N

U

N

A

C

P

N

National Park Se

U.S. Department

Natural Resourc

Assessm

Conditi

Park, G

Natural Reso

ervice 

t of the Interior 

ce Program Cen

ment of

ions in 

Georgia

ource Report

nter 

f Water

Kenne

a 

t NPS/SECN

r Resou

esaw M

N/NRR—201

urces an

ountain

10/273 

d Wat

n Natio

ershed

nal Battlefield
ON THE COVER 

Heavily silted bottom of John Ward Creek, Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park 

Photograph by: Michael Mallin 
Assessment of Water Resources and Watershed 

Conditions in Kennesaw Mountain National 

Battlefield Park, Georgia 

Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR—2010/273 

JoAnn M. Burkholder 

Center for Applied Aquatic Ecology 

North Carolina State University 

620 Hutton Street, Suite 104 

Raleigh, NC 27606 

December 2010 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Natural Resource Program Center

Fort Collins, Colorado 
ii 

The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center 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 formal peer 

review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting 

of the data, and whose background and expertise put them on par technically and scientifically with the 

authors of the information. 

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not 

necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. 

This report is available in the Reports and Publications section of the Southeast Coast Inventory 

and Monitoring Network webpage (http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/secn/) and the Natural 

Resource Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM). 

Please cite this publication as: 

Burkholder, J. M.. 2010. Assessment of water resources and watershed conditions in Kennesaw 

Mountain National Battlefield Park, Georgia. Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR—

2010/273. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

NPS 352/106195, December 2010 
iii 

Contents 

Page 

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

Tables ............................................................................................................................................. ix

Plates .............................................................................................................................................. xi

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... xiii

Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... xv

Water Quality ......................................................................................................................... xv

Ecosystem and Community Health ....................................................................................... xv

Groundwater ......................................................................................................................... xvi

Education Outreach .............................................................................................................. xvi

Other Actions ........................................................................................................................ xvi

Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................... xvii

Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... xix

Park Description.............................................................................................................................. 1

Background .............................................................................................................................. 1

Location, Size, and Boundaries .......................................................................................... 1

History of the Park .............................................................................................................. 2

Creation of the Park ............................................................................................................ 2

Land Use / Land Cover ............................................................................................................ 3

Hydrologic Information ........................................................................................................... 6

Surface Waters .................................................................................................................... 6

Wetlands ........................................................................................................................... 12

Groundwater Resources .................................................................................................... 12

Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. 13
iv 

Microalgae ........................................................................................................................ 13

Wetland and Aquatic Macrophytes ................................................................................... 14

Terrestrial Vegetation ....................................................................................................... 14

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates .............................................................................................. 14

Amphibians and Reptiles .................................................................................................. 20

Fish .................................................................................................................................... 22

Birds .................................................................................................................................. 22

Mammals........................................................................................................................... 23

Rare and Threatened Species ............................................................................................ 26

Exotic / Invasive Species .................................................................................................. 26

Assessment of Park Water Resources .................................................................................... 27

Surface Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 27

Drinking Water ................................................................................................................. 39

Groundwater Quality ........................................................................................................ 39

Sources of Pollutants ............................................................................................................. 39

Point Sources .................................................................................................................... 39

Nonpoint Sources .............................................................................................................. 39

Assessment of Biological Resources With Respect To Water and Air Quality .................... 40

Water Quality Standards ................................................................................................... 40

Impaired Surface Water Quality and Habitat .................................................................... 44

Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 45

Air Quality Standards ................................................................................................ 45

Air Resources ............................................................................................................. 46

Drinking Water ................................................................................................................. 51

Groundwater ..................................................................................................................... 51
v 

Ecosystem Effects ............................................................................................................. 51

Human Health Issues ........................................................................................................ 52

Other Issues of Concern ......................................................................................................... 52

Population Growth ............................................................................................................ 52

Physical Impacts From Park Activities ............................................................................. 52

Continuous Land Impacts ................................................................................................. 52

Impacts From Dobbins Air Force Base ............................................................................ 53

Synopsis of Stressors to KEMO NBP ............................................................................... 53

Recommendations To Address Impairments, Potential Impacts, and Undocumented Water 

Bodies ........................................................................................................................................... 55

General Comments ................................................................................................................ 55

Specific Recommendations ................................................................................................... 56

Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 56

Ecosystem and Community Health ................................................................................... 56

Groundwater ..................................................................................................................... 57

Education Outreach ........................................................................................................... 57

Other Action...................................................................................................................... 57

Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 59

Appendix A. Available data for water quality conditions at or near the park ............................. 65

Appendix B. Water quality standards in Georgia for toxic substances – streams and lakes 

(GA DNR 2008c). ......................................................................................................................... 71

Appendix C. Criteria for classification of surface waters as meeting or not meeting their 

designated use(s) (GA DNR 2008b). ............................................................................................ 75

vii 

Figures 

Page 

Figure 1. Left: Location of KEMO NBP within the upper Chattahoochee River basin. Right: 

Map of the park. .............................................................................................................................. 1

Figure 2. (Upper Right) Land use/land cover as of 2001 already showed KEMO NBP 

(blackened area, upper center) surrounded by urban development in the Upper Middle 

Chattahoochee sub-basin (HUC 03130002). (Lower Left) Land use/land cover in Cobb 

County as of 2007, showing detailed information for the land surrounding the park .................... 5

Figure 3. Map of the sampling stations with aquatic data that were mentioned or included in 

this Report (see Table 3 for further information).. ........................................................................ 11

Figure 4. Daily discharge (upper panel) and daily gage height (lower panel) at the USGS 

stream flow gaging station at Powder Springs, GA, 6.4 miles downstream from KEMO 

during 1999 - 2007 ........................................................................................................................ 12

Figure 5. Relationship between land area (in hectares) and species richness, excluding 

exotic (introduced) species, among 16 parks within the Southeast Coast Network of the 

NPS. .............................................................................................................................................. 22

Figure 6. Metropolitan Atlanta ozone – number of violation days per year. ............................... 47

Figure 7. Ozone monitors in metropolitan Atlanta that exceeded the 8-hour ozone standard 

in 2006, including the monthly breakdown of exceedances. ........................................................ 49

Figure 8. PM2.5 design value, daily standard, showing exceedances at Kennesaw of the old 

standard in all years, and exceedances of the new standard. ........................................................ 50

Figure 9. Statewide acid deposition trends. ................................................................................. 50

ix 

Tables 

Page 

Table 1. Changes in land use / land cover in the upper Chattahoochee watershed during 

1991-2005. ...................................................................................................................................... 4

Table 2. Land use in the Noses Creek and John Ward Creek watersheds ..................................... 6

Table 3. Stations with aquatic data that were mentioned or included in this Report. .................... 8

Table 4. Mean monthly discharge at the USGS gaging station in Powder Springs on Noses 

Creek, downstream from the Park, during the period of record from August 1998 - 2007 .......... 10

Table 5. Mean annual discharge at the USGS gaging station in Powder Springs, downstream 

from the Park, during the period of record from 1999 – 2007. ..................................................... 10

Table 6. Wetland and aquatic plant flora, excluding ferns that occur in KEMO NBP (NPS 

2008b). ........................................................................................................................................ 15

Table 7. Wetland fern species that occur in the park ................................................................... 17

Table 8. Macroinvertebrate data for John Ward Creek (station WR1 upstream from the park 

– 1 date each in 2003 and 2005)) and Noses Creek (station NS2 at Irwin Road, downstream 

from the park – 1 date each in 2004 and 2005) ............................................................................. 18

Table 9. Herpetofauna of KEMO NBP, documented from field surveys, museum specimens, 

literature records, and reliable personal communications ............................................................ 21

Table 10. Bird species that have been observed in KEMO NBP ................................................. 24

Table 11. Mammals of KEMO NBP ............................................................................................ 26

Table 12. Water quality conditions in the mid-1990s .................................................................. 31

Table 13. Water quality conditions during the past decade ......................................................... 33

Table 14. Summary information from the Cobb County dataset for stations near KEMO 

NBP (past decade)......................................................................................................................... 38

Table 15. Results of regression analysis for trends in water quality variables over time 

(conductivity, turbidity, total suspended solids, dissolved oxygen (% saturation and 

concentration), 5-day biochemical oxygen demand, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrate+nitrite, 

fecal coliforms, and chloride; quarterly sampling by Cobb County, 1995 - 2005) at four sites 

in John Ward Creek (WR1, Highland Avenue; WR2, Kirkpatrick Drive; WR3, Cheatham 

Hill Rd., downstream from part of the park and just upstream from another area of the park; 

and WR4, John Ward Road; Figure 6).. ....................................................................................... 38
x 

Table 16. Georgia water use classifications and in-stream water quality standards for each 

use ................................................................................................................................................. 42

Table 17. Summary of Georgia state standards for acceptable water quality in waters 

classified as Fishing designated use (GA DNR – excluding temperature) and of conditions 

for acceptable water quality recommended by other sources, and status of the two KEMO 

streams in the past decade ............................................................................................................. 43

Table 18. Estimated contribution of land use type to sediment loading for biota-impacted 

Noses Creek and John Ward Creek. ............................................................................................. 44

Table 19. TMDLs developed for Noses Creek and John Ward Creek, including stream 

segments within KEMO NBP. ...................................................................................................... 45

Table 20. U.S. EPA standards for six “criteria” pollutants as required by the Clean Air Act, 

indicating recent modifications. .................................................................................................... 48

Table 21. Present-day and potential stressors that are affecting or may affect KEMO NBP. ..... 53

Table A-1. Available data for water quality conditions at or near the park over the past 

~decade ......................................................................................................................................... 65
xi 

Plates 

Page 

Plate 1. Cheatham Hill in KEMO NBP, with the Illinois monument ............................................ 3

Plate 2. Noses Creek in the park. ................................................................................................... 7

Plate 3. John Ward Creek (left panel) near the Illinois Monument and (right panel) near 

Cheatham Hill Road in the park ...................................................................................................... 7

Plate 4. View of the floodplain of John Ward Creek within the park. ......................................... 13

Plate 5. Degradation to streams in the Park from upstream sources of sediment loading in 

the urbanized Marietta area: Noses Creek, showing (A) a large sediment deposit and (B) an 

undercut from bank erosion; John Ward Creek, showing (C) a large sediment deposits and 

(D) a heavily silted bottom). ......................................................................................................... 41

xiii 

Executive Summary 

The purpose of this report was to locate and examine existing information pertaining to the water 

quality in and around KEMO NBP, assess the present and likely future water conditions of the 

park, and make recommendations to fill existing information gaps. Water quality and quantity, 

habitat issues, the potential for invasive species, trends in park resource use, and watershed 

influences and other stressors were addressed insofar as possible through available data and firsthand observations. 

KEMO NBP is a small park (2,923 acres) within the metropolitan area of the city of Atlanta, 

Georgia. The park’s natural resources include the 1,808-foot peak of Kennesaw Mountain in the 

Appalachians, the 1,600-foot peak of Little Kennesaw Mountain, hundreds of acres of mixed 

hardwood/pine forests mixed with grassy fields, two perennial streams, and a wetland area. This 

small park represents 27% of the natural greenspace area remaining within the urban Atlanta 

area, and it is visited by nearly 1.5 million visitors per year. Because of multiple impacts from 

voracious surrounding urban/suburban development, it is also on the USDI’s list of the top 25 

most threatened national parks. The park’s drinking water is supplied from the Cobb County 

water system; for waste treatment the park is connected the county sewage system except for the 

historic Kolb Farm House which is on a septic tank system. 

The park’s water and cultural resources are seriously threatened by upstream and encroaching 

urbanization, and by the multitude of the water and air pollutants and other stressors associated 

with rapid human population growth, land development, and natural resource destruction. The 

two perennial streams that flow through the park, Noses Creek and John Ward Creek, are the 

park’s only significant surface waters. They have shown signs of degradation for more than 20 

years, and for the past decade they have been designated as impaired waters for biota and/or for 

general recreation on the state’s 303(d) lists. The causes of impairment have been identified as 

urban and other nonpoint source pollution, in particular, excessive sediment loading and high 

fecal coliform bacterial densities. Yet the aquatic flora and fauna of the park are poorly known, 

other than species lists, and the water quality data for these streams mostly have been/continue to 

be collected at a sporadic frequency of only seasonally to once or twice per year. Information is 

lacking, as well, on wetlands that are within park boundaries. Hydrologic data are not available 

for the park’s surface- or groundwaters, although a USGS gaging station is on Noses Creek about 

six miles downstream from the park. 

The airshed is in violation of federal ozone and fine particulate standards that threaten the health 

of park staff and frequent visitors, and the high ozone concentrations may be damaging terrestrial 

plant foliage. The park also lies in an area that is especially prone to atmospheric acid deposition, 

and acidification, especially acid spates, very likely is adversely affecting its surface waters. 

Invasive/ exotic species are adversely affecting the park’s land resources. The southern pine 

beetle infestation, for example, has killed thousands of pine trees and increased fire risk from the 

resulting deadfall debris, and several terrestrial plant species are also of concern. Increasing 

abundance of beavers and white-tailed deer also pose potential stresses on the park’s natural 

resources. Information about aquatic invasive/exotic species is lacking. 
xiv 

Other stressors to the park’s natural and historic resources include heavy use and erosion of 

hiking trails, equestrian activities that occur within and upstream from the park, the creation of 

multiple “social” trails through sensitive park lands because of shared boundaries between the 

park and suburban developments, and frequent illegal dumping of trash and other refuse. The 

looming major factor that will exacerbate virtually all of these stresses is the rapid, extreme 

population growth of the Atlanta metropolitan area. 
xv 

Recommendations 

The following additional recommendations can be addressed within NPS jurisdiction. 

Water Quality 

 A top priority is to conduct a two-year water quality monitoring program in the park 

segments of Noses Creek and John Ward Creek with biweekly (preferably, to capture 

effects of pollution from storm events) or monthly sampling frequency to track water 

quality conditions in the park. Two stations on each stream, including inflow and outflow 

from the park, should be sampled for, at a minimum, water temperature, pH, dissolved 

oxygen, suspended solids, turbidity, nutrients (TN, TP, nitrate, ammonium, BOD5), fecal 

coliform densities, and chlorophyll a concentrations. This effort should be repeated at 

five-year intervals. Published benchmarks for acceptable water quality for streams with 

designated use for Fishing should be used to evaluate the information. 

 Data should be collected at least annually on toxic substance concentrations (PCBs, 

heavy metals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals) in sediments and fish or benthic faunal tissues. 

Published benchmarks for acceptable water quality for streams with designated use for 

Fishing should be used to evaluate the information. 

 The park should inventory changes in land use/land cover in the watersheds of the two 

perennial streams upstream from and surrounding the park, including traditional 

categories but also septic tanks in new subdivisions, new highway projects, new shopping 

centers, and other potential sources of water pollution. The data should be used to create 

GIS maps of these sources, which can be upgraded over time to help the NPS track 

pollution and its impacts in park waters. 

Ecosystem and Community Health 

 At least once per year during an appropriate seasonal timeframe, the macroinvertebrate 

communities in John Ward and Noses Creeks should be assessed in at least two stations, 

following published protocols. Benchmarks should consider published descriptions of 

healthy macroinvertebrate communities in warmwater streams. The data should be used 

to track stream ecological condition (rated from Excellent to Poor) over time. 

 At least once per year during an appropriate seasonal timeframe, the fish community in 

the park segments of John Ward and Noses Creeks should be assessed, following 

published protocols. The fish data should be used to develop an Index of Biotic Integrity 

and an Index of Well-Being for fish population health over time. 

 A sampling program should be developed to establish present conditions and track exotic 

invasive species affecting terrestrial as well as aquatic/wetland sources in the park. 

Assessment of exotic invasive species should be repeated at least at three-year intervals 

to enable detection of species that may rapidly invade. 

 The park’s wetland ecosystems should be assessed at five-year intervals for indices of 

diversity, function, and overall health. 
xvi 

 An updated biological inventory should be completed for herpetofauna. 

 A baseline biological inventory is needed for the composition and abundance of benthic 

microalgal assemblages. The benthic microalgal (periphyton) data should be used to 

develop an index of biotic integrity for the two perennial streams within the park area. 

 The NPS should assess incidence of foliar injury to park plants from ozone pollution, 

including common wetland bioindicator species such as yellow poplar and American 

elder. More generally, data are needed to assess the extent to which air pollution is 

affecting the park, and to forecast how increasing air pollution from the greater Atlanta 

metropolitan area will affect its waters and other natural resources. Sampling devices 

should be installed to establish present conditions and track air pollutants such as ozone, 

PM2.5, and mercury. 

 Park staff should monitor the two perennial streams for erosion of the stream banks, 

which is commonly related to upstream urban watershed activities. Park staff should also 

check for tree damage from beavers, which can lead to increased bank erosion. 

Construction of beaver dams within the park should not be permitted, since this would 

increase on-site flooding and threaten cultural resources. 

Groundwater 

 Groundwater resources of the park should be assessed through partnership with the 

USGS, including recharge/discharge areas, movement, and chemical quality. 

Education Outreach 

 KEMO NBP is a critically important greenspace for the greater Atlanta metropolitan 

area. The park should strengthen its environmental education program to inform visitors 

about the importance of greenspaces in ecosystem sustainability. 

Other Actions 

 The NPS should pursue actions to protect remaining undeveloped lands (e.g. increase in 

greenspace setasides) adjacent to the park to target a goal of protecting and growing 

buffer areas around the park. 
xvii 

Acknowledgments 

This study was funded by the National Park Service, Southeast Coast Network. In addition to 

the individuals listed as interviewed, I thank Eva DiDonato and Joe DeVivo of the National Park 

Service and Michael Mallin of the University of North Carolina Wilmington for facilitation and 

many helpful review comments. 

I am very grateful to Lloyd Morris, Chief Ranger at Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield 

Park, for his kindness in providing counsel and helpful insights. I also thank William Johnson, 

the park Historian, for his assistance. Sara McCort at the NPS provided GIS shapefiles for the 

park boundaries, hydrology, trails, and places. Allison Hughs at Georgia DNR-EPD provided 

water quality information for Noses and John Ward Creeks within the park that were collected as 

part of a volunteer monitoring project called “Adopt-A-Stream Georgia”. She also provided 

spatial information for water quality source locations such as land application sites, landfills, and 

surface mining operations. Liz Kramer, the director of U-GA NARSAL, kindly confirmed that 

the GA DNR-EPD would be the best source for land use information. Meghan Rothenberger 

used GIS to produce the land use/land cover in the upper middle Chattahoochee River basin. 

Diane Whittaker analyzed a land use/land cover dataset from Cobb County and used GIS to 

produce the map of land use/land cover of Cobb County, contained in this report. 

Erin Feichtner and Adam Sukenick of the Cobb County Water System Watershed Monitoring 

Program provided the County’s water quality and macroinvertebrate data for Noses and John 

Ward Creeks. Patti Lanford of GA DNR provided the latitude/longitude information for two sites 

sampled for water quality data on one date in June 2003 by GA DNR-WRD. Mr. Michael 

Pettelle of North Cobb High School provided information from the high school’s water quality 

sampling program. David Webster (University of North Carolina Wilmington) provided his 

survey and analysis of mammals in the park. Elle Allen, Carol Kinder, and Meghan 

Rothenberger assisted in data gathering and fact-checking, and Meghan Rothenberger and Diane 

Whittaker assisted in creating GIS maps.

xix 

Abbreviations 

ACIP – Avian Conservation Implementation Plan 

BMP – best-management practice 

cfs – cubic feet per second 

CFU – colony-forming units 

DO – dissolved oxygen 

GA – Georgia 

GA DNR – Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

EPD – Environmental Protection Division (of GA DNR) 

GIS – Geographic Information System 

KEMO NBP – Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park 

m – meter 

mgd – million gallons per day 

mg/L – milligrams per liter (= parts per million) 

μg/L – micrograms per liter (= parts per billion) 

MS4s – municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) 

NARSAL – Natural Resources Spatial Analysis Laboratory 

N – nitrogen 

NCSU CAAE – North Carolina State University’s Center for Applied Aquatic Ecology 

NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPS – National Park Service 

NTU – nephelometric turbidity units 

P - phosphorus 

park – Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park 

PM2.5 – particulate matter, diameter < 2.5 μm (air pollutant) 

SECN – Southeast Coast Network of the National Park Service 

STORET – Storage and Retrieval Environmental Data System (of the U.S. EPA) 

TMDL – total maximum daily load 

USACE – United States Army Corps of Engineers 

USDI – United States Department of the Interior 

U.C. – unacceptable conditions 

U.C.C. – unacceptable conditions common 

U.S. EPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency 

USGS – United States Geological Survey 

WRD – Wildlife Resources Division of GA DNR 

WUI – Wildland-Urban Interface 

Park D

Backgro

Location

Kennesaw

33.95444

(populati

the city o

have rapi

importan

visited in

2008). 

Figure 1.

park (NPS

The 2,92

the jurisd

October 

nature an

battlefiel

fighting b

monumen

office on

forested i

Descript

ound 

n, Size, and

w Mountain

4, longitude 

ion 63, 152 a

of Atlanta (p

idly shrunk t

nt greenspace

n the Nationa

Left: Locatio

S 2008). 

3-acre park 

diction of the

1966. The N

nd interpretiv

ld at Cheatha

between Con

nts represen

n-site (http://w

interspersed

tion 

d Boundarie

 National Ba

-84.59611) l

as of 2007) (

opulation ~4

the distance 

e in the Atlan

al Park Syste

n of KEMO N

is about 8 m

e U.S. NPS a

NPS currentl

ve trails, picn

am Hill (in C

nfederate an

ting soldiers

www.nps.go

d with open, g

es 

attlefield Par

located in Co

(Figure 1). A

4 million peo

of this park 

nta area – in

em, with nea

NBP within the

miles long an

and was liste

ly maintains

nic areas, Ko

Civil War tim

nd Union arm

s from states

ov/KEMO/).

grassy fields

1 

rk (KEMO N

obb County 

As of the ear

ople), but vo

from the At

n fact, this re

arly 1.5 milli

e upper Chatt

nd 1 mile wid

ed on the Na

 a Visitor Ce

olb’s Farm a

mes, known 

mies took pla

s who fought

 Land use w

s. The natur

NBP) is an u

immediately

rly 1990s it 

oracious dev

tlanta metrop

elatively littl

ion visitors p

tahoochee Riv

de (NPS 200

ational Regis

enter, Civil W

and restored 

as the Dead

ace, two othe

t there. The p

within park b

ral resources

urban park (l

y west of Ma

was ~20 mil

velopment an

politan area.

e park is the

per year (Str

ver basin. Rig

08a; Figure 1

ster of Histo

War museum

historic log 

Angle) whe

er battlefield

park Superin

boundaries is

s of the park 

latitude 

arietta, GA 

les northwes

nd urban spra

 The park is

e second mos

rack and Mil

ght: Map of th

1). It is unde

ric Places in

m, 17.3 mile

house, the m

ere the fierce

d sites, and th

ntendent has

s primarily 

include the 

st of 

awl 

s an 

st 

ller 

he 

er 

n

es of 

main 

est 

hree 

s an 
2 

1,808-foot peak of Kennesaw Mountain of the Appalachians, the 1,600-foot peak of Little 

Kennesaw Mountain, hundreds of acres of mixed hardwood/pine forests mixed with grassy 

fields, two perennial streams, and a wetland area (DeVivo 2005). The park’s location within the 

Atlanta metropolitan area has contributed to its being the second most visited battlefield in the 

National Park System, and to its inclusion on the Secretary of the Interior’s list of the 25 most 

threatened parks (DeVivo 2005). 

History of the Park 

KEMO NBP preserves a Civil War battleground of the Atlanta Campaign, a series of battles 

fought in the area surrounding Atlanta, GA in the summer of 1864. More specifically, it 

preserves the battle lines where Confederate forces under General Joseph E. Johnston impeded 

General William Tecumseh Sherman’s Union forces in their march from Chattanooga to Atlanta. 

These battles led to the eventual fall of Atlanta and hastened the end of the American Civil War. 

More correct to say that these battles led to the eventual fall of Atlanta which helped insure the 

re-election of Abraham Lincoln in 1864. Lincoln’s re-election meant that the war would be 

prosecuted until the armed forces of the Confederate States were ultimately defeated and their 

surrender obtained. 

