DOCSLIB.ORG

Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Ninety Six National Historic Site

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Ninety Six National Historic Site National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Ninety Six National Historic Site Natural Resource Report NPS/NISI/NRR—2012/523 ON THE COVER Ninety Six NHS Reenactor Cannon Crew Photograph by: NPS Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Ninety Six National Historic Site Natural Resource Report NPS/NISI/NRR—2012/523 Luke Worsham, Gary Sundin, 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 May 2012 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received informal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. 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: Worsham, L., G. Sundin, N. Nibbelink, M. Mengak, and G. Grossman. 2012. Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Ninety Six National Historic Site. Natural Resource Report NPS/NISI/NRR—2012/523. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. NPS 463/114155, May 2012 ii Contents Page Figures........................................................................................................................................... vii Tables ............................................................................................................................................. ix Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... xiii Prologue ....................................................................................................................................... xiii Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................ xv Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... xvii Purpose ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Ranking Methodology .................................................................................................................... 3 Data Description ............................................................................................................................. 7 Park Resources and Introduction .................................................................................................. 11 Park Location and Significance ............................................................................................. 11 Park Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 11 Climate, Geology, and Soils .................................................................................................. 11 Hydrology .............................................................................................................................. 13 History and Park Significance ............................................................................................... 14 Natural Resources and NPS Vital Signs ................................................................................ 15 Natural Resource Conditions ........................................................................................................ 21 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................. 21 Ozone ................................................................................................................................ 21 Foliar Injury ...................................................................................................................... 23 Hydrology .............................................................................................................................. 27 Water Chemistry ............................................................................................................... 27 Microorganisms ................................................................................................................ 34 iii Contents (continued) Page Hydrology ......................................................................................................................... 36 Invasive Species ..................................................................................................................... 37 Infestations and Disease ........................................................................................................ 41 Southern Pine Beetle ......................................................................................................... 41 Ips Beetle .......................................................................................................................... 41 Gypsy Moth ...................................................................................................................... 42 Forest Communities ............................................................................................................... 44 Classification..................................................................................................................... 44 Accuracy Assessment ....................................................................................................... 44 Significant Communities .................................................................................................. 45 Wetland Communities ...................................................................................................... 49 Fish Communities .................................................................................................................. 53 Bird Communities .................................................................................................................. 58 Mammal Communities .......................................................................................................... 61 Herpetofaunal Community .................................................................................................... 65 Rare Plants ............................................................................................................................. 68 Landscape Dynamics ............................................................................................................. 73 Landcover Class Comparisons .......................................................................................... 73 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 75 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 75 Natural Resource Conditions ................................................................................................. 75 Ozone ................................................................................................................................ 75 Foliar injury ...................................................................................................................... 76 iv Contents (continued) Page Hydrology ......................................................................................................................... 76 Invasive Plants .................................................................................................................. 77 Insect Pests ........................................................................................................................ 77 Vegetation Communities .................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SALT TOLERANT PLANTS Recommended for Pender County Landscapes
    North Carolina Cooperative Extension NC STATE UNIVERSITY SALT TOLERANT PLANTS Recommended for Pender County Landscapes Pender County Cooperative Extension Urban Horticulture Leaflet 14 Coastal Challenges Plants growing at the beach are subjected to environmental conditions much different than those planted further inland. Factors such as blowing sand, poor soils, high temperatures, and excessive drainage all influence how well plants perform in coastal landscapes, though the most significant effect on growth is salt spray. Most plants will not tolerate salt accumulating on their foliage, making plant selection for beachfront land- scapes particularly challenging. Salt Spray Salt spray is created when waves break on the beach, throwing tiny droplets of salty water into the air. On-shore breezes blow this salt laden air landward where it comes in contact with plant foliage. The amount of salt spray plants receive varies depending on their proximity to the beachfront, creating different vegetation zones as one gets further away from the beachfront. The most salt-tolerant species surviving in the frontal dune area. As distance away from the ocean increases, the level of salt spray decreases, allowing plants with less salt tolerance to survive. Natural Protection The impact of salt spray on plants can be lessened by physically blocking salt laden winds. This occurs naturally in the maritime forest, where beachfront plants protect landward species by creating a layer of foliage that blocks salt spray. It is easy to see this effect on the ocean side of maritime forest plants, which are “sheared” by salt spray, causing them to grow at a slant away from the oceanfront.
    [Show full text]
  • Glamorgan Botany Group 2017 Excursion Report
    Glamorgan Botany Group 2017 Excursion Report With the end of the BSBI’s date-class inching closer, our six excursions this year all focused on 1km squares with precisely zero post-2000 records in the BSBI’s database, and over the course of our visits we recorded plants in 24 of these squares. As always, it is difficult to pick highlights, but April’s Ceratochloa carinata (California Brome) and September’s Juncus foliosus (Leafy Rush) certainly rank among the most significant discoveries... although those preferring plants with less ‘specialist appeal’ may have chosen the fine display of Dactylorhiza praetermissa (Southern Marsh Orchid) in June or the array of bog plants in July and September! Of course, we’re always sharing tips on plant identification, and this year provided plenty of opportunities to do that too – so if you want to get to know Glamorgan’s plants better, then keep an eye out for our 2018 excursion plan, which we’ll send round in February. David Barden, Karen Wilkinson and Julian Woodman Barry – Saturday 22 April On a bright, sunny, warm day, 10 botanists met to explore the open spaces in and around the old villages of Cadoxton and Merthyr Dyfan, now well within the urban area of Barry. Starting in a small area of grassland next to our meeting point, we found a few species of interest including Medicago arabica (Spotted Medick), Lactuca virosa (Great Lettuce), and Papaver lecoqii (Yellow-juiced Poppy, identified by its yellow sap). Moving into Victoria Park (shown on old maps as Cadoxton Common), we found a good range of species of short grassland, with pale- flowered Geranium molle (Dove’s-foot Cranesbill) resulting in an examination of the characteristics separating it from G.
    [Show full text]
  • North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Gordon Myers, Executive Director
    North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Gordon Myers, Executive Director March 1, 2016 Honorable Jimmy Dixon Honorable Chuck McGrady N.C. House of Representatives N.C. House of Representatives 300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 416B 300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 304 Raleigh, NC 27603-5925 Raleigh, NC 27603-5925 Senator Trudy Wade N.C. Senate 300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 521 Raleigh, NC 27603-5925 Dear Honorables: I am submitting this report to the Environmental Review Committee in fulfillment of the requirements of Section 4.33 of Session Law 2015-286 (H765). As directed, this report includes a review of methods and criteria used by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission on the State protected animal list as defined in G.S. 113-331 and compares them to federal and state agencies in the region. This report also reviews North Carolina policies specific to introduced species along with determining recommendations for improvements to these policies among state and federally listed species as well as nonlisted animals. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me by phone at (919) 707-0151 or via email at [email protected]. Sincerely, Gordon Myers Executive Director North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Report on Study Conducted Pursuant to S.L. 2015-286 To the Environmental Review Commission March 1, 2016 Section 4.33 of Session Law 2015-286 (H765) directed the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) to “review the methods and criteria by which it adds, removes, or changes the status of animals on the state protected animal list as defined in G.S.
    [Show full text]
  • State of New York City's Plants 2018
    STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 Daniel Atha & Brian Boom © 2018 The New York Botanical Garden All rights reserved ISBN 978-0-89327-955-4 Center for Conservation Strategy The New York Botanical Garden 2900 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10458 All photos NYBG staff Citation: Atha, D. and B. Boom. 2018. State of New York City’s Plants 2018. Center for Conservation Strategy. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 132 pp. STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 10 DOCUMENTING THE CITY’S PLANTS 10 The Flora of New York City 11 Rare Species 14 Focus on Specific Area 16 Botanical Spectacle: Summer Snow 18 CITIZEN SCIENCE 20 THREATS TO THE CITY’S PLANTS 24 NEW YORK STATE PROHIBITED AND REGULATED INVASIVE SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY 26 LOOKING AHEAD 27 CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEGMENTS 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 APPENDIX Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of New York City 32 Ferns and Fern Allies 35 Gymnosperms 36 Nymphaeales and Magnoliids 37 Monocots 67 Dicots 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, State of New York City’s Plants 2018, is the first rankings of rare, threatened, endangered, and extinct species of what is envisioned by the Center for Conservation Strategy known from New York City, and based on this compilation of The New York Botanical Garden as annual updates thirteen percent of the City’s flora is imperiled or extinct in New summarizing the status of the spontaneous plant species of the York City. five boroughs of New York City. This year’s report deals with the City’s vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms, We have begun the process of assessing conservation status and flowering plants), but in the future it is planned to phase in at the local level for all species.
    [Show full text]
  • Elaeagnus (Elaeagnaceae)
    Eleagnus Elaeagnus (Elaeagnaceae) angustifolia, Russian Olive Origin: Southern Europe, Central Asia, China. Large shrub or small deciduous tree, thorny with spreading branches, covered in silvery scales. Lanceolate leaves, up to 8cm long, 2- 3cm wide, grey-green on the upper side, silver underneath. Small, yellowish-white flowers in summer, followed by silvery-yellow fruit which look like small olives, in autumn. Grows well in all types of soil, even dry and sandy soil. Resistant to drought, saltiness and pollution. Useful for green screens and seaside boulevards. x ebbingei Origin: hybrid between Elaeagnus macrophylla and Elaeagnus pungens. Evergreen shrub with upright, compact habit. The branches are slightly thorny, over time they get very long and become weeping at the ends. Alternate, oval, slightly undulate leaves, 5-10cm long and 3-6cm wide, glossy dark green on the upper side, silvery with brown spots on the underside. White, hanging flowers like small tubes 1cm long in groups of 3-6. They open from September to November on the axils of the leaves. Reddish fruits, edible, that look like small olives. Grows in almost all types of soil, even sandy, calcareous on the surface or very moist in winter. Tolerates maritime exposure. Withstands pruning and is used for obtaining beautiful evergreen hedges in a short time. When formed into a tree it can be included in the range of trees used for making evergreen avenues near the sea. Vivai MGF – Nursery – Pépinières – Viveros - Baumschulen Eleagnus x ebbingei “Eleador”® Origin: France. Selection of Elaeagnus x ebbingei “Limelight”, from which it differs in the following ways: • in the first years it grows more in width and less in height; • the leaves are larger (7-12cm long, 4-6cm wide), and the central golden yellow mark is wider and reaches the margins; • it does not produce branches with all green leaves, but only an occasional branch which bears both variegated leaves and green leaves.
    [Show full text]
  • Acer Leucoderme Chalk Maple1 Edward F
    Fact Sheet ST-19 November 1993 Acer leucoderme Chalk Maple1 Edward F. Gilman and Dennis G. Watson2 INTRODUCTION This 25 to 30-foot-tall native North American tree is reportedly quite similar to Acer barbatum or Florida Maple and is often seen with multiple trunks (Fig. 1). The chalky white or light gray bark is quite attractive, with the bark on older trees becoming ridged and blackened near the ground. The two to three-inch- diameter, lobed leaves, with fuzzy undersides, give a spectacular display in the fall months, ranging from shimmering yellow to vivid orange and deep red. GENERAL INFORMATION Scientific name: Acer leucoderme Pronunciation: AY-ser loo-koe-DER-mee Common name(s): Chalk Maple, Whitebark Maple Family: Aceraceae USDA hardiness zones: 5B through 8 (Fig. 2) Origin: native to North America Uses: large parking lot islands (> 200 square feet in size); wide tree lawns (>6 feet wide); medium-sized tree lawns (4-6 feet wide); recommended for buffer strips around parking lots or for median strip plantings in the highway; near a deck or patio; reclamation Figure 1. Middle-aged Chalk Maple. plant; shade tree; specimen Availability: grown in small quantities by a small or less identical crown forms number of nurseries Crown shape: oval Crown density: dense DESCRIPTION Growth rate: slow Texture: medium Height: 25 to 30 feet Spread: 15 to 30 feet Crown uniformity: symmetrical canopy with a regular (or smooth) outline, and individuals have more 1. This document is adapted from Fact Sheet ST-19, a series of the Environmental Horticulture Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.
    [Show full text]
  • 28. GALIUM Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. 1: 105. 1753
    Fl. China 19: 104–141. 2011. 28. GALIUM Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. 1: 105. 1753. 拉拉藤属 la la teng shu Chen Tao (陈涛); Friedrich Ehrendorfer Subshrubs to perennial or annual herbs. Stems often weak and clambering, often notably prickly or “sticky” (i.e., retrorsely aculeolate, “velcro-like”). Raphides present. Leaves opposite, mostly with leaflike stipules in whorls of 4, 6, or more, usually sessile or occasionally petiolate, without domatia, abaxial epidermis sometimes punctate- to striate-glandular, mostly with 1 main nerve, occasionally triplinerved or palmately veined; stipules interpetiolar and usually leaflike, sometimes reduced. Inflorescences mostly terminal and axillary (sometimes only axillary), thyrsoid to paniculiform or subcapitate, cymes several to many flowered or in- frequently reduced to 1 flower, pedunculate to sessile, bracteate or bracts reduced especially on higher order axes [or bracts some- times leaflike and involucral], bracteoles at pedicels lacking. Flowers mostly bisexual and monomorphic, hermaphroditic, sometimes unisexual, andromonoecious, occasionally polygamo-dioecious or dioecious, pedicellate to sessile, usually quite small. Calyx with limb nearly always reduced to absent; hypanthium portion fused with ovary. Corolla white, yellow, yellow-green, green, more rarely pink, red, dark red, or purple, rotate to occasionally campanulate or broadly funnelform; tube sometimes so reduced as to give appearance of free petals, glabrous inside; lobes (3 or)4(or occasionally 5), valvate in bud. Stamens (3 or)4(or occasionally 5), inserted on corolla tube near base, exserted; filaments developed to ± reduced; anthers dorsifixed. Inferior ovary 2-celled, ± didymous, ovoid, ellipsoid, or globose, smooth, papillose, tuberculate, or with hooked or rarely straight trichomes, 1 erect and axile ovule in each cell; stigmas 2-lobed, exserted.
    [Show full text]
  • Information on the NCWRC's Scientific Council of Fishes Rare
    A Summary of the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina Submitted by Bryn H. Tracy North Carolina Division of Water Resources North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC On behalf of the NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes November 01, 2014 Bigeye Jumprock, Scartomyzon (Moxostoma) ariommum, State Threatened Photograph by Noel Burkhead and Robert Jenkins, courtesy of the Virginia Division of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Southeastern Fishes Council (http://www.sefishescouncil.org/). Table of Contents Page Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 3 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes In North Carolina ........... 4 Summaries from the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina .......................................................................................................................... 12 Recent Activities of NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes .................................................. 13 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part I, Ohio Lamprey .............................................. 14 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part II, “Atlantic” Highfin Carpsucker ...................... 17 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part III, Tennessee Darter ...................................... 20 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Downtown Tree Management Plan City of Atlanta, Georgia November 2012
    Downtown Tree Management Plan City of Atlanta, Georgia November 2012 Prepared for: City of Atlanta Department of Planning and Community Development Arborist Division, Tree Conservation Commission 55 Trinity Avenue SW, Suite 3800 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Prepared by: Davey Resource Group A Division of The Davey Tree Expert Company 1500 North Mantua Street P.O. Box 5193 Kent, Ohio 44240 800-828-8312 Table of Contents Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................................................... iv Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................... vi Section 1: Urban Forest Overview.............................................................................................................................. 1 Section 2: Tree Inventory Assessment and Analysis ................................................................................................. 8 Overall Findings ........................................................................................................................................................ 11 Downtown Area Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 21 Expanded Inventory Area Findings .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • For: March 31, 2018
    Plant Lover’s Almanac Jim Chatfield Ohio State University Extension For: March 31, 2018 AcerMania. AcerPhilia. The crazy love of one of our greatest group of trees. Maples. From maple syrup to maple furniture. From musical instruments due to their tone-carrying trait to a wondrous range of landscape plants. Here are a few queries about maples I have received recently and a few rhetorical questions I have added to the mix for proper seasoning. Q. – Which maples are used to make maple syrup? A. – How topical. The obvious answer is sugar maple, Acer saccharum, with sweetness of the sap sewn into its Latin name. Silver maple is also sometimes used, and its Latin name, Acer saccharinum, suggests this is so. Black maple, Acer nigrum, is commonly used and it is so closely-related to sugar maple that it is often considered a sub-species. Box elder, Acer negundo, is also used somewhat in Canada, but to me one of the most surprisingly tapped maples, increasing in popularity in Ohio is red maple, Acer rubrum. Its sap is less sweet but red maple sugar-bushes are easier to manage. Q. Where does the name “Ácer” come from? A. The origins are somewhat obscure, but one theory is that its roots mean “sharp”, which if true would relate to the pointed nature of the leaf lobes on many maples. As a Latin genus name, Acer has over 120 species worldwide, with only one in the southern hemisphere. Q. – Which maples are native to the United States? A. - Five are familiar to us here in the northeastern U.S., namely sugar maple, red maple, silver maple, striped maple and box elder.
    [Show full text]
  • Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- ERICACEAE
    Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- ERICACEAE ERICACEAE (Heath Family) A family of about 107 genera and 3400 species, primarily shrubs, small trees, and subshrubs, nearly cosmopolitan. The Ericaceae is very important in our area, with a great diversity of genera and species, many of them rather narrowly endemic. Our area is one of the north temperate centers of diversity for the Ericaceae. Along with Quercus and Pinus, various members of this family are dominant in much of our landscape. References: Kron et al. (2002); Wood (1961); Judd & Kron (1993); Kron & Chase (1993); Luteyn et al. (1996)=L; Dorr & Barrie (1993); Cullings & Hileman (1997). Main Key, for use with flowering or fruiting material 1 Plant an herb, subshrub, or sprawling shrub, not clonal by underground rhizomes (except Gaultheria procumbens and Epigaea repens), rarely more than 3 dm tall; plants mycotrophic or hemi-mycotrophic (except Epigaea, Gaultheria, and Arctostaphylos). 2 Plants without chlorophyll (fully mycotrophic); stems fleshy; leaves represented by bract-like scales, white or variously colored, but not green; pollen grains single; [subfamily Monotropoideae; section Monotropeae]. 3 Petals united; fruit nodding, a berry; flower and fruit several per stem . Monotropsis 3 Petals separate; fruit erect, a capsule; flower and fruit 1-several per stem. 4 Flowers few to many, racemose; stem pubescent, at least in the inflorescence; plant yellow, orange, or red when fresh, aging or drying dark brown ...............................................Hypopitys 4 Flower solitary; stem glabrous; plant white (rarely pink) when fresh, aging or drying black . Monotropa 2 Plants with chlorophyll (hemi-mycotrophic or autotrophic); stems woody; leaves present and well-developed, green; pollen grains in tetrads (single in Orthilia).
    [Show full text]