present in Park

Rosa virginiana Virginia rose TN=S, SH G5 Present in Park

Rubus canadensis Smooth blackberry KY=E, S1 G5 Present in Park

Ruellia purshiana Pursh's wild-petunia TN=S, S1 G3 Present in Park

Salvia urticifolia Nettle-leaf sage KY=E, S1 G5 Present in Park

Saxifraga michauxii Michaux's saxifrage KY=T, S2 G4 Present in Park

Scutellaria incana Hoary skullcap VA=S2 G5 Present in Park

Silene ovata Ovate catchfly KY=E, S1; TN=E, S2S1 G3 Present in Park

Silene rotundifolia Roundleaf catchfly VA=S2 G4 Present in Park

Silphium terebinthinaceum Prairie rosinweed TN=S2S1 G4 Present in Park

Sisyrinchium albidum White blue-eyed grass VA=S2 G5 Present in Park

Smilax ecirrata Upright carrionflower VA=S1 G5 Present in Park

Solidago curtisii Curtis’ goldenrod KY=T, S2 G4 Present in Park

Solidago roanensis Roan mountain goldenrod KY=T, S1 G4 Present in Park
121

Species State1/Federal Status3/Rank2 Global Rank4 Park Presence Status

Streptopus lanceolatus var. roseus Twistedstalk TN=S1 T4 Present in Park

Symphyotrichum laeve Smooth blue aster KY=N, S2 G5 Present in Park

Trillium undulatum Painted trillium KY=T, S2 G5 Present in Park

Vaccinium erythrocarpum Southern mountain cranberry KY=E, S1 G5 Present in Park

Vitis labrusca Fox grape KY=S, S2 G5 Present in Park

Woodsia appalachiana Appalachian cliff fern KY=H, SH; TN=S, S1 G4 Present in Park

1

State Rank (KY, TN, VA): E=Endangered, T=Threatened, S=Special Concern, CE=Commercially Exploited, N=None. 

2

Rounded NatureServe conservation status of a species from a state/province perspective, characterizing the relative imperilment of the species. S1=Critically 

Imperiled, S2=Imperiled, S3=Vulnerable, S4=Apparently Secure, S5=Secure, SH = Possibly Extirpated, H = Historic; Refer to 

<http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/nsranks.htm> for additional information on ranks. 

3 

U.S. Endangered Species Act: Current status of the taxon as designated or proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the U.S. National Marine 

Fisheries Service, and as reported in the U.S. Federal Register in accordance with the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 

4 

Rounded NatureServe conservation status from a global (i.e., rangewide) perspective, characterizing the relative imperilment of the species. G1=Critically 

Imperiled, G2=Imperiled, G3=Vulnerable, G4=Apparently Secure, G5=Secure. Refer to <http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.htm> for additional 

information on ranks. 
122

Table 34. Rare plant species previously found at CUGA by Pounds et al. (1989) and other sources that 

were not located by White and Littlefield (2008) in 2008.

Species Additional Comments (from White and Littlefield 2008)

Solidago roanensis Roan Mountain goldenrod --

Silene ovata Ovate catchfly Originally along Cumberland Mtn. ridge, potentially still 

located along VA side of Ewing trail

Salvia urticifolia Nettle-leaf sage --

Listera smallii Kidney-leaf twayblade Likely still occurs in park

Castanea pumila Allegheny chikapin Originally on ridge near Cumberland Gap

Boykinia aconitifiolia Brook Saxifrage Originally along Martin’s Fork; insufficient location 

information to resurvey, but likely still occurs

Carex austrocaroliniana Tarheel sedge Originally a single ridgetop specimen SW of White Rocks

Aralia nudicaulis Wild Sarsaparilla --

Rubus canadensis Smooth blackberry Originally reported in a single location in CUGA and other 

nearby areas

Adlumia fungosa Allegheny-vine Previous individuals very low (< 5), no other KY reports in 

last 50 years
123

Table 35. Management Guideline for Rare Plants. (from White and Littlefield 2008)

Species Name Common name Fire Recreation (Near 

recreation areas i.e. 

trails and 

campsites)

Loss of 

Hemlock 

Adlumia fungosa Allegheny vine Beneficial No Not likely/

indirectly

Amianthium muscitoxicum Flypoison Beneficial Yes Not likely/

indirectly

Aralia nudicaulis Wild sarsaparilla Likely 

Detrimental

No Detrimental

Boykinia aconitifolia Brook saxifrage Detrimental No Detrimental

Calamagrostis porteri ssp.

porteri

Porter's reedgrass Beneficial Yes Not likely/

indirectly

Carex austrocaroliniana Tarheel sedge Unknown No Not likely/

indirectly

Castanea pumila Allegheny chinkapin Beneficial No Not likely/

indirectly 

Convallaria montana American lily-of-the-valley Not likely Yes Not likely/

indirectly

Corydalis sempervirens Rock harlequin Beneficial Yes Not likely/

indirectly

Deschampsia flexuosa Wavy hairgrass Likely 

Beneficial

Yes Not likely/

indirectly

Eriophorum virginicum Tawny cottongrass Detrimental No Detrimental

Lathyrus venosus Veiny pea Beneficial Yes Not likely/ 

indirectly

Listera smallii Kidneyleaf twayblade Detrimental No Detrimental

Maianthemum canadense Canada mayflower Likely 

Detrimental

Yes Detrimental

Melampyrum lineare var.

latifolium 

Narrowleaf cowwheat Beneficial Yes Not likely/ 

indirectly

Minuartia glabra Appalachian stitchwort Likely 

Beneficial

Yes Not likely/ 

indirectly

Oclemena acuminata Whorled wood aster Detrimental Yes Detrimental

Paronychia argyrocoma Silvery nailwort Likely 

Beneficial

Yes Not likely/ 

indirectly

Rubus canadensis Smooth blackberry Beneficial No Not likely/

indirectly

Saxifraga michauxii Michaux's saxifrage Detrimental Possibly Detrimental

Silene ovata Ovate catchfly Likely 

Beneficial

No Unknown/ 

not 

likely/indirectly

Solidago curtisii Curtis' goldenrod Likely 

Beneficial

Yes Not likely/ 

indirectly

Solidago roanensis Roan Mountain goldenrod Likely 

Beneficial

Possibly (location not 

found)

Not likely/ 

indirectly

Trillium undulatum Painted trillium Detrimental Possibily Detrimental

Vaccinium erythrocarpum Southern mountain 

cranberry

Unknown No Detrimental

Veratrum parviflorum Appalachian bunchflower Likely 

Detrimental

Yes Detrimental
124

Commercially Valuable Plants

Some state-listed plant species at CUGA are also of economic value and therefore face a 

potential risk of overexploitation. In particular, goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis), pink lady’s 

slipper (Cypripedium acaule), black cohosh (Actaea racemosa) and American ginseng (Panax 

quinquefolius) are present at CUGA and represent potential targets of interest in the commercial 

trade. 

The root of goldenseal is popular as a natural herbal medicine and has commonly been reported 

as a target of poaching. The roots contain medicinal alkaloids and are used as an antibiotic, 

immune system booster, and even an HIV/AIDS treatment (Sinclair and Catling 2001). 

Goldenseal is sold by the root and the herb, though the former is more valuable. Steadily 

increasing prices over the last few decades most recently reached ~$25 per pound in 2005 

(Burkhart and Jacobson 2006). It typically occurs on rich, mesic, and alkaline soils in deciduous 

forests and is particularly susceptible to encroachment of invasives like garlic mustard 

(NatureServe 2011). 

Pink lady’s slipper is another species affected by commercial exploitation. Like goldenseal, this 

species is harvested for medicinal purposes, but also is targeted because of horticultural demand. 

Pink lady’s slipper typically grows in wetland areas, dry oak or conifer woodland areas, and is 

adversely affected by fire suppression (NatureServe 2011). 

Ginseng, like goldenseal, occurs in rich, mesic forests under moderately closed canopy where 

average populations can include dozens to hundreds of individual plants. Wild-harvested 

ginseng roots are the most commonly exported native medicinal plant in the US (Gabel 2009). 

Ginseng is also under threat by invasive plants such as multiflora rose, garlic mustard, and 

Japanese barberry, and has been impacted largely in the past by periods of timber harvest and 

overall loss of forest habitat. Wixted and McGraw (2009a) observed an increased susceptibility 

of ginseng to invasive encroachment in harvested populations, as well as increased mortality of 

ginseng seedlings in the presence of garlic mustard. In addition, ginseng is susceptible to 

invasion by tree-of-heaven, which, like garlic mustard, produces allelochemicals that can 

decrease chances of survival for ginseng seedlings (Wixted and McGraw 2009b). In a Virginia 

study plot close to CUGA, Wixted and McGraw (2009b) documented Japanese stiltgrass 

(Microstegium vimineum) and multiflora rose among a ginseng population during field 

assessments in 2006 and 2007. Wixted and McGraw (2009b) described the ability of multiflora 

rose to form dense thickets that eventually may exclude native species including ginseng. 

Efforts to determine minimum viable population (MVP) sizes have resulted in estimates ranging 

from 172 plants in Canada, 510 in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GRSM), and up to 

800 in West Virginia where populations are influenced by white-tailed deer predation (Gabel 

2009, NatureServe 2011). Although a general assessment of population size has not been 

conducted at CUGA, the survey at GRSM observed that none of the populations there reached 

the 510 MVP level (NatureServe 2011). Ginseng poaching is an ongoing issue at CUGA, and as 

of this writing, law enforcement rangers have already confiscated over 300 roots from poachers 

this year, with an estimated value of $100 per wet pound (J. Beeler personal communication).

Besides ginseng, the only current poaching issue at CUGA is black cohosh. Valuable as a 

medicinal herb, cohosh is commonly regarded as an anti-inflammatory, sedative, and diuretic, 

among other functions. It is also the subject of several clinical trials as a potential alternative to 
125

hormone replacement therapy (Predny et al. 2006). In 2004, dry cohosh root was valued at $3 

per pound. Although it is not state-listed in any of the tri-states, it is in danger of decline, 

especially in public land areas where larger tracts of forest are available for collecting 

(NatureServe 2011).

Summary

The recent survey by White and Littlefield (2008) of rare plants in KY is perhaps the most up-todate information on the persistence of these species and their potential threats, which mainly 

include visitor use and hemlock decline from HWA. As a result of this survey, several species 

previously documented in the KY Natural Heritage Database were not located in the park. White 

Rocks is specifically mentioned as an area in the park with plant populations susceptible to 

trampling-related declines in the near future. Exotic plants currently pose little threat to rare 

plants, though monitoring for encroachment would ensure this status is maintained. Certain rare 

plant species may also benefit more than others from targeted management attention (Table 35). 

Plant poaching is also an issue at CUGA, mainly for American ginseng and increasingly black 

cohosh, though other potentially exploitable species are present in the park. The park would 

greatly benefit from survey(s) in the manner of White and Littlefield (2008) for the status of rare 

plants in VA and TN, especially given the new acquisition of land in the Fern Lake watershed. 

Overall, CUGA harbors a large amount of protected habitat for several species of rare plants, and 

as a result receives a condition status of good for at-risk plants. However, due to the imminent 

threat of HWA and the impact this will likely have on certain plant populations, the emerging 

threat of plant poaching and exploitation, as well as the perceived loss by White and Littlefield 

(2008) of species previously documented in the park, the condition receives a declining trend. 

Landscape Dynamics

Land Use

Landscape dynamics is a broad category that can potentially utilize a variety of metrics or 

measures to describe land characteristics and how they change over time. One of the major 

metrics associated with landscape dynamics is habitat fragmentation, which usually takes place 

in close association with habitat loss. Both of these effects, even if they take place on the 

periphery of the park unit, may contribute to a loss of biodiversity or other environmental 

degradation within the park itself. 

3 of 3: Good

Rare Plants

Thematic Spatial Temporal

Condition 

Attribute & Trend

Data Quality

Table 36. The condition status of rare plants at CUGA was ranked as good with a declining trend. The 

data quality was good.
126

Because CUGA is located beside the moderately developed region of Middlesboro, KY, it is 

prone to the influence and alteration of continued expansion around its periphery. Infringements 

on the boundary of the park can serve as threats in several ways, including: 1) vectors for 

invasive species, 2) producers of air and depositional pollution, or 3) sources of water quality 

degradation, in addition to a variety of other effects. 

National Landcover Dataset (NLCD)

To understand how landscape changes could affect the park unit, it is useful to compare changes 

in the surrounding area over time. To that end, the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics 

Consortium (MRLC) constructed a retrofitted landcover change map to compare the 1992 to 

2001 National Landcover Dataset (NLCD) data layers, while correcting for differences in 

mapping methodologies and classification types between the two time periods (MRLC 2009). 

After this correction, the retrofitted layer shows which areas have transitioned to new landcovers, 

and which have not changed at a 30m resolution. Within the park boundary, including the area 

of the 2008-2009 Fern Lake acquisitions, the NLCD change layer shows 24 hectares of 

reclassification as forest loss either from development (e.g. roads) or conversion to 

grassland/shrub. These changes appear mainly to be the result of construction and alterations of 

the Old Wilderness Rd./Highway 58 along the southern border of the park unit around the Lewis 

Hollow area. 

Table 37 shows landcover classes for the most recent NLCD layer at the park scale in addition to 

400m and 1km perimeter buffers. As expected, as the area around the park boundary increases, 

the amount of forest decreases and the amount of developed land increases (Figure 46). The 

NLCD change layer shows a loss of 212 ha of forest in the 1km buffer to other classes—a rate of 

loss about ten times that shown inside the park over the same time period. Approximately onethird of the forest loss is due to development.

Table 37. Comparison of park unit 2001 NLCD classifications, including Fern Lake watershed, with 400m 

and 1 km buffers (areas in ha).

Landcover Park 2001 

NLCD

400m 

2001 NLCD

1 km 2001 

NLCD

---ha---

Grassland/Shrub 59 (1%) 214 (5%) 631 (7%)

Forest 9490 (97%) 3640 (86%) 7601 (78%)

Barren 4 (<1%) 2 (<1%) 16 (<1%)

Developed 233 (2%) 250 (6%) 735 (8%)

Wetlands <1 (<1%) <1 (<1%) <1 (<1%)

Water <1 (<1%) 42 (1%) 43 (<1%)

Total 9760 4222 9694

Gap Analysis Project (GAP)

Another source of classified landcover information is the Gap Analysis Project (GAP) dataset, 

which was created to identify areas of potential wildlife habitat for protection (USGS 2009). In 

addition to the NLCD, the GAP dataset can provide a means to compare landcover changes over 

different time periods or at different park unit buffer widths. GAP data is collected from multiseason satellite imagery collected by the Landsat ETM+ satellite. At CUGA, landcover is 

divided into 13 classes, the majority of which are the Allegheny – Cumberland Dry Oak 

Forest/Woodland (79%) and the Southern and Central Appalachian Cove Forest (13%, Table 
127

38). GAP Classes like the Appalachian Hemlock-Hardwood Forest and Southern and Central 

Appalachian Cove Forest corresponded well with the Cumberland/Appalachian HemlockHardwood Cover Forest (CEGL8407) and Appalachian Montane Oak-Hickory Forests 

(CEGL6192), respectively, though GAP classes corresponded to multiple CRMS classes and 

often the relationships are not consistent. Like the NLCD forest classes, these landcover types 

decrease proportionally at each buffer width, with complementary gains of agriculture, 

grassland/shrub, and developed area (Figure 46). 

Table 39 shows the total area, mean patch size, number of patches, and mean patch fractal 

dimension for each community type included in the CRMS classification, in addition to mean 

biodiversity based on the NatureServe surveys at each plot location. Mean patch fractal 

dimension is a metric that expresses shape complexity on a scale of one to two, with higher 

numbers representing more complex shapes (Elkie et al. 1999). Community types were sampled 

at different rates based on predominance, with frequency ranging from 19 plots in the 

Appalachian Oak-Hickory Forest type to several communities that were sampled with only a 

single plot. Nine communities appearing in the CRMS classification were not included in any of 

the plots and are therefore not assigned a mean diversity. Figure 47 depicts mean species 

richness for each community type sampled, which shows the highest richness at the Ridge and 

Valley Limestone Oak-Hickory Forest.

Table 38. Comparison of park unit 2001 GAP classifications, including Fern Lake, with 400m and 1 km 

buffers (areas in ha).

Landcover Park 2001 

GAP

400m 

2001 GAP

1 km 2001 

GAP

---ha---

Agriculture 2 (<1) 70 (2%) 645 (7%)

Allegheny - Cumberland Dry Oak Forest and Woodland - Hardwood 7703 (79%) 3012 (71%) 6097 (63%)

Appalachian Hemlock – Hardwood Forest 234 (2%) 112 (3%) 288 (3%)

Developed 191 (2%) 211 (5%) 631 (6%)

Grassland/Shrub 74 (1%) 208 (5%) 616 (6%)

South Central Interior Mesophytic Forest 1 (<1%) 7 (<1%) 29 (<1%)

South-Central Interior Small Stream and Riparian 28 (<1%) 16 (<1%) 31 (<1%)

Southern and Central Appalachian Cove Forest 1286 (13%) 465 (11%) 1041 (11%)

Southern Appalachian Low Mountain Pine Forest 64 (1%) 43 (1%) 133 (1%)

Southern Appalachian Montane Pine Forest and Woodland 160 (2%) 23 (1%) 57 (1%)

Southern Interior Acid Cliff 47 (1%) 5 (<1%) 8 (<1%)

Southern Ridge and Valley Dry Calcareous Forest <1 (<1%) 6 (<1%) 46 (1%)

Water <1 (<1%) 40 (1%) 42 (<1%)

Total 5679 4220 9688
128

Summary

Overall, because of the lack of standards and assessment ability, the status of landscape 

dynamics is not assigned a ranking, though a stable trend is assessed based on minimal observed 

changes over time (Table 40). Because no landscape information is available within the past five 

years, this condition does not receive a temporal check for data quality.

As of this writing, NPS is developing additional landscape analysis tools as part of a project 

called NPScape, which is intended to standardize the way landscape change is monitored for all 

park units with significant natural resources. This new landscape dynamics monitoring protocol 

will undoubtedly provide a basis by which to assess landscape conditions for all NPS units.
129

Table 39. Of the 33 vegetation communities identified by White (2006), 27 were represented by one of the 101 survey plots established during 

2002-2004. Landscape metrics are expressed for each of these communities, along with mean species richness (S).

Vegetation Type Ecological Group Total 

Area

Mean 

Patch 

Size

Number 

Patches

Mean Patch 

Fractal Dim.

