National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Water Resources Stewardship Report 

Monocacy National Battlefield 

Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRTR—2007/048 

 

 
ON THE COVER 

Photographs: Monocacy National Battlefield taken by NPS National Capital Region Network staff 
Water Resources Stewardship Report 

Monocacy National Battlefield 

Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRTR—2007/048 

Don Weeks 

David Vana-Miller 

National Park Service 

Water Resources Division 

P.O. Box 25287 

Denver, Colorado 80225 

Marian Norris 

National Park Service 

Inventory and Monitoring Program 

National Capital Region Network 

4598 MacArthur Blvd., NW 

Washington, DC 20007 

Andrew Banasik 

Monocacy National Battlefield 

4801 Urbana Pike 

Frederick, MD 21704 

August 2007 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Natural Resources Program Center 

Fort Collins, Colorado 

i 
The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and 

applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management 

of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation 

and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information 

is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, 

and is designed and published in a professional manner. 

The Natural Resources Technical Reports series is used to disseminate the peer-reviewed results 

of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of 

science and the achievement of the National Park Service’s mission. The reports provide 

contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals 

because of page limitations. Current examples of such reports include the results of research that 

addresses natural resource management issues; natural resource inventory and monitoring 

activities; resource assessment reports; scientific literature reviews; and peer reviewed 

proceedings of technical workshops, conferences, or symposia.

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations and data in this report are solely 

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the U.S. Department of 

the Interior, NPS. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute 

endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. 

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

available as long as the supply lasts. This report is also available from the NPS Water Resources 

Division technical reports website on the internet, or by sending a request to the address on the 

back cover. (http://www.nature.nps.gov/water/wrdpub.cfm) 

Please cite this publication as: 

Weeks, D., D. Vana-Miller, M. Norris and A. Banasik. 2007. Water Resources Stewardship 

Report, Monocacy National Battlefield. Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRTR—2007/048. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

NPS D-75, August 2007 

ii
Contents 

Page 

Contents.........................................................................................................................................iii

Figures............................................................................................................................................ vi 

Tables............................................................................................................................................ vii

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... ix

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1

National Park Service Planning Framework....................................................................... 1 

Water Resources Stewardship Report Objectives............................................................... 3

Water Resources Stewardship Report and NEPA .............................................................. 3 

National Battlefield Location and Demography............................................................................. 5 

Management Zones and Desired Conditions.................................................................................. 9

Water Resources Goals..................................................................................................... 10

Description of Natural Resources................................................................................................. 11 

Climate.............................................................................................................................. 11 

Physiography..................................................................................................................... 11 

Geology............................................................................................................................. 12 

Soils................................................................................................................................... 14 

Hydrology ......................................................................................................................... 14 

Watersheds............................................................................................................ 14 

Surface Water........................................................................................................ 15

Rivers and Streams ................................................................................... 15

Wetlands and Riparian Areas............................................................................................ 15

Ground Water.................................................................................................................... 20 

Water Quality.................................................................................................................... 20 

iii
Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 21 

Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 22 

Flora ...................................................................................................................... 22 

Fauna..................................................................................................................... 22 

National Capital Region Network, Inventory and Monitoring Program .......................... 23

National Battlefield Land Use .......................................................................................... 23

Fundamental and Important Water Resources.............................................................................. 25

National Battlefield Purpose and Significance ................................................................. 25

Indicators and Target Values............................................................................................ 25 

Chemical Indicators and Target Values............................................................................ 26

Water Temperature ............................................................................................... 26 

Bacteria ................................................................................................................. 27 

Dissolved Oxygen................................................................................................. 27 

pH.......................................................................................................................... 27 

Acid-Neutralizing Capacity .................................................................................. 28 

Nutrients................................................................................................................ 28 

Physical Indicators and Target Values.............................................................................. 29

Habitat Evaluation ................................................................................................ 29 

Stream Classification ............................................................................................ 31 

Aquifer Characteristics......................................................................................... 31 

Biological Indicators and Target Values........................................................................... 32

Water Resource Evaluation........................................................................................................... 35 

Current Condition vs Target Value................................................................................... 35 

Chemical Indicators.............................................................................................. 35 

Biological Indicators............................................................................................. 37 

iv
Physical Indicators................................................................................................ 38 

Stressors........................................................................................................................................ 41 

Non-Point Source Pollution .............................................................................................. 41

Crop Production.................................................................................................... 41 

Livestock Production ............................................................................................ 41 

Transportation and Utility Corridors .................................................................... 42 

Point Source Pollution ...................................................................................................... 43

Wastewater Treatement Systems.......................................................................... 43 

Underground Storage Tanks and Salvage Yard.................................................... 43 

Hazardous Waste Spills........................................................................................ 44 

Land Use Influences on Aquatic Habitat.......................................................................... 44

Stream Morphology .............................................................................................. 44 

Sedimentation ....................................................................................................... 44 

Riparian Buffers.................................................................................................... 45 

Water Demands..................................................................................................... 45 

Non-native Plants.................................................................................................. 45 

Strategies....................................................................................................................................... 47

Water Resource Goal: Chemical integrity of park waters (surface and ground waters) is 

improved and/or maintained to support all native life and meet or exceed designated use 

standards ........................................................................................................................... 47 

Inventory and Monitoring:.................................................................................... 47 

Riparian Restoration and Protection ..................................................................... 48 

Hazardous Material Spill Prevention and Response............................................. 49 

Cultural Landscape Management ......................................................................... 50 

Other Management Strategies............................................................................... 53 

v
Water Resource Goal: Hydrologic integrity of park waters (surface and ground waters) is 

improved and/or maintained to support natural geomorphic processes of fluvial and 

aquifer systems and to support native life......................................................................... 54 

Inventory and Monitoring..................................................................................... 54 

Water Rights. ........................................................................................................ 57 

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

Figures 

Page 

Figure 1. The “new” NPS framework for planning and decision making..................................... 2 

Figure 2. Monocacy National Battlefield location map................................................................. 6 

Figure 3. Monocacy National Battlefield existing farmsteads and management zones ................ 7 

Figure 4. Monthly mean precipitation and air temperature range, Frederick, Maryland............. 11 

Figure 5. Physiographic Provinces in Maryland........................................................................... 12 

Figure 6. Monocacy National Battlefield geologic map.............................................................. 13 

Figure 7. a) Location of Monocacy Watershed. b) Maryland Drainage Basins .......................... 16 

Figure 8. Monocacy River, mean daily stream flow (2004-2007)................................................ 17 

Figure 9. Stream and spring locations, Monocacy National Battlefield....................................... 18 

Figure 10. Monocacy National Battlefield sample locations....................................................... 36 

vi
Tables 

Page 

Table 1. Monocacy National Battlefield Management Zones and Desired Conditions for natural 

resources ........................................................................................................................................ 9 

Table 2. Monocacy National Battlefield Water Resource Goals................................................. 10 

Table 3. Importance of Riparian Buffers ..................................................................................... 19

Table 4. Qualitative habitat metrics used to assess stream condition........................................... 31 

Table 5. The new FIBI metrics and threshold values for streams in the Warmwater Highlands 

classification in Maryland............................................................................................................ 33 

Table 6. The new BIBI metrics and threshold values for streams in the Combined Highlands 

classification in Maryland............................................................................................................ 33 

Table 7. Narrative descriptions of stream biological integrity associated with categories of the 

IBI scores ..................................................................................................................................... 33 

Table 8. Water quality samples not meeting established target value(s) in 2004........................ 35 

Table 9. Percentage of water quality samples not meeting established target values(s) (2004-

2006) ............................................................................................................................................ 36 

Table 10. Percentage of water quality samples not meeting established target value(s) (2005-

2006) ............................................................................................................................................ 37 

Table 11. Index scores and target values for the five FIBI and BIBI sites at MONO................. 38 

Table 12. BIBI metric scores for MONO sites ............................................................................ 38 

Table 13. Physical Habitat Index scores and target values for MONO sites sampled by 

Hilderbrand et al. (2005).............................................................................................................. 38 

Table 14. Qualitative suite of Habitat Metrics for MONO sites................................................... 39 

Table 15. Mean and percent effectiveness of riparian buffers at removing nitrogen .................. 49 

Table 16. Rosgen (1996) assessment levels for stream classification ......................................... 55 

vii
viii
Executive Summary

This Water Resources Stewardship Report is one of several planning products offered by the NPS Water 

Resources Division that assist national park units with achieving or maintaining water resource integrity. 

Water resources at Monocacy National Battlefield (MONO) play a vital role in the historic 

landscape, and should be managed to protect the character and quality of the national 

battlefield’s significant cultural resources and to preserve important interpretive views. MONO 

is also responsible for maintaining natural processes within the battlefield boundaries, which is 

supported by several laws and policies such as the National Park Service Organic Act (1916) and 

National Park Service Management Policies (2006). 

With the completion of MONO’s General Management Plan (GMP), the national battlefield will 

build from the GMP’s desired conditions for natural and cultural resources, determining the 

health of those resources and defining approaches (strategies) that move the resources toward the 

desired condition. This Water Resources Stewardship Report assists MONO with this process, 

defining water resource goals supporting the GMP desired conditions, evaluating water resource 

health, and identifying stressors negatively impacting the aquatic environments (streams, 

aquifers, wetlands, etc.). Strategies are then listed that begin to move MONO’s aquatic 

environments towards the water resource goals and ultimately towards the desired condition. 

Water Resource Goals 

Building from the MONO General Management Plan’s desired condition for the Natural 

Resources Zone (see below), two water resource goals were developed that support the desired 

condition. 

Monocacy National Battlefield Desired Condition (National Park Service, 2007):

“Natural resources would be maintained in as natural a state as possible, given 

cultural resource preservation needs. This would include maintaining riparian 

buffers for water quality, reestablishing native species, and controlling exotic 

vegetation. Any existing cultural and natural resources in this zone would be 

managed according to NPS policies, with minimal tolerance for disturbance.” 

 Monocacy National Battlefield Water Resource Goals 

Goal A: Chemical integrity of park waters (surface and ground waters) is improved and/or maintained 

to support all native life and to meet or exceed designated use standards.

Goal B: Hydrologic integrity of park waters (surface and ground waters) is improved and/or maintained 

to support natural geomorphic processes of fluvial and aquifer systems and to support native life.

ix
These water resource goals should be applied across all five management zones at MONO since 

influences to water resources (e.g., steams and aquifers) in one zone can impact water resources 

in another zone. 

Indicators, Target Values, and Water Resource Health 

Indicators were selected to provide a barometer of health for MONO’s water resources. Target 

values were established for the respective indicator parameters to distinguish between acceptable 

and unacceptable function of natural systems. These indicators provide a cost-effective way for 

park managers to monitor progress in maintaining or achieving target values that meet the water 

resource goal(s) and ultimately the national battlefield’s desired conditions for natural resources. 

With indicator parameters and target values established, the condition of MONO’s water 

resources was evaluated from existing monitoring information and a list of strategies was 

generated, based on resource conditions and stressors. Implementation of appropriate strategies 

will ultimately move MONO’s water resources (surface water and ground water) and associated 

environments (wetlands, riparian areas, floodplains, etc.) towards the established target values 

for the respective indicator parameters. 

The indicators and respective target values selected to assess water quality in the national 

battlefield are listed below. The percent of samples exceeding the target value are also listed, 

with impairment found in all indicators except for acid neutralizing capacity. 

Indicators Target Value Percent not 

meeting Target 

Value 

Number of 

samples 

Water Temperature ≤ 75oF (23.9°C) 17% 178 

Dissolved Oxygen ≥ 5.0 mg/L 36% 166 

pH 6.5 – 8.0 37% 171 

Acid Neutralizing Capacity > 600 μeq/L 0% 44 

Nitrate (interim target value) < 3.0 mg/L 32% 182 

Nitrite (interim target value) < 0.010 mg/L 60% 5 

Ammonia (interim target value) < 0.05 mg/L 36% 22 

Orthophosphate (interim target value) < 0.010 mg/L 60% 5 

x
The indicators and respective target values selected to assess biological health of four streams in 

the national battlefield are listed below using the Fish Index of Biological Integrity (FIBI) and 

the Benthic Index of Biological Integrity (BIBI). The condition of both fish and benthic fauna 

ranged from “very poor” to “fair” (Southerland et al., 2005a). 

Stream Fish Index of Biological 

Integrity (condition) 

Target 

Value 

Benthic Index of 

Biological Integrity 

(condition) 

Target 

Value 

“Old” Visitor Center Creek 2.7 - 3.0 (poor - fair) ≥ 4 2.1 - 2.6 (poor) ≥ 4 

Harding’s Run 1.3 (very poor) ≥ 4 2.8 (poor) ≥ 4 

Thomas Farm Creek No fish ≥ 4 1.9 (very poor) ≥ 4 

Bush Creek 3.6 (fair) ≥ 4 3.4 (fair) ≥ 4 

The indicators and respective target values selected to assess physical condition of four streams 

in the national battlefield are listed below using the Physical Habitat Index (PHI). Based on this 

evaluation, the quality of aquatic habitat ranged from “severely degraded” to “partially 

degraded” (Paul et al., 2002). 

Stream Physical Habitat Index Target Value 

“Old” Visitor Center Creek 69.6 – 75.9 (partially degraded) ≥ 81 

Harding’s Run 56.6 (degraded) ≥ 81 

Thomas Farm Creek 30.8 (severely degraded) ≥ 81 

Bush Creek 74.1 (partially degraded) ≥ 81 

Stressors 

The stressors contributing to degradation of MONO’s water resources include: 

 Influences from crop and livestock management (e.g., bacteria and nutrient pollution, 

erosion and sedimentation) within and outside the national battlefield boundary. 

 Lack of adequate riparian buffer along streams inside and outside the national battlefield 

degrading aquatic habitat (e.g., elevated stream temperatures, reduction of physical 

habitat, elevated erosion and sedimentation, reduction in pollutant filtration). 

 Influences from transportation corridors (railway, highway, and county roads) including 

runoff pollutants (e.g., chlorides) and potential hazardous material spills. 

 Failures in wastewater treatment systems, including septic systems, that impact surface 

and ground water resources (elevated bacteria and nutrients). 

 Leaking underground storage tanks contaminating shallow aquifers (petroleum 

contamination). 

 Increased regional population growth and development increasing water demands on 

surface and ground water resources and increasing impervious surfaces that increase 

runoff. 

xi
Strategies 

The following strategies work towards improving water resource data collection and begin to 

address the known stressors, moving MONO’s water resources towards the water resource goals, 

and ultimately towards the desired condition. 

Water Quality Monitoring Program 

MONO and National Capitol Region Network (NCRN) staff should coordinate sampling efforts 

(water quality parameters, sample methodologies, and sample locations) between their respective 

water quality programs at the national battlefield (Conneely, 2004; National Park Service, 2005). 

This would enable the data generated from both programs to be used together for trend analyses. 

Sampling frequencies should also compliment each other to maximize efficiencies in seasonal 

evaluations and sampling costs. 

Nutrient Target Values 

Since there are no state criteria for nutrients, it is recommended that nutrient samples be 

concurrently collected with biological assessments in MONO to examine the statistical 

relationship between nutrient concentrations and the assessment endpoints, such as the fish and 

benthic indices of biotic integrity. Once clear nutrient relationships can be correlated with water 

resource health, park-specific numerical criteria can be determined that support the goals for 

MONO’s water resources. Until this has been completed, interim nutrient target values have 

been provided based on regional data. 

Riparian Restoration and Protection 

The national battlefield is encouraged to maximize riparian buffers along stream corridors. 

Riparian stream buffers are an effective solution to reduce sedimentation and stream erosion, 

filter pollutants, and maintaining natural stream temperatures. These riparian buffers must be 

established in keeping with MONO’s historic landscape (National Park Service, 2005). 

This report presents some of the latest information on stream responses to various riparian 

buffers, describing benefits from various riparian types (i.e., grass vs forest buffers) and riparian 

widths. Within the context of preserving the historic landscape at MONO, maximum benefits 

from riparian buffers to improve water quality and reduce erosion should be the objective. 

An approach, thought to maximize nutrient removal capacity of buffers to protect streams in 

agricultural use, involves a three-zone system (Schultz et al. 1995, National Resource 

Conservation Service, 2003) characterized by a zone of grasses and forbs immediately next to 

the area of disturbance, a middle zone of shrubs, and a zone of trees nearest to the stream 

channel. In theory, sediments and nutrients in surface runoff flowing from agricultural fields are 

intercepted first by the grass zone, while nutrients entering deeper subsurface pathways are taken 

up by shrub and tree roots (Natural Research Council, 2002). 

xii
Hazardous Material Spill Prevention and Response 

Roadways and railways cross through the national battlefield and are used to transport a variety 

of products that include hazardous materials. A hazardous material spill along these 

transportation corridors could have serious consequences to the battlefield’s aquatic resources. 

Along with these external threats to hazardous materials, MONO manages hazardous materials 

for internal park operations (i.e., pesticides, paint, gasoline, etc.). These materials should be 

managed (following regulated containment and disposal procedures) to minimize potential 

impacts to the national battlefield’s environment. 

A Spill Contingency Plan (SCP) for the national battlefield should be prepared. The SCP should 

outline response procedures for small spills that can be addressed locally and identify 

notification and response procedures for larger spills that require immediate additional 

assistance. This includes coordination with the Maryland Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, U.S. EPA, Maryland Department of the Environmental, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, and other appropriate entities. 

Cultural Landscape Management 

Agricultural and livestock activities maintain the historic agrarian character of the national 

battlefield’s landscape. A management challenge for the National Park Service is maintaining 

the agrarian character while protecting natural resources. Agriculture encompasses 

approximately 760 acres within with 1355 acres of fee simple ownership. 

An agricultural Special Use Permit is issued to the farmer for a 5-year period, which outlines 

conditions placed on the operation of the farms. Some of these conditions include setting the 

stocking rate (number of livestock per acre), establishing and preserving riparian buffers, 

controlling noxious weeds, and requiring pesticide use applications and annual use logs. 

Per Maryland state law, each farmer is required to prepare and follow a Nutrient Management 

Plan. This plan analyzes the crop yield and nutrient requirements and levels and availability of 

nutrients in the soil to balance crop nutrient requirements and the amount and type of fertilizer 

that should be applied to the land. 

Crop Management: 

Pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers should be used conservatively inside the boundaries of the 

national battlefield. The quantity, application methods, and timing of these chemical 

applications can influence offsite contamination of aquatic environments. Occasional pesticide 

sampling of MONO’s water resources is recommended during peak application periods and 

runoff events to evaluate efficiencies of the applications and best management practices that 

mitigate offsite migration. Coordination is also recommended with CSX Railroad and the 

Maryland Department of Transportation on herbicide use practices. Minimizing herbicide 

application should be encouraged whenever possible. 

xiii
Developing procedures to work with Soil Conservation Districts regarding agricultural impacts is 

also recommended (Frederick County, 2004). This would include erosion control, crop rotation, 

nutrient management, soil conservation, and integrated pest management (National Park Service, 

2005). 

Best management practices recommended by the Chesapeake Bay Program (2006a) that reduce 

or eliminate soil loss, prevent runoff, and provide for the proper application rates of nutrients to 

cropland include: 

• Vegetated buffer strips at the edge of crop fields; 

• Conservation tillage that leaves at least 30% of the field surface covered with crop 

residue after planting is completed and involves reduced or minimum tillage; 

• Strip cropping, where alternate strips of row crop or small grain and hay are planted in 

the same field. There are three main types: contour strip cropping, field strip cropping 

and buffer strip cropping; 

• Soil conservation and water quality planning; 

• Nutrient management planning; and 

• Stream bank fencing. 

