Natural Resources Assessment of Chickamauga and

Natural Resources Assessment of Chickamauga and
Chattanooga National Military Park
By
Kristin M. Sorensen
A Major Paper submitted to the faculty of
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Master of Natural Resources
David L. Trauger, Chair
Laura Giese
Jennifer Plyler
Falls Church, Virginia
July 12, 2011
Natural Resources Assessment of
Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park
Kristin M. Sorensen
Abstract
This paper presents a Natural Resources Assessment for Chickamauga and
Chattanooga National Military Park. A literature review of all available materials found a
diversity of flora and fauna, existence of threatened and endangered species, and
unique biological communities, such as sagponds and limestone glades that contribute
to the park’s value as a protected public space. Water, air and soil quality are discussed
and threats such as urban encroachment and non-native species are identified. A
critique evaluates the difficulties in the process and the differences found between the
final report submitted and the State of the Parks publication released in 2009.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my committee members: David Trauger, Laura Giese, and
Jennifer Plyler for all the work they have done with me not only on this paper but
throughout my time in the MNR program.
I would like to thank the National Park Conservation Association and Gail
Dethloff for the opportunity to participate in this important process. I would also like to
show my appreciation for the many park staff members who helped me while in the
park, both in Georgia and Tennessee.
Finally I should thank my friends, family, and coworkers for supporting me every
step of the way.
Page | iii
Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................ ii Table of Contents .................................................................................................iv Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 Park and Resource Context ................................................................................. 4 Biogeography and Physical Setting ........................................................................... 4 Park Location Size and Area ......................................................................... 4 Climatic Regime ............................................................................................ 5 Geology and Landforms ................................................................................ 5 Hydrologic Overview ..................................................................................... 7 Ecological and Habitat Classifications ........................................................... 8 Regional and Historical Context ............................................................................... 13 Land Use History ......................................................................................... 13 Adjacent Land Use ...................................................................................... 15 Unique Park Resources and Designations .............................................................. 17 Aesthetic Resources ................................................................................... 17 Unique Features .......................................................................................... 18 Special Designations ................................................................................... 19 Park Science and Resource Management ............................................................... 20 Management Plans ..................................................................................... 20 Page | iv
Research and Monitoring ............................................................................ 23 Education and Outreach .............................................................................. 26 Assessment Criteria ........................................................................................... 26 Ecosystem Measures............................................................................................... 26 Ecosystem Extent and Function .................................................................. 26 Species Composition and Condition ............................................................ 30 Environmental Quality and Biotic Measures ............................................................ 33 Water Resources ......................................................................................... 33 Air Quality .................................................................................................... 34 Soils and Sediments .................................................................................... 38 Climate ........................................................................................................ 38 Biotic Health ................................................................................................ 38 Recommendations ...................................................................................... 40 Critique ............................................................................................................... 41 References ......................................................................................................... 46 Appendix A - Soil Series .................................................................................... 50 Appendix B - State Listed Species Statuses and Codes for CHCH .................... 54 Appendix C - List Of All Plant Species Occurring in Glade Communities in CHCH
...................................................................................................................................... 62 Appendix D - List of All Plant Species Historically Documented at CHCH .......... 66 Page | v
Appendix E - List of Invasive Plant Species Documented in CHCH ................... 95 Appendix F - Species List of Birds Documented in CHCH ................................. 99 Appendix G – Species List of Mammals Documented in CHCH ....................... 107 Appendix H - Species List of Bats Documented in CHCH ................................ 109 Appendix I - Species List of Herpetofauna Documented in CHCH ................... 110 Appendix J - Species List of Fish Documented in CHCH ................................. 111 Appendix K - Wet Deposition and Annual Concentration Trend Graphs .......... 112 Appendix L - Composition of Total Deposition .................................................. 116 Page | vi
Introduction
The National Park Conservation Association (NPCA) publishes a series of State
of the Parks reports on specific National Parks (NPCA 2009). The objectives of State of
the Parks reports are to aid in identification of threats to the vitality of park resources. In
addressing current conditions of various parks, reports raise awareness of park issues
and create defensible strategies for working towards positive changes. This paper
provides a Natural Resources Assessment for the Chickamauga and Chattanooga
National Military Park (CHCH), an integral part of the process of creating the published
State of the Parks report (NPCA 2009).
The United States Congress established CHCH in 1890 “for the purpose of
preserving and suitably marking for historical and professional military study, the fields
of some of the most remarkable maneuvers and most brilliant fighting in the War of the
Rebellion” (16 USC 424). CHCH was the first park designated as a National
Battlefield/Military Park and is the largest such park, encompassing approximately 9,000
acres. The Secretary of the Army managed CHCH until 1933 when the park was
transferred to the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service (NPS).
CHCH is made up of multiple land parcels spread across the greater Chattanooga area.
Individual parcels, which may be as small as the footprint of a singular monument, are
called Units (Figure 1, NPS 2005).
Page | 1
Figure 1. Map of Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park (Units shown in
green). http://www.nps.gov/chch/planyourvisit/upload/CHCHmap.pdf
Page | 2
Not all Units are covered in the various natural resource studies conducted for
CHCH. Therefore, the paper will primarily include information for the two main parcels,
Chickamauga Battlefield and Lookout Mountain, and incorporate the other Units where
information is available. While Moccasin Bend is newly part of CHCH and NPS as of
2003, it has a rich history and is sometimes included in research whereas smaller outlier
Units, such as on Missionary Ridge, are not.
Located in the lowest ranges of the Appalachian Valley, the park has many
unique features including calcareous glades in the Chickamauga Battlefield and karst
geology that can be seen in the rock outcroppings on Lookout Mountain. Home to a
wide array of flora and fauna, CHCH hosts a documented 1,136 species, excluding
insects. CHCH draws over one million people a year, making it one of the more visited
parks in the NPS system.
Methods
I conducted a literature survey to provide data for a Natural Resources
Assessment of CHCH. The Natural Resources Assessment is an integral part of the
process in creating the State of the Parks report (NPCA 2009). The assessment
requires collection and evaluation of all available information resources, including but
not limited to official park documents, species inventories, and research documents on
wildlife habitats in the park. After the literature and observations are reviewed, the
information is entered into a matrix to help in obtaining a numerical value for the park
conditions. A critique is also presented on how information was gathered and used in
Page | 3
the final State of the Parks publication (NPCA 2009). The paper follows the outline
required by the NPCA with the addition of a critique of the process.
Park and Resource Context
Biogeography and Physical Setting
Park Location Size and Area
CHCH lies within the Appalachian Valley and is made up of 18 separate Units
within Catoosa, Dade, and Walker counties in the state of Georgia, and Hamilton
County in the state of Tennessee (Figure 1). The Units are the 5,283 acre Chickamauga
Battlefield Site, 2,689 acre Lookout Mountain Battlefield and Point Park, 750 acres of
Moccasin Bend, the smaller Units at Signal Point, Knob Hill and several along
Missionary Ridge and the back side of Lookout Mountain (Govas and White 2006).
West Chickamauga Creek bounds part of the park, Route 27 bypasses the park to the
west, and farms border the park to the south and southeast while housing and
urbanization is creeping in from the north. A driving tour route within the park includes
portions of the old Route 27, which bisects the park North to South. (NPS 2005,
Szijkowski 2007a)
A Colonial fuel pipeline runs across Lookout Mountain and is the only instance of
an inholding, where land is under private ownership within the park. Missionary Ridge
however, is made up of small sites belonging to NPS that are otherwise surrounded by
private lands (Szijkowski 2007a).
Page | 4
The NPS had intended for the park to acquire surrounding properties and finally
encompass a larger amount of land. To this end, each of the larger parcels,
Chickamauga Battlefield, Lookout Mountain, and the recently added Moccasin Bend
has its own acreage ceiling as defined by the NPS. None of the parcels have reached
their limit. As of now, the NPS can only acquire new lands in the Tennessee portions,
due to existing Georgia state restrictions (Szijkowski 2007b).
Climatic Regime
The CHCH area has mild winters and warm/hot humid summers. The average
yearly temperature is 60ºF with average January lows at 40ºF and July highs at 79ºF
(NPS 1987). The area can average 54.5 inches of rainfall annually, but a Level 4
(exceptional) drought occurred during summer 2007 (U.S. Drought Monitor 2007). Ice
damage, tornados, and windstorms have also affected the park (Govus and White
2006).
Geology and Landforms
Portions of CHCH are in the Appalachian (or Cumberland) Plateau and Ridge
and Valley physiographic regions. Appalachian Valley geology is mostly comprised of
Paleozoic sedimentary limestone, sandstone, and shale layers that were later folded
through tectonic activity. After the tectonic activity the calcium carbonate in the layers
dissolved creating unique systems referred to as Karst aquifer systems (Amick 1934).
Karst systems have been found to have highly variable water chemistry as related to the
many possible sources to recharge the water table (Mayer 1999).
Page | 5
The park has 13 individual cave system openings, primarily on the Lookout
Mountain Unit. Due to limited research into the caves, it is unknown whether the
openings represent individual caves or if some or all of them connect in a larger system.
The cave inventory is not published in effort to protect the resources within; including
two caves that are listed on an NPS fossil inventory (Santucci et al. 2001). The caves
are only open to the public with permit, and in some cases require specialized
climbing/caving skills (Szijkowski 2007b).
In 1996, the caves were closed to the public because a Colonial Pipeline fuel
pipe burst on Lookout Mountain. The burst spilled between 60,000 and 70,000 gallons
of fuel oil and kerosene into the karst and cave system, of which only 2,000 gallons
were found and collected.
NPS and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
conducted a joint cleanup effort (EPA 1998) and the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) monitored the air quality in the caves for fumes related to the fuel spilled
(USGS 1996). Users, with permits, were allowed back into the caves after the USGS
deemed the air quality non-hazardous (Szijkowski 2007b).
At least 38 different soil series are represented in the park (Appendix A), as the
park encompasses both the ridge and valley with an elevation difference of over 1,300
ft. (NRCS n.d.). Most of the soils in CHCH are silt loams with some silty clay loams in
the lowlands, and several rock outcrops particularly located on Lookout Mountain. Soil
survey data is not available (online or in paper form) for the portions of CHCH in Dade
and Walker Counties.
Page | 6
Hydrologic Overview
The park is in the Middle Tennessee-Chickamauga Watershed and all of the
Park’s streams eventually flow into the Tennessee River. Certain portions of the park
border the river but NPS has no authority over it, and park property ends at the “high
water mark” (Szijkowski 2007a).
Chickamauga Battlefield has five streams: Black Branch, Jays Mill Creek, Glenn
Viniard Creek, and Cave Spring, that all have an intermittent flow regime, and West
Chickamauga Creek, which is perennial. Zimmerman (2007) named Black Branch,
Jays Mill Creek, and Glenn Viniard Creek after the streets they are located closest to,
for the purpose of a fish assemblages study (Figure 3).
Common to karst geological systems, such as Lookout Mountain, there are few
surface streams, as the water is pulled deeper into the system. However, Jackson
Spring, Gum Spring and Rock Spring are small springs that originate close to the top of
the mountain. The larger Skyuka Spring surfaces near the base of the mountain, and
Lookout Creek runs along the western border (Meiman 2005). Very little is known about
the groundwater in the park as related to the karst system and no research could be
found for that subject.
Additionally, a pond was created by filling in a quarry in the southeast portion of
the Chickamauga Battlefield Unit of the park. The quarry was used primarily in the
making of the markers and monuments in the park. The pond has since been used as
an environmental education site and is a more permanent source of water for the
wildlife in the park (Paige and Greene 1983).
Page | 7
Figure 3. Map of CHCH streams and fish sampling locations (Zimmerman 2007)
Ecological and Habitat Classifications
CHCH falls within the EPA eco-region 8.4.1 Ozark, Ouachita-Appalachian
Forests Ridge and Valley. Govas and White (2006) used “floristic composition and
environmental factors” to identify 33 distinct community types as defined by the United
States National Vegetation Classification, published by The Nature Conservancy.
Twenty-five are considered to be “natural” while the others are considered man-made or
altered, such as the pine plantations. However, the percentage of various plant
communities within the park is unclear. The majority of the communities are mixed
hardwood associations, with a couple communities that are primarily pine or cedar.
Govas and White (2006) also separated the communities into groups of Forest,
Page | 8
Shrubland, Herbaceous Vegetation, and Sparse Vegetation and supplied a key to allow
for easier identification in the field.
Each of the identified communities used by Govas and White (2006) also has an
alpha-numeric score that identifies its global rarity. The letter portion identifies scale and
the number is condition.
G = Global
1 = critically imperiled
N = National
2 = imperiled
S = Sub-National
3 = vulnerable to extirpation or extinction
4 = apparently secure
5 = demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure
According to Govas and White (2006) the following six communities are
considered globally rare. Five of six are glade-associated communities. Central
Limestone Glade (G2G3) is considered the most ecologically significant community in
the park. Southern Ridge and Valley Annual Grass Glade (G2G3) occurs within the
glades where soils are especially shallow. Limestone Seep Glade (G2?) is a rarer glade
that occurs only on seepages in the limestone. Interior Plateau Chinquapin Oak Shumard Oak Forest (G3) surrounds the glade system, has a varied canopy, and
exhibits a lack of dry oak species such as Southern Red Oak (Quercus falcata) and
Post Oak (Quercus stellata). Interior Low Plateau Chinquapin Oak – Mixed Oak Forest
(G3) has had significant human impact and consequently has widely spaced canopy
Page | 9
trees and a dense understory. An abundance of dry oaks separates it from the similar,
previously mentioned Interior Plateau Chinquapin Oak - Shumard Oak Forest.
The Cumberland Plateau Willow Oak Pond (G3) was the only non-glade
community specifically recognized for management and monitoring concerns. Seasonal
rains flood a depression and create a pond. The pond site represents important
breeding habitat, and contains rare plant groupings (Govus and White 2006).
The Govus and White (2006) study built on an earlier vegetative study of the
Chickamauga Battlefield portion of CHCH (Rogers et al. 1993). Rogers et al. (1993)
identified 11 habitat types but only went into detail about the forest, field and glade
communities. The study determined that 88.79 percent of the land on the Chickamauga
Battlefield was classified into forest communities, split between hardwood, conifer and
mixed forests.
The Chickamauga Battlefield section of the park also held just under 10 percent
of its land in field communities. Most of the field communities are maintained to
represent the historical aspects of the park, including about 530 acres of hay field that
NPS leases to private users. Park staff cut the hay fields once in June and again in the
fall and they mow (manicure) about 20 acres of the park regularly for use and visibility
(Rogers et al. 1993).
The vegetative study identifies and defines two other features that CHCH
considered rare and therefore relevant in its management. First, sagponds are forest
communities created when an overburdened cavity in the rock strata collapses. Surface
drainage and material decay is slowed down by a lack of oxygen. Water availability
Page | 10
determines the overall size and shape of the ponds. The other feature, stratigraphic flats
are a type of field community where rocky intermittent streambeds run through the fields
and give the vegetation a patchy appearance (Rogers et al. 1993).
The Rogers et al. (1993) study created the vegetative/habitat map (Figure 4). On
the map the orange color represents the cedar glades. While the intermittent streams
that create the stratigraphic flats were included in the mapping process, the flats
themselves were not included because of their small size and irregular shape.
Page | 11
Figure 4. Map of Chickamauga Unit showing habitat types.(Rogers et al. 1993)
Page | 12
Regional and Historical Context
Land Use History
The Koasati, Tuskagee and Cherokee Indians lived on the land that makes up
CHCH (Rogers et al. 1993) and the Moccasin Bend Unit has a 10,000 year history of
human habitation, which is one of the factors that lead to its designation as a national
archeological district (NPCA 2003). The Cherokee lived in the region until they were
forced off in the 1830s. One section of the Cherokee called themselves the
Chickamauga, and they fought for Britain during the Revolutionary War. The Cherokee
settled among other places on Lookout Mountain as they fought against the future
Americans and even other Cherokee. The Chickamauga were forced out of the area as
their towns were destroyed and the government moved the rest of the Cherokee out of
the area along what is known as the Trail of Tears (Conley 2005). The Cherokee, like
many of the people that lived in North America before the Europeans, used fire to
manage the land. Burning is often considered a beneficial part of a functional
ecosystem, as it reduced fuel levels (Cooley 2004).
After the American government moved the Cherokee off the land, 24 farmsteads
were active on the location that is now Chickamauga battlefield. Crops raised on lands
along the Tennessee River included corn, cotton and other cash crops. While the land
was in farm use, animals were fenced out of the fields and freely grazed the understory
(Paige and Greene 1983). No mention is made in the literature as to whether water
diversions were necessary for farming or other uses on the lands that make up the park.
Page | 13
In 1863, Chattanooga’s population was at 2,500 and the town was the principal
southern rail center (Paige and Greene 1983). The rail center was a key issue of control
in the Civil War. In September and November of 1863, the Battles for Chattanooga were
fought on lands now collectively known as CHCH. Fighting was very destructive to the
wooded areas on the Chickamauga Battlefield and much of Lookout Mountain was clear
cut. Currently, the land is managed to mimic the conditions during battles especially in
the areas of highest historical significance (NPS 1987).
In the 27 years between the battles and the enacting legislature, more fields were
cleared; however, vegetation became established in some previously cleared areas.
Much was done to recreate the battlefield as it was during the battles, but while the War
Department controlled the grounds it also used them for military training which often
altered the intended maintenance. In 1933, due in part to budgetary issues CHCH was
moved to the Department of the Interior, and the National Park Service (Paige and
Greene 1983). Even after moving to NPS, the land was used for military purposes up to,
and including during World War II, when the Women’s Army Corps Soldiers were
trained at CHCH (NPS nd). The decision to use the park land for military training was in
part due to the location of Fort Oglethorpe just to the north of CHCH, and in part
because to do so was in keeping with the original purpose of the park, which included
the study and practice of battle movements on the grounds. The park was most heavily
used during the Spanish American war and for military drills during World War I.
Negative effects on the natural resources during this time included horse grazing, which
put a lot of stress on the fields. The Civilian Conservation Corps also affected the land
Page | 14
use history by replanting some of the fields and pastures with trees during the 1930’s
(Rogers et al. 1993).
Adjacent Land Use
The areas surrounding CHCH are becoming more suburban as they fill with
bedroom communities for both Chattanooga and Atlanta (Figure 5). Sod farms are now
located southeast of Chickamauga Battlefield. The park is interested in keeping this
type of land use, as well as any other non-urbanized areas for buffers to its borders. To
the west, the Route 27 bypass runs around the battlefield; previously Route 27 bisected
the Chickamauga Battlefield Unit of the park. Directly north is the historic section of Fort
Oglethorpe, offering a further buffer with land used for more historically relevant
purposes around its borders. Unfortunately, suburban sprawl is encroaching and strip
malls and housing developments are located just outside the park. In fact, portions of
the park are considered part of the Chattanooga urban area (Szijkowski 2007a)
Page | 15
Figure 5. Map from Web Soil Survey. The gridded area is Chattanooga’s urban
expansion. Park Units are highlighted in magenta. This mapping system has not been
updated and the Moccasin Bend area (the peninsula NE of Lookout Mountain) is not
labeled as park lands. (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx)
The Lookout Mountain portion of the park is tucked in around tourist attractions
and single-family homes, but is buffered somewhat by the Reflection Riding Botanical
Area, Chattanooga Nature Center and Lookout Creek to the west (Figure 6).
The small Units such as those on Missionary Ridge and Orchard Knob are tiny
islands in neighborhoods, and Moccasin Bend shares it’s peninsula with a mental
hospital, a golf course, and a water treatment plant (Szijkowski 2007b).
Page | 16
Figure 6. Map of Lookout Mountain Unit. (Park property is shown in green)
http://www.nps.gov/chch/planyourvisit/upload/lookoutmtn.pdf
Unique Park Resources and Designations
Aesthetic Resources
Lookout Mountain and Signal Point offer spectacular views of the Tennessee
River and valley, with Lookout Mountain also overlooking Moccasin Bend. On a clear
day you can see several ridges in the distance, but the views are sensitive to air
Page | 17
pollution (NPS 2007) and are sometimes too hazy to truly appreciate. Additionally
CHCH has a scenic view of the surrounding area from the Wilder Brigade Monument in
the southeastern section of the Chickamauga Battlefield Unit of the park.
The Karst geology creates unique and beautiful land features including the cave
systems located in and around Lookout Mountain. Karst dissolution and deposition of
materials is what allows stalagmites and stalactites to form (Santucci et al. 2001). Karst
geological formations can cause awe and wonder and the process can create unique
features below or above ground.
The park is also home to a variety flora and fauna (Figure 7), and as
Chickamauga Battlefield is the largest green space in the region, and the openness
itself could be considered an aesthetic resource.
Figure 7. Pipevine Swallowtail (Battus philenor) on Lookout Mountain.
Unique Features
When the park was established many of the battle’s veterans or direct family
members were alive to contribute both financially and with planning. This support
Page | 18
helped the park earn its designation and made CHCH the first National Military Park.
The families of the men who fought and died, or sometimes the veterans themselves
purchased the monuments on the grounds which were erected in areas where battles
actually occurred, respective of the Units or person that fought in each area (Paige and
Greene 1983). Today, CHCH is the largest green/open space in the greater
Chattanooga area. Special use permits allow for battle re-enactments, an annual
marathon and an outdoor concert in the summer (Szijkowski 2007a).
Special Designations
NPS has documented several endangered and threatened species in CHCH.
The caves provide potential hibernacula sites for several federally endangered bat
species, including the gray bat (Myotis grisescens) and the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)
(Ford et al. 2004). In addition, according to the NPS database there are at least two
other federally listed species assumed to be in the park; the large-flowered skullcap
(Scutellaria montana) and the least tern (Sterna antillarum). The American bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), which was delisted (June 2007) is historically known to live
in the park. The NPSpecies database lists 62 state listed species as found in CHCH
(Appendix B).
The Cedar Glades, also referred to as calcareous or limestone glades, in the
park carry a G2G3 global conservation status (Govas and White 2006). The glades in
CHCH represent the southeastern most occurrence of this habitat/ecosystem type
(Sutter et al. 1994). There are 23 glade occurrences in the Chickamauga Battlefield Unit
of the park with a great diversity of species found in the cedar glades (Appendix C)
Page | 19
including 24 species that are threatened or endangered at the state level at the time of
the report. Several species found on glade sites are the only occurrences within the
state of Georgia (Sutter et al. 1994).
Cedar glades occur in areas of shallow soil over limestone surface. Plant species
within the glades require a lot of sun, and woody shrubs and trees could easily shade
them out. The cycle that maintains cedar glades is one of flood and drought. Sheets of
water wash soil across the rock and deposit it in sinkholes, making the soil unavailable
to larger plant species. Drought kills saplings and shrubs around the limestone, which
allows the sub-xeric heliophytes of the glade system to reestablish. These ecological
factors keep succession from replacing the glade systems (Sutter et al. 1994).
Park Science and Resource Management
Management Plans
The Administrative History outlines the history of CHCH use and management.
The Administrative History also shows what government departments managed the site
during various time periods, and how the public and military have used the land over the
years (Paige and Green 1983).
The General Management Plan (GMP), written in 1987, was used at the time to
update and incorporate several previous plans and reports. The re-routing of US
Highway 27 to bypass the park, and additions to the Chickamauga and Lookout
Mountain Visitor Centers, were the main short term goals discussed in the GMP, which
have been implemented. The GMP also separated the park into management zones.
Page | 20
The Historic zone accounted for 64 percent; Natural zone was 33 percent; most of
which was on Lookout Mountain; 3 percent fell into the Development zone category, of
which 0.2 percent of the park, 20 acres, was zoned for unstructured recreation (NPS
1987). The park staff was scheduled to begin writing a new GMP in 2008 (Szijkowski
2007a).
When NPS published the GMP in1987, Moccasin Bend was considered a
national historic landmark, as deemed by the Secretary of the Interior and CHCH did not
intend to include or seek to include it in the park. The sentiment was that while Stringers
Ridge, a ridge within Moccasin Bend, played an important role in the battles, the
wooded condition of Moccasin Bend would not allow proper interpretation of the
relevance of the sites and it would just add to the difficulty in managing the detached
Units (NPS 1987). Congress added Moccasin Bend to CHCH in 2003 in an attempt to
further protect the historically and culturally relevant features of the area. NPS has yet
to determine what to do with Moccasin Bend in relation to management and public,
however its 750 acres were added to the Historic Zone, which slightly changes the
percentages from what is in the GMP (Szijkowski 2007a).
NPS considered natural resources important in the 1987 GMP, but all
management issues focused on the support and preservation of the cultural and
historical resources and aiding in the interpretation of the civil war battles. The only
exceptions were the areas considered to have high ecological significance: the west
side of Lookout Mountain, the cedar glades, stratigraphic flats, the sagponds and the
quarry.
Page | 21
The last Resource Management Plan was written in 1993 and identified projects
to be accomplished within the park. The function of the Resource Management Plan
has been replaced by The Project Management Information System (PMIS). NPS uses
PMIS to both identify projects in the park and request the funding to see projects
completed.(Szijkowski 2007b).
CHCH staff prepared a Land Protection Plan in 1994. The purpose of the Land
Protection plan was to lay out a strategy for maintaining a historical image on lands
surrounding the park, and keeping adjacent land uses compatible with the parks
mission. The planning was primarily accomplished by identifying and working in
partnerships with different government entities as well as private and commercial
owners. Park staff now consider properties along the border to have changed
sufficiently that the 1994 plan no longer correctly identifies the opportunities for or
threats to the park (Szijkowski 2007b).
Vogel-Brown (2004) wrote a Fire Management Plan that follows the 2001 Federal
Fire Plan’s guidelines promoting a commitment to safety above all. The plan calls for
suppression of all wildfires, and prohibits the use of prescribed burning, citing
Chattanooga air quality issues. Mechanical methods are to be used to create firebreaks
and defendable areas around park buildings.
Keller (2004) released a Climbing Management Plan identifying threats and ways
to prepare for, and circumvent, any damages caused by the rock climbing that takes
place primarily on the bluffs on Lookout Mountain. Keller (2004) also found that the
chalk used in climbing may be changing the pH levels in crags and affecting the
Page | 22
vegetation. Some routes were closed to protect the view shed and NPS is discussing
the creation of a user-fee associated with climbing to reduce the numbers on the bluffs.
Research and Monitoring
NPS has a department specifically tasked with Inventory and Monitoring (I&M).
The I&M program is broken into regional networks. CHCH belongs to the Cumberland
Piedmont Network (CUPN). CUPN has an outlined plan to create baseline studies for all
14 of its network parks. I&M has developed a program called Vital Signs, a monitoring
process for implementation in three phases. The first phase was to identify the
management issues and important resources, establish background information and
create conceptual models. Planning was done through a series of workshops where
park staff gave input on needs and an interdisciplinary group of scientists created draft
ecosystem models. Workshops identified what to monitor, or the “vital signs.” In phase
two, another set of workshops prioritized the established vital signs. The high-priority
vital signs for CHCH were determined as: Ozone and Ozone Impact, Water Quality and
Quantity, Invasive Plants, Forest Pests, Vegetation Communities, Plant Species of
Concern, and Adjacent Land Use. Phase three developed sampling methods, set
protocols and established data management procedures (Leibfried et al. 2005). CUPN
published a Vital Signs Monitoring Plan used to identify priorities for research and
planning (Leibfried et al. 2005).
Page | 23
NPS I&M has status information for monitoring at CHCH (Figure 8). Since that
publication, the bird inventory and the mammals inventory project were submitted as
final draft reports for review, and the data is included in the assessment. Unfortunately,
the wetlands study and vegetative mapping studies were still underway and could not
be included at the time of the original assessment.
Non-I&M research has included a University of Georgia research lab to study
deer populations on and to some extent around the park, which resulted in papers on
the topics of population ecology, genetic diversity and foraging habits specifically as
related to privet management and possible negative effects on the glade communities
(Tucker 1996, Steadman 1995, Stromayer 1996, Stromayer et al. 1998, Rogers 1996,
Ratnaswamy et al. 1993, Ratnaswamy et al. 1999).
Studies on the effects of rock climbing on Lookout Mountain also included an
inventory of the climbing routes and suggestions for management (Keller 2004).
According to the Investigator Annual Reports (IAR) on the online NPS Research
Permit and Reporting System
(https://science.nature.nps.gov/research/ac/ResearchIndex), an aquatic insect study
(IAR 40243) and a seed collection project in co-operation with North Carolina Botanical
Garden (IAR 38491) were ongoing at the time of the assessment.
Page | 24
Figure 8. Status of Inventory and Monitoring Projects available for CHCH in 2007.
Page | 25
Education and Outreach
Education in the park is mostly focused on cultural and historical aspects,
including living history programs presented by volunteers at the park. The area around
the quarry in the southeastern section of the park is an environmental education station
(NPS 1987). The park is also used for Boy Scout programs and hosts a summer
science camp (Szijkowski 2007a).
Assessment Criteria
The assessment criteria portion looks at the specific areas needed by NPCA to
evaluate the conditions of the parks. The previously mentioned studies and
management plans provide the information and data necessary to evaluate the
conditions at the park.
Ecosystem Measures
The NPCA uses ecosystem measures to score the elements of the park in the
matrix and create an overall rating for the natural resource conditions.
Ecosystem Extent and Function
The CHCH park ecosystem is defined by a patchwork of different ecological
communities. The NPS manages the park for a historical period, including mowing of
the fields to mimic the look of the farmland during the fall of 1863. Mowing can harm
wetland areas and habitat that is suitable for birds and amphibians or reptiles (Stedman
et al. 2007, ABC 2006). The existence of the fields though, also encourages diversity
Page | 26
among the bat population, as some are better suited to the fields because of
physiological make up and lower sonar ranges (Ford et al. 2004).
Several species inventories recommend that CHCH staff reduce mowing and/or
allow areas where fields and forest meet to become more of an edge or scrub/shrub
habitat rather than a strict line between the two types. Such a management practice will
increase diversity by increasing shelter and forage habitat for smaller vertebrates which
serve as prey for larger animals (ABC 2006, Ford et al. 2004, Smith and Gaudin 2007,
Stedman et al. 2007). Specifically, Stedman et al. (2007) witnessed mowing during the
winter when vegetation is considered most important as shelter for some bird species.
The glades, which are dependent on high levels of sunlight, are threatened by
exotics and plant succession, which shade out the plant species specific to the glade
classification (Sutter et al. 1994). Also deer are a threat to the glades as they use the
smaller plants for browse (Rogers 1996). Sutter et al. (1994) also consider trampling a
possible threat to the system.
As a whole, the fact that the park is spread out in 33 different Units could be considered
a source of fragmentation as no green corridors connect the units. In the case of the
Chickamauga Battlefield Unit, two major roads, a spider web of smaller roads and
several horse and foot trails dissect the property (Figure 9) (NPS 2005). Each parcel
has its own issues with neighboring uses and isolation; in some cases major roads are
directly adjacent to the smaller parcels (See Adjacent Land Use).
Page | 27
(Figure 9. Chickamauga Battlefield Trail Map (NPS 2005)
Page | 28
In the cases of the smallest parcels, for example the 73rd Pennsylvania
Reservation or the Phelps Monument, the park holding is barely larger than the
marker/monument that sits on the land and is surrounded by housing (Szijkowski 2007b
per. comm.). Orchard Knob is a grassy hill, fenced off from the surrounding
Chattanooga neighborhood; the extent of natural resources is the grass and a hand full
of mature trees (Stedman et al. 2007).
While the fields could be seen as fragmenting a continuous forest cover, such
areas are a part of the park’s goal to maintain a historical appearance. Without the fields
and the grasses represented within them some of the biodiversity in the park would be
lost, including bird and bat species that utilize that type of habitat for feeding (Stedman
et al. 2007, Ford et al. 2004). If properly managed, fields could be a positive component
of a functional ecosystem and not a detractor.
In many cases, a patchwork network of habitat types can increase functionality
as it increases diversity of habitat, emergency cover, and forage. The mowing on the
larger Units, however, undermines some of the diversity by destroying habitat and cover
for smaller vertebrates (Accipiter Biological Consultants 2006, Ford et al. 2004, Smith
and Gaudin 2007, Stedman et al. 2007) and the isolation of the smaller Units makes
considering them as part of the overall community difficult. A measure of isolation is
how often they are left out of studies including species inventories. The smallest Units
are barely large enough to hold the stone monument or marker on which they sit and
contribute little function to natural resources. Mostly the small Units are outliers in a
Page | 29
suburban community. If a method of connecting the parcels exists, it could serve to
increase the structure and function, and decrease fragmentation.
NPS fire policy suppresses all fire in CHCH making the biggest disturbance
regime the mowing of the fields, which reduces habitat and cover for many species, and
in turn affects the predator/ prey relationships. Another disturbance to consider
mentioning is the beaver dams, which have increased the pooled water and created
wetland habitats credited for increasing certain bird species in the park including a
Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) rookery (Stedman et al. 2007). While floods and
droughts are mentioned in the literature (Govus and White 2006, Meiman 2005), no
statement is made of long term affects on the systems other than the role played in safe
guarding the glades from traditional succession (Sutter et al. 1994).
Species Composition and Condition
Several species inventories for CHCH are available. Most of the inventories also
determine what species should be in the park that were not accounted for physically
during the studies. Summarized results of the inventories give a snapshot of the current
conditions in CHCH.
Govus and White (2006) believe the 880 documented species in the vegetative
inventory represent at least 90 percent of the plant communities found in CHCH.
Depending on the formula used to estimate expected species possibly as many as 93 to
100 percent of the species have been officially documented (Appendix D).
CHCH has 135 species of plants that are considered non-native to the region,
including 71 exotic species, 16 of which are considered a severe threat (Appendix E)
Page | 30
(Govus and White 2006). Of the 16, Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense) is the main
concern; bamboo stalks (Bamboo tribe) are moving into the wetter areas along
streambeds; and CHCH has a history of issues with kudzu (Pueraria montana var.
lobata) (Szijkowski 2007a). While grazing has the positive affect on the privet, it is a
threat to the glades of the park and has been determined to not be enough to reduce
the privet cover in the park even in combination with a manual cutting regime
(Stromayer 1996).
Stedman et al. (2007) identified 171 species in the park during the bird inventory,
about 53 percent of the species that might be expected to occur in CHCH. Of these
species, 86 showed some evidence of using the park for breeding (Appendix F).
Based on available habitat and range, Smith and Gaudin (2007) anticipated 33
species of mammals to be found during the study. Of that, 20 were found during the
inventory (Appendix G). Smith and Gaudin (2007) also found one unexpected species
on CHCH, the smoky shrew (Sorex fumeus). Two of the expected but unaccounted for
species were found on adjacent lands which implies they could move into or have
recently been in the park. The survey did not include stray dogs or cats witnessed in the
park. No state or federally listed mammals were found (Appendix G) (Smith and Gaudin
2007). In a separate bat survey, Ford et al. (2004) found eight species of bats, including
the federally listed gray bat and a number of other bat species that were only identifiable
to the genus level (Myotis). The study used two primary methods and determined that it
would be in the parks interest to further study bats and utilize methods that may find
other species (Appendix H) (Ford et al. 2004).
Page | 31
Accipiter Biological Consultants (ABC) conducted a reptile and amphibian
inventory and found 41 out of an expected 50 species with suitable habitat in CHCH
(ABC 2006). While ABC did not find any nationally listed species within the park,
suitable habitat occurs for the Green Salamander (Aneides aeneus) and Pigeon
Mountain Salamander (Plethodon petraeus), which the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources considers “Species of Concern.” Interestingly, while plentiful in Walker
County portions of Chickamauga Battlefield, ABC did not find Cave Salamanders in
Dade County where they are listed as rare. Since suitable habitat exists, ABC
recommends that any of the nine unfound expected species could be added to the
documented list of herpetofauna species (Accipiter Biological Consultants 2006)
(Appendix I)
No one had previously sampled the small streams inside the park, but
Zimmerman (2007) documented 20 species of fish in a survey of five streams (Appendix
J). The stream with the highest number of species was Black Branch, which is
considered slightly degraded (Zimmerman 2007). The fish inventory’s low species count
could be due in part to the low stream order and intermittent nature of the streams
(Zimmerman 2007). No mention of non-native issues is associated with the fish
populations within the park.
The park is within the normal range of several state and federal endangered or
threatened species. If habitat exists within the park, the possibility exists that they could
be found. The large flowered skullcap, least tern, and gray bat are federally listed
species present in CHCH. Ford et al. (2004) suggested a study to determine the
Page | 32
presence or absence of the Indiana bat. The Tennessee and Georgia species of interest
lists include one amphibian, 27 species of birds, two mammals and 24 species of plants
that carry a state listing of one type or another and are expected or known to exist on
park land (NPSpecies Database Appendix B).
Trophic and Biotic Interaction
As related to web dynamics and browser affects, the greatest threats in the park
are mowing, deer browsing, and Chinese privet. The mowing changes habitat and alters
the prey available, especially for predatory birds (Stedman et al. 2007). This affects
predator-prey interactions and species diversity in the park. The deer browse, while not
showing signs of overpopulation could become a problem for the delicate glade
systems, along with the privet as it invades all areas of the park (Rogers 1996,
Stromayer et al. 1998).
Environmental Quality and Biotic Measures
Water Resources
Few test results are available for water quality within the park. For the most part,
the water readings taken during the most recent study (Meiman 2005) show the streams
are meeting standards for healthy water systems. Unfortunately, the exception is high
counts of fecal coliform. Meiman (2005) concluded that six out of seven streams are
considered to have a degraded or potentially degraded condition partially due to the
fecal coliform issues. Additionally, the Chickamauga stream system has several
Page | 33
significant issues with erosion along stream beds and run off from adjacent farm lands.
Only the West Chickamauga stream enters or borders the park (Meiman 2005), so this
erosion is not directly affecting the park system. However, water quality issues may
secondarily affect the park through the Karst groundwater system of which little is
known.
The wetlands study was ongoing at the time of the assessment and no formal
documentation or data were available.
Air Quality
NPS air quality data reveals that several aspects of the park, from the plants
themselves to the viewsheds are susceptible to damage due to air pollution. The park
has 25 species that are sensitive to ozone levels with 12 that are sensitive enough to
serve as bio-indicators (Table 1). No documented reports of foliar damage were found
during the research (NPS 2002).
Table 1 Ozone sensitive plant species found in the park.
Bio-indicator plants starred(*)
Ailanthus altissima *
Pinus taeda
Apios americana *
Pinus virginiana
Apocynum cannabinum
Platanus occidentalis
Asclepias syriaca *
Prunus serotina *
Cercis canadensis *
Prunus virginiana
Clematis virginiana
Robinia pseudoacacia
Corylus americana *
Rubus allegheniensis *
Fraxinus americana *
Rudbeckia laciniata *
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Sambucus canadensis *
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sassafras albidum
Liriodendron tulipifera *
Verbesina occidentalis *
Vitis labrusca *
Lyonia ligustrina *
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Page | 34
Air quality monitoring is achieved through several sites outside the park (Figure
10). The National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network
(NADP/NTN) site measures wet deposition (kg/ha) and pollutant concentration (µeq/L)
of sulfates, nitrates and ammonium. The site nearest CHCH is labeled AL99 and is 100
km (60 miles) southwest in Crossville, Alabama. As of 2002, results showed that overall
sulfate concentration and deposition had decreased while concentrations and
deposition of nitrate have increased. NPS doesn’t identify a trend in ammonium
deposition, but concentrations have increased (NPS 2002). Trend graphs of average
annual values are available from 1984 through 2006 from the NADP testing location’s
website (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/sites/siteinfo.asp?id=AL99) (Appendix K)
The Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet) site is also in Crossville.
The site is labeled SND152 or Sand Mountain, and as of the 2002 NPS report it
measured dry deposition of nitrogen and sulfur. The calculations have a higher
uncertainty due to the method of using measured ambient conditions and estimated
deposition rates to determine the actual amount deposited. CASTNet was still using the
same calculating methods in 2007 but reporting methods must have changed since the
NPS 2002 report, as the reporting website for the CASTNet location
(http://www.epa.gov/castnet//sites/snd152.html) gave the information for nitrate, sulfate,
and ammonium rather than just nitrogen or sulfur. Individual years can be accessed on
the website and trend plots are available for complete years as of 2005. The CASTNet
site also has pie charts depicting the composition of total nitrogen and sulfur deposition
for the period of 2002-2004 (Appendix L). The website trend plots and the report agree
Page | 35
in a slight decrease in dry sulfur, but no real trend in dry nitrogen.
Figure 10. Map of Air Quality Stations in Cumberland Piedmont Network with
Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park circled
http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/permits/aris/networks/images/cupnLg.jpg
The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) site is
at Cohutta Wilderness Area, GA 95 km (about 59 miles) east of CHCH and is labeled as
COHU1. Data is available on the IMPROVE website
(http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/Web/IMPROVE/SummaryData.aspx) but only for
the years of 2002 and 2004 for the COHU1 station. Judging by the data, the visibility
should have increased slightly, but the data sets are very similar so it may not be by a
Page | 36
noticeable amount. The 2002 NPS summary had an unexplained error in the previous
calculations so it had no trend information. Since 2002 was the first year it is most likely
that even without the error they would have been unable to identify a trend (NPS 2002).
Ozone levels are monitored from many sites within Chattanooga, TN, which is
within 20 km (about 12 miles) of most of the park units, with some Units actually in
Chattanooga. An ozone study of the CUPN by Kohut (2004) found that CHCH is at a
high risk of ozone damage using Sum06 and W126 measures (Table 2). Sum06 –
Measures the number of hours between 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM when concentrations of
ozone are equal to or greater than 0.06 parts per million (ppm) over a 90 day period.
Ecosystems, tree seedlings and crops can see damages such as leaf damage or loss at
8 - 12 ppm-hr, 10 - 16 ppm-hr, and 15 - 20 ppm-hr respectively (Kohut 2004).
W126 is similar to the Sum06, but a weighted system that gives significance to
concentration levels and also considers the number of hours over 100 parts per billion
(ppb) (N100). Damage occurs to highly sensitive species at 5.9 ppm-hr, or at an N100
of 6. Moderately sensitive species begin to suffer at 23.8 ppm-hr (N100 of 51) and low
sensitivity at 66.6 ppm-hr (N100 of 135) (Kohut 2004).
Table 2. Ozone Data for Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park from Kohut 2004
Page | 37
Soils and Sediments
In 1996 65,000 gallons of fuel oil and kerosene leaked from a pipeline that runs
through the park. Only 2000 gallons were recovered in the clean-up (EPA 1998). The
remainder of the oil was assumed to be assimilated into the Karst system. Little is
known about the karst system as it directly relates to the park (Szijkowski, J. 2007a).
Climate
The research for the Natural Resources assessment uncovered nothing relating
climate issues to the park or climate change models available for the region. At the time
of the 2007 assessment, CHCH was experiencing a severe drought that could affect
vegetation into the next season and that dried up many of the smaller springs (U.S.
Drought Monitor 2007). A possible climate issue, also related to air quality, is the haze
that disrupts the viewshed.
Biotic Health
Animals
Deer were reintroduced to the park in the 1970s after the population dropped to
low numbers (Tucker 1996), but by 1996, deer were determined to be at or near
carrying capacity. Before Route 27 bypassed around the park, road kills accounted for
9.5 percent of deer fatalities (Tucker 1996). Deer fatalities likely were reduced with
changes in traffic through the park. The deer browsing stresses the glades system
(Rogers 1996) and trampling is also a possible stress to the cedar glades (Sutter et al.
Page | 38
1994). Poaching occurs in the park and surrounding areas (Tucker 1996), which, while
undesirable, may help keep the deer population at a stable size (Szijkowski 2007a).
In addition, counties surrounding the park reported recent cases of rabies. These
reports earned CHCH a place on the federal oral rabies vaccine program, where baited
vaccines are dropped into the park in hopes of reducing the numbers of animals
susceptible to the virus (USDA 2006).
Plants
Hemlock woolly adelgid and dogwood anthracnose are affecting the health of
hemlock and dogwood trees in the park, respectively (Szijkowski 2007a). Pine beetles
killed many tracts of pine in the early 2000’s (Stedman et al. 2007).
Discussion
The primary purpose of CHCH is to preserve the land in a historical and cultural
context. The NPS makes management decisions with this purpose in mind, which
conflicts with managing for natural resources. Remedying the issues between purpose
and protection would lead to a more cohesive park. Nevertheless, the park shows a
great degree of biological diversity. Unique features include threatened and endangered
species such as the gray bat and flowered skullcap. Additionally, the cedar glades,
sagponds, and stratigraphic flats represent unique biotic communities of great interest.
Challenges to natural resources within the park include urban encroachment,
invasive plant species, and fecal coliforms in aquatic areas. Exotic species such as
privet, over-browsing by deer, and the current management of the historic fields pose
the greatest threats the flora and fauna of the park. Additionally, the scattered units of
Page | 39
the park are difficult to manage for ecological goals, and an in depth knowledge is
needed for many aspects of park ecology. Most of the studies were considered baseline
studies making it difficult to establish trends in communities and populations.
Recommendations
Park Management
For over 20 years, CHCH has functioned without a ranger with a natural
resources background and has never had a position specifically for natural resources.
This circumstance exists in part because the scope of the park is historical and cultural.
A natural resources professional would be a great asset to the CHCH team, especially
as the NPS rewrites the management plans for CHCH.
Revisions of all out-of-date plans should be a top management priority. In the
management plan updates, special consideration should be considered for the flora and
fauna of the park. Specifically, CHCH needs plans for the state and federally listed
species and for any species that pose or will pose a threat to the unique features of the
park. While water resources are under scrutiny, it is difficult to address this in
management because the majority of the threats come from outside the park system.
Changes in field management should be investigated. The animal species
inventories pointed out that with different management the diversity would be likely to
improve. Since NPS discourages recreation on the fields and most of the monuments
have trails that go to them, increasing the time between mowing would not interfere with
any of the purposes of the park. Changing to a schedule that puts different fields at
different successional levels would create more habitat diversity. Shrub/scrub is another
Page | 40
habitat type reduced by current management that was mentioned in the studies as
beneficial to diversity. Finding a way to increase habitat diversity would be a positive
measure for CHCH.
Future Research
CHCH studies provide only baseline data or snapshot information to evaluate
trends and adjust park management; therefore, research into species and habitats in
the park must be continued and expanded.
Conducting a study that directly relates to the field mowing could open
opportunities in habitat management. Such a study could develop a routine that will best
suit the scope of the park and increase diversity, which would be a beneficial goal for
the near future. A true cave inventory would also be helpful, to gain knowledge as to
how complicated the cave system below the park gets, or how the caves affect the
hydrology of the region and park.
Related to the habitat studies suggested, Ford et al. (2004) suggested another
bat study as the methodology was not the best for some species of bats and another
study could confirm the existence of another protected species within the park.
Additionally since Stedman et al. (2007) only found slightly more than half of the
expected species of birds further studies could be beneficial. Many of the bird species
that were not found would benefit from reduced mowing.
Critique
The State of the Parks publication consists of two parts, the Natural Resources
Assessment and the Cultural Resources Assessment (NPCA 2009). While this paper
Page | 41
only covers the Natural Resources Assessment, the cultural portion of the assessment
presented a rigorous and specific set of identifiers while much of the natural portion was
based on the availability of park research and inventories.
The paucity of available documentation caused difficulties in gathering research
needed to fill out the assessment on CHCH. Many of the available items, such as the
management plans, were old. Some of the inventories were so new that I had to contact
the researchers directly. Other reports were unavailable, because the studies were
stalled or researchers were changed. After I gathered the research, trends were difficult
to ascertain because only singular points on the timeline were available rather than a
series of points that I could be compare. The only reports that had any sort of ongoing
data were the plant inventory and air quality data for the region.
Another challenging part of the process was unclear NPCA directions on how to
go about the assessment. In fact, the papers submitted to NPCA for each park were
more a summation of available research rather than an actual assessment. The
assessment numbers and ratings of the resources are the place where the greatest
difference is found between the present paper and final publication. The difference is in
some extent due to possible disagreement in the interpretation of what certain aspects
of data and research were saying about the resource in question. In fact, researchers
were told it was very likely that the numbers in their ratings would be adjusted before
publication. While the ratings were similar, only one of the researcher’s ratings (Table 3)
was identical to the published ratings (Figure 12). It is unknown how NPCA concluded
which values were better or worse in each case.
Page | 42
Table 3. Ratings as discerned by researcher.
Total
Levels
Values
Ratings Category
ECOSYSTEM MEASURES (ESM)
I. Ecosystem Extent and Function (EEF)
IA. Cover and Habitat Characterization
IB. Fragmentation
IC. Community Structure and Function
ID. Disturbance Regimes
II. Species Composition and Condition
(SCC)
IIA. Total Species
IIB. Native Species
IIC. Trophic and Biotic Interactions
ENVIRONMENTAL & BIOTIC MEASURES
(EBM)
III. Biotic Impacts and Stressors (BIS)
IIIA. Animals
IIIB. Plants
IV. Environmental Quality Factors (EQF)
IVA. Air
IVB. Waters
IVC. Soils
OVERALL
(TLV)
65
41
9
6
14
12
Total
Levels
Addressed
Total
Applicable
Levels
(TLA)
(TAL)
BASIS
100 x
(TLA/TAL)
64.4
63.3
66.7
60
60
66.7
29
19
4
3
6
6
45
30
6
5
10
9
(TLV/3TLA)
74.7
71.9
75
66.7
77.8
66.7
24
10
8
6
10
4
3
3
20
4
8
8
80
83.3
88.9
66.7
50
100
37.5
37.5
69
27
12
15
42
11
26
5
134
29
12
5
7
17
5
10
2
58
65
27
13
14
48
10
25
13
110
79.3
75
80
71.4
82.4
73.3
86.7
83.3
77.0
44.6
44.4
38.5
50
35.4
50
40
15.4
52.7
Figure 12. Published Ratings National Parks Conservation Association 2009
Page | 43
RATING
100 x
Compared to the final State of the Parks publication (NPCA 2009), much of the
information was used as presented in the assessment report. Some sections had more
specific details pulled from the primary sources, while others were glossed over. In
some cases where information fell into two sections of the paper, some details were
missed when putting together the final product. Therefore, if one were to undertake
such a project in the future, the researcher may want to include all applicable
information in all places even at the risk of duplication. NPCA gives researchers a
structure and outline to follow, however, NPCA apparently only looks in the sections
where they expect the information to be included when putting together the final project.
The overall tone of the State of the Parks publications is one of confidence and
support of each park being reviewed, while making sure to point out where each park
could use help (NPCA 2009). Part of the reason the publications appear to be written
with a positive spin is because they serve a role in helping parks secure needed
funding. This spin often extends to the things that may be a future worry. For example,
rather than pointing out that the encroachment of suburban dwellings may become a
threat, the park is cast as an oasis of green space. While CHCH is the largest open
green space in the region and a heavily visited park, it would seem illogical to overlook
the importance of protecting the land use on the borders of the park properties, and if
possible, continuing to acquire bordering land parcels.
In final remarks, with more transparency and feedback in the process, especially
after the report is submitted, the assessment process could be considered a greater
learning experience for the researcher. Moreover, it would seem that availability of
research and inventories aside, the NPCA would be better served by researchers who
Page | 44
had more experience with the process and could better seek out the sort of information
that creates a useful end product.
Page | 45
References
Accipiter Biological Consultants. 2006. Inventory of the Herpetofauna of Chickamauga
and Chattanooga National Military Park. National Park Service. Mammoth Cave,
KY
Amick, H.C. 1934. The great valley of East Tennessee. Economic Geography 10(1):3552
Conley, R. J. 2005. The Cherokee Nation: a history. University of New Mexico Press
Albuquerque, NM
Cooley, N. E. 2004. Understanding traditional knowledge for ecological restoration: a
qualitative study with the Eastern Band of Cherokee. Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. Lookout Mountain pipeline rupture. Oil
Spill Program Update. 2(1):1-2
Ford, W.M., Edwards, J.W., and Johnson, J.B. 2004. Battlefield Bat Survey. Final
Report. National Park Service/US Forest Service
Govus, T.E. and White Jr., R.D. 2006. Vascular plant inventory and plant community
classification for Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park.
NatureServe. Durham, NC
Keller, R.D. 2004. A climbing management study for Chickamauga and Chattanooga
National Military Park. Final Report. National Park Service
Kohut, R.J., 2004. Ozone risk assessment for Vital Signs Monitoring Networks,
Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail.
NPS/NRPC/ARD/NRTR—2007/001. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO
Leibfreid, T.R., Woodman, R.L., and Thomas, S.C. 2005. Vital signs monitoring plan for
the Cumberland Piedmont Network and Mammoth Cave National Park prototype
monitoring program: July 2005. National Park Service. Mammoth Cave, KY.
Mayer, J. 1999. Spatial and temporal variation of groundwater chemistry in Pettyjohns
Cave, Northwest Georgia, USA. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies. 61(3): 131138
Meiman, J. 2005. Cumberland Piedmont Network Water Quality Report April 2005
Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park. National Park Service.
Mammoth Cave, KY
Page | 46
National Parks Conservation Association. 2003. Bill would preserve Moccasin Bend
site. National Parks. 77(3-4):12-13 (March April Issue)
National Parks Conservation Association. 2009. Tennessee’s Civil War National Parks:
A Resource Assessment. National Parks Conservation Association. Fort Collins,
CO
National Park Service. 1987. General Management Plan, Development Concept Plan,
Environmental Assessment for Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military
Park Georgia/Tennessee. National Park Service. Denver, CO
National Park Service. 2002. Air Quality Monitoring Considerations for the
Cumberland/Piedmont Network: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee
Units. NPS Air Resources Division, Denver, CO
National Park Service. 2005. Chickamauga Battlefield Trail Map. SJM092005 rev P
[Brochure] Fort Oglethorpe, GA
National Park Service. No date. Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Park News
website. http://www.nps.gov/chch/parknews/index.htm Retrieved August 2007
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). No date. Web Soil Survey Application.
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Retrieved August
2007
NPSpecies Proper: NPSpecies - The National Park Service Biodiversity Database.
Secure online version. https://science1.nature.nps.gov/npspecies/web/main/start
Retrieved August 2007
Paige, J.C., and Greene, J.A. 1983. Administrative History of Chickamauga and
Chattanooga National Military Park. National Park Service. Denver, CO
Ratnaswamy, M.J., Smith, M.H., Warren, R. J., Rogers, C.L., and Stromayer, K.A.K.
1999. Genetic effects of a population bottleneck on a restored deer herd in a
National Military Park. Natural Areas Journal. 19(1): 41-46
Ratnaswamy, M.J., Rogers, C.L., Warren, R.J., Smith, M.H., and Stromayer, K.A.K.
1993. Electrophoretic comparison of road-killed deer and live-captured deer
sampled by muscle biopsy. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the
Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 47:211-221
Rogers, C. L. 1996. Utilization of cedar glades by white-tailed deer at Chickamauga
Battlefield Park. University of Georgia. Athens, GA
Page | 47
Rogers, C. L. Ratnaswamy, M.J., Warren, R.J. 1993. Vegetation communities of
Chickamauga Battlefield National Military Park, Georgia. Technical Report
NPS/SERCHCH/NRTR-93/11. University of Georgia. Athens, GA
Santucci, V.L., Kentworthy, J. and Kerbo, R. 2001. An inventory of paleontological
resources associated with national park service caves. National Park Service
Geologic Resources Division Technical Report NPS/NRGRD/GRDTR-01/02
Lakewood, CO
Smith, M.B. and Gaudin, T.J. 2007. Terrestrial mammal inventory for the Chickamauga
and Chattanooga National Military Park. Unpublished Draft. National Park
Service/ University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Steadman, L. K. 1995. Genetic variability and movement ecology of white-tailed deer on
Chickamauga National Battlefield Park, GA. University of Georgia. Athens, GA
Stedman, S.J., Calhoon, K.A., and Stedman, B.H. 2007. Final report of bird inventory:
Chattanooga and Chickamauga National Military Park, 2004-2006. Unpublished
Report
Stromayer, K .A. K. 1996. White-tailed deer herbivory, Chinese privet management and
plant communities at Chickamauga Battlefield Park, Georgia, U.S.A. University of
Georgia. Athens, GA
Stromayer, K. A. K., Warren, R. J., Johnson, A. S., Hale, P. E., Rogers, C. L. and
Tucker, C. L. 1998 Chinese Privet and the Feeding Ecology of White-Tailed
Deer: The Role of an Exotic Plant. The Journal of Wildlife Management,
64(4):1321-1329
Sutter, R., Benjamin, S., Rollins, S., Livingstone, G., and Rudd, N. 1994. Baseline
monitoring of calcareous glades at Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military
Park. The Nature Conservancy. Chapel Hill, NC
Szijkowski, J. 2007a. NCPA/NPS Park meeting 13 June 2007
Szijkowski, J. 2007b Personal Communication follow up re: Land Protection Plan,
Resource Management Plan and Cave Inventory 13 September 2007
Tucker, C.L. 1996.Population ecology of white-tailed deer on Chickamauga Battlefield
Park, Georgia. University of Georgia. Athens, GA
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1996. Park Service asks Survey to monitor
air quality at Tennessee park. National Water Quality Laboratory Newsletter. 4(2)
http://nwql.usgs.gov/Public/news/Apr96/apr96.html Retrieved August 2007
Page | 48
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2006. National Rabies Management
Program website.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/rabies/orv/dist/2006/us2006np.html Retrieved
August 2006.
U.S. Drought Monitor. (2007). http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html Retrieved
August 2007
Vogel-Brown, C. 2004. Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park fire
management plan 2004. National Park Service. Chattanooga, TN
Zimmerman, J.C. 2007. Seasonal variations in fish assemblages of small warmwater
streams in four southeastern National Parks. The University of Tennessee.
Knoxville, TN
Page | 49
Appendix A - Soil Series
Compiled from Web Soil Survey
USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
Page | 50
For this section Area of Interest (AOI) = Catoosa County, GA side of Chickamauga Battlefield Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name CaB Capshaw silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Cedarbluff loam, occasionally flooded 200.7
3.50%
27.5
0.50%
Chenneby silt loam, occasionally flooded 57.6
CuB Cunningham silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 16.4
0.30%
DeB Dewey silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 30.6
0.50%
Cb Ce Es Ennis gravelly silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded Etowah loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes EtB Acres in AOI
0.4
Percent of AOI
81
1.40%
34.9
0.60%
FeC Fullerton gravelly silt loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes 38.4
0.70%
FeD Fullerton gravelly silt loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes 2.1
0.00%
FuC Fullerton‐Urban land complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes 15.6
0.30%
HoB Holston fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 1.3
0.00%
Ke Ketona silty clay loam, frequently flooded Lyerly silty clay loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Lyerly silty clay loam, 6 to 10 pecent slopes 32.6
0.60%
2,299.70
40.10%
458.9
8.00%
Page | 51
Moderately Well Very Low 0 Somewhat Poorly Moderately Low To Mod. High Somewhat Poorly Moderately High To High Well Moderately Low To Mod. High Well Moderately High To High Well High Well Moderately High To High Well Moderately High To High Well Moderately High To High Well Moderately High To High Well Moderately High To High Well Moderately High To High Poor Very Low 0 Well Very Low 0 Well Very Low 0 0.00%
Etowah loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes LeC Ksat 1.00%
EtC LeB Drainage class Map Unit Symbol Cont. Map Unit Name Cont. LrC Lyerly‐Rock outcrop complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes Lyerly‐Urban land complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes Rome silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded LuC RoA Acres in AOI
Cont. Percent of AOI
Cont. 107.1
1.90%
17.4
0.30%
113.9
2.00%
RoB Rome silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 21.8
0.40%
SmB Shack‐Minvale gravelly silt loams, 2 to 6 percent slopes 8.3
0.10%
TaB Talbott silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Talbott silt loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes Talbott silty clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, eroded Tupelo silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rarely flooded 125
2.20%
20
0.30%
0.8
0.00%
TaC TbC2 TpA TuA Tupelo silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded W Water Page | 52
217.8
214.4
31.8
Drainage Class Cont. Ksat Cont. Well Very Low 0 Well Very Low 0 Well Moderately High To High Well Moderately High To High Well Moderately High To High Well Very Low 0 Well Very Low 0 Well Very Low 0 Somewhat Poorly Moderately Low To Mod. High Somewhat Poorly Moderately Low To Mod. High 3.80%
3.70%
0.60%
For this section Area of Interest (AOI) = Hamilton County, TN portions of Lookout Mountain Map Unit Symbol AeC AeD BaE BoE BuF CdC Map Unit Name Acres in AOI
Allen loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes 2.4
Allen loam, 12 to 25 percent slopes 19.4
Barfield‐Rock outcrop complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes Bodine cherty silt loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Bouldin‐Gilpin complex, 20 to 60 percent slopes Percent of AOI 0.10%
5.90%
0.2
0.00%
0.1
Etowah silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 3.2
Fullerton cherty silt loam, 25 to 40 percent slopes 0.2
Ha Hamblen silt loam 62.6
2.00%
LiB Lily loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes 33.3
1.10%
RaD Ramsey loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes 13.9
0.40%
RcF Ramsey‐Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 70 percent slopes Sequatchie loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes 87.4
2.80%
FuE SeB 0.3
Moderately High To High Well Moderately High To High Well Moderately High Somewhat Excessively High Well/Well High/Moderately High To High Moderately Well Very Low To Moderately Low Well Moderately High To High Well Moderately High To High Moderately Well Moderately High To High Well Very Low To Moderately High Somewhat Excessively Very Low To Moderately High Somewhat Excessively Very Low To Moderately High 55.50%
Colbert‐Urban land complex, 2 to 12 percent slopes EtB Well 0.60%
183.8
1,740.40
Drainage class Ksat 0.00%
0.10%
0.00%
0.00%
Well Moderately High To High Moderately High To High Somewhat Poorly Moderately Low To Moderately High Well St Staser loam Tu Tupelo silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes W NRI 1982 water Page | 53
22.5
0.70%
0.1
0.00%
21.5
0.70%
Appendix B - State Listed Species Statuses and Codes for
CHCH
From NPSpecies (Printed by T. Leibfreid)
Page | 54
Page | 55
Page | 56
Page | 57
Page | 58
Page | 59
Page | 60
Page | 61
Appendix C - List Of All Plant Species Occurring in Glade
Communities in CHCH
Sutter et al. 1994
Page | 62
Page | 63
Page | 64
Page | 65
Appendix D - List of All Plant Species Historically
Documented at CHCH
NatureServe 2007 Vascular Plant Inventory (Govus & White)
Table 2
Page | 66
Page | 67
Page | 68
Page | 69
Page | 70
Page | 71
Page | 72
Page | 73
Page | 74
Page | 75
Page | 76
Page | 77
Page | 78
Page | 79
Page | 80
Page | 81
Page | 82
Page | 83
Page | 84
Page | 85
Page | 86
Page | 87
Page | 88
Page | 89
Page | 90
Page | 91
Page | 92
Page | 93
Page | 94
Appendix E - List of Invasive Plant Species Documented in
CHCH
Includes threat levels
NatureServe 2006 Vascular Plant Inventory (Govus & White)
Table 5
Page | 95
Page | 96
Page | 97
Page | 98
Appendix F - Species List of Birds Documented in CHCH
Stedman et al.. 2007
Page | 99
Page | 100
Page | 101
Page | 102
Page | 103
Page | 104
Page | 105
Page | 106
Appendix G – Species List of Mammals Documented in
CHCH
Smith and Gaudin 2007
Page | 107
Order Didelphimorphia
Didelphidae
Insectivora
Soricidae
Soricidae
Soricidae
Soricidae
Soricidae
Soricidae
Talpidae
Order Lagomorpha
Leporidae
Leporidae
Order Rodentia
Sciuridae
Sciuridae
Sciuridae
Sciuridae
Castoridae
Muridae
Muridae
Muridae
Muridae
Muridae
Muridae
Muridae
Muridae
Muridae
Muridae
Order Carnivora
Canidae
Canidae
Canidae
Procyonidae
Mustelidae
Mustelidae
Mustelidae
Felidae
Order Artiodactyla
Cervidae
Didelphis virginiana
Virginia Opossum
Sorex longirostris
Sorex hoyi
Sorex fumeus
Blarina brevicauda
Blarina carolinensis
Cryptotis parva
Scalopus aquaticus
Southeastern Shrew
Pygmy Shrew ≠
Smoky Shrew ≥
Northern Short-tailed Shrew
Southern Short-tailed Shrew
Least Shrew ≠
Eastern Mole
Sylvilagus floridanus
Sylvilagus aquaticus
Eastern Cottontail
Swamp Rabbit
Tamias striatus
Marmota monax
Sciurus carolinensis
Glaucomys volans
Castor Canadensis
Oryzomys palustris
Reithrodontomys humulis
Peromyscus polionotus
Peromyscus leucopus
Peromyscus gossypinus
Ochrotomys nuttalli
Sigmodon hispidus
Neotoma floridana
Microtus pinetorum
Ondatra zibethicus
Eastern Chipmunk
Woodchuck ≠
Eastern Gray Squirrel
Southern Flying Squirrel ≠
American Beaver
Marsh Rice Rat ≠
Eastern Harvest Mouse ≤
Oldfield Mouse ≠
White-footed Mouse
Cotton Mouse
Golden Mouse ≤
Hispid Cotton Rat
Eastern Woodrat
Woodland Vole
Common Muskrat
Canis latrans
Vulpes vulpes
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Procyon lotor
Mustela frenata
Mustela vison
Mephitis mephitis
Lynx rufus
Coyote
Red Fox ≠
Common Gray Fox ≠
Raccoon
Long-tailed Weasel ≠
American Mink ≠
Striped Skunk
Bobcat ≠
Odocoileus virginianus
White-tailed Deer
≠ Species expected but not found during survey
≤ Species not found during survey but found on adjacent lands
≥ Species not expected but found during study
Page | 108
Appendix H - Species List of Bats Documented in CHCH
Ford et al. 2004
Common Name
Scientific Name
big brown bat
(Eptesicus fuscus)
eastern pipistrelles
(Pipistrellus subflavens)
eastern red bats
(Lasiurus borealis )
evening bat
(Nyctesicus humeralis)
gray bat
(Myotis grisescens)
hoary bat
(Lasiurus cinereus)
little brown bats
(Myotis lucifugus)
northern bat
(Myotis septentrionalis)
Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii), the small-footed bat (Myotis
leibii) and the silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivigans) not found but known locally
Some echolocations only identifiably to Myotis spp
Page | 109
Appendix I - Species List of Herpetofauna Documented in
CHCH
Accipiter Biological Consultants 2006
Spotted Salamander
Green Frog
Spotted Dusky Salamander
Southern Leopard Frog
Southern Red-backed Salamander
Pickerel Frog
Zigzag Salamander
Common Snapping Turtle
Northern Slimy Salamander
Eastern Box Turtle
Spring Salamander
Hieroglyphic River Cooter
Northern Red Salamander
Eastern Fence Lizard
Southern Two-lined Salamander
Ground Skink
Longtail Salamander
Five-lined Skink
Cave Salamander
Midland Watersnake
American Toad
Eastern Garter Snake
Fowler's Toad
Smooth Earth Snake
Northern Cricket Frog
Ringneck Snake
Cope’s Gray Treefrog
Eastern Worm Snake (Midwest)
Spring Peeper
Rough Green Snake
Upland Chorus Frog
Rat Snake
Eastern Narrowmouth Toad
Black Kingsnake
Bullfrog
Copperhead
Northern Black Racer, Timber Rattlesnake, Eastern Hognose Snake, Spotted Dusky Salamander and
Common Musk Turtle seen during study but outside parameters
Marbled Salamander, Red-spotted Newt, Broadhead Skink, Northern Pine Snake, Brown Snake, Redbellied Snake, Corn Snake, Mole Kingsnake and Southeastern Crowned Snake expected but not located
Page | 110
Appendix J - Species List of Fish Documented in CHCH
Compiled from Zimmerman 2007
Species Scientific Name
Campostoma oligolepis Catostomus commersonii Cottus carolinae Etheostoma caeruleum Etheostoma simoterum Fundulus olivaceus Gambusia affinis Hypentelium nigricans Ichthyomyzon spp. Lepomis auritus Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis gulosus Lepomis macrochirus Lepomis microlophus Luxilus chrysocephalus Luxilus coccogenis Micropterus salmoides Pimephales notatus Rhinichthys obtusus Semotilus atromaculatus Page | 111
Common Name Largescale stoneroller White Sucker Banded sculpin Rainbow darter Snubnose darter Blackspotted topminnow Mosquitofish Northern hogsucker Lamprey spp. Redbreast sunfish Green sunfish Warmouth Bluegill Redear sunfish Striped shiner Warpaint shiner Largemouth bass Bluntnose minnow Western blacknose dace Creek chub Appendix K - Wet Deposition and Annual Concentration
Trend Graphs
NADP/NTN Website
Page | 112
Page | 113
Page | 114
Page | 115
Appendix L - Composition of Total Deposition
Nitrogen and Sulfur for the years 2002-2004
http://www.epa.gov/castnet//sites/snd152.html
Page | 116
Page | 117