Mean S (#

plots)

----ha-----

Southern Appalachian Eastern Hemlock 

Forest 

Appalachian (Hemlock) – Northern 

Hardwood Forest

166 5 35 1.43 42 (1)

Cumberland/Appalachian Hemlock –

Hardwood Forest

Appalachian (Hemlock) – Northern 

Hardwood Forest

212 3 81 1.40 116 (2)

Ridge and Valley Limestone Oak-Hickory 

Forest

Central Appalachian Alkaline Glade 

and Woodland

6 2 3 1.77 134 (1)

Dry Calcareous Forest/Woodland Central Appalachian Alkaline Glade 

and Woodland

169 3 56 1.36 77 (6)

Virginia Pine Successional Forest Human Modified / Successional 57 1 43 1.39 93 (4)

Cultivated Meadow Human Modified / Successional 78 2 40 1.41 --

Blackberry – Greenbrier Successional 

Shrubland Thicket 

Human Modified / Successional 20 1 23 1.44 --

Red-Cedar Successional Forest Human Modified / Successional <1 <1 2 1.59 --

Successional Tuliptree Forest Human Modified / Successional 143 3 41 1.43 56 (2)

Interior Mid- to Late- Successional TuliptreeHardwood Upland Forest TypeHuman Modified / Successional 28 3 11 1.36 85 (3)

Swamp Forest-Bog Complex South and Central Appalachian Bog 

and Fen

21 2 10 1.39 --

Cumberland Streamside Bog South and Central Appalachian Bog 

and Fen

3 1 4 1.42 73 (2)

Northern Mixed Mesophytic Forest South Central Interior Mesophytic 

Forest

293 3 95 1.40 103 (8)

Central Interior Beech – White Oak Forest South Central Interior Mesophytic 

Forest

39 3 13 1.40 14 (2)

Sycamore-Sweetgum Swamp Forest South-Central Interior Small Stream 

and Riparian

43 2 20 1.43 32 (1)

Southern Appalachian Mountain Laurel Bald Southern Appalachian Grass and 

Shrub Bald

32 1 35 1.42 15 (1)

Cumberland Sandstone Glade Heath 

Shrubland

Southern Appalachian Grass and 

Shrub Bald

18 1 13 1.41 --

Hi-Lewis Pitch Pine Barrens Southern Appalachian Montane Pine 

Forest and Woodland

61 2 31 1.36 54 (1)
130

Table 36 continued. Of the 33 vegetation communities identified by White (2006), 27 were represented by one of the 101 survey plots established 

during 2002-2004. Landscape metrics are expressed for each of these communities, along with mean species richness (S).

Vegetation Type Ecological Group Total 

Area

Mean 

Patch 

Size

Number 

Patches

Mean Patch 

Fractal Dim.

Mean S (# 

plots)

----ha----- 12 (3)

Montane Grape Opening Southern Appalachian Oak Forest <1 <1 1 1.34 13 (1)

Southern Blue Ridge Successional Sassafras 

Forest

Southern Appalachian Oak Forest 26 1 22 1.39 22 (2)

Appalachian Montane Oak – Hickory Forest 

(Red Oak Type) 

Southern Appalachian Oak Forest 1271 16 82 1.35 43 (11)

Chestnut Oak Forest (Xeric Ridge Type) Southern Appalachian Oak Forest 1312 3 421 1.37 66 (8)

Chestnut Oak Forest (Mesic Slope Heath 

Type)

Southern Appalachian Oak Forest 198 3 72 1.38 43 (5)

Ridge and Valley Dry-Mesic White OakHickory ForestSouthern Appalachian Oak Forest 671 6 105 1.40 134 (1)

Appalachian Oak-Hickory Forest (Chestnut 

Oak Type)

Southern Appalachian Oak Forest 1548 5 306 1.38 42 (19)

Appalachian Montane Oak-Hickory Forest 

(Rich Type)

Southern Appalachian Oak Forest 721 6 124 1.37 98 (15)

Southern Appalachian Acidic Mixed 

Hardwood Forest

Southern Appalachian Oak Forest 7 2 3 1.35 20 (3)

Total -- 7338 3 1793 -- 60 (5)
131

Full Park 400m Buffer 1km Buffer

0

10

60

70

80

Agriculture

Allegheny - Cumberland 

Dry Oak Forest 

and Woodland 

Appalachian Hemlock –

Hardwood Forest

Developed

Grassland/Shrub

Southern and Central 

Appalachian Cove Forest

0

10

70

80

90

100

%

Grassland/Shrub

Developed

Forest

Wetlands

Water

NLCD

GAP

Figure 46. With each successive buffer perspective, developed and grassland/shrub landcover increase 

at the expense of forest under both NLCD and GAP landcover datasets.
132

Figure 47. Mean species richness for each community type sampled by White (2006). Appalachian OakHickory Forest was the most commonly sampled vegetation type (19 plots), while the Ridge and Valley 

Limestone Oak-Hickory Forest showed the highest average plant biodiversity (1 plot). Plots are 

expressed with 95% confidence intervals. 

1 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180 1 Ridge and Valley Limestone Oak-Hickory Forest

2 Cumberland/Appalachian Hemlock-Hardwood 

 Cove Forest

3 Northern Mixed Mesophytic Forest

4 Appalachian Montane Oak-Hickory Forest (Rich Type)

5 Virginia Pine Successional Forest

6 Interior Mid- to Late- Successional 

 Tuliptree-H ardwood Upland Forest

7 Dry Calcareous Forest/Woodland

8 Cumberland Streamside Bog

9 Chestnut Oak Forest (Xeric Ridge Type)

10 Successional Tuliptree Forest

11 Hi Lewis Pitch Pine Barrens

12 Chestnut Oak Forest (Mesic Slope Heath Type)

13 Appalachian Montane Oak-Hickory Forest (Red Oak Type)

14 Southern Appalachian Eastern Hemlock Forest

15 Appalachian Oak-Hickory Forest

16 Sycamore-Sweetgum Swamp Forest

17 Southern Blue Ridge Successional Sassafras Forest

18 Southern Appalachian Acidic Mixed Hardwood Forest

19 Saturated Alder Thicket

20 Southern Appalachian Mountain Laurel Bald

21 Limestone Cliff Fragrant Sumac Shrubland

22 Central Interior Beech-White Oak Forest

23 Montane Grape Opening

24 Blue Ridge Table Mountain Pitch-Pine Woodland

Species per Plot by Community

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

a

ab

abc

abc

abcd

abcde

abcde

abcde

abcde

bcde

bcde

bcde

bcde

bcde

bcde

cde

de de

e e e e e e
133

Landscape 

Dynamics

2 of 3: Fair

Thematic Spatial Temporal

Condition 

Attribute & Trend

Data Quality

Table 40. The condition status for landscape dynamics at CUGA was not ranked, but was assigned a 

stable trend. The data quality was fair.

135

Conclusions 

Summary 

Based on a review of available ecological information at CUGA, we have addressed the current 

condition of 16 natural resources attributes in the park. We provided qualitative condition ranks 

for 13 of the 16 attributes, while the other three attributes were discussed and not ranked. 

Overall, one attribute (6%) was ranked as excellent, seven attributes (44%) were ranked as good, 

four (25%) were ranked as fair, and one (6%) was ranked as poor. The remaining three attributes 

(19%) were not ranked. 

Summarized into broad Level-1 categories (Table 1) the ranking were: 

Air and Climate (two attributes)—100% Fair

Geology and Soils (one attribute)—100% Not Ranked

Water (three attributes)—66% Good, 33% Fair

Biological Integrity (nine attributes)—11% Excellent, 56% Good, 11% Fair, 11% Poor, 11% Not 

Ranked

Landscapes (one attribute)—100% Not Ranked

We also characterized the quality of information used to make each assessment. We considered 

the temporal, thematic, and spatial quality of available data for each attribute. Data were 

classified as fair for two attributes (landscape dynamics and cave bats), and poor for one attribute 

(cave meteorology), while the remainder was classified as good. 

Natural Resource Conditions 

Natural resources at CUGA were chosen based on data availability, park-level importance, and 

vital sign status. The level of data completeness varied greatly among natural resource 

categories, though this aspect was considered independently when assigning condition rankings. 

Where appropriate, suggestions are offered to improve natural resource datasets. 

Ozone

Beginning in 2005, CUGA began ozone monitoring at 3 sites in the park, 2 of which showed 

abnormally high concentrations compared to other CUPN park units. These measurements, 

however, did not exceed the EPA NAAQS. Monitoring with a POMS began the following year 

and showed decreasing concentrations as observed from 3-yr 4th highest annual 8-hr 

concentrations. None of the metrics exceeded the EPA NAAQS during 2007-2010. Monitoring 

at the nearby Speedwell CASTNET station showed a discernible reduction since monitoring 

began in 1999, though measurements exceeded the NAAQS most years, including the most 

recent 3-yr average (2007-2009). Because it appears that ozone concentrations at CUGA have 

recently fallen into the region of compliance, it received a condition status of fair with an 

improving trend. Continued observations will hopefully verify this decreasing trend.

Data quality

The ongoing monitoring using the POMS at CUGA provides a good basis for ozone data. Data 

for this assessment was supplemented using monitoring from the EPA Speedwell CASTNET 

station located 10 km south of the park. Although useful given its long record of monitoring, 
136

measurements may not correspond to those at the park due to differences in elevation. As the 

dataset from the POMS grows, use of the CASTNET data will likely become less useful.

Foliar injury

Risk of ozone damage to vegetation is closely tied to ozone concentrations, though it is also 

affected by exposure duration, species sensitivity, and soil moisture conditions. The severity of 

the three foliar injury metrics interpreted from national interpolation maps was inconsistent at 

CUGA, though they overall averaged a moderate risk. Two field studies at CUGA in 2006 and 

2008 confirmed some foliar injury, though the first one much more so than the second. As a 

result, foliar injury received a condition status of fair with a stable trend. Available data for soil 

moisture showed moisture levels did not appear to exacerbate foliar injury, and if anything the 

predominance of drought years served to mitigate the risk.

Data quality 

Foliar injury metrics are useful for assessing risk to vegetation, though at CUGA they were only 

available in 2006 and 2008 from actual measurements. More useful are the on-the-ground foliar 

injury surveys conducted by the CUPN on a six-year rotation among parks. An obvious data gap 

is the calculation of foliar injury metrics using data collected from the POMS already in place at 

CUGA. The combination of this annual monitoring, metric calculation, and periodic field 

surveys would be ideal in determining the impact of ozone at CUGA. 

Cave Meteorology 

Caves are one of the park’s outstanding resources and CUGA contains at least 30 known caves. 

Caves provide habitat for unique animal assemblages. In CUGA these include cave roosting and 

hibernating bats, including the federally endangered Indiana bat. Meteorological datasets were 

available for several locations within two caves, one of which is an Indiana bat hibernacula. 

Data, including temperature and relative humidity, were recorded by automatic dataloggers. 

Measurements were taken at regular intervals from 1998 - 2011. Only data from 2002 - 2011 

were used in this report. Temperature and relative humidity fluctuated seasonally and the data 

did not show any obvious trends or effects of anthropogenic disturbance over the analyzed 

period. However, human alterations in the cave systems predate monitoring, so a comparison of 

the existing regimes with a natural baseline was not possible. The temperature regime recorded 

at the known Indiana bat hibernacula and at other locations did not preclude successful 

hibernation for this species. We did not assign a rank to cave meteorology. We assigned a trend 

of stable to reflect the stability of temperature and humidity regimes observed over the time 

period.

Data Quality

We ranked the quality of the data for cave meteorology as poor. The available data provides 

accurate and appropriately-recorded temperature data over a relatively long time frame. 

However, data are only available for two of at least 30 known caves in the park. Therefore the 

coverage was insufficient to assess CUGA cave climate generally. Furthermore, the dataloggers 

used have relatively poor accuracy in high humidity and condensing environments such as are 

found in many caves.
137

Water Quality

The condition of water quality at CUGA is divided into three main attributes: surface water, 

water chemistry, and microorganisms. Monitoring includes ten I&M stations where monitoring 

began in 2006, as well as historical monitoring dating back to 1980. Of note were the 

consistently low pH values observed on Martin’s Fork and Shillalah Creek, which are likely due 

to natural conditions, especially given their particularly pristine setting. Overall, however, water 

chemistry parameters fell within range of expected values, resulting in a condition status of good.

Sampling revealed issues with microorganisms at the Gap Creek and Station Creek monitors, the 

former of which were likely due to effluent discharge from the wastewater treatment plant in the 

town of Cumberland Gap, TN. The treatment facility was recently updated, and latest data 

suggests this issue is resolved. Bacterial contamination on Station Creek was likely due to its 

proximity to the septic field of the Wilderness Road campground. Prior sampling above and 

below the campground supports a distinctive pattern of this point-source contamination, which 

also appeared to worsen over time. As a result, a new septic system is scheduled for installation 

at this location in November 2011. As of this writing however, contamination issues at Station 

Creek still appear ongoing, and as a result microorganisms receives a ranking of fair with a 

declining trend.

Finally, because of the positioning of CUGA along a regional watershed divide, virtually all 

streams passing through the park unit also originate inside it. The exceptions are Gap Creek, 

which exits and reenters at the town of Cumberland Gap, and Little Yellow Creek, whose 

headwaters are in the recent Fern Lake acquisition, but which is impounded to create Fern Lake 

before flowing again through the park. Despite this alteration, the headwaters status of the other 

streams lends itself to a condition ranking of good for surface water, with a stable trend. 

Data quality

Prior to the beginning of I&M collections in 2006, CUGA regularly sampled at locations 

throughout the park unit, providing a solid foundation for investigating general and specific 

water quality issues. Clearly, the greatest data need at the moment is the expansion of sampling 

throughout the Fern Lake unit to include at minimum the headwaters region of Little Yellow 

Creek. Continued sampling on Station Creek should also confirm the resolution of 

microorganism contamination following the installation of the new septic system this year. 

Invasive Plants

Although as a whole, CUGA contains large areas of relatively unimpacted vegetation, humanimpacted portions of the park, particularly the Wilderness Road Trail, contain several invasive 

species that impact the ecological health of these areas. As a result, combating these invasive 

plants represents one of the largest investments of time and effort by the park staff. Previous 

vegetation assessments in the park provide lists of suggested target species, while the current 

most managed species likely include autumn olive, kudzu, and crown vetch. Although a 

vegetation assessment has yet to be conducted in the Fern Lake acquisition, autumn olive 

represents the largest management concern in this area. For these reasons as a whole, the 

condition status for invasive plants was assigned a rank of fair.
138

Data quality

Overall, the data quality for this condition is good, mainly as a result of the recent vegetation 

assessment by White (2006). As previously mentioned, a general vegetation assessment, or one 

focusing specifically on exotics, would be the most helpful for the Fern Lake watershed. 

Updates in the main targeted areas of the park would also confirm the efficacy of management 

efforts.

Infestations and Disease

There are currently several pest species of concern at CUGA, the most significant of which is 

hemlock woolly adelgid. This pest was originally observed in the park in 2006 and continues to 

spread around the region, where it threatens to fundamentally alter hemlock forests. Because of 

the keystone role of hemlocks in these forest ecosystems, their loss could negatively impact 

myriad other functions important to these communities. Along with the treatment of invasive

plants, combating the adelgid infestation currently represents the main management priority for 

the park. Treatments at CUGA are ongoing and include bio-control and pesticide application.

Besides the hemlock woolly adelgid, other pest insect species currently threaten the park. 

Emerald ash-borer is spreading south from the Great Lakes region, and was recently discovered 

in five counties in TN adjacent to the park, though it has not yet been discovered in the park 

itself. The European Gypsy Moth is also spreading south from its introduction in the New 

England area. US Forest Service traps throughout CUGA confirmed a single capture of the moth 

in 2007, though the invasion front has not yet reached the park and as a result it does not 

currently represent a management concern. The Asian Long-Horned Beetle, a pest to deciduous 

hardwoods, represents perhaps the least threat to the park at this time, though it remains on the 

watchlist of potential pest species. Finally, thousand cankers disease represents a potential threat 

to the park. Affecting black walnut trees, this disease includes a canker-producing fungus 

transmitted by the walnut twig beetle. It was originally reported in Knoxville, TN and has 

resulted in a quarantine of Campbell and Claiborne counties, the latter of which includes the TN 

portion of CUGA. As of this writing however, this disease has not been reported inside the park. 

Southern pine beetle represents a unique pest at the park due to its native status, whose 

infestation comes in cycles. A recent infestation at CUGA caused several hundred acres of pine 

mortality throughout the park. One of the more heavily impacted communities was the Hi Lewis 

Pitch Pine Barrens, which is now at risk of invasion from exotics. A risk assessment model 

indicated that the Blue Ridge Table Mountain Pine-Pitch Pine Woodland community is at an 

elevated risk for pine beetle infestation, and though already impacted by pine beetle, its 

regeneration may currently be limited by fire suppression.

Although CUGA faces an imminent threat from several pest species, the current infestation of 

hemlock woolly adelgid poses perhaps the greatest ecological threat to the park, and as a result 

this is the only park condition to be assigned a status of poor with a declining trend. With 

continued aggressive treatment, it is hopeful that the impact to these communities can be 

minimized. 

Data Quality

Data regarding woolly adelgid includes specific treatment locations, including pesticide 

treatment areas and predatory beetle release sites, though specific data on the extent of its 
139

infestation throughout the park is unknown and might help focus treatment efforts. Data for 

southern pine beetle mainly stems from White’s (2006) assessment, while the remaining 

discussion involving imminent pest threats stems from park staff observations and general extent 

maps. Overall, data quality is good, and continued observations will be important to catch the 

new threats that are likely to reach the park in the future.

Vegetation Communities

It is apparent that CUGA offers refuge for several vegetation types important to the southern 

Appalachians, as well as numerous rare plant species associated with these communities. The 

Dry Calcareous Forest/Woodland type occurs at CUGA and is considered to be one of two 

remaining examples, while four parcels of Cumberland Streamside Bog, considered imperiled, 

are dependent on periodic fire to maintain species diversity. This latter community is often 

associated with the Swamp-Forest Bog Complex, which is also considered imperiled. Due to the 

canopy presence of hemlock, this community is especially vulnerable to decline. The Hi Lewis 

Pitch Pine Barrens, also imperiled, is now vulnerable due to a recent outbreak of southern pine 

beetle. In addition to these community types, a recent assessment of the White Rocks cliff 

system revealed an overall unique assemblage of vascular and non-vascular plants, which may 

have been impacted in the past by trampling. Although much information is available regarding 

vegetation communities at CUGA, it did not receive a condition status ranking due to the lack of 

evaluation criteria, though plans for a monitoring protocol are underway by the CUPN.

Data Quality

The recent vegetation assessments and landcover classification map provide detailed baseline 

knowledge of the current distribution of forest types at CUGA. Extension of this knowledge to 

the Fern Lake acquisition currently appears to be the most pressing data need for this attribute.

Fish Communities

The park contains warm water, cool water, and cold water stream habitat in the headwaters of 

two major drainages. Around 25 species of fish currently occur in the park. Generally, fish 

assemblages are healthy and diverse, containing several endemic species and species of concern, 

including the federally threatened blackside dace. Recently acquired land in the Little Yellow 

Creek watershed has added significantly to the available high quality fish habitat in the park. 

Important threats exist to CUGA fishes. Most importantly, beaver activity in the upper reaches 

of Davis Branch has resulted in decreased numbers of blackside dace in this system. Non-native 

redbreast sunfish have invaded park streams, apparently since the early 1980s. Although 

probably non-native in these extreme headwaters of the Cumberland River, brook trout were 

once present in the park and provide an indication of habitat quality in change. They have 

apparently been extirpated from Martins Fork and Shillalah Creek within recent decades. These 

threats aside, the park supports relatively rich fish assemblages. An index of biotic integrity 

indicated good or excellent condition for seven of nine samples assessed in the park. We ranked 

the condition of the fish community as good. We assigned a trend of stable based on similarities 

between historical and recent surveys, and on the long-term sampling conducted at Gap Creek 

and Davis Branch within the park.
140

Data Quality

We ranked the quality of the data as good. Available data included historical and recent 

comprehensive park surveys and two relatively long-term sampling reports for specific creeks in 

the park. Data were collected with appropriate methods.

Bird Communities

The park supports a rich bird fauna dominated by species specializing in mature forest habitats. 

A recent inventory of the park reported 145 species including 87 species seen during the 

breeding season. No federal threatened or endangered species are known to occur, but 19 

species from the recent inventory were listed as threatened, endangered, or of special concern at 

the state level. An index of biotic integrity applied to point count data showed that most 

locations had communities indicative of good or excellent bird habitat. A 10-count portion of a 

USGS BBS route is included in CUGA. Data from this 10-count section resulted in higher IBI 

scores and conservation value indices than did similar data from other regional BBS routes. We 

ranked the quality of CUGA bird communities as excellent. We assigned a trend of stable to this 

condition based on similarity between historical and recent observations and on the long-term 

data available from the BBS routes.

Data Quality

The quality of the data used to assess birds was good. It was recently collected in the park using 

appropriate methods, and multiple data sources were available.

Mammal Communities

The park has a rich and regionally-typical mammal fauna. Forty species were reported from a 

recent park survey. Comparisons with results from other studies in the broad region indicate that 

CUGA had comparable or greater mammal richness of small mammals than other protected 

forest sites. Around 70% of expected mammals were actually reported from the park, and some 

of the missing species probably occur but are difficult to sample. We ranked the condition of 

CUGA mammal communities as good. We did not assign a trend to mammal condition. 

Although there is a historical inventory report, methods were different between it and recent 

work. Furthermore, there were no accompanying longer-term monitoring datasets available.

Data Quality

The quality of the data used to assess mammals was good. It was appropriately collected within 

the park recently using a variety of methods. The effort was similar to that observed in other 

mammal assemblage sampling in the southeast.

Herpetofauna Communities

Cumberland Gap NHP contains a diverse herpetofauna that includes around 77% of expected 

species. Amphibians, and especially anurans, are very well represented with 82% and 91% of 

expected species actually reported. This results, in part, because of a long-term amphibian 

monitoring project that has been ongoing in the park since 1993 to measure breeding effort of 

spotted salamanders and wood frogs. Declines in reported breeding effort of wood frogs were 

observed from 2006-2009, although this apparent trend might be partly accountable to variance 

in sampling. In 2010, breeding effort appeared to be increasing. Mitigation wetlands 

constructed in the park around 1999 are meeting stated goals and are receiving breeding effort 

from a variety of species. Threats to amphibian populations include Ranavirus, which has 
141

apparently been responsible for die-offs in nearby areas of western North Carolina. Another 

potential threat includes chytrid fungus, which has been widely reported from the southeastern 

U.S. and was confirmed in CUGA in 2009. However, largescale mortality resulting from this 

fungus, have not been reported from the eastern U.S. We ranked the condition of CUGA 

herpetofaunal assemblages as good. We did not assign a trend to this condition. Although a 

relatively long-term dataset exists for amphibians, it only quantitatively monitors two species. 

Data Quality

We ranked the quality of the data as good. The inventory was conducted recently using 

appropriate techniques and provided good coverage of the park. A supplemental dataset or 

amphibian monitoring was also available.

Cave Bats

Caves and cave bats are among CUGA’s most important resources. At least six species of cavehibernating bats, including the federally endangered Indiana bat, occur in CUGA. One or more 

other species, though not obligate cave users, probably use caves as important roosting habitat. 

In a recent mammal inventory, three cave openings were sampled for bats. These sample sites 

accounted for 95% of individual bat captures, despite the fact that seven other non-cave habitats 

were sampled. This suggests that cave-using bats make up a major percentage of CUGA bat 

assemblages. The Indiana bat has been monitored within two minor hibernacula in the park. 

Hibernating numbers declined from 1993 to the early 2000s, but appear to be stabilizing in recent 

years. These trends are qualitatively similar to the range-wide observations for the species. 

White-nose syndrome, a fungal infection causing catastrophic declines in some bat populations, 

poses a severe threat to CUGA cave bats. The disease had not been observed in the park in 

2011, although it has been steadily expanding its range into the southeast since its discovery in 

New York in 2006. Recently reported in Kentucky, the occurrence of this disease may be nearly 

inevitable in CUGA. We ranked the quality of the CUGA cave bat population as good. We 

assigned a decreasing trend to this condition to reflect the impending threat from White-nose 

syndrome.

Data Quality

We ranked the quality of the data on cave bats as fair. The available data were appropriately 

collected, but scant. Only two of at least 30 known caves in the park have been surveyed for bat 

hibernation use, and only a few samples have been taken showing summer cave use. The lack of 

data on cave biota generally represents one of CUGA’s most significant data gaps.

At-Risk Plants

The most recent biological inventory at CUGA listed a total of 90 plant species that were 

federally listed, state-listed, or state-ranked. These include several species in the White Rocks 

cliff system that represent geographically disjunct populations. A recent assessment noted the 

absence of rare plants previously documented in the park, and suggested that hemlock decline 

from woolly adelgid might pose the greatest risk to rare plants in the park. In addition to these 

rare species, several species might be at risk of illegal poaching due to their commercial value. 

Ginseng and black cohosh are currently the only poaching issues in the park, but other 

exploitable species such as goldenseal and pink lady’s slipper are present and may represent 

future targets. Currently, CUGA serves as a refuge for numerous state and regionally-rare plant 

species. As a result, it receives a condition status ranking of good. However, due to the potential 
142

impact on rare plants associated with hemlock decline, the potential loss of rare plants previously 

identified in the park (White and Littlefield 2008), and the growing issue of plant poaching, this 

category received a trend of declining.

Data Quality

Multiple floral surveys discuss rare plants at CUGA, and recent fieldwork by White and 

Littlefield (2008) in particular provides a valuable update to their distribution at CUGA, as well 

as management guidelines. However, this survey was only for the KY portion of the park. A 

similar assessment for TN and VA would prove valuable, especially given the recent acquisition 

of the Fern Lake watershed in TN. 

Landscape Dynamics

Numerous factors are involved in an explanation of landscape dynamics and its effects on the 

park unit. Several sources of landcover data allow a comparison of changes in the park and its 

periphery. The NLCD reveals virtually negligible (<1%) changes in the park landcover over the 

period 1992 to 2001, while outside the park boundary much forested land has been lost to 

development. In addition, both GAP and NLCD show gaining proportions of agriculture, 

grassland, and developed area at the cost of forest cover at successive buffer widths outside the 

park. This changing periphery can present several concerns to park natural resources, including 

facilitated species invasion, increased pollution, and water quality degradation. Although no 

condition rank was assigned to this attribute, the ongoing development of the NPScape suite of 

landscape analysis tools will facilitate the assessment of this attribute. Their availability, 

however, did not coincide with the writing of this report.

Data Quality

The data sources used in this assessment were sufficient to garner a basic impression of the 

relationship of park landcover with the surrounding region. The addition of the NPScape suite of 

data products, which investigates a larger buffer region than do our NLCD and GAP datasets, 

will undoubtedly provide a better understanding of the influences in the park landscape.

Natural Resource Synthesis

The natural resource attributes selected for this condition ranking are intended as a 

comprehensive summary of the ecological status of CUGA. Although each condition is assigned 

a rank separately, it is important to note their potential to interact and influence other attributes. 

A significant challenge to preserving natural resources is considering these interactions and 

prioritizing management efforts to affect the most beneficial outcomes. With this in mind, it is 

important to emphasize potential corollaries from the threat of hemlock woolly adelgid and 

resulting hemlock decline at CUGA, which led to the only “poor” condition status of any of the 

ranked attributes. Besides obvious changes in forest structure, loss of hemlock could result in 

changes to water quality via altered transpiration rates and decreased cover. Fish and benthic 

assemblages could be affected and terrestrial ecosystems could result in reduced diversity due to 

impacts on sensitive species and from exotic species. Other wildlife that depend on this specific 

habitat type may be excluded as well. 

Landscape dynamics is another attribute that follows a complex relationship with other 

ecosystem processes. Potential landscape patterns, such as development or fragmentation, can 

serve as vectors for invasion of exotic species, while connected forest landscapes could act as 
143

corridors for insect or disease entry. Landscape changes can also result in additional sources of 

air pollution, which contributes to generation of ozone. This, in turn, has the potential to alter 

vegetation communities through foliar injury. Encroachment may have effects on water quality 

of streams at CUGA via atmospheric deposition, which are already susceptible to acidic loading 

due to naturally acidic waters along with low buffering capacities.

This project represents the first iteration in the development of a comprehensive natural resource 

monitoring program at CUGA. Beyond this report, continued monitoring of resources and 

attention to data gaps, as well as the development of additional condition assessment protocols 

will aid in the undertaking of future natural resource assessments.

145

Literature Cited

Agosta, S. J. 2002. Habitat use, diet and roost selection by the big brown bat (Eptesicus 

fuscus) in North America: a case for conserving an abundant species. Mammal Review

32:179-198.

Air Resource Specialists. 2009a. August 2009 Monthly Report. National Park Service Air 

Resources Division, Fort Collins, CO.

Air Resource Specialists. 2009b. September 2009 Monthly Report. National Park Service Air 

Resources Division, Fort Collins, CO.

Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder, and J. B. Stribling. 1999. Rabid bioassessment 

protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates 

and fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; 

Office of Water; Washington, D.C.

Barbour, R. W., W. D. Davis, and R. A. Kuehne. 1979. The vertebrate fauna of Cumberland 

Gap National Historic Park.

Blehert, D. S., A. C. Hicks, M. Behr, C. U. Meteyer, B. M. Berlowski-Zier, E. L. Buckles, J. T. 

H. Coleman, S. R. Darling, A. Gargas, R. Niver, J. C. Okoniewske, R. J. Rudd, and W. B. 

Stone. 2009. Bat white-nose syndrome: an emerging fungal pathogen? Science 323:227.

Bradford, D. F., S.E. Franson, A.C. Neale, D.T. Heggem, G.R. Miller, and G.E. Canterberry. 

1998. Bird species assemblages as indicators of biological integrity in great basin range 

land. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 49:1-22.

Bravo, M.A. 2005. Fact Sheet: Japanese Honeysuckle. Available at

http://www.nps.gov/plants/ALIEN/fact/pdf/loja1.pdf (Accessed 1 June 2012)

Briggs, C. J., V. T. Vredenburg; R. A. Knapp, and L. J. Rachowicz. 2005. Investigating the 

population-level effects of chytridiomycosis: an emerging infectious disease of 

amphibians. Ecology 86:3149-3159.

Burkhart, E. P. and M. G. Jacobson. 2006. Goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis). Nontimber Forest 

Products (NTFPs) from Pennsylvania. Penn State University, University Park, PA.

Butler, T., D. Stratton, and S. Bratton. 1981. The Distribution of Exotic Woody Plants at 

Cumberland Gap National Historic Park. US Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service, Gatlinburg, TN.

Caceres, M. C. and R. M. R. Barclay. 2000. Mammalian species, Myotis septentrionalis. 

American Society of Mammalogists 634:1-4.

Canterberry, G. E., T. E. Martin, D. R. Petit, L. J. Petit, and D. F. Bradford. 2000. Bird 
146

communities and habitat as ecological indicators of forest condition in regional 

monitoring. Conservation Biology 14:544-558.

Cleavitt, N. L., A. K. Eschtruth, J. J. Battles, and T. J. Fahey. 2008. Bryophyte response to 

eastern hemlock decline caused by hemlock woolly adelgid infestation. Journal of the 

Torrey Botanical Society 135:12-25.

Collier, M.H., J.L. Vankat, and M.R. Hughes. 2002. Diminished plant richness and abundance 

below lonicera maackii, an invasive shrub. American Midland Naturalist 147:60.

Compton, M. C., G.J. Pond, and J.F. Brumley. 2003. Development and application of the 

Kentucky Index of Biotic Integrity (KIBI). Kentucky Department for Environmental 

Protection, Division of Water Quality Branch. 

Cryan, P. M. 2011. White-nose Syndrome threatens survival of hibernating bats in North 

America. U. S. Geological Survey. Available at http://www.fort.usgs.gov/WNS (accessed 

1 June 2012).

Cryan, P. M., C. U. Meteyer, J. G. Boyles, and D. S. Blehert. 2010. Wing pathology of whitenose syndrome in bats suggests life-threatening disruption of physiology. BMC Biology. 

8:135.

Daley, M. J., N. G. Phillips, C. Pettijohn, and J. L. Hadley. 2007. Water use by eastern hemlock 

(Tsuga canadensis) and black birch (Betula lenta): implications of effects of the hemlock 

woolly adelgid. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-Revue Canadienne De Recherche 

Forestiere 37:2031-2040.

Dively, J. L., J. E. Mudge, W. H. Neff, and A. Anthony. 1977. Blood PO2, PCO2, and pH changes 

in brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) exposed to sublethal levels of acidity. Comparative 

Biochemistry and Physiology 57A:347-351.

Dodd, C. K., Jr. 2003. Monitoring amphibians in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1258. U.S. Department of the Interior.

Dorr, J., S. Klopfer, K. Convery, R. Schneider, L. Marr, and J. Galbraith. 2009. Natural Resource 

Condition Assessment with addendum, Fort Pulaski National Monument, Georgia. 

National Park Service, Blacksburg, VA.

Driscoll, C. T., K. M. Driscoll, M. J. Mitchell, and D. J. Raynal. 2003. Effects of acidic 

deposition on forest and aquatic ecosystems in New York State. Environmental Pollution

123:10.

Dunning, J. B. (2006) Bachman’s Sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis), The Birds of North America 

Online (A. Poole, Ed.) Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Birds of North 

America Online database. Available at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/ (accessed 1 June 

2012)
147

Dunson, W. A., and R.R. Martin. 1973. Survival of brook trout in a bog-derived acidity 

gradient. Ecology 54:1370-1376.

Ehrlich, T. T. 2008. Geologic Resource Evaluation Scoping Summary Cumberland Gap National 

Historical Park. National Park Service, Geologic Resources Division.

Elkie, P.C., R.S. Rempel, and A.P. Carr. 1999. Patch Analyst User's Manual. Ontario Natural 

Resources: Northwest Science and Technology. Thunder Bay, Ontario.

Ellenwood, J. R. and F. J. Krist. 2007. Building a Nationwide 30-Meter Forest Parameter Dataset 

for Forest Health Risk Assessments. 5 pp. ForestSat'07: Forests, remote sensing, and 

GIS: methods and operational tools, Montpellier, France.

Elliot, W. R. 1998. Conservation of the North American cave and karst biota. 

Subterranean Biota (Ecosystems of the World). Elsevier Science. Electronic pre-print, 

Available at http://www.utexas.edu/tmm/sponsored_sites/biospeleology/preprint.htm

(Accessed 1 June 2012).

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997. Volunteer Stream Monitoring: A Methods 

Manual. EPA 841-B-97-003, Office of Water. Washington, D.C.

Erdle, S. Y., and C.S. Hobson. 2001. Current status and conservation strategy for the 

eastern small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii). Natural Heritage Technical Report#00-19. 

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, 17 

pp. + appendices. Richmond, VA.

Eschtruth, A.K., N.L. Cleavitt, J.J. Battles, R.A. Evans, and T.J. Fahey. 2006. Vegetation 

dynamics in declining eastern hemlock stands: 9 years of forest response to hemlock 

woolly adelgid infestation. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-Revue Canadienne De 

Recherche Forestiere 36:1435-1450.

Etnier, D. A., W.C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, 

Knoxville, TN.

Fancy, S. G., J.E. Gross, and S.L. Carter. 2009. Monitoring the condition of natural resources 

in US National Parks. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 151:161-174

Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). 2008. National Vegetation Classification 

Standard, Version 2 FGDC-STD-005-2008. Vegetation Subcommittee.

Federal Highway Administration. 2001. Wetland Protection and Mitigation Under the FederalAid Highway Program Available at. Available from US Department of Transportation 

Available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/wetland/history.htm. (Accessed 1 

June 2012).
148

Federal Register. 1987. Department of the Interior 52:22580.

Fenton, M. B. and R.M.R. Barclay. 1980. Mammalian species, Myotis lucifugus.

American Society of Mammalogists 142:1-8.

Floyd, T. M., K.R. Russell, C.E. Moorman, D.H. Van Lear, D.C. Guynn, and J.D. Lanham. 

2002. Effects of prescribed fire on herpetofauna within hardwood forests of the upper 

piedmont of South Carolina: a preliminary analysis. in: Outcalt, K. W. editor. 

Proceedings of the eleventh biennial southern silvicultural research conference. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. SRS-48. 622 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station. Asheville, NC.

Ford, C.R., and J.M. Vose. 2007. Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carr. Mortality will Impact Hydrologic 

Processes in Southern Appalachian Forest Ecosystems Ecological Applications 17:1156-

1167.

Fujita, M. S. and T.H. Kunz. 1984. Mammalian species, Pipistrellus subflavus.

American Society of Mammalogists 228:1-6.

Gabel, R. 2009. General advice for the export of wild and wild-simulated American ginseng 

(Panax quinquefolius) harvested in 2009 and 2010 from States with approved CITES 

Export Programs. USFWS, Dept. of the Interior. Washington, D.C.

Gibbons, J. W., and K.A. Buhlmann. 2001. Reptiles and amphibians. pp. 372-390, In J.G. 

Dickson (Ed.). Wildlife of Southern Forests: Habitat and Management. Hancock House 

Publishers, Waine, WA.

Gibbons, J. W., V.J. Burke, J.E. Lovich, R.D. Semlitsch, T.D. Tuberville, J.R. Bodie, J.L. 

Greene, P.H. Niewiarowski, H.H. Whiteman, D.E. Scott, and others. 1997. Perceptions 

of species abundance, distribution, and diversity: lessons from four decades of sampling 

on a government-managed reserve. Environmental Management 21:259-268.

Gibbons, J. W., D.E. Scott, T.J. Ryan, K.A. Buhlmann, T.D. Tuberville, B.S. Metts, J.L. Greene, 

T. Mills, Y. Leiden, S. Poppy, and C.T. Winne. 2000. The global decline of reptiles, déjá 

vu amphibians. Bioscience 50:653-666.

Gipson, P. S., B. Hlavachick, and T. Berger. 1998. Range expansion of wild hogs in the central 

United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:279-286.

Gould, A.M.A., and D.L. Gorchov. 2000. Effects of the Exotic Invasive Shrub Lonicera maackii 

on the Survival and Fecundity of Three Species of Native Annuals. American Midland 

Naturalist 144:36.

Greenberg, C. H., D.G. Neary, and L.D. Harris. 1994. A comparison of herpetofaunal sampling 

effectiveness of pitfall, single-ended, and double-ended funnel traps used with drift 

fences. Journal of Herpetology 28:319-324.
149

Gumbert, M., Sewell, P., and Roby, P. 2006. Mammals of Cumberland Gap National 

Historical Park; Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia. Copperhead Environmental Consulting, 

Inc. 46 pp. National Park Service Middlesboro, KY. 

Hamel, P. B. (2000) Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea), The Birds of North America Online. 

Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Birds of North America Online database. Ithaca, NY. 

Available at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/ (Accessed 1 June 2012).

Hanners, L. A., and S.R. Patton. 1998. Worm-eating Warbler (Helmitheros vermivorum), The 

Birds of North America Online. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Birds of North 

America Online database. Ithaca, NY. Available at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/

(Accessed 1 June 2012).

Hazelton, P. D. 2008. Effects of Turbidity, Velocity, and Competition on Foraging Behavior of 

Two Southeastern Minnows. Masters Thesis, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

Hill, E. P., P.W. Sumner, and J.B. Wooding. 1987. Human influences on range expansion of 

coyotes in the southeast. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15:521-524.

Hinkle, C.R. 1975. A Preliminary Study of the Flora and Vegetation of Cumberland Gap 

National Historical Park. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. Middlesboro, KY.

Jackson, J. A. 1994. Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) The Birds of North America 

Online. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Birds of North America Online database. 

Ithaca, NY. Available at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/ (Accessed 1 June 2012).

Jernigan, J., B. Carson, T. Leibreid. 2008. Monitoring ozone-induced foliar injury in Cumberland 

Piedmont Network parks, summary of results for 2008 at Cumberland Gap National 

Historical Park. National Park Service.

Karr. J. R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6:21-27.

Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR). 2010. Kentucky’s wildlife 

action plan. Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Information System (KFWIS). 

Available at http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/default.asp (Accessed January 2013).

Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR). 2009. Kentucky Fish and 

Wildlife Information System (KFWIS). 

Available at http://fw.ky.gov/navigation.aspx?cid=267 (Accessed 1 June 2012).

Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR). 2009c. Trout stream programs 

for 2008. Available at http://fw.ky.gov/troutstreams08.asp

Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission (KSNPC). 2011. Rare and extirpated biota and 
150

natural communities of Kentucky. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. 

Frankfort, KY.

Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW). 2002. Methods for assessing biological integrity of 

surface waters in Kentucky. Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, 

Frankfurt, Kentucky.

Kentucky’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). 2005. Kentucky 

Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, #1 Sportsman’s Lane, Frankfort, KY. 

Available at http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg (Accessed 1 June 2012).

Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission (KSNPC). 2011. Rare and extirpated biota and 

natural communities of Kentucky. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. 

Frankfort, Kentucky.

King, A. (compiler). 2009. 2009 Rangewide population estimate for the Indiana bat (Myotis 

sodalis) by USFWS region. 5 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Field 

Services Field Office, Bloomington, IN.

Krist, F. J., F. J. Sapio, and B. M. Tkacz. 2007. Mapping Risk from Forest Insects and Diseases. 

USDA Forest Service: Forest Health Protection & Forest Health Technology Enterprise 

Team, Fort Collins, CO.

Kohut, R. 2007. Assessing the risk of foliar injury from ozone on vegetation in parks in the US 

National Park Service's Vital Signs Network. Environmental Pollution 149:348-357.

Kunz, T. H. 1982. Mammalian species, Lasionycteris noctivagans. American 

Society of Mammalogists. 172:1-5.

LeFohn, A.S., and V.C. Runeckles. 1987. Establishing Standards to Protect Vegetation -- Ozone 

Exposure/Dose Considerations. Atmospheric Environment 21:8.

Lefohn, A.S., W. Jackson, D.S. Shadwick, and H.P. Knudsen. 1997. Effect of Surface Ozone 

Exposures on Vegetation Grown in the Southern Appalachian Mountains: Identification 

of Possible Areas of Concern. Atmospheric Environment 31.

Leibfreid, T.R., R.L. Woodman, and S.C. Thomas. 2005. Vital Signs Monitoring Plan for the 

Cumberland Piedmont Network and Mammoth Cave National Park Prototype Monitoring 

Program. National Park Service, Mammoth Cave, KY.

Linehan, J. M., M.T. Mengak, S.B. Castleberry, and D.A. Miller. 2008. Inventory of the 

mammalian species at Vicksburg National Military Park, Occasional Papers of the Texas 

Tech Museum. No. 272. 16p. Vicksburg, MS.

Lloyd, D. S., J.P. Koenings, and J.D. Laperriere. 1987. Effects of turbidity in fresh waters of 

Alaska. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:18-33.
151

Longcore, J. R., J. E. Longcore, A. P. Pessier, and W. A. Halteman. 2007. Chytridiomycosis 

widespread in Anurans of northeastern United States. Journal of Wildlife Management

71:435-444.

Lorch, J. M., C. U. Meteyer, M. J. Behr, J. G. Boyles, P. M. Cryan. A. C. Hicks, A. E. Ballmann, 

J. T. H. Coleman, D. N. Redell, D. M. Reeder, and D. S. Blehert. 2011. Experimental 

infection of bats with Geomyces destructans causes white-nose syndrome. Nature, letters. 

Published online October, 2011. Available at 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature10590.html (Accessed 1 

June 2012)

Lloyd, D., J. P. Koenings, J. D. LaPirreire. 1987. Effects of turbidity in fresh waters of Alaska. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 7:18-33.

Luckett, W. W. 1964. Cumberland Gap National Historic Park. Tennessee Historical Quarterly 

23.

Mattsson, B. J., T.L. Master, R.S. Mulvihill, and W.D. Robinson. 2009. Louisiana 

Waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla), The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Laboratory 

of Ornithology, Birds of North America Online database. Ithaca, NY. Available at 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/ (Accessed 1 June 2012).

Maurer, B. A. 1993. Biological diversity, ecological integrity, and neotropical migrants: New 

perspectives for wildlife management. In Status and Management of Neotropical 

Migratory Birds (D. M. Finch and P. W. Stangel, Eds.). U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service General Technical Report RM-229. pp.24-31.

McAbee, K. T. 2008. Structured decision making for recovery management of a threatened 

species, Phoxinus cumberlandensis (blackside dace). Master of Science Thesis. Warnell 

School of Forestry and Natural Resources. University of Georgia, Athens.

McCullough, D. and R. Usborne. 2008. Emerald Ash-Borer. Michigan State University 

Extension. Available at http://www.emeraldashborer.info/ (Accessed 1 June 2012).

McFarlan, A. C. 1943. Geology of Kentucky. University of Kentucky. Lexington, KY. 

Available at http://www.uky.edu/OtherOrgs/KPS/goky/ (Accessed 1 June 2012).

Meade, L. S. 2003. Herpetofauna survey of Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. Third 

Rock Consultants, LLC. Cooperative Agreement H5028 02 A424. National Park Service.

Meiman, J. 2009. Cumberland Piedmont Network Water Quality Monitoring Report: 

Cumberland Gap National Historic Park. National Park Service, Mammoth Cave, KY.

Menzel, M. A., W.M. Ford, J. Laerm, and D. Krishon. 1999. Forest to wildlife openings: 
152

habitat gradient analysis among small mammals in the southern Appalachians. Forest 

Ecology and Management 114:227-232.

Metts, B. S., J.D. Lanham, and K.R. Russell. 2001. Evaluation of herpetofaunal communities 

On upland streams and beaver-impounded streams in the upper piedmont of South 

Carolina. American Midland Naturalist 145:54-65.

Mitchell, J. C., S.C. Rinehart, J.F. Pagels, K.A. Buhlmann, K. A., and C.A. Pague. 1997. Factors 

influencing amphibian and small mammal assemblages in central Appalachian forests. 

Forest Ecology and Management 96:65-76.

Monroe, M. S. 2005. Bird inventory for Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. Final Report. 

Agreement # P5530030033. National Park Service. Cumberland Gap National Historical 

Park.

Moore, B. J. 2010. An evaluation of biological inventory data collected at Cumberland Gap 

National Historical Park: Vertebrate and vascular plant inventories. Natural Resource 

Report NPS/CUPN/NRR—2010/182. National Park Service, Fort Collins Colorado.

Morse, L.E., J.M. Randall, N. Benton, R. Hiebert, and S. Lu. 2004. An Invasive Species 

Assessment Protocol: Evaluating Non-native Plants for their Impact on Biodiversity. 

NatureServe, Arlington, VA.

Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium. 2009. National Land Cover Database Zone 

55 NLCD 1992/2001 Change. US Geological Survey, Sioux Falls, SD.

Munger, G.T. 2003. Elaeagnus umbellata. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/elaumb/all.html

(Accessed 1 June 2012)

National Agricultural Pest Information System (NAPIS). Purdue University. Survey Status of 

Gypsy Moth (European) - Lymantria dispar (All years). Published: 10/25/2011. 

Available at http://pest.ceris.purdue.edu/map.php?code=ITAXAIA&year=alltime

(Accessed 1 June 2012).

National Park Service Air and Resources Division. 2004. Assessing the Risk of Foliar Injury 

from Ozone on Vegetation in Parks in the Cumberland/Piedmont Network.

National Park Service Air and Resources Division. 2006. Annual Data Summary 2005: Gaseous 

Pollutant Monitoring Program Ozone, Sulfur Dioxide, Particulate Matter, Meteorological 

Observations NPS D-1782.

National Park Service Air and Resources Division. 2007. 2006 Annual Performance & Progress 

Report: Air Quality in National Parks, Fort Collins, CO.

National Park Service. 2003. Wildland Fire Management Plan – Cumberland Gap National 
153

Historical Park. 

National Park Service. 2007. Birds known to occur in Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. 

Available at http://www.nps.gov/cuga/naturescience/birds.htm. (Accessed 1 June 2012).

National Park Service. 2008. Inventory and Monitoring: Cumberland Network. Available at

http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/cupn/vitalsigns.cfm (Accessed 1 June 2012).

National Park Service. 2009a. Cumberland Gap National Historic Park. Available at

http://www.nps.gov/cuga/ (Accessed 1 June 2012).

National Park Service. 2009b. Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area. Available at

http://www.nps.gov/biso/ (Accessed 1 June 2012).

National Park Service. 2010a. Final General Management Plan / Envrionmental Impact 

Statement. Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. Middleboro, KY.

National Park Service. 2010b. Renew Wilderness Road Campgrounds Wastewater System and 

Component & Repair Campground Road: Environmental Assessment. Cumberland Gap 

National Historical Park, Middlesboro, KY.

National Park Service. 2011. NPScape: monitoring landscape dynamics of US National Parks. 

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science, Inventory and Monitoring Division. Fort 

Collins, CO. Available at http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/npscape (Accessed 1 

June 2012).

NatureServe. 2005. International Ecological Classification Standard: International Terrestrial 

Ecological System Classification. Central Databases. NatureServe, Arlington, VA.

NatureServe. 2011. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 

Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at http://www.natureserve.org/

(Accessed 1 June 2012).

Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry (NAS&PF). 2008. Hemlock Woolly Adelgid 

Infestations by State and County. USDA Forest Service.

NPSpecies. 2011. Park List: NPSpecies-The National Park Service Biodiversity Database. 

Available at https://science1.nature.nps.gove/npspecies/web/main/start (Accessed 

October 2011).

Nuckolls, A. E., N. Wurzburger, C. R. Ford, R. L. Hendrick, J. M. Vose, and B. D. Kloeppel. 

2009. Hemlock Declines Rapidly with Hemlock Woolly Adelgid Infestation: Impacts on 

the Carbon Cycle of Southern Appalachian Forests. Ecosystems 12:179-190.

Nuttle, T., A. Leidolf, and L. W. Burger. 2003. Assessing conservation value of bird 

communities with partners in flight-based ranks. The Auk 120:541-549.
154

O’Connell. T. J., L.E. Jackson, and R.P. Brooks. 1998. The bird community index: a tool for 

assessing biotic integrity in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. Final Report to the USEPA and 

Report no. 98-4, Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center, University Park, PA 57 pp.

O’Connell, T. J., L. E. Jackson, and R. P. Brooks. 2000. Bird guilds as indicators of ecological 

condition in the central Appalachians. Ecological Applications 10:1706-1721.

O’Connell, T. J., J. A. Bishop, and R. P. Brooks. 2007. Sub-sampling data from the North 

American Breeding Bird Survey for application of the Bird Community Index, an 

indicator of ecological condition. Ecological Indicators 7:679-691

Ollinger, S.V., J. D. Aber, and P. B. Reich. 1997. Simulating Ozone Effects on Forest 

Productivity: Interactions among Leaf-, Canopy-, and Stand-Level Processes. Ecological 

Applications 7:1237-1251.

Onset Computer Corporation. 2002. HOBO® H8 Pro Series User’s Manual.

Onset Computer Corporation. 2010. HOBO® Pro v2 User’s Manual (Part # U23-00x).

Palmer, W.C. 1965. Meteorological Drought. Office of Climatology, Department of Commerce. 

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Research Paper No. 45.

Panjabi, A. O., E.H. Dunn, P.J. Blancher, W.C. Hunter, B. Altman, J. Bart, C.J. Beardmore, H. 

Berlanga, G.S. Butcher, S.K. Davis, D.W. Demarest, R. Dettmers, W. Easton, H. Gomez 

de Silva Garza, E.E. Inigo-Elias, D.N. Pashley, C.J. Ralph, T.D. Rich, K.V. Rosenberg, 

C.M. Rustay, J.M. Ruth, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will. 2005. The Partners in Flight 

handbook on species assessment. Version 2005. Partners in Flight Technical Series No. 3. 

Petranka, J.W. 2002. Assessment of Function of a Wetland Mitigation Site at Cumberland Gap 

National Historical Park. University of North Carolina at Asheville. Asheville, NC.

Petranka, J.W. 2005. Assessment of Function of a Wetland Mitigation Site at Cumberland Gap 

National Historical Park. University of North Carolina at Asheville. Asheville, NC.

Petranka, J. W., C.K. Smith, and A.F. Scott. 2004. Identifying the minimal demographic unit 

for monitoring pond-breeding amphibians. Ecological Applications 14:1065-1078.

Petranka, J. W., E. M. Harp, C. T. Holbrook, and J. A. Hamel. 2007. Long-term persistence of 

amphibian populations in a restored wetland complex. Biologicial Conservation 138:371-

380.

Pounds, L., T. S. Patrick, and R. Hinkle. 1989. Rare Plant Assessment and Checklist for 

Cumberland Gap National Historic Park. National Park Service, Atlanta, GA.

Porter, E. 2003. Ozone Sensitive Plant Species on National Park Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Lands. National Park Service Air Resources Division, Baltimore, MD.
155

Predny, M. L., P. D. Angelis, and J. L. Chamberlain. 2006. Black Cohosh (Actaea racemosa): 

An Annotated Bibliography. Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC.

Raesly, R. L., and J.E. Gates. 1987. Winter habitat selection by north temperate cave 

bats. American Midland Naturalist 118:15-31.

Ray, J. D. 2009. Annual data summary 2008: Gaseous pollutant monitoring program. Natural 

Resource Data Series NPS/NRPC/ARD/NRDS—2009/011. National Park Service, 

Denver, CO.

Remley II, A. W. 2005. Fish Inventory of Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. Third 

Rock Consultants, LLC. Cooperative Agreement H5028 02 A424. National Park Service 

Southeast Regional Office. Atlanta, GA.

Roemer, G. W., M.E. Gompper, and B. Van Valkenburgh. 2009. The ecological role of the 

mammalian mesocarnivore. Bioscience 59:165-173.

Rosenberg, K. 2003. Partners In Flight landbird conservation plan: physiographic area 12: MidAtlantic ridge and valley (draft). Partners In Flight. American Bird Conservancy.

Roth, R. R., M.S. Johnson, and T.J. Underwood. 1996. Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), 

The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Birds of North 

America Online database. Ithaca, NY. Available at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/

(Accessed 1 June 2012).

Rothermel. B. B., S. C. Walls, J. C. Mitchell, C. K. Dodd Jr., L. K. Irwin, D. E. Green, V. M. 

Vazquez, J. W. Petranka, and D. J. Stevenson. 2008. Widespread occurrence of the 

amphibian chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in the southeastern USA. 

Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 82:3-18.

Ryan, T. J., T. Philippi, Y.A. Leiden, M.E. Dorcas, T.B. Wigley, and J.W. Gibbons. 2002. 

Monitoring herpetofauna in a managed forest landscape: effects of habitat types and 

census techniques. Forest Ecology and Management 167:83-90.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results 

and Analysis 1966 - 2007. Version 5.15.2008. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 

Laurel, MD

Semlitsch, R. D. 2000. Principles for management of aquatic-breeding amphibians. The Journal 

of Wildlife Management 64:615-631.

Sheldon, A. L. 1988. Conservation of stream fishes: patterns of diversity, rarity, and risk. 

Conservation Biology 2:149-156.

Shump, K. A. and A.U. Shump. 1982. Mammalian species, Lasiurus borealis. American 
156

Society of Mammalogists 183: 1-6.

Sinclair, A., and P.M. Catling. 2001. Plant Guide: Goldenseal. USDA, Baton Rouge, LA.

Smart, L., R. Smyth, and R. White. 2010. Accuracy Assessment: Cumberland Gap National 

Historical Park. NatureServe, Durham, NC.

Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council. 2011. Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council Invasive Plant 

Manual. The Bugwood Network. University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Available at

http://www.se-eppc.org/manual/ (Accessed 1 June 2012).

Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study (SCWDS). 2004. SCWDS wildlife distribution 

maps. University of Georgia. Available at http://www.uga.edu/scwds/dist_maps.htm. 

(Accessed October, 2009)

Starnes, L. B., and W.C. Starnes. 1981. Biology of the blackside dace Phoxinus 

cumberlandensis. American Midland Naturalist 106:360-371.

Stephens, D. E. 2002a. The 2002 status survey of blackside dace in Davis Branch, Bell County, 

Kentucky. Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. National Park Service.

Stephens, D. E. 2002b. The 2002 survey of the fish fauna in Gap Creek, Claiborne Co., 

Tennessee and Lee Co., Virginia. Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. National 

Park Service.

Stephens, D. E. 2007. The 2006/2007 status survey of blackside dace in Davis Branch, Bell 

County, Kentucky. Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. National Park Service.

Stuart, S. N., J.S. Chanson, N.A. Cox, B.E. Young, A.S.L. Rodriguez, D.L. Fischman, and R.W.

Waller. 2004. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. 

Science 306:1783-1786.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). 1995. Little Yellow Creek 

biological investigation and habitat assessment. Division of Water Pollution Control, 

Mining Section.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). 2009. A guide to the rare 

animals of Tennessee. Tennessee Natural Heritage Program. 

Tennessee Natural Heritage Program (TNHP). 2009. A guide to the rare animals of Tennessee. 

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Natural Areas. 

Nashville, TN.

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA). 2005. Tennessee’s comprehensive wildlife 

conservations strategy. TWRA: Nashville, TN.
157

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission (TWRC). 2000. Proclamation 00-15: endangered or 

threatened species.

Thomas, S. C. 2012 (In Press). Inventory of terrestrial wild mammals at Mammoth Cave 

National Park: 2005-2010. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/CUPN/NRTR—

2012/.

Thornberry-Ehrlich, T. 2008. Geologic resource evaluation scoping summary: 

Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. Geologic Resources Division, National Park 

Service.

Todd, B. D., C.T. Winne, J.D. Willson, and J.W. Gibbons. 2007. Getting the drift: examining 

the effects of timing, trap type and taxon on herpetofaunal drift fence surveys. The 

American Midland Naturalist 158:292-305.

Townsend, L. 2009. Emerald Ash-Borer. University of Kentucky Department of Entomology. 

Available at http://pest.ca.uky.edu/EXT/EAB/welcome.html (Accessed 1 June 2012).

Trani, M. K., W.M. Ford, and B.R. Chapman, editors. 2007. The Land Manager’s Guide to the 

Mammals of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Durham, North 

Carolina. 546 pp.

Tuberville, T. D., J.D. Willson, M.E. Dorcas, and J.W. Gibbons. 2005. Herpetofaunal species 

richness in southeastern National Parks. Southeastern Naturalist 4:537-569.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) draft 

recovery plan: first revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, Fort Snelling, 

MN. 258 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Endangered species program. Available 

at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/species/us-species.html (Accessed 1 June 2012).

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009. Southeast Gap Analysis Project. National Landcover 

Dataset, Version 1. Reston, VA.

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 2009. Asian Long-Horned Beetle Pest Report. Forest Health 

Protection. Available at

http://www.spfnic.fs.fed.us/exfor/data/pestreports.cfm?pestidval=53&langdisplay

(Accessed 1 June 2012).

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 2011. Thousand Cankers Disease Pest Alert. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. NA-PR-02-10. Newtown 

Square, PA.

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2005. Virginia’s comprehensive 
158

wildlife conservation strategy. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 

Richmond, VA.

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2009. Special status faunal species 

in Virginia. Wildlife Diversity Division.

Wager, D.J., and F.A. Baker. 2003. Potential effects of ozone, climate, and spruce budworm on 

Douglas-fir growth in the Wasatch Mountains. Canadian Journal of Forest ResearchRevue Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere 33:910-921.

Walker, G.L. and D. Ballinger. 2007. Physical Variables and Community Structure of the White 

Rocks Cliff System, Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, Cumberland Gap national Historical Park.

Warren, M.L. Jr., B.M. Burr, S.J. Walsh, H.L. Bart Jr., R.C. Cashner, D.A. Etnier, B.J. Freeman, 

B.R. Kuhajda, R.L. Mayden, H.W. Robison, S.T. Ross, and W.C. Starnes. 2000. 

Diversity, distribution, and conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the 

southern United States. Fisheries 25:7-31.

Waters, T. F. 1995. Sediment in Streams: Sources, Biological Effects, and Control. American 

Fisheries Society Monograph 7. Bethesda, MD.

Watson, J. K. 2005. Avian conservation implementation plan Cumberland Gap National 

Historical Park. Final Draft. National Park Service. Cumberland Gap National Historical 

Park.

White, R. 2006. Vascular Plant Inventory and Ecological Community Classification for 

Cumberland Gap National Historic Park. NatureServe, Durham, NC.

White, D. L. and T. R. Littlefield. 2008. Update of Kentucky Rare Plants in Cumberland Gap 

National Historical Park. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission report to the 

National Park Service.

Wilson, J. D. and J.W. Gibbons. 2009. Drift fences, coverboards, and other traps. Pp. 229-245. 

In: C. K. Dodd, Jr., (Ed) Amphibian Ecology and Conservation: A Handbook of 

Techniques. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Wixted, K. and J.B. McGraw. 2009a. A Panax-centric View of Invasive Species and a Case 

Study on the Effects of Garlic Mustard. US Fish and Wildlife Service State Coordination 

and Public Meeting, Bristol, VA.

Wixted, K. and J. B. McGraw. 2009b. A Panax-centric view of invasive species. Biological 

Invasions.11:883-893.
159

Appendix A. NPS Ecological Monitoring Framework table, with highlighted categories representing relevant vital signs and 

features specifically selected for CUGA—‘*’ denotes an official vital sign as identified by the CUPN for CUGA by the network 

monitoring plan. Highlighted entries with a ‘†’ are significant natural resources mentioned elsewhere, or low priority vital signs 

mentioned in the original list of considerations in Appendix Q of the CUPN Monitoring Plan (Leibfreid et al. 2005). Measures listed 

under “Vital Sign / Measures” are suggested metrics or ones already available from existing data.

Ecological Monitoring Framework—CUGA 

Level 1 Category Level 2 Category Level 3 Category Vital Sign / Measures

Air and Climate Air Quality Ozone* Official Vital Sign: “Ozone and ozone impact”;

Measures: Ozone levels and impact on native 

plants

Wet and Dry Deposition

Visibility and Particulate Matter

Air Contaminants

Weather and Climate Weather and Climate

Geology and Soils Geomorphology Windblown Features and Processes

Glacial Features and Processes

Hillslope Features and Processes† Not an official Vital Sign:

Geologic Formations significant to enabling 

legislation; Limestone Cliffs and climbing impacts

Coastal/Oceanographic Features and 

Processes

Marine Features and Processes

Stream/River Channel Characteristics

Lake Features and Processes

Subsurface Geologic Processes Geothermal Features and Processes

Cave/Karst Features and Processes* Official Vital Sign: “Cave meteorology” (for MACA)

Measures: Air temperature, relative humidity, 

airflow

Volcanic Features and Processes

Seismic Activity

Soil Quality Soil Function and Dynamics

Paleontology Paleontology

Water Hydrology Groundwater Dynamics

Surface Water Dynamics* Official Vital Sign: “Water Quality and Quantity”;

Measures: Discharge, Turbidity measured against 

respective TN, VA, and KY standards

Marine Hydrology

Water Quality Water Chemistry* Official Vital Sign: “Water Quality and Quantity”

Measures: Temp, pH, specific conductivity, DO, 

ANC
160

Appendix A (continued).

Ecological Monitoring Framework—CUGA 

Level 1 Category Level 2 Category Level 3 Category Vital Sign / Measures

Nutrient Dynamics

Toxics

Microorganisms* Official Vital Sign: “Water Quality and Quantity”

Measures: E. coli and fecal coliform

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates and 

Algae

Biological Integrity Invasive Species Invasive/Exotic Plants* Official Vital Sign: “Invasive Plants” 

(108 invasive; 29 aggressive) e.g. Autumn olive, 

Johnsongrass, Princesstree

Measures: Abundance, Competition with native 

communities, I-ranks, TN and KY EPPC ranks

Invasive/Exotic Animals

Infestations and Disease Insect Pests* Official Vital Sign: “Forest Pests”

Measures: Current/Historical Abundance and 

Damage, Risk of Infestation

Plant Diseases

Animal Diseases

Focal Species or Communities Marine Communities

Intertidal Communities

Estuarine Communities

Wetland Communities* Official Vital Sign: “Vegetation communities”;

Measures: Vegetation structure, composition, 

extent

Riparian Communities* "

Freshwater Communities

Sparsely Vegetated Communities

Cave Communities

Desert Communities

Grassland/Herbaceous Communities

Shrubland Communities

Forest/Woodland Communities* "

Marine Invertebrates

Freshwater Invertebrates

Terrestrial Invertebrates

Fishes† Not an official vital sign

Amphibians and Reptiles

Birds† Not an official vital sign
161

Appendix A (continued).

Ecological Monitoring Framework—CUGA 

Level 1 Category Level 2 Category Level 3 Category Vital Sign / Measures

Mammals*† Official Vital Sign: “Allegheny Woodrats” (at MACA);

Also elk(?), bats (18 species)

Vegetation Complex (use sparingly) Cliffline plant communities (14 plant species; 49 

lichen species)

Terrestrial Complex (use sparingly)

At-risk Biota T&E Species and Communities Park-specific issue: At-risk plants

Measures: Species abundance/change

90 spp. rare/sensitive plants; Commercially 

exploitable plants: goldenseal, ginseng, pink lady’s 

slipper, black cohosh

Human Use Point Source Human Effects Point Source Human Effects

Non-point Source Human Effects Non-point Source Human Effects

Consumptive Use Consumptive Use

Visitor and Recreation Use Visitor Use

Cultural Landscapes Cultural Landscapes

Landscapes 

(Ecosystem Pattern and 

Processes)

Fire and Fuel Dynamics Fire and Fuel Dynamics

Landscape Dynamics Land Cover and Use Official Vital Sign: “Landscape Dynamics”

Measures: Changes in landcover over time, 

correlation of landcover with species of concern, 

adjacent land use patterns, areas managed as 

biodiversity hotspots or wildlife corridors

Need: Ranking protocol undefined

Extreme Disturbance Events Extreme Disturbance Events

Soundscape Soundscape

Viewscape Viewscape/Dark Night Sky

Nutrient Dynamics Nutrient Dynamics

Energy Flow Primary Production

163

Appendix B. Bird species reported from Cumberland Gap National Historical Park during 

a 2003-2004 survey (Monroe 2005).

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens Chuck-will’s-widow Caprimulgus carolinensis

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis Common Raven Corvus corax

American Kestrel Falco sparverius Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas

American Pipit Anthus rubescens Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis

American Robin Turdus migratorius Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens

American Woodcock Scolopax minor Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus

Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe

Barred Owl Strix varia Eastern Screech-Owl Otus asio

Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus

Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens

Black Vulture Coragyps atratus European Starling Sturnus vulgaris

Black-and-White Warbler Mniotilta varia Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla

Black-billed Cuckoo

Coccyzus 

erythropthalmus Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca

Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa

Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera

Black-throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis

Black-throated Green 

Warbler Dendroica virens Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus

Blue Grosbeak Passerina caerulea Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus

Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius

Greater White-fronted 

Goose Anser albifrons

Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus

Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus

Brown Creeper Certhia americana Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris

Brown-Headed Cowbird Molothrus ater House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus

Canada Goose Branta canadensis House Sparrow Passer domesticus

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis House Wren Troglodytes aedon

Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea

Carolina Chickadee Poecile carolinensis Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus

Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus Killdeer Charadrius vociferus

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus

Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea Lesser Snow Goose Chen caerulescens

Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica Louisiana Waterthrush Seiurus motacilla

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Mallard Anas platyrhynchos
164

Appendix B (continued).

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

Merlin Falco columbarius

Rose-breasted 

Grosbeak

Pheucticus 

ludovicianus

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla

Ruby-throated 

Hummingbird Archilochus colubris

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus

Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia

Northern Parula Parula americana Summer Tanager Piranga rubra

Northern Rough-winged 

Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus

Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis Swainson’s Warbler

Limnothlypis 

swainsonii

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina

Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor

Osprey Pandion haliaetus Tufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolor

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura

Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum Veery Catharus fuscescens

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus

Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus

White-breasted 

Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus

Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis

Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus Winter Wren

Troglodytes 

troglodytes

Purple Martin Progne subis Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina

Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus Worm-eating Warbler

Helmitheros 

vermivorus

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus

Yellow-bellied 

Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis Yellow-throated Warbler Dendroica dominica

Rock Dove Columba livia
165

Appendix C. Certified species list of vascular plants listed as “Present” or “Probably 

Present” at CUGA. 

Family Scientific Name Common name Occurrence Nativity

Alismataceae Alisma subcordatum Broad-leaved waterplantainPresent in Park Native

Alismataceae Sagittaria latifolia Broadleaf arrowhead Present in Park Native

Apiaceae Angelica venenosa Hairy angelica Present in Park Native

Apiaceae Chaerophyllum procumbens Spreading chervil Present in Park Native

Apiaceae Chaerophyllum tainturieri var.

tainturieri

Hairyfruit chervil Present in Park Native

Apiaceae Cryptotaenia canadensis Canadian honewort Present in Park Native

Apiaceae Daucus carota Queen Anne's lace Present in Park Non-Native

Apiaceae Eryngium yuccifolium Rattlesnake-master Present in Park Native

Apiaceae Ligusticum canadense Lovage Present in Park Native

Apiaceae Osmorhiza claytonii Hairy sweet-cicely Present in Park Native

Apiaceae Osmorhiza longistylis Smoother sweet-cicely Present in Park Native

Apiaceae Oxypolis rigidior Stiff cowbane Present in Park Native

Apiaceae Sanicula canadensis Canadian blacksnakerootPresent in Park Native

Apiaceae Sanicula odorata Clustered blacksnakeroot Present in Park Native

Apiaceae Sanicula smallii Small's black-snakeroot Present in Park Native

Apiaceae Taenidia integerrima Yellow pimpernell Present in Park Native

Apiaceae Thaspium barbinode Hairy-jointed meadowparsnipPresent in Park Native

Apiaceae Thaspium trifoliatum Purple meadow-parsnip Present in Park Native

Apiaceae Torilis arvensis Field hedge-parsley Present in Park Non-Native

Apiaceae Zizia aptera Golden alexander Present in Park Native

Araliaceae Aralia nudicaulis Wild sarsaparilla Present in Park Native

Araliaceae Aralia racemosa ssp. racemosa American spikenard Present in Park Native

Araliaceae Aralia spinosa Hercules club Present in Park Native

Araliaceae Panax quinquefolius American ginseng Present in Park Native

Acoraceae Acorus calamus Sweetflag Present in Park Native

Araceae Arisaema dracontium Green dragon Present in Park Native

Araceae Arisaema triphyllum Swamp jack-in-the-pulpit Present in Park Native

Lemnaceae Lemna minor Lesser duckweed Present in Park Native

Aristolochiaceae Aristolochia macrophylla Pipevine Present in Park Native

Aristolochiaceae Aristolochia serpentaria Virginia snakeroot Present in Park Native

Aristolochiaceae Asarum canadense Canada wild-ginger Present in Park Native

Aristolochiaceae Hexastylis arifolia Little brown jug Present in Park Native

Aristolochiaceae Hexastylis contracta Mountain heartleaf Present in Park Native

Aristolochiaceae Hexastylis heterophylla Variable-leaved heartleaf Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Achillea millefolium Common yarrow Present in Park Non-Native

Asteraceae Ageratina altissima White snakeroot Present in Park Native

steraceae Ageratina altissima var.

altissima

White snakeroot Present in Park Native
166

Family Scientific Name Common name Occurrence Nativity

Asteraceae Ageratina aromatica Lesser snakeroot Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Ambrosia artemisiifolia Annual ragweed Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Ambrosia trifida var. trifida Great ragweed Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Antennaria plantaginifolia Plantain-leaf pussytoes Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Antennaria solitaria Single-head pussytoes Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Arnoglossum atriplicifolium Pale Indian-plantain Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Bidens aristosa Bearded beggarticks Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Bidens bipinnata Spanish-needles Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Bidens frondosa Devil's beggar-ticks Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Bidens tripartita Three-lobe beggar-ticks Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Brickellia eupatorioides False boneset Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Carduus nutans Musk thistle Present in Park Non-Native

Asteraceae Chrysopsis mariana Maryland golden aster Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Cichorium intybus Chicory Present in Park Non-Native

Asteraceae Cirsium discolor Field thistle Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Cirsium muticum Swamp thistle Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle Present in Park Non-Native

Asteraceae Conoclinium coelestinum Blue mistflower Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Conyza canadensis Canada horseweed Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Coreopsis lanceolata Lanceleaf tickseed Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Coreopsis major Wood tickseed Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Coreopsis tripteris Tall tickseed Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Doellingeria infirma Cornel-leaf whitetop Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Doellingeria umbellata var.

umbellata

Parasol whitetop Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Elephantopus carolinianus Carolina elephant-foot Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Elephantopus tomentosus Tobaccoweed Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Erechtites hieraciifolia var.

hieraciifolia

American burnweed Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Erigeron annuus White-top fleabane Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Erigeron philadelphicus Philadelphia fleabane Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Erigeron pulchellus Robin plantain fleabane Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Erigeron strigosus Daisy fleabane Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Eupatorium album var. album White thoroughwort Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Eupatorium fistulosum Hollow joe-pye weed Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Eupatorium purpureum var.

purpureum

Sweetscented 

joepyeweed

Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Eupatorium rotundifolium var.

ovatum

Hairy boneset Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Eupatorium serotinum Late-flowering thoroughwortPresent in Park Native

Asteraceae Eupatorium sessilifolium Upland boneset Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Eupatorium steelei Steele's eupatorium Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Eurybia divaricata White wood aster Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Eurybia surculosa Creeping aster Present in Park Native
167

Family Scientific Name Common name Occurrence Nativity

Asteraceae Fleischmannia incarnata Pink thoroughwort Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Galinsoga quadriradiata Fringed quickweed Present in Park Non-Native

Asteraceae Gamochaeta purpurea Spoon-leaf purple 

everlasting

Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Helenium autumnale var.

autumnale

Common sneezeweed Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Helenium flexuosum Purple-head sneezeweed Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Helianthus atrorubens Purple-disk sunflower Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Helianthus decapetalus Thin-leaved sunflower Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Helianthus divaricatus Woodland sunflower Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Helianthus hirsutus Stiff-hair sunflower Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Helianthus laevigatus Smooth sunflower Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Helianthus microcephalus Small wood sunflower Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Helianthus tuberosus Jerusalem artichoke Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Heliopsis helianthoides Ox-eye Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Hieracium caespitosum Meadow hawkweed Present in Park Non-Native

Asteraceae Hieracium gronovii Hairy hawkweed Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Hieracium paniculatum Panicled hawkweed Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Hieracium scabrum Rough hawkweed Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Hieracium venosum Rattlesnake hawkweed Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Ionactis linariifolius Flaxleaf aster Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Krigia biflora Two-flowered dwarf 

dandelion

Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Krigia virginica Dwarf dandelion Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Lactuca canadensis Canada lettuce Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Lactuca floridana Woodland lettuce Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Lactuca saligna Willowleaf lettuce Present in Park Non-Native

Asteraceae Leucanthemum vulgare Oxeye daisy Present in Park Non-Native

Asteraceae Liatris aspera Tall gay-feather Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Oclemena acuminata Whorled wood aster Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Oligoneuron rigidum var.

rigidum

Stiff goldenrod Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Packera anonyma Small's ragwort Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Packera aurea Golden ragwort Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Packera obovata Roundleaf ragwort Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Pityopsis graminifolia var.

graminifolia

Silkgrass Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Pityopsis graminifolia var.

latifolia

Narrowleaf silkgrass Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Polymnia canadensis White-flower leafcup Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Prenanthes altissima Tall rattlesnake-root Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Prenanthes serpentaria Cankerweed Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Prenanthes trifoliolata Gall of the earth Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Pseudognaphalium obtusifolium Rabbit tobacco Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Pseudognaphalium obtusifolium 

ssp. obtusifolium

Rabbittobacco Present in Park Native
168

Family Scientific Name Common name Occurrence Nativity

Asteraceae Pyrrhopappus carolinianus Carolina false-dandelion Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Rudbeckia fulgida Orange coneflower Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Rudbeckia fulgida var. umbrosa Orange coneflower Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Rudbeckia hirta Black-eyed susan Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Rudbeckia laciniata Cut-leaved coneflower Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Rudbeckia triloba Brown-eyed Susan Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Sericocarpus linifolius Narrowleaf whitetop aster Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Silphium asteriscus var.

asteriscus

Roughleaf rosinweed, 

starry rosinweed

Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Silphium terebinthinaceum Prairie rosinweed Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Silphium trifoliatum Three-leaved rosinweed Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Silphium trifoliatum var.

latifolium

Whorled rosinweed Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Silphium trifoliatum var.

trifoliatum

Three-leaved rosinweed Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Smallanthus uvedalius Yellow-flowered leafcup Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Solidago arguta Atlantic goldenrod Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Solidago arguta var. arguta Cut-leaved golden-rod Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Solidago arguta var. caroliniana Atlantic goldenrod Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Solidago bicolor White goldenrod Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Solidago caesia Bluestem goldenrod Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Solidago caesia var. curtisii Mountain decumbent 

goldenrod

Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Solidago canadensis var.

scabra

Canada goldenrod Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Solidago flaccidifolia Appalachian golden-rod Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Solidago flexicaulis Broad-leaved goldenrod Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Solidago gigantea Late goldenrod Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Solidago nemoralis var.

nemoralis

Gray goldenrod Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Solidago odora var. odora Anisescented goldenrod Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Solidago patula Roundleaf goldenrod Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Solidago roanensis Roan mountain 

goldenrod

Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Solidago rugosa Wrinkleleaf goldenrod Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Solidago rugosa ssp. rugosa 

var. rugosa

Rough-leaf goldenrod Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Solidago speciosa var. erecta Showy goldenrod Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Solidago sphacelata Autumn goldenrod Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Solidago ulmifolia var. ulmifolia Elmleaf goldenrod Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Sonchus asper Spiny-leaf sowthistle Present in Park Non-Native

Asteraceae Symphyotrichum cordifolium Common blue wood aster Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Symphyotrichum dumosum var.

dumosum

Rice button aster Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Symphyotrichum laeve Smooth blue aster Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Symphyotrichum laeve var.

concinnum

Smooth blue aster Present in Park Native
169

Family Scientific Name Common name Occurrence Nativity

Asteraceae Symphyotrichum lanceolatum 

ssp. lanceolatum var.

lanceolatum

White panicle aster Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Symphyotrichum lateriflorum Calico aster Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Symphyotrichum lateriflorum 

var. lateriflorum

Calico aster Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Symphyotrichum lowrieanum Lowrie's blue wood aster Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Symphyotrichum oblongifolium Aromatic aster Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Symphyotrichum patens Late purple aster Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Symphyotrichum patens var.

patens

Late purple aster Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Symphyotrichum phlogifolium Phlox-leaf aster Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Symphyotrichum pilosum var.

pilosum

Hairy white oldfield aster Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Symphyotrichum prenanthoides Crookedstem aster Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Symphyotrichum undulatum Waxyleaf aster Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Taraxacum officinale ssp.

officinale

Wandering dandelion Present in Park Non-Native

Asteraceae Tussilago farfara Coltsfoot Present in Park Non-Native

Asteraceae Verbesina alternifolia Wingstem Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Verbesina occidentalis Yellow crownbeard Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Verbesina virginica var.

virginica

White crownbeard Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Vernonia gigantea ssp.

gigantea

Ironweed Present in Park Native

Asteraceae Xanthium strumarium Rough cocklebur Present in Park Native

Callitrichaceae Callitriche heterophylla Large water-starwort Present in Park Native

Campanulaceae Campanula divaricata Southern harebell Present in Park Native

Campanulaceae Campanulastrum americanum Tall bellflower Present in Park Native

Campanulaceae Lobelia cardinalis Cardinal flower Present in Park Native

Campanulaceae Lobelia inflata Indian-tobacco Present in Park Native

Campanulaceae Lobelia puberula Downy lobelia Present in Park Native

Campanulaceae Lobelia siphilitica var. siphilitica Great blue lobelia Present in Park Native

Campanulaceae Lobelia spicata Pale-spiked lobelia Present in Park Native

Campanulaceae Triodanis perfoliata var.

perfoliata

Clasping venus' lookingglassPresent in Park Native

Brassicaceae Arabis canadensis Sicklepod Present in Park Native

Brassicaceae Arabis laevigata Smooth rockcress Present in Park Native

Brassicaceae Arabis lyrata Lyre-leaf rockcress Present in Park Native

Brassicaceae Barbarea verna Early yellowrocket Present in Park Non-Native

Brassicaceae Barbarea vulgaris Yellow rocket Present in Park Non-Native

Brassicaceae Brassica napus Turnip Present in Park Non-Native

Brassicaceae Brassica rapa Field mustard Present in Park Non-Native

Brassicaceae Capsella bursa-pastoris Common shepherd's 

purse

Present in Park Non-Native

Brassicaceae Cardamine angustata Slender toothwort Present in Park Native

Brassicaceae Cardamine concatenata Cutleaf toothwort Present in Park Native
170

Family Scientific Name Common name Occurrence Nativity

Brassicaceae Cardamine diphylla Two-leaf toothwort Present in Park Native

Brassicaceae Cardamine hirsuta Hairy bitter-cress Present in Park Non-Native

Brassicaceae Cardamine pensylvanica Pennsylvania bitter-cress Present in Park Native

Brassicaceae Cardamine rotundifolia Round-leaf water cress Present in Park Native

Brassicaceae Hesperis matronalis Dames rocket Present in Park Non-Native

Brassicaceae Lepidium campestre Field pepperweed Present in Park Non-Native

Brassicaceae Lepidium virginicum var.

virginicum

Virginia pepperweed Present in Park Native

Brassicaceae Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum Watercress Present in Park Non-Native

Brassicaceae Sinapis arvensis Corn-mustard Present in Park Non-Native

Amaranthaceae Amaranthus spinosus Spiny amaranth Present in Park Native

Caryophyllaceae Cerastium brachypodum Shortstalk chickweed Present in Park Native

Caryophyllaceae Cerastium fontanum ssp.

vulgare

Big chickweed Present in Park Non-Native

Caryophyllaceae Dianthus armeria Deptford-pink Present in Park Non-Native

Caryophyllaceae Minuartia glabra Appalachian sandwort Present in Park Native

Caryophyllaceae Paronychia argyrocoma Silvery nailwort Present in Park Native

Caryophyllaceae Paronychia canadensis Forked nailwort Present in Park Native

Caryophyllaceae Saponaria officinalis Bouncing-bet Present in Park Non-Native

Caryophyllaceae Silene ovata Ovate catchfly Present in Park Native

Caryophyllaceae Silene rotundifolia Roundleaf catchfly Present in Park Native

Caryophyllaceae Silene stellata Widowsfrill Present in Park Native

Caryophyllaceae Silene virginica Fire pink Present in Park Native

Caryophyllaceae Stellaria media Common starwort Present in Park Non-Native

Caryophyllaceae Stellaria pubera Giant chickweed Present in Park Native

Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium album White goosefoot Present in Park Non-Native

Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium ambrosioides 

var. ambrosioides

Mexican tea Present in Park Non-Native

Molluginaceae Mollugo verticillata Green carpet-weed Present in Park Native

Phytolaccaceae Phytolacca americana Common pokeweed Present in Park Native

Portulacaceae Claytonia caroliniana Carolina spring-beauty Present in Park Native

Portulacaceae Claytonia virginica Narrow-leaved spring 

beauty

Present in Park Native

Aquifoliaceae Ilex ambigua Carolina holly Present in Park Native

Aquifoliaceae Ilex decidua Possumhaw Present in Park Native

Aquifoliaceae Ilex montana Mountain holly Present in Park Native

Aquifoliaceae Ilex opaca var. opaca American holly Present in Park Native

Celastraceae Celastrus orbiculatus Oriental bittersweet Present in Park Non-Native

Celastraceae Celastrus scandens Climbing bittersweet Present in Park Native

Celastraceae Euonymus americana American strawberrybush Present in Park Native

Celastraceae Euonymus atropurpurea Eastern wahoo Present in Park Native

Commelinaceae Commelina communis Asiatic dayflower Present in Park Non-Native

Commelinaceae Tradescantia ohiensis Ohio spiderwort Present in Park Native

Commelinaceae Tradescantia subaspera Zigzag spiderwort Present in Park Native
171

Family Scientific Name Common name Occurrence Nativity

Commelinaceae Tradescantia virginiana Virginia spiderwort Present in Park Native

Cornaceae Cornus alternifolia Alternate-leaf dogwood Present in Park Native

Cornaceae Cornus amomum Silky dogwood Present in Park Native

Cornaceae Cornus florida Flowering dogwood Present in Park Native

Nyssaceae Nyssa biflora Swamp tupelo Present in Park Native

Nyssaceae Nyssa sylvatica Black gum Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex abscondita Thicket sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex albicans Whitetinge sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex albicans var. albicans Whitetinge sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex amphibola Eastern narrowleaf sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex appalachica Appalachian sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex atlantica ssp. atlantica Prickly bog sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex austrocaroliniana Tarheel sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex baileyi Bailey's sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex blanda Woodland sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex bromoides Bromelike sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex careyana Carey's sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex cephalophora Oval-leaved sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex crinita Fringed sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex cumberlandensis Cumberland sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex debilis White edge sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex debilis var. pubera White edge sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex debilis var. rudgei White-edge sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex digitalis Slender wood sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex frankii Frank's sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex gracillima Graceful sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex gynandra Nodding sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex hirsutella Fuzzy wuzzy sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex interior Inland sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex intumescens Bladder sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex jamesii James' sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex laevivaginata Smooth-sheath sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex laxiculmis Spreading sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex laxiflora Loose-flowered sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex leavenworthii Leavenworth's sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex leptalea Bristly-stalk sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex lucorum Blue ridge sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex lucorum var. lucorum Blue ridge sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex lurida Shallow sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex mesochorea Midland sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex muehlenbergii var.

enervis

Muhlenberg's sedge Present in Park Native
172

Family Scientific Name Common name Occurrence Nativity

Cyperaceae Carex nigromarginata Black edge sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex normalis Greater straw sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex pensylvanica Pennsylvania sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex plantaginea Plantainleaf sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex platyphylla Broad-leaved sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex prasina Drooping sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex projecta Necklace sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex purpurifera Purple sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex radiata Stellate sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex retroflexa Reflexed sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex rosea Rosy sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex scabrata Rough sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex striatula Lined sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex styloflexa Bent sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex swanii Swan sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex torta Twisted sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex tribuloides Blunt broom sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex virescens Ribbed sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Carex vulpinoidea Fox sedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Cyperus retrofractus Rough flatsedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Cyperus strigosus Straw-colored flatsedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Eleocharis tenuis Slender spike-rush Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Eriophorum virginicum Tawny cottongrass Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Kyllinga gracillima Spikesedge Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Rhynchospora capitellata Brownish beakrush Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Scirpus cyperinus Cottongrass bulrush Present in Park Native

Cyperaceae Scirpus polyphyllus Leafy bulrush Present in Park Native

Poaceae Agrostis hyemalis Winter bentgrass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Agrostis perennans Perenial bentgrass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Agrostis stolonifera Spreading bentgrass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Andropogon gerardii Big bluestem Present in Park Native

Poaceae Andropogon virginicus Broom-sedge Present in Park Native

Poaceae Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet vernalgrass Present in Park Non-Native

Poaceae Arundinaria gigantea Giant cane Present in Park Native

Poaceae Avena sativa Common oat Present in Park Non-Native

Poaceae Brachyelytrum erectum Bearded short-husk Present in Park Native

Poaceae Bromus japonicus Japanese brome Present in Park Non-Native

Poaceae Bromus pubescens Hairy wood brome grass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Calamagrostis porteri Porter's reedgrass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Calamagrostis porteri ssp.

porteri

Porter's reedgrass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Chasmanthium latifolium Indian woodoats Present in Park Native
173

Family Scientific Name Common name Occurrence Nativity

Poaceae Cinna arundinacea Stout wood reed-grass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Cinna latifolia Slender wood reedgrass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Dactylis glomerata ssp.

glomerata

Orchardgrass Present in Park Non-Native

Poaceae Danthonia compressa Flattened oatgrass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Danthonia sericea Silky oatgrass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Danthonia spicata Poverty oatgrass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Deschampsia flexuosa Wavy hairgrass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Diarrhena americana American beakgrain Present in Park Native

Poaceae Dichanthelium acuminatum Tapered rosette grass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Dichanthelium acuminatum var.

acuminatum

Tapered rosette grass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Dichanthelium acuminatum var.

fasciculatum

Western panicgrass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Dichanthelium boscii Bosc's witchgrass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Dichanthelium clandestinum Deertongue Present in Park Native

Poaceae Dichanthelium commutatum Variable witchgrass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Dichanthelium dichotomum Cypress witchgrass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Dichanthelium dichotomum var.

dichotomum

Cypress witchgrass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Dichanthelium latifolium Broad-leaf witchgrass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Dichanthelium laxiflorum Openflower rosette grass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Dichanthelium sphaerocarpon Roundseed panicum Present in Park Native

Poaceae Dichanthelium sphaerocarpon 

var. isophyllum

Roundfruit panicgrass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Dichanthelium sphaerocarpon 

var. sphaerocarpon

Roundfruit panic grass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Digitaria ciliaris Southern crabgrass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Echinochloa crus-galli Barnyard grass Present in Park Non-Native

Poaceae Eleusine indica Indian goosegrass Present in Park Non-Native

Poaceae Elymus canadensis Nodding wild-rye Present in Park Native

Poaceae Elymus hystrix Bottle-brush grass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Elymus villosus Slender wild-rye Present in Park Native

Poaceae Elymus virginicus Virginia wild-rye Present in Park Native

Poaceae Eragrostis spectabilis Purple love-grass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Festuca rubra Red fescue Present in Park Native

Poaceae Festuca subverticillata Nodding fescue Present in Park Native

Poaceae Glyceria melicaria Slender manna grass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Glyceria striata Fowl manna-grass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Leersia virginica Virginia cutgrass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Lolium arundinaceum Tall fescue Present in Park Non-Native

Poaceae Lolium perenne Perennial ryegrass Present in Park Non-Native

Poaceae Lolium perenne ssp. multiflorum Perennial ryegrass Present in Park Non-Native

Poaceae Microstegium vimineum Nepalese browntop Present in Park Non-Native

Poaceae Miscanthus sinensis Chinese silvergrass Present in Park Non-Native
174

Family Scientific Name Common name Occurrence Nativity

Poaceae Muhlenbergia frondosa Wirestem muhly Present in Park Native

Poaceae Muhlenbergia schreberi Schreber muhly Present in Park Native

Poaceae Muhlenbergia sobolifera Cliff muhly Present in Park Native

Poaceae Muhlenbergia tenuiflora Slender muhly Present in Park Native

Poaceae Panicum anceps Beaked panic grass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Panicum capillare Common panic grass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Panicum dichotomiflorum Fall panic grass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Panicum gattingeri Gattinger's panic grass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Paspalum dilatatum Dallisgrass Present in Park Non-Native

Poaceae Paspalum pubiflorum Hairy-seed paspalum Present in Park Native

Poaceae Paspalum setaceum Thin paspalum Present in Park Native

Poaceae Pennisetum glaucum Pearl millet, pearl-millet, 

yellow bristlegrass

Present in Park Non-Native

Poaceae Phleum pratense Meadow timothy Present in Park Non-Native

Poaceae Poa alsodes Grove bluegrass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Poa annua Annual bluegrass Present in Park Non-Native

Poaceae Poa autumnalis Autumn bluegrass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Poa compressa Canada bluegrass Present in Park Non-Native

Poaceae Poa cuspidata Early bluegrass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass Present in Park Non-Native

Poaceae Poa sylvestris Woodland bluegrass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Poa trivialis Rough bluegrass Present in Park Non-Native

Poaceae Saccharum alopecuroidum Silver plume grass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Schizachyrium scoparium Little bluestem Present in Park Native

Poaceae Setaria parviflora Bristly foxtail Present in Park Native

Poaceae Setaria viridis Green bristle grass Present in Park Non-Native

Poaceae Sorghastrum nutans Yellow Indian-grass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Sorghum halepense Johnsongrass Present in Park Non-Native

Poaceae Sphenopholis nitida Shiny wedge grass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Sphenopholis obtusata Prairie wedgescale Present in Park Native

Poaceae Tridens flavus Tall purple-top fluffgrass Present in Park Native

Poaceae Tripsacum dactyloides Eastern gamagrass Present in Park Native

Diapensiaceae Galax urceolata Beetleweed Present in Park Native

Caprifoliaceae Lonicera dioica Limber honeysuckle Present in Park Native

Caprifoliaceae Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle Present in Park Non-Native

Caprifoliaceae Lonicera maackii Amur honeysuckle Present in Park Non-Native

Caprifoliaceae Sambucus nigra ssp.

canadensis

Blue elder, common 

elderberry, elder

Present in Park Native

Caprifoliaceae Symphoricarpos orbiculatus Coral-berry Present in Park Native

Caprifoliaceae Triosteum aurantiacum Horse-gentian Present in Park Native

Caprifoliaceae Triosteum aurantiacum var.

aurantiacum

Orangefruit horsegentian Present in Park Native

Caprifoliaceae Triosteum perfoliatum Feverwort Present in Park Native
175

Family Scientific Name Common name Occurrence Nativity

Caprifoliaceae Viburnum acerifolium Maple-leaf arrowood Present in Park Native

Caprifoliaceae Viburnum nudum var.

cassinoides

Possumhaw Present in Park Native

Caprifoliaceae Viburnum opulus Eureopean 

cranberrybush

Present in Park Non-Native

Caprifoliaceae Viburnum prunifolium Smooth black-haw Present in Park Native

Caprifoliaceae Viburnum rufidulum Rusty blackhaw Present in Park Native

Dipsacaceae Dipsacus fullonum ssp.

sylvestris

Common teasel, Fuller's 

teasel, teasel

Present in Park Non-Native

Valerianaceae Valerianella locusta Lewiston cornsalad Present in Park Non-Native

Ebenaceae Diospyros virginiana Persimmon Present in Park Native

Equisetaceae Equisetum arvense Field horsetail Present in Park Native

Equisetaceae Equisetum hyemale var. affine Scouringrush horsetail, 

stout scouringrush, tall 

scouring-rush

Present in Park Native

Clethraceae Clethra acuminata Mountain pepper-bush Present in Park Native

Ericaceae Epigaea repens Trailing arbutus Present in Park Native

Ericaceae Gaultheria procumbens Teaberry Present in Park Native

Ericaceae Gaylussacia baccata Black huckleberry Present in Park Native

Ericaceae Kalmia latifolia Mountain laurel Present in Park Native

Ericaceae Lyonia ligustrina Maleberry Present in Park Native

Ericaceae Oxydendrum arboreum Sourwood Present in Park Native

Ericaceae Rhododendron calendulaceum Flame azalea Present in Park Native

Ericaceae Rhododendron catawbiense Catawba rhododendron Present in Park Native

Ericaceae Rhododendron cumberlandense Cumberland 

rhododendron

Present in Park Native

Ericaceae Rhododendron maximum Great rhododendron Present in Park Native

Ericaceae Rhododendron minus Carolina rhododendron Present in Park Native

Ericaceae Rhododendron prinophyllum Early azalea Present in Park Native

Ericaceae Vaccinium corymbosum Highbush blueberry Present in Park Native

Ericaceae Vaccinium erythrocarpum Southern mountain 

cranberry

Present in Park Native

Ericaceae Vaccinium pallidum Early lowbush blueberry Present in Park Native

Ericaceae Vaccinium simulatum Upland highbush 

blueberry

Present in Park Native

Ericaceae Vaccinium stamineum Squaw huckleberry Present in Park Native

Monotropaceae Monotropa hypopithys American pinesap Present in Park Native

Monotropaceae Monotropa uniflora Indian-pipe Present in Park Native

Pyrolaceae Chimaphila maculata Spotted wintergreen Present in Park Native

Euphorbiaceae Acalypha rhomboidea Virginia threeseed 

mercury

Present in Park Native

Euphorbiaceae Acalypha virginica Virginia threeseed 

mercury

Present in Park Native

Euphorbiaceae Chamaesyce maculata Devil's-bit Present in Park Native

Euphorbiaceae Chamaesyce nutans Eyebane Present in Park Native

Euphorbiaceae Croton monanthogynus Prairie tea Present in Park Native

Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia corollata Flowering spurge Present in Park Native
176

Family Scientific Name Common name Occurrence Nativity

Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia dentata var. dentata Toothed spurge, 

toothedleaf poinsettia

Present in Park Native

Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia mercurialina Mercury spurge Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Albizia julibrissin Silk tree Present in Park Non-Native

Fabaceae Amphicarpaea bracteata American hog-peanut Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Apios americana American groundnut Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Cercis canadensis var.

canadensis

Redbud Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Chamaecrista fasciculata var.

fasciculata

Sleepingplant Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Chamaecrista nictitans ssp.

nictitans var. nictitans

Partridge pea Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Clitoria mariana Maryland butterfly-pea Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Coronilla varia Common crown-vetch Present in Park Non-Native

Fabaceae Desmodium canescens Hoary tick-treefoil Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Desmodium cuspidatum Largebract ticktrefoil Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Desmodium glabellum Dillenius' tick-trefoil Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Desmodium glutinosum Large tick-trefoil Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Desmodium laevigatum Smooth tick-trefoil Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Desmodium nudiflorum Bare-stemmed ticktreefoil

Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Desmodium obtusum Stiff tick-trefoil Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Desmodium paniculatum Narrow-leaf tick-trefoil Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Desmodium pauciflorum Fewflower ticktrefoil Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Desmodium rotundifolium Prostrate tick-treefoil Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Desmodium strictum Pinebarren ticktrefoil Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Desmodium viridiflorum Velvety tick-treefoil Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Galactia volubilis Downy milkpea Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Gleditsia triacanthos Honey-locust Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Kummerowia stipulacea Korean clover Present in Park Non-Native

Fabaceae Kummerowia striata Common korean-clover Present in Park Non-Native

Fabaceae Lathyrus latifolius Broad-leaf peavine Present in Park Non-Native

Fabaceae Lathyrus venosus Smooth veiny peavine Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Lespedeza cuneata Chinese lespedeza Present in Park Non-Native

Fabaceae Lespedeza frutescens Wand bush-clover Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Lespedeza hirta Hairy bush-clover Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Lespedeza procumbens Trailing bush-clover Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Lespedeza repens Creeping bush-clover Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Lespedeza violacea Violet lespedeza Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Lespedeza virginica Slender lespedeza Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Lotus corniculatus Birdfood deervetch Present in Park Non-Native

Fabaceae Medicago lupulina Black medick Present in Park Non-Native

Fabaceae Melilotus officinalis Yellow sweetclover Present in Park Non-Native

Fabaceae Phaseolus polystachios Wild kidney bean Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Pueraria montana var. lobata Kudzu Present in Park Non-Native
177

Family Scientific Name Common name Occurrence Nativity

Fabaceae Robinia hispida Bristly locust Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Robinia hispida var. rosea Bristly locust Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Robinia pseudoacacia Black locust Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Senna marilandica Maryland senna Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Tephrosia virginiana Goat's-rue Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Trifolium campestre Low hop clover Present in Park Non-Native

Fabaceae Trifolium hybridum Alsike clover Present in Park Non-Native

Fabaceae Trifolium pratense Red clover Present in Park Non-Native

Fabaceae Trifolium repens White clover Present in Park Non-Native

Fabaceae Vicia caroliniana Carolina wood vetch Present in Park Native

Fabaceae Vicia sativa ssp. nigra Garden vetch Present in Park Non-Native

Betulaceae Alnus serrulata Brook-side alder Present in Park Native

Betulaceae Betula alleghaniensis Yellow birch Present in Park Native

Betulaceae Betula lenta Sweet birch Present in Park Native

Betulaceae Betula nigra River birch Present in Park Native

Betulaceae Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Present in Park Native

Betulaceae Corylus americana American hazelnut Present in Park Native

Betulaceae Ostrya virginiana Eastern hop-hornbeam Present in Park Native

Fagaceae Castanea dentata American chestnut Present in Park Native

Fagaceae Castanea pumila var. pumila Allegheny chinkapin Present in Park Native

Fagaceae Fagus grandifolia American beech Present in Park Native

Fagaceae Quercus alba White oak Present in Park Native

Fagaceae Quercus coccinea Scarlet oak Present in Park Native

Fagaceae Quercus falcata Southern red oak Present in Park Native

Fagaceae Quercus marilandica Blackjack oak Present in Park Native

Fagaceae Quercus muehlenbergii Chinkapin oak Present in Park Native

Fagaceae Quercus phellos Willow oak Present in Park Native

Fagaceae Quercus prinus Chestnut oak Present in Park Native

Fagaceae Quercus rubra Northern red oak Present in Park Native

Fagaceae Quercus stellata Post oak Present in Park Native

Fagaceae Quercus velutina Black oak Present in Park Native

Apocynaceae Apocynum cannabinum Indian-hemp Present in Park Native

Apocynaceae Vinca minor Common periwinkle Present in Park Non-Native

Asclepiadaceae Asclepias exaltata Poke milkweed Present in Park Native

Asclepiadaceae Asclepias incarnata Swamp milkweed Present in Park Native

Asclepiadaceae Asclepias quadrifolia Whorled milkweed Present in Park Native

Asclepiadaceae Asclepias syriaca Common milkweed Present in Park Native

Asclepiadaceae Asclepias tuberosa Butterfly milkweed Present in Park Native

Asclepiadaceae Asclepias variegata White milkweed Present in Park Native

Asclepiadaceae Asclepias verticillata Whorled milkweed Present in Park Native

Asclepiadaceae Asclepias viridiflora Green milkweed Present in Park Native
178

Family Scientific Name Common name Occurrence Nativity

Gentianaceae Gentiana decora Showy gentian Present in Park Native

Gentianaceae Gentiana saponaria var.

saponaria

Harvestbells Present in Park Native

Gentianaceae Gentiana villosa Striped gentian Present in Park Native

Gentianaceae Obolaria virginica Virginia pennywort Present in Park Native

Gentianaceae Sabatia angularis Square-stemmed rose 

pink

Present in Park Native

Balsaminaceae Impatiens capensis Spotted jewel-weed Present in Park Native

Balsaminaceae Impatiens pallida Pale jewel-weed Present in Park Native

Geraniaceae Geranium carolinianum var.

carolinianum

Carolina geranium Present in Park Native

Geraniaceae Geranium maculatum Wild crane's-bill Present in Park Native

Oxalidaceae Oxalis grandis Great yellow wood-sorrel Present in Park Native

Oxalidaceae Oxalis montana White wood-sorrel Present in Park Native

Oxalidaceae Oxalis stricta Upright yellow woodsorrelPresent in Park Native

Oxalidaceae Oxalis violacea Violet wood-sorrel Present in Park Native

Ginkgoaceae Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair tree Present in Park Non-Native

Hamamelidaceae Hamamelis virginiana American witch-hazel Present in Park Native

Hamamelidaceae Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet gum Present in Park Native

Platanaceae Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Present in Park Native

Juglandaceae Carya alba Mockernut hickory Present in Park Native

Juglandaceae Carya cordiformis Bitter-nut hickory Present in Park Native

Juglandaceae Carya glabra Sweet pignut hickory Present in Park Native

Juglandaceae Carya laciniosa Big shellbark hickory Present in Park Native

Juglandaceae Carya ovalis Red hickory Present in Park Native

Juglandaceae Carya ovata Shag-bark hickory Present in Park Native

Juglandaceae Carya pallida Sand hickory Present in Park Native

Juglandaceae Juglans cinerea Butternut Present in Park Native

Juglandaceae Juglans nigra Black walnut Present in Park Native

Juncaceae Juncus coriaceus Leathery rush Present in Park Native

Juncaceae Juncus debilis Weak rush Present in Park Native

Juncaceae Juncus effusus Soft rush Present in Park Native

Juncaceae Juncus interior Inland rush Present in Park Native

Juncaceae Juncus subcaudatus Woods-rush Present in Park Native

Juncaceae Juncus tenuis Slender rush Present in Park Native

Juncaceae Luzula acuminata Hairy woodrush Present in Park Native

Juncaceae Luzula bulbosa Southern woodrush Present in Park Native

Juncaceae Luzula echinata Wood rush Present in Park Native

Boraginaceae Cynoglossum virginianum var.

virginianum

Wild comfrey Present in Park Native

Boraginaceae Lithospermum canescens Hoary puccoon Present in Park Native

Boraginaceae Lithospermum latifolium American gromwell Present in Park Native

Boraginaceae Myosotis arvensis Field forget-me-not Present in Park Non-Native

Boraginaceae Myosotis macrosperma Largeseed forget-me-not Present in Park Native
179

Family Scientific Name Common name Occurrence Nativity

Boraginaceae Myosotis verna Spring forget-me-not Present in Park Native

Lamiaceae Blephilia ciliata Downy woodmint Present in Park Native

Lamiaceae Blephilia hirsuta var. hirsuta Hairy pagoda-plant Present in Park Native

Lamiaceae Clinopodium vulgare Field basil Present in Park Native

Lamiaceae Collinsonia canadensis Canada horse-balm Present in Park Native

Lamiaceae Cunila origanoides Common dittany Present in Park Native

Lamiaceae Glechoma hederacea Ground ivy Present in Park Non-Native

Lamiaceae Hedeoma pulegioides American falsepennyroyalPresent in Park Native

Lamiaceae Isanthus brachiatus False pennyroyal, 

fluxweed

Present in Park Native

Lamiaceae Lamium amplexicaule Common deadnettle Present in Park Non-Native

Lamiaceae Lamium purpureum Purple deadnettle Present in Park Non-Native

Lamiaceae Lycopus virginicus Virginia bugleweed Present in Park Native

Lamiaceae Marrubium vulgare Common hoarhound Present in Park Non-Native

Lamiaceae Monarda clinopodia Basil bee-balm Present in Park Native

Lamiaceae Monarda fistulosa Wild bergamot Present in Park Native

Lamiaceae Perilla frutescens Beef-steak plant Present in Park Non-Native

Lamiaceae Physostegia virginiana Obedient-plant Present in Park Native

Lamiaceae Prunella vulgaris Self-heal Present in Park Native

Lamiaceae Pycnanthemum incanum Hoary mountain-mint Present in Park Native

Lamiaceae Pycnanthemum 

pycnanthemoides

Southern mountain-mint Present in Park Native

Lamiaceae Salvia lyrata Lyre-leaf sage Present in Park Native

Lamiaceae Salvia urticifolia Nettle-leaf sage Present in Park Native

Lamiaceae Scutellaria elliptica Hairy skullcap Present in Park Native

Lamiaceae Scutellaria elliptica var. hirsuta Hairy skullcap Present in Park Native

Lamiaceae Scutellaria incana Hoary skullcap Present in Park Native

Lamiaceae Scutellaria ovata Heartleaf skullcap Probably 

Present

Native

Lamiaceae Scutellaria serrata Showy skullcap Present in Park Native

Lamiaceae Stachys nuttallii Nuttall's hedge-nettle Present in Park Native

Lamiaceae Teucrium canadense Candad germander Present in Park Native

Lamiaceae Teucrium canadense var.

canadense

Canada germander Present in Park Native

Lamiaceae Trichostema dichotomum Forked bluecurls Present in Park Native

Verbenaceae Phryma leptostachya Lopseed Present in Park Native

Verbenaceae Verbena urticifolia White vervain Present in Park Native

Lauraceae Lindera benzoin Spicebush Present in Park Native

Lauraceae Sassafras albidum Sassafras Present in Park Native

Agavaceae Yucca filamentosa Common yucca Present in Park Native

Dioscoreaceae Dioscorea oppositifolia Chinese yam Present in Park Non-Native

Dioscoreaceae Dioscorea quaternata Fourleaf yam Present in Park Native

Dioscoreaceae Dioscorea villosa Yellow yam Present in Park Native

Iridaceae Belamcanda chinensis Blackberry lily Present in Park Non-Native
180

Family Scientific Name Common name Occurrence Nativity

Iridaceae Hypoxis hirsuta Eastern yellow stargrass Present in Park Native

Iridaceae Iris cristata Crested dwarf iris Present in Park Native

Iridaceae Sisyrinchium albidum White blue-eyed grass Present in Park Native

Iridaceae Sisyrinchium angustifolium Pointed blue-eyed-grass Present in Park Native

Liliaceae Allium cernuum Nodding onion Present in Park Native

Liliaceae Allium tricoccum Wild leek Present in Park Native

Liliaceae Allium vineale ssp. vineale Wild garlic Present in Park Non-Native

Liliaceae Amianthium muscitoxicum Fly-poison Present in Park Native

Liliaceae Chamaelirium luteum Devil's-bit Present in Park Native

Liliaceae Clintonia umbellulata White bluebead-lily Present in Park Native

Liliaceae Convallaria majuscula Convallaria Present in Park Native

Liliaceae Erythronium americanum Yellow trout-lily Present in Park Native

Liliaceae Hemerocallis fulva Orange daylily Present in Park Non-Native

Liliaceae Lilium canadense Canada lily Present in Park Native

Liliaceae Maianthemum canadense False lily-of-the-valley Present in Park Native

Liliaceae Maianthemum racemosum ssp.

racemosum

False Solomon's-seal Present in Park Native

Liliaceae Medeola virginiana Indian cucumber-root Present in Park Native

Liliaceae Melanthium parviflorum Small-flowered false 

helleborne

Present in Park Native

Liliaceae Polygonatum biflorum var.

commutatum

King Solomon's seal, 

King Solomon's-seal, 

smooth Solomon's seal

Present in Park Native

Liliaceae Prosartes lanuginosa Present in Park Native

Liliaceae Prosartes maculata Present in Park Native

Liliaceae Streptopus lanceolatus var.

roseus

Twistedstalk Present in Park Native

Liliaceae Trillium erectum Stinking benjamin Present in Park Native

Liliaceae Trillium grandiflorum Large-flowered 

wakerobin

Present in Park Native

Liliaceae Trillium sulcatum Furrowed wakerobin Present in Park Native

Liliaceae Trillium undulatum Painted trillium Present in Park Native

Liliaceae Uvularia grandiflora Large-flowered bellwort Present in Park Native

Liliaceae Uvularia perfoliata Perfoliate bellwort Present in Park Native

Liliaceae Uvularia sessilifolia Sessile-leaf bellwort Present in Park Native

Smilacaceae Smilax bona-nox Saw greenbrier Present in Park Native

Smilacaceae Smilax ecirrata Upright carrionflower Present in Park Native

Smilacaceae Smilax glauca Glaucous-leaved 

greenbrier

Present in Park Native

Smilacaceae Smilax herbacea Smooth carrion-flower Present in Park Native

Smilacaceae Smilax hugeri Huger's carrion-flower Present in Park Native

Smilacaceae Smilax pulverulenta Downy carrion-flower Present in Park Native

Smilacaceae Smilax rotundifolia Common greenbrier Present in Park Native

Smilacaceae Smilax tamnoides Bristly greenbrier Present in Park Native

Linaceae Linum usitatissimum Common flax Present in Park Non-Native
181

Family Scientific Name Common name Occurrence Nativity

Linaceae Linum virginianum Virginia flax Present in Park Native

Lycopodiaceae Huperzia lucidula Shining clubmoss Present in Park Native

Lycopodiaceae Huperzia porophila Rock clubmoss Present in Park Native

Lycopodiaceae Lycopodium clavatum Running clubmoss Present in Park Native

Lycopodiaceae Lycopodium digitatum Shining clubmoss Present in Park Native

Lycopodiaceae Lycopodium obscurum Tree clubmoss Present in Park Native

Lycopodiaceae Lycopodium tristachyum Deep-root clubmoss Present in Park Native

Annonaceae Asimina triloba Pawpaw Present in Park Native

Magnoliaceae Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip tree Present in Park Native

Magnoliaceae Magnolia acuminata Cucumber magnolia Present in Park Native

Magnoliaceae Magnolia fraseri Fraser magnolia Present in Park Native

Magnoliaceae Magnolia macrophylla Bigleaf magnolia Present in Park Native

Magnoliaceae Magnolia tripetala Umbrella magnolia Present in Park Native

Malvaceae Hibiscus syriacus Rose-of-sharon Present in Park Non-Native

Malvaceae Malva neglecta Common mallow Present in Park Non-Native

Malvaceae Sida spinosa Prickly fanpetals Present in Park Native

Tiliaceae Tilia americana American basswood Present in Park Native

Tiliaceae Tilia americana var. americana American basswood Present in Park Native

Tiliaceae Tilia americana var.

heterophylla

White basswood Present in Park Native

Onagraceae Circaea lutetiana ssp.

canadensis

Intermediate enchanter's 

nightshade

Present in Park Native

Onagraceae Epilobium coloratum Purple-leaf willow-herb Present in Park Native

Onagraceae Gaura biennis Biennial gaura Present in Park Native

Onagraceae Ludwigia alternifolia Bushy seedbox Present in Park Native

Onagraceae Oenothera biennis Common eveningprimrosePresent in Park Native

Ophioglossaceae Botrychium dissectum Cutleaf grape-fern Present in Park Native

Ophioglossaceae Botrychium virginianum Rattlesnake fern Present in Park Native

Ophioglossaceae Ophioglossum vulgatum Southern adderstongue, 

Southern adder's-tongue

Present in Park Native

Orchidaceae Aplectrum hyemale Puttyroot Present in Park Native

Orchidaceae Corallorrhiza odontorhiza Autumn coral-root Present in Park Native

Orchidaceae Corallorrhiza wisteriana Spring coralroot Present in Park Native

Orchidaceae Cypripedium acaule Pink lady's-slipper Present in Park Native

Orchidaceae Cypripedium parviflorum Small yellow lady'sslipper

Present in Park Native

Orchidaceae Cypripedium parviflorum var.

pubescens

Present in Park Native

Orchidaceae Galearis spectabilis Showy orchis Present in Park Native

Orchidaceae Goodyera pubescens Downy rattlesnakeplantainPresent in Park Native

Orchidaceae Hexalectris spicata Crested coralroot Present in Park Native

Orchidaceae Isotria verticillata Large whorled pogonia Present in Park Native

Orchidaceae Liparis liliifolia Large twayblade Present in Park Native

Orchidaceae Listera smallii Kidney-leaf twayblade Probably Native
182

Family Scientific Name Common name Occurrence Nativity

Present

Orchidaceae Malaxis unifolia Green adder's-mouth Present in Park Native

Orchidaceae Platanthera ciliaris Yellow fringed orchid Present in Park Native

Orchidaceae Platanthera clavellata Small green woodland 

orchid

Present in Park Native

Orchidaceae Platanthera flava Pale green orchid Present in Park Native

Orchidaceae Platanthera lacera Green fringed orchid Present in Park Native

Orchidaceae Spiranthes cernua Nodding ladies'-tresses Present in Park Native

Orchidaceae Spiranthes lacera var. gracilis Southern slender 

ladies'tresses

Present in Park Native

Orchidaceae Spiranthes ovalis Lesser ladies'-tresses Present in Park Native

Orchidaceae Spiranthes praecox Greenvein ladiestresses, 

greenvein ladies'-tresses

Present in Park Native

Orchidaceae Spiranthes vernalis Twisted ladies'-tresses Present in Park Native

Orchidaceae Tipularia discolor Crippled cranefly Present in Park Native

Fumariaceae Adlumia fungosa Climbing fumitory Present in Park Native

Fumariaceae Corydalis sempervirens Pale corydalis Present in Park Native

Papaveraceae Sanguinaria canadensis Bloodroot Present in Park Native

Cupressaceae Juniperus virginiana var.

virginiana

Eastern redcedar Present in Park Native

Pinaceae Pinus echinata Arkansas pine Present in Park Native

Pinaceae Pinus rigida Pitch pine Present in Park Native

Pinaceae Pinus virginiana Virginia pine Present in Park Native

Pinaceae Tsuga canadensis Eastern hemlock Present in Park Native

Plantaginaceae Plantago lanceolata English plantain Present in Park Non-Native

Plantaginaceae Plantago major Great plantain Present in Park Native

Plantaginaceae Plantago rugelii Black-seed plantain Present in Park Native

Plantaginaceae Plantago virginica Pale-seeded plantain Present in Park Native

Polygalaceae Polygala sanguinea Field milkwort Present in Park Native

Polygalaceae Polygala senega Seneca snakeroot Present in Park Native

Polygonaceae Polygonum arifolium Halberd-leaf tearthumb Present in Park Native

Polygonaceae Polygonum aviculare Prostrate knotweed Present in Park Non-Native

Polygonaceae Polygonum caespitosum var.

longisetum

Oriental ladysthumb Present in Park Native

Polygonaceae Polygonum convolvulus Black bindweed Present in Park Non-Native

Polygonaceae Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed Present in Park Non-Native

Polygonaceae Polygonum pensylvanicum Pennsylvania smartweed Present in Park Native

Polygonaceae Polygonum persicaria Lady's thumb Present in Park Non-Native

Polygonaceae Polygonum punctatum Dotted smartweed Present in Park Native

Polygonaceae Polygonum sagittatum Arrow-leaved tearthumb Present in Park Native

Polygonaceae Polygonum scandens Climbing false-buckwheat Present in Park Native

Polygonaceae Polygonum virginianum Virginia knotweed Present in Park Native

Polygonaceae Rumex acetosella Sheep sorrel Present in Park Non-Native

Polygonaceae Rumex crispus Curly dock Present in Park Non-Native

Polygonaceae Rumex obtusifolius Bitter dock Present in Park Non-Native
183

Family Scientific Name Common name Occurrence Nativity

Aspleniaceae Asplenium montanum Mountain spleenwort Present in Park Native

Aspleniaceae Asplenium pinnatifidum Lobed spleenwort Present in Park Native

Aspleniaceae Asplenium platyneuron Ebony spleenwort Present in Park Native

Aspleniaceae Asplenium resiliens Black-stem spleenwort Present in Park Native

Aspleniaceae Asplenium rhizophyllum Walking-fern spleenwort Present in Park Native

Aspleniaceae Asplenium ruta-muraria Wallrue spleenwort Present in Park Native

Aspleniaceae Asplenium trichomanes Maidenhair spleenwort Present in Park Native

Blechnaceae Woodwardia areolata Netted chainfern Present in Park Native

Dennstaedtiaceae Dennstaedtia punctilobula Eastern hay-scented fern Present in Park Native

Dennstaedtiaceae Pteridium aquilinum Bracken fern Present in Park Native

Dryopteridaceae Athyrium filix-femina Common ladyfern Present in Park Native

Dryopteridaceae Athyrium filix-femina ssp.

asplenioides

Asplenium ladyfern Present in Park Native

Dryopteridaceae Cystopteris bulbifera Bulblet fern Present in Park Native

Dryopteridaceae Cystopteris protrusa Lowland brittle fern Present in Park Native

Dryopteridaceae Deparia acrostichoides Silvery spleenwort Present in Park Native

Dryopteridaceae Diplazium pycnocarpon Glade fern Present in Park Native

Dryopteridaceae Dryopteris campyloptera Mountain woodfern Present in Park Native

Dryopteridaceae Dryopteris goldiana Goldie's woodfern Present in Park Native

Dryopteridaceae Dryopteris intermedia Evergreen woodfern Present in Park Native

Dryopteridaceae Dryopteris marginalis Marginal wood-fern Present in Park Native

Dryopteridaceae Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive fern Present in Park Native

Dryopteridaceae Polystichum acrostichoides var.

acrostichoides

Christmas fern Present in Park Native

Dryopteridaceae Woodsia appalachiana Appalachian cliff fern Present in Park Native

Dryopteridaceae Woodsia obtusa Blunt-lobe woodsia Present in Park Native

Lygodiaceae Lygodium palmatum Climbing fern Present in Park Native

Osmundaceae Osmunda cinnamomea Cinnamon fern Present in Park Native

Osmundaceae Osmunda claytoniana Interrupted fern Present in Park Native

Osmundaceae Osmunda regalis var.

spectabilis

Royal fern Present in Park Native

Polypodiaceae Pleopeltis polypodioides ssp.

michauxiana

Resurrection fern Present in Park Native

Polypodiaceae Polypodium virginianum Rock polypody Present in Park Native

Pteridaceae Adiantum pedatum Northern maidenhair-fern Present in Park Native

Pteridaceae Cheilanthes alabamensis Alabama lipfern Present in Park Native

Pteridaceae Cheilanthes lanosa Hairy lipfern Present in Park Native

Pteridaceae Pellaea atropurpurea Purple-stem cliff-brake Present in Park Native

Thelypteridaceae Phegopteris hexagonoptera Broad beech fern Present in Park Native

Thelypteridaceae Thelypteris noveboracensis New york fern Present in Park Native

Primulaceae Lysimachia quadrifolia Whorled loosestrife Present in Park Native

Primulaceae Lysimachia tonsa Southern loosestrife Present in Park Native

Primulaceae Samolus valerandi ssp.

parviflorus

Seaside brookweed Present in Park Native

Berberidaceae Berberis thunbergii Japanese barberry Present in Park Non-Native
184

Family Scientific Name Common name Occurrence Nativity

Berberidaceae Caulophyllum thalictroides Blue cohosh Present in Park Native

Berberidaceae Podophyllum peltatum May apple Present in Park Native

Menispermaceae Cocculus carolinus Carolina coralbead Present in Park Native

Menispermaceae Menispermum canadense Canada moonseed Present in Park Native

Ranunculaceae Actaea pachypoda White baneberry Present in Park Native

Ranunculaceae Actaea racemosa var.

racemosa

Present in Park Native

Ranunculaceae Anemone quinquefolia Wood anemone Present in Park Native

Ranunculaceae Anemone virginiana var.

virginiana

Tall thimbleweed Present in Park Native

Ranunculaceae Aquilegia canadensis Wild columbine Present in Park Native

Ranunculaceae Clematis catesbyana Satincurls Present in Park Native

Ranunculaceae Clematis terniflora Japanese virgin's-bower Present in Park Non-Native

Ranunculaceae Clematis viorna Vase-vine leatherflower Present in Park Native

Ranunculaceae Clematis virginiana Virginia virgin-bower Present in Park Native

Ranunculaceae Delphinium tricorne Dwarf larkspur Present in Park Native

Ranunculaceae Hepatica nobilis var. acuta Sharp-lobed hepatica Present in Park Native

Ranunculaceae Hepatica nobilis var. obtusa Roundlobed hepatica Present in Park Native

Ranunculaceae Hydrastis canadensis Golden-seal Present in Park Native

Ranunculaceae Ranunculus abortivus Kidney-leaved buttercup Present in Park Native

Ranunculaceae Ranunculus acris Tall butter-cup Present in Park Non-Native

Ranunculaceae Ranunculus allegheniensis Allegheny mountain 

buttercup

Present in Park Native

Ranunculaceae Ranunculus bulbosus Bulbous buttercup Present in Park Non-Native

Ranunculaceae Ranunculus hispidus Hispid buttercup Present in Park Native

Ranunculaceae Ranunculus hispidus var.

hispidus

Bristly buttercup Present in Park Native

Ranunculaceae Ranunculus recurvatus Blisterwort Present in Park Native

Ranunculaceae Thalictrum clavatum Mountain meadow-rue Present in Park Native

Ranunculaceae Thalictrum dioicum Early meadowrue Present in Park Native

Ranunculaceae Thalictrum pubescens Tall meadow-rue Present in Park Native

Ranunculaceae Thalictrum revolutum Waxleaf meadowrue Present in Park Native

Ranunculaceae Thalictrum thalictroides Windflower Present in Park Native

Ranunculaceae Trautvetteria caroliniensis var.

caroliniensis

Carolina bugbane Present in Park Native

Elaeagnaceae Elaeagnus umbellata var.

parvifolia

Autumn olive, oleaster Present in Park Non-Native

Rhamnaceae Ceanothus americanus New jersey tea Present in Park Native

Rhamnaceae Frangula caroliniana Carolina buckthorn Present in Park Native

Vitaceae Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia creeper Present in Park Native

Vitaceae Vitis aestivalis Summer grape Present in Park Native

Vitaceae Vitis aestivalis var. bicolor Summer grape Present in Park Native

Vitaceae Vitis cinerea Pigeon grape Present in Park Native

Vitaceae Vitis cinerea var. baileyana Graybark grape Present in Park Native

Vitaceae Vitis cinerea var. floridana Florida grape Present in Park Native
185

Family Scientific Name Common name Occurrence Nativity

Vitaceae Vitis labrusca Fox grape Present in Park Native

Vitaceae Vitis rotundifolia Muscadine grape Present in Park Native

Vitaceae Vitis vulpina Winter grape Present in Park Native

Crassulaceae Sedum pulchellum Widowscross Present in Park Native

Crassulaceae Sedum ternatum Wood stonecrop Present in Park Native

Hydrangeaceae Hydrangea arborescens Wild hydrangea Present in Park Native

Hydrangeaceae Philadelphus hirsutus Streambank mockorangePresent in Park Native

Rosaceae Agrimonia gryposepala Tall hairy groovebur Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Agrimonia parviflora Swamp agrimony Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Agrimonia pubescens Soft agrimony Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Agrimonia rostellata Woodland agrimony Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Amelanchier arborea Downy serviceberry Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Amelanchier canadensis Canadian serviceberry Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Amelanchier laevis Allegheny service-berry Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Aruncus dioicus Common goatsbeard Present in Park Non-Native

Rosaceae Chaenomeles speciosa Flowering quince Present in Park Non-Native

Rosaceae Crataegus calpodendron Pear hawthorn Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Crataegus flabellata Fanleaf hawthorn Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Crataegus uniflora Dwarf hawthorn Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Duchesnea indica Indian mock-strawberry Present in Park Non-Native

Rosaceae Fragaria virginiana Virginia strawberry Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Geum canadense var.

canadense

Canada avens Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Geum vernum Spring avens Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Geum virginianum Pale avens Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Malus angustifolia Southern crabapple Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Malus pumila Apple Present in Park Non-Native

Rosaceae Photinia melanocarpa Black chokeberry Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Porteranthus trifoliatus Bowman's-root Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Potentilla canadensis Canada cinquefoil Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Potentilla norvegica ssp.

monspeliensis

Norwegian cinquefoil Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Potentilla recta Sulphur cinquefoil Present in Park Non-Native

Rosaceae Potentilla simplex Old-field cinquefoil Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Prunus americana American plum Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Prunus angustifolia var.

angustifolia

Chickasaw plum Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Prunus persica Peach Present in Park Non-Native

Rosaceae Prunus serotina var. serotina Black cherry Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Pyrus communis Common pear Present in Park Non-Native

Rosaceae Rosa carolina var. carolina Carolina rose Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose Present in Park Non-Native

Rosaceae Rosa setigera Prairie rose Present in Park Native
186

Family Scientific Name Common name Occurrence Nativity

Rosaceae Rosa virginiana Virginia rose Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Rosa wichuraiana Memorial rose Present in Park Non-Native

Rosaceae Rubus allegheniensis Allegheny blackberry Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Rubus allegheniensis var.

allegheniensis

Allegheny blackberry Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Rubus argutus Sawtooth blackberry Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Rubus canadensis Smooth blackberry Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Rubus cuneifolius Sawtooth blackberry Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Rubus flagellaris Sand blackberry Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Rubus hispidus Sand blackberry Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Rubus occidentalis Black raspberry Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Rubus odoratus Purple flowering 

raspberry

Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Rubus pensilvanicus Pennsylvania blackberry Present in Park Native

Rosaceae Spiraea prunifolia Bridal-wreath Present in Park Non-Native

Rosaceae Waldsteinia fragarioides Barren strawberry Present in Park Native

Saxifragaceae Boykinia aconitifolia Brook saxifrage Present in Park Native

Saxifragaceae Heuchera americana American alumroot Present in Park Native

Saxifragaceae Heuchera parviflora Little-leaved alumroot Present in Park Native

Saxifragaceae Heuchera pubescens Downy alumroot Present in Park Native

Saxifragaceae Heuchera villosa var. villosa Hairy alumroot Present in Park Native

Saxifragaceae Mitella diphylla Two-leaf bishop's-cap Present in Park Native

Saxifragaceae Saxifraga michauxii Michaux's saxifrage Present in Park Native

Saxifragaceae Tiarella cordifolia Heart-leaved foam-flower Present in Park Native

Rubiaceae Cephalanthus occidentalis Common buttonbush Present in Park Native

Rubiaceae Diodia virginiana Larger button-weed Present in Park Native

Rubiaceae Galium aparine Catchweed bedstraw Present in Park Native

Rubiaceae Galium circaezans Wild licorice Present in Park Native

Rubiaceae Galium lanceolatum Lanceleaf wild licorice Present in Park Native

Rubiaceae Galium latifolium Purple bedstraw Present in Park Native

Rubiaceae Galium pilosum Hairy bedstraw Present in Park Native

Rubiaceae Galium tinctorium Stiff marsh bedstraw Present in Park Native

Rubiaceae Galium triflorum Sweet-scent bedstraw Present in Park Native

Rubiaceae Houstonia caerulea Azure bluets Present in Park Native

Rubiaceae Houstonia canadensis Canadian summer bluet Present in Park Native

Rubiaceae Houstonia longifolia Longleaf bluet Present in Park Native

Rubiaceae Houstonia purpurea Purple bluet Present in Park Native

Rubiaceae Mitchella repens Partridge-berry Present in Park Native

Rubiaceae Sherardia arvensis Blue fieldmadder Present in Park Non-Native

Salicaceae Salix humilis Tall prairie willow Present in Park Native

Salicaceae Salix humilis var. tristis Prairie willow Present in Park Native

Salicaceae Salix nigra Black willow Present in Park Native

Santalaceae Pyrularia pubera Buffalo-nut Present in Park Native
187

Family Scientific Name Common name Occurrence Nativity

Viscaceae Phoradendron leucarpum American mistletoe Present in Park Native

Aceraceae Acer negundo Box elder Present in Park Native

Aceraceae Acer pensylvanicum Striped maple Present in Park Native

Aceraceae Acer rubrum Red maple Present in Park Native

Aceraceae Acer rubrum var. trilobum Red maple Present in Park Native

Aceraceae Acer saccharum Sugar maple Present in Park Native

Aceraceae Acer saccharum var.

saccharum

Sugar maple Present in Park Native

Anacardiaceae Rhus aromatica var. aromatica A fragrant sumac, 

fragrant sumac

Present in Park Native

Anacardiaceae Rhus copallinum Winged sumac Present in Park Native

Anacardiaceae Rhus glabra Smooth sumac Present in Park Native

Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron radicans Poison ivy Present in Park Native

Hippocastanaceae Aesculus flava Yellow buckeye Present in Park Native

Rutaceae Ptelea trifoliata Wafer-ash Present in Park Native

Rutaceae Ptelea trifoliata ssp. trifoliata 

var. mollis

Wafer-ash Present in Park Native

Simaroubaceae Ailanthus altissima Tree-of-heaven Present in Park Non-Native

Acanthaceae Ruellia caroliniensis ssp.

caroliniensis var. caroliniensis

Carolina wild petunia Present in Park Native

Acanthaceae Ruellia purshiana Pursh's wild-petunia Present in Park Native

Bignoniaceae Bignonia capreolata Crossvine Present in Park Native

Bignoniaceae Campsis radicans Trumpet creeper Present in Park Native

Oleaceae Forsythia viridissima Forsythia Present in Park Non-Native

Oleaceae Fraxinus americana White ash Present in Park Native

Oleaceae Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash Present in Park Native

Oleaceae Ligustrum amurense Amur privet Present in Park Non-Native

Oleaceae Ligustrum sinense Chinese privet Present in Park Non-Native

Orobanchaceae Conopholis americana Squaw-root Present in Park Native

Orobanchaceae Epifagus virginiana Beechdrops Present in Park Native

Orobanchaceae Orobanche uniflora One-flowered broomrape Present in Park Native

Scrophulariaceae Agalinis tenuifolia Slender false-foxglove Present in Park Native

Scrophulariaceae Aureolaria flava Yellow false-foxglove Present in Park Native

Scrophulariaceae Aureolaria laevigata Entire-leaf yellow false 

foxglove

Present in Park Native

Scrophulariaceae Aureolaria pedicularia Fernleaf yellow falsefoxglovePresent in Park Native

Scrophulariaceae Aureolaria virginica Downy false-foxglove Present in Park Native

Scrophulariaceae Chelone glabra White turtlehead Present in Park Native

Scrophulariaceae Gratiola virginiana Roundfruit hedge-hyssop Present in Park Native

Scrophulariaceae Melampyrum lineare American cow-wheat Present in Park Native

Scrophulariaceae Melampyrum lineare var.

latifolium

American cowwheat Present in Park Native

Scrophulariaceae Mimulus alatus Sharp-wing 

monkeyflower

Present in Park Native

Scrophulariaceae Paulownia tomentosa Princess tree Present in Park Non-Native
188

Family Scientific Name Common name Occurrence Nativity

Scrophulariaceae Pedicularis canadensis ssp.

canadensis

Canadian lousewort Present in Park Native

Scrophulariaceae Penstemon calycosus Longsepal beardtongue Present in Park Native

Scrophulariaceae Penstemon canescens Gray beardtongue Present in Park Native

Scrophulariaceae Penstemon digitalis Talus slope penstemon Present in Park Native

Scrophulariaceae Penstemon pallidus Pale beardtongue Present in Park Native

Scrophulariaceae Verbascum blattaria Moth mullein Present in Park Non-Native

Scrophulariaceae Verbascum thapsus Great mullein Present in Park Non-Native

Scrophulariaceae Veronica arvensis Corn speedwell Present in Park Non-Native

Scrophulariaceae Veronica officinalis var.

officinalis

Common gypsyweed Present in Park Native

Scrophulariaceae Veronica serpyllifolia ssp.

serpyllifolia

Thymeleaf speedwell Present in Park Non-Native

Convolvulaceae Calystegia sepium Hedge bindweed Present in Park Non-Native

Convolvulaceae Calystegia spithamaea Low false bindweed Present in Park Native

Convolvulaceae Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed Present in Park Non-Native

Convolvulaceae Ipomoea hederacea Ivyleaf morning-glory Present in Park Non-Native

Convolvulaceae Ipomoea pandurata Big-root morning-glory Present in Park Native

Convolvulaceae Ipomoea purpurea Tall morning-glory Present in Park Non-Native

Cuscutaceae Cuscuta gronovii Scaldweed Present in Park Native

Hydrophyllaceae Hydrophyllum canadense Bluntleaf waterleaf Present in Park Native

Hydrophyllaceae Hydrophyllum macrophyllum Largeleaf waterleaf Present in Park Native

Hydrophyllaceae Hydrophyllum virginianum Shawnee salad Present in Park Native

Hydrophyllaceae Phacelia bipinnatifida Fernleaf phacelia Present in Park Native

Hydrophyllaceae Phacelia purshii Miami-mist Present in Park Native

Polemoniaceae Phlox amplifolia Large-leaved phlox Present in Park Native

Polemoniaceae Phlox carolina Thick-leaved phlox Present in Park Native

Polemoniaceae Phlox divaricata Wild blue phlox Present in Park Native

Polemoniaceae Phlox maculata Spotted phlox Present in Park Native

Polemoniaceae Phlox paniculata Fall phlox Present in Park Native

Solanaceae Physalis heterophylla var.

heterophylla

Clammy groundcherry Present in Park Native

Solanaceae Physalis virginiana var.

virginiana

Virginia groundcherry Present in Park Native

Solanaceae Solanum carolinense var.

carolinense

Carolina horsenettle Present in Park Native

Solanaceae Solanum ptychanthum Nightshade Present in Park Native

Clusiaceae Hypericum gentianoides Orange-grass st. John'swort

Present in Park Native

Clusiaceae Hypericum hypericoides ssp.

hypericoides

St. Andrew's cross Present in Park Native

Clusiaceae Hypericum hypericoides ssp.

multicaule

St. Andrew's cross Present in Park Native

Clusiaceae Hypericum mutilum Slender st. John's-wort Present in Park Native

Clusiaceae Hypericum punctatum Common St. John's-wort Present in Park Native

Sparganiaceae Sparganium americanum American bur-reed Present in Park Native

Typhaceae Typha latifolia Broad-leaf cattail Present in Park Native
189

Family Scientific Name Common name Occurrence Nativity

Moraceae Morus rubra var. rubra Red mulberry Present in Park Native

Ulmaceae Celtis occidentalis Common hackberry Present in Park Native

Ulmaceae Celtis tenuifolia Dwarf hackberry Present in Park Native

Ulmaceae Ulmus alata Winged elm Present in Park Native

Ulmaceae Ulmus americana American elm Present in Park Native

Ulmaceae Ulmus rubra Slippery elm Present in Park Native

Urticaceae Boehmeria cylindrica False nettle Present in Park Native

Urticaceae Laportea canadensis Wood nettle Present in Park Native

Urticaceae Pilea pumila Canada clearweed Present in Park Native

Cistaceae Lechea racemulosa Illinois pinweed Present in Park Native

Cucurbitaceae Sicyos angulatus One-seed bur-cucumber Present in Park Native

Passifloraceae Passiflora lutea Yellow passionflower Present in Park Native

Violaceae Hybanthus concolor Green violet Present in Park Native

Violaceae Viola affinis Sand violet Present in Park Native

Violaceae Viola bicolor Field pansy Present in Park Native

Violaceae Viola blanda Smooth white violet Present in Park Native

Violaceae Viola canadensis var.

canadensis

Canadian white violet Present in Park Native

Violaceae Viola conspersa American bog violet Present in Park Native

Violaceae Viola cucullata Marsh blue violet Present in Park Native

Violaceae Viola hastata Halberd-leaved yellow 

violet

Present in Park Native

Violaceae Viola hirsutula Southern wood violet Present in Park Native

Violaceae Viola macloskeyi ssp. pallens Smooth white violet Present in Park Native

Violaceae Viola palmata var. palmata Violet Present in Park Native

Violaceae Viola pedata Bird's-foot violet Present in Park Native

Violaceae Viola pubescens Downy yellow violet Present in Park Native

Violaceae Viola pubescens var.

pubescens

Smooth yellow violet Present in Park Native

Violaceae Viola rotundifolia Roundleaf violet Present in Park Native

Violaceae Viola sagittata Arrow-leaved violet Present in Park Native

Violaceae Viola sororia Common blue violet Present in Park Native

Violaceae Viola striata Striped violet Present in Park Native

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 380/119657, January 2013
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