Livestock Management: 

Two of the three tributaries that empty into the Monocacy River flow through pastures where 

livestock have access to the streams. Impacts from livestock include increases in nutrient and 

bacteria levels, as well as sedimentation due to bank erosion from unrestricted cattle access 

(Conneely, 2004). 

Animal waste management includes manure storage structures, runoff controls for barnyards, 

guttering and nutrient management. These systems address the handling, storage, transport and 

utilization of animal waste as fertilizer on cropland (Chesapeake Bay Program, 2006a). 

Consideration for constructing wetlands within impacted drainages is recommended to assist in 

remediation of nutrient runoff from agricultural lands in MONO. Harding’s Run at the Baker 

Farm is one potential wetlands site for consideration. 

Fencing cattle from direct contact with streams will also improve water quality while protecting 

important riparian habitat that will further remediate contaminated runoff. 

Stream Channel Morphology 

MONO should classify its streams on the basis of channel morphology (physical parameters), 

providing an understanding of “stream health” and answering the questions, “Is the stream 

morphology (physical characteristics) impaired?...and if so, why?” 

One recommended stream classification method is described in Rosgen (1996). In this method, a 

combination of morphological variables important for different scales of analysis from coarse to 

xiv
very fine resolutions are used to create the hierarchy for defining stream morphology. These 

four assessment levels for stream classification are outlined below. 

 Rosgen (1996) assessment levels for stream classification. 

Level 1: describe the geomorphic characteristics that result from the integration of basin relief, landform 

and valley morphology. The dimension, pattern, form, and profile of rivers are used to delineate 

geomorphic types at a coarse-scale. 

Level 2: The channel entrenchment, dimensions, patterns, profile, and boundary materials are quantified 

and described by discreet categories of stream types. 

Level 3: Describes the existing condition of the stream as it relates to its stability, response potential, and 

function. At this level, additional field parameters are evaluated that influence the stream state (e.g., 

riparian vegetation, sediment supply, flow regime, debris occurrence, depositional features, channel 

stability, bank erodibility, and direct channel disturbances). Level 3 analyses are useful as a basis for 

integrating companion studies such as fish habitat indices and riparian surveys. 

Level 4: Verifies stream process relationships inferred from the preceding assessments. The objective is 

to establish empirical relationships for use in prediction. The developed empirical relationships are 

specific to individual stream types for a given state, and enable extrapolation to other similar reaches for 

which the Level 4 data is not available. 

Sediment 

Sedimentation derived from nonpoint sources is the major contributor to the Monocacy River’s 

water quality problems (Monocacy Scenic River Local Advisory Board, 1990). Sediment 

“pollution” is the number one impairment of streams nationwide (Southerland et al., 2005b). 

Best management practices that reduce sediment inputs into aquatic environments include 

riparian buffers, restrictive cattle access to streams, and proper hiking trail designs. For example, 

hiking trails should minimize impacts on steep slopes, highly erodible soils, hydric soils, 

wetlands, and floodplains (National Park Service, 2005). 

Floodplain Management 

Floodplains exist in the national battlefield where there are perennial and intermittent streams. 

Some of MONO’s historic structures are located within these floodplains and can be at risk to 

damage from flooding (National Park Service, 2007). 

In managing floodplains, the NPS will (1) manage for the preservation of floodplain values; (2) 

minimize potentially hazardous conditions associated with flooding; and (3) comply with the 

NPS Organic Act and all other federal laws and executive orders (i.e., Executive Order 11988: 

Floodplain Management, 2006 Park Management Policies) related to the management of 

activities in flood-prone areas (National Park Service, 2006). 

When it is not practicable to locate or relocate development to a site outside the floodplain, the 

NPS is instructed to prepare and approve a statement of findings in accordance with procedures 

described in Director’s Order 77-2 (Floodplain Management). Requirements for development in 

floodplains are contained in Executive Order 11988 (National Park Service, 2006). 

xv
Aquifer Characterization 

Elevation of the local ground water table(s) (potentiometric surface) in the immediate area of 

MONO should be established to document ground water flow directions, seasonal fluctuations 

and overall trends in ground water levels. With increasing development pressures in the region 

and recent droughts, it is important for MONO to collect baseline data on the aquifer(s) that 

recharge the national battlefield’s springs and streams and supply the operational needs (potable 

water supply) at MONO. The direction and velocity of ground water flow will assist in the 

identification of threatened areas and point source pollution. 

MONO should use the existing ground water wells in the national battlefield and add to that 

network of wells (installation of piezometers), if necessary. It will be important to know the 

“screened’ intervals of the wells in order to correlate the measurement to the appropriate aquifer 

(shallow vs deep aquifer). From the water level data, ground water flow directions can be 

determined for the respective aquifers. Aquifer tests (slug tests) can define hydraulic 

conductivity and flow velocities. 

Water quality samples from existing wells and springs should continue, using the surface water 

chemical parameters and target values presented in this report. For potable water supplies, 

MONO should use the U.S. E.P.A. drinking water standards (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2007) as target values. 

Wetlands Inventory 

Wetlands within the national battlefield boundary should be delineated, building from the 

National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Wetlands may be missed on the NWI maps since the aerial surveys do not typically capture small 

wetlands (< 0.5 acre) common around springs and seeps. Qualified staff or certified wetlands 

specialists should use the Cowardin system used by the NPS to delineate wetlands, and conform 

with NPS Management Policies concerning wetlands and wetlands protection actions and in NPS 

DO 77-1. The spatial extent of wetlands and wetland types should be captured on MONO’s 

existing geographic information system (GIS) database and updated as new information is made 

available. 

Water Rights 

Water rights, whether federal or state law-based, are needed by MONO to meet the water needs 

of park operations and to protect natural, water-dependent resources. The NPS should consider 

authorities under Maryland and federal law on a case-by-case basis, pursuing those that are most 

appropriate to accomplish the purposes and protect water-related resources at MONO. While 

preserving its legal remedies, the NPS should work with state water administrators to protect 

park resources and, if conflicts amongst multiple water users arise, seek resolution through good 

faith negotiations. 

xvi
Other Management Strategies 

 Over time, hiking trails deteriorate by natural process and by wear from recreational 

traffic. The magnitude of trail deterioration is determined by characteristics of the trail, 

its environments, and the recreation use the trail receives (Cole, 1987). Sediment yield 

during precipitation events on trails can enter a waterbody and can degrade water quality 

through increased turbidity and total dissolved solids. Aquatic habitat can also be 

negatively impacted from increased sediment yields by covering the natural substrate 

through increased sediment deposition. MONO should evaluate current trail designs, 

closing unwanted access and redesigning trails, as needed, to minimize sedimentation 

into surface waters at MONO (Motivans, 1995). 

 Individual septic systems are common in the immediate area of MONO. These systems 

remove pollutants from wastewater to protect the public health and environment. 

Pollutants such as bacteria, viruses, nitrate, ammonia, and suspended solids can enter 

aquatic environments and potable water supplies if not treated properly. As a result, 

discharge limits are set and used to evaluate systems to make sure they stay in 

compliance with those standards. MONO should contact the Frederick County 

Government, Environmental Health Program: Well and Septic Branch (301.600.1726) to 

determine compliance of existing septic systems that influence MONO’s water resources 

and to learn of alternative sewage systems that may be more environmentally friendly in 

sensitive karst areas. 

 Invasive exotic plant species should be managed to retain desirable cultural and natural 

landscape characteristics such as field patterns and the composition of wooded and 

agricultural areas (National Park Service, 2005). Not much is known about how to 

reduce the Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) population, which is present in MONO 

(Motivans, 1995). Another inventory of the Asian clam population in the national 

battlefield is encouraged to evaluate the trends of this exotic species. 

 Runoff from impervious surfaces such as parking lots can concentrate polluted runoff 

(oils, metals, chlorides, etc.) into the local aquatic environments. MONO should consider 

stormwater treatment for parking lot runoff using bioretention areas, filter strips, and 

other proven practices that can be integrated into the landscaped areas (Frederick County, 

2007; National Park Service, 2005). 

xvii
xviii
Introduction 

This Water Resources Stewardship Report (WRSR) is designed to build from Monocacy 

National Battlefield’s (MONO’s) General Management Plan (GMP) and support development of 

MONO's Resource Stewardship Strategies (RSS). The RSS serves as a bridge between the 

qualitative statements of desired condition established in the GMP and the measurable goals and 

implementing actions that will be identified in the park Strategic Plan and Implementation Plans. 

The following section outlines the NPS planning framework and describes how this report fits 

into this planning process. 

National Park Service Planning Framework 

The National Park Service (NPS) Water Resources Division initiated a program in 1991 that 

assists parks with their water resources planning needs. Recent changes in NPS general planning 

(2004 Park Planning Program Standards) and resources planning (draft Director’s Order 2.1: 

Resource Stewardship Planning) required programmatic revision to the existing NPS Water 

Resources Planning Program to assure that its products support the new NPS planning 

framework within which planning and decision-making are now accomplished. Within this new 

planning framework, six discrete elements of planning are captured in six planning-related 

documents (Figure 1). 

The Foundation for Planning and Management (Foundation Document) defines the legal and 

policy requirements that mandate the park’s basic management responsibilities, and identifies 

and analyzes the resources and values that are fundamental to achieving the park’s purpose or 

otherwise important to park planning and management. 

 

The General Management Plan (GMP) uses information from the Foundation Document to 

define broad direction for resource preservation and visitor use in a park, and serves as the basic 

foundation for park decision-making, including identification of management zones and desired 

conditions for fundamental and important park resources and visitor experiences. 

The Program Management Plan tiers off the GMP identifying and recommending the best 

strategies for achieving the desired resource conditions and visitor experiences presented in the 

GMP. Program planning serves as a bridge to translate the qualitative statements of desired 

condition established in the GMP into measurable or objective indicators that can be monitored 

to assess the degree to which the desired conditions are being achieved. Based on information 

obtained through this analysis, strategies are listed that move the resource(s) and visitor 

experiences towards the desired conditions. The Program Management Plan component for 

natural and cultural resources is the Resource Stewardship Strategy (Figure 1). 

1
Foundation 

GMP 

Program

Mgmt 

Plans – 

RSS Strategic

Plan 

Implementation

Plans 

Annual Performance Plan 

and Report 

WHY WHAT HOW

NPS PLANNING FRAMEWORK 

LONG TERM SHORT TERM

Water Resources 

Foundation Report 

Water 

Resources 

Stewardship 

Report 

Figure 1. The ‘new” NPS framework for planning and decision making (blue 

boxes). Green boxes represent WRD planning products or assistance. RSS = 

Resource Stewardship Strategy. 

The Strategic Plan tiers off the Program Management Plan identifying the highest-priority 

strategies, including measurable goals that work toward maintaining and/or restoring the park’s 

desired conditions over the next 3 to 5 years. 

Implementation Plans tier off the Strategic Plan describing in detail (including methods, cost 

estimates, and schedules) the high-priority actions that will be taken over the next several years 

to help achieve the desired conditions for the park. 

The Annual Performance Plan and Report measures the progress of projects from the 

Implementation Plan with objectives from the Strategic Plan. 

The Water Resources Foundation Report and the Water Resources Stewardship Report support 

this new planning framework. The Water Resources Foundation Report (Figure 1) addresses the 

needs of either the Foundation Document or phase one of the GMP. The Water Resources 

Stewardship Report (Figure 1) is designed specifically to address the water resource needs in a 

park’s Resources Stewardship Strategy. 

In 2002, MONO began the planning process to prepare its first GMP to comply with the 1978 

National Parks and Recreation Act requiring all NPS units to develop a GMP. The GMP was 

needed to address new information and understanding about the park’s resources, along with the 

accelerated development trends in the Frederick, Maryland area. Presently, the draft GMP/EIS 

for MONO has been completed and will be soon released for public review. 

2
MONO requested technical assistance from the NPS Water Resources Division in 2006 to 

develop this Water Resources Stewardship Report, in support of the national battlefield’s next 

planning product, the Resource Stewardship Strategy (RSS). 

Water Resources Stewardship Report Objectives 

The overarching goal of a Water Resources Stewardship Report is the development of 

comprehensive strategies for fundamental and important water resources that work toward 

achieving or maintaining the GMP’s desired conditions, with measurable or objective indicators 

to assess the degree to which the desired conditions are being achieved. More specifically, this 

Water Resources Stewardship Report for MONO will: 1) define the national battlefield’s water 

resource goals which support the desired conditions from its GMP in terms of objective, 

measurable values for water resources; 2) summarize existing information on water resources, 

and if insufficient, develop strategies for its acquisition; 3) assess existing water resources in 

terms of measurable values in comparison with values defined for achievement of desired 

conditions – if information is incomplete or lacking quality, describe strategies for its 

acquisition; 4) describe trends in water resource conditions based on available monitoring 

information – if information is insufficient, develop strategies for its acquisition and analysis; 5) 

identify and analyze water resource management issues that are impediments to achievement and 

maintenance of desired conditions; 6) develop resource strategies to achieve and maintain the 

desired resource conditions; and 7) assess the effectiveness of previous and current resource 

management actions in achieving or maintaining desired resource conditions and the 

implications for the comprehensive strategies. 

Water Resources Stewardship Report and NEPA 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mandates that federal agencies prepare a study 

of the impacts of major federal actions having a significant effect on the human environment and 

alternatives to those actions. The adoption of formal plans may be considered a major federal 

action requiring NEPA analysis if such plans contain decisions affecting resource use, examine 

options, commit resources or preclude future choices. Lacking these elements, this Water 

Resources Stewardship Report has no measurable impacts on the human environment and is 

categorically excluded from further NEPA analysis. 

According to Director’s Order (DO) #12 Handbook (section 3.4), Water Resources Stewardship 

Reports normally will be covered by one or more of the following Categorical Exclusions: 

• 3.4.B (1) Changes or amendments to an approved plan when such changes have no potential 

for environmental impact. 

• 3.4.B (4) Plans, including priorities, justifications, and strategies, for non-manipulative 

research, monitoring, inventorying, and information gathering. 

• 3.4.B (7) Adoption or approval of academic or research surveys, studies, reports and similar 

documents that do not contain and will not result in NPS recommendations. 

• 3.4.E (2) Restoration of non-controversial native species into suitable habitats within their 

historic range. 

3
• 3.4.E (4) Removal of non-historic materials and structures in order to restore natural 

conditions when the removal has no potential for environmental impacts, including impacts 

to cultural landscapes or archeological resources. 

• 3.4.E (6) Non-destructive data collection, inventory, study, research, and monitoring 

activities. 

• 3.4.E (7) Designation of environmental study areas and research natural areas, including 

those closed temporarily or permanently to the public, unless the potential for environmental 

(including socioeconomic) impact exists. 

These Categorical Exclusions require that formal records be completed (Section 3.2, DO-12 

Handbook) and placed in park files. It is the responsibility of the national battlefield to complete 

the documentation for the applicable Categorical Exclusion(s) when the Water Resources 

Stewardship Report is approved and published. 

4
National Battlefield Location and Demography 

MONO was established to commemorate the Battle of Monocacy, which took place on July 9, 

1864. The national battlefield is located about three miles south of Frederick, Maryland, in 

Fredrick County, 30 miles northwest of Washington, D.C. Approximately two miles of 

Interstate 270 bisect the national battlefield (Figure 2). 

Frederick County is one of the fastest growing counties in the region. From 1990 to 2000, the 

county experienced a 30% increase in population, while the State of Maryland's total population 

increased 10.8% during the same time frame. The population increased 9% (18,328 people) 

from 2001 to 2005. The population is expected to increase from 220,743 in 2005 to 243,220 

people in 2010, exceeding the Census 2000 projections (Frederick County, 2007). 

Urbana, located three miles south of the battlefield, has been projected for growth beyond the 

present 20-year growth area. This new development would extend north to within one mile of 

MONO (National Park Service, 2005). 

The Urbana Region Plan, which is part of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, supports 

the preservation of agricultural land between MONO and Urbana to protect the national 

battlefield’s integrity and to provide an open space buffer between Urbana and Frederick. As 

part of this, the county has initiated the acquisition of easements along the Baker Valley Road 

corridor (National Park Service, 2005). 

MONO is managed primarily as a cultural resource whose historic landscape resembles that of 

the Civil War era, with the majority of the national battlefield consisting of livestock pasture and 

agricultural fields. Within the national battlefield’s boundaries are 1,647 acres, encompassing 

most of the lands upon which the Battle of Monocacy was fought. Six farmsteads are still 

maintained within the park boundary (Figure 3). These properties consist of livestock pasture 

and agriculture fields being used to grow crops such as corn, soybeans, small grains and alfalfa. 

In addition to the park’s goal of protecting its historic landscape, the NPS is also dedicated to 

preserving and protecting the natural resources in the area, allowing public use of these resources 

in a manner that is compatible with the legislative intent of the national battlefield and the 1916 

Organic Act and 2006 NPS Management Policies. 

5
 

Figure 2. Monocacy National Battlefield location map (National Park Service, 2000). 

6
Figure 3. Monocacy National Battlefield existing farmsteads and management zones 

 (National Park Service, 2007). 

7
8
Management Zones and Desired Conditions

The preferred alternative in MONO’s draft GMP/EIS divides the park into five different 

management zones (Figure 3), each with specific management prescriptions. These management 

prescriptions articulate the desired vision for the national battlefield that park managers will 

strive to achieve (desired condition). The management zones and respective desired resource 

conditions are listed in Table 1 (National Park Service, 2007). 

Table 1. Monocacy National Battlefield Management Zones and Desired Conditions for natural resources 

 (National Park Service, 2007). 

Battlefield Preservation Zone Desired Condition: The battlefield preservation 

zone would be managed to preserve the agrarian 

setting reminiscent of the battle era. Through 

continued agricultural practices, farm fields and 

hedgerows would be maintained, as would the 

relationship of open to wooded sections of the 

battlefield. Natural resources would be managed to 

reinforce the cultural landscape and agricultural 

character. 

Visitor Services Zone Desired Condition: Any existing cultural and 

natural resources in the visitor services zone would 

be managed according to NPS policies with 

moderate tolerance for disturbance. 

Commemorative Zone Desired Conditions: Monuments and formal 

landscapes would be maintained in keeping with 

NPS policies. The immediate landscape would be 

highly managed to form an appropriate setting for 

the monuments. Any existing natural resources in 

this zone would be managed according to NPS 

policies, with moderate tolerance for disturbance. 

Natural Resources Zone Desired Conditions: Natural resources would be 

maintained in as natural a state as possible, given 

cultural resource preservation needs. This would 

include maintaining riparian buffers for water 

quality, reestablishing native species, and 

controlling exotic vegetation. Any existing cultural 

and natural resources in this zone would be 

managed according to NPS policies, with minimal 

tolerance for disturbance. 

Maintenance and Administrative Zone Desired Condition: Any existing cultural and 

natural resources in the maintenance and 

administration zone would be managed according 

to NPS policies, with moderate tolerance for 

disturbance. 

 

9
Because flowing water resources are unidirectional and cross management zones, they should be 

managed holistically. For example, impacts to surface or ground water resources in the 

Maintenance and Administration Zone could affect the health of aquatic systems in the Natural 

Zone. This is especially true in the sensitive karst landscape where MONO is located. 

Water Resource Goals 

The overall management goal of MONO is to maintain the historic landscape’s approximate 

appearance during the period of the Civil War. This historic landscape includes crops (corn, 

wheat, barley, soybeans and alfalfa), forest habitat (Brooks Hill), livestock, open fields, streams, 

riparian habitat, and some small wetlands (National Park Service, 2005). 