In the Atlanta Campaign (May - Sep 1864), General Johnston and later General John Bell Hood, 

commanding about 60,000 Confederates took up a series of defensive positions which served to 

temporarily check the southward extension of General Sherman’s men whose numbers exceeded 

100,000. One of the defensive positions occupied by General Johnston’s Confederate forces was 

the Kennesaw Mountain line which his forces occupied from June 19 until July 2, 1864. General 

Sherman tried to flank this position by marching a portion of his force to the southeast where on 

June 22 they were met by an attack by Confederate forces under Gen. John Bell Hood at Kolb’s 

Farm (Figure 1). This attack temporarily checked the Union army’s southward extension. 

Following this engagement General Sherman chose to order a frontal assault on the entrenched 

Confederates to take place at 8:00 in the morning on June 27. These attacks failed to dislodge 

the well dug-in Confederates but a flanking movement ordered at the same time was successful 

in forcing a withdrawal of Johnston’s forces five days later. From 19 June through 2 July 1864, 

more than 5,350 Union and Confederate soldiers, more than two-thirds of them Union soldiers, 

were killed, wounded, or missing (Kelly 1990). The failure of Sherman’s forces to break 

through the Kennesaw Mountain line was one of the few victories for the Confederates during 

the Atlanta Campaign. Kennesaw Mountain NBP is the only NPS property that commemorates 

the Atlanta Campaign. The park helps to preserve some of the historic earthworks, cannon 

emplacements, and monuments. 

Creation of the Park 

The process which led to the ultimate creation of Kennesaw Mountain NBP began in 1899 when 

Lasing J. Dawdy purchased 60 acres which included the site where his unit attacked the 

Confederates on June 27, 1864. In 1904 this property was transferred to the Dan McCook 

Brigade Association which led in the fund raising effort which culminated in the construction 

and dedication of the Illinois Monument on the date of the fiftieth anniversary of the battle – 

June 27, 1914. Realizing that the Association could not fund the upkeep of the monument, they 

offered it to the War Department in 1916. Legislation authorizing the acceptance of this gift was 

passed in 1917 but the actual acceptance was delayed until 1926 because of title issues. A 

commission was appointed in 1926 to study the feasibility of creating a national memorial 
military p

and for th

1935 legi

the time 

the passa

the War D

involving

Secretary

Plate 1. C

Land Us

The uppe

has an ar

Calloosah

(Figure 1

(Table 1)

The NCS

following

park. This c

he next ten y

islation was 

$70,000 was

age of this le

Department 

g numerous 

y of the Inter

Cheatham Hill

se / Land C

er middle Ch

rea of 3,049 

hatchee Rive

1). Urban de

). 

SU CAAE ge

g procedure.

commission r

years a bill w

finally enac

s appropriate

gislation con

to the Natio

legal challen

rior declared

l in KEMO NB

Cover 

hattahoochee

square miles

er between M

velopment i

enerated a la

. The sub-ba

recommende

was introduc

cted creating

ed for land a

ntrol of the v

onal Park Ser

nges was fin

d Kennesaw 

BP, with the Il

e sub-basin, 

s and include

Marietta, GA

s concentrat

and use-land

asin boundary

3 

ed the expan

ed annually 

 Kennesaw M

acquisition an

various Nati

rvice. A pro

nally settled i

Mountain of

linois monum

which inclu

es all lands a

A in the north

ted in the upp

d cover map f

y (8-digit Hy

nsion of the 

calling for i

Mountain N

nd $30,000 

onal Military

olonged proc

in 1945 and 

fficially esta

ment. Photo by

udes KEMO N

and surface w

h and Colum

per sub-basi

for this subydrologic Un

Kennesaw M

ts creation. 

National Battl

for developm

ry Parks was

cess of land a

on October 

ablished (Cap

y M. Mallin. 

NBP at its n

waters that d

mbus, GA in 

in, surroundi

-basin (Figur

nit Code) Ge

Mountain sit

On June 26,

lefield Park.

ment. Prior 

 transferred 

acquisition, 

24, 1947, th

pps 1994). 

northernmost

drain into the

the south 

ing the park 

re 2) using t

eographic 

te 

,

 At 

to 

from 

he 

t end, 

e

the 
4 

Information System (GIS) data layer was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and 

National Land Cover data for 2001 (most recent dataset available) were downloaded from the 

USGS Seamless Data Distribution System (http://seamless.usgs.gov/). Using the Spatial 

Analyst extension of ArcGIS9.1, the land use classification system was modified to include eight 

general categories: urban areas, row crop agriculture, animal agriculture, forests, grasslands, 

water, wetland, and barren/disturbed. Once the grid was reclassified, the Spatial analyst “tabulate 

area” function was used to calculate the area of each land class within the sub-basin. 

Table 1. Changes in land use / land cover in the upper Chattahoochee watershed during 1991-2005 

(from the Georgia Land Use Trends [GLUT] Project, 2008). 

Land use/land cover in Cobb County, surrounding the park, was also analyzed. Land use, 

hydrology, roads and facilities layers were obtained from Cobb County, GA GIS 

(http://gis.cobbcountyga.gov/). No additional data reclassification was necessary because Cobb 

County reported land use by zoning codes. Classifications of residential density (very low 

density, low density, medium density, high density, and rural residential) are important land use 

categories to track, as they are the primary land use adjacent to the park. Land designated as 

“Industrial” and “Industrial Compatible” is important to consider also, considering that a large 

tract of property just north of the park is designated in these two zoning categories. 

The analysis indicated that although the sub-basin is predominantly in forested land cover, the 

area in the vicinity of the park is mostly urbanized (Table 1, Figure 1). Zeroing in more closely 

on Cobb County (Figure 2), analysis of land use/land cover as of 2007 shows that the park is 

completely surrounded by immediately adjacent urban development, either as the City of 

Marietta (red, adjacent to park), or as residential development (mostly low and medium density) 

outside city limits. 

The watersheds of Noses Creek and John Ward Creek, the two perennial streams in the park, still 

retain a major proportion as forest/shrubs because of the park (Table 2). Overall, the total land 

Land cover (acres) 1991 1998 2001 2005 Change

(1991-2005)

Beaches, dunes, mud 578 598 0 0 – 100%

Open water 44,725 43,370 46,148 46,253 + 3%

Low-intensity urban 155,394 180,806 235,243 235,986 + 51%

High-intensity urban 37,638 42,372 54,378 68,702 + 83% 

Clearcut, sparse 20,399 43,509 37,478 42,771 + 110%

Quarries, strip mines, rocks 1,196 1,645 1,591 1,585 + 33%

Deciduous forest 417,748 389,353 365,222 356,497 – 15%

Evergreen forest 176,204 159,882 137,691 94,905 – 46%

Mixed forest 25,755 26,526 28,337 45,282 + 76%

Row crops, pasture 125,066 117,124 98,710 112,977 – 10%

Forested wetland 6,605 6,106 6,450 6,358 – 4%

Non-forested wetland (fresh) 91 116 151 84 – 8%

Overall change: Forest – 20%; Wetlands – 6% 

Overall change: Urbanized/ clearcut + 63%

Land cover (acres) 1991 1998 2001 2005 Change

(1991-2005)

Beaches, dunes, mud 578 598 0 0 – 100%

Open water 44,725 43,370 46,148 46,253 + 3%

Low-intensity urban 155,394 180,806 235,243 235,986 + 51%

High-intensity urban 37,638 42,372 54,378 68,702 + 83% 

Clearcut, sparse 20,399 43,509 37,478 42,771 + 110%

Quarries, strip mines, rocks 1,196 1,645 1,591 1,585 + 33%

Deciduous forest 417,748 389,353 365,222 356,497 – 15%

Evergreen forest 176,204 159,882 137,691 94,905 – 46%

Mixed forest 25,755 26,526 28,337 45,282 + 76%

Row crops, pasture 125,066 117,124 98,710 112,977 – 10%

Forested wetland 6,605 6,106 6,450 6,358 – 4%

Non-forested wetland (fresh) 91 116 151 84 – 8%

Overall change: Forest – 20%; Wetlands – 6% 

Overall change: Urbanized/ clearcut + 63%
use in the

/other gra

~23.3% u

The two 

Figure 2.

upper cen

03130002

2007, sho

e Noses Cree

asses, and ~

urban, 41% f

watersheds u

(Upper Right

nter) surround

2). Map prepa

owing detailed

ek watershed

1.4% wetlan

forest/shrub,

upstream fro

t) Land use/la

ded by urban 

ared by the NC

d information 

d is ~16% ur

nd. The total 

, 33.5% row

om the park,

and cover as o

development

CSU CAAE. 

for the land s

5 

rban, 58.8%

land use in 

w crops/ pastu

 however, ar

of 2001 alrea

t in the Upper

(Lower Left) 

surrounding th

% forest/shrub

the John Wa

ure/ other gr

re mostly urb

ady showed K

r Middle Chatt

Land use/lan

he park (data 

b, 23.8% row

ard Creek w

rasses, and 1

rbanized. 

KEMO NBP (b

ttahoochee su

d cover in Co

from Cobb C

w crops/pastu

atershed is 

.6% wetland

blackened are

ub-basin (HUC

obb County as

County). 

ure 

d. 

ea, 

C

s of 
6 

Table 2. Land use in the Noses Creek and John Ward Creek watersheds (GA DNR 2008a, based on 

2001 land use-land cover data (Landsat Thematic Mapper images; Georgia National Land Cover Data). 

Hydrologic Information 

The Chattahoochee River and its watershed, which includes KEMO NBP, originate in northern 

Georgia in the Blue Ridge physiographic province. The regional climate is moist and temperate 

(mean annual temperature 60oF, average annual range 46-69oF). Annual rainfall averages ~51 

inches per year, with minimal snowfall (GA DNR 1997, Southeast Regional Climate Center 

2007, GA DNR 2008a). Evaporation and transpiration account for approximately 30 inches of 

rainfall, resulting in about 18 inches annually available for streamflow and percolation to 

groundwater. A dry season typically occurs from mid-summer to late fall, whereas maximal 

precipitation and flow occur in March. 

Within the park are swamp and bog wetlands, mountain seeps, and two small perennial streams, 

but no major impoundments or lakes (Zubricki 1993). The park has no groundwater use; its 

drinking water is supplied by Cobb County from the Chattahoochee River (Chief Ranger L. 

Morris, pers. comm., November 2006). Park grounds include a water pump lift off Burnt 

Hickory Road. The USACE previously rerouted Noses Creek (Figure 1) as it enters the park as 

part of freeway and other development (Chief Ranger L. Morris, pers. comm., Nov. 2006). Water 

distribution and quality in the park also have been affected by beaver dams (DeVivo 2004). 

Surface Waters 

Noses and John Ward Creeks are the two perennial second-order streams that transect KEMO 

NBP boundaries (Figure 1, Plates 2 and 3), and the only significant surface waters in the park. 

John Ward Creek becomes a tributary of Noses Creek downstream from the park, but in the park 

the streams are comparable in size. Their headwaters are in the urban setting of Marietta, GA, 

and they are tributaries of the upper middle Chattahoochee River. Noses Creek drains significant 

suburban development before entering the park. After leaving the park, it drains significant 

urban development before reaching its confluence with the Chattahoochee River. John Ward 

Creek drains suburban development before entering the park, then leaves the Park to flow 

through a tract of private land with suburban development surrounded by the park before reLand cover (acres) Noses Creek John Ward Creek 

(5.85 sq. mi.) (7.13 sq. mi.)

Open water 27 (0.7%) 27 (0.6%)

Low-intensity residential 432 (11.5%) 862 (18.9%)

High-intensity urban 103 (2.7%) 134 (2.9%)

High-intensity comm/ indust/ transp 47 (1.2%) 68 (1.5%)

Clearcut, sparse 8 (0.2%) 28 (0.6%)

Quarries, strip mines, rocks 10 (0.3%) ---

Deciduous forest 1,270 (33.9%) 740 (16.2%)

Evergreen forest 909 (24.3%) 1,097 (24.0%)

Mixed forest 19 (0.5%) 31 (0.7%)

Deciduous shrubbed 5 (0.1%) 3 (0.1%)

Row crops, pasture 279 (7.5%) 141 (3.1%) 

Other grasses (urban, recreational) 610 (16.3%) 1,385 (30.4%)

Forested wetland 28 (0.8%) 47 (1.0%)

Non-forested wetland (fresh) --- ---

Land cover (acres) Noses Creek John Ward Creek 

(5.85 sq. mi.) (7.13 sq. mi.)

Open water 27 (0.7%) 27 (0.6%)

Low-intensity residential 432 (11.5%) 862 (18.9%)

High-intensity urban 103 (2.7%) 134 (2.9%)

High-intensity comm/ indust/ transp 47 (1.2%) 68 (1.5%)

Clearcut, sparse 8 (0.2%) 28 (0.6%)

Quarries, strip mines, rocks 10 (0.3%) ---

Deciduous forest 1,270 (33.9%) 740 (16.2%)

Evergreen forest 909 (24.3%) 1,097 (24.0%)

Mixed forest 19 (0.5%) 31 (0.7%)

Deciduous shrubbed 5 (0.1%) 3 (0.1%)

Row crops, pasture 279 (7.5%) 141 (3.1%) 

Other grasses (urban, recreational) 610 (16.3%) 1,385 (30.4%)

Forested wetland 28 (0.8%) 47 (1.0%)

Non-forested wetland (fresh) --- ---
entering 

confluen

Plate 2. N

Plate 3. J

Road in th

Flow dat

vicinity o

(USGS 0

of Powde

miles fro

cfs durin

high-prec

in winter

the park. Af

ce with Nos

Noses Creek i

ohn Ward Cr

he park. Pho

a are lacking

of the park. 

02336968, hy

er Springs, G

om the park (

g a prolonge

cipitation ye

r and minima

fter leaving t

es Creek. 

in the park. P

eek (left pane

tos by M. Ma

g for John W

Since Augu

ydrologic un

GA (drainage

(Tables 3-5, 

ed drought in

ear 2003 (Tab

al in late sum

the park, it d

Photos by M. 

el) near the Ill

llin.

Ward Creek t

ust 1998 the U

nit 03130002

e area 44.5 s

Figures 3 an

n 2007, and 

ble 4). Aver

mmer - early

7 

drains urban/

Mallin.

linois Monum

hroughout it

USGS has m

2) in Noses C

square miles

nd 4). Mean

the maximu

age monthly

y fall (Table 

/suburban de

ment and (right

ts length, an

maintained a 

Creek at Pow

, 883 feet ab

n annual disc

um flow reco

y discharge g

5). 

evelopment b

t panel) near 

nd for Noses 

stream gagi

wder Springs

bove sea leve

charge range

orded was 10

generally ha

before its 

Cheatham H

Creek in the

ing station 

s Road in the

el), about 6.4

ed from 4 to 

03.3 cfs durin

s been maxim

Hill 

e

e city 

4

32 

ng 

mal 
8 

Table 3. Stations with aquatic data that were mentioned or included in this Report. 

Station / Years Location Latitude, Longitude Parameters 

John Ward Creek 

NPS KEMO 0005 Outflow from park 22.9198, -84.6075 Environmental conditions, 

1993-1998 Water quality a

NPS KEMO 0006 Upstream by park 33.9291, -84.5891 Environmental conditions, 

1993-1998 Water quality a

Cobb County - WR1 Highland Avenue, 33.9518, -84.5646 

1998-present c ~3 miles upstream Environmental conditions, 

 from park Water quality d

22 Dec 2003, Macroinvertebrate data 

14 Oct 2005 

Cobb County - WR2 Kirkpatrick Drive, 33.9229, -84.6076 Environmental conditions, 

1998-present c ~2.7 miles upstream Water quality d

 from park 

Cobb County - WR3 Cheatham Hill Road, 33.9207, -84.6014 Environmental conditions, 

1998-present “island” surrounded Water quality d

 by park 

 

Cobb County - WR4 John Ward Road, 33.9165, -84.6174 Environmental conditions, 

1998-present ~0.5 mile down- Water quality d

 stream from park 

GA DNR - WRD: John Ward Road, 33.9167, -84.6178 Environmental conditions, 

very near WR4 site ~0.5 mile down- Water quality b (GA DNR 

(12 June 2003) stream from park 2008a) 

Noses Creek 

USGS 02336968 Powder Springs 33.8592, -84.6528 Discharge, gage height 

1998 - present Road, ~6.4 miles 

(data available downstream from 

through 2007) park 

NPS KEMO 0007 Outflow from park 33.9544, -84.6050 Environmental conditions, 

(1993-1998) Water quality a
9 

Table 3. (Continued). 

Station / Years Location Latitude, Longitude Parameters 

Noses Creek (cont’d.) 

NPS KEMO 0009 Upstream at park 33.9592, -84.5849 Environmental conditions, 

(1993-1998) boundary Water quality a

Cobb County - NS1 Mt. Calvary Road, 33.9532, -84.6121 Environmental conditions, 

(1999-2008) 0.3 mile downstream Water quality d

 from park 

GA DNR - WRD Mt. Calvary Road, 33.9534, -84.6117 Environmental conditions, 

very near NS1 site ~0.3 mile downstream water quality b (GA DNR 

(12 June 2003) from park 2008a) 

Cobb County - NS2 Irwin Road, ~3.5 miles 33.92207, -84.6260 Macroinvertebrate data 

20 Feb 2004, downstream from park 

24 Oct 2005 

a Environmental conditions ≡ water temperature, specific conductance, pH, and/or discharge. Water 

quality ≡ turbidity, DO, NO3

-

N+NO2

-

N, SRP, and fecal coliform bacteria. 

b Environmental conditions ≡ water temperature, specific conductance, pH, and/or discharge. Water 

quality ≡ turbidity, DO, total hardness, and alkalinity (GA DNR 2008a). 

c Cobb County dataset extends from 1981 to the present for John Ward Creek (4 sites, usually sampled 

during dry periods), and from 1987 to the present for Noses Creek; this Report considers data from the 

past decade, 1999 - 2008. 

d Environmental conditions ≡ water temperature, specific conductance, pH, and/or discharge. Water 

quality ≡ turbidity, DO, NO3

-

N+NO2

-

N, TKN, TP, BOD5, COD, chlorides, TSS, fecal coliform bacteria, 

and metals (alkaline earth metals barium, calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium; trace metal 

manganese; and potentially toxic metals aluminum, total cadmium, total copper, total iron, total lead, 

and total zinc).
10 

Table 4. Mean monthly discharge at the USGS gaging station in Powder Springs on Noses Creek, 

downstream from the Park, during the period of record from August 1998 - 2007 (available thus far: 

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/qwdata; note that na ≡ not available). 

 00060, Discharge, cubic feet per second (cfs) 

 Monthly mean in cfs (Calculation Period: 1 August 1998 to 30 September 2007) 

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

1998 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 23.6 12.3 9.08 21.0 27.7 

1999 62.0 56.1 43.3 24.1 24.0 52.0 66.6 7.65 3.49 12.7 21.8 19.7 

2000 44.6 45.5 60.1 63.4 13.6 6.42 2.89 24.2 77.8 10.2 69.5 39.3 

2001 82.2 87.8 168.6 53.6 27.5 43.9 36.3 15.0 13.3 10.5 10.0 28.3 

2002 82.8 39.1 82.1 32.4 56.7 11.1 35.3 4.15 77.1 64.2 143.6 146.6

2003 52.0 81.5 125.6 87.5 204.7 109.1 143.6 45.8 31.3 27.1 79.7 53.4 

2004 61.5 103.9 43.1 55.4 36.5 51.0 32.9 25.0 110.2 31.6 128.0 98.5 

2005 54.2 118.5 133.2 100.7 38.8 44.6 313.7 79.4 17.7 17.3 26.4 48.5 

2006 114.3 131.0 80.8 59.3 33.8 15.4 8.10 31.1 23.2 21.2 59.6 29.2 

2007 75.8 39.4 41.4 34.4 16.1 9.12 50.5 6.00 5.65 na na na 

Mean 70 78 86 57 50 38 77 26 37 23 62 55 

Table 5. Mean annual discharge at the USGS gaging station in Powder Springs, downstream from the 

Park, during the period of record from 1999 – 2007. More limited data, covering three years of record, are 

also shown for gage height. 

Water Year 00065, Gage height 

(feet) 

00060, Discharge 

(cubic feet per second) 

1999 1.668 33.0 

2000 1.578 32.6 

2001 --- 53.7 

2002 --- 39.2 

2003 --- 103.3 

2004 --- 56.2 

2005 --- 96.7 

2006 1.740 48.6 

2007 --- 32.4 
Figure 3.

(see Table

County wa

site samp

gaging sit

 

Map of the s

e 3 for further

ater quality si

pled for macro

te on either of

ampling statio

r information)

ites (WR1-4 a

oinvertebrates

f the two pere

ons with aqua

). Crosses ≡

and NS1, with

s (NS2, 1 date

ennial streams

11 

atic data that 

NPS water qu

h more recent

e in 2004 and

s that flow thr

were mention

uality sites (1

t data availab

d 2005); and t

rough the par

ned or include

993-1998); d

ble from 1999 

the square ≡

rk (1998 - pre

ed in this Rep

iamonds ≡ Co

- present) or 

the only USG

esent). 

port 

obb 

a 

GS 
Figure 4.

gaging sta

from Tabl

Wetland

The large

area, the 

(Chief Ra

Groundw

The area 

igneous r

demand i

the metro

considere

resource 

the metro

Accounts

Daily dischar

ation at Powd

le 4). 

ds 

est wetland a

floodplain o

anger L. Mo

water Resou

surrounding

rocks) with l

in the Chatta

opolitan Atla

ed to be und

during peak

opolitan Atla

s 2005). 

rge (upper pa

der Springs, G

area occurs j

of John Ward

orris, pers. co

urces 

g KEMO NB

little to no po

ahoochee Riv

anta area sou

der-utilized in

k demand per

anta area (Ch

anel) and daily

GA, 6.4 miles 

just north of

d Creek (Pla

omm., Nov. 

BP is underla

orosity (Cha

ver basin is 

utheast of the

n this area an

riods, under 

hapman and 

12 

y gage height

downstream 

f Noses Cree

ate 4), or oth

2006). 

ain by crysta

apman and P

supplied by 

e park (GA D

nd have been

drought con

Peck 1997, 

t (lower pane

from KEMO d

ek. Informati

her swamp an

alline-rock a

Peck 1997). 

surface wat

DNR 1997),

n targeted as

nditions, or a

Georgia De

l) at the USG

during 1999 -

ion is not ava

nd bog wetla

aquifers (met

Since 99% o

ter withdraw

, groundwate

s a potential 

as water dem

epartment of

GS stream flow

- 2007 (websi

ailable abou

ands in the p

tamorphic an

of the water 

wals, especial

er resources 

supplement

mand increas

f Audits and 

w

ite 

ut this 

park 

nd 

lly in 

are 

tal 

ses in 
Plate 4. V

Biologic

Surround

envelopin

effective

lands (Fi

Creek, bo

the aquat

The park

them exc

perennial

uses (GA

Microalg

There ha

upstream

View of the flo

cal Resour

ding, encroac

ng threat to a

ly fragmente

igure 1). In a

oth have ups

tic biota or w

k is further ha

cept for spec

l streams are

A DNR 2008

gae 

ve been no p

m reaches No

oodplain of Jo

rces

ching, rapidl

all of the bio

ed by the con

addition, the

stream portio

water quality

ampered fro

ies lists. Thi

e on the state

b; see below

published stu

oses or John 

ohn Ward Cre

ly expanding

ological reso

nfiguration o

 two perenni

ons outside t

y of these str

m efforts to 

is lack of inf

e’s list of im

w). 

udies of the 

Ward Creek

13 

ek within the 

g urban/subu

ources at the 

of the park la

ial streams i

the park bou

eams from i

protect thes

formation se

mpaired water

suspended o

ks near the pa

park. Photo 

urban develo

park. The p

ands versus 

in the park, N

undaries. Thu

nflowing po

se resources 

eems unfortu

rs that are no

or benthic mi

ark. 

by J. Burkho

opment is a m

ark’s natura

privately ow

Noses Creek

us, the park c

ollution and o

because littl

unate conside

ot meeting th

icroalgal ass

lder.

major, 

al resources a

wned, develo

k and John W

cannot prote

other proble

le is known a

ering that bo

heir designa

semblages in

are 

oped 

Ward 

ect 

ems. 

about 

oth 

ated 

n
14 

Wetland and Aquatic Macrophytes 

A total of 264 wetland vascular plant species, including only 1 predominantly aquatic species 

(the angiosperm watercress, Nasturtium officinale) and 8 wetland ferns, occur in the park (NPS 

2008b; Tables 6 and 7). The wetland species comprise ~32% of the total vascular plant species in 

the park (considering ferns and higher vascular plants). A total of 20 higher vascular wetland 

plants and 1 wetland fern are non-native species (Tables 6 and 7). 

