Application of Natural Resource Condition Assessments to Two Small National Parks

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and researchfunders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.

Application of Natural Resource Condition Assessments to Two Small National ParksAuthor(s): G.D. Willson, S. Narumalani, C.K. Lockert and P.B.T. MeraniSource: Natural Areas Journal, 34(2):235-248. 2014.Published By: Natural Areas AssociationDOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3375/043.034.0214URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3375/043.034.0214

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmentalsciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies,associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms ofUse, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.

Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights andpermissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3375/043.034.0214

http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3375/043.034.0214

http://www.bioone.org

http://www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use

Volume 34 (2), 2014 Natural Areas Journal 235

Natural Areas Journal 34:235–248

•

Application of Natural Resource

Condition Assessments to Two Small National Parks

G.D. Willson1,3

1Great Plains Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit

University of Nebraska–Lincoln51 Hardin Hall Rm. 515Lincoln, NE 68583, USA

S. Narumalani2

C.K. Lockert2

P.B.T. Merani2

2School of Natural ResourcesUniversity of Nebraska–Lincoln

Lincoln, NE, USA

•

3 Corresponding author: [email protected]

ABSTRACT: Using a scorecard approach, we assessed the condition of natural resources within the major habitats in Mount Rushmore National Memorial (MORU), South Dakota, and Niobrara National Scenic River (NIOB), Nebraska, as part of a “pilot” effort to determine a National Park Service (NPS) system-wide approach to Natural Resource Condition Assessments (NRCA). Both parks are considered small – MORU because of size (517 ha) and NIOB because the NPS does not own land within the boundary of the park. Small parks often contain resources that are not well-known because they lack research, monitoring, and staff expertise. However, we found adequate information to assess the condi-tion, and sometimes trend, of 12 of 15 biodiversity and process indicators at MORU and 17 of 22 at NIOB, although most of the data we used to establish reference conditions came from sources outside of the parks. We believe forested habitats at MORU and NIOB are in poor condition and deteriorating primarily due to the suppression of fire for over 100 years. This is in contrast to the rivers, streams, and wetland habitats at both parks that are in good condition but threatened by an exotic fish (MORU) and reductions in streamflow and exotic plants (NIOB). For two habitats – stream and wetland (MORU) and Niobrara River and tributaries (NIOB) – we suggest several indicators of current condition be added as Vital Signs for long-term monitoring. The score-card approach is limited to those small parks with data to establish reference conditions for indicators.

Index terms: biodiversity and process indicators and measures, habitats, Mount Rushmore National Me-morial, natural resource condition assessments, Niobrara National Scenic River, stressors, Vital Signs

INTRODUCTION

To better understand and manage natural resources in national parks, the United States Congress established and the Na-tional Park Service (NPS) implemented the Natural Resource Challenge (NRC) in 1999 (Fancy et al. 2009). As part of the NRC, the NPS initiated a long-term ecological monitoring program, known as Vital Signs monitoring (NPS 2007). Due to budget and staffing restrictions, Vital Signs monitoring in parks is limited to a relatively small, but informative, set of in-dicators that track the long-term condition or “health” of park resources. Vital Signs monitoring also incorporates monitoring of park and regional resources (e.g., air quality) through partnerships with other agencies and organizations.

In 2003, as a supplement to the NRC, Congress instructed the NPS to assess envi-ronmental conditions in 270 park units with significant natural resources (NPS 2010). Accordingly, the NPS initiated the Natural Resource Condition Assessment (NRCA) Program to better understand resource conditions in and adjacent to parks (Mahan et al. 2009; NPS 2010). These assessments evaluate current conditions, critical infor-mation gaps, and stressor influences on a set of natural resource indicators. Study methods typically involve an informal synthesis of existing scientific data and information from a wide range of NPS and

non-NPS sources. However, NRCAs are not exhaustive in scope due to their modest funding and short timeframe for completion (i.e., 1–2 years). Each NRCA results in a written report and maps that:• characterize park natural resourc-es within a larger ecosystem context;• determine reference and current conditions/values for a set of indicators;• convey resource condition status for a set of indicators as well as overall conditions by watershed, habitat types, or park management zones;• highlight data and knowledge gaps, and resource threats;• describe resources most at-risk.

Whereas Vital Signs monitoring assists managers in understanding the status and trends of natural resources in parks as a basis for making informed resource man-agement decisions, NRCAs provide man-agers a “snapshot in time” of the condition of natural resources in parks that can be used in accountability reporting.

During 2007–2010, as part of an NPS “pilot” effort to determine a system-wide approach to NRCAs, we assessed the condition of natural resources in Mount Rushmore National Memorial (MORU) in the Black Hills of South Dakota and in Niobrara National Scenic River (NIOB) in north-central Nebraska. These parks are two of 13 park units within the Northern Great Plains Inventory and Monitoring

C O N S E R V A T I O N I S S U E S

236 Natural Areas Journal Volume 34 (2), 2014

Network (NGPN), one of 32 Vital Signs monitoring networks that encompass all of the parks units nationwide with significant natural resources (Fancy et al. 2009). At the time we began the assessments for MORU and NIOB, most completed or ongoing NRCAs were for large parks, such as Acadia National Park in Maine and Rocky Mountain National Park in Colo-rado, that have a long history of research and monitoring. Both MORU and NIOB are considered small – MORU because of size (517 ha) and NIOB because the NPS does not own land within the boundary of the park. Small parks often contain natural resources that are not well known due to the lack of research and long-term moni-toring. Furthermore, some small parks, such as MORU, do not employ full-time natural resource managers and, thus, may lack staff with knowledge of important resources.

ASSESSMENT SITES

Mount Rushmore National Memorial was established to protect the mountaintop sculpture of four presidents of the United States in its natural setting (NPS 1980). At 519 ha, MORU has limited but signifi-cant natural resources that are somewhat sheltered in a landscape dominated by the Black Hills National Forest. Impor-tant natural resources include about 344 ha of old-growth ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forest – or about 17 percent of this forest type in the Black Hills (Symstad and Bynum 2007) – and the Starling Basin wetland complex, which is considered an important conservation site in the Black Hills for bats (Schmidt et al. 2004), rep-tiles, amphibians (Smith et al. 2005), and butterflies (Marrone 2004).

The central Niobrara River Valley is often referred to as a “biological crossroads,” with plants and animals representative of northern boreal forest, eastern deciduous forest, Rocky Mountain evergreen forest, tallgrass prairie, Sand Hills prairie, and mixed grass prairie (Kaul et al. 1988). Niobrara National Scenic River preserves a 122-km long reach of the Niobrara River in this unique landscape. However, only about 320 ha of the scenic river’s 9338 ha are in public (non-NPS) owner-

ship. Important natural resources include the Niobrara River; tributary springs and waterfalls; diverse plant and animal com-munities including Pleistocene relicts; and sandy shorelines, sandbars, and wetlands (Johnsgard 2007).

METHODS

NPS guidelines for conducting pilot NRCAs allow investigators flexibility in selecting a study framework (i.e., ecologi-cal or management unit, indicators, and datasets) in order to meet individual park circumstances and information needs. We chose a scorecard approach to present the condition of major habitats in MORU and NIOB that is similar to the State of the Parks reports for Canadian National Parks (Stem et al. 2005; Dobbie et al. 2006). We chose park habitat as the ecological unit to assess because major habitats at MORU were identified in a vegetation map of the memorial (Salas and Pucherelli 1998) and at NIOB in an ecological overview of the Niobrara River Valley (Johnsgard 2007). We included three habitats at MORU – (1) forest, (2) rock outcrop and barren, and (3) stream and wetland; and five habitats at NIOB – (1) Niobrara River and tribu-taries, (2) upland forest and savanna, (3) spring branch canyon and riparian forest, (4) grassland, and (5) sandbars, sandy shorelines, and wetlands (Tables 1 and 2). These habitats provide the ecological framework for the assessments, and their conditions and trends are assessed by a suite of biodiversity and process indicators (Tables 1 and 2).

We selected initial indicators and the stressors acting on them based on a review of the published and unpublished literature about the natural resources of the memorial and scenic river, the Black Hills region and central Niobrara River Valley, and, to a lesser extent, other national park units in the Northern Great Plains. Very few of these indicators (e.g., streamflow) are con-sistently monitored in the parks. However, many of these indicators are monitored in protected areas that are located adjacent to the parks, including Black Hills National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2007), Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999), and Nio-

brara Valley Preserve (The Nature Conser-vancy 1999). Early in the development of the assessments, we held a workshop with the staff of both parks and the NGPN to review and discuss the scorecard approach and initial lists of indicators and stressors. We refined these lists following input from the workshop participants and the judg-ment of subject-matter experts, inventory and monitoring specialists, and resource managers who had particular knowledge of park habitats. (See Teck et al. 2010 for an example of expert judgement as an ac-cepted source of assessment in data-poor circumstances.)

For most indicators, we identified one or more measures and compared the current value or range of values of those measures (i.e., current conditions) with a value or range of values representing an acceptable resource condition (i.e., reference condi-tions) suggested by historical data, data from relatively undisturbed sites, predictive models, expert judgement, or a regulatory standard (Fancy 2008).

RESULTS

We identified 15 indicators for MORU and 22 for NIOB (Tables 1 and 2). We wrote a one to three page summary of each indicator and, when information was adequate, we assessed its resource condi-tion and trend (Figures 1 and 2). For three indicators at MORU and five at NIOB, we were unable to assess condition because of a lack of site-specific resource data (i.e., current conditions).

We also identified the major stressors act-ing on these indicators. For MORU they include:• fire suppression: more than a cen-tury of fire exclusion resulted in a higher probability of catastrophic crown fire in the old-growth ponderosa pine forest;• exotic trout competition: the pres-ence of exotic brook trout (Salvenlinus fontinalus) in streams and ponds may be limiting the presence and abundance of native fishes;• mountain pine beetle (Den-droctonus ponderosae) infestation: most ponderosa pine stands have a moderate or high risk of attack;


Indicator Measure Reference Current

Forest

Old-growth p. pine1

Tree basal area [mean (SE) m2/ha] 23.6 (2.2) 30.7 (2.7)

Tree density [mean (SE) trees/ha] 280 (36) 1,309 (288)

Canopy base ht.[mean (SE) m] 6.1 (0.3) 4.2 (0.5)

Fire interval (yrs.) 16-34 >100

Birch/hazelnut None

Breeding birds2

Red-br. nuthatch density (birds/ha) 0.48-0.58 0.39-0.60

Yellow-ru, warbler density (birds/ha) 0.67-0.76 0.11-0.72

Brown creeper2

Abundance (birds/point) 0.11-0.17 0.07-0.27

Mountain pine beetle3

Risk of infestation (%) Moderate 26-34 Moderate 71

High 11-15 High 29

Land cover4

Contagion index 82.08 85.66

ShDI index 0.94 0.74

Fire5

Fuel load (tons/acre) 9.74 37.71

Dominant type Surface Crown

Crowning index (km/h) <40.2 >100

Fire interval (yrs.) 16-34 >100

Rock outcrop and barren

Mountain goat6

Abundance (no.) 0 <25

Land cover4


ShDI 0.94 0.74

Lichens None

Stream and wetland

Native/exotic fishes7

L. dace abundance (no./100m) 180 6

Condition

Native/exotic fishes7

L. dace abundance (no./100m) 180 6

Brook trout abundance (no./100m) 0 22-168

Aq. macroivert.8

EPT richness 0-8 8 (GrzCr)

2 (BvDmCr)

3 (LftGlch)

HBI 3.1-9.6 4.4 (GrzCr)

6.0 (BvDmCr)

4.6 (LftGlch)

N. Leopard frog9

Occupied habitat (%) 60-100 100

Bats10

Species richness 11 8

Stream flow (GrzCr) None1Brown et al. 2008

2Panjabi 2005a; Panjabi 2005b

3USDA Forest Service 1999; Bynum 2008

4Narumalani 2008

5Northern Great Plains Management 2006; Brown et al. 2008

6D. Licht, pers. comm.

7South Dakota Department of Fish, Game, and Parks 2005; White et al. 2002

8Troelstrup 2006; Rust 2006

9USDA Forest Service 2004, 2007; Smith 2003

10Schmidt et al. 2004

11Rainey 1956; Barbour and Humphry 1982

Table 1. Mount Rushmore National Memorial ecological framework for a natural resource condition assessment, 2009 (ShDI = Shannon Diversity Index, EPT = Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera Richness Index, HBI = Hilsenhoff Biotic Index).


Indicator Measure

Reference Current

Niobrara River and tributaries

Macroinvert. (Niob.)1

EPT richness 0-7 7

HBI (0-10 index) 4.41-7.55 4.72

Macroinvert. (trib.)1

EPT richness 8-Feb 5-Mar

HBI (0-10 index) 3.50-7.50 3.53-5.13

River otter None

Cool-water fishes2

Presence (no. of tributaries) 1 (blacknose shiner) 1

2 (finescale dace) 4

3 (n. redbelly dace) 4

2 (pearl dace) 3

Fish community3

Richness 24/30 27/30

CPUE (fish/ft.) 0.467-3.035 0.612

Stream Flow (Niob.)4

Mean annual flow (acre ft.) 434,448-659,742 491,086

Mean daily discharge ~750 (July) ~570

~700 (August) ~520

~720 (September) ~550

Upland forest and savanna

Elk5

Calf:cow ratio 0.30-0.35 0.31-0.57

Cow survival (%) 89-91 92

Ave. rate of increase 0.20-0.31 0.21

Population size (no.) 0 (extirpated 1900) 100 (2004)

Ponderosa pine6

Mean fire interval (yrs.) 8.6 36

Density (trees/ha) 380 2,250

Fire type Surface Crown

Extent (study site ha) 83 and 123 (1939) 235 and 219 (2003)

Land cover7


ShDI 0.8551 0.8255

Fire8



Spring branch canyon and riparian forest

Paper birch9

Saplings (no./ha) 19,760 0.64

Seedlings (no./ha) 30,000 0

Basal area 1,235-1,482 6

Hybrid aspen10

Mature trees (no.) Many Few

Root suckers (no.) Many Few

Bailey’s e. woodrat11

Density (no./ha) 0.50-2.20 0.72

Bird hybridization None

Continued

Condition

Table 2. Niobrara National Scenic River ecological framework for a natural resource condition assessment, 2010 (ShDI = Shannon Diversity Index, EPT = Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera Richness Index, HBI = Hilsenhoff Biotic Index, CPUE = Catch Per Unit Effort).


• horse trail use: trail erosion is significant and may affect the water qual-ity (high suspended solids and turbidity) of Beaver Dam Creek.For NIOB they include:• water diversion and withdrawal: water diversions from the Niobrara River and tributaries have significantly altered its runoff hydrology and may impact ecologi-

cal processes and biota;• water quality degradation: fecal coliform and phosphorus are elevated in some tributaries possibly due to visitors hiking in streambeds;• visitor river floating: floater days in the scenic river increased substantially between 2005 and 2008 and recreational noise may impact waterbirds and other

wildlife;• purple loosestrife (Lythrum sali-caria) infestation: herbicides and biocon-trol appear to be successful in reducing infestations but the plant continues to invade new areas;• woodland expansion (fire suppres-sion): fire suppression and changes in the grazing regime have allowed ponderosa

Table 2 (Continued )

Indicator Measure

Reference Current

Grassland

Grassland birds12

Density (no./ha) 1.25-2.68 1.08-1.16

Sand Hills prairie13


Woodland extent (ha/study area) 83-123 219-235

Land cover14


ShDI index 0.8551 0.8255

Fire15



Sandy shorelines, sandbars, and wetlands

Tern and plover16

Monitoring reach census (no.) 150-321 (tern) 289

79-207 (plover) 207

Clutch size (mean no./nest) 2.3-2.6 (tern) 2.6

3.5-3.7 (plover) 3.6

Purple loosestrife17

Area (ha) 0 (pre-settlement) 469

Whooping crane None

Sediment transport None1Rust 2006; Troelstrup 2006

2Schainost 2008

3Kantack and Churchill 1993; Gutzmer et al. 2002; Dietsch 2008

4Wen and Chen 2006; Istanbulluoglu 2008

5Stillings 1999; Fricke et al. 2008

6Tolstead 1947; Steinaur and Bragg 1987; Guyette 2005; Narumalani 2009a

7Narumalani 2009b

Condition

7Narumalani 2009b

8Guyette 2005

9Uchyll 1991; Steuter and Steinauer 1993; Stroh and Miller 2009

10Schlarbaum 2008; Sheppard 2008

11Rainey 1956; Barbour and Humphry 1982

12Frost 2007

13Guyette 2005; Narumalani 2009a

14Narumalani 2009b

15Guyette 2005

16Adolf et al. 2001; Ferland and Haig 2002; Jorgensen 2006

17Narumalani and Swain 2009

Table 2. (Continued).


Figure 1. Condition and trend of indicators and habitats at Mount Rushmore National Memorial for a natural resource condition assessment, 2009 (Light grey box = good condition; Dark grey box = poor condition; open box = insufficient data; Upward arrow = improving; Downward arrow = deteriorating; Wide arrow = trend from analysis of park/regional data; Narrow arrow = trend from expert judgment).


Figure 2. Condition and trend of indicators and habitats at Niobrara National Scenic River for a natural resource condition assessment, 2010 (Light grey box = good condition; Dark grey box = poor condition; Open box = insufficient data; Upward arrow = improving; Downward arrow = deteriorating; Horizontal arrow = stable; Wide arrow = trend from analysis of park/regional data; Narrow arrow = trend from expert judgment).


pine and other woody plants to spread into grassland and to increase in woodland understory;• drought: with reduced streamflow due to water diversions, drought impacts on river ecological processes and biota may be more severe;• climate variability: a key factor contributing to paper birch (Betula papyr-ifera) dieback may be increased frequency of freeze-thaw events;• spring branch hiking: visitors walking in the streambed of spring branch tributaries results in a variety of physical and biological impacts.

Because the information we acquired was from a range of sources (i.e., quantitative studies to qualitative observations), we could not base these assessments solely on statistical comparisons of current and reference resource values. Instead, we used a conservative qualitative standard. That is, we considered an indicator in good condi-tion when one half or more of its measures had current values that corresponded with, or fell within, a range of reference values. Conversely, we considered an indicator in poor condition when less than one half of its measures had values that corresponded with or fell within a range of reference values. We considered, but rejected, a fair condition category because we could not set meaningful criteria for fair. We depicted indicator condition by a dark grey box (in-dicating poor) or a light grey box (indicat-

ing good). For indicators for measures with multiple year/event data for the same site, we indicated the trend as stable when the values between, or among, years or events were similar, or deteriorating or improving when the values were different. For some indicators, such as old-growth ponderosa pine at MORU and streamflow at NIOB, we incorporated trend from previously analyzed research or monitoring data; but for most indicators, we estimated trend based on reviewer opinion. We depicted trend by a downward arrow (deteriorating), a horizontal arrow (stable), or an upward arrow (improving). We used a wide arrow to indicate a trend supported by statistical analysis and a narrow arrow for a trend sug-gested by reviewers. Finally, we depicted the lack of sufficient information to assess condition and trend by an open box.

We determined an overall condition and trend of each major habitat in MORU and NIOB based on a subjective appraisal by experts of the resource condition and trend of its respective indicators (Figures 1 and 2).

Mount Rushmore National Memorial

Forest Habitat

Based on the condition and trend of its indicators, the forest habitat is in poor condition and deteriorating (Figure 1). Four (i.e., old-growth ponderosa pine, mountain

pine beetle, land cover, and fire) of the six assessed indicators of this habitat are in poor condition and three of these (old-growth ponderosa pine forest, land cover, and fire) are deteriorating. Most of the old-growth ponderosa pine forest in the memorial has not burned in over a century. This has resulted in greater tree density in the smaller tree size classes as compared to the presettlement or reference condition, an increase in vertical and surface fuels, and a higher probability of stand-replac-ing wildfire (Symstad and Bynum 2007; Brown et al. 2008). Because of the age and structure of the ponderosa pine stands in the memorial, the risk of mountain pine beetle infestation in these stands is either high or moderate (Symstad and Bynum 2005; Bynum 2008). An analysis of land cover changes in and near the memorial found an increase in the size of forest patches and an increase in percent cover of forest (Narumalani 2008). This may be due to the growth of trees in barren and other open areas that were not previously forested (USDA Forest Service 2006). Pos-sibly due to the presence of large trees and abundant snags, concurrent monitoring of breeding birds in the memorial and adjacent national forest (Panjabi 2005a, b) shows this indicator is in good condition, although it is also threatened by potential stand-re-placing wildfire. Likewise, an old-growth obligate bird, the brown creeper (Certhia americana), is in good condition. However, information is lacking on the demography

Figure 2. (Continued).


of plant species in rare components of the forest such as birch/hazelnut (Betula/Cory-lus) association (Salas and Pucherelli 1998; Marriott et al. 1999).

Rocky Outcrop and Barren Habitat

The condition of the rocky outcrop and barren habitat is poor (Figure 1). This is mostly based on a substantial decline in barren areas from 1.03% of land cover in 1992 to 0.03% land cover in 2001 for the memorial and the surrounding region (Narumalani 2008). The invasion of barren areas by ponderosa pine is believed to be the cause of the decline (USDA Forest Ser-vice 2006). In addition, the exotic mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) (an indicator and stressor) occurs in this habitat, where it competes for forage with native species (Richardson 1971). However, this species is in decline in the Black Hills and in the memorial (thus an improving trend) (NPS, D. Licht, wildlife biologist, pers. comm. 26 February 2009). The distribution and abundance of lichens, particularly those sensitive to air pollution, are mostly un-known in this habitat (Gabel and Ebbert 2003; Bennett and Wetmore 2005).

Stream and Wetland Habitat

The stream and wetland habitat is in good condition when compared to similar re-sources in the Black Hills and in other park units in the Northern Great Plains (Figure 1). Three (aquatic macroinvertebrates, northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens), and bats) of the four indicators with sufficient baseline data are in good condition. Only the native/exotic fish indicator is in poor condition due to the dominance by exotic brook trout in the streams and ponds. Based on aquatic macroinvertebrate metrics, the water quality of creeks and wetlands in the memorial is very good. Grizzly Bear Creek has the highest Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (pollution sensitive insect orders referred to as EPT) richness of the thirteen streams sampled in park units of the Northern Great Plains (Rust 2006). However, Beaver Dam Creek is considered impaired based on a com-parison of measurements of its physical and chemical parameters with state water quality standards (Rust 2006). Its lower water quality may be due to runoff from a

nearby horse trail (Rust 2006). Bat species diversity is high, with eight of the eleven species known from the Black Hills forag-ing for food over this habitat (Schmidt et al. 2004). The condition of the northern leopard frog indicator is considered good based on initial inventory of the species in the memorial and stable populations in the Black Hills National Forest (Smith et al. 2005; USDA Forest Service 2004). Streamflow measurements for Grizzly Bear Creek (U.S. Geological Survey 2008) are probably not of sufficient length to identify condition and trend.

Niobrara National Scenic River

Niobrara River and Tributaries

The Niobrara River and tributaries habitat is in good condition (Figure 2). Annual and daily decreases in streamflows have occurred following operation of the Mer-ritt Dam in 1965 (Istanbulluoglu 2008), but water quality of the river is generally good based on the presence of pollution intolerant aquatic macroinvertebrates (Rust 2006; Troelstrup 2006), and the results of chemical water quality sampling (Di-etsch 2008). The fish community remains species-diverse and stable (Kantak and Churchill 1993; Dietsch 2008). Further-more, recreation use of the river continues to increase (Shultz 2009). This suggests that although flows have decreased, these changes have not as yet impacted water quality, important biota, or recreation. However, the population status of spiny softshell turtles (Apalone spinifera), a species sensitive to streamflow variations, is not known (Allen 2008). Likewise, the river otter (Lontra canadensis), a species sensitive to high recreation use, has been sighted within the scenic river but these may be transient individuals (Johnsgard 2007). Concern about possible future im-pacts of reduced streamflows has led the state of Nebraska to impose a moratorium on issuing new surface water irrigation permits in the Niobrara River Basin (Al-exander et al. 2009).

Water quality in tributaries of the Niobrara River is also good. However, visitors hiking in the streambed of several of the tributaries have led to seasonal loss of some aquatic

species, although these species tend to recover during periods of low visitor use (Laing 2008). Several of the tributary streams have persistent populations of rare cool-water fishes, but the trends of these populations are unclear due to inconsistent monitoring (Schainost 2008).

Upland Forest and Savanna

The upland forest and savanna habitat is in poor condition and deteriorating, largely due to the increased density of ponderosa pine and eastern red cedar (Juniperus vir-giniana), and the spread of these species from sheltered sites into grassland (Figure 2). At two study sites along the Niobrara River, woodland cover more than doubled between 1939 and 2003 (Narumalani 2009a). This is a result of a longer fire re-turn interval that followed almost complete fire suppression beginning around 1900 (Steinauer and Bragg 1987; Guyette 2005). Dense stands of ponderosa pine are prone to crown fire and insect attack. In contrast, elk (Cervus elaphus) are increasing in this habitat and in grassland due to the avail-ability of suitable habitat and increased landowner tolerance (Stillings 1999; Fricke et al. 2008). However, elk are threatened by chronic wasting disease (CWD), a fatal disease of the central nervous system of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and elk that has infected free-roaming deer and captive elk in western and north-central Nebraska (Nebraska Game and Parks Commission 2009).

Spring Branch Canyon and Riparian Forest

The spring branch canyon and riparian forest habitat is in poor condition and de-teriorating based on the condition and trend of its two major indicators – paper birch and hybrid aspen (Populus tremuloides × P. grandidentata) (Figure 2). Both of these species require sheltered microhabitats for persistence and occasional disturbance for seedling establishment and root sprouting (Steuter and Steinauer 1993; Sheppard 2008). Long-term persistence of these species is in doubt considering recent changes in climate (increased freeze-thaw conditions in the spring) (Stroh and Miller 2009) and lack of natural distur-


bance (Steuter and Steinauer 1993). In addition, the possible infestation of this habitat by the exotic emerald ash borer (Agrilus plaipennis) would remove green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), a dominant tree, and have secondary adverse effects on the diverse wildlife of the habitat. In contrast, Bailey’s eastern woodrat (Neo-toma floridena baileyi) is in good condition and may have benefited from an increase in density and range of eastern red cedar (The Nature Conservancy 1999), a primary food source of the woodrat (Genoways et al. 1997). Bird species hybridization rates and areas of sympatry (Sibley and Short 1959, 1964) may also indicate changes in this habitat (Johnsgard 2007), but temporal data are lacking.

Grassland

The grassland habitat is in good condition in the central Niobrara River Valley and has benefitted from the planting of native grasses in former crop fields (Drummond 2007) (Figure 2). However, it is deteriorat-ing in upland areas near the river (Steinauer and Bragg 1987; Ortmann et al. 1996). This is the result of fire suppression and the resulting invasion of grassland by pon-derosa pine and eastern red cedar. Cedar invasion of grassland causes a decrease in overall bird species-richness and shifts in species composition from grassland and shrubland to woodland and forest birds (Frost 2007). A land cover change analysis found an increase in grassland/shrub from 1992 to 2001 (Narumalani 2009b). This increase may be the result of conversion of agricultural fields to grassland, which may have masked a loss of grassland to invading trees.

Sandy Shorelines, Sandbars, and Wet Meadows

The sandy shorelines, sandbars, and wet meadows habitat is in good condition and increasing based on the least tern (Sternula antillarum) and piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and purple loosestrife indicators (Figure 2). The number of adult terns and plovers counted on the Niobrara River has increased in recent years (Blausey 2002, 2003, 2004); however, past moni-toring has shown population numbers to be highly variable (Lott 2006; NPS, S.

Wilson, natural resource specialist, pers. comm., 25 September 2007). The nesting and foraging habitats of these species in the scenic river may be affected by reduced streamflow and reduced sediment transport in the summer, and by exotic plants, espe-cially purple loosestrife (Adolf et al. 2001). Visitors sometimes destroy nests and kill chicks by stepping on them, or dragging their canoes or tubes over them (Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership, M. Bom-berger Brown, coordinator, pers. comm. 11 October 2009). In recent years, biocontrol has reduced purple loosestrife infestations by as much as 80 percent in some areas (Narumalani and Swain 2009), but com-mon reed (Phragmites australis australis), another wetland invasive plant, may have increased in extent and density (Knezevic et al. 2008). Migrating whooping cranes (Grus americana) appear to be using this habitat in greater numbers, but this may be an artifact of greater public awareness of the species (Johnsgard 2007).

CONCLUSION

We found adequate information (i.e., known or estimated values for current and reference measures of the indicators) to assess the condition, and sometimes trend, of 12 of 15 indicators at MORU and 17 of 22 indicators at NIOB (see Tables 1 and 2). We also were able to identify the major stressors acting on those indicators. The numbers of indicators we assessed for MORU and NIOB are comparable to the number assessed at Point Pelee National Park (14 of 26 indicators), a small national park in Canada, with long-term monitoring data (Dobbie et al. 2006). However, in con-trast to Point Pelee, reference conditions of most indicators for MORU and NIOB were defined by research and long-term monitoring activities conducted outside of the parks. This was especially true at MORU, where, except for forest stand characteristics recreated from tree rings and water quality data from the creeks, no reference conditions based on park data exist. Fortunately, the adjacent Black Hills National Forest has an established inventory and monitoring program in the same habitats as those in MORU. We used the results of monitoring in the national forest to estimate reference conditions

for several measures (e.g., brown creeper abundance) of park condition. For both parks, we found only a few indicators (e.g., Niobrara River streamflow) with long-term monitoring data that had been analyzed for statistical trends.

Despite the scarcity of park-specific refer-ence conditions and long-term monitoring data, we believe forested habitats at MORU and NIOB are in poor condition and dete-riorating. This is the result of over 100 years of fire suppression that has led to greater density of ponderosa pine at MORU and NIOB and the spread of ponderosa pine into barren areas at MORU, and ponderosa pine and eastern red cedar into savanna and grassland at NIOB. Aggressive native and exotic insects threaten, or may threaten, forest stands in both parks. In addition, the condition of rare or remnant indica-tors of these forested habitats is either unknown (birch/hazelnut plant association at MORU) or in poor condition (paper birch and hybrid aspen populations at NIOB). This is in contrast to the river, stream, and wetland habitats in both parks that, except for the dominance of exotic trout at MORU, are in good condition. However, continued reductions in streamflow due to agricultural water use in the Niobrara River watershed and invasion or spread of invasive plants at MORU and NIOB could cause these habitats to deteriorate. Furthermore, climate change may increase the frequency and duration of drought, thus compounding the effects of water diversions and invasive plants.

We found a substantial, but not complete, overlap between the biodiversity and process indicators identified for these condition assessments and those the NGPN identified as draft Vital Signs for long-term monitoring (Gitzen et al. 2009) (see Tables 3 and 4). However, in general, we identi-fied and assessed more specific indicators than the corresponding Vital Signs [e.g., mountain pine beetle (indicator) verses forest insects and diseases (Vital Sign) at MORU and grassland birds (indicator) verses land birds (Vital Sign) at NIOB]. Several of the indicators we identified for MORU (e.g., bats) are being monitored on adjacent national forest land and at NIOB (e.g., elk and river otter) on adjacent na-


tional refuge land or in the region by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. These indicators have no corresponding Vital Signs (see Tables 3 and 4). For two habitats – stream and wetland at MORU and Niobrara River and tributaries at NIOB – only physical or chemical attributes such as streamflow and surface water chemistry are proposed as Vital Signs. Considering the complex nature of these habitats and the many stressors acting on them, we believe these Vital Signs are inadequate to measure their long-term health. At MORU, we recommend adding three biodiversity indicators – native and exotic fishes, north-ern leopard frog, and bats – as Vital Signs of streams and wetlands, and monitoring them in partnership with the Black Hills National Forest. Likewise, at NIOB, we recommend adding four biodiversity indicators – river otter, cool-water fishes, fish community, and spiny softshell turtle – as Vital Signs of the Niobrara River and tributaries, and monitoring them in partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Monitoring these additional indicators with partners who are, in most cases, already doing so on their lands should minimize any additional staff time and cost.

In summary, we found the scorecard approach could be applied to two small national parks to determine the current condition of their natural resources. How-ever, because the parks lacked research and long-term monitoring for most indicators, we used data for the same indicators that had been collected in surrounding natural landscapes (i.e., Black Hills National For-est) to establish reference conditions. In this regard, MORU and NIOB are unique in the Great Plains, as almost all small national parks in this region are islands in developed landscapes where adjacent natural habitats do not exist (Stubbendieck and Willson 1987). Most small parks have only recently begun collecting long-term monitoring data through Vital Signs moni-toring. In small parks without research and long-term monitoring, either from within or from a surrounding natural landscape with the same habitats, assessments of resource conditions using the scorecard approach, or any approach, would be limited by lack of data to establish reference conditions.

However, for those small parks with suf-ficient data, either now or in the future, a periodic condition assessment would provide an important “State of the Parks”

report to management, to Vital Signs net-work partners, and to Congress. Managers could use this report to: (1) assess the outcome of ongoing management actions; (2) review the Vital Signs monitoring ef-fort and modify, delete, or add monitoring protocols (e.g., as we suggested for MORU and NIOB); (3) identify research needs; and (4) set natural resource staffing levels.

ACkNOWLEDGMENTSThe natural resource condition assessments for Mount Rushmore National Memorial and Niobrara National Scenic River were reviewed by many individuals within the National Park Service and from cooperat-ing agencies and organizations. In particu-lar, we thank natural resource manager Dr. Pamela Sprenkle, Niobrara National Scenic River, and museum curator Bruce Weis-man, Mount Rushmore National Memorial; ecologists Dr. Amy Symstad and Dr. Esther Stroh, U.S. Geological Survey; and Natural Landmarks coordinator, Dr. Janet Eckhoff, NPS. Funding for these assessments was provided by the Watershed Condition As-sessment Program of the NPS through a cooperative agreement with the University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

Indicator Vital Signs1

Old-growth ponderosa pine Upland plant communities

Birch/hazelnut vegetation association Upland plant communities

Breeding birds Land birds

Brown creeper Land birds

Mountain pine beetle Forest insects and diseases

Lichens None

Mountain goat None

Native and exotic fishes None

Aquatic macroinvertebrates Water quality; Aquatic contaminants; Aquatic microorganisms

Northern leopard frog None

Bats None

Land cover Land cover and use

Fire Fire and fuel dynamics; Extreme disturbance

Stream flow (Grizzly Bear Creek) Surface water dynamics1Three Vital Signs – Surface water chemistry, Exotic plant early detection, and Soundscape – have no corresponding indicator

Table 3. Condition assessment indicators and corresponding Vital Signs for Mount Rushmore National Memorial.


Gary D. Willson was the National Park Service research coordinator for the Great Plains Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit when these assessments were completed. He is currently the editor of Great Plains Research.

Sunil Narumalani is an associate vice chancellor for Academic Affairs at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. He is also a professor in the School of Natural Resources.

Christine K. Lockert was the administrative coordinator for the Great Plains Coopera-tive Ecosystems Studies Unit when these assessments were completed. She is now the grant coordinator for the North Central Risk Management Education Center at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

Paul B. T. Merani is a Ph.D. candidate at

the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. His current research focus is remote sensing of coastal saltmarsh habitats.

LITERATURE CITED

Adolf, S.L., K. Higgins, C. Kruse, and G. Pavelka. 2001. Distribution and productiv-ity of least terns and piping plovers on the Niobrara River, Nebraska. Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Sciences 80:2312-2345.

Alexander, J.S., R.B. Zelt, and N.J. Schaepe. 2009. Geomorphic segmentation, hydraulic geometry, and hydraulic microhabitats of the Niobrara River, Nebraska – methods and initial results. Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5008, U.S. Geological Survey, Lincoln, NE.

Allen, C. 2008. Habitat disturbance effects on spiny softshell turtles on the Niobrara River. Proposal to the Nebraska Environmental Trust, Lincoln, NE.

Barbour, D.B., and S.R. Humphrey. 1982. Sta-tus and habitat of the Key Largo woodrat

and cotton mouse (Neotoma florida smalli and Peromyscus gossypinus allopaticola). Journal of Mammalogy 63:144-148.

Bennett, J.P., and C.M. Wetmore. 2005. Lichens of the U.S. National Parks. Bryologist 108:544-553.

Blausey, C.M. 2002. 2002 piping plover and least tern survey report. Niobrara National Scenic River, O’Neill, NE.



Brown, P.M., C.L. Wienk, and A.J. Sym-stad. 2008. Fire and forest history at Mount Rushmore. Ecological Applications 18:1984-1999.

Bynum, M. 2008. An executive summary regarding bark beetle risk, monitoring, and management at Mount Rushmore National Memorial. Northern Great Plains Inventory and Monitoring Network, National Park Service, Rapid City, SD.

Indicator Vital Signs1

Aquatic macroinvertebrates Aquatic macroinvertebrates; Aquatic contaminants

River otter None

Cool-water fishes None

Fish community None

Spiny softshell turtle None

Stream flow Surface water dynamics

Elk None

Ponderosa pine Upland plant communities

Land cover Land cover and use

Fire Extreme disturbance

Paper birch Riparian/floodplain plant communities

Hybrid aspen Riparian/floodplain plant communitiesBailey’s eastern woodrat None

Bird hybridization Land birds

Grassland birds Land birds

Sand Hills prairie Upland plant communities

Interior least tern and piping plover Interior least tern and piping plover

Purple loosestrife Treatment of exotic infestations; Exotic plant early detection

Whooping crane Land birds

Sediment transport Stream/river channel characteristics1Three Vital Signs – Surface water chemistry, Visitor use, and Soundscape – have no corresponding indicator

Table 4. Condition assessment indicators and corresponding Vital Signs for Niobrara National Scenic River.


Dietsch, B.J. 2008. Water-quality and fish community data for the Niobrara National Scenic River, Nebraska, 2003–2005. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2007-3098, U.S. Geological Survey, [Washington, D.C.].

Dobbie, T., T. McFayden, P. Zorn, J. Keitel, and M. Carlson. 2006. Point Pelee National Park of Canada State of the Park Report. Parks Canada, Ottawa, Canada.

Drummond, M.A. 2007. Regional dynamics of grassland change in the western Great Plains. Great Plains Research 17:133-144.

Fancy, S.G. 2008. Connect the dots framework. Briefing Statement, National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.

Fancy, S.G., J.E. Gross, and S.L. Carter. 2009. Monitoring the condition of natural re-sources in US national parks. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 151:161-174.

Ferland, C.L., and S.M. Haig. 2002. 2001 international piping plover census. U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystems Science Center, Corvallis, OR.

Fricke, K.A., M.A. Cover, S.E. Hygnstrom, S.R. Groepper, H.H. Genoways, K.M. Hams, and K.C. VerCauteren. 2008. Historic and recent distributions of elk in Nebraska. Great Plains Research 18:189-204.

Frost, J.S. 2007. Small mammal and bird community composition in response to forest habitat structure and composition in the Niobrara River Valley, Nebraska. M.S. thesis, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Gabel. A., and E. Ebbert. 2003. Fungal col-lections from Mount Rushmore National Memorial. Black Hills State University, Spearfish, SD.

Genoways, H.H., P.W. Freeman, and M.K. Clausen. 1997. Diet of a relict population of the eastern woodrat in Nebraska. The Prairie Naturalist 29:170-178.

Gitzen, R.A., M. Wilson, J. Brumm, M. Bynum, J. Wrede, J. Millspaugh, and K. Paintner. 2009. Northern Great Plains I & M Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan Draft. Natural Resource Report NPS/MWR/NGPN/NPR, National Park Service, Rapid City, SD.

Gutzmer, M.P., J.W. King, D.P. Overhue, and E.Y. Chrisp. 2002. Fish species-richness trends in the Niobrara River, Nebraska, below the Spencer Dam. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences 28:57-63.

Guyette, R. 2005. Fire history of ponderosa pine stands in the central Niobrara River Valley region. University of Missouri, Columbia.

Istanbulluoglu, E. 2008. Hydrological analysis of the Niobrara River. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Lincoln, NE.

Johnsgard, P.A. 2007. The Niobrara: a River Running Through Time. University of Ne-braska Press, Lincoln.

Jorgensen, J. 2006. 2006 international piping plover census in Nebraska (off-Missouri River sites). Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Lincoln, NE.

Kantak, G.E., and S.P. Churchill. 1993. The Niobrara Valley Preserve: an inventory of a biological crossroads. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences 20:1-12.

Kaul, R.B., G.E. Kantak, and S.P. Churchill. 1988. The Niobrara River Valley, a post-glacial migration corridor and refugium of forest plants and animals in the grasslands of central North America. Botanical Review 54:44-81.

Knezevic, S.Z., A. Datta, and R.E. Rapp. 2008. Noxious Weeds of Nebraska, Common Reed. Cooperative Extension EC166, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Laing, K.D. 2008. Impacts of human physi-cal disturbance on benthic communities in tributaries of the Niobrara National Scenic River. M.S. thesis, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Lott, C.A. 2006. Distribution and abundance of the interior population of the least tern (Sternula antillarum), 2005. ERDC/EL TR-06-13, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.

Mahan, C.G., J.P. Vanderhorst, and J.A. Young. 2009. Natural resource assessment: an approach to science based planning in na-tional parks. Environmental Management 43:1301-1312.

Marriott, H., D. Faber-Langendoen, A. McAd-ams, D. Stutzman, and B. Burkhart. 1999. The Black Hills community inventory. The Nature Conservancy, Midwest Conservation Center, Minneapolis, MN.

Marrone, G.M. 2004. Inventory of butterflies at Mount Rushmore National Memo-rial. Northern Great Plains Inventory and Monitoring Network, National Park Service, Rapid City, SD.

Narumalani, S. 2008. A comparison of NLCD 1991 and 2001 for Mount Rushmore Na-tional Memorial using the retrofit change product. Center for Advanced Land Manage-ment Information Technologies, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Narumalani, S. 2009a. An analysis of wood-land increase at two study sites in the Niobrara River Valley 1939-2003. Center for Advanced Land Management Informa-tion Technologies, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Narumalani, S. 2009b. A comparison of NLCD 1991 and 2001 for Niobrara National Scenic

River using the retrofit change product. Center for Advanced Land Management Information Technologies, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Narumalani, S., and S. Swain. 2009. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) mapping and biocontrol along the Niobrara River. U.S. Department of Agriculture, APHIS, Lincoln, NE.

[NPS] National Park Service. 1980. General Management Plan Mount Rushmore Na-tional Memorial. Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, CO.

[NPS] National Park Service. 2007. Vital Signs monitoring. Accessed 6 August 2009 from <http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/moni-tor>.

[NPS] National Park Service. 2010. National Resource Condition Assessment Program. Accessed 14 January 2010 from <http://www.nature.nps.gov/water/NRCondi-tion_Assessment_Program/Index>.

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 2009. Chronic wasting disease. Accessed 27 Au-gust 2009 from <http://www.ngpc.state.ne.us/wildlife/guides/cwd.asp>.

Northern Great Plains Fire Management. 2006. Fire effects monitoring results, Lafferty Gulch (thinning/fire). Accessed 10 October 2008 from <http://www.nps.gov/ngpfire/moru.htm>.

Ortmann, J., J. Stubbendieck, G.H. Pfeiffer, R.A. Masters, and W.H. Schacht.1996. Man-agement of eastern red cedar on grasslands. NebGuide G1308, University of Nebraska Extension, Lincoln.

Panjabi, A. 2005a. Bird inventories and moni-toring on National Park Service units in the Northern Great Plains, 2002–2004. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brigh-ton, CO.

Panjabi, A. 2005b. Monitoring the birds of the Black Hills: year 4. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO.

Rainey, D.G. 1956. Eastern woodrat, Neotoma floridana: life history and ecology. Univer-sity of Kansas Museum of Natural History Publications 8:535-646.

Richardson, A.H. 1971. The Rocky Mountain goat in the Black Hills. Bulletin 2, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Pierre, SD.

Rust, J. 2006. Establishing baseline data for aquatic resources in national parks of the Northern Great Plains Network. M.S, thesis, South Dakota State University, Vermillion.

Salas, D.E., and M.J. Pucherelli. 1998. USGS-NPS vegetation mapping, Mount Rushmore National Memorial. Computer Data Sys-tems, Inc. and the Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO.


Schainost S. 2008. Fish collections in the Niobrara River Basin, Nebraska 1893–2005. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Alliance, NE.

Schlarbaum, S.E. 2008. Inspection of aspen stands along the Niobrara National Scenic River. National Park Service, Valentine, NE.

Schmidt, C.A., P.D. Sudman, S.R.Marquardt, and D.S. Licht. 2004. Inventory of mam-mals at ten National Park Service units in the Northern Great Plains from 2002 to 2004. Northern Great Plains Inventory and Monitoring Network, National Park Service, Rapid City, SD.

Shepperd, W.D. 2008. Management alternatives for aspen on the Niobrara National Scenic River. National Park Service, Valentine, NE.

Shultz, S. 2009. Economic and social values of recreational floating on the Niobrara Na-tional Scenic River. University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha.

Sibley, C.G., and L.L. Short. 1959. Hybridiza-tion in the buntings of the Great Plains. Auk 76:443-463.

Sibley, C.G., and L.L. Short. 1964. Hybrid-ization in the orioles of the Great Plains. Condor 66:130-150.

Smith, B.E. 2003. Conservation assessment for the northern leopard frog in the Black Hills National Forest of South Dakota and Wyoming. Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD.

Smith, B.E., L.R. Cottingham, C.R. Peterson, and M.J. Goode. 2005. A herpetological inventory of the Black Hills, summer 2004. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Pierre, SD.

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks. 2005. South Dakota statewide fish-eries survey. Accessed 10 September 2008 from <http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Fish-ing/WesternLakes/Westernstreamsurveys.htm>.

Steinauer, E.M., and T.B. Bragg. 1987. Pon-derosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) invasion

of Nebraska Sandhill prairie. American Midland Naturalist 118:358-365.

Stem C., R. Margoluis, N. Salafsky, and M. Brown. 2005. Monitoring and evaluation in conservation: a review of trends and approaches. Conservation Biology 19:295-309.

Steuter, A.A., and E.M. Steinauer.1993. Paper birch in the Niobrara Valley of Nebraska: a changing landscape offsets climate change. Natural Areas Journal 14:243-249.

Stillings, B.A. 1999. Ecology of elk in north-western Nebraska: demographics, effects of human disturbance, and characteristics of calving habitat. M.S. thesis, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Stroh, E.D., and J.P. Miller. 2009. Paper birch decline in the Niobrara Valley, Nebraska: weather, microclimate and birch stand con-ditions. Open-File Report 2009-1221, U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia, MO.

Stubbendieck, J., and G.D. Willson. 1987. Prairie resources of national park units in the Great Plains. Natural Areas Journal 7:100-106.

Symstad, A.J., and M. Bynum. 2005. The extent and significance of old-growth ponderosa pine forest at Mount Rushmore National Memorial. Mount Rushmore National Me-morial, Keystone, SD.

Symstad, A.J., and M. Bynum. 2007. Conser-vation value of Mount Rushmore National Memorial’s forest. Natural Areas Journal 27:293-299.

Teck, S.J., B.S. Halpern, C.V. Kappel, F. Mi-cheli, K.A. Selkoe, C.M. Crain, R. Martone, C. Shearer, J. Arvai, B. Fischhoff, G. Murray, R. Neslo, and R. Cooke. 2010. Using expert judgment to estimate marine ecosystem vulnerability in the California Current. Ecological Applications 20:1402-1416.

The Nature Conservancy. 1999. Niobrara Valley Preserve site conservation plan. Niobrara Valley Preserve, Valentine, NE.

Tolstead, W.L. 1947. Woodlands in northwestern Nebraska. Ecology 28:180-188.

Troelstrup, N.H., Jr. 2006. Water quality monitoring plan, version 1.1. Northern Great

Plains Inventory and Monitoring Network. National Park Service, Rapid City, SD.

Uchytil, R.J. 1991. Betula papyrifera. In fire effects information system. U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Accessed 10 September 2009 from <http://fs.fed.us/database/feis/>.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge com-prehensive conservation plan. Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge, Valentine, NE.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2008. National water system: Web Water System: web interface. Peak streamflow for the nation. USGS 06403850 Grizzly Bear Creek. Accessed 11 November 2008 from <http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/sd/nwis/peak?site_no=064038>.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Black Hills Nation-al Forest monitoring and evaluation report for fiscal year 1999. Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. Accessed 17 July 2008 from <http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/fy1999_report.pdf>.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Black Hills Na-tional Forest 2002 monitoring and five-year evaluation report. Black Hills National Forest, Custer SD. Accessed 17 July 2008 from <http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/2002Monitor/all.pdj>.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Black Hills Na-tional Forest FY2006 monitoring and evalu-ation report. Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. Accessed 17 July 2008 from <http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/proj-ects/planning/fy2006_report.pdf>.

Wen, F., and X. Chen. 2006. Evaluation of the impact of groundwater irrigation on streamflow in Nebraska. Journal of Hydrol-ogy 327:603-617.

White, R.G., W.R. Gould, and W.P. Dwyer. 2002. Fish inventories of five parks in the Northern Great Plains Network. Northern Great Plains Inventory and Monitoring Network. National Park Service, Rapid City, SD.

Documents

Application of Natural Resource Condition Assessments to Two Small National Parks