MONO’s water resources play a vital role in this historic landscape, and should be managed to 

protect the character and quality of the national battlefield’s significant cultural resources and to 

preserve important interpretive views. These management objectives should be balanced by 

encouraging biological diversity through strategies that protect the battlefield’s watershed and 

associated water resources (springs, streams, wetlands) (National Park Service, 2007). 

Building from the MONO desired condition for the Natural Resources Zone (see below), two 

water resource goals were developed that support that desired condition (Table 2). As previously 

discussed, these water resource goals should be applied across all five management zones. The 

achievement of these water resource goals will assist MONO in meeting its desired condition for 

natural resources. 

Monocacy National Battlefield Desired Condition (National Park Service, 2007):

“Natural resources would be maintained in as natural a state as possible, given 

cultural resource preservation needs. This would include maintaining riparian 

buffers for water quality, reestablishing native species, and controlling exotic 

vegetation. Any existing cultural and natural resources in this zone would be 

managed according to NPS policies, with minimal tolerance for disturbance.” 

 Table 2. Monocacy National Battlefield Water Resource Goals. 

Goal A: Chemical integrity of park waters (surface and ground waters) is improved and/or maintained 

to support all native life and to meet or exceed designated use standards.

Goal B: Hydrologic integrity of park waters (surface and ground waters) is improved and/or maintained 

to support natural geomorphic processes of fluvial and aquifer systems and to support native life.

10
Description of Natural Resources 

Climate 

The climate of MONO is typical of the mid-Atlantic states; temperate and humid. Moderate 

precipitation dominates the Potomac River Basin. The area is influenced by prevailing westerly 

winds, which are frequently interrupted by surges of cool northern and warm southern air 

masses. In the warmer half of the year, the basin is affected by showers and thunderstorms. 

These storms often cause flash flooding in the narrow valleys (Hobba et al., 1972). Most 

flooding events occur in either early spring due to spring rains and snow melting, or early fall 

during hurricane season. Figure 4 presents climate data from 1948-2002 for Frederick, 

Maryland. The annual average precipitation is 39.6 inches. On average, the area receives 18.7 

inches of snow annually (Southeast Regional Climate Center, 2007). May is the wettest month 

(3.8 inches) with February typically the driest month (2.6 inches). Average monthly air 

temperatures range from 33.3° F in January to 77.3° F in July (Southeast Regional Climate 

Center, 2007). 

 

0

2

4

6

8

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

Month

Precipitation (inch)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Temperature (F)

 

 Table 1. Monocacy National Battlefield Management Zones and Desired Conditions. Figure 4. Monthly mean precipitation (bars) and air temperature range (diamond- 

 whiskers) (1948-2002), Frederick, Maryland (Southeast Regional Climate 

 Center, 2007). 

Physiography 

The landscape of MONO consists of the broad Monocacy River valley and ridges of less 

resistant geology. The national battlefield is situated in the western Piedmont physiographic 

province, known as the Lowland Section (Figure 5), bounded by the Blue Ridge Province to the 

west and the Upland Section of the Piedmont Plateau Province to the east (Maryland Geological 

Survey, 2001). 

The river is confined to the Frederick Valley and tends to flow along the west base of the 

resistant ridges. These ridges, like Brooks Hill, are underlain by plunging anticlines of hard 

rock. Uplift and erosion have produced “valley and ridge” topography, with linear ridges and 

intervening valleys. To the west of the national battlefield, the landscape is a broad open 

valley underlain by carbonate rocks that are susceptible to chemical erosion producing the 

11
local karst features (i.e., sinkholes and springs). To the east, the landscape is an elevated 

plateau underlain by fine-grained metamorphic rocks. Most of the battlefield is on flat land 

just north of Interstate Highway 270, which consists of terrace deposits overlying rocks of the 

Frederick Formation (Southwood and Denenny, 2006). 

 Monocacy National Battlefield 

approx. location 

Figure 5. Physiographic Provinces in Maryland (Maryland Geological Survey, 2001). 

Geology 

Moving from oldest to youngest in Figure 6 (Southwood and Denenny, 2006), the Ijamsville 

phyllite (ЄZi) is the oldest geologic unit in MONO, consisting of blue, purple and green 

phyllite, slate, and phyllonite that contains veins of white quartz. The Ijamsville phyllite is 

exposed in the extreme southeastern part of the park. The lower and middle Cambrian Araby 

Formation (Єar) consists of light-brownish-gray sandy metasiltstone and graphitic metashale. 

The Araby Formation is exposed along the Monocacy River (where the river has cut into the 

ridges) in cuts along the railroad bed in the northeast part of the battlefield, and road cuts in 

the southeast part of the battlefield. The Araby Formation is conformably overlain by 

limestone and limestone breccia of the Frederick Formation (Rocky Springs Station Member 

(Єfr)). 

The Frederick Formation contains the carbonate rocks associated with the local karst features 

(sinkholes, springs). The upper Cambrian Frederick Formation is a thick interval of thin- to 

medium-bedded limestone and dolostone with thin intervals of shale and sandstone. The Rocky 

Springs Station Member is characterized by intervals of polymitctic limestone breccia. 

12
13

Figure 6. Monocacy National Battlefield geologic map (Southwood and Denenny, 2006). 

(note: location for MONO Visitor Center identified on this map changed in 2007) 
An interval of gray to black shale (Єfrs) locally is interbedded. The Adamstown Member 

(Єfa) consists of thinly bedded limestone with thin intervals of shale. The Lime Kiln member 

(Єfl) consists of thinly bedded limestone interbedded with algal limestone at the top of the 

formation. The best exposures of the Frederick Formation are along the Monocacy River and 

within creek beds. 

The predominant surficial deposits--fluvial terraces (Qt) and alluvium (Qa)--are found in the 

Monocacy River valley (Figure 6). Sand, gravel, and sandstone boulders on flat benches are 

terrace deposits as much as 50 feet above river level. The present floodplain is broad and 

susceptible to flooding during high rainfall. The river flows on bedrock and the alluvium, 

locally as much as 20 feet thick. Within the floodplain are sinkholes (Qs) that formed as the 

result of dissolution of the underlying carbonate rocks of the Frederick Formation. Fine 

colluvium consisting of the Araby Formation’s metasiltstone chips and cobbles mantles the 

shallow bedrock on the lower slopes of ridges and hills (Southwood and Denenny, 2006). 

Soils 

Most soils in the lowland areas of the national battlefield are of the Cordorus and Lindside series. 

Soils in the upland areas are of the Cardiff and Whiteford series. On the basis of the 2001 soil 

survey, the Maryland Geological Survey has designated some areas of the national battlefield as 

highly erodible land, taking into account the soils present and slope. The soil survey 

documented 14 soils in the national battlefield that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has 

classified as prime farmland. The largest area of prime farmland is the southern third of the Best 

Farm. 

Hydrology 

Watersheds 

According to the NPS Management Policies, the NPS will manage watersheds as complete 

hydrologic systems, and will minimize human disturbance to the natural upland processes that 

deliver water, sediment, and woody debris to streams (National Park Service, 2006). 

The battlefield is located within the 14,670-mi2

 Potomac River drainage basin, the fourth largest 

watershed on the East Coast (Belval and Sprague, 1999). The Potomac is one of nine river 

basins, and the second largest drainage that forms the 64,000-mi2

 Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States, providing habitat for abundant 

and diverse wildlife populations and supporting an economy that includes fishing, shipping, and 

recreation. 

Watersheds are delineated by the U.S. Geological Survey using a nationwide system based on 

surface hydrologic features. This system divides the country into 21 regions, 222 subregions, 352 

accounting units, and 2,262 cataloguing units (U.S. Geological Survey, 2006). A hierarchical 

hydrologic unit code (HUC) consisting of 2 digits for each level in the hydrologic unit system is 

used to identify any hydrologic area. The 6-digit accounting units and the 8-digit cataloguing 

units are generally referred to as basin and sub-basin, respectively. HUC is defined as the Federal 

14
Information Processing Standard (FIPS) and generally serves as the backbone for the country's 

hydrologic delineation. Within the Potomac River drainage basin, MONO straddles the 

Monocacy River and is located within the 8-digit cataloguing sub-basin called “Monocacy” 

(USGS cataloging unit: 02070009) (Figure 7a). More specifically, the battlefield is contained 

within the Lower Monocacy River drainage of this watershed (Figure 7b), draining 194,700 

acres before emptying into the Potomac River (Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 

2003a). 

Surface Water 

Rivers and Streams: 

Streams in MONO are all part of the Monocacy River system that drains the eastern portion of 

the Middle Potomac River basin. The Monocacy River is the largest Maryland tributary of the 

Potomac River (Monocacy Scenic River Local Advisory Board, 1990). From 2004 to 2007, 

mean daily stream flows for the river immediately upstream from the national battlefield ranged 

from approximately 60 to 18,000 cfs (Figure 8). 

The Monocacy River is fed by three tributaries that run through MONO. The three tributaries 

are Bush Creek, Harding’s Run, and Thomas Farm Creek/“Old” Visitor Center Creek (Figure 9). 

The Monocacy River flows directly through and along the boundary of the national battlefield 

for approximately 2.5 miles. Approximately 0.8 miles of Bush Creek passes through the north 

central part of the national battlefield. Bush Creek is the largest Monocacy River tributary 

within the national battlefield, a moderately narrow, rapidly flowing creek with scoured sections 

of banks and cobble beds from periodic high flows. Small pockets of wetlands and narrow 

floodplain forest are also present along the creek (Motivans, 1995). As the creek nears its 

confluence with the river, the stream channel becomes incised and much of the stream bank is 

undercut. Agriculture is the dominant land use within the Bush Creek watershed with 

approximately a third of the watershed still forested. Given the long history of human habitation 

and agricultural land use in the region, streams are far from pristine. The streams support a 

variety of fish and invertebrate biota, including several sport fish species (Frederick County, 

2004). 

The Gambrill Mill is in the 100-year floodplain of the Monocacy River and Bush Creek. 

Historic structures whose locations are integral to their significance are exempt from compliance 

with the NPS Procedural Manual 77-1, “Floodplain Management” (National Park Service, 2005). 

After the 1968 Maryland Scenic and Wild Rivers Act was adopted, the first inventory, Scenic 

Rivers in Maryland, was released by the Maryland Department of State Planning in 1970. The 

Monocacy River was identified as a significant state resource, and worthy of immediate study, 

and as a prime candidate for State Scenic River designation. In 1974, the Monocacy River was 

added to the Maryland scenic river system (Monocacy Scenic River Local Advisory Board, 

1990). 

15
Figure 7. a.) Location of Monocacy Watershed. b.) Maryland Drainage Basins (Maryland Department of 

 Natural Resources, 1998). 

Monocacy National Battlefield 

Figure 7b 

Figure 7a 

16
 

Figure 8. Monocacy River, mean daily stream flow (2004-2007) (U.S. Geological 

 Survey, 2007). 

The reach of the Monocacy River that flows through the national battlefield is listed on the 

Nationwide Rivers Inventory prepared by the NPS. This inventory is a register of rivers that 

may be eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system. The inclusion of a 

river in this inventory was based on the degree to which it is free-flowing, the degree to which 

the river and its corridor are undeveloped, and the outstanding natural and cultural characteristics 

of the river and its immediate environment. The intent of the inventory is to provide information 

that will help managers make balanced decisions about the use of the nation’s river resources 

(National Park Service, 2007). 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas 

Both wetlands and riparian habitat exist within Monocacy National Battlefield. The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map has identified about 80 acres of 

primarily palustrine forested and riverine forested wetlands in the national battlefield. Most 

habitats included in this delineation consist of the Monocacy River itself and the forested riparian 

areas along the river, Bush Creek, and Harding’s Run (National Park Service, 2007). 

17
18

Figure 9. Stream and spring locations, Monocacy National Battlefield. 
Wetlands represent transitional environments between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the 

water table is at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water (Cowardin et al., 

1979). Flora within these wetland systems exhibit extreme spatial variability, triggered by very 

slight changes in elevation. Temporal variability is also great because the surface water depth is 

highly influenced by changes in precipitation, evaporation and/or infiltration. Cowardin et al. 

(1979) developed a wetland classification system that is now the standard in the federal 

government. In this system, a wetland must have one or more of the following attributes: (1) at 

least periodically, the land supports predominately hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is 

predominately undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water 

or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year. There are four 

federal government agencies responsible for identifying and delineating wetlands: the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

Natural riparian zones are some of the most diverse, dynamic, and complex biophysical habitats 

in the terrestrial environment (Naiman et al., 1993). The riparian zone encompasses that stream 

channel between low and high watermarks and that portion of the terrestrial landscape from the 

high watermark toward the uplands where vegetation may be influenced by elevated water tables 

or flooding and by the ability of the soils to hold water (Naiman and Decamps, 1997). Riparian 

forest buffers are integral to the health of the Chesapeake Bay and its rivers, including the 

Monocacy River, for many reasons (Table 3). Not all of the existing forested riparian buffers 

within the national battlefield’s boundaries meet the ≥ 35 feet width requirement established by 

the Chesapeake Bay Program. 

Table 3. Importance of Riparian Buffers (Chesapeake Bay Program, 2006b). 

Filtering Runoff: Rain that runs off the land can be slowed and infiltrated in the forest, which helps settle out 

sediment, nutrients and pesticides before they reach streams. Infiltration rates of forests are 10 to15 times higher 

than those of grass turf areas and 40 times higher than those of a plowed field. Studies have shown 30 to 98 percent 

reductions of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), sediment, pesticides and other pollutants in surface and 

groundwater after passing through a riparian forest. In addition, trees provide deep root systems that hold soil in 

place, thereby stabilizing streambanks and reducing erosion. 

Nutrient Uptake: Tree roots absorb fertilizers and other pollutants that originate on the land. Nutrients are stored in 

leaves, limbs and roots instead of reaching the stream. Through a process called 'denitrification,' bacteria in the 

riparian forest floor convert harmful nitrates to nitrogen gas, which is then harmlessly released into the air. 

Canopy and Shade: Cool stream temperatures maintained by riparian vegetation are essential to the health of 

aquatic species. Shading moderates water temperatures and protects against rapid fluctuations that can harm stream 

health and reduce fish spawning and survival. 

Leaf Food: Leaves from the riparian forest fall into streams and are trapped on woody debris (fallen trees and 

limbs) and rocks where they provide food and habitat for small bottom-dwelling creatures (i.e., crustaceans, 

amphibians, insects and small fish), which are critical to the aquatic food chain. 

Habitat: Riparian forests offer a tremendous diversity of habitat. The layers of habitat provided by trees, shrubs and 

grasses and the transition of habitats from aquatic to upland areas make these areas critical in the life stages of more 

than one-half of all native Chesapeake Bay species. While the overall impact of these riparian forest corridors may 

be greatest in headwaters and smaller order streams, there is a clear link all the way to the Chesapeake Bay. 

19
Ground Water 

Transmissivity (the rate at which water flows through rock) can be extremely variable in the 

Piedmont physiographic province, ranging from 100 to 35,000 gallons/day/foot (gpd/ft). Small 

to moderate supplies of ground water are available throughout the region, but locally favorable 

geologic conditions may provide larger amounts (Vokes and Edwards, 1974). The mean yield of 

existing Piedmont wells is about 12,960 gpd, which is usually sufficient for domestic use and 

most small farm and commercial uses (Nutter and Otto, 1969). Water supplies for large farms 

and light industry can be developed if favorable hydrogeologic conditions exist, otherwise, 

surface water supplies are utilized (Clearwater et al., 2000) 

As stated earlier, much of MONO is underlain by the carbonate rocks (limestone and dolomite) 

of the Frederick Formation, producing an environmentally sensitive karst terrain. In a karst 

landscape, much of the ground water flow takes place in pipe-like or sheet-like voids that have 

been created and/or enlarged by the solvent action of circulating water. Consequently, karst 

aquifers are heterogeneous and ground water does not follow all the rules of typical ground water 

movement, as developed for homogeneous media (Duigon, 1997). Recharge to a karst aquifer 

can be diffuse, as widespread precipitation infiltrates the overlying soils and sediments. 

Recharge can also be concentrated, as surface runoff is directed into a sinkhole or losing stream. 

The development of the network of solution conduits joining recharge and discharge depends on 

topography, lithology, and geologic structure (Duigon, 1997). 

Topography influences ground water well selection in Frederick County because it is the surface 

expression of the underlying geology. Wells drilled in valleys typically have the highest average 

yields, while those drilled on hilltops or ridges typically have the lowest yields. 

Ground water is used by MONO and the local community for potable water, with ground water 

wells located adjacent to the Gambrill Mill (1 well), Gambrill House (1 well), Thomas Farm (2 

wells), Lewis Farm (1 abandoned well), Worthington Farm (1 active well and 1 abandoned well), 

Baker Farm (2 wells), Best Farm (1 well), and the Blockhouse at the Thomas Farm (1 well). 

There are several springs and seeps in the national battlefield. These do not produce large 

volumes of water, but are important aquatic habitat for the local flora and fauna. 

Water Quality 

The NPS Water Resources Division (WRD) completed a comprehensive summary of existing 

surface water quality data for MONO, the Baseline Water Quality Inventory and Analysis, 

Monocacy National Battlefield (National Park Service, 2000). This document presents the results 

of surface water quality data retrievals for MONO from six of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency's (EPA) national databases: (1) Storage and Retrieval (STORET) water quality database 

management system; (2) River Reach File (RF3); (3) Industrial Facilities Discharge (IFD); (4) 

Drinking Water Supplies (DRINKS); (5) Water Gages (GAGES); and (6) Water Impoundments 

(DAMS). 

The results of the MONO water quality criteria screen found 13 groups of parameters that 

exceeded screening criteria at least once within the study area, which extended approximately 

three miles upstream and one mile downstream from the national battlefield boundary. Dissolved 

20
oxygen, pH, cyanide, cadmium, copper, silver, and zinc exceeded their respective EPA criteria 

for the protection of freshwater aquatic life. Cyanide, nitrate, cadmium, lead, and atrazine 

exceeded their respective USEPA drinking water criteria. Fecal indicator bacteria concentrations 

(total coliform and fecal coliform) and turbidity exceeded the WRD screening limits for 

freshwater bathing and aquatic life, respectively (National Park Service, 2000). 

Based on Maryland’s 2006 303(d) list for impaired water bodies in the state, the aquatic biology 

is listed as potentially impaired in Bush Creek. There is currently insufficient water quantity 

data to determine Bush Creek’s attainment status (subbasin code: 021403020228), while another 

reach of Bush Creek (subbasin code: 021403020229) is listed as potentially requiring a TMDL to 

move the creek to attainment of the biological standard (Maryland Department of the 

Environment, 2006a). 

In the past, elevated bacteria concentrations have been a problem in the Monocacy River 

downstream of the Frederick Sewage Treatment Plant. The Lower Monocacy River (MD 

02140302-R) was listed in 2004 by the U.S. EPA as impaired from fecal coliform, nutrients and 

suspended sediments (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006). 

Two water quality monitoring efforts have been implemented at MONO. One is a parkmonitoring program, supported by MONO staff, where water samples are collected monthly 

(water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, nitrate, phosphate, specific conductivity, and bacteria) 

at 13 sites (Conneely, 2004). The other is part of a regional monitoring program, supported by 

the NPS National Capital Region Network (Inventory and Monitoring Program), where monthly 

water samples are collected and analyzed (water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, nitrate, 

ammonia, and acid-neutralizing capacity) at three national battlefield sites (National Park 

Service, 2005). Specific water quality data collected within the boundaries of the national 

battlefield from these monitoring efforts are discussed later in this report. 

Air Quality 

Acidic deposition occurs as wet deposition (rain, snow, sleet, or hail), dry deposition (particles 

or vapor), and cloud and fog depositions (common at high elevations and coastal areas). 

Prevailing winds from west to east cause pollutants to be deposited in the mid-Atlantic and 

Northeast regions (Southerland et. al., 2005b). During atmospheric transport, some sulfur 

dioxides (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) will be converted to sulfuric and nitric acids or to 

ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate, all with significant residence times in the 

atmosphere (Lovett, 1994). Nitrogen deposition is of particular concern as studies show that 

“21% of the nitrogen pollution entering Chesapeake Bay comes from the air” (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2003). 

Research has demonstrated that the vulnerability of stream systems to acidic deposition 

depends on basin hydrology and the ability of the vegetation, soils, and bedrock with the basin 

to buffer acidic inputs (Southerland et al., 2005b). Fortunately, most of the national battlefield 

consists of terrace deposits overlying limestone and dolomite, which help neutralize acidic 

deposition in surface and ground waters (Southwood and Denenny, 2006). 

21
The encroachment from urban areas such as Frederick and Urbana, as well as heavy traffic on 

I-270, also poses a threat to MONO’s air quality. 

Biological Resources 

Water resources are critical to the sustenance of MONO’s populations of flora and fauna. 

Biological resources are intimately linked to hydrological systems. For example, riparian habitat 

is closely tied to the health of both wetlands and streams, influencing fish and invertebrate 

assemblages. Characteristics of riparian habitat structure such as the ratio of edge to interior, the 

degree of canopy complexity within riparian strata (e.g., herb/forbs, shrubs, sub-canopy tree, and 

overstory tree), and the degree of fragmentation is highly associated with amount and type of 

wildlife use (National Park Service, 2004). 

Based on the Physical Habitat Index (PHI), 15% of the streams in Frederick County had 

minimally degraded habitat and 29% had degraded or severely degraded physical habitat. The 

remaining 56% had partially degraded habitat (Kazyak et al., 2005). 

Flora 

The vegetation composition and patterns at MONO are indicative of the open natural and 

agricultural landscape in the Piedmont region of Maryland. Approximately 40% of the national 

battlefield is forested, with the remainder of land primarily agricultural. The patchwork of these 

upland and riparian forested areas interspersed with agricultural and open fields offers a number 

of vegetation and habitat types. Several national battlefield vegetation studies have been or are 

being conducted. Their findings record more than 375 different plant species, of which more 

than 100 are exotic (National Park Service, 2005). The proliferation of invasive nonnative plant 

species has introduced monocultures of species that are not congruent with the historic scene and 

threaten to take over areas that once supported only native plants (National Park Service, 2007). 

Among the natural resources are forested areas on and around Brooks Hill and Bush Creek and 

the south end of the Lewis Farm. These areas, the largest forested tracts in the national 

battlefield, offer resource benefits in the form of carbon cycling, locally significant plant 

communities, and interior forest and wildlife habitat (National Park Service, 2007). 

Significant natural resources include three plants on the state’s “watch-list”: Short’s rockcress 

(Arabis shortii), dwarf larkspur (Delphinium tricorne), and harbinger-of-spring (Erigenia 

bulbosa), which have been located in the extreme southern section of the national battlefield 

(National Park Service, 2005). 

Fauna 

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) has been sited in the national battlefield. Although 

recently delisted from the endangered and threatened status (August 2007), bald eagles continue 

to receive protection under the 1940 Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) and the 

1972 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712). 

22
Fifty-three species of fish occur in the Middle Potomac River basin; 49 species occur in the 

Monocacy River drainage (Roth et al., 1999). Raesly (2004) collected 38 species of fish and 

one hybrid during sampling at 10 sites in MONO representing the Monocacy River and four of 

its tributaries. The Monocacy River site had 25 species, with the following most abundant 

species; Pimephales notatus, Cyprinella spiloptera, Ambloplites rupestris, and Lepomis auritus. 

One site on Bush Creek also had 25 species; most abundant species included Rhinichthys 

cateractae, Cottus caeruleomentum, R. atratulus, and Campostoma anomalum. Two other sites 

on Bush Creek had 17 and 22 species. Other tributary sites (n = 5) ranged from 1 to 14 species. 

Dominant species from these sites included P. notatus, R. atratulus, and C. caeruleomentum. 

One species collected by Raesley (2004) that is of significance is Margariscus margarita, a state 

listed threatened species. This species is rare and exhibits a localized distribution in the Middle 

Potomac River basin. 

Hilderbrand et al. (2005) sampled benthic macroinvertebrates from five tributary sites in MONO. 

They identified 48 taxa from these sites (identifications to the genus level or lowest practical 

taxon). The exotic Asian clam, Corbicula fluminea, was identified in Bush Creek (Motivans 

1995). 

National Capital Region Network, Inventory and Monitoring Program 

The National Capital Region Network (NCRN) Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) program has 

identified 22 indicators of ecological condition within the National Capital Region (NCR), which 

are commonly called “vital signs”. The NCRN is implementing vital signs monitoring within 11 

NCR parks, including MONO. An essential component of vital signs monitoring is the portrayal 

of how vital signs yield information about the condition of park resources. NCRN is 

collaborating with the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Sciences (UMCES), 

technical experts and partners that can help to develop an overall reporting framework for 

ecological condition: Ecosystem Health Report Cards. These report cards are created for each 

park and for the Region using ecological thresholds gleaned from the literature and state and 

federal regulations. A draft pilot report card has been completed for Rock Creek Park. The 

reporting process will eventually be applied to all parks, including MONO, as soon as it is 

finalized. Some of the work completed by the NCRN (e.g., vital sign indicators) has been applied 

in the later sections of this report. 

National Battlefield Land Use 

The primary land use within MONO’s boundary is agriculture. It encompasses approximately 

760 acres within the 1355 acres of fee simple ownership. Agricultural activities within the park 

include pasturing heifers, dairy cows, and beef cattle; cultivating row crops, including corn, 

soybeans, and small grains; and growing cool season pasture grasses for hay production. The 

park maintains this agricultural landscape through agreements with local farmers. An 

agricultural Special Use Permit is issued to the farmer for a five-year period, which enumerates 

conditions placed on the operation of the farms. Some of these conditions include setting the 

stocking rate (number of livestock per acre), establishing and preserving riparian buffers, 

controlling noxious weeds, and requiring pesticide use applications and annual use logs. 

23
The stocking rate is one animal per acre of pasture during the growing season (approximately April 

through November), and one animal per two acres of pasture all other times – unless supplemental 

feed is used. Riparian buffers and grassed waterways must also be established and maintained. The 

plan requires a minimum 30 foot (from the center of the stream) permanent buffer of perennial 

vegetation (i.e. grass or shrubs). It also stipulates that these areas will not be tilled or sprayed with 

herbicide during treatment of adjacent fields. Noxious weeds must also be controlled by either 

mechanical or chemical methods (i.e., herbicide). If pesticide is used, the farmers must submit 

pesticide use applications by January 1 of each year. These applications detail what pesticides are 

to be used, where they will be applied, on what crops they will be applied, and for what pest. 

Per Maryland state law, each farmer is required to prepare and follow a Nutrient Management 

Plan. This plan analyzes the crop yield and nutrient requirements and levels and availability of 

nutrients in the soil to balance crop nutrient requirements and the amount and type of fertilizer 

that should be applied to the land. It achieves this analysis through soil testing, crop yield 

statistics, and manure testing. The soil in each field is tested for nutrient (N, P, K, Mg, and Ca) 

content and pH, and recommendations are given to create a field-specific strategy for nutrient 

application. These recommendations also detail the type of fertilizer to be applied (i.e. chemical, 

manure), correct application rate (based on plant need), timing of nutrient application, and 

application method that should be used. The constant balancing of these factors to achieve 

maximum crop yield with the most efficient nutrient application is what makes the Nutrient 

Management Plan an important part of the farmers’ conservation practices. A copy of this plan 

is submitted to the park, and is another part of the management requirements placed on the 

farmers. 

Also, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, in cooperation with the state Soil 

Conservation District, provides Conservation Plans for each farm. These plans primarily deal 

with soil conservation, but also cover wetland conservation and other practices. Included are an 

inventory of highly erodible soils and their soil descriptions, and conservation requirements for 

crop and pasture fields – including areas needing conservation crop rotation, conservation tillage, 

cover crops, stream fencing, nutrient and waste management, and grazing regimes. These 

inventories, recommendations and requirements are listed for each field, providing specific 

management guidelines for each site. 

The park also engages in active control of invasive, exotic plant species. Currently, over 130 

different exotic species have been documented, with the park actively engaged in control of over 

one dozen. The control efforts utilize an Integrated Pest Management strategy to optimize 

effectiveness of control with the least environmental impact. These activities include manual 

pulling of weeds, mechanical control through mowing or trimming, chemical control through the 

use of herbicides, or the combination of all these methods. 

24
Fundamental and Important Water Resources 

National Battlefield Purpose and Significance 

The purpose statements of a NPS unit communicate the reason(s) for which it was set aside and 

preserved by Congress. For Monocacy National Battlefield, the purposes are (National Park 

Service, 2007): 

• to preserve the beastworks, earthworks, walls, and other defenses and shelters used by the 

Confederate and Union armies on July 9, 1864, as well as the buildings, roads and 

outlines of the battlefield; 

• to commemorate the Battle of Monocacy; and 

• to provide opportunities for visitors to understand and appreciate the significance of the 

Battle of Monocacy within the full context of the Civil War and American history. 

Significance statements define what is most important about the national battlefield’s resources 

and values and are based on the purpose of why the national battlefield was created. The MONO 

significance statement that applies to natural resources, including water resources, is (National 

Park Service, 2007): 

• A national battlefield where visitors can experience a historic landscape, structures, and 

transportation corridors that have changed little since the Battle of Monocacy. As a 

result, it offers many opportunities for understanding the evolution of settlement in the 

region and the Civil War within the broader context of American history. 

It is important for NPS units to identify the resources and values critical to achieving the park’s 

purpose and maintaining its significance. Identifying the fundamental and important resources 

and values at MONO ensures that all planning is focused on what is truly most significant about 

the national battlefield. 

Building from the Purpose and Significance of MONO, the Monocacy River is considered a 

“fundamental” resource of the national battlefield and the other water resources are considered 

“important” resources, contributing to the civil war landscape on the day of the battle. These 

important water resources consist of both surface water and ground water; including streams, 

wetlands, and springs that support a variety of biological communities such as riparian 

floodplains along the Monocacy River. 

Indicators and Target Values 

Indicators are selected to provide a barometer of health for MONO’s water resources. Target 

values are established for the respective indicator parameters to distinguish between acceptable 

and unacceptable function of natural systems. Although not comprehensive in evaluating 

natural resource health, appropriate indicators provide a cost-effective way for park managers to 

monitor progress in maintaining or achieving target values that meet the water resource goals 

(see Table 2) and ultimately the national battlefield’s desired conditions for natural resources 

presented earlier on page 10. 

25
With indicator parameters and target values established, the condition of MONO’s water 

resources will be evaluated and a list of strategies generated, based on resource conditions and 

stressors. Strategies will also include the collection/interpretation of data where minimal or no 

information exists to adequately measure natural resource health. Implementation of appropriate 

strategies will ultimately move MONO’s water resources (surface water and ground water) and 

associated environments (wetlands, riparian areas, etc.) towards the established target values for 

the respective indicator parameters. 

The indicators recommended for MONO’s water resources are discussed in the following 

sections under chemical, physical and biological indicators and target values. 

Chemical Indicators and Target Values 

Building from the NPS National Capital Region Network (NCRN) water quality vital signs and 

the Maryland water quality standards for designated streams, chemical indicator parameters were 

selected for MONO with associated target values. 

The water quality vital signs (indicators) selected for the National Capital Region, including 

MONO, are pH, dissolved oxygen, conductance, water temperature, acid neutralizing capacity 

(ANC) and nutrients – nitrate, ammonia, nitrite, orthophosphate (National Park Service, 2005). 

These vital signs provide the foundation for MONO’s chemical indicators. 

We used the following criteria to judge quality of the water resource-based indicators: 1) 

measurable – enables recording and analysis in quantitative and qualitative terms; 2) precise – 

used or defined the same way by all people, with little variability; 3) consistent – used or 

measured the same way, so that any results depict measurements of the same thing over time; 

and 4) sensitive – detects changes proportionately in response to actual changes in the condition 

being measured. Criteria for target value(s) included: 1) impact oriented – represents the desired 

status of specific water resource based attributes; 2) measurable – definable in relation to some 

standard scale; 3) specific – clearly defined so that all people involved have the same 

understanding of what the terms mean; and 4) credible – representing researchers’ best scientific 

judgment as to what is necessary for conservation success. These criteria and other aspects of 

the recurrent problem of setting measurable objectives are discussed by Tear et al. (2005). 

The state of Maryland designated the Monocacy River as IV-P (Recreational Trout Waters and 

Public Water Supply) and the tributaries are listed as I (Water Contact Recreation and Protection 

of Nontidal Warmwater Aquatic Life) (Maryland Department of the Environment, 2007; Bill 

Seiger pers. com., 2007). Water quality criteria have been established for these stream 

designations. These criteria provide the foundation for the chemical indicator target values, 

unless otherwise noted. 

Water Temperature 

Water temperature is one of the most important water quality parameters and has direct effects 

on water chemistry and the functions of aquatic organisms. Temperature influences the dissolved 

26
oxygen content of the water; the rate of photosynthesis by algae and other aquatic plants; the 

metabolic rates of organisms; the sensitivity of organisms to toxic wastes, parasites and diseases; 

and the timing of reproduction and migration of aquatic organisms. Factors which can affect 

temperature include sunlight energy (seasonal and daily changes), shade, air temperature, stream 

flow, water depth, inflow of groundwater or surface water, and the color and turbidity 

(cloudiness) of the water. Other factors include soil erosion, storm water runoff, and alterations 

to stream morphology, substrate and flow. Based on the Maryland water quality criteria, 

MONO’s streams should not exceed 75°F (23.9°C). 

MONO Water Temperature Target Value: ≤ 75°F (23.9°C)

Bacteria 

Coliform bacteria occur naturally in water systems, soil, and the digestive systems of animals. 

While most coliform bacteria are non-pathogenic, high levels of this bacteria may indicate the 

presence of pathogenic organisms. E. coli, a pathogenic fecal coliform bacteria, is the “most 

common disease causing bacteria in the feces of warm-blooded animals” (U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, 2001). Because most fecal coliforms are non-pathogenic, E. coli testing is thought to be 

a more specific, reliable indicator of public health hazards than testing for fecal coliform 

(Jackson et al., 1989). Based on the water quality criteria defined by the state of Maryland, a 

public health hazard will be presumed if E. coli levels exceed 126 counts/100ml based on a 

geometric mean of at least five samples taken over 30 days or if levels exceed 576 counts/100ml

on a single sample in a waterway where “Infrequent Full Body Contact Recreation” occurs. 

MONO E. coli Target Value: 126 counts/100 ml for 30 day 5-sample geometric mean or 576 

counts/ 100 ml single sample 

Dissolved Oxygen 

Dissolved oxygen (DO) refers to the amount of oxygen dissolved in water. The dissolved oxygen 

concentration in water can directly affect reproduction and incubation, changes in species, and 

death of adult and juvenile fish and other organisms. Factors which affect the DO concentration 

in water include temperature, DO sources such as photosynthesis, DO sinks such as respiration 

and breakdown of organic material, and salinity. Low dissolved oxygen levels can result from 

algal blooms, low flows, elevated water temperature, human waste and animal waste. Based on 

the Maryland water quality criteria, MONO’s streams should equal or exceed a dissolved oxygen 

concentration of 5.0 mg/L. 

MONO Dissolved Oxygen Target Value: ≥ 5.0 mg/L

pH 

pH is a measure of hydrogen (H+

) ions in a water sample, with pH values lower than 7 indicating 

acidity while pH values higher than 7 indicate alkalinity. At the extreme ends of the pH scale (2 

27
or 13), physical damage to gills, exoskeleton, and fins of aquatic species can occur. Changes in 

pH may also alter the concentrations of other substances in water to a more toxic form and 

increase toxic substance mobility, making it easier for organisms to absorb. In fresh water, 

increasing temperature decreases pH. Some factors that may affect pH in park waters include 

acid rain and fertilizers. Based on the Maryland water quality criteria, MONO’s streams should 

maintain a pH between 6.5 and 8.0. 

MONO pH Target Value: 6.5 – 8.0

Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) 

Although pH is the most commonly used measure of acidification, acid neutralizing capacity 

(ANC) is a better overall measure of acidification and acid sensitivity because it indicates which 

systems are likely to become acidified under episodic conditions. The following ANC values 

were used to characterize streams according to acid sensitivity: < 0 μeq/L (acidic), 0 < ANC < 50 

μeq/L (highly sensitive to acidification), 50 < ANC < 200 μeq/L (sensitive to acidification), and 

> 200 μeq/L (not sensitive to acidification) (Southerland et al., 2005b). 

According to Southerland et al. (2005b), ANC is typically well above the 200 μeq/L (800-1000 

μeq/L) for the Upper Potomac basin, including MONO. Based upon these findings for the Upper 

Potomac basin, a target value > 600 μeq/L ANC was selected for MONO waters. It should be 

noted that the “Upper Potomac basin” as defined by Southerland et al. (2005b) is different from 

the Federal basins that include MONO, presented earlier in Figure 7a. 

MONO Acid Neutralizing Capacity Target Value > 600 μeq/L

Nutrients 

Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus are important for life in all aquatic systems. In the 

absence of human influence, streams contain a background level of nutrients that is essential to 

the survival of the aquatic plants and animals in that system. However, during the last several 

hundred years, the amount of nutrients in many stream systems has increased, as a result of 

anthropogenic influences such as agricultural runoff, wastewater discharge, and urban/suburban 

nonpoint sources. Elevated nitrogen concentrations are one contributor to nutrient enrichment in 

aquatic systems. Excessive nitrogen loading may lead to the eutrophication of the water body. 

Eutrophication often decreases the level of dissolved oxygen available to aquatic organisms. 

Prolonged exposure to low dissolved oxygen values can suffocate adult fish or lead to reduced 

recruitment. Increased nutrient loads are also thought to be harmful to humans by causing toxic 

algal blooms. In Maryland, concern for nutrient loadings to the Chesapeake Bay has drawn 

attention to the amounts of materials transported throughout the watershed by stream tributaries 

(Roth et al., 1999). 

Unfortunately, “excess” is a difficult determination to make because nutrient concentrations vary 

widely and interact with many other biological and physical conditions that can lead to 

undesirable effects. Factors than can influence nutrient criteria include: geographic region, 

28
waterbody types, seasonality, and designated uses. As a result, there is no state criterion for 

nutrient concentrations. The national safe drinking water criterion for nitrate is < 10 mg/L (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2007). 

Since there are no state criteria for nutrients, interim criteria are recommended based on 

Southerland et al. (2005b), where nutrient samples were collected from the Upper Potomac basin 

for 1 – 4 order streams. Southerland et al. (2005b) reviewed data from the second round of the 

Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS), estimating nutrient thresholds. 

st th

MONO “Interim” Nutrient Target Values: Nitrate: < 3.0 mg/L, Nitrite: < 0.010 mg/L, 

Ammonia: < 0.05 mg/L, Orthophosphate: < 0.010 mg/L

Once clear nutrient relationships can be correlated with water resource health through parkspecific studies, new nutrient criteria that support the goals for MONO’s water resources can 

replace these interim targets (see Strategies, Nutrient Target Values). 