Terrestrial Vegetation 

A total of 557 species of terrestrial vascular plants, including 16 species of ferns, occur within 

the park (NPS 2008b). The terrestrial flora is dominated by mixed hardwood and pine forest, 

and the park also has several grassy fields (DeVivo 2004, NPS 2008b). The mountain is forested 

with second-growth hardwoods. Since 1993, infestation by the southern pine beetle (Dentroctnus 

frontalis) has killed thousands of pine trees throughout the park, and the resulting increase in dry 

timber on the forest floor may increase fire risk. If recovery can occur, hardwood forest would be 

expected to become dominant through natural succession. Of the 557 species of terrestrial plants, 

143 species or 26% of the present-day flora are non-native. 

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates 

Although macroinvertebrate species information is lacking for park waters, Cobb County 

collected information on aquatic macroinvertebrates on one date each during winter 2003/4 and 

fall 2005 at a station in John Ward Creek upstream from the park, and in Noses Creek 

downstream from the park (Table 8). Highest species numbers were reported for midges, and a 

mix of other species were present including some larval aquatic beetles, mosquitoes, damselflies, 

caddisflies, and other dipterans. In John Ward Creek, the midge Polypedilum was the most 

abundant taxon in both seasons; black flies were also abundant in winter, and the midge 

Amblabesmyia was second highest in abundance during fall. Species numbers and abundance 

were low in Noses Creek during winter, when the midge Rheotanytarsus was most abundant. 

Both species numbers and abundance were notably higher in the fall season, especially larval 

mayflies, caddisflies, and crane flies. For both streams on both dates sampled, of possible 

rankings of Excellent, Good, Fair, and Poor, the data indicated Fair macroinvertebrate 

community health was fair, and stream health received a “B” rating. 
15 

Table 6. Wetland and aquatic plant flora, excluding ferns (based upon Godfrey and Wooten 1981a,b), 

that occur in KEMO NBP (NPS 2008b). Asterisks (*) ≡ non-native species. 

Adam and Eve puttyroot (Aplectrum hyemale) Brown widelip orchid (Liparis lilifolia) 

Alder (Alnus serrulata) Bulb bittercress (Cardamine bulbosa) 

Allegheny monkey flower (Mimulus ringens) Bullbrier (Smilax rotundifolia) 

American burnweed (Erechtites hieraciifolia) Bulrush (woolgrass) (Scirpus cyperinus) 

American bur-reed (Sparganium americanum) Bur marigold (devil’s beggartick) (Bidens frondos

American elder (Sambucus canadensis) Bush-clover dodder (Cuscuta pentagona) 

American elm (Ulmus americana) Bushy seedbox (Ludwigia alternifolia) 

American germander (Teucrium canadense) Buttercup (Ranunculus carolinianus) 

American holly (Ilex opaca) Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) 

American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana) Camphor pluchea (Pluchea camphorata) 

American pokeweed (Phytolacca americana) Canada clearweed (Pilea pumila) 

American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis)

American wisteria (Wisteria frutescens) Carolina bristlemallow (Modiola caroliniana) 

American witchhazel (Hamamelis virginiana) Carolina elephantsfoot (Elephantopus carolinianu

Aneilima (Asian spiderwort) (Murdannia keisak) Cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis) 

Angelicatree (Aralia spinosa) Carolina jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens) 

Annual blue grass (walkgrass) (Poa annua) Carolina leaf-flower (Phyllanthus caroliniensis) 

Annual blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium rosulatum) Carolina lily (Lilium michauxii) 

Arrowfeather threeawn (Aristida purpurascens) Carolina ponysfoot (Dichondra carolinensis) 

Arrow-leaf tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum) Carolina sedge (Carex caroliniana) 

Ashleaf maple (box elder) (Acer negundo) Carpetweed (green carpetweed) (Mollugo verticill

Asiatic (common) dayflower (Commelina communis) Cat greenbrier (Smilax glauca) 

Azure bluet (Houstonia caerulea) Celeryleaf buttercup (Ranunculus sceleratus)

Barnyard grass (watergrass) (Echinochloa crus-galli)* Chamber bitter (Phyllanthus urinaria)* 

Beaked panicgrass (Panicum anceps) Cherokee sedge (Carex cherokeensis) 

Bedstraw (Galium aparine) Chervil (hairy-fruit chervil) (Chaerophyllum taintur

Bigroot morning glory (Ipomoea pandurata) Chestnut oak (Quercus prinus) 

Bitter dock (Rumex obtusifolius)* Chinese (Japanese) honeysuckle (Lonicera japon

Black gum (sour gum) (Nyssa sylvatica) Climbing false buckwheat (Polygonum scandens

Black-seed plantain (Plantago rugelii) var. cristatum) 

Black tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica) Climbing hempvine (Mikania scandens) 

Black willow (Salix nigra) Clustered mountainmint (Pycnanthemum muticum

Blister flower (bulbous buttercup) (Ranunculus Coastal plain willow (Salix caroliniana) 

 bulbosus)* Common Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense)* 

Blisterwort (Ranunculus recurvatus) Common cottonwood (Populus deltoides) 

Blue eyegrass (Sisyrinchium angustifolium) Common goldenrod (Solidago altissima) 

Blue huckleberry (Gaylussacia frondosa) Common goldstar (Hypoxis hirsuta) 

Blue (hirsute) sedge (Carex complanata) Common honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos) 

Blunt broom sedge (Carex tribuloides) Common morning glory (Ipomoea purpurea)* 

Blunt spikerush (Eleocharis obtusa) Common persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) 

Bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis) Common (lamp) rush (Juncus effusus) 

Bog hemp (Boehmeria cylindrica) Common reed (Phragmites australis) 

Boneset (thoroughwort) (Eupatorium perfoliatum) Common sweetleaf (Symplocos tinctoria) 

Bristled (tufted) knotweed (Polygonum caespitosum) Common trumpetcreeper (Campsis radicans) 

Bristly buttercup (Ranunculus hispidus) Common water hemlock (Cicuta maculata)

Broadleaf arrowhead (wapato) (Sagittaria latifolia) Common winterberry (Ilex verticillata) 

Broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia) Cross-vine (trumpet-flower) (Bignonia capreolata

Broadleaf plantain (Plantago major) or Anisostichus capreolata, A. crucifera) 

Broadleaf uniola (Chasmanthium latifolium) Curley dock (Rumex crispus)* 

Broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus, Curltop ladysthumb (Polygonum lapathifolium)

 A. virginicus var. virginicus) Cutleaf coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata) 
16 

Table 6. (Continued). 

Dallas (water) grass (Paspalum dilatatum)* Helmet flower (Scutellaria integrifolia) 

Dark-green (green) bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens) Hop sedge (Carex lupulina) 

Deadly (poison) hemlock (Conium maculatum)* Hyssop spurge (Chamaesyce hyssopifolia) 

Dense blazing star (Liatris spicata) Indian cucumber (Medeola virginiana) 

Densetuft hairsedge (Bulbostylis capillaris) Ivyleaf morning glory (Ipomoea hederacea)* 

Desert false indigo (Amorpha fruticosa) Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum) 

Devil’s darning needles (Clematis virginiana) Japanese mazus (Mazus pumilus)* 

Ditch stonecrop (Penthorum sedoides) Japanese stiltgrass (Nepalese browntop)* 

Dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium) (Microstegium vimineum) 

Dogfennel eupatorium (yankeeweed) Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis)

 (Eupatorium compositifolium) Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense)* 

Dogtooth violet (Erythronium americanum) Jungle rice (Echinochloa colonum)* 

Dotted smartweed (Polygonum punctatum) Lanceleaf loosestrife (Lysimachia lanceolata) 

Dwarf huckleberry (Gaylussacia dumosa) Large (spotted) spurge (Chamaesyce maculata) 

Dwarf St. Johnswort (Hypericum mutilum) Late eupatorium (Eupatorium serotinum) 

Dye bedstraw (stiff marsh bedstraw) Galium Laurel greenbrier (Smilax laurifolia) 

 tinctorium) Little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium, or

Early meadow-rue (Thalictrum dioicum) Andropogon scoparius) 

Early saxifrage (Saxifraga virginiensis) Little quakinggrass (Briza minor) 

Early woodbuttercup (Ranunculus abortivus) Longleaf spikegrass (Chasmanthium sessiliflorum

Eastern bluestar (Amsonia tabernaemontana) Low spikesedge (Kyllinga pumila) 

Eastern poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) Maryland meadowbeauty (Rhexia mariana) 

Eastern smooth beardtongue (Penstemon laevigatus) Mountain azalea (Rhododendron canescens) 

Eastern sweetshrub (Calycanthus floridus) Mulberry (white mulberry) (Morus alba)* 

Eight-flower six-weeks grass (Vulpia octoflora) Muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia) 

Eyebane (nodding spurge) (Chamaesyce nutans) Narrowleaf mountainmint (Pycnanthemum tenuifo

Fairywand (Chamaelirium luteum) Needle-tip blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium mucron

Fall panic (Panicum dichotomiflorum) New York ironweed (Veronia noveboracensis) 

Fescue sedge (Carex festucacea) Nimblewill (Muhlenbergia schreberi) 

Field paspalum (Paspalum laeve)* Nodding ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes cernua) 

Flypoison (Amianthium muscitotoxicum) Northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin) 

Fowl manna grass (Glyceria striata) Oneflower stitchwort (Minuartia uniflora) 

Fox grape (Vitis labrusca) Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata) 

Frank’s sedge (Carex frankii) Owlfruit (sawbeak) sedge (Carex stipata) 

Fringed loosestrife (Lysimachia ciliata) Pale flatsedge (Cyperus flavescens) 

Fringed yelloweyed grass (Xyris fimbriata) Pale-spike lobelia (Lobelia spicata) 

Fringetree (Chionanthus virginicus) Parsley hawthorn (Crataegus marshallii) 

Georgia bulrush (Scirpus georgianus) Partridgeberry (Mitchella repens) 

Giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) Pennsylvania knotweed (Polygonum pensylvanic

Granite stonecrop (Sedum pusillum) Petticoat-climber (purple lovegrass) (Eragrostis 

Graybark grape (Vitis cinerea var. baileyana) spectabilis) 

Great blue lobelia (Lobelia siphilitica) Philadelphia daisy (Erigeron philadelphicus) 

Greater straw sedge (Carex normalis) Piedmont false pimpernel (Lindernia monticola) 

Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) Pignut hickory (Carya glabra) 

Green rein (small wood) orchid (Platanthera Pitted (white) morning glory (Ipomoea lacunosa)

 clavellata, or Habenaria clavellata) Poor-joe (rough buttonweed) (Diodia teres) 

Hairawn muhly (Muhlenbergia capillaris) Post oak (Quercus stellata) 

Hairy bittercress (Cardamine hirsuta) Prairie wedgegrass (Sphenopholis obtusata) 

Hairy jointgrass (Arthraxon hispidus)* Prickly Florida blackberry (Rubus argutus) 

Hairy woodrush (Luzula acuminata) Primrose violet (Viola primulifolia) 

Heart-leaf alexanders (Zizia aptera) Rattail smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus 

Heartwing dock (Rumex hastatulus) or Sporobolus poiretii) 
17 

Table 6. (Continued). 

Red maple (Acer rubrum) Swamp smartweed (Polygonum hydropiperoide

Red mulberry (Morus rubra) Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) 

Rice button aster (Aster dumosus) Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) 

Rice cut grass (Leersia oryzoides) Three-lobe beggarticks (Bidens tripartita) 

Ridged yellow flax (rigid flax) (Linum striatum) Thymeleaf bluet (Houstonia serpyllifolia) 

Rough flatsedge (Cyperus retrofractus) Tiny bluet (Houstonia pusilla) 

St. Andrew’s cross (Hypericum hypericoides) Trumpet honeysuckle (Lonicera sempervirens)

Sampson’s snakeroot (Psoralea psoralioides, or Tulip tree (tulip poplar) (Liriodendron tulipifera)

 Orbexilum pedunculatum, O. pedunculatum Vasey grass (Paspalum urvillei)*

 var. psoralioides) Virginia bunchflower (Melanthium virginicum) 

Saw greenbrier (Smilax bona-nox) Virginia buttonweed (Diodia virginiana) 

Scarlet creeper (Ipomoea hederifolia) Virginia dayflower (Commelina virginica) 

Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) Virginia dwarfdandelion (Krigia virginica) 

Shallow sedge (Carex lurida) Virginia sweetspire (Itea virginica) 

Sheep (common sheep, red) sorrel (Rumex acetosella)* Virginia threeseed mercury (Acalypha rhomboid

Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) Virginia wild rye (Elymus virginicus) 

Silver maple (Acer saccharinum) Watercress (Nasturtium officinale, or Rorippa

Slender woodoats (Chasmanthium laxum) nasturtium-aquaticum) 

Smallhead beaksedge (Rhynchospora microcephala) Water oak (Quercus nigra) 

Southern dewberry (Rubus trivialis) Weedy dwarf-dandelion (Krigia cespitosa) 

Southern lobelia (Lobelia amoena var. White avens (Geum canadense) 

 glandulifera) White verbena (Verbena urticifolia) 

Southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) Whiteleaf mountainmint (Pycnanthemum albesc

Southern red oak (Quercus falcata) Whorled loosestrife (Lysimachia quadrifolia) 

Spotted joy-pye-weed (Eupatorium maculatum) Willow oak (Quercus phellos) 

Stiff cowbane (Oxypolis rigidior) Winged elm (Ulmus alata) 

Stout wood reed-grass (Cinna arundinacea) Wingleaf primrose-willow (Ludwigia decurrens) 

Strawcolored flatsedge (Cyperus strigosus) Winter bentgrass (Agrostis hyemalis or A. hiema

Sugar berry (sugar hackberry) (Celtis leavigata) Woodvamp (Decumaria barbara) 

Summer grape (Vitis aestivalis) Yellow sunnybell (Schoenolirion croceum) 

Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) Yellowroot (Xanthorhiza simplicissima) 

 Yellow thistle (Cirsium horridulum) 

Table 7. Wetland fern species that occur in the park (NPS 2006a). Asterisks (*) ≡ non-native species. 

Species Habitat 

Asplenium ladyfern 

(Athyrium filix-femina spp. asplenioides) 

shaded woods, swamps, stream banks, acid bogs

Broad beechfern 

(Thelypteris hexagonoptera, or Phegopteris hexagonoptera)

moist woodlands

Chainfern (Woodwardia areolata) acidic bogs, wet woods

Maidenfern (maidenhair) (Adiantum pedatum) stream banks, shady moist woods

New York fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis) moist, humus-rich, deciduous woods

Royal fern (Osmunda regalis) swampy areas, fens, damp woodlands

Sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis) open swamps, marshes, low woods

Swordfern (Macrothelypteris torresiana)* shorelines of lakes
18 

Table 8. Macroinvertebrate data for John Ward Creek (station WR1 upstream from the park – 1 date each 

in 2003 and 2005)) and Noses Creek (station NS2 at Irwin Road, downstream from the park – 1 date 

each in 2004 and 2005), collected by Cobb County personnel using standard techniques (count from 

collections along a 100-meter segment of stream length; GA DNR 2007a). 

Family Identification Adjusted Count 

John Ward Creek WR1 – 22 Dec 2003 

Family Calopterygidae Leaches (Calopteryx) 6 

Family Culicidae Mosquitos (Anopheles) 1 

Family Chironomidae Midges (Chironomus) 1 

 Midges (Cricotopus) 1 

 Midges (Paratendipes) 1 

 Midges (Phaenopsectra punctipes group) 4 

 Midges (Polypedilum) 57 

 Midge (Potthastia longimana) 2 

 Midge (Rheocricotopus robacki) 1 

 Midges (Rheotanytarsus) 18 

 Midges (Thienemanniella) 3 

 Midges (Thienemannimyia group) 6 

 Midges (Tvetenia group) 3 

Family Dryopidae Long-toe water beetles (Helichus) 1 

Family Elmidae Riffle beetles (Stenelmis) 1 

Family Empididae Aquatic dance fly (Hemerodromia) 1 

Family Hydropsychidae Caddisflies (Hydropsyche) 42 

 Sedges – little spotted sedge (Cheumatopsyche) 18 

Family Philopotamidae Sedges – little black sedge (Chimarra) 2 

Family Simuliidae Black flies (Simulium) 33 

Family Tipulidae Crane flies (Tipula) 4 

Analysis: 

Plecopterans 0%, Trichopterans 94.73% (metric score); 100% of taxa pollution-tolerant 

Final Index Score 56; Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 5.3 

Macroinvertebrate Community Health - Fair 

Stream Health Rating B

John Ward Creek WR1 – 14 Oct 2005 

Family Baetidae Mayflies (Baetis) 6 

Family Calopterygidae Leaches (Calopteryx) 4 

Family Chironomidae Midges (Ablabesmyia) 41 

 Midge (Brillia flavifrons) 1 

 Midges (Corynoneura) 3 

 Midges (Cricotopus / Orthocladius complex) 4 

 Midges (Parametriocnemus) 1 

 Midges (Paratanytarsus) 1 

 Midges (Phaenopsectra punctipes group) 4 

 Midges (Polypedilum) 44 

 Midge (Rheocricotopus robacki) 17 

 Midges (Rheotanytarsus) 5 

 Midges (Tanytarsus) 1 

 Midges (Thienemannimyia group) 2 

 Midges (Zavrelimyia) 1
19 

Table 8. (Continued). 

Family Identification Adjusted Count 

John Ward Creek WR1 – 14 Oct 2005 (cont’d.) 

Family Empididae Aquatic dance flies (Hemerodromia) 1 

Family Hydropsychidae Caddisflies (Hydropsyche) 9 

 Sedges – little spotted sedge (Cheumatopsyche) 29 

Family Simuliidae Black flies (Simulium) 11 

Family Tipulidae Crane flies (Tipula) 6 

Family Philopotamidae Sedges – little black sedge (Chimarra) 2 

Analysis: 

Plecopterans 0%, Trichopterans 65.2% (metric score); 100% of taxa pollution-tolerant 

Final Index Score 51; Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 5.6 

Macroinvertebrate Community Health - Fair 

Stream Health Rating B

Noses Creek NS2 – 20 Feb 2004 

Family Baetidae Mayflies (Baetis) 1 

Family Calopterygidae Leaches (Calopteryx) 1 

Family Chironomidae Midges (Ablabesmyia) 4 

 Midges (Brillia) 3 

 Midges (Cricotopus) 2 

 Midges (Cricotopus/Orthocladius complex) 4 

 Midges (Eukiefferiella) 1 

 Midges (Orthocladius) 3 

 Midges (Paratanytarsus) 3 

 Midges (Phaenopsectra) 1 

 Midges (Polypedilum) 1 

 Midge (Rheocricotopus robacki) 1 

 Midges (Rheotanytarsus) 11 

 Midges (Thienemannimyia group) 4 

 Midge (Tribelos juncundus) 1 

 Midge (Xylotopus par) 1 

Family Elmidae Riffle beetle (Ancyronyx variegatus) 1 

 Riffle beetle (Oulimnius latiusculus) 1 

Family Empididae Aquatic dance flies (Chelifera) 1 

 Aquatic dance flies (Hemerodromia) 1 

Family Heptageniidae Mayflies (Stenonema) 1 

Family Hydropsychidae Caddisflies (Hydropsyche) 2 

 Sedges – little spotted sedge (Cheumatopsyche) 8 

Family Leptoceridae Caddisflies (Triaenodes) 1 

Family Tipulidae Crane flies (Tipula) 3 

Analysis: 

Plecopterans 0%, Trichopterans 100% (metric score); 100% of taxa pollution-tolerant 

Final Index Score 48; Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 5.7 

Macroinvertebrate Community Health - Fair 

Stream Health Rating B
20 

Table 8. (Continued). 

Family Identification Adjusted Count 

Noses Creek NS2 – 24 Oct 2005 

Family Baetidae Mayflies (Baetis) 10 

Family Elmidae Riffle beetle (Ancyronyx variegatus) 1 

 Riffle beetle (Macronychus glabratus) 2 

Family Chironomidae Midges (Ablabesmyia) 2 

 Midges (Brillia) 1 

 Midges (Corynoneura) 1 

 Midges (Crytpochironomus) 1 

 Midges (Labrundinia) 1 

 Midges (Polypedilum) 7 

 Midges (Stenochironomus) 1 

 Midges (Tanytarsus) 1 

 Midges (Thienemannimyia group) 9 

 Midge (Xylotopus par) 1 

Family Coenagrionidae Pond damselflies (Argia) 3 

Family Empididae Aquatic dance flies (Hemerodromia) 2 

Family Heptageniidae Mayflies (Stenonema) 34 

Family Hydropsychidae Caddisflies (Hydropsyche) 18 

 Sedges – little spotted sedge (Cheumatopsyche) 41 

Family Leptoceridae Long-horn caddisflies (Oecetis) 1 

 Long-horn caddisflies (Triaenodes) 3 

Family Philopotamidae Sedges – little black sedge (Chimarra) 19 

Family Simuliidae Black flies (Simulium) 1 

Family Tipulidae Crane flies (Tipula) 26 

Analysis: 

Plecopterans 0%, Trichopterans 100% (metric score); 100% of taxa pollution-tolerant 

Final Index Score 64; Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 4.2 

Macroinvertebrate Community Health - Fair 

Stream Health Rating B

Amphibians and Reptiles 

According to information gathered in 2004, KEMO NBP contains 44 native species of 

amphibians and reptiles equally split among the two groups (Tuberville et al. 2005) (Table 9). 

The amphibians include 11 species of frogs and toads, and 11 species of newts and salamanders. 

The reptiles include 4 species of lizards, 13 snakes, and 5 turtles. In addition, an exotic snake 

species, the rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), occurs in the park. In a comparison of 16 

parks including KEMO NBP, Tuberville et al. (2005) noted that larger parks had higher species 

richness, which would suggest that because of its small size, this park is a more fragile 

ecosystem (Figure 5). 
21 

Table 9. Herpetofauna of KEMO NBP, documented from field surveys, museum specimens, literature 

records, and reliable personal communications (Tuberville et al. 2005).

AMPHIBIANS 

Frogs and Toads 

American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) Northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans) 

American toad (Bufo americanus) Pickerel frog (Rana palustris) 

Fowler’s toad (Bufo fowleri) Southeastern chorus frog (Pseudacris feriarum)

Gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) Southern leopard frog (Rana spenocephala) 

Green frog (Rana clamitans) Spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer) 

Green treefrog (Hyla cinerea) 

Newts and Salamanders 

Dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus) Southern two-lined salamander (Eurycea cirrigera

Marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum) Spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) 

Red salamander (Pseudotriton ruber) Spring salamander (Gyrinophilus porphyriticus) 

Seal salamander (Desmognathus monticola) Three-lined salamander (Eurycea guttolineata) 

Slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus) Webster’s salamander (Plethodon websteri) 

Southern redbacked salamander (Plethodon serratus) 

REPTILES 

Lizards 

Eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) Green anole (Anolis carolinensis) 

Five-lined (common) skink (Eumeces fasciatus) Little brown skink (Scincella lateralis) 

Snakes (** = exotic introduced) 

Common gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis) Racer (eastern racer) (Coluber constrictor) 

Common kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula) Red-bellied snake (Storeria occipitomaculata) 

Corn snake (Elaphe guttata) Ring-necked snake (Diadophis punctatus) 

Cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus) Rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus)** 

DeKay’s (Florida) brown snake (Storeria dekayi) Southern (common) copperhead (Agkistrodon

Eastern rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta) contortrix)

Eastern worm snake (Carphophis amoenus) Timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) 

Plain-bellied watersnake (Nerodia erythrogaster) 

Turtles 

Common (eastern) box turtle (Terrapene carolina) Common (pond) slider (Trachemys scripta) 

Common musk turtle (stinkpot) (Sternotherus Common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina)

 odoratus) Eastern painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) 
Figure 5.

