Draft 

General Management Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Monocacy National Battlefield • Maryland 

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 
(blank) 
General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement

MONOCACY NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD 

Frederick County, Maryland 

July 2008 

This General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement describes four alternatives for managing Monocacy National Battlefield. The approved 

plan will establish a direction to guide the management of the battlefield’s cultural resources and the 

visitor experience for the next 15 to 20 years. Some 

issues to be addressed are saving the rural historic 

qualities of the landscape, offering visitor services and 

orientation, preserving historic structures and 

archeological sites, establishing guidelines for new 

commemorative monuments, and creating 

appropriate facilities for administration and 

maintenance. 

Under Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, the 

current management of the national battlefield would 

continue into the future. (The no-action alternative 

forms a basis for comparing and evaluating the other 

alternatives.) Preserving and maintaining cultural and 

natural resources to NPS standards would be emphasized, and most visitor services would be available at 

one location, a new visitor center completed in 2007. 

In all the alternatives, all the historic structures would 

be preserved and maintained. Alternative 2 would 

entail moving the administrative and maintenance 

staff into local leased space. Visitors would 

experience the national battlefield on an alternative 

transportation system. Historic farmlands would be 

leased to retain their agricultural use. New trails 

would enable visitors to reach the railroad junction 

and the sites of the Union entrenchments and the site 

of Maj. Gen. Lew Wallace’s headquarters. The 

maintenance facility at the Gambrill Mill would be removed and the site re-landscaped. A new entrance to 

the 14th New Jersey Monument would improve safety, and a commemorative area would be created near 

the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials for any new 

memorials. Exhibits would be available at a stone tenant house at the Thomas Farm, and access to the 

battlefield would be by trail around the farm. The 

possibility of a deck spanning Interstate Highway 270 

is being evaluated in consultation with the Maryland 

Department of Transportation. If the deck proved 

feasible and if an agreement could be worked out, 

such a deck would be a part of alternatives 2, 3, and 

4, with a road or walking trail crossing I-270. In 

alternative 3, national battlefield administration 

would be moved into the Thomas House, and the 

maintenance facility at Gambrill Mill would be 

expanded. Visitors would experience the site in their 

own cars. Historic farmlands would be leased to 

continue their agricultural use. Exhibits would be 

available in the Thomas Farm stone tenant house and 

the new visitor center. Entrance to the 14th New 

Jersey Monument would be relocated south along 

Maryland Highway 355 and the parking area 

redesigned. The Gambrill Mill trail would be 

extended to the historic railroad crossing. A 

commemorative area would be created near the 

Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials, but no new 

memorials would be added to the national battlefield. 

Alternative 4 is the NPS preferred alternative. National battlefield administration would be moved into 

the Thomas House, and maintenance would be 

expanded at its current location. Visitors would 

navigate the site in their own cars. The entrance to the 

14th New Jersey Monument would be moved south to 

allow better sight distances. An extension to the 

Gambrill Mill trail would enable visitors to walk to the 

railroad junction and to the sites of the Union 

entrenchments and Wallace’s headquarters. A 

landscaped commemorative area would be created 

near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials for 

any additional memorials. Exhibits would be available 

in the Thomas Farm’s stone tenant house. 

The effects of each alternative were analyzed, including the cumulative effects. Visitors’ experience of the 

resources would vary, depending on which structures 

would be open to the public, the availability of an alternative transportation system, and the development 

of trail access to features such as the railroad bridge 

and railroad junction or the Union entrenchments 

and the site of Wallace’s headquarters. Alternatives 3 

and 4 would result in a moderate long-term beneficial 

effect on the visitor experience. Alternative 2 would 

lead to a major long-term beneficial effect on the visitor experience because an alternative transportation 

system would carry visitors around the battlefield and 

additional exhibits in historic structures would be 

open to visitors. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would cause 

direct and indirect long-term negligible beneficial 

effects on the socioeconomic environment. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, would have long-term 

moderate beneficial effects on pedestrian and 

vehicular access and circulation throughout the 

battlefield. An alternative transportation system in 

alternative 2 could somewhat reduce the number of 

vehicles using these road systems, but the result would 

be negligible. The long-term effects on national 

battlefield operations and facilities from alternatives 

2, 3, and 4 would be major and beneficial. 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

United States Department of the Interior ● National Park Service 

i 
(blank) 
A GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT 

This Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement is 

organized in accordance with the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s 

implementing regulations for the 

National Environmental Policy Act and 

the Director’s Orders (DO) of the 

National Park Service (NPS) on Park 

Planning (DO-2) and Environmental 

Analysis (DO-12). 

Chapter 1, the Introduction — 

Purpose of and Need for the Plan, sets 

the framework for the entire document, 

describing why the plan is being 

prepared and what needs it must 

address. It gives guidance for the 

alternatives that are being considered, 

which are based on the national 

battlefield’s legislated mission, its 

purpose, and the significance of its 

resources. The alternatives also are 

based on special mandates and 

administrative commitments, servicewide mandates and policies, and other 

planning efforts in the area. 

The introduction also details the planning opportunities and issues that were 

raised during public scoping meetings 

and initial planning team efforts. 

(“Scoping” helps the planning team to 

identify issues and to determine the 

range of alternatives that will be addressed. During scoping, the NPS staff 

provides an overview of the proposed 

project. Members of the public then 

have the opportunity to make comments 

and suggestions or to express their 

concerns). 

The issues and concerns are addressed 

to varying degrees by the alternatives in 

the next chapter. The first chapter concludes with a statement of the scope of 

the environmental impact analysis — 

specifically what impact topics were or 

were not analyzed in detail. 

Chapter 2, “Alternatives, Including 

the Preferred Alternative,” begins with 

an explanation of the management prescriptions that will be used to manage 

the national battlefield in the future. It 

also includes information about the 

continuation of current management 

and trends in the national battlefield 

(alternative 1, the no-action alternative). 

The no-action alternative and then 

alternatives 2 through 4 are presented. 

Mitigative measures that would be 

proposed to minimize or eliminate the 

effects of some proposed actions are 

then described. The evaluation of the 

environmentally preferable alternative is 

followed by tables comparing the 

alternative actions and the environmental consequences of implementing 

the actions of each alternative. The 

chapter ends with a discussion of 

alternatives or actions that were 

dismissed from detailed evaluation. 

Chapter 3, “The Affected 

Environment,” contains descriptions of 

the areas and resources that would be 

affected by carrying out the actions of 

the various alternatives. Such affected 

resources are cultural resources, visitor 

use and experience, and the 

socioeconomic environment. 

In Chapter 4, “Environmental 

Consequences” are analyses showing 

how implementing each alternative 

would affect the resources described in 

iii 
A GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT

the “Affected Environment” chapter. At 

the beginning of chapter 4, the methods 

that were used for assessing the impacts 

are outlined — including the intensity, 

type, and duration of the impacts. 

Chapter 5, “Consultation and 

Coordination,” contains descriptions 

of the history of public and agency 

coordination during the planning effort 

and any future compliance requirements. Agencies and organizations that 

will receive copies of the document also 

are listed in this chapter. 

The Appendixes contain supporting 

information for the document. Also near 

the end of the document are references, 

a glossary, and a list of the planning team 

and consultants.

iv 
SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION 

This General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement is 

intended to be the basic guidance document that will define a direction for the 

management of Monocacy National 

Battlefield. It will be the foundation for 

making decisions about managing 

natural and cultural resources and the 

visitor experience in the national 

battlefield and for preparing more 

specific resource plans. 

This plan, which represents the results 

of a planning process that began in 2002, 

will be the first comprehensive plan that 

the National Park Service (NPS) has 

prepared for Monocacy National 

Battlefield. When completed and 

approved, the plan will represent an 

agreement by the National Park Service 

with the public about how the national 

battlefield will be used and managed in 

the next 15 to 20 years. It complies with 

applicable NPS planning guidance, 

including NPS Management Policies 

2006 and Director’s Order 12 and its 

handbook, Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis, and 

Decision Making.

The area covered by this plan comprises 

1,647 acres that encompass most of the 

lands upon which the Battle of 

Monocacy was fought during the Civil 

War. 

The following key concerns are 

addressed in this plan: 

• preserving the rural historic qualities 

of the battlefield landscape, which 

are threatened by surrounding 

development, population growth, 

and regional transportation 

proposals 

• offering appropriate visitor services 

and orientation now that land 

acquisition is essentially complete 

• preserving historic structures and arranging for appropriate use of those 

structures and preserving 

archeological resources. 

• developing guidelines for proposed 

new commemorative monuments in 

the national battlefield 

• installing appropriate facilities for 

administrative and maintenance 

functions 

As is true of all units of the national park 

system, the management of the national 

battlefield is guided by numerous congressional acts, executive orders, and 

NPS policies. In addition to the actions 

of the alternatives in this draft plan, the 

National Park Service will strive to 

implement all these legislative, 

executive, and policy requirements in 

the national battlefield. The 

“Servicewide Laws and Policies” section 

in chapter 1 (p. 21) and Appendix C of 

this document identify the desired 

conditions that the National Park 

Service will work to attain regardless of 

the alternative that is selected and the 

types of actions that the National Park 

Service will take to achieve those desired 

conditions. 

THE ALTERNATIVES 

The planning team developed a “noaction” alternative and three “action” 

v 
SUMMARY

alternatives, which represented different 

approaches to managing the national 

battlefield. The no-action alternative 

represents a baseline for comparison 

with the action alternatives. To design 

the alternatives, the National Park Service first conducted public scoping and 

then screened a larger number of 

alternatives, refining them on the basis 

of public input. Following the general 

definitions of the alternatives, the 

National Park Service identified 

management prescriptions that could be 

applicable to implementing each 

alternative. 

The management prescriptions identify 

how various parts of the national 

battlefield would be managed. Each 

prescription is based on the desired 

visitor experiences and resource conditions and the kinds of activities or 

facilities that would achieve the desired 

conditions. The management 

prescriptions were then mapped 

(zoned) to specific areas of the national 

battlefield to define the details of the 

three action alternatives. 

Five management zones / management 

prescriptions define all the desired 

visitor experiences and resource 

conditions that could occur under any 

of the alternatives. Each alternative 

describes a combination of several 

management prescriptions. 

The guidelines of the Council on 

Environmental Quality for preparing 

environmental impact statements 

require that the preferred alternative be 

identified in the draft document unless 

the decision maker has no preference. 

The National Park Service has identified 

alternative 4 as the preferred approach 

for the future management of Monocacy 

National Battlefield. This alternative 

would represent the best balance of 

improving resource protection while 

enhancing visitor opportunities in the 

national battlefield. 

In alternative 1, the no-action 

alternative, the current management 

pattern would be continued into the 

future. Preserving and maintaining the 

national battlefield’s cultural and natural 

resources to NPS standards would be 

emphasized, and most visitor services 

would be available at one location, the 

new visitor center. 

Alternative 2 would involve moving the 

national battlefield’s administrative and 

maintenance staff into leased space 

outside the boundary. Visitors would 

use an alternative transportation system 

to navigate the battlefield. All historic 

structures would be preserved and 

maintained, and the historic farmlands 

would be leased to retain their 

agricultural appearance. 

The Thomas farmhouse would be leased 

out under the NPS historic leasing program. New trails would be constructed 

to enable visitors to reach the railroad 

junction from the visitor center and to 

visit the sites of the Union 

entrenchments and Maj. Gen. Lew 

Wallace’s headquarters from Gambrill 

Mill. The maintenance facility at the 

Gambrill Mill would be removed and 

the site re-landscaped. 

To improve sight distances for safe 

access and egress from the 14th New 

Jersey Monument, the entrance would 

be shifted south. A landscaped 

commemorative area would be created 

at the site of the Pennsylvania and 

vi 
Summary 

Vermont monuments as a location for 

any new memorials that might be added 

to the national battlefield in the future. 

A new parking area would be 

constructed closer to the Worthington 

house to replace a temporary parking 

area now in use. The stone tenant house 

at the Thomas Farm would contain exhibits. There would be restrooms and 

parking at a nonhistoric outbuilding. 

In Alternative 3, national battlefield 

administration would be moved into the 

Thomas House. The existing 

maintenance facility at Gambrill Mill 

would be expanded. Visitors would use 

their own vehicles to drive around the 

battlefield. 

As in alternatives 1 and 2, all historic 

structures would be preserved and 

maintained, and the historic farmlands 

would continue to be leased to keep 

them agricultural. The first floors of the 

Best and Worthington farmhouses 

would contain exhibits supplementing 

those at the visitor center. 

The parking area at the 14th New Jersey 

Monument would be removed and 

relocated across Maryland Highway 

355. A landscaped commemorative area 

would be created at the site of the 

Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials, 

but no new memorials would be added 

anywhere in the national battlefield. 

Alternative 4 (preferred) was developed 

through an evaluative process in which 

the most advantageous features of the 

other alternatives were incorporated 

into a new alternative. In alternative 4, as 

in alternative 3, national battlefield 

administration would be moved into the 

Thomas House. National battlefield 

maintenance would continue to operate 

at the present location. Visitors would 

use their own vehicles to drive around 

the battlefield. 

As in the other alternatives, all historic 

structures would be preserved and 

maintained in alternative 4, and the 

historic farmlands still would be leased 

to continue their use in agriculture. The 

outbuildings on the Best Farm would 

remain open. The Worthington House 

would be rehabilitated inside and be 

open with exhibits. 

The entrance to the 14th New Jersey 

Monument would be shifted south to 

allow better sight distances. National 

battlefield maintenance would remain at 

its current location. An extension to the 

Gambrill Mill trail would enable visitors 

to walk to the railroad junction and on 

to the sites of the Union entrenchments 

and Wallace’s headquarters. 

A landscaped commemorative area 

would be created at the site of the 

Pennsylvania and Vermont monuments 

as a location for any new memorials that 

might be added to the national 

battlefield in the future. A new parking 

area would be created nearer to the 

Worthington House to replace the 

present temporary one. 

The stone tenant house on the Thomas 

farm would contain exhibits and 

restrooms and parking would be 

available near a nonhistoric outbuilding 

on the farm. 

The possibility of a deck spanning I-270 

(as described on p. 84) is being evaluated 

in consultation with the Maryland 

Department of Transportation. If the 

deck proved feasible and if an agreevii 
SUMMARY

ment could be worked out, such a deck 

would be a part of alternatives 2 and 4, 

with a road crossing I-270 in alternative 

2 and a trail crossing the deck in 

alternative 4. 

The approval of this plan does not 

guarantee that the funding and staffing 

needed to implement the plan will be 

forthcoming. The implementation of the 

approved plan will depend on future 

funding, and could also be affected by 

factors such as changes in NPS staffing, 

visitor use patterns, and unanticipated 

environmental changes. Full 

implementation could be many years in 

the future. Once the general 

management plan has been approved, 

additional feasibility studies and more 

detailed planning, environmental 

documentation, and consultations 

would be completed, as appropriate, 

before certain actions in the selected 

alternative could be carried out. 

Future program and implementation 

plans, describing specific actions that 

managers intend to undertake and 

accomplish in the battlefield will tier 

from the desired conditions and longterm goals set forth in this general 

management plan. 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

The affected environment of the 

national battlefield was described in 

terms of five impact topics — cultural 

resources, visitor use and interpretation, 

the socioeconomic environment, access 

and circulation, and NPS operations and 

facilities. 

The environmental consequences that 

would result from each alternative were 

determined by first identifying the 

regulations and policies applicable to 

each impact topic, then defining the 

methods that would be used to conduct 

the analysis. This included defining the 

terms identifying the intensity of effects 

for each impact topic (such as minor and 

major) and establishing the meaning of 

“long-term” and “short-term” effects. 

Then the effects were analyzed both for 

the national battlefield and in a more 

regional context to determine the 

cumulative effects. Most analyses 

involved comparing conditions that 

would occur with changes in the 

management of the national battlefield 

(alternatives 2, 3, and 4, the action 

alternatives) to conditions as they would 

be if the current management practices 

continued (alternative 1, the no-action 

alternative). 

Visitors’ use and experience of the 

resources would vary, depending on 

which structures contain supplemental 

exhibits, the availability of an alternative 

transportation system, and the 

development of trail access to features 

such as the railroad bridge and railroad 

junction or the Union entrenchments 

and the site of Maj. Gen. Wallace’s 

headquarters. Of the action alternatives, 

alternatives 3 and 4 would result in a 

moderate long-term beneficial effect on 

the visitor experience. 

The analysis revealed that effects on the 

socioeconomic environment would be 

similar among the three action 

alternatives. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 

would result in both direct and indirect 

long-term negligible beneficial effects on 

the socioeconomic environment. 

viii 
Summary 

ix 

The effects on the national battlefield’s 

access and circulation systems also 

would be similar for the three action 

alternatives. More visitation would 

result in a minor adverse impact on 

Maryland Highway 355 and a moderate 

adverse impact on Araby Church and 

Baker Valley roads. Establishing an 

alternative transportation system in 

alternative 2 could somewhat reduce the 

number of vehicles using these road 

systems, but the result would be 

negligible. 

The long-term effects on national battlefield operations and facilities from the 

three action alternatives would be major 

and beneficial. 

THE NEXT STEPS 

After the distribution of the Draft 

General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement, there 

will be a 60-day public review and 

comment period, after which the NPS 

planning team will evaluate comments 

from other federal agencies, 

organizations, businesses, and 

individuals regarding the draft plan; the 

planning team will then incorporate 

appropriate changes in the Final 

General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

The final plan will include letters from 

governmental agencies, any substantive 

comments on the draft document, and 

NPS responses to those comments. 

Following distribution of the final plan 

and a 30-day no-action period, a record 

of decision will approving the final plan 

will be signed by the NPS regional 

director. The record of decision 

documents the selection of an 

alternative for implementation. Once it 

is signed, the plan can be implemented. 
SUMMARY

x 
CONTENTS 

Chapter 1: Introduction—Purpose of and Need for the Plan

Why We Do General Management Planning 3

Background 3

Brief Description of the National Battlefield 5

Background and History of Monocacy National Battlefield 7

Prehistory 7

Initial European Settlement and Early Growth, 1715–1860 7

The Civil War, 1861–1865 9

Postwar Recovery and Modernization, 1865–1951 12

Commemorative Efforts, 1889–Present 13

Access and Circulation 14

Purpose, Need, and Implementation 16

Purpose of the Plan 16

Need for the Plan 16

The Next Steps 17

Implementation of the Plan 17

Guidance for the Planning Effort 17

Mandates, Laws, and Other Planning Efforts 20

Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments 20

Servicewide Laws and Policies 21

Relationships of Other Planning Efforts to This General Management Plan 22

Planning Issues and Concerns 28

Issues and Concerns Not Addressed in This Plan 31

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

Introduction and Management Zoning 35

Introduction 35

Management Zoning and Management Prescriptions 35

Formulating Alternatives and Identifying Preferred Alternative 39

Formulating the Alternatives 39

Brief Summary of Alternatives 39

Identifying the Preferred Alternative 40

Actions Common to All Alternatives 41

Introduction 41

Resource Management and Preservation 41

Interpretation and Education 46

Visitor Use and Facilities 47

National Battlefield Operations 48

Development of Cost Estimates 48

Land Acquisition 49

Alternative 1, The No-Action Alternative (Continue Current Management) 51

Introduction 51

Resource Management 51

Visitor Use and Experience 52

National Battlefield Operations 52

Costs 57

Alternative 2 58

xi 
CONTENTS

Introduction 58

Visitor Services Zone 59

Battlefield Preservation Zone 59

Commemorative Zone 60

Natural Resources Zone 60

Maintenance and Administration Zone 60

Costs 65

Alternative 3 67

Introduction 67

Visitor Services Zone 67

Battlefield Preservation Zone 68

Commemorative Zone 68

Natural Resources Zone 69

Maintenance and Administration Zone 69

Costs 69

Alternative 4 (the Preferred Alternative) 75

Introduction 75

Visitor Services Zone 75

Battlefield Preservation Zone 76

Commemorative Zone 77

Natural Resources Zone 77

Maintenance and Administration Zone 77

Costs 78

Future Studies and Mitigating Measures 85

Future Studies 85

Mitigating Measures 85

Carrying Capacity 88

The Environmentally Preferable Alternative 92

Alternatives and Actions Considered but Rejected 94

Commemorative Area at New Visitor Center Site 94

Commemorative Monuments In the Field 94

Re-creating Best Grove 94

Restoring Battlefield Structures 94

Continuous Trail Linking Battlefield Sites 94

Comparison of Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 97

Cost Comparison 105

Chapter 3: The Affected Environment

Introduction and Topics Eliminated from Analysis 109

Introduction 109

Topics Eliminated from Further Analysis 109

Impact Topics — Resources That Could Be Affected 123

Introduction 123

Cultural Resources 124

Visitor Use and Interpretation 128

The Socioeconomic Environment 128

Transportation, Access, and Circulation 130

National Battlefield Operations 134

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

xii 
Contents 

Introduction 139

Environmental Analysis 139

Cumulative Impacts 139

Impairment of Resources 143

Methods and Assumptions for Assessing Effects 143

Effects on Cultural Resources 145

Methods for Assessing Effects — National Register and Section 106 145

Preservation Treatments 145

Effects on Historic Buildings and Other Structures 146

Effects on Cultural Landscapes 150

Effects on Visitor Use and Experience 157

Experiencing the Resources 157

Methods for Assessing Effects on the Visitor Experience 158

Effects from Alternative 1 (No Action) 158

Effects from Alternative 2 160

Effects from Alternative 3 163

Effects from Alternative 4 (Preferred Alternative) 165

Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment 168

Methods for Assessing Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment 168

Effects from Alternative 1 (No Action) 169

Effects from Alternative 2 170

Effects from Alternative 3 171

Effects from Alternative 4 (Preferred Alternative) 172

Effects on Access and Circulation 173

Methods for Assessing Effects on Access and Circulation 173

Effects from Alternative 1 (No Action) 173

Effects from Alternative 2 175

Effects from Alternative 3 176

Effects from Alternative 4 (Preferred Alternative) 178

Effects on NPS Operations and Facilities 180

Methods for Assessing Effects on NPS Operations and Facilities 180

Effects from Alternative 1 (No Action) 181

Effects from Alternative 2 181

Effects from Alternative 3 182

Effects from Alternative 4 (Preferred Alternative) 182

Required Analyses 184

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 184

Relationships of Short-term Uses of the Environment and Long-term Productivity 184

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 184

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination

Public and Agency Involvement 189

Introduction 189

Public Meetings and Newsletters 189

Consultation with Organizations and with Other Agencies and Officials 191

Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals that Received a Copy of This Document 192

Appendixes / References / Preparers

Appendix A: Legislation —Monocacy National Battlefield 197

xiii 
CONTENTS

xiv 

Appendix B: Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies 203

Appendix C: Servicewide Laws and Policies 210

Appendix D: Completed Studies and Future Studies Needed 230

Appendix E: Requirements for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act 237

Appendix F: Information about Threatened or Endangered Species 239

References 246

Preparers and Consultants 251

Index 253

Maps 

Current Ownership 53 

Alternative 1, No-Action (Continue Current Management) 55 

Management Zones, Alternative 2 61 

Alternative 2 63 

Management Zones, Alternative 3 71 

Alternative 3 73 

Management Zones, Alternative 4 (Preferred Alternative) 79 

Preferred Alternative, Alternative 4 81 

Tables 

Table 1: Carrying Capacity Indicators and Standards 90 

Table 2: Comparison of Alternatives 97 

Table 3: Comparison of Environmental Consequences 101 

Table 4: Comparison of Estimated Costs for Implementing the Alternatives 105 

Table 5: Monocacy National Battlefield Annual Visitation, 1991–2003 173 

Table 6: Monocacy National Battlefield Visitation by Month, 2003 174 

(blank back of divider) 

2 
WHY WE DO GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLANNING 

BACKGROUND 

The National Parks and Recreation Act 

of 1978 and the NPS Management 

Policies 2006 require each unit of the 

National Park Service (NPS) to develop 

a general management plan (GMP). 

The purpose of a general management 

plan is to ensure that a park unit (in this 

case, Monocacy National Battlefield) 

has a clearly defined direction for resource preservation and visitor use. This 

enables the unit to achieve the National 

Park Service’s mandate to preserve 

resources unimpaired for the enjoyment 

of future generations. In addition, 

general management planning makes the 

National Park Service more effective, 

collaborative, and accountable by 

• achieving a balance between 

continuity and adaptability in 

decision making — defining the 

desired conditions to be achieved 

and maintained in the national 

battlefield will provide a touchstone 

that allows managers and staff to 

constantly adapt their actions to 

changing situations while staying 

focused on what is most important 

about the national battlefield. 

• analyzing the national battlefield in 

relation to its surrounding 

ecosystem, cultural setting, and 

community will help managers and 

staff understand how the national 

battlefield can interrelate with 

neighbors and others in ways that are 

ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable. Decisions made 

within such a larger context are more 

likely to be successful over time. 

• giving everyone who has a stake in 

decisions affecting the national 

battlefield an opportunity to be involved in the planning process and to 

understand the decisions that are 

made. National parks are often the 

focus of intense public interest. 

Public involvement throughout the 

planning process provides focused 

opportunities for the managers and 

staff to interact with the public and 

learn about public concerns, expectations, and values. Public involvement also provides opportunities for 

the managers and staff to share information about the national battlefield’s purpose and significance, as 

well as opportunities and constraints 

for the management of its lands. 

The ultimate outcome of general 

management planning for national parks 

is an agreement among the National 

Park Service, its partners, and the public 

about why each area is managed as part 

of the national park system, what the 

resource conditions and visitor experiences should be there, and how those 

conditions can best be achieved and 

maintained over time. 

The national battlefield superintendent 

and staff are called upon daily to make 

decisions that affect how visitors view 

Monocacy National Battlefield. Such 

things as how resources are interpreted, 

how the landscape and historic 

structures are preserved, and how 

facilities are maintained are critical to 

the future of the national battlefield. 

This Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

3
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION—PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

Monocacy National Battlefield includes 

a description of the national battlefield’s 

vision for preserving the nationally 

significant battlefield that still evokes 

the aura of the Civil War period. A plan 

is outlined for developing visitor 

facilities and the interpretive messages 

and stories to be expanded upon are described. The plan would enhance the 

visitor experience through programs 

and visitor amenities such as trails. The 

plan does not provide specific and 

detailed answers to every issue or 

question facing the national battlefield. 

However, the plan does offer a framework for proactive decision making that 

will guide national battlefield managers 

in making effective choices. 

Monocacy never has had a general 

management plan or the precursor 

master plan. Before land acquisition 

began, an “Assessment of Alternatives” 

document was assembled to provide 

some guidance for initial management 

decision making. Now, with land 

acquisition essentially completed, this 

General Management Plan will supply 

the guidance necessary to take the 

national battlefield well into the next 

decade. For this relatively new area, 

many decisions must be made about 

resource preservation, locating facilities, 

circulation, and staff needs, most for the 

first time. A new plan is essential to 

guide the management of the national 

battlefield in the 21st century and to 

ensure the preservation of this 

nationally significant battlefield while 

presenting opportunities for visitors to 

have a high-quality experience. 

Although the battlefield is surprisingly 

intact with structures, fence rows, and 

road systems reflecting the Civil War 

period, the surrounding area is undergoing major change. Housing developments and industrial and commercial 

development are occurring on all sides. 

Because this area is a part of the expanding Baltimore–Washington, D.C., 

metropolitan area, it is not likely that the 

pace of growth will abate in the future. 

The major threat to the integrity of the 

battlefield comes from traffic growth. 

This growth affects visitor safety and 

circulation, increases the pressure to 

widen roads, and causes noise and air 

pollution. Another threat comes from 

development around the boundary, 

which affects national battlefield viewsheds, increases runoff into the 

Monocacy River and other streams, and 

decreases biodiversity. These threats are 

regionwide concerns that cannot be 

solved solely within this plan. However, 

the plan can identify the concerns and 

suggest ways to decrease the impacts. 

In the process of developing this 

General Management Plan, the planning 

team examined many different 

approaches to national battlefield use, 

management, and development. These 

were narrowed to a “no action” 

alternative (Alternative 1, continuation 

of the present management course) and 

three additional alternatives, each of 

which would allow the national battlefield to achieve its mission and mission 

goals. Alternative 4 has been identified 

as the National Park Service’s preferred 

future direction. 

To help the public and the National 

Park Service understand what would 

happen if an alternative was adopted, 

the impacts of each alternative on the 

4 
Why We Do General Management Planning 

natural and cultural environment are 

described and compared. These 

descriptions are contained in the 

Environmental Impact Statement part of 

the plan, which satisfies the requirements of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), 

and the National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966, as amended. After having 

described a full range of alternatives, the 

National Park Service, in consultation 

with the public, will select the alternative or combination of alternatives to 

be implemented. 

General management plans are intended 

to be long-term documents that 

establish and articulate a management 

philosophy and framework for decision 

making and problem solving in units of 

the national park system. Such plans 

usually provide guidance during a 15- to 

20-year period. 

Actions directed by general management plans or by subsequent implementation plans are accomplished over 

time. Budget restrictions, the need for 

more data or regulatory compliance, and 

competing national park system 

priorities prevent the immediate execution of many actions. Major or 

especially costly actions could be 

completed 10 or more years into the 

future. Some actions may never be 

funded. 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE 

NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD 

Monocacy National Battlefield lies in 

Frederick County, Maryland in the 

heavily populated Baltimore–

Washington metropolitan area. The 

national battlefield lies in an unincorporated area approximately 3 miles 

south of the center of Frederick, the 

largest city in Frederick County and the 

second largest city in Maryland. 

Although this area of the county is 

rapidly building up, the national 

battlefield is remarkably free of intrusive 

elements. Only the modern Interstate 

Highway 270 (I-270) intrudes on the 

historic landscape, essentially bisecting 

the battlefield. 

Within the national battlefield’s 

boundaries are 1,647 acres, encompassing most of the lands upon which the 

Battle of Monocacy was fought. Six 

properties or farmsteads that existed 

during the battle are still extant within 

the national battlefield and retain 

essentially their Civil War era landscape 

appearance. Surrounding agricultural 

fields retain the feel of the Civil War era 

landscape, with few changes to field 

configurations and fence rows. Crops 

have gradually changed over the years 

from small grains to hay and corn, but 

the overall agricultural environment 

remains remarkably intact. Forested 

areas include Brooks Hill and lands 

along the Monocacy River and Bush 

Creek. These form an exceptional buffer 

from development outside the 

boundaries. 

Approximately 2 miles of the Monocacy 

River runs through the national battlefield. The CSX Railroad (Baltimore & 

Ohio during the Civil War) also extends 

through the national battlefield, 

paralleling the Monocacy River and 

Bush Creek. Historic Urbana Pike 

(Maryland Highway 355) runs north–

south through the eastern part of the 

national battlefield. 

5 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION—PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

6 

Urbana Pike also is the main access for 

visitors to the battlefield. This highway, 

which has four lanes on the north side of 

the national battlefield, is heavily used 

by commuters, residents, business vehicles, and trucks. In the national 

battlefield, the highway is two lanes with 

paved shoulders on the north side of the 

Monocacy River, and on the south side 

of the river it is two lanes with narrow, 

unpaved shoulders. South of the 

national battlefield it remains two lanes 

with narrow, unpaved shoulders. 

Urbana Pike provides much of the 

access to important features, and the 

heavy volumes and high speeds of 

commuter traffic and commercial 

vehicles create a safety problem and 

encroach upon the visitor experience. 

A small visitor contact station was 

opened on the site in 1991. It has been 

replaced by a new visitor center 

completed in 2007. Much of the national 

battlefield has remained closed to 

visitors as historic features were 

rehabilitated or restored. As a result, 

visitation figures (about 14,700 in 2003) 

reflect the low level of knowledge in the 

community and the nation that 

Monocacy National Battlefield exists or 

is open. With land acquisition nearly 

complete, opening of more of the 

national battlefield to visitation 

probably will increase visitation 

considerably. 
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF MONOCACY NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD 

PREHISTORY 

Native Americans have been present in 

the Monocacy National Battlefield area 

since the earliest human occupation of 

North America. Although a complete 

archeological survey of the battlefield 

has not been undertaken, surveys of 

Frederick County have shown that the 

Monocacy Valley experienced intensive 

Native American settlement, particularly 

along the Monocacy River (Kavanaugh 

1982). It is likely that the prehistoric 

occupations on the battlefield’s 

component properties reflect this 

pattern. Native American occupations 

spanning over 10,000 years and ranging 

from Early Archaic to late Woodland 

period short-term base camps and lithic 

scatters have been documented at the 

Best, Thomas, and Worthington farms 

(Beasley 2003, 2004; Little 1994, 61). 

INITIAL EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT 

AND EARLY GROWTH, 1715–1860 

European explorers and traders may 

have arrived in the Maryland Piedmont 

region as early as 1715 (Scharf 1882, 58). 

The earliest land surveys in Frederick 

County were made in the 1720s; they are 

generally characterized by land 

speculation ventures that were subdivided and leased or sold to tenants (NPS 

2000, 2.3; Paula S. Reed & Assoc., Inc. 

1999, 11). Increasing competition for 

available land and economic opportunities in southern Maryland and the 

Eastern Shore area facilitated the 

westward movement of English settlers, 

many of whom brought enslaved 

laborers with them into the Monocacy 

region. Pennsylvania Germans from 

Philadelphia and southeastern Pennsylvania also migrated into Frederick 

County. 

Two distinct agricultural systems had 

developed in the Monocacy region by 

the mid-18th century, arising out of the 

predominantly English and German 

migrations into the area. German 

settlers generally farmed smaller tracts 

of land, cultivating corn and wheat and 

other subsistence crops (Paula S. Reed 

& Assoc., Inc. 1999, 11; Tracey and Dern 

1987, 131). Conversely, British settlers 

initially sought to replicate the tobacco 

and slave economy of the tidewater area; 

however, climate differences and market 

fluctuations eventually precipitated 

greater reliance on commercial grain 

cultivation in the Monocacy area, even 

among slaveholders (Paula S. Reed & 

Assoc., Inc. 1999, 11, 14). 

The onset of the French and Indian War 

in 1756 deferred western expansion 

substantially, although some land 

speculation and settlement continued to 

occur in the Monocacy area. In 1759, for 

example, a Scottish merchant named 

James Marshall began acquiring large 

amounts of land along the western bank 

of the Monocacy River. In 1793, 

Marshall patented an additional 881 

acres on the eastern bank of the 

Monocacy; in fact, much of the presentday Monocacy National Battlefield 

encompasses lands that originally were 

owned by James Marshall. Marshall also 

is credited with having constructed the 

large ca. 1780 brick manor house on the 

Thomas Farm. 

7 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION—PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

Marshall engaged in extensive land 

speculation and development in the 

Monocacy area. In 1798 he sold 291 

acres of land on the west side of the 

Monocacy River to Victoire 

Vincendière, a French planter who came 

to Frederick County with her family in 

1793 from the Caribbean colony of 

Saint-Domingue. The Vincendière 

family assembled a 748-acre plantation 

known as L’Hermitage, and also owned 

as many as 90 slaves. The Best Farm 

comprises the southern 274 acres of 

L’Hermitage plantation, and the 

Vincendière family built several structures on the property that are still 

extant, including the main house, a 

smaller secondary dwelling, and a stone 

barn. 

By the close of the 18th century, 

Frederick was a bustling agricultural 

community, and it also exhibited 

significant industrial development. 

Increased population fueled agricultural 

expansion; in fact, by 1790, Frederick 

County was the largest wheat producer 

in the United States and also supported 

the cultivation of flax, corn, orchard 

fruit, rye, oats, potatoes, and hay. 

Industry expanded as well. Taking 

advantage of the abundant water power 

in Frederick County, a number of flour 

mills processed grain into more easily 

transportable and marketable flour or 

meal. Other important industries 

developed in the Monocacy area during 

the 18th and early 19th centuries, 

including sawmills, iron furnaces, and 

glass production. 

As population, commerce, and agricultural output expanded in Frederick 

County, the development of transportation systems became increasingly 

important. For example, in the 18th 

century a number of river crossings 

were established at low places on the 

banks of the Monocacy River. One such 

ferry, Middle Ford ferry, crossed the 

Monocacy River within the battlefield 

boundaries a short distance downstream 

of the current MD 355 highway bridge 

(HABS MD-1OS 1199 1, 15–16). A ferry 

operated at this location as early as 1749, 

and the ferry landing remained a 

prominent landscape feature well into 

the 19th and 20th centuries. In fact, its 

location is still reflected in recent 

property boundaries (Varle 1808; Paula 

S. Reed & Assoc., Inc. 1999, 72; 

Monocacy NB Tract Map 1995). 

The need to transport goods between 

western Maryland and the port towns of 

Georgetown, Baltimore, and Annapolis, 

as well as the absence of navigable 

inland water routes, led to the development of a regional road system, including the Georgetown Pike (present-day 

MD 355), which was chartered by the 

state of Maryland in 1805. Known at 

various times as the Washington Pike or 

the Urbana Pike, the Georgetown Pike 

followed the alignment of an earlier 

road and intersected with the Buckeystown Pike just south of Frederick 

(Griffith 1794). A wooden bridge 

carrying the Georgetown Pike over the 

Monocacy River was constructed 

sometime in the first half of the 19th 

century, rendering the Middle Ford 

ferry obsolete. 

More transportation improvements 

came in 1828, when construction began 

on America’s first railroad, the 

Baltimore & Ohio (B&O). The B&O 

8 
Background and History of Monocacy National Battlefield 

Railroad reached the Monocacy area in 

1830, and in 1831 a spur line to Frederick was completed (Scharf 1882, 44; 

Whitmore 1981, 38). The intersection of 

the main and spur lines formed a 

triangular-shaped junction that remains 

in place today within the national 

battlefield boundaries. It was known at 

different times as the Frederick, Araby, 

or Monocacy Junction. A wooden 

bridge originally carried the B&O 

Railroad over the Monocacy River, but 

it was replaced by a cast-iron bridge in 

the 1850s (NPS 2000, 2.10). Still an 

active segment of the CSX Railroad, the 

current truss bridge rests on the original 

abutments and stone piers of these 

earlier bridges (Bearss 1978, 91–92). 

Beginning in 1812, Col. John 

McPherson, Sr., an entrepreneur, 

bought 415 acres of land on the west 

side of the Monocacy River from James 

Marshall’s heirs. Over the next two 

decades, Col. McPherson and his son 

John began to assemble the various land 

tracts that composed a 1,111-acre 

property known as Araby. These land 

parcels were tied to the crossroads 

created by the passage of the Georgetown Pike over the Monocacy River and 

encompassed land that was eventually 

subdivided to form the Thomas, Lewis, 

Worthington, and Baker farms, as well 

as the Gambrill Mill property. 

On the east side of the Monocacy River, 

Victoire Vincendière sold L’Hermitage 

in 1827. The property eventually was 

acquired by the Trail family and 

subdivided into northern and southern 

parcels. The South Hermitage parcel 

encompassed the property that 

eventually became known as the Best 

Farm, after the tenant family that was 

living there at the time of the Battle of 

Monocacy. Thus, by 1860, as a result of 

the sale and subdivision of James 

Marshall’s and Victoire Vincendière’s 

lands, the properties that would one day 

make up Monocacy National Battlefield 

were essentially in the form that remains 

recognizable today. 

THE CIVIL WAR, 1861–1865 

By the mid-19th century, Frederick, 

Maryland, was a prosperous 

community. Major highways leading to 

Washington and Baltimore converged 

there, and the B&O Railroad passed 

nearby. This transportation corridor not 

only contributed to the development of 

the area, but it also became a target for 

Union and Confederate armies 

throughout the Civil War because it 

facilitated movement of troops and 

supplies. The six farms that compose 

Monocacy National Battlefield were 

directly affected by these actions. 

In 1862, Union and Confederate armies 

used the Georgetown Pike as a major 

route for troop movement. To protect 

the junction, the B&O Railroad 

authorized the construction of two 

blockhouses: one south of the railroad 

tracks near the turnpike bridge and one 

north of the railroad, just east of the 

river. Soldiers from the 14th New Jersey 

Regiment established an encampment 

nearby on the north side of the railroad 

tracks. Camp Hooker, as it became 

known, housed between 800 and 1,000 

soldiers. It consisted of quarters for field 

and line officers, tents for enlisted men, 

ten cookhouses, two guardhouses, a 

commissary, and a stable. A sketch map 

9 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION—PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

of the camp also indicates the locations 

of a hospital, a bakery, and a storehouse. 

Although no aboveground evidence 

remains, the footprint of Camp Hooker 

has been identified archeologically. 

Soldiers from that encampment also 

constructed earthworks on the high 

ground north and east of the railroad, 

above the junction. These consisted of a 

gun battery, rifle pits, and a powder 

magazine, the remains of which are still 

extant in the national battlefield’s Civil 

War defenses area. 

During the September 1862 Maryland 

Campaign, which culminated in the 

Battle of Antietam, Confederate Gen. 

Robert E. Lee and his forces camped on 

the Best Farm. It was there that Lee 

wrote Special Order 191, which detailed 

his plans to divide his army and capture 

Harpers Ferry. A few days later, Union 

troops set up camp in the area previously occupied by their counterparts and 

discovered a lost copy of the special 

order. The plans were soon revealed to 

Union Gen. George B. McClellan, who 

hastened his pace to encounter the Confederates at nearby South Mountain and 

Antietam. 

As Union troops moved through the 

area in late June 1863, before the Battle 

of Gettysburg, Gen. Winfield Scott 

Hancock made the Thomas House his 

headquarters for three days. Once again, 

the Best Farm was a site for soldier 

encampments. 

In 1864, the farms surrounding 

Monocacy Junction became the focal 

point in a delaying action that would 

later become known as “the battle that 

saved Washington.” When judged by its 

consequences, rather than its size, the 

Battle of Monocacy ranks among the 

important battles of the Civil War. On 

July 9, 15,000 Confederate forces under 

the command of Lt. Gen. Jubal Early 

clashed with 5,800 Union forces under 

Maj. Gen. Lew Wallace. 

Jubal Early’s invasion in the summer of 

1864 was the third and final time the 

South tried to bring the war into the 

North. The opportunity arose when Lt. 

Gen. Ulysses S. Grant moved most of 

the Union troops defending the nation’s 

capital to Petersburg, Virginia. Seizing 

the opportunity, General Lee devised a 

bold and daring invasion with four 

objectives: first, to clear the lower 

Shenandoah Valley of Union Forces; 

second, to divert Union forces away 

from Lee’s army at Petersburg, Virginia; 

third, to threaten Washington, D.C., or 

possibly to capture it in an attempt to 

deal a death blow to the sagging Union 

support; and fourth, to reduce the 

chances of reelection for President 

Abraham Lincoln. 

On June 13, Jubal Early moved west 

from Petersburg. Union Gen. David 

Hunter retreated into West Virginia 

after he was defeated in battle at both 

Lynchburg and Lexington, Virginia. The 

path through the Shenandoah Valley to 

Washington was virtually undefended. 

After reorganizing his army at Staunton, 

Virginia, and preparing it for a fast 

march, Early proceeded north, arriving 

at Harper’s Ferry on the Fourth of July. 

Agents along the B&O Railroad had 

been tracking Early’s army and 

reporting to the railroad president, John 

Garrett, in Baltimore. Garrett notified 

Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, in 

Washington, many times of the 

10 
Background and History of Monocacy National Battlefield 

developing emergency. Grant 

responded that Early was in front of him 

at Petersburg, Virginia, and that no large 

force was moving in the valley. 

By July 3 Garrett, frustrated by the slow 

response from the administration in 

Washington and from Grant, turned to 

Lew Wallace, Commander of the 8th 

Army Corps and the Middle Military 

Department. Acting on his own accord, 

Wallace gathered all available forces, 

approximately 2,800 mostly new recruits 

and 100-days men. They proceeded 

west to Monocacy Junction to prepare 

for a possible engagement with 

Confederate forces. 

Part of Wallace’s force, under the command of Gen. Erastus Tyler, was sent 

north to Jug Bridge along the National 

Pike. Tyler’s orders were to hold the 

approach across the Monocacy River. 

The rest of the command was concentrated at Monocacy Junction. 

Late on July 5, after several Confederate 

deserters reported that Early was on the 

move, Grant realized something was 

wrong. Although he was not convinced 

of the severity of the situation, he 

ordered the 3rd Division of the 6th 

Army Corps under the command of 

Brig. Gen. James Ricketts to move north. 

On July 7 and 8, in the mountain passes 

and on the outskirts of Frederick, 

Wallace’s troops skirmished heavily 

with the advancing Confederate forces. 

Wallace had three objectives: first, to 

make the Confederates disclose their 

strength; second, to make them disclose 

their objective (Washington, D.C., or 

Baltimore); and third, if they were going 

to Washington, as he suspected, to delay 

them long enough to enable reinforcements to reach the defenses of the 

nation’s capital. 

Wallace received welcome assistance 

when Ricketts’s veteran division arrived 

by train on July 8. Upon learning of the 

impending situation Ricketts put himself 

and his troops at Wallace’s disposal. The 

veterans were placed along the road to 

Washington, where it was suspected that 

the main attack would come. 

On the morning of July 9, Confederate 

Gen. Stephen Ramseur’s division encountered Union forces on the Georgetown Pike at Monocacy Junction. 

Realizing that a direct frontal assault 

across the Monocacy River at the 

junction would be too costly, Early sent 

Gen. John McCausland and his cavalry 

to find an alternate crossing so that they 

could outflank the Union line. 

McCausland’s troops crossed the river 

at the Worthington-McKinney Ford, a 

mile downstream from Monocacy 

Junction, and encountered Ricketts’s 

veteran division, which had repositioned to the left to meet the new 

assault. When they clashed at a fence 

separating the Worthington and 

Thomas farms, the Confederate cavalry 

was driven back. The Confederates 

regrouped, and around 2:30 p.m. they 

attempted to flank the left of the Union 

line. This time they succeeded in pushing the Union soldiers from the Thomas 

House. However, Union forces 

counterattacked and drove the 

Confederates from the field of battle. 

As the Confederate second attack was 

taking place, Maj. Gen. John Gordon 

was ordered to cross the river with his 

infantry division and form up. He 

initiated a three-pronged attack along 

11 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION—PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

the entire Union line with Brigadier 

Generals Terry, York, and Evans. Some 

of the heaviest fighting of the day 

occurred in this part of the battle. At 

roughly 4:30 p.m., Wallace’s troops were 

pushed back and forced to retreat 

toward Baltimore, leaving behind 

roughly 1,300 men killed, wounded, and 

missing. Although beaten militarily, they 

had succeeded in holding their position 

all day against superior numbers. The 

Confederates spent the night on the 

field of battle before resuming their 

march to Washington. The battle cost 

the Confederates a day in time and 

about 900 men killed, wounded, and 

missing. 

By the time Jubal Early’s forces reached 

Washington on July 11, reinforcements 

from Petersburg had begun to arrive in 

the capital. However, they were 

exhausted from their long march and 

could not make a concerted attack until 

the following day. Although sporadic 

fighting took place in the Fort Stevens 

area throughout July 12, Early realized 

the futility of his plan and turned away 

from Washington. 

One month after the Confederate victory at Monocacy, Grant designed a 

Union campaign to bring total destruction upon the Shenandoah Valley, end 

the war by any means necessary, and 

gradually force the Confederates back to 

Petersburg. The plan was revealed at a 

“council of war” between Union 

Generals Grant, Sheridan, Hunter, 

Crook, Ricketts, and others in one of the 

upper rooms of the Thomas House. The 

resulting Shenandoah Valley Campaign 

was devastating to Lee’s Army and 

would contribute to his decision to 

surrender in April 1865. 

POSTWAR RECOVERY AND 

MODERNIZATION, 1865–1951 

In the years that followed the Civil War, 

Frederick County quickly regained its 

agricultural prosperity. This resulted 

from its transportation arteries and 

high-quality farmland (Whitmore 1981, 

62). Corn and wheat production 

remained high, and the production of 

dairy goods, fruit, and vegetables 

increased. In fact, the income from 

dairying significantly outdistanced the 

income from wheat production by the 

third decade of the 20th century (Grisby 

and Hoffsommer 1949, 12; Paula S. Reed 

& Assoc., Inc. 1999, 30, 38; Wesler et al. 

1981, 144). 

Agricultural production thrived, but 

industrial expansion did not increase as 

quickly after the Civil War, although 

existing industries continued to operate 

and prosper. James Gambrill’s Araby 

Mill operation, for example, expanded 

in the 1870s. The expansion made it one 

of Frederick County’s top three flour 

producers. Eventually, however, as 

large-scale milling operations began in 

the midwestern United States, 

production decreased at Araby Mills, 

and Gambrill was forced to sell the mill 

property in 1897 (Paula S. Reed & 

Assoc., Inc. 1999, 31). 

Mechanization increased at the beginning of the 20th century, leading to a 

reduction in the need for manual labor. 

Rural populations began to decline as 

county residents moved to nearby cities 

in search of work (Whitmore 1981, 63). 

The closure of foreign markets during 

12 
Background and History of Monocacy National Battlefield 

World War I and the rising cost of 

agricultural mechanization forced many 

area farmers out of business, but the 

county’s agricultural output remained 

high even during the Depression 

(Wesler et al. 1981, 144). Nevertheless, 

Frederick County’s lack of industry led 

to a slow recovery from the Great 

Depression (Whitmore 1981, 100). 

The transportation system that 

influenced development of the 

Monocacy area in the 19th century 

continued to be important in the 20th 

century. Although the railroad remained 

essential for delivering goods to 

markets, the introduction and increased 

use of automobiles led to significant 

improvements in public roads. In the 

1920s the county realigned the 

Georgetown Pike to eliminate a sharp 

turn near the entrance to Araby Mills. 

This created a new, more streamlined 

segment that ran north–south across the 

west corner of the Gambrill property. 

The original segment of the Pike was 

renamed Araby Church Road. 

A significant change in the Monocacy 

landscape occurred in 1951 with the 

construction of Highway 240, now 

known as Interstate 270. The four-lane 

highway bisected the heart of the battlefield, causing significant alterations to 

the landscape. Property boundaries 

were reconfigured, new access roads 

were built to replace blocked historic 

lanes, and all connection between the 

Worthington and Thomas farms was 

lost. In sum, the highway cut the 

battlefield landscape virtually in two, 

destroying the integrity of the setting of 

the final phase of the battle. The 

completion of the interstate highway 

also encouraged additional suburban 

growth in the region, as it became the 

primary north-south commuting route 

between Washington and Frederick. 

The Georgetown Pike, which had been 

renamed Maryland Route 355 by 1937, 

ceased to serve as the primary road 

between Washington, D.C., and 

Frederick. 

COMMEMORATIVE 

EFFORTS, 1889–PRESENT 

Organized commemoration of the Battle 

of Monocacy began in 1889, when 

veterans formed a national association 

to coincide with the 25th anniversary of 

the battle. In 1897 an advertisement 

placed by James Gambrill for the sale of 

the Gambrill House emphasized the 

“magnificent view of the historic field of 

the Battle of Monocacy,” suggesting that 

by the end of the century the local 

community perceived a distinct 

landscape called the “Monocacy 

Battlefield” (HABS MD-lOS 1 1991, 13). 

More reunions of veterans took place 

over the years, but the first monument 

was not erected until 1907, when the 

state of New Jersey put up a statue on 

the Best Farm to honor the 14th New 

Jersey Regiment (Cooling 1997, 236). By 

1915, three more monuments had been 

placed, including the State of 

Pennsylvania Monument (1908) on the 

east side of the original Georgetown 

Pike near the Thomas Farm entry lane; 

the Confederate Monument (1914), 

erected by the United Daughters of the 

Confederacy on the west side of the 

Georgetown Pike at the northern end of 

the Best Farm; and the State of Vermont 

Monument (1915) at the corner of the 

old Georgetown Pike (now Araby 

13 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION—PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

Church Road) and Baker Valley Road, at 

the southeast corner of the Thomas 

Farm (NPS 2000, 2.31–32 ). 

Interest in creating a national battlefield 

at the site began with the formation of 

the Monocacy Battle Field Memorial 

Association by a group of prominent 

Frederick County citizens. In 1928, the 

association lobbied Congress for 

legislation to make the Monocacy 

Battlefield a national battlefield. The 

proposed plan for the development of 

Monocacy Battlefield called for roads 

that would allow access to important 

areas of the battlefield. Two more 

monuments were included in the 

proposal; one on the Thomas Farm and 

a Confederate monument to be placed 

on the Worthington Farm. Establishing 

a national battlefield was proposed not 

only to preserve it as a historic site, but 

also to serve as a picturesque riverside 

public park. 

Congress passed legislation on June 21, 

1934, creating Monocacy National 

Military Park. However, no funds were 

set aside for the purchase of land, and 

anticipated land donations did not 

materialize. In the years immediately 

after the establishment of Monocacy 

National Military Park, the National 

Park Service conducted several field 

investigations of the area (Thompson 

1937). These investigations resulted in 

the creation of a land acquisition plan, 

which included a proposal to construct 

a road that would allow visitors to tour 

the battlefield site. However, the 

proposal never was accomplished 

because Congress again did not 

appropriate any funds. 

In 1964 the Maryland Civil War 

Centennial Commission placed a 

marker popularly known as the Maryland Monument on the Best Farm to 

commemorate the 100th anniversary of 

the Battle of Monocacy. As development 

and urbanization continued to increase, 

a group of concerned citizens met with 

local politicians and NPS representatives in 1971 to discuss concerns about 

preserving the battlefield site. They 

initiated a campaign to give the National 

Park Service the authority to establish 

the boundary of the national battlefield 

and initiate land acquisitions. 

Soon thereafter, the National Park 

Service and local elected officials began 

working to designate Monocacy 

Battlefield as a national historic 

landmark. It received this designation in 

late 1973, and on February 4, 1975, 

Monocacy National Battlefield was 

officially placed on the National 

Register of Historic Places (National 

Register nomination 1975; Antietam 

Administrative History 1979, 1). 

By the 1980s, the National Park Service 

began acquiring and protecting 

Monocacy National Battlefield lands 

through fee simple purchases and scenic 

easements. A small visitor contact 

station was opened in 1991, and now the 

National Park Service owns all six of the 

Battlefield’s component properties. A 

superintendency for the battlefield was 

established in 2003. 

ACCESS AND CIRCULATION 

Monocacy National Battlefield can be 

reached from Interstates 70 and 270, 

from U.S. Highway 15/340, and from 

Maryland Highways 85 and 355. From I14 
Background and History of Monocacy National Battlefield 

15 

70, visitors can exit onto southbound 

MD 355 and drive about 2 miles to the 

northern boundary of the national battlefield. Visitors approaching from I-270 

must exit onto eastbound I-70 and then 

onto southbound MD 355. From eastbound U.S. 15/340, one must exit onto 

eastbound I-70, going south onto 

Maryland 355. A person coming from 

MD 85 can drive north to the intersection with MD 355, and then turn right 

onto MD 355 southbound. The national 

battlefield is approximately 1 1/2 miles 

south of the interchange of I-70 and MD 

355. The visitor center lies just inside the 

north national battlefield boundary. 

Visitors to Monocacy National Battlefield can begin at the new visitor center, 

where they receive directions to each 

feature of the battlefield. The tour road 

follows the existing MD 355, Araby 

Church Road, and Baker Valley Road, 

all paved two-lane roads. 

There are two trails in the national 

battlefield. A trail about 0.5 mile long 

runs from the Gambrill Mill along the 

Monocacy River, where one can see key 

battlefield features. A second trail 

system on the Worthington farm gives 

access to the battlefield and natural 

areas. It consists of two loops, one up 

Brooks Hill and one along the 

Monocacy River. 
PURPOSE, NEED, AND IMPLEMENTATION

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

The purpose of this Draft General 

Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement is to guide the decision 

making and problem solving related to 

resource protection and the visitor 

experience at Monocacy National Battlefield. The plan, which will set forth 

strong direction concerning the desired 

future conditions to be achieved at 

Monocacy National Battlefield, will be 

the primary document for managing the 

national battlefield for the next 15 to 20 

years. The approved plan will provide a 

framework for proactive decisionmaking, including decisions about 

visitor use and the management of 

natural and cultural resources and 

development. That framework will 

allow managers to address future opportunities and problems effectively. 

This plan will prescribe the resource 

conditions and visitor experiences that 

are to be achieved and maintained in the 

national battlefield over time. 

Management decisions must be made 

when laws, policies, and regulations do 

not provide clear guidance or when 

limitations must be based on the 

national battlefield’s purpose, public 

input and desires, resource analysis, and 

the evaluation of environmental 

consequences and costs. 

NEED FOR THE PLAN 

This plan for Monocacy National 

Battlefield is needed because the last 

comprehensive planning effort for the 

national battlefield was completed in the 

late 1970s, before land acquisition. That 

effort was largely designed to plan for 

the opening of the national battlefield 

and the purchase of property, as well as 

to identify staff needs and to develop an 

interim visitor facility. Since then, the 

national battlefield has acquired an 

interest, either in fee or scenic easement, 

in nearly all the properties within the 

boundary. Thus, this is an appropriate 

time to determine how the battlefield 

should be managed and to what degree 

it should be opened to the public. There 

are major implications for how visitors 

can access the national battlefield and 

circulate within it, the facilities needed 

to support those uses, the way resources 

are managed, and how the National 

Park Service manages its operations. 

Since the 1970s the population of 

Frederick County has grown significantly. This has led to the development of 

commercial property along the north 

and northwest boundary and extensive 

residential development to the south, in 

Urbana. This growth outside the national battlefield has resulted in visual 

impacts as modern development has 

intruded on the historic views of the 

battlefield. Increased commuter and 

commercial traffic through the battlefield, with its attendant noise and safety 

concerns, has affected the battlefield’s 

ambiance. There has been pressure to 

allow more utility and road corridors 

through battlefield lands; vegetation has 

been affected by the introduction of 

exotic species; and open space, habitats, 

and corridors for wildlife have been lost. 

All these influences have placed more 

pressure on existing battlefield 

resources. 

16 
Purpose, Need, and Implementation 

A general management plan also is 

needed to meet the requirements of the 

National Parks and Recreation Act of 

1978 and NPS policy, which mandate 

development of a general management 

plan for each unit in the national park 

system. 

THE NEXT STEPS 

After this Draft General Management 

Plan / Environmental Impact Statement is 

distributed, there will be a 60-day public 

review and comment period. Then the 

NPS planning team will evaluate the 

comments it has received from 

organizations, businesses, individuals, 

and other federal agencies. Appropriate 

changes will be incorporated into a Final 

General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement. The 

final plan will include letters from 

governmental agencies, any substantive 

comments on the draft document, and 

the responses of the National Park 

Service to those comments. The 

distribution of the final plan will be 

followed by a 30-day no-action period. 

Then a record of decision approving a 

final plan will be signed by the NPS 

regional director. The record of decision 

documents the NPS selection of an 

alternative for implementation. With the 

signing of the record of decision, the 

plan can then be implemented. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN 

As was described previously, the 

purpose of a general management plan is 

to provide an overall vision for decisionmaking. Implementing the approved 

plan for Monocacy National Battlefield 

will depend on future funding. The 

approval of a plan does not guarantee 

that the funding and staffing needed to 

implement the plan will be forthcoming. 

Full implementation of the approved 

plan could be many years in the future. 

A general management plan does not 

describe how particular programs or 

projects should be prioritized or carried 

out. Those decisions will be addressed 

during the more detailed planning associated with program plans (e.g., resource 

stewardship plans), strategic plans, and 

implementation plans. Carrying out the 

approved plan also will depend on the 

completion of additional feasibility 

studies and more detailed planning and 

environmental documentation related 

to the major actions proposed. 

GUIDANCE FOR 

THE PLANNING EFFORT 

Purpose 

The purpose for a unit of the National 

Park Service is the reason for which it 

was set aside and preserved by 

Congress. The purpose statement, 

which is based on interpretation of the 

unit’s authorizing legislation, supplies 

the fundamental criteria against which 

the appropriateness of all planning 

recommendations, operational 

decisions, and actions are evaluated. 

(The authorizing legislation for the national battlefield is reproduced in 

appendix A.) The purpose of Monocacy 

National Battlefield is as follows: 

• to preserve the breastworks, 

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 

17 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION—PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

• to commemorate the Battle of 

Monocacy 

• 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 

Significance statements define what 

makes the national battlefield important 

enough to our cultural heritage to 

warrant designation as a unit of the 

national park system. Statements of 

significance are a tool for setting 

resource protection priorities and for 

identifying interpretive themes and 

appropriate visitor experiences. They 

help focus efforts and funding on the 

resources and experiences that matter 

most. Monocacy National Battlefield is 

nationally significant as the site of the 

following: 

• The July 9, 1864, battle where a small 

Union army successfully delayed a 

larger Confederate army’s advance 

on Washington, D.C., thereby 

providing sufficient time for Gen. 

Ulysses S. Grant to send federal 

reinforcements to the U.S. capital 

and prevent its capture. This 

Confederate campaign, its third and 

final attempt to bring the war to the 

North, also was designed to divert 

pressure from Gen. Robert E. Lee’s 

besieged army at Petersburg, 

Virginia, and to lessen President 

Abraham Lincoln’s chances for 

reelection. 

• Other important events associated 

with the Civil War, including the 

1862 Maryland Campaign and 

finding of Gen. Robert E. Lee’s 

Special Order 191 outlining his plan 

of attack, the 1863 Gettysburg Campaign, and the August 1864 meeting 

of Generals Grant and Sheridan at 

the Thomas House to plan the 

Shenandoah Valley Campaign. 

• 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. 

Primary Interpretive Themes 

Interpretive themes define the primary 

interpretive messages or stories that will 

be emphasized at Monocacy National 

Battlefield through exhibits, interpretive 

talks, brochures, and publications. The 

themes will help visitors to understand 

the battle of July 9, 1864. The national 

battlefield will use the following seven 

themes as the foundation of its 

interpretive program: 

• The defeat of federal forces at the 

Battle of Monocacy prevented a 

successful attack on the U.S. capital 

by the Army of Northern Virginia 

during its third and last offensive in 

the North. 

• By virtue of its crossroads location, 

Monocacy Junction was the site of 

many important events during the 

Civil War. 

• The Monocacy battlefield landscape 

is rich with historical and geographic 

18 
Purpose, Need, and Implementation 

19 

elements relative to the events and 

issues of the Civil War in Maryland. 

• The Battle of Monocacy, fought in a 

border state, revealed the divided 

loyalties of Maryland citizens during 

the Civil War. 

• Confederate Gen. Jubal Early’s 

tactical success at Monocacy 

ironically resulted in a strategic loss 

by failing to capture the U.S. capital 

and by enhancing President 

Lincoln’s popularity, which had been 

declining, shortly before the 

presidential election. 

• After the Confederate victory at 

Monocacy, a Union campaign was 

initiated to bring total destruction 

upon the Shenandoah Valley, end 

the war by any means necessary, and 

gradually force the Confederates 

back to Petersburg. 

• Monocacy National Battlefield, 

initially commemorated by Civil War 

veterans in the early 1900s, serves as 

a focal point for memorializing those 

who fought in the battle of July 9, 

1864. 
MANDATES, LAWS, AND OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS 

SPECIAL MANDATES AND 

ADMINISTRATIVE 

COMMITMENTS 

Special mandates and administrative 

commitments refer to park-specific 

requirements or those that affect several 

park units. These formal agreements 

often are established concurrently with 

the creation of a unit of the national 

park system or as a result of Congressional action. Monocacy National Battlefield has entered into several 

administrative commitments, as 

described in the following paragraphs. 

Memorandum of Understanding with 

the Historic Preservation Training 

Center 

The National Park Service completed a 

study in December 1994 titled Development Concept Plan / Environmental 

Assessment: Relocation of Historic 

Preservation Training Center, Bush 

Creek Tract, Monocacy National 

Battlefield. This report contained 

analyses of alternatives for relocating 

the Historic Preservation Training 

Center (HPTC), a NPS organization 

dedicated to teaching preservation and 

project management skills, from C&O 

Canal National Historical Park property 

in Williamsport, Maryland, to 

Monocacy National Battlefield. 

The analysis determined that the 

Gambrill House would be a suitable site 

for administrative offices and classrooms, but that a different location 

would be needed for an associated 

workshop facility and storage area that 

would need to occupy approximately 

20,000 square feet. It also found that the 

only suitable area on the property to 

develop such a facility was the top of the 

hill behind, or generally south of, the 

Gambrill House. As a result, the three 

alternatives focused on access to this 

proposed facility. The preferred 

alternative recommended a two-lane 

access road from Ball Road and a paved 

pathway between the shop facility and 

the house. 

After that Development Concept Plan was 

completed, Monocacy National Battlefield signed a memorandum of understanding with the Historic Preservation 

Training Center to locate the training 

center’s administrative headquarters in 

the historic Gambrill House. Under the 

terms of the agreement, the training 

center rehabilitated the structure and 

continues to maintain it. In return, the 

national battlefield maintains the 

grounds around the house. For a variety 

of reasons, the new shop facility was not 

constructed, and the training center 

located its workshop in leased space in 

the city of Frederick. The memorandum 

of understanding was renewed in 

autumn 2003 for ten more years.

Lease and Agreement with 

the State of New Jersey 

The National Park Service entered into a 

lease and agreement with the state of 

New Jersey in 1997 for protecting, 

interpreting, and maintaining the 14th 

New Jersey Monument, which remains 

under the ownership of that state. 

Under the terms of this lease, the state of 

New Jersey provides funding yearly, 

based on availability, for performing 

20 
Mandates, Laws, and Other Planning Efforts 

routine grounds and statue 

maintenance. Every third year, the state 

generally provides additional funding to 

clean and repair the monument. 

Memorandum of Understanding 

with the State of Vermont 

The National Park Service entered into a 

memorandum of understanding with 

the state of Vermont in 1996 for the 

preservation and protection of the 10th 

Vermont Monument, which remains 

under the state’s ownership. Under this 

agreement, the battlefield provides all 

maintenance for the monument and surrounding grounds and can conduct law 

enforcement activities. 

Memorandum of Understanding with 

the Catoctin Center for Regional 

Studies 

In 1998 Monocacy National Battlefield 

and other surrounding NPS units signed 

a memorandum of understanding with 

the Catoctin Center for Regional 

Studies, housed at Frederick Community College. The Catoctin Center is a 

collaborative educational project of the 

National Park Service and Frederick 

Community College to foster research 

and study of the history and culture of 

mid-Maryland and the surrounding 

region. Under this agreement, the 

national battlefield works jointly with 

the Catoctin Center to help the latter 

achieve its mission; in fact, an employee 

of the battlefield serves as the NPS 

liaison with the Center. 

SERVICEWIDE LAWS AND 

POLICIES 

In this section, actions are identified that 

must be taken at Monocacy National 

Battlefield to comply with federal laws 

and with the policies of the National 

Park Service. Many management 

directives are specified in laws and policies guiding the National Park Service 

and are therefore not subject to alternative approaches. For example, there 

are laws and policies about managing 

environmental quality (such as the Clean 

Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, 

and Executive Order (EO) 11990 “Protection of Wetlands”); laws governing 

the preservation of cultural resources 

(such as the National Historic Preservation Act and the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act); and laws about providing public 

services (such as the Americans with 

Disabilities Act) — to name only a few. 

In other words, a general management 

plan is not needed to decide, for 

instance, that it is appropriate to protect 

endangered species, control exotic 

species, protect archeological sites, 

conserve artifacts, or provide access for 

visitors with disabilities. Laws and 

policies already exist to regulate those 

and many other things (see appendix B, 

“Federal Laws, Regulations, and 

Policies.”) 

Although attaining some of the conditions set forth in the laws and policies 

may have been temporarily deferred in 

the national battlefield because of 

funding or staffing limitations, the 

National Park Service will continue to 

strive to achieve these requirements 

21 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION—PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

with or without a new general 

management plan. 

Some laws and executive orders are 

applicable solely or primarily to units of 

the national park system; for example, 

the 1916 Organic Act, which created the 

National Park Service, the General 

Authorities Act of 1970, the act of 

March 27, 1978, relating to the management of the national park system, and 

the National Parks Omnibus Management Act (1998). Other laws and 

executive orders have much broader 

application, such as the Endangered 

Species Act, the National Historic 

Preservation Act, and EO 11990, which 

addresses the protection of wetlands. 

The NPS Organic Act (16 USC §1) 

provides the fundamental management 

direction for all units of the national 

park system, as follows: 

[P]romote and regulate the use of 

the Federal areas known as 

national parks, monuments, and 

reservations. . . by such means and 

measures as conform to the 

fundamental purpose of said parks, 

monuments and reservations, 

which purpose is to conserve the 

scenery and the natural and 

historic objects and the wild life 

therein and to provide for the 

enjoyment of the same in such 

manner and by such means as will 

leave them unimpaired for the 

enjoyment of future generations. 

The National Park System General 

Authorities Act (16 USC §1a–1 et seq.) 

affirms that while all national park 

system units remain “distinct in 

character,” they are “united through 

their interrelated purposes and 

resources into one national park system 

as cumulative expressions of a single 

national heritage.” The act makes it clear 

that the NPS Organic Act and other 

protective mandates apply equally to all 

units of the system. Further, amendments state that NPS management of 

park units should not “derogat[e]. . . the 

purposes and values for which these 

various areas have been established.” 

The National Park Service also has 

established policies for all units under its 

stewardship. These are identified and 

explained in the NPS guidance manual 

called Management Policies 2006. The 

alternatives considered in this plan 

incorporate and comply with the provisions of these mandates and policies. 

To truly understand the implications of 

an alternative, it is important to combine 

the servicewide mandates and policies 

with the management actions described 

in an alternative. The actions and conditions prescribed by laws, regulations, 

and policies most pertinent to the planning and management of the national 

battlefield are detailed in appendix C. 

RELATIONSHIPS OF OTHER 

PLANNING EFFORTS TO THIS 

GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

Monocacy National Battlefield is in 

Frederick County, Maryland. Several 

plans prepared by or under preparation 

by the county, the state, or other public 

entities have influenced or will be 

influenced by this plan, as will some 

other NPS plans. This section includes 

brief descriptions of these related plans 

and their relationship to the battlefield’s 

General Management Plan.

22 
Mandates, Laws, and Other Planning Efforts 

Environmental Assessment: 

Relocating the Visitor Center 

The National Park Service completed an 

environmental assessment in August 

2002 for relocating the existing visitor 

contact station from the Gambrill Mill. 

When it opened in 1991, the Gambrill 

Mill facility was meant to be temporary. 

The building did not meet many life 

safety codes, nor did it contain adequate 

facilities to support safe and efficient 

national battlefield operations. In 

addition, the structure is in the 100-year 

floodplain and has been flooded several 

times. 

The environmental assessment 

evaluated two action alternatives for 

relocating Monocacy National Battlefield’s visitor contact station and 

upgrading it to a visitor center. One 

alternative placed the visitor center in a 

mid-20th century dairy barn on the Best 

Farm (identified in the 1996 Interpretive 

Prospectus but demolished in 2005); the 

preferred alternative placed it in a new 

building on the north end of the Best 

Farm on the east side of Route 355. The 

preferred alternative was selected 

because it was determined that placing 

the visitor center in a new building on 

the north end of the Best Farm would 

result in fewer impacts on the battlefield 

landscape and would provide better 

access to road and utility infrastructure. 

Construction of the new visitor center, 

now complete, and the relocation of 

some battlefield offices allows consideration of new uses for the Gambrill 

Mill. 

I-270 / U.S. 15 Multi-Modal Corridor 

Study (Section 4(f) Evaluation) 

Approximately 2 miles of Interstate 270 

pass through Monocacy National 

Battlefield, bisecting the battlefield. 

Section 4(f) of the Department of 

Transportation Act of 1966, as amended, 

(Public Law [PL] 89-670), 49 USC 303) 

says that the secretary of transportation 

may approve a transportation 

program or project requiring the 

use of publicly owned land of a 

public park, recreation area, . . . 

or . . . historic site only if (1) there 

is no prudent and feasible 

alternative to using that land; and 

(2) the program or project includes 

all possible planning to minimize 

harm to the park, recreation 

area, . . . or historic site resulting 

from the use. 

In 2002, the Federal Highway 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, and the Maryland State 

Highway Administration, Maryland 

Department of Transportation, released 

the I-270 / U.S. 15 Multi-Modal Corridor 

Study, Frederick and Montgomery 

Counties, Maryland: Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) 

Evaluation. The study included several 

alternatives for widening I-270 through 

the national battlefield. The alternatives 

range from constructing one more lane 

in each direction — for a total of six 

lanes — (alternatives 3 and 4) to adding 

two lanes in each direction — for a total 

of eight lanes (alternative 5). The 

national battlefield acreage required for 

the new lanes was initially calculated at 

11.74 for alternatives 3 and 4, and up to 

22.52 acres for alternative 5. 

23 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION—PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

The document included consideration 

of three measures for minimizing 

impacts on the battlefield: steeper 

slopes, retaining walls, and reduced 

width of the inside shoulders. These 

measures would reduce the battlefield 

acreage required for road construction 

to a little more than 5 acres under 

alternatives 3 and 4, and from 0.07 to 

2.92 acres for alternative 5. However, 

reducing the acreage under alternative 5 

would require the use of substantial 

retaining walls averaging 7 feet in height. 

Other mitigating measures considered 

since the release of the draft document 

are shifting the interstate toward the 

west (away from the most sensitive 

battlefield areas on the Best and Thomas 

farms) and constructing a deck or bridge 

over I-270 to reconnect the two halves 

of the battlefield. Shifting the interstate 

also would reduce the acreage required 

from the national battlefield (also see 

page 84). 

In summer 2004, the Maryland State 

Highway Administration proposed 

constructing express toll lanes on I-270. 

Since these lanes would lie within the 

footprint involved in alternative 5, 

additional environmental review was 

deemed unnecessary. The study has yet 

to be finalized. 

The planning teams for the I-270 project 

and the general management plan for 

Monocacy National Battlefield have 

coordinated their efforts to ensure that 

the actions proposed in this plan will be 

coordinated with potential mitigating 

measures that may be proposed under 

section 4(f). 

Frederick County 

Comprehensive Plan 

The Frederick County Planning Commission revised the county’s comprehensive plan in 1998. This plan affords 

long-range guidance for growth, land 

use, and development decisions in the 

county. In the plan, Monocacy National 

Battlefield’s importance as a significant 

historic resource is acknowledged, but 

the county’s plan does not contain 

specific mechanisms for preserving it. 

The Frederick County Comprehensive 

Plan divides the county into eight 

planning regions, with boundaries 

primarily following waterways. As a 

result, Monocacy National Battlefield 

falls within three separate regions — 

New Market, Frederick, and Urbana. 

The New Market Region encompasses 

the small portion of the national 

battlefield that lies north of Bush Creek 

on the east side of the Monocacy River. 

The Best Farm, on the west side of the 

river, lies within the Frederick Region. 

Most of the national battlefield lies in 

the Urbana Region, on the south side of 

Bush Creek and the Monocacy River. 

A plan has been prepared for each of the 

eight regions. These plans give more 

details about land use, zoning, community facility needs, and transportation 

improvements. Of these plans, the 

recently updated Urbana Region Plan,

approved in June 2004, has the most 

direct effect on the national battlefield. 

It focuses on the development of 

Urbana, 3 miles south of the battlefield, 

as a regional community with a 20-year 

build-out population of approximately 

31,200 people. It identifies a future 

growth area for this community that 

24 
Mandates, Laws, and Other Planning Efforts 

may be considered beyond the present 

20-year growth area, which would 

consist of 1,300 acres on the north side 

of the present growth area. This would 

place new development adjacent to the 

rural community of Araby Church and 

within 1 mile of the battlefield. 

With the exception of the Araby Church 

community, the land surrounding the 

battlefield is zoned “agricultural.” The 

Urbana Region Plan supports the 

preservation of agricultural land 

between Monocacy National Battlefield 

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. 

In conjunction with the county’s 

comprehensive plan, the Urbana Region 

Plan identifies a transitway alignment 

along the east side of Interstate Highway 

270. This alignment is depicted as 

traversing the Lewis, Thomas, and Best 

farms, but the plan recommends further 

study of the I-270 transitway alignment 

to determine its feasibility, in part 

because of its 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 Monocacy 

National Battlefield. 

Frederick County Water and 

Wastewater Infrastructure Plan 

In November 2001, Frederick County 

completed a comprehensive proposal 

for long-term water and wastewater 

infrastructure based on growth projections in its 1998 countywide comprehensive plan. The first stage of the 

Frederick County Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Plan (McKinney 

Wastewater Treatment Plant) includes 

the construction of a 42-inch water 

transmission main through the Best 

Farm on Monocacy National Battlefield, 

roughly within a preexisting sewer line 

right-of-way, primarily to serve areas 

east of the city of Frederick. Construction of this line began in summer 2005. 

The plan also contains a long-term 

(2020–2040) proposal to construct a 36-

inch water transmission main along 

Baker Valley and Araby Church roads, 

through portions of the Baker and 

Thomas farms. It would cross the 

Monocacy River and connect with the 

42-inch water line on the Best Farm, 

adjacent to Monocacy Junction. 

Chesapeake Bay Program 

The Chesapeake Bay Agreement was 

signed in 1983 by the governors of 

Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia; 

the Mayor of the District of Columbia; 

and the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, representing the federal government. This landmark agreement 

formalized a regional partnership dedicated to improving the living resources 

of the Chesapeake Bay — the largest 

estuary in the United States. Through 

subsequent agreements, the Chesapeake 

Bay Program has defined goals and 

objectives for the future, including improving vital aquatic habitat and water 

quality for the Bay and its watershed. 

The National Park Service became a 

formal partner in the Chesapeake Bay 

Program (CBP) in 1993 through a 

memorandum of understanding with 

25 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION—PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. Through this agreement, the 

National Park Service committed to 

furthering the restoration and conservation of the bay both within national 

battlefield boundaries and in concert 

with other communities and partners. 

As an agency whose primary mission is 

the preservation and conservation of resources, the National Park Service has a 

leadership role that includes continuing 

current resource stewardship in support 

of existing policies and mandates, as 

well as educating the public and 

partnering with local groups to meet 

established CBP goals. 

To help meet these watershed objectives 

and fulfill NPS obligations under these 

agreements, the national battlefield is 

dedicated to reducing environmental 

impacts on its water resources and 

partnering with local entities. The 

national battlefield’s active agricultural 

lease program requires permittees to 

obtain and follow conservation plans 

and nutrient management plans set out 

by the Maryland Department of Agriculture’s local Soil Conservation District. 

These plans help to reduce soil erosion 

and the impacts of fertilizer and 

pesticide use. 

The national battlefield also partners 

with the Maryland Department of 

Agriculture in establishing best 

management practices to reduce 

agricultural runoff into NPS water 

resources. Agricultural permittees also 

follow a strict integrated pest management approach to dealing with pest 

plants and animals. 

National battlefield managers have 

contributed to a local watershed 

advocacy group’s publication on the 

environmental story of the Monocacy 

River watershed. This periodical is 

designed to educate the public about the 

ecological and historical importance of 

the region’s significant water resources. 

These and other future activities will 

help demonstrate the national battlefield’s continued support in meeting 

CBP conservation goals. 

Monocacy Scenic River 

Study and Management Plan 

The Monocacy River was designated a 

state scenic river in 1974 upon meeting 

conditions set out in the Maryland 

Scenic and Wild Rivers Act of 1968. This 

designation helps to protect waterways 

through natural resource inventory and 

monitoring and by sound land use planning. The National Park Service, 

through the National Rivers Inventory, 

identified 52 miles of the river as eligible 

for designation as a national scenic river, 

citing significant natural, cultural, and 

archaeological resources. 

The Monocacy Scenic River Study and 

Management Plan (Monocacy Scenic 

River Local Advisory Board, 1990) 

contains an evaluation of the river’s 

resources and value, along with recommendations for effective conservation 

and management of the river and its 

tributaries. While it is not a binding 

regulatory document, it serves as a 

reference for state and local governments to use in protecting these 

resources. The main objectives for the 

plan generally involve improving water 

quality, conserving sensitive riparian 

habitats, encouraging appropriate land 

and recreational uses in these areas, 

providing resource information for local 

26 
Mandates, Laws, and Other Planning Efforts 

entities to use in planning, and promoting public awareness of the 

important values of these water 

resources. 

Some general recommendations in the 

plan are improving the compatibility 

between land use and natural areas, 

increasing the enforcement of environmental laws and regulations regarding 

waste disposal, and establishing best 

management practices for agricultural 

uses. Also recommended are the 

encouragement of the maintenance and 

protection of existing forested buffers, 

the conservation of sensitive habitats 

and species, and the institution of public 

awareness programs and resources to 

further the public’s understanding of 

important water resource issues. 

To meet these and other broad recommendations, the national battlefield 

engages in sound management practices 

to reduce impacts on water resources. 

All agricultural permittees are required 

to obtain conservation plans and 

nutrient management plans through the 

Maryland Department of Agriculture’s 

local Soil Conservation District. These 

plans mandate environmentally safe 

farming practices to reduce soil erosion, 

pesticide use, and nutrient use and 

runoff. Best management practices (in 

the form of stream fencing and buffers) 

are used to reduce impacts. 

The resource management staff of the 

national battlefield uses an integrated 

pest management approach when 

dealing with pest plant and animal 

populations. This involves combining 

chemical, mechanical, and manual 

methods to control pest populations. 

Pesticide use is also controlled and 

reviewed through the NPS integrated 

pest management (IPM) system. To 

ensure correct application method, timing, and appropriate use, the regional 

IPM coordinator reviews and preapproves all pesticides before their use is 

allowed. 

Frederick County Bikeways 

and Trails Plan 

Frederick County funded a Monocacy 

River Greenway study in 1994 to 

develop a vision for a recreational trail 

system for the corridor from Walkersville south to the Potomac River. The 

trail would extend along the Monocacy 

River, connecting existing county parks, 

Monocacy National Battlefield, and the 

C&O Canal National Historical Park. 

The possibility of connecting to other 

county parks and the state-owned 

Monocacy Natural Resource Area also 

was proposed. Planning for the greenway has not progressed beyond one segment completed in the City of 

Frederick. 

Also proposed in the Frederick County 

Bikeways and Trails Plan (Frederick 

County Dept. of Planning and Zoning 

1999) is a Monocacy River Greenway 

for bicycle and pedestrian use on the 

south side of the river through the 

battlefield. Among other issues, the plan 

includes “protecting the riparian buffer 

along the river,” and “assembling the 

right-of-way through easement or fee 

simple purchase.” 

A second trail proposed in the bikeways 

and trails plan would follow the Bush 

Creek corridor and the CSX railroad 

tracks for most of its length. Presumably 

the trail would connect with the pro27 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION—PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

posed Monocacy River Greenway in 

Monocacy National Battlefield. It would 

be for recreational use only, but it would 

accommodate hikers/walkers and 

equestrians. As with the Monocacy 

River Greenway, consultation with 

Frederick County to determine the 

desirability and impacts of such a greenway trail would be necessary before any 

development could take place. 

Before the greenway concept could be 

accomplished, actions would have to be 

taken to comply with EO 11990 

(“Protection of Wetlands”), NPS guidelines for wetlands and floodplains, state 

and federal laws related to endangered 

species, the Chesapeake Bay Program, 

and the Maryland Scenic Rivers Act 

(described under “Consultation and 

Coordination, Compliance with Specific 

Laws and Policies”). In addition, actions 

listed in a section about mitigating 

measures (p. 85) would have to be 

carried out to ameliorate the effects of 

the actions of any alternative of this 

plan. The Monocacy River Greenway 

could not be implemented in the 

national battlefield unless all these 

requirements were met and continued 

during the construction and use of the 

greenway. 

Interstate 270 Overlook/ 

Demonstration Project 

The Maryland Highway Administration 

developed an interpretive overlook on I270 south of, and abutting, Monocacy 

National Battlefield. Interpretive panels 

at a parking area describe the area’s 

history, and there is a scenic vista of 

farmlands to the west and the church 

towers of Frederick to the north. No 

water or restroom facilities are available. 

Planning is underway to construct an 

interpretive center and restrooms at the 

overlook. The interpretive center would 

take advantage of new technologies to 

make the site self-sustaining and an 

example of “green” site design. A variety 

of technologies would provide electricity, heating and cooling, and wastewater cleanup. The superintendent of 

Monocacy National Battlefield is 

participating in the planning and design 

of site facilities to ensure that they will 

be compatible and complementary with 

national battlefield values. 

PLANNING ISSUES AND 

CONCERNS 

A planning issue is defined here as an 

opportunity, conflict, or problem 

regarding the use or management of 

Monocacy National Battlefield. 

Members of the general public, NPS 

staff, and representatives from other 

agencies and organizations identified a 

number of planning-related issues 

through scoping meetings, newsletter 

responses, and discussions with 

representatives of other agencies and 

organizations. 

Monocacy has been open to the public 

only since 1991, with few areas 

accessible to visitors. Therefore, these 

issues involved appropriate levels and 

methods of allowing visitor access to the 

battlefield while maintaining desired 

resource conditions, managing the 

battlefield landscape and associated 

historic structures, and the level and 

location of visitor and operational 

facilities. The alternatives of this plan 

include strategies for addressing the 

issues within the context of the national 

28 
Mandates, Laws, and Other Planning Efforts 

battlefield’s purpose and significance 

and NPS laws and policies. 

Preserving the Battlefield Landscape 

The landscape of Monocacy National 

Battlefield is composed of diverse 

natural and cultural elements. Its rolling 

agricultural fields and forests retain 

many of their 19th century characteristics, but the landscape is threatened by 

incompatible adjacent development, 

increased population growth, and the 

pressures that such growth creates (such 

as heavy traffic and the need for road 

widening and additional utilities). A 

shrinking agricultural base is likely to 

make farming on the battlefield less 

economically practicable. Developments 

can affect the visitor experience at the 

battlefield by introducing modern visual 

and auditory intrusions. At issue is 

finding ways to preserve the landscape 

and enhance the qualities that make it 

significant while at the same time 

minimizing effects on resources from 

surrounding development. 

Another issue is determining how the 

historic battlefield landscape should be 

managed. This landscape is the key to 

understanding how the events of July 9, 

1864, unfolded. Little documentation is 

available regarding the battlefield’s 1864 

appearance, but existing evidence suggests that most of its major features — 

the farmsteads, property and fence lines, 

field configurations, building settings, 

and circulation patterns — remain 

relatively intact. Parts of the battlefield 

landscape have been degraded, 

however, primarily by the construction 

of I-270. The highway bisected the 

battlefield in the mid-20th century, 

obscuring key viewsheds and property 

lines, creating deep borrow pits, and 

obliterating parts of fields. During 

scoping for this plan, some people suggested that the National Park Service 

consider restoring the lost features of 

the battlefield to help facilitate interpretation. At issue is to what degree the 

National Park Service should rehabilitate or restore lost features of the battlefield landscape, and for what purposes. 

The diverse natural and cultural 

resources of the national battlefield are 

in jeopardy from degradation caused by 

human-constructed features such as I270, and some natural resource issues 

are at work that compromise the historic 

battlefield landscape and disrupt the 

ecological balance. Overbrowsing by 

white-tailed deer can alter the historic 

appearance by forcing farmers to change 

agricultural practices to those less favorable to the deer. Browsing also can alter 

regrowth in forested areas, further 

changing the prominent historic patterns and suppressing the regeneration 

of native trees. 

The proliferation of invasive non-native 

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. In addition, the national battlefield’s water 

quality and aquatic resources are at risk 

from sedimentation and stream erosion, 

caused in part by poor agricultural 

practices and surrounding development. 

Riparian stream buffers are an effective 

solution to reduce these impacts, but 

they must be established in keeping with 

the historic landscape. There is a need to 

evaluate ways to improve environmental 

29 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION—PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

conditions in the national battlefield 

while preserving the historic landscape. 

In sum, an underlying philosophy is 

needed to guide the management of 

these resources and landscapes. 

Protecting Important 

Natural Resource Areas 

Monocacy National Battlefield contains 

significant natural resource areas that 

require special management efforts. 

These areas possess considerable 

resource value aside from their 

important role in the cultural landscape. 

The primary management direction for 

the national battlefield is to protect and 

preserve the historical values; however, 

the natural resource areas also require 

considerable attention because they are 

important to the region’s ecology. 

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. The presence 

of forest interior areas and their 

importance to sensitive forest interior 

dwelling species has been suggested in 

national battlefield research conducted 

by the Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources (MDNR). The populations of 

these area-sensitive species have been 

documented as declining on a regional 

and national scale. One of these large 

tracts, a limestone woods area, was 

identified by the MDNR as containing 

state-listed rare plants. The Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources also 

identified this site as a conservation 

priority in the Frederick County area. 

Orientation and Visitor Services 

Although the national battlefield was 

opened to the public in 1991, most of 

the battlefield has remained inaccessible 

to visitors, and visitor facilities have 

remained minimal. In addition, substantial physical barriers — such as the 

Monocacy River, I-270, and CSX 

Railroad — hinder efficient circulation 

through the national battlefield and 

present a challenge for interpreting the 

battle effectively. A major issue concerns 

how more of the battlefield can be 

opened to visitors while preserving its 

significant resource values. 

A final visitor services issue revolves 

around the appropriate level and kinds 

of visitor facilities on the national 

battlefield. Although the cramped, 

inadequate visitor contact station in the 

Gambrill Mill has been replaced with a 

new visitor center, questions remain 

concerning whether more visitor 

facilities should be placed in the national 

battlefield, and if so, where they might 

be located. 

Commemorative Monuments 

Five commemorative monuments are in 

Monocacy National Battlefield at 

present, three erected by Civil War 

veterans and two that were established 

on the battlefield during major 

anniversaries (50th and 100th). The 

congressional legislation for the national 

battlefield allows the placement of 

monuments on the battlefield by states 

whose troops fought in the battle. Some 

interest in erecting new monuments on 

30 
Mandates, Laws, and Other Planning Efforts 

31 

the battlefield has been expressed by 

outside groups. At issue is whether or 

not more monuments should be placed 

on the battlefield, and if so, at what 

locations. 

Inadequate Administrative Facilities 

As a relatively new area in the national 

park system, Monocacy National 

Battlefield has had to work with 

temporary and inadequate facilities for 

administrative offices, maintenance 

appurtenances, and storage. The permanent staff has grown from three people 

when the national battlefield opened in 

1991 to fourteen. National battlefield 

operations clearly have outgrown their 

existing facilities, but questions remain 

about where new ones should be placed. 

Historic Structures 

Monocacy National Battlefield contains 

several historically significant houses, 

most particularly the Gambrill, Best, 

Thomas, and Worthington houses. Of 

these four, the Thomas House has, until 

2007, been occupied under a life estate, 

and the Gambrill House is used by the 

Historic Preservation Training Center 

under a long-term agreement with the 

national battlefield. The Best and 

Worthington houses, which are empty, 

require significant interior rehabilitation 

before they can be occupied. During 

scoping for this plan, members of the 

public expressed interest in providing 

public access into the national 

battlefield’s historic structures. At issue 

is what should be done with these 

structures — preserve them as they are 

or rehabilitate all or parts of them for 

administrative or public use. 

ISSUES AND CONCERNS NOT 

ADDRESSED IN THIS PLAN 

All issues or concerns raised by the 

public have been addressed in this 

General Management Plan.
(blank) 

(blank back of divider) 
INTRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT ZONING 

INTRODUCTION 

Many aspects of the desired future 

condition of Monocacy National 

Battlefield are defined in the establishing 

legislation, the national battlefield’s 

purpose and significance statements, 

and the servicewide policies and 

mandates. Within these parameters, the 

National Park Service solicited input 

from the public, NPS staff, government 

agencies, and other organizations 

regarding issues and desired conditions 

for Monocacy National Battlefield. The 

first newsletter describing the planning 

effort was issued in December 2002. The 

National Park Service received written 

responses to the first newsletter. 

Using the information mentioned above, 

the planning team developed a set of 

management directions, management 

prescriptions, and four alternatives to 

guide the future management of the 

national battlefield management. These 

alternatives reflect the range of ideas 

proposed by the national battlefield staff 

and the public. 

In this chapter, the proposed management prescriptions and alternatives are 

described. Included are tables that 

summarize the key differences between 

the alternatives and the key differences 

in the impacts that would be expected 

from implementing each alternative. 

Also included are mitigating measures 

that would be employed to reduce or 

avoid adverse impacts. 

MANAGEMENT ZONING AND 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

As a part of the planning process, the 

national battlefield was divided into 

different management zones, each with 

a specific management prescription. 

Management prescriptions define a 

range of desired visitor experiences, 

cultural and natural resource conditions, and the appropriate facilities and 

functions necessary to achieve those 

goals. Management prescriptions are 

generally focused on the future; they are 

not a description of the status quo. For 

this reason, management prescriptions 

are not applied to alternative 1, the noaction alternative. 

Essentially, a management prescription 

articulates the desired future vision for 

the national battlefield that managers 

will strive to achieve incrementally as 

funding becomes available to implement 

the specific actions outlined in this 

General Management Plan.

The management zones may differ 

somewhat between alternatives 

according to the overall intent (concept) 

of each alternative. That is, each alternative represents a different way of applying the management prescriptions to the 

national battlefield. 

A draft version of the management 

prescriptions was presented to the 

public in the second newsletter (June 

2003). Thereafter, the management 

prescriptions were modified in response 

to public comments. A revised version is 

presented below. 

35 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Five different management prescriptions were developed for Monocacy 

National Battlefield: battlefield 

preservation, visitor services, commemoration, natural resources, and 

maintenance/administration. For each 

management prescription, a corresponding zone was designed to help 

guide the preservation of resources, 

their interpretation to the public, and 

the types of facilities that might be 

appropriate within the zone. Under each 

alternative, natural and cultural 

resources would continue to be 

managed in accordance with laws, regulations, and policies. Each zone is 

described briefly below. 

Battlefield Preservation Zone 

The battlefield preservation zone would 

encompass most of the national battlefield’s cultural landscape and historic 

structures. In this zone, preserving the 

battlefield resources would receive the 

most attention. This zone essentially 

would be the battlefield’s primary 

resource that would be presented to the 

visiting public. 

Desired Visitor Experience. The 

primary visitor experience in the 

battlefield preservation zone would be 

immersion into the battlefield setting. 

Visitors could experience firsthand the 

challenges of the terrain where troop 

movements occurred and opposing 

forces encountered each other. Visitors 

would have access to several battlefield 

areas of high interpretive value via trails 

and roads. 

In this zone, preference would be given 

to using historic road and trail corridors 

rather than developing new means of 

access. Use levels could be expected to 

be moderate to high, and appropriate 

activities could include sightseeing, 

photography, walking, and interpretive 

programs if they would not be disruptive 

to the setting. Self-guiding or ranger-led 

walking tours would be important to the 

visitor experience. 

Desired Resource Conditions. The 

battlefield preservation zone would be 

managed to preserve an 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. Cultural 

resource management would emphasize 

the preservation of cultural landscape 

values, focusing on the setting, feeling, 

and physical features that would convey 

the historic character of the landscape. 

Appropriate Facilities and Functions.

Appropriate facilities in the battlefield 

preservation zone could be interpretive 

trails, wayside exhibits, and new agricultural buildings in keeping with historic 

viewsheds and interpretive values. 

Visitor Services Zone 

The visitor services zone would focus on 

orienting visitors to the battlefield and 

offering a concentrated, in-depth presentation of battlefield resources and 

visitor use opportunities. 

Desired Visitor Experience. Visitor 

concentration would be high in the 

visitor services zone, and services would 

be convenient and accessible. There 

36 
Introduction and Management Zoning 

would be frequent interaction between 

visitors and NPS staff. 

Desired Resource Conditions. Any 

existing cultural and natural resources in 

the visitor services zone would be 

managed according to NPS policies with 

moderate tolerance for disturbance. 

Appropriate Facilities and Functions. 

Appropriate facilities in the visitor 

services zone would include those that 

would shelter programs and exhibits to 

promote a greater understanding of the 

major interpretive themes of Monocacy 

National Battlefield. Also appropriate 

would be educational sales, contact with 

NPS personnel, and services that would 

give comfort and relief for visitors. A 

visitor center, exhibits, waysides, accessible trails, picnic areas, restrooms, 

access roads, and parking areas are 

examples of appropriate types of 

facilities. 

Visitor service functions would be 

sensitively integrated into historic 

structures, or they could be housed in 

new structures of contemporary design, 

compatible in scale and materials to 

existing historic battlefield structures. A 

high degree of design would be required 

to integrate the facilities into the 

agrarian setting successfully. Where new 

construction was needed, preference 

would be given to locating the new 

facilities in previously disturbed sites. 

Commemorative Zone 

The commemorative zone would be 

those areas of the national battlefield 

that are set aside for the placement of 

monuments commemorating the efforts 

of the soldiers who fought in the battle 

of Monocacy. These areas would consist 

of more formal landscapes maintained 

to create a peaceful, contemplative 

experience. 

Desired Visitor Experience. Visitors in 

the commemorative zone would be 

moderately likely to encounter other 

visitors, and there would be a low likelihood of encountering national battlefield staff. The visitor experience would 

be primarily a peaceful, contemplative 

one, with interpretation available from 

brochures or wayside exhibits. 

Desired Resource 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. 

Appropriate Facilities and Functions. 

Appropriate facilities and functions in 

the commemorative zone would be 

those necessary to allow visitor access 

and to promote an understanding of 

each monument’s context and placement. These could include such amenities as wayside exhibits, sidewalks, 

formal landscape design, access roads, 

and parking areas. 

Natural Resources Zone 

The natural resources zone would comprise areas of the national battlefield 

that contain significant natural 

resources requiring special management 

actions. Such areas include the 

Monocacy River and Bush Creek, other 

riparian areas, forested areas, and areas 

37 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

38 

with significant resources requiring 

special protection measures. 

Desired Visitor Experience. Visitor use 

in the natural resources zone would be 

low to moderate, especially in comparison to the other zones. Visitors would 

experience natural areas via designated 

trail corridors. Areas of special resource 

concern would be closed to visitors. 

Interpretation would be available from 

wayside exhibits and brochures. 

Desired Resource 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. 

Appropriate Facilities and Functions. 

Facilities appropriate for the natural 

resources zone would be unpaved trails 

in keeping with the natural character 

reminiscent of the Civil War era, limited 

interpretive or directional signs, and 

wayside exhibits. Erecting temporary 

fencing or barriers might be necessary to 

identify areas needing special resource 

protection.

Maintenance and 

Administration Zone 

The maintenance and administration 

zone would consist of areas set aside to 

accommodate the facilities and 

functions needed to manage the national 

battlefield. To the extent possible, these 

facilities would be in areas not 

frequented by the public, although some 

administrative activities could be housed 

in adaptively rehabilitated historic 

structures. 

Desired Visitor Experience. 

Maintenance and administrative areas 

generally are not intended for visitor 

use; rather, they are needed for staff to 

attend to operational duties. Visitors 

might enter areas if administrative 

functions were housed in historic 

structures, but visitor access into such 

areas could be restricted for security 

reasons. In such cases interpretation 

would be available through brochures or 

exterior wayside exhibits. 

Desired Resource Conditions. Any 

existing cultural and natural resources in 

the maintenance and administration 

zone would be managed according to 

NPS policies, with moderate tolerance 

for disturbance. Adaptive reuse of 

historic structures would be appropriate. Any effects on historic 

landscapes would be minimal. 

Appropriate Facilities and Functions. 

Facilities and functions appropriate to 

the maintenance and administration 

zone would be office space, workshops, 

storage, garages, walks, roads, and 

parking. 
FORMULATING ALTERNATIVES AND IDENTIFYING PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE 

FORMULATING THE 

ALTERNATIVES 

The alternatives of this Draft General 

Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement focus on what 

resource conditions, visitor uses, and 

experiences or opportunities should be 

at the national battlefield rather than on 

details of how these conditions and uses 

and experiences should be achieved. 

Thus, the alternatives do not include 

many details on managing resources or 

visitor use. 

More detailed plans or studies will be 

needed before most conditions 

proposed in the alternatives can be 

achieved. Implementing any alternative 

also would depend on future funding 

and environmental compliance. This 

plan does not guarantee that the funds 

to carry out the selected plan will be 

forthcoming. The plan is intended to 

establish a vision of the future that will 

guide the day-to-day and year-to-year 

management of the national battlefield, 

but the full execution of the plan could 

take many years. 

BRIEF SUMMARY OF 

ALTERNATIVES 

This Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement

presents four alternatives, including the 

alternative preferred by the National 

Park Service. Alternative 1, the noaction alternative, represents a continuation of the existing management direction. It is included as a baseline for 

comparing the consequences of putting 

each alternative into action. The 

“action” alternatives — 2, 3, and 4 (the 

agency’s preferred alternative) — entail 

different ways of managing resources 

and visitor use and improving the 

facilities and infrastructure at the 

Monocacy National Battlefield. 

After public meetings and public review 

of a newsletter describing the preliminary alternatives, and as the alternatives 

became more concrete, it was clear that 

the public was confused about the 

interpretive distinctions between the 

different alternatives, which were not as 

clear as the team had originally thought. 

Although the interpretive concepts had 

helped the planning team to organize 

the potential actions into coherent alternatives, their usefulness had become 

questionable. Using the “Choosing by 

Advantages” process, (briefly described 

under “Identifying the Preferred 

Alternative” below), the team developed 

a new alternative 4, which became the 

agency’s preferred alternative. 

The three action alternatives embody a 

range of what the public and the 

National Park Service want to see 

accomplished with regard to natural 

resource conditions, cultural resource 

conditions, and visitor use and experience at Monocacy National Battlefield. 

The actual configurations for each 

alternative were developed by overlaying the management prescriptions 

(previously described) on a map of the 

national battlefield. 

Alternative 2 would focus relatively 

narrowly on the story of the Battle of 

39 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Monocacy, explaining troop movements, how the landscape affected the 

battle, and an understanding of the 

players. Alternative 3 would extend the 

story of the Battle of Monocacy to include its effects on Frederick and the 

surrounding countryside. In addition to 

interpreting the battle, Alternative 4 (the 

preferred alternative) would emphasize 

the national battlefield’s role as a military and transportation crossroads 

throughout the Civil War. Even more 

broadly, it would focus attention on 

Monocacy’s position as an important 

crossroads from prehistory to the 

present. 

Each alternative would include a different approach to explaining the 

national battlefield. As an example, in 

alternative 3, more emphasis would be 

placed on the civilian story; therefore, it 

would involve a greater need to allow 

access to historic structures than in 

alternative 2, where the battle landscape 

would be of primary importance to the 

story. 

As was mentioned under “Mandates, 

Laws, and Other Planning Efforts” (p. 

20), the National Park Service would 

continue to follow existing agreements 

and servicewide mandates, laws, and 

policies regardless of the alternatives 

considered in this plan. These mandates 

and policies are not repeated in this 

chapter. 

IDENTIFYING THE 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Developing a preferred alternative 

involves evaluating the alternatives 

through an objective analysis process 

called “choosing by advantages,” or 

CBA. Using this process, the planning 

team identified and compared the 

relative advantages of each alternative 

according to a set of factors. The 

benefits or advantages of each 

alternative were compared for each of 

the following CBA factors: 

• preserving the battlefield 

• removing modern intrusions 

• using historic structures 

• improving safety 

• considering circulation (automobiles 

and trails) 

• increasing opportunities for visitor 

enjoyment 

• offering opportunities for alternative 

transportation 

The relationships between the advantages and costs of each alternative were 

established. This information was then 

used to combine the best attributes of 

the four initial alternatives into the 

preferred alternative. This alternative 

gives the National Park Service the 

greatest overall benefits for each point 

listed above for the most reasonable 

cost. Alternative 4 was selected as the 

preferred alternative. 

40 
ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

INTRODUCTION 

The management directions that are 

common to all alternatives are described 

in this section. In a sense, these management directions form the philosophical 

foundation, or vision, for managing the 

national battlefield, and they serve as the 

baseline from which the “action” alternatives were developed. These management directions follow and build upon 

the laws, servicewide policies, and 

mandates delineated in appendixes B 

and C. 

Some actions are occurring now and will 

continue regardless of which alternative 

is selected. Other actions have been 

approved but have not yet been accomplished. Still others are actions required 

by law or policy that would occur 

regardless of alternative. 

The order in which these management 

directions and actions are listed does 

not indicate priority or likelihood for 

funding. The possible actions that are 

listed represent actions that could be 

taken to support each management 

direction; however, it should be kept in 

mind that the desired condition could 

be achieved in variety of ways. 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

AND PRESERVATION 

Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources, including historic 

structures, landscapes, archeological 

sites, and monuments that contribute 

to the significance of the national 

battlefield, would be stabilized, 

preserved, and maintained in good 

condition. Monocacy National Battlefield has more than 51 historic structures —buildings, monuments, transportation corridors, and earthworks — 

on its List of Classified Structures. It also 

has extensive museum collections and 

archival materials and a variety of historic and prehistoric archeological sites. 

All these structures, objects, and 

features come together in the six component properties that compose the 

battlefield’s cultural landscape. Most of 

the daily work of the national battlefield’s maintenance and professional 

staff and a significant portion of the 

national battlefield’s annual budget are 

devoted to protecting, preserving, and 

maintaining the battlefield’s historic 

resources. 

Archeological sites, historic structures, 

fence lines, viewsheds, and field 

boundaries are among the features that 

contribute to the national battlefield’s 

cultural landscape and are important to 

our understanding of the broader 

historical context in which the Battle of 

Monocacy was fought. Management 

decisions must be made with the 

preservation of these resources in mind. 

The following actions would support 

this management direction: 

• Protect historic buildings from fire 

• Manage plant species to retain 

desirable cultural landscape characteristics such as field patterns and the 

composition of wooded and 

agricultural areas 

• Stabilize and preserve historically 

significant buildings and maintain 

them in good condition 

41 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

• Continue the memorandum of 

understanding with the Historic 

Preservation Training Center for 

administrative use of the Gambrill 

House 

• Conduct regular routine 

maintenance to prevent conditions 

that could lead to the destruction of 

historic fabric 

• Protect significant topographic and 

natural features of the battlefield 

from erosion 

• Understand and pursue the 

management of the white-tailed deer 

population to retain desirable 

cultural landscape characteristics 

such as field patterns, the 

composition of wooded and 

agricultural areas and ornamental 

farmstead plantings 

• Protect known archeological sites 

from deterioration 

• Protect cultural resources from 

damage resulting from vandalism 

• Implement a prescribed fire plan to 

help retain desirable cultural 

landscape characteristics, manage 

invasive exotic plants, and manage 

vistas 

Landscape Features 

Landscape features that are 

significant for understanding the 

Battle of Monocacy and that have been 

degraded by modern intrusions such 

as I-270 would be reestablished. The 

establishing legislation for the national 

battlefield calls for the preservation of 

features associated with the Battle of 

Monocacy. In addition to the 

constructed features such as breastworks and earthworks specifically listed 

in the legislation, such features are construed to include the land on which the 

battle was fought. Associated components include agricultural fields and 

their historic boundaries, forested areas, 

and road traces. 

Like many Civil War battlefields, 

however, the level of knowledge concerning the battlefield’s wartime 

appearance is limited, consisting mainly 

of rough sketch maps and general 

written accounts, with no known photographs or detailed surveys. However, 

research conducted to date suggests that 

the broader battlefield landscape 

changed relatively little from the time of 

the battle until well into the opening 

decades of the 20th century. 

The major changes to the battlefield 

landscape have resulted from modern 

intrusions such as roads (Interstate 

Highway 270) or agricultural practices 

such as the construction of trench silos. 

The national battlefield staff would remove modern landscape features such 

as agricultural trench silos but rehabilitate or preserve historic battlefield 

landscape features such as hedge rows 

and tree lines. To the extent possible, 

the national battlefield staff would 

reestablish significant battle-related 

features that have been degraded by the 

construction of 20th century intrusions. 

The following actions would support 

this management direction: 

• Remove the borrow pit from the 

Worthington Farm side of I-270 and 

re-establish the agricultural field 

42 
Actions Common to All Alternatives 

• Remove noncontributing structures 

unless a structure would be required 

for an operational purpose such as 

restrooms or office space 

• Reestablish significant vistas 

between the Worthington and 

Thomas farms 

• To the extent possible, reestablish 

the fence line between the 

Worthington and Thomas Farms 

Landscape Protection 

Landscape protection strategies would 

ensure the integrity of the battlefield’s 

nationally significant qualities. The 

following actions would support this 

management direction: 

• Review the status of lands within the 

legislative boundary in an effort to 

determine the most appropriate 

protection measure to assure the 

desired future; this may include 

acquiring private lands and 

upgrading easements to fee 

ownership 

• Continually patrol and mark the 

boundary to preserve and protect 

national battlefield resources by 

preventing encroachments 

• Preserve the battlefield viewshed by 

working with the state and county to 

obtain preservation easements on 

farmlands adjacent to the legislative 

boundary 

Agriculture 

Agricultural activities would maintain 

the historic agrarian character of the 

national battlefield’s landscape while 

protecting natural and cultural 

resources. The agricultural program is a 

key component of national battlefield 

management. The fields reflect the 

historic agrarian character of the 

landscape and are an important cultural 

resource. The agricultural fields are one 

element that makes up the historic field 

patterns, along with fences, forested 

areas, and similar features. The current 

program, which has four permittees, is a 

“partnering” approach to maintaining 

approximately 850 acres of the battlefield. Without the agricultural program, 

maintaining these areas would have to 

become a federal function and would 

require additional equipment, expertise, 

time, and resources. Moreover, the agricultural leasing program helps to retain 

the national battlefield’s link to the 

neighboring community and encourages 

local residents to feel that they have a 

stake in preserving the battlefield 

landscape. 

The following actions would support 

this management direction: 

• Continue to establish best management practices and conservation 

plans to protect significant natural 

resources such as soil and water. 

This would include erosion control, 

crop rotation, nutrient management, 

soil conservation, and integrated pest 

management 

• Maintain a special use permit 

program to manage agricultural 

activities 

• Establish strategies to maintain the 

economic viability of agriculture, 

which is critical to retaining and 

attracting farmers 

43 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

44 

• Understand and pursue the 

management of the white-tailed deer 

population to retain desirable 

landscape characteristics such as 

field patterns and the composition of 

agricultural areas 

• Manage and adjust agricultural 

activities to protect significant 

archeological resources 

• Schedule management activities such 

as mowing, seeding, fertilizing, and 

harvesting to protect wildlife, limit 

runoff, and protect water quality in 

streams 

Modern Intrusions 

Intrusions from modern utilities, 

transportation systems, and rights-ofway would be minimized to protect the 

integrity of the battlefield’s nationally 

significant qualities. Monocacy 

National Battlefield is crossed by a 

number of rights-of-way, including the 

CSX Railroad (the old B&O Railroad 

line), I-270, MD 355, and several utility 

lines, including water, sewer, and gas. 

Burgeoning development and population growth have increased pressure to 

expand the existing infrastructure and 

install new infrastructure in the national 

battlefield. Such proposals include 

widening I-270, building a light rail line 

through the Thomas and Best farms, and 

running additional water and sewer lines 

through various areas of the battlefield. 

Although much of the area surrounding 

the national battlefield has been 

developed extensively, the battlefield 

landscape itself retains remarkable 

integrity. However, the concept of 

expanding utility and transportation 

corridors through Monocacy National 

Battlefield poses a major threat to this 

primary resource and to visitors’ 

experience. 

The following actions would support 

this management direction: 

• Work with local utility companies to 

bury telephone, cable, and power 

lines along MD 355 in the Best Farm 

area to enhance views from the new 

visitor center 

• Work with the Maryland State 

Highway Administration to minimize 

the impacts from any widening of I270 and to reconnect and enhance 

the battlefield landscape 

• Continue to work with the Maryland 

Department of Transportation to 

reduce noise and visual impacts from 

I-270 and MD 355 

• Work with CSX to ensure that 

railroad operations will not 

negatively affect national battlefield 

resources 

• Collaborate with Frederick County 

to ensure that the potential effects on 

the national battlefield are 

considered in any utility and 

transportation planning 

• Establish agreements to control 

invasive vegetation on right-of-way 

corridors through the national 

battlefield 

• Enforce existing agreements
Actions Common to All Alternatives 

Natural Resources 

Natural Resources would be managed 

and monitored to encourage biological 

diversity and to avoid adverse 

impacts on the regional ecology while 

protecting the quality and character of 

the national battlefield’s cultural 

resources. At Monocacy National Battlefield, natural resources such as 

vegetation, wildlife, water resources, 

and soils would be managed to protect 

the character and quality of the national 

battlefield’s significant cultural 

resources and to preserve important 

interpretive views. These goals would be 

balanced by a desire to encourage 

biological diversity by establishing and 

executing strategies to protect significant natural resources such as native 

plant and animal species (including 

state-listed and federally listed 

threatened and endangered species), 

local springs, streams, and watersheds, 

and plant communities of local 

importance (such as Brooks Hill). 

Existing trails could be modified somewhat to protect wildlife and plants or to 

improve access, but generally the trails 

would be maintained in their current 

state. Visitors would be encouraged to 

stay on the trails because these important ecological areas are the most environmentally fragile areas of the national 

battlefield. Activities such as fishing that 

require off-trail access would be 

monitored for any damage, and areas 

would be closed periodically to allow 

vegetation to recover. 

The following actions would support 

this management direction: 

• Continue servicewide inventories of 

plants and animals 

• Prepare Resource Stewardship Plan 

to identify resource management 

goals and implementation strategies 

• Continue to cooperate with other 

agencies in efforts to restore water 

quality including the continuation of 

current water quality monitoring 

efforts and park management 

practices that support regional and 

watershed water quality objectives 

• Establish monitoring programs 

based on the findings from 

completed inventories and the 

ongoing servicewide initiative to 

identify “vital signs” (attributes 

identified as key indicators for 

monitoring of ecosystem health) for 

each national park unit 

• With the ongoing cooperation of 

local universities and research centers, continue to monitor the whitetailed deer population and its 

impacts 

• Pursue the management of the 

white-tailed deer population to 

retain desirable landscape characteristics such as field patterns and the 

composition of wooded areas 

(sustainable forest regeneration) 

• Establish vegetation strategies to 

manage invasive exotic plant species 

and to protect and improve native 

plant species populations 

• Develop and continue conservation 

partnerships with local, state, and 

other federal agencies so as to protect and monitor resources (for 

example, the Chesapeake Bay 

Program and the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service) 

45 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

• Develop a geographic information 

system to document the existing 

conditions of natural and cultural 

resources 

• Develop thresholds for action for 

wildlife populations and pests, 

including groundhogs, Canada geese, 

and structural pests 

• Develop strategies to preserve and 

restore (if appropriate) riparian 

buffers and nonagricultural open 

space by establishing native grass 

meadows and corridors 

INTERPRETATION AND 

EDUCATION 

New Visitor Center 

A new visitor center and museum 

exhibits provide orientation and 

opportunities for learning about the 

Battle of Monocacy within the full 

context of the Civil War. A new visitor 

center for Monocacy National 

Battlefield was completed in 2007. The 

building is the primary facility for 

preparing visitors to understand and 

appreciate Monocacy National 

Battlefield. The center offers 

orientation, interpretation, exhibits, 

sales, restrooms, and other visitor 

services. Museum exhibits offer 

opportunities to learn about the Battle 

of Monocacy within the full context of 

the Civil War. (The following actions 

would support this management 

direction: 

• Develop interpretive information, 

exhibits, and materials to orient 

visitors to national battlefield 

interpretive themes 

• Provide materials, assistance, and 

services designed to help visitors 

plan their time at the national 

battlefield and select ways to 

experience the resources that match 

their interests and time constraints 

Visitors’ Understanding 

Visitors’ movement through and 

experience of the national battlefield’s 

cultural landscape would be the 

foundation for their understanding of 

the national battlefield’s interpretive 

themes. Terrain is important in 

comprehending military strategy and 

maneuvers. However, looking at a 

cultural landscape in a broader context 

reveals “untold stories” of those who 

lived and traveled there earlier. This can 

increase the depth of the human experience and give meaning to a place. By 

offering opportunities for people to 

encounter the many stories associated 

with this landscape in logical and 

meaningful ways, visitors could gain a 

deeper appreciation of the national 

battlefield. 

Personal and nonpersonal services 

would be expanded to meet visitors’ 

needs and would be updated to reflect 

current scholarly research. Outreach 

programs would continue to be available 

to diverse audiences. 

The following actions would support 

this management direction: 

• Present programs that express and 

illustrate the national battlefield’s 

seven interpretive themes on ranger 

tours, through living history, and a 

variety of other interpretive 

strategies 

46 
Actions Common to All Alternatives 

• Update non-personal services to 

reflect new conditions on the 

battlefield and the areas that can be 

understood by observation 

Partnerships 

Partnerships with local school 

districts, universities, and 

organizations (for example, the 

Catoctin Center, Frederick County 

Public Schools) would be expanded to 

afford opportunities for learning 

about the Battle of Monocacy. Each 

year Monocacy National Battlefield 

receives an increasing number of 

requests for ranger programs to be given 

to educational groups and civic organizations. Curriculum-based field trip 

opportunities are requested, as are 

internship programs. The concept of 

“park as classroom” has great potential 

for development at the national 

battlefield with its proximity to 

numerous educational institutions and 

the interest by people of all age groups 

in lifelong learning experiences. 

Partnering with local institutions and 

organizations would help to examine 

ways that the national battlefield and 

schools can work together, combining 

needs and resources to create new 

opportunities to accomplish these goals. 

The following actions would support 

this management direction: 

• Create educational programs for 

students of all ages to experience 

lifelong learning 

• Arrange special events that will 

expand on interpretive themes, 

attracting diverse audiences to the 

national battlefield through living 

history encampments and 

demonstrations, thematic tours, 

guest lectures, and a variety of other 

creative programs 

• Continue to offer community 

outreach programs to expand 

knowledge about the national 

battlefield and its significance 

• Initiate scholarship and public 

education partnerships with local 

entities to expand the information 

available to the public 

VISITOR USE AND FACILITIES 

Special Uses 

All proposed public activities would be 

systematically evaluated for 

appropriateness before they would be 

permitted. Monocacy National Battlefield regularly receives requests for the 

use of the battlefield for activities such 

as weddings, parties, ceremonies, concerts, races, and filming. The National 

Park Service makes every effort to 

cooperate with local organizations and 

the public while ensuring that events 

and public activities that take place in 

the national battlefield are appropriate 

to its purposes and do not harm its 

resources. 

The following actions would support 

this management direction: 

• Use NPS criteria to determine if and 

when the use would be compatible 

• Cooperate with local groups to find 

alternative locations for events 

• Prohibit uses that would damage 

national battlefield resources and 

would not contribute to under47 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

standing of the national battlefield’s 

values and resources 

Visitor Safety 

Interpretive opportunities would be 

designed to offer a safe and enjoyable 

experience for all visitors to Monocacy 

National Battlefield. All interpretive 

experiences would continue to be 

developed with safety factors in mind. 

Visitors’ movement through the national 

battlefield uses public highways and includes an area near an active railroad. 

Special programs such as living history 

or demonstrations of historic weapons 

require special training to ensure safety. 

Public safety would continue to be a 

major concern, and coordinating efforts 

between national battlefield staff and 

other agencies would remain essential to 

ensure a safe visit for everyone. 

The following actions would support 

this management direction: 

• Cooperate with state and local law 

enforcement, emergency medical 

service, and firefighting agencies to 

achieve effective visitor protection 

• Use NPS criteria to ensure maximum 

safety in living history programs 

involving the use of historic weapons 

• Maintain all equipment used by or 

near the public to ensure that it is in 

proper working order 

• Ensure proper lighting in all public 

use areas 

• Ensure that fire exits in public 

facilities are properly accessible and 

that all fire codes are met 

• Maintain fire extinguishers and fire 

suppression systems in all public 

buildings 

• Schedule patrols and protection 

operations to deter illegal activities, 

assist visitors, and enforce penalties 

for violations. 

NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD 

OPERATIONS 

Monocacy National Battlefield shares 

some administrative functions with 

Antietam National Battlefield, but is an 

independent unit of the national park 

system. 

The national battlefield staff would 

continue to protect battlefield resources 

and to investigate theft or damage to the 

resources —wildlife, plants, and 

archeological materials. 

The national battlefield staff also would 

continue to carry out visitor safety 

patrols. This would include patrolling 

roads, trails, parking areas, fields, and 

woods areas. Law enforcement actions 

and investigations would be performed 

as appropriate. 

National battlefield rangers would 

continue to investigate the dumping of 

solid wastes, motor vehicle accidents, 

and environmental issues associated 

with transportation and utility corridors 

throughout the national battlefield. 

DEVELOPMENT OF 

COST ESTIMATES 

To make wise planning and management decisions for the national 

battlefield, NPS decision makers and the 

public must consider an overall picture 

of the advantages, disadvantages, and 

48 
Actions Common to All Alternatives 

general costs of the alternatives, 

including the no-action alternative 

(alternative 1). By including the noaction alternative, a comparison can be 

made between the action alternatives 

and current national battlefield 

management practices. 

It is important that the cost estimates 

contain the same elements and that they 

be developed with the same general 

assumptions so that there can be 

consistency and comparability among 

alternatives. The presentation of costs 

within this general management plan is 

applied to the types and general 

intensities of development by alternative 

and in a comparative format. The 

following caveats apply: 

• The costs are presented as estimates 

and allow for flexibility in 

application of components. 

• These costs are not appropriate for 

budgeting purposes. 

• The costs presented have been 

developed using industry standards 

to the extent available. 

• Actual costs will be determined at a 

later date, considering the design of 

facilities, identification of detailed 

resource protection needs, and 

changing visitor expectations. 

• Approval of the general 

management plan does not 

guarantee that funding or staffing 

for proposed actions will be 

available. 

• Full implementation of the general 

management plan may be many 

years in the future. 

Annual Operating Costs 

• annual national battlefield operating 

costs such as staff salary and benefits, 

equipment, maintenance, utilities, 

monitoring, contract services, and 

space rental 

Deferred Maintenance 

• deferred maintenance is the cost of 

bringing existing assets up to NPS 

standards; it can vary by alternative 

based on the treatment of existing 

facilities 

One-Time Costs 

• major rehabilitation or replacement 

of existing facilities and 

infrastructure 

• new development (including NPS 

transportation infrastructure costs) 

• interpretive media (audiovisual 

programs, exhibits, wayside exhibits, 

publications) 

• resource management and visitor 

services (inventories of resources 

and visitors, implementation 

planning, compliance) 

• other significant one-time costs, such 

as removing buildings, buying 

transportation equipment, restoring 

resources, or acting on specific 

implementation 

• reports, studies, archeological 

excavations, and other research with 

substantial costs 

LAND ACQUISITION 

This plan does not propose acquisition 

of any lands outside the already 

authorized boundary (see alternative 

49 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

50 

maps in chapter 2 for locations of 

properties within the boundary that 

have not yet been acquired). Thus no 

land acquisition costs are provided in 

this plan. 

Lands within the boundary but not 

currently in fee ownership would 

receive the following consideration: 

Tract #101-34 is bottomland along 

the Monocacy River owned by 

Frederick County. The national 

battlefield has a scenic easement on 

the property. No acquisition would 

be necessary unless the county 

decided to sell the property and 

development was imminent. 

Tract #101-42 is a triangle of land 

on the northwest side of the 

national battlefield. It is on the 

opposite side of I-270 from the 

national battlefield with difficult 

access. A scenic easement with 

height restriction only is in place, 

and no acquisition would be 

necessary in the foreseeable future. 

The Ladson Tract, #101-28, on the 

east side of the Monocacy River and 

north of the CSX Railroad, is an 

important location within the 

national battlefield associated with 

the events surrounding the battle of 

Monocacy. The property will be 

purchased in fee on a willing-seller 

basis only. 

Two tracts along Baker Valley Road, 

#101-23 and #101-31 across from 

the Thomas Farm, are within the 

battlefield sensitive viewshed and 

would be purchased on a willingseller basis should they become 

available. 

The national battlefield will seek to 

acquire a scenic easement on a tract 

adjacent to the Lewis Farm, tract 

#101-25. Acquisition in fee does not 

appear to be necessary. 

The acquisition of lands may be through 

donation, or purchase from a willing 

seller only. In either case, merely adding 

lands to the national battlefield does not 

immediately make funds available for 

maintenance, restoration, and 

operation.
ALTERNATIVE 1, THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE (CONTINUE CURRENT 

MANAGEMENT) 

INTRODUCTION 

The actions described in this section are 

those that would be carried out in 

addition to the actions that would be 

common to all alternatives (described 

beginning on p. 41). The no action 

alternative forms a baseline to which the 

action alternatives can be compared. 

Readers can compare the different 

alternatives and evaluate the effects 

described for each alternative. It is 

possible that the no-action alternative 

could be selected for implementation, 

but this is unlikely. 

Each alternative is explained in relation 

to the management prescription / 

management zoning categories also 

described earlier. Along with the 

descriptions are maps illustrating the 

zones and actions. Table 2, at the end of 

this chapter, compares the alternatives 

(p. 97 ). 

In the past 20 years, Monocacy National 

Battlefield has acquired significant new 

areas of the battlefield, yet little or no 

guidance has been in place for managing 

this relatively new NPS area. In addition, 

the national battlefield has many unmet 

needs as to infrastructure, staffing, and 

interpretation. Those needs would 

become more pressing over the next 20 

years without a plan to address them. 

The actions of alternative 1 are 

described below. 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

A number of historic structures, such as 

the Gambrill House, the Thomas House, 

and many farm buildings, are in good 

condition. However, many other 

historic structures on the battlefield 

require stabilization or rehabilitation to 

ensure their preservation and raise their 

condition to good. In the no-action 

alternative, efforts would continue to 

stabilize and preserve all historic 

structures on the national battlefield. 

Such action would ensure their 

continued existence on the battlefield 

landscape as markers for interpreting 

the battle (see the Alternative 1 map). 

Agricultural leases would continue 

unchanged under this alternative. 

Although the National Park Service has 

general policies regarding the placement 

of new commemorative monuments in 

national park system units, no battlefield-specific formal policy exists concerning the placement of monuments in 

Monocacy. Theoretically, monuments 

could be placed anywhere within the 

boundaries. There are no restrictions on 

size, materials, or message, nor are there 

provisions for the continued 

maintenance of new monuments. The 

establishing legislation allows any state 

that participated in the battle to erect 

monuments to its soldiers. In the noaction alternative, the National Park 

Service would work with statesponsored organizations individually to 

negotiate agreements that would conform to NPS policies about the placement of new commemorative monuments in national park system units. 

Most of the national battlefield’s 

museum and archeological collections 

are at the NPS National Capital Region’s 

51 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

curatorial storage facility at Lanham, 

Maryland. However, some museum 

items are exhibited in the new visitor 

center well out of the Monocacy River 

floodplain. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

In alternative 1, visitors would continue 

to arrive at the national battlefield in 

their personal vehicles. A series of stops 

off MD 355, Araby Church Road, and 

Baker Valley Road would enable visitors 

to go to the sites that were open. 

Orientation of visitors will take place at 

the visitor center. Visitors arriving on 

scheduled bus tours also would be 

oriented at the visitor center unless 

special arrangements were made for a 

staff person to accompany the tour. 

The new visitor center contains educational maps and exhibits. Its location at 

the north end of the national battlefield 

allows visitors to orient themselves 

north to south, roughly the direction in 

which the battle took place. 

The Gambrill Mill would become space 

available for group programs. Brochures 

would continue to be available at 

parking areas and trailheads. Some 

formal orientation would be offered 

outside the visitor center. 

The Lewis Farm, the railroad junction, 

and the Baker Farm would remain 

closed to visitation. Access and egress 

for the 14th New Jersey Monument and 

the Gambrill Mill to and from the busy 

Maryland Highway 355 would continue 

to be difficult and unsafe. The railroad 

junction would remain inaccessible, and 

no vantage point to see it would be 

available. 

The Worthington and Thomas farms 

would continue to be physically and 

visually separated from each other by I270, which would make it difficult for 

visitors to orient themselves to the 

landscape and understand the battle. 

Parking areas and trail segments at the 

Worthington and Thomas farms would 

be open on a limited basis to provide 

access to the battlefield. Neither the 

Worthington House nor the Thomas 

House and outbuildings would be open 

to visitors. 

NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD 

OPERATIONS 

Administrative offices and functions, 

with the exception of Visitor Services, 

would remain in their current location 

on the second floor of the Gambrill Mill, 

where facilities are crowded and storage 

is inadequate. The maintenance 

functions would remain cramped on the 

Gambrill Mill property. Vehicle and 

equipment storage would remain inadequate, as would project work space and 

offices. 

Administrative records still would be 

stored in the 100-year floodplain 

Evacuation would be required each time 

flooding was forecast. During flood 

sequences, administrative functions 

would be disrupted until files, equipment, and other furnishings could be 

removed to safety. Once flooding 

subsided, the process would be 

reversed. The productivity of the 

administrative staff would be greatly 

reduced whenever such an event was 

underway. 

52 
North 0.5 0 0.5 Miles 

Monocacy National Battlefield 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

DSC / 894 / 20019 / FEB. 2008 

Baker 

Farm 

Lewis 

Farm 

Worthington Worthington Farm 

Best 

Farm 

Gambrill Gambrill 

Mill 

Thomas 

Farm 

Monocacy River

Monocacy River

Baker

Valley

Road

Ballenger

Creek

355 

85 

355 

Ball Road

Araby

Church Road

NON-FEDERAL 

PUBLIC ROW 

NATIONAL 

BATTLEFIELD 

BOUNDARY 

OWNERSHIP TRACTS 

Current Ownership 

Visitor 

Center 

270 

270 

CSX RAILROAD 

CSX RAILROAD

To 

Washington, D.C. 

To 

Frederick 

To 

Urbana 

Reich's Ford Road

Reels Mill Road
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

54 

Blank page
North 0.5 0 0.5 Miles 

Alternative 1 

No-Action 

(Continue Current Management) 

Monocacy National Battlefield 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

DSC / 894 / 20015 / FEB. 2008 

Baker 

Farm 

Lewis 

Farm 

Worthington Worthington 

Farm 

Best 

Farm 

Gambrill Gambrill 

Mill 

Monocacy River

Monocacy River

Baker Valley

Road

Ballenger

Creek

85 

Park Boundary 

Pedestrian Trail 

Vehicular Access 

Parking Node 

355 

Ball Road

Araby

Church Road

Urbana Pike

Buckeystown

Pike

To 

Frederick 

Thomas 

Farm 

Visitor 

Center 

To 

Urbana To 

Washington, D.C. 

14th NJ 

Monument 

Reich's Ford Road

Reels Mill Road

Bush Creek 

270 

270 

355 

• To be removed 

Toll House Toll House 

CSX RAILROAD 

CSX RAILROAD

Gambrill Mill Gambrill Mill 

 

 • Classroom space 

 on first floor 

• Administration 

 to remain in 

 Gambrill Mill 

• Maintenance 

 remains in metal 

 building 

Lewis Farm Lewis Farm 

 • Preserve historic 

 structures 

• No public access 

Thomas Farm Thomas Farm 

 • Main house is 

 preserved 

• No interior access 

• Preserve historic 

 outbuildings 

Worthington Farm Worthington Farm 

 • No interior access 

 to house 

Baker Farm Baker Farm 

 • Retained under 

 life estate 

Best Farm 

• No interior 

 access to house 

• Preserve 

 historic 

 structures 

Vermont/Pennsylvania Vermont/Pennsylvania Monument Area Monument Area 

• Cinder block house 

 is removed 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

56 

Blank page 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

COSTS 

The following applies to costs 

throughout this management plan: 

• The costs are presented as estimates 

and allow for flexibility in 

application of components. 

• These costs are not appropriate for 

budgeting purposes. 

• The costs presented have been 

developed using industry standards 

to the extent available. 

• Actual costs will be determined at a 

later date, considering the design of 

facilities, identification of detailed 

resource protection needs, and 

changing visitor expectations. 

• Approval of the general 

management plan does not 

guarantee that funding or staffing 

for proposed actions will be 

available. 

• Full implementation of the general 

management plan may be many 

years in the future. Costs have been 

broken down into annual operating 

costs and one-time costs. All 

estimates are presented in 2007 

dollars. 

Annual costs include the costs associated with ongoing maintenance, utilities, 

staffing, supplies and materials, and any 

leasing costs. This alternative would 

continue the current staffing level of 16 

FTE (full time equivalent) employees. 

Deferred maintenance costs are those 

costs necessary to bring current infrastructure up to NPS standards. Onetime costs are low in this alternative, due 

to the small number of projects that 

have been approved at the NPS program 

level and assigned to a funding source. 

Annual operating costs: $1,600,000 

Includes 16 FTE positions 

Deferred maintenance: $5,700,000 

One-time costs: $105,000 

 Facility and non-facility costs: $30,000 

 Removal of buildings (2): $75,000 

57 
ALTERNATIVE 2 

INTRODUCTION 

As was mentioned previously (see page 

39), alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are called the 

“action” alternatives. This is because 

each includes actions that would be 

carried out if that alternative was 

selected for implementation. Each 

alternative must be considered along 

with the actions described as common 

to all alternatives (beginning on p. 41). 

Each alternative is described in relation 

to the management prescription / 

management zoning categories that 

were described earlier. Along with the 

descriptions are maps illustrating the 

zones and actions. Table 2, at the end of 

this chapter, compares the alternatives 

(p. 97). 

Alternative 2 would focus relatively 

narrowly on the story of the Battle of 

Monocacy, explaining troop 

movements, how the landscape affected 

the battle, and conveying an understanding of the players. It would depend 

highly on visitors getting out onto the 

battlefield to understand the course of 

the battle and the strategies used. The 

historic farmsteads would act as 

reference points for interpretation, not 

as interpretive focal points. None of the 

historic houses would be open to 

visitors (see the Alternative 2 map). 

An alternative transportation system 

consisting of small buslike vehicles 

would carry visitors around the national 

battlefield. Such a system could be 

provided through a commercial services 

contract, if market conditions allow and 

a willing vendor could be found. 

Because Monocacy National Battlefield 

would not have a fully internal road 

system, this transportation system 

would allow visitors to concentrate on 

the story of the Battle of Monocacy 

rather than on the logistics of getting 

around the battlefield — the busy traffic 

on MD 355, directional signs, or 

brochure map. Visitors’ use of this 

transportation system would be 

mandatory when the system was 

operating; at other times, they could use 

their personal vehicles in the national 

battlefield. 

The system would begin at the new 

visitor center and link the interpretive 

locations in the national battlefield. The 

transportation vehicles would stop at 

the Best Farm, the 14th New Jersey 

Monument, the Worthington and 

Thomas farms, the Pennsylvania/ 

Vermont commemorative area, and the 

Gambrill Mill, and then return to the 

visitor center. Information and orientation would be offered between stops by 

a staff person riding on the system or by 

an automated recording. Visitors could 

get off the bus at any stop and continue 

on a later bus. 

Brochures and new wayside signs and 

exhibits would provide guidance and 

information along existing and new 

trails. During the primary visitor season 

and for special events, interpretive rangers would be stationed at key locations 

throughout the national battlefield to 

offer additional interpretation. 

58 
Alternative 2 

Although the trails would not be 

designed primarily for recreational use, 

under alternative 2 visitors could walk 

the trails to fish in the river or to observe 

wildlife. Other recreational activities 

such as horseback riding and bicycling 

would not be allowed. 

VISITOR SERVICES ZONE 

Three areas in Monocacy National 

Battlefield have been zoned for visitor 

services: the new visitor center near the 

north entrance, the parking area and 

interior first floor of the Gambrill Mill, 

and part of the Thomas farm that would 

include parking, restrooms, and interpretive exhibits in the stone tenant 

house. 

The new visitor offers adequate 

orientation through educational maps, 

exhibits, and interpretive programs. All 

visitors are expected to begin their visits 

here, at a location that would allow 

north to south orientation, roughly the 

direction in which the battle took place. 

On the Thomas farm, a historic stone 

tenant house would contain additional 

exhibits focusing on the Battle of 

Monocacy. A parking area accessible for 

visitors with disabilities would be 

constructed along Baker Valley Road at 

the end of the farm lane, south of the 

existing barn, where a nonhistoric 

cinder block house now sits. (The cinder 

block house would either be removed 

and replaced by a small restroom facility 

or adaptively reused for restrooms.) A 

trail would lead from the parking area 

along a historic road trace to the 

Thomas Farm structures. 

The first floor of the Gambrill Mill 

would be used as classroom space for 

school groups, a lecture hall for 

speakers, a place for staff meetings, and 

public restrooms. 

BATTLEFIELD PRESERVATION 

ZONE 

A trail would be built from the visitor 

center south to an overlook above the 

railroad junction and the Monocacy 

River bridges, where the battle opened. 

The Best farmhouse would undergo 

exterior rehabilitation. The National 

Park Service would also preserve the 

secondary house, stone barn, and corn 

crib. The farm would be the first stop on 

the transportation system. From MD 

355, the historic farm would appear 

much as it did during the 19th century. 

Special guided tours of the site for 

groups could be offered occasionally. 

The gravel entry road from Baker Valley 

Road to the Worthington House would 

be restricted to one-way traffic. 

The Worthington House interior would 

not be open to the public, but the porch 

and grounds and the Brooks Hill Trail 

would be accessible. Waysides, 

brochures, and interpretive rangers 

would offer information about the site’s 

history and the house’s inhabitants. 

A deck would be constructed over I-270 

(described on p. 84 ) to connect the 

Worthington Farm to the Thomas Farm. 

The deck, when completed, would 

reconnect the two halves of the 

battlefield and reestablish the historic 

fence line that once separated the two 

farms. A historic lane through the 

Thomas Farm would be improved to 

facilitate visitor flow through the 

national battlefield. 

59 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

60 

The Thomas House would be leased out 

under the NPS historic leasing program. 

Public access would be restricted. The 

National Park Service would preserve all 

other historic outbuildings, including a 

stone tenant house where exhibits 

would be provided. 

Visitors would have access to the 

grounds around the Thomas farmstead 

and to a new trail over the battlefield. 

Exhibits, brochures, and other media 

explaining the importance of the 

Thomas Farm to the Battle of Monocacy 

would supplement information available 

in the stone tenant house. 

COMMEMORATIVE ZONE 

Under alternative 2, no actions would be 

proposed for the Maryland and United 

Daughters of the Confederacy monuments, which are on the west side of MD 

355 just inside the boundary of the 

national battlefield. The maintenance of 

these monuments would be continued. 

No additional monuments would be 

added at this location, and no changes 

would be made to the surrounding 

landscape. 

To make access to the 14th New Jersey 

Monument safer, the entrance would be 

shifted south, allowing better sight distances for vehicles on MD 355. The 

national battlefield staff would consult 

with the state of New Jersey (which 

owns the monument) and with the 

Maryland State Highway Administration 

to develop a plan to improve parking, 

access, and egress at the monument. 

A designed commemorative area would 

be developed along Araby Church Road 

near the existing Pennsylvania and 

Vermont monuments. Any new monuments would be located here under 

guidelines to be developed regarding 

their size, design, color, placement, and 

maintenance. A cinder block house now 

on the site would be removed, to be 

replaced by a designed landscaped area 

with parking. 

NATURAL RESOURCES ZONE 

The existing short circular trail from the 

Gambrill Mill parking area would be 

extended through the natural resources 

zone to the Wallace’s headquarters site 

and the Union entrenchments. The trail 

would cross over Bush Creek via a new 

bridge and under the heavily used CSX 

railroad line by way of a walkway under 

the Monocacy River trestle. A barrier 

fence would be constructed along the 

rail line to keep visitors off of the active 

tracks. 

Upgraded interpretation along trails 

would include wayside exhibits and 

possibly brochures designed to help 

people observing wildlife and to give 

historical information or information on 

trees and plant species. 

MAINTENANCE AND 

ADMINISTRATION ZONE 

In alternative 2, the national battlefield’s 

administrative functions would be 

consolidated into one location and 

moved into leased space outside the 

boundary. 

The maintenance function would be 

moved into leased space from its current 

location near Gambrill Mill. The metal 

building that now houses maintenance 

would be removed and the site relandscaped as a part of the battlefield 

preservation zone. 
North 0.5 0 0.5 Miles 

CSX RAILROAD 

CSX RAILROAD

Monocacy National Battlefield 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

DSC / 894 / 20020 / FEB. 2008 

Monocacy River

Monocacy River

Baker

Valley

Road

Ballenger

Creek

355 

85 

355 

Ball Road

Araby

Church Road

COMMEMORATIVE 

MAINT./ADMIN. 

NATURAL RESOURCE 

BATTLEFIELD 

PRESERVATION 

VISITOR SERVICES 

NON-FEDERAL 

PUBLIC ROW 

BOUNDARY 

MONOCACY RIVER 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

OWNERSHIP TRACTS 

270 

270 

To 

Washington, D.C. 

To 

Frederick 

To 

Urbana 

Baker 

Farm 

Lewis 

Farm 

Worthington Worthington Farm 

Best 

Farm 

Gambrill Gambrill 

Mill 

Thomas 

Farm 

Management Zones 

Alternative 2 

Reich's Ford Road

Reels Mill Road

Bush Creek 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

62 

blank 
North 0.5 0 0.5 Miles 

Alternative 2 

Monocacy National Battlefield 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

DSC / 894 / 20016 / FEB. 2008 

Baker 

Farm 

Lewis 

Farm 

Worthington Worthington 

Farm 

Best 

Farm 

Gambrill Gambrill 

Mill 

Thomas 

Farm 

Monocacy River

Monocacy River

Baker Valley

Road

Ball Road

Ballenger

Creek

355 

85 

Araby

Church Road

Park Boundary 

Pedestrian Trail 

Vehicular Access 

Parking Node 

355 

Urbana Pike

Buckeystown

Pike

270 

270 

CSX RAILROAD 

CSX RAILROAD

Gambrill Mill Gambrill Mill 

 

 • Classroom space 

 on first floor 

• Administration 

 and maintenance 

 moved outside 

 battlefield 

• Seasonal housing 

 in second floor 

• Remove maintenance 

 building 

• Extend Gambrill Mill 

 trail to entrenchments 

Lewis Farm Lewis Farm 

 • Preserve historic 

 structures 

• No public access 

Worthington Farm Worthington Farm 

 • No interior access 

 to house 

• Improved road 

 access and parking 

Baker Farm Baker Farm 

 

• Rehabilitate 

 main house, 

 stabilize interior 

• Preserve 

 remaining historic 

 structures 

Best Farm Best Farm 

 

Commemorative Commemorative 

Area • Cinder block house 

 is removed 

• Create a designated 

 commemorative zone 

Thomas Farm Thomas Farm 

 • Rehabilitate house 

 under historic 

 leasing program 

• Install exhibits 

 in stone tenant house 

• Restrooms in 

 nonhistoric 

 outbuilding with 

 nearby parking 

• Improve 

 Entrance 

14th NJ Monument Monument 

Baker Farm Baker Farm 

 • Retained under 

 life estate 

• Construct 

 deck over 

 I-270 

I-270 

• Construct 

 formal 

 parking area 

River Access River Access 

• To be removed 

Toll House Toll House 

Visitor 

Center 

To 

Urbana To 

Washington, D.C. 

14th NJ 

Monument 

Reich's Ford Road

Reels Mill Road

Bush Creek

To 

Frederick 

• Visitor shuttle 

 system 

 implemented 

Visitor Center Visitor Center 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

64 

blank 
Alternative 2 

The second floor of the Gambrill Mill 

would be used for temporary housing 

for seasonal employees, who have a 

difficult time finding affordable shortterm housing in the Frederick area. The 

Gambrill Mill and parking area would 

be the only area in alternative 2 in the 

maintenance and administration zone. 

COSTS 

The following applies to costs 

throughout this management plan: 

• The costs are presented as estimates 

and allow for flexibility in 

application of components. 

• These costs are not appropriate for 

budgeting purposes. 

• The costs presented have been 

developed using industry standards 

to the extent available. 

• Actual costs will be determined at a 

later date, considering the design of 

facilities, identification of detailed 

resource protection needs, and 

changing visitor expectations. 

• Approval of the general 

management plan does not 

guarantee that funding or staffing 

for proposed actions will be 

available. 

• Full implementation of the general 

management plan may be many 

years in the future. 

Costs have been broken down into 

annual operating costs and one-time 

costs. All estimates are presented in 2007 

dollars. 

Annual costs include the costs 

associated with ongoing maintenance, 

utilities, staffing, supplies and materials, 

and leasing costs associated with the offsite maintenance facility. 

Staffing levels needed to fully implement 

the alternative are proposed at 20 fulltime equivalent positions (FTEs), four 

more than alternative 1. The complexity 

of the operation at the national battlefield now requires an administrative 

function to work on budget and personnel issues. A law enforcement ranger 

was recommended in the “Law Enforcement Needs Assessment” completed for 

the national battlefield. An already 

funded, but unfilled, biological technician position is needed to assist the 

growing workload of natural resource 

projects and the Youth Conservation 

Corps program. Opening up of the 

Thomas farm to visitation along with 

new exhibits will require an additional 

ranger presence at the farm. 

Deferred maintenance costs are those 

costs necessary to bring current 

infrastructure up to NPS standards. 

Among the projects included in the onetime costs are new trails, a new vehicular 

entrance at the 14th New Jersey Monument, visitor use enhancements at the 

Thomas Farm, removal of a non-historic 

house and development of a Civil War 

commemorative area, road improvements, and rehabilitation of the exterior 

of the Best farmhouse. The removal of 

the maintenance building and treatment 

of the site after demolition are also 

included in one-time costs. These 

projects constitute the majority of 

capital investments proposed in 

alternative 2 (for a complete list of 

actions, see table 2 at the end of chapter 

2). The “Other” category 

65 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

66 

includesresearch projects, studies, and 

documentation. 

Annual operating costs: $2,000,000 

Includes 20 FTE positions 

Deferred maintenance: $5,400,000 

One-time costs: $2,025,000 

 Facility and 

 non-facility costs: $1,700,000 

 Removal of buildings (3) $125,000 

 Other $200,000 

Note: The proposal for the I-270 deck 

(automobile use) at a cost of $11,400,000 

would be funded only if it can be 

accomplished as part of the I-270 impact 

mitigation. It does not represent a cost 

to the National Park Service. 
ALTERNATIVE 3 

INTRODUCTION 

Alternative 3 would expand the story of 

the Battle of Monocacy, not only 

explaining the troop movements but 

describing the impact of the battle and 

the Civil War on Frederick and the 

surrounding countryside. More 

emphasis would be placed on the human 

story in alternative 3 than in alternative 2 

(in which the landscape would be of 

primary importance). Exhibits in the 

Best and Worthington houses would 

focus attention on the lives of the local 

people who were caught up in the 

maelstrom of battle. To fully 

comprehend the course and impact of 

the battle, visitors would need to go to 

the visitor center and the historic houses 

and walk the trails of the battlefield. 

Each alternative must be considered 

along with the actions described as 

common to all alternatives (beginning 

on p. 41). Each alternative is explained 

in relation to the management 

prescription / management zoning categories also described earlier. Along with 

the descriptions are maps illustrating the 

zones and actions. Table 2, at the end of 

this chapter, compares the alternatives 

(p. 97). 

Visitors would traverse the national 

battlefield at their own pace, using their 

own vehicles. Much of their knowledge 

of the site would be gained at the visitor 

center. Beginning at the visitor center 

inside the north boundary, visitors 

would proceed to the 14th New Jersey 

Monument, Worthington Farm, and on 

to the Thomas Farm. Then they would 

return along Baker Valley and Araby 

Church roads to the Pennsylvania and 

Vermont monuments commemorative 

area and finally to the Gambrill Mill 

area. This circulation pattern would 

enable visitors to view the battlefield in 

the chronological sequence of the battle. 

Brochures and new wayside signs and 

exhibits would provide guidance and 

information along existing and new 

trails. During the primary visitor season 

and for special events, interpretive rangers would be stationed at key locations 

throughout the national battlefield to 

offer further interpretation. 

Although the trails would not be 

designed primarily for recreational use, 

under alternative 3 visitors could walk 

the trails to fish in the river or to observe 

wildlife. Other recreational uses such as 

horseback riding and bicycling would 

not be allowed. 

VISITOR SERVICES ZONE 

Areas of the national battlefield that 

would be zoned for visitor services 

under alternative 3 are the new visitor 

center near the north entrance, the 

interior first floor of the Best Farmhouse, the first floor of the Gambrill 

Mill, part of the Thomas farm (including 

the interior of the stone tenant house), 

and the first floor of the Worthington 

Farmhouse. 

The new visitor center offers exhibits 

and orientation to the battlefield, and 

serves as the staging point for each 

visitor’s tour. At this location at the 

north end of the national battlefield, 

visitors will orient themselves north to 

south, roughly the direction in which 

67 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

the battle took place. Visitors arriving on 

scheduled bus tours also would be 

oriented at the visitor center. 

The interior first floor of the farmhouse 

on the Best Farm would be used for 

exhibits focusing on the role of the farm 

in the battle and the history of the 

Vincendière family that lived there. This 

would supplement the more general 

information available at the visitor 

center. 

Exhibits on the first floor of the 

Worthington Farmhouse would 

highlight the effects of the battle on the 

Worthington family. Other exhibits 

there would help visitors to understand 

the Confederate troop movements on 

this side of the battlefield. 

A historic stone tenant house on the 

Thomas Farm would contain exhibits 

focused on the role of the farm in the 

battle and the history of the battlefield’s 

cultural landscape. A nonhistoric cinder 

block house along Baker Valley Road 

would be rehabilitated for restrooms or 

replaced by a similar facility. Parking 

also would be available at this site. 

The Gambrill Mill space would become 

classroom space for school groups, a 

lecture hall for speakers, a place for staff 

meetings, and public restrooms. 

BATTLEFIELD PRESERVATION 

ZONE 

At the Best Farm, the secondary house, 

the barn, and other outbuildings would 

be preserved, and their interiors would 

be either open to visitors or visible 

through windows. Interpretive signs 

would help visitors understand the 

importance of the structures and the 

farm as a whole. 

There would be no trail to the railroad 

junction from the visitor center in 

alternative 3, but a new parking area for 

the 14th New Jersey Monument on the 

east side of MD 355 would enable 

visitors to see the junction. 

The Lewis Farm would be accessible by 

footpath from the Worthington parking 

area along Baker Valley Road. The 

house, barn, and corncrib would be 

rehabilitated but no structure would be 

open for visitation. Wayside exhibits 

would provide interpretation. 

The gravel-surfaced entry lane from 

Baker Valley Road to the Worthington 

House would be widened to two lanes, 

and a small parking area accessible for 

people with disabilities would be 

developed so that vehicles could be 

parked closer to the Worthington 

House. The parking area would be 

created on ground reclaimed from a 

20th century borrow pit. It probably 

would be adjacent to I-270 and about 

300 yards east of the house, but it would 

not be visible from the Worthington 

House. 

No deck would be constructed in 

alternative 3 over I-270 (described on p. 

84) to connect the Worthington Farm to 

the Thomas Farm. 

A recently designated trail around the 

Thomas Farm, would allow visitors to 

tour the battlefield on the Thomas Farm. 

COMMEMORATIVE ZONE 

In alternative 3, no actions would be 

proposed for the Maryland and United 

Daughters of the Confederacy 

68 
Alternative 3 

monuments, which are on the west side 

of MD 355 just inside the boundary of 

the national battlefield. The monuments 

would continue to be maintained. No 

monuments would be added, and no 

changes would be made to the 

surrounding landscape. 

The entrance to the 14th New Jersey 

Monument would be moved to the east 

side of MD 355, and a new parking area 

would be added. A trail under the MD 

355 railroad overpass would lead to the 

monument. The old parking area would 

be removed and the land rehabilitated. 

These improvements would increase the 

safety of access from MD 355. 

A designed commemorative area would 

be developed along Araby Church Road 

near the existing Pennsylvania and 

Vermont monuments. A cinder block 

house now on the site would be 

removed, to be replaced by a landscaped 

area with parking. No new monuments 

would be allowed in the national battlefield. 

NATURAL RESOURCES ZONE 

An existing informal parking area on the 

east side of MD 355 used by fishermen 

would be closed and the area relandscaped. Fishermen would be 

allowed to park at the 14th New Jersey 

Monument parking area and take a trail 

down to the river. 

The Gambrill Mill Trail would be 

extended to the railroad crossing. 

Interpretive waysides and selective vista 

clearing would allow visitors to see the 

junction where fighting began. 

MAINTENANCE AND 

ADMINISTRATION ZONE 

The interior of the Thomas House 

would be adaptively used for 

administrative offices. Visitors generally 

would not have access to it, but they 

could get some understanding of the 

house and the events that occurred 

there through waysides and exhibits in 

the stone tenant house. 

Maintenance would remain in the metal 

building on the Gambrill property. The 

structure would be expanded to meet 

the needs for offices, vehicle storage, 

and work space for a fully developed 

national battlefield. 

When administrative offices are moved 

from the Gambrill Mill to the Thomas 

House, the first floor of the Gambrill 

Mill would serve as classrooms, 

employee meeting space, and public 

restrooms. The second floor would be 

used for office space. 

COSTS 

The following applies to costs 

throughout this management plan: 

• The costs are presented as estimates 

and allow for flexibility in 

application of components. 

• These costs are not appropriate for 

budgeting purposes. 

• The costs presented have been 

developed using industry standards 

to the extent available. 

• Actual costs will be determined at a 

later date, considering the design of 

facilities, identification of detailed 

resource protection needs, and 

changing visitor expectations. 

69 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

70 

• Approval of the general 

management plan does not 

guarantee that funding or staffing 

for proposed actions will be 

available. 

• Full implementation of the general 

management plan may be many 

years in the future. 

Costs have been broken down into 

annual operating costs and one-time 

costs. All estimates are presented in 2007 

dollars. 

Annual costs include the costs associated with ongoing maintenance, utilities, 

staffing, supplies and materials, and 

leasing costs. Staffing levels needed to 

carry out the alternative are proposed at 

22 full-time equivalent positions (FTEs). 

The complexity of the operation at the 

national battlefield now requires an 

administrative function to work on 

budget and personnel issues. A law 

enforcement ranger was recommended 

in the “Law Enforcement Needs 

Assessment” completed for the national 

battlefield. An already funded biological 

technician position is needed to assist 

the growing workload of natural 

resource projects and the Youth 

Conservation Corps program. The 

opening up of the Thomas farm to 

visitation along with new exhibits will 

require an additional ranger presence at 

the farm. A museum technician will be 

needed to care for exhibits at the 

Worthington and Thomas farms and to 

free up an interpretive position. An 

additional maintenance mechanic will 

allow better maintenance of structures 

that will be opened to the public. 

Deferred maintenance costs are those 

costs necessary to bring current 

infrastructure up to NPS standards. 

Among the major one-time cost items in 

alternative 3 are a new vehicular entrance, parking area, and site treatment 

at the 14th New Jersey Monument; 

visitor use enhancements at the Worthington House, including exhibits on the 

lives of local residents at the time of the 

Civil War, entry lane widening, and 

development of an accessible parking 

area; the adaptive use of the Thomas 

House for administration; and expansion of the maintenance facility. These 

capital investments would constitute the 

major portion of the NPS development 

in the national battlefield during the 

next 20 years. For a complete list of 

actions see table 2 at the end of chapter 

2. 

The “Other” category includes research 

projects, studies, and documentation. 

Annual operating costs: $2,200,000 

Includes 22 FTE positions 

Deferred maintenance: $2,000,000 

One-time costs: $5,975,000 

Facility and 

non-facility cost: $5,700,000 

Removal of buildings (2): $75,000 

Other: $200,000 
North 0.5 0 0.5 Miles 

CSX RAILROAD 

CSX RAILROAD

Monocacy National Battlefield 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

DSC / 894 / 20021 / FEB. 2008 

Monocacy River

Monocacy River

Baker

Valley

Road

Ballenger

Creek

355 

85 

355 

Ball Road

Araby

Church Road

270 

270 

COMMEMORATIVE 

MAINT./ADMIN. 

NATURAL RESOURCE 

BATTLEFIELD 

PRESERVATION 

VISITOR SERVICES 

NON-FEDERAL 

PUBLIC ROW 

BOUNDARY 

MONOCACY RIVER 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

OWNERSHIP TRACTS 

To 

Washington, D.C. 

To 

Frederick 

To 

Urbana 

Reich's Ford Road

Reels Mill Road

Management Zones 

Alternative 3 

Baker 

Farm 

Lewis 

Farm 

Worthington Worthington Farm 

Best 

Farm 

Gambrill Gambrill 

Mill 

Thomas 

Farm 
CHAPTER 2:ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

72 

blank 
Parking 

North 0.5 0 0.5 Miles 

Alternative 3 

Monocacy National Battlefield 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

DSC / 894 / 20017 / FEB. 2008 

Baker 

Farm 

Lewis 

Farm 

Worthington Worthington 

Farm 

Best 

Farm 

Gambrill Gambrill 

Mill 

Thomas 

Farm 

Monocacy River

Monocacy River

Baker Valley

Road

Ballenger

Creek

85 

Park Boundary 

Pedestrian Trail 

Vehicular Access 

Parking Node 

Ball Road

Araby

Church Road

Urbana Pike

Buckeystown

Pike

355 

270 

270 

355 

CSX RAILROAD 

CSX RAILROAD

Gambrill Mill Gambrill Mill 

 

 • Classroom space 

 on first floor of mill 

• NPS offices on 

 second floor of mill 

• Remain in main- 

 tenance building 

• Extend Gambrill Mill 

 trail 

Lewis Farm Lewis Farm 

• Preserve historic 

 structures 

• Footpath from 

 Worthington Lane 

 parking area 

Thomas Farm Thomas Farm 

 • Administration 

 moves into farmhouse 

• Install exhibits in stone 

 tenant house 

• Restrooms in nonhistoric 

 outbuilding with nearby 

 parking 

Worthington Farm Worthington Farm 

 • Improved road 

 access and parking 

• Exhibits in farmhouse 

• Interpretive 

 exhibits 

 in farmhouse and 

 secondary house 

• Preserve 

 remaining historic 

 structures 

Best Farm Best Farm 

 

Commemorative Commemorative 

Area • Cinder block house 

 is removed 

• Site landscaped 

• Remove existing 

 informal parking 

• Combine parking 

 with 14th NJ 

 Monument 

River Access River Access 

• Relocate entrance 

 and parking to east 

 side of Rt. 355 

14th NJ Monument NJ Monument 

Baker Farm Baker Farm 

 • Retained under 

 life estate 

Visitor 

Center 

To 

Urbana To 

Washington, D.C. 

14th NJ 

Monument 

Reich's Ford Road

Reels Mill Road

Bush Creek

To 

Frederick 

• To be removed 

Toll House Toll House 
CHAPTER 2:ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

74 

blank 
ALTERNATIVE 4 (THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

INTRODUCTION 

Alternative 4 has been identified as the 

future direction preferred by the 

National Park Service. It is a 

combination of features and actions 

from the other alternatives. The benefits 

of the alternatives were evaluated with 

the use of an objective analytical process 

called “choosing by advantages,” or 

CBA, which is discussed on page 40. The 

features that appeared to impart the 

most benefit (considering cost, staffing 

constraints, and management concerns) 

were selected. 

Each alternative must be considered 

along with the actions described as 

common to all alternatives (beginning 

on p. 41). Each alternative is explained 

in relation to the management 

prescription / management zoning categories also described earlier. Along with 

the descriptions are maps illustrating the 

zones and actions. Table 2, at the end of 

this chapter, compares the alternatives 

(p. 97). 

In a manner similar to that of alternative 

3, alternative 4 would involve expanding 

the story of Monocacy beyond the battle 

of July 9, 1864. In addition to interpretation of the battle, in this alternative 

emphasis would be placed on the 

national battlefield’s role as a military 

and transportation crossroads 

throughout the Civil War. Even more 

broadly, this alternative would focus 

attention on Monocacy’s position as an 

important crossroads from prehistory to 

the present. 

Visitors would traverse the national 

battlefield at their own pace, using their 

own vehicles. Much of their knowledge 

of the site would be gained at the visitor 

center. Beginning at the visitor center 

inside the north boundary, visitors 

would walk to the 14th New Jersey 

Monument, the Worthington Farm, and 

across the deck bridging I-270 to the 

Thomas Farm. Then they would return 

along Baker Valley and Araby Church 

roads to the Pennsylvania and Vermont 

monuments commemorative area and 

finally to the Gambrill Mill area. This 

circulation pattern would enable visitors 

to view the battlefield in the 

chronological sequence of the battle. 

Brochures and new wayside signs and 

exhibits would provide guidance and 

information along existing and new 

trails. During the primary visitor season 

and for special events, interpretive rangers would be stationed at key locations 

throughout the national battlefield to 

offer additional interpretation. 

Although the trails would not be 

designed primarily for recreational use, 

under alternative 4 visitors could walk 

the trails to fish in the river or to observe 

wildlife. Other recreational uses such as 

horseback riding and bicycling would 

not be allowed. 

VISITOR SERVICES ZONE 

Four areas in the national battlefield 

would be zoned for visitor services 

under alternative 4: the new visitor 

center near the north entrance, the 

Worthington House, part of the Thomas 

Farm (which would include parking, 

restrooms, and interpretive exhibits in 

the stone tenant house), and the parking 

75 
CHAPTER 2:ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

area and the first floor of the Gambrill 

Mill. 

The new visitor center provides 

adequate space for orientation of 

national battlefield visitors. The new 

center also contains educational maps 

and exhibits. Its location at the north 

end of the national battlefield allows 

visitors to orient themselves north to 

south, roughly the direction in which 

the battle took place. 

As with alternative 3, in alternative 4 all 

visitors would be expected to begin their 

visits at the new visitor center. Visitors 

arriving on scheduled bus tours would 

be oriented at the new visitor center or 

on the bus by accompanying staff. 

The first floor of the Worthington 

House would be open to visitors. It 

would contain exhibits explaining the 

history of the site and its role in the 

battle. 

A historic stone tenant house on the 

Thomas Farm would contain additional 

exhibits focusing on the cultural history 

of the battlefield landscape and the 

concept of Monocacy as a crossroads 

through time. 

A nonhistoric cinder block house along 

Baker Valley Road, also on the Thomas 

Farm, would be rehabilitated for use as 

restrooms, or it would be replaced by a 

similar facility. Parking also would be 

available at this site. 

The first floor of the Gambrill Mill 

would be used for classrooms. The 

second floor would continue to house 

NPS offices. 

BATTLEFIELD PRESERVATION 

ZONE 

The Best farmhouse exterior would be 

rehabilitated but visitors would have no 

access inside. The secondary house, the 

barn, and other outbuildings would be 

preserved, and their interiors would be 

either open to visitors or visible through 

windows. Interpretive signs would help 

visitors understand the importance of 

the structures and the farm as a whole. 

The gravel-surfaced entry lane from the 

Baker Valley Road to the Worthington 

House would be widened for two-way 

access, and a small parking area 

accessible for visitors with disabilities 

would be developed so that vehicles 

could be parked closer to the Worthington House. The parking area would be 

added on ground reclaimed from a 20th 

century borrow pit. It probably would 

be adjacent to I-270 and about 300 yards 

east of the house, but it would not be 

visible from the Worthington House. 

A pedestrian deck would be constructed 

over I-270 (described on p. 84) to 

connect the Worthington Farm to the 

Thomas Farm and to reestablish an 

important historic fence line. In 

conjunction with improvements to a 

historic lane through the Thomas Farm, 

the deck trail would be a means for 

visitors to tour the site without backtracking down the Worthington Lane 

and Baker Valley Road. The wedgeshaped deck would be planted with 

crops and fence rows to help visitors 

visualize the area’s historic appearance 

without the interstate highway. 

The circle trail around the Thomas Farm 

would connect over the deck to the 

Worthington Farm. Visitors could then 

76 
Alternative 4 (the Preferred Alternative) 

walk out on the most significant areas of 

the battlefield. Wayside exhibits and 

brochures explaining the importance of 

the Thomas Farm to the Battle of 

Monocacy would supplement information available in the stone tenant 

house. 

COMMEMORATIVE ZONE 

No actions would be proposed for the 

northernmost commemorative zone on 

the west side of MD 355 just inside the 

boundary of the national battlefield. 

This area, which encompasses the 

Maryland and United Daughters of the 

Confederacy monuments, would continue to be maintained. No monuments 

would be added, and no changes would 

be made to the surrounding landscape. 

To improve visitor safety, the entrance 

to the 14th New Jersey Monument 

would be shifted south. The National 

Park Service would consult with the 

state of New Jersey (which owns the 

monument) and with the Maryland 

State Highway Administration to 

improve the safety of access and egress 

to MD 355, as well as to improve the 

appearance of the parking area. 

To accommodate any new monuments, 

a commemorative area would be 

developed along Araby Church Road 

near the existing Pennsylvania and 

Vermont monuments. A cinder block 

house now on the site would be 

removed, to be replaced by a landscaped 

area with parking. All new monuments 

would be placed in this area, and 

guidelines would be developed 

regarding their size, design, color, 

placement, and maintenance. 

NATURAL RESOURCES ZONE 

An existing informal parking area on the 

east side of MD 355 used by fishermen 

would be closed and the area relandscaped. Fishermen would be 

allowed to park at the 14th New Jersey 

Monument parking area and take a trail 

down to the river. 

The existing short circular trail from the 

Gambrill Mill parking area would be 

extended through the natural resources 

zone to the Wallace’s headquarters site 

and the Union entrenchments. The trail 

would cross over Bush Creek via a new 

bridge and under the heavily used CSX 

railroad line by way of a walkway under 

the Monocacy River trestle. A barrier 

fence would be constructed along the 

rail line to keep visitors off of the active 

tracks. 

Upgraded interpretation along trails 

would include wayside exhibits and 

possibly brochures designed to help 

people observing wildlife and to give 

historical information or information on 

trees and plant species. 

MAINTENANCE AND 

ADMINISTRATION ZONE 

As in alternative 3, the interior of the 

Thomas House would be adaptively 

used for administrative offices. Visitors 

generally would not have access to it, 

but they could gain some understanding 

of the house and the events that 

occurred there through waysides and 

exhibits in the stone tenant house. 

Maintenance would remain in the metal 

building on the Gambrill property. The 

structure would be redesigned to meet 

77 
CHAPTER 2:ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

78 

the needs for offices, vehicle storage, 

and work space for a fully developed 

national battlefield. 

COSTS 

The following applies to costs 

throughout this management plan: 

• The costs are presented as estimates 

and allow for flexibility in 

application of components. 

• These costs are not appropriate for 

budgeting purposes. 

• The costs presented have been 

developed using industry standards 

to the extent available. 

• Actual costs will be determined at a 

later date, considering the design of 

facilities, identification of detailed 

resource protection needs, and 

changing visitor expectations. 

• Approval of the general 

management plan does not 

guarantee that funding or staffing 

for proposed actions will be 

available. 

• Full implementation of the general 

management plan may be many 

years in the future. 

Costs have been broken down into 

annual operating costs and one-time 

costs. All estimates are presented in 2007 

dollars. 

Annual costs include the costs 

associated with ongoing maintenance, 

utilities, staffing, supplies and materials, 

and any leasing costs. Staffing levels 

needed to carry out the alternative are 

proposed at 22 full-time equivalent 

positions (FTEs). The complexity of the 

operation at the national battlefield now 

requires an administrative function to 

work on budget and personnel issues. A 

law enforcement ranger was 

recommended in the “Law Enforcement 

Needs Assessment” completed for the 

national battlefield. An already funded 

biological technician position is needed 

to assist the growing workload of 

natural resource projects and the Youth 

Conservation Corps program. The 

opening up of the Thomas farm to 

visitation along with new exhibits will 

require a presence at the farm. A 

museum technician will be needed to 

care for exhibits at the Worthington and 

Thomas farms and to free up an 

interpretive position. An additional 

maintenance mechanic will allow better 

maintenance of structures that will be 

opened to the public. 

Deferred maintenance costs are those 

costs necessary to bring current 

infrastructure up to NPS standards. 

A new vehicular entrance at the 14th 

New Jersey Monument; exhibits at the 

Thomas Farm; visitor use enhancements 

at the Worthington House, including 

exhibits, entry lane widening, and 

accessible parking area; the adaptive use 

of the Thomas House for administration; removal of cinder block house and 

site treatment in the new commemorative area; and redesign of the maintenance facility to meet national battlefield 

needs constitute the majority of capital 

investments in alternative 4. These onetime costs would constitute the major 

portion of development of the national 

battlefield during the next 20 years. For 

a complete list of actions see table 2 at 

the end of chapter 2. 
North 0.5 0 0.5 Miles 

CSX RAILROAD 

CSX RAILROAD

Monocacy National Battlefield 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

DSC / 894 / 20022 / FEB. 2008 

Monocacy River

Monocacy River

Baker

Valley

Road

Ballenger

Creek

355 

85 

355 

Ball Road

Araby

Church Road

270 

270 

To 

Washington, D.C. 

To 

Frederick 

To 

Urbana 

COMMEMORATIVE 

MAINT./ADMIN. 

NATURAL RESOURCE 

BATTLEFIELD 

PRESERVATION 

VISITOR SERVICES 

NON-FEDERAL 

PUBLIC ROW 

BOUNDARY 

MONOCACY RIVER 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

OWNERSHIP TRACTS 

Reich's Ford Road

Reels Mill Road

Baker 

Farm 

Lewis 

Farm 

Worthington Worthington Farm 

Best 

Farm 

Gambrill Gambrill 

Mill 

Thomas 

Farm 

Management Zones 

Alternative 4 

(Preferred Alternative) 
CHAPTER 2:ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

80 

blank 
North 0.5 0 0.5 Miles 

CSX RAILROAD 

CSX RAILROAD

Gambrill Mill Gambrill Mill 

 

 • Classroom space 

 in first floor 

• NPS offices on 

 second floor 

• Maintenance 

 remains in existing 

 building 

• Extend Gambrill Mill 

 trail to entrenchments 

Lewis Farm Lewis Farm 

 • Preserve historic 

 structures 

• No public access 

Thomas Farm Thomas Farm 

 

Worthington Farm Worthington Farm 

 • Exhibits in farmhouse 

• Improved road 

 access and parking 

• Rehabilitate 

 main house exterior 

 and stabilize interior 

• Secondary house 

 open for visitation 

• Preserve remaining 

 historic structures 

Best Farm Best Farm 

 

Commemorative Commemorative 

Area • Cinderblock house 

 is removed 

• Create a designated 

 commemorative 

 zone 

• Improve 

 Entrance 

14th NJ Monument Monument 

Baker Farm Baker Farm 

 • Retained under 

 life estate 

• Construct 

 pedestrian deck 

 over I-270 

I-270 

• Administration 

 moves into farmhouse 

• Install exhibits in stone 

 tenant house 

• Restrooms in nonhistoric 

 outbuilding with nearby 

 parking 

• To be removed 

Toll House Toll House 

Preferred Alternative 

Alternative 4 

Monocacy National Battlefield 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

DSC / 894 / 20018 / FEB. 2008 

Baker 

Farm 

Lewis 

Farm 

Worthington Worthington 

Farm 

Best 

Farm 

Gambrill Gambrill 

Mill 

Thomas 

Farm 

Monocacy River

Monocacy River

Ballenger

Creek

85 

Park Boundary 

Pedestrian Trail 

Vehicular Access 

Parking Node 

Ball Road

Araby

Church Road

355 

Baker

Valley

Road

Urbana Pike

Buckeystown

Pike

270 

270 

355 

• Remove existing 

 informal parking 

• Combine parking 

 with 14th NJ 

 Monument 

River Access River Access 

Visitor 

Center 

14th NJ 

Monument Bush Creek

To 

Urbana To 

Washington, D.C. 

Reich's Ford Road

Reels Mill Road

To 

Frederick 
CHAPTER 2:ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

82 

blank 
Alternative 4 (the Preferred Alternative) 

The “Other” category includes research 

projects, studies, and documentation. 

Annual operating costs: $2,200,000 

Includes 22 FTE positions 

Deferred maintenance: $3,100,000 

One-time costs: $4,575,000 

 Facility and 

non-facility cost: $4,300,000 

 Removal of buildings (2): $75,000 

 Other: $200,000 

Note: The proposal for the I-270 deck 

(pedestrian use only) at a cost of 

between $4,600,000 and $6,800,000 

depending upon deck width, would be 

funded only if it can be accomplished as 

part of the I-270 impact mitigation. It 

does not represent a cost to the National 

Park Service. 

83 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

PROPOSAL FOR DECK ON INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 270 

In 2002, the Federal Highway Administration and the Maryland State Highway 

Administration released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) 

Evaluation, which included several alternatives for widening Interstate 270 

through the national battlefield. The alternatives range from constructing one 

more lane in each direction — for a total of six lanes — (alternatives 3 and 4) to 

adding two lanes in each direction — for a total of eight lanes (alternative 5). 

Widening the interstate would cause the loss of battlefield acreage. The national 

battlefield acreage required for the new lanes was calculated initially at 11.74 for 

alternatives 3 and 4 of the FHWA/Maryland draft document, and up to 22.52 

acres under alternative 5. The draft document included consideration of three 

measures for minimizing impacts on the battlefield: steeper slopes, retaining 

walls, and reduced width of the inside shoulders. These measures would reduce 

the battlefield acreage required for road construction to a little more than 5 

acres under alternatives 3 and 4, and from 0.07 to 2.92 acres for alternative 5. 

However, reducing the acreage under alternative 5 would require the use of 

substantial retaining walls averaging 7 feet in height. 

Although reducing the amount of national battlefield land needed for the 

widening is important, none of the mitigative measures would resolve the visual 

or auditory impacts on the national battlefield from I-270, nor would it solve the 

ongoing access problems caused by I-270 bisecting the battlefield. None of the 

suggested mitigative measures would diminish the interpretive difficulty of 

“painting” the battlefield landscape for visitors with such a massive intrusion 

separating resources. Added traffic would only make these problems worse. 

One proposed mitigating measure is to construct a deck or bridge over the 

interstate highway between the Worthington and Thomas farms. This would 

reconnect the two halves of the battlefield. This likely would be a wedge-shaped 

structure covering a depressed part of the roadway. The wedge — or trapezoidal 

shape — would minimize the amount of roadway covered, reducing costs and 

negating the need for a safety air-handling system. To achieve a sense of the 

original surface of the land between the two farms, the deck would be covered 

over with soil and crops, fence rows, and trees. It also would serve as a bridge 

between the two farms, resulting in an interpretive connection that is difficult to 

convey at present. While hiding vehicles from view, such a deck also could mask 

some of the dull highway roar that has become part of the visitor experience 

everywhere on the national battlefield. 

The estimated cost of the deck ($20 million–$30 million) could be wholly or 

partly covered as mitigation for impacts on Monocacy National Battlefield 

under section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as 

amended (PL 89-670). 

84 
FUTURE STUDIES AND MITIGATING MEASURES 

FUTURE STUDIES 

After a Final General Management Plan

for managing Monocacy National 

Battlefield is completed and approved, 

other, more detailed studies and plans 

will be needed for implementing specific 

actions. As required, the National Park 

Service will carry out additional compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic 

Preservation Act, and other relevant 

laws and policies. Consultation and 

public involvement will be carried out as 

necessary. The additional studies that 

may be needed are listed in appendix D. 

MITIGATING MEASURES 

Background 

Congress has charged the National Park 

Service with managing the lands under 

its stewardship “in such manner and by 

such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations” (NPS Organic Act, 16 USC 

1). As a result, the National Park Service 

routinely evaluates and applies mitigative measures whenever conditions 

could adversely affect the sustainability 

of national park system resources. 

The National Park Service would 

conduct appropriate environmental 

review as required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act, the National 

Historic Preservation Act, and other 

relevant legislation for any future 

actions. As part of the environmental 

review, the National Park Service would 

avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse 

impacts when possible. 

The following mitigating measures and 

best management practices would be 

used to avoid or minimize potential 

impacts on natural and cultural 

resources from construction activities, 

use by visitors, and NPS operations. 

These measures would apply to all 

alternatives. 

Cultural Resources 

To the greatest extent possible, the 

National Park Service would preserve 

and protect resources that reflect human 

occupation of Monocacy National 

Battlefield. Specific mitigative measures 

would be as follows: 

• Continue to inventory and research 

archeological, historical, and ethnographic resources to better understand and manage the resources. 

Continue to follow federal regulations and NPS guidelines in managing cultural resources and collections 

• Apply site-specific planning and 

compliance to projects. Avoid 

adverse impacts by applying The 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for Archeology and Historic 

Preservation and by using screening 

or sensitive design that would be 

compatible with historic resources. If 

adverse impacts are unavoidable, 

mitigate them through consultation 

with all interested parties 

• Document structures to be 

adaptively reused according to the 

standards of the Historic American 

Buildings Survey / Historic American 

Engineering Record as defined in the 

85 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Re-engineering Proposal (October 1, 

1997) 

• Wherever possible, place trails, 

parking areas, and other facilities in 

previously disturbed areas or in 

existing developed areas. Design 

facilities to avoid known or 

suspected archeological resources 

• As appropriate, use vegetative 

screening to minimize impacts on 

views to and from the cultural landscape 

• Complete project-specific archeological inventories prior to final 

decisions on project location and 

prior to finalizing construction 

designs 

• Conduct archeological site monitoring during construction. If protection or site avoidance during design 

and construction is infeasible, 

conduct data recovery excavations at 

archeological sites threatened with 

destruction. Should archeological resources be discovered, stop work in 

that location until the resources can 

be properly recorded and evaluated 

under the eligibility criteria of the 

National Register of Historic Places 

• Complete or update cultural 

landscape plans for all areas of the 

national battlefield 

Natural Resources 

The National Park Service would 

protect natural resources or mitigate 

effects on natural resources through the 

following measures: 

• Practice a dust abatement program 

during construction. Standard dust 

abatement measures could include 

watering or otherwise stabilizing 

soils, covering haul trucks, 

establishing speed limits on unpaved 

roads, minimizing vegetation 

clearing, and revegetating areas with 

native plants after construction. 

• Build new facilities on soils suitable 

for development. Minimize soil 

erosion by limiting the time that soil 

is left exposed and by applying other 

erosion control measures such as 

erosion matting, silt fencing, and 

sedimentation basins in construction 

areas. Such measures would reduce 

erosion, surface scouring, and discharge to water bodies. After work is 

finished, revegetate construction 

areas in a timely manner with native 

plants where appropriate. 

• Build stormwater management 

systems to minimize water pollution 

from large parking areas. 

• Site trails to minimize impacts on 

steep slopes, highly erodible soils, 

hydric soils, wetlands, and floodplains. Where possible, plan trails to 

avoid high quality wildlife habitat. 

• In trail construction, use switchbacks 

in areas where steep slope crossings 

are unavoidable. 

• Conduct surveys for rare, 

threatened, and endangered species 

as warranted. In riparian areas and 

Brooks Hill, conduct surveys before 

initiating any actions or changes in 

visitor activity levels. If sensitive 

species are found, before designing 

trails, consult with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (for federally listed 

species) or with the Maryland 

86 
Future Studies and Mitigating Measures 

Department of Natural Resources 

(for state-listed species) to determine 

the most appropriate routes, construction methods, and mitigating 

measures. 

• During construction, put into practice a program for spill prevention 

and pollution control for hazardous 

materials. Standard measures might 

include procedures for storing and 

handling hazardous materials, spill 

containment, cleanup, and reporting 

procedures, as well as limiting 

refueling and other hazardous 

activities to upland or nonsensitive 

sites. 

• Delineate wetlands and perform 

protection measures during construction. Qualified NPS staff or 

certified wetlands specialists should 

use the Cowardin system used by 

NPS to delineate wetlands, and the 

wetlands should be clearly marked 

before construction work can begin. 

• Put into operation a noxious weed 

abatement program for construction 

activity. This could include ensuring 

that construction equipment arrives 

on the site free of mud or seedbearing material, certifying that all 

seeds and straw material are weedfree, identifying areas of noxious 

weeds before construction, treating 

noxious weeds or noxious weed 

topsoil (by segregating topsoil or 

treating with herbicides) before 

construction, and revegetating with 

appropriate native species. 

Visitor Experience and Visitor Safety 

Measures that would be carried out to 

protect the visitor experience and visitor 

safety are as follows: 

• Establish a traffic control plan as 

warranted. Standard measures could 

include strategies to maintain safe 

and efficient traffic flow during 

construction. 

• Perform measures to reduce the 

adverse effects on visitor safety and 

experience from construction. 

Socioeconomic Environment 

In implementing the approved General 

Management Plan for Monocacy 

National Battlefield, the National Park 

Service would work with local communities and county governments to further 

identify the potential impacts of the plan 

and the mitigative measures that would 

best serve the interests and concerns of 

the National Park Service and the local 

communities. Partnerships would be 

pursued to improve the quality and 

diversity of community amenities and 

services. 

Sustainable Design and Aesthetics 

The National Park Service would 

attempt to avert or minimize adverse 

effects caused by projects on natural or 

cultural resources through the following 

measures: 

• Design, locate, and construct 

facilities to avert or minimize adverse 

effects on natural and cultural 

resources and visual intrusion into 

the landscape. 

• Design development projects (such 

as buildings, facilities, utilities, roads, 

87 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

bridges, and trails) or reconstruction 

projects (such as road 

reconstruction, building 

rehabilitation, or utility upgrades) to 

work in harmony with the 

surrounding areas. 

• Plan projects so as to reduce, 

minimize, or eliminate air and water 

nonpoint source pollution. 

• Cause projects to be sustainable 

whenever practicable by minimizing 

the materials used, recycling and 

reusing materials, minimizing energy 

consumption during the project and 

throughout the life of the project. 

• Carry out standard noise abatement 

measures during battlefield 

construction by using the best 

available noise control techniques 

whenever feasible, using hydraulically or electrically powered impact 

tools when feasible, and locating 

stationary noise sources as far from 

sensitive areas as possible. 

• Place and design new facilities in 

ways that will minimize 

objectionable noise. 

• Work with the Federal Highway 

Administration to find ways to 

minimize the noise from Interstate 

Highway 270. 

CARRYING CAPACITY 

The 1978 Parks and Recreation Act 

requires units of the national park 

system to address carrying capacity, and 

addressing carrying capacity is essential 

to protect resources and provide a high 

quality visitor.

There are three principal components 

that relate to determining the carrying 

capacity for a national park unit, as 

follows: 

• Ecological or physical capacity, 

which includes the capabilities of the 

natural and cultural resources to 

sustain levels of visitor use without 

unacceptable damage. 

• Sociological carrying capacity, which 

includes the ability of visitors to 

enjoy and appreciate these resources 

without undue interference by other 

visitors. 

• NPS management, which includes 

the efforts that have been or can be 

applied to the national battlefield to 

mitigate unwanted impacts. This 

component relates to the 

management of things such as roads, 

parking lots, buildings, trails, and 

visitor information. 

Table 1 summarizes the desired 

conditions, indicators, and standards 

that Monocacy National Battlefield 

would use to ensure that it stays within 

its carrying capacity. The national 

battlefield does not currently have a 

quantitative system for measuring 

carrying capacity, and relies instead on 

qualitative observations about the use 

and crowding of various national 

battlefield resources. 

Maryland Highway 355 bisects the 

national battlefield. It is the route 

visitors take to get to the national 

battlefield from north and south. It also 

serves as an integral part of the internal 

tour route used by visitors to navigate 

the national battlefield. Although visitor 

counts have, until the opening of the 

88 
Future Studies and Mitigating Measures 

89 

visitor center, been taken at the 

Gambrill Mill, the overall number of 

commercial and commuter trips on this 

highway makes it difficult to obtain 

accurate visitation information for the 

national battlefield as a whole. 

The difficulties posed by commercial 

and commuter traffic and limited staff 

availability make it difficult for the 

national battlefield to maintain a system 

of quantitative indicators and standards. 

Thus, many of the indicators and 

standards in table 1 are constructed in a 

way that enables qualitative 

measurement by staff as part of their 

ongoing duties. 

Monocacy National Battlefield does not 

currently approach its carrying capacity. 

This observation reflects the experience 

of national battlefield staff. As a 

relatively new national park system area, 

the site has undergone a period of 

rehabilitation and restoration of historic 

structures and natural and cultural 

resources research. Most of the 

structures and much of the battlefield 

landscape has been closed to visitation. 

For much of the time the national 

battlefield has been open, only the 

Gambrill Mill visitor contact station has 

been open to the public. Several trails 

were developed to provide visitors with 

some ability to see the battlefield 

landscape. Special events have not been 

frequent because staffing has not been 

equal to that needed to manage such 

events. School groups visit the national 

battlefield, resulting in some temporary 

crowding at the visitor contact station, 

but these are short-lived occurrences 

that result in no appreciable damage to 

natural or cultural resources. 

The national battlefield will continually 

update the indicators and standards 

described in the table 1 below to reflect 

any changed conditions within the 

national battlefield. For example, should 

visitation increase sharply, or if staff 

notice undue wear and tear on cultural 

or natural resources or on trails and 

facilities, NPS staff may choose to 

implement more specific indicators and 

standards. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

TABLE 1: CARRYING CAPACITY INDICATORS AND STANDARDS

Visitor 

Experience and 

Services 

Desired 

Condition 

Visitors will be able to obtain park information, 

orientation, and services and will be able to access 

cultural resources and interpretive materials, exhibits, 

and sites without experiencing frequent delays. 

Museum space will be adequate to accomplish the 

national battlefield’s interpretive goals. 

Indicator The number of times per year that the visitor center 

and major interpretive sites and parking areas (Best 

Farm, 14th New Jersey Monument, Commemorative 

area, Gambrill Mill, Thomas Farm, Worthington 

Farm) experience crowding 

The magnitude of the crowding. 

The amount of space available for museum activities, 

including laboratory space and storage of records and 

files 

Standard Visitors will experience crowded conditions a few 

times per year occurring during special events and the 

fall leaf season 

Visitors will always be able to find uncrowded 

conditions elsewhere in the national battlefield 

Museum space will be adequate to accomplish 

interpretive goals 

Circulation and 

Parking 

Desired 

Condition 

Visitors should be able to follow the tour route 

through the national battlefield by car and use the 

existing parking areas while experiencing no more 

than moderate traffic congestion and rare parking 

difficulties 

Indicator The number of times per year that the tour route and 

other park roads experience delays due to excess 

visitor traffic 

The number of times per year that parking lots are full 

for an extended period of time 

(It should be noted that Maryland Highway 355 is a 

major state highway and that the national battlefield 

has little ability to measure congestion on it—it can 

however measure internal park roads and parking 

areas) 

90 
Future Studies and Mitigating Measures 

91 

Standard Visitors will experience crowded conditions (heavy 

traffic congestion and a lack of parking) rarely—

possibly once or twice a year 

Congestion would occur primarily during special 

events or during the fall leaf season 

Visitors would be able to find uncrowded parking 

areas elsewhere in the national battlefield 

Recreation Desired 

Condition 

Visitors participating in approved recreational 

activities such as trail walking, bird watching, and 

fishing, will be able to enjoy natural and cultural 

resources without causing damage to those resources 

Indicator Damage to natural habitats, stream banks, cultural 

resources, interpretive waysides and exhibits, or 

landscape features due to unsanctioned activities or 

inappropriate use 

Standard “Social trails”— undesignated trails created by 

repeated use — will not occur 

Damage to fields, meadows, forests, rivers and streams 

does not occur due to unsanctioned or inappropriate 

recreational uses 

Operations and 

Maintenance 

Desired 

Condition 

The national battlefield will have adequate staff and 

resources to perform needed maintenance and 

management activities, and will do so without causing 

undue distraction to visitors 

Indicator The ability of staffing levels, maintenance facilities, 

resources, and supplies to meet park needs; 

The number and severity of visitor concerns and 

comments about the operations and maintenance 

activities 

Standard Staffing and resources will not delay or prevent 

normal operation and maintenance activities 

Visitor concerns and comments about operations and 

maintenance activities will not increase in frequency 

or severity 
THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 

Environmentally preferable is defined as 

“the alternative that will promote the 

national environmental policy as 

expressed in section 101 of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969.” 

Section 101 states that 

It is the continuing responsibility 

of the Federal Government to 

1. fulfill the responsibilities of each 

generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding 

generations; 

2. assure for all Americans safe, 

healthful, productive, and 

aesthetically and culturally 

pleasing surroundings; 

3. attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment 

without degradation, risk to 

heath or safety, or other 

undesirable and unintended 

consequences; 

4. preserve important historic, 

cultural, and natural aspects of 

our national heritage, and 

maintain, wherever possible, an 

environment which supports 

diversity, and variety of 

individual choices; 

5. achieve a balance between 

population and resource use 

which will permit high 

standards of living and a wide 

sharing of life’s amenities; and 

6. enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the 

maximum attainable recycling 

of depletable resources. 

The environmentally preferable 

alternative for Monocacy National Park 

is the National Park Service’s preferred 

alternative in this plan. This alternative 

satisfies the following national 

environmental goals: 

• Hold resources in trust for future 

generations. 

• Ensure safe, healthful, productive, 

aesthetically pleasing surroundings. 

• Attain the widest range of beneficial 

uses of the environment without 

degradation, risk of health or safety, 

or other undesirable consequences. 

• Provide a high level of protection for 

natural and cultural resources while 

maintaining an environment that 

supports diversity and a variety of 

individual choices. 

• Decrease the use of depletable 

resources by NPS staff and visitors. 

Each of the four alternatives would hold 

natural and cultural resources in trust 

for future generations. 

Alternative 2 meets the second criteria 

best because it is the safest alternative, 

including an alternative transportation 

system that transports visitors, worryfree, around the national battlefield. It 

also includes a vehicular deck that 

allows visitors to pass from the 

Worthington to the Thomas farms by 

bus or car without having to backtrack 

onto busy Baker Valley Road. All of the 

alternatives meet the healthful, 

productive, and aesthetically pleasing 

criteria but alternative 2 provides an 

opportunity to use the deck to mask the 

92 
The Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

visual and audible impacts of I-270 while 

restoring the views between the Worthington and Thomas farms (placement 

of crops and hedgerows on the deck, 

masking the visual impact of the 

roadway and helping to re-create the 

pastoral scene). 

Criteria 3 is best met by alternative 2 as 

it provides the most new trails into 

previously inaccessible areas and 

because the proposed deck provides a 

way to turn a visual disadvantage (I-270) 

into an advantage. Construction of the 

deck would cause the most environmental disruption of all alternatives with 

tree removal and some access road 

construction. These would be in already 

disturbed areas along the I-270 right-ofway. 

Criteria 4 is met by all alternatives as 

they all preserve natural and cultural 

resources of significance for future 

generations and provide a variety of 

individual visitor choices for the use of 

national battlefield resources, both 

cultural and natural. 

Alternatives 2 and 4 utilize depletable 

resources in the construction of either a 

vehicle or pedestrian deck across I-270. 

Alternative 2 uses nonrenewable fuel in 

the alternative transportation system but 

could actually save fuel if enough 

visitors use it rather than personal 

vehicles. All alternatives will utilize 

depletable resources in the preservation 

of historic structures. Alternatives 3 and 

4 both make use of existing structures 

for office and maintenance space. 

However, alternative 3 utilizes the Best 

House interior for exhibit space while 

alternative 4 stabilizes the interior but 

does not make it useable space. The 

Best House is in the most critical 

condition of any of the battlefield 

structures and any work required to 

make it usable would result in the loss of 

deteriorated original fabric. Therefore, 

any differences between alternatives 3 

and 4 would be minuscule. 

Alternative 2 is the environmentally 

preferable alternative. It preserves all 

cultural resources, provides an additional level of visitor safety, and 

improves access and circulation. 

Although it causes a relatively minor 

environmental disturbance by removing 

trees and other vegetation along I-270 

that area is already greatly disturbed by 

the construction of I-270. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 do not present the 

same high level of benefit to the visitor 

experience that alternative 2 does. 

Access and circulation is not as safe as 

alternative 2. The benefit to the cultural 

landscape is not as high as with 

alternative 2. 

93 
ALTERNATIVES AND ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED 

During the planning process for 

Monocacy National Battlefield, several 

alternatives and actions were analyzed 

for inclusion in this document but later 

eliminated from further study. These 

alternatives and actions are listed below, 

along with the reasons they were not 

analyzed further. 

COMMEMORATIVE AREA AT 

NEW VISITOR CENTER SITE 

Creating a commemorative area at the 

new visitor center site was discussed. 

This concept involved placing all new 

monuments at the site, where visitors 

would have had easy access. The landscape could have been appropriately 

developed for the contemplation of the 

people and events associated with the 

Battle of Monocacy. The proposal was 

ultimately dismissed from consideration 

because the number of new monuments 

likely at Monocacy is small, and existing 

space near the Vermont and Pennsylvania monuments is available if any new 

commemorative monuments should be 

added. 

COMMEMORATIVE MONUMENTS 

IN THE FIELD 

At public meetings, several people 

expressed interest in placing monuments on the battlefield in the locations 

where the units fought, as has been done 

at other national battlefields. In 

considering this possibility, the planning 

team concluded that this action would 

have seriously affected the national 

battlefield’s ability to retain the historic 

appearance of the landscape and would 

have required a more extensive trail 

system to allow access to each monument. It also would have made leasing 

under the agricultural leasing program 

more difficult. Therefore, this concept 

was rejected. 

RE-CREATING BEST GROVE 

Some people attending public meetings 

suggested replanting the grove or wood 

lot that grew on the north side of the 

Best farm before the Civil War. The 

suggestion was ultimately rejected 

because the area is archeologically 

sensitive, and a general decision had 

been made not to re-create missing elements of the historic landscape of the 

national battlefield. 

RESTORING BATTLEFIELD 

STRUCTURES 

The National Park Service received 

many requests that planners consider 

restoring and refurnishing historic 

structures, particularly houses, to the 

Civil War period. However, the planners 

concluded that preserving the structures, rather than restoring them to a 

particular period, would be in keeping 

with NPS historic preservation policy, 

and that this would allow the focus of 

interpretation to remain on the battlefield, rather than on the buildings and 

their furnishings. 

CONTINUOUS TRAIL 

LINKING BATTLEFIELD SITES 

In developing this plan, NPS planners 

considered creating a continuous trail 

that would have connected all the important sites and features of Monocacy 

National Battlefield. However, such a 

94 
Alternatives and Actions Considered But Rejected 

trail would have had several 

shortcomings: the number of physical 

barriers — roads, railroad, and 

watercourses — would have made safe 

design difficult, and the trail itself could 

have become an attraction, luring people 

into the national battlefield for a 

recreational amenity far removed from 

the mandate of Congress to preserve, 

commemorate, and interpret the Battle 

of Monocacy. The continuous trail was 

rejected in favor of several short trails 

and a loop trail around the Thomas 

farm. 

95 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Blank page 

96 
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENC

The actions of the alternatives are compared in table 2; the environmental consequencethat would result from each alternative are compared in table 3. 

TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Altern

INTERSTATE 270 DECK

No deck constructed Deck constructed over I-270 to connect 

Thomas and Worthington farms visually and physically with continuous farmscape

No crossing of I-270 Pedestria

INTERNAL CIRCULATION

Visitors’ personal 

vehicles would use existing roads 

Alternative transportation system 

mandatory for visitors when operating, personal vehicles used when not operating 

One-way lane over I-270 deck between 

Worthington and Thomas farms 

Interpretation provided on ATS 

Personal vehicles used for access to 

sites 

Self-guiding interpretation 

Same as a

NEW VISITOR CENTER

New visitor center completed Spring 2007 Primary facility for helping visitors to understand and appreciate battlefield. Offers orientation, interpretation, exhibits, sales, restrooms, and museum exhibit of Battle of Monocacy 

NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD ADMINISTRATION

Remains in Gambrill Mill 

and in metal building on Gambrill tract 

In rental space outside national 

battlefield boundaries 

In Thomas House Same as a

MAINTENANCE

Remains in metal 

building on Gambrill tract 

Moved to location outside national 

battlefield boundaries 

Remains in metal building on Gambrill 

tract 

Same as a

97 
TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Altern

BEST FARM

Historic structures 

preserved 

Brochure will interpret 

the site 

Open to the public with 

no new trails 

First stop on transportation system Main house exterior rehabilitated and 

the interior stabilized 

Secondary house, stone barn, and corn 

crib preserved 

Main house and secondary house 

closed to visitors 

Interpretation by waysides 

Main house first floor interior 

rehabilitated for exhibits 

Secondary house preserved and 

visitors allowed access to interior 

Stone barn and corncrib preserved Interpretation by waysides and 

exhibits 

Main hou

rehabilistabiliz

Secondar

and visiinterior 

Stone ba

preserv

Interpret

RAILROAD JUNCTION

Not accessible to visitors Interpreted at visitor 

center 

Visible from trail from visitor center

(north of junction) and from accessible trail from Gambrill Mill with access over Bush Creek and railroad (south of junction) 

Railroad fenced to protect visitors Interpretation primarily by waysides 

No access from visitor centerVisible from Gambrill Mill trail, which 

would be extended to railroad crossing 

Vista cleared so visitors can see 

junction 

Interpretation at visitor center and by 

waysides

Same as a

14TH NEW JERSEY MONUMENT

Monument and access 

would be unchanged 

Entrance shifted south to improve sight 

distances 

NPS would work with Maryland State 

Highway Administration to reduce speed limit on MD 355 

NPS and New Jersey would evaluate 

parking

Parking area and lane to monument 

west of MD 355 would be closed 

Access to monument would be 

available by trail under MD 355 railroad overpass 

NPS would work with Maryland to 

reduce speed limit on MD 355

Same as a

Rt. 355 River Access

Unrestricted access No defined parking area 

Construct formal parking area with 

gates 

Fix drainage issues 

Remove existing informal parking area 

and landscape 

Parking at the Junction with a trail to 

the river for recreational access (fishing, canoeing) 

Same as a

98 
Table 2: 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Altern

GAMBRILL MILL TRACT

Mill preserved, with 

classroom space on first floor, administrative offices on second floor 

Entrance road 

unchanged 

Interpretation mainly at 

visitor center 

Mill preserved, with classroom space 

on first floor, seasonal housing on second floor 

Trail from mill extended to overlook 

railroad junction and Wallace’s headquarters 

Interpretation mainly by waysides and 

exhibits 

Mill preserved, with classroom space 

on first floor, NPS offices on second floor 

Interpretation mainly by waysides and 

exhibits 

Mill pres

space ooffices 

Trail from 

overlooand Wa

Interpret

center b

TOLL HOUSE

Structure was moved to its current site from elsewhere and has no relationship to its current location. Structure would be made available to a historic preservation group that would agree to move it out of the national baOtherwise it would be razed No interpretation.

THOMAS FARM

Main house mothballed -

Existing parking south of house unchanged 

Agricultural use unchanged Interpretation at visitor 

center 

Main house leased out under NPS 

historic leasing program (with no public access) 

Exhibits would occupy stone tenant 

house 

Public restrooms in a nonhistoric 

structure 

Parking near Baker Valley Road Historic lane through farm improved 

for vehicle traffic 

Interpretation mainly in stone tenant 

house and through waysides

Main house used for administrative 

offices 

Exhibits would occupy stone tenant 

house 

Public restrooms in a nonhistoric 

structure 

Parking near Baker Valley Road Interpretation mainly in stone tenant 

house and through waysides 

-Same as 

COMMEMORATIVE AREA ALONG ARABY CHURCH ROAD

When tenant vacates in 

2007, cinder block house removed and site landscaped 

No established policy on 

placement of monuments 

When tenant vacates in 2007, cinder 

block house removed and site landscaped 

New monuments placed in designated 

zone along Araby Church Road 

Design guidelines for new monuments 

developed

When tenant vacates in 2007, cinder 

block house removed and site relandscaped 

No new monuments placed anywhere 

in national battlefield 

Same as a

99 
TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

100 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Altern

LEWIS FARM

House, barn, and corn 

crib preserved as part of cultural landscape 

No public access Interpretation at visitor 

center

Same as alternative 1 Footpath from Worthington parking 

lot 

House, barn, and corn crib preserved 

as part of cultural landscape 

Interpretation mainly by wayside 

exhibits 

Same as a

WORTHINGTON FARM

Parking at Baker Valley 

Road and near house 

No visitor access into 

house 

Interpretation at visitor 

center and by waysides 

Entry lane from Baker Valley Road will 

be a one-way access 

No visitor access into house Interpretation at visitor center and by 

waysides 

Entry lane from Baker Valley Road 

widened for two-way access 

First floor of house rehabilitated for 

exhibits 

Exhibits in house, and via wayside 

exhibits

Same as a

BAKER FARM

Farm would remain in life 

estate 

Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as a
TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternat

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Historic Buildings and Other Structures

Stabilizing and preserving 

historic buildings would reduce loss of historic fabric over time — long-term beneficial effect 

No adverse effect on historic 

structures 

Resources and values not 

impaired 

Stabilizing and preserving historic 

structures would reduce loss of historic fabric 

No adverse effect from rehabilitating 

structures for adaptive use — effects generally beneficial 

No adverse effect on historic 

structures 

Maintaining commemorative 

monuments would not be adverse 

Resources and values not impaired 

Stabilizing and preserving historic 

structures would reduce deterioration — no adverse effect 

Modifying historic buildings for 

visitor access would retain integrity — no adverse effect 

Adaptively reusing Thomas 

House for administrative offices would necessitate work on utility systems, but no adverse effects on building 

Adaptively reusing Best and 

Worthington houses for interpretation might cause adverse effects, depending on level of intervention 

Retaining commemorative 

monuments would not be adverse 

Resources and values not 

impaired

Stabilizing and 

structures wodeterioration 

Removing non

would not af

Adaptively reu

for administrnecessitate wbut no adver

Adaptively reu

Worthington Mill for interoperations meffects, depeintervention 

Effects from al

beneficial 

Resources and 

101 
TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternat

Cultural Landscapes

Stabilizing buildings, 

maintaining roads, trails, and agricultural features generally beneficial 

Along with past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, no adverse effect on cultural landscape 

Resources and values not 

impaired 

Stabilizing and preserving buildings 

would ensure long-term presence on historic landscape 

Removing noncontributing 

structures would cause no adverse effect on cultural landscape 

Adding nonhistoric deck across I-270 

would restore vegetative patterns and disguise modern highway, reestablishing viewshed — no adverse effect on cultural landscape, but deck would be a modern intrusion 

Adding trails and roads on existing 

alignments could visually affect cultural landscape 

Removing exotic plant species and 

revegetating historically vegetated areas would benefit overall cultural landscape — no adverse effect on vegetation patterns 

Along with past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, no adverse effect on cultural landscape 

Resources and values not impaired

Stabilizing and preserving 

buildings would ensure longterm presence on historic landscape 

Removing noncontributing 

structures would cause no adverse effect on cultural landscape 

Removing exotic plant species 

and revegetating historically vegetated areas would benefit overall cultural landscape — no adverse effect on vegetation patterns 

Along with past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, no adverse effect on cultural landscape 

Resources and values not 

impaired 

Stabilizing and 

would ensuron historic la

Removing non

structures wolandscape cloappearance — cultural land

Adding nonhis

over I-270 wintrusion, bu270 

Removing exo

revegetating areas would landscape — vegetation pa

Along with pas

reasonably foactions, no acultural land

Resources and 

102 
Table 3: Comparison of En

Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternat

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

Moderate long-term 

beneficial effect on orientation from new visitor center 

No change in visitor 

circulation and access 

Negligible long-term 

beneficial effect on visitor safety 

Major long-term beneficial 

effect on interpretive opportunities and visitor experience resulting from new visitor center 

Major long-term beneficial effect on 

interpretive opportunities and visitor experience from new visitor center 

Long-term minor beneficial effect on 

orientation from opening stone tenant house at Thomas Farm 

Major long-term beneficial effects on 

circulation from deck across I-270 and improved entrance to 14th New Jersey Monument 

Moderate long-term beneficial 

effects on safety from improved entrance to 14th New Jersey Monument, deck across I-270, and new trail crossing under railroad to see railroad junction 

Long-term major beneficial effect on 

interpretive opportunities from new trail to Wallace’s headquarters, deck over I-270 (unobstructed view of battlefield between Worthington and Thomas farms), and exhibits in Thomas Farm stone tenant house 

Long-term major beneficial effect on 

visitors’ ability to experience resources from new trails 

Transportation system would give 

long-term major beneficial effects on access and circulation from not worrying about driving 

Moderate overall long-term 

beneficial effect on visitor experience from new trails, more exhibits in stone house, and visitor access to battlefield

Moderate long-term beneficial 

effect on orientation from new visitor center 

Unchanged circulation and accessLong-term minor beneficial effect 

on orientation from opening stone tenant house at Thomas Farm 

Major long-term beneficial effect 

on interpretation and visitor experience from new visitor center 

Negligible long-term beneficial 

effect on visitor safety 

Major long-term beneficial effect 

on interpretive opportunities from opening historic structures to visitors at Best and Worthington farms 

Moderate long

on orientatiocenter 

Long-term min

orientation ftenant house 

Major long-ter

interpretatioexperience fr

Long-term mo

on visitor accresulting from I-270 

Interpretive op

less than in aonly Worthinseveral Best Fopen to visito

Moderate long

from more inopportunitietrails on ThoWallace’s heentrenchmen

103 
TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

104 

Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternat

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Direct and indirect long-term 

negligible beneficial effects on socioeconomic environment. 

Direct and indirect long-term 

negligible beneficial effects on socioeconomic environment 

Direct and indirect long-term 

negligible beneficial effects on socioeconomic environment 

Direct and ind

negligible besocioeconom

ACCESS AND CIRCULATION

Long-term minor adverse 

effects on MD 355 and long-term moderate adverse effect on Araby Church and Baker Valley road networks from more traffic 

Resources and values not 

impaired 

Long-term minor adverse effects on 

MD 355 

Long-term moderate adverse effects 

on Araby Church and Baker Valley road networks from more traffic caused by more visitors 

Moderate long-term beneficial 

effects on pedestrian and car access from circulation improvements in battlefield 

Resources and values not impaired

Same as alternative 2 Same as altern

OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES

The no-action alternative 

would result in a long-term minor beneficial effect on national battlefield operations. 

Long-term major beneficial effect on 

national battlefield operations compared with effects of no-action alternative 

Long-term major beneficial effect 

on national battlefield’s operations compared with effects of no-action alternative 

Long-term ma

national battcompared walternative 
COST COMPARISON 

The following applies to costs presented throughout this general management plan: 

• The costs are presented as estimates and allow for flexibility in application of 

components. 

• These costs are not appropriate for budgeting purposes. 

• The costs presented have been developed using industry standards to the 

extent available. 

• Actual costs will be determined at a later date, considering the design of 

facilities, identification of detailed resource protection needs and changing 

visitor expectations. 

• Approval of the general management plan does not guarantee that funding or 

staffing for proposed actions will be available. 

• Full implementation of the general management plan may be many years in 

the future. 

• All estimates are in 2007 dollars and are rounded to the nearest $100,000. 

TABLE 4: COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE 

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Alternative 4 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Annual Operating 

Costs (ONPS)(1)

$1,600,000 $2,000,000 $2,200,000 $2,200,000 

Staffing - FTE(2) 16 20 22 22 

Deferred 

Maintenance(3)

$5,700,000 $5,400,000 $2,000,000 $3,100,000 

Total One Time Costs $100,000 $2,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,600,000 

Facility and nonfacility cost $0 $1,700,000 $5,700,000 $4,300,000 

Removal of buildings $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 

Other (4) 0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 

I-270 Deck none $11,400,000(5) none $4,600,000–

$6,800,000(5)

105 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

106 

(1) Annual operating costs are the total annual costs for maintenance and operations 

associated with each alternative, including: maintenance, utilities, supplies, staff salaries 

and benefits, leasing, and other materials. 

(2) Total full-time equivalents (FTEs) are the number of staff required to maintain the 

assets of the national battlefield at a good level and provide acceptable visitor services, 

protection of resources, and other operational support. Managers would explore 

opportunities to work with partners, volunteers, and other federal agencies to effectively 

and efficiently manage the national battlefield. FTE salaries and benefits are included in 

the annual operating costs. The staffing numbers include the conversion of subject to 

furlough employees and temporary employees to full time equivalents, to facilitate 

comparison among the alternatives. 

(3) Deferred maintenance costs are those needed to improve park assets to a “good” 

condition based on NPS standards and calculating tools. Deferred maintenance costs vary 

by alternative because specific building treatments proposed may exceed a “good” 

condition or may no longer qualify as maintenance. These, then, are represented in the 

one-time cost category. 

(4) Other costs include resource studies or inventories and archeological research. 

(5) Construction of a deck over I-270 for automobile use (alternative 2) or pedestrian-only 

use (alternative 4) would occur only if it could be accomplished as part of the impact 

mitigation resulting from the widening of I-270, currently being proposed under a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement by the Maryland State Highway Administration and the 

Federal Highway Administration. No cost would accrue to the National Park Service. 

Both bridges would be approximately 200 feet in length. The highway bridge would be 

wedge-shaped: 200 feet wide on the Worthington side, and 400 feet wide on the 

Thomas Farm side. The pedestrian bridge would be either 100 feet wide or wedge 

shaped: 100 feet wide on the Worthington side, 200 feet wide on the Thomas side. 

Estimates were developed by the NPS Denver Service Center Design Branch based on 

similar highway construction projects. 

(blank back of divider) 

108 
INTRODUCTION AND TOPICS ELIMINATED FROM ANALYSIS 

INTRODUCTION 

In this chapter the existing environment 

of Monocacy National Battlefield is 

described, as is the surrounding region. 

The guidelines of the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) for 

implementing the National Environmental Policy Act require that the 

description of the affected environment 

focus on describing the resources and 

people that might be affected by 

implementing the alternatives. Impact 

topics (resources to be affected) were 

developed to focus the environmental 

analysis and to ensure that the impacts 

of each alternative on relevant resources 

would be appropriately evaluated. 

The identification of impact topics was 

based on federal laws and other legal 

requirements, the CEQ guidelines, NPS 

management policies, NPS expertise and 

knowledge of limited or easily affected 

resources, and issues and concerns 

expressed by other agencies or the 

public during the project scoping. A 

brief rationale for eliminating or 

including each impact topic is given in 

this chapter. 

TOPICS ELIMINATED FROM 

FURTHER ANALYSIS 

Some impact topics that usually are 

considered during the planning process 

are not relevant to the development of 

this plan because (a) they would not be 

affected by implementing the alternatives or the effects on a particular 

resource would be negligible or minor, 

or (b) the resource is not found in 

Monocacy National Battlefield. The 

topics that have been eliminated from 

further analysis are discussed in this 

section. 

Archeological Resources 

Archeological resources — the physical 

evidence of past human activity — 

represent both prehistoric and historic 

occupations at Monocacy National 

Battlefield. A complete assessment and 

documentation of the battlefield’s 

archeological resources has not yet been 

undertaken; however, varying degrees of 

archeological resource information exist 

for most of the component properties, 

including the Best, Thomas, and 

Worthington farms and the Gambrill 

tract. 

Archeological resources are those 

associated with both temporary and 

permanent settlements (both historic 

and prehistoric) and with long-term and 

short-term military uses of the land. As 

previously noted, there were intensive 

prehistoric occupations of the 

Monocacy River Valley, particularly in 

association with the river itself. Prehistoric occupations of Monocacy National 

Battlefield have been documented 

archeologically at the Best, Thomas, and 

Worthington farms, and there probably 

is evidence of such occupations at other 

component properties. 

At the Best and Thomas farms, 18th 

century historic occupations have been 

documented in the form of previously 

unrecorded structures, features, and 

activity areas. Archeological research at 

these properties has yielded important 

information about 18th and early 19th 

109 
91B2915BCHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

century occupations of these sites. At 

the Thomas Farm, for example, 

archeologists uncovered the site of a 

mid 18th century tavern associated with 

the Middle Ford ferry, and at the Best 

Farm they have found an archeological 

footprint of the slave village associated 

with the Vincendière family’s 

L’Hermitage plantation. Such 

discoveries have yielded crucial 

information about events and individuals that often appear only 

incidentally in the historic record. 

A number of Civil War-era archeological 

resources also have been discovered at 

the Monocacy Battlefield. There are 

outbuildings and other features associated with 19th century component 

properties such as the Lewis, Worthington, and Baker farms and the Gambrill 

tract. For example, the farmhouses at 

the Worthington and Lewis farms 

survive, but most of the associated 

historic outbuildings and dependencies 

have disappeared; they exist only in the 

archeological record. At the Gambrill 

tract, little aboveground evidence 

remains of the associated milling complex. It is likely that archeological 

investigations at the Gambrill Mill and 

in the Wallace’s headquarters site will 

reveal more about the composition and 

chronology of these sites. 

It is believed that the main house at the 

Baker Farm (ca. 1914) was built on the 

foundations of an earlier structure. A 

number of more modern farm outbuildings are extant; however, archeological 

investigations may reveal evidence of 

earlier building composition and 

arrangement. In addition, archeological 

research at the Best Farm has uncovered 

a number of Civil War era features, 

including a cistern and an associated 

midden, or refuse deposit. 

Long-term and short-term military use 

also has left its archeological imprint. As 

was mentioned earlier, during the 

Maryland and Gettysburg campaigns, 

troops from the Union and Confederate 

armies camped in the junction area. A 

long-term encampment, known 

historically as Camp Hooker, exists 

within the battlefield’s congressional 

boundary and has been identified 

archeologically. Archeological evidence 

of short-term campsites also has been 

documented on the Best Farm, and subsurface remains of the battle itself 

(dropped and fired small arms projectiles, artillery shell fragments, weapons, 

personal items) also have been 

documented on the Best Farm. However, because the military use in July 

1864 extended to all the component 

properties, the potential exists for the 

presence of military artifacts almost 

anywhere within the national 

battlefield’s boundaries. 

There was post-Civil War occupation of 

all the component properties of 

Monocacy National Battlefield; this may 

be represented in the archeological 

record. This is most probable on the 

Gambrill tract, where the Edgewood 

estate was established in the late 19th 

century. Dependencies associated with 

the Gambrill House (ca. 1872) have been 

documented in the historical record, 

and they probably exist archeologically. 

In addition, occupations in the 

Wallace’s Headquarters area, along the 

B&O Railroad, continued into the early 

110 
Introduction and Topics Eliminated from Analysis 

20th century; they also probably are 

represented in the archeological record. 

Monocacy National Battlefield has not 

been systematically surveyed or inventtoried archeologically except for surveys 

of limited areas conducted in compliance with section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended. However, the National Park 

Service is required by law and policy to 

evaluate archeologically any site 

proposed for development. Because this 

plan would not entail actions that would 

affect specific known archeological 

resources, this topic has been dismissed 

from further consideration. 

Should any such resources be present, 

ground disturbance would be stopped 

until evaluation against the criteria for 

listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places could be undertaken. 

Such evaluation would be undertaken in 

consultation with the Maryland state 

historic preservation officer (SHPO). 

Actions that would require further 

consultation with the state historic 

preservation officer are listed in 

appendix E. If a determination of 

eligibility was made, the proposed 

development would be moved, or 

archeological mitigation would be 

undertaken. 

Ethnographic Resources 

No actions are proposed in the alternatives of this plan that would affect specific known ethnographic resources; 

therefore, the topic has been dismissed. 

Should any ethnographic resources be 

identified after the plan has been published, they would be treated according 

to the requirements of the laws and 

policies identified in appendixes B and 

C. 

Museum Objects 

Weapons, accoutrements, and spent 

ammunition used and left behind by 

soldiers before and during the Battle of 

Monocacy are some of the objects in 

Monocacy National Battlefield’s 

museum collection. A number of these 

objects have been donated or otherwise 

acquired. Many more were recovered 

during recent research- and 

compliance-driven archeological 

excavations at the battlefield. 

Curated items at Monocacy National 

Battlefield are stored in museum quality 

curatorial cabinets that meet NPS 

storage standards. Although a few 

objects rate as poor, most are in good to 

very good condition. Because storage 

space in the national battlefield is 

insufficient, most of the archeologically 

recovered objects are stored at the 

Museum Resource Center, a state-ofthe-art facility in Landover, Maryland. 

The national battlefield’s collection can 

be expected to grow with continuing 

archeological investigations and treatment of selected structures. Moreover, 

archival collections can be expected to 

expand as historical research continues. 

NPS policy requires that no museum 

objects be allowed within the 500-year 

floodplain without an evacuation plan. 

Under all the alternatives, all museum 

objects would be stored or exhibited 

outside the floodplain. In addition, museum objects kept in the national 

battlefield would be stored or exhibited 

in compliance with all applicable NPS 

regulations and policies. Therefore, 

111 
91B2915BCHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

museum objects would not be affected 

under any of the alternatives, and this 

topic has been dismissed. 

Air Quality 

The guidelines of the Council on 

Environmental Quality for preparing 

environmental impact statements 

require the lead agency to analyze the 

effects on air quality from the proposed 

action and the alternatives. Under each 

of the alternatives of this document, 

similar levels of air pollutant emissions 

would be generated by motor vehicles 

and motorized equipment. Some dust 

and fumes would be generated during 

the maintenance, improvement, 

construction, or removal of roads, trails, 

and other facilities. Whenever possible, 

the National Park Service would follow 

established policies requiring the use of 

energy-efficient and environmentally 

friendly products and processes. 

Although public visitation and motor 

vehicle use are expected to increase 

during the next 20 years, the levels of 

vehicle exhaust are not expected to 

increase dramatically or to contribute 

substantially to regional air pollutant 

loads. 

None of the identified air pollutant 

sources would generate quantities that 

would require a permit under the 

regulations of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency and the Maryland 

Department of the Environment. The 

effects these emissions would cause on 

the local environment and regional air 

quality are considered negligible for all 

alternatives. Therefore, air quality is 

excluded from further analysis. 

Water Resources and Water Quality 

Monocacy National Battlefield straddles 

the Monocacy River, a tributary of the 

Potomac River and part of the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed and a 

designated Maryland state scenic river. 

The river begins a short distance north 

of the Maryland-Pennsylvania border 

and flows through central Maryland to 

the Potomac. It flows directly through 

and along the boundary of Monocacy 

National Battlefield for approximately 

2.5 miles. The river’s course takes it 

through a primarily agricultural landscape. Years of soil erosion, livestock 

and fertilizer use, and increasing 

urbanization have resulted in heavy 

sediment deposits. The section of the 

river that flows through the national 

battlefield is shallow and silted, with 

several small reaches of riffles. 

Several streams, both perennial and 

intermittent, pass through the boundary 

of Monocacy National Battlefield and 

empty into the Monocacy River. All 

these streams exhibit some degree of 

channel structure degradation, primarily 

from increased water volume and speed 

from upstream runoff. Construction and 

development in the surrounding area 

have increased the amount of impervious surface and contributed to this 

harmful change. Approximately 0.8 mile 

of Bush Creek, the largest of these 

streams, passes through the north 

central part of the battlefield. Bush 

Creek is characterized by stretches of 

pools and riffles, with a primarily stone 

and sand bottom. As it nears its confluence with the river, the stream 

channel becomes incised and much of 

the stream bank is undercut. 

112 
Introduction and Topics Eliminated from Analysis 

Harding’s Run is the only other named 

tributary in the national battlefield. It 

passes through the south central portion 

of the national battlefield for roughly 

1.75 miles. The stream is primarily intermittent; it usually can sustain flowing 

water for about 8 months of the year. Its 

upper reaches are heavily wooded, 

contain a stone substrate, and have some 

good quality riparian wildflower areas. 

As the creek passes under Baker Valley 

Road and through the national battlefield and its volume increases, it 

becomes more incised. Near the mouth 

of the stream, the banks are 8 feet high 

and extremely undercut. Other intermittent streams that run through the 

national battlefield usually contain 

flowing water about 6–8 months of the 

year. They typically have sand and stone 

bottoms and display similarly degraded 

channel structures. 

There are several springs and seeps in 

the battlefield. These do not produce 

large volumes of water, but their conservation is a priority because of their 

ability to supply the streams and river 

with fresh, cold water. They also can 

serve as critical habitat for aquatic 

invertebrates. 

The national battlefield has developed a 

water quality monitoring program and is 

collecting water chemistry data at 13 

sites around the national battlefield. The 

battlefield’s streams are surveyed for 

dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity, 

temperature, nitrates, and phosphates to 

determine what, if any, impact on 

surface water resources would be 

caused by the national battlefield’s 

activities. In addition, three sites have 

been established where data are collected according to the Riparian 

Channel Environmental Inventory 

protocol to document the physical and 

biological condition of the streams. The 

national battlefield’s data will be used in 

conjunction with additional sampling by 

regional NPS water resources staff. 

The NPS Water Resources Division and 

Inventory and Monitoring Program 

collected previously sampled water 

quality data in 2000 to establish baseline 

water chemistry levels for Monocacy 

National Battlefield. This report consisted of data from by the United States 

Geological Survey (USGS), the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), and the Maryland Department of 

Natural Resources, mostly from sampling stations along the Monocacy River. 

The Lower Monocacy River watershed 

is included in Maryland’s 303(d) listed 

waters as failing to meet the designated 

uses defined within Maryland water 

quality standards. The reasons for this 

nonattainment are listed as nutrients 

and suspended sediments. Enduring 

threats to the water quality of the 

Monocacy River watershed are sedimentation, nutrient enrichment from 

nonpoint sources (such as agriculture), 

point sources (sewage plants), and 

contamination. 

The national battlefield has agreements 

with agricultural lessees to regulate the 

use of pesticides and herbicides. Best 

management practices have been 

established to limit soil erosion and 

runoff into streams. The alternatives of 

this plan would be most likely to affect 

water quality through construction 

activities. Following the mitigating 

measures described earlier (p. 85) and 

113 
91B2915BCHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

the policies described in the 

“Consultation and Coordination” 

chapter would reduce these potential 

impacts so that the impacts would be 

negligible. Therefore, water quality has 

been excluded from further analysis. 

Water Quantity 

Water used for national battlefield 

facilities is obtained from wells near the 

facilities. The quality of water for 

personal consumption meets all 

standards, and water is abundant. None 

of the alternatives being considered 

would be expected to cause substantial 

changes in surface water or groundwater flows in the national battlefield or 

to affect the national battlefield’s water 

supply. The effects from the alternatives 

of this plan on water quantity would be 

negligible; therefore, this topic has been 

dismissed from further consideration. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The Monocacy River in Monocacy 

National Battlefield is listed on the 

Nationwide Rivers Inventory prepared 

by the National Park Service. This 

inventory is a register of rivers that may 

be eligible for inclusion in the national 

wild and scenic river system. The inclusion of a river in this inventory was 

based on the degree to which it is freeflowing, 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. Section 5 (d) of 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

(PL 90-542) requires that “In all planning for the use and development of 

water and related land resources, 

consideration shall be given by all 

federal agencies involved to potential 

national wild, scenic, and recreational 

river areas.” 

In partial fulfillment of the section 5 (d) 

requirements, the National Park Service 

has complied and maintains the 

National Rivers Inventory. The intent of 

the inventory is to provide information 

that will help managers to make 

balanced decisions about the use of the 

nation’s river resources. A presidential 

directive and subsequent instructions 

issued by the Council on Environmental 

Quality and codified in agency manuals 

requires that each federal agency, as part 

of its normal planning and environmental review process, take care to 

avoid or mitigate adverse effects on 

rivers identified in the inventory. No 

actions of the alternatives of this plan 

would affect the outstandingly remarkable values for which the rivers were 

included on the National Rivers Inventory, nor would any of the actions effectively foreclose the rivers from future 

designation as wild or scenic. 

The Monocacy River has been 

designated a Maryland state scenic river 

protected for recreation and wildlife. 

The objectives of the plan for the scenic 

river, Monocacy Scenic River Study and 

Management Plan (Monocacy Scenic 

River Local Advisory Board, 1990), are 

listed under the “Relationships of Other 

Planning Efforts to This General 

Management Plan” section. 

The effects on the Monocacy River that 

would result from NPS actions would be 

relatively minor and would not 

compromise the values for which the 

scenic river was designated. Therefore, 

114 
Introduction and Topics Eliminated from Analysis 

the topic of wild and scenic rivers has 

been dismissed. 

Wetlands 

Wetlands are the transition areas 

between water and land that 

permanently or occasionally contain 

water. Wetlands can play an important 

role in the environment by filtering runoff, collecting sediment, and offering 

wet habitats for a variety of flora and 

fauna. These areas include marshes, 

bogs, swamps, and palustrine 

woodlands. 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 habitat 

included in this delineation consists of 

the Monocacy River itself and the 

forested riparian areas along the river, 

Bush Creek, and Harding’s Run. 

There are riparian areas along both sides 

of the Monocacy River, Bush Creek, and 

other streams in the national battlefield. 

These areas could be affected by the 

actions of the alternatives if the actions 

included allowing access to the river and 

streams through the riparian areas, 

building trails through them, or removing vegetation from them. All the listed 

actions would be mitigated by carrying 

out the mitigating measures described 

earlier and by following the wetlands 

executive order, NPS management 

policies, and Director’s Order (DO) 77-1 

(described in the “Consultation and 

Coordination” chapter). The National 

Park Service would follow these 

guidelines to ensure that there would be 

no net loss of wetlands and would strive 

to reach the longer-term goal of net gain 

of wetlands by restoring destroyed or 

degraded wetlands. 

All the forested riparian buffers in the 

battlefield are 35 feet wide or wider; 

thus, they meet the requirement of the 

NPS Northeast and National Capital 

Region buffer plan and comply with the 

requirements of the Chesapeake Bay 

Program (A water resources management plan now underway will widen the 

riparian buffer to 50 feet). The effects 

caused by the actions of the alternatives, 

when mitigated by following the 

measures and guidance described above, 

would be negligible. Therefore, wetlands are dismissed as an impact topic. 

Floodplain Values and Flooding 

Floodplains exist in Monocacy National 

Battlefield where there are perennial 

and intermittent streams. Floodplains in 

national park system units are protected 

and managed in accordance with EO 

11988, Floodplain Management, NPS DO 

77-2 (Floodplain Management), and NPS 

Management Policies 2006 (4.6.4). This 

guidance requires that the National Park 

Service protect, preserve, and restore 

floodplain values, minimize risk to life 

or property by the design or modification of actions in floodplains, and 

examine the effects on floodplains. 

It is NPS policy to avoid affecting floodplains and to minimize impacts when 

they are unavoidable. Under all the 

alternatives of this plan, new developments, including trails, would be sited in 

consultation with the NPS Water 

Resources Division and in concert with 

guidelines and policies to avoid impacts 

on floodplains. Therefore, the impacts 

on floodplains would be negligible. 

115 
91B2915BCHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The Gambrill Mill is in the 100-year 

floodplain of the Monocacy River and 

Bush Creek. However, historic structures whose locations are integral to 

their significance are exempt from 

compliance with NPS Procedural 

Manual 77-2, “Floodplain Management.” The national battlefield staff 

would continue to carry out the actions 

described in appendix C, (“Servicewide 

Laws and Policies”) under the headings 

“Floodplains,” and “Wetlands.” The 

staff also would follow the mitigating 

measures described beginning on page 

85 to ensure that activities in the 

national battlefield would not compromise natural or beneficial floodplain 

values or the safety of employees and 

visitors. 

Vegetation and Plant Communities 

The vegetation composition and patterns at Monocacy National Battlefield 

are indicative of the open natural and 

agricultural landscape in the Piedmont 

region of Maryland. About 40% of the 

national battlefield is forested; the rest is 

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. Some areas are undergoing old-field succession; others are 

second or third growth forests with 

mature hardwoods. 

Even though the national battlefield’s 

elevation range is relatively insignificant, 

upland areas contain associated dry site 

species such as oak (Quercus spp.), 

hickory (Carya spp.), and American 

beech (Fagus grandifolia). The lowland 

riparian forests in the floodplain of the 

river and along the national battlefield’s 

streams are dominated by maple (Acer

spp.), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), 

hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), and ash 

(Fraxinus spp.). Recently disturbed 

areas are characterized by generalist tree 

species such as tulip poplar 

(Liriodendron tulipifera), black cherry 

(Prunus serotina), black locust (Robinia 

pseudoacacia), box elder (Acer negundo), 

and the invasive and exotic tree-ofheaven (Ailanthus altissima). 

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. Recent surveys have 

shown that exotic plants infest most of 

the nonagricultural land in Monocacy 

National Battlefield. Some high priority 

invasive weeds in those areas are multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), tree-ofheaven (Ailanthus altissima), Japanese 

honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), garlic 

mustard (Allaria petiolata), and Japanese 

stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum). High 

priority invasive weeds in the agricultural areas are Johnson grass (Sorghum 

halepense), Canada thistle (Cirsium 

arvense), and Bull thistle (Cirsium 

vulgare). 

Implementing the actions of the 

alternatives of this plan would result in 

negligible changes in vegetation or plant 

communities in the national battlefield. 

Some actions might require clearing, but 

such clearing would be small scale and 

local. Because there would be little 

change, if any, in vegetation and plant 

communities in the battlefield, this topic 

will not be analyzed further. 

116 
Introduction and Topics Eliminated from Analysis 

Wildlife 

The diverse mix of woods, fields, 

streams, and the river in the national 

battlefield provide abundant habitat for 

many species of wildlife. Common 

mammal species seen at the national 

battlefield are white-tailed deer 

(Odocoileus virginianus), gray squirrel 

(Sciurus carolinensis), red fox (Vulpes 

vulpes), and groundhog (Marmota 

monax). Bird species also abound in the 

mix of open fields and woods: red-tailed 

hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), northern 

cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), bluebird 

(Sialis sialis), wild turkey (Meleagris 

gallopavo), great blue heron (Ardea 

herodias), and red-winged blackbird 

(Agelaius phoniceus). Bald eagles 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are known to 

nest in the area and can be seen flying 

over the national battlefield. 

Past wildlife inventories have concerned 

small mammals, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and birds. Current scientific 

research is concentrating on reptiles and 

amphibians, white-tailed deer, fish, and 

bats. These studies, along with personal 

observations and records, have 

documented more than 175 species of 

fauna in the national battlefield. 

The principal wildlife issue at the 

national battlefield is the deer population. Since the mid-1990s several 

research studies and projects have 

focused on the national battlefield’s 

most abundant wildlife resource, whitetailed deer. Frederick Community 

College has performed fecal pellet 

cluster counts and deer drives to 

estimate the deer densities in the Brooks 

Hill / Worthington Farm areas since 

spring 1997. 

The Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife 

Disease Study at the University of 

Georgia’s College of Veterinary 

Medicine performed a comprehensive 

evaluation of herd health for the 

national battlefield’s deer population in 

2002. Necropsies were done on sampled 

deer to obtain health parameters —

overall condition, kidney fat indices, and 

parasite counts — to establish a relative 

carrying capacity for the population. 

The conclusion of this study was that 

the deer herd at the national battlefield 

is approximately at carrying capacity. 

The Smithsonian National Zoological 

Park’s Conservation Research Center is 

conducting a study on the effect of deer 

foraging on agricultural crops and 

forests. Using fenced exclosures, the 

study is trying to measure corn yield and 

tree regeneration inside and outside the 

exclosures when compared against 

established control plots. 

Since 2001, the national battlefield has 

been cooperating with Antietam 

National Battlefield’s resource management staff to measure deer population 

density through a method called distance sampling. The staff of Monocacy 

National Battlefield conducts night 

counts by spotlight twice a year and 

enters the number of deer, number of 

groups, and sex ratio into the “Distance” 

software program to calculate the 

population density. To allow for 

successful tree regeneration in forested 

areas, scientific research by Tilghman 

(1989) suggests an upper range for deer 

density at 40 deer per square mile. The 

results from the Distance software show 

an average spring deer density of 

approximately 100 deer per square mile 

117 
91B2915BCHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

and an average fall density of about 145 

deer per square mile in the national 

battlefield. This density survey 

represents a work in progress, and 

semiannual spotlight counts are 

scheduled for every spring and autumn. 

Other scientific research covering such 

topics as vegetation, birds, and rare, 

threatened, and endangered species has 

included white-tailed deer population 

monitoring as a management 

recommendation based on the impacts 

that deer can cause on those resources. 

Increased disturbance and the loss of 

some wildlife habitat could result from 

the construction activities and potential 

increases in visitor numbers that could 

result from the alternatives of this plan. 

However, the proposed construction in 

all the action alternatives would take 

place in areas that already have been 

disturbed by agriculture or the presence 

of MD 355 or I-270. Wildlife inhabiting 

the battlefield already are adapted to 

high levels of disturbance. None of the 

alternatives would cause measurable 

changes in the abundance or distribution of any wildlife species. Therefore, 

wildlife will not be discussed as an impact topic. 

Threatened or Endangered Species 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 

recently removed the bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) from the 

federal list of threatened species. 

However, the battlefield staff reports 

that it has been determined that eagles 

nest on land adjacent to Monocacy 

National Battlefield. Their habitat would 

not be affected by the actions of the 

alternatives except perhaps indirectly by 

the restoration of riparian areas nearby. 

The letter from The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service is reproduced in 

appendix F. The Maryland Department 

of Natural Resources has “no records 

for Federal or State rare, threatened, or 

endangered plants or animals” in the 

national battlefield. That letter also 

appears in appendix F. 

Before an approved plan is implemented, endangered, threatened, and 

special status species will be addressed 

at the project level through consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the Maryland Department 

of Natural Resources to ensure the protection of the bald eagle and any species 

that might be found in the area. On the 

basis of these consultations, mitigating 

measures will be incorporated into 

project proposals if necessary to address 

any concerns about these species. Thus, 

no federally listed or state-listed 

threatened, endangered species would 

be affected by alternatives of this plan; 

therefore, this topic will not be 

addressed further. 

Geologic Resources 

Monocacy National Battlefield lies in 

the Lowland section of the Piedmont 

Plateau Province in the Frederick 

Valley. Two primary rock types underlie 

the area — the Frederick Limestone 

formation is present in the lower 

elevations and bottomland, and 

sandstone and siltstone of the Antietam 

Formation are present in the upper 

elevations. 

According to NPS Management Policies 

2006, the agency is required to analyze 

118 
Introduction and Topics Eliminated from Analysis 

the effects on geologic resources that 

would be caused by the proposed action 

and the alternatives. The effects on soils, 

intermittent drainage systems, and 

hydrogeology are assessed separately in 

the “Environmental Consequences” 

chapter of this document. 

NPS national policy prohibits the 

surface mining of soil, gravel, cinder, or 

rock materials for any operations 

purposes, including the construction of 

roads or facilities. Under any of the 

alternatives in this document, most 

modifications to access roads and 

facilities in Monocacy National 

Battlefield would be limited to existing 

disturbed areas, and they would not be 

likely to require blasting or other modifications of bedrock geology. 

There are no known paleontological 

resources in Monocacy National 

Battlefield. The potential impacts on 

surface geologic outcrops from road or 

facility construction, visitor activities, or 

NPS operations would be negligible. 

Thus, the effect on the geologic resources of the national battlefield from 

any of the alternatives would be 

negligible; therefore, geologic resources 

are excluded from further 

environmental analysis. 

Soils 

Most soils in the lowland areas of the 

national battlefield are of the Codorus 

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 

the slope. Farming practices in these 

areas are dictated by a conservation plan 

set out by the local Maryland Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation 

District. These plans outline conservation practices that must be followed to 

reduce erosion and nutrient runoff. 

The soil survey has also documented 14 

soils in the national battlefield that the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture has 

classified as prime farmland. Prime 

farmland includes soils that contain the 

best combination of characteristics to 

produce high crop yields but still 

maintain low erosion potential. The 

conservation of these farmlands 

prevents the use of poorer soils that may 

be more erodible or less productive. 

Under the alternatives of this plan, the 

construction of roads or improvements 

and development could cause shortterm disturbance of soils, but the 

disturbance would be confined to 

specific sites of limited area, or along 

narrow corridors associated with roads. 

Road improvements would reduce the 

erosion potential and dust associated 

with bare soil as a road base. The 

erosion potential generally is low 

because the topography is relatively 

level and there is a large amount of 

vegetative cover. Applying appropriate 

best management practices (silt fencing, 

prompt revegetation) and slope 

consideration would control and 

mitigate construction impacts, so that 

the resultant impacts would be 

negligible. The total developed area of 

the national battlefield would be small, 

so that permeability and runoff would 

not be noticeably affected. Therefore, 

the long-term effects on soils would be 

119 
91B2915BCHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

negligible, and this topic has been 

dismissed from further consideration. 

Prime or Unique Farmland 

The 1981 Farmland Protection Policy 

Act (PL 97-98) was passed to minimize 

the extent to which federal programs 

would contribute to the unnecessary 

and irreversible conversion of farmland 

to nonagricultural uses and to ensure 

that federal programs would be administered in a manner that, to the extent 

practicable, would be compatible with 

state, unit of local government, and 

private programs and policies to protect 

farmland. 

Prime farmland is land that has the best 

combination of physical and chemical 

characteristics for producing food, feed, 

forage, fiber, and oilseed crops with 

minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, 

pesticides, and labor and without 

intolerable soil erosion. 

Unique farmland is land other than 

prime farmland that is used for the 

production of specific high-value food 

and fiber crops. It has the special 

combination of soil quality, location, 

growing season, and moisture supply 

needed to economically produce 

sustained high quality or high yields of 

specific crops when treated and 

managed according to acceptable 

farming methods. Examples of such 

crops are citrus, tree nuts, fruits, olives, 

cranberries, and vegetables 

Farmland other than prime and unique 

that is of statewide or local importance 

for the production of food, feed fiber, 

forage, or oilseed crops, as determined 

by the state or local government, is also 

considered farmland for purposes of the 

act. 

The National Park Service consulted the 

soils maps for Frederick County issued 

by the Natural Resource Conservation 

Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. This is the agency 

responsible for implementing the policy. 

The maps identified several areas of 

prime farmland in the battlefield. The 

largest area is the southern third of the 

Best Farm. Prime farmland also can be 

found in most of the area at the north 

end of the national battlefield east of 

MD 355, a small part of the Baker Farm 

along I-270, a small part of the Thomas 

Farm along I-270, several areas at the 

Worthington Farm, an area of the 

Thomas Farm near the battlefield’s 

eastern boundary, and some land along 

Bush Creek in the Gambrill Mill tract. 

The areas that would be affected by the 

alternatives of this plan are portions of 

the Best Farm near MD 355, the area at 

the northern end of the national 

battlefield east of MD 355, a small part 

of the Baker Farm along I-270, and some 

land along Bush Creek in the Gambrill 

Mill tract. These areas could be affected 

by paving existing roads, removing 

nonhistoric structures, rehabilitating 

historic structures, and creating foot 

trails and small parking areas. The 

National Park Service consulted with 

the NRCS Frederick Field Service 

Center (Mark Siebert, February 23, 

2004). The lands that would be affected 

are not in agricultural use at present. 

Therefore, these actions would not 

constitute conversion of farmland to another use, and no additional compliance 

with the Farmland Protection Policy Act 

120 
Introduction and Topics Eliminated from Analysis 

would be required. Therefore, this topic 

has been dismissed from further 

consideration. 

Soundscape 

In accordance with NPS Management 

Policies 2006 and DO 47, Sound 

Preservation and Noise Management, an 

important part of the NPS mission is to 

preserve, to the greatest extent possible, 

natural soundscapes associated with 

units of the national park system. 

Natural soundscapes exist in the 

absence of human-caused sound. 

Visitors who come to Monocacy 

National Battlefield expect to find rural 

quiet similar to that of other national 

battlefields. Unfortunately, I-270 and 

MD 355 cross the national battlefield, 

creating constant background noise 

inconsistent with this expected quiet. 

These external sounds will not be 

decreased by any proposed NPS action. 

Any dissonant sounds associated with 

construction in any of the alternatives of 

this plan would last only as long as the 

construction. Because the opportunity 

for visitors to experience a natural 

sound environment is beyond NPS 

control, soundscape management has 

been dismissed as an impact topic. 

Lightscape 

In accordance with its Management 

Policies 2006, the National Park Service 

strives, to the greatest extent possible, to 

preserve natural ambient lightscapes, 

which are natural resources and values 

that exist in the absence of humancaused light. Monocacy National 

Battlefield endeavors to limit the use of 

artificial outdoor lighting to that 

necessary for basic safety requirements, 

to ensure that all outdoor lighting is 

shielded to the maximum extent 

possible, and to keep light on the intended subject and out of the night sky. 

Therefore, lightscape management was 

dismissed as an impact topic. 

Topics Not Applicable to 

Monocacy National Battlefield 

A number of issues were not mentioned 

in scoping, or the national battlefield has 

no resources in these categories. The 

following things will not be impact 

topics in this document 

caves 

coastal processes 

coral reefs 

fisheries and aquatic life 

geologic processes 

geothermal and hydrothermal 

resources 

marine/estuarine resources and 

habitat 

paleontological resources 

research natural areas 

water rights 

wilderness 

Public Health and Safety 

None of the actions in any of the alternatives would result in any identifiable 

adverse impacts on human health or 

safety. The alternatives were designed 

with consideration for these factors. 

Some alternatives would change the 

transportation system in and outside of 

the national battlefield; those changes 

would greatly reduce the possibility of 

vehicle-pedestrian accidents. 

121 
91B2915BCHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

122 

Environmental Justice 

Federal agencies are required by EO 

12898 to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on 

minority and low income populations. 

None of the alternatives of this plan 

would result in a disproportionately 

high or adverse effect on any minority or 

low-income population or community. 

The reasons for this conclusion are as 

follows: 

• The developments and actions of the 

alternatives would not result in any 

identifiable adverse effects on human 

health. Therefore, there would be no 

direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse effects on any minority or lowincome population or community. 

• The effects on the natural and 

physical environment caused by the 

actions of any alternative would not 

significantly and adversely affect any 

minority or low-income population 

or community. 

• The alternatives would not result in 

any identified effects that would be 

specific to any minority or lowincome community. 

• The planning team actively solicited 

public comments when developing 

this plan and gave equal consideration to all input, regardless of the 

commenter’s age, race, income 

status, or other socioeconomic or 

demographic factors. 

• The effects on the socioeconomic 

environment from the alternatives of 

this plan would be minor or positive 

and would occur mostly within the 

local and regional geographic area. 

These effects would not occur all at 

one time; they would be spread over 

a number of years, which would 

reduce their magnitude. The effects 

on the socioeconomic environment 

would not substantially alter the 

physical and social structure of the 

nearby communities. 

For these reasons, environmental justice 

will not be analyzed further in this 

document. 
IMPACT TOPICS — RESOURCES THAT COULD BE AFFECTED 

INTRODUCTION 

Impact topics, simply defined, are the 

resources that could be affected by the 

actions of the alternatives of the plan. 

The impact topics discussed below were 

derived from the issues identified during 

scoping. 

Cultural Landscapes — The cultural 

landscape of the national battlefield is 

integral to an understanding of the 

events of July 9, 1864. This plan outlines 

a course of action for the maintenance, 

development, and visitor use of the 

landscape. 

Historic Buildings and Structures — 

Although not all historic buildings are 

included, the List of Classified 

Structures for Monocacy National 

Battlefield contains 51 listed historic 

buildings and structures. The 

alternatives of this plan propose both 

uses and treatments for these resources. 

Visitor Use and Experience — The 

planning team identified “visitor use and 

experience” as an important issue that 

could be appreciably affected by the 

alternatives of this plan. The Organic 

Act and NPS Management Policies 2006

direct the National Park Service to provide enjoyment opportunities for 

visitors that are uniquely suited and 

appropriate to the superlative resources 

found in the national battlefield. Within 

this impact topic are such things as: 

visitor orientation; circulation and 

access; visitor safety; interpretive 

opportunities; and visitors’ experiences 

of the national battlefield’s resources. 

The Socioeconomic Environment — The 

National Environmental Policy Act 

requires an examination of the effects 

on social and economic conditions that 

are caused by federal actions. Monocacy 

National Battlefield affects the 

socioeconomy of nearby communities. 

Accordingly, residents and regional 

businesses may have concerns about 

changes in the management of the 

national battlefield that might affect 

their lives, the socioeconomic environment, and opportunities. 

Transportation, Access, and Circulation 

— “Transportation, access, and circulation” was identified as a potential impact 

topic. The discussion of transportation 

in this document covers the effect on 

local and regional transportation networks surrounding Monocacy National 

Battlefield, as well as the battlefield’s 

existing transportation network of trails, 

roads, and parking areas. The principal 

effects would be changes in traffic flow 

and traffic safety conditions. 

Providing safe access and circulation for 

visitors throughout the national battlefield relates specifically to the existing 

regional and local transportation 

networks crisscrossing the battlefield. 

Existing road networks give access to 

each farmstead in the battlefield, but 

improved access to primary landscape 

features within each farmstead is 

limited. In addition, some existing 

transportation corridors create a 

physical barrier to effective visitor circulation between important battlefield 

features. To address this deficiency, 

each alternative would entail a variety of 

123 
91B2915BCHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

enhancements to the battlefield’s 

existing internal circulation systems. 

National Battlefield Operations — All the 

action alternatives of this plan would 

affect operations and facilities in the 

national battlefield. Within this topic are 

such things as staffing, maintenance, 

facilities, emergency response time, 

ability to enforce regulations and 

protect national battlefield values, the 

health and safety of employees and 

visitors, distance to work, managing 

collections and other resources, and 

administrative access. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Background 

The National Park Service is charged 

with the stewardship of many of the 

nation’s most important natural and 

cultural resources and is responsible for 

preserving these resources for the 

enjoyment of present and future generations. The cultural resources of 

Monocacy National Battlefield are 

defined as the material evidence of past 

human activities. Among these are 

cultural landscapes, historic structures, 

museum objects and collections, and 

archeological sites. 

By their nature, cultural resources are 

finite and nonrenewable; as a result, 

national battlefield management 

activities and policies must reflect 

awareness of their irreplaceable character. Therefore, NPS cultural resource 

management involves research, 

evaluation, documentation, and 

registration of national battlefield 

resources, along with the establishment 

of priorities to ensure that these 

resources are appropriately preserved, 

protected, and interpreted to the public. 

Formal Designation of Resources 

The National Register of Historic Places 

is the nation’s official list of cultural 

properties worthy of preservation. 

Monocacy National Battlefield was 

listed in the national register in 1966, 

and its nomination was updated recently 

to include new properties (Paula S. Reed 

& Assoc., Inc. 2004). 

In 1973 the secretary of the interior 

designated the national battlefield a 

national historic landmark, recognizing 

it as a site of exceptional importance 

possessing national significance. A 

cultural resource study for the national 

battlefield was undertaken in 1999 and 

has been updated several times to reflect 

new research and property acquisitions 

(Paula S. Reed & Assoc. 1999 and 2004). 

The National Park Service completed a 

cultural landscape inventory of the 

entire national battlefield in 2000 (NPS 

2000). And a number of recent architectural, archeological, and historic 

research projects have contributed 

greatly to understanding the national 

battlefield’s cultural landscape (GWWO 

Architects Inc. 2003; Beasley 2004). Such 

studies also have helped to establish the 

historic context of the national 

battlefield’s many cultural resources. 

Except for the Gambrill House, which 

was individually listed on the national 

register in 1984, the other historic structures in the national battlefield are listed 

as contributing resources to the battlefield’s national register nomination. 

124 
Impact Topics — Resources That Could Be Affected 

Period of Significance 

The period of significance for 

Monocacy National Battlefield extends 

from ca. 1750 to 1934 (1964 for monuments), spanning more than 180 years of 

settlement, agricultural improvement, 

and industrial expansion. Between the 

mid 18th and mid 19th centuries, the 

national battlefield’s circulation and 

transportation corridors were established and the battlefield farmsteads 

were settled. The key transportation 

routes that converge within the 

boundaries of the battlefield facilitated 

the clash between Union and 

Confederate forces during the Battle of 

Monocacy, and the same circulation 

corridors helped facilitate post–Civil 

War recovery in the region. 

Finally, beginning in the late 19th and 

early 20th century, the veterans’ community, civic leaders, and government 

officials worked together to memorialize 

and commemorate the Battle of 

Monocacy. This culminated in the 

establishment of Monocacy National 

Military Park in 1934. 

Cultural Landscapes 

A cultural landscape is a reflection of 

human adaptation and use of natural 

resources. It is often expressed in the 

ways that land is organized and divided, 

and also through such factors as settlement patterning, land use, circulation, 

and the built environment. The character of a cultural landscape is defined by 

physical attributes such as roads, 

structures, and vegetation patterns and 

by cultural attributes such as values and 

traditions. 

Cultural landscapes are shaped by a 

variety of factors, including land use and 

land management, political and legal 

systems, technology, and economics. As 

such, they constitute a living record of 

an area’s past, a visual chronicle of its 

history. Cultural landscapes are not 

static, however; modern and natural 

forces are continually reshaping them, 

posing a significant preservation 

challenge. 

Before the Civil War, the area now occupied by the battlefield was a productive 

agricultural and milling community 

surrounding Monocacy Junction and 

other important transportation features 

in the vicinity. The rolling hills of the 

Monocacy River Valley were fertile 

lands on which a variety of crops were 

produced, ranging from corn, wheat, 

and other small grains to vegetables and 

dairy products. 

A number of 18th and 19th century 

dwelling houses and agricultural outbuildings were clustered on the battlefield’s five component farmsteads, along 

with mills, warehouses, and other structures associated with the Gambrill 

milling complex. Many of these structures are still extant on the battlefield 

landscape. 

The properties that make up Monocacy 

National Battlefield reflect nearly three 

centuries of historic occupation and 

development around the Monocacy 

River crossroads. The battlefield’s 

cultural landscape possesses a distinct 

character that no longer can be found 

readily in and around Frederick County. 

The buildings, structures, circulation 

systems, materials, organization, and 

open space all contribute to the historic 

125 
91B2915BCHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

agricultural, milling, and early 20th 

century commemorative landscape 

qualities of the battle site. Indeed, 

Monocacy National Battlefield’s many 

remaining historic structures combine 

with the railroad, highways, and farm 

fields to form a remarkably intact 18th 

and 19th century agrarian landscape. 

Layered upon this landscape is an early 

20th century Civil War commemorative 

component, along with other features 

associated with NPS management functions. In spite of the modern intrusions 

created by Interstate Highway 270 and 

contemporary suburban sprawl on 

adjacent lands, Monocacy National 

Battlefield preserves a unique “crossroads community” whose diverse history spans more than 250 years. These 

landscape layers combine to result in a 

high level of integrity, character, and 

feeling. 

Historic Structures 

Monocacy National Battlefield contains 

a number of historic structures, buildings, and other features that reflect the 

history of the site and contribute to the 

battlefield’s national significance. 

Among the buildings are a variety of 

historic farmhouses, barns, and 

outbuildings, as well as nonhistoric 

buildings that are used for administrative or maintenance functions. Other 

structures are monuments, fences, 

earthworks, bridges, road traces, and 

other constructed elements. 

Buildings are among the most prominent constructed features on the 

battlefield landscape. A number of these 

buildings were present during the 1864 

battle, although most have been altered 

since that time. Additional post-Civil 

War buildings augment these earlier 

buildings and contribute to the rural, 

agrarian character of the battlefield. 

Two of the battlefield’s component 

properties, the Best and Thomas farms, 

contain 18th century structures, and all 

six properties have extant structures 

that date to the 19th century. 

The Best Farm contains structures from 

the late 18th and early 19th centuries. 

Late 18th century buildings attributed to 

the Vincendière family’s tenure on the 

property are the large main house, a 

secondary stone and log dwelling, and a 

stone barn. Two more historic structures, a wagon shed/corn crib and a log 

outbuilding, were built in the mid to late 

19th century. The Best Farm also contains a 20th century well or pump house. 

The Gambrill tract contains two historic 

buildings, a house and a stone mill now 

in use as a visitor center. The mill 

building dates to 1830, and although it 

has been greatly altered from its original 

appearance, it is the primary surviving 

element of a substantial milling complex. Additional structures associated 

with the mill include remnants of a dam 

on Bush Creek, raceway and tailrace. 

The ca. 1872 house is a large, Second 

Empire style brick mansion that retains a 

high level of integrity. It does not date to 

the Civil War period, but it is nonetheless an important historic feature. 

The Thomas Farm contains several 18th 

and 19th century buildings. The Thomas 

House is a large brick dwelling constructed ca. 1780 with subsequent renovations and alterations during the 19th and 

20th centuries. A smaller stone 

secondary house also exists that may 

126 
Impact Topics — Resources That Could Be Affected 

date to the 18th or 19th century. It has 

been significantly altered over time, but 

its use as a servant or tenant dwelling 

during the 19th century is well 

documented. 

Other domestic outbuildings are a brick 

building of indeterminate age and frame 

shed that probably dates to the 19th 

century. The farm also contains several 

post-Civil War 19th century agricultural 

buildings, including a Pennsylvania style 

timber frame bank barn with an associated brick silo and a timber frame corn 

crib. 

Two mid-20th century concrete block 

houses also stand on the Thomas Farm, 

one along Araby Church Road in front 

of the property and one on Baker Valley 

Road along the lane to the barn. At the 

intersection of Araby Church Road and 

MD 355 sits a two-story frame dwelling 

popularly known as the Toll House. 

Although it may date to the late 19th or 

early 20th century, this structure has 

been significantly altered and lacks 

historical integrity. In addition, it is 

likely that it was moved to its current 

location from another site. 

The Lewis Farm contains four historic 

buildings — a ca. 1850 log house with a 

late 19th/early 20th century frame 

addition, a barn, a wagon shed, and a 

springhouse that probably date to the 

late 19th century. Although the Lewis 

Farm has been significantly affected by 

the construction of Interstate 270, its 

surviving buildings maintain the site’s 

agrarian character. 

The Worthington House (ca. 1851) is 

the only extant historic building that 

remains at the Worthington Farm. 

Exterior restoration of the house was 

completed in 2004. The unrestored 

interior retains a number of important 

architectural features, most notably 

decorative trompe l’oeil decorative 

painting in the entrance hall and parlor. 

The Baker Farm contains several late 

19th and early 20th century structures, 

as well as several modern buildings. The 

main house dates to 1914, but it 

probably was built on the foundations of 

an earlier dwelling. Near the main house 

stand a smokehouse, a milk house, and a 

dairy barn, all built of rusticated 

concrete block and dating from the first 

half of the 20th century. A frame bank 

barn and a brick silo also are extant; they 

date to the mid or late 19th century. 

Several modern buildings, including 

concrete stave silos, an equipment shed, 

and a breeding barn also are present. 

Associated with these farmsteads are the 

railroad, the railroad junction, roads, 

road traces, farm lanes, bridges, and 

other transportation features that 

crisscross the battlefield. Many of these 

features, particularly the railroad, the 

railroad junction, and the bridges and 

highways played a significant role in the 

events leading up to and including the 

Battle of Monocacy. Although the 

alignment and materials of some of these 

transportation features have been 

altered over time, their settings and 

association remain essentially intact. 

Other structures are the surviving 

earthworks in the battlefield’s Civil War 

defenses area. Such features — the only 

structural artifacts left from the Battle of 

Monocacy — are important interpretive 

resources. Other battlefield features are 

the five commemorative monuments 

erected between 1907 and 1964, which 

127 
91B2915BCHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

reflect efforts by both individuals and 

organizations to commemorate the 

events of 1864 battle. 

VISITOR USE AND 

INTERPRETATION 

Background 

Monocacy National Battlefield was first 

opened to visitors in 1991. A new full 

service visitor center for the national 

battlefield opened in 2007. An information desk, an electric map program, a cooperating association sales 

outlet, two floors of exhibits, restrooms, 

meeting space and offices can 

accommodate several busloads of 

visitors. Visitation has risen from 

approximately 8,000 the first year to 

more than 21,000visitors in 2007. 

A brochure available at the visitor center 

directs visitors to a chronological, selfguiding auto tour of the battlefield. It 

first leads them to the Best Farm, where 

the initial Confederate assault along the 

Georgetown Pike was halted when the 

covered bridge over the Monocacy 

River was burned. 

At the next stop, Monocacy Junction, 

visitors learn about the physical relationship between the railroad, the river, 

and the Georgetown Pike and see how 

those physical features affected the 

military actions throughout the day of 

the battle. Then they drive to the Worthington Farm, where the Confederate 

“flanking movement” is interpreted. At 

the final stop, the Thomas Farm, visitors 

could learn how the Confederates 

engaged in some of what many soldiers 

said was the heaviest infantry fighting 

they encountered in the entire war. 

Finally, the Union line was broken and 

the Federal forces retreated past 

Gambrill’s Mill. 

Wayside exhibits complement the 

visitor experience at each stop on the 

auto tour and at nearby locations. 

Additional opportunities exist in the 

form of walking trails at the Thomas 

Farm, the Gambrill Mill, and the 

Worthington Farm. 

Special interpretive events are offered, 

usually in summer, to attract more 

visitors to the national battlefield and to 

reach out to new audiences. These 

events often focus on specific themes or 

activities and sometimes complement a 

Civil War event that relates to Monocacy as well as a nearby site (for example, 

Lee’s lost order and the Battle of 

Antietam). 

Visitor Facilities and Safety 

To ensure that national battlefield 

resources are protected and not endangered, public activities are evaluated 

for appropriateness before they are 

permitted. All activities and experiences 

are planned with the safety of visitors 

and employees in mind. This includes 

training, proper care and maintenance 

of equipment, and attention to safety 

codes. 

THE SOCIOECONOMIC 

ENVIRONMENT 

Study Area 

The study area for this plan has been 

defined as Frederick County, Maryland. 

Monocacy National Battlefield, which is 

in the southern third of the county, is 

served by several major north-south and 

east-west roadways: U. S. Interstates 70 

and 270; U.S. Highways 15, 40, and 340; 

128 
Impact Topics — Resources That Could Be Affected 

and Maryland Highways, 85, 144, 180, 

and 355. The CSX Railroad runs 

through Monocacy National Battlefield, 

with a spur line into Frederick. 

Scheduled commuter rail is available 

from Washington, D.C. No scheduled 

airlines use Frederick Municipal 

Airport. 

Frederick, the only incorporated community in the county with more than 

10,000 people (52,767), lies 44 miles 

north of Washington, D.C. and 51 miles 

west of Baltimore. 

The national battlefield is at the 

southern edge of a heavily developed 

commercial area south of the city of 

Frederick. On the north boundary is an 

office complex and a lumber yard. 

Across the Monocacy River on the west 

boundary are industrial development 

and warehouses. The land on the east 

boundary is a mix of heavily forested 

land, agricultural fields, and singlefamily homes. Land on the south is still 

mostly agricultural, with some residential development mainly along MD 

355 in the Araby Church rural village. 

Residential development is encroaching 

from the south as the planned 

community of Urbana expands north. 

Frederick County 

Frederick County lies within the 

Washington, D.C.–Maryland–Virginia–

West Virginia metropolitan area. The 

2000 population for Frederick County 

was 195,277. Its racial composition was 

89.3% white (compared to 64% for the 

entire state of Maryland and 75.1% for 

the United States as a whole), 6.4% 

black (or African American) (27.9% for 

Maryland, 12.3% for the nation), 1.7% 

Asian descent (4% for Maryland, 3.6% 

for the nation), and 2.4% Hispanic or 

Latino descent (4.3% for Maryland, 

12.5% for the nation). County public 

school enrollment was 43,418, with an 

additional 10,587 in college or graduate 

school. The median household income 

was $60,276 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 

1999). The 1999 per capita income was 

$25,404, which was 99.2% of the state 

and 118% of the U.S. average. From 

1989 to 2000, the average annual growth 

rate in per capita income was about 

5.7% (by comparison, the statewide 

growth rate for per capita income was 

4.4%). In 1999, 4.5% of Frederick 

County residents lived below the 

poverty line (compared to 8.5% for the 

state of Maryland and 12.4% for the 

United States). 

There were approximately 107,151 

people aged 16 or more in the labor 

force in 2000. The unemployment rate 

was 2.2%, or 3,289 individuals. The 

largest employers were in the census 

categories of educational, health and 

social services (18.4%), professional, 

scientific, management, administrative, 

and waste management services 

(12.7%), retail (11.6%), construction 

(10.1%), manufacturing (8.5%), finance, 

insurance, real estate, and rental and 

leasing (8.2%), and public 

administration (7.9%). 

Frederick County had a total of 73,017 

housing units in 2000, of which 75.9% 

were owner-occupied. 

Frederick, with 52,767 people, is the 

largest city in Frederick County. It was 

incorporated as a municipal corporation 

in which the chief executive officer is 

the mayor and the legislative body is the 

129 
91B2915BCHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

board of aldermen. The city provides 

police and fire protection. 

Although Monocacy National Battlefield facilities are served by individual 

septic systems, Frederick County has 

sewer and water lines that run across the 

national battlefield. Water and sewer 

lines run parallel east-west along the 

river through the national battlefield, 

with branch lines that cross the 

Monocacy River running south along 

Bush Creek to Urbana. 

Electrical power is provided by 

Allegheny Power, which has lines along 

MD 355, Araby, and Baker roads 

through the national battlefield. 

Nearby communities are Bartonsville 

(population 800) and the unincorporated Urbana, Buckeystown, and 

Ijamsville. 

TRANSPORTATION, ACCESS, 

AND CIRCULATION 

Background 

The discussion of transportation in this 

document covers the effect on regional 

and local transportation networks 

surrounding and traveling through the 

national battlefield. It also includes the 

battlefield’s existing transportation 

network of trails, roads, and parking 

areas. Access and circulation is a critical 

component of this topic. 

Regional Transportation Networks 

The great population and employment 

growth occurring in the region has 

placed ever greater demands on the 

region’s highway and transit networks. 

The several regional transportation 

networks that surround and cross 

Monocacy National Battlefield are 

described below. 

Interstate Highway 270. Built during 

the 1950s, I-270 is a multilane expressway and a vital link between I-70 in 

Frederick County and the I-495 Beltway 

that surrounds Washington, D.C. The 

1998 average daily traffic (ADT) 

volumes in the Frederick area were 

recorded at 71,250 ADT. Traffic volume 

projections for 2025 show a 76% growth 

rate, or 125,600 ADT (per Draft I-270/US 

15 Multi Modal Corridor Study 

Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. 

Dept. of Transp. and Maryland Dept. of 

Transp. 2002). Unfortunately, this road 

corridor passes through the heart of the 

national battlefield, bisecting areas of 

major engagement between the 

Confederate and Union forces on the 

Worthington and Thomas farm fields. 

The view of and noise from I-270 dominates the landscape and detracts from 

the contemplative atmosphere of the 

national battlefield, making it difficult 

for visitors to visualize troop movements 

and major points of engagement. The 

highway also creates a major physical 

barrier to effective circulation between 

farmsteads. 

The Maryland State Highway 

Administration has commissioned an 

environmental impact study (currently 

underway) to develop alternatives and 

assess the impacts of plans to relieve 

congestion and improve safety along 

this corridor. Some alternatives would 

involve widening the expressway to 

create high occupancy lanes (HOV) or 

more general purpose lanes. This could 

result in the addition of four more lanes 

to the expressway, which would entail 

130 
Impact Topics — Resources That Could Be Affected 

acquiring more right-of-way. Such an 

action would take valuable battlefield 

real estate, exacerbating the existing 

visual and audible intrusion of the 

highway. 

Maryland Highway 355 (Urbana 

Pike). Maryland Highway 355 (the 

Urbana Pike), a two-lane rural major 

collector road, is one of the most heavily 

traveled roads in the region. The highway, which parallels I-270, serves as an 

alternate north-south commuter route 

(especially when I-270 is unusually 

congested). Steep grades, rolling terrain, 

poor sight ditance, and many private 

entrances restrict its traffic-carrying 

capacity. In addition to the through 

commuter traffic, Urbana Pike also 

serves local traffic traveling between 

Urbana and Frederick. 

In 2003 the National Park Service 

contracted for a transportation study 

and requested that the contractor 

examine the existing traffic circulation 

and develop alternatives for improving 

circulation in the battlefield. The 

“Monocacy National Battlefield 

Transportation Plan” prepared by 

HNTB Corporation involved traffic 

counts on MD 355 in September 2003, 

which recorded an average daily traffic 

volume northbound of approximately 

5,500 ADT. Southbound traffic was 

almost 36% higher, at 7,500 ADT, for a 

total volume of 13,000 ADT (HNTB 

Corporation 2003). This compares with 

the volumes published in the 2001 

Frederick County volume map prepared 

by the Maryland Highway Administration. The map shows Urbana Pike (MD 

355) with an annual average daily traffic 

volume of 17,875 to the north of the 

battlefield and 8,675 to the south of the 

battlefield. 

Speed studies indicate that 30%–42% of 

the traffic volume exceeds the posted 

speed of 50 miles per hour. The accident 

rate for the stretch of MD 355 that 

travels through the national battlefield is 

comparable to the statewide rate but 

higher than the county rate. 

Urbana Pike gives access to a number of 

major battlefield features — the visitor 

center, Best Farm, Gambrill Mill, 

Monocacy River, Araby Church Road, 

and the 14th New Jersey, Daughters of 

the Confederacy, and Maryland 

monuments. 

CSX Railroad. The CSX Railroad, 

known as the B&O Railroad at the time 

of the battle, maintains its mainline 

operation along the original railroad 

alignment, which parallels Bush Creek 

in a southeast-northwest alignment until 

it crosses the Monocacy River, then it 

approaches Frederick Junction, where it 

angles into more of a west-southwest 

alignment paralleling the Monocacy 

River. This once vital link for conveying 

Union troops to Frederick Junction just 

ahead of the Confederate advance on 

Washington is now a vital link for 

modern freight transportation on the 

largest rail network in the eastern 

United States. 

CSX Transportation, a subsidiary of the 

CSX Corporation, which maintains 

operation of the CSX railroad, is 

headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. 

The romantic notion of witnessing rail 

traffic along this historic alignment enhances the visitor experience, but it 

poses a physical barrier and safety 

hazard for visitors seeking access to 

131 
91B2915BCHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

some battlefield features north of the 

railroad. The railroad bridge over the 

Monocacy River is an attractive means 

of reaching the area, but this way is 

hazardous and illegal. 

The railroad, in its commitment to 

employee and public safety, is firmly 

opposed to establishing any at-grade 

crossing. Both federal and state government policies discourage the creation of 

new at-grade crossings. In the alternatives of this plan, if crossing the railroad 

right-of-way was necessary to reach 

battlefield features, at-grade crossings 

would be avoided, and bridge alternatives would be pursued. This could 

include either a bridge over the CSX 

right-of-way or a bridge under the CSX 

right-of-way adjacent to the CSX bridge 

abutment on the south bank of the 

Monocacy River. 

Maryland Rail Commuter Service. 

The Maryland Rail Commuter (MARC) 

Brunswick Line, a commuter rail service 

operated by Maryland Transit 

Administration (MTA), has been 

extended into Frederick, with passenger 

service beginning in December 2001. It 

provides train service from Frederick to 

Union Station in Washington, D.C. 

Three morning departures from 

Frederick at leave at 5:17, 6:10, and 7:15; 

three afternoon return trips from 

Washington depart at 3:55, 5:10, and 

6:25. The approximate running time is 1 

hour and 25 minutes, with one-way fares 

costing $6.50. There are two stations in 

Frederick, one in downtown Frederick 

and one at Monocacy Station, which 

was recently developed just north of the 

national battlefield. Monocacy Station 

has a parking capacity of 800 spaces. 

Local Transportation Networks 

The two county roads described below 

are on the south side of the national 

battlefield; they provide access and 

circulation for battlefield visitors and 

local residents. 

Araby Church Road. Araby Church 

Road, formerly part of the original Old 

Georgetown Pike alignment during the 

time of battle, is a low volume, two-lane 

paved county road. It accesses MD 355 

opposite the entrance to the Gambrill 

Mill and runs 2.5 miles to the south, 

where it ends at a second intersection 

with MD 355. During a 2003 transportation study conducted by HNTB, the 

recorded average daily traffic volumes 

northbound were approximately 200 

ADT; the southbound traffic was 243 

ADT, for a total traffic volume of 443 

ADT. This road principally is used for 

access to the Thomas Farm, the Pennsylvania Monument, Baker Valley Road, 

and a number of single family homes. 

Baker Valley Road. Baker Valley Road 

is a low volume, two-lane paved county 

road that parallels the Monocacy River 

and travels under the I-270 corridor 

between Araby Church Road and MD 

80. During the 2003 transportation 

study, the recorded average daily traffic 

volumes eastbound were approximately 

454 ADT; westbound traffic was 562 

ADT, for a total volume of 1,016 ADT. A 

number of battlefield features can be 

reached from this road, including the 

10th Vermont Monument, the Thomas, 

Worthington, Lewis, and Baker farms, 

and a number of single family homes.

132 
Impact Topics — Resources That Could Be Affected 

Battlefield Transportation Networks 

Few access roads are available in the 

national battlefield, and there is little 

parking. Most of the principal access 

ways are existing county and state roads. 

For farmsteads, existing historic access 

routes such as farm lanes or driveways 

have been used to reach NPS properties. 

Unfortunately, the transportation 

networks such as I-270, MD 355, and 

the CSX railroad act as physical barriers 

to effective circulation in the national 

battlefield, making it difficult to connect 

various features of the battlefield. 

Access Roads and Parking. Each of the 

five farmsteads in the national battlefield 

has gravel farm lane access from existing 

county roads or a state highway. The 

Worthington, Thomas, Lewis, and Baker 

farms use Baker Valley Road; the Best 

Farm is reached via Urbana Pike (MD 

355). The Thomas farm also has a formal 

paved driveway giving access to Araby 

Church Road. Gambrill Mill has a paved 

access road to Urbana Pike (MD 355).

Gambrill Mill is reached by a paved 

driveway that leads to a small parking 

area near the mill. The drive continues 

on to the Gambrill House at the top of 

the hill. The battlefield maintenance 

structure also can be reached by a gravel 

road from this drive, just north of the 

Gambrill Mill. The parking area near the 

mill has space for 12 cars plus 2 spaces 

for “handicapped” parking. There are 

no spaces for oversized vehicles; buses 

or recreational vehicles must be parked 

along the road shoulder and go up to the 

Gambrill House to turn around. More 

parking areas are available for administrative or operational purposes, one 

near the east side of the mill; a gravel lot 

near the maintenance building; and two 

parking areas near the house, one paved 

and the other gravel surfaced. 

No formal parking areas are available 

for the battlefield’s five monuments, 

although there is an access road to the 

14th New Jersey Monument. All others 

can be reached by pulling the cars off 

onto the shoulder of adjacent roadways. 

Trails. There are three interpretive 

hiking trails in the battlefield. The 

Worthington Farm trail starts at a small 

five-vehicle parking area off Baker 

Valley road. There are no spaces for 

oversized vehicles; bus tours are 

escorted up to the Worthington house. 

The trail follows the gravel farm lane for 

0.8 mile to the Worthington farmhouse, 

where there are two loop trails. The 

Worthington-McKinney Ford loop, 

which is 1.6 miles long, takes visitors 

down to and along the Monocacy River, 

where the Confederates forded the river 

and staged their troops for the 

upcoming assault on the Union flank. 

The trail ends back at the Worthington 

Farmhouse. The Brooks Hill Loop, 1.9 

miles long, takes visitors up to and along 

Brooks Hill before returning to the 

house.

The second interpretive hiking trail 

starts at the parking area of the Gambrill 

Mill. This 0.5 mile loop trail parallels the 

Monocacy River and offers views of the 

B&O railroad bridge before turning east 

to parallel Bush Creek. The trail turns 

back to the Gambrill Mill at an old 

wagon road that once crossed Bush 

Creek to connect Georgetown Pike with 

Reels Mill Road to the northeast, which 

gave the Union Troops an avenue of 

retreat from the Confederate advance. 

133 
91B2915BCHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The third trail, the Thomas Farm Trail, 

is a loop trail that begins and ends on the 

Thomas Farm. It crosses an open field 

following an old road trace between the 

Thomas and Worthington farms. Where 

the trace has been truncated by I-270, 

the trail turns northeast following the 

tree line, then southeast and southwest 

along the fenceline, reconnecting to the 

trace and returning to the farmstead. 

NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD 

OPERATIONS 

The Staff 

Monocacy National Battlefield is a 

relatively new National Park Service 

area. Visitation began in 1991 with the 

opening of the Gambrill Mill visitor 

contact station. It was replaced in 2007 

by a full-service visitor center. 

The national battlefield is administered 

by a superintendent, with a support staff 

of 14 employees. The permanent support staff consists of a chief of resource 

education and visitor services, three 

interpretive park rangers, two law 

enforcement rangers, one natural 

resource manager, one cultural resource 

manager, one facility manager, three 

maintenance workers, and one historian 

/ NPS liaison with the Catoctin Center. 

This permanent staff is augmented by 

additional seasonal staff and a corps of 

volunteers. 

Resource Education 

and Visitor Services 

The Division of Resource Education 

and Visitor Services is responsible for 

interpreting identified national battlefield themes, offering education services 

for diverse audiences, and giving visitors 

information and orientation through 

personal and nonpersonal services such 

as the national battlefield’s Web site, 

publications, exhibits, and the 

Volunteers-in-Parks program. 

The Monocacy National Battlefield 

interpreters operate out of offices in the 

new visitor center. During operating 

hours the information desk is staffed by 

an interpretive ranger or a volunteer. 

The person at the information desk 

serves as the center of interpretive 

activities, greeting visitors, operating the 

book sales outlet, and answering 

questions about the national battlefield 

and its history. 

School groups generally pre-schedule 

their visits to the battlefield. Typically a 

school group will be assigned an interpretive ranger, who will explain the 

site’s history and its importance to 

American history. In favorable weather 

these groups are accommodated outside, but during inclement weather such 

groups can be accommodated in the 

new visitor center. 

Resource and Visitor Protection 

The state of Maryland and the National 

Park Service share concurrent jurisdiction over lands within the legislative 

boundary of Monocacy National 

Battlefield. NPS rangers enforce federal 

and state laws within the boundaries. 

The Maryland State Police, the Maryland Department of Natural Resource 

Police, the Frederick County Sheriff’s 

Department, and the Frederick City 

Police Department help the rangers with 

incidents when necessary. 

134 
Impact Topics — Resources That Could Be Affected 

Roads that run through the national 

battlefield are MD 355, I-270, the Baker 

Valley Road, and Araby Church Road. 

Motor vehicle accidents, which are 

frequent, are investigated primarily by 

the Maryland State Police and the 

Frederick County Sheriff’s Department. 

Several small NPS lanes within the 

boundary are open to vehicle traffic, and 

any accidents that occur on those roads 

or that damage NPS resources or 

property are investigated by NPS 

rangers. Rangers also assist state and 

local authorities with traffic control and 

patient care associated with traffic 

accidents that occur on state or county 

roads. 

Crimes that can harm NPS resources in 

the national battlefield are vandalism to 

historic structures, illegal relic hunting, 

trash dumping, and wildlife poaching. 

NPS rangers monitor these activities and 

apprehend violators. Most parking areas 

that are adjacent to state and county 

roadways are closed in the evening to 

deter vandalism and crimes. The 

Monocacy Junction and river access lots 

are not easily gated because of rights-ofway held by CSX and their proximity to 

MD 355; those areas become attractive 

spots for after-hours illegal activities. 

Recreational use of the Monocacy River, 

which runs through the national battlefield, is common. Popular activities are 

fishing, tubing, and canoeing. Rangers 

patrol the river on foot and by vehicle. 

The most common violations observed 

are fishing violations, littering, possession of alcohol in a closed area, pets 

off leash, and closure violations (the 

battlefield is closed after dark). Other 

violations include illegal camping and 

possession or use of controlled 

dangerous substances. The river accounts for a large percentage of case 

incident reports completed by NPS 

rangers. 

Monocacy National Battlefield’s 

operating hours generally follow 

daylight patterns, so that the battlefield 

is open for more hours in summer. The 

gates are locked after hours to secure 

areas. The primary law enforcement 

concerns are resource violations such as 

hunting, metal detection, and closure 

violations. The increasing urbanization 

and development has led to increasing 

crime; this is a concern from the 

perspective of resource management 

and visitor protection. 

Resource Management 

The resource management divisions are 

primarily concerned with identifying, 

protecting, and interpreting the battlefield’s cultural and natural resources. 

The national battlefield’s resource 

management team at present consists of 

one natural resource manager and one 

cultural resource manager. 

Although the natural and cultural 

resource divisions sometimes have 

different priorities with regard to 

resource management, they share three 

central goals — (a) to discover the 

significance or meaning of each 

resource, (b) to slow the rate at which 

the essential qualities of a resource are 

lost or altered, (c) to support the use and 

enjoyment of cultural and natural 

resources while minimizing negative 

effects on them. Although the 

corresponding activities are emphasized 

differently within the divisions, the 

135 
91B2915BCHAPTER 3:THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

136 

foundation of natural and cultural 

resource management can be summarized as three broad functions: 

research, planning, and stewardship. 

Research begins by locating and evaluating cultural and natural resources 

through historical analysis and detailed 

physical examination. It can include 

establishing baseline information about 

natural or cultural resources, determining the significance or integrity of a 

resource, or documenting existing 

conditions. 

Planning addresses the basic question of 

how to best care for natural and cultural 

resources while allowing the public to 

enjoy them. 

Stewardship consists of executing 

systematic, responsible actions that will 

directly affect cultural or natural 

resources, and it is the result of sound 

research and planning efforts. Stewardship, which seeks to limit the loss of the 

character-defining attributes of the 

battlefield’s cultural or natural 

resources, results in the perpetuation 

and appreciation of these resources. 

Facility Management 

The maintenance division is responsible 

for the preservation and maintenance of 

a variety of national battlefield structures and cultural resources. The 

division faces the challenging task of 

slowing or preventing decay in the 51 

historic structures listed on the national 

battlefield’s list of classified structures. 

The division also must also operate and 

maintain all the other more modern 

national battlefield facilities and 

equipment — utilities (water, wastewater, power, and solid waste), structures, grounds, fences, monuments, 

visitor use areas, trail systems, picnic 

areas, roads, signs, vehicles, and other 

features of the battlefield. This also 

includes managing projects and 

contracts, along with janitorial services. 

Current asset condition of park facilities 

as reported 7/2005 through the NPS 

Facility Management Software System 

(FMSS) indicates the battlefield has a 

total deferred maintenance backlog of 

over $6 million. (This does not include 

the deferred maintenance needs for the 

Gambrill House as this structure is 

maintained by the NPS Historic 

Preservation Training Center). Over 

73% of this backlog represents the 

estimated need to rehabilitate the 

battlefield’s historic structures, many of 

which have been recently acquired. 

Every fiscal year, park staff have 

requested and received funding to 

systematically reduce this backlog. It is 

expected that this trend will continue 

until the deferred maintenance backlog 

has been eliminated. 

(blank back of divider) 
INTRODUCTION 

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

requires that environmental documents 

include discussion of the environmental 

impacts of a proposed federal action, 

feasible alternatives to that action, and 

any adverse environmental effects that 

could not be avoided if a proposed 

action should be implemented. The 

proposed federal action in this case 

would be the adoption of a general 

management plan for Monocacy 

National Battlefield. This chapter contains the analysis of the environmental 

effects on cultural resources, the visitor 

experience, the socioeconomic 

environment, and national battlefield 

operations that would result from the 

actions of each of the four alternatives. 

The analysis is the basis for comparing 

the beneficial and adverse effects that 

would be caused by each alternative. 

Because the actions described in the 

alternatives are general and conceptual, 

the impacts of these actions are analyzed 

in general qualitative terms. Thus, this 

environmental impact statement should 

be considered a programmatic analysis. 

If and when site-specific developments 

or other actions are proposed for implementation after the Final General 

Management Plan is published, 

appropriate detailed environmental and 

cultural compliance documentation will 

be prepared in accordance with the 

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the National 

Historic Preservation Act. 

For each topic in this chapter, first, the 

methods and assumptions are described, 

then the effects on the topic that would 

occur from each alternative are 

analyzed. Each alternative discussion 

also includes a description of the 

cumulative effects, followed by a 

conclusion. At the end of the impact 

section there is a brief discussion of the 

unavoidable adverse impacts, 

irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources, the relationship of 

short-term uses of the environment and 

the maintenance and enhancement of 

long-term productivity, and the energy 

requirements and conservation 

potential. The impacts of each 

alternative are briefly summarized in 

table 3. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

A cumulative impact is described in the 

regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality (1508.7) as 

follows: 

“Cumulative impact” is the impact 

on the environment which results 

from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency (Federal 

or non-Federal) or person 

undertakes such other actions. 

Cumulative impacts can result 

from individually minor but 

collectively significant actions 

taking place over a period of time. 

To determine potential cumulative 

impacts, projects in and around 

Monocacy National Battlefield were 

identified. The area included Frederick 

139 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

County, Maryland. Projects were determined by meetings and telephone calls 

with county and town governments and 

state land managers. Potential projects 

identified as cumulative actions were 

any planning or development activity in 

progress or that would be implemented 

in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

The effects of past actions also were 

considered in the analysis. 

The projects discussed above were 

evaluated in conjunction with the effects 

of each alternative to determine if they 

would result in any cumulative effects 

on a particular natural, cultural, or 

socioeconomic resource or visitor use. 

Because most of these cumulative 

actions are in the early planning stages, 

the qualitative evaluation of cumulative 

impacts was based on a general 

description of the project. 

Past Actions 

A significant change to Monocacy’s 

cultural landscape occurred in 1951 with 

the construction of Route 240, now 

known as Interstate Highway 270. 

Approximately 2 miles of the road were 

built through what is now the national 

battlefield. The four-lane highway bisected the heart of the battlefield, 

causing significant alterations of the 

landscape. Property boundaries were 

reconfigured, new access roads were 

built to replace blocked historic lanes, 

and all connection between the Worthington and Thomas Farms was lost. 

The view of this road and the noise it 

produces dominate the landscape and 

detract from the contemplative 

atmosphere of the battlefield. Visitors 

have trouble visualizing troop 

movements and the major points of 

engagement; thus, the visitor experience 

is degraded. In sum, the highway cuts 

the battlefield landscape virtually in two, 

destroying the integrity of the setting of 

the final battle phase. 

With the completion of the interstate 

highway, the Georgetown Pike (or 

Urbana Pike), which by 1937 had been 

renamed Maryland Highway 355, no 

longer was the primary road between 

Washington, D.C., and Frederick. The 

addition of I-270 encouraged more suburban growth in the region when the 

highway became the primary northsouth commuting route between 

Washington and Frederick. Sprawling 

low-density development grew within 

the boundaries of the towns and villages 

or along rural roads surrounding the 

battlefield. 

When the National Park Service bought 

the Gambrill House, it was in a state of 

disrepair. Rehabilitation undertaken by 

the Historic Preservation Training 

Center preserved the structural integrity 

and many of its historic architectural 

elements. These activities, which were 

generally beneficial, resulted in no adverse effect. 

In the first half of the 20th century the 

Gambrill Mill was heavily affected by 

the removal of its third story and the 

milling machinery and water features 

associated with its original mill function. 

After the National Park Service acquired 

the mill, the interior of the structure was 

rehabilitated for use as administrative 

offices for the national battlefield. The 

building’s interior and exterior retain 

little resemblance to the period of its 

historic use. 

140 
Introduction 

Frederick County is one of the fastest 

growing counties in the Washington 

metropolitan area. Over the past 20 

years significant development has 

encroached on the north and west 

boundaries of the national battlefield, 

altering many of the visual, circulatory, 

and auditory elements of the agricultural 

landscape between the city of Frederick 

and the battlefield, an adverse effect on 

the landscape. 

Water and sewer lines have been constructed through Monocacy National 

Battlefield with easements that allow for 

added or enlarged lines within the rightof way. Frederick County will construct 

a water transmission main across the 

Best Farm in 2005, parallel to an existing 

sewer line and in that easement. 

Several utility easements were in place in 

the battlefield before the National Park 

Service acquired the properties. As a 

result of this infrastructure, the National 

Park Service will be pressured to keep 

expanding water and sewer lines 

through the national battlefield as 

population continues to grow and more 

water resources are needed, particularly 

because of the potential of the Urbana 

Planned Utility District to double in size 

from 4,000 housing units to 8,000. A 

parallel 36-inch line is proposed along 

Baker Valley Road for the future. This 

would cause great impacts on the Baker 

and Thomas farms. 

Current Actions 

A new visitor center for the national 

battlefield opened during the spring of 

2007. The center houses interpretive 

exhibits and office space for the 

interpretive staff. It is on the east side of 

MD 355 at the extreme northern end of 

the national battlefield. With the 

opening of the new visitor center, the 

previous visitor contact station in the 

Gambrill Mill is now available for hosting school groups or for classrooms. 

The building and parking area for the 

new visitor center cover some 

agricultural land, increasing development and the intensity of visitor use 

there, but adds major enhancements of 

the information and interpretation 

available to visitors. 

Future Actions 

With the addition of facilities and the 

execution of actions described in this 

plan, and as Monocacy National 

Battlefield becomes better known, 

visitation to the national battlefield 

probably would increase. The effect on 

the community probably would be 

substantial. Traffic would increase in 

and around the battlefield both because 

of more visitation and because 

communities around the national 

battlefield would grow. This would add 

congestion to the roadways. 

The sale of goods and services to 

national battlefield visitors by local 

businesses could be substantial for 

nearby businesses but small in 

comparison to the Frederick business 

community as a whole. 

The proposed widening of the I-270 

corridor through the national battlefield 

(as part of the Multi-Modal Corridor 

Study discussed on page 23) would 

result in a major adverse impact on the 

battlefield’s cultural landscape. A wider 

swath of land through the national 

battlefield could be necessary; this 

141 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

would make the road — an already 

intrusive visual feature — more visible. 

As a possible mitigative action for this 

intrusion, the National Park Service 

would consider constructing a deck 

over a small part of I-270 (as described 

on page 84) to allow for a symbolic and 

actual reconnection between two of the 

national battlefield’s most significant 

resources, the Worthington and Thomas 

farmsteads. The deck, with crops and 

hedgerows, would mask a small section 

of highway. The effect of adding the 

deck would not be adverse. 

In preparing this plan, the National Park 

Service considered the effects of 

development outside the boundary of 

the national battlefield. Essentially, there 

is development on all but the southwest 

boundary. To the north are offices, large 

retail structures, and an enclosed 

shopping mall; on the east are parcels of 

subdivided land containing homes and 

home sites. The unincorporated 

community of Araby is adjacent to the 

south boundary, and a bit farther south 

is the rapidly developing town of 

Urbana. With more development comes 

traffic congestion on MD 355 and on 

Araby Church and Baker Valley roads. 

Pressure could be placed on the 

National Park Service to allow the 

widening of MD 355 through the 

national battlefield. Existing water and 

wastewater transmission lines through 

the national battlefield might need to be 

enlarged. 

With development increasing around 

the national battlefield, animal habitat 

would be lost and corridors into and out 

of the battlefield could become choked. 

Continued development would make 

farming in the area less viable, and 

retaining the area’s vanishing agrarian 

landscape would become more difficult. 

All these events would result in adverse 

effects on the landscape of the national 

battlefield. 

The creation of a state-of-the-art, 

environmentally friendly visitor facility 

has been proposed. Such a feature 

would be placed at the existing I-270 

overlook south of the national battlefield. This would be a separate project 

from the I-270 / U.S. 15 Multi-Modal 

Corridor Study. 

The effect on the national battlefield 

from the I-270 Overlook/ Demonstration project (described on p. 28) 

probably would be negligible. Visitors 

stopping at the site might receive information about the national battlefield 

and decide to visit there. The location of 

the proposed overlook is not visible 

from historic areas of the national 

battlefield, so there would be no effect 

on cultural resources. 

The effect of possibly removing 

administrative or maintenance facilities 

into rental space outside the national 

battlefield would not be adverse from a 

cultural resource perspective, and the 

long-term effect on the economy of 

Frederick would be negligible. 

Adding an alternative transportation 

system could result in moderate to 

major beneficial effects on local traffic, 

depending on the hours of its operation 

and whether the use of the system was 

mandatory or optional. 

142 
Introduction 

IMPAIRMENT OF RESOURCES 

In addition to determining the 

environmental consequences of the 

alternatives, NPS policy requires that 

the potential effects be analyzed to 

determine whether or not proposed 

actions would impair the resources or 

values of the park system unit (in this 

case, Monocacy National Battlefield). 

The fundamental purpose of the 

national park system, established by the 

Organic Act and reaffirmed by the 

General Authorities Act, as amended, 

begins with a mandate to conserve 

resources and values. NPS managers 

must always seek ways to avoid or to 

minimize, to the greatest degree practicable, any adverse impacts on the 

resources and values. 

However, the laws do give the National 

Park Service the management discretion 

to allow impacts on the resources and 

values when necessary and appropriate 

to fulfill the purposes of a park, as long 

as the impact does not constitute 

impairment of the affected resources 

and values. Although Congress has given 

the National Park Service this management discretion to allow certain impacts, 

that discretion is limited by the statutory 

requirement that the National Park 

Service must leave the resources and 

values unimpaired unless a particular 

law directly and specifically provides 

otherwise. 

The prohibited impairment is an impact 

that, in the professional judgment of the 

responsible NPS manager, would harm 

the integrity of the resources and values, 

including the opportunities that 

otherwise would be present for the 

enjoyment of those resources or values 

(NPS Management Policies 2006, 1.4.5). 

An impact on any resource or value may 

constitute impairment. An impact would 

be most likely to constitute an impairment if it affected a resource or value 

whose conservation would be (a) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation 

or proclamation of the national park 

system unit, (b) key to its natural or 

cultural integrity or to opportunities to 

enjoy it, or (c) identified as a goal in its 

general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents. 

Impairment might result from NPS 

management activities, visitor activities, 

or activities undertaken by concessioners, contractors, and others operating in 

the national battlefield. In this document, a determination about impairment 

is made in the conclusion section for 

each impact topic in the “Environmental 

Consequences” chapter, except that 

impairment findings are unnecessary for 

visitor use and experience (unless the 

impact would be resource based), for 

NPS operations, and for the 

socioeconomic environment. When it 

has been determined that and action or 

actions would result in moderate to 

major adverse effects, a justification for 

nonimpairment must be made. Effects of 

only negligible or minor intensity by 

definition would not result in 

impairment. 

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS 

FOR ASSESSING EFFECTS 

The planning team based the impact 

analysis and the conclusions in this 

chapter largely on the review of existing 

literature and studies, on information 

provided by experts in the National 

143 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

144 

Park Service and other agencies, and on 

the insights and professional judgment 

of the battlefield staff. The team’s 

method of analyzing impacts is further 

explained below. It is important to 

remember that all the impacts have been 

assessed with the assumption that 

mitigating measures would be 

implemented to minimize or avoid 

impacts. If the mitigating measures as 

described beginning on page 85 were 

not applied, the potential for resource 

impacts and the magnitude of those 

impacts would increase. 

NPS Director’s Order (DO) 12, 

Conservation Planning, Environmental 

Impact Analysis, and Decision-making,

presents an approach to identifying the 

duration (short term or long term), type 

(adverse or beneficial), and intensity or 

magnitude (negligible, minor, moderate, 

or major) of the impact(s), and that approach has been used in this document. 

When duration is not noted in the 

impact analysis, it is considered long 

term. Direct and indirect effects caused 

by an action were considered in the 

analysis. Direct effects are caused by an 

action and occur at the same time and 

place as the action. Indirect effects are 

caused by the action and occur later in 

time or farther removed from the place 

but are still reasonably foreseeable. 

The effects described for the action 

alternatives include a description of the 

difference between implementing the noaction alternative and implementing 

each action alternative. To comprehend 

a “full picture” of the effects of implementing any of the action alternatives, 

readers also must consider the effects 

that would result from the no-action 

alternative. 

CEQ regulations and NPS DO 12, 

Conservation Planning, Environmental 

Impact Analysis, and Decision-making,

also call for a discussion of the appropriateness of mitigation, as well as an 

analysis of how effective the mitigation 

would be in reducing the intensity of a 

potential impact. For example, would 

the intensity of an impact be reduced 

from major to moderate or minor? Any 

resultant reduction in the intensity of an 

impact by mitigation, however, is an 

estimate of the effectiveness of mitigation under the National Environmental 

Policy Act only. It does not suggest that 

the level of effect as defined by section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, would be 

similarly reduced. Although adverse 

effects under section 106 may be 

mitigated, the effect would remain 

adverse.
EFFECTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES 

METHODS FOR ASSESSING 

EFFECTS — NATIONAL REGISTER 

AND SECTION 106 

In accordance with the regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation on implementing section 

106 (36 CFR 800, “Protection of 

Historic Properties”), the potential 

impacts on cultural resources (historic 

structures and cultural landscapes) were 

identified and evaluated by (a) detemining the area of potential effects; (b) 

identifying cultural resources present in 

the area of potential effects that either 

are listed in or are eligible to be listed on 

the National Register of Historic Places; 

(c) applying the criteria of adverse effect 

to affected cultural resources; and (d) 

considering ways to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate adverse effects. 

Under the regulations of the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, a 

determination of no effect, adverse effect, 

or no adverse effect also must be made 

for affected cultural resources either 

listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places or eligible to be listed on 

the national register. A determination of 

no historic properties affected means either that no historic properties are 

present or that historic properties are 

present but the undertaking would not 

affect them. (36 CFR 800.4 (d)(1)). 

An adverse effect occurs whenever an 

action would alter, directly or indirectly, 

any characteristic of a cultural resource 

qualifying it for inclusion in the National 

Register of Historic Places in a manner 

that would diminish the integrity of the 

resource’s location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, or 

association. Adverse effects also can 

include reasonably foreseeable effects 

caused by the possible actions of an 

alternative that would occur later in 

time, be farther removed in distance, or 

be cumulative (36 CFR 800.5 (a) (1)). A 

determination of no adverse effect could 

mean that there would be an effect, but 

that the effect would not diminish in any 

way the characteristics of the cultural 

resource that qualify it for inclusion in 

the National Register of Historic Places 

(36 CFR 800.5 (b)). 

Thus, the criteria for characterizing the 

severity or intensity of effects on 

archeological resources, historic 

structures, and cultural landscapes listed 

in or eligible for listing in the national 

register are the section 106 determinations of effect: no historic properties 

affected, adverse effect, or no adverse 

effect. A determination of effect is 

mentioned in the conclusion sections 

for historic structures and cultural 

landscapes. 

PRESERVATION TREATMENTS 

Special preservation treatments are 

required for many historic structures in 

the national battlefield. The terms used 

to describe these treatments have 

specific definitions as delineated in the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

the Treatment of Historic Properties, with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes. That document defines the 

principles that federal agencies must 

follow when they stabilize or alter 

historic buildings, landscapes, or sites. 

Of the four levels of treatment, only two 

145 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

are proposed in this document — 

preservation and rehabilitation. 

Preservation is the process of applying 

measures necessary to sustain the 

existing form, integrity, and materials of 

a historic property. The work includes 

stabilizing the property and focuses on 

the ongoing maintenance and repair of 

historic materials and features. Preservation maintains the existing character 

of the resource. Most of the activity that 

takes place in Monocacy National 

Battlefield today is preservation — 

buildings, monuments, and landscapes 

are stabilized and repaired to maintain 

their existing character. 

Rehabilitation makes possible compatible uses for properties through their 

repair, alteration, and addition while 

preserving significant historic features 

that convey historical values. Rehabilitation identifies, protects, retains, and 

preserves historic features. Changes that 

have acquired significance in their own 

right generally are retained and preserved. Historic features that have been 

changed or have deteriorated may be 

repaired. Rehabilitation could also allow 

for the replacement of missing historic 

features like fences. Finally, rehabilitation permits alterations and additions 

for new use as long as the historic 

appearance and character are retained. 

EFFECTS ON HISTORIC 

BUILDINGS AND OTHER 

STRUCTURES 

Historic Structures Defined 

A historic building or structure is a constructed work consciously created to 

serve some human activity. Historic 

structures usually are immovable, 

although some have been relocated and 

others are mobile by design. They 

include buildings, monuments, dams, 

millraces, canals; bridges, roads, railroad 

tracks, and rolling stock. In some cases 

they comprise standing ruins of all 

structural types. 

The form nominating the Monocacy 

National Battlefield to the National 

Register of Historic Places has been 

revised recently. The revised form lists 

44 structures, monuments, and sites as 

contributing to the battlefield’s significance — houses, barns, outbuildings, 

and Civil War monuments. One of the 

structures, the Gambrill House, has 

been individually listed in the National 

Register of Historic Places. 

The National Park Service maintains a 

List of Classified Structures for all sites 

in the national park system. This list is 

the primary reference of building types, 

significance, condition, and recommended treatments. The current list of 

classified structures for Monocacy 

National Battlefield identifies 51 

structures. 

NPS DO 28, Cultural Resource 

Management Guideline prohibits the 

demolition or neglect of resources listed 

in or considered eligible for inclusion in 

the National Register of Historic Places 

or of structures for which the eligibility 

has not yet been determined, unless all 

other options have been found to be 

infeasible. Management policies prohibit the demolition of those structures 

unless it is necessary to eliminate an 

unacceptable intrusion or for public 

safety. 

146 
Effects on Cultural Resources 

Effects from Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Analysis. There would be no adverse 

effects from stabilizing historic structures not used for interpretation or 

national battlefield operations to preserve and protect them from further 

deterioration. Stabilizing and preserving 

the main houses and outbuildings on the 

Best, Thomas, Lewis, and Worthington 

farms would result in no adverse effects 

on these structures. 

Continuing the existing agreement with 

the Historic Preservation Training 

Center for the use of the Gambrill 

House would result in no changes, and 

no historic properties would be affected. 

The ongoing maintenance of monuments would result in a determination of 

no effect. 

Keeping administrative offices and 

functions on the second floor of the 

Gambrill Mill would result in continued 

crowding and inadequate storage. Since 

this structure contains little historic 

fabric, it would not be adversely 

affected. 

Cumulative Effects. No cumulative 

effects on historic buildings and other 

structures (as defined earlier in this 

chapter, p. 139) have been identified. 

Conclusion. Continuing to stabilize and 

preserve historic buildings would 

considerably reduce the loss of historic 

fabric over time. The resulting effects 

would be generally beneficial, with a 

determination of no adverse effect. 

Because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation of Monocacy 

National Battlefield, (2) key to its natural 

or cultural integrity or opportunities for 

its enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal 

in its general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, the 

national battlefield’s resources or values 

would not be impaired. 

Effects from Alternative 2 

Analysis. Stabilizing historic structures 

not used for interpretation or national 

battlefield operations to preserve and 

protect them from further deterioration 

would not result in any adverse effects 

on these structures. Stabilizing and 

preserving the main houses on the Lewis 

and Worthington farms and the 

outbuildings on the Best, Thomas, and 

Lewis farms would cause no adverse 

effects on these structures. 

Rehabilitating the Best House and 

leasing the Thomas House under the 

historic leasing program to allow 

adaptive use could result in a determination varying from no effect to no adverse 

effect on these structures, depending on 

the nature of the changes. Such changes 

could involve repair or stabilization of 

the original fabric and in-kind 

replacement. 

Rehabilitating the stone tenant house at 

the Thomas Farm for interpretive 

exhibits and displays would result in a 

determination of no adverse effect 

because the interior retains little 

integrity. Alterations could involve 

repair or stabilization of the original 

fabric and in-kind replacement. 

The ongoing access to and maintenance 

of commemorative monuments would 

have no effect on historic properties. 

147 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The internal spaces of the Gambrill Mill 

already have been altered from their 

historic shape, and little historic fabric 

remains. Using the first floor of the mill 

for classrooms or interpretive talks and 

the second floor for temporary housing 

would simply represent a change from 

one nonhistoric use to another. Therefore, this alternative would result in no 

effect on this structure. 

Cumulative Effects. No cumulative 

effects on historic buildings and other 

structures (as defined earlier in this 

chapter, p. 139) have been identified. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative 2 

would result in a mixture of actions — 

unused buildings would be stabilized 

and preserved, which would slow the 

loss of historic fabric. Rehabilitating 

structures for adaptive use by the 

national battlefield or by others under 

the historic leasing program would 

likely result in no adverse effect on those 

historic structures, depending on the 

nature of the changes. 

Because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation of Monocacy 

National Battlefield, (2) key to its natural 

or cultural integrity or opportunities for 

its enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal 

in its general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, the 

national battlefield’s resources or values 

would not be impaired. 

Effects from Alternative 3 

Analysis. Stabilizing historic structures 

not used for interpretation or national 

battlefield operations to preserve them 

and protect them from further 

deterioration would result in no adverse 

effects on the structures. 

Opening the Worthington House to the 

public for interpretive services could 

involve adding floor bracing to increase 

its weight-bearing capacity and adding 

electrical systems and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) 

systems. The structure also would need 

to be made accessible for visitors with 

disabilities. The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation 

and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic 

Buildings would be followed to insure 

that no adverse effects on the structure’s 

historic fabric occur. 

Rehabilitating the exterior of the Best 

House would benefit preservation of the 

structure and would result in no adverse 

effect. Rehabilitating the first floor of 

the interior for interpretive exhibits 

would involve assessing its condition 

and weight-bearing capacity. Should 

that assessment indicate that more 

interior bracing is needed to support 

visitation, structural supports would be 

integrated into the existing historic 

fabric to the greatest extent possible. 

Electrical and HVAC systems also 

would be needed, as would changes to 

make the structure accessible for visitors 

with disabilities. All rehabilitation would 

be undertaken in keeping with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines to insure against any adverse 

effect. 

Adaptive reuse of the interior of the 

Thomas House for administrative 

offices would retain all significant 

interior features and would not alter its 

internal configuration. Rehabilitating 

148 
Effects on Cultural Resources 

the existing utility systems would be 

necessary, but this should cause no 

adverse effects on the structure. 

The stone tenant house on the Thomas 

Farm has been significantly altered 

inside. Rehabilitating it for exhibits 

would not result in an adverse effect. 

The ongoing access to and maintenance 

of commemorative monuments would 

have no effect on historic properties. 

The internal spaces of the Gambrill Mill 

already have been altered from their 

historic condition, and little historic 

fabric remains. Using the basement of 

the mill for classrooms or programs and 

the second floor for offices would represent a change from one nonhistoric use 

to another. Therefore, this alternative 

would result in no effect on this 

structure. 

Cumulative Effects. No cumulative 

effects on historic buildings and other 

structures (as defined earlier in this 

chapter, p. 139) have been identified. 

Conclusion. In alternative 3, stabilizing 

presently unused historic buildings 

would slow the natural deterioration 

processes significantly, resulting in no 

adverse effects. Modifying some 

buildings to allow for visitor access 

would be accomplished in a manner 

designed to retain the integrity of 

historic structures. 

Because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation of Monocacy 

National Battlefield, (2) key to its natural 

or cultural integrity or opportunities for 

its enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal 

in its general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, the 

national battlefield’s resources or values 

would not be impaired. 

Effects from Alternative 4 

(Preferred Alternative) 

Analysis. Stabilizing historic structures 

not used for interpretation or national 

battlefield operations would result in no 

adverse effects on the structures. 

Opening the Worthington House to the 

public for interpretive services could 

involve adding floor bracing to increase 

its weight-bearing capacity and adding 

electrical systems and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) 

systems. The structure also would need 

to be made accessible for visitors with 

disabilities. All work would be undertaken in such a manner as to retain the 

structures’ integrity, resulting in no 

adverse effect. 

Adaptive reuse of the interior of the 

Thomas House for administrative 

offices would retain all significant 

interior features and would not alter its 

internal configuration. Rehabilitating 

the existing utility systems would be 

necessary, but this should cause no 

adverse effects on the building. 

The stone tenant house on the Thomas 

Farm has been substantially altered 

inside. Rehabilitating it for exhibits 

would not result in an adverse effect. 

Rehabilitating the exterior of the Best 

House would result in no adverse effect 

on the structure. Preserving the interior 

of the secondary house on the Best Farm 

for limited visitor access to the ground 

149 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

floor would result in no adverse effects 

on that structure. 

The internal spaces of the Gambrill Mill 

already have been altered and little 

historic fabric remains. Using the first 

floor of the mill for classrooms and the 

second floor for offices would simply 

represent a change from one nonhistoric 

use to another. Therefore, alternative 4 

would result in no adverse effect on the 

interior of this structure. 

Cumulative Effects. No cumulative 

effects on historic buildings and other 

structures (as defined earlier in this 

chapter, p.139) have been identified. 

Conclusion. In alternative 4, stabilizing 

and preserving unused buildings would 

slow the natural deterioration processes 

significantly, resulting in no adverse 

effects. 

Adaptively reusing the Thomas and 

Worthington houses, the Thomas stone 

tenant house, and the Gambrill Mill for 

interpretation or for national battlefield 

operations would not result in adverse 

effects. 

Because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation of Monocacy 

National Battlefield, (2) key to its natural 

or cultural integrity or opportunities for 

its enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal 

in its general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, the 

national battlefield’s resources or values 

would not be impaired. 

EFFECTS ON CULTURAL 

LANDSCAPES 

Cultural Landscapes Defined 

A cultural landscape is a reflection of 

human adaptation to the environment 

and the use of its natural resources. Such 

a landscape develops from the interrelationships of human-derived and 

natural component features such as 

general land use patterns, natural 

topography, scale, spatial organization, 

boundaries, vegetation, and the arrangement of circulation features such as 

roads. 

Cultural landscapes reflect a community’s values and traditions, and through 

time they constitute a visual chronicle of 

changes. The dynamic nature of cultural 

landscapes results from forces such as 

politics, property laws, technology, and 

economic conditions. Cultural landscapes are an unparalleled source of 

information about the times of their 

development, and they can offer a 

dynamic view back through time that is 

nonetheless intimately connected to the 

present. 

Effects from Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Analysis. The cultural landscape’s 

circulation patterns, topographic 

features, watercourses, and land use 

would not be altered under this alternative. However, historic structures 

would be stabilized and preserved, 

resulting in no adverse effect on the 

viewshed and the integrity of 

landscapes. 

The continuing maintenance of 

agricultural fields through special use 

150 
Effects on Cultural Resources 

permits would benefit the historic 

landscape, resulting in no adverse effect. 

 Continuing the approaches and parking 

for the 14th New Jersey Monument and 

the commemorative area along Araby 

Church Road unchanged would not 

result in any adverse effect on these 

landscapes. The possibility of placing 

any new monuments in the national 

battlefield would be addressed 

individually, and NPS policies would be 

followed. However, the effect on the 

landscape from any new monuments 

could range from no adverse effect to 

adverse effect, depending on the design 

and placement of the monument. 

Cumulative Effects. Interstate Highway 

270 was constructed in the early 1950s, 

before a boundary for Monocacy 

National Battlefield was established. 

The highway bisected the battlefield, 

effectively separating the eastern and 

western halves physically and visually. 

This separation continues to represent a 

major adverse effect on the cultural 

landscape. 

The proposed widening of I-270 would 

adversely affect the cultural landscape of 

Monocacy National Battlefield if 

national battlefield lands were needed 

for widening. Visual impacts probably 

would be increased by this action; the 

setting of several historic structures 

already is diminished by the highway. 

Conclusion. The no-action alternative 

would continue a generally beneficial 

program of stabilizing unused historic 

buildings, maintaining historic roads 

and trails, and maintaining agricultural 

or other rural features. Implementing 

alternative 1 would result in no adverse 

effect on the cultural landscape. 

Because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation of Monocacy 

National Battlefield, (2) key to its natural 

or cultural integrity or opportunities for 

its enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal 

in its general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, the 

national battlefield’s resources or values 

would not be impaired. 

Effects from Alternative 2 

Analysis. The topographic features and 

watercourses of the cultural landscape 

would not be altered under alternative 2, 

nor would land use. Stabilizing and preserving farm structures in their current 

condition on the Best, Thomas, and 

Lewis farmsteads would help to preserve the historic landscape and contribute to its long-term maintenance. 

These actions would benefit the cultural 

landscapes and would result in no 

adverse effect. 

Improving the historic lane to include a 

deck over I270 connecting the Worthington and Thomas farms would reestablish part of the historic circulation 

pattern on the battlefield, a beneficial 

effect. However, improving the road to 

meet current standards would make it 

more visible on the landscape. Coupled 

with the occasional presence of automobiles using the lane, there could be a 

visual effect on the landscape. That 

effect would likely not be adverse. 

Adding a parking area would not 

adversely affect the historic view 

because this feature would be situated 

151 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

adjacent to the already intrusive modern 

interstate. 

Extending a pedestrian trail from the 

visitor center to Monocacy Junction and 

Wallace’s Headquarters would require 

construction of a bridge over Bush 

Creek and a trail or boardwalk under 

the railroad bridge. It would be designed 

to fit into the landscape and not be 

visible or intrusive from the main visitor 

areas. It would not result in an adverse 

effect on the cultural landscape. 

Locating a visitor parking area for the 

Thomas Farm would result in no 

adverse effect on the cultural landscape 

as it would be next to Baker Valley Road 

and on the edge of the historic 

landscape. Building new restroom 

facilities inside the nonhistoric 

cinderblock structure would have no 

effect on the cultural landscape. 

Removing the nonhistoric cinder block 

house on Araby Church Road and 

rehabilitating the site would enlarge the 

commemorative area around the 

Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials. 

The effect would not be adverse. Placing 

any future monuments at this location 

would retain the commemorative 

character of the battlefield and follow 

the historic pattern of erecting 

memorials along the old turnpike. The 

effect would not be adverse. 

Adopting guidelines for the placement 

of any future monuments within the 

national battlefield would ensure that 

they would complement the design, 

scale, and materials of existing 

monuments. The possibility of placing 

any new monuments in the national 

battlefield would be addressed individually, and NPS policies would be 

followed. The effect would not be 

expected to be adverse. 

Shifting the entrance to the 14th New 

Jersey Monument south and upgrading 

the parking lot from its current 

condition would greatly improve its 

appearance and result in no adverse 

effect on this landscape. 

Cumulative Effects. Interstate Highway 

270 was constructed in the early 1950s, 

before a boundary for Monocacy 

National Battlefield was established. 

The highway bisected the battlefield, 

effectively separating the eastern and 

western halves physically and visually. 

This separation continues to represent a 

major adverse effect on the cultural 

landscape. 

The proposed widening of I-270 would 

adversely affect the cultural landscape of 

Monocacy National Battlefield if 

national battlefield lands were needed 

for the widening. Overall, the widening 

probably would increase the visual 

impacts that already diminish the setting 

of several historic structures. 

Constructing a deck across I-270 could 

reduce the adverse visual impacts on the 

important viewshed between the 

Worthington and Thomas houses from 

added highway lanes. The deck would 

not be visible from elsewhere in the 

historic landscape, or it would be visible 

only from the nonhistoric landscape 

along the Worthington lane. The overall 

effect would not be adverse. 

The actions of alternative 2 (stabilizing 

buildings, continuing to maintain roads, 

trails, and historic fence lines, and 

maintaining agricultural or other rural 

features that constitute much of the 

152 
Effects on Cultural Resources 

historic viewshed), along with the 

known past, current and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions inside and 

outside of the national battlefield, would 

be beneficial and would result in no 

adverse effect on the cultural landscape. 

Conclusion. Stabilizing and preserving 

historic buildings under alternative 2 

would ensure their long-term presence 

on the historic landscape and would 

result in no adverse effect on the 

cultural landscape. 

Introducing a nonhistoric deck to cross 

Interstate Highway 270 would 

reestablish the viewshed by restoring 

historic vegetative patterns on the deck 

and by disguising the modern disruption 

of the interstate highway below. These 

changes would result in no adverse 

effect on the cultural landscape, but the 

deck would be a modern intrusion. 

Developing trails and improving roads 

in the battlefield would not cause an 

adverse impact on the overall cultural 

landscape because the trails and roads 

would be placed on existing alignments. 

Because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation of Monocacy 

National Battlefield, (2) key to its natural 

or cultural integrity or opportunities for 

its enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal 

in its general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, the 

national battlefield’s resources or values 

would not be impaired. 

Effects from Alternative 3 

Analysis. The circulation patterns, 

topographic features, and watercourses 

of the cultural landscape would not be 

altered under alternative 3, nor would 

land use. Stabilizing and preserving farm 

structures in their current condition 

would help preserve the historic 

landscape and contribute to its longterm maintenance. These actions would 

benefit the cultural landscapes and 

would result in no adverse effect. 

Widening the nonhistoric entry lane to 

the Worthington farm from Baker 

Valley Road and adding a new parking 

area would have no adverse effect on 

this historic landscape because these 

improvements would be situated 

adjacent to the modern interstate on 

already disturbed land. 

More automobile traffic and parking at 

the Thomas House (after its adaptation 

for administrative offices) would not 

adversely affect the cultural landscape. 

The entry road would follow the historic 

route. The parking area would be at a 

considerable distance from the historic 

structures in an area already disturbed. 

Continued use of the Gambrill Mill and 

the maintenance facility would not 

affect the cultural landscape. 

Removing the nonhistoric cinder block 

house along Araby Church Road and 

relandscaping would remove an intrusive element from the landscape and 

enhance the commemorative nature of 

the area. The impact would not be 

adverse. 

Reconfiguring the access to the 14th 

New Jersey Monument, closing the 

present parking area, and adding a trail 

153 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

under MD 355 from a new parking area 

on the east side would result in no adverse effects on the historic landscape. 

The new site is hidden from view below 

the MD 355 bridge and by vegetation. 

Adopting guidelines that prohibit 

placement of any future monuments 

within the national monument would 

have no effect on the existing cultural 

landscape. 

Cumulative Effects. Interstate Highway 

270 was constructed in the early 1950s, 

before Monocacy National Battlefield 

was established. The highway bisected 

the battlefield, effectively separating the 

eastern and western halves physically 

and visually. This separation continues 

to represent a major adverse effect on 

the cultural landscape. 

The proposed widening of I-270 could 

adversely affect the cultural landscape of 

Monocacy National Battlefield if 

national battlefield lands were needed 

for the widening. Overall, the widening 

probably would increase the visual 

impacts that already diminish the setting 

of several historic structures. 

The actions of alternative 3 (stabilizing 

buildings, continuing to maintain roads, 

trails, and historic fence lines, and 

maintaining agricultural or other rural 

features that constitute much of the 

historic viewshed), along with the 

known past, current, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions inside and 

outside of the national battlefield, would 

be beneficial and would result in no 

adverse effect on the cultural landscape. 

Conclusion. Stabilizing and preserving 

historic structures would ensure their 

long-term presence on the historic 

landscape. Combined with past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, implementing alternative 3 

would result in no adverse effect on the 

cultural landscape. 

Because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation of Monocacy 

National Battlefield, (2) key to its natural 

or cultural integrity or opportunities for 

its enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal 

in its general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, the 

national battlefield’s resources or values 

would not be impaired. 

Effects from Alternative 4 

(Preferred Alternative) 

Analysis. The circulation patterns, 

topographic features, and watercourses 

of the cultural landscape would not be 

altered under alternative 4, nor would 

land use. Stabilizing and preserving farm 

structures in their current condition on 

the Best, Thomas, and Lewis farmsteads 

would help preserve the historic landscape and contribute to its long-term 

maintenance. These actions would 

benefit the cultural landscape and would 

result in no adverse effect. 

Widening the modern entry lane to the 

Worthington farm from Baker Valley 

Road and adding a new parking lot 

would result in no adverse effect on this 

historic landscape because these 

improvements would be situated 

adjacent to the modern interstate on 

already disturbed lands. 

Constructing a pedestrian deck across I270 between the Worthington and 

154 
Effects on Cultural Resources 

Thomas farms would not adversely 

affect the cultural landscape because it 

would not be visible from either the 

Worthington House or the Thomas 

farmstead and would take advantage of 

vegetation on either side of I-270. 

Shifting the entrance to the 14th New 

Jersey Monument south and upgrading 

the parking lot from its current 

condition would greatly improve its 

appearance and result in no adverse 

effect on this landscape. 

Removing the nonhistoric cinder block 

house on Araby Church Road and 

rehabilitating the site would enlarge the 

commemorative area around the 

Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials. 

The effect would not be adverse. Placing 

any future monuments at this location 

would retain the commemorative 

character of the battlefield and follow 

the historic pattern of erecting 

memorials along the old turnpike. The 

effect would not be adverse. 

Cumulative Effects. Interstate Highway 

270 was constructed in the early 1950s, 

before Monocacy National Battlefield 

was established. The highway bisected 

the battlefield, effectively separating the 

eastern and western halves physically 

and visually. This separation continues 

to represent a major adverse effect on 

the cultural landscape. 

The proposed widening of I-270 could 

adversely affect the cultural landscape of 

Monocacy National Battlefield if 

national battlefield lands were needed 

for the widening or if the trees that 

buffer its appearance and noise were to 

be removed. Overall, the widening 

probably would increase the visual 

impacts that already diminish the setting 

of several historic structures. 

Constructing a pedestrian deck across I270 would likely not be visible from 

either the Worthington or Thomas 

farmsteads and therefore would not 

have an adverse effect. 

The actions of alternative 4 (stabilizing 

buildings, continuing to maintain roads, 

trails, and historic fence lines, and 

maintaining agricultural or other rural 

features that constitute much of the 

historic viewshed), along with the 

known past, current, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions inside and 

outside of the national battlefield, would 

be beneficial and would result in no 

adverse effect on the cultural landscape. 

Conclusion. Stabilizing and preserving 

unused historic buildings under 

alternative 4 would ensure their longterm presence on the historic landscape. 

Removing nonhistoric structures would 

also restore the historic landscape to its 

historic condition. These actions would 

result in no adverse effect. 

Adding a pedestrian deck across I-270 

would allow visitors to walk between the 

Worthington and Thomas farms, reconnecting them along the historic lane that 

once connected them. It would likely 

not be visible from either farmstead and 

would not have an adverse effect. 

Because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation of Monocacy 

National Battlefield, (2) key to its natural 

or cultural integrity or opportunities for 

its enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal 

155 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

156 

in its general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, the 

national battlefield’s resources or values 

would not be impaired. 
EFFECTS ON VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

EXPERIENCING THE RESOURCES 

Monocacy National Battlefield opened 

in 1991 with a staff of three housed in a 

visitor contact station on the ground 

floor of the Gambrill Mill. There were 

approximately 8,000 visitors the first 

year. The visitor experience consisted of 

exhibits in the contact station, one-toone discussions with an interpreter and 

three automobile stops along MD 355 

and Araby Church Road, where monuments had been erected to commemorate the battle. As time permitted, an 

interpretive ranger would offer programs for school groups and local 

organizations. 

An interpretive loop trail was opened at 

the Gambrill Mill in 1994. From that 

trail, visitors could see the MD 355 and 

railroad bridges. The national battlefield 

staff constructed a trail system on the 

Worthington Farm in 1997, as well as a 

small parking lot at the beginning of the 

Worthington Lane, along Baker Valley 

Road. Wayside exhibits were added to 

selected areas of the battlefield in 2002. 

Today, with acquisition of the battlefield 

nearly complete, most Monocacy 

National Battlefield visitors come to the 

new visitor center (completed 2007). 

They may walk on the Gambrill Mill 

trail, drive to the three areas of Civil War 

monuments, or to the Worthington 

Farm parking area. Along the way they 

may look out over the battlefield landscape. Not all properties are open, and 

no historic structures are open to 

visitors. 

The new visitor center (described in 

detail on page 46) offers orientation and 

educational exhibits that have not been 

available at the national battlefield. At 

present visitors may need extensive 

individual interaction with a ranger to 

understand the background and course 

of the battle. The new visitor center 

contains appropriate exhibits that 

explain why the battle occurred here, 

how it unfolded, its effect on the 

soldiers and the local community, and 

its impact on the Civil War. Although 

interaction with national battlefield staff 

will remain important, visitors are able 

to leave the new visitor center with 

enough information to have made their 

visit educational and enjoyable. 

For daytime use, Monocacy National 

Battlefield appeals primarily to visitors 

interested in history. Some fishermen 

visit along the Monocacy River, and 

many local visitors walk on the existing 

trails at the Gambrill Mill and the Worthington Farm for exercise. Few 

bicyclists come to the national battlefield because it is difficult to negotiate 

the busy MD 355 and because there is 

no trail system connecting areas of the 

battlefield that would appeal to cyclists. 

No designated picnic areas have been 

established, and there are no 

campgrounds in the national battlefield. 

As Monocacy National Battlefield has 

become known, visitation has increased 

— in 2003 there were 14,781 visitors. It is 

anticipated that visitation will grow 

substantially with the new visitor center. 

157 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

METHODS FOR ASSESSING 

EFFECTS ON THE VISITOR 

EXPERIENCE 

In this impact analysis, various aspects 

of visitor use and experience at 

Monocacy National Battlefield have 

been considered, including the effects 

on orientation, circulation and access, 

safety, opportunities for interpretation, 

and visitors’ experience of the 

resources. The analysis is based on how 

visitor use and experiences would 

change with the ways in which management prescription would be applied in 

the alternatives. The analysis is primarily 

qualitative rather than quantitative 

because the alternatives are conceptual. 

Duration 

In this analysis, a short-term effect is one 

that would last less than one year, in 

only one season’s use by visitors. A longterm effect would be more likely to be 

permanent, lasting more than one year. 

Intensity 

The effects were evaluated comparatively between alternatives, with the noaction alternative serving as a baseline 

for comparison with each action 

alternative 

Negligible — Visitors probably would 

be unaware of any effects caused by 

implementing the alternative. 

Minor — The changes in visitor use or 

the visitor experience would be slight 

but detectable, few visitors would be 

affected, and the action would not 

appreciably limit or enhance experiences identified as fundamental to the 

national battlefield’s purpose or 

significance. 

Moderate — Some characteristics of 

visitor use or the visitor experience 

would be changed by the action, and 

many visitors would be aware of the 

effects associated with implementing 

the action; some changes to 

experiences identified as fundamental 

to the national battlefield’s purpose 

or significance would be apparent. 

Major — Multiple characteristics of 

the visitor experience would be 

changed by the action, including 

experiences identified as fundamental 

to the national battlefield’s purpose 

or significance; most visitors would 

be aware of the effects associated 

with implementing the action. 

Type of Effect 

Adverse effects are those that most 

visitors would perceive as undesirable. 

Beneficial effects are those that most 

visitors would perceive as desirable. 

EFFECTS FROM ALTERNATIVE 1 

(NO ACTION) 

Analysis 

Orientation. Visitors would be oriented 

to the national battlefield by uniformed 

park staff at the new visitor center, by 

maps, brochures and signs. Some 

visitors arriving by scheduled bus tour 

may receive their orientation on the bus 

by an NPS staff interpreter. 

Implementation of this alternative 

would have a negligible long-term 

beneficial effect on visitor orientation. 

158 
Effects on Visitor Use and Experience 

Safety. Traffic and posted vehicle 

speeds of 50 mph on MD 355 would 

continue to make negotiating the local 

road system difficult and dangerous for 

park visitors. Housing and commercial 

development south of the national 

battlefield has led to more vehicles using 

the highway exacerbating the future 

situation. 

This alternative would have the 

National Park Service work with the 

Maryland State Highway Administration 

to implement appropriate measures to 

lessen the dangers inherent when slowmoving NPS visitors and swift-moving 

local traffic use the same roads. The 

alternative would do nothing to improve 

access or egress to major interpretive 

features such as Gambrill Mill or the 

14th New Jersey Monument. 

Implementation of this alternative 

would have a major long-term adverse 

impact on visitor safety. 

Interpretation. Interpretation of the 

national battlefield would rely heavily 

on the visitor center. Roving interpreters, brochures, and several wayside 

exhibits would supplement interpretive 

stories told at the visitor center. None of 

the major historic structures on the 

landscape would be open to visitation. 

Implementation of this alternative 

would have a minor, long-term, beneficial effect on interpretation of the 

resources. 

Visitors’ Experience of the Resources. 

Visitors would be able to walk the 

grounds and trails at the Best, Worthington, and Thomas farmsteads and 

the Gambrill Mill. Alternative 1 would 

not permit visitor access to the Lewis, or 

Baker farms, to the interiors of the 

Gambrill Mill, the Best, Worthington, or 

Thomas houses, or to the railroad 

junction and Wallace’s headquarters. 

These sites would continue to undergo 

preservation so that they would remain 

important landscape features. 

Implementation of this alternative 

would have a minor, long-term beneficial effect on the visitor’s experience of 

the resources. 

Cumulative Effects 

As has been mentioned previously (p. 

46), the new visitor center is considered 

a part of the existing conditions in the 

national battlefield, and its presence is 

part of the actions common to all 

alternatives. 

Previously, visiting Monocacy National 

Battlefield consisted of stopping along 

MD 355 and Araby Church Road at 

monuments dedicated to the soldiers 

who fought in the battle and looking out 

over the farm fields where the battle 

occurred. When the National Park Service opened the visitor contact station in 

1991, this gave some context to the story 

of the battle. Over the years, several 

trails have been opened and rangers 

have led group tours, but many of the 

battle sites have remained inaccessible, 

and the historic structures have not been 

open to most visitors. 

With the new visitor center, NPS 

interpreters have a major focus for 

interpreting the battlefield. This 

improves the visitors’ understanding of 

the battle, even without the ability to 

enter any of the historic farmhouses that 

are so prominent on the landscape. In 

combination with other historic 

159 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

properties in the vicinity (Antietam 

National Battlefield, Harper’s Ferry 

National Historical Park, South 

Mountain Battlefield State Park, the 

National Museum of Civil War 

Medicine, and others) visitors could get 

a good understanding of the Civil War 

and its impact on Maryland. 

Implementation of this alternative in 

combination with actions of entities 

outside the national battlefield would 

result in long-term minor to moderate 

cumulative beneficial effect on public 

understanding and appreciation of the 

meaning and significance of the region’s 

history. 

Ongoing historical and archeological 

research would continue to improve the 

quality of the presentations and exhibits 

available to visitors. In addition to the 

research conducted by the national 

battlefield, opportunities for research 

and education are available through 

regional universities, local schools, and 

other organizations. All these activities 

would result in long-term minor beneficial cumulative effects on regional 

opportunities for interpretation and 

education. 

Commercial and residential development outside the national battlefield 

when combined with traffic generated 

by visitors to the national battlefield 

would cause an increase in congestion 

and traffic related accidents on roads 

within and around Monocacy National 

Battlefield. Together development and 

visitor related traffic would have a longterm, moderate to major cumulative 

adverse impact on circulation and access 

within the national battlefield. 

It has been proposed that a state-of-theart, environmentally friendly State of 

Maryland visitor facility be created at 

the existing I-270 overlook south of the 

national battlefield. This could 

encourage visitors to stop at the national 

battlefield, either as a part of their current trip or at a later date. The long-term 

effect caused by such a facility would be 

negligible to minor and beneficial.

Conclusion 

Implementation of this alternative 

would have a negligible long-term 

beneficial effect on visitor orientation, a 

major long-term adverse impact on 

visitor safety, a minor, long-term, beneficial effect on interpretation of the 

resources, and a minor, long-term 

beneficial effect on the visitor’s 

experience of the resources. 

EFFECTS FROM ALTERNATIVE 2 

Analysis 

Orientation. Visitors would be oriented 

to the national battlefield by uniformed 

park staff at the new visitor center, by 

maps, brochures and signs. Some 

visitors arriving by scheduled bus tour 

may receive their orientation on the bus 

by an NPS interpreter. 

An alternative transportation system 

would be employed to move visitors 

around the national battlefield. When 

operating, it would provide an 

additional level of orientation through 

an automated system of messages. At 

times a uniformed ranger would also be 

available on the system to answer 

questions. 

160 
Effects on Visitor Use and Experience 

Implementation of this alternative 

would have a long-term, moderate 

beneficial effect on visitor orientation. 

Safety. Adding a deck over I-270 would 

improve the safety of national battlefield 

visitors, eliminating the need for them to 

backtrack down Worthington Lane 

onto Baker Valley Road when going 

from one farm to the other. 

Shifting the entrance for the 14th New 

Jersey Monument south to allow better 

sight lines north and south would 

greatly improve the safety of visitors 

entering and leaving the busy MD 355. 

To improve the safety of access to the 

Union entrenchments and Wallace’s 

headquarters on the north side of the 

CSX railroad, an underpass would be 

constructed along the edge of the 

Monocacy River. 

The alternative transportation system 

would provide an additional level of 

visitor safety as visitors would no longer 

be expected to navigate the site through 

heavy local traffic. 

The impact of the implementation of 

this alternative would be a long-term, 

major beneficial effect on visitor safety. 

Interpretation. The most impressive 

opportunity for interpretation under 

alternative 2 would be the deck that 

would be added over I-270 between the 

Worthington and Thomas farms, 

visually reconnecting the two farms with 

agricultural land, fence rows, and a farm 

lane. Because much of the battle 

occurred between these two farms, 

returning the area to an agricultural 

appearance would return it to its 

historic condition without the intrusion 

of an interstate highway and speeding 

vehicles. Visitors could drive directly 

from one farm to the other, following 

the route many Confederate soldiers 

took as they overran the site. 

Under alternative 2 visitors could go to 

the railroad junction, the site of 

Wallace’s headquarters, and the Union 

entrenchments — three important 

locations for understanding why the 

battle occurred here. Exhibits would be 

available at the stone tenant house on 

the Thomas Farm, supplementing those 

at the visitor center. 

The impact of the implementation of 

this alternative would be a long-term, 

major, beneficial effect on visitor 

interpretation. 

Visitors’ Experience of the Resources. 

In alternative 2, national battlefield 

visitors wanting to understand the Battle 

of Monocacy could see a wide range of 

landscape features, supplemented by 

exhibits at the visitor center and the 

stone tenant house on the Thomas 

Farm. Waysides along existing and new 

trails would interpret the unfolding 

battle and other points of interest. 

Visitors interested in the history of the 

site beyond the Civil War could receive 

that information primarily at the visitor 

center and the stone tenant house. None 

of the historic houses would be open for 

visitation. 

The impact of the implementation of 

this alternative on the overall visitor 

experience would be long-term, major 

and beneficial. 

Cumulative Effects 

As has been mentioned previously (p. 

46), the new visitor center is considered 

161 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

a part of the existing conditions in the 

national battlefield, and its presence is 

part of the actions common to all 

alternatives. 

Efforts to interpret the heritage of 

western Maryland on the part of federal, 

state, and private entities (Antietam 

National Battlefield, Harpers Ferry 

National Historical Park, the C&O 

Canal National Historical Park; South 

Mountain Battlefield State Park, Maryland Civil War Trails; National Museum 

of Civil War Medicine), along with the 

national battlefield staff, would result in 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

cumulative effects on public understanding and appreciation of the 

region’s history. The contribution of the 

National Park Service to this result 

would be long term, moderate, and 

beneficial. 

In addition to the beneficial effects of 

research, education, interpretation, and 

preservation efforts ongoing and 

proposed at the national battlefield, a 

number of other government and 

nonprofit sites in the area engage in 

similar activities. Regional universities, 

local schools, and other organizations 

offer opportunities for research and 

education. All these activities would 

result in long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial cumulative effects on regional 

opportunities for interpretation and 

education. 

Traffic in and around the battlefield 

would increase, both from greater 

visitation and from the growth of 

surrounding communities. This would 

add to the roadway congestion. When 

the visitor transportation system was not 

operating, local drivers would have to be 

more vigilant, watching for slowermoving visitors, who would be less 

familiar with the road system. Visitors 

would need to watch for faster-moving 

local drivers using the same road system. 

The cumulative long-term effect on the 

visitor experience and on local roadway 

users would be moderate to major and 

beneficial, depending on the local rush 

hour characteristics and weather 

conditions. 

Constructing a deck over I-270 as partial 

mitigation for the widening of I-270 

would improve the flow of visitors in the 

national battlefield. It also would make 

the egress back onto Baker Valley Road 

at the Thomas Farm safer and more 

visible than from Worthington Lane. 

The cumulative long-term effect on the 

visitor experience would be moderate 

and beneficial. For local users of Baker 

Valley Road, the cumulative long-term 

effect would be minor and beneficial. 

It has been proposed that a state-of-theart, environmentally friendly State of 

Maryland visitor facility be created at 

the existing I-270 overlook south of the 

national battlefield. This could 

encourage visitors to stop at the national 

battlefield, either as a part of their 

current trip or at a later date. The longterm effect caused by such a facility 

would be negligible to minor and beneficial. 

Conclusion 

Implementation of this alternative 

would have a moderate long-term 

beneficial effect on visitor orientation, a 

major long-term beneficial impact on 

visitor safety, a major, long-term, 

beneficial effect on interpretation of the 

162 
Effects on Visitor Use and Experience 

resources, and a major, long-term 

beneficial effect on the visitor’s 

experience of the resources. 

EFFECTS FROM ALTERNATIVE 3 

Analysis 

Orientation. Visitors would be oriented 

to the national battlefield by uniformed 

park staff at the new visitor center, 

maps, brochures, and signs. Some 

visitors arriving by scheduled bus tour 

may receive their orientation on the bus 

by a park staff interpreter. 

Implementation of this alternative 

would have a negligible long-term 

beneficial effect on visitor orientation. 

Safety. With no deck over I-270 visitors 

would need to backtrack down Worthington Lane onto Baker Valley Road 

when traveling from one farm to the 

other. 

With no alternative transportation system visitors would have to concentrate 

on the logistics of getting around the 

national battlefield. This is especially 

important for the part of the route that 

follows the busy MD 355. The speed 

limit on that road is 50 mph, and it is 

heavily used by commuters and local 

residents. Ongoing commercial and 

residential development south of the 

national battlefield would make 

conflicts between slow-moving visitors 

and fast-moving through traffic more 

likely at several locations with sharp 

turns, where slow-moving visitors and 

heavy traffic combine. 

Shifting the entrance to the 14th New 

Jersey Monument to the east side of MD 

355 and adding a new parking area, with 

a short trail under the MD 355 bridge 

leading to the monument, would 

improve visitor safety. 

Implementation of this alternative 

would have a long-term, moderate 

adverse effect on visitor safety. 

Interpretation. Visitors would receive 

most of their interpretation at the visitor 

center. Additional interpretive exhibits 

would be available at the Best House, 

the Thomas Stone Tenant House, and at 

the Worthington House. Waysides 

would also provide some interpretation 

along trails. 

There would be no deck over I-270 in 

Alternative 3. Trees along both sides of 

I-270 would block the view from the 

Worthington to the Thomas farms. This 

would make interpreting the connection 

between the two farms during the battle 

more difficult. Because much of the 

battle took place between the two farms, 

returning the area to an agricultural 

appearance would return it to its 

historic condition with less of the noise 

intrusion of an interstate highway and 

speeding vehicles. 

Only alternative 3 would offer an opportunity for visitors to see the interior of 

the Best farmhouse or the landscape of 

the Lewis farm. Exhibits would be 

complementary to those in the visitor 

center. Several outbuildings also would 

be open to visitors, or they could see 

them through windows. 

The stone tenant house on the Thomas 

farm would have exhibits supplementing 

those at the visitor center. The Worthington House first floor would contain exhibits about the war and the 

family that occupied the house during 

the battle. 

163 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The effect of implementation of this 

alternative on resource interpretation 

would be long-term, moderate, and 

beneficial. 

Visitors’ Experience of the Resources. 

In alternative 3, national battlefield 

visitors wanting to understand the Battle 

of Monocacy could see a wide range of 

landscape features, supplemented by 

exhibits at the visitor center, Best Farm, 

Worthington House, and the stone 

tenant house on the Thomas Farm. 

Wayside exhibits along existing and new 

trails would interpret the unfolding 

battle and other points of interest. 

Although the trails would not be 

designed primarily for recreational use, 

under alternative 3 visitors could walk 

the trails to fish in the river or to observe 

wildlife. Other recreational uses such as 

horseback riding and bicycling would 

not be allowed. 

The effect of implementation of this 

alternative on visitor’s experience of the 

resources would be long-term, 

moderate, and beneficial. 

Cumulative Effects 

As has been mentioned previously (p. 

46), the new visitor center is considered 

a part of the existing conditions in the 

national battlefield, and its presence is 

part of the actions common to all 

alternatives. 

Efforts to interpret the heritage of 

western Maryland on the part of federal, 

state, and private entities (Antietam 

National Battlefield, Harpers Ferry 

National Historical Park, the C&O 

Canal National Historical Park; South 

Mountain Battlefield State Park, 

Maryland Civil War Trails; National 

Museum of Civil War Medicine), along 

with the national battlefield staff, would 

result in long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial cumulative effects on public 

understanding and appreciation of the 

region’s history. The contribution of the 

National Park Service to this result 

would be long term, moderate, and 

beneficial. 

In addition to the beneficial effects of 

research, education, interpretation, and 

preservation efforts ongoing and proposed at the national battlefield, a number of other government and nonprofit 

sites in the area engage in similar 

activities. Regional universities, local 

schools, and other organizations offer 

opportunities for research and education. All these activities would result in 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

cumulative effects on regional opportunities for interpretation and 

education. 

Commercial and residential development outside the national battlefield 

when combined with traffic generated 

by visitors to the national battlefield 

would cause an increase in congestion 

and traffic related accidents on roads 

within and around Monocacy National 

Battlefield. Together development and 

visitor related traffic would have a longterm, moderate to major cumulative 

adverse impact on circulation and access 

within the national battlefield. 

The creation of a state-of-the-art, 

environmentally friendly State of 

Maryland visitor facility has been proposed outside the national battlefield. 

Such a feature would be placed at the 

existing I-270 overlook south of the 

164 
Effects on Visitor Use and Experience 

national battlefield. This could 

encourage visitors to stop at the national 

battlefield either as a part of their 

current trip or at a later date. The longterm effect caused by such a facility 

would be negligible to minor and 

beneficial. 

Conclusion 

The effect of implementation of this 

alternative on orientation would be 

negligible long-term and beneficial. On 

visitor safety the effect would be 

moderate long-term and adverse. On 

interpretation the effect would be 

moderate long-term and beneficial. On 

the visitor experience of the resource 

the effect would be moderate long-term 

and beneficial. 

EFFECTS FROM ALTERNATIVE 4 

(PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Analysis 

Orientation. Visitors would be oriented 

to the national battlefield by uniformed 

park staff at the new visitor center, by 

maps, brochures, and signs. Some 

visitors arriving by scheduled bus tour 

may receive their orientation on the bus 

by a park staff interpreter. 

Implementation of this alternative 

would have a negligible long-term 

beneficial effect on visitor orientation. 

Safety 

With no alternative transportation 

system visitors would have to concentrate on the logistics of getting around 

the national battlefield. This is especially 

important for the part of the route that 

follows the busy MD 355. The speed 

limit on that road is 50 mph, and it is 

heavily used by commuters and local 

residents. Ongoing commercial and 

residential development south of the 

national battlefield would make 

conflicts between slow-moving visitors 

and fast-moving through traffic more 

likely at several locations with sharp 

turns, where slow-moving visitors and 

heavy traffic combine. 

Shifting the entrance to the 14th New 

Jersey Monument farther south would 

provide a safer place for vehicles to 

enter and leave the site. 

The effect of implementation of this 

alternative on visitor safety would be a 

minor long-term, adverse effect. 

Interpretation. Visitors would receive 

most of their interpretation at the visitor 

center. Additional interpretive exhibits 

would be available at the Thomas Stone 

Tenant House, and at the Worthington 

House. Waysides would also provide 

some interpretation along trails. 

There would be a pedestrian deck over 

I-270 in Alternative 4, much smaller and 

less visible from either the Worthington 

or Thomas sides. Trees along both sides 

of I-270 would continue block the view 

from the Worthington to the Thomas 

farms. This would make interpreting the 

connection between the two farms 

during the battle more difficult. Because 

much of the battle took place between 

the two farms, returning the area to an 

agricultural appearance would return it 

to its historic condition with less of the 

noise intrusion of an interstate highway 

and speeding vehicles. 

The stone tenant house on the Thomas 

farm would have exhibits supplementing 

those at the visitor center. The 

165 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Worthington House first floor would be 

rehabilitated to offer interpretive 

services and exhibits for visitors. 

The effect of implementation of this 

alternative on interpretation would be 

long-term, moderate, and beneficial. 

Visitors’ Experience of the Resources. 

In alternative 4, national battlefield 

visitors wanting to understand the Battle 

of Monocacy could see a wide range of 

landscape features, supplemented by 

exhibits at the visitor center and the 

stone tenant house on the Thomas 

Farm. The battlefield would appear 

remarkably similar to the way it looked 

during the Civil War. 

Wayside exhibits along existing and new 

trails would interpret the unfolding 

battle and other points of interest. 

Visitors interested in the history of the 

site beyond the Civil War could explore 

those stories through exhibits at the 

Worthington farmhouse and the 

Thomas stone tenant house. 

Although the trails would not be 

designed primarily for recreational use, 

under alternative 4 visitors could walk 

the trails to fish in the river or to observe 

wildlife. Other recreational uses such as 

horseback riding and bicycling would 

not be allowed. 

The effect of the implementation of this 

alternative on visitor experience of the 

resources would be long-term, 

moderate, and beneficial. 

Cumulative Effects 

As has been mentioned previously (p. 

46) the new visitor center is considered a 

part of the existing conditions in the 

national battlefield, and its presence is 

part of the actions common to all 

alternatives. 

Efforts to interpret the heritage of 

western Maryland on the part of federal, 

state, and private entities (Antietam 

National Battlefield, Harpers Ferry 

National Historical Park, the C&O 

Canal National Historical Park; South 

Mountain Battlefield State Park, Maryland Civil War Trails; National Museum 

of Civil War Medicine), along with the 

national battlefield staff, would result in 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

cumulative effects on public understanding and appreciation of the 

region’s history. The contribution of the 

National Park Service to this result 

would be long term, moderate, and 

beneficial. 

In addition to the beneficial effects of 

research, education, interpretation, and 

preservation efforts ongoing and 

proposed at the national battlefield, a 

number of other government and 

nonprofit sites in the area engage in 

similar activities. Regional universities, 

local schools, and other organizations 

offer opportunities for research and 

education. All these activities would 

result in long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial cumulative effects on regional 

opportunities for interpretation and 

education. 

Commercial and residential development outside the national battlefield 

when combined with traffic generated 

by visitors to the national battlefield 

would cause an increase in congestion 

and traffic related accidents on roads 

within and around Monocacy National 

Battlefield. Together development and 

visitor related traffic would have a long166 
Effects on Visitor Use and Experience 

167 

term, moderate to major cumulative 

adverse impact on circulation and access 

within the national battlefield. 

The creation of a state-of-the-art, 

environmentally friendly State of 

Maryland visitor facility has been proposed outside the national battlefield. 

Such a feature would be placed at the 

existing I-270 overlook south of the 

national battlefield. This could 

encourage visitors to stop at the national 

battlefield either as a part of their 

current trip or at a later date. The longterm effect caused by such a facility 

would be negligible to minor and 

beneficial. 

Conclusion 

The effect of implementation of this 

alternative on orientation would be 

negligible long-term and beneficial. On 

visitor safety the effect would be 

moderate long-term and adverse. On 

interpretation the effect would be 

moderate long-term and beneficial. On 

the visitor experience of the resource 

the effect would be moderate long-term 

and beneficial.
EFFECTS ON THE SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

METHODS FOR ASSESSING 

EFFECTS ON THE 

SOCIOECONOMIC 

ENVIRONMENT 

The National Park Service applied logic, 

experience, expertise, and professional 

judgment to analyze the effects on the 

social and economic situation that 

would result from each alternative. 

Economic data, the history of visitor 

use, expected future visitor use, and 

future developments in the national 

battlefield were all considered in 

identifying, discussing, and evaluating 

the expected impacts. 

The assessments of potential socioeconomic impacts were based on 

comparisons between the no-action 

alternative and each of the action 

alternatives. 

Duration 

In evaluating the effects, planners also 

considered the duration of each effect. 

Distinguishing between short-term and 

long-term duration was necessary to 

understand the extent of the identified 

effects. In general, short-term effects 

would be temporary —typically they are 

transitional effects associated with the 

implementation of an action (for 

example, effects related to construction 

activities). Such effects would last less 

than one year. In contrast, long-term 

effects would be those that would last 

more than a year, and they could be 

permanent (such as effects caused by 

operational activities). 

Intensity 

The effects were evaluated 

comparatively between alternatives, 

with the no-action alternative serving as 

a baseline for comparison with each 

action alternative 

Negligible — The effect would be 

below or at the level of detection. The 

action would result in no noticeable 

change in any defined socioeconomic 

indicators. 

Minor — The effect on socioeconomic conditions would be slight but 

detectable. 

Moderate — The effects on socioeconomic conditions would be 

readily apparent, and the action 

would result in changes in socioeconomic conditions on a local scale. 

Major — The effects on 

socioeconomic conditions would be 

readily apparent, and the action 

would result in demonstrable changes 

in socioeconomic conditions in the 

region. 

Type of Effect 

NPS policy calls for the effects of the 

alternatives to be characterized as being 

beneficial, adverse, or indeterminate. 

With respect to economic and social 

effects, few standards or clear definitions exist as to what constitutes a 

beneficial or positive change, what 

change should be considered adverse or 

negative. 

For example, rising unemployment 

generally is perceived as adverse; 

168 
Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment 

increases in job opportunities and 

average per capita personal income are 

regarded as beneficial. However, in 

many instances changes that some 

members of a community regard as 

favorable are seen as unfavorable by 

others. For example, the effect of 

growth on housing markets and values 

may be seen as favorable by construction contractors and many homeowners, 

but as adverse by renters, by local 

government officials, and by community 

groups concerned with affordability. 

Consequently, some social and 

economic effects may be described in 

such a manner as to allow an individual 

reviewer to determine whether they 

would be beneficial or adverse (the 

impact is indeterminate with respect to 

“type”). 

EFFECTS FROM ALTERNATIVE 1 

(NO ACTION) 

Analysis 

Monocacy National Battlefield is in a 

heavily developed part of the Baltimore–

Washington metropolitan area. It has a 

small staff of less than 30 fulltime and 

seasonal employees. It is not a major 

travel and tourist destination in the 

region — it attracted fewer than 15,000 

visitors in 2003. Visitation is expected to 

grow considerably now that the new 

visitor center is completed. 

In 2001, when visitation was nearly 

18,000 people, the National Park Service 

estimates that local daytime visitors 

made up 20% of total, day visitors from 

other regions made up 55%, and 

overnight visitors staying in hotels and 

campsites were 20% and 5%, 

respectively. On average, those visitors 

spent $114 per party per day, for an 

estimated $1.03 million in 2001. 

The $1.03 million spent by Monocacy 

visitors had a direct economic effect of 

$0.86 million in direct sales, $0.32 

million in personal income (wages and 

salaries), $0.49 million in value added, 

and 20 jobs. Among all direct sales, $0.29 

million was from lodging sales, $0.24 

million from food and drinking places, 

$0.11 million from admission fee and 

$0.12 million from retail trade. As visitor 

spending circulated through the local 

economy, secondary effects created 

additional $0.18 million in personal 

income and 7 jobs in the community. 

In sum, visitors spent $1.03 million 

dollars in 2001, which supported a total 

of $1.34 million in sales, $0.50 million in 

personal income, 26 jobs, and $0.78 

million in value added. 

Under the no-action alternative the 

historic structures in the national 

battlefield would remain closed so that 

more staff would not be needed to interpret them. The maintenance staff 

could be increased slightly. 

The time spent in the national battlefield 

by visitors is expected to increase by as 

much as one to two hours with the 

opening of the new visitor center. 

The overall effect of the no-action 

alternative on socioeconomic 

conditions would be long-term, 

negligible, and beneficial when compared with the socioeconomics of 

Frederick County. 

Cumulative Effects 

The county economy is expected to 

benefit from development such as 

169 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

expanded housing, industrial development, and retail expansion. The national 

battlefield contributes a negligible 

amount to the overall economic wellbeing of Frederick County when 

compared with the county as a whole. 

The workforce of the national 

battlefield is small compared to that of 

the county. 

The direct and indirect economic 

impact from the national battlefield 

would be minor in comparison to the 

county as a whole. The new visitor 

center is likely to add somewhat to the 

number of dollars contributed into the 

local economy; however, the overall 

beneficial effect would continue to be 

negligible and long term. 

Conclusion 

Alternative 1 would result in both direct 

and indirect long-term negligible 

beneficial effects on the socioeconomic 

environment. 

EFFECTS FROM ALTERNATIVE 2 

Analysis 

Adding new trails, upgrading roadways 

and parking areas, and adding new 

visitor facilities at the Thomas farm 

would result in one-time expenditures 

of funds in the local community. 

The alternative transportation system 

(using existing roadways) and requiring 

visitors to use the system when it was 

operating would result in an ongoing 

economic benefit because operating and 

maintaining the system would result in 

several jobs. However, adding the 

transportation system would reduce 

visitors’ flexibility to negotiate the 

national battlefield as they wished. 

Leasing space in the community for 

national battlefield administration and 

maintenance would place federal dollars 

directly into the commercial real estate 

market. Placing the Best and Thomas 

houses into the historic leasing program 

would result in direct government 

competition in the commercial real 

estate market. 

Visitation would increase as the 

battlefield facilities were developed 

under alternative 2. Visitors would stay 

longer at the battlefield and possibly also 

longer in the community, with a larger 

corresponding economic impact 

compared to the no-action alternative. 

After the addition of visitor facilities at 

the stone tenant house on the Thomas 

Farm, and the development of new trails 

under this alternative, visitors probably 

would spend more time in the national 

battlefield. School groups and other 

large groups would be expected to 

increase after the first floor at the 

Gambrill Mill was converted into 

meeting space, and the groups also 

would be expected to stay longer. 

Trail construction and use by visitors 

could result in a slight detrimental 

impact on agricultural leasing as 

agricultural land was removed for trails 

and as visitors and farmers came into 

contact during the planting and 

harvesting seasons. 

Improving the highway near the 14th 

New Jersey Monument and reducing 

visitor traffic into the Gambrill Mill area 

probably would decrease the likelihood 

of accidents at those two locations. 

Alternative 2 would result in more 

visitation than the no-action alternative, 

170 
Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment 

along with more visitor spending in the 

community. NPS direct spending in the 

community would increase with more 

funds spent for construction services 

and materials and for leasing of space. 

The staff of the national battlefield 

would be increased somewhat, with 

maintenance workers and interpreters 

needed to operate and maintain new 

facilities. 

Overall, alternative 2 would result in 

direct and indirect long-tem negligible 

beneficial effects when compared with 

the socioeconomic conditions of the 

entire Frederick County. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects on the socioeconomic environment from land uses 

and activities in the national battlefield 

and surrounding lands would be similar 

to those described for the no-action 

alternative. The overall cumulative 

effects would be long term, moderate, 

and beneficial. The contribution of 

alternative 2 to the cumulative effects 

would be long-term, negligible, and 

beneficial. 

Conclusion 

Alternative 2 would result in direct and 

indirect long-term negligible beneficial 

effects on the socioeconomic 

environment. 

EFFECTS FROM ALTERNATIVE 3 

Analysis 

Several one-time expenditures of funds 

in the local community would result 

from implementing alternative 3 —

parking upgrades, new visitor facilities, 

moving the administrative headquarters 

to the Thomas Farm, and developing the 

first floors of the Worthington and Best 

houses to accommodate visitor access 

and exhibits. 

School groups and other large groups 

would be expected to increase after the 

first floor at the Gambrill Mill was 

converted into meeting space, and the 

groups also would be expected to stay 

longer. 

Visitation would increase as the 

battlefield facilities were developed 

under alternative 3. Visitors would stay 

longer at the battlefield and possibly also 

longer in the community, with a larger 

corresponding economic impact 

compared to the no-action alternative. 

Improving the highway near the 14th 

New Jersey Monument and reducing 

visitor traffic into the Gambrill Mill area 

probably would decrease the likelihood 

of accidents in those areas. 

Alternative 3 would result in more 

visitation than the no-action alternative, 

along with more visitor spending in the 

community. NPS direct spending in the 

community would increase with more 

funds spent for construction and 

demolition materials. 

The staff of the national battlefield 

would be increased somewhat, with 

maintenance workers and interpreters 

needed to operate and maintain new 

facilities. 

Overall, alternative 3 would result in 

direct and indirect long-term negligible 

beneficial effects when compared with 

the socioeconomic conditions of the 

entire Frederick County. 

171 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

172 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects on the socioeconomic environment from land uses 

and activities in the national battlefield 

and surrounding lands would be similar 

to those described for the no-action 

alternative. The overall cumulative 

effects would be long term, moderate, 

and beneficial. The contribution of 

alternative 3 to the cumulative effects 

would be long-term, negligible, and 

beneficial. 

Conclusion 

Alternative 3 would result in direct and 

indirect long-term negligible beneficial 

effects on the socioeconomic 

environment. 

EFFECTS FROM ALTERNATIVE 4 

(PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Analysis 

Alternative 4 would result in several 

one-time expenditures of funds in the 

local community — new roads, parking 

improvements, new visitor facilities at 

the Thomas and Worthington farms. 

Visitation would increase under alternative 4 as battlefield facilities were 

developed at the Thomas and Worthington farms. Visitors would stay 

longer at the battlefield and possibly also 

longer in the community, with a larger 

corresponding economic impact compared to the no-action alternative. NPS 

direct spending in the community would 

increase, with more funds spent for 

construction and demolition materials. 

Building a new entrance off of MD 355 

for the 14th New Jersey Monument and 

reducing traffic into the Gambrill Mill 

area probably would decrease the 

number of accidents in these locations. 

The staff of the national battlefield 

would be increased somewhat, with 

maintenance workers and interpreters 

needed to operate and maintain new 

facilities. 

Overall, alternative 4 would result in a 

long-term negligible beneficial effect 

when compared with the socioeconomic 

conditions of the entire Frederick 

County. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects on the socioeconomic environment from land uses and 

activities in the national battlefield and 

surrounding lands would be similar to 

those described for the no-action alternative. The overall cumulative effects 

would be long term, moderate, and 

beneficial. The contribution of alternative 4 to the cumulative effects would 

be long term, negligible, and beneficial. 

Conclusion 

Alternative 4 would result in direct and 

indirect long-term negligible beneficial 

effects on the socioeconomic 

environment. 
EFFECTS ON ACCESS AND CIRCULATION 

METHODS FOR ASSESSING 

EFFECTS ON ACCESS AND 

CIRCULATION 

Analyses of the potential effects on 

access and circulation were derived 

from the available information at 

Monocacy National Battlefield and the 

2003 “Monocacy National Battlefield 

Transportation Plan” prepared by 

HNTB Corporation. The intensities of 

effects were defined as follows: 

Negligible — The effect would be 

barely detectable, and there would be 

no discernible effect on local, 

regional, or battlefield transportation 

networks. 

Minor — The action would cause a 

slightly detectable benefit or 

detriment to local, regional, or 

battlefield transportation networks. 

Moderate — The action would result 

in a clearly detectable benefit or 

detriment to local, regional, or 

battlefield transportation networks. 

Major — The action would result in a 

substantial, highly noticeable benefit 

or detriment to local, regional, or 

battlefield transportation networks. 

EFFECTS FROM ALTERNATIVE 1 

(NO ACTION) 

Analysis 

The no-action alternative would involve 

no proposed changes in local, regional, 

or battlefield transportation systems; 

however, urban sprawl and growth in 

Frederick County would continue to 

add traffic. 

Cumulative Effects 

The environmental assessment for the 

proposed relocation of the battlefield’s 

visitor center forecasted an increase in 

the battlefield’s visitation rate. It was 

projected that an increase of up to 

40,000 visits per year would result from 

the area’s continued growth, the proposed visitor center, and the potential 

for partnership opportunities. This 

forecast is almost triple the visitation 

rate recorded in 2003. 

Table 5 (copied from the NPS “Public 

Use Statistics” Web site) shows the 

annual visitation for Monocacy National 

Battlefield between 1991 and 2003. 

TABLE 5: MONOCACY NATIONAL

BATTLEFIELD ANNUAL 

VISITATION, 1991–2003 

1991 0 

1992 9,560 

1993 8,251 

1994 11,661 

1995 21,165 

1996 11,312 

1997 11,804 

1998 15,563 

1999 14,834 

2000 18,198 

2001 18,095 

2002 15,592 

2003 14,566 

Table 6 shows visitation to the 

battlefield by month during 2003. 

173 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

TABLE 6: MONOCACY NATIONAL 

BATTLEFIELD VISITATION 

BY MONTH, 2003 

Month Visits 

January 363 

February 187 

March 600 

April 1,716 

May 1,555 

June 2,059 

July 2,743 

August 1,789 

September 1,020 

October 1,173 

November 969 

December 392 

Total 14,566 

To project changes in traffic volumes 

following the construction of the new 

visitor center, the following rationale 

has been developed: 

The staff of Monocacy National 

Battlefield has observed that roughly 

70% of visitation occurs during 

weekends. Using the total visits from the 

highest month in 2003 — July, 2,743 

visits — take 70% of 2,743 = 1,920 visits; 

divide by 8 weekend days per month, 

this equals 240 people per day on an 

average weekend day during the peak 

use month of July. Assume an increase in 

visitation of 3, so 240 x 3 = 720. Assume 

2.5 people per vehicle equals 288 cars 

per peak weekend day. Assume there 

will be 2 vehicle trips per visit, 2 x 288 = 

576 (one to and from the battlefield). 

This equates to a future average daily 

traffic volume of 576 vehicle trips per 

day. Using the same method for 

establishing the current volume of traffic 

resulting from battlefield visitors, there 

are 192 vehicle trips per day during the 

peak weekend day. Therefore, the 

resulting change in traffic volume is 

expected to be 384 vehicle trips per peak 

weekend day. 

Urbana Pike (MD 355) is an already 

heavily traveled road (13,000 average 

daily traffic [ADT]). Even if visitation 

were to triple following the opening of 

the new visitor center, the percentage of 

daily traffic due to increased visitation is 

only projected to be 3%, compared to 

the current volume of traffic 

accommodated on MD 355. This would 

result in a minor long-term cumulative 

adverse impact on MD 355. 

However, if visitation tripled, visitors 

traveling on Araby and Baker Valley 

roads, which are now low volume local 

roads (less than 1,100 ADT) potentially 

could increase the ADT of those roads 

by 35%. This would result in a cumulative moderate long-term adverse effect 

on Araby and Baker Valley roads. 

Conclusion 

Increased traffic resulting from more 

visitation to the national battlefield 

would cause minor long-term adverse 

impacts on MD 355. Increased visitor 

traffic would result in moderate longterm adverse impacts on the Araby 

Church and Baker Valley road 

networks. 

Because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation of Monocacy 

National Battlefield, (2) key to its natural 

or cultural integrity or opportunities for 

its enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal 

174 
Effects on Access and Circulation 

in its general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, the 

national battlefield’s resources or values 

would not be impaired. 

EFFECTS FROM ALTERNATIVE 2 

Analysis 

Visitors to Monocacy National 

Battlefield traveling on foot or by vehicle 

to battlefield features would benefit 

from alternative 2, a moderate long-term 

beneficial effect on access and 

circulation, as summarized below. 

With the opening of the new visitor 

center, the flow of visitor travel to 

battlefield resources has been simplified. 

Left turn movements from MD 355 into 

the visitor center will be shifted north to 

an area where sight distance is better 

and the highway is wider. The visitor 

center would be the first stop for 

visitors; its location will allow visitors to 

reach the 14th New Jersey Monument 

and Araby Church Road by turning right 

off MD 355. This would make access to 

the battlefield features safer and help to 

eliminate confusion. 

Moving national battlefield 

administration and maintenance to 

leased space outside the boundaries in 

alternative 2 would reduce the number 

of turns NPS vehicles would make from 

the Gambrill Mill drive from and onto 

MD 355. The access and circulation 

improvements that would be made to 

areas of the battlefield under alternative 

2 would allow visitors to reach the 

Thomas Farm, Frederick Junction, 

Wallace’s headquarters, and the earthworks north of the CSX railroad — areas 

that have been unavailable. 

If market conditions allow and a willing 

vendor could be found, alternative 2 

would include an alternative 

transportation system consisting of 

small bus-like vehicles that would carry 

visitors around the battlefield. The 

“Monocacy National Battlefield 

Transportation Plan” prepared by 

HNTB Corporation indicates that a 

small shuttle van service could be 

economically viable during the heaviest 

use periods. Using the system would be 

mandatory for visitors when the system 

was in operation; at other times, they 

could use their personal vehicles. 

Adding a deck across I-270 would restore a vital connection between the 

Worthington and Thomas farms that 

was lost when the interstate highway 

was built, making it possible to drive 

along a one-way pattern between the 

farms, about where Union and 

Confederate troops engaged in some of 

the heaviest fighting. This would benefit 

access and circulation. 

Upgrading a parking area on the 

Thomas Farm, along Baker Valley Road 

at the end of the lane would benefit 

access and circulation, as would 

improving parking near the 14th New 

Jersey Monument and shifting the 

entrance to the monument south to 

improve sight distances. 

Adding trails in several areas —across 

the I-270 deck to let pedestrians go 

between the Thomas and Worthington 

farms, and from the visitor center to the 

railroad junction — as well as extending 

the Gambrill Mill trail across Bush 

Creek to where one can see the railroad 

junction would benefit visitors. 

175 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Alternative 2 would result in no 

appreciable change in visitation beyond 

that projected for the new visitor center. 

The greatest effect on visitation would 

result from the completion of the visitor 

center, but the enhanced interpretive 

opportunities from improved access to 

battlefield features under alternative 2 

would increase each visitor’s length of 

stay. This would not affect traffic 

volumes beyond those projected for the 

no-action alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects from alternative 

2 would be the same as those described 

for the no-action alternative. There 

would be long-term minor adverse 

impacts on MD 355 and moderate longterm adverse impacts on the Araby 

Church and Baker Valley road networks 

from increased traffic resulting from 

greater visitation. However, the access 

and circulation improvements throughout the battlefield under alternative 2 

also would result in moderate long-term 

beneficial effects on pedestrian and 

vehicular access and circulation to 

features throughout the battlefield. 

Conclusion 

Alternative 2 would result in long-term 

minor adverse impacts on MD 355 and 

moderate long-term adverse impacts on 

the Araby Church and Baker Valley road 

networks from increased traffic caused 

by greater numbers of visitors. However, 

the access and circulation improvements 

throughout the battlefield under alternative 2 also would result in moderate 

long-term beneficial effects on pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation 

to features throughout the battlefield. 

Because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation of Monocacy 

National Battlefield, (2) key to its natural 

or cultural integrity or opportunities for 

its enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal 

in its general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, the 

national battlefield’s resources or values 

would not be impaired. 

EFFECTS FROM ALTERNATIVE 3 

Analysis 

Visitors to Monocacy National Battlefield traveling on foot or by vehicle to 

battlefield features would benefit from 

alternative 3, a moderate long-term 

beneficial effect on access and 

circulation. 

With the opening of the new visitor 

center, the flow of visitor travel to 

battlefield resources has been simplified. 

Left turn movements from MD 355 into 

the visitor center will be shifted north to 

an area where sight distance is better 

and the highway is wider. The location 

of the visitor center also will allow 

visitors to reach the 14th New Jersey 

Monument and Araby Church Road by 

turning right off MD 355. This will make 

access to the battlefield features safer 

and help to eliminate confusion. 

Widening the gravel-surfaced entry lane 

from Baker Valley Road to the Worthington House for two-way access and 

adding a small parking area would 

enable visitors to park vehicles closer to 

the Worthington House, a beneficial 

effect. 

176 
Effects on Access and Circulation 

Visitors would benefit from the upgrading of a small parking area near the 

intersection of the Thomas Farm land 

with the Baker Valley road to improve 

access to the Thomas farmstead. 

Displaying interpretive exhibits in the 

stone tenant house at the Thomas Farm 

also would benefit visitors. 

Moving the entrance to the 14th New 

Jersey Monument to the east side of MD 

355 and adding a new parking area 

would benefit access and circulation. A 

trail under the MD 355 railroad overpass would lead to the monument. The 

old parking area would be removed and 

the land rehabilitated. The national 

battlefield staff would work with New 

Jersey and CSX to coordinate these 

changes. 

Relocating national battlefield headquarters to the Thomas House and 

leaving the maintenance facility in the 

metal building on the Gambrill property 

would offset any changes in the number 

of turning movements by NPS vehicles 

on MD 355 and the Gambrill Mill access 

drive. 

Alternative 3 would result in no 

appreciable change in visitation beyond 

that projected for the new visitor center. 

The greatest effect on visitation would 

result from the completion of the visitor 

center, but the enhanced interpretive 

opportunities from improved access to 

battlefield features under alternative 3 

would increase each visitor’s length of 

stay. This would not affect traffic 

volumes beyond those projected for the 

no-action alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects from alternative 

3 would be the same as those described 

for the no-action alternative. There 

would be long-term minor adverse 

impacts on MD 355 and moderate longterm adverse impacts on the Araby 

Church and Baker Valley road networks 

from increased traffic resulting from 

greater visitation. However, the access 

and circulation improvements 

throughout the battlefield under 

alternative 3 also would result in 

moderate long-term beneficial effects on 

pedestrian and vehicular access and 

circulation to features throughout the 

battlefield. 

Conclusion 

Alternative 3 would result in long-term 

minor adverse impacts on MD 355 and 

moderate long-term adverse impacts on 

the Araby Church and Baker Valley road 

networks from increased traffic caused 

by greater numbers of visitors. However, 

the access and circulation improvements 

throughout the battlefield under alternative 3 also would result in moderate 

long-term beneficial effects on pedestrian and vehicular access and 

circulation to features throughout the 

battlefield. 

Because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation of Monocacy 

National Battlefield, (2) key to its natural 

or cultural integrity or opportunities for 

its enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal 

in its general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, the 

177 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

national battlefield’s resources or values 

would not be impaired. 

EFFECTS FROM ALTERNATIVE 4 

(PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Analysis 

Visitors to Monocacy National Battlefield traveling on foot or by vehicle to 

battlefield features would benefit from 

alternative 4, a moderate long-term 

beneficial effect on access and 

circulation. 

With the opening of the new visitor 

center, the flow of visitor travel to 

battlefield resources has been simplified. 

Left turn movements from MD 355 into 

the visitor center will be shifted north to 

an area where sight distance is better 

and the highway is wider. The location 

of the visitor center also will allow 

visitors to reach the 14th New Jersey 

Monument and Araby Church Road by 

turning right off MD 355. This will make 

access to the battlefield features safer 

and help to eliminate confusion. 

A number of access and circulation 

improvements would be made to areas 

of the battlefield under alternative 4 that 

would give visitors access to areas that 

have been inaccessible. Access would be 

improved to the Best and Thomas farms, 

to the Wallace’s headquarters site, and 

to existing features. 

Adding a pedestrian deck across I-270 

would restore a vital connection 

between the Worthington and Thomas 

farms that was lost when the interstate 

highway was built, making it possible to 

walk between the farms, about where 

Union and Confederate troops engaged 

in some of the heaviest fighting. This 

would benefit access and circulation. 

Shifting the entrance to the 14th New 

Jersey Monument south to improve 

sight distances would improve safety. 

The national battlefield staff would 

work with the state of New Jersey to 

develop a plan to improve parking near 

the monument. 

Relocating national battlefield headquarters to the Thomas House and 

leaving the maintenance facility in the 

metal building on the Gambrill property 

would offset any changes in the number 

of turning movements by NPS vehicles 

on MD 355 and the Gambrill Mill access 

drive. 

Adding trails to the Wallace’s headquarters site, and the Union entrenchment area, would result in a moderate 

long-term beneficial effect on access and 

circulation. 

Alternative 4 would result in no 

appreciable change in visitation beyond 

that projected for the new visitor center. 

The greatest effect on visitation would 

result from the completion of the visitor 

center, but the enhanced interpretive 

opportunities from improved access to 

battlefield features under alternative 4 

would increase each visitor’s length of 

stay. This would not affect traffic 

volumes beyond those projected for the 

no-action alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects from alternative 

4 would be the same as those described 

for the no-action alternative. There 

would be long-term minor adverse 

impacts on MD 355 and moderate long178 
Effects on Access and Circulation 

179 

term adverse impacts on the Araby 

Church and Baker Valley road networks 

from increased traffic resulting from 

greater visitation. However, the access 

and circulation improvements 

throughout the battlefield under 

alternative 4 also would result in 

moderate long-term beneficial effects on 

pedestrian and vehicular access and 

circulation to features throughout the 

battlefield. 

Conclusion 

Alternative 4 would result in long-term 

minor adverse impacts on MD 355 and 

moderate long-term adverse impacts on 

the Araby Church and Baker Valley road 

networks from increased traffic caused 

by greater numbers of visitors. However, 

the access and circulation improvements 

throughout the battlefield under alternative 4 also would result in moderate 

long-term beneficial effects on 

pedestrian and vehicular access and 

circulation to features throughout the 

battlefield. 

Because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation of Monocacy 

National Battlefield, (2) key to its natural 

or cultural integrity or opportunities for 

its enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal 

in its general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, the 

national battlefield’s resources or values 

would not be impaired. 
EFFECTS ON NPS OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

METHODS FOR ASSESSING 

EFFECTS ON NPS OPERATIONS 

AND FACILITIES 

Analyses of the potential effects on NPS 

operations and facilities were evaluated 

for the following categories: 

• infrastructure, visitor facilities, and 

services 

• the operations of other federal 

agencies such as the Forest Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, and 

the Bureau of Land Management, 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

• the operations of non-NPS entities 

such as the Western Maryland 

Interpretive Association, agricultural 

lessees, partners, and volunteers 

Effects were analyzed on the basis of 

how national battlefield operations and 

facilities might vary under the different 

alternatives. The analysis is qualitative 

rather than quantitative because the 

alternatives are conceptual. Professional 

judgment was used to reach reasonable 

conclusions about the intensity, 

duration, and type of each potential 

effect. 

Duration 

Short-term effects would last less than 

one year, because construction generally 

is finished within a year, and any effect 

would last only until all constructionrelated actions were completed. Longterm effects would extend beyond one 

year, and such effects on operations 

could be permanent. 

Intensity 

The intensities of effects are defined as 

follows: 

Negligible — National battlefield 

operations would not be affected, or 

the effect would be at or below the 

lower levels of detection, and the 

action would not have an appreciable 

effect on national battlefield 

operations. 

Minor — The effect would be 

detectable but would not be of a 

magnitude that would have an 

appreciable effect on national 

battlefield operations. 

Moderate — The effects would be 

readily apparent, and the action 

would result in a substantial change 

in national battlefield operations that 

would be noticeable to the staff and 

the public. 

Major — The effects would be readily 

apparent, and the action would result 

in a substantial change in national 

battlefield operations that would be 

noticeable to the staff and the public, 

so that operations would be markedly 

different from existing operations. 

Type of Effect 

Beneficial effects would improve NPS 

operations or facilities. Adverse effects 

would negatively affect NPS operations 

or facilities and could hinder the ability 

of the National Park Service to provide 

adequate services and facilities to 

visitors and staff. Some effects could be 

beneficial for some operations or 

180 
Effects on NPS Operations and Facilities 

facilities and adverse or neutral for 

others. 

EFFECTS FROM ALTERNATIVE 1 

(NO ACTION) 

Analysis 

Visitors’ interest in seeing the battlefield’s historic structures could be 

piqued by information available in the 

new visitor center. However, in alternative 1 visitors could not enter any 

historic structure; therefore, it is 

unlikely that any visitor would stay long 

at each location. 

The on-going preservation and 

stabilization of historic structures 

continues to reduce the battlefield’s 

deferred maintenance backlog, thereby 

allowing maintenance personnel to 

transition into a preventive maintenance 

program that would avoid future costly 

rehabilitation efforts. 

The no action alternative would result in 

a long-term minor beneficial effect on 

national battlefield operations. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past facility development has resulted in 

a moderate long-term beneficial effect 

on the national battlefield’s operations. 

The addition of the new visitor center 

built on the north side of the national 

battlefield will cause a moderate longterm beneficial effect on national 

battlefield operations. 

Conclusion 

The no-action alternative would result 

in a long-term minor beneficial effect on 

national battlefield operations. 

EFFECTS FROM ALTERNATIVE 2 

Analysis 

Adding exhibits and other new visitor 

facilities in the stone tenant house on 

the Thomas Farm, would improve 

visitor services, resulting in a more 

comprehensive visitor experience and a 

greater staff presence in the heart of the 

battlefield. 

The national battlefield’s administrative 

staff would be farther removed from 

some resources under alternative 2, 

which could result in higher fuel 

consumption and longer travel times. 

Leasing maintenance space outside the 

national battlefield would result in a 

larger, more efficient facility and in the 

removal of a nonhistoric structure from 

the battlefield landscape. 

The on-going stabilization and preservation efforts on historic structures continues to reduce the battlefield’s 

deferred maintenance backlog, thereby 

allowing maintenance personnel to 

transition into a preventive maintenance 

program that would avoid future costly 

rehabilitation efforts. 

Utilizing the historic leasing program for 

the Thomas farmhouse would reduce 

the battlefield’s deferred maintenance 

backlog by considerably. This would 

also free up maintenance staff to 

concentrate on preventive maintenance 

efforts for the battlefield’s remaining 

assets. 

Alternative 2 would result in a long-term 

major beneficial effect on Monocacy 

National Battlefield. 

181 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Cumulative Effects 

The efficiency of national battlefield 

operations would be improved by 

removing administrative and 

maintenance operations from the 

battlefield and opening the new visitor 

center. A major long-term beneficial 

effect on national battlefield operations 

would result from the new visitor center 

and from the actions of alternative 2. 

Together, these present and proposed 

actions would result in a major longterm beneficial effect on national 

battlefield operations. 

Conclusion 

Alternative 2 would result in a long-term 

major beneficial effect on the national 

battlefield’s operations, compared with 

the effects of the no-action alternative. 

EFFECTS FROM ALTERNATIVE 3 

Analysis 

Adding exhibits and other new visitor 

facilities in the stone tenant house on 

the Thomas Farm, the Worthington, and 

Best Houses, would improve visitor services. These actions would result in a 

more comprehensive visitor experience 

and a greater staff presence in the heart 

of the battlefield. 

With the interior of the Thomas House 

being adaptively reused for administrative offices, all administrative and 

headquarters staff could occupy the 

same building. 

The on-going stabilization and preservation efforts of historic structures 

continues to reduce the battlefield’s 

deferred maintenance backlog, thereby 

allowing maintenance personnel to 

transition into a preventive maintenance 

program that would avoid future costly 

rehabilitation efforts. 

Overall, alternative 3 would result in 

long-term major beneficial effects on 

national battlefield operations. 

Cumulative Effects 

The new visitor center will result in a 

major long-term beneficial effect on 

national battlefield operations, as would 

the actions of alternative 3. Together, 

these present and proposed actions 

would result in a major long-term 

beneficial effect on national battlefield 

operations. 

Conclusion 

Alternative 3 would result in a long-term 

major beneficial effect on the national 

battlefield’s operations, compared with 

the effects of the no-action alternative. 

EFFECTS FROM ALTERNATIVE 4 

(PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Analysis 

Adding a new visitor facility at the stone 

tenant house on the Thomas Farm, 

along with exhibits at the Worthington 

House, would improve visitor services. 

These actions would result in a more 

comprehensive visitor experience and a 

greater staff presence in the heart of the 

battlefield. 

The on-going stabilization and preservation efforts of historic structures 

continues to reduce the battlefield’s 

deferred maintenance backlog, thereby 

allowing maintenance personnel to 

transition into a preventive maintenance 

182 
Effects on NPS Operations and Facilities 

183 

program that would avoid future costly 

rehabilitation efforts. 

Overall, alternative 4 would result in 

long-term major beneficial effects on 

national battlefield operations. 

Cumulative Effects 

The new visitor center will result in a 

major long-term beneficial effect on 

national battlefield operations, as would 

the actions of alternative 4. Together, 

these present and proposed actions 

would result in a major long-term 

beneficial effect on national battlefield 

operations. 

Conclusion 

Alternative 4 would result in a long-term 

major beneficial effect on the national 

battlefield’s operations, compared with 

the effects of the no-action alternative. 
REQUIRED ANALYSES 

IRREVERSIBLE AND 

IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 

Other than some losses of construction 

materials and energy, there would be no 

irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources under any of the 

alternatives. 

RELATIONSHIPS OF SHORT-TERM 

USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND 

LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Continuing use and visitor activities, 

along with planned facility improvements under the no-action alternative, 

would continue to improve the longterm productivity of the socioeconomic 

environment over both the short term 

and the long term. 

Alternative 2 

Rehabilitating the Thomas house under 

the historic leasing program would 

make it possible to achieve ongoing 

maintenance through a non-NPS source 

of income. 

Alternative 3 

Rehabilitating the Thomas, Best, and 

Worthington houses for use as offices 

and exhibit space would alter them from 

their original purposes. 

Alternative 4 (Preferred Alternative) 

Rehabilitating the Thomas and Worthington houses for use as offices and 

exhibit space would alter them from 

their original purposes. 

ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND 

CONSERVATION POTENTIAL 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Energy requirements would be 

unchanged under alternative 1 because 

no new structures would be built and 

the way in which visitors reach the 

national battlefield would not change. 

Gradually improving the energy efficiency of existing structures could 

mitigate energy requirements. Alternative 1 would result in the least use of 

energy of all the alternatives because 

fewer structures would be used by 

visitors and by national battlefield 

administration. 

Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 would consume more 

energy than alternative 1. The Thomas 

house, now unused, would be placed 

under the historic leasing program. The 

Thomas stone tenant house, also 

unused, would become exhibit space. 

Although national battlefield 

administration would be moved from 

Gambrill Mill into rented space outside 

the national battlefield, the mill would 

continue to be used. 

Several actions of alternative 2 would 

result in more energy consumption than 

alternative 1. Creating a new entrance to 

the 14th New Jersey Monument would 

use energy, as would removing the 

maintenance facility and constructing a 

deck across I-270. A visitor transportation system, if fully utilized, could save 

energy compared to the use of private 

vehicles, depending on the type of 

system used and the energy source. 

184 
Required Analysis 

Alternative 3 

More energy would be consumed in 

alternative 3 than in alternative 2. 

Energy would be needed for the use of 

the Best, Thomas, and Worthington 

Houses and the stone tenant house on 

the Thomas farm, all of which are now 

unused. Even with the administrative 

function removed, about the same 

amount of energy would be needed for 

the Gambrill Mill. 

Creating a new entrance and parking 

area for the 14th New Jersey 

Monument, and widening Worthington 

Lane would consume additional energy. 

Alternative 4 (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative 4 would result in the 

consumption of about the same amount 

of energy as alternative 3. As in 

alternative 3, more energy would be 

needed for the use of the Thomas and 

Worthington houses and the stone 

tenant house on the Thomas farm, all of 

which are now unused. Similarly, even 

with the administrative function 

removed, about the same amount of 

energy would be needed for the 

Gambrill Mill. 

Creating a new entrance to the 14th 

New Jersey Monument, and widening 

Worthington Lane would consume 

additional energy, as would adding a 

pedestrian deck across I-270. 

185 
(blank) 

186 

(blank back of divider) 
PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

INTRODUCTION 

This Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Monocacy National Battlefield 

represents the thoughts of the National 

Park Service — including the national 

battlefield staff and the National Capitol 

Regional Office, the Maryland State 

Highway Administration, and the 

public. Consultation and coordination 

among the agencies and the public were 

vitally important throughout the 

planning process. The public 

participated through three primary 

avenues during the development of the 

plan: public meetings, responses to 

newsletters, and comments submitted to 

the national battlefield’s Web site. 

PUBLIC MEETINGS 

AND NEWSLETTERS 

A notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement was published 

in the Federal Register on September 23, 

2002 (FR vol. 67, no. 184, p. 59539). 

Public meetings and newsletters kept 

the public informed and involved in the 

planning process for Monocacy 

National Battlefield. The National Park 

Service compiled a mailing list that 

consisted of interested citizens, legislators, businesses, local governments, 

members of organizations, and various 

government agencies. The first 

newsletter, issued in December 2002, 

described the planning effort. The 

National Park Service received written 

responses to the first newsletter. 

The National Park Service conducted 

public scoping meetings on July 29 and 

31, 2002, in the Gambrill House, 

Monocacy National Battlefield. A total 

of 16 people attended the two meetings. 

Only 6 people attended another scoping 

meeting at the same location in December 2002 (inclement weather). 

The National Park Service met with the 

Maryland State Highway Administration 

and the Frederick County Commissioners on July 31, 2002, and with a 

representative of the Maryland historic 

preservation officer on August 1, 2002. 

The National Park Service received 

written responses to the newsletter and 

comments at all the meetings. The 

comments received are summarized 

earlier in this document, under 

“Planning Issues and Concerns” (p. 28). 

All the comments received were 

considered and incorporated into the 

issues for the plan. 

A second newsletter distributed in April 

2003 described the draft alternative 

concepts for managing the national 

battlefield. A total of 36 electronic and 

mailed comments were received in 

response to that newsletter. The comments gave positive feedback on the 

planning process and the alternatives 

presented. Many commenters expressed 

appreciation for the opportunity to 

comment and take part in the planning 

process. 

Most people who commented expressed 

preference for alternative 2. Many 

commenters mentioned that the Battle 

of Monocacy is the primary purpose for 

the establishment of Monocacy 

National Battlefield and said that the 

189 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

battle should be the main focus of the 

plan. 

About a fifth of the commenters said 

they preferred a blend of themes, with 

priority given to the battle, using the 

local and “crossroads” themes to 

provide context. Still fewer expressed 

preference for alternative 3. Only a few 

people supported selecting alternative 1, 

the no-action alternative, and the 

original alternative 4 (since eliminated). 

Some people expressed concern about 

how the actions for each alternative 

were selected, saying that the National 

Park Service should identify the best 

treatment for each area and bundle 

those actions under one “action” alternative, so that there would be only two 

alternatives, no change (the no-action 

alternative) and “full theme 

development.” 

One person said that almost the entire 

battlefield should be a preservation zone 

because natural resources are a part of 

the cultural landscape. 

Many commenters questioned why the 

National Park Service proposed to 

remove the toll house. 

Some people expressed concern about 

the cost of the deck over I-270. One 

commenter expressed a liking for the 

deck connection over I-270, and 

another said that more information 

should be available about the I-270 

connection. 

Several people suggested reordering the 

interpretive themes, and one suggested a 

rewording of one theme. 

Some commenters said the National 

Park Service should not let cost be a 

limiting factor because significant 

support can be raised through 

nonappropriated funding avenues. 

The following ideas also were suggested: 

• Improve traffic safety. 

• Improve access to the national 

battlefield. 

• Improve signs at the national 

battlefield. 

• If new monuments are added, do not 

confine them all into one “alley.” 

• Include the alternative 

transportation system in all 

alternatives, and identify what the 

threshold would be for implementing the transportation system. 

• Fully furnish at least one battlefield 

structure in period style, and make 

that house accessible to the public. 

• Seek private funding sources. 

• Define the boundary of the 

battlefield without the filter of 

integrity. Pursue the acquisition of 

these lands whenever possible. 

Expand the boundary. 

• Consider planting a buffer of trees to 

screen urban sprawl. 

• Provide access to Union or 

Confederate positions. 

• Offer first-person soldier accounts of 

the battle (“living history”). 

• Minimize development to help 

ensure maximum preservation of the 

battlefield. 

• Market the national battlefield. 

190 
Public and Agency Involvement 

• Make and sell a DVD of the national 

battlefield that would include all 

necessary interpretation. 

• Make available a library archive that 

the public can access to learn more 

about the battle. 

• Restore the 1864 battlefield 

landscape. 

• Encourage groups to raise funds for 

new monuments to be added on the 

battlefield and to direct their efforts 

to additional land acquisition. 

• Guard against the cumulative 

impacts of recreational use. 

CONSULTATION WITH 

ORGANIZATIONS AND WITH 

OTHER AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS 

Section 7 Consultation 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As 

required by section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act, the National Park Service 

has coordinated informally with the 

Chesapeake Bay Field Office of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service during the 

preparation of this document. The list of 

threatened and endangered species in 

appendix F was compiled with the use of 

lists and information received from the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

In accordance with the Endangered 

Species Act and relevant regulations in 

50 CFR 402, the National Park Service 

has determined that the actions of the 

alternatives of this plan would not be 

likely to affect any federally listed 

threatened or endangered species. A 

copy of this draft plan has been sent to 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with a 

request for written concurrence with 

that determination. In addition, the 

National Park Service has committed to 

consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service about future actions conducted 

under the framework described in this 

plan to ensure that such actions would 

not be likely to result in adverse effects 

on threatened or endangered species. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. The National Park Service 

consulted with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources to get a list of 

state listed species that may be present 

in the national battlefield. On September 

11, 2003, the department responded that 

it has “no records for Federal or State 

rare, threatened, or endangered plants 

or animals within this project site.” The 

full text of the letter is reproduced in 

appendix F. However, a study done at 

the national battlefield by the Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources in 

1998 listed some state species. That list is 

the one used in this document 

Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. The National Park Service 

consulted with the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (NRCS), in February 2004 

about prime and unique farmlands. The 

conclusion of the NRCS representative 

was that there are no prime and unique 

farmlands in the battlefield. 

Section 106 Consultation 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

(16 USC 470, et seq.) requires that 

agencies with direct or indirect 

jurisdiction over historic properties 

consider the effect of any undertaking 

on properties eligible for listing in the 

191 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

National Register of Historic Places. To 

meet the requirements of 36 CFR 800, 

the National Park Service sent letters to 

the Maryland historic preservation 

office and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation on April 11, 2002, 

inviting them to participate in the 

planning process. All the newsletters 

from this planning process were sent to 

both offices with a request for 

comments. 

Stipulation VI.E of the 1995 programmatic agreement among the National 

Park Service, the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, and the National 

Conference of State Historic 

Preservation Officers requires the 

following of the National Park Service: 

During the planning process, the 

park superintendent, in consultation with the SHPO, will make a 

determination about which 

undertakings are programmatic 

exclusions under IV.A and B, and 

for all other undertakings, whether 

there is sufficient information 

about resources and potential 

effects on those resources to seek 

review and comment under 36 

CFR 800.4-6 during the plan 

review process . . . documentation 

of this consultation will be 

included in the GMP [plan]. 

The superintendent of Monocacy 

National Battlefield and the job captain / 

project manager met with a representative of the Maryland state historic 

preservation office on August 1, 2002, at 

the national battlefield and again in June 

2003 at the SHPO office in Crownsville, 

Maryland, to discuss the progress of the 

alternatives of the General Management 

Plan and the strategy for dealing with 

the proposal to widen I-270. 

AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, 

AND INDIVIDUALS THAT 

RECEIVED 

A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT 

Federal Agencies and Officials 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation 

Chesapeake Bay Program Office 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Natural Resource Conservation 

Service 

U.S. Forest Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

National Park Service 

Andersonville National Historic 

Site 

Antietam National Battlefield 

Appomattox Court House 

National Historical Park 

Arkansas Post National Memorial 

Catoctin Mountain Park 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal 

National Historical Park 

Chickamauga and Chattanooga 

National Military Park 

Colonial National Historical Park 

Fort Donelson National Battlefield 

Fort McHenry National 

Monument and Historic Shrine 

Fort Sumter National Monument 

Fredericksburg/Spotsylvania 

National Military Park 

Gettysburg National Military Park 

Harpers Ferry National Historical 

Park 

Kennesaw Mountain National 

Battlefield Park 

Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Pea Ridge National Military Park 

192 
Public and Agency Involvement 

Pecos National Historical Park 

Petersburg National Battlefield 

Richmond National Battlefield 

Park 

Shiloh National Military Park 

Stones River National Battlefield 

Ulysses S. Grant National Historic 

Site 

Vicksburg National Military Park 

Wilson’s Creek National 

Battlefield 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Senator Barbara A. Mikulski 

Senator Paul S. Sarbanes 

Roscoe G. Bartlett, Representative to 

Congress 

State Agencies and Officials 

Chesapeake Bay Commission 

Maryland Department of the 

Environment 

Maryland Department of Housing and 

Community Development 

Director, Historical and Cultural 

Programs 

Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources 

Maryland Department of Planning 

Deputy Director, Office of Planning 

and Preliminary Engineering 

Maryland Department of 

Transportation 

Maryland State Historic Preservation 

Office 

Monocacy Scenic River Local Advisory 

Board 

Governor Robert L. Erlich, Jr. 

State Representative Richard B. 

Wheldon, Jr., District 3B 

State Senator Alex X. Mooney, 

District 3 

Local Agencies and Officials 

Frederick County 

Commissioner Michael Cady 

Commissioner Jan Gardner 

Commissioner John L. Thompson Jr. 

Commissioner John Lowell 

Commissioner Bruce Reeder 

City of Frederick 

Principal Planner 

Organizations and Businesses 

Associated Press 

Ben Hur Museum 

Baltimore Civil War Round Table 

Capitol Hill Civil War Round Table 

Central Delaware Civil War Round 

Table 

Civil War Medical Museum 

Civil War Preservation Trust 

Civil War Round Table of Alexandria, 

Virginia 

Civil War Round Table of the District of 

Columbia 

The Civil War Times

Community Commons 

Franklin County Civil War Round Table 

Frederick Chamber of Commerce 

Frederick Community College 

Historical Society of Carroll County, 

Maryland, Inc. 

Historic Sites Consortium 

Jefferson County Civil War Round 

Table 

Kent Civil War Society 

The Kiplinger Washington Editors, Inc. 

Loudoun County Civil War Round 

Table 

Maj. Gen. Isaac Trimble Camp 1836, 

Maryland Division, Sons of 

Confederate Veterans 

Maryland Historical Society 

National Parks Conservation 

Association 

193 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

194 

National Parks Foundation 

New Jersey Civil War History 

Association 

Northeast Kingdom Civil War Round 

Table 

Northern Virginia Relic Hunters 

Association 

Northwestern University 

Pipe Creek Civil War Round Table 

RK&K, LLP 

The Rectory School 

Shoemaker, Horman & Clapp, PA 

The Skedaddlers Civil War Round Table 

South Mountain Relic and Coin 

Tourism Council of Frederick County, 

Inc. 

(blank back of divider) 






APPENDIX B: FEDERAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 

In developing the General Management 

Plan / Environmental Impact Statement

for Monocacy National Battlefield, the 

National Park Service will follow all 

applicable regulations, laws, policies, 

and executive orders. A list of those 

relevant to this planning effort follows. 

LEGISLATION 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA). This act is the basic 

national charter for the protection of the 

environment. It establishes policy, sets 

goals, and provides means for carrying 

out the policy. Section 102(2) contains 

“action-forcing” provisions to make 

sure that federal agencies act according 

to the letter and spirit of the act. NEPA 

procedures must ensure that environmental information is available to public 

officials and citizens before decisions 

are made and before actions are taken. 

Accurate scientific analysis, expert 

agency comments, and public scrutiny 

are essential to implementing NEPA. 

Most important, NEPA documents must 

concentrate on the issues that are truly 

significant to the action in question. 

NEPA’s goal is better decisions. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 

as amended, Clean Water Act of 1972 

(PL 92-500, PL 100-433, 86 Stat 816, 

USC 9 sec. 1251 et seq., 1251-1376, 

and 1987 Federal Water Quality Act).

This act establishes federal regulation of 

the nation’s waters and contains provisions designed to “restore and 

maintain the chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of the nation’s 

waters.” The act requires that the states 

set and enforce water quality standards 

to meet EPA minimum guidelines. It 

establishes effluent limitations for point 

sources of pollution, and requires a 

permit for point source discharge of 

pollutants and a permit for the discharge 

of dredged or fill material. It also 

authorizes a “National Wetlands 

Inventory.” 

Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 

2000, Title II. The purpose of this act is 

to promote the restoration of estuary 

habitat, develop a national estuary 

restoration strategy for creating and 

maintaining effective estuary habitat 

restoration partnerships among public 

agencies at all levels of government, 

establish new partnerships between the 

public and private sectors, provide 

federal assistance for estuary habitat 

restoration projects, promote efficient 

financing of such projects, and develop 

and enhance monitoring and research 

capabilities. 

Rivers and Harbors Appropriation 

Act of 1988 (33 USC 401-403, as 

amended, 1982). This act established 

the regulatory authority of the Army 

Corps of Engineers over U.S. navigable 

waters. It established permit requirements for the construction of bridges, 

causeways, dams, or dikes within or over 

navigable waters of the United States. 

The construction of bridges and causeways is regulated by the secretary of 

transportation. Dam and dike permits 

are reviewed by the Corps of Engineers. 

Section 10 of the act requires a Corps 

permit for construction of any 

“obstruction of navigable waters” of the 

United States and for any excavation, 

fill, or other modification of various 

203 
APPENDIXES

types of navigable waters. Section 13 

requires a Corps permit for discharge of 

refuse of any kind (except liquid from 

sewers or urban runoff) from land or 

vessel into the navigable waters of the 

United States or into their tributaries. 

Similarly, the discharge of refuse is 

prohibited on the banks of navigable 

waters or their tributaries where the 

refuse could be washed into the water. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (PL 93-205; 87 Stat. 884). 

The Congress found and declared that 

“various species of fish, wildlife, and 

plants in the United States have been 

rendered extinct as a consequence of 

economic growth and development 

untempered by adequate concern and 

conservation; other species of fish, 

wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are in 

danger of or threatened with extinction; 

these species of fish, wildlife and plants 

are of aesthetic, ecological, educational, 

historical, recreational, and scientific 

value to the nation and its people; the 

United States has pledged itself to 

conserve to the extent practicable the 

various species of fish or wildlife or 

plants facing extinction . . . “ 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 

as amended (PL 85-624; 72 Stat 563; 16 

USC 661 et seq.) This act requires 

federal agencies to consult with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service or with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service and 

with parallel state agencies, whenever 

water resources development plans 

result in the alteration of a body of 

water. The secretary of the interior is 

authorized to assist and cooperate with 

federal agencies to “provide that wildlife 

conservation shall receive equal 

consideration and be coordinated with 

other features of water resource 

development programs.” 

Clean Air Act, as amended (PL 360; 69 

Stat 322; 42 USC 7401 et seq.). The 

main purpose of this act is to protect 

and enhance the nation’s air quality to 

promote the public health and welfare. 

The act establishes specific programs 

that provide special protection of air 

resources and air quality related values 

(AQRVs) associated with NPS units. For 

example sections 160–169 of the act 

establish a program to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality in 

clean air regions of the country. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (PL 90-

542; 82 Stat 906; 16 USC 1271, as 

amended, 16 USC 1271–1287). This act 

established the national wild and scenic 

rivers system and outlined criteria and 

procedures whereby free-flowing 

streams, or portions thereof, could be 

added to the system. The system 

includes wild, scenic, and recreational 

rivers. Where designated rivers are 

administered by the National Park 

Service and there is a conflict between 

this act and NPS legislation, the more 

restrictive provisions apply. The act 

prohibits the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission from licensing water 

resource projects that would have a 

direct and adverse effect on the values 

for which the river was designated. The 

act also directs the appropriate federal 

parties to cooperate with state pollution 

control agencies to eliminate or 

diminish pollution in designated rivers. 

204 
Appendix B: Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies 

Federal Insecticide , Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (PL 92-516; 86 Stat 

973; 7 USC 136 et seq.). This act 

requires that all pesticides be registered 

and that pesticides be used in accordance with the registration. The act 

restricts the use of certain pesticides. 

Some pesticides are regulated as toxic 

pollutants under the Clean Water Act 

and the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

American Indian Religious Freedom 

Act (PL 95-341; 92 Stat. 469; 42 USC 

§1996). This act declares policy to 

protect and preserve the inherent and 

constitutional right of the American Indian / Eskimo / Aleut / Native Hawaiian 

people to believe, express, and exercise 

their traditional religions. It also calls for 

a now-completed evaluation of federal 

procedures, programmatic objectives, 

and policies. Statute imposes no specific 

procedural duties on federal agencies. 

Religious concerns should be accommodated or addressed under the National 

Environmental Protection Act or other 

appropriate statutes. 

Antiquities Act of 1906 (PL 59-209; 34 

Stat. 225; 16 USC §432 and 43 CFR 3).

This act provides for the protection of 

historic or prehistoric remains, “or any 

antiquity” on federal lands, establishes 

criminal sanctions for the unauthorized 

destruction or taking of antiquities, 

authorizes the president to declare 

national monuments by proclamation, 

and authorizes the scientific investigation 

of antiquities on federal lands, subject to 

permit and regulations. The law also 

protects historic monuments and ruins 

on public lands. The National Park 

Service does not have to seek permits for 

activities carried out on NPS land by 

authorized personnel. The Archeological 

Resources Protection Act (1979) 

superseded the Antiquities Act as an 

alternative federal tool for prosecuting 

antiquities violations in NPS areas. 

Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 (PL 86-

523; 70 Stat. 220; 16 USC sections 469–

469c). This act provides for the recovery 

and preservation of “historical and 

archeological data (including relics and 

specimens)” that might be lost or destroyed in the construction of dams and 

reservoirs. 

Archaeological and Historic 

Preservation Act of 1974 (PL 93-291; 

88 Stat. 174; 16 USC §469). This act 

amends and updates the Reservoir 

Salvage Act of 1960 to broaden legislation beyond dam construction. Provides 

for the preservation of significant 

scientific, prehistoric, historic, or 

archeological data (including relics and 

specimens) that might be lost or 

destroyed as a result of (1) the construction of dams, reservoirs, and attendant 

facilities, or (2) any alteration of the 

terrain caused as a result of any federal 

construction project or federally licensed 

project, activity, or program. It also 

provides for the recovery of data from 

areas to be affected by federal actions. 

Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act of 1979 (PL 96-95, 93 Stat. 712, 16 

USC §470aa et seq., and 43 CFR 7, 

subparts A and B, 36 CFR 79). This act 

secures the protection of archeological 

resources on public or Indian lands and 

fosters increased cooperation and the 

exchange of information between the 

private, governmental, and professional 

community to facilitate the enjoyment 

and education of present and future 

205 
APPENDIXES

generations. The law regulates excavation and collection on public and Indian 

lands. It also defines archeological 

resources to be any material remains of 

past human life or activities that are of 

archeological interest and are at least 100 

years old. The law requires that Indian 

tribes that may consider a site of religious 

or cultural importance be notified before 

a permit is issued. It was amended in 

1988 to require the development of plans 

for surveying public lands for archeological resources and systems for reporting incidents of suspected violations. 

Historic Sites Act of 1935 (PL 49; Stat. 

666, 16 USC sections 461–467, and 36 

CFR 65). This act establishes “ . . . 

national policy to preserve for public use 

historic sites, buildings and objects of 

significance for the inspiration and 

benefit of the people of the United 

States.” It directs the secretary of the 

interior to carry out wide-ranging programs in the field of history and places 

with the secretary the responsibility for 

national leadership in the field of historic 

preservation. It authorizes Historic 

American Buildings Survey, Historic 

American Engineering Record, and 

National Survey of Historic Sites and 

Buildings (national historic landmarks). 

Management of Museum Properties 

Act of 1955 (PL 84-127, 69 Stat. 242, 16 

USC §18f). This act authorizes the 

National Park Service to accept donations or bequests of museum properties, 

purchase them from donated funds, exchange them, and receive and grant 

museum loans. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966 (NHPA), as amended (PL 89-665, 

80 Stat. 915, 16 USC §470, et seq. and 

36 CFR 18, 60, 61, 63, 68, 79, 800).This 

act declared a national policy of historic 

preservation, including the encouragement of preservation on the state and 

private levels. It authorized the secretary 

of the interior to expand and maintain a 

National Register of Historic Places, 

including properties of state and local as 

well as national significance, authorized 

matching federal grants to the states and 

the National Trust for Historic Preservation for surveys and planning and for 

acquiring and developing national 

register properties, established the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP), required federal agencies to 

consider the effects of their undertakings 

on national register properties and to 

give the ACHP opportunities to comment (§106). Amended in 1976 (PL 94-

422) to expand §106 to properties eligible 

for or listed in the national register. 

Amended in 1980 (PL 96-515) to incorporate EO 11593 requirements, to give 

national historic landmarks extra 

protection in federal project planning, 

and to permit federal agencies to lease 

historic properties and apply the 

proceeds to any national register properties under their administration. Amended 

in 1992 to, among other things, redefine 

federal undertakings, address “anticipatory demolition,” and emphasize the 

interests and involvement of Native 

Americans and Native Hawaiians. 

Native American Grave Protection and 

Repatriation Act (PL 101-601, 104 Stat. 

3049, 25 USC sections 3001–3013). This 

act assigns ownership or control of 

Native American human remains, 

206 
Appendix B: Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies 

funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony that are 

excavated or discovered on federal lands 

or tribal lands after the passage of the act 

to lineal descendants or culturally 

affiliated Native American groups. It also 

establishes criminal penalties for 

trafficking in remains or objects obtained 

in violation of the act and provides that 

federal agencies and museums that 

receive federal funding shall inventory 

Native American human remains and 

associated funerary objects in their 

possession or control, identify their 

cultural and geographical affiliations 

within five years, and prepare summaries 

of information about Native American 

unassociated funerary objects, sacred 

objects, or objects of cultural patrimony. 

This is to provide for the repatriation of 

such items when lineal descendants or 

Native American groups request it. 

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 

1990. In keeping with the intent of these 

laws, all NPS structures must be accessible to all Americans to the greatest 

degree possible. 

Chesapeake Bay Agreement, as 

amended, Federal Agencies’ 

Chesapeake Ecosystem Unified Plan, 

Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 

2000, Chesapeake Bay Riparian Buffer 

Plan. As the largest estuary in the 

United States and one of the most 

productive in the world, the Chesapeake 

Bay was this nation’s first estuary 

targeted for restoration and protection. 

The Chesapeake Bay Program is the 

unique regional partnership among the 

states of Virginia, Maryland, and 

Pennsylvania; the District of Columbia; 

the Chesapeake Bay Commission; and 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(lead agency for the federal government). The latter has been directing and 

conducting the restoration effort since 

the signing of the historic Chesapeake 

Bay Agreement of 1983. The Executive 

Council, composed of the chief 

executives of the signatory partners, 

meets annually to establish the policy 

direction for the Bay Program. 

Executive Order 11998, “Floodplain 

Management,” Special Directive 93-4, 

“Floodplain Management, Revised 

Guidelines for National Park Service 

Floodplain Compliance” (1993). 

Natural floodplain values will be preserved or restored. Long-term and 

short-term environmental effects 

associated with the occupancy and 

modification of floodplains will be 

avoided. When it is not practicable to 

locate or relocate development or 

inappropriate human activities to a site 

outside the floodplain, or where the 

floodplain will not be affected, the 

National Park Service will prepare a 

statement of findings according to 

Director’s Order 77-2. 

Executive Order 11990, “Wetland 

Protection,” Director’s Order 77-1, 

“Wetland Protection,” and 

Procedural Manual 77-1. The National 

Park Service is required to protect and 

enhance the natural and beneficial 

values of wetlands. It has implemented a 

“no net loss of wetlands” policy and 

strives to achieve the longer-term goal of 

net gain of wetlands through the 

restoration of previously degraded or 

destroyed wetlands. 

207 
APPENDIXES

Executive Order 12898, “Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-income Populations.” Each 

federal agency will make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects of its programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and 

low-income populations in the United 

States and its territories and possessions. 

REGULATIONS 

43 CFR 3 (Antiquities Act) establishes 

procedures to be followed for permitting 

the excavation or collection of prehistoric and historic objects on federal 

lands. 

43 CFR 7, Subparts A and B 

(Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act, as amended), “Protection of 

Archeological Resources, Uniform Regulations” and “Department of the Interior 

Supplemental Regulations,” provide 

definitions, standards, and procedures 

for federal land managers to protect 

archeological resources and guidance for 

Department of the Interior bureaus on 

definitions, permitting procedures, and 

civil penalty hearings. 

36 CFR 2.5 (NPS Act of 1916) states 

conditions under which park superintendents may permit the collection of 

plants, fish, wildlife, rocks, and minerals, 

including museum catalog requirements. 

36 CFR 60 (NHPA and EO 11593), 

“National Register of Historic Places,” 

addresses concurrent state and federal 

nominations, nominations by federal 

agencies, the revision of nominations, 

and the removal of properties from the 

National Register. 

36 CFR 61 (NHPA and EO 11593), 

“Procedures for Approved State and 

Local Government Historic Preservation 

Programs,” establishes standards for the 

approval of state historic preservation 

programs and requires state historic 

preservation officers to conduct statewide surveys of cultural properties, 

prepare and implement state preservation plans, and cooperate with federal 

agencies in §106 compliance. It also sets 

qualification standards for preservation 

professionals. 

36 CFR 63 (NHPA and EO 11593), 

“Determinations of Eligibility for 

inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places,” establishes a process for 

federal agencies to obtain determinations 

of eligibility on properties. 

36 CFR 65 (Historic Sites Act of 1935), 

“National Historic Landmarks Program,” establishes criteria and procedures for identifying properties of 

national significance, designating them as 

national historic landmarks, revising 

landmark boundaries, and removing 

landmark designations. 

36 CFR 68 (NHPA) contains the 

“Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

Historic Preservation Projects,” 

including acquisition, protection, 

stabilization, preservation, rehabilitation, 

restoration, and reconstruction. 

36 CFR Part 79 (NHPA and ARPA), 

“Curation of Federally Owned and 

Administered Archeological Collections,” provides standards, procedures, 

and guidelines to be followed by federal 

agencies in preserving and providing 

208 
Appendix B: Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies 

209 

adequate long-term curatorial services 

for archeological collections of prehistoric and historic artifacts and 

associated records that are recovered 

under §I10 of the NHPA, the Reservoir 

Salvage Act, ARPA, and the Antiquities 

Act. 

36 CFR Part 800 (NHPA), “Protection 

of Historic Properties” contains the 

regulations of the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation that implement 

§106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and presidential 

directives issued pursuant thereto. 

DIRECTIVES 

The following directives pertaining to 

cultural resource management remain in 

effect. 

Special Directive 80-1, “Guidance for 

Meeting NPS Preservation and 

Protection Standards for Museum 

Collections,” requires that all parks and 

centers conduct a self-assessment every 

three years to record their progress in 

correcting identified deficiencies in 

storage, environmental, security, fire 

protection, housekeeping, and planning. 

Special Directive 87-3, “Conservation 

of Archeological Resources,” requires 

that archeological activities directly 

support NPS missions and that initial 

curation costs be included in the costs of 

projects generating collections. 

Special Directive 91-4, “Ensuring that 

Natural Resource Projects Fund the 

Curation of Collections,” outlines actions 

to be taken by parks on all research 

projects that could result in the permanent retention of natural resource 

specimens and associated project 

documentation. 

NPS MANUALS 

Cultural Resources Management 

Guideline (DO-28), Release No. 5. 

National Park Service 1997. 

SECRETARY OF THE 

INTERIOR’S STANDARDS 

Archeology and Historic Preservation: 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines, 48 Federal Register 44716, 

September 29, 1983. 

Interpreting the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for Rehabilitation, Vols. I, II, 

and III. National Park Service. 

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties, 

1992. Pamphlet. National Park Service, 

Cultural Resources, Preservation 

Assistance, 1992. 

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties, 

with Guidelines for the Treatment of 

Cultural Landscapes,” National Park 

Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship 

and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation 

Services, 1996. Shows specific examples 

of appropriate treatments, as well as 

consequences of inappropriate 

treatments.
Appendix C: Servicewide Laws and Policies 

APPENDIX C: SERVICEWIDE LAWS AND POLICIES 

CULTURAL RESOURCE MANDATES AND POLICIES 

The alternatives considered in this document incorporate and comply with the 

provisions of the following mandates and policies as funding and staffing allow. 

Conditions prescribed by service wide mandates and policies that are particularly 

important to this document are summarized below. These mandates and policies 

illustrate that a general management plan is not needed to decide, for instance, that it 

is appropriate to protect endangered species, control exotics species, protect 

archeological sites, conserve artifacts, or provide for handicapped access. Those and 

other things are already laws, mandates, or policies. 

 

HISTORIC STRUCTURES

Current laws and policies require the following desired conditions for the resources:

Desired Condition Source

Historic structures are inventoried 

and evaluated under National 

Register of Historic Places criteria. 

The qualities that contribute to the 

listing or eligibility for listing of 

historic structures on the national 

register are protected in 

accordance with the Secretary of 

the Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines for Archeology and 

Historic Preservation 

• National Historic Preservation Act

• Archeological and Historic Preservation Act 

• The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for 

Archeology and Historic Preservation; 

• Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties, with Guidelines for the Treatment of 

Cultural Landscapes 

• Programmatic memorandum of agreement among the 

National Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and the National Council of State Historic 

Preservation Officers (1995) 

• NPS Management Policies 2006; DO 28 “Cultural Resource 

Management Guideline” (2001) 

Actions

Current laws and policies require that the National Park Service will need to take the following 

actions to meet its legal and policy requirements. 

• Regularly update/certify the list of classified structures. 

• Update the National Register of Historic Places nomination for the Monocacy National 

Battlefield as necessary. 

• Treat all structures as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places pending a 

formal determination by the National Park Service, and Maryland SHPO as appropriate as to 

their eligibility. 

• Determine, implement, and maintain the appropriate level of preservation for each historic 

structure formally determined or considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places (subject to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards). 

• Before modifying any historic structure found eligible for the National Register of Historic 

Places, the National Park Service will consult with the appropriate SHPO and the Advisory 

Council for Historic Preservation, as required. 

210 
Appendix C: Servicewide Laws and Policies 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

Current laws and policies require the following desired conditions for these resources: 

Desired Condition Source 

The management of cultural landscapes focuses 

on preserving the landscape’s physical attributes, 

biotic systems, and uses, when those uses 

contribute to its historical significance. 

Treatments are based on sound preservation 

practices for the preservation, rehabilitation, 

restoration, or reconstruction of cultural 

landscapes undertaken in accordance with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines 

for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. 

• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as 

amended (16 USC 470) 

• Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

implementing regulations regarding the 

“Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 

800) 

• Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes (1996) 

• National Park Service’s Management Policies 

2006

• National Park Service’s Cultural Resources 

Management Guideline (DO-28, 1996) 

Actions

To accomplish the above goals, the National Park Service will do the following actions to meet its 

legal and policy requirements: 

• Complete a survey, inventory, and evaluation of cultural landscapes.

• Submit the inventory and evaluation results to the appropriate SHPO for review and comment. 

• Prepare nominations for those areas believed to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP for review 

by SHPO or a formal determination by the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places as 

to their eligibility. 

• Treat potential Cultural Landscapes as eligible for inclusion in the NRHP pending agreement of 

eligibility with the appropriate SHPO or a formal determination by the Keeper of the National 

Register. 

• Determine and maintain the appropriate level of preservation for each landscape formally 

determined to be eligible for listing or actually listed on the national register, subject to the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. 

211 
APPENDIXES

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Archeological resources are the physical evidences of past human activity representing both historic 

and prehistoric time periods. Current laws and policies require the following desired conditions for 

these resources:

Desired Condition Source

Archeological sites are identified and 

inventoried, and their significance is 

determined and documented. Archeological 

sites are protected in an undisturbed 

condition unless it is determined through 

formal processes that disturbance or natural 

deterioration is unavoidable. When 

disturbance or deterioration is unavoidable, 

the site is professionally documented and 

excavated and the resulting artifacts, 

materials, and records are curated and 

conserved in consultation with the 

Maryland SHPO. Some archeological sites 

that can be adequately protected may be 

interpreted to the visitor. 

• National Historic Preservation Act 

• Archeological and Historic Preservation Act 

• The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines for Archeology and Historic 

Preservation 

• Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties, with Guidelines 

for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes 

• Programmatic memorandum of agreement among 

the National Park Service, the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation, and the National 

Council of State Historic Preservation Officers 

(1995) 

• NPS Management Policies 2006; DO 28 “Cultural 

Resource Management Guideline” (2001) 

Actions (Archeological Resources cont.)

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to meet current laws and policies 

related to archeological sites: 

• Develop and initiate a program of survey, identification, evaluation of archeological resources.

Initiate a consensus determination of eligibility with the SHPO for those resources. 

• Nominate eligible archeological sites to the National Register of Historic Places. 

• Treat all archeological resources as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places 

pending a formal determination by the National Park Service, the Maryland SHPO. 

• Monitor and assess condition of known archeological sites and develop and implement 

stabilization strategies for threatened sites. 

• Protect all archeological resources eligible for inclusion in or are listed on the National Register 

of Historic Places. Design facilities to avoid known or suspected archeological resources. If 

disturbance to such resources is unavoidable, conduct formal consultation with the Maryland 

State Historic Preservation Office, and he Advisory Council on Historic Preservation as 

appropriate. 

• Conduct data recovery excavations at archeological sites only where protection or site avoidance 

during design and construction is unfeasible. Should archeological resources be discovered, stop 

work in that location until consultation with the Maryland SHPO, under 36 CFR Part 800 has 

been completed. 

• Educate visitors on regulations governing archeological resources encouraging them through the 

national battlefield’s interpretive programs to respect, and leave undisturbed, archeological 

resources 

212 
Appendix C: Servicewide Laws and Policies 

MUSEUM OBJECTS

Museum objects, specimens, and archival and manuscript collections, along with all resource 

management records that are directly associated with museum objects, are managed as museum 

property. 

Current laws and policies require the following desired conditions be met for these resources:

Desired Condition Source 

All museum collections (objects, specimens, 

and manuscript collections) are identified and 

inventoried, catalogued, documented, 

preserved, and protected, and provision is 

made for their access to and use of these items 

for exhibits, research, and interpretation, in 

consultation with traditionally associated 

groups. 

The qualities that contribute to the significance 

of collections are protected in accordance with 

established standards. 

• National Historic Preservation Act 

• Archeological and Historic Preservation Act 

• Archeological Resources Protection Act 

• Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act 

• NPS Management Policies 2006, DO 28 

“Cultural Resource Management Guideline” 

• 36 CFR Part 79 

• NPS Museum Handbook, Parts I & II 

Actions

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to meet current laws and policies: 

• Inventory and catalog all national battlefield museum collections in accordance with standards in 

the NPS Museum Handbook.

• Develop and implement a collection management program according to NPS standards to guide 

the protection, conservation, and use of museum objects. 

• Create storage and exhibit area facilities sufficient to meet current curation standards consistent 

with 36 CFR 79. 

• Remove collections from structures located in floodplains or protect them against flooding as 

required by NPS policy. 

213 
APPENDIXES

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS 

AIR QUALITY

The national battlefield is a class II air quality area. Current laws and policies require that the 

following conditions be achieved in the national battlefield. 

Desired Condition Source

Monitor and document the condition of air quality and related 

values. 

Minimize air quality pollution emissions associated with national 

battlefield operations, including the use of prescribed fire and 

visitor use activities. 

Ensure healthful indoor air quality at NPS facilities. 

NPS Organic Act, Clean Air 

Act, NPS Management Policies 

2006

Compliance Actions

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions (listed in priority order) to meet 

legal and policy requirements related to air quality.

Although the National Park Service has little direct control over air quality in the airshed 

encompassing the battlefield, battlefield managers will cooperate with the Maryland Department of 

the Environment and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to monitor air quality and ensure 

that air quality is not impaired by battlefield actions. 

• Conduct operations in compliance with federal, state, and local air quality regulations. 

• Participate with the Air Resources Division, National Park Service on air quality issues at the 

battlefield. 

• Monitor indoor air quality at NPS facilities. 

214 
Appendix C: Servicewide Laws and Policies 

EXOTIC SPECIES

Current laws and policies require that the following desired conditions be met in the battlefield :

Desired Condition Source 

The management of populations of exotic plant and animal species, up 

to and including eradication, are undertaken wherever such species 

threaten national battlefield resources or public health and when 

control is prudent and feasible. 

NPS Management Policies 

2006; EO 13112, “Invasive 

Species”; NPS-77, “Natural 

Resources Management 

Guidelines” 

Actions

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to meet legal and policy 

requirements related to exotic species. 

• Complete an inventory of plants and animals in the battlefield and regularly monitor the 

distribution and condition (e.g., health, disease) of selected species that are (a) invasive exotics or 

(b) native species capable of creating resource problems (e.g., habitat decline due to 

overpopulation). 

• Develop a long-term program for reversing the destructive effects of exotic species. 

• Study the environmental and ecological effects of exotic species invasion to assess threats and 

prioritize management actions. 

• Manage for native plant species in non-agricultural areas of the battlefield. Limit planting of 

nonnative species to noninvasive plants that are justified by the historic scene or operational 

needs. 

• Control or eliminate exotic plants and animals, exotic diseases, and pest species where there is a 

reasonable expectation of success and sustainability. 

• Provide interpretive and educational outreach for the preservation of native species for visitors 

and for residents neighboring the battlefield. 

215 
APPENDIXES

216 

FLOODPLAINS

Current laws and policies require that the conditions delineated below be achieved in the national 

battlefield:

Desired Condition Source

Natural floodplain values are preserved or restored. EO 11988; Rivers and Harbors 

Act; NPS Management Policies 

2006; Special Directive 93-4 

Long-term and short-term environmental effects associated with 

the occupancy and modification of floodplains will be avoided. 

DO 77-2, “Floodplain Management”; National Flood 

Insurance Program (44 CFR 60)

When it is not practicable to locate or relocate development to a 

site outside the floodplain, the National Park Service will use 

nonstructural measures as much as practicable to reduce hazards to 

human life and property while minimizing impacts on the natural 

resources of floodplains. 

NPS Management Policies 2006

Compliance Actions

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to meet legal and policy 

requirements related to floodplains: 

• Remove from the 500-year floodplain or protect from the 500-year flood any diesel, gasoline, or 

propane storage tanks or other hazardous chemicals. 

• Establish a flood awareness, preparedness and warning system to evacuate the Gambrill Mill during 

flooding. 
Appendix C: Servicewide Laws and Policies 

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the national 

battlefield:

Desired Condition Source

• Reduce the risks to the public, national 

battlefield resources, and the environment 

from pests and pest-related management 

strategies. 

• Coordinate the knowledge of pest biology, 

the environment, and available technology 

to prevent unacceptable levels of pest 

damage, by cost-effective means, while 

posing the least possible risk to people, 

resources, and the environment. 

NPS Management Policies 2006

Compliance Actions

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions (listed in priority order) to meet 

legal and policy requirements related to integrated pest management:

• Develop an integrated pest management plan to manage pesticide use according to NPS policy.

• Coordinate with the CSX Railroad on pesticide use. 

• Ensure that lessees use pesticides in a manner that protects streams, the river, and riparian areas. 

LAND PROTECTION

The National Park Service will manage to protect the national battlefield lands.

Desired Condition Source 

Land protection plans are prepared to determine and publicly document 

what lands or interests in land need to be in public ownership, and what 

means of protection are available to achieve the purposes for which the 

unit was created. 

NPS Management Policies 

2006

Compliance Actions

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to comply with the policies 

mentioned above.

• Update the land protection plan for the national battlefield.

217 
APPENDIXES

218 

NATURAL SOUNDS

An important part of the NPS mission is to preserve or restore the natural soundscapes associated 

with national park areas. The sounds of nature are among the intrinsic elements that combine to form 

the environment of our national parks. Current laws and policies require that the following 

conditions be achieved in the battlefield:

Desired Condition Source 

The National Park Service preserves the natural ambient soundscapes, 

restores degraded soundscapes to the natural ambient condition 

wherever possible, and protects natural soundscapes from 

degradation due to human-caused noise. Disruptions from 

recreational uses will be managed to provide a high-quality visitor 

experience in an effort to preserve or restore the natural quiet and 

natural sounds. 

NPS Management Policies 

2006, DO 47, “Sound 

Preservation and Noise 

Management” 

Noise sources are managed to preserve or restore the natural 

soundscape. 

Executive memorandum 

signed by President Clinton 

on April 22, 1996 

Compliance Actions

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions (listed in priority order) to comply 

with the policies mentioned above. 

• Actions will be taken to prevent or minimize unnatural sounds that adversely affect national 

battlefield resources or values or visitors’ enjoyment of them. 

• The national battlefield staff will continue to require tour bus companies to comply with 

regulations designed to reduce noise levels (e.g., turning off engines when buses are parked). 

• Noise will be a consideration in the procurement and use of equipment by the national battlefield 

staff. 
Appendix C: Servicewide Laws and Policies 

SOILS

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the national 

battlefield:

Desired Condition Source 

The national battlefield actively seeks to understand and preserve the soil

resources of the battlefield, and to prevent, to the extent possible, the unnatural erosion, physical removal, or contamination of the soil, or its 

contamination of other resources. 

NPS Management Policies 

2006

When soil excavation is an unavoidable part of an approved facility 

development project, the Park Service will minimize soil excavation, 

erosion, and offsite soil migration during and after the development 

activity. 

NPS Management Policies 

2006

When use of a soil fertilizer or other soil amendment is an unavoidable 

part of restoring a natural landscape or maintaining an altered plant 

community, the use will be guided by a written prescription. The 

prescription will be designed to ensure that such use of soil fertilizer or 

soil amendment does not unacceptably alter the physical, chemical, or 

biological characteristics of the soil, biological community, or surface or 

ground waters. 

NPS Management Policies 

2006

Compliance Actions

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to meet legal and policy 

requirements related to soils: 

• Update soils map of the national battlefield in digital format that can be used in the national 

battlefield’s geographic information system (GIS). 

• Complete soil conservation plans for agricultural lessees. 

• Prepare nutrient management plans for agricultural lessees. 

219 
APPENDIXES

220 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the national 

battlefield:

Desired Condition Source

Federally listed and state-listed threatened and 

endangered species and their habitats will be sustained.

Endangered Species Act; NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Native threatened and endangered species populations 

that have been severely reduced in or extirpated from 

the battlefield will be restored where feasible and 

sustainable. 

Compliance Actions

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions (listed in priority order) to meet 

legal and policy requirements related to species of special concern: 

• Maintain and enhance sensitive habitat areas to promote establishment of populations of 

threatened and endangered species. 

• Support research that contributes to management knowledge of rare and protected species and 

their habitat. 

• To protect rare or protected species and their habitat, complete an inventory of rare or protected 

plants and animals in the battlefield and regularly monitor the distribution and condition (e.g. 

health, disease). Modify management plans to be more effective based on the results of 

monitoring. 

• Cooperate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as appropriate, to ensure that NPS actions 

comply with the Endangered Species Act. 

• To the greatest extent possible, inventory, monitor, and manage state and locally listed species in 

a manner similar to federally listed species. 
Appendix C: Servicewide Laws and Policies 

WATER RESOURCES

Current laws and policies require that the conditions delineated below be achieved in the national 

battlefield:

Desired Condition Source

Surface water and groundwater are protected and 

water quality meets or exceeds all applicable water 

quality standards. 

Clean Water Act; Executive Order (EO) 11514; 

NPS Management Policies 2006; Estuaries and 

Clean Water Act of 2000, Title II; Chesapeake 

2000 Agreement; Federal Agencies Chesapeake 

Ecosystem Unified Plan 

NPS and NPS-permitted programs and facilities 

are maintained and operated to avoid polluting 

surface water and groundwater. 

Clean Water Act; EO 12088; Rivers and Harbors 

Act; NPS Management Policies 2006; Estuaries 

and Clean Water Act of 2000, Title II; Chesapeake 2000 Agreement; Federal Agencies 

Chesapeake Ecosystem Unified Plan 

Federal agencies that own or operate facilities 

within the Chesapeake Bay watershed shall (1) 

participate in regional and sub watershed planning 

and restoration programs, and (2) ensure that the 

property and actions taken by the agency with 

respect to the property comply with the 

Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the Federal Agencies 

Chesapeake Ecosystem Unified Plan, and any 

subsequent agreements and plans. 

Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000

Compliance Actions 

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to meet legal and policy 

requirements related to water resources:

• Apply best management practices to all pollution-generating activities and facilities in the 

national battlefield, such as NPS maintenance and storage facilities and parking areas and lessees 

farming and grazing methods; minimize the use of pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals and 

manage them in keeping with NPS policy and federal regulations. 

• Continue water quality monitoring to reveal water quality problems and monitor the effects of 

NPS actions on water resources in the battlefield. 

• Encourage attention to environmentally sensitive areas to maximize conservation of riparian 

resources. 

• Work with other bay program partners to manage the Chesapeake Bay watershed as a cohesive 

ecosystem. Contribute to the restoration, conservation, and interpretation of the Bay’s many 

valuable resources within and beyond the national battlefield. 

• Work with appropriate government bodies to obtain the highest possible water quality standards 

available under the Clean Water Act. 

221 
Appendix C: Servicewide Laws and Policies 

WETLANDS

Current laws and policies require the conditions delineated below be met:

Desired Condition Source

The natural and beneficial values of wetlands are preserved 

and enhanced. 

Clean Water Act; EO 11990; NPS 

Management Policies 2006; DO 77-1, 

“Wetland Protection”; Rivers and 

Harbors Act 

The National Park Service implements a “no net loss of 

wetlands” policy and strives to achieve a longer-term goal 

of net gain of wetlands across the national park system 

through the restoration of previously degraded or 

destroyed wetlands. 

DO 77-1, “Wetland Protection;” EO 

11514, NPS Management Policies 2006 

Compliance Actions

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to meet legal and policy 

requirements related to wetland resources: 

• Conduct or obtain a battlefield wide wetland inventory employing the Cowardin wetland 

classification system used by the National Park Service to ensure proper planning, management 

and protection of wetlands. 

• All facilities, including trails, will be located to avoid wetlands if feasible. 

• Establish vegetated riparian buffers of sufficient width to reduce sediment loads entering the 

Monocacy River and its tributaries. 

• Stabilize river banks and restore degraded sections of streams. 

• Plant native vegetation to provide a buffer between upland runoff and sensitive water resources. 

• Where natural wetland functions have been degraded or lost due to human action, the National 

Park Service will work to restore wetlands to predisturbance conditions, to the extent 

practicable. 

222 
Appendix C: Servicewide Laws and Policies 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

Current laws and policies require that the conditions delineated below be achieved in the national 

battlefield:

Desired Condition Source

The values that qualify the river for designation under 

the act will be preserved. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; NPS 

Management Policies 2006

Compliance Actions

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to meet legal and policy 

requirements related to wild and scenic rivers: 

• The national battlefield will ensure that no management actions are undertaken that could 

adversely affect the values that qualify the Monocacy River for inclusion in the national wild 

and scenic rivers system. 

WILDLAND FIRE

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the national 

battlefield:

Desired Condition Source

Battlefield fire management programs are designed to meet 

resource management objectives prescribed for the various areas of 

the national battlefield and to ensure that the safety of firefighters 

and the public are not compromised.

NPS Management Policies 

2006;DO 18, “Wildland Fire 

Management” 

All wild land fires are be effectively managed, considering resource 

values to be protected and firefighter and public safety, using the 

full range of strategic and tactical operations as described in an 

approved fire management plan. 

NPS Management Policies 

2006

Compliance Actions

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to meet legal and policy 

requirements related to management of wild land fire: 

• Maintain a current fire management plan to reflect changes in wild land fire policy, fire use 

applications, and the body of knowledge on fire effects within the battlefield’s vegetation 

types. 

• Maintain a cooperative agreement for fire suppression with appropriate federal, state, and 

local agencies and organizations. 

• Institute monitoring programs for prescribed fires to record fire behavior, smoke behavior, 

fire decisions, and fire effects to provide information on whether specific resource objectives 

for prescribed fires are met. 

• Use fire as a management tool to maintain native plant communities and control exotic 

species. 

223 
APPENDIXES 

OTHER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS 

RELATIONS WITH PRIVATE AND PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS, OWNERS OF ADJACENT 

LAND, AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the national 

battlefield: 

Desired Condition Source 

The national battlefield is managed as part of a greater ecological, social, 

economic, and cultural system. 

Good relations are maintained with adjacent landowners, surrounding 

communities, and private and public groups that affect, and are affected by, the 

national battlefield. The national battlefield is managed proactively to resolve 

external issues and concerns and ensure that park values are not compromised. 

Because the national battlefield is an integral part of a larger regional 

environment, the National Park Service works cooperatively with others to 

anticipate, avoid, and resolve potential conflicts, protect national battlefield 

resources, and address mutual interests in the quality of life for community 

residents. Regional cooperation involves federal, state, and local agencies, 

neighboring landowners, and all other concerned parties.

NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Compliance Actions

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to meet legal and policy 

requirements related to national battlefield neighbors and other agencies:

• Continue to establish and foster partnerships with public and private organizations to achieve 

the mission and purposes of the national battlefield. Partnerships will be sought for resource 

protection, research, education, and visitor enjoyment. 

• To foster a spirit of cooperation with neighbors and encourage compatible adjacent land uses, 

national battlefield staff will keep landowners, land managers, local governments, and the 

public informed about national battlefield management activities. Periodic consultations will 

occur with landowners and communities who are affected by, or potentially affected by 

visitors and management actions. National battlefield staff will respond promptly to conflicts 

that arise over their activities, visitor access, and proposed activities and developments on 

adjacent lands that may affect the national battlefield. 

224 
Appendix C: Servicewide Laws and Policies 

225 

COMMERCIAL SERVICES

Commercial services are another way of providing for visitor use and experience and for national 

battlefield use requirements already described. Commercial operators are “partners” with the 

National Park Service to provide goods and services to visitors that are necessary and appropriate 

but not provided by NPS personnel. The National Park Service manages commercial service levels 

and types to achieve the same resource protection and visitor experience conditions required by 

the NPS Organic Act, the General Authorities Act, management policies, and other regulations and 

policies. In addition, commercial services must comply with the provisions of the NPS 

Concessions Management Improvement Act of 1998. By law all commercial activities in national 

park system units must be authorized in writing by the superintendent. A commercial activity is 

defined as any activity for which compensation is exchanged. It includes activities by for-profit 

and nonprofit operators. Commercial services are more than just concessions. They include 

concession contracts, commercial use authorizations, leases, cooperative agreements, rights-ofway, and special use permits. All commercial services must be managed. All commercial services 

must be necessary and/or appropriate for achieving the resource protection and visitor use goals 

for the national battlefield. 

Desired Condition Source

Same as visitor use and experience and park use requirements 

(above) 

Same as visitor use and 

experience and park use 

requirements 

All commercial services must be authorized, must be necessary 

and/or appropriate, and must be economically feasible. 

Appropriate planning must be done to support commercial 

services authorization. 

NPS Concessions 

Management Improvement 

Act of 1998, NPS 

Management Policies 2006

Compliance Actions

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to meet legal and policy 

requirements related to commercial services: 

• Establish and document that all commercial services in the national battlefield are necessary 

and/or appropriate before they are proposed or reauthorized. 

• Ensure that all necessary and/or appropriate commercial activities in the national battlefield 

are authorized in writing by the superintendent. 

• Use the most appropriate authorization tool (concession contracts, commercial use 

authorizations, leases, cooperative agreements, rights of way, and special use permits) to 

manage the commercial services program effectively and efficiently. 
APPENDIXES 

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT

Sustainability can be described as the result achieved by managing units of the national park 

system in ways that do not compromise the environment or its capacity to provide for present and 

future generations. Sustainable practices minimize the short-term and long-term environmental 

impacts of developments and other activities through resource conservation, recycling, waste 

minimization, and the use of energy-efficient and ecologically responsible materials and 

techniques. 

Desired Condition Source

NPS and concessioner visitor management 

facilities are harmonious with national battlefield 

resources, compatible with natural processes, 

aesthetically pleasing, functional, as accessible as 

possible to all segments of the population, energyefficient, and cost effective. 

NPS Management Policies 2006; EO 13123, 

“Greening the Government through Efficient 

Energy Management”; EO 13101, “Greening 

the Government through Waste Prevention, 

Recycling, and Federal Acquisition”; NPS 

Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design; DO 

13, “Environmental Leadership”; DO 90, 

“Value Analysis.”

All decisions regarding national battlefield 

operations, facilities management, and 

development reflect principles of resource 

conservation. Thus, all national battlefield 

developments and operations are sustainable to the 

maximum degree possible and practicable. New 

developments and existing facilities are located, 

built, and modified according to the Guiding 

Principles of Sustainable Design (NPS 1993) or other 

similar guidelines. 

“Greening Federal Facilities: An Energy 

Environmental, and Economic Resource 

Guide for Federal Facility Managers and Designers,” 2nd ed. 

Management decision-making and activities 

throughout the national park system should use 

value analysis, which is mandatory for all 

Department of the Interior bureaus, to help 

achieve this goal. Value planning, which may be 

used interchangeably with value analysis/value 

engineering/value management, is most often used 

when value methods are applied on general 

management or similar planning activities. 

DO 90, “Value Analysis” 

The NPS Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design (1993b) directs NPS management philosophy. It 

provides a basis for achieving sustainability in facility planning and design, emphasizes the 

importance of biodiversity, and encourages responsible decisions. The guidebook articulates 

principles to be used in the design and management of tourist facilities that emphasize 

environmental sensitivity in construction, the use of nontoxic materials, resource conservation, 

recycling, and integrating visitors with natural and cultural settings. Sustainability principles have 

been developed and are followed for interpretation, natural resources, cultural resources, site 

design, building design, energy management, water supply, waste prevention, and facility maintenance and operations. The National Park Service also reduces energy costs, eliminates waste, 

and conserves energy resources by using energy-efficient and cost-effective technology. Energy 

efficiency is incorporated into the decision-making process during the design and acquisition of 

buildings, facilities, and transportation systems emphasizing the use of renewable energy sources.

226 
Appendix C: Servicewide Laws and Policies 

227 

Compliance Actions (Sustainable Design and Development, cont.)

In addition to following the above principles, the National Park Service will take the following 

kinds of actions: 

• Have NPS staff work with appropriate experts to make facilities and programs sustainable. 

Perform value analysis and value engineering, including life cycle cost analysis, to examine the 

energy, environmental, and economic implications of proposed developments. 

• Support and encourage suppliers, permittees, and contractors to follow sustainable practices. 

• Promote the reduction, reuse, and recycling of materials; support the rehabilitation (recycling) 

of existing buildings and facilities over new construction; require new developments or 

modifications of existing facilities to be built using NPS sustainability guidelines. 
APPENDIXES 

TRANSPORTATION TO AND WITHIN THE NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions by achieved in the national 

battlefield: 

Desired Condition Source 

Visitors have reasonable access to the national battlefield, and there are 

connections from there to regional transportation systems as 

appropriate. Transportation facilities in the national battlefield provide 

for the protection, use, and enjoyment of national battlefield resources. 

The integrity of the surroundings is preserved, ecological processes are 

respected, resources, are protected, and visitors can enjoy the highest 

visual quality and a rewarding experience. 

NPS Transportation 

Planning Guidebook,” p. 

1. 

The National Park Service participates in all transportation planning 

forums that may result in links to NPS areas or affect national 

battlefield resources. Working with federal, state, and local agencies on 

transportation issues, the National Park Service seeks reasonable access 

to parks and connections to external and alternative transportation 

systems. 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Compliance Actions

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to meet legal and policy 

requirements related to transportation to and in the national battlefield: 

• Participate with the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, 

the Maryland Department of Transportation, and other sources to encourage effective 

regional transportation planning and enhancements. 

• Encourage, where appropriate, alternative transportation systems that contribute to maximum 

visitor enjoyment of and minimum adverse impacts on national battlefield resources and 

values. 

• Advocate for corridor crossings for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, and other accommodations 

to promote biodiversity. 

228 
APPENDIX C: SERVICEWIDE LAWS AND POLICIES

UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATION FACILITIES

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the national 

battlefield: 

Desired Condition Source

National battlefield resources or public enjoyment of the national 

battlefield are not denigrated by nonconforming uses. No new 

nonconforming use or rights-of-way are permitted through the 

national battlefield without specific statutory authority and 

approval by the director of the National Park Service or his/her 

representative; they are permitted only if there is no practicable 

alternative to such use of NPS lands. 

Telecommunications Act; 16 

USC 79; 23 USC 317; 36 CFR 

14; NPS Management Policies 

2006; DO 53A, “Wireless 

Telecommunications;” 

Reference Manual 53, 

“Special Park Uses.” 

Compliance Actions

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs all federal agencies to assist in the national goal of 

achieving a seamless telecommunications system throughout the United States by accommodating 

requests by telecommunication companies for the use of property, rights-of-way, and easements 

to the extent allowable under each agency’s mission. The National Park Service is legally obligated 

to permit telecommunication infrastructure in its units if such facilities can be structured to avoid 

interference with national battlefield purposes. 

• Place utility lines underground to the maximum extent possible. 

• Work with service companies, local communities, and the public to locate new utility lines so 

that there is minimal effect on national battlefield resources. 

• Follow NPS policies in processing applications for commercial telecommunications 

applications. 

229 
APPENDIX D: COMPLETED STUDIES AND FUTURE STUDIES NEEDED 

INTRODUCTION 

As part of the natural changes resulting 

from continuing use and occupation of 

the farmsteads, many of the structures 

and landscapes of each of the component properties have been altered in 

varying degrees from the time of the 

Civil War. As a result, it is necessary to 

identify to the greatest extent possible 

the changes that have occurred to 

individual structures and to broader 

farmstead landscapes. 

Baseline research reports provide 

background and basis for making 

management decisions. These reports 

provide specific information regarding 

presence and absence, history, condition, and appropriateness, among other 

data sets necessary to provide informed 

management decisions. These reports 

would be completed before more 

specialized studies would be undertaken. Monocacy National Battlefield 

has completed several of these studies, 

as described below. 

COMPLETED STUDIES, SOME 

OF WHICH NEED UPDATING 

Ethnographic Overview 

and Assessment 

An ethnographic overview and assessment is a basic report emphasizing the 

review and analysis of accessible 

archival and documentary data on 

ethnographic resources and the groups 

that traditionally define such cultural 

and natural features as significant to 

their ethnic heritage and cultural 

viability. The removal of Native American populations in the region in the 18th 

century did not allow the original 

inhabitants to continue their 

associations with their traditional lands. 

An ethnographic overview is not necessary for Monocacy National Battlefield. 

Historic Resource Study 

A historic resource study provides a 

historical overview of a park area and 

identifies and evaluates its cultural 

resources within historic contexts. Such 

a study for the national battlefield was 

completed in April 2004. It identifies 

needs for special history studies, cultural 

landscape reports, and other detailed 

studies and may make recommendations 

for resource management and 

interpretation. 

Archeological Identification and 

Evaluation Studies (Completed) 

Archeological identification and 

evaluation studies identify the locations 

and some of the characteristics of all or a 

sample of the archeological resources in 

a particular area. These studies are 

linked with archeological overviews and 

assessments to resolve management and 

interpretive concerns. Studies for areas 

of the national battlefield that are 

completed or are now being prepared 

are those for the Best Farm (May 2004) 

and the Thomas Farm (May 2005). 

Areas of the national battlefield for 

which studies are still needed are the 

Gambrill Tract, the Bush Creek Tract, 

the Lewis Farmstead, the Baker Farm, 

and the Worthington Farm. 

230 
Appendix D: Completed Studies and Future Studies Needed 

Archeological Overview 

and Assessment 

An archeological overview and 

assessment, describes and assesses the 

known and potential archeological 

resources in a park area. Such a study of 

Monocacy National Battlefield was 

completed in September 1993. The 

overview, which reviews, summarizes, 

and evaluates existing archeological 

data, should to be updated. 

Fire Management Plan 

Director’s Order (DO) 18 requires that 

all national park system units with 

vegetation capable of sustaining fire 

must have a fire management plan. The 

national battlefield’s large composition 

of farmland, open meadows, and mixed 

hardwood forests meets that criterion, 

and the national battlefield has prepared 

a fire management plan. The plan 

outlines activities related to wildland fire 

and the use of fire for meeting resource 

objectives; provides for safety for 

visitors, employees, and facilities; and 

incorporates input from local communities and resources to ensure successful 

collaboration outside the battlefield’s 

boundaries. 

Monocacy National Battlefield’s fire 

management plan addresses the 

suppression of unintentionally ignited 

wildland fires. The national battlefield 

will annually review the fire management plan to keep it current with new 

regulations, policies, and strategies. In 

the future the use of prescribed fire to 

meet resource objectives may be 

implemented; however, this would 

require a revision of the fire management plan and the inclusion of 

supporting documents such as 

prescribed burn plans and additional 

environmental compliance. Public 

review and comment also would be 

necessary for any planning in the use of 

prescribed fire. 

STUDIES THAT NEED TO BE 

COMPLETED 

Cultural Affiliation Study 

Using anthropological, archeological, 

ethnohistoric, historic, and other 

evidence, a completed cultural affiliation 

study would satisfy the need to identify 

cultural ties among past and present 

groups that used and may still use or 

relate to the national battlefield’s 

resources and its natural and cultural 

resources, including museum objects. 

Such a study needs to be completed for 

the national battlefield. 

Cultural Resources Base Map 

A base map (or maps) depicts all known 

historic sites and structures, cultural 

landscapes, long-distance trails and 

roads, and archeological and 

ethnographic resources. Documented 

troop movements may also be included. 

Rapid Ethnographic Assessment 

Project 

A rapid ethnographic assessment project 

is a field study done before or as part of 

the scoping for general management or 

other plans. It provides information 

about basic planning and program 

evaluation. 

Archeological Identification and 

Evaluation Study — Worthington 

Farm. Like the archeological 

231 
APPENDIXES

identification and evaluation studies 

already completed, the one for 

Worthington Farm would locate 

archeological resources and describe 

their characteristics, potential scientific 

value, and threats to their integrity and 

condition, as well as addressing the 

national register eligibility of 

archeological resources. 

The alternatives of this plan would 

involve significant long-term development at the Worthington Farm; 

however, very little archeological 

research and excavation have been 

undertaken there. To ensure that all 

future development activities at the 

Worthington Farm would not adversely 

affect its archeological resources, an 

archeological identification and 

evaluation study of the property should 

be undertaken. Such a study would give 

administrators adequate baseline 

information before any development 

planning or construction design would 

be undertaken at the farmstead. 

National Battlefield Administrative 

History 

An administrative history, of particular 

value to managers, planners, and 

interpreters, describes how an NPS unit 

was conceived and established and how 

it has been managed to the present day. 

The unit’s legislative history and 

important issues in planning, land 

acquisition, development, public 

relations, and other topics of ongoing 

management concern are emphasized. 

Cultural Landscape Reports 

A cultural landscape report is the 

primary guide for the treatment and use 

of a cultural landscape. Such reports 

generally use information gathered from 

existing historical, architectural, archeological, ethnographic, horticultural, 

architectural landscape, engineering, 

and ecological research materials to 

document the characteristics, features, 

materials, and qualities that make a landscape eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places. By analyzing 

the landscape’s development and 

evolution, modifications, materials, 

construction techniques, geographical 

context, and use throughout its history, 

planners can evaluate the significance of 

individual landscape characteristics and 

features within the context of the landscape as a whole. Drawing on a wealth 

of diverse resources, a cultural landscape report makes recommendations 

for treatment consistent with the 

landscape’s significance, condition, and 

use. 

Monocacy National Battlefield. A 

primary goal of Monocacy National 

Battlefield is to preserve its 1864 

battlefield landscape. A battlefield-wide 

cultural landscape report is necessary to 

identify the structures, fence lines, field 

boundaries, transportation corridors, 

and other character-defining features of 

the battlefield’s cultural landscape. Such 

information is needed to ensure that all 

future management and development 

will retain the significant character and 

features of the battlefield landscape. 

Although existing documents such as 

the recently updated cultural resource 

study are sufficient for general management planning purposes, more information about the national battlefield’s 

significance, integrity, and condition is 

232 
Appendix D: Completed Studies and Future Studies Needed 

necessary to guide the implementation 

of future treatment options. 

Worthington Farm. The alternatives of 

this plan would involve significant 

development for the Worthington Farm; 

however, the farm’s character-defining 

building arrangement, fence lines, field 

boundaries, and other landscape features have not been adequately 

identified. To avoid adversely affecting 

the landscape of the Worthington Farm, 

a cultural landscape report should be 

prepared. The preparation should be 

coordinated by a historical landscape 

architect to ensure that all future 

development of the property would 

retain the farm’s significant character 

and cultural landscape features. 

Thomas Farm (with a development 

concept plan). Since a cultural 

landscape report is the primary guide for 

the treatment and use of a cultural 

landscape, the development of such a 

plan for the Thomas Farm is important. 

Most of the alternatives of this plan 

would entail significant development for 

the Thomas Farm, which is the 

geographical heart of the battlefield. The 

national battlefield recently has 

undertaken extensive architectural, 

historical, and archeological studies at 

this site. As a result, the Thomas Farm’s 

history and existing conditions are well 

documented. However, to avert adverse 

impacts on its landscape, a cultural 

landscape report / development concept 

plan should be prepared. This effort 

should be coordinated by a historical 

landscape architect to ensure that all 

future development of the property 

would retain the significant character 

and features of the farm’s cultural 

landscape.

Collections Management Plan 

A collections management plan is a 

primary planning document for museum 

collections. Such a plan created by a 

professional museum team is designed 

to assess the museum collection 

management program and to identify 

problems and make recommendations 

on the management and care of the 

collections. A prioritized planning 

document, the collections management 

plan identifies responsibilities, projects 

long-range needs and serves to build a 

framework for organizing tasks for 

which a curator is responsible. 

A scope of collections statement also 

should be developed for the national 

battlefield. Such a document is the basic 

curatorial planning document required 

for all units of the national park system. 

It defines the purpose and significance 

of the unit’s museum and archival 

collections and guides its acquisition 

and preservation of those museum 

objects. 

A collections management plan will 

address such issues as the following: 

• history of the national battlefield and 

its museum collection 

• scope of collection statement (SOCS) 

• museum records and documentation 

• management and care of historical, 

archeological, archival, and 

manuscript collections (this also 

would be the document on which to 

rely as it relates to possible natural 

history collections in the future) 

233 
APPENDIXES

• collections accessibility and use 

• preventive care issues, including 

environmental conditions, storage, 

pest management, housekeeping, 

and cyclic maintenance 

• security 

• staffing 

• planning, programming and funding 

For Monocacy National Battlefield, the 

collection management plan, as required 

by DO-28, used together with other 

planning documents, would serve as a 

principal tool in the overall management 

and care of the national battlefield’s 

museum collections to NPS standards. 

White-Tailed Deer Management Plan 

This General Management Plan for 

Monocacy National Battlefield, supported by the national battlefield’s 

enabling legislation, has identified 

cultural landscapes, natural resources, 

and the historic agrarian character as 

critical features of the battlefield 

landscape. Characteristics such as field 

patterns and the composition of 

wooded and agricultural areas support 

the protection and perpetuation of these 

resources and features. Sustaining forest 

regeneration with native species and 

maintaining agricultural areas with 

harvestable crops and productive 

pastures are key processes in achieving 

these characteristics. In addition, the 

agricultural program must remain 

productive and economically beneficial 

to attract and retain farmers as 

permittees at the battlefield. 

On the basis of staff observations of 

resource changes over the past decade, 

ongoing monitoring programs, and the 

probable determination that landscape 

goals and objectives are not being 

achieved, a white-tailed deer management plan probably will be necessary in 

the near future. Evaluations and recommendations by the Maryland Natural 

Heritage Program, the Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources, Frederick Community College, and other 

entities, along with the knowledge 

gained from similar protected settings — 

such as other battlefields —also support 

the expectation that a deer management 

plan will be necessary for Monocacy 

National Battlefield. 

A deer impact analysis and management 

plan would include the following: (a) a 

review of the interaction of deer with 

critical park resources and state natural 

resources, (b) a discussion of the 

relationship between deer populations 

and the ability to achieve landscape 

objectives as identified in the general 

management plan and other plans, (c) a 

report on the various monitoring 

programs and population surveys 

involving deer, (d) an evaluation of state 

and private efforts related to whitetailed deer, and (e) a review and 

environmental analysis of deer management alternatives that would reduce any 

documented impacts and protect 

desirable landscape goals and objectives. 

Item “e” could include an alternative to 

manage the national battlefield’s whitetailed deer population. 

Monocacy National Battlefield is a 

protected federal property where 

hunting is prohibited by law. The 

battlefield is adjacent to an urban area 

(Frederick, Maryland) to the north and 

234 
Appendix D: Completed Studies and Future Studies Needed 

is also being pressured by residential 

development to the south (Urbana). 

Hunting does occur on private lands 

adjacent to the battlefield. Preliminary 

population data collected since the 

autumn of 2001 estimates an average 

deer density in the spring of 100 deer 

per square mile and an autumn density 

of 145 deer per square mile on the 

battlefield. Again, these population 

surveys are the result of several years of 

data only and will require continued 

study and further analysis to establish a 

reliable population estimate. 

It is important to note that deer density 

itself does not necessarily identify a 

“deer problem” that conflicts with 

achieving the battlefield’s resource 

objectives. However, in conjunction 

with state planning agencies, whitetailed deer population densities can be 

evaluated and may be an important 

concern for achieving other NPS and 

state natural resource goals for the 

diversity of flora and fauna, the 

protection of state-listed and/or 

federally listed rare, threatened, or 

endangered species, and wildlife health. 

At Monocacy National Battlefield, shifts 

in agricultural program management 

have taken place over the past decade in 

response to damage caused by deer 

foraging. Fields that once grew corn 

have been converted to pasture or other 

crops in an effort to retain an open, 

agrarian character. Such a transition can 

introduce modern fences and buildings 

into a historic scene, or patterns that are 

not ideal for interpreting and understanding the battlefield and its key 

resources. National battlefield managers 

are faced with balancing those changes, 

however, or they risk losing agricultural 

permittees. As a result, agricultural crop 

fields either will go fallow or will be 

maintained as a mowed area, neither of 

which is desirable from a landscape or 

workload perspective. 

To achieve the desired historic agrarian 

character, the ability to grow crops such 

as corn, small grains, and various hays is 

critical. The forced need to transition 

away from crop production in some 

areas, complaints by agricultural permittees about yield reductions, and noticeable browse in wooded areas prompted 

the national battlefield to begin in 2003 

to cooperate with two other national 

park system units and the Smithsonian 

Institution’s Conservation and Research 

Center in studying forest regeneration 

and corn yields over a sustained period. 

Comprehensive Interpretive Plan 

The national battlefield needs to 

complete a long-range interpretive plan 

as part of the comprehensive interpretive planning process. The plan should 

describe the future interpretive program, including both nonpersonal media 

and personal services programs, and it 

should address visitor experience goals 

and visitor issues and influences. The 

long-range interpretive plan also should 

contain an implementation strategy that 

is achievable over five to seven years. 

Managers then should pursue funding 

for implementation plans such as 

historic furnishings plans and an 

education plan. 

Resource Stewardship Strategy 

A resource stewardship strategy 

(Management Policies 2006) for 

235 
APPENDIXES

236 

Monocacy National Battlefield will be 

developed by an interdisciplinary team. 

The written strategy document will 

provide the guidance necessary for 

achieving the desired conditions 

identified in the general management 

plan for natural and cultural resources. 

It will also identify ways to lessen 

impacts from actions flowing out of the 

general management plan. 
APPENDIX E: REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 106 OF 

THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT 

The specific undertakings of the preferred alternative are listed in Table E-1 below. 

The list shows the NPS determinations of how those individual undertakings relate to 

the 1995 programmatic agreement in relation to cultural resources. 

Table E-1: Future Cultural Resource Compliance Required 

for Implementation of Specific Actions—Preferred Alternative 

Action Compliance Requirement 

Best Farm 

Stabilize and preserve exterior of the smokehouse, 

secondary dwelling, stone barn, and frame wagon 

shed. 

Consultation completed. 

Gambrill Tract

Continue to preserve and use Gambrill House office 

space for the Historic Preservation Training Center. 

No further SHPO 

consultation needed. 

Continue to use lower level of mill for some visitor 

services such as a lecture hall, classroom, and display 

area; rehabilitate second floor now housing 

administrative offices to serve as temporary housing 

for seasonal national battlefield employees. 

Further SHPO consultation 

needed. 

Extend existing short circular trail from Gambrill 

Mill parking area to sites of Wallace’s headquarters 

and the Union entrenchments. 

Further SHPO consultation 

needed. 

Lewis Farm

Stabilize and preserve Lewis farmhouse, barn, 

springhouse, and corn crib in their current condition.

Consultation completed. 

Thomas Farm

Rehabilitate main house for use as national battlefield 

administrative offices. 

Further SHPO consultation 

needed. 

Rehabilitate stone tenant house for museum use. Further SHPO consultation 

needed. 

Construct a parking area and restrooms along Baker 

Valley Road at end of Thomas Farm lane. 

Further SHPO consultation 

needed. 

Develop a new circle trail around Thomas Farm to 

connect over deck to the Worthington Farm so 

visitors could walk on significant battlefield areas. 

Further SHPO consultation 

needed. 

Remove pool, pond, tennis court, cinder block 

house, and cinder block milking barn. 

Further SHPO consultation 

needed. 

Stabilize and preserve barn, corn crib, and other 

outbuildings. 

No further SHPO 

consultation needed. 

237 
APPENDIXES

Worthington Farm

Rehabilitate first floor of house for visitor access. Further SHPO consultation 

needed. 

Widen entry lane from Baker Valley road to 

Worthington farmhouse to two lanes 

Further SHPO consultation 

needed. 

Develop a small parking area near Worthington 

House. 

Further SHPO consultation 

needed. 

Commemorative Area

Remove cinder block house along Araby Church 

Road and relandscape for commemorative area. 

Further SHPO consultation 

needed. 

Toll House

Remove Toll House. Further SHPO consultation 

needed. 

Deck over Interstate 270

Construct a pedestrian deck across Interstate 270. Further SHPO consultation 

needed. 

14th New Jersey Monument

Redesign parking at 14th New Jersey Monument. Further SHPO consultation 

needed. 

Move entrance to 14th New Jersey Monument to 

improve access. 

Further SHPO consultation 

needed. 

238 
APPENDIX F: INFORMATION ABOUT THREATENED OR ENDANGERED 

SPECIES 
APPENDIXES
Appendix F: Information about Threatened or Endangered Species 
APPENDIXES
Appendix F: Information about Threatened or Endangered Species 
APPENDIXES
245
REFERENCES 

Bearss, Edwin 

1978 “Documentation Troop Movements: Battle of Monocacy, Monocacy 

National Battlefield, Frederick County, Maryland.” Transcript on file, 

Technical Information Center, Denver Service Center, National Park 

Service, Lakewood, CO. 

Beasley, Joy 

2003 “Limited Archeological Investigation at the Worthington Farm 

(18FR791), Monocacy National Battlefield. Frederick, Maryland.” 

Report submitted to the National Park Service, National Capital 

Region, under an existing agreement between the NCR Regional 

Archeological Program and the Center for Historic Preservation 

Studies, University of Maryland, Department of Anthropology. 

Beasley, Joy, Editor 

2004 Archeological Overview and Assessment: Identification and Evaluation 

Study of the Best Farm, Monocacy National Battlefield, Frederick, 

Maryland. Occasional Report No. XXX, Regional Archeology 

Program, National Capital Region, National Park Service, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 

Caplinger, Michael W. 

1997 Bridges over Time: A Technological Context for the B&O Main Stem at 

Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. Institute for History of Technology and 

Industrial Archaeology. 

Cooling, Benjamin Franklin. 

2000 Monocacy: The Battle That Saved Washington. Shippensburg, PA: White 

Mane Publishing Company. 

Dilts, James D. 

1993 The Great Road. Library of Congress. 

EDAW, Inc., Land and Community Association, and John Milner Associates 

1993 “Cultural Landscape Evaluation and Archeological Evaluation.” Final 

report. 

Frederick County, Maryland 

2002 Draft Urbana Region Plan. Frederick County Department of Planning 

and Zoning. 

246 
References 

Goldsborough, Edward Y. 

1989 The Battle of Monocacy. Frederick, Maryland: Historical Society of 

Frederick County. 

Griffith, Dennis 

1794 Map of the State of Maryland, Laid Down from an Actual Survey. 

National Archives.

GWWO Architects, Inc. 

2003 “L’Hermitage, the Best House.” Historic structure report prepared for 

the National Park Service. 

HNTB Corporation 

2003 Monocacy National Battlefield Transportation Plan. Prepared for the 

National Park Service by HNTB Corporation. On file at Denver Service 

Center, Lakewood, CO. 

Hernigle, Jacqueline L. 

1991 “Monocacy Battlefield: Archeological Clearance of Proposed Septic 

Field and Parking Lot Areas.” Antietam National Battlefield, National 

Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Kavanaugh, Maureen 

1982 Archeological Resources of the Monocacy River Region, Frederick and 

Carroll Counties, Maryland. Division of Archeology file report 164. 

Prepared by Maryland Genealogical Survey, Department of Natural 

Resources.

1983 “Prehistoric Occupation of the Monocacy River Region Maryland.” In

Piedmont Archaeology: Recent Research and Results, J. Mark Wittkofski 

and Lyle E. Browning, eds. Archeological Society of Virginia. Special 

publication 10, 1983. 

Little, Barbara 

1994 “National Capital Area Archeological Overview and Survey Plan.” NPS 

occasional report 13. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior. 

247 
REFERENCES

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Natural Heritage Program 

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, Bush Creek Tract, Frederick 

County, Maryland, by Karene Motivans. Final report. 

1998 Monocacy National Battlefield, Natural Areas Inventory for Rare, 

Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Selected Animals with 

Management Recommendations, by Karene Motivans. 

Monocacy Scenic River Local Advisory Board 

1990 Monocacy Scenic River Study and Management Plan. (Technical 

assistance provided by Maryland Department of Natural Resources and 

approved in May 1990 by the Carroll County Commissioners and the 

Frederick County Commissioners). 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 

1979 Monocacy National Battlefield General Management Plan, Assessment of 

Alternatives. Denver Service Center, Lakewood, CO. 

2000a Cultural Landscape Inventory, Monocacy National Battlefield. Prepared 

by National Capital Region. 

2000b Environmental Assessment, Relocation of the Visitor Center at Monocacy 

National Battlefield. 

Paula S. Reed & Associates, Inc. 

1999 

2005 

“Cultural Resources Study, Monocacy Battlefield.” Hagerstown MD. 

Prepared under contract for the National Park Service, updated and 

printed in 2005. 

2004 National Register of Historic Places form, updated under contract for 

the National Park Service. 

Pendelton, Phillip E. 

1991a HABS No. MD1051, Gambrill House. 

1991b HABS No. MD1052, Clifton Farm. 

248 
References 

Reed, Paula. See Paula S. Reed & Associates. 

Robb, Frances C. 

1991 “Industry in the Potomac River Valley: 1760–1860.” Ph.D. dissertation, 

West Virginia University. 

Scharf, J. Thomas 

1882 History of Western Maryland. 2 vols. Baltimore: Regional Publishing 

Company, 1968. Originally published in Philadelphia, PA. 

Seidel, Ellen, M. 

1984 “Evaluation of Archeological Resources on the Bush Creek Tract, 

Monocacy National Battlefield Site.” National Park Service, Denver 

Service Center. 

Thompson, Harry T. 

1937 “A Report on the Monocacy Battlefield.” CRBIB no. 012158. 

Tilghman, N. G. 

1989 “Impacts of White-tailed Deer on Forest Regeneration in Northwestern 

Pennsylvania.” Journal of Wildlife Management 53 (3):524–532. 

Tracey, Grace L., and John P. Dern 

1997 Pioneers of Old Monocacy. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing 

Company. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and 

Maryland Department of Transportation, Maryland State Highway 

Administration 

2002 I-270 / U.S. 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Study, Frederick and Montgomery 

Counties, Maryland: Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 

4(f) Evaluation. Vols. 1 and 2. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 

1979 Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.

Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by Lewis M. Cowardin 

(USFWS), Virginia Carter (USGS), Francis C. Golet (Univ. of Rhode 

Island), and Edward T. LaRoe (NOAA). Reprint 1992. Washington, 

D.C. 

249 
REFERENCES

250 

Varle, Charles 

1808 A Map of Frederick and Washington Counties, State of Maryland. 

Engraved By Francis Shallus, Philadelphia. Frederick, MD: Historical 

Society of Frederick County, Maryland.

Wesler, Kit. W., Dennis J. Pogue, Aileen F. Button, Gordon J. Fine, Patricia A. 

Sternheimer, and E. Glyn Furguson 

1981 The M/Dot Archeological Resources Survey. Vol. 3: Piedmont. Annapolis, 

MD: Maryland Historical Trust. Maryland Historical Trust Series, no. 

7. 

Whitmore, Nancy F. 

1981 Frederick, a Pictorial History. Norfolk, VA: Donning Co.

Writers Program: Maryland 

1940 Maryland: A Guide to the Old Line State. Library of Congress. 
PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Denver Service Center 

Craig Cellar, Project Manager. 

Overall project coordination. 

B.A., History; B.A., Anthropology. 

35 years with the National Park Service. 

Michele D’Arcy, Landscape Architect. 

Cost development, transportation, and 

assistance to job captain on various 

components of plan preparation. 

B.S., Landscape Architecture. 

27 years with the National Park Service. 

Eric Petersen, Cultural Resource 

Specialist. 

Cultural Resources. 

B.A., Philosophy; M.A., Anthropology. 

7years with the National Park Service.

Harpers Ferry Interpretive Design 

Center

Jack Spinnler, Interpretive Planner. 

Sections on visitor experience and 

interpretation.

Monocacy National Battlefield

Susan Trail, Superintendent. 

B.A., Anthropology; M.A., 

Anthropology; Ph.D., American 

Studies. 

20 years with the National Park Service. 

Cathy Beeler, Chief, Resource 

Education and Visitor Services. 

B.A., Elementary Education. 

21 years with the National Park Service. 

Dean Herrin, NPS Liaison with Catoctin 

Center for Regional Studies. 

Ph.D., History. 

Andrew Banasik, Natural Resource 

Program Manager. 

B.A., History; M.S., Environmental 

Science and Public Policy 2006 

10 years with the National Park Service. 

Joy Beasley, Cultural Resource Program 

Manager. 

B.A., Anthropology; M.A.A., 

Anthropology 

5year with the National Park Service. 

National Capital Region 

Patrick Gregerson, Chief of Planning 

and Geographic Information 

Systems. 

Regional coordination and oversight. 

25 years with the National Park Service. 

CONTRIBUTORS AND 

CONSULTANTS 

Tina Cartwright, Facility Manager, 

 Monocacy National Battlefield. 

Todd Stanton, Park Ranger (Law 

Enforcement), Monocacy National 

Battlefield. 

B.S., History. 

Gloria Swift, Park Ranger 

(Interpretation), Monocacy National 

Battlefield. 

B.S., History. 

Ed Wenschhof, Chief, Natural 

Resources and Protection, Antietam 

National Battlefield. 

251 
PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS

B.S., Agriculture Education; M.S., 

Environmental Science. 

Dwight Pitcaithley, Chief Historian, 

National Park Service. 

Ph.D., History. 

PUBLICATION SERVICES 

Ruth Eitel, Visual Information Specialist 

Lou Layman, Writer-Editor 

Linda Ray, Visual Information Specialist 

Sandy Schuster, Writer-Editor 

252 
INDEX 

access, 6, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, 28, 31, 36, 37, 38, 40, 45, 50, 52, 58, 65, 71, 72, 77, 83, 86, 87, 

89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 107, 111, 115, 116, 123, 124, 125, 127, 132, 139, 141, 145, 150, 151, 

152, 153, 156, 159, 163, 165, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 182, 183, 202, 207, 220, 224, 234 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 137, 184, 198, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206 

agriculture, 43, 105, 110 

air quality, 104, 196, 208 

Araby Church Road, 13, 14, 15, 25, 52, 58, 63, 65, 72, 91, 119, 123, 124, 125, 127, 143, 144, 145, 147, 

149, 151, 167, 168, 170, 234 

archeological resources, 44, 79, 101, 102, 103, 137, 197, 198, 200, 205, 206, 226, 227, 228 

Baker Farm, 9, 52, 92, 102, 112, 119, 124, 125, 151, 226 

Baker Valley Road, 14, 15, 25, 50, 52, 57, 64, 71, 85, 91, 92, 96, 105, 119, 124, 125, 127, 133, 134, 

144, 145, 146, 149, 153, 154, 155, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171, 233, 234 

Best Farm, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 23, 24, 25, 44, 56, 57, 61, 63, 64, 71, 83, 87, 90, 102, 112, 118, 120, 123, 

125, 133, 155, 156, 226, 233 

Best House, 86, 139, 140, 141, 155, 174, 242 

boundaries, 5, 8, 9, 13, 24, 26, 41, 42, 51, 89, 102, 117, 126, 132, 133, 142, 167, 200, 227, 228, 229 

boundary, 4, 14, 15, 16, 43, 49, 50, 58, 63, 65, 70, 72, 102, 104, 112, 121, 126, 127, 134, 143, 144, 

182 

Bush Creek, 5, 20, 24, 27, 30, 37, 58, 72, 90, 104, 107, 108, 112, 118, 122, 123, 125, 144, 167, 226, 

243, 244 

carrying capacity, 81, 82, 109, 123 

Confederate Monument, 13 

construction, 8, 9, 13, 24, 25, 28, 29, 37, 42, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 86, 98, 104, 105, 110, 111, 113, 119, 

121, 132, 144, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 172, 176, 195, 197, 206, 223, 228 

CSX Railroad, 5, 9, 30, 44, 50, 121, 123, 211 

cultural landscapes, 116, 137, 142, 143, 145, 204, 227, 230 

cultural resources,16, 21, 29, 36, 42, 43, 44, 45, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 116, 128, 131, 134, 137, 

223, 226, 227, 232, 233 

cumulative impacts, 131, 132, 183 

endangered species, 21, 28, 45, 79, 110, 183, 202, 214, 231 

Endangered Species Act, 21, 22, 183, 196, 214 

erosion, 26, 27, 29, 42, 43, 79, 104, 105, 111, 112, 213 

ethnographic resources, 78, 103, 226, 227 

exotic species, 16, 21, 209, 219 

fish, 57, 63, 70, 109, 156, 158, 196, 200 

flooding, 52, 207, 210 

253 
INDEX

floodplain, 23, 52, 103, 107, 108, 199, 210 

Gambrill House, 13, 20, 31, 42, 51, 102, 116, 125, 128, 132, 138, 139, 181, 233, 243 

Gambrill Mill, 9, 15, 23, 30, 52, 56, 57, 58, 61, 63, 64, 65, 70, 71, 72, 81, 82, 83, 89, 90, 91, 93, 102, 

108, 112, 120, 123, 124, 125, 126, 132, 133, 139, 140, 141, 142, 145, 149, 151, 162, 163, 164, 167, 

169, 170, 176, 177, 210, 233 

geologic resources, 111 

impairment, 135 

interpretation, 17, 29, 36, 37, 38, 46, 51, 56, 58, 63, 64, 70, 72, 77, 86, 87, 89, 91, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 

110, 112, 113, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 132, 133, 134, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 

150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 167, 170, 176, 177, 182, 183, 184, 207, 216, 223, 

226, 244, 246 

Interstate 270/ I-270, 5, 13, 15, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 42, 44, 50, 52, 57, 62, 64, 70, 71, 76,77, 89, 

119, 234 

Lewis Farm, 30, 50, 52, 64, 92, 102, 119, 139, 143, 146, 155, 226, 233 

lightscape, 113 

Maryland Highway 355, 5, 52, 81, 83, 123, 132 

mitigation, 62, 76, 77, 98, 103, 136, 154 

mitigative measures, 77, 78, 80 

Monocacy River, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 37, 50, 52, 57, 58, 72, 101, 104, 105, 

106, 107, 108, 117, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 149, 153, 217, 218, 242 

museum collection/objects, 41, 103, 116, 207, 229, 230 

natural sounds, 113, 212 

Pennsylvania Monument, 13, 124 

pollution, 4, 79, 80, 81, 195, 196, 208, 216 

soil, 26, 27, 43, 77, 79, 104, 105, 111, 112, 213 

soundscape, 113 

Thomas Farm, 7, 11, 13, 14, 24, 25, 43, 50, 52, 56, 57, 58, 61, 63, 64, 68, 70, 71, 75, 77, 83, 85, 88, 

89, 91, 95, 98, 101, 102, 112, 118, 119, 120, 122, 124, 125, 126, 132, 133, 134, 139, 141, 143, 144, 

147, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 162, 163, 167, 169, 173, 174, 177, 226, 229, 233 

Thomas House, 10, 11, 12, 18, 31, 51, 52, 58, 65, 68, 72, 75, 89, 93, 118, 139, 140, 141, 145, 169, 

170, 174 

trails, 15, 27, 36, 38, 45, 52, 57, 58, 64, 65, 71, 72, 79, 84, 87, 90, 95, 125, 126, 128, 144, 145, 149, 

155, 167, 169, 233 

transportation, 8, 9, 12, 13, 18, 23, 24, 40, 41, 44, 48, 49, 56, 57, 70, 85, 86, 89, 90, 113, 115, 117, 

119, 122, 123, 124, 125, 134, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 162, 165, 167, 176, 182, 195, 223, 224, 228, 

246 

Vermont Monument, 13, 21, 58, 63, 65, 124 

views, 16, 44, 45, 79, 86, 125 

viewshed, 43, 50, 94, 142, 144, 145, 146, 147 

Vincendière, 8, 64, 102, 118 

254 
Index 

255 

visitor center, 6, 15, 23, 30, 37, 44, 46, 52, 56, 57, 63, 64, 70, 71, 81, 83, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 95, 118, 

120, 123, 126, 133, 144, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 161, 162, 165, 166, 167, 168, 

169, 170, 173, 174, 175 

visitor experience, 3, 4, 6, 16, 18, 29, 35, 36, 37, 77, 80, 86, 95, 120, 123, 131, 132, 149, 150, 153, 

154, 157, 158, 159, 173, 174, 212, 221, 231, 246 

visitor safety, 4, 48, 72, 80, 86, 95, 115, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 159 

water, 8, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 38, 43, 44, 45, 79, 81, 104, 105, 106, 107, 113, 122, 128, 132, 133, 134, 

195, 196, 215, 216, 217, 223 

wetlands, 22, 28, 79, 80, 107, 199, 217 

Worthington Farm, 7, 14, 15, 42, 57, 63, 64, 70, 71, 83, 89, 92, 101, 109, 112, 119, 120, 125, 139, 

145, 149, 158, 164, 167, 226, 227, 228, 229, 233, 234, 241 

Worthington House, 52, 57, 64, 68, 70, 71, 75, 95, 119, 140, 141, 147, 155, 156, 157, 158, 168, 174, 

177, 234 
256 
As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for 

most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use 

of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving 

the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for 

the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral 

resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by 

encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also has a major 

responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island 

territories under U.S. administration. 

Publication services were provided by Planning and Design Services, Denver Service Center. NPS 

D-73, July 2008