Physical Indicators and Target Values 

Several sources were referenced in selecting appropriate physical indicators that would reflect 

physical aspects of MONO’s water resource health and provide appropriate target values. First, 

the current NCRN’s vital signs (indicators) for natural stream morphology and ground water 

processes were identified. They included; stream habitat structure, river depth, stream flow, 

stream discharge, and ground water elevation (National Park Service, 2005). These vital signs, 

along with some others, were then applied to two regionally-accepted habitat indices that 

evaluate stream condition and provide target values for their respective metrics: 1) Physical 

Habitat Index (Paul et al., 2002); and 2) Qualitative Suite of Habitat Metrics (Kazyak, 2001). 

Details on each of these methodologies are described in the following sections. 

Habitat Evaluation 

Physical stream habitat is the physical template upon which the biological structure of stream 

communities is built; without adequate habitat the biological potential of streams is limited. Not 

surprisingly, stream health, as determined by the condition of biological communities, has been 

shown to be directly correlated to physical habitat quality (Rankin 1995; Roth et al. 1996). 

Degradation of the physical habitat is among the leading causes of stream impairment 

nationwide (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000) and a critical factor affecting stream 

biodiversity (Allan and Flecker, 1993). An important component of any assessment program is, 

therefore, a sound habitat assessment approach. Together, chemical and physical data are used 

to assess water quality independently and also help identify stressors responsible for degraded 

biological conditions. 

In 1999, the Maryland Biological Stream Survey developed a provisional Physical Habitat Index

(PHI) to synthesize physical habitat measurements into a single multi-metric index of physical 

habitat quality (Hall et al., 1999). A PHI was developed for coastal and non-coastal streams in 

29
Maryland. The state followed methods largely adapted from other national and regional 

protocols (Pflakin et al., 1989; Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1987; Rankin, 1989). 

Paul et al. (2002) revised the PHI for use in streams across three classifications: coastal, 

piedmont, and highlands. As with the biological multi-metric indices used by Maryland, the PHI 

develops expectations for the structure and function of physical habitat from reference sites. 

That is, the approach compares the physical attributes of stream habitat to physical attributes at 

minimally-disturbed sites. 

For the Highlands region of Maryland that includes MONO (Paul et al., 2002), the PHI includes 

the following metrics and their associated habitat features reflected by the metrics: 

METRIC FEATURE 

Transformed bank stability Geomorphology 

Epibenthic substrate Visual Habitat 

Transformed percent shading Riparian Condition 

Riparian width Riparian Condition 

Remoteness Remoteness 

The metric scores are combined and the PHI score is adjusted to a centile scale that rates each 

sample site as follows: 81-100 (minimally degraded); 66-80 (partially degraded); 51-65 

(degraded); and 0-50 (severely degraded). Interestingly, Roth et al. (1999) determined that a 

score of < 42 for the 1999 PHI was a threshold for stress based on 539 Maryland sites with a 

FIBI or BIBI score rated poor or very poor. 

MONO Target Value for Physical Habitat Index: ≥ 81

(note: use at existing NCR Network Vital Signs sampling sites at MONO) 

The Qualitative Suite of Habitat Metrics (Kazyak, 2001) is based on eight qualitative metrics of 

in-stream habitat quality that are scored for each site based on observations of habitat condition 

in streams during sampling visits (Table 4). The individual metric scores are interpreted based 

on several categories of habitat degradation; they are not combined into an index. Table 4 

delineates the target value for each of these metrics. This suite of habitat metrics should be used 

at park-based monitoring sites, replacing the RCE (Riparian, Channel, and Environmental 

Inventory) currently used by MONO. It should be noted that none of these metrics is grounded 

through an understanding of reference site expectations. 

30
Table 4. Qualitative habitat metrics used to assess stream condition (guidelines in Kazyak, 

 2001). Embeddedness and shading are scored 0-100%; their target values are based 

 on an interpretation of regional scores for these metrics as presented in Hilderbrand 

 et al. (2005), and should regarded as ‘interim’ target values. All other metrics are 

 scored 0-20 and are interpreted as follows: 16-20 (optimal); 11-15 (sub-optimal); 6- 

 10 (marginal); and 0-5 (poor). 

 

Habitat Metric Description Rationale Target Value 

Instream habitat Amount of stable habitat 

structures in the stream 

Stable substrates 

usually associated with 

better site quality 

≥ 16 

Epifaunal substrate Amount and diversity of 

hard, stable substrates 

available to benthic 

macroinvertebrates 

More available 

substrate associated 

with better site quality ≥ 16 

Velocity/depth diversity Diversity of velocity and 

depth regimes in a 

segment 

Higher diversity of 

types is associated with 

better site quality 

≥ 16 

Pool/glide/eddy quality Variety, extent, and 

spatial complexity of 

slow- or still-water 

habitat available 

More diversity and 

complexity is 

associated with better 

site quality 

≥ 16 

Riffle/run quality Depth, complexity, and 

functional 

importance of habitats 

More diversity and 

complexity is 

associated with better 

site quality 

≥ 16 

Embeddedness Amount of fine sediment 

on the stream bed 

Lower embeddedness is 

associated with better 

site quality 

≤ 35% (interim 

target value) 

Shading Amount of stream 

shaded by 

riparian vegetation 

Greater shading is 

associated with better 

site quality 

≥ 75% (interim 

target value) 

Aesthetic rating Visual appeal, absence of 

trash 

A general indicator of 

overall disturbance ≥ 16 

 

MONO Target Value for Qualitative Suite of Habitat Metrics: varies by metric (see Table 4). 

(note: use at existing park-based sampling sites) 

Stream Classification 

It is important for MONO to classify its streams on the basis of channel morphology (physical 

parameters), providing an understanding of “stream health” and answering the questions, “Is the 

stream morphology (physical characteristics) impaired?...and if so, why?” Currently, the 

national battlefield does not have this baseline information (see Strategies, Stream Channel 

Morphology). 

Aquifer Characteristics

The quality, quantity, and flow of ground water are important to MONO’s cultural landscape and 

operations. Ground water recharges the surface water features at the national battlefield, such as 

31
streams, ponds, springs and wetlands. MONO also uses ground water as a potable water supply, 

with wells located inside and outside the national battlefield to satisfy the park and local 

community water needs. 

Currently, MONO does not have a baseline for seasonal ground water elevations, flow direction 

and flow velocity for the aquifer(s) that support natural resources and park operations (see 

Strategies, Groundwater Assessment). 

Biological Indicators and Target Values 

Biological integrity refers to the capacity to support and maintain a balanced, integrated, and 

adaptive biological system having the full range of elements (e.g., populations, species, 

assemblages) and processes (e.g. biotic interactions, energy dynamics, biogeochemical cycles) 

expected in a region’s natural habitat (Karr et al., 1986). The biological integrity of water 

resources is jeopardized by altering one or more of five classes of environmental factors: 1) 

alteration of physical habitat, 2) modifications of seasonal flow of water, 3) changes in the food 

base of the system, 4) changes in interactions within the stream biota, and 5) chemical 

contamination (Karr, 1992). 

Multi-metric indices of biotic integrity are the most common indicators of stream condition in 

use today. Just over a decade ago, 42 states used multi-metric indices of biological condition 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996). In 1998, Maryland developed fish (FIBI; Roth 

et al., 1998) and benthic macroinvertebrate (BIBI; Stribling et al., 1998) indices of biotic 

integrity as part of the Maryland Biological Stream Survey. These indices develop their 

expectations for the structure and function of biological assemblages from reference sites. This 

approach compares the ecological attributes of biological assemblages to assemblages at 

minimally-disturbed sites which by definition have high scores. These attributes, called metrics, 

quantify biological aspects of assemblages that correlate well with human influence, such as 

species composition, trophic composition, and abundance. These metrics, singularly or in 

aggregate, provide both numeric and narrative descriptions of resource condition, which can be 

compared among watersheds, across a single watershed, and over time (Karr, 1981). 

Recently, Southerland et al. (2005a) developed new FIBIs and BIBIs for Maryland that are based 

on a more refined dataset of reference streams; include more natural variation across geographic 

regions and stream types; and show more sensitivity via more classes, different metric 

combinations, or alternative scoring methods. The FIBI and BIBI applicable to MONO are 

detailed in Tables 5 and 6, respectively. Threshold scores for each metric are summed and the 

mean represents the FIBI or BIBI index score. For both, index scores range from 0 to 5.0; Table 

7 provides the narrative description and qualitative value for various ranges in index score. 

32
Table 5. The new FIBI metrics and threshold values for streams in the 

 Warmwater Highlands classification in Maryland (Southerland et al., 

 2005a). The number of benthic species metric is adjusted for watershed 

 size via a linear regression relationship. Threshold scores range from 5 

 = best to 1 = worst. 

 Thresholds 

Fish IBI metrics 5 3 1

Abundance per m2 ≥ 0.65 0.31 – 0.64 < 0.31 

Number of benthic species ≥ 0.25 0.11 -0.24 < 0.11 

% tolerant species ≤ 39 40 - 80 > 80 

% generalist, omnivore, 

invertivore ≤ 61 62 - 96 > 96 

% insectivore ≥ 33 1 - 32 < 1 

% abundance of dominant taxa ≤ 38 39-89 >89 

Table 6. The new BIBI metrics and threshold values for streams in the 

 Combined Highlands classification in Maryland (Southerland et 

 al., 2005a). Threshold scores range from 5 = best to 1 = worst. EPT 

 = Ephemeroptera + Plecoptera + Trichoptera. 

 Thresholds 

Benthic IBI metrics 5 3 1 

Number of taxa ≥ 24 15 - 23 < 15 

Number of EPT ≥ 14 8 - 13 < 8 

Number of Ephemeroptera ≥ 5 3 - 4 < 3 

% intolerant urban ≥ 80 38 - 79 < 38 

% Tanytarsini ≥ 4 0.1 – 3.9 < 0.1 

% scrapers ≥ 13 3 - 12 < 3 

% swimmers ≥ 18 3 - 17 < 3 

% Diptera ≥ 26 27 - 49 > 50 

Table 7. Narrative descriptions of stream biological integrity associated with 

 categories of the IBI scores (Southerland et al., 2005a). 

Good IBI score 4.0-5.0 Comparable to reference streams considered to be minimally 

impacted. On average, biological metrics fall within the upper 50% of 

reference site conditions. 

Fair IBI score 3.0-3.9 Comparable to reference conditions, but some aspects of biological 

integrity may not resemble the qualities of these minimally impacted 

streams. On average, biological metrics fall within the lower portion 

of the range of reference sites (10th to 50th percentile) 

Poor IBI score 2.0-2.9 Significant deviation from reference conditions, with many aspects of 

biological integrity not resembling the qualities of these minimally 

impacted streams, indicating degradation. On average, biological 

metrics fall below the 10th percentile of reference site values. 

Very Poor IBI score 1.0-1.9 Strong deviation from reference conditions, with many aspects of 

biological integrity not resembling the qualities of these minimally 

impacted streams, indicating severe degradation. On average, 

biological metrics fall below the 10th percentile of reference site 

values; most or all metrics are below this level. 

33
Hilderbrand et al. (2005) analyzed stream site condition using both the FIBI and BIBI at various 

National Capital Region parks. They found that the indices responded differently to the various 

landscape, chemical, and physical attributes of sites and reflected the importance of using more 

than one taxonomic group to measure site condition. For instance, benthic macroinvertebrates 

were most closely related to water chemistry, especially nitrates. In contrast, fishes 

demonstrated little correlation to chemistry or land uses and were more associated with habitat 

features. Barker et al. (2006), looking at the effects of agricultural riparian buffers on stream 

health in Maryland, found similar results. In their study, site-based land management was not a 

controlling factor for the FIBI, and hence, it would not be prudent to use the FIBI to evaluate 

site-scale factors. In contrast, the BIBI responded to site-specific variables that reflected 

instream condition, adjacent land use, and chemistry. 

MONO Target Value for Fish Index of Biotic Integrity: ≥ 4.0

MONO Target Value for Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity: ≥ 4.0 

(use at existing NCR Network Vital Signs sampling sites at MONO) 

34
Water Resource Evaluation 

Current Condition versus Target Value 

A minimal amount of information exists on the condition of aquatic resources in the National 

Capital Region parks, including MONO (National Park Service, 2002). With indicator 

parameters and target values established in the previous sections, we can begin to evaluate the 

condition of MONO’s water resources using available data and further refining the assessments 

as more information is collected. By identifying which indicators and sampling locations 

achieve or do not achieve the selected target value, we can then begin to correlate influences 

(stressors) for the impacted water resources. In this section, the water resource evaluations are 

grouped under the following: chemical, physical and biological indicators, with each 

summarized in a table format. 

Chemical Indicators 

During a one-time 2004 water quality sampling event at MONO (Hilderbrand et al., 2005), four 

indicator parameters [nitrite (NO2) = 0.0323 mg/L (MONY-103), 0.0194 mg/L (MONY-301), 

and 0.0151 mg/L (MONY-201); nitrate (NO3) = 4.6 mg/L (MONY-103) and 3.58 mg/L 

(MONY-102); orthophosphate (OPO4) = 0.0211 mg/L (MONY-102), 0.0196 mg/L (MONY103), and 0.010 mg/L (MONY-301); and pH = 9.46 (MONY-101 and MONY-103) and 9.38 

(MONY-201)] did not meet the target value(s) (Table 8). The specific sampling locations are 

presented in Figure 10. Sampling sites in Figure 10 are dominated by agriculture in their 

watersheds (57-72% by area). Site 301 is a 3rd order stream site on Bush Creek. Sites 101 and 

201 are on “Old” Visitor Center Creek and are 1st and 2nd order, respectively. (It should be noted 

that the name Visitor Center Creek was recently changed to “Old” Visitor Center Creek since a 

new visitor center was built at a different location in the national battlefield.) Sites 102 and 103 

are on Harding’s Run and Thomas Farm Creek, respectively, and both are 1st order sites. 

Table 8. Water quality samples not meeting established target value(s) in 2004 (Hilderbrand et al., 2005). 

Name (station #) pH NO2 NO3 OPO4 ANC 

“Old” Visitor Center Creek (MONY-101) 1 0 0 0 0 

Harding’s Run (MONY-102) 0 0 1 1 0 

Thomas Farm Creek (MONY-103) 0 1 1 1 0 

Visitor Center Creek (MONY-201) 1 1 0 0 0 

Bush Creek (MONY-301) 1 1 0 1 0 

35
 

In reviewing the data from MONO’s water quality monitoring program (2004-2006), four 

indicator parameters (pH, NO3 (nitrate), DO (dissolved oxygen), and Temp (water 

temperature)) exceeded the established target value at most of the sites sampled (see Table 9). 

Sampling events were in April through August, with one sampling event in November (2004). 

The highest water temperature recorded was 30.3oC at Harding’s Run #2 (07/17/06). The 

highest nitrate concentration was 23.9 mg/L at Thomas Pool (08/18/05). The Thomas #2 site had 

the highest pH (8.60) (04/25/06). The lowest dissolved oxygen concentration recorded was 0.27 

mg/L at the VC (“Old” Visitor Center) Pond (07/17/06) and the lowest pH recorded was 4.43 at 

Lewis Spring (07/12/05). 

Table 9. Percentage of water quality samples not meeting the established target value(s) (2004-2006). 

Station Name pH (n) NO3 (n) DO (n) Temp (n) 

VC Pond 50% (12) 0% (11) 83% (12) 15% (13) 

Thomas Pool 100% (11) 83% (12) 82% (11) 17% (12) 

Lewis Spring House 92% (12) 46% (13) 50% (12) 23% (13) 

Brooks Hill Pool 50% (2) 67% (3) 0% (2) 0% (3) 

Gambrill Spring 100% (1) 100% (1) no sample 0% (1) 

Harding’s Run #1 33% (12) 30% (13) 25% (12) 31% (13) 

Harding’s Run #2 33% (12) 15% (13) 17% (12) 31% (13) 

Harding’s Run #3 27% (11) 9% (11) 27% (11) 50% (12) 

Harding’s Run #4 0% (11) 9% (11) 45% (11) 42% (12) 

Bush Creek #1 0% (11) 15% (13) 17% (12) 8% (13) 

Bush Creek #2 25% (12) 8 % (13) 25% (12) 8% (13) 

Thomas #1 18% (11) 18% (11) 36% (11) 8% (12) 

Thomas #2 9% (11) 50% (12) 18% (11) 8% (12) 

Figure 10. Monocacy National Battlefield 

 sample locations (from 

 Hilderbrand et al., 2005). 

36
In reviewing water quality data collected at three sites by the NPS NCR network (2005-2006), 

four indicator parameters [pH, NO3 (nitrate), NH3 (ammonia), and DO (dissolved oxygen)] 

exceeded the established target value at all sites sampled, excluding pH collected at Harding’s 

Run (see Table 10). Sampling events were from May through August. 

The highest water temperature recorded was 23.4oC at Bush Creek (BUCK) on 07/24/06 and 

08/15/06. The highest nitrate concentration recorded was 14.2 mg/L at Harding’s Run (HARU) 

(10/06/05). The highest ammonia concentration recorded was 0.152 mg/L at “Old” Visitor 

Center Creek (VCCR) and the highest pH recorded was 9.42 at BUCK. The lowest acid 

neutralizing capacity was 616 μeq/L at HARU (02/23/06). The lowest pH recorded was 7.07 at 

HARU (01/23/06). 

Table 10. Percentage of water quality samples not meeting established target value(s) (2005-2006). 

Name (station #) pH (n) NO3 (n) NH3 (n) DO (n) Temp (n) ANC (n) 

MONO-BUCK 77% (13) 14% (14) 33% (6) 15% (13) 0% (13) 0% (12) 

MONO-HARU 0% (12) 46% (13) 20% (5) 50% (12) 0% (12) 0% (11) 

MONO-VCCR 25% (12) 77% (13) 17% (6) 17% (12) 0% (11) 0% (11) 

Potable water used for MONO’s facilities is obtained from ground water wells near the facilities. 

Based on the samples collected, the quality of ground water for personal consumption meets all 

required drinking water standards (National Park Service, 2007). 

Biological Indicators 

Hilderbrand et al. (2005) provide a baseline of biological conditions for five stream sites at 

MONO (Figure 10). However, they used the older, pre-2005 Fish Index of Biotic Integrity 

(FIBI) and Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (BIBI). Therefore, MONO/NCRN should recalculate the index values using the newer FIBIs and BIBIs of Southerland et al. (2005b). 

Undoubtedly, index scores will change such that current condition, as discussed below, is for 

illustration purposes only. However, it is unlikely that index scores would change enough to 

meet the target value. 

Biological assessments using the FIBI and BIBI indicate generally poor condition in the smaller 

streams at MONO; no sites met target values (Table 11). The Bush Creek site rates as fair for 

both the FIBI and BIBI; all other sites range from poor to very poor for both the FIBI and BIBI. 

Although 48 taxa were recorded across the five MONO sites, sites scored low on Ephemeroptera 

related metrics, Tanytarsini chironomids, and intolerant taxa (Table 12). The latter illustrates an 

important point with regard to the use of any multi-metric index – do not lose sight of the 

individual metric values and their trends. They can provide information that can be early 

warning signs of incipient anthropogenic impacts. Individual metrics are often more valuable 

than the index score. 

37
Table 11. Index scores and target values for the five FIBI and BIBI sites at MONO (modified from 

 Hilderbrand et al., 2005). Abbreviations are: f = fair; p = poor; and vp = very poor. 