(introduce

showing t

(P = 0.001

Fish 

Fish spec

fish comm

Only 11 

database)

blackban

(Nocomis

thoreauia

sunfish (L

Noses Cr

weight) i

Figure 3)

were repo

site had t

nigromac

salmoide

sunfish, r

and Alab

had only 

bluegill, 

Bluegills

few indiv

Birds 

The locat

acreage m

Relationship 

ed) species, a

he strong pos

1). From Tube

cies were sur

munities (Jo

species were

): bluefin sto

nded darter (P

s leptocepha

anus), green

Lepomis pun

reek and Joh

in June 2003

). From that

orted except

the Alabama

culatus), eas

es), southern 

redbreast sun

bama hogsuc

eight specie

green sunfis

s and redbrea

viduals of th

tion of KEM

make it an es

between land

among 16 par

sitive linear re

erville et al. (2

rveyed in the

ohnston 2004

e found in th

oneroller (Ca

Percina nigr

alus), creek c

n sunfish (Lep

nctatus), and

hn Ward Cre

3 by GA DNR

t survey, 15 

t for the blue

a hogsucker 

stern mosqui

studfish (Fu

nfish, and bl

ckers were al

es, including

sh, redbreast

ast sunfish d

e other four 

MO NBP at th

specially attr

d area (in hec

rks within the 

elationship be

2005), with pe

e park only o

4; C. Johnsto

he survey, of

ampostoma p

rofasciata), b

chub (Semot

pomis cyane

d yellow bull

ek were also

R WRD less

species were

efin stonerol

(Hypentelium

itofish (Gam

undulus stell

luegills pred

lso common

g the Alabam

t sunfish, sna

dominated, bu

species wer

he southern 

ractive habit

22 

ctares) and sp

Southeast Co

etween (log-tr

ermission from

once in 2003

on, Auburn U

f uncertain ab

pauciradii), 

bluegill (Lep

tilus atromac

ellus), redbre

lhead (Ameiu

o sampled fo

s than 1 mile

e found in N

ler and the D

m etowanum

mbusia holbro

lifer), and w

dominated, an

n. In contrast

ma hogsucker

ail bull-head

ut with lowe

re found. 

terminus of 

tat for birds, 

pecies richne

oast Network

ransformed) la

m Southeaste

3, so there is

University, p

abundance or

bandfin shin

pomis macro

culatus), Dix

east sunfish 

urus natalis

or fish specie

e downstream

Noses Creek:

Dixie chub. 

m), black crap

ooki), largem

warmouth (Le

nd bandfin s

t, the downs

r, blackband

d (Ameiurus b

er abundance

the Appalac

 especially d

ess, excluding

k of the NPS, 

and area and

ern Naturalist

s no historic 

pers. comm.,

r health (C. W

ner (Luxilus 

ochirus), blu

xie chub (Se

(Lepomis cy

). 

es (including

m from the p

: All of the a

In addition, 

ppie (Pomox

mouth bass (

epomis gulos

shiners, black

stream site in

ded darter, bl

brunneus), a

e than in No

chian Mount

during spring

g exotic 

including KEM

d species richn

t. 

information

, July 2008).

Wright, NPS

zonistius), 

uehead chub 

motilus 

yanellus), sp

g abundance 

park (Table 3

above specie

the downstr

xis 

(Micropterus

sus). Green 

kbanded dar

n Ward Cree

luehead chub

and warmout

oses Creek, a

tains and for

g and fall 

MO, 

ness 

n on 

. 

S

otted 

 and 

3, 

es 

ream 

s

rters, 

ek 

b, 

th. 

and 

rest 
23 

migrations (Table 10). The park has been designated a globally IBA (Important Bird Area; IBA 

Programme of BirdLife International: http://www.birdlife.org), the first area designated in the 

state, and a focus area for bird conservation (Cooper 2000). A total of 185 species have been 

documented in the park (NPS 2003; Table 9), including a large percentage of neotropical 

migrants. Of the total, 21 species (11% of the total) are associated with aquatic habitats. 

An Avian Conservation Implementation Plan (ACIP) was recently prepared for KEMO NBP in 

2005 (Watson 2005). The ACIP was developed to help identify and prioritize bird conservation 

efforts and opportunities, and to guide successful implementation of conservation activities. No 

federally listed threatened or endangered avian species are known to nest in the park (Watson 

2005). Audubon WatchList indicated that the cerulean warbler is declining, and that during 

spring migra-tion, this species has been seen more frequently at KEMO NBP than anywhere else 

in the Southeast. The major threat mentioned for this species is development and urban sprawl 

(Audubon 2002). 

Mammals 

Based on a survey of the park in 2003 (excluding bats), together with information from museum 

collections, a total of 30 species of mammals are present (18) or probably present (12) in the 

park, including 5 non-native species as domestic dogs, feral cats, feral horses, house mice, and 

Norway rats (D. Webster, UNC Wilmington – NPS database; Table 11). The USGS (2008) also 

indicated a high probability for the big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), eastern red bat (Lasiurus 

borealis), ground skink (Scincella lateralis), and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) to be present in the 

park vicinity. The large number of carnivores (ten species) that apparently no longer inhabit the 

park was considered surprising (notes from D. Webster, UNC Wilmington). Three 

species(American black bear, Ursus americanus; mountain lion, Puma concolor; red wolf, Canis 

rufus) have been extirpated, and six others, (American mink, bobcat, eastern spotted skunk, 

muskrat, northern river otter, striped skunk) were evaluated as “probably extirpated” because 

encroaching development and habitat degradation have reduced most of the habitats that these 

species need. 

Several reasons were suggested for the low mammalian species diversity in the park (notes from 

D. Webster, UNC Wilmington): The park is relatively small and narrow, with a large perimeter 

that is surrounded by development that prevents immigration and emigration (Heaney and 

Patterson 1986, Trani 2002) and accelerates impacts of pollution within the isolated park 

grounds. Carnivores, which generally have large home ranges, are disproportionately affected 

(Matthiae and Stearns 1981). As other contributing factors, coyotes, which have extended their 

natural range, and exotic feral cats are carnivores that are better adapted to live near urbanized 

settings and at least partially occupy the niches that previously were occupied by the carnivores 

that have been extirpated. 

White-tailed deer and beavers have been identified as two species of concern in the park 

(DeVivo 2005). Populations of both appear to be on the increase. Beavers are infamous 

“ecosystem engineers” whose dam-building activities alter water flow and water quality. In 

terrestrial habitats, high deer populations consume forest understory species, so their grazing can 

lead to depressed forest regeneration. 

 
24 

Table 10. Bird species that have been observed in KEMO NBP (NPS 2003). 

Species associated with aquatic habitats 

American coot (Fulica americana) Green heron (Butorides striatus) 

Belted kingfisher (Ceryle akyon) Lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) 

Black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) 

Bonaparte’s gull (Larus philadelphia) Northern pintail (Anas acuta) 

Canada goose (Branta canadensis) Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) 

Common loon (Gavia immer) Red-throated loon (Gavia stellata) 

Common merganser (Mergus merganser) Red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) 

Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) Ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis) 

Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) Sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) 

Great egret (Casmerodius albus) Wood duck (Aix sponsa) 

Greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca) 

Other species (** = exotic species) 

Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) Brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) 

Alder flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum) Brown-headed nuthatch (Sitta pusilla) 

American coot (Fulica americana) Canada goose (Branta canadensis) 

American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) Canada warbler (Wilsonia canadensis) 

American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) Cape May warbler (Dendroica tigrina) 

American kestrel (Falco sparverius) Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis) 

American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus) 

American robin (Turdus migratorius) Cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum)

American woodcock (Scolopax minor) Cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea) 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Chestnut-sided warbler (Dendroica pensylvanica)

Baltimore oriole (Icterus galbula) Chimney swift (Chaetura pelagica)

Bank swallow (Riparia riparia) Chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina) 

Barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) Chuck-will's-widow (Caprimulgus carolinensis) 

Barred owl (Strix varia) Cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) 

Bay-breasted warbler (Dendroica castanea) Common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) 

Belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) Common loon (Gavia immer) 

Black vulture (Coragyps atratus) Common merganser (Mergus merganser)

Black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta varia) Common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) 

Black-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus erythropthalmus) Common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) 

Blackburnian warbler (Dendroica fusca) Connecticut warbler (Oporornis agilis)

Black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) Coopers hawk (Accipiter cooperii)

Blackpoll warbler (Dendroica striata) Dark-eyed junco (Junco hyem) 

Black-throated blue warbler (Dendroica Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus

 caerulescens) Downy woodpecker (Picoides puscens) 

Black-throated green warbler (Dendroica virens) Eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis)

Blue grosbeak (Passerina caerulea) Eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus) 

Blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata) Eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna)

Blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea) Eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe) 

Blue-headed vireo (Vireo solitarius) Eastern screech owl (Megascops asio) 

Blue-winged warbler (Dendroica tigrina) Eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) 

Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) Eastern wood-pewee (Contopus virens)

Bonaparte’s gull (Larus philadelphia) European starling (Sturnus vulgaris)**

Broadwinged hawk (Buteo platypterus) Evening grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus)

Brown creeper (Certhia americana) Field sparrow (Spizella pusilla) 

Brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum) Fish crow (Corvus ossifragus) 
25 

Table 10. (Continued).

Fox sparrow (Passerella iliaca) Prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor) 

Golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa) Prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea)

Golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) Purple finch (Carpodacus purpureus)

Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) Purple gallinule (Porphyrio martinica) 

Gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) Purple martin (Progne subis) 

Gray-cheeked thrush (Catharus minimus) Red crossbill (Loxia curvirostra) 

Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) Red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus)

Great egret (Ardea alba) Red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) 

Great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) Red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus) 

Great-crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus) Red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocep

Greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca) Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) 

Hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus) Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) 

Hermit thrush (Picoides villosus) Rock dove (rock pigeon) (Columba livia)** 

Hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina) Rose-breasted grosbeak (Pheucticus ludovicianu

House finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) Ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula) 

House sparrow (Passer domesticus)** Ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus colubris

House wren (Troglodytes aedon) Rusty blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) 

Indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea) Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia)

Kentucky warbler (Oporornis formosus) Sora (Porzana carolina) 

Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) Summer tanager (Piranga rubra) 

Least flycatcher (Empidonax minimus) Swainson's thrush (Catharus ustulatus) 

Lincoln's sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii) Swainson's warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii) 

Louisiana waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla) Swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana) 

Magnolia warbler (Dendroica magnolia) Tennessee warbler (Vermivora peregrina) 

Marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris) Tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) 

Merlin (Falco columbarius) Tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor) 

Mississippi kite (Ictinia mississippiensis) Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) 

Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) Veery (Catharus fuscescens) 

Mourning warbler (Oporornis philadelphia) Vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) 

Nashville warbler (Vermivora ruficapilla) Virginia's warbler (Vermivora virginiae)

Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) Warbling vireo (Vireo gilvus) 

Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus) 

Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus) White-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis) 

Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) White-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus) 

Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) White-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) 

Northern parula (Parula americana) Wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) 

Northern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx Willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) 

 serripennis) Wilson's warbler (Wilsonia pusilla) 

Northern waterthrush (Seiurus noveboracensis) Winter wren (Troglodytes troglodytes)

Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) Wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) 

Orange-crowned warbler (Vermivora celata) Worm-eating warbler (Helmitheros vermivorum) 

Orchard oriole (Icterus spurius) Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia) 

Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla) Yellow-bellied flycatcher (Empidonax flaviventris)

Palm warbler (Dendroica palmarum) Yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius) 

Pectoral sandpiper (Calidris melanotos) Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) 

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) 

Philadelphia vireo (Vireo philadelphicus) Yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata) 

Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) Yellow-throated vireo (Vireo flavifrons) 

Pine siskin (Carduelis pinus) Yellow-throated warbler (Dendroica dominica) 

Pine warbler (Dendroica pinus) 

 
26 

Table 11. Mammals of KEMO NBP (*, probably present; **, exotic introduced species; D. Webster, 

UNCW data for the NPS, with supporting information from USGS 2008). 

American beaver (Castor canadensis) Least shrew (Cryptotis parva) 

Big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) Long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata)* 

Coyote (Canis latrans) Marsh rice rat (Oryzomys palustris)* 

Domestic dog (feral) (Canis familiaris)** Meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius)* 

Eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) Meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus)* 

Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) Northern raccoon (Procyon lotor) 

Eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) Northern short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda)

Eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis) Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) ** 

Eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus) Red fox (Vulpes vulpes)* 

Eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis) Southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans)* 

Feral cat (Felis catus)** Southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris) 

Golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli)* Swamp rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus)* 

Gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus)* Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) 

Hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) White-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus)* 

Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) 

House mouse (Mus musculus)* Woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum)* 

Rare and Threatened Species 

Information is lacking to assess whether aquatic and wetland rare and threatened species occur 

within in the park. Four federally endangered and two federally threatened mussel species are

known from the Chattahoochee-Flint river basin. The four endangered mussel species are the fat 

threeridge (Amblema neislerii), shinyrayed pocketbook (Lampsilis subangulata), Gulf 

moccasinshell (Medionidus penicillatus), and oval pigtoe (Pleurobema pyriforme). These species 

have been federally listed as endangered since 1997. The two threatened mussel species are the 

chipola slabshell (Elliptio chipolaensis) and purple bankclimber (Elliptoideus sloatianus). All six 

species prefer main channel or large-stream sandy habitats with slow to moderate currents, so 

historically they may not have occurred in the two small streams within the park.

Regarding terrestrial species, the granite outcroppings on Kennesaw and Little Kennesaw 

Mountains within the park provide habitats that support various state-protected plant species of 

special concern, including openground draba (Draba aprica), green rockcress (Arabis 

missouriensis), and Stone Mountain mint (Pycnanthemum curvipes) (DeVivo 2004). 

Exotic / Invasive Species 

As mentioned, 20 higher vascular wetland plants and 1 wetland fern that occur in the park are 

non-native species (Table 5). Information is lacking about their abundance, or the extent of the 

threat they pose to native wetland species. The Asian swamp eel (Monopterus albus, also known 

as the rice eel, ricefield eel, belut, rice paddy eel, and taunagi; other scientific names,

Monopterus alba, Fluta alba, Monpterus javanenesis) has been found in three spring-fed 

impoundments connected to the Chattahoochee River, and in the Chattahoochee River National 

Recreation Area (Tilmant 1999, but is not known to occur in KEMO NBP. 

More than 15 years ago, a proposed park project called for removal of exotic terrestrial plant 

species (NPS 1992a). Among the present-day 143 non-native terrestrial species (see p.17), 

common species in the park include mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), garlic mustard (Alliaria 

petiolata), privet (Ligustrum spp.), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Japanese honeysuckle 
27 

(Lonicera japonica), and kudzu (Pueraria montana) (DeVivo 2004). Escaped cultivars from 

nearby private lands are also a concern. There is an ongoing program, although very limited by 

funding, to remove exotic plant species. 

Among terrestrial invasive animals, as mentioned the southern pine beetle has caused 

considerable damage to terrestrial vegetation in the park. It is considered the most destructive 

forest insect pest in the southeastern U.S. (Clarke 1995), and continues to be a potential threat to 

other internal stands in the park and neighboring lands. Mechanical removal of this material is a 

major focus on 105 acres within the park. Other standard best-management practice (BMP) to 

control this insect are more difficult to use, such as cutting all pines within 150 meters of infested 

trees as they are identified. A BMP involving reintroduction of fire cannot be used at the park 

because of wildland-urban interface (WUI) and smoke concerns (DeVivo 2005). 

The red fire ant, Solenopsis invicta, also in the park, is an invasive species from South America 

that was introduced to the U.S. in the 1930s (Porter and Savignano 1990). This aggressive 

species largely has displaced the two fire ant species native to the Southeast, the tropical fire and 

(Solenopsis geminata) and the southern fire and (Solenopsis exloni) (Porter and Savignano 

1990). 

Assessment of Park Water Resources 

The park’s drinking water is supplied from the Cobb County water system; for waste treatment 

the park is connected to the county sewage system, except for the historic Kolb Farm House 

which is on a septic tank system (park Historian W.R. Johnson, pers. comm., Aug. 2008). The 

Visitors Center, two houses (now used as park offices), and maintenance shop were added to the 

county sewage system in 2008. It is not known whether the septic leachate from the house is 

contributing nutrients or other contaminants to park waters. 

Surface Water Quality 

Locations for sampling stations near or within KEMO NBP, discussed in this section, were 

obtained from the U.S. EPA STORET. Latitudes and longitudes for these sites were imported 

from Microsoft Excel into ArcMap and converted to GIS point files. 

Based on previous data inventories and analyses carried out by the NPS (1997a) within KEMO 

NBP over a 21-year period (1976-1997), Noses and John Ward Creeks historically were 

impacted by high fecal coliform bacteria and low pH. These earlier inventories indicated that pH 

was outside the pH range of 6.5-9 (U.S. EPA chronic criteria for freshwater aquatic life) in ~25% 

of the samples taken in both creeks during 1976-1997. All of the observations were less than or 

equal to pH 6.5. Although data were not collected with sufficient frequency to enable 

calculation of geometric means, used for the State standards (see pp. 41-42 of this Report), the 

high fecal coliform concentrations in Noses and John Ward Creeks exceeded the bacteria water 

quality standard values in 72% of these samples. The highest value of 32,000 counts/100 mL was 

reported in John Ward Creek near the upstream park boundary in November 1993. Lead levels 

commonly exceeded Georgia water quality standards within KEMO NBP (Byrne 2004). 

In 1993 KEMO NBP developed a Water Resources Monitoring Study Plan (Zubricki 1993), 

which was designed as an implementation strategy for a project (KEMO 1992b) within the 

KEMO NBP Resource Management Plan. The park’s two perennial streams historically had not 
28 

been monitored. The Plan recognized that as development progressed adjacent to the park 

boundaries, it was essential for the park to generate baseline water resources data and to monitor 

the status of water resources through development of a long-term monitoring strategy. The goal 

of the plan was to detect changes in the relative health of stream ecosystems in the park and 

identify external factors that adversely affect their functional integrity. It was hoped that in the 

event that a case was made for a cause-and-effect relationship between specific external factors 

and park water resources, appropriate local, state and federal officials would be notified and the 

situation would be corrected by educating and working with those responsible for the problem. 

The Plan called, in part, for monthly water quality (nitrate + nitrite [NO3

-

], ammonium [NH4

+

], 

total phosphorus [TP], fecal coliform bacteria, conductivity, pH, dissolved oxygen [DO], 

turbidity) and stream discharge sampling and field evaluations at four stations in partnership with 

the USGS and the Cobb County Water System, and for periodic sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates at four permanent stations following standardized protocols. The data were to be 

compared with data from healthy (unpolluted, baseline) streams of similar size within the region. 

A little more than a decade ago, the NPS (1997a) inventoried the data available on Noses and 

John Ward Creeks, and two other streams in the area. They examined the U.S. EPA’s Storage 

and Retrieval (STORET) water quality database, River Reach File (RF3), Industrial Facilities 

Discharge (IFD), Drinking Water Supplies (DRINKS), water gages (GAGES), and water 

impoundments (DAMS). The analysis located two industrial/municipal dischargers (no longer 

operational – see below) upstream from the park on Noses or John Ward Creeks, no drinking 

water intakes, no water gages, and no water impoundments. The majority of the observations 

from one source (~45%) were reported by the NPS from the above-mentioned program that was 

adopted, in part (excluding macroinvertebrate data) for the park during 1993-1996 (eventually, 

through 1998) to monitor water quality at four stations where Noses and John Creeks enter and 

exit the park (2 within the park boundary: KEMO 0009, Noses Creek upstream, and John Ward 

Creek upstream, KEMO 0006; 2 outside the park: John Ward Creek downstream, KEMO 0005; 

Noses Creek downstream, KEMO 0007) (Figure 3). The total data available for the NPS stations 

from 1993-1998 indicated that all four NPS KEMO stations sometimes had high fecal coliform 

indicating unacceptable conditions for maintenance of Fish (GA DNR 2008d), with maximal 

values at 6,400 mpn/100 mL in Noses Creek and 32,000 mpn/100 mL in John Ward Creek. 

Summaries of the NPS 1993-1998 data are compiled in Table 12. Post-1998 further data collection has not been conducted by the park (Chief Ranger L. Morris, pers. comm., Nov. 2006). 

Since that time, over the past decade the Cobb County Water Protection Division’s Water 

Quality Laboratory has conducted chemical monitoring during dry weather, usually several times 

per year, at four sites in John Ward Creek and one site on Noses Creek near the park (Tables 13

and 14, Figure 3). The County’s data for John Ward Creek are part of a larger effort that 

involves sampling nine other streams in the Chattahoochee and Etowah. There were no samples 

with a pH lower than 6, and few samples with a DO concentration below 5 mg/L. Although 

these data generally have been collected only seasonally and sometimes less frequently – which 

would miss many storm events with most nonpoint pollution inputs – the dataset shows some 

high fecal coliform densities in John Ward Creek near the park, suggestive of degraded 

conditions (Tables 13 and 14, Appendix 1). In addition, consistently worse water quality for 

fecal coliforms has been indicated for John Ward Creek at stations upstream from the park 
29 

(significantly higher mean and median fecal coliform concentrations – Table 13; upstream data 

not available from the County for Noses Creek). 

The nitrate and suspended solids data from the 1999-2008 Cobb County dataset also merit 

mention (Tables 13 and 14, Appendix 1). In most samples throughout the data record, nitrate 

concentrations generally exceeded 100 μg/L, indicating a nutrient over-enriched condition that 

can stimulate noxious algal blooms in river systems (see review in Mallin 2000). Nitrate is 

highly soluble and in turbid, light-limited waters, this form of nitrogen can travel substantial 

distances (many miles) before reaching areas where light conditions are conducive for algal 

blooms (Mallin et al. 1993), such as lakes and run-of-river impoundments (Burkholder and 

Cuker 1991, Touchette et al. 2007, Burkholder et al. 1998). Both streams are heavily impacted 

by suspended sediment loading (GA DNR 2008a; see below). The streams were relatively 

infrequently sampled (sometimes seasonally or less often), but several large spikes of suspended 

sediment loading were detected nonetheless. 

A subset of the Cobb County data from 1995-2005 were evaluated in trend analysis (Rashleigh 

and Bourne 2007). Sites WR3 and WR4, nearest to the park (Figure 3), showed similar, favorable conditions in the park, also showed a favorable trend for decreasing fecal coliform densities. 

However, both sites showed trends suggestive of more degraded water quality for BOD5, total 

Kjeldahl nitrogen (organic N + ammonium), and chlorides, and site WR4 also showed a trend 

suggestive of decreasing dissolved oxygen (Table 15). “Suggestive” is used here because 

quarterly data are insufficient to capture many nonpoint loading events from storms, waste spills, 

etc.; biweekly sampling frequency is needed over an annual cycle, or monthly sampling 

frequency over longer periods (e.g. Burkholder et al. 2006). The park’s Water Resources 

Monitoring Study Plan (Zubricki 1993) aptly stated that “...the need for KEMO NBP to establish 

a long-term record documenting the status of water resources far exceeds the need for 

comprehensive data over an extremely short temporal scale”. Overall the data point to 

increasingly degraded conditions over the past ~decade for organic loads (BOD5) and organic N 

+ ammonium loads, and higher salt content, likely related to increased urbanization in the 

watershed (Rashleigh and Bourne 2007). 

The GA DNR-WRD reported limited data from one date (12 June 2003) for water temperature 

(21.0 - 24.1o

C), DO (6.94-7.04 mg/L), conductivity (75.1 - 81.9 μS), pH (7.0), turbidity (8.9-10.6 

NTU), total hardness (36 mg/L and 51 mg/L for Noses Creek and John Ward Creek, 

respectively), and alkalinity (40 mg/L) in Noses Creek and John Ward Creek segments that 

included the park, as part of an assessment of fish habitat and fish population health (GA DNR 

2008a) (Table 3, Figure 3). Volunteer students from North Cobb High School have collected 

limited temperature and conductivity data (but no fecal coliform data as mentioned by DeVivo 

2005 – Mr. Michael Pettelle, North Cobb High School, pers. comm.). Finally, Byrne (2004) 

reported a “potential red flag” listing for KEMO NBP with respect to water quality parameters 

pH, total and fecal coliforms, and lead, considering U.S. EPA guidelines (see pp. 39-42 below), 

and based upon lead data available for adjacent watersheds. Data on lead contamination were 

collected by GA DNR-EPD during 1998-2003 (U.S. EPA STORET), but the nearest station (ID 

#12118001) was ~6.6 miles downstream from the southern edge of the park boundary (Powder 

Springs, the GA DNR station nearest the park, in the same location as USGS station 02336968 - 

see Figure 3).
30 

Noses Creek and John Ward Creek, including the park segments, are listed on the state’s 303(d) 

list of impaired waters (GA DNR 2008b) that only partially support their designated uses. Both 

streams are impaired for fishing, and John Ward Creek is also impaired for recreational use 

because of high fecal coliform densities (see below). 
31 

Table 12. Water quality conditions in the mid-1990s: Parameters measured at two stations each in 

Noses Creek and John Ward Creek (entry and exit the park) during 1993-1998 (EPA STORET data; 

sampling dates per year ranged from 3 to 17; nd ≡ non-detectable). Underline and bold ≡ data in violation 

of state standard (GA DNR 2008d – see pp. 40-41 of this Report), except for fecal coliforms for which the 

data suggest degraded conditionsa

. Blue and bold ≡ can support noxious algal blooms (NO3

-

+NO2

-

 – see 

Mallin 2000), or data exceeded recommended values to protect aquatic life (BOD5 - see Mallin 2006). 

Bold shaded ≡ data exceeded recommended values for acceptable water quality (U.S. EPA 2000: for 

TSS, 25 mg/L maximum, and < 10 mg/L increase from a sudden spike; for metals (Al, Cu, Hg, Pb, Ni, Zn), 

see pp. 39-42 of this Report). Note that U.S. EPA (2002) recommends that pH should be maintained 

within the range 6.5-9; this Report, however, follows Georgia regulations (pH > 6.0). 

Parameter Date n Mean (range) Median Unacceptable

 (#) 

NPS KEMO 0005 (John Ward Creek outflow from park) 

Temperature (oC) Oct 93 - Jul 96 29 13.8 (2.8 - 23.9) 14 ---- 

Discharge (cfs) Oct 93 - Jul 96 27 11.6 (1.4 - 73.5) 6 ---- 

Turbidity (NTU) Jan 94 - Mar 96 16 15.0 (0.2 - 49.8) 8.8 ---- 

Spec. cond. (μmhos/cm) Oct 93 - Dec 98 62 93.5 (56.8 - 121.0) 94.3 ---- 

DO (mg/L) Oct 93 - Jul 96 29 8.84 (5.80 - 15.80) 8.70 ---- 

pH Oct 93 - Dec 98 38 6.79 (6.20 - 7.42) 6.8 ---- 

NO3

-

N+NO2

-

N (μg/L) Oct 93 - Dec 98 33 381 (80 - 630) 420 30

SRP (μg/L) Oct 93 - Dec 98 33 all at or below detect. ---- ---- 

Chlorides (mg/L) Oct 93 - Dec 98 33 4.1 (2.2 - 6.7) 4.2 ---- 

Fecal coliforms (mpn/100 mL)a

 Oct 93 - Dec 98 43 1,479 (nd - 26,800) 450 22 (22)

NPS KEMO 0006 (John Ward Creek upstream near park) 

Temperature (oC) Sep 93 - Dec 98 54 14.6 (2.5 - 23.6) 14.7 ---- 

Discharge (cfs) Sep 93 - May 98 33 6.8 (1.1 - 35.3) 4.2 ---- 

Turbidity (NTU) Jan 94 - Dec 97 31 11.1 (0.2 - 28.1) 8.5 ---- 

Spec. cond. (μmhos/cm) Sep 93 - Dec 98 84 104.0 (66.2 - 134.0) 106.0 ---- 

DO (mg/L) Sep 93 - Dec 98 53 8.65 (3.75 - 14.30) 8.60 1

pH Sep 93 - Dec 98 58 6.76 (6.00 - 7.40) 6.7 ---- 

NO3

-

N+NO2

-

N (μg/L) Sep 93 - Dec 98 52 753 (nd - 7,920) 495 48

NH4

+

N (μg/L) May 97 - Dec 98 17 655 (nd - 2,100) 600 15 

SRP (μg/L) Sep 93 - Dec 98 51 (nd - 1,250)

b

 ---- 2

Fecal coliforms (mpn/100 mL)a

 Sep 93 - Dec 98 44 2,060 (50 - 32,000) 500 21 (22) 

NPS KEMO 0007 (Noses Creek outflow from park) 

Temperature (oC) Sep 93 - Jul 96 28 13.6 (1.9 - 26.8) 13.4 ---- 

Discharge (cfs) Sep 93 - Jul 96 26 5.9 (0.4 - 34.3) 2.6 ---- 

Turbidity (NTU) Jan 94 - Mar 96 15 11.2 (0.8 - 37.3) 6.0 ---- 

Spec. cond. (μmhos/cm) Sep 93 - Dec 98 62 97.2 (72.1 - 123.2) 98.2 ---- 

DO (mg/L) Sep 93 - Jul 96 28 9.02 (5.90 - 14.70) 8.85 ---- 

pH Sep 93 - Dec 98 37 7.0 (6.4 - 7.7) 6.9 ---- 

NO3

-

N+NO2

-

N (μg/L) Sep 93 - Dec 98 34 459 (nd - 800) 500 32

SRP (μg/L) Sep 93 - Dec 98 34 all nd --- ---- 

Chlorides (mg/L) Sep 93 - Dec 98 34 4.0 (2.4 - 5.8) 4.0 ---- 

Fecal coliforms (mpn/100 mL)a

 Sep 93 - Dec 98 43 639 (20 - 6,050) 200 16 (15)
32 

Table 12. (Continued) 

Parameter Date n Mean (range) Median Unacceptable 

 (#) 

NPS KEMO 0009 (Noses Creek upstream at park boundary) 

Temperature (oC) Sep 93 - Dec 98 52 13.8 (2.4 - 23.0) 14.2 ---- 

Discharge (cfs) Sep 93 - Jul 98 44 4.0 (0.4 - 25.1) 1.9 ---- 

Turbidity (NTU) Feb 94 - Dec 97 30 13.6 (0.2 - 95.4) 8.3 1 

Spec. cond. (μmhos/cm) Sep 93 - Dec 98 82 106.0 (67.7 - 199.0) 107.1 ---- 

DO (mg/L) Sep 93 - Dec 98 51 8.94 (5.40 - 15.50) 8.90 ---- 

pH Sep 93 - Dec 98 55 6.7 (6.3 - 7.4) 6.6 ---- 

NO3-N+NO2-N (μg/L) Sep 93 - Dec 98 53 1,465 (nd - 35,200) 700 44

NH4+N (μg/L) May 97 - Dec 98 18 728 (nd - 3,600) 560 15 

SRP (μg/L) Sep 93 - Dec 98 53 ----- (nd - 1,300)b ---- 2

Chlorides (mg/L) Sep 93 - Dec 98 34 4.9 (2.6 - 7.3) 4.9 ---- 

Fecal coliforms (mpn/100 mL)a Sep 93 - Dec 98 43 1,020 (nd - 6,400) 300 24 (18)

a Data were not collected with sufficient frequency to enable calculation of geometric means, used for the 

 State standards (see pp. 41-42 of this Report). Unacceptable water quality (last column of table, 1st numb

 exceeded the fecal bacteria water quality standard values considered for geometric means (> 200 mpn/1

 mL in May - Oct; > 1,000 mpn/100 mL during Nov - Apr) and suggest degraded conditions. The 2nd numb

 in the “Unacceptable” column, in parentheses, is the number of samples with fecal coliform densities > 40

 mpn/100 mL, in consideration of the U.S. EPA’s (2003) recommendation for data collected with insufficien

 frequency to determine geometric means by the State’s criteria. 

b

 Only 2 samples with values; all others below detection with the analytical technique used. 
33 

Table 13. Water quality conditions during the past decade: Parameters measured at one station in 

Noses Creek and four stations in John Ward Creek during 1999-2008 (Cobb County data; sampling dates 

per year ranged from 1 to 5). Data are presented as in Table 12. 

Parameter Date n Mean (range) Median Unacceptable 

 (#) 

NS1 (Noses Creek, Mt. Calvary Road) 

Temperature (o

C) Sep 99 - Jan 08 31 15.0 (3.5 – 23.0) 16 ---- 

Turbidity (NTU) Sep 99 - Jan 08 31 8.0 (4.1 - 24.1) 6.2 ---- 

Spec. cond. (μmhos/cm, field) Sep 99 - Jan 08 30 108 (84 - 173) 106 ---- 

DO (mg/L) Sep 99 - Jan 08 31 8.2 (4.2 - 11.2) 8.0 1

pH Sep 99 - Jan 08 30 7.0 (6.5 - 7.5) 7.0 ---- 

NO3

-

N+NO2

-

N (μg/L) Sep 99 - Jan 08 31 277 (80 - 400) 270 30 

TKN (μg/L) Sep 99 - Jan 08 31 525 (50 - 2,160) 350 ---- 

TP (μg/L) Sep 99 - Jan 08 31 46 (5 - 150) 50 1 

BOD5 (mg/L) Sep 99 - Jan 08 31 1.1 (0.5 - 2.5) 1.0 --- 

COD (mg/L) Sep 99 - Jan 08 31 all < 20.0 ---- ---- 

Chlorides (mg/L) Sep 99 - Jan 08 30 4.2 (2.4 - 7.7) 4.0 ---- 

TSS (mg/L) Sep 99 - Jan 08 31 5.1 (0.5 - 28) 3.7 1 

Fecal coliforms (mpn/100 mL) Sep 99 - Jan 08 31 1,963 (2.0 - 51,600) 200 12 (4) 

Aluminum (μg/L) Jan 08 1 172.1 ---- 1 

Barium (μg/L) Jan 08 1 29.2 ---- ---- 

Cadmium (μg/L) Sep 99 - Jan 08 31 all < 0.7 ---- Uncertain 

Calcium (mg/L) Jan 08 1 8.2 ---- ---- 

Copper (μg/L) Sep 99 - Jan 08 31 2.6 (2.5 - 5.3)** 2.5 ---- 

Iron (μg/L) Jan 08 1 633.7 ---- ---- 

Lead (μg/L) Sep 99 - Jan 08 31 0.6 (0.5 - 2.4)** 0.5 ---- 

Magnesium (mg/L) Jan 08 1 3.4 ---- ---- 

Manganese (μg/L) Jan 08 1 197.4 ---- ---- 

Potassium (mg/L) Jan 08 1 1.5 ---- ---- 

Sodium (mg/L) Jan 08 1 4.2 ---- ---- 

Zinc (μg/L) Sep 99 - Jan 08 31 6.2 (5.0 - 17.3) 5.0 ----
34 

Table 13. (Continued). 

Parameter Date n Mean (range) Median Unacceptable 

 (#) 

WR1 (John Ward Creek) 

Temperature (o

C) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 14.8 (4.0 – 22.0) 16.5 ---- 

Turbidity (NTU) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 2.1 (1.1 - 7.1) 1.8 ---- 

Spec. cond. (μmhos/cm, field) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 130 (101 - 165) 130 ---- 

DO (mg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 7.8 (4.1 - 12.4) 7.2 1 

pH Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 6.9 (6.4 - 7.3) 6.9 ---- 

NO3

-

N+NO2

-

N (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 32 1,114 (200 - 1,680) 1,220 23 

TKN (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 413 (50 - 1,080) 330 ---- 

TP (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 47 (5 - 150) 50 2

BOD5 (mg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 1.0 (0.5 - 1.8) 1.0 ---- 

COD (mg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 32 all < 20.0** ---- ---- 

Chlorides (mg/L) Jul 99 - Nov 07 32 7.3 (3.2 - 12.1) 7.3 ---- 

TSS (mg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 1.8 (0.5 - 23.4) 1.2 ---- 

Fecal coliforms (mpn/100 mL) Jul 99 - Mar 08 32 781 (20 - 4,400) 450 17 (17) 

Aluminum (μg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 59.7 (32.7 - 86.7) ---- ---- 

Barium (μg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 36.3 (35.8 - 36.8) ---- ---- 

Cadmium (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 0.4 (0.35 - 2.2)** 0.35 1; Uncertain 

Calcium (mg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 9.8 (9.5 - 10.0) ---- ---- 

Copper (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 all < 5.0** ---- ---- 

Iron (μg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 231.7 (182.1 - 281.2) ---- ---- 

Lead (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 1.2 (0.5 - 19.9)** 0.5 1 

Magnesium (mg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 3.3 (2.9 - 3.7) ---- ---- 

Manganese (μg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 67.3 (60.4 - 74.1) ---- ---- 

Potassium (mg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 1.6 (1.3 - 1.8) ---- ---- 

Sodium (mg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 7.1 (6.9 - 7.3) ---- ---- 

Zinc (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 7.9 (5.0 - 20)** 5.0 ---- 
35 

Table 13. (Continued). 

Parameter Date n Mean (range) Median Unacceptable 

 (#) 

WR2 (John Ward Creek) 

Temperature (o

C) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 14.9 (3.0 - 22.6) 17.0 ---- 

Turbidity (NTU) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 2.9 (0.9 - 26.0) 1.6 ---- 

Spec. cond. (μmhos/cm) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 149 (100 - 191) 148 ---- 

DO (mg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 8.8 (4.9 - 13.0) 8.1 1

pH Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 7.1 (6.5 - 7.6) 7.2 ---- 

NO3

-

N+NO2

-

N (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 32 914 (50 - 1,720) 1,025 17 

TKN (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 538 (120 - 1,380) 390 ---- 

TP (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 49 (5 - 150) 50 2

BOD5 (mg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 32 1.2 (0.5 - 4.7) 1.0 1 

COD (mg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 10.4 (10.0 - 22.0) 10.0 ---- 

Chlorides (mg/L) Jul 99 - Nov 07 32 7.6 (3.3 - 10.4) 8.2 ---- 

TSS (mg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 2.3 (0.5 - 21.0) 1.2 ---- 

Fecal coliforms (mpn/100 mL) Jul 99 - Mar 08 32 854 (50 - 3,350) 480 18 (18) 

Aluminum (μg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 37.5 (13.9 - 61.1) ---- ---- 

Barium (μg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 36.7 (34.9 - 38.4) ---- ---- 

Cadmium (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 0.4 (0.35 - 1.2)** 0.35 1; Uncertain

Calcium (mg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 12.3 (11.9 - 12.6) ---- ---- 

Copper (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 all < 5.0** ---- ---- 

Iron (μg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 142.6 (104.4 - 180.8) ---- ---- 

Lead (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 0.8 (0.5 - 5.5) ** 0.5 1 

Magnesium (mg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 4.1 (4.0 - 4.2) ---- ---- 

Manganese (μg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 28.7 (19.6 - 37.7) ---- ---- 

Potassium (mg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 2.3 (1.9 - 2.7) ---- ---- 

Sodium (mg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 6.9 (6.5 - 7.3) ---- ---- 

Zinc (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 8.5 (5.0 - 19.5)** 5.0 ---- 
36 

Table 13. (Continued). 

Parameter Date n Mean (range) Median Unacceptable 

 (#) 

WR3 (John Ward Creek) 

Temperature (o

C) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 14.7 (3.0 - 22.9) 17.0 ---- 

Turbidity (NTU) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 6.1 (1.0 - 17.0) 5.2 ---- 

Spec. cond. (μmhos/cm) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 111 (79 - 135) 111 ---- 

DO (mg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 8.0 (5.0 - 11.7) 7.4 ---- 

pH Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 7.1 (6.5 - 7.4) 7.2 ---- 

NO3

-

N+NO2

-

N (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 32 379 (60 - 720) 420 30 

TKN (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 526 (50 - 1,570) 390 ---- 

TP (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 46 (5 - 150) 50 2 

BOD5 (mg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 1.1 (0.5 - 2.4) 1.0 ---- 

COD (mg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 10.4 (10.0 - 24.3) 10.0 ---- 

Chlorides (mg/L) Jul 99 - Nov 07 32 4.8 (3.2 - 6.8) 4.8 ---- 

TSS (mg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 3.4 (1.2 - 8.8) 3.0 ---- 

Fecal coliforms (mpn/100 mL) Jul 99 - Mar 08 31 323 (50 - 950) 250 12 (9) 

Aluminum (μg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 120.4 (72.8 - 167.9) ---- 1 

Barium (μg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 35.0 (33.2 - 36.8) ---- ---- 

Cadmium (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 all < 0.7** ---- Uncertain 

Calcium (mg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 8.7 (8.3 - 9.0) ---- ---- 

Copper (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 2.6 (2.5 - 5.5)** 2.5 ---- 

Iron (μg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 1,594 (1,100 - 2,088) ---- ---- 

Lead (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 1.0 (0.5 - 10.6)** 0.5 1 

Magnesium (mg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 3.2 (3.1 - 3.3) ---- ---- 

Manganese (μg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 910 (583 - 1,236) ---- ---- 

Potassium (mg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 2.0 (1.5 - 2.4) ---- ---- 

Sodium (mg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 4.6 (4.5 - 4.7) ---- ---- 

Zinc (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 7.1 (5.0 - 28.4)** 5.0 ---- 
37 

Table 13. (Continued). 

Parameter Date n Mean (range) Median Unacceptable 

 (#) 

WR4 (John Ward Creek) 

Temperature (o

C) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 15.3 (4.0 - 24.4) 17.0 ---- 

Turbidity (NTU) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 8.9 (5.3 - 18.3) 8.1 ---- 

Spec. cond. (μmhos/cm) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 102 (77 - 133) 101 ---- 

DO (mg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 7.9 (5.0 - 11.8) 7.7 ---- 

pH Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 7.0 (6.5 - 7.3) 7.1 ---- 

NO3

-

N+NO2

-

N (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 32 313 (20 - 560) 305 30 

TKN (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 487 (50 - 1,420) 410 ---- 

TP (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 48 (5 - 150) 50 2

BOD5 (mg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 1.1 (0.5 - 1.7) 1.0 ---- 

COD (mg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 all < 20.0** ---- ---- 

Chlorides (mg/L) Jul 99 - Nov 07 32 4.4 (2.7 - 6.5) 4.4 ---- 

TSS (mg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 5.1 (2.1 - 15.4) 4.0 ---- 

Fecal coliforms (mpn/100 mL) Feb 00 - Mar 08 31 286 (40 - 1,600) 200 10 (5) 

Aluminum (μg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 174 (48 - 300) ---- 1 

Barium (μg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 32.4 (30.8 - 33.9) ---- ---- 

Cadmium (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 all < 0.7** ---- Uncertain 

Calcium (mg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 7.5 (7.4 - 7.6) ---- ---- 

Copper (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 3.0 (2.5 - 15.7)** 2.5 1 

Iron (μg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 1,901 (1,845 - 1,956) ---- ---- 

Lead (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 0.9 (0.5 - 4.0)** 0.5 2 

Magnesium (mg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 3.0 (2.8 - 3.1) ---- ---- 

Manganese (μg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 641 (617 - 665) ---- ---- 

Potassium (mg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 1.8 (1.4 - 2.2) ---- ---- 

Sodium (mg/L) Nov 07, Mar 08 2 4.2 (4.0 - 4.3) ---- ---- 

Zinc (μg/L) Jul 99 - Mar 08 33 7.9 (5.0 - 25.7)** 5.0 ---- 

* All BOD, COD, TP, TKN, TSS, cadmium, copper, lead and zinc values reported less than the level of detection were replaced with 

1⁄2 the value. 

** More than 50% of samples below detection with the analytical technique used.
38 

Table 14. Summary information from the Cobb County dataset for stations near KEMO NBP (past 

decade), based upon the data in Appendix 1 (note that nitrate here ≡ NO3

-

N + NO2

-

N). 

Station 

Nitrate 

(μg/L; 

mean; median; 

maximum)

Samples 

>100 μg/L

Fecal coliforms 

(mpn/100 mL; 

mean; median; 

maximum)

Samples 

>200 mpn/100 mL 

(May-Oct) or 

>1,000mpn/100 mL 

(Nov - Apr); 

or 

> 400 mpn/100 mL 

(2nd number) 

Noses Creek, NS1 277; 270; 97% 1,963; 200; 39% (13%) 

downstream from park 400 (n = 31) 51,600 (n = 31) 

John Ward Creek, WRI, 1,114; 1,220; 72% 781; 450; 53% (53%) 

upstream from park 1,680 (n = 32) 4,400 (n = 32) 

John Ward Creek, WR2, 914; 1,025; 53% 854; 480; 56% (56%) 

upstream from park 1,720 (n = 32) 3,350 (n = 32) 

John Ward Creek, 379; 420; 94% 323; 250; 39% (29%) 

WR3 (“island” 720 (n = 32) 950 (n = 31) 

surrounded by park) 

John Ward Creek, 313; 305; 94% 286; 200; 32% (16%) 

WR4, downstream 560 (n = 32) 1,600 (n = 31) 

from park 

Table 15. Results of regression analysis for trends in water quality variables over time (conductivity, 

turbidity, total suspended solids, dissolved oxygen (% saturation and concentration), 5-day biochemical 

oxygen demand, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrate+nitrite, fecal coliforms, and chloride; quarterly sampling by 

Cobb County, 1995 - 2005) at four sites in John Ward Creek (WR1, Highland Avenue; WR2, Kirkpatrick 

Drive; WR3, Cheatham Hill Rd., downstream from part of the park and just upstream from another area of 

the park; and WR4, John Ward Road; Figure 6). Only statistically significant results are shown (positive or 

negative; p < 0.05). 

SITE COND TURB TSS DO BOD5 TKN NOX FC CHLD 

WR1 

WR2 + + - 

WR3 + - - + - + 

WR4 - - - + + 
39 

Drinking Water 

Drinking water is supplied to the park from an offsite treatment system operated by Cobb County 

as mentioned (Chief Ranger L. Morris, pers. comm., Nov. 2006) and, so, is not at risk from fecal 

bacteria. 

Groundwater Quality 

Data are not available to assess groundwater quality in the park. 

Sources of Pollutants 

Water quality in an urbanized watershed is degraded by both point and nonpoint source 

pollution. Urban development commonly causes undesirable habitat alteration, hydrologic 

modifications, erosion and sedimentation from land disturbance, stormwater runoff, combined 

sewer overflows, illegal discharges, improper storage and/or disposal of deleterious materials, 

and failure of sewerage systems (GA DNR 2008b). 

Point Sources 

There are no NPDES dischargers in the park. Two point sources were listed by NPS (1997a) 

upstream from the park: the Williams Brothers Concrete Plant (Blue Circle Williams, 

#GA0001627, ~3.5 miles upstream) in the upper Noses Creek watershed, and the Westside 

sewage treatment plant (#GA0025267, Chestnut Hill Road, ~1.8 miles upstream) in the John 

Ward Creek watershed. However, these point sources are no longer operational (permit on the 

first point source expired 31 January 2005, no longer discharging, based on a U.S. EPA PCS 

search; and confirmation on cessation of discharge by the wastewater treatment plant by T. 

Bailey, Chief Engineer, Engineering and Records Division, Cobb County Water System, pers. 

comm., July 2008). 

Nonpoint Sources 

Impervious surface coverage, which concentrates pollutants and increases stormwater runoff 

pollution, is high surrounding the park and upstream from it (see pp. 8-10 of this Report). The 

two perennial streams in KEMO NBP both have upstream portions outside the park boundaries 

that are degraded from watershed urban development (see pp. 29-37 of this Report), and the park 

has no direct control over various factors that influence its surface water resources. Moreover, 

the location of the park within the greater metropolitan area of the city of Atlanta makes it 

extremely vulnerable to water quality degradation from air pollution (see below). The wide range 

of urban land uses and activities occurring in the watersheds are harmful to the park’s water 

resources. These sources also contribute to acid deposition which can contribute to acidification 

and nutrient over-enrichment of surface waters (Baker and Christensen 1992). The park area lies 

within a region that has been evaluated as most at risk in the U.S. for continued acid deposition 

(Herlihy et al. 1991; below). 

Considering all of the pollutants – from suspended sediments to nutrients to a wide array of toxic 

substances – that are known to be contained in urban runoff and air pollution, data to evaluate the 

effects on the park’s aquatic resources from upstream water quality and atmospheric deposition 

are very sparse and have not been collected with adequate frequency to capture loadings from 

storm events or spills. 

The most easily detected among these pollutants, however, has left clear visible signs. Excessive 

sediment loading can make streams shallower and wider, and more susceptible to flooding. 
40 

Stream temperature, dissolved oxygen, flow rate, and velocity are affected as well. Benthic flora 

and fauna can be buried, spawning habitat destroyed, and aquatic plants eliminated because of 

the light reduction imposed by high turbidity. The suspended sediments also add nutrients such 

as adsorbed phosphorus and ammonium, as well as toxic substances such as heavy metals and 

pesticides. The overall net effect is depressed biodiversity and loss of beneficial aquatic life 

(Olsen 1984, Hadley and Ongley 1989). The effects of high suspended sediment loading from 

upstream urban sources in the Marietta area on degradation of stream habitats within the park are 

visibly obvious (Plate 5), and both Noses Creek and John Ward Creek, including the park 

segments, are impaired and only partially supporting their designated uses for fish/fishing 

because of habitat degradation from excessive sedimentation and other urban runoff effects (see 

below). John Ward Creek is also impaired because of excessive fecal coliform concentrations. 

Fecal coliform loads can be contributed by domestic animals, other animals such as horses, leaks 

and overflows of sanitary sewers, illicit waste discharges, leaking septic tanks, and wildlife and 

waterfowl (GA DNR 2003). 

Assessment of Biological Resources With Respect To Water and Air Quality 

Water Quality Standards 

The state of Georgia has ambient water quality standards for common water quality parameters 

in streams such as John Ward and Noses Creeks with designated use for Fishing (GA DNR 

2008c) (Table 16, Appendices 2 and 3). Samples that have a geometric mean fecal coliform 

count exceeding 200 mpn/100 mL during May through October, or exceeding 1,000 mpn/100 

mL during November through April, are in violation of the bacteria water quality standard. 

Georgia's Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control, Chapter 391-3-6-.03(5)(c) also state 

that “All waters shall be free from material related to municipal, industrial or other discharges 

which produce turbidity, color, odor or other objectionable conditions which interfere with 

legitimate water uses”. Stream segments are placed on the state’s Impaired Waters (303(d)) list 

based on water quality and biota sampling data. For the water use classification of Fishing, the 

criterion violated is listed as Biota Impacted (Bio(F)), reflecting the fact that studies have shown 

a significant impact of water quality-related habitat degradation on fish (GA DNR 2008a). 

Potential causes may be urban runoff, (other) nonpoint sources, and/or a municipal facility(s) 

(point sources). For fecal coliforms (microbial pathogens), the standards were developed in 

consideration of general recreational uses, although the state’s general policy is not to encourage 

swimming in any surface waters (GA DNR 2003). A stream is placed on the “partial support” 

list if more than 10% of the samples exceed the fecal coliform criteria and on the not support list 

if more than 25% of the samples exceed the standard. 

Other recommended guidelines for acceptable water quality in waters designated for use as 

Fishing and general recreation have been published by the U.S. EPA (2000, 2002, 2003) and 

other sources (Table 17). The Clean Water Act requires the U.S. EPA to develop criteria (i.e. 

recommendations) for water that are designed in part to protect aquatic life. The criteria are 

supposed to reflect accurately the up-to-date scientific knowledge. Whereas the State of Georgia 

has imposed regulations, an EPA water quality criterion is not a regulation; it does not impose 

legally binding requirements on the EPA or the states. States have discretion to adopt 

approaches that differ from the U.S. EPA water quality criteria, but these criteria are meant to 

provide useful guidance. 
In additio

with spec

medium 

more. MS

storm sew

discharge

exposure

I permits

Plate 5. D

Marietta a

erosion; J

Photos by

on to these s

cific industri

municipal se

S4 permits p

wer systems 

es to the “ma

e of stormwa

s listed for C

Degradation to

area: Noses C

John Ward Cr

y M. Mallin an

tandards, Ph

ial activities 

eparate storm

prohibit nonand require 

aximum exte

ater to pollut

obb County 

o streams in t

Creek, showin

reek, showing

nd J. Burkhold

hase I NPDE

(including c

m sewer syst

-stormwater 

controls or 

ent practicab

ants. John W

and for the 

the Park from

ng (A) a large 

g (C) a large s

der.

41 

ES permits re

construction 

tems (MS4s)

discharges (

best-manage

ble” (GA DN

Ward Creek i

City of Mari

m upstream so

sediment de

sediment dep

egulate storm

 sites > 1 acr

) that serve p

(i.e., illicit d

ement practi

NR 2003). Th

is surrounde

rietta). 

ources of sedi

posit and (B) 

osits and (D) 

mwater disch

re in area) an

populations 

discharges) fr

ices to reduc

he intent is t

d by MS4 pe

iment loading

 an undercut 

 a heavily silt

harges assoc

nd large and

of 100,000 o

from entering

ce pollutant 

to reduce 

ermittees (Ph

g in the urban

from bank 

ted bottom). 

ciated 

d

or

g into 

hase 

ized 
42 

Table 16. Georgia water use classifications and in-stream water quality standards for each use (GA DNR 

2008d; Georgia’s Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control, Chapter 391-3-6-.03(6)(a), 391-3-6-

.03(6)(b), and 391-3-6-.03(6)(c)). 

 DISSOLVED OXYGEN TEMPERATURE 

 BACTERIA (fecal coliforms) (except trout streams)a

 pH (except trout streams)a

USE CLASSIFICATION 30-day geom. Maximum Daily Avg. Minimum Std. Maximum Maximum

 meanb

 (mg/L) (mg/L) Units Rise (oF) (oF) 

Drinking Water 1,000 Nov-Apr 4,000 Nov-Apr 5.0 4.0 6.0-8.5 5 90 

requiring treatment 200 May-Oct ---- 

Recreation 200 (frw.) c

 ---- 5.0 4.0 6.0-8.5 5 90 

 100 (coastal) 

Fishing 1,000 Nov-Apr 4,000 Nov-Apr 5.0 4.0 6.0-8.5 5 90 

 200 May-Oct 

 

Coastal Fishing d

 

Wild River No alteration of natural water quality 

Scenic River No alteration of natural water quality 

a

 Standards for Trout Streams for dissolved oxygen are an average of 6.0 mg/L and a minimum of 5.0 mg/L. No temperature alteratio

allowed in Primary Trout Streams, and a temperature change of 2oF is allowed in secondary Trout Streams. 

b

 Fecal coliform densities are in units of number / 100 mL (Geom. ≡ geometric). Geometric means should be “based on at least 4 sam

collected from a given sampling site over a 30-day period at intervals not less than 24 hours”. The geometric mean of a series of N 

the Nth root of their product. Example: the geometric mean of 2 and 18 is the square root of 36. Note: U.S. EPA (2003) recommend

consideration of 400 mpn/100 mL as the highest acceptable level of fecal coliforms if samples are taken less frequently. 

c

 Frw. ≡ freshwater. 

d

 Standards are the same as for Fishing with exception of dissolved oxygen, which is site-specific. 
43 

Table 17. Summary of Georgia state standards for acceptable water quality in waters classified as 

Fishing designated use (GA DNR – excluding temperature) and of conditions for acceptable water quality 

recommended by other sources, and status of the two KEMO streams in the past decade (U.C. ≡

unacceptable condition(s); U.C.C. ≡ unacceptable conditions common). See Table 12 and text 

description for more information on available data. 

Parameter GA DNR Other Recommendation(s) or Guideline(s) KEMO NBP 

General Water Quality Parameters 

Dissolved oxygen > 5 daily avg.; > 4 (U.S. EPA 2000) Few dates with 

(mg/L) minimum 4 DO < 5 

 

pH > 6.0, < 8.5 > 6.5, < 9.0 (U.S. EPA 2000) No violations 

 

Fecal Coliforms < 1,000 Nov-Apr; 400 for data collected with insufficient Insufficient data 

(cfu/100 mL) < 200 May-Oct frequency to calculate g.m.s by the collection for 

 (g.m.) State’s criteria (U.S. EPA 2003) g.m.s, but some 

 values > 400 

 indicate degraded

 conditions 

 (max. 51,600) 

Nutrients ---- < 100 μg/L for total phosphorus and for Data indicate 

 inorganic nitrogen nitrate+nitrite, and/or excessive condi- 

 ammonium) to discourage noxious algal tions especially 

 blooms (Mallin 2000) for inorganic N 

Biochemical ---- Less than 3.0 mg/L as the 5-day biochemical Limited data - 

oxygen demand oxygen demand (BOD5) (Mallin et al. 2006) 1 U.C. 

Total suspended ---- < 25 mg/L, and < 10 mg/L increase from a Limited data - 

solids (TSS) sudden spike (U.S. EPA 2000) no U.C.s 

Toxic metals (μg/L) 

Aluminum Equations* CMC 750, CCC 87 (U.S. EPA 2000, 2002** Limited data – 

 U.C.C. 

Cadmium " CMC 2, CCC 0.25 (U.S. EPA 2000, 2002)** Limited data – 

 U.C.C. 

 In John Ward Cr. 

Chromium III " CMC 570, CCC 74 (U.S. EPA 2000, 2002)** Data not available 

Chromium IV " CMC 16, CCC 11 (U.S. EPA 2000, 2002)** Data not available 

Copper " CMC 13, CCC 9 (U.S. EPA 2000, 2002)** 1 U.C.C. 

Lead " CMC 65, CCC 2.5 (U.S. EPA 2000, 2002)** Several U.C. 

Mercury " CMC 1.4, CCC 0.77 (U.S. EPA 2000, 2002)** Data not available 

Nickel " CMC 470, CCC 52 (U.S. EPA 2000, 2002)** Data not available 

Zinc " CMC 120, CCC 87 (U.S. EPA 2000, 2002)** No U.C. 

* Dissolved concentrations; equations have been developed that express the total recoverable concentration depending upon the 

water hardness or pH. 

** Water quality guidelines (reference condition, 25th percentile – also see Byrne 2004). CMC ≡ the criterion maximum 

concentration; CCC ≡ the criterion continuous concentration, within a pH range of 6.5-9. 
44 

Impaired Surface Water Quality and Habitat 

In 1996 and 1998, both Noses Creek and John Ward Creek, including the park segments, were 

on Georgia’s 303(d) list of impaired waters as not supporting fish/fishing, because of fecal 

coliform bacteria and lead pollution that was attributed to urban runoff/stormwater effects. By 

2004, the U.S. EPA (2004) listed John Ward Creek as impaired but listed Noses Creek as “fully 

attaining” its designated uses, despite the fact that several streams draining into Noses Creek 

were listed as impaired, and fecal coliform densities were comparably high in Noses and John 

Ward Creeks. 

The most recent GA DNR (2008b) 303(d) list of impaired streams contains Noses Creek 

(headwaters down to [John] Ward Creek – 7 miles of stream length) based upon not meeting its 

designated use to support fish communities [Bio(F)]), and [John] Ward Creek from its 

headwaters to Noses Creek (6 miles of stream length) based upon fish habitat degradation 

(Bio(F)) – including the park segments for both streams. The potential cause listed for the 

degradation of Noses Creek and John Ward Creek was (unspecified) nonpoint runoff and urban 

runoff, respectively. In addition, John Ward Creek (headwaters down to Noses Creek) is listed 

as impaired for unacceptably high fecal coliform concentrations and sediment loads (GA DNR 

2008a,b). The sources of the sediment loads are listed in Table 18; such partitioning among land 

use types was not attempted for sources of fecal coliforms. 

Table 18. Estimated contribution of land use type to sediment loading for biota-impacted Noses Creek 

and John Ward Creek (GA DNR 2008a). 

John Ward Creek was evaluated for a TMDL targeting sediment loads in 2003, and a TMDL for 

fecal coliforms was also completed in 2003 (GA DNR 2003; 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/enviro.control?p_list_id=GA-R031300020208). for Draft TMDL 

plans targeting Bio(F) became available for Noses Creek and John Ward Creek in 2007, and a 

TMDL targeting fecal coliform loads was completed for John Ward Creek in 2007 (Table 19). 

Source Noses Creek John Ward Creek 

(tons per year) (tons per year)

Open water 0.0 (0.00%) 0.0 (0.00%)

Low-intensity residential 91.8 (6.77%) 229.4 (29.57%)

High-intensity residential 1.9 (0.14%) 4.6 (0.59%)

High-intensity comm/ indust/ transp 0.4 (0.03%) 0.4 (0.05%)

Roads 200.6 (14.80%) 420.8 (54.24%)

Clearcut, sparse 0.0 (0.00%) 0.0 (0.00%)

Quarries, strip mines, rocks 928.4 (68.49%) ---

Deciduous forest 15.4 (1.14%) 4.5 (0.58%)

Evergreen forest 7.4 (0.55%) 5.7 (0.74%)

Mixed forest 0.2 (0.02%) 0.3 (0.04%)

Deciduous shrubbed 0.8 (0.06%) 0.2 (0.02%)

Row crops, pasture 74.4 (5.49%) 23.5 (3.03%) 

Other grasses (urban, recreational) 26.7 (1.97%) 73.1 (9.43%)

Forested wetland 7.4 (0.54%) 13.3 (1.71%)

Non-forested wetland (fresh) --- ---

Source Noses Creek John Ward Creek 

(tons per year) (tons per year)

Open water 0.0 (0.00%) 0.0 (0.00%)

Low-intensity residential 91.8 (6.77%) 229.4 (29.57%)

High-intensity residential 1.9 (0.14%) 4.6 (0.59%)

High-intensity comm/ indust/ transp 0.4 (0.03%) 0.4 (0.05%)

Roads 200.6 (14.80%) 420.8 (54.24%)

Clearcut, sparse 0.0 (0.00%) 0.0 (0.00%)

Quarries, strip mines, rocks 928.4 (68.49%) ---

Deciduous forest 15.4 (1.14%) 4.5 (0.58%)

Evergreen forest 7.4 (0.55%) 5.7 (0.74%)

Mixed forest 0.2 (0.02%) 0.3 (0.04%)

Deciduous shrubbed 0.8 (0.06%) 0.2 (0.02%)

Row crops, pasture 74.4 (5.49%) 23.5 (3.03%) 

Other grasses (urban, recreational) 26.7 (1.97%) 73.1 (9.43%)

Forested wetland 7.4 (0.54%) 13.3 (1.71%)

Non-forested wetland (fresh) --- ---
45 

GA DNR’s management strategies to reduce contamination in impaired streams in urban areas 

include sustained compliance with NPDES permit limits and requirements; adoption of National 

Resource Conservation Service Conservation Practices; application of best-management 

practices that are appropriate to specific agricultural and urban land uses; further development 

and streamlining of mechanisms for identifying, reporting, and correcting illicit connections, 

breaks, and other sanitary sewer or waste containment problems; for fecal coliforms, adoption of 

local ordinances requiring periodic septic system inspection, pumpout, and maintenance; and 

public education (GA DNR 2003, 2008a). 

Table 19. TMDLs developed for Noses Creek and John Ward Creek, including stream segments within 

KEMO NBP (GA DNR 2003, 2008a). 

Stream Present Load Reduction Allowable Waste Allocation Maximum 

 Needed Average Load Daily Load 

Sediment TMDL (Biota-Impacted, 2003) 

Noses Creek 1,356.6 tons/year 79.59% 276.9 tons/year 193.0 tons/year 35.7 tons 

John Ward Creek 775.8 tons/year 57.51% 337.4 tons/year 236.2 tons/year 43.5 tons 

Fecal Coliform TMDL (General Recreation, 2008)* 

John Ward Creek 5.79 x 1011 37% 3.65 x 1011 2.11 x 1011 see footnote 

 counts/30 days counts/30 days counts/30 days 

*30-day geometric mean for bacterial counts (colony-forming units) 

Air Quality 

Air Quality Standards 

The federal Clean Air Act has set standards for six “criteria” pollutants (Table 20). These 

standards are fairly straightforward except for the PM2.5 standard: To be in compliance with the 

federal air PM2.5 standard, an area must have an annual arithmetic mean concentration of < 15 μg 

PM2.5 /m3. As an additional requirement (recently altered as of Dec. 2006), the 98th percentile 

24-hour concentration must be < 35 μg PM2.5 /m3 (GA DNR 2007b). 

The Ambient Monitoring Program of the Air Protection Branch of GA DNR-EPD has monitored 

the state’s air quality for more than 30 years, now including more than 200 pollutants. The 

regulatory standard is health-based, and concentrations above the standards are considered 

unhealthy for sensitive groups (GA DNR 2007b). Another set of compounds, for which ambient 

air regulatory standards have not been set, is monitored in the Air Toxics Network; sources of 

these substances include vehicle emissions, stationary source emissions, and natural sources. 

Data from EPD’s continuous monitors are published on EPD’s web site at 

http://www.georgiaair.org/amp. The data are updated hourly. 
46 

An ambient air monitoring station (site #130670003 – National Guard) at Kennesaw, GA 

monitors for ozone and fine particulate matter. Ozone is monitored in March through October 

since that period is when ozone production mostly occurs. Ozone is a serious health concern 

because it attacks the mammalian respiratory system, causing coughs, chest pain, throat 

irritation, increased susceptibility to respiratory infections, and impaired lung functioning. In 

fact, moderate ozone levels can interfere with performance of normal daily activities by people 

who have asthma or other respiratory diseases. Of more concern than acute affects are potential 

chronic effects of repeated exposure to ozone, which can lead to lung inflammation and 

permanent scarring of lung tissue, loss of lung function, and reduced lung elasticity. All of Cobb 

County is in an ozone non-attainment area (GA DNR 2007b). 

Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is < 2.5 μm in diameter, and is produced by various sources 

including industrial combustion, residential combustion, and vehicle exhaust, or when 

combustion gases are chemically transformed into particles (GA DNR 2007b). The state 

monitors 53 particle species such as gold, sulfate, lead, arsenic and silicon. Recent research has 

indicated that PM2.5 is a human health concern because it can penetrate into sensitive areas of the 

lungs and cause persistent coughs, phlegm, wheezing, more serious respiratory and 

cardiovascular disease, cancers, and premature death at particle levels well below the existing 

standards (U.S. EPA 2004, GA DNR 2007b). Mounting evidence indicates that PM2.5 also 

enhances delivery of other pollutants and allergens deep into lung tissue where the effects are 

exacerbated. Especially sensitive groups include children, the elderly, and people with 

cardiovascular or lung diseases such as asthma. PM2.5 also impair visibility and contribute to 

haze in the humid conditions that characterize the north Georgia climate (U.S. EPA 2004). 

Air Resources 

Air quality is a major concern in the park, since the adjacent City of Atlanta has high levels of air 

pollution and haze that, at least as far back as 1992, sometimes obscured the view of the park’s 

historic landscape (NPS 1992c,d). The Georgia metropolitan area is in compliance for four 

criteria air pollutants, but is commonly in violation of the ozone and PM2.5 standards (e.g. Figure 

6). The data from the state’s Kennesaw ambient air quality monitoring site show that all of Cobb 

County has been in violation of the ozone standard every year for the past five years (GA DNR 

2007b; Figure 7). 
Figure 6.

Moreove

concentra

98th perc

quality, i

will cont

Regional

year (DeV

ozone, pa

trucks go

Metropolitan 

er, all of Cob

ation (< 15 μ

entile 24-ho

including sm

inue to degr

l Commissio

Vivo 2005),

articulates an

oing to/from 

Atlanta ozon

bb County ha

μg PM2.5 /m3

ur concentra

mog, ozone, p

rade with inc

on 2007). In

 adding nitro

nd other poll

the nearby C

ne – number o

as been in vi

3

) each year 

ation (< 35 μ

particulates, 

creasing grow

n addition, m

ous oxide, le

lutants. Othe

Cobb County

47 

of violation da

iolation of th

for the past 

μg PM2.5 /m3

and many o

wth of the A

more than 15 

ead and othe

er traffic wit

y landfill loc

ays per year (

he annual ari

five years, a

3

) (Figure 8)

other contam

Atlanta metro

million cars

r heavy met

th air polluti

cated ~1 mil

(GA DNR 200

ithmetic mea

and also in v

). It is antici

minants (GA D

opolitan area

s travel throu

als, carbon m

ion is contrib

le south of th

07). 

an PM2.5

violation of t

ipated that ai

DNR 2007b

a (Atlanta 

ugh the park 

monoxide, 

buted by dies

he park. 

the 

ir 

b), 

each 

sel 
48 

Table 20. U.S. EPA standards for six “criteria” pollutants as required by the Clean Air Act, indicating 

recent modifications (cross-outs; GA DNR 2007b). 

Compound Primary Secondary Units Time Interval 

 Standard Standard 

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) ---- 0.50 ppm 3-hour 

 0.14 ---- ppm 24-hour 

 0.03 ---- ppm annual mean 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Particulate matter (PM2.5) 15.0 same as primary μg/m3 annual arithmetic

 mean (3 years) 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 

 98th percentile same as primary μg/m3 24-hour 

 65.0 a/35.0 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Particulate matter (PM10) 50.0 b same as primary μg/m3 annual arithmetic 

mean 

 

 150.0 same as primary μg/m3 24-hour 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Carbon monoxide (CO) 2nd maximum 35.0 ---- ppm 1-hour 

 2nd maximum 9.0 ---- ppm 8-hour average 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ozone (O3) 4th maximum 0.085 same as primary ppm 8-hour average 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 0.053 same as primary ppm annual mean 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lead (Pb) 1.5 same as primary μg/m3 calendar quarter
Figure 7.

including 

Ozone monit

the monthly b

ors in metrop

reakdown of

olitan Atlanta

exceedances

49 

 that exceed

. 

ded the 8-hour ozone standard in 2006, 
Figure 8.

all years, 

Acid dep

Baker an

well (Ab

Georgia (

County).

evaluated

monitor a

depositio

Figure 9.

PM2.5 design

and exceeda

position can a

nd Christense

elson 1987)

(Summer- D

 As mention

d as most at 

acid depositi

on in north G

Statewide ac

n value, daily s

nces of the n

adversely af

en 1992), an

. The state o

Dawsonville,

ned, among r

risk for cont

ion weekly, 

Georgia (Figu

cid deposition

standard, sho

ew standard.

ffect or kill a

nd can act syn

of Georgia ha

 and Hiawas

regions throu

tinued acid d

and the data

ure 9). 

n trends (1982

50 

owing exceed

aquatic life a

nergistically

as four acid 

ssee) and on

ughout the c

deposition (H

a show a sign

2-2006; GA D

dances at Ken

and harm hum

y with ozone

deposition s

e in central e

ountry, north

Herlihy et al

nificant incre

DNR 2007). 

nnesaw of the

man health (

e to harm hum

sites, includin

eastern Geor

h Georgia ha

l. 1991). The

easing trend

e old standard

(Abelson 19

man health a

ng three in n

rgia (McDuf

as been 

e four sites 

d for acid 

d in 

87, 

as 

north 

ffie 
51 

The effects of the many air pollutants on the park’s natural resources remain to be examined, and 

likely include synergistic interactions. It is thought, for example, that the risk of foliar ozone 

injury to terrestrial plants in the park probably is high because the park is exposed to potentially 

harmful levels of ozone each year. 

Drinking Water 

Treated water from the Chattahoochee River is the potable water source for the park (Georgia 

Department of Audits and Accounts 2005). Cobb County is within the Metropolitan North 

Georgia Water Planning District, a planning entity for 16 counties that was created to address 

increasing water resource requirements in the area. It is predicted that by 2030, all major sources 

of water supply in this area may be fully tapped because of rapid population growth (Georgia 

Department of Audits and Accounts 2005). 

Groundwater 

As mentioned, groundwater resources are considered to be under-utilized in Cobb County and 

have been targeted as a potential supplemental resource during peak demand periods, under 

drought conditions, or as water demand increases in the metropolitan Atlanta area (Chapman and 

Peck 1997, GA Department of Audits and Accounts 2005). 

Ecosystem Effects 

Urban Pollution and Aquatic Food Webs: During 1998-2003, GA DNR studied fish populations 

in the Chattahoochee River basin, and used an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and modified Index 

of Well-Being (IWB) to identify fish population health as Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, or Very 

Poor. Noses Creek and John Ward Creek were among the 25 stream segments in the Piedmont 

ecoregion with fish populations that were evaluated as impaired. Noses Creek received a Fair 

ranking from the IWB but a Poor IBI score, and John Ward Creek was evaluated by both indices 

as Very Poor. As mentioned, the general cause identified for the impairment is lack of viable fish 

habitat due to stream sedimentation (GA DNR 2008a). Fish are at the apex of the stream food 

webs. Their Fair/Poor to Very Poor rankings suggest that urban pollution has caused serious 

degradation and loss of biodiversity for the park’s aquatic flora and fauna in other trophic levels, 

as well. The stream and wetland food webs likely are also affected by pathogenic microbes 

whose presence is indicated, to some extent, by high fecal coliform bacteria densities, and by 

toxic substances from urban runoff. 

Air Pollution and Park Land Resources: There is a high potential that terrestrial communities in 

the park are being adversely affected by air pollutants such as ozone that can cause foliar injury, 

but data for assessment are not available (DeVivo 2005). 

Invasive/Exotic Species: The southern pine beetle infestation has killed thousands of pine trees 

throughout the park since the early 1990s, and the resulting increase in fuels lying on the forest 

floor are an increased fire risk. Some terrestrial plant species are also of concern. Little is known 

about the potential for impacts from exotic/invasive terrestrial animal species, and information is 

lacking as to whether exotic aquatic species threaten the park’s surface waters and wetlands. 

Nuisance Species: Two terrestrial animal species have been identified as species of concern, 

both of which appear to be increasing in number within the park: Overgrazing activity by whitetailed deer can depress forest regeneration. Beavers’ damming activities can alter water flow and 
52 

water quality. Feral dogs and cats have been mentioned as a concern, especially the potential for 

feral cats to affect various bird species (Watson 2005). An additional concern is that increased 

urbanization surrounding the park may promote an increase in foxes, coyotes, and deer (the 

latter, leading to more car accidents and poaching; Chief Ranger L. Morris, pers. comm., 

November 2006). 

Human Health Issues 

The routinely high fecal coliform densities in the park’s two perennial streams jeopardize use of 

these surface waters for general recreation, including water contact during fishing activities. 

Moreover, there is strong potential for adverse chronic impacts of ozone and PM2.5 air pollutants 

on the health of park staff and frequent visitors. 

Other Issues of Concern 

Population Growth 

Upstream from the park, the city of Marietta is also rapidly growing; between 2000 and 2007, its 

population increased by 7.5%, and in the Marietta area there are 2,883 people per square mile 

(http://www.bestplaces.net/city/ Marietta-Georgia.aspx). Casting a bit wider net to consider 

the adjacent Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta metropolitan area, as of 2007 the area population 

was 5,138,233 people, more than the populations of 24 other states combined (U.S. Census 

2006). From 2000 - 2007, the population has grown by 21%, an increase of nearly 130,000 

people per year (http://www.bestplaces.net/Metro/Atlanta-Sandy_Springs-MariettaGeorgia.aspx). It has been estimated that by 2025-2030, 2,206,000 people will be employed in 

the Atlanta metropolitan area, representing growth of 40% over the 2000 employment base 

(ARC 2001). The overall population is projected to increase more than 50% by about the same 

period (2030; CH2MHill 2003). Major construction of industrial, commercial, and housing 

developments has occurred over the past two decades and continues to rapidly expand around the 

park periphery. The fact that this national battlefield park ironically is under chronic, progressive 

siege from increasing urbanization is yet clearer considering that KEMO NBP represents more 

than a quarter of the natural greenspace area left within the Atlanta metropolitan area. 

Physical Impacts From Park Activities 

The park is not planning further development except for minor improvements to accommodate 

visitor parking at interpretative areas (NPS 1997b; L. Morris, pers. comm., Nov. 2006). 

Continuous Land Impacts 

Visitation numbers for KEMO NBP reflect the rapidly growing population of the greater Atlanta 

metropolitan area: In 1990 park attendance was 784,310. In 2006, it was almost 1.5 million 

(Strack and Miller 2008). Hiking trails in the park receive increasingly heavy use, and the trail 

system is affected by heavy foot traffic and heavy rains especially during summer months. 

Storms can cause washout as deep as 12 inches in some trail sections, and trail shortcuts create 

serious potential damage to fragile Civil War earthworks. The eroded trails also are a potential 

safety problem. 

Horse trails and in-stream crossings within the watersheds of the streams that flow through the 

park, and equestrian activities that occur in the park, may contribute to degraded stream 

structural integrity and water quality (Zubricki 1993). 
53 

Directly related to urban encroachment surrounding the park, the numerous shared boundaries 

between the park and private landowners have led to multiple “social” trails, especially along the 

park’s southwest boundary (DeVivo 2005). In addition, this urban park sustains frequent illegal 

dumping of trash and other refuse by adjacent land owners, developers, etc. (DeVivo 2005). 

Impacts From Dobbins Air Force Base 

The park lies within the in-flight path for Dobbins Air Force Base, and increased air traffic over 

the park has contributed to both air pollution and increased noise (DeVivo 2005). 

Synopsis of Stressors to KEMO NBP 

The present and potential stressors that are affecting or may affect KEMO NBP are summarized 

in Table 21. Overwhelmingly, the most pressing stress on the natural resources of the park is 

encroaching and upstream urban development, and its multitude of associated impacts. In the 

past two years, park natural resources have continued to be pressured by increasing suburban 

land use – as examples, 42 acres have been developed off old Highway 41 NW adjacent to the 

park, as well as areas east and south of the park. Cobb County continues plans for road and 

highway expansions near the park (NPS 1997b; Chief Ranger L. Morris, pers. comm., Nov. 

2006). The amount of stormwater runoff from urban areas has increased dramatically over the 

past 30 years in the metropolitan Atlanta area, including Cobb County (Georgia Department of 

Audits and Accounts 2005). 

Table 21. Present-day and potential stressors that are affecting or may affect KEMO NBP (ND ≡ no data 

or insufficient data to make judgment; --- ≡ not applicable; NP ≡ no problem; EP ≡ existing problem; PP ≡

potential problem). 

Stressor Surface Waters Groundwater Airshed Forest Human Health

Acidification EP ND EP EP EP 

Air traffic (noise and ND ND EP ND ND (PP) 

 air pollution) 

Algal blooms ND --- --- --- ND 

Encroaching urbanization* EP ND (PP) EP EP EP 

Erosion (including dust) EP ND EP EP NP 

Excessive nutrients** EP ND EP ND NP 

Exotic invasive species ND (PP) --- ND EP ND 

Fecal bacteria, other EP ND ND ND EP 

 microbial pathogens 

Habitat disruption EP ND --- EP EP 

Highway construction* EP ND (PP) ND (PP) ND EP* 

Hypoxia ND --- --- --- NP 

Metals contamination EP ND (PP) ND (PP) ND ND 

Ozone pollution ND --- EP EP EP 

Other toxic substances ND (PP) ND (PP) EP ND EP 

Particulate matter pollution EP ND EP EP EP 

Sedimentation EP ND EP --- EP 

Trash/refuse pollution EP ND --- EP ND 

Water demand NP (PP) NP --- NP NP (PP) 

 * Will increase likelihood of collisions with wildlife. 

** Via more air pollution because of car exhausts as well as other sources. 
54 

The increasing demands on water supplies from human population growth may pose a threat to 

groundwater resources in the vicinity of the park in the coming decades. At present, though, 

human population growth and urban sprawl with accompanying water and air degradation are the 

major stressors affecting the park’s surface waters and other natural resources. In a situation that 

typifies many other parks in the SECN (Byrne 2004), the surface waters of this park are 

downstream from 303(d)-listed degraded waters outside NPS jurisdiction. Thus, it is not 

surprising that the park’s surface waters also are included in the state’s 303(d) list as impaired for 

supporting fish because of excessive sedimentation (both streams), and impaired for general 

recreation (John Ward Creek) because of high fecal coliforms. Although Noses Creek presently 

is not on the state’s 303(d) list for high fecal coliforms, fecal coliform densities in that stream are 

comparable to those of John Ward Creek based upon data from Cobb County. Sedimentation 

from development-related land disturbance upstream of the park, and surrounding the park, is 

seriously affecting the park’s stream segments, both water quality and aquatic life. There is high 

potential that associated pollutants such as excessive nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides, and 

other toxic contaminants are adversely affecting the park’s streams as well. Microbial pathogens 

that may be present, indicated to some extent by high fecal coliforms, may be adversely affecting 

fish and other aquatic life. 

There is also high potential that surface water quality and aquatic communities are sustaining 

impacts from air pollution including acidification, mercury and other heavy metals, pesticides 

etc. The seasonal or lower frequency of sampling to evaluate water quality is insufficient to 

detect the spikes in these pollutants that are known to occur depending upon weather patterns. 

Thus, for example, available pH data are inadequate to evaluate the extent to which acid spates 

(sudden influxes of highly acidic water at the beginning of storm events) are affecting the aquatic 

food webs (e.g. Morris et al. 1989). Air pollution likely is also adversely affecting terrestrial 

vegetation, for example, as foliar damage from high ozone in the park area. In addition, the high 

ozone and PM2.5 levels in the Park airshed pose a threat to the health of park staff and frequent 

visitors. 

Invasive/ exotic species are adversely affecting the park’s land resources. The southern pine 

beetle infestation, for example, has killed thousands of pine trees and increased fire risk from the 

resulting deadfall debris, and several terrestrial plant species are also of concern. Increasing 

abundance of beavers and white-tailed deer also pose potential stresses on the park’s natural 

resources. Information about aquatic invasive/exotic species is lacking. 

Other stressors to the park’s natural and historic resources include heavy use and erosion of 

hiking trails, equestrian activities that occur within and upstream from the park, the creation of 

multiple “social” trails through sensitive park lands because of shared boundaries between the 

park and suburban developments, and frequent illegal dumping of trash and other refuse. 

The looming major factor that will exacerbate virtually all of these stresses is the rapid, extreme 

population growth of the Atlanta metropolitan area. 
55 

Recommendations To Address Impairments, Potential 

Impacts, and Undocumented Water Bodies 

General Comments 

Government-managed lands comprise 29% of the U.S. land area (Gibbons et al. 1997), including 

more than 32 million hectares set aside within the National Park System (Stohlgren et al. 1995). 

Thus, the National Park System is a major factor in the potential for this nation to protect natural 

lands and biodiversity. The parks and their natural resources are supposed to be “protected 

lands” for present and future generations of U.S. citizens, but external encroaching stressors from 

watershed development and habitat fragmentation are seriously threatening these critically 

important refuge areas, including KEMO NBP. Another major threat is the lack of fundamental 

data to evaluate present status. Such data are needed to guide improved management strategies to 

protect these important national resources. 

KEMO NBP, within the Atlanta metropolitan area, is vulnerable to encroaching and surrounding 

urbanization. The NPS is ill-equipped to protect its vitally important water resources from 

airshed and watershed pollution and other stressors because the stressors, for the most part, are 

outside of NPS control. In addition, there is inadequate information on water quality conditions 

or aquatic community health. Few data are available on aquatic flora and fauna, mostly limited 

to surveys of species occurrence. 

About 15 years ago, KEMO NBP’s Water Resources Monitoring Study Plan (NPS 1992b, 

Zubricki 1993) identified concerns about upstream and surrounding construction and other 

municipal and industrial activities that were expected to adversely affect water quality, including 

acidification of park streams from atmospheric acid deposition. Other expressed concerns 

included agricultural runoff from upstream horse facilities and septic tank leachate within the 

watersheds of the two streams draining the park. None of these concerns have changed, except 

for a dramatic increase of all of the urban stressors that have accompanied the past 15 years of 

rapid human population growth and development in the area. Nor, as of yet, have the concerns 

identified 15 years ago begun to be effectively addressed. 

Within the past five years, the state has developed several TMDLs for Noses Creek and John 

Ward Creek. They are supposed to be “platforms for establishing courses of actions to restore 

water quality” (GA DNR 2003); procedures are to be set in place to track and evaluate 

implementation of corrective management practices and activities. Considering that KEMO NBP 

was set aside, as an important par of this nation’s heritage, to honor more than 65,000 U.S. 

soldiers who were wounded or died there – and considering that the upstream and surrounding 

impacts of urbanization are beyond the park’s direct control – it is imperative that the state of 

Georgia legislature and environmental agency track and ensure the effectiveness of the TMDLs 

for Noses Creek and John Ward Creek. The following additional recommendations can be 

addressed within NPS jurisdiction. 
56 

Specific Recommendations 

Water Quality 

 A top priority is to conduct a two-year water quality monitoring program in the park 

segments of Noses Creek and John Ward Creek with biweekly (preferably, to capture 

effects of pollution from storm events) or monthly sampling frequency to track water 

quality conditions in the park. Two stations on each stream, including inflow and 

outflow from the park, should be sampled for, at a minimum, water temperature, pH, 

dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, turbidity, nutrients (TN, TP, nitrate, ammonium, 

BOD5), fecal coliform densities, and chlorophyll a concentrations. This effort should be 

repeated at five-year intervals. Benchmarks for acceptable water quality should consider 

the information contained in Table 17. 

 Data should be collected at least annually on toxic substance concentrations (PCBs, 

heavy metals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals) in sediments and fish or benthic faunal tissues. 

Published benchmarks for acceptable water quality for streams with designated use for 

Fishing should be used to evaluate the information. 

 The park should inventory changes in land use/land cover in the watersheds of the two 

perennial streams upstream from and surrounding the park, including traditional 

categories but also septic tanks in new subdivisions, new highway projects, new shopping 

centers, and other potential sources of water pollution. The data should be used to create 

GIS maps of these sources, which can be upgraded over time to help the NPS track 

pollution and its impacts in park waters. 

Ecosystem and Community Health 

 At least once per year during an appropriate seasonal timeframe, the macroinvertebrate 

communities in John Ward and Noses Creeks should be assessed in at least two stations, 

following the protocol in Barbour et al. (1999). Benchmarks should consider published 

descriptions of healthy macroinvertebrate communities in warmwater streams (e.g. 

Barbour et al. 1999, GA 2007). The data should be used to track stream ecological 

condition (rated from Excellent to Poor) over time. 

 At least once per year during an appropriate seasonal timeframe, the fish community in 

the park segments of John Ward and Noses Creeks should be assessed, following the 

protocol outlined in Barbour et al. (1999). The fish data should be used to develop an 

Index of Biotic Integrity and an Index of Well-Being for fish population health over time 

(Barbour et al. 1999). 

 A sampling program should be developed to establish present conditions and track exotic 

invasive species affecting terrestrial as well as aquatic/wetland sources in the park. 

Assessment of exotic invasive species should be repeated at least at three-year intervals 

to enable detection of species that may rapidly invade. 

 The park’s wetland ecosystems should be assessed at five-year intervals for indices of 

diversity, function, and overall health. 
57 

 An updated biological inventory should be completed for herpetofauna, following the 

protocol outlined in Tuberville et al. (2005). 

 A baseline biological inventory is needed for the composition and abundance of benthic 

microalgal assemblages following protocols in Wetzel and Likens (2001). The benthic 

microalgal (periphyton) data should be used to develop an index of biotic integrity (e.g. 

following Hill et al. 2000) for the Ocmulgee River and Walnut Creek in the park area. 

 The NPS should assess incidence of foliar injury to park plants from ozone pollution, 

including common wetland bioindicator species such as yellow poplar and American 

elder. More generally, data are needed to assess the extent to which air pollution is 

affecting the park, and to forecast how increasing air pollution from the greater Atlanta 

metropolitan area will affect its waters and other natural resources. Sampling devices 

should be installed to establish present conditions and track air pollutants such as ozone, 

PM2.5, and mercury. 

 Park staff should monitor the two perennial streams for erosion of the stream banks, 

which is commonly related to upstream urban watershed activities. Park staff should also 

check for tree damage from beavers, which can lead to increased bank erosion. 

Construction of beaver dams within the park should not be permitted, since this would 

increase on-site flooding and threaten cultural resources. 

Groundwater 

 Groundwater resources of the park should be assessed through partnership with the 

USGS, including recharge/discharge areas, movement, and chemical quality. 

Education Outreach 

 KEMO is a critically important greenspace for the greater Atlanta metropolitan area. The 

park should strengthen its environmental education program to inform visitors about the 

importance of greenspaces in ecosystem sustainability. 

Other Action 

 The NPS should pursue actions to protect remaining undeveloped lands (e.g. increase in 

greenspace setasides) adjacent to the park to target a goal of protecting and growing 

buffer areas around the park. 

59 

Literature Cited 

Abelson, P. H. 1987. Ozone and acid rain. Science 235: 141. 

Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). 2001. Improvement program handbook for the FY 2002-

2004. ARC, Atlanta, GA. 

Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). 2007. 2007 Atlanta region population. ARC, Atlanta, GA. 

Audubon. 2002. Citizen science – Audubon WatchList. Available at: 

http://www.audubonmagazine.org/features0212/citizen_science_pullout.html (last accessed 

July 2008). 

Baker, J. P. and S. W. Christensen. 1992. Effects of acidification on biological communities, 

Chapter 4 in D. F. Charles, editor. Acidic deposition and aquatic ecosystems - regional case 

studies, by D. F. Charles (ed.). Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 

Burkholder, J. M. and B. E. Cuker. 1991. Response of periphyton communities to clay and 

phosphate loading in a shallow reservoir. Journal of Phycology 27: 373-384. 

Burkholder, J. M., L. M. Larsen, H. B. Glasgow, K. M. Mason, P. Gama, and J. E. Parsons. 

1998. Influence of sediment and phosphorus loading on phytoplankton communities in 

an urban piedmont reservoir. Lake and Reservoir Management 14: 110-121. 

Burkholder, J. M., D. A. Dickey, C. Kinder, R. E. Reed, M. A. Mallin, G. Melia, M. R. McIver, 

L. B. Cahoon, C. Brownie, N. Deamer, J. Springer, H. B. Glasgow, D. Toms and J. Smith. 

2006. Comprehensive trend analysis of nutrients and related variables in a large eutrophic 

estuary: A decadal study of anthropogenic and climatic influences. Limnology and 

Oceanography 51: 463-487. 

Byrne, M. W. 2004. Appendix 8 – Water resources in the Southeast Coast Network. In: Vital 

signs monitoring in the Southeast Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network - phase III (draft) 

report. National Park Service, Southeast Coast Network, Atlanta, GA. 

Capps, M. A. 1994. Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park: Administrative History. 

Southeast Regional Office, National Park Service, Atlanta, GA> 

Chapman, M. J. and M. F. Peck. 1997. Ground-water resources of the Middle Chattahoochee 

River basin in Georgia and Alabama, and upper Flint River Basin in Georgia - subarea 2 of 

the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River basins. Report 

96-492. USGS, Atlanta, GA. 

CH2MHill. 2003. District-wide watershed management plan - 2030. Prepared for the 

Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District. CH2MHill, Atlanta, GA. Available at: 

http://www.northgeorgiawater.com/files/ (last accessed October 2008). 

Clarke, S. R. 1995. Impacts of southern pine beetles in special management areas. Pages 93-98 

in L. G. Eskew, editor. Forest health through silvaculture, proceedings of the 1995 National 
60 

Silvacultural Workshop. General Technical Report RM-GTR-267. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort 

Collins, CO. 

Cooper, R. J. 2000. Partners in flight southern Piedmont bird conservation plan (Physiographic 

Area 11). University of Georgia, Athens, GA. 

DeVivo, J. C. 2004. Appendix 5 – Summary of natural Resource Issues at Southeast Coast 

Network Parks. In NPS, Vital signs monitoring in the Southeast Coast Inventory and 

Monitoring Network - phase III (draft) report. NPS, Southeast Coast Network, Atlanta, GA. 

DeVivo, J. C., C. J. Wright, M. W. Byrne, and S. McCort. 2005. Vital signs monitoring in the 

Southeast Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network - phase II (draft) report. NPS, Southeast 

Coast Network, Atlanta, GA. 

Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts. 2005. Georgia’s water-related activities. Report 

05-12, Atlanta, GA. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 1997. Chattahoochee River basin 

management plan. GA DNR - EPD, Atlanta, GA. Available from: 

http://www.gaepd.org/Documents/contact_epd.html (last accessed July 2008). 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 2003. Total maximum daily load 

evaluation for seventy-nine stream segments in the Chattahoochee River basin for fecal 

coliform. GA DNR, Atlanta, GA. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 2006. Georgia 2006 305(b)/303(d) report. 

GA DNR – EPD, Atlanta, GA. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 2007a. Macroinvertebrate biological 

assessment of wadeable streams in Georgia – standard operating procedures. GA DNR – 

EPD, Atlanta, GA. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 2007b. Ambient air surveillance report – 

2005-2006 risk assessment discussion. Toxic Network. GA DNR - EPD, Atlanta, GA. 

Available at: http://www.georgiaair.org/amp (last accessed July 2008). 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 2008a. Total maximum daily load 

evaluation for twenty-five stream segments in the Chattahoochee River basin for sediment 

(biota-impacted). GA DNR - EPD, Atlanta, GA. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 2008b. Water quality in Georgia 2006-

2007. Appendix A – Waters assessed for compliance with designated use – narrative 

including the 2008 listing assessment methodology and code key for abbreviations: 2008 

rivers and streams [303(d) List]. GA DNR, Atlanta, GA. Available from: 

http://www.gaepd.org/Documents/305b.html (last accessed July 2008). 
61 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). 2008c. Water quality standards in 

Georgia 2006-2007. GA DNR - EPD, Atlanta, GA. 

Gibbons, J. W., V. J. Burke, J. E. Lovich, R. D. Semlitsch, T. D. Tuberville, J. R. Bodie, J. L. 

Greene, P. H. Niewiarowski, H. H. Whiteman, D. E. Scott, J. H. K. Pechmann, C. R. 

Harrison, S. H. Bennett, J. D. Krenz, M. S. Mills, K. A. Buhlmann, J. R. Lee, R. A. Seigel, 

A. D. Tucker, T. M. Mills, T. Lamb, M. E. Dorcas, J. D. Congdon, M. H. Smith, D. H. 

Nelson, M. B. Dietsch, H. G. Hanlin, J. A. Ott, and D. J. Karapatakis. 1997. Perceptions of 

species abundance, distribution, and diversity: Lessons from four decades of sampling on a 

government-managed preserve. Environmental Management 21: 259–268. 

Hadley, R.F. and E.D. Ongley, editors. 1989. Sediment and the environment. Proceedings of a 

Symposium. Publication No. 184. International Association of Hydrological Sciences, 

Washington, DC. 

Heaney, L.R. and B.D. Patterson, editors. 1986. Island biogeography of mammals. Biological 

Journal of the Linnaen Society 28(1,2): 1-271. 

Herlihy, A. T., P. R. Kaufmann, and M. E. Mitch. 1991. Stream chemistry in the eastern United 

States. 2. Current sources of acidity in acidic and low acid-neutralizing capacity streams. 

Water Resources Research 27: 629-642. 

Hill, J. E. and C. A. Watson. 2007. Diet of the nonindigenous swamp eel in tropical ornamental 

aquaculture ponds in west-central Florida. North American Journal of Aquaculture 68: 139-

146. 

Johnston, C. E., M. Castro, L. Casten, A. Henderson, and A. Kennon. 2006. Fish inventories at 

Southeast Coast Network Parks (draft final report). Auburn University, Auburn, AL. 

Kelly, D. 1990. Kennesaw Mountain and the Atlanta Campaign: a tour guide. Kennesaw 

Mountain Historical Association, Marietta, GA. 

Mallin, M. A. 2000. Impacts of industrial-scale swine and poultry production on rivers and 

estuaries. American Scientist 88: 26-37. 

Mallin, M. A., H. W. Paerl, J. Rudek, and P. W. Bates. 1993. Regulation of estuarine primary 

production by watershed rainfall and river flow. Marine Ecology Progress Series 93: 199-

203. 

Matthiae, P. E. and F. Stearns. 1981. Mammals in forest islands southeastern Wisconsin. Pages 

55-66 in R. L. Burgess and D. M. Sharpe, editors. Forest island dynamics in man-dominated 

landscapes. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 

Morris, R., E. W. Taylor, and D. J. A. Brown. 1989. Acid toxicity and aquatic animals. 

Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. 

National Park Service (NPS). 1992a. Assess treatment of exotic plants. Project Statement Sheet 

KEMO-N-026.000, PS page 0049. NPS, Atlanta, GA. 
62 

National Park Service (NPS). 1992b. Monitor water quality. Project Statement Sheet KEMO-N025.000, PS page 0047. NPS, Atlanta, GA. 

National Park Service (NPS). 1992c. Monitor air particulates and ozone levels. Project Statement 

Sheet KEMO-N-027.000, PS page 0051. NPS, Atlanta, GA. 

National Park Service (NPS). 1992d. Assess effects of air pollution. Project Statement Sheet 

KEMO-N-028.000, PS page 0053. NPS, Atlanta, GA. 

National Park Service (NPS). 1997a. Baseline water quality data inventory and analysis: 

Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park. Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR97/119. NPS - Water Resources Division, Fort Collins, CO. 

National Park Service (NPS). 1997b. Updated resource management overview for Kennesaw 

Mountain National Battlefield Park. KEMO, Kennesaw, GA. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2008a. Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park. Available 

at: http://www.nps.gov/kemo/ (last accessed July 2008). 

National Park Service (NPS). 2008b. NPSpecies – the National Park Service biodiversity 

database. Secure online version – certified organisms. Available at: 

https://science1.nature.nps.gov/npspecies/web/main/start (last accessed April 2008). 

Olsen, L. A. 1984. Effects of contaminated sediment on fish and wildlife: review and annotated 

bibliography. Report FWS/OBS-82/66. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 

Porter, S. D. and D. A. Savignano. 1990. Invasion of polygyne fire ants decimates native ants 

and disrupts arthropod community. Ecology 71: 2095-2106. 

Rashleigh, B. and R. Bourne (2007) Trend analysis of water quality monitoring data for Cobb 

County, GA. Proceedings of the 2007 Georgia Water Resources Conference, University of 

Georgia, Athens, GA. 

Southeast Regional Climate Center. 2007. [Internet]. Available from 

http://www.sercc.com/services.html (last accessed July 2008). 

Strack, J. A. and C. A. Miller. 2008. Running uphill: urbanization, conflict, and visitor use at 

Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park. Pages 48-53 in: Proceedings of the 2007 

Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NRS-P-23. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. 

Straight, C. A., T. R. Reinert, B. J. Freeman, and J. Shelton. 2005. The swamp eel, Monopterus 

sp. cf. M. albus, in the Chattahoochee River system, Fulton County, Georgia. Proceedings of 

the 2005 Georgia Water Resources Conference, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. 

Available at: 

http://cms.ce.gatech.edu/gwri/uploads/proceedings/2005/StraightC_GWRCpaper.pdf (last 

accessed August 2008). 
63 

Tilmant, J. T. 1999. Management of nonindigenous aquatic fish in the U.S. National Park 

System. NPS – Water Resources Division, Fort Collins, CO. 

Touchette, B. W., J. M. Burkholder, E. H. Allen, J. L. Alexander, C. A. Kinder, J. James, and C. 

H. Britton (2007) Eutrophication and cyanobacteria blooms in run-of-river impoundments in 

North Carolina, USA. Lake and Reservoir Management 23: 179-192. 

Trani (Griep), M. K. 2002. Maintaining species in the South. Pages 113-150 in D. N. Wear and J. 

G. Greis, editors. Southern forest resource assessment. Technical Report SRS-53. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC. 

Tuberville, T. D., J. D. Wilson, M. E. Dorcas, and J. W. Gibbons. 2005. Herpetofaunal species 

richness of southeastern National Parks. Southeastern Naturalist 4: 537-569. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000. Ambient water quality 

criteria recommendations, information supporting the development of state and tribal nutrient 

criteria: rivers and streams in Nutrient Ecoregion IX. Report EPA 822-B-00-011. U.S. EPA, 

Washington, DC. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2002. National recommended water 

quality criteria: 2002. Report EPA-822-R-02-047. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003. Bacterial water quality 

standards for recreational waters (freshwater and marine waters): status report. Report EPA823-R-03-008. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2004. 305(b) Lists/assessment unit 

information year 2004. Office of Water, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. Available at 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/w305b_report_V4.huc?p_huc=03130002&p_state=GA (last 

accessed July 2008). 

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2008. Gap analysis program. USGS, Reston, VA. 

Available at: http://gapanalysis.nbii.gov/portal/server.pt (last accessed July 2008). 

Watson, K. 2005. Avian conservation implementation plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 

cooperation with the Kennesaw Mountain Resource Management Staff of the NPS and Bird 

Conservation Partners. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 

Zubricki, B. 1993. Water resources monitoring study plan – Kennesaw Mountain National 

Battlefield Park. NPS, Atlanta, GA. 

65 

Appendix A. Available data for water quality conditions at or 

near the park 

Table A-1. Available data for water quality conditions at or near the park over the past ~decade, also 

indicating unacceptable conditions (not replicated; n = 1). See Figure 3 for station locations. Turb. ≡

turbidity, cond ≡ specific conductance, NOx ≡ nitrate+nitrite, FC ≡ fecal coliforms, SS ≡ total suspended 

solids, and n.a. ≡ not available. Underline and bold ≡ data in violation of state standard (GA DNR 2008d), 

except for fecal coliforms. Data for fecal coliforms were not collected with sufficient frequency to enable 

calculation of geometric means, used for the State standards for the Fishing designated use (see pp. 41-

42 of this Report). The values underlined in bold exceeded the bacteria water quality standard values 

considered for geometric means (> 200 mpn/100 mL during May – October; > 1,000 mpn/100 mL during 

November – April) and suggest degraded conditions. Blue and bold ≡ can support noxious algal blooms 

(see Table 17). Bold shaded ≡ data exceeded recommended values for acceptable water quality (see 

Table 17). Note that the U.S. EPA (2002) recommends that pH be maintained within the range 6.5-9; this 

Report, however, follows Georgia regulations (pH > 6.0). 

Date DO 

(mg/L) pH TURB (ntu) 

BOD5

(mg/L) 

COND 

(μmhos/cm)

TP

(μg/L)

TKN

(μg/L)

NOX

(μg/L) 

Fecal 

Coliforms 

(mpn/100 mL) 

TSS 

(mg/L)

John Ward Creek WR1 

19-Mar-98 10.1 7 2.4 1 123 150 200 1,500 250 1.8 

1-Jun-98 8.9 7.1 2.2 <1.0 124 150 200 1,250 2,500 1.8 

23-Jul-98 6.4 7.3 9.1 4 82 150 270 1,170 n.a. 7.2 

8-Jul-99 6.7 6.5 7.1 <1.0 101 150 520 1,020 4,400 23.4 

16-Feb-00 9.6 7.1 2.7 1.2 123 150 550 1,310 220 4.4 

3-Jul-00 4.1 6.4 2.7 1 110 100 570 330 300 2.4 

31-Oct-00 5.5 7.3 1.1 1 130 100 300 490 1,872 1.4 

21-Mar-01 11.2 7.2 2.4 <1.0 165 50 670 1,460 200 <1.0 

18-Jun-01 7.1 7.2 2.9 1 138 50 520 1,220 1,250 <1.0 

2-Aug-01 7.2 7.3 2.7 <1.0 133 50 700 1,220 700 <1.0 

7-Nov-01 7.9 6.8 1.3 1 145 50 540 410 250 1.4 

27-Feb-02 12.4 6.7 3.1 1 116 50 940 n.a. 33 1.3 

10-Jun-02 6.8 6.7 2.1 1 141 50 260 810 650 <1.0 

20-Aug-02 5.7 6.5 2.7 1 118 50 700 200 1,050 <1.0 

14-Nov-02 8.7 6.8 2 1 138 50 280 990 300 <1.0 

19-Feb-03 10.2 6.8 1.9 1.2 133 50 330 1,480 1,250 <1.0 

5-May-03 7.2 6.9 2 1 137 50 480 1,170 3,000 1.9 

9-Sep-03 7.2 6.9 1.2 1 123 50 1,080 1,320 475 1.5 

2-Dec-03 9.7 6.7 1.4 1 129 50 1,020 1,310 50 <1.0 

4-Mar-04 8.4 6.5 1.3 1 127 50 710 1,190 140 2.2 
66 

Table A-1. (Continued). 

Date DO 

(mg/L) pH TURB (ntu) 

BOD5

(mg/L) 

COND 

(μmhos/cm)

TP 

(μg/L)

TKN

(μg/L)

NOX

(μg/L) 

Fecal 

Coliforms 

(mpn/100 mL)

TSS 

(mg/L)

26-May-04 6.5 6.9 2.2 1 125 50 270 1,260 450 1.2 

18-Aug-04 7 6.7 1.2 1 123 50 330 1,240 600 <1.0 

27-Dec-04 10.8 6.5 1.5 1 139 50 480 1,560 750 2 

19-Apr-05 8.8 6.7 1.3 1 127 20 140 1,400 160 <1.0 

28-Jul-05 7.4 6.9 1.8 1 124 20 250 1,680 350 1.3 

15-Sep-05 7.1 7.2 1.4 1 134 20 250 1,450 1,100 <1.0 

12-Jan-06 5.5 7 1.3 1 126 20 340 1,190 20 <1.0 

5-Apr-06 8.9 6.9 1.6 1 135 <10 280 1,320 100 <1.0 

12-Jun-06 6.5 7 2.3 1 140 30 190 1,110 2,250 1.3 

18-Sep-06 7.4 7.1 1.9 1 130 20 180 1,050 n.a. 2.2 

18-Dec-06 8.5 6.7 1.8 <1.0 136 20 <100 1,220 100 <1.0 

8-Mar-07 10 6.9 1.5 1 116 <10 160 1,460 450 <1.0 

24-May-07 6.6 6.9 2.5 1 126 40 230 870 460 2 

1-Aug-07 6.4 7 1.6 1 139 20 <100 980 200 1.3 

20-Nov-07 5.7 6.8 1.5 1.8 117 20 140 480 1,450 1.3 

24-Mar-08 10.2 6.8 1.7 <1.0 142 20 120 1,450 400 1.1 

John Ward Creek WR2 

19-Mar-98 11.1 7.4 3 1.6 137 150 200 1,020 250 1.6 

1-Jun-98 8.1 7.4 3 1.1 141 150 200 970 3,000 8.2 

23-Jul-98 6.5 7 10.8 5.6 91 150 590 1,020 n.a. 8 

8-Jul-99 7.3 6.8 26 1.5 100 150 590 1,000 3,250 7.2 

16-Feb-00 10.5 7.6 6.6 2 129 150 300 1,160 1,120 1.8 

3-Jul-00 4.9 6.9 1.3 1 147 100 470 250 300 21 

31-Oct-00 7.3 7.2 8.8 1 162 100 390 200 186 2.6 

21-Mar-01 10.7 7.4 3.5 4.7 191 90 980 1,400 3,000 2 

18-Jun-01 7.9 7.2 3.2 1 157 50 1,060 950 3,350 1.8 

2-Aug-01 7.4 7.2 1.7 <1.0 166 50 1,110 870 1,000 1.7 

7-Nov-01 8.6 6.9 1 1.3 182 50 790 200 400 <1.0 

27-Feb-02 13 7.2 2.1 1 129 50 860 n.a. 460 1.4 

10-Jun-02 7.6 7.1 1.2 1 184 50 220 610 2,050 1.4 

20-Aug-02 6.8 6.9 1.4 1 118 50 1,310 200 1,700 1.2 

14-Nov-02 9.9 7.1 4.4 1 152 50 200 1,060 400 12 

19-Feb-03 11.6 7.1 2.6 1.9 142 50 650 1,360 200 1.4 

5-May-03 6.5 7.4 2 1 152 50 400 990 350 <1.0 

9-Sep-03 8.1 7.2 1.2 1 151 50 1,380 1,070 425 <1.0 

2-Dec-03 11.1 6.8 3.1 1 137 50 840 1,160 50 1.6 

4-Mar-04 9.6 6.6 1.6 1 139 50 1,110 1,010 100 1.2 
67 

Table A-1. (Continued). 

Date DO 

(mg/L) pH TURB (ntu) 

BOD5

(mg/L) 

COND 

(μmhos/cm)

TP 

(μg/L)

TKN

(μg/L)

NOX

(μg/L) 

Fecal 

Coliforms 

(mpn/100 mL)

TSS 

(mg/L)

26-May-04 7.7 6.9 1.3 1 149 50 680 1,050 900 <1.0 

18-Aug-04 8.4 7.3 1.3 1 143 50 380 1,040 500 <1.0 

27-Dec-04 12 6.5 2.1 1 150 50 510 1,720 200 1.6 

19-Apr-05 9.3 6.9 1.7 1 143 20 140 1,230 180 <1.0 

28-Jul-05 7.4 7 1.4 1 148 20 250 1,350 350 1.4 

15-Sep-05 7.8 7.2 0.9 1 159 20 250 1,150 500 <1.0 

12-Jan-06 8 7.4 1.8 1 131 30 470 950 1,140 <1.0 

5-Apr-06 9.8 7.2 2 n.a. 145 <10 370 1,040 100 <1.0 

12-Jun-06 7.7 7.4 1.9 1 157 30 260 750 1,100 1.9 

18-Sep-06 7.7 7.4 1.5 1 147 20 220 600 n.a. <1.0 

18-Dec-06 10.4 7.1 1.3 <1.0 147 20 140 820 850 <1.0 

8-Mar-07 10.7 7.3 1.6 1 125 <10 340 1,130 300 <1.0 

24-May-07 8.1 7.3 1.6 1 149 30 150 590 860 5.4 

1-Aug-07 7.4 7.4 1.3 1 148 30 250 640 600 1.2 

20-Nov-07 8.5 7.2 1.3 1.2 149 20 190 50 400 <1.0 

24-Mar-08 11.3 7.2 1.6 <1.0 166 20 120 1,260 1,000 <1.0 

John Ward Creek WR3 

19-Mar-98 9.8 7.1 4.5 1 96 150 200 450 950 3 

1-Jun-98 7.3 7.1 5.6 <1.0 99 150 200 270 1,600 4 

23-Jul-98 6.7 6.8 13.8 2.7 89 150 220 290 n.a. 21.2 

8-Jul-99 6.6 6.5 17 1.8 79 150 1,260 420 n.a. 7.6 

16-Feb-00 9.6 7.1 8.8 1.8 92 150 250 60 200 3.8 

3-Jul-00 5.8 6.6 6.4 1 112 100 350 200 300 3.6 

31-Oct-00 6.8 7.2 2.4 1 135 100 550 200 709 1.8 

27-Mar-01 10.6 7 4.5 1.3 130 50 350 640 450 1.6 

18-Jun-01 7.1 7.2 5.6 1 117 50 720 380 850 2.2 

2-Aug-01 7.1 7.2 6.2 <1.0 125 50 950 360 300 2.3 

7-Nov-01 9 6.9 2.8 1 131 50 630 200 150 1.2 

27-Feb-02 11.3 7.2 4.8 1 107 50 850 --- 140 2 

10-Jun-02 6.7 7.2 7.8 1 120 50 340 200 200 8.8 

20-Aug-02 5.9 6.9 6.3 1 111 50 630 200 950 4.6 

14-Nov-02 9.4 7.1 5.2 1 109 50 1,090 450 250 2.4 

19-Feb-03 10.7 7.2 4.1 1.6 101 50 430 670 100 3.3 

5-May-03 5 7.2 5 1 111 50 420 420 500 4.6 

9-Sep-03 7.7 7.4 1 1 103 50 1,570 440 250 2.9 

2-Dec-03 10.6 6.8 5 1 104 50 1,040 470 550 2.8 

4-Mar-04 9.1 6.7 4 1 102 50 1,130 480 140 3.4 
68 

Table A-1. (Continued). 

Date DO 

(mg/L) pH TURB (ntu) 

BOD5

(mg/L) 

COND 

(μmhos/cm)

TP 

(μg/L)

TKN

(μg/L)

NOX

(μg/L) 

Fecal 

Coliforms 

(mpn/100 mL)

TSS 

(mg/L)

26-May-04 7.4 7 6.2 1 109 50 510 430 250 5 

18-Aug-04 7 7.3 4.5 1 108 50 530 350 550 3.2 

27-Dec-04 11.7 6.6 4.5 1 111 50 490 720 250 3.2 

19-Apr-05 8.7 7 5.2 1 107 20 <100 550 100 2.8 

28-Jul-05 6.4 7.1 6.8 1 110 20 250 600 400 5.8 

15-Sep-05 6.8 7.3 5.1 1 118 20 250 460 100 3 

12-Jan-06 7.6 7.2 5 1 99 20 390 440 60 2.7 

5-Apr-06 9.2 7.2 5.2 1 109 <10 330 460 300 2.7 

12-Jun-06 6.6 7.2 9.8 1 115 20 220 330 450 5.6 

18-Sep-06 6.2 7.2 6.5 1 109 20 240 210 --- 3.4 

18-Dec-06 9.5 7.5 6.6 <1.0 117 <10 230 290 300 2.1 

8-Mar-07 9.6 7.3 5.3 1 95 20 350 480 50 3 

24-May-07 6.2 7.2 10.4 1 118 20 220 260 116 2.2 

1-Aug-07 6.2 7.4 8.4 1 118 20 280 260 600 3.3 

20-Nov-07 6.2 7.1 9.1 2.4 116 20 310 60 200 3.8 

24-Mar-08 9.8 7.2 5.2 <1.0 117 20 140 450 250 3 

John Ward Creek WR4 

19-Mar-98 9.9 7.1 3 1 137 150 200 340 350 7.4 

1-Jun-98 7.2 7.1 9.9 1.1 91 150 200 210 1,300 13.5 

23-Jul-98 6.4 6.8 22.8 1.3 90 150 550 390 --- 64 

8-Jul-99 6.6 6.5 16 1.6 77 150 830 320 --- 10 

16-Feb-00 9.7 7.1 14.2 1.7 78 150 310 20 210 10.6 

3-Jul-00 5.5 7 17.3 1 95 100 510 200 1,600 12.2 

31-Oct-00 7.1 7.2 5.5 1 122 100 450 200 67 4 

27-Mar-01 10.5 6.8 7.1 1.4 112 50 340 530 200 2.1 

18-Jun-01 7.8 7.2 8.2 1 100 550 310 300 5 

2-Aug-01 7.1 7.2 9.9 <1.0 114 50 720 270 450 4.2 

7-Nov-01 8.6 6.9 6 1.5 120 50 750 200 100 4.4 

27-Feb-02 10.7 7.1 5 1 107 50 260 --- 680 2.6 

10-Jun-02 6.5 7.1 13.1 1 119 50 410 200 200 8.2 

20-Aug-02 6.2 6.9 8.4 1 103 50 670 200 1,150 5.2 

14-Nov-02 9.6 7.1 7.3 1 102 50 1,420 330 50 3.6 

19-Feb-03 11.1 7.1 5.5 1.4 95 50 450 510 50 4 

5-May-03 8 7.2 7.1 1 101 50 420 300 50 3.2 

9-Sep-03 7.7 7.3 9.1 1 94 50 1,330 320 325 5.4 

2-Dec-03 10.1 6.8 8.1 1 100 50 1,070 410 100 4.6 

4-Mar-04 8.9 6.7 5.3 1 92 50 950 370 340 3.4 
69 

Table A-1. (Continued). 

Date DO 

(mg/L) pH TURB (ntu) 

BOD5

(mg/L) 

COND 

(μmhos/cm)

TP 

(μg/L)

TKN

(μg/L)

NOX

(μg/L) 

Fecal 

Coliforms 

(mpn/100 mL)

TSS 

(mg/L)

26-May-04 6.6 7 7.9 1 100 50 460 280 50 5.2 

18-Aug-04 6.5 7.2 4.2 1 91 50 430 220 400 2.7 

27-Dec-04 11.8 6.6 5.5 1 101 50 380 560 150 3.6 

19-Apr-05 8.8 7 7.7 1 98 20 <100 460 160 6 

28-Jul-05 6.8 7.2 18.3 1 99 30 250 490 400 15.4 

15-Sep-05 7.4 7.3 5.5 1 110 20 250 340 100 2.4 

12-Jan-06 7.4 7.1 6.7 1 92 20 460 420 40 3.8 

5-Apr-06 9.1 7.2 6.4 1.6 99 <10 330 370 300 3.7 

12-Jun-06 6.5 7.1 8.2 1 106 20 220 270 500 3.8 

18-Sep-06 5.9 7 8.9 1 98 20 260 220 --- 4.6 

18-Dec-06 8.8 6.9 13.8 1.1 110 20 290 250 200 5.5 

8-Mar-07 9.1 7.2 7.1 1 88 20 310 440 50 3.9 

24-May-07 5.6 7.1 11.2 1 108 30 210 270 107 3.8 

1-Aug-07 5 7.2 9.6 1 111 20 300 250 350 3.4 

20-Nov-07 5.7 7.9 8.5 1.6 103 20 270 80 50 3.8 

24-Mar-08 9.6 7.2 8.9 <1.0 109 30 170 410 100 5.5 

Noses Creek NS1 

30-Mar-98 8.3 7.1 9.4 1.1 85 150 310 200 200 14.4 

28-May-98 5.6 7 9 3.4 118 200 1,916 260 12,000 11.9 

23-Sep-99 7.8 6.5 4.1 1 100 150 400 200 400 4.8 

8-Jun-00 7.6 6.7 22.3 1 97 100 590 240 100 2.4 

5-Oct-00 8.1 7.2 6.4 1 117 100 210 300 50 2.3 

29-Jan-01 11 7.4 6.2 1 84 50 390 370 100 3.4 

24-Apr-01 8 7.2 15.3 1 122 50 290 300 180 10.6 

28-Jun-01 7.1 7.5 15.4 2.5 113 100 1,430 400 51,600 8.4 

17-Sep-01 8 --- 6.6 <1.0 107 50 510 200 300 4.4 

1-Jan-02 11 6.8 5.9 1.3 100 50 400 350 50 2.8 

17-Apr-02 7.6 6.8 8.4 1 117 50 710 180 300 5.1 

25-Jun-02 6.1 6.8 7 1.1 173 50 460 200 200 3.7 

9-Sep-02 4.2 6.9 5.2 1.9 123 50 570 200 250 28 

16-Dec-02 11.2 7 4.9 1 --- 50 350 240 2 2 

20-Feb-03 10.4 7 5.2 1 85 50 380 250 50 4.1 

10-Jun-03 7.7 6.9 8.2 1 102 50 1,260 220 150 6.7 

19-Aug-03 6.9 6.6 9.2 1.1 105 50 1,590 240 350 4.2 

12-Nov-03 8.8 6.8 7.1 1 116 50 810 200 100 3.3 

5-Apr-04 9.8 7.3 6.3 1 101 50 710 270 3,460 3.9 

23-Jul-04 7.2 6.8 4.6 1 108 50 340 320 200 1.4 
70 

Table A-1. (Continued). 

Date DO 

(mg/L) pH TURB (ntu) 

BOD5

(mg/L) 

COND 

(μmhos/cm)

TP

(μg/L)

TKN

(μg/L)

NOX

(μg/L) 

Fecal 

Coliforms 

(mpn/100 mL) 

TSS 

(mg/L)

6-Oct-04 8.1 7.1 5.7 1 114 50 320 360 300 2.9 

10-Jan-05 10.7 6.7 5.1 1 98 50 200 320 250 <1.0 

18-Apr-05 8.1 6.7 4.5 1 94 <10 <100 390 100 3.2 

27-Jul-05 8.4 6.9 7.2 1 100 20 250 400 350 6.2 

22-Sep-05 7 6.9 4.9 1 124 20 250 340 300 2.3 

20-Jan-06 7.4 7.1 7.1 1 90 20 270 350 150 4.4 

11-Apr-06 9.1 7 4.7 1 99 <10 280 310 50 2.9 

10-Jul-06 7.2 7.4 4.9 <1.0 104 20 180 250 450 2.7 

10-Oct-06 7.5 7 14.4 1.1 110 20 150 80 570 6.6 

12-Jan-07 10.3 7 5.6 1 94 <10 300 330 50 2.9 

23-Apr-07 8.4 7.1 24.1 1.2 108 20 2,160 210 142 16.6 

10-Jul-07 5.7 7.2 5.5 1 124 20 270 180 250 2.8 

10-Jan-08 9.2 6.9 4.6 1.3 114 20 180 380 50 3.9 
Appen

subst

dix B. 

ances –

Water q

 stream

uality s

s and la

71 

tandard

kes (GA

s in Ge

 DNR 2

orgia fo

008c). 

r toxic 

 
72 
73 
74 
75 

Appendix C. Criteria for classification of surface waters as 

meeting or not meeting their designated use(s) (GA DNR 

2008b). 
76 

 
The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and 

other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated 

Island Communities. 

NPS 352/106195, December 2010 
National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150 

Fort Collins, CO 80525 

www.nature.nps.gov 

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM