**ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT**

#### 

**BATTLEFIELD RESTORATION AND**

**PICNIC AREA CONSTRUCTION:**

**THE STUART'S HILL TRACT**

**MANASSAS NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK**

**VIRGINIA**

#### 

**United States Department of Interior**

**National Park Service**

**For Information or Copies of This Document Contact:**

**Robert K. Sutton**

**Superintendent**

**Manassas National Battlefield Park**

**USDOI National Park Service**

**12521 Lee Highway**

**Manassas, Virginia 20109**

**Phone: 703-754-1861**

I. PURPOSE AND NEED [3](#i.-purpose-and-need)

II\. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
[3](#description-of-the-proposed-action-and-alternatives)

A. Background Data [3](#a.-background-data)

B. Proposed Action [5](#b.-proposed-action)

C. Alternatives [7](#c.-alternatives)

Alternative 1: No Action [7](#alternative-1-no-action)

Alternative 2: Restoration of Stuart's Hill Tract Landscape without new
picnic area.
[7](#alternative-2-restoration-of-stuarts-hill-tract-landscape-without-new-picnic-area.)

Alternative 3: Restoration of the Stuart's Hill Tract Landscape with new
picnic area.
[7](#alternative-3-restoration-of-the-stuarts-hill-tract-landscape-with-new-picnic-area.)

III\. DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
[8](#description-of-the-existing-environment)

A. Nonliving Components [8](#a.-nonliving-components)

Climate [8](#climate)

Land [8](#land)

B. Living Components [11](#b.-living-components)

Vegetation [11](#vegetation)

Wildlife [11](#wildlife)

Human Population Density [11](#human-population-density)

IV\. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED ACTION [11](#iv.-analysis-of-proposed-action)

A. Alternative 3: Preferred Alternative
[11](#a.-alternative-3-preferred-alternative)

V. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION [12](#public-participation)

VI\. LIST OF PREPARERS [12](#section-13)

VII\. LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED
[13](#list-of-agencies-and-persons-consulted)

VIII\. APPENDIXES [14](#viii.-appendixes)

A. References [14](#a.-references)

B. Project Location Map [15](#project-location-map)

C. Picnic Area Design [16](#c.-picnic-area-design)

D. Planting List [17](#d.-planting-list)

E. Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan
[18](#e.-compensatory-wetland-mitigation-plan)

F. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Mitigation Approval
[19](#army-corps-of-engineers-wetland-mitigation-approval)

G. Cultural Resources Compliance [20](#g.-cultural-resources-compliance)

**ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT**

#### 

**Battlefield Restoration and Picnic Area Construction: Stuart's Hill**

# 

# I. PURPOSE AND NEED

# 

> This assessment evaluates three alternatives for construction of a
> picnic facility and restoration of approximately 104 acres of the
> Stuart's Hill Tract of Manassas National Battlefield Park (MNBP). The
> project area was acquired in 1988 as part of a legislative taking of
> the Stuart's Hill Tract, which encompasses 558 acres, bounded by Lee
> Highway to the north, Groveton Road to the east, Interstate 66 to the
> south, and Pageland Lane to the west. Prior to the purchase a
> development company had begun alterations for a mixed-use development
> (William Center) that drastically altered the landscape. Alterations
> included establishment of an entrance road, re-contouring of the area,
> and establishment of a drainage network in preparation for
> establishment of a housing development. In addition to these changes,
> wetland areas were filled and the hydrology of the area was altered.
> The restoration and wetland mitigation will involve excavation,
> grading back to the 1862 contours, and installation of native
> hydrophytic vegetation where necessary. The purpose of this project is
> to restore this area to its historic condition, which will result in
> reestablishment of historic drainage patterns and wetlands, while
> providing a new picnic area for the public.

# DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

## A. Background Data

> Manassas National Battlefield Park, a unit of the National Park
> Service, is located in Prince William and Fairfax Counties, about five
> miles north of the city of Manassas, Virginia. It is one of eleven
> parks located within the National Capital Region (Figure 1). The park
> was established in 1940 to preserve the sites of the First and Second
> Battles of Manassas. It does so, in part, by protecting the large
> tracts of land, which represent the scene, as it existed at the time
> of the battles. The open fields and wooded areas, the ridges, valleys
> and streams helped define the fields of battle. This project study
> area is located in the southwestern portion of the park in an area
> known as the Stuart's Hill Tract (Appendix B). The project goals are
> to restore historic land contours and vegetation patterns, restore
> wetlands, and create a picnic area in a location less obtrusive to the
> primary locations of the two battles of Manassas.
>
> This project involves collaboration between The National Park Service
> (NPS) and the Smithsonian Institution (SI). The SI is designing a new
> National Air and Space Museum to be located at Washington Dulles
> International Airport. Construction will impact
>
> approximately 7 acres of wetlands and therefore, the Army Corps of
> Engineers requires that the SI mitigate approximately 15 acres.
> Manassas National Battlefield Park was chosen as the site for
> mitigation.

Dames and Moore, environmental consultants for Hellmuth, Obata &
Kassabaum (HOK), the National Air and Space Museum project architect,
under the guidance of park staff, evaluated various potential sites for
wetlands mitigation at MNBP (which is located in the same watershed as
the new museum), as part of the wetlands mitigation planning process.
Any potential mitigation project had to meet not only the Smithsonian's
need for sufficient acreage but also MNBP's requirement to preserve
historic landscape features and the integrity of the battlefield site.

It was determined that the appropriate location for this mitigation
would be the heavily disturbed area located on the Stuart's Hill Tract.
The information needed to determine the feasibility of wetland
restoration had already been collected. In 1992, under contract with the
NPS, the University of Georgia's School of Design submitted to MNBP a
study and general plan for restoring the newly acquired and heavily
disturbed site to its circa 1862 conditions. The plan includes the
restoration of approximately 30 acres of emergent wetlands and 15 acres
of forested wetlands that were altered by the development company.

Using the University of Georgia restoration study, along with maps and
data documenting the existing condition of the site already disturbed by
developers, Dames & Moore determined that the Georgia plan could serve
as a guide in developing a wetland mitigation strategy. There are
clearly sufficient wetland restoration opportunities at the disturbed
site to meet the Smithsonian's needs. It is also very desirable from the
Park's perspective to commence restoring the site to its 1862 condition,
with funding for the restoration provided through the SI.

## B. Proposed Action

> The proposed work consists of moving the existing dirt within the
> disturbed area on the Stuart's Hill Tract back to its original
> contours, replanting the area and then creating a picnic facility that
> would include a small restroom and pavilion (Appendix B & C). To
> determine the process of restoring the contours the staff of Dames &
> Moore utilized several resources. They reviewed the maps referenced in
> the University of Georgia report, located in the National Archives,
> College Park, Maryland facility. These historical maps were very
> useful for confirming the location of water features, wood lots,
> fencerows, and fields/meadows.
>
> They also obtained copies of a topographical survey completed prior to
> the earthwork performed by the housing development company,
> Hazel-Peterson. The developer surveyed the topography, presumably
> weeks prior to the onset of earthwork. Dames & Moore obtained the
> survey as a paper copy, which they digitized into the computer and
> CADD program. After comparing the Hazel-Peterson information with that
> obtained from the county, it was determined that the county
> information was produced at approximately the same period as the
> Hazel-Peterson survey and that the two surveys matched.
>
> This comparison was performed to validate the Hazel-Peterson
> information. Dames & Moore then compared the county and the
> developer's information with the historic information located in the
> National Archives. Although the contour intervals for the historical
> exhibits were relatively large (5-foot), stream/tributary, fence line,
> woodlots, ridges, and low point locations and elevations matched well
> with the more recent information from the county and from the
> developer. Therefore, they determined that they had an excellent
> indication of the historic landscape including detailed contours.
>
> The final resource was an existing conditions survey that Dames &
> Moore commissioned in March 1998. To provide sufficient detail for
> construction documents, they surveyed 1-foot contours throughout the
> project site. This also matched the contour interval for the
> Hazel-Peterson information. As both the Hazel-Peterson and the
> existing conditions surveys were in digital format, they had the
> computer perform all of the necessary computations to determine the
> areas where cut and fill had occurred. Also, the computer was able to
> determine the volume of material (dirt) that had been moved around the
> site by developer.
>
> Although the contour interval in the Georgia report is only 5-feet,
> Dames & Moore were able to provide greater detail (1-foot interval) by
> utilizing the developer's survey. The ridges, specifically in Woodlots
> B and C (Management Zone 6), as presented in Figure 6.1 in the Georgia
> report, have been restored to their historic configuration. The
> fencerows in Management Zone 8 have been preserved, and a spring in
> the same Management Zone has been preserved. Although Dames & Moore
> were unable to locate any reference to the spring in the historical
> documents, its location is evident in aerial photography from May,
> 1937.
>
> Dames & Moore were unable to determine the exact location of Lewis\'
> Lane, a historic road used for troop movement, from the historical
> surveys. In order to approximate it\'s location, they utilized the
> stereo-paired photography from our March 1998 survey to detect any
> subtle differences in the landscape that would indicate a location of
> a dirt road. Specifically, they were able to determine the ford on
> Young's Branch where the road crossed and identified areas on slopes
> where the road cut into the slope. Towards the northern area of the
> road, south of Warrenton Pike, the historic edge of Woodlot B
> (Management Zone 6) still remains. The road was on the meadow side of
> that Woodlot. In between these areas, the line of travel of the road
> was interpolated. Therefore, the location of Lewis\' Lane as presented
> in the construction drawings, may be subject to some error.
>
> Figures 3.14 (Revised Map of the Historic Landscape) and 6.1
> (Restoration Recommendations) of the Georgia report were utilized to
> determine the location of woodlots and meadows/fields. Early in the
> restoration/wetland mitigation design development these features were
> mapped and placed on our master design exhibit. This overlay presented
> the constraints for determining the type of habitat (forested or
> herbaceous) for the wetland mitigation sites. Specifically, if the
> Georgia report presented the restoration of a Woodlot in an area that
> was historically also a wetland (and presented in the Dames & Moore
> plan as a wetland restoration/mitigation site), then the site would be
> designed as a forested wetland habitat. Similarly, if the site was
> historically a meadow or field, any wetland restoration/mitigation was
> designed as a herbaceous (marsh) wetland. The marshes are restricted
> to historic tributaries/streams or the spring, mentioned previously.
> See Appendix D for a list of planting materials. Appendix E, the
> compensatory wetland mitigation plan for national air and space
> museum-Dulles center, provides a more detailed description of the
> wetlands mitigation plan (see page 8, mitigation plan). Appendix F
> contains the Army Corps of Engineers approval for wetland mitigation.
>
> The picnic facility (Appendix C) will entail construction of a small
> pavilion similar to the one that can be seen at
> (<http://www.enwood.com/raleigh.htm>, a 24' x 44' picnic shelter) and
> a handicapped accessible restroom facility similar to the one that can
> be seen at (<http://www.romtec-inc.com/aspen.htm>, a 16' x 12' vault
> restroom). In addition, we will have an interpretive display with
> information on this collaborative effort and the Civil War history of
> this area. Parking for this area will utilize the existing entrance
> road that was built by Hazel-Peterson. The entrance road has been
> topped with the appropriate sealer and lines have been painted to
> provide parking for visitors. Handicapped access will be provided, and
> parking will be provided for horse trailers and buses.

## C. Alternatives

### *Alternative 1: No Action*

> This alternative would result in the Stuart's Hill Tract remaining in
> non-historic condition indefinitely. Obtaining the funding for such a
> large-scale project is not likely in the near future. In addition,
> because the location of the old picnic area directly interfered with
> interpretation of the First Battle of Manassas, and was considered
> unsafe, it has been removed. Therefore, under this alternative, the
> park would not have an adequate picnic facility available for the
> public.

### *Alternative 2: Restoration of Stuart's Hill Tract Landscape without new picnic area.*

> Under this alternative the disturbed landscape of the Stuart's Hill
> Tract would be restored to near 1862 conditions. This re-contouring
> would result in creation of approximately 15.57 acres of mixed forest,
> shrub-scrub and emergent historic wetlands. The wetland mitigation
> would involve excavation, grading and installation of native
> hydrophytic vegetation and exotic vegetation eradication and control
> where necessary. No large picnic area would be established and
> visitors would be limited to use of the small picnic area by
> headquarters.

### *Alternative 3: Restoration of the Stuart's Hill Tract Landscape with new picnic area.*

> Under this alternative the disturbed landscape of the Stuart's Hill
> Tract would be restored to near 1862 conditions. This re-contouring
> would result in creation of approximately 15.57 acres of mixed forest,
> shrub-scrub and emergent historic wetlands. The wetland mitigation
> would involve excavation, grading and installation of native
> hydrophytic vegetation and exotic vegetation eradication and control
> where necessary. An interpretive display would describe the Civil War
> history of the site and the collaborative effort involved to achieve
> the restoration. Appendices D, E and F provide more detailed
> information on the wetlands mitigation. Appendix B provides a map that
> identifies areas for restoration. Appendix G provides information on
> 106, cultural resources compliance. The new picnic area would provide
> a safe and handicapped accessible facility that would include a
> restroom and small pavilion. Parking would be provided for horse
> trailers and buses.

#### 

# DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

## A. Nonliving Components

###  *Climate* 

> Summers are warm and humid; winters are relatively mild. Generally
> pleasant weather prevails in spring and autumn. Mean annual
> temperature is about 55 degrees (F) and ranges from 42 to 65. The
> coldest period, when minimum temperatures average 21 degrees, occurs
> in late January. The warmest period, when mean maximum temperature may
> reach 88 degrees, occurs in the last half of July. Annual
> precipitation has ranged from about 25 inches to more than 55 inches.
> Rainfalls of over 10 inches in a 24-hour period have been recorded
> during the passage of tropical storms. The seasonal snowfall is nearly
> 24 inches but varies greatly from season to season. Snowfalls of 4
> inches or more occur only twice each winter on the average.
> Accumulations of over 20 inches from a single storm are extremely
> rare. Prevailing winds are from the south except during the winter
> months when they are from the northwest with the highest average wind
> speed occurring in March at 9.1 mph.

### 

###  *Land*

> **a. [Soils]{.underline}** - According to the Soil Survey of Prince
> William County, Virginia, the soil type for the study area consists of
> Albano, Arcola-Nestoria, Arcola, Jackland, Reaville, Sycoline-Kelly
> and Waxpool soils. The Albano soils are deep and poorly drained. The
> Arcola soils are a moderately deep and well-drained soil. The Jackland
> soils are very deep, moderately well drained and somewhat poorly
> drained with very slow permeability. The Reaville soils are a
> moderately deep, moderately well to somewhat poorly drained soil with
> slow permeability. The Sycoline soils are a moderately deep and
> moderately well to somewhat poorly drained soil and the Waxpool soils
> are a very deep and poorly drained soil.

#### 

> **b. [Geology]{.underline}** - The Park lies within the Triassic basin
> of the northern Virginia Piedmont.
>
> **c. [Geography]{.underline}** - The Park is located in the Piedmont
> region of northern Virginia. The elevation of the project area ranges
> from approximately 230 to 260 feet.
>
> **d. [Land Use]{.underline}** - The project area consists of
> approximately 104 acres of disturbed ground located west of VA Route
> 622 (Groveton Road) and south of US 29 (Lee Highway) within Manassas
> National Battlefield Park. Historical background on this property is
> provided in the 1992 report, [Cultural Resource Survey and Inventory
> of a War-Torn Landscape: The Stuart's Hill Tract, Manassas National
> Battlefield Park, Virginia]{.underline}, edited by Laura J. Galke.
> Additional information and analysis of the historic landscape is
> provided in the undated report, [A Cultural Restoration Report for the
> Stuart's Hill Tract, Manassas National Battlefield Park]{.underline},
> by Brian Morris, Ian J. W. Firth, and Susan P. Bratton.
>
> The project area lies primarily within the antebellum plantation known
> as Brownsville and Meadowville. Originally developed by George N.
> Brown in the late 18^th^ century, Brownsville changed hands several
> times during the decade following Brown's death in 1825. By 1835,
> William M. Lewis had acquired the 409-acre Brown tract and moved his
> family to the property by 1840. Under Lewis' ownership, Brownsville
> remained a prosperous agricultural estate until the advent of the
> Civil War in 1861. To the west of Brownsville, William Cundiff began
> developing the property that became known as Meadowville at the start
> of the 19^th^ century. Following Cundiff's death in 1821, the family
> continued to manage the estate until after the Civil War, when the
> 440-acre Meadowville property was subdivided.
>
> Although the brunt of heavy fighting during the First Battle of
> Manassas (July 21, 1861) fell on neighboring farms to the east,
> Brownsville and Meadowville were not directly impacted. During the
> Second Battle of Manassas (August 28-30, 1862), however, the
> plantation witnessed skirmishing and maneuvering by both armies. The
> events of the battle are chronicled in the exhaustive 1985 study,
> [Historical Report on the Troop Movements for the Second Battle of
> Manassas, August 28 through August 30, 1862]{.underline}, by John
> Hennessy.
>
> After the opening engagement at the Brawner Farm, Union Brig. Gen.
> Rufus King's division withdrew to Manassas Junction during the early
> hours of August 29, with part of his force passing through the project
> area. Elements of Maj. Gen. John Pope's Union Army of Virginia
> maneuvered through the project area on the morning of August 29. The
> arrival of Maj. Gen. James Longstreet's wing of the Confederate Army
> of Northern Virginia, however, led to a Federal withdrawal, first to
> Brownsville, and then to the east of the Lewis property during the
> afternoon. Late in the day, part of Longstreet's wing advanced
> eastward and clashed with Federal troops under Brig. Gen. John Hatch
> along the Warrenton Turnpike just east of Groveton.
>
> During most of August 29 and 30, Union attention remained focused
> north of the Warrenton Turnpike on Maj. Gen. Thomas J. "Stonewall"
> Jackson's position along the Unfinished Railroad, which had withstood
> repeated assaults. Following a failed Union attack on Jackson's line
> on the afternoon of August 30, Longstreet's forces swept eastward
> across the project area against the Federals' vulnerable left flank.
> The Confederate attack finally ground to a halt at Henry Hill, where
> Union forces took position to stave off disaster. The arrival of night
> brought the battle to a close, as the Union high command ordered a
> withdrawal across Bull Run to the east.
>
> Following the Civil War, Lewis' son-in-law, John T. Leachman, acquired
> the Brownsville estate, which he continued to manage during the
> balance of the 19^th^ century. The Lewis' residence, located just
> south of the project area, continued to serve as the centerpiece of
> the estate until its loss due to fire in 1900. A later dwelling,
> erected on the same site c. 1901 and extensively remodeled in 1940,
> remained on the property until its demolition in 1988 by the
> Hazel/Peterson Companies. Site preparation for the proposed William
> Center development also resulted in extensive ground disturbance
> throughout the project area. The Cundiff residence, meanwhile, was
> destroyed during the Civil War. A modern dwelling erected by 1944,
> occupied the site until its removal in 1987 by Hazel/Peterson.

## 

#### 

#### 

#### 

## B. Living Components

### *Vegetation*

> This area has been drastically altered by the prior owners who were
> constructing a housing development. Since that time the area has been
> left to natural succession. There are patches of oak-hickory and
> Virginia Pine that construction had left undisturbed. The remaining
> area consists of old field succession grasses and cedar along
> fencerows. Young's Branch runs along the southern edge of the site.

### *Wildlife*

> A list of animal species known or likely to use the habitat of the
> park is included in the 1987
>
> Manassas National Battlefield Park Forest Management Plan. Many common
> species of
>
> wildlife have been observed near this site. Species included
> Songbirds, Whitetail Deer
>
> (Odocoileus virginianus), Beaver (*Castor* *canadensis*), Eastern
> Cottontail (Sylvilagus
>
> *floridanus)*, Red Fox (*Vulpes vulpes*), squirrels, opossums
> (*Didelphis marsupialis*), Wild
>
> Turkey (*Meleagris gallopavo*) and raccoons (*Procyon lotor*). No rare
> or endangered species
>
> have been identified in the study area. Natural resource management
> personnel will closely
>
> monitor the operation to insure minimal impacts to wildlife.

###  *Human Population Density*

The park has an annual visitation of approximately 900,000 visitors who
spend anywhere

from 30 minutes to 6 hours in the park. The heaviest concentrations of
visitors come to the

park on weekends. There is a 40-mile trail system in the park that
allows visitors easy

access to nearly all portions of the Park. Primary access is by
automobile, with secondary access from horse, motorcycle, and foot
traffic. Few people visit the project area as there are no interpretive
displays or trails currently through the area.

# IV. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED ACTION

## A. Alternative 3: Preferred Alternative

> The project area was acquired in 1988 as part of a legislative taking
> of the Stuart's Hill Tract, which included 558 acres, bounded by Lee
> Highway to the north, Groveton Road to the east, Interstate 66 to the
> south, and Pageland Lane to the west. As indicated in the report
> [Cultural Resource Survey and Inventory of a War-Torn Landscape: The
> Stuart's Hill Tract, Manassas National Battlefield Park,
> Virginia]{.underline}, Phase I and II archeological research was
> conducted in the Stuart\'s Hill area from 1990-92. Prior to this
> investigation, a pedestrian survey of the project area resulted in an
> assessment of cultural resources impacted by the William Center
> development activity. The assessment determined that most of the
> disturbed area had been graded or excavated down to shale or bedrock.
>
> The National Park Service undertook further research through a
> cooperative agreement with the University of Georgia, Research
> Foundation, Inc., to complete a cultural landscape restoration report
> for the Stuart's Hill Tract. The recommendations of the report, which
> was completed in 1993, form the basis for the proposed landscape
> restoration within the project area.

The impact this project may have on visitors touring the area during the
construction process will be short-term and minimal as this area
currently receives very little use. The construction phase is not
expected to last more than 4-5 months. Erosion control measures will be
employed during the re-contouring phase of the project to prevent
siltation into the stream. The entire operation will be closely
monitored by natural resource management personnel to minimize any
impact on, or damage to, natural resources. The resulting habitat
alterations are expected to result in the very positive outcome of
restoring the historic landscape and the wetlands that occurred there.

# PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

# 

The Environmental Assessment for this project will be advertised for a
30-day public review. A press release will be issued to the local
newspapers advertising the availability of copies of this Environmental
Assessment, Battlefield Restoration and Picnic Area Construction: The
Stuart's Hill Tract, to local libraries and through the internet at
[www.nps.gov/mana/index.htm](http://www.nps.gov/mana/index.htm).

# 

# VI. LIST OF PREPARERS

Robert K. Sutton, Ph.D.

Superintendent

Manassas National Battlefield Park

Karen Cucurullo

Assistant Superintendent

Manassas National Battlefield Park

Ray Brown

Cultural Resources Manager

Manassas National Battlefield Park

Bryan Gorsira

Natural Resource Program Manager

Manassas National Battlefield Park

#### 

# LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED

# 

Ed Raus

Chief of Interpretation

Manassas National Battlefield Park

Matt Reeves, Ph.D.

Archeologist

Rebecca L. Stevens, AIA

Regional Historical Architect

National Capital Region

Stephen Potter, Ph.D.

Regional Archeologist

National Capital Region

# 

# 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

# VIII. APPENDIXES

## A. References

1996 *Manassas National Battlefield Park, Transportation Study.*
Prepared by Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc., Helena, Montana.

1989. *Soil Survey of Prince William County, Virginia, USDOA, Soil
      Conservation Service.*

1987 *Manassas National Battlefield Park Forest Management Plan,* North
American Resource Management, Charlottesville, VA

1985. *Historical Report On the Troop Movements for the Second Battle of
      Manassas, August 28 Through August 30, 1862.* Prepared by John
      Hennessy. Denver Service Center, Denver.

#### *1992 Cultural resource Survey and Inventory of the War-Torn Landscape: The Stuart's Hill Tract, Manassas National Battlefield Park, Virginia.* Edited by Laura J. Galke, National Capital Region, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

1992 *A Cultural Landscape Restoration Report: The Stuart's Hill Tract*,
Manassas National Battlefield Park, Prepared by Brian Morris, et. Al.

#### 

#### 

##  Project Location Map

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

## C. Picnic Area Design

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## D. Planting List

## 

#### 

#### ![](media/image1.wmf)

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

## E. Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

## Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Mitigation Approval

## G. Cultural Resources Compliance

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

####