Site_ID Watershed 

size in 

acres

Stream FIBI 

(condition 

class)

Target Value 

(met)

BIBI 

(condition 

class)

Target Value 

(met)

MONY-101-N-2004 445 “Old” Visitor Center Creek 3.0 (f) ≥ 4 (no) 2.1 (p) ≥ 4 (no) 

MONY-102-N-2004 1009 Harding’s Run 1.3( vp) ≥ 4 (no) 2.8 (p) ≥ 4 (no) 

MONY-103-N-2004 201 Thomas Farm Creek No fish ≥ 4 (no) 1.9 (vp) ≥ 4 (no) 

MONY-201-N-2004 698 “Old” Visitor Center Creek 2.7 (p) ≥ 4 (no) 2.6 (p) ≥ 4 (no) 

MONY-301-N-2004 20369 Bush Creek 3.6 (f) ≥ 4 (no) 3.4 (f) ≥ 4 (no) 

Table 12. BIBI metric scores (5=best; 1=worst) for MONO sites (modified from Hilderbrand et al., 

 2005). Abbreviations are: Ephem = ephemeropter; EPT = Ephemeroptera + Plecoptera + 

 Trichoptera; Tars = Tanytarsini chironomids; Prop = proportion; Num. = number. 

 

Site_id Taxa EPT 

Prop. 

Ephem 

Num. 

Ephem Diptera Tars Intolerant Tolerant Collector 

MONY-101-N-2004 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 5 5 

MONY-102-N-2004 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 

MONY-103-N-2004 3 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 

MONY-201-N-2004 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 5 

MONY-301-N-2004 5 3 3 3 5 1 3 3 5 

Physical Indicators 

PHI Target Value and Qualitative Suite of Habitat Metrics Target Values: 

Hilderbrand et al. (2005) provide a baseline of physical conditions using the Physical Habitat 

Index (PHI) for five stream sites at Monocacy National Battlefield (Figure 10). Index scores for 

MONO sites varied considerably and represented some of the lowest scores for any National 

Capital Region park (Table 13). 

Table 13. Physical Habitat Index (PHI) (modified from Paul et al., 2002) scores and target values for 

 MONO sites sampled by Hilderbrand et al. (2005). 

________________________________________________________________________ Site ID Stream PHI 

(class)

Target Value 

(met)

MONY-101-N-2004 “Old” Visitor Center Creek 69.6 (partially degraded) ≥ 81 (no)

MONY-102-N-2004 Harding’s Run 56.6 (degraded) ≥ 81 (no)

MONY-103-N-2004 Thomas Farm Creek 30.8 (severely degraded) ≥ 81 (no)

MONY-201-N-2004 “Old” Visitor Center Creek 75.9 (partially degraded) ≥ 81 (no)

MONY-301-N-2004 Bush Creek 74.1 (partially degraded) ≥ 81 (no)

Hilderbrand et al. (2005) also provide a baseline for the Qualitative Suite of Habitat Metrics 

(Table 14). Sites with no values were dry at the time of summer sampling and were not 

evaluated for habitat. Thomas Farm Creek did not meet any of the target values. Harding’s Run 

met only one of the target values. “Old” Visitor Center Creek (both stations) met two of the 

target values. Bush Creek showed the best overall habitat, meeting five target values. 

 

38
Table 14. Qualitative Suite of Habitat Metrics for MONO sites (Hilderbrand et al., 2005). Parenthetical 

 letters refer to meeting (Y) or not meeting (N) the target value. 

site_id Stream 

Instream 

habitat 

Epifaunal 

substrate 

Velocitydepth Pool/ 

glide 

Riffle/ 

run Embed Shading 

Aesthetic 

rating 

MONY-101-N-2004 

“Old” Visitor 

Center Creek 

7 (N) 13 (N) 7 (N) 6 (N) 8 (N) 35 (Y) 30 (N) 16 (Y) 

MONY-102-N-2004 

Hardings Run 

9 (N) 10 (N) 7 (N) 8 (N) 7 (N) 41 (N) 88 (Y) 8 (N) 

MONY-103-N-2004 

Thomas Farm 

Creek 6 (N) 6 (N) 6 (N) 5 (N) 6 (N) 60 (N) 10 (N) 8 (N) 

MONY-201-N-2004 

“Old” Visitor 

Center Creek 

9 (N) 11 (N) 8 (N) 8 (N) 11 (N) 40 (N) 89 (Y) 16 (Y) 

MONY-301-N-2004 

Bush Creek 

17 (Y) 14 (N) 16 (Y) 14 (N) 18 (Y) 30 (Y) 75 (Y) 15 (N) 

39
40
Stressors 

In evaluating water resources at MONO, the identification of stressors is critical for development 

of appropriate management strategies to restore or protect the management goals for water 

resources. Stressor identification assists NPS management with the formulation of approaches 

that address impaired aquatic systems. 

Aquatic habitat degradation can result from a variety of human activities occurring within the 

stream itself or in the surrounding riparian zone and watershed. Urban development, agriculture 

and livestock grazing are well-known examples of human activities affecting streams at a 

broader scale. Alone or in combination, these human activities may cause changes in vegetative 

cover, sediment loads, hydrology, and other factors influencing stream habitat quality. In 

watersheds affected by anthropogenic stress, riparian forests can ameliorate inputs of nutrients, 

sediments, and other pollutants to streams. They also provide other functions such as shade, and 

inputs of leaf litter and large woody debris. 

This section identifies some of the known stressors at MONO, under common themes, that 

influence water resources at the national battlefield. 

Non-Point Source Pollution 

Crop Production 

Nutrients were elevated above the respective target values for most sites sampled in MONO 

(Tables 8, 9, and 10). This is not surprising given the heavy agriculture land use practices within 

and outside the national battlefield boundary. The elevated nutrient concentrations likely 

contributed to the low dissolved oxygen concentrations recorded, where most sites were found to 

be less than the target value of 5 mg/L at least once during the sampling events (Table 9 and 10). 

Eighty three percent and 82% of the dissolved oxygen samples collected from the “Old” Visitor 

Center Pond and Thomas Farm Creek (Thomas Pool), respectively, were below the target value. 

pH values were both above and below the target range (6.5 - 8.0) for many of MONO’s water 

quality samples. At a Thomas Farm Creek site (Thomas Pool), 100% of the samples collected 

exceeded the target range (see Table 9). This is surprising since limestone and dolomite would 

provide some level of buffering to neutralize waters. The acid-neutralizing capacity of waters is 

high (> 600 μeq/L) at the national battlefield and not sensitive to acidification. Hilderbrand et al.

(2005) speculated that the high pH recorded at some water quality sampling sites may be in 

response to agricultural lime applications in the area. 

Livestock Production 

Livestock is also a major source for nutrient loading in the national battlefield, along with 

bacteria contamination and negative impacts to riparian habitat and stream morphology. 

Stream corridors are particularly attractive to livestock for many reasons. They are generally 

highly productive, providing ample forage. Water is close at hand, shade is available, and slopes 

41
are gentle, generally less than 35 percent in most areas. Unless carefully managed, livestock can 

overuse these areas and cause significant problems. Platts (1991) reviewed 19 studies of grazing 

in riparian areas, of which 15 reported either decreased fish abundance with livestock grazing or 

an increase in fish abundance with cessation of grazing. 

Unmanaged grazing can significantly change stream geomorphology. Bank instability and 

increased sedimentation can cause channel widening and increases in the width/depth ratio. 

Increased meandering may result, causing further instability. 

Reduced vegetative cover can increase soil compaction and decrease the depth and productivity 

of topsoil. Loss of cover of mid-story and overstory plants decreases shade and increases water 

temperatures. Sediment from upland or stream bank erosion can reduce water quality through 

increases in turbidity and attached chemicals. Where animal concentrations are large, fecal 

material can increase nutrient loads above standards and introduce bacteria and pathogens. 

Dissolved oxygen reductions can result from high temperatures and nutrient-rich waters. 

Extensive loss of ground cover in the watershed and stream corridor can decrease infiltration and 

increase runoff, leading to higher flood peaks and additional runoff volume. Flow peaks may 

come earlier in the runoff cycle, producing a flashier stream system. 

Transportation and Utility Corridors 

Parts of the battlefield have been degraded, primarily by the construction of Interstate 270. 

Approximately two miles of Interstate 270 pass through MONO, bisecting the battlefield. The I270/U.S. Multi-Modal Corridor Study includes several alternatives for widening I-270 through 

the national battlefield (U.S. Department of Transportation and Maryland Department of 

Transportation, 2002). The alternatives range from constructing one to two more lanes in each 

direction, for a total of six- and eight-lane highway, respectively. The national battlefield 

acreage required for the new lanes was initially calculated at 11.74 acres for the one lane 

expansion and 22.52 acres for the two lane expansion. The study included consideration of three 

measures for reducing the required acreage for road construction in MONO: steeper slopes, 

retaining walls, and reduced width of inside shoulders. Under the two-lane expansion 

alternative, substantial retaining walls averaging seven feet in height would be required (National 

Park Service, 2005). 

Historic Urbana Pike (State Highway 355) is the main access for visitors to the battlefield and 

runs north-south through the eastern part of MONO. This highway, which has four lanes on the 

north side of the national battlefield, is heavily used by commuters, residents, and business 

vehicles. In the national battlefield, the highway is two lanes (National Park Service, 2005). 

Chloride values were double the regional averages at all sites in the national battlefield except 

Bush Creek, which was also above average. Hilderbrand et al. (2005) suggested that the high 

chloride levels could be related to runoff from Interstate 270 and other major roads to the east. 

Runoff from impervious surfaces within the national battlefield such as parking lots can 

concentrate polluted runoff (oils, metals, chlorides, etc.) into the local aquatic environments. 

42
The Urbana Region Plan identifies a transitway alignment along the east side of the Interstate 

270 (Frederick County Department of Planning and Zoning, 2004). This alignment is depicted 

as traversing the Lewis, Thomas, and Best farms, but the plan recommends further study of the 

transitway alignment to determine feasibility, in part because of the potential impact on the 

battlefield. In recognition of the national battlefield’s significance, it also indicates that MD 355 

should be maintained as a two-lane roadway through MONO (National Park Service, 2005). 

MONO is crossed by several utility lines, including water, sewer, and gas (National Park 

Service, 2005). Population growth and associated development have increased pressure to 

expand the existing infrastructure and install new infrastructure in the national battlefield. Such 

proposals include running more water and sewer lines through various areas of the battlefield. 

Point Source Pollution

Wastewater Treatment Systems 

Surface and ground water quality are threatened by point source pollution from septic systems on 

or near the national battlefield, as well as a wastewater treatment plants that discharge upstream 

into the Monocacy River (Site ID: MD0021610 and MD0020877) and along the national 

battlefield’s eastern boundary (Site ID: MD0021822). These pollutants may affect nutrient and 

bacteria levels, pH, and conductivity of the watershed, as well as promote accelerated 

eutrophication (Conneely, 2004). In the past, elevated bacteria concentrations have been a 

problem in the Monocacy River downstream of the Frederick Sewage Treatment Plant. The 

Lower Monocacy River (MD 02140302-R) was listed in 2004 by the U.S. EPA as impaired from 

fecal coliform, nutrients and suspended sediments (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2006). 

The NPS Center for Urban Ecology collected water samples (August 2003) from MONO’s 

“Old” Visitor Center Pond in response to several fish kills, excessive aquatic plant growth, and 

offensive odors (Runde, 2003). The results from the 2003 samples confirmed a very low 

dissolved oxygen concentration in the pond of 0.24 mg/L, far below the 5.0 mg/L target value 

recommended for the protection of early life stages for aquatic fauna. The low nutrient 

concentrations (nitrate = 0.03 mg/L; nitrite = 0.0002 mg/L; ammonia = 0.05 mg/L) were 

attributed to the prolific growth of aquatic plants in the pond. Runde (2003) expected an 

eventual transfer of nutrients to the water column, and then to pond sediments, when the plants 

perish. MONO’s septic system is thought to contribute to the nutrient loading at the “Old” 

Visitor Center Pond, but dye tracing was unable to confirm this theory. 

Underground Storage Tanks and Salvage Yard 

Water samples collected in 1990 and 1991 from a groundwater seep located adjacent to the 

Phillip and Stup properties contained trace amounts of toluene and MTBE, each associated with 

petroleum products. These contaminates suggest groundwater contamination (gasoline) from 

leaking underground storage tanks (Maryland Department of the Environment, 1990 & 1991). A 

junkyard located along MONO’s eastern boundary may be another source for shallow ground 

water contamination. 

43
Hazardous Waste Spills 

A number of major transportation routes are within or adjacent to MONO. Along with 

interstates and roads, the CSX Railroad extends through the national battlefield, paralleling the 

Monocacy River and Bush Creek (National Park Service, 2005). Trucks and rail cars carry fuel 

oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, and a variety of agricultural and industrial chemicals along these 

corridors. Both the type and quantity of material transported along these arteries are sufficient to 

cause serious water quality problems within MONO if a spill were to occur. 

Land Use Influences on Aquatic Habitat 

Stream Morphology 

All streams that pass through the national battlefield exhibit some degree of channel structure 

degradation, in part from increased upstream runoff. Construction and development in the 

surrounding area have increased the amount of impervious surface and contributed to this 

harmful change. As Bush Creek nears its confluence with the Monocacy River, the stream 

channel becomes incised and much of the stream bank is undercut (National Park Service, 2007). 

As Harding’s Run passes under Baker Valley Road and through the national battlefield, its 

volume increases and the stream becomes more incised. Near the mouth of the stream, the banks 

are eight feet high and extremely undercut (National Park Service, 2007). Other intermittent 

streams that run through the national battlefield usually contain flowing water about six to eight 

months of the year and typically display degraded channel structures (National Park Service, 

2007). 

Sedimentation 

Freshwater mussels and aquatic associates across all drainages in Maryland are undergoing 

drastic population declines primarily due to increased sedimentation and siltation, poor water 

quality from changes in land use, and agriculture runoff (Motivans, 1995). 

Sediment within the water column and streambed can come from both terrestrial and channel 

sources. Initially, cleared land and removal of important riparian habitat produces large 

sediment loads into streams and can lead to an aggradation phase where the channels are filled 

with sediment. Following construction, sediment loads are reduced and the increased high flows, 

resulting from increased runoff, gradually remove the sediment so the channel widens and 

deepens. During this erosional phase, most of the sediment carried by the stream comes from 

channel erosion rather than terrestrial sources (Southerland et al., 2005b). Fine sediment can 

interfere with breathing, feeding, reproducing, and food production for many aquatic species 

(Wood and Armitage, 1997). Consequently, sediments can depress populations of invertebrates 

and fishes and increase the dominance of silt-tolerant species. 

MONO’s water quality and aquatic resources are at risk from sedimentation and stream erosion, 

caused in part by poor agricultural practices and surrounding development (National Park 

Service, 2005). The lack of native freshwater mussels in Bush Creek could be due to several 

factors: general habitat degradation or pollution, lack of a fish host, the exotic Asian clam, or 

sedimentation. Since there was not an abundance of Asian clam in Bush Creek, it is not believed 

44
to be a major factor on the lack of freshwater mussels. Freshwater mussels have very specialized 

habitat requirements. They need a stable, relatively silt-free streambed (but not too rocky) and 

well-oxygenated shallow water free of pollutants. Upstream non-point source pollution (e.g., 

agricultural runoff) is likely the most important limiting factor for freshwater mussels at Bush 

Creek (Motivans, 1995). 

Based on Maryland’s 2006 303(d) list for impaired water bodies in the state, the aquatic biology 

is listed as potentially impaired in Bush Creek. There is currently insufficient water quantity 

data to determine Bush Creek’s attainment status (subbasin code: 021403020228), while another 

reach of Bush Creek (subbasin code: 021403020229) is listed as potentially requiring a TMDL to 

move the creek to attainment of the biological standard (Maryland Department of the 

Environment, 2006a). 

Riparian Buffers 

Water temperatures exceeded the target value (75oF (23.9oC)) at many sites sampled (2004-2006) 

by NPS staff (Table 9). The reduced riparian cover that reduces shading is likely a factor for 

these high water temperatures. 

Water Demands 

During the droughts of 1999 and 2002, hundreds of domestic wells failed, some public water 

systems’ well yields were significantly reduced and public water systems using surface supplies 

without adequate reservoir storage were dangerously close to being unable to meet demands. 

Some systems installed emergency water intakes, some violated permit flow-by conditions, and 

some communities hauled water from other localities to meet their water needs. Citizens and 

businesses felt the economic and lifestyle pinch of water restrictions, and natural ecosystems 

were stressed as streambeds across the State went dry (Wolman et al., 2006). 

Non-native Plants 

The most extensive stressor (92% of stream miles in the county) characterized by the Maryland 

Biological Stream Survey in Frederick County (2000-2004) is non-native terrestrial plants in the 

riparian zone. Other stressors found are: streams with non-native aquatic fauna (54% stream 

miles); eroded banks (19% stream miles); streams with > 5% urban land use upstream (13% 

stream miles); and streams with no riparian buffer zone (11% stream miles) (Kazyak et al., 

2005). 

45
46
Strategies 

The heart of a park’s Resource Stewardship Strategy (RSS), as the title implies, is to identify 

strategies that move priority park resources toward the desired conditions established in the 

GMP. This section takes MONO’s two water resource goals and lists strategies, under common 

themes, for consideration in MONO’s RSS report. These strategies work towards improving 

water resource data collection and begin to address known stressors, moving MONO’s water 

resources towards the water resource goal, and ultimately towards the desired condition. 

Water Resource Goal: Chemical integrity of park waters (surface and ground 

waters) is improved and/or maintained to support all native life and meet or 

exceed designated use standards 

Inventory and Monitoring 

Water Quality Monitoring Program: 

MONO and NCRN staff should coordinate sampling efforts (water quality parameters, sample 

methodologies, and sample locations) between their respective water quality programs at the 

national battlefield (Conneely, 2004; National Park Service, 2005a). This would enable the data 

generated from both programs to be used together for trend analyses. Sampling frequencies 

should also compliment each other to maximize efficiencies in seasonal evaluations and 

sampling costs. 

E coli sampling is recommended due to the history of bacteria contamination in MONO’s aquatic 

environments. For one of the parameters currently sampled, acid neutralizing capacity (ANC), a 

reduction in the sampling frequency is recommended. The high ANC values recorded in MONO 

(> 600 μeq/L) support the high ANC values presented by Southerland et al. (2005b) for the 

region, offering adequate buffering against acidification of water resources. 

Nutrient Target Values:

Since there are no State criteria for nutrients, it is recommended that nutrient samples be 

concurrently collected with biological assessments in MONO to examine the statistical 

relationship between nutrient concentrations and the assessment endpoints, such as the fish and 

benthic indices of biotic integrity. Once clear nutrient relationships can be correlated with water 

resource health, park-specific numerical criteria can be determined that support the goals for 

MONO’s water resources. Until this has been completed, interim nutrient target values are 

provided based on regional data. Nutrient TMDLs are under development for the Upper and 

Lower Monocacy River Watershed. 

Ground Water Assessment:

Water quality samples from existing wells and springs should continue, using the surface water 

chemical parameters and target values presented in this report. For potable water supplies, 

47
MONO should use the U.S. EPA drinking water standards (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2007) as target values. 

Riparian Restoration and Protection 

Substantial evidence exists to emphasize the importance of maintaining riparian zones in 

headwater regions, which can be areas of high nitrogen removal (Richardson et al. 2004; 

Bernhardt et al. 2005). Riparian stream buffers are also an effective solution to reduce 

sedimentation and stream erosion, while maintaining important aquatic habitat (maintaining 

natural stream temperatures and providing important structural habitat). For MONO, riparian 

buffers must be established in keeping with the historic landscape (National Park Service, 2005). 

The national battlefield is encouraged to maximize riparian buffers along stream corridors. 

Implementation of Riparian Forest Buffer Systems (RFBS) within the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed has been encouraged, especially for agricultural areas. The NPS is one of 15 federal 

agencies participating in this regional effort to identify and implement riparian buffer restoration 

projects (Lowarance et al., 1995). 

This section presents some of the latest information on stream responses to various riparian 

buffers, describing benefits from various riparian types (i.e., grass vs forest buffers) and riparian 

widths. Within the context of preserving the historic landscape at MONO, maximizing benefits 

from riparian buffers to improve water quality and reduce erosion should be the objective. 

Given the amount of agricultural land use in MONO, it is important to understand the capability 

of riparian zone types and widths to control nutrients entering water bodies. Meyer et al. (2006) 

reviewed 66 studies from the riparian buffer zone literature. They found nitrogen removal 

effectiveness varied widely among studies but overall, buffers were effective at removing large 

proportions of the nitrogen found in water flowing through riparian zones (mean of 74% 

effectiveness; see Table 15). Furthermore, a small but significant proportion of the variance in 

removal of nitrogen was explained by buffer width – that is wider buffers removed more 

nitrogen, but other factors also must have affected effectiveness. Additionally, greater 

consistency of nitrogen removal was evident with increasing buffer width. For example, 

nitrogen removal effectiveness in buffers < 50 m wide was more variable than those > 50 m 

where nearly all buffers exhibited a 75%-removal effectiveness. Finally, grass buffers were 

significantly less effective than forest buffers at removing nitrogen whereas other buffers were 

equally effective (Table 15). However, grass riparian buffers are better than none at all. For 

example, conversion of a portion of a corn field to a riparian buffer of fine leaf fescue decreased 

overland flow concentrations of total Kjeldahl nitrogen by 70% and nitrate by 83%. Grass filter 

strips 4.6- and 9.1-m wide reduced surface nitrate runoff from no-till cornfields by 27% and 

57%, respectively. But, similar filter strips installed below animal feedlots were ineffective 

(Dillaha et al. 1988, 1989). Combining grass with forest greatly improved nitrogen removal 

effectiveness (Table 15). Lee et al. (2003) found that the addition of a 9.2-m woody buffer to a 

7.1-m grass buffer increased effectiveness by 20%, removing 84% of the total nitrogen and 85% 

of the nitrate in runoff. 

48
Table 15. Mean and percent effectiveness of riparian buffers at removing nitrogen (after Meyer et al., 

 2006). Buffer widths necessary to achieve a given percent effectiveness (50%, 75%, 90%) are 

 approximate values predicted by the non-linear model y=a*

ln(x)+b. Effectiveness was not 

 predicted (np) for models with R2

 values < 0.2. 

An approach, thought to maximize nutrient removal capacity of buffers to protect streams in 

agricultural use, involves a three-zone system (Schultz et al., 1995, National Resources 

Conservation Service, 2003) characterized by a zone of grasses and forbs immediately next to 

the area of disturbance, a middle zone of shrubs, and a zone of trees nearest to the stream 

channel. In theory, sediments and nutrients in surface runoff flowing from agricultural fields are 

intercepted first by the grass zone, while nutrients entering deeper subsurface pathways are taken 

up by shrub and tree roots (Natural Research Council, 2002). Additionally, this or any other 

riparian buffer system may behave differently given the karst environment that underlies the 

national battlefield. 

Barker et al. (2006) used MBSS data to determine effects of agricultural riparian buffers on 

measures of biological stream health. They determined that BIBI and PHI were the most 

appropriate indicators to measure effectiveness of buffer installations. Furthermore, the 

threshold width for improved PHI indicated that installation of even narrow forest buffers (< 5 

m) may directly affect instream habitat. BIBI scores were demonstrably higher only at wider 

buffer sites, indicating that an investment of more than 35 m may be necessary to see ecological 

effects. 

Hazardous Material Spill Prevention and Response 

Roadways and railways cross through the national battlefield and are used to transport a variety 

of products that include hazardous materials. A hazardous material spill along these 

transportation corridors could have serious consequences to the battlefield’s aquatic resources. 

Along with these external threats to hazardous materials, MONO manages hazardous materials 

for internal park operations (i.e., pesticides, paint, gasoline, etc.). These materials should be 

managed (following regulated containment and disposal procedures) to minimize potential 

impacts to the national battlefield’s environment. 

49
This section provides a recommended framework for managing hazardous materials and 

responding to accidental spills that impact the national battlefield. 

MONO staff should delineate spill-sensitive natural resources and develop a mechanism to 

provide resource-specific information and advice to the Department of Interior Regional 

Response Team in the event of a major spill. In working with the response team, MONO may 

decide to store important spill mitigation supplies within the national battlefield, if appropriate, 

to help facilitate an emergency response. 

Appropriate MONO and NCR staff should be familiar with all applicable regional and local 

Hazardous Materials Spill Contingency Plans, and response action Standard Operation 

Procedures (SOPs). Historic spills and associated responses that have affected MONO should be 

reviewed. From these reviews, a Spill Contingency Plan (SCP) for the national battlefield should 

be prepared. The SCP should provide outline response procedures for small spills that can be 

addressed locally and identify notification and response procedures for larger spills that require 

immediate additional assistance. This includes coordination with the Maryland Department of 

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. EPA, Maryland Department of the 

Environment, FEMA, and other appropriate entities. 

A spill prevention and response program for hazardous materials should be established at 

MONO. Standard measures include procedures for storing and handling hazardous materials, 

spill containment, cleanup, and reporting procedure, as well as limiting refueling and other 

hazardous activities to non-sensitive sites (National Park Service, 2005). Safety meetings and 

preparedness drills should be conducted annually after the SCP is in place. 

Cultural Landscape Management 

Agricultural activities maintain the historic agrarian character of the national battlefield’s 

landscape. A management challenge for the NPS is maintaining the agrarian character while 

protecting natural resources. 

Agriculture encompasses approximately 760 acres within the 1355 acres of fee simple 

ownership. Agricultural activities within the park include pasturing heifers, dairy cows, and beef 

cattle; cultivating row crops, including corn, soybeans, and small grains; and growing cool 

season pasture grasses for hay production. The park maintains this agricultural landscape 

through agreements with local farmers. 

An agricultural Special Use Permit is issued to the farmer for a 5-year period, which enumerates 

conditions placed on the operation of the farms. Some of these conditions include setting the 

stocking rate (number of livestock per acre), establishing and preserving riparian buffers, 

controlling noxious weeds, and requiring pesticide use applications and annual use logs. 

Per Maryland state law, each farmer is required to prepare and follow a Nutrient Management 

Plan. This plan analyzes the crop yield and nutrient requirements and levels and availability of 

nutrients in the soil to balance crop nutrient requirements and the amount and type of fertilizer 

that should be applied to the land. A copy of this plan is submitted to the park, and is another 

part of the management requirements placed on the farmers. 

50
The sections below build from the required Special Use Permits and Nutrient Management Plans, 

elevating strategies that minimize water resource impacts from the cultural landscape 

management in the national battlefield. 

Crop Management:

Pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers should be used conservatively inside the boundaries of the 

national battlefield. The quantity, application methods, and timing of these chemical 

applications can influence offsite contamination of aquatic environments. Pesticides, herbicides 

and fertilizers can make their way into surface water and ground water from leaching and rain 

events, negatively impacting aquatic resources and potable water supplies. 

Implementation of Integrated Pest Management techniques (based on the specific soils, climate, 

pest history, and crop for a particular field) will reduce contamination of waterways. Proper 

storage, mixing and handling of pesticides are also essential in minimizing risk to the 

environment. Occasional pesticide sampling of MONO’s water resources is recommended 

during peak application periods and runoff events to evaluate efficiencies of the applications and 

best management practices. 

Coordination is recommended with CSX Railroad and the Maryland Department of 

Transportation on herbicide use practices. Minimizing herbicide application should be 

encouraged whenever possible. For example, Motivans (1995) recommended changing chemical 

application to mechanical weed control along fence lines. 

Developing procedures to work with Soil Conservation Districts regarding agricultural impacts 

are also recommended (Frederick County, 2004). Some best management practices are already 

in place to limit soil erosion and runoff into streams. This would include erosion control, crop 

rotation, nutrient management, and soil conservation (National Park Service, 2005). 

Conventional and conservation tillage practices affect the movement of water, soil and chemicals 

within and from a field. Conservation tillage refers to many different types of tillage and 

planting practices which leave crop residues on the soil surface. Crop residue cushions the 

erosive impact of raindrops on the soil surface, slows surface water flow, enhances infiltration, 

reduces wind erosion and conserves soil moisture. 

Different tillage practices affect soil properties which subsequently affect contaminant 

movement within and from a field. Tillage reduces the ability for water to infiltrate down 

through the soil profile by disturbing soil structure. The amount or proportion of water 

infiltration and runoff can vary greatly among fields, depending on slopes, soil texture, structure 

and internal drainage (Faucett et al., 1994). 

Tillage practices can change the volume of runoff and erodible sediment which moves off the 

field. A review of several paired watershed studies by Faucett et al. (1994) showed that 

conventional tillage fields tend to have significant water runoff, soil erosion, and agri-chemical 

loss while conservation tillage fields show no seasonal runoff. They also noted that conservation 

tillage systems have often, but not always, increased infiltration and reduced runoff. Although 

51
conservation tillage systems have been shown to reduce total water runoff, concentrations of 

pesticides are sometimes increased by the reduced runoff volume. This may be due to an 

increased reliance on herbicides in some conservation tillage systems. 

Best management practices recommended by the Chesapeake Bay Program (2006a) that reduce 

or eliminate soil loss, prevent runoff, and provide for the proper application rates of nutrients to 

cropland include: 

• Vegetated buffer strips at the edge of crop fields 

• Conservation tillage that leaves at least 30% of the field surface covered with crop 

residue after planting is completed and involves reduced or minimum tillage. 

• Strip cropping, where alternate strips of row crop or small grain and hay are planted in 

the same field. There are three main types: contour strip cropping, field strip cropping 

and buffer strip cropping. 

• Soil conservation and water quality planning 

• Nutrient management planning, which helps to maintain high yields and save money on 

the use of fertilizers while reducing nutrient pollution of waterways. 

• Stream bank fencing to restrict stream access. 

Livestock Management:

Two of the three tributaries that empty into the Monocacy River flow through pastures where 

livestock have access to the streams. Impacts from livestock include increases in nutrient and 

bacteria levels, as well as sedimentation due to bank erosion from unrestricted cattle access 

(Conneely, 2004). The negative impacts of livestock grazing riparian areas can be prevented, 

minimized, or improved by controlling when, where, how long, and with what intensity livestock 

graze in the riparian area. 

Off stream watering reduces the time animals spend at the stream under small acreage grazing 

conditions. When given the choice, cattle drank from an off-stream water trough 92% of the 

time, compared to the time that they spent drinking from the stream. Stream bank erosion was 

reduced by 77%, as were concentrations of total suspended solids (90%), total nitrogen (54%), 

and total phosphorus (81%) when an alternative water source was provided. Similar reductions 

were observed in concentrations of bacteria (Sheffield et al., 1997). 

A grazing cow returns 79% of the nitrogen, 66% of the phosphorus and 82% of the potassium to 

the pasture. These nutrients do not always get recycled in the needed locations; in continuously 

grazed pastures, nutrients are often deposited near the shade, the water tank, or the lane areas 

between shade and water. Streambank stability and riparian zone vegetation can be improved by 

locating shade and water away from the stream. Riparian vegetation functions such as shade, 

sediment storage, and hydrologic effects (e.g., water storage and aquifer recharge) often recover 

quickly (i.e., 5-10 years) with livestock exclusion or substantial reductions in grazing intensity 

(Myers and Swanson, 1995; Clary and Webster, 1989). Bank stabilization, channel geometry, 

habitat complexity, and other channel characteristics also recover quickly but may take longer in 

deeply incised stream channels. Various grazing management systems have been implemented 

throughout the western United States, but out of 17 riparian grazing systems described by Platts 

52
(1991), only light use and complete livestock exclusion provided adequate protection to riparian 

and fisheries resources. 

If livestock need to cross streams, provide them with controlled stream crossings. Encouraging 

animals to drink or cross at managed points will reduce random trampling of stream banks and 

decrease the risk of animal injury. Wohl and Carline (1996) found that two of three streams 

responded favorably to streambank fencing, bank stabilization and the installation of rock lined 

animal crossing. In general, abundance of macroinvertebrates was highest in the ungrazed 

stream, which also supported the highest abundance of fish. However, in the two grazed streams 

total dissolved solids decreased by 50% and macroinvertebrate density increased by at least 70%. 

The majority of the research literature shows that totally excluding livestock from the stream is 

the most acceptable best management practice. In reality, this practice is seldom followed 

because of the high cost of fencing streams and riparian areas that are grazed by livestock. Low 

or moderate grazing in riparian areas has effects that are much less significant than heavy or 

unmanaged grazing (Trimble and Mendel, 1995). Several grazing strategies have been employed 

to reduce the effects of grazing on riparian systems. Many researchers agree with Myers and 

Swanson (1995) who indicated that deferred rotation grazing led to improvement of aquatic and 

riparian habitats, but that complete rest produced the most improvement. Management intensive 

grazing includes moving livestock at a high stocking density frequently though a series of 

paddocks. This reduces the time animals spend in the riparian areas and has been demonstrated 

to reduce the impact in and along streams in relation to continuous grazing (Cox, 1998). 

Barriers and buffers can be planted to intercept and contain contaminants that are being carried 

from agricultural lands. In most cases, these are strips of vegetation that slow the velocity of 

runoff water enough for sediment to settle out, water to infiltrate into the ground and nutrients to 

be taken up by plants. Grassed waterways, vegetative strips and field borders are examples of 

buffers that can be used in annually cropped fields. Consideration for constructing wetlands 

within impacted drainages is recommended to assist in remediation of nutrient runoff from 

agricultural lands in MONO. Harding’s Run at the Baker Farm is one potential site for 

consideration of a wetlands project. 

Other Management Strategies 

 Over time, hiking trails deteriorate by natural process and by wear from recreational 

traffic. The magnitude of trail deterioration is determined by characteristics of the trail, 

its environment, and the recreation use the trail receives (Cole, 1987). Sediment yield 

during precipitation events on trails can enter a waterbody and can degrade water quality 

through increased turbidity and total dissolved solids. Aquatic habitat can also be 

negatively impacted from increased sediment yields by covering the natural substrate 

through increased sediment deposition. MONO should evaluate current trail designs, 

closing unwanted access and redesigning trails, as needed, to minimize sedimentation 

into surface waters at MONO (Motivans, 1995). 

 Individual septic systems are common in the immediate area of MONO. These systems 

remove pollutants from wastewater to protect the public health and environment. 

53
Pollutants such as bacteria, viruses, nitrate, ammonia, and suspended solids can enter 

aquatic environments and potable water supplies if not treated properly. As a result, 

discharge limits are set and used to evaluate systems to make sure they stay in 

compliance with those standards. MONO should contact the Frederick County 

Government, Environmental Health Program: Well and Septic Branch (301.600.1726) to 

determine compliance of existing septic systems that influence MONO’s water resources 

and to learn of alternative sewage systems that may be more environmentally friendly in 

sensitive karst areas. 

 Invasive exotic plant species should be managed to retain desirable cultural and natural 

landscape characteristics such as field patterns and the composition of wooded and 

agricultural areas (National Park Service, 2005). Not much is known about how to 

reduce the Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) population, which is present in MONO 

(Motivans, 1995). Another inventory of the Asian clam population in the national 

battlefield is encouraged to evaluate the trends of this exotic species. 

 Runoff from impervious surfaces such as parking lots can concentrate polluted runoff 

(oils, metals, chlorides, etc.) into the local aquatic environments. MONO should consider 

stormwater treatment for parking lot runoff using bioretention areas, filter strips, and 

other proven practices that can be integrated into the landscaped areas (Frederick County, 

2007; National Park Service, 2005). 

Water Resource Goal: Hydrologic integrity of park waters (surface and ground 

waters) is improved and/or maintained to support natural geomorphic processes 

of fluvial and aquifer systems and to support native life. 

Inventory and Monitoring 

Stream Channel Morphology:

It is important for MONO to classify its streams on the basis of channel morphology (physical 

parameters), providing an understanding of “stream health” and answering the questions, “Is the 

stream morphology (physical characteristics) impaired?...and if so, why?” 

A combination of morphological variables important for different scales of analysis from coarse 

to very fine resolutions are used to create the hierarchy for defining stream morphology. Rosgen 

(1996) uses a hierarchy of four assessment levels that vary from a broad geomorphic 

characterization down to a very detailed-specific description and assessment. These four 

assessment levels for stream classification are outlined in Table 16. 

54
Table 16. Rosgen (1996) assessment levels for stream classification. 

Level 1: describe the geomorphic characteristics that result from the integration of basin relief, landform 

and valley morphology. The dimension, pattern, form, and profile of rivers are used to delineate 

geomorphic types at a coarse-scale. 

Level 2: The channel entrenchment, dimensions, patterns, profile, and boundary materials are quantified 

and described by discreet categories of stream types. 

Level 3: Describes the existing condition of the stream as it relates to its stability, response potential, and 

function. At this level, additional field parameters are evaluated that influence the stream state (e.g., 

riparian vegetation, sediment supply, flow regime, debris occurrence, depositional features, channel 

stability, bank erodibility, and direct channel disturbances). Level 3 analyses are useful as a basis for 

integrating companion studies such as fish habitat indices and riparian surveys. 

Level 4: Verifies stream process relationships inferred from the preceding assessments. The objective is 

to establish empirical relationships for use in prediction. The developed empirical relationships are 

specific to individual stream types for a given state, and enable extrapolation to other similar reaches for 

which the Level 4 data is not available. 

The Rosgen (1996) stream classification method is based on extensive field observations and 

quantitative studies of hundreds of stream systems and has formed a basis for many restoration 

designs for impaired stream systems across the nation. It should be noted that although this 

approach is accepted and used by many field professionals (e.g., U.S. Forest Service), there are 

some who believe the over-simplified approach is inappropriate for such a complex field of 

science. 

Floodplain Management:

Floodplains exist in the national battlefield where there are perennial and intermittent streams. 

Some of MONO’s historic structures are located within these floodplains and can be at risk to 

damage from flooding. For example, the Grambill Mill is within the 100-year floodplain of the 

Monocacy River and Bush Creek (National Park Service, 2007). 

In managing floodplains, the NPS will (1) manage for the preservation of floodplain values; (2) 

minimize potentially hazardous conditions associated with flooding; and (3) comply with the 

NPS Organic Act and all other federal laws and executive orders (i.e., Executive Order 11988: 

Floodplain Management, 2006 Park Management Policies) related to the management of 

activities in flood-prone areas (National Park Service, 2006). 

When it is not practicable to locate or relocate development to a site outside the floodplain, the 

NPS is instructed to prepare and approve a statement of findings in accordance with procedures 

described in Director’s Order 77-2 (Floodplain Management). Requirements for development in 

floodplains are contained in Executive Order 11988 (National Park Service, 2006). 

Sediment: 

Sedimentation derived from nonpoint sources is the major contributor to the Monocacy River’s 

water quality problems (Monocacy Scenic River Local Advisory Board, 1990). Sediment 

“pollution” is the number one impairment of streams nationwide (Southerland et al., 2005b). 

55
In Rosgen’s Level 3 stream assessment (Table 5), sediment is evaluated. Sediment analyses can 

be divided into measurements of bedload and suspended sediment, changes in sediment storage, 

size distributions, and source areas (Rosgen, 1996). Monitoring should emphasize both 

suspended and bedload sediment. Suspended sediment is often used to determine sediment 

sources (supply). Bedload, while influenced by supply, is more often associated with an energy 

limitation (stream discharge) rather than a supply limitation. Bedload is also more critical for 

stability assessments since the coarse sediment is more sensitive to an energy requirement for 

transport. 

Maryland considers a subset of the MBSS Physical Habitat parameters (riffle/run quality, bank 

stability, riparian buffer width, instream habitat, epifaunal substrate) to be indicators of sediment 

impacts. These data are being used in conjunction with the Chesapeake Bay Program (Phase 5 

Watershed Model) to develop sediment TMDLs. Currently, numeric thresholds for sediment 

have not been established. Based on the existing sediment TMDLs for other streams, the longterm average annual TMDL allocation for a Maryland 8-digit watershed is given in tons/year. 

To determine a water quality threshold for a given stream, one would have to know the longterm average annual discharge of the entire watershed, and divide the TMDL allocation by this 

discharge to define a stream-specific total suspended solids (TSS) threshold in parts per million 

(ppm) or mg/L. 

Alternatively for sampling under baseflow conditions only, a long-term daily limit TMDL 

allocation, which is only applicable during baseflow conditions, is given in pounds per day 

(lbs/day). To determine a quality threshold for a given stream, one would have to know the 

discharge of the entire watershed on an average day under baseflow conditions and divide the 

TMDL allocation by discharge to define a stream-specific TSS threshold. 

Best management practices that reduce sediment inputs into aquatic environments include 

riparian buffers, restrictive cattle access to streams, and proper hiking trail designs. For example, 

hiking trails should minimize impacts on steep slopes, highly erodible soils, hydric soils, 

wetlands, and floodplains (National Park Service, 2005). 

Aquifer Characterization: 

Elevation of the local ground water table(s) (potentiometric surface) in the immediate area of 

MONO should be established to document ground water flow directions, seasonal fluctuations 

and overall trends in ground water levels. With increasing development pressures in the region 

and recent droughts, it is important for MONO to collect baseline data on the aquifer(s) that 

recharge the national battlefield’s springs and streams and supply the operational needs (potable 

water supply) at MONO. The direction and velocity of ground water flow will assist in the 

identification of threatened areas and point source pollution. 

MONO should use the existing ground water wells in the national battlefield and add to that 

network of wells (installation of piezometers), if necessary. It will be important to know the 

“screened’ intervals of the wells in order to correlate the measurement to the appropriate aquifer 

(shallow versus deep aquifer). From the water level data, ground water flow directions can be 

56
determined for the respective aquifers. Aquifer tests (slug tests) can define local hydraulic 

conductivity and flow velocities. 

Wetlands Inventory: 

Wetlands within the national battlefield boundary should be delineated, building from the 

National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Wetlands maybe missed from on the NWI maps since the aerial surveys do not typically capture 

small wetlands (< 0.5 acre), common around springs and seeps. Qualified staff or certified 

wetlands specialists should use the Cowardin system used by the NPS to delineate wetlands, and 

conform with NPS Management Policies concerning wetlands and wetlands protection actions 

and in NPS DO 77-1. The spatial extent of wetlands and wetland types should be captured on 

MONO’s existing geographic information system (GIS) database and updated as new 

information is made available. 

Water Rights 

Water rights, whether federal or state law-based, are needed by MONO to meet the water needs 

of park operations and to protect natural, water-dependent resources. The NPS should consider 

authorities under Maryland and federal law on a case-by-case basis, pursuing those that are most 

appropriate to accomplish the purposes and protect water-related resources at MONO. While 

preserving its legal remedies, the NPS should work with state water administrators to protect 

park resources and, if conflicts amongst multiple water users arise, seek resolution through good 

faith negotiations. 

57
58
Literature Cited 

Allan, J. and A. Flecker. 1993. Biodiversity Conservation in Running Waters. BioScience 43:32-

43. 

Barker, L., G. Felton, and E. Russek-Cohen. 2006. Use of Maryland biological stream survey 

data to determine effects of agricultural riparian buffers on measures of biological stream 

health. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 117:1-19. 

Belval, D.L. and L.A. Sprague. 1999. Monitoring Nutrients in the Major Rivers Draining to 

Chesapeake Bay. Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4238. Richmond, VA. 14 pp. 

Bernhardt, E. and many others. 2005. Can’t see the forest for the stream? In-stream processing 

and terrestrial nitrogen exports. BioScience 55:219-230. 

Chesapeake Bay Program. 2006a. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/nutr2.htm

Chesapeake Bay Program. 2006b. http://chesapeakebay.net/ripar1.htm

Clary, W. and B. Webster. 1989. Managing grazing of riparian areas in the Intermountain 

Region. Gen. Tech. Rept. INT-23. U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, 

Ogden, Utah. 

Clearwater, D., P. Turgeon, C. Nobel, and J. LaBranche. 2000. An Overview of Wetlands and 

Water Resources of Maryland. Maryland Wetland Conservation Plan Work Group. 62 pp. 

Cole, D.N. 1987. Research on soil and vegetation in wilderness: A state-of-knowledge review. In

R.C. Lucas (comp.), Proceedings, national wilderness research conference: Issues, stateof-knowledge, future directions. General Technical Report INT-220. USDA Forest 

Service. Ogden, UT. pp. 135-177. 

Conneely, B. 2004. Water Quality Monitoring Plan. Monocacy National Battlefield. NPS, 

Frederick, MD. pp. 12 + appendices. 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and 

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79/31. 

Cox, C. 1998. Fish and invertebrate communities in the Whitewater River watershed: a GISbased examination of land use effects. M.S. thesis, Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul. 

Dillaha, T., J. Sherrard, D. Lee, S. Mostaghimi, and V. Shanholtz. 1988. Evaluation of vegetative 

filter strips as a best management practice for feed lots. J. Water Poll. Control Fed. 60:1231-

1238. 

Dillaha, T., R. Reneau, S. Mostaghimi, and D. Lee. 1989. Vegetative filter strips for agricultural 

nonpoint source pollution control. Trans. Am. Soc. Agricultural Eng. 32:513-519. 

59
Duigon, M.T. 1997. A brief discussion of the Project, “Karst Hydrogeology in the Hagerstown 

Valley, Maryland and its Influence on Ground-Water-Quality Protection”. Maryland 

Geologic Survey. Baltimore, MD. 2 pp. 

Faucett, R., B. Christensen, and D. Tjernea. 1994. The impact of conservation tillage on pesticide 

runoff into surface water: A review and analysis. J. Soil Water Cons. 2:126-135. 

Frederick County. 2004. Lower Monocacy River, Watershed Restoration Action Strategy. 

Frederick County, Division of Public Works. Frederick, MD. 91 pp. 

Frederick County. 2007. Demographics of Frederick County Population. Office of Economic 

Development, Frederick County, Maryland. 

http://www.discoverfrederickmd.com/fastfacts/people/demographics.cfm

Frederick County. 2007a. Recommended Model Development Principles for Frederick County, 

Maryland. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD. 20 pp. 

Frederick County Department of Planning and Zoning. 2004. Urbana Region Plan. Frederick, 

Maryland. 80 pp. 

Hall, L., R. Morgan, E. Perry, and A. Waltz. 1999. Development of a provisional habitat index 

for Maryland freshwater streams. Prepared by University of Maryland, Wye Research and 

Education Center and Appalachian Laboratory for Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources, Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division. CBWP-MANTA-EA-99-12. 

Hilderbrand, R., R. Raesly and P. Kazyak. 2005. Baseline water resources inventory to support 

aquatic and watershed management activities in National Capital Region parks (Final Report 

to Douglas Curtis, National Park Service-Center for Urban Ecology, Washington, DC). 41 

pp. 

Hobba, W.A., Jr., E.A. Friel, and J.L. Chisholm. 1972. Water Resources of the Potomac River 

Basin, West Virginia. River Basin Bulletin 3. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources 

Division. 110 pp. 

Jackson and others. 1989. Comparison of fecal coliform E. coli: Impact for utilities under the 

new total coliform rule. August 18, 2004. 

http://www.idex.com/water/products/refs/096328900L.pdf. 

Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6:21-27. 

Karr, J. K. Fausch, P. Angermeir, P.Yant and I. Schlosser. 1986. Assessment of biological 

integrity in running water: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special 

Publication No. 5, Champaign, IL. 

Karr, J. 1992. Measuring biological integrity: lessons from streams. Pages 83-104 in S. Woodley, 

J. Kay, and G. Francis, eds., Ecological integrity and the management of ecosystems. St. 

Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL. 

60
Kazyak, P.G. 2001. Maryland Biological Stream Survey sampling manual. Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources, Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division. 

Annapolis, MD. 

Kazyak, P.F., A. Brindley, and M.T. Southerland. 2005. Maryland Biological Survey 2000-2004. 

Vol. VIII: County Results. CBWP-MANTA-EA-05-5. pp. 8-161 – 8-175. 

Lee, K.-H., T. Isenhart, and R. Schultz. 2003. Sediment and nutrient removal in an established 

multi-species riparian buffer. J. Soil Water Conservation 58:1-7. 

Lowarance, R., L.S. Altier, J.D. Newbold, R.R. Schnabel, P.M. Groffman, J.M. Denver, D.L. 

Correll, J.W. Gilliam, J.L. Robinson, R.B. Brinsfield, K.W. Staver, W. Lucas, and A.H. Todd. 

1995. Water Quality Functions of Riparian Forest Buffer Systems in Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed. Nutrient Subcommittee of the Chesapeake Bay Program. EPA 903-R-95-004. 67 

pp. 

Maryland Department of the Environment. 1990. Groundwater sample results (September, 19, 

1990. Leaking Underground Storage Tank Projects Division. Baltimore, MD. 3 pp. 

Maryland Department of the Environment. 1991. Groundwater sample results (October 2, 1991). 

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Division. Baltimore, MD. 2 pp. 

Maryland Department of the Environment. 2006a. 2006 List of Impaired Surface Waters [303(d) 

List] and integrated Assessment of Water Quality in Maryland (Revised Final). 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/TMDL/Maryland%20303%20dlist/20

06_303d_list_final.asp Baltimore, MD. 71 pp. 

Maryland Department of the Environment. 2007. Water Quality Standards. 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/ResearchCenter/Data/waterQualityStandards/index.asp 

Baltimore, MD. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 1998. Maryland Clean Water Action Plan, Final 

Report on Unified Watershed Assessment, Watershed Prioritization and Plans for Restoration 

Strategies. Maryland Clean Water Action Plan Technical Workgroup. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 2003a. Lower Monocacy River Watershed 

Characterization. Annapolis, MD. 55 pp. 

Meyer, P., S. Reynolds, M. McCutchen, and T. Canfield. 2006. Riparian buffer width, vegetative 

cover, and nitrogen removal effectiveness: A review of current science and regulations. 

EPA/600/R-05/118. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. 

Meyers, T. and S. Swanson. 1995. Impact of deferred rotation grazing on stream characteristics 

in central Nevada: a case study. North Am. J. Fisheries Management 15:428-439. 

61
Motivans, K. 1995. Vegetation and Aquatic Survey of the Bush Creek Tract with Emphasis on 

Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species of Plants and Freshwater Mussels. Monocacy 

National Battlefield. Maryland Natural Heritage Program, Maryland Dept. of Natural 

Resources. Annapolis, MD. 30 pp. 

Monocacy Scenic River Local Advisory Board. 1990. The Monocacy River Scenic River Study 

and Management Plan. 88 pp. 

Naiman, R., H. Decamps, and M. Pollock. 1993. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining 

regional biodiversity. Ecol. Appl. 3:209-212. 

Naiman, R. and H. Decamps. 1997. The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Ann. Rev. Ecol. 

Syst. 28:621-658. 

National Park Service. 2000. Baseline Water Quality Data, Inventory and Analysis, Monocacy 

National Battlefield. National Park Service, Tech. Rpt. NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-99/253. NPS 

Water Resources Division, Fort Collins, CO. 375 pp. + appendices. 

National Park Service. 2002. Aiding Management by Assessing Condition and Identifying 

Stressors of Aquatic Resources in National Capital Region Parks. Oct. 1, 2002 – March 1, 

2003. pp. 13. 

National Park Service. 2004. Vital Signs Monitoring Plan, Phase III (draft). San Francisco Bay 

Area Network. 141 pp. 

National Park Service. 2005. Long-term Monitoring Plan for Natural Resources in the National 

Capital Region Network. Inventory and Monitoring Program, Center for Urban Ecology. 

Washington, D.C. 

National Park Service. 2006. Management Policies. U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Washington, D.C. 

168 pp. 

National Park Service. 2007. (draft) General Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement. Monocacy National Battlefield, Maryland. 197 pp. 

Natural Research Council. 2002. Riparian areas: functions and strategies for management. 

National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

National Resources Conservation Service. 2003. National handbook of conservation practices. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. 

Nutter, J.L., and Otton, E.G. 1969. Ground-water occurrence in the Maryland Piedmont: 

Maryland Geological Survey, Report of Investigations, No. 10. Baltimore, MD. 56 pp. 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic 

life, volumes 1-3. Ecological Assessment Section, Division of Water Quality Monitoring and 

Assessment, Ohio EPA, Columbus, OH. 

62
Paul, M., J. Stribling, R. Klauda, P. Kazyak, M. Southerland, and N. Roth. 2002. A physical 

habitat index for freshwater wadeable streams in Maryland. CBWP-MANTA-EA-03-04, 

Natural Resources, Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division, Annapolis, Maryland. 

Platts, W. 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their 

habitats. pp. 389-423 in American Fisheries Society Special Publication no. 19, Bethesda, 

Maryland. 

Rankin, E.T. 1989. The qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI): rationale, methods, and 

application. Ohio EPA, Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Ecological 

Analysis Section. Columbus, OH. 

Rankin, E. 1995. Habitat indices in water resource quality assessments. In: Davis, W. and T. 

Simon. Biological assessment and criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision 

making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. 

Raesly, R.L. 2004. Inventory and Biological Monitoring of Fishes in National Park of the 

National Capital Region (Final Report). Frostburg State University, Dept. of Biology. 

Richardson, W. and many others. 2004. Denitrification in the Upper Mississippi River: rates, 

controls, and contribution to nitrate flux. Canadian J. Fish. Aquatic Sci. 61:1102-1112. 

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO. 

Roth, N., J. Allan, and D. Erickson. 1996. Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity 

assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecology 11:141-156. 

Roth, N.E., M.T. Southerland, J.C. Chaillou, R.J. Klauda, P.F. Kazyak, S.A. Stranko, S.B. 

Weisberg, L.W. Hall, Jr., and R.P. Morgan II. 1998. Maryland Biological Stream Survey: 

Development of a fish index of biotic integrity. Environmental Management and Assessment 

51:89-106. 

Roth, N. and many others. 1998. Maryland biological stream survey: development of a fish index 

of biotic integrity. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 51:89-106. 

Roth, N.E., M.T. Southerland, G. Mercurio, J.C. Chaillou, P.F. Kazyak, S..S. Stranko, A.P. 

Prochaska, D.G. Heimbuch, and J.C. Seibel. 1999. State of the Streams: 1995-1997 Maryland 

Biological Stream Survey Results. Prepared by Versar, Inc., Columbia, MD and Post, 

Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc., Bowie, MD and Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources, Monitoring and Non-Tiday Assessment Division. CBWP-MANTA-EA-99-6. 

Annapolis, MD. 

Roth, N.E., M.T. Southerland, G. Mercurio, and J.H. Volstad. 2001 Maryland Biological Stream 

Survey 2000-2004 Volume 1: ecological assessment of watersheds sampled in 2000. Report 

submitted to Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources (CBWP-MANTA-EA-01-5). 

63
Runde, J. 2003. Preliminary Report on Monocacy National Battlefield visitor center’s pond 

testing. National Park Service, Natural Resources and Science, Center for Urban Ecology. 

Washington D.C. 4 pp. 

Schultz, R. and many others. 1995. Design and placement of a multi-species riparian buffer strip. 

Agroforestry Sys. 29:201-225. 

Seiger, B. 2007. Personal communication (410.537.3821). Maryland Department of the 

Environment. Baltimore, MD. 

Sheffield, R., S. Mostaghimi, D. Vaughan, E. Collins, and V. Allen. 1997. Off-stream water 

sources for grazing cattle as a stream bank stabilization and water quality BMP. Trans. 

ASAE 40:595-604. 

Southeast Regional Climate Center. 2007. Climate data summary (1948-2002), Frederick Police 

Brks, Maryland (183348). http://cirrus.dnr.state.sc.us/cgi-bin/sercc/cliMONtavt.pl?md3348. 

Southerland, M., and many others. 2005a. New biological indicators to better asses the condition 

of Maryland streams. CBWP-MANTA-EA-05-13, Volume 16, Maryland Biological Stream 

Survey, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment 

Division, Annapolis, Maryland. 

Southerland, M., L. Erb, G. Rogers, R. Morgan, K. Eshleman, M. Kline, K. Kline, S. Stranko, P. 

Kazyak, J. Killian, J. Ladell, and J. Thompson. 2005b. Maryland Biological Stream Survey 

2000-2004. Vol. XIV: Stressors Affecting Maryland Streams. CBWP-MANTA-EA-05-11. 

Southwood, S. and D. Denenny. 2006. Geologic map of the National Parks in the Capital 

Region, Washington, D.C., Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2005-1331. 26 pp. 

Stribling, J.B., B.K. Jessup, J.S. White, D. Boward, and M. Hurd. 1998. Development of a 

benthic index of biotic integrity for Maryland streams. Tetra Tech, Inc., and Maryland Dept. 

of Natural Resources, Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Program. CBWP-MANTAEA-98-3. 

Tear, T. 2005. How much is enough? The recurrent problem of setting measurable objectives in 

conservation. Bioscience. 55: 835-849. 

Trimble, S. and A. Mendel. 1995. The cow as a geomorphic agent – a critical review. 

Geomorphology 13:233-253. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2001. Total coliform and E. Coli fact sheet. August17, 2004. 

http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/water/media/pdfs/TC&Ecoli.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Summary of state biological assessment programs 

for streams and rivers. EPA 230-R-96-007. Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, 

Washington, DC. 

64
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. The quality of our nation’s waters. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA 851/S/00/001, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Atmospheric Deposition and Water Quality 

(August 2004). http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/airdep/air1.html. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Total Maximum Daily Loads. 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/enviro.control?p_list_id=MD-02140302-R

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Drinking water contaminants. 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html ) 

U.S. Department of Transportation and Maryland Department of Transportation. 2002. MultiModal Corridor Study. Frederick and Montgomery Counties, Maryland. Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation. http://www.i270corridorp3.com/images/draft_deis/2002DEIS-I-270-US15Multi%20ModalCorridorStudysummary.pdf

U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. National Hydrography Dataset, Geodatabase. 

http://nhdgeo.usgs.gov/viewer.htm

U.S. Geological Survey. 2007. National Water Information System. 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv?cb_00060=on&format=gif_default&begin_date=2003-10-

01&end_date=2007-03-22&site_no=01642190&referred_module=sw

Vokes, H.E. and J. Edwards, Jr. 1974. Geography and geology of Maryland: Maryland 

Geological Survey, Bulletin, 19. Baltimore, MD. 242 pp. 

Wohl, N. and R. Carline. 1996. Relations among riparian grazing, sediment loads, 

macroinvertebrates, and fishes in three central Pennsylvania streams. Can. J. Fisheries 

Aquatic Sci. 53(supple 1):260-266. 

Wolman, M.G. and others. 2006. 2005 Advisory Committee on the Management and Protection 

of the State’s Water Resources, Interim Report, July 2006. 39 pp. + appendices. 

Wood, P.J. and P.D. Armitage. 1997. Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic 

environment. Environmental Management 21:203-217. 

65
66
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 D-75, August 2007

67
National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Natural Resources Program Center 

Water Resources Division 

1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250 

Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 

www.nature.nps.gov/water 

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM