U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service • Denver Service Center

Manassas National Battlefield Park
Final General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

MANASSAS NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK 

Fairfax and Prince William Counties, Virginia 

This Final General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement describes and analyzes three 

alternatives for managing Manassas National Battlefield Park. The approved plan will help managers 

make decisions about managing natural and cultural resources, visitation, and development for the 

next 15 to 20 years. Issues that are addressed in this General Management Plan include commuter 

traffic on the portions of U.S. Route 29 and Virginia Route 234 in the park, the interpretive approach 

used to describe the two battles of Manassas and their role in the Civil War, and the types of facilities 

needed to support that approach. A separate environmental impact statement is being developed for 

the Manassas National Battlefield Park Bypass, which is designed to remove commuter traffic from 

state and federal highways in the park. 

Alternative A, the no-action alternative, describes the existing conditions and current directions of 

park management. It serves as the basis for comparing the other alternatives and for understanding 

why certain changes have been proposed. This alternative proposes limited, if any, changes in 

interpretation and management of the park. Coordination with agencies and other groups would 

continue. The park would be operated and maintained as before, and there would be very little change 

in visitor or other park facilities. Issues would be resolved as they emerged and not as the result of a 

comprehensive plan. Current laws, policies, and guidelines would continue to guide resource 

management actions. 

The two “action” alternatives describe various approaches to managing the park’s resources and 

visitation. Both call for the removal of commuter and truck traffic from U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 

234. Alternative B (NPS Preferred Alternative)—The Two Battles of Manassas—A 

Comprehensive Understanding of Each Battle proposes a future condition at the park that focuses 

on interpreting the two battles of Manassas as distinct military events. The visitor center at Henry Hill 

would orient visitors to the park as a whole and focus on the Battle of First Manassas. A separate 

visitor contact station would focus on the events of the Battle of Second Manassas. Alternative C — 

The Defining Moments of the Battles of Manassas—An Understanding of the Principal Events 

would focus on the “watershed” events of the battles, encouraging visitors towards one major visitor 

center and multiple interpretive sites. The existing visitor center at Henry Hill, where a portion of the 

first battle took place, would be removed and a new visitor center would be constructed near Stone 

Bridge. 

The public review period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ended February 27, 2006. This 

final document summarizes the comments received and reflects changes made as a result of comments. 

The no-action period for this final plan and environmental impact statement will end 30 days after the 

Environmental Protection Agency has published a notice in the Federal Register. The course of action 

that would be implemented will be documented through the issuance of a record of decision once the 

no-action period has ended. For additional information about this plan, please contact Dr. Robert 

Sutton, Superintendent, Manassas National Battlefield Park. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

United States Department of the Interior · National Park Service 
Printed on Recycled Paper 
iii 

SUMMARY 

The purpose of this General Management Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement is to define a 

direction for the management of Manassas 

National Battlefield Park for the next 15 to 20 

years. The approved plan will provide a 

framework for making decisions about 

managing the natural and cultural resources, 

visitor use, development, and operations of the 

park so that future opportunities and problems 

can be effectively addressed. 

This updated plan is necessary to address 

current issues related to commuter traffic on 

the portions of U.S. Route 29 and Virginia 

Route 234 in the park, the interpretive 

approach used to describe the two battles of 

Manassas and their role in the Civil War, and 

the types of facilities needed to support that 

approach. 

ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED 

Issues addressed in this plan include the 

quality and amount of interpretation devoted 

to each of the two battles, heavy traffic on U.S. 

Route 29 and VA Route 234, the preservation 

and rehabilitation of wartime and other 

historic structures and sites, recreational use of 

the park, future operational requirements, and 

the relationship between current vegetation 

patterns and the park’s overall interpretive 

goals. 

Heavy commuter and truck traffic on the 

portions of U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 

that run through the park detracts from visitor 

enjoyment, safety, and interpretive activities. 

This traffic makes it difficult for visitors to 

follow the automobile tour route or to visit 

park resources at their own pace. 

Current vegetation patterns at the park are 

reminiscent of wartime patterns, but are often 

different from the exact wartime conditions 

that influenced the strategies and tactics of the 

two battles of Manassas. Rehabilitation of 

historic views would improve interpretive 

efforts, but that rehabilitation would also have 

effects on natural communities. 

Recreation is the source of many visits to 

Manassas National Battlefield Park. It is 

important to manage this use without 

threatening or damaging the park’s abundant 

cultural and natural resources or 

compromising its interpretive program. 

The management alternatives described in this 

plan present challenges for park operations 

and maintenance. Transferring portions of 

U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 to park 

control, rehabilitating and maintaining cultural 

landscapes, and upgrading interpretive 

materials and activities would all generate the 

need for additional operational and 

maintenance capacity. 

ALTERNATIVES 

To achieve the desired conditions at Manassas 

National Battlefield Park, the planning team 

developed a “no-action” alternative 

(continuing present management) and two 

“action” alternatives for managing the 

resources and visitor uses of the park. Each 

action alternative assigns portions of the park 

to different management zones. The 

management prescription for each zone 

identifies how the zone could be managed to 

achieve desired resource conditions and visitor 

experiences. In each action alternative, the five 

management zones — including Visitor 

Experience/Services, Cultural Landscape 

Rehabilitation/Preservation, Motorized 

Sightseeing/Park Circulation, Recreation, and 

Park Operations and Maintenance — specify a 

combination of resource, visitor experience, 

and facilities conditions. 

Alternative A—Continuing Current 

Management Principles (No Action),

represents a continuation of current 

management direction and trends at Manassas 

National Battlefield Park, and serves as a 

baseline for comparing the resource conditions 

and visitor experiences prescribed by the two 

action alternatives. Existing conditions, trends, 

and management practices would be 

maintained with only minor changes. 
SUMMARY

iv 

Managers would continue to follow the special 

mandates and servicewide mandates and 

policies. The current, most recognizable 

features in the park would continue to serve as 

the primary focus for visitor use and 

interpretation. Orientation and visitor services 

related to both battles would continue to be 

offered at the Henry Hill visitor center. 

Under this alternative, historical park uses and 

development patterns would continue in 

accordance with the 1983 General 

Management Plan. The main roads within the 

park (U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234) would 

remain open to commuter and truck traffic. 

Current facilities at the park would be 

maintained, upgraded, and rehabilitated as 

needed. Some changes would be made to 

visitor use patterns to improve access to those 

lands added to the park since the 1983 General 

Management Plan was completed, including 

the Brawner Farm and Stuart’s Hill tracts. 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred Alternative)—

The Two Battles of Manassas—A 

Comprehensive Understanding of Each 

Battle proposes a future condition at the park 

that focuses on interpreting the two battles of 

Manassas as distinct military events. Visitors 

would gain a thorough understanding of the 

first and second battles by visiting two separate 

visitor contact areas, each focused on one 

battle. These primary interpretive sites, 

including a visitor center and a visitor contact 

station, would be the two main focal points of 

visitor services in the park. Visitors could 

explore the many historic sites associated with 

each event throughout the park. The 

experience at each battlefield would be unique, 

with stand-alone visitor areas and automobile 

tour routes. Separate, chronological 

automobile and bicycle tours would be 

developed for each battle. In this alternative, 

the rehabilitation of the historic landscape 

would be critical to enable visitors to 

understand the events and military tactics 

associated with each battle. 

Overall visitor experience and safety would be 

enhanced by the construction of the Manassas 

National Battlefield Park Bypass. This road 

would permit the removal of heavy commuter 

and commercial truck traffic from the portions 

of U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 that run 

through the park. Through-traffic would be 

further limited with the addition of controlled 

access points. 

Visitors would experience a battlefield 

landscape that resembles its wartime 

appearance. Key interpretive views would be 

preserved and re-created to help visitors 

understand how the battles unfolded and the 

importance of certain locations. Wartime 

structures would be preserved and other 

historic structures would be retained to mark 

the site of wartime buildings. 

Alternative C—The Defining Moments of 

the Battles of Manassas—An Understanding 

of the Principal Events would focus on the 

“watershed” events of the battles, encouraging 

visitors towards one major visitor center and 

multiple key interpretive sites. Interpretation 

of these general events, the outcomes of the 

battles, and the broader story of the Civil War 

would be emphasized over the detailed 

military tactics of each battle. Although other 

sites in the park would be accessible, the 

concentration of interpretation and visitor use 

would be in areas that illustrate the “defining” 

moments of the battles. Rehabilitating the 

historic scene in some of these areas would 

help visitors understand these principal events. 

In alternative C, the overall reasons and 

strategy for the Civil War would be presented 

in a comprehensive way. The importance of 

the battles of Manassas would be presented in 

the overall context of the Civil War. Other 

stories, such as the local families and African 

Americans that were affected by the battles of 

Manassas could be interpreted in the park. The 

general stories and outcomes of the battles 

would also be presented. The existing Henry 

Hill visitor center would be removed, and 

orientation and visitor services for both battles 

would be carried out from a new visitor center 

near Stone Bridge. The visitor experience 

would not be highly structured and key 

interpretive areas could be visited without 

regard to order or sequence. Visitors could 
Summary 

v 

tailor their visit to those elements of the battles 

in which they were most interested. 

Key interpretive areas would explain the battle 

events. In these areas, historic structures 

would serve interpretive functions and would 

be accessible to visitors. Extensive interpretive 

displays would explain the battle events and 

view corridors would be developed to enhance 

visitor understanding of the “watershed” battle 

events. 

Overall visitor experience and safety would be 

enhanced by the construction of the Manassas 

National Battlefield Park Bypass. This road 

would eliminate heavy commuter and 

commercial truck traffic through the park (U.S. 

Route 29 and VA Route 234). Through-traffic 

would be further limited with the addition of 

controlled access points. 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

The planning team evaluated the potential 

consequences that the actions of each 

alternative could have on natural resources, 

cultural resources, the visitor experience, the 

socioeconomic environment, and park 

operations and maintenance. The beneficial or 

adverse effects of each alternative were 

categorized as either short-term or long-term, 

and their intensity was rated as negligible, 

minor, moderate, or major. The impacts of the 

various alternatives are compared in Table 2-3. 

For alternative A, the no-action alternative,

the presence of heavy commuter and truck 

traffic volumes on the portions of U.S. Route 

29 and VA Route 234 that run through the park 

would continue to have major adverse impacts 

on visitor transportation within the park, and 

would also create adverse impacts on cultural 

resources, visitor experience, and the park’s 

soundscape. This traffic would continue to 

cause excessive delays, making it difficult for 

visitors to access and use all areas of the park. 

In addition, visitor focus would remain on the 

Battle of First Manassas (First Manassas) 

because of the location of the visitor center 

and the heavy volumes of non-park vehicles 

that inhibit viewing many of the Battle of 

Second Manassas (Second Manassas) sites. 

Alternative A would have negligible impacts on 

air quality; vegetation and wildlife; threatened, 

endangered, and rare species; water resources; 

the socioeconomic environment; and 

recreation. Because alternative A would not 

change the way that individuals access private 

or public property within or near park 

boundaries, this alternative would have a 

negligible impact on the socioeconomic 

environment. The heavy and increasing 

amount of non-park traffic on park roads 

would continue to have an adverse impact on 

park operations. 

Under alternative B, the preferred 

alternative, the removal of non-park traffic 

from park roads, rehabilitation of historic 

vegetation patterns, removal of the existing 

U.S. Route 29 bridge over Bull Run, and 

continued preservation and rehabilitation of 

historic structures would have a moderate to 

major long-term beneficial impact on 

transportation and visitor experience. 

Interpretation related to the Battle of Second 

Manassas would continue to be located at the 

Stuart’s Hill visitor contact station until it 

could be relocated to Brawner Farm. The use 

of Brawner Farm to emphasize Second 

Manassas would have a beneficial impact on 

cultural resources and visitor experience. 

Controlled access points at the park entrances 

would contribute to the beneficial impact on 

transportation, cultural resources, and visitor 

use. This change also would have a negligible 

long-term impact on owners of private 

property within park boundaries. The 

construction of a new bridge and associated 

access road over Bull Run would have a longterm adverse impact on cultural resources and 

water resources, while removing the modern 

highway bridge on U.S. Route 29 would have a 

beneficial impact on the cultural landscape. 

Construction activities associated with these 

changes would have a negligible to minor 

short-term adverse impact on air quality, 

vegetation and wildlife, and the park’s 
SUMMARY

vi 

soundscape. Air quality outside the park would 

be adversely affected by the rerouting of traffic 

onto the Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Bypass. 

Historic view rehabilitation would have a 

minor long-term adverse impact on some 

forest-based species, and a minor long-term 

beneficial impact on some species that inhabit 

grasslands and open fields. These changes 

would have no effect on threatened or 

endangered species and may affect but are not 

likely to adversely affect their habitats, because 

no supporting habitats would be disturbed. 

Alternative B would create negligible adverse 

impacts on water resources. 

Enhanced recreation facilities and 

opportunities would create a minor long-term 

benefit for recreation. 

Under alternative C, the removal of non-park 

traffic from park roads, removal of the existing 

U.S. Route 29 bridge over Bull Run, creation of 

a new visitor center, rehabilitation of some 

historic views, and continued preservation and 

rehabilitation of historic structures would have 

a major long-term beneficial impact on 

transportation and visitor experience. 

Controlled access points at park entrances 

would contribute to the beneficial impact on 

transportation, cultural resources, and visitor 

use. The impact on owners of private property 

within park boundaries would be negligible. 

The construction of a new bridge over Bull 

Run and associated access roads would have a 

long-term adverse impact on cultural resources 

and water resources, while removing the 

modern highway bridge on U.S. Route 29 

would have a beneficial impact on the cultural 

landscape. 

Construction activities associated with these 

changes would have a negligible to minor 

short-term adverse impact on air quality, 

vegetation and wildlife, and the park’s 

soundscape. Air quality outside the park would 

be adversely affected by the rerouting of traffic 

onto the Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Bypass. 

Historic view rehabilitation would have a 

minor long-term adverse impact on some 

forest-based species, and a minor long-term 

beneficial impact on some species that inhabit 

grasslands and open fields. These changes 

would have no effect on threatened or 

endangered species and may affect but are not 

likely to adversely affect their habitats, because 

no supporting habitats would be disturbed. 

Alternative C would create negligible adverse 

impacts on water resources. 

Enhanced recreation facilities and 

opportunities would create a minor long-term 

benefit for recreation. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

ON THE DRAFT PLAN 

The 60-day review and comment period for 

the Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement occurred 

between December 30, 2005 and February 28, 

2006. The comments received have been 

reviewed and analyzed. Many of the comments 

received were at the implementation level and 

will be addressed in planning that will tier from 

this General Management Plan. The comments 

received are discussed in greater detail in the 

“Consultation and Coordination” chapter. 

Alternative B, the preferred alternative, has 

been modified based on stipulations from the 

Commonwealth Transportation Board in its 

approval of the Battlefield Bypass on June 15, 

2006. The Board was concerned about 

maintaining access on U.S. Route 29 in the 

event of an emergency. To address this 

stipulation, NPS management proposed that 

the modern highway bridge over Bull Run on 

U.S. Route 29 be removed and that a new 

bridge and access road be constructed farther 

south. This approach would 

• maintain emergency access on U.S. Route 

29 
Summary 

vii 

• remove a modern intrusion in the cultural 

landscape in an important area of the 

battlefield 

• improve the visitor experience and 

interpretive opportunities at Stone Bridge. 

The new bridge and access road were analyzed 

as part of alternative C in the Draft General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

This final plan includes agency and 

organization letters as well as responses to all 

substantive comments. This Final General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement will be distributed to the public. 

After a 30-day no-action period, a record of 

decision identifying the selected alternative 

(the approved plan) will be issued.

ix 

CONTENTS 

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

Purpose and Need 3

Introduction 3

Brief Description of the Park 3

Purpose of the Plan 5

Need for the Plan 6

Next Steps 6

Implementation of the Plan 7

Guidance for the Planning Effort 8

Purpose and Significance 8

Park Purpose 8

Park Significance 8

Primary Interpretive Themes 8

Historic Context 9

Goals 9

Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments 10

Servicewide Laws and Policies 11

Relationship of Other Planning Efforts to This General Management Plan 16

Planning Issues/Concerns 18

Introduction 18

Planning Issues Addressed in This General Management Plan 18

Issues Identified That Are Not General Management Plan-Level Issues 21

Impact Topics (Resources and Values at Stake during the Planning Process) 24

Natural Resources 24

Cultural Resources 25

Transportation/Traffic 25

Socioeconomic Environment 26

Recreation 26

Visitor Experience 26

Park Operations and Maintenance 26

Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Analysis 27

Soils, Topography, and Geology 27

Prime Farmland Soils 27

Indian Trust Resources 28

Ethnographic Resources 28

Environmental Justice 29

Land Use 29

Public Health and Safety 30

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The Alternatives 33

Introduction 33

Formulation of Alternatives 33

Identification of the Preferred Alternative 34

Management Prescriptions 35
CONTENTS

x 

Visitor Experience/Services Prescription 35

Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation/Preservation Prescription 35

Motorized Sightseeing/Park Circulation Prescription 37

Recreation Prescription 37

Park Operations and Maintenance Prescription 38

Alternative A—Continuing Current Management Practices (No Action) 39

Concept 39

Management Zones 39

Orientation and Visitor Services 40

Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation and Preservation 45

Transportation and Circulation 45

Park Operations and Maintenance 46

Boundary Adjustments 46

Estimated Costs 46

Alternative B (NPS-Preferred Alternative) - The Two Battles of Manassas—A Comprehensive 

Understanding of Each Battle 47

Concept 47

Orientation and Visitor Services Prescription 47

Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation/Preservation Prescription 53

Motorized Sightseeing and Circulation Prescription 55

Recreation Prescription 55

Park Operations and Maintenance Prescription 55

Boundary Adjustments 56

Estimated Costs 57

Alternative C—The Defining Moments of the Battles of Manassas—An Understanding of the Principal 

Events 58

Concept 58

Orientation and Visitor Services Prescription 58

Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation/Preservation Prescription 60

Motorized Sightseeing and Circulation Prescription 65

Recreation Prescription 65

Park Operations and Maintenance Prescription 66

Boundary Adjustments 66

Estimated Costs 67

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis 68

Environmentally Preferable Alternative 70

Mitigation Measures / Best Management Practices 72

Natural Resources 72

Cultural Resources 73

Socioeconomic Environment 73

Visitor Experience 73

Future Studies and Implementation Plans Needed 74

Summaries 75

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Introduction 85

Natural Environment 86

Air Quality 86

Soundscape 86
Contents 

xi 

Vegetation and Wildlife 86

Water Resources (Water Bodies, Water Quality, Wetlands, and Floodplains) 92

Cultural Environment 96

Historic Structures 96

Cultural Landscapes 99

Archeological Resources 99

Museum Collections and Archives 100

Transportation/Traffic 101

Roadway Characteristics 101

Traffic Counts and Levels of Service 101

Safety 102

Emergency Response 102

Socioeconomic Environment 106

Population 106

Economy 106

Employment 106

Per Capita Income 107

Poverty 107

Recreation 108

Visitor Experience 109

Visitation Use and Patterns 109

Visitor Profile 109

Projection of Future Use 110

Park Operations and Maintenance 111

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Introduction 115

Methodology for Assessing Impacts 115

Impact Type 115

Intensity 115

Context 115

Duration 115

Direct Versus Indirect Impacts 116

Impairment to Park Resources and Values 116

Cumulative Impacts 116

Cumulative Impact Scenario 116

Projects with Potential Cumulative Impacts 117 

Impacts on the Natural Environment 119

Air Quality 119

Soundscape 122

Vegetation and Wildlife 126

Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species and Natural Communities 133

Water Resources (Water Bodies, Water Quality, Wetlands, and Floodplains) 136

Impacts on Cultural Resources 141

Impacts on Transportation 154

Impacts on the Socioeconomic Environment 159

Impacts on Recreation 162

Impacts on Visitor Experience 164

Impacts on Park Operations and Maintenance 168
CONTENTS

xii 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 171

Relationship of Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 

172

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 173

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

Public Meetings, Section 106 Consultation, and Interagency Coordination 177 

Public Meeetings 177 

Section 106 Consultation 178 

Interagency Coordination 178 

Responses to Comments 184 

Comments that Resulted in a Change to the Final Document 185

Other Comments Received 186

Comment Letters 189

List of Agencies and Organizations to Which This Document Was Sent 251 

APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, AND INDEX 

Appendix A: Description of Resources 255

Appendix B: Description of Battle Events 269

Appendix C: Relevant Legislation and Special Mandates 279

Appendix D: Estimated Costs 287

Appendix E: Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species and Natural Communities 290

Appendix F: Manassas National Battlefield Park Bypass Alternative Routes 299

Selected Bibliography 301

List of Preparers 307

Index 308 

MAPS 

Map 1-1 Regional Map 4 

Map 1-2 Vicinity Map 5 

Map 2-1 Alternative A: Cultural and Historic Landscape 41 

Map 2-2 Alternative A: Transportation and Circulation 43 

Map 2-3 Alternative B: Cultural and Historic Landscape 49 

Map 2-4 Alternative B: Transportation and Circulation 51 

Map 2-5 Alternative C: Cultural and Historic Landscape 61 

Map 2-6 Alternative C: Transportation and Circulation 63 

Map 3-1 Historic Vegetation Patterns 89 

Map 3-2 Existing Water Resources 93 

Map 3-3 List of Classified Structures 97 

Map 3-4 Existing Circulation Facilities 103 

Map 4-1 Proposed Forest Cuts and Reforestation Sites 129 

Figure A-1 First Manassas (Phases 1 and 2) 271 
Contents 

xiii 

Figure A-2 First Manassas (Phase 3 and Union Retreat) 273 

Figure A-3 Second Manassas (Phases 1 and 2) 275 

Figure A-4 Second Manassas (Phase 3 and Union Retreat) 277 

Map F-1 Bypass Study Alternative 300 

TABLES 

Table 1-1: Servicewide Mandates and Policies Pertaining to Manassas National Battlefield Park 11

Table 1-2: Carrying Capacity Indicators and Standards 22

Table 2-1: Management Prescriptions 36

Table 2-2: Alternatives Summary 76

Table 2-3: Summary of Impacts of Implementing the Alternatives 79

Table 3-1: Levels of Services for U.S. Route 29 and Virginia Route 234 Corridors 101

Table 3-2: Visitor Use for 20031 109

Table 3-3: Annual Visitor Use, 1983 to 2003 110

Table 5-1: GMP Actions Requiring Section 106 Compliance 179

Table D-1: Range of Costs by Alternative 289 

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

3 

PURPOSE AND NEED 

INTRODUCTION 

The National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 

requires each unit of the national park system 

to develop a general management plan (GMP). 

The National Park Services’ (NPS’) 

Management Policies: The Guide to Managing 

the National Park System states “the Service will 

maintain an up-to-date GMP for each unit of 

the national park system” (Section 2.3.1, 

General Management Planning). 

The purpose of a general management plan is 

to ensure that a park has a clearly defined 

direction for resource preservation and visitor 

use to best achieve the NPS’ mandate to 

preserve resources unimpaired for the 

enjoyment of future generations. General 

management planning also makes the National 

Park Service more effective, collaborative, and 

accountable by 

• Providing a balance between continuity 

and adaptability in decision making. 

Defining the desired conditions to be 

achieved and maintained in a park 

provides a touchstone that allows park 

managers and staff to constantly adapt 

their actions to changing situations while 

staying focused on what is most important 

about the park. 

• Analyzing the park in relation to its 

surrounding ecosystem, cultural setting, 

and community. This helps park 

managers and staff understand how the 

park 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. 

• Affording everyone who has a stake in 

decisions affecting a park 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 

opportunities for park managers and staff 

to interact with the public and learn about 

concerns, expectations, and values. Public 

involvement also provides settings for park 

managers and staff to share information 

about the park’s purpose and significance, 

address other guidelines for management, 

and discuss issues and constraints. 

The ultimate outcome of general management 

planning for national parks is an agreement 

among the National Park Service, its partners, 

and the public on why each area is managed as 

part of the national park system, what resource 

conditions and visitor experience should exist 

there, and how those conditions can best be 

achieved and maintained over time. 

This Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement for Manassas 

National Battlefield Park presents and analyzes 

three alternative future directions. These 

include one “no-action” alternative and two 

“action” alternatives. 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PARK 

The maps in this document are for illustration 

purposes only and are not drawn exactly to scale. 

Because of its “historical importance as the 

battlefield site of the First and Second Battles 

of Manassas,” Secretary of the Interior Harold 

L. Ickes designated Manassas National 

Battlefield Park on May 10, 1940. Subsequent 

legislation in 1954, 1980, and 1988 established 

the present park boundary to “preserve the 

most historically important lands relating to 

the two battles of Manassas.” 

Manassas National Battlefield Park is located 

in the Piedmont region of Virginia in Fairfax 

and Prince William Counties (see Map 1-1), 

approximately 25 miles west of Washington. 

D.C. Of the park’s 5,071 acres, the federal 

government owns approximately 85 percent 

and private owners hold the remaining 15 
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

4 

Map 1-1: Regional Map 

percent. Interstate 66 borders the park to the 

south and Pageland Lane (VA 705) borders the 

park to the west. 

The park is bisected by Lee Highway (U.S. 

Route 29, also known by its historic names of 

the Warrenton Turnpike) and Sudley Road 

(VA Route 234). These two roads follow the 

basic historic road alignments used by Civil 

War troops (see Map 1-2). Today, they provide 

the main visitor access to the battlefields. The 

roads also receive heavy use by commuters, 

residents, and trucks from nearby quarries and 

construction operations. The heavy volumes of 

commuter and truck traffic create a safety 

problem and encroach on the visitor 

experience. 

The farmlands and fields that historically 

surrounded the park are giving way to 

suburban Washington, D.C. While the areas to 

the north of the park retain some rural 

character, the areas south and west of the park 

now bustle with residential and commercial 

development. 

The park’s most important resources are the 

large tracts of land managed to represent the 

battlefield landscape as it existed at the time of 

the Civil War. The battlefield landscape comes 

under the cultural resource category of 

“cultural landscapes” and will be analyzed as a 

cultural landscape impact topic later in this 

document. Included in this landscape are three 

houses that date from the Civil War period, 

several post-war historic buildings, a 
Purpose and Need 

5 

Map 1-2: Vicinity Map 

Confederate cemetery, the reconstructed 

Stone Bridge over Bull Run, six miles of 

historic road traces, and numerous other 

resources, including historic structures, 

archeological resources, cemeteries, trenches, 

and earthworks. A detailed description of 

some of the park’s cultural resources is 

provided in Appendix A: Description of 

Resources. 

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

The purpose of this General Management Plan 

/ Environmental Impact Statement is to guide 

decision making and problem solving related 

to resource protection and visitor experience 

at Manassas National Battlefield Park. The 

approved plan will provide a framework for 

proactive decision making, including decisions 

on visitor use and on managing natural and 

cultural resources and development. This 

framework will allow managers to address 

future opportunities and problems effectively. 

This plan prescribes the resource conditions 

and visitor experiences that are to be achieved 

and maintained at Manassas National 

Battlefield Park over time. Management 

decisions must be made where laws, policies, 
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

6 

and regulations do not provide clear guidance, 

or where limitations will be based on the park’s 

purpose, resource analysis, and the evaluation 

of environmental consequences and costs. 

This plan does not document how particular 

programs or projects will be implemented or 

prioritized. Those decisions will be made as 

part of more detailed implementation 

planning, which will be linked to the broad, 

comprehensive decisions presented in this 

plan. 

NEED FOR THE PLAN 

Manassas National Battlefield Park has been 

operating under the 1983 General Management 

Plan, and the Manassas National Battlefield 

Park Amendments of 1988. The latter brought 

the Stuart’s Hill tract into the park and authorized the study of alternatives for the portions 

of U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 that bisect 

the park. Although many elements of the 

original plan are still applicable, NPS planning 

guidance has changed since 1983, and the older plan does not address current issues, particularly those related to transportation within 

the park and interpretation of park resources. 

The Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Amendments of 1988 brought into the park 

additional lands important to the Battle of 

Second Manassas (Second Manassas). They 

also required cooperation with state and 

nearby jurisdictions in protecting important 

historic views from within the park, and 

directed the National Park Service to study the 

relocation of two public highways. 

With the acquisition of the Stuart’s Hill area, 

the park has the opportunity to provide a more 

comprehensive interpretation of the Battle of 

Second Manassas. The alternatives presented 

in this plan recommend actions that may be 

taken to rehabilitate the historic battlefield 

landscape, enhance visitor understanding of 

the two battles, and improve the visitor 

experience through increased interpretive 

opportunities of both battles and the entire 

Civil War. The plan also addresses new 

facilities or developments required for 

implementing the alternatives, with a view to 

preserving the historic character of the 

battlefield. 

Since 1983, the volumes of commuter and 

truck traffic along U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 

234 have increased dramatically, creating a 

safety problem and diminishing the visitor 

experience. Concurrent with this general 

management planning effort, the Federal 

Highway Administration and National Park 

Service have completed the Manassas National 

Battlefield Park Bypass Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (Battlefield Bypass study). 

The candidate alignments, including the 

preferred alternative, for the bypass are shown 

in Appendix F. 

Regardless of the specific alignment, 

completion of the bypass will allow for the 

eventual closure of U.S. Route 29 and VA 

Route 234 within the park to through traffic. 

This General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement addresses 

internal circulation, access, and transportation 

concepts that can be implemented for each 

alternative once a new bypass is in place. All 

issues related to traffic impacts outside park 

boundaries (either from the bypass itself or 

from the resulting restrictions on roads in the 

park) are addressed in the Battlefield Bypass 

study. 

NEXT STEPS 

The purpose of a general management plan is 

to provide the park with an overall vision of 

desired future conditions as a foundation for 

decision making. The implementation of the 

approved plan for Manassas National 

Battlefield Park will depend on future funding 

and the timing of external factors such as the 

creation of a new bypass route. The approval 

of the plan does not guarantee that the funding 

and staffing needed to implement the plan will 

be forthcoming. Full implementation of the 

approved plan could take many years to 

achieve. Because the bypass could also take a 

long time to implement, the alternatives of this 

General Management Plan provide for interim 
Purpose and Need 

7 

management strategies to address concerns of 

traffic congestion and visitor safety. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN 

This General Management Plan does not describe how particular programs or projects 

should be prioritized or implemented. Those 

decisions will be addressed during the more 

detailed planning associated with strategic 

plans and implementation plans. The 

implementation of the approved plan will also 

depend on the completion of additional 

feasibility studies and more detailed planning 

and environmental documentation related to 

the major actions proposed. 
8 

GUIDANCE FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT 

PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE 

Manassas National Battlefield Park was 

established in 1940 to preserve the scene of 

two major Civil War battles. Located a few 

miles north of the prized railroad junction of 

Manassas, Virginia, this peaceful slice of the 

Virginia countryside bore witness to clashes 

between the armies of the North and South in 

1861 and 1862. Descriptions and depictions of 

the major events of the two battles are found in 

Appendix B: Description of Battle Events. 

The park’s purpose statement describes the 

fundamental reasons Manassas National 

Battlefield Park was set aside by the Secretary 

of the Interior as part of the national park 

system. The purpose statement is the standard 

against which all decisions and actions are 

tested. It is based on the park’s enabling 

legislation, legislative history, and NPS 

policies. The significance statement defines the 

importance of the park’s resource in relevant 

regional, national, and international contexts 

and relates directly to the park’s purpose and 

why the park was established. Knowing the 

park’s significance helps managers set 

protection priorities and determine desirable 

visitor experiences. This significance statement 

describes why Manassas National Battlefield 

Park is a special place and explains the 

importance of the battle events and resources 

as they relate to the park’s purpose. 

Park Purpose 

Manassas National Battlefield Park was 

established to preserve the historic landscape 

containing historic sites, buildings, objects, and 

views that contribute to the national 

significance of the Battles of First and Second 

Manassas, for the use, inspiration, and benefit 

of the public. 

Park Significance 

Manassas National Battlefield Park is nationally significant because it includes the locations 

of the Battles of First and Second Manassas. 

Many park resources contribute to this national significance, the public’s appreciation of the 

battlefield events, and its understanding of the 

social and economic impacts of the Civil War. 

• The park—which is one of only a few Civil 

War battlefield parks that include the 

majority of the actual battlefield areas 

where troops formed, fought, and died—

provides visitors with an opportunity to 

experience the features that shaped the 

two battles. These features include historic 

structures, road traces, sites, and 

cemeteries. Historic artifacts on exhibit 

from the park’s museum collections and 

archeological sites within the park 

represent the Battle of First Manassas (July 

21, 1861) and the Battle of Second 

Manassas (August 28-30, 1862). 

• The park contains cultural landscapes 

from the period of the battles (1861-1862) 

that contain historic features of the battles, 

as well as woodlands, fields, streams, 

rolling hills, and certain views or vistas that 

are representative of the physical setting 

that existed at the time of the battles. The 

park also contains cultural landscapes 

from the period after the battles (1865-

1940) that commemorate the battles with 

monuments and other objects erected in 

memory of soldiers who fought there. 

PRIMARY INTERPRETIVE THEMES 

The park’s primary interpretive themes focus 

on the events of the Battles of First and Second 

Manassas, as well as the way that those battles 

affected the surrounding community and the 

nation as a whole. These interpretive themes 

are stated below. 

• The Battle of First Manassas and the Battle 

of Second Manassas were two major 

battles of the American Civil War—each 

unique in strategy, tactics, and 

consequences for the outcome of the war. 

• The devastating impact of the battles on 

the social and economic fabric of the 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

9 

community, and the history of local 

families is important for an understanding 

of the tragic dimensions of the Civil War. 

• The Battles of First and Second Manassas 

illustrate the application and advancement 

of 19th century military science and 

technology. 

• The experiences of soldiers of all ranks 

from both sides of the conflict provide 

meaningful insights into the two battles of 

Manassas. 

The Manassas Battlefields and related features 

represent local, state, and national efforts to 

preserve and commemorate our nation’s Civil 

War heritage. 

HISTORIC CONTEXT 

The two battles of Manassas are significant in 

the nation’s history because 

• The Battle of First Manassas was the first 

major land battle of the Civil War, and it 

dispelled all preconceived notions of a 

short war. The 900 Americans killed on the 

battlefield were graphic proof that Civil 

War would be a protracted, bloody 

struggle. 

• The Battle of Second Manassas brought 

the Confederacy to the height of its power 

and opened the way for the first 

Confederate campaign into the North. 

The two battles of Manassas are significant in 

the region’s history because 

• The two battles illustrate northern 

Virginia’s role in the Civil War and teach 

aspects of that history to visitors from 

other parts of the region, the nation, and 

other countries. 

• The park preserves a historic agrarian 

landscape as the setting for the two battles. 

This landscape is also important for its 

environmental quality and its role in 

preserving natural resources. 

GOALS 

Based on the park’s purpose and significance, 

the following goals for Manassas National 

Battlefield Park establish the general condition 

of cultural and natural resources and visitor 

experiences desired in the future. The purpose 

of Manassas National Battlefield Park will be 

fulfilled when the following goals are achieved: 

• The historic landscape is maintained in a 

way that gives visitors an understanding of 

the events of the two battles. 

• Significant cultural resources of the battles 

and their commemoration are identified, 

preserved, protected, maintained, and 

rehabilitated where appropriate. 

• Visitors learn about the battles through a 

variety of high-quality interpretive and 

educational experiences, programs, and 

facilities. 

• All park uses and visitor experiences are 

conducted in a manner that is compatible 

with the park’s purpose. 

• Roads within the park are used primarily 

by visitors, by residents who live within 

park boundaries, and for park operations. 

• Modern intrusions into the historic 

landscape are minimal. 

• The park cooperates with local, state, and 

other national groups to protect resources 

and tell the stories of the battles of 

Manassas. 

• The rural and agrarian character of views 

outside the park is maintained. 

• Park facilities and services provide visitors 

with a high-quality experience and support 

the park’s purpose. 

The alternatives presented in this plan consider and explore these goals in somewhat 

different ways. The alternatives set forth 

actions to achieve these goals in a manner that 

is consistent with the park’s purpose and 

significance. 
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

10 

SPECIAL MANDATES AND 

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITMENTS 

In addition to the park’s purpose and significance, there are federal laws and policies that 

shape park resource management and visitor 

use decisions. Some of the most relevant laws, 

policies, and programs include the Chesapeake 

Bay Agreement, Clean Air Act, Endangered 

Species Act, Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 

regarding the management of floodplains and 

wetlands, National Environmental Policy Act, 

National Historic Preservation Act, National 

Park Service Organic Act, and the National 

Park Service Mission Goals. 

In the process of preparing this General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement, the National Park Service derived its 

guidance from several laws and regulations. All 

decisions made through general management 

planning must fit within the broad parameters 

established by 

• the park’s particular mission and mission 

goals 

• any special mandates or commitments that 

may apply to the park 

• the large body of laws and policy 

applicable to all units of the national park 

system 

The purpose of this section is to clarify and 

articulate the parameters established by special 

mandates, administrative commitments, and 

servicewide laws and policy. 

Special mandates are park-specific and typically are found within the park’s establishing 

legislation (see Appendix C: Relevant Legislation and Special Mandates). The park was 

designated by a secretarial order in 1940. In 

1954, Congress added another 1,400 acres to 

the park and established a ceiling of 

approximately 3,000 acres for the park. 

Subsequent federal legislation in 1980 raised 

the acreage limit to 4,525 acres and identified a 

specified boundary, with no provision for 

changes in the boundary. 

The Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Amendments of 1988 (Public Law 100-46) 

expanded the park to nearly 5,100 acres and 

stated that the Secretary of the Interior “in 

consultation and consensus with the 

Commonwealth of Virginia, the Federal 

Highway Administration, and Prince William 

County, shall conduct a study regarding the 

relocation of highways (knows as routes 29 

and 234) in, and in the vicinity of, the Manassas 

National Battlefield Park.” 

The act also requires the Secretary of the 

Interior to cooperate with the Commonwealth 

of Virginia and local governments “in order to 

promote and achieve scenic preservation of 

views from within the park through zoning and 

other means as the parties determine feasible.” 

Additional regulatory provisions apply in 

accordance with Title 36, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Chapter 1, Parts 1-7, authorized by 

Title 16 United States Code, Section 3, and the 

Superintendent’s Compendium. 

Manassas National Battlefield Park also has a 

partnership with the Smithsonian Institution to 

rehabilitate more than 100 acres of Civil War 

battlefield, including 45 acres of valuable 

wetlands in the Stuart’s Hill tract. This tract 

contains land that was drastically altered in 

preparation for a mixed-use development. 

Alterations included re-contouring the area, 

constructing an entrance road, and reconfiguring the drainage network in 

preparation for construction of a housing 

development. The developer also altered the 

hydrology and filled in wetland areas. 

After years of planning and negotiations, the 

rehabilitation and mitigation project began in 

June 2003 and was completed in November 

2003. It involved excavation of over 100 acres, 

grading back to the 1862 contours, and 

rehabilitating approximately 30 acres of 

emergent wetlands and 15 acres of forested 

wetlands. Upland areas were planted in native 

warm-season grasses, creating a habitat type 

that is rapidly dwindling in Virginia. 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

11 

The regrading and repositioning of this section 

of the park reestablished within 1 meter the 

contours that were present during the Battle of 

Second Manassas of 1862. A portion of the 

area was used as a mitigation site for the 

National Air and Space Museum’s Udvar-Hazy 

Center near Washington-Dulles International 

Airport, while helping the park meet its 

requirement to preserve historic landscape 

features and the integrity of the battlefield site. 

SERVICEWIDE LAWS AND POLICIES 

Management of national park system units is 

guided by numerous Congressional acts, 

executive orders, and specific NPS policies. As 

with all units of the national park system, the 

management of Manassas National Battlefield 

Park is guided by 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 other applicable 

federal laws and regulations, such as the 

Endangered Species Act, National 

Environmental Policy Act; and National 

Historic Preservation Act. Actions are also 

guided by the NPS’ Management Policies. 

Many resource conditions and some aspects of 

visitor experience are prescribed by these legal 

mandates and NPS policies. This plan is not 

needed to decide, for instance, to protect 

endangered species and archeological 

resources, and to provide access for visitors 

with disabilities. The conditions prescribed by 

laws, regulations, and policies most pertinent 

to the planning and management of the park 

are summarized in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1: 

Servicewide Mandates and Policies Pertaining to Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Natural Resources 

Air Quality 

The National Park Service has the responsibility to protect air quality under both the 1916 Organic Act and the 

Clean Air Act. Accordingly, the National Park Service will seek to perpetuate the best possible air quality in parks 

to preserve natural resources and systems; preserve cultural resources; and sustain visitor enjoyment, human 

health, and scenic vistas 

Source: Clean Air Act; Management Policies—4.7.1 “Air Quality;” and NPS Director’s Order #77, “Natural 

Resources Management Guidelines”

Natural 

Soundscape 

The National Park Service will preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the natural soundscapes of parks. Using 

appropriate management planning, superintendents will identify what levels of human-caused sound can be 

accepted within the management purposes of the park. 

Source: Management Policies—4.9 “Soundscape Management” and Director’s Order #47, “Soundscape 

Preservation and Noise Management”

Vegetation and 

Wildlife 

The National Park Service will maintain as parts of the natural ecosystem all native plants and animals in the park. 

The National Park Service will achieve this maintenance by (1) preserving and restoring natural abundances, 

diversities, dynamics, distributions, habitats, and behaviors of native plant and animal populations and the 

communities and ecosystems in which they occur; (2) restoring native plant and animal populations and the 

communities in parks when they have been extirpated by past human actions; and (3) minimizing human impact 

on native plants, animals, populations, communities, and ecosystems and the processes that sustain them. 

Source: Management Policies—4.4 “Biological Resource Management” 
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

12 

Table 1-1: 

Servicewide Mandates and Policies Pertaining to Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species 

The National Park Service will survey for, protect, and strive to recover all species native to national park system 

units that are listed under the Endangered Species Act. The National Park Service will determine all management 

actions for the protection and perpetuation of federally, state-, or locally listed species through the park 

management planning process, and will include consultation with lead federal and state agencies as appropriate. 

Source: Endangered Species Act and Management Policies—4.4.2.3 “Management of Threatened and 

Endangered Plants and Animals” 

Lightscape 

Management/ 

Night Sky 

The National Park Service will preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the natural lightscapes of parks, which are 

natural resources and values that exist in the absence of human-caused light. Current policy desires a condition 

whereby excellent opportunities to see the night sky are available. It is desired that artificial light sources both 

within and outside the park do not affect opportunities to see the night sky unacceptably and adversely, and that 

artificial light sources should be shielded when possible. Current policy requires that artificial light sources be 

restricted to those areas where security, basic human safety, and special cultural resource requirements must be 

met. 

Source: Management Policies—4.10 “Lightscape Management” 

Habitat 

Manipulation 

In historic zones, habitat manipulation may be used to recreate a scene that is mandated by the enabling 

legislation of the area or the park’s general management plan, or is deemed essential to the original intent for 

which the park was designated. For historic zones in parks where a historical perspective is not essential to the 

management goals or original purposes for the area, or to the intent of the enabling legislation, the area should 

be managed as a natural area to the largest extent possible, consistent with Sections 106 and 110 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. 

Source: NPS Director’s Order #77, “Natural Resources Management Guidelines” 

Soils 

The National Park Service actively seeks to understand and preserve the soil resources of the park, and to prevent, 

to the extent possible, the unnatural erosion, physical removal, or contamination of the soil, or its contamination 

of other resources. Natural soil resources and processes function in as natural a condition as possible, except 

where special considerations are allowable under policy. 

Source: Management Policies—4.8.2.4 “Soil Resource Management” 

Topography and 

Geology 

The park’s geologic resources are preserved and protected as integral components of the park’s natural systems. 

Source: Management Policies and NPS Director’s Order #77, “Natural Resources Management Guidelines” 

Water 

Resources/ 

Water Quality 

Surface water and groundwater are protected, and water quality meets or exceeds all applicable water quality 

standards. NPS and NPS-permitted programs and facilities are maintained and operated to avoid pollution of 

surface water and groundwater. 

Source: Clean Water Act; Executive Order (EO) 11514, “Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality;” 

Management Policies; and Director’s Order #77, “Natural Resources Management Guidelines” 

Floodplains 

Natural floodplain values are preserved or restored. Long- and short-term environmental effects associated with 

the occupancy and modification of floodplains are 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 be 

affected, the Director’s Order #77-2 guides National Park Service procedures, including: 

• Preparing and approving a statement of findings (SOF); 

• Using nonstructural measures as much as practicable to reduce hazards to human life and property while 

minimizing impacts on the natural resources of floodplains; 

• Ensuring that structures and facilities are designed to be consistent with the intent of the standards and 

criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program (44 Code of Federal Regulations 60). 

Source: EO 11988, “Floodplain Management;” Rivers and Harbors Act; Management Policies; and Director’s 

Order #77-2, “Floodplain Management” 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

13 

Table 1-1: 

Servicewide Mandates and Policies Pertaining to Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Wetlands 

The natural and beneficial values of wetlands are preserved and enhanced. 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 wetlands. The National Park Service avoids to 

the extent possible the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of 

wetlands and avoids direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable 

alternative. The National Park Service compensates for remaining unavoidable adverse impacts on wetlands by 

restoring wetlands that have been previously degraded. 

Source: Clean Water Act; EO 11990, “Protection of Wetlands;” Management Policies; and Director’s Order #77-1, 

“Wetland Protection” 

Cultural Resources 

Archeological 

Resources 

Archeological sites are identified and inventoried and their significance is determined and documented. Research 

is conducted to support interpretation and resource management. 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 

Virginia State Historic Preservation Office and American Indian tribes. Some archeological sites that can be 

adequately protected may be interpreted to visitors. 

Source: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 United States Code 470); Archeological 

Resources Protection Act; the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic 

Preservation; Programmatic Agreement among the National Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (36 Code of Federal Regulations

800); Management Policies; and Director’s Order #28, “Cultural Resource Management Guideline”

Cultural 

Landscapes 

Cultural landscape inventories are conducted to identify landscapes potentially eligible for listing in the National 

Register, and to assist in future management decisions for landscapes and associated resources, both cultural and 

natural. The management of cultural landscapes focuses on preserving the landscape’s physical attributes, biotic 

systems, and use when that use contributes to its historical significance. 

The preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction of cultural landscapes is undertaken in accordance 

with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for 

Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. 

Source: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 United States Code 470); Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation’s implementing regulations regarding the Protection of Historic Properties (36 Code of 

Federal Regulations 800); Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings; Management Policies; 

and Director’s Order #28, “Cultural Resources Management Guideline” 

Museum 

Collections and 

Archives 

All museum collections and archives (artifacts, objects, specimens, manuscript collections, other documents, and 

photographs) are identified and inventoried, catalogued, documented, preserved, and protected, and provision is 

made for their access to and use for exhibits, research, and interpretation. The qualities that contribute to the 

significance of collections are protected in accordance with established standards. 

Source: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966; American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978; Archeological 

and Historic Preservation Act of 1974; Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979; Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990; Management Policies; NPS Museum Handbook; and Director’s Order 

#28, “Cultural Resource Management Guideline” 
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

14 

Table 1-1: 

Servicewide Mandates and Policies Pertaining to Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Historic 

Structures 

Historic structures are inventoried and their significance and integrity are evaluated under National Register of 

Historic Places criteria. The qualities that contribute to the listing or eligibility for listing of historic structures in the

National Register are protected in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for 

Archeology and Historic Preservation (unless it is determined through a formal process that disturbance or natural 

deterioration is unavoidable). 

Source: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 United States Code 470); Archeological and 

Historic Preservation Act; 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 

Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings; Programmatic Agreement among the 

National Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic 

Preservation Officers (36 Code of Federal Regulations 800); Management Policies; and Director’s Order #28, 

“Cultural Resource Management Guideline” 

Ethnographic 

Resources 

Ethnographic resources are variations of natural resources and standard cultural resource types. They are 

subsistence and ceremonial locales and sites, structures, objects, and rural and urban landscapes assigned cultural 

significance by traditional users. Certain contemporary American Indian and other communities are permitted by 

law, regulation, or policy to pursue customary religious, subsistence, and other cultural uses of NPS resources with 

which they are traditionally associated. Recognizing that its resource protection mandate affects this human use 

and cultural context of park resources, the National Park Service plans and executes programs in ways to 

safeguard cultural and natural resources while reflecting informed concern for contemporary peoples and cultures 

traditionally associated with them. 

Source: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 United States Code 470); Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation implementing regulations; Management Policies; Director’s Order #28, “Cultural Resource 

Management Guideline”; Executive Order 13007, “American Indian Sacred Sites;” American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act; and Programmatic Agreement among the National Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (36 Code of Federal Regulations

800) 

Socioeconomic Environment 

Visitor Use and 

Experience 

Park resources are conserved unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. Visitors have opportunities for 

forms of enjoyment that are uniquely suited and appropriate to the superlative natural and cultural resources 

found in the park. No activities occur that would cause derogation of the values and purposes for which the park 

has been established. 

For all zones, districts, or other logical management divisions within a park, the types and levels of visitor use are 

consistent with the desired resource and visitor experience conditions prescribed for those areas. Park visitors will 

have opportunities to understand and appreciate the significance of the park and its resources, and to develop a 

personal stewardship ethic. To the extent feasible, programs, services, and facilities in the park are accessible to 

and usable by all people, including those with disabilities. 

Source: NPS Organic Act; National Park System General Authorities Act; Management Policies; Architectural 

Barriers Act Accessibility Standards (ABAAS), May 2006; Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public 

Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities (28 Code of Federal Regulations 36); Uniform Federal Accessibility 

Standards of 1984 (UFAS); U.S. Access Board Draft Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas of 1999; 

Management Policies; Director’s Order #42, “Accessibility for Visitors with Disabilities in NPS Programs, Facilities, 

and Services;” Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and Secretary of the Interior’s regulation 43 Code of Federal 

Regulations 17, “Enforcement on the Basis of Disability in Interior Programs” 

Environmental 

Justice 

Federal agencies are required to assess whether their actions have disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. 

Source: National Environmental Policy Act; Director’s Order #12, “Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact 

Analysis, and Decision-making;” Council on Environmental Quality regulations; and Executive Order 12989, 

“Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations” 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

15 

Table 1-1: 

Servicewide Mandates and Policies Pertaining to Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Other Topics 

Land Protection 

The National Park Service is required by the Organic Act to protect and preserve unimpaired the resources and 

values of the national park system while providing for public use and enjoyment. When acquisition is necessary 

and appropriate, the National Park Service will acquire those lands and/or interests as promptly as possible. 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 national park 

was created. 

Source: Management Policies—3.0, “Land Protection” 

Sustainable 

Design / 

Development 

The National Park Service and concessioner visitor management facilities are harmonious with park resources, 

compatible with natural processes, aesthetically pleasing, functional, as accessible as possible to all segments of 

the population, energy-efficient, and cost-effective. All decisions regarding park operations, facilities 

management, and development in the park, from the initial concept through design and construction, reflect 

principles of resource conservation. Thus, all park developments and park operations are sustainable to the 

maximum degree possible and practical. New developments and existing facilities are built and modified 

according to the Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design (1993) or other similar guidelines. Management 

decision-making and activities throughout the national park system 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, or value management, is most often used when value methods are applied 

on general management or similar planning activities. 

Source: Management Policies; Executive Order 13123, “Greening the Government through Efficient Energy 

Management;” Executive Order 13101, “Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and 

Federal Acquisition;” NPS Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design; Director’s Order #13, “Environmental 

Leadership;” and Director’s Order #90, “Value Analysis” 

Transportation 

Visitors have reasonable access to the park, and there are connections from the park to regional transportation 

systems as appropriate. Transportation facilities in the park provide access for the protection, use, and enjoyment 

of park resources. They preserve the integrity of the surroundings, respect ecological processes, protect park 

resources, and provide the highest visual quality and a rewarding visitor experience. 

The National Park Service participates in all transportation planning forums that may result in links to parks or 

impact park resources. Working with federal, tribal, state, and local agencies on transportation issues, the 

National Park Service seeks reasonable access to parks, and connections to external transportation systems. 

Source: NPS Transportation Planning Guidebook, Management Policies
16 

RELATIONSHIP OF OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS 

TO THIS GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Manassas National Battlefield Park is located 

in Prince William and Fairfax Counties, 

Virginia. Properties surrounding the park are 

primarily privately owned residential and 

agricultural lands. There are a few commercial 

and state-owned parcels near the park. There 

are no tribal lands nearby. 

Several federal, state, and local plans, either 

underway or recently completed, will affect 

conditions at Manassas National Battlefield 

Park. Many of these plans involve new or 

altered transportation facilities in the vicinity 

of the park. 

Other relevant planning efforts include visitor 

surveys and interpretation plans. These plans 

are described in detail below. 

• Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Bypass Environmental Impact 

Statement (Battlefield Bypass Study), 

Federal Highway Administration and 

National Park Service: This study 

evaluates a variety of transportation 

improvement alternatives in the vicinity of 

the Manassas National Battlefield Park to 

alleviate traffic and congestion within the 

park. The study area for the project covers 

portions of Prince William, Loudoun, 

Fairfax, and Fauquier Counties, the Cities 

of Manassas and Manassas Park, and the 

Town of Haymarket. These efforts would 

improve circulation and visitor experience 

within the park by removing commuter 

and truck traffic from the state and federal 

highways in the park. 

• The Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Amendments of 1988 and Federal 

Highway Administration policy required 

the Prince William and Fairfax County 

Boards of Supervisors and the 

Commonwealth Transportation Board to 

approve a bypass alternative. All of these 

entities have approved Alternative D, 

modified. The Federal Highway 

Administration and National Park Service 

are in the process of developing a final 

environmental impact statement and 

record of decision (see Appendix F). 

• Interstate 66 Multimodal 

Transportation and Environmental 

Study (I-66 Study), Virginia Department 

of Transportation: The Virginia 

Department of Transportation and 

Virginia Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation have initiated the study for 

improving mobility along the I-66 corridor 

from just west of the I-66/Capital Beltway 

(I-495) interchange in Fairfax County to 

the I-66/U.S. Route 15 interchange in 

Prince William County (approximately 24 

miles). This study will examine possible 

improvements to I-66, Metrorail, Virginia 

Railway Express, and express bus service. 

Transportation improvements to this 

corridor are necessary to enhance safety 

and to provide increased capacity for 

current and projected future travel 

demands. 

• Tri-County Parkway Location Study 

and Environmental Impact Statement 

(Tri-County Parkway Study), Virginia 

Department of Transportation: The TriCounty Parkway location study team is 

evaluating a new north/south 

transportation link in northern Virginia to 

connect the City of Manassas with I-66 

and the Loudoun County Parkway in the 

Dulles area. The Tri-County Parkway 

would be approximately 10 miles long, 

traversing portions of Prince William, 

Fairfax, and Loudoun Counties, along with 

the Cities of Manassas and Manassas Park. 

The concept for a Tri-County Parkway is 

identified in the Northern Virginia 2020 

Transportation Plan and in the 

comprehensive plans for Fairfax, 

Loudoun, and Prince William Counties. 

• On November 17, 2005, the 

Commonwealth Transportation Board 

approved the “West 2” alignment for the 
Relationship of Other Planning Efforts to this General Management Plan 

17 

Tri-County Parkway. This alignment runs 

essentially parallel to the Bypass 

Alternative D, modified, along the west 

side of the battlefield. The Tri-County 

Parkway and the Battlefield Bypass will be 

built in the corridor on the same roadway. 

• VA Route 234 Bypass North, Federal 

Highway Administration: This is the 

remaining section of the 10-mile VA Route 

234 Manassas Bypass. In 1997, the Virginia 

Department of Transportation opened 5.3 

miles of the road from I-66 to VA Route 

28. Construction has not yet begun on the 

Bypass North. 

• Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Transportation Study, June 1996, 

National Park Service: This study 

examined the operational and safety 

characteristics of the traffic and parking 

conditions within the park. It identified 

several parking areas that were over 

capacity, as well as roads and intersections 

that posed the greatest safety risk to park 

visitors. 

• The Comprehensive Interpretive Plan 

for Manassas National Battlefield Park, 

In Process, National Park Service: The 

park staff is in the process of building on 

the recommendations developed in the 

1994 interpretive prospectus for Manassas 

National Battlefield Park. The park staff 

reaffirmed the park significance statements 

and interpretive themes. Based on this 

work, park staff and their partners have 

developed an array of desired visitor 

experience goals that will guide the 

development of interpretive media, 

exhibits, and facilities. The park staff 

expects to complete the comprehensive 

interpretive plan in the fall of 2007. 

• Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Wildland Fire Management Plan, 

National Park Service: This plan guides 

the decision-making process where safety, 

social, political, and resource values are 

evaluated, and appropriate management 

response strategies are identified. It is used 

to provide a framework for fuels management strategies through the use of 

prescribed fire and mechanical treatments, 

and to provide a basis from which to 

cooperate more fully in planning and 

implementing a wildland fire program 

across agency boundaries. 

• Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Visitor Study, summer 1995, University 

of Idaho: This report summarizes the 

results of visitor surveys and helps the park 

staff refine visitor services, facilities, and 

interpretation. 
18 

PLANNING ISSUES/CONCERNS 

INTRODUCTION 

Several planning-related issues were raised by 

park staff and the public in meetings, 

newsletter responses, and discussions with 

staff from other agencies and organizations. 

Planning issues are derived from an 

examination of the full range of comments and 

ideas solicited from park staff, other agencies, 

special interest groups, and the general public 

during scoping. An understanding of the park 

mission and important planning issues helped 

the planning team develop potential 

management alternatives that respond to 

current and future resource and visitor 

experience conditions. 

The following summary encompasses the full 

range of planning issues identified during 

scoping. The issues generally fall into two 

categories: comments most appropriately 

addressed by a general management plan, and 

non-general management planning issues, 

non-planning issues or those issues most 

appropriately addressed in other plans. 

PLANNING ISSUES ADDRESSED IN 

THIS GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Orientation and Visitor Services 

Manassas National Battlefield Park was the site 

of two key battles during the Civil War. 

However, the two Manassas battles receive 

unequal interpretive treatment at the park. 

Visitation is concentrated at the visitor center 

on Henry Hill, the focal point of the events of 

the Battle of First Manassas (First Manassas). 

Due in part to initial park boundaries that did 

not include much of the contested ground of 

Second Manassas, more limited interpretive 

efforts have been devoted to that battle. The 

addition of lands associated with Second 

Manassas offers the park the opportunity to 

present the full story of this battle. 

Inadequate or antiquated interpretive media, a 

hazardous and complicated driving tour route, 

congested roads, and limited vehicular access 

have adversely affected the visitor experience 

and interpretation in the park. Maintenance 

and appropriate location of equestrian trails is 

also important to the community. 

Historic Cultural Landscapes 

Like many Civil War battlefields, Manassas 

National Battlefield Park is much more heavily 

wooded now than during the war. However, 

portions of the park still retain their wartime 

appearance. The continuity of agrarian 

patterns from the 19th century period of the 

two battles of Manassas through the 20th

century establishment of the park, as well as 

the fact that major road alignments (such as 

U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234) generally 

follow their wartime alignments, have helped 

the park keep its Civil War-era atmosphere. 

Unfortunately, the heavy traffic on these roads 

makes interpretation of some of the battle 

stories difficult and inhibits visitor 

appreciation of the historic battlefield 

landscape. 

The 1988 boundary adjustments mandate 

cooperation with state and local governments 

to promote the preservation of views from 

within the park. The park staff has worked 

closely with nearby jurisdictions to protect 

these vistas. However, continued rapid population growth in the Manassas area, accompanied by commercial and residential development in surrounding communities, intrudes on 

the historic setting of the battlefield. Such 

development already separates the battlefield 

from the area of the historic Manassas 

Junction and threatens eventually to disrupt 

historically significant views. The prospect of 

tall buildings on the periphery of the battlefield 

threatens the NPS’ attempts to maintain a 

sense of place and contemplative atmosphere 

for visitors. 

Traffic and Transportation 

Two heavily traveled highways, U.S. Route 29 

and VA Route 234, bisect the park and 
Planning Issues/Concerns 

19 

intersect in the heart of the battlefield. These 

two roads, known during the Civil War as 

Warrenton Turnpike and Sudley Road, 

respectively, generally follow their wartime 

alignments and provide visitor access to much 

of the park. The current use of these roads as 

commuter and commercial truck traffic routes 

conflicts with public safety and enjoyment of 

the park. 

In the Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Amendments of 1988, Congress authorized 

$30 million for a traffic study and subsequent 

highway construction to reroute commuter 

traffic away from the portions of U.S. Route 29 

and VA Route 234 that traverse the park. 

Although construction monies have not been 

appropriated to date, monies were allocated 

for the Battlefield Bypass study, which 

examined candidate alignments for a bypass in 

the vicinity of the park to reroute traffic from 

these two roadways. The Federal Highway 

Administration and National Park Service as 

co-lead agencies, and the Virginia Department 

of Transportation as a cooperating agency, 

have completed the public draft of the 

Battlefield Bypass study and have developed a 

preferred bypass alternative route. 

This General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement addresses 

internal transportation and circulation issues 

related to visitor experience, understanding, 

and safety, as well as resource protection. The 

two action alternatives presume a future where 

the Battlefield Bypass is in place, and park 

roads are closed to through traffic and are used 

primarily for park purposes. 

Historic Structures and Sites 

The Stone House and Lucinda Dogan House 

were altered after the Civil War with additions 

and interior modifications. These two 

structures are the only surviving wartime 

buildings to have been rehabilitated to their 

1860s appearance. A third wartime building, 

the Thornberry House, named after the 

wartime owner and also known as the Sudley 

Post Office after the war, also underwent some 

alteration after the Civil War and has been 

rehabilitated for visitor use. These three 

houses are the only surviving wartime 

buildings in the park. 

The park’s List of Classified Structures 

includes 40 structures, which include 

buildings, roads, monuments, and a bridge.1

Planning issues involve determining the 

appropriate level of stabilization or 

rehabilitation for the surviving wartime 

buildings and other historic structures. To the 

extent feasible, the surviving wartime buildings 

should be accessible to all visitors, including 

those with disabilities. 

Trail Management 

The park includes an extensive network of 

pedestrian and bridle trails. The trails provide 

access to most points of interpretive interest, 

but the size and complexity of the network has 

proved confusing to visitors. Bicycles are not 

permitted on trails or unpaved roads unless 

they are being used by trained, commissioned 

law enforcement personnel in performance of 

their duties. Adequate trail maintenance can be 

affected by park operations funding levels that 

fluctuate annually. To the extent feasible, trails 

should be made accessible to visitors with 

disabilities. 

Recreation 

As the regional population grows, surrounding 

land is developed, and open space decreases, 

the National Park Service faces increased 

pressure to open the battlefield to active 

recreational uses. The NPS’ Management 

Policies (Section 8.1.1) state that the National 

Park Service “will only allow uses that are (1) 

appropriate to the purpose for which the park 

was established, and (2) can be sustained 

without causing unacceptable impacts. 

Recreational activities and other uses that 

would impair a park’s resources, values, or 

purposes cannot be allowed.” 

 

1 The List of Classified Structures includes structures that 

have “historical, architectural, and/or engineering 

significance within parks of the national park system in 

which the National Park Service has, or plans to acquire, any 

legally enforceable interest” (NPS 2004). 
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

20 

Because many forms of recreation do not 

require a national park setting, the National 

Park Service will provide opportunities for 

forms of enjoyment that are “uniquely suited 

and appropriate to the superlative natural and 

cultural resources found in the parks.” 

Based on Section 8.2 of the NPS’ Management 

Policies, visitor activities that will be 

encouraged are those that 

• are appropriate for the purpose for which 

the park was established; and 

• are inspirational, educational, or healthful, 

and otherwise appropriate to the park 

environment; and 

• will foster an understanding of and 

appreciation for park resources and values, 

or will promote enjoyment through a 

direct association with, interaction with, or 

relation to the park resources; and 

• can be sustained without causing 

unacceptable impacts to park resources or 

values. 

For the purposes of the NPS’ Management 

Policies, unacceptable impacts are impacts that, 

individually or cumulatively, would 

• be inconsistent with the park’s purposes or 

values, or 

• impede the attainment of a park’s desired 

conditions for natural and cultural 

resources as identified through the park’s 

planning process, or 

• create an unsafe or unhealthy environment 

for visitors or employees, or 

• diminish opportunities for current or 

future generations to enjoy, learn about, or 

be inspired by park resources or values, or 

• unreasonably interfere with 

• park programs or activities, or 

• an appropriate use, or 

• an atmosphere of peace and tranquility, or 

the natural soundscape maintained in 

wilderness and natural, historic, or 

commemorative locations within the park, 

or 

• NPS concessioner or contractor 

operations or services. 

In addition to any applicable state licenses and 

permits that may be required, a special-use 

permit from the park superintendent is 

required for certain visitor activities, such as 

weddings, wreath laying ceremonies, and 

organized equestrian events. Meanwhile, the 

park treats some accepted activities, such as 

organized events, as special events and 

manages them according to the criteria and 

procedures of the Special Park Uses Guideline

(NPS-53). Recreational activities such as 

picnicking and fishing (with a valid permit) are 

typically permitted in specified areas of the 

park, while swimming and the use of bicycles 

on unpaved roads are typically prohibited. 

These prohibitions and permissions change 

periodically, and are outlined in the annual 

Superintendent’s Compendium. 

Boundaries 

The 1980 boundary legislation prohibits the 

Secretary of the Interior from changing the 

boundaries of the park. Unlike other units of 

the national park system that have legislative 

authority under Section 7(c) of the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 and the 

National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 

1998 to enter into minor boundary 

adjustments, Public Law 96-442 specifically 

prohibits Manassas National Battlefield Park 

from arranging any boundary adjustments 

without legislation by Congress. 

This planning process has identified several 

specific parcels of land outside the legislative 

boundary that are of special importance and 

cultural value to Manassas National Battlefield 

Park, that contribute to its historic battlefield 

landscape, and that meet NPS criteria for 

boundary adjustments (Management Policies, 

Sections 3.5 through 3.7). These parcels of land 

are described under alternatives B and C as 

part of the proposals for each of these action 

alternatives. 
Planning Issues/Concerns 

21 

Cooperative Efforts in 

Interpretation and Preservation 

Some historic resources related to the 

Manassas battles lie outside park boundaries 

and face an uncertain future. Manassas 

National Battlefield Park recently expanded its 

National Register of Historic Places boundary 

to incorporate many of the historic sites and 

structures directly adjacent to the park. 

Expanded cooperation is needed between 

federal, state, and local agencies and private 

groups and organizations to help preserve and 

interpret these important Civil War resources. 

Specific partnership opportunities would be 

developed in the activities that tier off this 

General Management Plan. 

Carrying Capacity 

There are three principal components that 

relate to determining the carrying capacity for 

a national park 

• 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 park to mitigate unwanted impacts. 

This relates to the management of features 

such as roads, parking lots, buildings, 

trails, and visitor information. 

Table 1-2 summarizes the desired conditions, 

indicators, and standards that the National 

Park Service will use to ensure that the carrying 

capacity of Manassas National Battlefield Park 

is not exceeded. The park does not currently 

have a quantitative system for measuring 

carrying capacity, and relies instead on 

qualitative observations about the use and 

crowding of various park resources. 

Congested traffic on the portions of U.S. Route 

29 and VA Route 234 that bisect the park 

influences carrying capacity, as well as the 

park’s ability to measure that capacity. While 

visitation counts are taken at specific locations 

such as the visitor center or visitor contact 

station, the overall number of non-park trips 

on the highways makes it difficult to obtain 

accurate visitation information for the park. 

Non-park traffic and limited staff availability 

make it difficult for the park staff to maintain a 

system of quantitative indicators and 

standards. Thus, many of the indicators and 

standards in Table 1-2 are constructed in a way 

that enables qualitative measurement by park 

staff as part of their ongoing duties. 

With the exception of museum display, 

storage, and curation space, which are already 

reaching capacity, Manassas National 

Battlefield Park does not presently approach 

its carrying capacity. This statement reflects 

the patterns of use observed by park staff in 

recent years. 

The park does experience, and will continue to 

have, limited occurrences of crowding at 

certain locations during certain times of the 

year. Specifically, the area near Stone Bridge 

tends to be crowded during fair-weather 

weekends in the spring and autumn. The park 

superintendent deems this situation acceptable 

because such occurrences are rare, the entire 

park does not experience crowding, and no 

appreciable damage is done to natural and 

cultural resources. 

The park staff will periodically review and, if 

necessary, update the indicators and standards 

described in Table 1-2. If visitation (regardless 

of how it is measured) increases sharply, or if 

staff members observe other activity that 

indicates a potential lack of capacity, the park 

staff may choose to implement more specific 

indicators and standards. 

ISSUES IDENTIFIED THAT ARE NOT 

GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLANLEVEL ISSUES 

During public involvement, from 1996 through 

2003, issues were identified by the public that 

are not considered general management 
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

22 

Table 1-2: 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 park’s interpretive goals. 

Indicator The number of times per year that the visitor center, Second Manassas visitor contact station, 

and major interpretive sites and parking lots at sites such as Stone Bridge and Henry Hill 

experience crowding, and the magnitude of that crowding. The amount of space available for 

museum activities, including laboratory space and storage of park records and digital files. 

Standard Visitors will experience crowded conditions a few times per year. These will occur primarily 

during the spring and autumn, and only at a limited number of locations such as Stone Bridge. 

During these peak periods, visitors will still be able to find uncrowded conditions in other areas 

of the park. The park will have museum space that is adequate to accomplish its interpretive 

goals. 

Circulation and 

Parking 

Desired 

Condition 

Visitors will be able to follow the park’s tour routes (via automobile or bicycle) and use the park’s 

parking lots while experiencing no more than moderate traffic congestion and rare parking 

difficulties. 

Indicator The number of times per year that tour routes and other park roads experience delays because 

of excess visitor traffic; the number of times per year that parking lots are full for an extended 

period of time. 

It is understood that, unless and until the portions of U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 that 

traverse the park are closed to non-park traffic, the NPS’ ability to measure this indicator is 

limited. The current levels of non-park traffic on these routes mean that NPS staff can only 

observe traffic on other park roads and can only observe parking crowding at lots not located 

along U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234. 

Standard Visitors will experience crowded conditions (heavy traffic congestion and a lack of parking) a few 

times per year. These will occur primarily during the spring and autumn, and only at a limited 

number of locations such as Stone Bridge. During these peak periods, visitors will still be able to 

find uncrowded road conditions and parking lots in other areas of the park. 

Recreation 

Desired 

Condition 

Visitors participating in approved recreational activities will be able to enjoy the park’s natural 

and cultural resources without causing damage to those resources. 

Indicator Damage to natural habitats, cultural resources, interpretive materials, or historic landscapes 

because of activities such as horseback riding or picnicking. 

Standard “Social trails,” which are undesignated trails created by repeated use, will not occur. 

Park Operations and 

Maintenance 

Desired 

Condition 

The National Park Service 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 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. 
Planning Issues/Concerns 

23 

plan-level issues. These issues include items 

that might be accomplished in other plans, and 

items that are not planning issues. 

This General Management Plan establishes a 

management philosophy for the battlefield and 

determines appropriate uses and conditions 

for park resources. Subsequent planning will 

address detailed design, operations, and 

maintenance issues. Issues identified by the 

public that might be addressed in other plans 

include 

• treatment of specific park signs 

• architectural/preservation treatments of 

specific structures 

• management of equestrian trails and users 

• interpretation specific to individual sites or 

techniques, such as living history 

• transportation using shuttle buses 

Items that are not considered planning issues 

and cannot be addressed by this plan include 

• development and economic growth in the 

region and around the park 

• restrictions on hunting outside the park 

• enhanced volunteer programs 

• links between the park and the historic 

City of Manassas 
24 

IMPACT TOPICS (RESOURCES AND VALUES 

AT STAKE DURING THE PLANNING PROCESS) 

The Council on Environmental Quality 

guidelines for implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require that 

the description of the affected environment 

must focus on describing the resources that 

could be affected by implementation of the 

alternatives. Impact topics were developed to 

focus the environmental analysis and to ensure 

that alternatives were evaluated against 

relevant topics. 

Impact topics are resources of concern that 

could be affected, either beneficially or 

adversely, by the range of alternatives. These 

impact topics were identified based on federal 

laws and other legal requirements, the Council 

on Environmental Quality guidelines, the NPS’ 

Management Policies, park subject-matter 

experts, knowledge of limited or easily 

impacted resources, and issues or concerns 

expressed by other agencies or the public 

during scoping. A brief rationale for the 

selection of each impact topic is given below, 

as are reasons for dismissing topics from 

further consideration. 

The exact footprints and locations of proposed 

development under the alternatives have not 

been developed for this General Management 

Plan. Therefore, site-specific impacts will be 

evaluated and appropriate environmental 

compliance will be completed during the 

design stage. Similarly, acreage estimates 

associated with forest removal or scene 

rehabilitation under the alternatives are 

presented for comparative purposes only. 

Although these acreages are representative of 

the magnitude of change expected, further 

refinement of the actual boundaries of the 

historic scene rehabilitation areas would occur 

based on more precise field surveys. 

The impact topics retained for detailed study 

are explained below. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Air Quality 

The Manassas National Battlefield Park is 

within Virginia Air Quality Control Region VII, 

which is a nonattainment area for ozone. 

Section 118 of the Clean Air Act requires 

federal facilities to comply with all federal and 

state air quality standards and regulations, 

while Section 176 of the act requires federal 

facilities to conform to state programs designed to attain and maintain those standards. 

The alternatives under consideration could 

have an effect on air quality because of the 

changes to the transportation patterns and use 

of the park roads; therefore, this document 

analyzes air quality in more detail. 

The park’s location in an air quality 

nonattainment area could create opportunities 

for inter-agency cooperation and funding that 

could be used to alleviate traffic and its 

associated noise. 

Soundscape 

The NPS’ Management Policies and Director’s 

Order #47, “Soundscape Preservation and 

Noise Management” recognize that natural 

soundscapes are park resources and call for the 

National Park Service to preserve natural 

soundscapes. The existing commercial and 

commuter vehicular traffic within the park 

greatly influences the soundscape, adversely 

impacting the visitor experience; therefore, 

this document analyzes soundscape 

management in more detail. 

Vegetation and Wildlife 

The Manassas National Battlefield Park 

supports a wide array of plants and animals. 

The Organic Act and the NPS’ Management 

Policies require the National Park Service to 

protect and conserve native plant and animal 

populations that could be affected by visitors 

or park actions. Changes in plant populations 
Impact Topics (Resource and Values at Stake During the Planning Process) 

25 

and wildlife habitat could occur because of 

proposed actions, such as the forest clearing 

and battlefield scene rehabilitation; therefore, 

this document analyzes vegetation and wildlife 

in more detail. 

Many parks in developed areas also realize 

that, because their natural resources have been 

protected from development over time, they 

have become “islands” for many native species 

of plants and animals. This realization 

substantially broadens previous thinking about 

such parks as solely “cultural parks,” and is 

another reason to retain vegetation and 

wildlife as an impact topic. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Rare 

Species and Natural Communities 

The Endangered Species Act requires federal 

agencies to ensure their activities will not 

jeopardize existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the destruction 

or adverse modification of critical habitat of 

such species. Consultation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and state resource 

agencies and review of past studies identified a 

number of special status species. This 

document analyzes threatened, endangered, 

and rare species and natural communities in 

more detail to determine if the alternatives 

could have an effect on listed species. 

Water Resources (Water Bodies, Water 

Quality, Wetlands, and Floodplains) 

The actions necessary to fulfill the 

management prescriptions proposed under the 

two action alternatives could potentially 

impact water quality, wetlands, stream bank 

stability, and floodplains. Proposed actions 

such as the removal of the modern U.S. Route 

29 bridge, scene rehabilitation, and 

construction of a replacement bridge over Bull 

Run are activities that would have impacts on 

water resources. Therefore, this document 

analyzes water resources in more detail. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Cultural Resources (Historic Structures, 

Cultural Landscapes, and Archeological 

Resources) 

The consideration of impacts on cultural 

resources is required by the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended; the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as 

amended; Director’s Order #28, “Cultural 

Resource Management Guideline”; the NPS’ 

Management Policies; and Director’s Order #12 

and Handbook: Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision 

Making. Actions proposed in this plan could 

affect archeological resources, cultural 

landscapes, and historic structures. Therefore, 

this document analyzes cultural resources in 

more detail. 

Ethnographic resources, which are also 

considered cultural resources, are included 

among those topics dismissed from further 

consideration, as described later in this 

chapter. 

Museum Collections and Archives 

The museum collections at Manassas National 

Battlefield Park embody a wide range of 

materials. The present onsite museum 

collections and archive facilities are nearing 

capacity. The anticipated growth of the 

collection will eventually require more 

museum objects being stored offsite at the 

Museum Resource Center and additional 

space to accommodate museum records and 

electronic media. Both of the action 

alternatives would affect museum collections 

and archives in the park. For this reason, this 

document analyzes museum collections and 

archives in more detail. 

TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 

The visitor experience at the park is adversely 

affected by current traffic levels on U.S. Route 

29 and VA Route 234. During public scoping, 

concerns were raised regarding the potential 

effect that the removal of the U.S. Route 29 

bridge over Bull Run and controlled access at 
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

26 

the other park entrances could have on 

emergency response. Safety associated with the 

transportation system is also considered under 

the transportation impact analysis. Therefore, 

this document analyzes transportation/traffic 

in more detail. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

The controlled access at park entrances along 

U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 would affect 

nearby residents and businesses. Therefore, 

this document analyzes socioeconomic 

impacts in more detail. 

RECREATION 

Improvements and additions to the hiking and 

bridle trails would affect park recreation and 

the types of recreational opportunities 

available to visitors. Therefore, this document 

analyzes recreation in more detail. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Visitor experience was identified as an 

important issue that could be appreciably 

affected by the alternatives. The Organic Act 

and the NPS’ Management Policies direct the 

National Park Service to provide enjoyment 

opportunities for visitors that are uniquely 

suited and appropriate to the resources found 

in the park, to the extent that such enjoyment 

does not constitute impairment or derogation 

of those resources. Visitor uses, access, 

orientation, and recreational activities would 

be affected by the proposed alternatives; 

therefore, this document analyzes the visitor 

experience in more detail. 

PARK OPERATIONS 

AND MAINTENANCE 

The alternatives proposed in this plan could 

affect park operations, including changes in 

staffing, maintenance, and enforcement. 

Therefore, this document analyzes park 

operations in more detail. 
27 

IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS 

The topics listed below would either not be 

affected or would be negligibly affected by the 

alternatives evaluated in this document. 

Therefore, these topics are briefly discussed in 

this section of the General Management Plan

and then dismissed from further consideration 

or evaluation. Negligible effects are effects that 

are localized and immeasurable at the lowest 

level of detection. 

SOILS, TOPOGRAPHY, AND GEOLOGY 

The soils at the Manassas National Battlefield 

Park are primarily in the Arcola-PanoramaNestoria general soils unit. Arcola silt loam and 

Arcola-Nestoria complex are the predominant 

soils. These are deep, moderately deep, and 

shallow soils that are well drained and have 

loamy subsoil. Soils in this general soils unit are 

largely used for the general crops in the area 

(Elder 1989). Topography of the park consists 

of gently rolling hills interspersed with narrow 

ridges and relatively small ravines. Generally, 

slopes range from 0 to 25 percent. Elevations 

range from approximately 325 feet above mean 

sea level along the ridges in the western 

portion of the park to about 130 feet above 

mean sea level along Bull Run. 

The park resides in the Triassic basin of the 

Piedmont physiographic province in northern 

Virginia. This area is underlain primarily by 

calcareous siltstone and sandstone, 

metasiltstone, and intrusive diabase. Most of 

the diabase in the park is in the southwest and 

western sections and near Bald Hill. Bands of 

metasiltstone surround the diabase outcrops. 

Many of the northern Virginia Triassic region’s 

rare plant species are associated with habitats 

underlain by diabase or metasiltstone. The 

remainder of the park is underlain by red 

siltstone of the Balls Bluff formation, which is 

well exposed along Bull Run. Soils derived 

from underlying bedrock have relatively high 

clay content and generally low to moderate 

permeability. 

Under the proposed alternatives, negligible 

adverse impacts on soils, topography, or 

geology would occur because the proposed 

actions would not involve excavation or 

grading that would result in a noticeable 

change to the terrain. There would be no 

topographic leveling or effects on scientifically 

important geologic formations or strata. 

The new visitor center on the east side of the 

park included in alternative C, and the new 

bridge, new access road, and landscape 

rehabilitation proposed under both action 

alternatives would have impacts to soils and 

topography. However, based on the context of 

the park, the area of proposed disturbance is 

small, and best management practices would 

be implemented in accordance with state 

guidelines to minimize soil loss during constructon. Separate environmental analyses 

would be completed for each of these proposed actions. In addition, while changes to 

visitation patterns, trail use, and other visitor 

activities would have adverse impacts from 

increased erosion with soil loss, these impacts 

would be negligible because the change in the 

areas of disturbance would be small. Therefore, soils, topography, and geology were 

dismissed as impact topics. 

PRIME FARMLAND SOILS 

The purpose of the Farmland Protection 

Policy Act is to “minimize the extent to which 

federal programs contribute to the 

unnecessary and irreversible conversion of 

farmland to nonagricultural uses, and to assure 

the federal programs are administered in a 

manner that, to the extent practicable, will be 

compatible with state, unit of local 

government, and private programs and policies 

to protect farmland” (7 United States Code

4201(b)). The Farmland Protection Policy Act 

is the primary responsibility of the Department 

of Agriculture, which has delegated 

implementation to the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. A memorandum dated 

August 11, 1980 from the Council on 
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

28 

Environmental Quality requires federal 

agencies to assess the effects of their actions on 

lands classified by the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service as prime and unique 

farmlands. Prime farmland is defined as land 

best suited for producing food, feed, forage, 

fiber, and oilseed crops. The land could be 

cropland, pasture, rangeland, forest, or other 

land or water that has not been developed. 

Unique farmland is land other than prime 

farmland that is used for the production of 

specific high value food and fiber crops. 

All soil types within the park are considered 

prime farm soils. There is no unique farmland 

within the park. 

Similar to soils, topography, and geology, no or 

negligible adverse impacts on prime farmland 

soils would occur from the proposed 

management prescriptions because the 

proposed actions do not involve significant 

excavation, grading, or change to the terrain. 

Therefore, prime farmland soils were 

dismissed as an impact topic. If, during future 

site-specific planning activities, it is 

determined that more than 5 acres of prime 

farmland soils would be disturbed, the 

National Park Service would evaluate the 

potential impacts in accordance with the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

scoring system and would calculate a farmland 

conversion impact rating. 

INDIAN TRUST RESOURCES 

Secretarial Order 3175 requires that any 

anticipated impacts to Indian trust resources 

from a proposed action by Department of the 

Interior agencies be explicitly addressed in 

environmental documents. The Federal Indian 

Trust responsibility is a legally enforceable 

fiduciary obligation on the part of the United 

States to protect tribal lands, assets, resources, 

and treaty rights, and it represents a duty to 

carry out the mandates of federal law with 

respect to American Indian and Alaskan native 

tribes. 

There are no Indian trust resources in the area 

of the Manassas National Battlefield Park. The 

lands comprising the park are not held in trust 

by the Secretary of the Interior for the benefit 

of Indians based on their status as Indians. 

Therefore, Indian trust resources were 

dismissed as an impact topic. 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

The National Park Service defines 

ethnographic resources as any “site, structure, 

object, landscape, or natural resource feature 

assigned traditional legendary, religious, 

subsistence, or other significance in the 

cultural system of a group traditionally 

associated with it” (Director’s Order #28, p. 

191). Information about the Manassas 

National Battlefield Park’s ethnographic 

resources is quite limited. Although Native 

American artifacts have been found in the 

park, no ethnographic resources associated 

with specific Native American tribes or other 

ethnic descendants are known to exist in or 

near the park. No tribe or group of descendants currently uses the park for ethnographic 

purposes, and no contemporary tribe has ever 

been identified as having inhabited the park. 

Historically, African-Americans lived in and 

around the park. Archeology has uncovered 

clues to the lives of enslaved African 

Americans at the middling plantations of 

Portici and Brownsville and the lives of free 

African Americans at the Robinson House. 

The Robinson House, the Nash Site, and the 

Davis family occupation at the Thornberry 

House site all provide important insights into 

the struggles and achievements of life after the 

war, through Reconstruction, and into the Jim 

Crow era. The Robinson family and other 

descendant families currently have strong ties 

to the park. Some have shared their memories, 

stories, hand-drawn maps, and other oral 

traditions concerning their family histories and 

homesteads (NPS, 2004b). 

The proposed alternatives would have a 

negligible impact on resources associated with 

Native American or African-American ethnographic resources. Therefore, ethnographic 

resources were dismissed as an impact topic. 
Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Analysis 

29 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low Income Populations” 

directs federal agencies to identify and address, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects 

of their programs, policies, and activities on 

minority or low-income populations. 

According to the 2000 U.S. Census figures, the 

minority community comprises between 17.2 

and 31.1 percent of the population in the 

counties in the study area. The percentage of 

individuals living below the poverty line in the 

project area ranges from 2.8 percent to 7.8 

percent, compared to approximately 9.6 

percent of Virginia residents who live below 

the poverty line. No minority or low-income 

populations were identified within the study 

area, and there would be no disproportionate 

adverse impact to populations or communities. 

Therefore, environmental justice was 

dismissed as an impact topic. 

LAND USE 

The park is surrounded by lands under a 

variety of public and private ownership. These 

lands are used for agricultural, business and 

commercial, residential, park and open space, 

and transportation purposes. The park’s 

proximity to the greater Washington, D.C. 

metropolitan area and to growing areas of 

northern Virginia have led to increasing 

commercial, residential, and other development, as well as robust transportation facilities 

in the area surrounding the park. 

The park remains an island of open space of 

historical, cultural, and recreational value 

within a part of northern Virginia that is 

becoming more and more suburban and urban 

in character. The basic land use of the park as a 

major cultural resource and open space area is 

in conformance with local land use plans. 

Because the proposed alternatives would not 

change the park’s basic use, there would be no 

conflicts with local land use planning. 

The land use change associated with 

alternative B would be negligible because of 

the proximity of the existing visitor center to 

existing services in the area, as well as existing 

county zoning and land use restrictions. 

Much of the area outside the east boundary of 

the park retains its rural character. Although 

the relocation of the visitor center to the east 

side of the park in alternative C could have a 

localized impact on adjacent properties, the 

proposed visitor center is unlikely to change 

surrounding land uses or increase the density 

of residential development. The potential 

impacts on residential development patterns 

associated with the proposed visitor center are 

expected to be negligible to minor because of 

the rural character of the area and the current 

zoning pattern. 

Currently, U.S. Route 29 gets heavy use by 

commuters and commercial traffic. Traffic 

studies along U.S. Route 29 in the park show 

average daily traffic volumes ranging from 

9,089 to 13,166 vehicles, most of which are not 

park related. All segments of U.S. Route 29 

within the park were found to be operating at 

unacceptable levels during peak periods. The 

percentage of truck traffic is also heavy within 

the park, ranging from 9 percent to 13 percent 

of all traffic, which is much higher than the 2 

percent to 5 percent typically seen on most 

roads. 

Based on the current heavy use of U.S. Route 

29, relocating the visitor center to the eastern 

boundary of the park is unlikely to make a 

noticeable difference in traffic patterns in the 

park or surrounding areas. Once the Battlefield 

Bypass is completed, it is likely that even with 

the proposed visitor center the traffic in the 

area would still be dramatically reduced. 

Prior to developing the visitor center, the 

National Park Service would work with Fairfax 

County to minimize the impacts of the visitor 

center on local traffic patterns. Overall, the 

action alternatives would have a negligible to 

minor adverse impact on land use. 

Consequently, land use will not be further 

analyzed in this document. 
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

30 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 

In general, the proposed alternatives would 

promote a healthier and safer environment for 

visitors. Overall, the rehabilitation of certain 

structures within the park would improve site 

accessibility and improve the health conditions 

of the facilities at the park. These benefits 

resulting from the proposed facility improvements and enhanced site accessibility are 

generally small and site-specific. 

The proposed alternatives would have a small 

beneficial impact and no adverse safety or 

health concerns. Therefore, public health and 

safety was dismissed as an impact topic. Safetyrelated issues and emergency response related 

to the transportation improvements are 

discussed in the transportation impact analysis. 
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING 

THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

33 

THE ALTERNATIVES 

INTRODUCTION 

Many aspects of the desired future condition 

of Manassas National Battlefield Park are 

defined in the establishing legislation, the 

park’s purpose and significance statements, 

and the servicewide mandates and policies that 

are described in the “Purpose of and Need for 

the Plan” chapter. Within these parameters, 

the park staff solicited input from the public, 

other NPS staff, government agencies, and 

other organizations regarding issues and 

desired future conditions for Manassas 

National Battlefield Park. Planning team 

members also gathered information about 

existing visitor use and the condition of 

facilities and resources. 

The building blocks for an approved plan for 

managing a national park are the management 

prescriptions and the alternatives. All are 

developed within the framework of the park’s 

purpose, significance, mandates, and 

legislation. 

Management prescriptions are descriptions of 

desired conditions for park resources and 

visitor experiences in different areas, or zones, 

of the park. Management prescriptions are 

determined for each national park system unit 

to identify the widest range of potential appropriate resource conditions, visitor experiences, 

and facilities that fall within the scope of the 

park’s purpose, significance, and special 

mandates. Five management prescriptions 

have been identified for Manassas National 

Battlefield Park. 

Each of the alternatives in this General 

Management Plan has a different 

comprehensive management concept. These 

management concepts describe what the park 

would be like, and would guide how the park’s 

management prescriptions would be applied to 

support the concept. The combination of 

concept and application of management 

prescriptions gives an overall picture of what 

the park would be like under a given 

alternative. 

FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES 

This General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement presents three 

alternatives. The alternatives focus on what 

resource conditions and visitor uses are 

desired for Manassas National Battlefield Park, 

rather than on how these conditions will be 

achieved. Desired future conditions provide a 

long-term framework for making management 

decisions. Implementation-level decisions are 

generally much more detailed and short-lived. 

Opportunities often depend on variables of 

funding availability, leading to variation in 

implementation. Thus, the alternatives do not 

include specific implementation strategies for 

resource or visitor use management. The 

alternatives for Manassas National Battlefield 

Park directly respond to the major planning 

issues identified by the public, park staff and 

other interested parties. 

More detailed plans or studies may be required 

to identify specific implementation strategies 

before most conditions proposed in the 

alternatives are achieved. The implementation 

of any alternative would also depend on future 

funding and environmental compliance. This 

plan does not guarantee that money would be 

forthcoming. The plan establishes a vision for 

the future that would guide day-to-day and 

year-to-year management of the national park 

but full implementation could take many years. 

Over the life of this plan, the park may be able 

to consider actions not analyzed in the 

environmental impact statement. Before any 

actions were initiated, park management 

would determine if the actions were consistent 

with the rationale of the management 

approaches adopted in this plan and if the 

actions would assist the park in achieving 

desired future conditions articulated in the 

plan. If park management determined that the 

proposed action would meet these conditions, 
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

34 

all necessary compliance would be completed 

at that time. Among the three alternatives 

developed through this plan, alternative A is 

the “no-action” alternative, which presents a 

continuation of existing management 

direction. It is included as a baseline for 

comparing the consequences of implementing 

the two “action” alternatives—alternatives B 

and C. These action alternatives present 

different ways to manage resources and visitor 

use and improve facilities and infrastructure at 

Manassas National Battlefield Park. Both 

assume the completion of the Manassas 

National Battlefield Park Bypass, which would 

remove commuter and heavy truck traffic from 

the portions of U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 

234 that run through the park. 

IDENTIFICATION OF THE 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Manassas National Battlefield Park is an 

unusual site in that two major Civil War battles 

were fought on virtually the same ground 13 

months apart in 1861 and 1862. Since the 

conclusion of the war, most Americans have 

focused on the first battle for a number of 

reasons. 

• It was the first major land battle of the war. 

• It was the largest battle involving American 

troops up to that date. 

• A large group of spectators came out from 

Washington, D.C. to watch the spectacle. 

• Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson received his 

nom de guerre on the battlefield. 

• On a more sobering note, some 900 

individuals lost their lives in the fighting. 

While First Manassas has drawn more 

attention and interest, the Second Manassas 

was equally important. 

• Unlike the first battle, in which nearly all 

of the soldiers were raw recruits ignorant 

of the realities of warfare, the second battle 

was fought by more seasoned veterans 

who understood the harsh nature of battle. 

• These soldiers were much more efficient 

killing machines, who exacted a much 

higher price for their efforts: nearly 3,200 

were killed in the second battle. 

• Second Manassas was one of the earliest 

engagements in which the Confederates 

were led by General Robert E. Lee. Many 

historians believe his leadership turned 

Second Manassas into one of his greatest 

tactical victories of the war. Lee’s stunning 

success emboldened him to lead his army 

into the North, where he was repulsed less 

than three weeks later. 

For a variety of reasons, Second Manassas has 

received less emphasis at Manassas National 

Battlefield Park. The park’s Interpretive 

Prospectus (1994) points out that “the fact that 

Manassas Battlefield contains the sites of two 

separate battles covering some of the same 

ground makes clear interpretation of both 

battles very difficult. Traditionally, the park’s 

interpretive program has emphasized First 

Manassas at the expense of the Second Battle 

of Manassas.” 

The same report found that less than 8 percent 

of all park visitors even started the Second 

Manassas Driving Tour, and less than 1 

percent finished it. To solve this “identity 

crisis” for Second Manassas, the Prospectus 

calls for “an easily identifiable and accessible 

‘focal point’ to begin the interpretation of 

Second Manassas.” 

Alternative B’s comprehensive approach to 

interpreting both battles will enable visitors to 

grasp the evolution of this conflict from the 

first battle, which many supporters and 

participants on both sides thought would be a 

quick and easy victory, to the second battle, 

which those same people now recognized was 

part of a long and very deadly affair. Selecting 

alternative B as the preferred alternative for the 

future development and management of the 

park would facilitate and deepen visitor understanding of the Civil War and the importance 

of both battles that occurred at Manassas. 

Alternative B will also help visitors understand 

how Civil War battles were literally fought in 

the front yards of residents, a common 
The Alternatives 

35 

occurrence in mid-1800s warfare. Park patrons 

will be able to place these battles in the context 

of the entire war, including the important 

battles that occurred elsewhere between First 

and Second Manassas, as well as subsequent 

battles such as Antietam. 

Implementation of alternative B will give 

visitors a much better understanding of the 

battles of Manassas. In addition to an immersion in the strategies, tactics, troop movements, 

and wise and unwise military decisions by the 

commanders, visitors will leave the park with a 

much better understanding of the fundamental 

role that the Civil War played in American 

history. 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

Management prescriptions influence the 

management of park resources by specifying 

the range of desired visitor experiences, 

desired cultural and natural resource 

conditions, and appropriate kinds of activities 

and facilities necessary to achieve those goals 

in designated areas, or zones, of the park over 

time. Applying these prescriptions differently 

to the park’s specific geographic areas creates 

the range of viable alternatives required by the 

planning process. Alternative A, the no-action 

alternative, would maintain current 

management practices, as is required by the 

planning process. Table 2-1 summarizes the 

management prescriptions proposed for 

Manassas National Battlefield Park. 

Visitor Experience/Services Prescription 

In areas of the park where this prescription 

was applied, visitors would encounter a high 

concentration of activity, services, 

interpretation, and orientation. The areas 

would be developed more intensely, but 

remain protected from intrusive effects of 

modern development and incompatible 

activities. Hiking and equestrian trails would 

be included under this prescription. 

Natural and Cultural Resource Conditions. 

Natural resources would be actively managed 

to accommodate intense visitor use for 

interpretation, education, and visitor services. 

The management emphasis in areas under this 

prescription would include minor modifications to facilities to better preserve resources. 

The historic natural and cultural landscapes 

would be safeguarded in a way that preserves 

the integrity of historic views and vistas. 

Modern additions to the landscape would be 

permitted but designed to complement the 

historic and natural context. 

Visitor Experience/Appropriate Facilities 

Conditions. Visitors to these areas or zones 

would experience a high-degree of social 

interaction. Buildings, structures, and signs of 

people would be predominant. Facilities would 

be convenient and accessible, with little need 

for visitors to make large time commitments. 

Major visitor and administrative facilities 

would be expected in this area. Orientation 

and interpretation would be provided through 

a variety of formats. Typical visitor support 

facilities would include contact stations, 

museums, interpretive media, bookstores, 

parking areas, comfort stations, benches, 

picnic tables, water fountains, sidewalks, and 

trails for walking, hiking and equestrian use. 

Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation/ 

Preservation Prescription 

Under this prescription, cultural and natural 

resources, including historic buildings, 

structures, and landscapes, would be 

rehabilitated to conditions representative of 

the Civil War period to support visitor 

understanding or in-depth interpretation of 

the battles. Modern elements could be present 

in this zone, but they would not distract from 

the cultural landscape. Management of visitor 

activities, interpretation sites, historic 

structures, and trails would ensure resource 

protection and preservation. 

Natural and Cultural Resource Conditions. 

Cultural and natural resources would be 

rehabilitated to conditions representative of 

the Civil War time period. Resource and 

viewshed preservation and protection would 

be the primary focus. While the sight and 
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

36 

Table 2-1: Management Prescriptions 

Natural & Cultural Resource 

Conditions 

Visitor Experience/ Appropriate 

Facilities Conditions 

Representative Activities

Visitor Experience/ 

Services 

● Minor modifications to existing 

facilities, amenities, and resources 

● Modern additions to the 

landscape are permitted, but do 

not distract from the historic and 

natural context 

● Located in such a way as to not 

intrude on historic views or vistas 

of the cultural landscape 

● Orientation and interpretation occur 

in this area through a variety of 

formats 

● Buildings, structures, and signs of 

people are predominant 

● Cultural and natural resources are 

present 

● Facilities are convenient and 

accessible; there is little need for 

visitors to make a large time 

commitment to see the area 

● Social interaction with others is likely 

● Major visitor and administrative facilities 

are found in this area 

● Visitor support facilities such as contact 

stations, museums, interpretive media, 

bookstores, parking areas, comfort 

stations, benches, picnicking, walking 

trails, and bridle trails are present 

● Orientation and interpretation are 

provided through various formats 

Cultural Landscape 

Rehabilitation/Preservation 

● Cultural and natural resources are 

rehabilitated (including buildings, 

other structures, and landscapes) to 

conditions representative of the 

Civil War time period to support 

visitor understanding and in-depth 

interpretation of the battles 

● The sights and sounds of people 

are evident in limited amounts 

● Resource protection and 

preservation are the primary focus 

● Except for essential changes, 

tolerance for resource impacts is 

low 

● Modern intrusions are not evident 

● Emphasis is on in-depth learning 

about and visitation of important 

park resources 

● Experiences are primarily self-guided 

or ranger-led 

● Structure and direction is provided 

through trails, interpretive media, 

and signs, but opportunities for selfdiscovery exist 

● Visitors need to make a moderate 

time commitment to experience 

resources 

● Opportunities for solitude exist at 

certain times, but there are likely to 

be encounters with other visitors 

● Trails, overlooks, wayside exhibits, small 

parking areas, driveways, and 

interpretive media are found in this area 

● Predominant activities include walking, 

viewing resources, and attending 

interpretive tours 

● Special events and activities are allowed 

by permit only 

Motorized Sightseeing and 

Circulation 

● Areas in this zone provide a scenic, 

visually appealing natural and 

cultural backdrop for motorized 

park touring and circulation 

● Areas in this zone are managed to 

ensure resource protection and 

public safety 

● Resources may be modified for 

essential visitor and park 

operational needs, such as paving 

roads or felling hazardous trees 

● Paved roadways and associated 

developments are used for touring 

the park, enjoying scenic overlooks, 

and stopping to visit roadside 

interpretive media 

● Visitor experience generally depends 

on automobiles or bicycles, involves 

driving or riding along a wellmaintained road, and is linear in 

nature 

● Observing the natural or cultural 

environment is important, and a 

sense of discovery is part of the 

experience 

● The probability of encountering other 

visitors is high 

● Motorized sightseeing occurs in a 

nonintrusive way throughout the zone, 

primarily on existing roadways 

● The area includes paved roadways, 

pullouts, overlooks, associated short 

trails, parking areas, and other facilities 

that support visitor touring 

● Roadway design and speed limits are 

adjusted in this zone to safely 

accommodate cars and bicyclists, and 

frequent stops 

● This area includes park entrance facilities 

and associated visitor service areas 

Recreation 

● Area has minor modifications to 

existing facilities, amenities, and 

resources to accommodate large 

groups of visitors 

● Facilities are located in such a way 

as to not interfere with historic 

views or vistas of the cultural 

landscape 

● Visitor experience is focused on 

recreational and social interaction 

with some interpretive opportunities 

present 

● Natural and cultural resources 

provide the visual backdrop within 

this setting, with predominant signs 

of other visitors 

● Visitor support facilities are 

convenient and accessible 

● Facilities are present to accommodate 

large group picnics and approved 

recreational activities 

● Visitor amenities include picnic tables, 

restrooms, and parking 

● Approved recreational activities and 

picnicking would occur in this zone 

● Special events and activities are allowed 

by permit only 

Park Operations 

and Maintenance 

● Area has minor modifications to 

existing facilities, amenities, and 

resources to accommodate 

changing operational needs 

● Locations are selected to minimize 

intrusions on the historic views and 

vistas and areas of high visitor use 

● Area is dedicated to park operational 

and maintenance needs 

● Visitors are discouraged from 

entering these areas 

● Zone includes essential facilities, 

structures, and equipment to meet 

operational and maintenance needs of 

the park 

● Activities and facilities in this zone may 

affect the visual, audio, and olfactory 

experience of the park 
The Alternatives 

37 

sounds of people would be evident, the impact 

to resources would be low. Modern elements 

may be present this zone, but would not 

distract from the natural and cultural 

landscape. 

Visitor Experience/Appropriate Facilities 

Conditions. Through self-guided or ranger-led 

experiences, the visitor would learn about 

important park resources and events. Structure 

and direction would be provided but some 

opportunities for discovery would exist. At 

certain times of the day or season, opportunities for solitude would exist, but in general 

there would likely be encounters with other 

visitors. Visitors would need to make a 

moderate time commitment to experience the 

resources. Trails, overlooks, small parking 

areas, paved driveways, and wayside exhibits 

and other interpretive media would be found 

in this area. Predominant activities would 

include walking, viewing resources, and 

attending interpretive walks and talks. Special 

events and activities would be allowed by 

permit only. 

Motorized Sightseeing/Park 

Circulation Prescription 

This prescription would be applied to areas 

that provide scenic, visually appealing, natural 

and cultural backdrops for motorized touring 

and circulation in the park. Visitors could 

experience this prescription by vehicle or 

bicycle, while driving along well-maintained 

roads in a linear/ sequential nature and making 

frequent stops at interpretive exhibits. Some 

alteration of resources (road paving or the 

felling of trees that pose hazards to visitors) 

may be necessary to facilitate visitation and 

park operations. 

Natural and Cultural Resource Conditions. 

Areas falling under this prescription would be 

intensely managed to ensure resource protection and public safety. Areas in this prescription would provide a scenic, visually appealing 

natural and cultural backdrop for motorized 

park touring and circulation. Resources would 

be modified for essential visitor needs and park 

operations and maintenance. Motorized 

sightseeing would occur along existing 

roadways and would be nonintrusive. 

Visitor Experience/Appropriate Facilities 

Conditions. This area would include paved 

roadways and associated development used for 

touring the park, enjoying scenic overlooks, 

and stopping to visit roadside interpretive 

media. Visitors would be heavily dependent on 

vehicles or bicycles and would use a wellmaintained road for sequential or linear 

touring. Visitors would observe the natural and 

cultural environment and have some 

opportunities for self-discovery. 

The probability of encountering other visitors 

would be high. The area would include paved 

roadways, pullouts, overlooks, short trails, 

parking areas, and other visitor facilities that 

support touring. Roadway design and speed 

limits would be adjusted in this prescription to 

safely accommodate both cars and bicycles 

making frequent stops. This prescription 

would also include park entrance facilities and 

associated visitor service areas. 

Recreation Prescription 

In areas of the park where this prescription 

was applied, visitors would be able to picnic in 

large groups and enjoy approved recreational 

activities. Interaction with cultural and natural 

resources would be secondary in this 

prescription. 

Recreational activities such as picnicking and 

fishing (with a valid permit) typically would be 

permitted in specified areas of the park, while 

swimming and the use of bicycles on unpaved 

roads typically would be prohibited. Special 

events or activities typically would be allowed 

by permit only. These prohibitions and 

permissions could change periodically, and 

would be outlined in the annual 

Superintendent’s Compendium. 

Natural and Cultural Resource Conditions. 

Under this prescription, resources, facilities, 

and amenities may need modifications to 

accommodate large groups of visitors. The 

prescription would be sited to not interfere 

with historic views and vistas and cultural 
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

38 

landscapes. Visitors, facilities, and resources 

would be intensely managed in this 

prescription. 

Visitor Experience/Appropriate Facilities 

Conditions. Visitors would experience recreational opportunities and social interactions 

with some interpretive opportunities. Natural 

and cultural resources would provide a visual 

backdrop within this setting with human 

interactions predominant. Visitor support 

facilities would be convenient and accessible. 

Facilities and visitor amenities would accommodate large group picnics and associated and 

approved recreational activities. Visitor amenities would include picnic tables, restrooms, 

and parking. 

Park Operations and 

Maintenance Prescription 

This prescription would meet the essential 

operational and maintenance needs of the 

park. Management of activities and facilities in 

this prescription would focus on limiting 

visual, auditory, or olfactory impacts to park 

resources and visitor enjoyment. 

Natural and Cultural Resource Conditions. 

This prescription would be located in areas 

that would minimize intrusions on the historic 

views or vistas and areas of high visitor use. 

The areas are generally small, with intense 

resource manipulation to meet operational 

needs. As such, they may include minor to 

major modifications to existing facilities, 

amenities, and resources to accommodate 

changing operations and maintenance needs. 

Visitor Experience/Appropriate Facilities 

Conditions. Because this area would be 

dedicated to park operations and maintenance 

needs, visitors would be discouraged. Areas 

falling under this prescription would have 

essential facilities, structures, and equipment 

to meet the operations and maintenance needs 

of the park. Activities and facilities in this 

prescription may intensely limit visitor 

enjoyment and affect the visual, audio, and 

olfactory experience of the park. 
39 

ALTERNATIVE A—CONTINUING CURRENT 

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (NO ACTION) 

CONCEPT 

This no-action alternative consists of a 

continuation of current management direction 

and trends at Manassas National Battlefield 

Park, and serves as a baseline measurement for 

comparing the resource conditions and visitor 

experiences prescribed by the two action 

alternatives. The existing conditions, trends, 

and management practices would be 

maintained with only minor changes. 

Managers would continue to follow the special 

mandates and servicewide mandates and 

policies described in the “Purpose of and Need 

for the Plan” chapter. The current, most 

recognizable features in the park would 

continue to serve as the primary focus for 

visitor use and interpretation. Orientation and 

visitor services related to both battles would 

continue to be offered at a single, centralized 

location. Map 2-1 depicts the cultural and 

historic elements of alternative A. 

Under this alternative, historical park uses and 

development patterns would continue in 

accordance with the 1983 General 

Management Plan. The main roads within the 

park (U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234) would 

remain open to commuter and truck traffic. 

Current facilities at the park would be 

maintained, upgraded, and rehabilitated as 

needed. Some changes would be made to 

visitor use patterns to improve access to those 

lands added to the park since the 1983 plan 

was completed, including the Brawner Farm 

and Stuart’s Hill tracts. 

Opportunities for visitors to explore the park 

would be different for each battle. Visitor use 

would be concentrated in a central area at 

Henry Hill, with a smaller visitor contact station on Stuart’s Hill. Heavy volumes of commuter and commercial truck traffic would 

continue to impede the interpretation of 

Second Manassas. However, the park would 

devote equal time and facilities to both battles. 

Visitors would visit the sites of First and 

Second Manassas by automobile tour and 

hiking trails. 

Alternative A would present visitors with a 

battlefield landscape that would be characteristic of the area’s rural past but that would 

fail to capture the nuances of the wartime 

landscape that shaped the strategies, decisions, 

and events of the two battles. Only small components of the altered historic landscape 

would be rehabilitated. Visitors would learn 

about the historic landscape through interpretive displays and programs. Structures built 

before the park’s creation in 1940, and especially wartime structures, would be preserved. 

Some postwar structures would mark the sites 

of wartime buildings. Map 2-2 shows the circulation and interpretation features of alternative 

A. 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

The 1983 General Management Plan indicates 

that “the park is on the National Register of 

Historic Places and is therefore zoned as 

historic.” As a result, the 1983 General 

Management Plan defined three management 

subzones for the park. The park would retain 

these subzones in alternative A. The subzones, 

as described by the 1983 General Management 

Plan, are described below. 

Battlefield Rehabilitation Subzone 2

“The rehabilitation subzone will encompass 

the core area of historic resources important 

for interpreting the battle stories. The size and 

character of this subzone is determined by the 

locations of visitor use and development areas. 

Significant resources in this subzone include 

the historic battlefield landscape and several 

historic structures. 

 

2 The 1983 document’s use of the word “restoration” 

corresponds to this document’s use of the word 

“rehabilitation.” 
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

40 

“The level of historic structure rehabilitation 

or preservation in each subzone will be based 

on architectural integrity and significance . . . . 

New or existing facilities that are not directly 

related to historic preservation and Civil War 

interpretation will not be allowed in this 

subzone unless the property is privately owned 

or serves a protection function.” 

Preservation Subzone 

“Within this subzone, all historic structures 

will be preserved at levels commensurate with 

their significance and integrity, and those 

sections of the landscape that have already 

been restored will continue to be maintained. 

“Within this subzone, recreation, visitor use, 

and park operations facilities can be provided, 

but the importance of the historic resources 

will still remain paramount in any 

considerations for development.” 

Protection Subzone 

“This...subzone along the outer perimeter of 

the park...is critical for protecting the quality 

of the visitor’s experience and the present 

integrity of the core historic resources from 

outside intrusions. On parklands within this 

protection subzone, vegetation will be allowed 

to grow into forest where lands within the two 

other subzones need special protection. 

Otherwise, the landscape will be preserved in 

its existing condition. Historic structures will 

be preserved at a level commensurate with 

their integrity and significance.” 

ORIENTATION AND 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Visitor Center 

The Henry Hill visitor center would remain as 

the primary center of interpretation for First 

Manassas and the first contact and orientation 

site for park visitors. The level of visitor use 

would be high. The visitor center would 

include visitor services and would retain its 

current parking area. At the Henry Hill visitor 

center, visitors would receive initial 

information, orientation, and interpretation. 

The visitor center would also be the starting 

point for the two battlefield tours. 

First Manassas Tour 

Visitors would primarily experience the 

resources of First Manassas through the 1-

mile-long Henry Hill Loop Trail, a self-guided 

interpretive tour. The First Manassas Tour 

(hiking trail) is a longer trail that connects 

several interpretive sites. These trails present 

the story of First Manassas in a way that helps 

visitors understand and study battle events. 

The function of the Henry Hill Loop Trail 

would be to provide visitors with a relatively 

easy way to experience the many resources on 

Henry Hill. 

The hiking trail for the First Manassas Tour is 

approximately 5 miles long. The function of 

the First Manassas Tour would be to provide 

visitors with the opportunity to develop a fuller 

understanding of the battles while providing 

them with solitude and a sense of discovery. 

The hiking trail would receive low levels of 

visitor use, and would follow existing trails. 

Visitors using this trail would be able to 

understand the events of the battle, and could 

visit the historic sites of First Manassas, such as 

Henry Hill, Stone Bridge, Van Pelt Hill, 

Pittsylvania, Matthews Hill, and Stone House. 

In addition to the tour and trails, visitors could 

drive to several of the important interpretive 

sites. These interpretive areas would receive 

low to moderate levels of visitor use and would 

include a parking area, interpretive displays, 

and in some areas, a short loop trail. These 

interpretive areas would include sites such as 

the Stone Bridge, Sudley, Matthews Hill, Stone 

House, Chinn Ridge, and Portici. 

Second Manassas Tour 

Visitors would continue to use the 

chronological driving tour to visit the sites of 

Second Manassas. The tour route and the sites 

it connects would receive low to moderate 

levels of use. A small parking area, interpretive 

displays, and a short loop trail would be 
"ATTLEFIELD2EHABILITATION3UBZONE

0RESERVATION3UBZONE

0ROTECTION3UBZONE

39-"/,+%9 -!.!'%-%.435":/.%3 -AP


!LTERNATIVE!

.O!CTION

#ULTURALAND(ISTORIC,ANDSCAPE-AP

5NITED3TATES$EPARTMENTOFTHE)NTERIORs.ATIONAL0ARK3ERVICE

$3#s.OVEMBERss

.ATIONAL"ATTLEFIELD0ARK"OUNDARY

0ICNICAREA

0RESERVEDWARTIMESTRUCTURESTRUCTURES

WOULDBEUPGRADEDFORVISITORUSE	

6ISITORCENTER

6ISITOR#ONTACT3TATIONAND0ARK(EADQUARTERS

(ISTORIC(OUSESITE

/THER3IGNIFICANT3ITE

5NFINISHED2AILROAD'RADE

.ON
.03PUBLICLANDWITHINPARKBOUNDARY

0RIVATELYOWNEDLANDWITHINPARKBOUNDARY

0RIVATELYOWNEDLANDWITHINPARKBOUNDARY.03OWNSSCENICEASEMENT

0RIVATELYOWNEDLANDOUTSIDEPARKBOUNDARY

0OWERLINEEASEMENT

Bu l l Ru n







 







*$OGAN

(OUSE

2ESOURCE

-ANGEMENT	

#HINN

2IDGE

-ATTHEWS

(ILL

"UCK(ILL

$OGAN2IDGE

"ATTERY

(EIGHTS

3UDLEY3PRINGS&ORD

(ENRY

(ILL

3TUARTgS

(ILL

0ARKOFFICESARERETAINEDINCURRENTLOCATIONS

6ISITORSRECEIVEADDITIONALINTERPRETATIONON3ECOND-ANASSAS

(ENRY(ILLVISITORCENTERPROVIDES

INFORMATIONORIENTATIONAND

INTERPRETATION6ISITORSARE

INTRODUCEDTOTHEOVERALL

STRATEGYOFBOTHBATTLESBUTTHE

INTERPRETIVEFOCUSREMAINSON

&IRST-ANASSAS

./4%3


/RIENTATIONANDVISITORSERVICESFORBOTH

BATTLESWOULDBECARRIEDOUTFROMACENTRALLOCATION


&IRST-ANASSASWOULDCONTINUETORECEIVE

GREATERVISITORATTENTIONALTHOUGHTHE0ARK

WOULDCONTINUETODEVOTEEQUALTIMEAND

FACILITIESTOBOTHBATTLES


6ISITORSWOULDGAINANUNDERSTANDINGOFBOTH

BATTLESBYVISITINGTHEMANYSITESOFEACHBATTLE


/NLYSMALLCOMPONENTSOFTHEALTEREDHISTORIC

LANDSCAPEWITHINTHEREHABILITATEDSUBZONE

WOULDBEREHABILITATED



 

 

   

-%4%23

&%%4

  

./24(

-AINTENANCE

!REA

,AW%NFORCEMENT

(%.29(),,

6)3)4/2#%.4%2

345!243(),,6)3)4/2#/.4!#434!4)/.

!.$0!2+(%!$15!24%23

(AZEL0LAIN

5NFINISHED2AILROAD 'RADE

3UDLEY#HURCH

4HORNBERRY

(OUSE

"RAWNER (ENRY(OUSE &ARM

'ROVETON

,$OGAN

(OUSE

0ORTICI

6AN0ELT

0ITTSYLVANIA

$EEP

#UT

#UNDIFF(OUSE

.EW9ORK

-ONUMENTS

,EWIS(OUSE

3TONE

(OUSE

2OBINSON(OUSE

3TONE

"RIDGE

#HINN 2OAD

-ANASSAS
3UDLEY 2OA D

'ROVETON 2OAD

&EATHERBED ,ANE

0AGELAND ,ANE

,EE (IGHWAY7ARRENTON 4URNPIKE

.03LAND

ACCESSROAD

0c Z Z @c\







 







4HORNBERRY

(OUSE

0

0

(4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

(

4

0

0

0

























 

 

   

-%4%23

&%%4

  

./24(

0ARK

%NTRANCE

0ARK

%NTRANCE

0ARK

%NTRANCE

0ARK

%NTRANCE

(%.29(),,

6)3)4/2#%.4%2

5NFINISHED2AILROAD'RADE

"RAWNER

&ARM

,$OGAN

(OUSE

3TONE

(OUSE

$EEP

#UT

.EW9ORK

-ONUMENTS

3TONE

"RIDGE

.EWENTRANCEAND

PARKINGDEVELOPED

FOR"RAWNER&ARM

FROM0AGELAND,ANE

39-"/,+%9 -AP


.ATIONAL"ATTLEFIELD0ARK"OUNDARY

3HADEDAREAINDICATESPARKLAND	

.ATIONAL"ATTLEFIELD0ARK,AND

0ARKING!REA

(ORSE4RAILER0ARKING!REA

0RESERVEDWARTIMESTRUCTURE

6ISITOR#ENTER

6ISITOR#ONTACT3TATION0ARK(EADQUARTERS

5NFINISHED2AILROAD'RADE

%QUESTRIAN4RAILS

.ON
.03PUBLICLAND

WITHINPARKBOUNDARY

0RIVATELYOWNEDLAND

WITHINPARKBOUNDARY

0RIVATELYOWNEDLANDWITHINPARK

BOUNDARY.03OWNSSCENICEASEMENT

0RIVATELYOWNEDLAND

OUTSIDEPARKBOUNDARY

#HINN 2OAD

-ANASSAS 
 3UDLEY

2OAD

'ROVETON 2OAD

&EATHERBED ,ANE

0AGELAND ,ANE

TO

#ENTREVILLEMI

7ASHINGTON$#MI

,EE (IGHWAY7ARRENTON 4URNPIKE

#HINN

2IDGE

-ATTHEWS

(ILL

$OGAN2IDGE "UCK(ILL

"ATTERY

(EIGHTS

(ENRY

(ILL

!54/).4%202%4)6%4/5234/03

&IRST-ANASSAS)NTERPRETIVE4RAIL

(ENRY(ILL7ALKING4RAIL

3ECOND-ANASSAS!UTO4OUR

3ECOND-ANASSAS)NTERPRETIVE4RAIL

/THER)NTERPRETIVE4RAILS

42!),,%'%.$

 "RAWNER&ARM

 3TONE(OUSE

 -ATTHEWS(ILL

 3UDLEY

 5NFINISHED2AILROAD

 $EEP#UT

 'ROVETON

 .EW9ORK-ONUMENTS

 #HINN2IDGE

 0ORTICI

 3TONE"RIDGE

345!243(),,6)3)4/2#/.4!#434!4)/.

0!2+(%!$15!24%23

3TUARTgS

(ILL

3ECOND-ANASSASAUTOTOURROUTE

%ACHSITEPROVIDESPARKINGAND

INTERPRETIVEDISPLAYS

%XACTALIGNMENTOF

EQUESTRIANTRAILSNEAR

"RAWNER&ARMTOBE

DETERMINED

532OUTEAND6IRGINIA2OUTEREMAIN

OPENTOHEAVYVOLUMESOFCOMMUTERTRAFFIC

(OWEVEROPTIONSWOULDBEEXAMINED

TOREDUCEORELIMINATETHISCONDITION

!LTERNATIVE!

.O!CTION

#IRCULATIONAND)NTERPRETATION-AP

5NITED3TATES$EPARTMENTOFTHE)NTERIORs.ATIONAL0ARK3ERVICE

$3#s.OVEMBERss

Alternative A – Continuing Current Management Practices (No Action)

45 

provided at the tour stops. A new tour stop at 

and access to Brawner Farm would use a new 

access road and parking lot currently being 

implemented. The environmental assessment 

for the Pageland Lane road and site 

development for Brawner Farm (including a 

new parking area) has been completed, and a 

finding of no significant impact has been 

issued. 

The existing Battery Heights tour stop and 

parking area on U.S. Route 29 would be 

removed. Other sites connected by the route 

include Stone House, Matthews Hill/Dogan 

Ridge, Sudley, Unfinished Railroad, Deep Cut, 

Groveton, the New York Monuments, Hazel 

Plain, Portici, and Stone Bridge, a total of 11 

stops. 

The hiking trail for Second Manassas is 

approximately 6 miles long. Visitors would 

experience the resources of Second Manassas 

through hiking trails and the existing 

automobile tour route. The Second Manassas 

hiking trail and Stuart’s Hill Loop Trail would 

provide visitors with an opportunity to 

develop a fuller understanding of the battle. 

The hiking trail would follow existing trails. 

There would be relatively low levels of visitor 

use. The trail would begin at the Henry Hill 

visitor center and connect resources of Second 

Manassas, such as the Stone House, Dogan 

Ridge, the Unfinished Railroad, Deep Cut, 

Brawner Farm, Groveton, New York 

Monuments, Chinn Ridge, and Henry Hill. 

A visitor contact station would continue to 

operate seasonally at Stuart’s Hill. The 

functions of the visitor contact station would 

be to orient visitors to the park and Second 

Manassas and to interpret the resources of 

Second Manassas with emphasis on Stuart’s 

Hill and the Brawner Farm area. The area 

would receive moderate use. The contact 

station would contain interpretive exhibits and 

visitor services. 

The self-guided Stuart’s Hill Loop Trail would 

begin at the visitor contact station and connect 

the resources of Stuart’s Hill, Brawner Farm, 

and the Cundiff and Lewis House sites. The 

trail would receive moderate use. 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION AND PRESERVATION 

Alternative A would maintain the current 

pattern of open fields and wooded areas and 

would continue to attempt to recreate the 

1861-1862 scene as was recommended in the 

1983 General Management Plan. All or a 

proportionately greater percentage of the park 

could be rehabilitated to the historic scene if 

funding became available to accomplish this 

work. Vegetative buffers would be developed 

to screen the power lines and development 

outside the park. 

Historic structures and features that date from 

the battles (Stone House, Thornberry House, 

L. Dogan House, and Unfinished Railroad), or 

that are important elements of the park’s 

interpretive focus (Brawner Farm, Henry 

House, J. Dogan House, and Robinson House 

ruins) would be the top preservation priority. 

The Fiscal Year 2005 construction budget for 

Manassas National Battlefield Park included 

$1.92 million for the rehabilitation of Brawner 

Farm. This rehabilitation would strengthen the 

structure itself, and will provide new vehicular 

access and parking facilities. This would allow 

Brawner Farm to accommodate the visitation 

generated by the park’s driving tour and 

interpretive trails. 

TRANSPORTATION 

AND CIRCULATION 

Heavy commuter traffic during morning and 

evening rush hours and heavy commercial 

truck traffic related to quarry operations 

outside the park put extremely high traffic 

loads at all hours of the day on the portions of 

U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 that run 

through the park. This situation results in truck 

and car accidents and seriously encroaches on 

park visitor safety and overall experience. 

Through the Battlefield Bypass study, the 

Federal Highway Administration and National 
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

46 

Park Service worked with the Commonwealth 

of Virginia and nearby jurisdictions to study 

the feasibility of relocating through-traffic to 

routes outside the park. Once constructed, the 

Battlefield Bypass would remove commuter 

traffic from the portions of U.S. Route 29 and 

VA Route 234 that run through in the park. 

Until completion of the Battlefield Bypass, the 

current traffic situation would likely continue 

to compromise park resources and visitor 

experience. Alternative A does not assume the 

presence of a finished Battlefield Bypass. 

The park does not currently issue licenses for 

commercial tours of the park, and does not 

plan to issue such licenses in alternatives A, B, 

or C. 

PARK OPERATIONS 

AND MAINTENANCE 

Alternative A would not alter current park 

functions. All park functions would continue 

to occur in their current locations. The park 

would maintain its current staffing levels of 32 

full-time-equivalent employees, with minor 

adjustments up or down depending on 

changing park needs and funding levels. 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 

In alternative A, there are no proposed 

boundary adjustments. Current legislation 

prohibits such adjustments without legislative 

action. 

ESTIMATED COSTS 

The purpose of the cost estimate in a general 

management plan is to provide a general sense 

of the cost to implement one alternative 

relative to other alternatives considered. The 

relative costs associated with each of the 

alternatives in this plan have not changed since 

the publication of the draft plan. However, 

how these costs are presented in this Final 

General Management Plan has been modified 

to reflect a change in NPS policy regarding 

presentation of costs in general management 

plans. 

The presentation of costs within a general 

management plan is based on the types and 

general intensities of development in each 

alternative, estimated staffing levels that would 

be required to fully implement the alternative, 

and deferred maintenance. The cost estimate 

for this alternative is provided to give a relative 

sense of its implementation cost when 

compared to other alternatives described in 

this plan. All costs have been rounded to the 

nearest $100,000, and were estimated based on 

2005 dollars. The actual costs to implement the 

alternative could be higher or lower. For this 

reason these costs are not appropriate for 

budgeting purposes. The actual costs will be 

determined prior to implementation and will 

be based on the design of facilities and 

identification of detailed resource protection 

and visitor experience goals. The cost 

estimates presented represent the total costs of 

projects described in the alternatives. Potential 

cost-sharing opportunities with partners could 

reduce these overall costs. Approval of the 

general management plan does not guarantee 

funding or staffing for proposed actions will be 

available. Full implementation of the approved 

general management plan may be many years 

in the future. The total annual operating costs 

for this alternative would be $2.4 million. 

The total one-time costs for this alternative 

would be $3.4 million, and the cost of deferred 

maintenance would be $5 million. For more 

information, particularly about the changes in 

how the costs are presented in this plan please 

see “Appendix D: Estimated Costs.” 
47 

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS-PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) - THE TWO BATTLES OF 

MANASSAS—A COMPREHENSIVE UNDERSTANDING OF EACH BATTLE 

CONCEPT 

Alternative B proposes a future condition at 

the park that focuses on interpreting the two 

battles of Manassas as distinct military events. 

Visitors would gain a thorough understanding 

of the first and second battles by visiting two 

separate visitor contact areas, each focused on 

one battle. These primary interpretive sites, 

including a visitor center and a visitor contact 

station, would be the two main focal points of 

visitor services in the park. Visitors could 

explore the many historic sites associated with 

each event throughout the park. Separate, 

chronological, sequential, automobile and 

bicycle tours would be developed for each 

battle. In this alternative, the rehabilitation of 

the historic landscape would be critical to 

enable visitors to understand the events and 

military tactics associated with each battle. 

Because of the safety concerns posed by the 

high traffic volumes on U.S. Route 29 and VA 

Route 234, separate automobile and bicycle 

tour routes could not be implemented until the 

completion of the Battlefield Bypass. 

Overall visitor experience and safety would be 

enhanced by the construction of the Manassas 

National Battlefield Park Bypass. This road 

would permit the elimination of heavy 

commuter and commercial truck traffic on the 

portions of U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 

that run through the park. Through traffic 

would be further limited with the addition of 

controlled access facilities at the park’s four 

major entry points. Alternative B assumes the 

presence of a finished Battlefield Bypass. 

Map 2-3 depicts the cultural and historic 

elements of alternative B, while Map 2-4 shows 

the circulation and interpretation elements. 

Visitors would experience a battlefield 

landscape that resembles its wartime 

appearance. Key interpretive views would help 

visitors understand how the battles unfolded 

and the importance of certain locations. 

Wartime structures would be preserved and 

other historic structures would be retained to 

mark the site of wartime buildings. 

ORIENTATION AND VISITOR 

SERVICES PRESCRIPTION 

In alternative B, visitors would experience the 

battlefields in settings that are characteristic of 

the wartime scene. They would experience the 

two battles as distinct military events, starting 

at separate orientation points, followed by 

visits to the many other historic sites associated 

with each event. The existing visitor center at 

Henry Hill would orient visitors to both 

battlefields, but would concentrate primarily 

on First Manassas. The Second Manassas 

visitor contact station would remain at its 

current location at Stuart’s Hill until it can be 

moved to the rehabilitated facility at Brawner 

Farm. 

First Manassas Visitor Center 

In alternative B, visitors would be encouraged 

to begin their visit at the Henry Hill visitor 

center. The Henry Hill visitor center would 

function as an orientation center for the park 

as a whole, the primary orientation site for 

First Manassas, the initial stop for the First 

Manassas automobile/ bicycle tour, and the 

beginning and ending point of the First 

Manassas Hiking Trail. As the primary entry 

point to the park, Henry Hill would be the 

visitor’s first point of contact with the park 

staff. 

This facility would accommodate a high level 

of visitor use. Interpretive media, museum 

collections, and visitor amenities would be 

concentrated in the visitor center. The 

interpretive materials at the Henry Hill visitor 

center would focus on the overall importance 

and strategy of First Manassas, but general 

park materials would also be available. A selfguided loop trail would take visitors to Henry 

Hill to experience the battlefield resources. 

For a greater understanding of the entire 
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

48 

battle, an automobile tour and bicycle route 

and a self-guided hiking trail would begin at 

Henry Hill and connect the resources of First 

Manassas. 

First Manassas Automobile/ 

Bicycle Tour Route 

Under alternative B, the National Park Service 

would develop a new First Manassas 

automobile and bicycle tour route. The tour 

route would help visitors develop a more 

thorough understanding of the events and 

stories of First Manassas by visiting important 

battlefield resources. The self-guided tour 

route would follow the flow of the battle by 

chronologically interpreting connected sites 

such as the Stone Bridge, Sudley Church, 

Matthews Hill, Henry Hill, Chinn Ridge, and 

Portici. Short loop trails would encourage 

visitors to leave the main tour route to 

experience the resources up close. Interpretive 

displays along the trails would illustrate the 

events and stories of the battle. 

The park brochure and other media such as an 

audiotape would explain the route and the first 

battle. The tour route would use existing roads 

and trails, and would follow wartime routes 

where possible. No new roadways or trails 

would be developed for the tour route. The 

function of the tour stops would be to provide 

visitors with the general flow of the battle and 

information on that specific conflict. The tour 

stops would receive moderate visitor use and 

include small parking areas and interpretive 

displays. 

Alternative B would not include the 

development or implementation of an 

alternative transportation system to move 

visitors throughout the park. However, future 

development of such a system would not be 

inconsistent with this alternative. A shuttle 

system or other transport options that would 

allow visitors to leave their personal vehicles 

and tour in larger groups could be explored. 

Current visitation levels make it difficult to 

support such a system on a continued basis. If 

future visitation levels dramatically increased, 

and it became feasible and desirable to develop 

a park shuttle system, a transportation study to 

analyze several transit options would be 

prepared. 

First Manassas Hiking Trail 

The location of the First Manassas hiking trail 

would remain largely unchanged, and would 

continue to provide visitors with the 

opportunity to experience the battlefield on 

foot. The self-guided hiking trail 

(approximately 5 miles) would link the 

resources of First Manassas, such as Stone 

Bridge, the Van Pelt House site, Pittsylvania, 

Matthews Hill, Stone House, and Henry Hill. 

Wayside exhibits would interpret the 

resources and stories along the trail. The 

hiking trail would also continue to connect to 

some of the smaller loop and spur trails, which 

are designed to be primarily accessed from the 

First Manassas automobile/bicycle tour route. 

The National Park Service would upgrade 

current trails and interpretive media on the 

First Manassas hiking trail as necessary. 

Second Manassas Visitor Contact Station 

Visitors would receive a brief orientation to the 

park at the Henry Hill visitor center. Visitors 

specifically interested in the Battle of Second 

Manassas would then be directed to the 

Second Manassas visitor contact station for 

more detailed orientation and information. 

The current visitor contact facility at Stuart’s 

Hill would serve as the Second Manassas 

visitor contact station until the facilities can be 

moved to Brawner Farm. The Second 

Manassas visitor contact station would contain 

a limited amount of interpretive media and 

museum items relevant to the second battle, as 

well as basic visitor services (information and 

orientation) and amenities to accommodate 

year-round visitor use. 

The first stop on the Second Manassas driving 

tour is Brawner Farm, which was the site of the 

opening engagement of the Second Battle. The 

rehabilitation of Brawner Farm would allow 

that facility to accommodate the visitation 

generated by the Second Manassas driving 
Bu l l Ru n

39-"/,+%9

.ATIONAL"ATTLEFIELD0ARK"OUNDARY

0ICNICAREA

0RESERVEDWARTIMESTRUCTURESTRUCTURES

WOULDBEUPGRADEDFORVISITORUSE	

6ISITOR#ENTER#ONTACT3TATION

0ARK(EADQUARTERS

(ISTORIC(OUSESITE

/THERHISTORICSITE

5NFINISHED2AILROAD'RADE

3ITESOF-AJOR#OMBAT

.ON
.03PUBLICLANDWITHINPARKBOUNDARY

0RIVATELYOWNEDLANDWITHINPARKBOUNDARY

0RIVATELYOWNEDLANDWITHINPARKBOUNDARY.03OWNSSCENICEASEMENT

0RIVATELYOWNEDLANDOUTSIDEPARKBOUNDARY

0OWERLINEEASEMENT

0ROPOSED"OUNDARY!DJUSTMENT

0ROPOSED&OREST#UT!REAS

0ROPOSED2E
FORESTATION!REAS

(ISTORIC6IEWS2ESTORED

-!.!'%-%.4:/.%3

6ISITOR%XPERIENCE3ERVICES:ONE

#ULTURAL,ANDSCAPE2EHABILITATION0RESERVATION:ONE

-OTORIZED3IGHTSEEING0ARK#IRCULATION:ONE

2ECREATION:ONE

0ARK/PERATIONSAND-AINTENANCE:ONE

!LTERNATIVE"

0REFERRED!LTERNATIVE

4HE4WO"ATTLESOF-ANASSAS

#ULTURALAND(ISTORIC,ANDSCAPE-AP

-AP


5NITED3TATES$EPARTMENTOFTHE)NTERIORs.ATIONAL0ARK3ERVICE

$3#s.OVEMBERss

.03LAND

ACCESSROAD

.03LAND

ACCESSROAD

.03LAND

ACCESSROAD

#HINN

2IDGE

-ATTHEWS

(ILL

"UCK(ILL

$OGAN2IDGE

"ATTERY

(EIGHTS

3UDLEY3PRINGS&ORD

(ENRY

(ILL

3TUARTgS

(ILL

./4%3


/RIENTATIONANDVISITORSERVICESFORBOTH

BATTLESWOULDBECARRIEDOUTFROMTWO

CENTRALLOCATIONS


"OTHBATTLESWOULDBEPRESENTEDAS

DISTINCTMILITARYEVENTS


6ISITORSWOULDGAINANUNDERSTANDINGOF

BOTHBATTLESBYVISITINGTHEMANYSITES

OFEACHBATTLE


%XTENSIVELANDSCAPEREHABILITATIONWOULD

RE
ESTABLISHMAJORHISTORICVIEWSAND

FURTHERCLEARPROMINENTBATTLEFIELDSITES



 

 

   

-%4%23

&%%4

  

./24(

-AINTENANCE

!REA

,AW%NFORCEMENT

(%.29(),,

6)3)4/2#%.4%2 "2!7.%2&!2-

6)3)4/2#/.4!#4

34!4)/.FUTURE	

345!24g3(),,0!2+(%!$15!24%23

(AZEL0LAIN

5NFINISHED 2AILROAD 'RADE

3UDLEY#HURCH

4HORNBERRY

(OUSE

(ENRY(OUSE "RAWNER

&ARM

'ROVETON ,$OGAN

(OUSE

0ORTICI

6AN0ELT

0ITTSYLVANIA

$EEP

#UT

#UNDIFF

(OUSE

.EW9ORK

-ONUMENTS

,EWIS(OUSE

3TONE

(OUSE

2OBINSON(OUSE

3TONE

"RIDGE

*$OGAN

(OUSE

2ESOURCE

-ANAGEMENT	

#HINN 2OAD

-ANASSAS 
 3UDLEY 2OA D

'ROVETON 2OAD

&EATHERBED ,ANE

0AGELAND ,ANE

,EE (IGHWAY7ARRENTON 4URNPIKE







 






ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

50 
Bu l l Ru n







 























 



 

5NFINISHED 2AILROAD 'RADE

532OUTEAND6IRGINIA

2OUTEWOULDBE

CLOSEDTOCOMMUTERTRAFFIC

.EWENTRANCE

TO0ARK(EDQUARTERS 345!24g3(),,0!2+(%!$15!24%23

0ARK

%NTRANCE

0ARK

%NTRANCE

0ARK

%NTRANCE

%XISTING532OUTE"RIDGEAND

APPROACHESWOULDBEREMOVED.EW

PARKROADANDBRIDGEWOULDBEBUILT

3TONE

"RIDGE

4HORNBERRY

(OUSE

,$OGAN

(OUSE

3TONE

(OUSE

'ROVETON

0ORTICI

$EEP

#UT

.EW9ORK

-ONUMENTS

(%.29(),,

6)3)4/2#%.4%2 "2!7.%2&!2-

6)3)4/2#/.4!#4

34!4)/.FUTURE	

(ENRY

(ILL

"UCK(ILL

-ATTHEWS

(ILL

$OGAN2IDGE

"ATTERY

(EIGHTS

#HINN

2IDGE

3TUARTgS

(ILL

0AGELAND ,ANE

#HINN 2OAD

-ANASSAS 
 3UDLEY 2OAD

'ROVETON 2OAD

&EATHERBED ,ANE

,EE (IGHWAY7ARRENTON 4URNPIKE

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

(

4

0

%XACTALIGNMENTOF

EQUESTRIANTRAILSNEAR

"RAWNER&ARMTOBE

DETERMINED



 

 

   

-%4%23

&%%4

  

./24(

./4%3


/RIENTATIONANDVISITORSERVICESFORBOTH

BATTLESWOULDBECONDUCTEDFROMTWO

CENTRALLOCATIONS


"OTHBATTLESWOULDBEPRESENTEDAS

DISTINCTMILITARYEVENTS


6ISITORSWOULDGAINANUNDERSTANDINGOF

BOTHBATTLESBYVISITINGTHEMANYSITESOF

EACHBATTLE


%XTENSIVELANDSCAPEREHABILITATIONWOULD

RE
ESTABLISHMAJORHISTORICVIEWSAND

CLEARPROMINENTBATTLEFIELDSITES

-AP


!UTOBICYCLETOUR

!UTOTOUR
)NTERPRETIVEAREA

,ONGLOOPTRAIL

3PUR
SHORTLOOPTRAIL

ST-ANASSAS)NTERPRETIVE4RAILS



ND-ANASSAS)NTERPRETIVE4RAILS

!UTOBICYCLETOUR

!UTOTOUR
INTERPRETIVEAREA

,ONGLOOPTRAIL

3PUR
SHORTLOOPTRAIL



).4%202%4)6%4/52!.$42!),,%'%.$

ST-ANASSAS)NTERPRETIVE4OUR

3TONE"RIDGE

3UDLEY#HURCH

-ATTHEWS()LL

(ENRY(ILL

(AZEL0LAIN#HINN2IDGE

0ORTICI

ND-ANASSAS)NTERPRETIVE4OUR

"RAWNER&ARM

5NFINISHED2AILROAD

$EEP#UT

'ROVETON

.EW9ORK-ONUMENTS

(AZEL0LAIN#HINN2IDGE

3TONE"RIDGE

!54/).4%202%4)6%4/5234/03

!LTERNATIVE"

0REFERRED!LTERNATIVE

4HE4WO"ATTLESOF-ANASSAS

#IRCULATIONAND)NTERPRETATION-AP

5NITED3TATES$EPARTMENTOFTHE)NTERIORs.ATIONAL0ARK3ERVICE

$3#s.OVEMBERss

39-"/,+%9

.ATIONAL"ATTLEFIELD0ARK"OUNDARY

.ATIONAL"ATTLEFIELD0ARK,AND

0ARKING!REA

(ORSE4RAILER0ARKING!REA

0RESERVEDWARTIMESTRUCTURE

6ISITOR#ENTER#ONTACT3TATION

0ARK(EADQUARTERS

5NFINISHED2AILROAD'RADE

%QUESTRIAN4RAILS

0ROPOSED'ATE,OCATION

.ON
.03PUBLICLAND

WITHINPARKBOUNDARY

0RIVATELYOWNEDLAND

WITHINPARKBOUNDARY

0RIVATELYOWNEDLANDWITHINPARK

BOUNDARY.03OWNSSCENICEASEMENT

0RIVATELYOWNEDLAND

OUTSIDEPARKBOUNDARY

.03LANDACCESSROAD
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

52 
Alternative B (NPS-Preferred Alternative) 

53 

tour, interpretive trails and, eventually, the 

visitor contact station. 

Second Manassas Automobile/ 

Bicycle Tour Route 

The Second Manassas automobile/bicycle tour 

route would help visitors develop a more 

thorough understanding of the events and 

stories of Second Manassas by visiting 

important battlefield sites. The self-guided 

tour route would begin at Brawner Farm and 

would follow the flow of the battle by 

connecting sites such as Brawner Farm, 

Unfinished Railroad, Deep Cut, Groveton, 

New York Monuments, Chinn Ridge, and 

Stone Bridge. 

The park brochure and other media such as an 

audiotape would explain the route and 

resources. The tour route would use existing 

roads and follow wartime routes where 

possible. No new roads would be developed 

for the tour route. 

The function of the tour stops would be to 

provide visitors with in-depth information on 

the many aspects of each element of Second 

Manassas, and the role of each engagement in 

the overall battle. The tour stops would receive 

moderate use and would include small parking 

areas and interpretive displays. Each tour stop 

would also include a short loop trail to 

encourage visitors to leave their cars or 

bicycles and experience the resources on foot. 

Interpretive displays along the loop trail would 

illustrate the events and stories of the battles. 

Second Manassas Hiking Trail 

The newly configured Second Manassas hiking 

trail would provide visitors with the 

opportunity to experience the sites of Second 

Manassas on foot, while giving the visitor a 

sense of solitude and discovery. The selfguided hiking trail (approximately 5 miles) 

would begin at Brawner Farm and would 

connect many of the resources of Second 

Manassas, including the Cundiff and Lewis 

house sites, Brawner Farm, Unfinished 

Railroad, Deep Cut, Groveton, New York 

Monuments, and Chinn Ridge. Wayside 

exhibits and other media would interpret the 

resources and stories along the trail. To 

achieve this condition, the National Park 

Service would upgrade current trails and 

interpretive media on the Second Manassas 

hiking trail, and would create new portions of 

the trail as necessary. 

Equestrian Trails 

Bridle trails would traverse the park, but would 

remain separate from the hiking trails. They 

would provide visitors with the opportunity to 

experience the park on horseback. Equestrian 

trails and parking areas for horse trailers would 

be provided in areas where they could be safely 

accommodated without impacting historic 

resources or other visitor uses. The final 

alignment of a new equestrian trail near 

Stuart’s Hill, as well as the equestrian trails 

near Brawner Farm would be determined 

during the implementation of alternative B. 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE 

REHABILITATION/PRESERVATION 

PRESCRIPTION 

In alternative B, the wartime battlefield 

landscape would be the focus of resource 

protection efforts. The function of the 

landscape would be to represent the wartime 

scene and help visitors better understand the 

battles. Modern intrusions would be minimal. 

The current landscape on the battlefields has 

changed over time from its wartime 

conditions. To help visitors understand the 

battles and to provide guidance for the 

management of natural resources, the 

landscape would be rehabilitated to the 1861-

1862 conditions in several key areas through a 

combination of tree removal, clearing, and 

reforestation. The National Park Service 

would clear several wooded areas in the park 

and reforest other areas to rehabilitate the 

historic landscape as was recommended in the 

1983 General Management Plan. In this 

alternative, approximately 327 acres of forest 

would be removed, which is nearly the amount 

identified in the 1983 General Management 

Plan. Approximately 82 acres of land that is 
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

54 

currently open field and grassland would be 

reforested as it was historically. 

The areas to be cleared would be managed as 

open grassland (or, in a few instances, shrub) 

communities that would be desirable habitat 

for a variety of birds and wildlife, while still 

restoring historic vistas for the visitors. 

Maintaining some of these areas with a 

lawnmower or other machinery may be 

prohibited because of terrain. In those cases, 

prescribed burns would be considered as a 

potential management tool to help small 

parcels maintain their historic appearance. 

The following historic scene rehabilitation 

activities would be conducted: 

• Approximately 100 acres of woodlands 

northeast of Brawner Farm, along the 

Unfinished Railroad grade, and around 

Deep Cut would be cleared and replaced 

with open fields and grasslands. This 

would reestablish the view from Brawner 

Farm to Deep Cut. 

• Approximately 45 acres of woods along 

the west side of Chinn Ridge would be 

cleared and replaced with open fields and 

grasslands to reestablish the view between 

the ridge and the site of the New York 

Monuments. 

• Approximately 25 acres of woods along 

the east side of the Chinn Ridge would be 

cleared and replaced with open fields and 

grassland to reestablish the view between 

Chinn Ridge and Henry Hill. The riparian 

buffer along Chinn Branch would be 

retained. 

• The current Stuart’s Hill clearing would be 

expanded by approximately 30 acres to the 

east. The clearing would restore the view 

from General Lee’s headquarters towards 

Centreville during Second Manassas. 

Approximately 20 acres of land that is 

currently open space south of Stuart’s Hill 

would be reforested. The historic 

landscape around the Cundiff House 

would be rehabilitated to wartime 

conditions. Approximately 40 acres of 

trees would be removed and converted to 

grassland and/or scrubland. 

Approximately 15 acres of land that is 

currently open space would be reforested. 

• Approximately 20 acres along the northcentral portion of Dogan Ridge would be 

reforested, and a small area of 3 acres 

along the curve of the Sudley-Manassas 

Road would be cleared and managed as 

open fields. 

• Approximately 35 acres of trees would be 

removed from Matthews Hill and the open 

fields rehabilitated. To the north, an area 

of approximately 25 acres would be 

reforested. 

• An additional 5 acres of land along Bull 

Run to the west of Poplar Ford would be 

reforested. 

To minimize the environmental impact of the 

tree clearings, the National Park Service would 

employ best management practices for each 

phase of the clearings. 

Preservation and Rehabilitation of 

Historic Structures and Sites Prescription 

Historic buildings, commemorative features, 

and site markers are important elements of the 

battlefield landscape. The National Park 

Service would continue to preserve historic 

structures and features, including those that 

date from the battles, such as Stone House, L. 

Dogan House, Thornberry House, and the 

Unfinished Railroad. Buildings and structures 

that do not date from the battles but are 

historic or mark the site of wartime structures 

would be stabilized to function as important 

interpretive sites or maintained for park uses. 

These structures include the Brawner Farm 

House, Henry House, J. Dogan House, Pringle 

House, and Stone Bridge. 

In addition to continued protection of these 

structures, the National Park Service would 

initiate several actions: 

• Rehabilitate the Brawner Farm House 

(beginning in Fiscal Year 2005) to support 

public visitation, as part of the Second 

Manassas tour route. 
Alternative B (NPS-Preferred Alternative) 

55 

• Create a "ghosted" outline of the Robinson 

House ruins. From the Civil War period. 

• Preserve and stabilize the J. Dogan House. 

This preservation effort would include 

removing nonconforming structural 

elements such as siding and removing the 

nonconforming modern garage. 

• The existing U.S. Route 29 bridge over Bull 

Run would be removed to eliminate 

modern intrusions from the battlefield 

landscape and to return the site to a more 

historic appearance. 

MOTORIZED SIGHTSEEING AND 

CIRCULATION PRESCRIPTION 

To minimize the impacts of traffic congestion 

and to enhance the visitor experience on the 

battlefields, the portions of U.S. Route 29 and 

VA Route 234 within the boundaries of the 

park would be transferred to the jurisdiction of 

the National Park Service and the speed limits 

would be reduced to 25 miles per hour. These 

actions would be taken once the Battlefield 

Bypass is complete. Traffic would be further 

controlled by providing restricted access to the 

park at the north and south entrances (VA 

Route 234), and at the east and west boundary 

(U.S. Route 29) of the park. 

These new entrance facilities would be the 

primary location for collection of park 

entrance fees. These facilities could either be 

staffed by park personnel or, in some cases, 

might be designed as fully automated gates. A 

more detailed examination of the layout, 

facility design, and operational characteristic 

of these entrance stations would be part of 

subsequent planning and design efforts. 

Separate accommodation would be made to 

give unhindered park access to emergency 

vehicles, park residents, local deliveries, and 

other essential services. 

Designated bicycle lanes would be marked 

along primary roads throughout the park. The 

signalized intersection at U.S. Route 29 and VA 

Route 234 would be replaced with a four-way 

stop to reduce the real and perceived scale of 

the road and return it to its historic character. 

Excess pavement and other physical alterations to the intersection would be removed in 

this alternative, as a way to reduce the scale of 

the road crossing and restore the historic and 

more rural appearance of the intersection. In 

this alternative, the existing U.S. Route 29 

bridge over Bull Run would be removed and a 

replacement bridge would be constructed in a 

new location with fewer impacts on the 

cultural landscape. A parking lot to the west of 

Stone Bridge would enable visitors to walk to 

and see the historic bridge and associated sites 

inside the park. 

RECREATION PRESCRIPTION 

A newly designated recreation area would be 

developed off Groveton Road to 

accommodate approved recreational activities, 

bus parking, and equestrian trail parking. This 

area is removed from the primary historic 

landscapes and major interpretive sites. Visitor 

facilities such as restrooms and picnic tables 

would be found in this area. 

PARK OPERATIONS AND 

MAINTENANCE PRESCRIPTION 

Alternative B would not alter the locations of 

current park administrative and operational 

functions. If additional space was needed for 

park operations in the future, park structures 

would be adaptively reused. Should the park 

require any major new facilities, they would be 

located on disturbed ground within the park 

where there is no likelihood of encountering 

war-related artifacts or features, or at a 

location outside the current park or historic 

district boundaries, should an opportunity or 

need for a partnership facility arise. A new 

access road would be developed to the 

headquarters building at Stuart’s Hill from U.S. 

Route 29, and the existing access road would 

be closed and the landscape rehabilitated. 

A new operational consideration in this 

alternative would be the change in ownership 

of the portions of U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 

234 within the boundaries of the park. As 

proposed, these roads would be turned over by 

the Commonwealth of Virginia to the National 
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

56 

Park Service. As part of the Battlefield Bypass 

study, the details of this acquisition and the 

related impacts and issues concerning 

maintenance and management of these 

roadways would be determined. Estimates 

provided by the Battlefield Bypass study team 

and the Virginia Department of 

Transportation indicate that, after acquisition 

and removal of the signalized intersection, the 

portions of U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 

within the park would cost approximately 

$35,000 to $40,000 per year (in 2005 dollars) to 

maintain. 

Staffing levels over the next 15 to 20 years 

would increase under this alternative. To 

accommodate the proposed interpretive needs, 

maintenance requirements, law enforcement, 

and overall management of the resources, an 

additional 18 full-time-equivalent employees 

would be necessary to fully implement this 

alternative. Not all of the additional employees 

would need to be National Park Service 

employees. The park would explore opportunities to work with partners, volunteers, and 

other federal agencies to effectively and 

efficiently manage the park. 

The increase in personnel would be necessary 

to implement the expanded and enhanced 

interpretation opportunities in the alternative. 

There would also be a greater demand for 

resources once the park assumed primary 

jurisdiction over the portions of U.S. Route 29 

and VA Route 234 within the park. Visitation 

in the park is expected to increase over the life 

of the plan, which would result in a greater 

demand for visitor safety, law enforcement, 

and resource protection services. 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 

In alternative B a boundary adjustment to the 

park would be necessary to include the four 

tracts of land described below. This adjustment would require legislation to amend the 

existing boundary. 

The Davis Tract: A 136-acre parcel of land 

west of Featherbed Lane across from the 

northwestern edge of thecurrent park 

boundary. This parcel was recently acquired by 

the Civil War Preservation Trust and a group 

of local residents. The land is important to the 

Battle of Second Manassas as a site where 

General Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson 

maneuvered and withstood repeated assaults. 

Thus, it is especially key to the story at 

Manassas National Battlefield Park. 

The Stonewall Memory Garden Tract: A 43-

acre parcel located in the northern half of the 

Stonewall Memory Garden and north of the L 

Dogan House on the west side of Featherbed 

Lane. The parcel is not part of cemetery 

operations. This property is, without question, 

the most important property currently outside 

the park boundaries. On this site, Union 

general Fitz-John Porter led an assault on 

Jackson’s line along the Unfinished Railroad 

on the last day of Second Manassas (August 30, 

1862). A sliver of land that was part of that 

assault is currently within the park boundary. 

The additional 43 acres would include all land 

associated with that part of the battle and 

would allow full interpretation of the story. 

The Conservation Trust Parcel: A 24.25-acre 

tract of land purchased by the Conservation 

Trust in 1991 and located almost entirely 

within the park boundary. The Conservation 

Trust transferred that land to the National 

Park Service, but a small piece (0.75 acre) east 

of Pageland Lane was outside the park 

boundary. Since that time, the Conservation 

Trust has transferred the land to the Civil War 

Preservation Trust, which has expressed 

interest in donating the land to the park. 

Dunklin Monument: A 6-acre parcel of land 

near the park headquarters south of Route 29 

on the west side of Pageland Lane. The family 

of a Texas Confederate soldier, Timothy 

Dunklin, who was killed at Second Manassas, 

erected the monument. Dunklin is believed to 

be buried under the monument, and some 

accounts indicate that other Confederate 

soldiers are buried nearby. The Dunklin 

Monument tract is part of an estate called the 

Latsios Trust. The family owns some 177 acres 

in two adjoining parcels and has expressed a 

strong interest in developing the land as an 
Alternative B (NPS-Preferred Alternative) 

57 

office/high technology complex. Several years 

ago, the Virginia Department of 

Transportation purchased a right-of-way 

through the property, just to the west of the 

monument, which left the monument intact 

along with about 6 acres. 

ESTIMATED COSTS 

The purpose of the cost estimate in a general 

management plan is to provide a general sense 

of the cost to implement one alternative 

relative to other alternatives considered. The 

relative costs associated with each of the 

alternatives in this plan have not changed since 

the publication of the draft plan. However, 

how these costs are presented in this Final 

General Management Plan has been modified 

to reflect a change in NPS policy regarding 

presentation of costs in general management 

plans. 

The presentation of costs within a general 

management plan is based on the types and 

general intensities of development in each 

alternative, estimated staffing levels that would 

be required to fully implement the alternative, 

and deferred maintenance. The cost estimate 

for this alternative is provided to give a relative 

sense of its implementation cost when 

compared to other alternatives described in 

this plan. All costs have been rounded to the 

nearest $100,000 and were estimated based on 

2005 dollars. The actual costs to implement the 

alternative could be higher or lower. For this 

reason these costs are not appropriate for 

budgeting purposes. The actual costs will be 

determined prior to implementation and will 

be based on the design of facilities and 

identification of detailed resource protection 

and visitor experience goals. The cost 

estimates presented represent the total costs of 

projects described in the alternatives. Potential 

cost-sharing opportunities with partners could 

reduce these overall costs. Approval of the 

general management plan does not guarantee 

that funding or staffing for proposed actions 

will be available. Full implementation of the 

approved general management plan may be 

many years in the future. The total annual 

operating costs for this alternative would be 

$3.4 million. 

The total one-time costs for this alternative 

would be $33 million, and the cost of deferred 

maintenance would be $5 million. For more 

information, particularly about the changes in 

how the costs are presented in this plan, please 

see “Appendix D: Estimated Costs.” 

The costs associated with the demolition of the 

modern bridge on U. S. Route 29, construction 

of a new bridge with fewer impacts on the 

cultural landscape, and the associated 

realignment of U.S. Route 29 are identified as 

part of the one-time costs for this Final General 

Management Plan because they would occur 

within park boundaries. However, these 

actions and the associated costs have been 

accounted for in the mitigation measures for 

the Battlefield Bypass and would likely be 

funded in a separate appropriation. 
58 

ALTERNATIVE C—THE DEFINING MOMENTS OF THE BATTLES OF 

MANASSAS—AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS 

CONCEPT 

Alternative C focuses on the “watershed” 

events of the battles, encouraging visitors 

towards one major visitor center and multiple 

interpretive sites. Interpretation of these 

general events, the outcomes of the battles, and 

the broader story of the Civil War would be 

emphasized over the detailed military tactics of 

each battle. Although other sites in the park 

would be accessible, the concentration of 

interpretation and visitor use would be in areas 

that illustrate the “defining” moments of the 

battles. Rehabilitating the historic scene in 

these areas would be important to help visitors 

understand these principal events. 

In alternative C, the overall reasons and strategy for the Civil War would be presented in a 

comprehensive way. The importance of the 

Manassas battles would be presented in the 

overall context of the Civil War. Other stories, 

such as the local families and African 

Americans that were affected by the Manassas 

battles, could be interpreted in the park. Map 

2-5 depicts the cultural and historic elements 

of alternative C. 

The general stories and outcomes of the battles 

would also be presented. Orientation and 

visitor services for both battles would be 

carried out from a central location. The visitor 

experience would not be highly structured and 

key interpretive areas could be visited without 

regard to order or sequence. Visitors could 

tailor their visit to those elements of the battles 

in which they were most interested. 

Key interpretive areas would explain the battle 

events. In these areas, historic structures 

would serve interpretive functions and would 

be accessible to visitors. Extensive interpretive 

displays would explain the battle events, and 

view corridors would be developed to enhance 

visitor understanding of key battle events. The 

National Park Service would also establish 

vegetative buffers and design visitor areas so 

that adjacent development could not be seen. 

Map 2-6 depicts the circulation and 

interpretation elements of alternative C. 

Overall visitor experience and safety would be 

enhanced by the construction of the Manassas 

National Battlefield Park Bypass. This road 

would eliminate heavy commuter and 

commercial truck traffic from the portions of 

U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 that run 

through the park. Through traffic would be 

further limited with the addition of controlled 

access points. Alternative C assumes the 

presence of a finished Battlefield Bypass. 

ORIENTATION AND VISITOR 

SERVICES PRESCRIPTION 

In alternative C, visitors would be able to move 

through the park and experience the 

battlefields in a setting that is characteristic of 

the historic scene. Visitors would be oriented 

to the park at a new visitor center near Stone 

Bridge. Here they would learn about the 

watershed events of the war. Visitors would be 

encouraged to visit key sites throughout the 

park for specific interpretation of battle events. 

The visitor center at Henry Hill would be 

removed, rehabilitating the historic landscape 

and battlefield scene in this location. 

Stone Bridge Visitor Center 

In alternative C, a new visitor center near 

Stone Bridge and the eastern boundary of the 

park would function as the initial stop and 

primary orientation point for park visitors. The 

area would accommodate a high level of visitor 

use by including a parking area and visitor 

services in the visitor center. 

The function of the new visitor center would 

be to orient visitors to the park and to present 

the overall strategy and tactics of the two 

battles. The focus of interpretation at this 

visitor center would be on the comprehensive 

story of the Civil War. The visitor center would 
Alternative C—The Defining Moments of the Battles of Manassas—An Understanding of the Principal Events 

59 

also highlight key interpretive sites throughout 

the park. Visitors could then visit by 

automobile or bicycle the sites of both battles 

that interested them. Formal tour routes would 

not exist. 

The relocation of the visitors’ facilities would 

require a feasibility study to evaluate the 

proposed location. This relocation would 

create a major new entry point to the park that 

would correspond with proposed access 

changes associated with eliminating commuter 

traffic from the park. A new access road and 

bridge over Bull Run would be constructed to 

minimize impacts on the historical scene. 

Should partnership opportunities present 

themselves, a Civil War Museum and Heritage 

Center, which would interpret the local impact 

of the Civil War, would be explored as part of 

the new visitor center. 

The Henry Hill visitor center is in the area of 

the most intense fighting of First Manassas. In 

this alternative, upon completion of 

consultation under Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, the Henry Hill 

visitor center would be removed from Henry 

Hill, allowing for the rehabilitation of the 

historic battlefield landscape. 

Key Interpretive Sites 

Key interpretive sites throughout the park 

would convey the overall stories of the Battles 

of First and Second Manassas, as well as major 

stories specific to each particular site. Visitors 

would not need to visit all of the sites or visit 

them in a sequence to understand the battles. 

Visitors would have the freedom to experience 

as many or as few of the sites as they wished 

while gaining a general understanding of the 

battles. 

The key interpretive sites would include 

Brawner Farm, Chinn Ridge, Deep 

Cut/Unfinished Railroad, Groveton/New York 

Avenue, Henry Hill, Portici, Stone Bridge, 

Stone House, Stuart’s Hill, and Sudley. 

Each of these sites would receive moderate to 

high visitor use and would include a parking 

area and interpretive loop trail. Living history 

and other interpretive programs would be 

concentrated at these sites. Extensive 

interpretive exhibits would be provided at a 

greater level than in alternative B and, where 

possible, would be incorporated into historic 

structures or important engagement sites. 

Each site would convey four basic messages 

• The overall story of the Civil War 

• The general strategy and tactics of the 

Battles of First and Second Manassas 

• Detailed interpretation of the site and its 

role and impacts on the battles 

• A description of other major sites in the 

park 

Each site could also include information on 

archeology, social history, and other similar 

topics. To meet these conditions, the National 

Park Service would initiate several actions: 

• Extensive interpretive displays would be 

developed for each of the key interpretive 

sites, and current loop trails would be 

upgraded to enhance the visitor’s 

experience and understanding of the Civil 

War and the two battles. 

• The Thornberry House and Henry House 

have been rehabilitated to accommodate 

interior interpretive exhibits. Similar 

improvements are underway at the 

Brawner House. 

• The informal parking area at the gate to 

Brawner Farm along the Warrenton 

Turnpike would be removed and this 

important view would be restored. The 

current Battery Heights parking area 

would be removed and the interpretive 

displays would be incorporated into the 

Brawner Farm program. 

• The trail that connects the Groveton 

parking area with the L. Dogan House, the 

Groveton Confederate Cemetery, and the 

New York Monuments would be retained. 

• New interpretive displays for Second 

Manassas would be installed at a visitor 

contact station at Brawner Farm. 
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

60 

• Depending on the exact location of the 

new bypass, a new entrance roadway and 

improved parking areas at Stuart’s Hill 

would help minimize the visual impact of 

the high voltage transmission lines along 

the park’s western boundary. 

Battlefield Trails 

Current hiking trails would be redesigned to 

create two separate, 5-mile-long hiking trails 

for First Manassas and Second Manassas. The 

primary function of the trails would be to 

provide those visitors interested in the military 

and tactical aspects of the battles with an 

opportunity to gain a more thorough 

understanding of the battles. A secondary 

function of the trails would be to provide 

visitors with solitude and a sense of discovery. 

The First Manassas hiking trail would begin 

and end at the Stone Bridge and would link 

sites related to the first battle. The Second 

Manassas hiking trail would begin and end at 

Brawner Farm and would link the resources 

related to the second battle. 

Equestrian Trails 

Bridle trails would traverse the park, but would 

remain separate from the hiking trails. They 

would provide visitors with the opportunity to 

experience the park on horseback. Equestrian 

trails and parking areas for horse trailers would 

be provided in areas where they could be safely 

accommodated without impacting historic 

resources or other visitor uses. The final 

alignment of a new equestrian trail near 

Stuart’s Hill, as well as the equestrian trails 

near Brawner Farm, would be determined 

during the implementation of alternative C. 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE 

REHABILITATION/PRESERVATION 

PRESCRIPTION 

Alternative C would not attempt to re-create 

the historic landscape and would manage the 

current patterns of open fields and wooded 

areas. Historic views would be explained 

through interpretive exhibits. In those areas 

where especially important views are obscured 

by modern tree cover, view corridors would be 

established. These corridors would not 

attempt to represent the extent of the historic 

field pattern. However, the cleared corridors 

would provide a line of sight between 

important features and would be wide enough 

to avoid encroachment by the wooded areas. 

Riparian buffer zones would protect 

bottomland forests and wetlands within 

perimeters of proposed cuts. Where the 

battlefield resources were maintained to 

represent the wartime scene, interpretive 

exhibits would be created to allow visitors to 

understand the role of the landscape and the 

battlefield terrain on the events of the two 

battles. 

To meet these conditions, the National Park 

Service would initiate the following actions: 

• The current view corridor at Deep Cut 

would be widened by removing 

approximately 40 acres of trees. 

• A view corridor would be reestablished 

from Chinn Ridge to the New York 

Monuments by removing approximately 

30 acres of trees. 

To minimize the environmental impact of the 

tree clearings, the National Park Service would 

employ best management practices for each 

phase of the clearings. 

Preservation ad Rehabilitation 

of Historic Structures and Sites 

Historic structures and features, including 

those that date from the battles, would be 

preserved and would be prominent features at 

the key interpretive sites. These structures 

include the Stone House, L. Dogan House, 

Thornberry House, Robinson House ruins, 

and Unfinished Railroad. Other structures that 

do not date from the battles but that are 

historic or mark the site of wartime structures 

would be retained as important engagement 

sites or for park uses. These structures include 

Brawner House, Henry House, J. Dogan 

House, Pringle House, and Stone Bridge. 
Bu l l Ru n

.03LAND

ACCESSROAD







 







#HINN

2IDGE

-ATTHEWS

(ILL

"UCK(ILL

$OGAN2IDGE

"ATTERY

(EIGHTS

3UDLEY3PRINGS&ORD

(ENRY

(ILL

./4%3


6ISITORSWOULDGAINANOVERALLUNDERSTANDING

OFBOTHBATTLESBYVISITINGTHESITESOF

hWATERSHEDvEVENTS


!FEWIMPORTANTVIEWCORRIDORSWOULDBE

DEVELOPEDBUTLANDSCAPEREHABILITATIONWOULD

NOTBEEXTENSIVE


!NEWVISITORgSCENTERWOULDBELOCATEDNEAR

3TONE"RIDGE4HENEWVISITORCENTERWOULD

ORIENTVISITORSTOTHEPARKANDWOULDPRESENT

THEOVERALLSTRATEGYANDTACTICSOFTHETWO

BATTLES4HEINTERPRETIVEFOCUSOFTHISVISITOR

CENTERWOULDBEONTHE#OMPREHENSIVE3TORY

OFTHE#IVIL7AR



 

 

   

-%4%23

&%%4

  

./24(

-AINTENANCE

!REA

,AW%NFORCEMENT

.%7

6)3)4/2

#%.4%2

345!243(),,0!2+(%!$15!24%23

(AZEL0LAIN

5NFINISHED 2AILROAD'RADE

3UDLEY#HURCH

4HORNBERRY

(OUSE

(ENRY(OUSE "RAWNER&ARM

,$OGAN 'ROVETON

(OUSE

0ORTICI

6AN0ELT

0ITTSYLVANIA

#UNDIFF(OUSE

.EW9ORK

-ONUMENTS

,EWIS(OUSE

3TONE

(OUSE

2OBINSON(OUSE

3TONE

"RIDGE

*$OGAN

(OUSE

2ESOURCE

-ANAGEMENT	

#HINN 2OAD

-ANASSAS 
 3UDLEY 2OA D

'ROVETON 2OAD

&EATHERBED ,ANE

0AGELAND ,ANE

TO

#ENTREVILLEMI

7ASHINGTON$#MI

,EE (IGHWAY7ARRENTON 4URNPIKE

39-"/,+%9

.ATIONAL"ATTLEFIELD0ARK"OUNDARY

0ICNICAREA

0RESERVEDWARTIMESTRUCTURESTRUCTURES

WOULDBEUPGRADEDFORVISITORUSE	

6ISITOR#ENTER

0ARK(EADQUARTERS

(ISTORIC(OUSESITE

/THERHISTORICSITE

5NFINISHED2AILROAD'RADE

3ITESOF-AJOR#OMBAT

.ON
.03PUBLICLANDWITHINPARKBOUNDARY

0RIVATELYOWNEDLANDWITHINPARKBOUNDARY

0RIVATELYOWNEDLANDWITHINPARKBOUNDARY.03OWNSSCENICEASEMENT

0RIVATELYOWNEDLANDOUTSIDEPARKBOUNDARY

0OWERLINEEASEMENT

0ROPOSED"OUNDARY!DJUSTMENT

0ROPOSED&OREST#UT!REAS

(ISTORIC6IEWS2ESTORED

-!.!'%-%.4:/.%3

6ISITOR%XPERIENCE3ERVICES:ONE

#ULTURAL,ANDSCAPE2EHABILITATION0RESERVATION:ONE

-OTORIZED3IGHTSEEING0ARK#IRCULATION:ONE

2ECREATION:ONE

0ARK/PERATIONSAND-AINTENANCE:ONE

!LTERNATIVE#

$EFINING-OMENTSOFTHE"ATTLESOF-ANASSAS

#ULTURALAND(ISTORIC,ANDSCAPE-AP

-AP


5NITED3TATES$EPARTMENTOFTHE)NTERIORs.ATIONAL0ARK3ERVICE

$3#s.OVEMBERss

$EEP

#UT
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

62 
Bu l l Ru n

#HINN

2IDGE

-ATTHEWS

(ILL

"UCK(ILL

$OGAN2IDGE

"ATTERY

(EIGHTS

(ENRY

(ILL

-ANASSAS 
 3UDLEY 2OAD

345!24g3(),,0!2+(%!$15!24%23

0ARKOFFICESWOULDBERETAINEDINCURRENTLOCATIONS!NYFUTUREINCREASEOFOFFICEFACILITIES

WOULDOCCURBYADAPTIVELYUSINGPARKSTRUCTURESORFACILITIESWOULDBESOUGHTOUSIDETHEPARK

(ENRY(ILLVISITORCENTERWOULDBE

REMOVEDUPONCOMPLETIONOFNEW

VISITORgSCENTERNEAR3TONE"RIDGE

532OUTE6IRGINIA

2OUTEWOULDBECLOSED

TOCOMMUTERTRAFFIC

%XISTING532OUTE"RIDGEAND

APPROACHESWOULDBEREMOVED.EW

PARKROADANDBRIDGEWOULDBEBUILT


6ISITORSWOULDGAINANOVERALL

UNDERSTANDINGOFBOTHBATTLES

BYVISITINGTHESITESOFhWATERSHEDvEVENTS


!FEWIMPORTANTVIEWCORRIDORSWOULD

BEDEVELOPEDBUTLANDSCAPEREHABILITATION

WOULDNOTBEEXTENSIVE

!NEWVISITORgSCENTERWOULDBE

LOCATEDNEAR3TONE"RIDGE4HE

NEWVISITORCENTERWOULDORIENT

VISITORSTOTHEPARKANDWOULD

PRESENTTHEOVERALLSTRATEGYAND

TACTICSOFTHETWOBATTLES4HE

INTERPRETIVEFOCUSOFTHISVISITOR

CENTERWOULDBEONTHE

COMPREHENSIVESTORYOFTHE#IVIL7AR

./4%3

0ARK

%NTRANCE

0ARK

%NTRANCE

0ARK

%NTRANCE

0ARK

%NTRANCE

(AZEL

0LAIN

5NFINISHED 2AILROAD 'RADE

(ENRY

(OUSE

"RAWNER

&ARM

4HORNBERRY

(OUSE

'ROVETON ,$OGAN (OUSE

0ORTICI

6AN0ELT

$EEP

#UT

.EW9ORK

-ONUMENTS

3TONE

(OUSE

3TONE

"RIDGE

%XACTALIGNMENTOF

EQUESTRIANTRAILSNEAR

"RAWNER&ARMTOBE

DETERMINED

#HINN 2OAD

'ROVETON 2OAD

&EATHERBED ,ANE

0AGELAND ,ANE

TO

#ENTREVILLEMI

7ASHINGTON$#MI

,EE (IGHWAY7ARRENTON 4URNPIKE

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

(

4

!LTERNATIVE#

$EFINING-OMENTSOFTHE"ATTLESOF-ANASSAS

#IRCULATIONAND)NTERPRETATION-AP

-AP


5NITED3TATES$EPARTMENTOFTHE)NTERIORs.ATIONAL0ARK3ERVICE

$3#s.OVEMBERss



 

 

   

-%4%23

&%%4

  

./24(

39-"/,+%9

.ATIONAL"ATTLEFIELD0ARK"OUNDARY

.ATIONAL"ATTLEFIELD0ARK,AND

0ARKING!REA

(ORSE4RAILER0ARKING!REA

0RESERVEDWARTIMESTRUCTURE

6ISITOR#ENTER

0ARK(EADQUARTERS

5NFINISHED2AILROAD'RADE

%QUESTRIAN4RAILS

/THER)NTERPRETIVE4RAIL

0ROPOSED'ATE,OCATION

-AJOR)NTERPRETIVE4RAIL

2OADWAYCONVERTEDTOTRAIL

+EY)NTERPRETIVE0OINT

.ON
.03PUBLICLAND

WITHINPARKBOUNDARY

0RIVATELYOWNEDLAND

WITHINPARKBOUNDARY

0RIVATELYOWNEDLANDWITHINPARK

BOUNDARY.03OWNSSCENICEASEMENT

0RIVATELYOWNEDLAND

OUTSIDEPARKBOUNDARY

.03LAND

ACCESSROAD







 






ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

64 
Alternative C—The Defining Moments of the Battles of Manassas—An Understanding of the Principal Events 

65 

In addition to continued protection of these 

structures, the National Park Service would 

initiate the following actions: 

• Rehabilitate the Brawner Farm House 

(beginning in Fiscal Year 2005) to support 

public visitation, as part of the 

automobile/bicycle tour route. 

• Stabilize and upgrade the L. Dogan House 

to function as a key interpretive site with 

exhibits, parking, and trail access. 

• Use the Stone House as a key interpretive 

site with exhibits, parking, and trail access. 

The house has been rehabilitated, and it 

has both furnishings and exhibits, with 

parking already available. It would be a 

fully functional interpretive site under this 

alternative. 

• Use the Thornberry House as a key 

interpretive site with exhibits, parking, and 

trail access. 

MOTORIZED SIGHTSEEING AND 

CIRCULATION PRESCRIPTION 

To minimize the impacts of traffic congestion 

and enhance the visitor experience on the 

battlefields, the portions of U.S. Route 29 and 

VA Route 234 within the boundaries of the 

park would be transferred to the jurisdiction of 

the National Park Service and the speed limits 

would be reduced to 25 miles per hour. Once a 

new bypass route was in place, traffic would be 

further controlled by providing restricted 

access to the park at the north and south 

entrances (VA Route 234), and at the east and 

west boundaries (U.S. Route 29) of the park. 

These new entrance facilities would also be the 

primary location for collection of park 

entrance fees. These facilities could either be 

staffed by park personnel or, in some cases, 

might be designed as fully automated gates. A 

more detailed examination of the layout, 

facility design, and operational characteristic 

of these entrance stations would be part of 

subsequent planning and design efforts. It is 

possible that these other entrances could be 

closed as park access points. Separate accommodation would be made to give unhindered 

park access to emergency vehicles, residents, 

local deliveries, and other essential services. 

To create a more appropriate roadway system 

within the park, the signalized intersection at 

U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 would be 

replaced with a four-way stop, and the historic 

character would be restored by returning 

roads to a two-lane width throughout. With 

reduced speed limits, designated bicycle lanes 

would be marked along primary roads 

throughout the park. Although not specific to 

this proposal, it would be consistent with this 

alternative for National Park Service to, when 

possible, redesign the roads (with narrower 

pavement, historic grades, and other features) 

to minimize their impact on the battlefields. 

In this alternative, the existing U.S. Route 29 

bridge over Bull Run would be removed and a 

replacement bridge would be constructed in a 

new location with fewer impacts on the 

historic landscape. This would occur in 

conjunction with the Battlefield Bypass and the 

development of a new visitor center near Stone 

Bridge. This area would also serve as the 

primary entrance for park visitors. 

In this alternative, the National Park Service 

would explore the development of an 

alternative transportation system to move 

visitors throughout the park. A shuttle system 

or other transportation options that would 

allow visitors to leave their personal vehicles 

and tour in larger groups could be explored. 

Current visitation levels make it difficult to 

support such a system on a continued basis. 

However, if future visitation levels dramatically 

increased and it became feasible and desirable 

to develop a park shuttle system, a 

transportation study to analyze several transit 

options would be prepared. 

RECREATION PRESCRIPTION 

A newly designated recreation area would be 

developed off Groveton Road to accommodate approved recreational activities, bus 

parking, and equestrian trail parking. This area 

is away from the primary historic landscapes 

and major interpretive sites. Visitor facilities 
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

66 

such as restrooms and picnic tables would be 

present in this area. 

PARK OPERATIONS AND 

MAINTENANCE PRESCRIPTION 

Alternative C would not alter the locations of 

current park administrative and operational 

functions. If additional space was needed for 

park operations in the future, existing park 

structures would be adaptively reused. It 

would also be consistent with alternative C to 

relocate some office and/or administrative 

functions to the new visitor center facility at 

Stone Bridge. 

A new operational consideration in this 

alternative would be the change in ownership 

of U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 within the 

boundaries of the park. As proposed, these 

roads would be turned over from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia to the National 

Park Service. As part of the Battlefield Bypass 

study, the details of this acquisition and the 

related impacts and issues concerning 

maintenance and management of these 

roadways would be determined. Estimates 

provided by the Battlefield Bypass study team 

and the Virginia Department of 

Transportation indicate that, after acquisition 

and removal of the signalized intersection, the 

portions of U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 

within the park would cost approximately 

$35,000 to $40,000 per year (in 2005 dollars) to 

maintain. 

Staffing levels over the next 15 to 20 years 

would increase under this alternative. To 

accommodate the proposed interpretive needs, 

maintenance requirements, law enforcement, 

and overall management of the resources, an 

additional 25 full-time-equivalent employees 

would be necessary to fully implement this 

alternative. Not all the additional full-timeequivalent employees would need to be 

National Park Service employees. Park 

managers would explore opportunities to work 

with partners, volunteers, and other federal 

agencies to effectively and efficiently manage 

the park. 

The increase in personnel would be necessary 

to implement the expanded and enhanced 

interpretation opportunities in the alternative. 

There would also be a greater demand for 

resources once the park assumed primary 

jurisdiction over the portions of U.S. Route 29 

and VA Route 234 within the park. Visitation 

in the park is expected to increase over the life 

of the plan, which would also result in a greater 

demand for visitor safety, law enforcement, 

and resource protection services. 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 

In alternative C a boundary adjustment to the 

park would be necessary to include the four 

tracts of land described below. This adjustment would require legislation to amend the 

existing boundary. 

The Davis Tract: A 136-acre parcel of land 

west of Featherbed Lane across from the 

northwestern edge of thecurrent park 

boundary. This parcel was recently acquired by 

the Civil War Preservation Trust and a group 

of local residents. The land is important to the 

Battle of Second Manassas as a site where 

General Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson 

maneuvered and withstood repeated assaults. 

Thus it is especially key to the story at 

Manassas National Battlefield Park. 

The Stonewall Memory Garden Tract: A 43-

acre parcel located in the northern half of the 

Stonewall Memory Garden and north of the L 

Dogan House on the west side of Featherbed 

Lane. The parcel is not part of cemetery 

operations. This property is, without question, 

the most important property currently outside 

the park boundaries. On this site, Union 

general Fitz-John Porter led an assault on 

Jackson’s line along the Unfinished Railroad 

on the last day of Second Manassas (August 30, 

1862). A sliver of land that was part of that 

assault is currently within the park boundary. 

The additional 43 acres would include all land 

associated with that part of the battle and 

would allow full interpretation of the story. 

The Conservation Trust Parcel: A 24.25-acre 

tract of land purchased by the Conservation 
Alternative C—The Defining Moments of the Battles of Manassas—An Understanding of the Principal Events 

67 

Trust in 1991 and located almost entirely 

within the park boundary. The Conservation 

Trust transferred that land to the National 

Park Service, but a small piece (0.75 acre) east 

of Pageland Lane, was outside the park 

boundary. Since that time, the Conservation 

Trust has transferred the land to the Civil War 

Preservation Trust, which has expressed 

interest in donating the land to the park. 

Dunklin Monument: A 6-acre parcel of land 

near the park headquarters south of Route 29 

and on the west side of Pageland Lane. The 

family of a Texas Confederate soldier, Timothy 

Dunklin, who was killed at Second Manassas, 

erected the monument. Dunklin is believed to 

be buried under the monument, and some 

accounts indicate that other Confederate 

soldiers are buried nearby. The Dunklin 

Monument tract is part of an estate called the 

Latsios Trust. The family owns some 177 acres 

in two adjoining parcels and has expressed a 

strong interest in developing the land as an 

office/high technology complex. Several years 

ago, the Virginia Department of Transportation purchased a right-of-way through the 

property, just to the west of the monument, 

which left the monument intact along with 

about 6 acres. 

ESTIMATED COSTS 

The purpose of the cost estimate in a general 

management plan is to provide a general sense 

of the cost to implement one alternative 

relative to other alternatives considered. The 

relative costs associated with each of the 

alternatives in this plan have not changed since 

the publication of the draft plan. However, 

how these costs are presented in this Final 

General Management Plan has been modified 

to reflect a change in NPS policy regarding 

presentation of costs in general management 

plans. 

The presentation of costs within a general 

management plan is based on the types and 

general intensities of development in each 

alternative, estimated staffing levels that would 

be required to fully implement the alternative, 

and deferred maintenance. The cost estimate 

for this alternative is provided to give a relative 

sense of its implementation cost when 

compared to other alternatives described in 

this plan. All costs have been rounded to the 

nearest $100,000 and were estimated based on 

2005 dollars. The actual costs to implement the 

alternative could be higher or lower. For this 

reason these costs are not appropriate for 

budgeting purposes. The actual costs will be 

determined prior to implementation and will 

be based on the design of facilities and 

identification of detailed resource protection 

and visitor experience goals. The cost 

estimates presented represent the total costs of 

projects described in the alternatives. Potential 

cost-sharing opportunities with partners could 

reduce these overall costs. Approval of the 

general management plan does not guarantee 

funding or staffing for proposed actions will be 

available. Full implementation of the approved 

general management plan may be many years 

in the future. The total annual operating costs 

for this alternative would be $3.8 million. 

The total one-time costs for this alternative 

would be $49.3 million, and the cost of 

deferred maintenance would be $5 million. For 

more information, particularly about the 

changes in how the costs are presented in this 

plan, please see “Appendix D: Estimated 

Costs.” 

The costs associated with the demolition of the 

modern bridge on U. S. Route 29, construction 

of a new bridge with fewer impacts on the 

cultural landscape and the associated 

realignment of U.S. Route 29 are identified as 

part of the one-time costs for this Final General 

Management Plan because they would occur 

within park boundaries. However, these 

actions and the associated costs have been 

accounted for in the mitigation measures for 

the Battlefield Bypass and would likely be 

funded in a separate appropriation.
68 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS 

In response to comments submitted on the 

Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement, the National 

Park Service considered an additional 

alternative concept for the General 

Management Plan. This alternative would be 

similar to alternative A, the no-action 

alternative. Under this concept, U.S. Route 29 

and VA Route 234 would continue to serve as 

the main commuter arteries in the area. 

Traffic-related adverse impacts would be 

mitigated by a number of measures, including 

upgrades of other local roads to carry 

additional traffic, improved shoulders, and 

traffic calming improvements such as 

roundabouts. 

This option was dismissed because the 

proposal to construct or not construct the 

bypass is beyond the scope of the general 

management plan. The Battlefield Bypass study 

is being conducted in response to a 

Congressional mandate to consider and 

develop plans for the closing of the in-park 

segments of these public highways. 

The Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Amendments of 1988 were enacted to preserve 

the most important historic properties related 

to the battles of Manassas. It was determined at 

that time that highway expansion and resulting 

increased traffic on U.S. Route 29 and VA 

Route 234 could pose too great an impact on 

the natural and cultural resources of Manassas 

National Battlefield Park and that alternative 

routes for traffic were required. 

Specifically, Congress directed that the 

“Secretary of the Interior...in consultation and 

consensus with the Commonwealth of 

Virginia, the Federal Highway Administration, 

and Prince William County, shall conduct a 

study regarding the relocation of highways 

(know as routes 29 and 234) in, and in the 

vicinity of, the Manassas National Battlefield 

Park. . . . The study shall specifically consider 

and develop plans for the closing of these 

public highways (known as routes 29 and 234) 

that transect the park and shall include analysis 

of the timing and method of such closures and 

of means to provide alternative routes for 

traffic now transecting the park.” 

Population growth forecasts for the region 

project substantial increases through the year 

2025. It is anticipated that the population of 

Fairfax County will grow by 24 percent during 

this period, Loudoun County will grow by 195 

percent, and Prince William County will grow 

by 41 percent. 

It is reasonable to extrapolate that traffic 

volumes will increase at similar rates over this 

period. The growth in traffic volume over the 

recent past supports this assumption. Traffic 

volumes within the park increased on VA 

Route 234 south of U.S. Route 29 at an average 

rate of 1.3 percent annually between 1996 and 

2002. Traffic on U.S. Route 29 east of U.S. 

Route 29 increased at an average rate of 6.1 

percent annually over this same period. 

According to the NPS’ Director’s Order #12 

and Handbook: Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision 

Making, the following criteria must be 

considered in a decision to dismiss an 

alternative: 

• Technical or economic infeasibility. 

• Inability to meet project objectives or 

resolve needs. 

• Duplication with other, less 

environmentally damaging or less 

expensive alternatives. 

• Conflict with an up-to-date and valid park 

plan, statement of purpose and 

significance, or other policy, such that a 

major change in the plan or policy would 

be needed to implement. 

• Too great an environmental impact. 
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis 

69 

The decision to dismiss this alternative was 

based on Criteria A, D, and E. Given the likely 

increase in regional traffic volumes over the 

next 15 to 20 years, U.S. Route 29 and VA 

Route 234 could not accommodate additional 

traffic volume without widening the roads. 

Traffic already meets or exceeds capacity for 

these roads. Traffic calming techniques would 

be inadequate to manage these levels of use. It 

is not feasible to widen these roads beyond the 

existing road bed, as widening would result in 

too great an impact on the cultural landscape 

of the park. Current traffic loads pose 

unacceptable safety risks, which would only 

worsen with traffic increases. 

This proposal would be in conflict with the 

Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Amendments, which Congress passed in 1988. 

This legislation mandated a study regarding the 

relocation of U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 

and specifically “the closing of the public 

highways that transect the park” (see HR 4333, 

Title X, § 10004). The resulting Battlefield 

Bypass study assessed the impacts of continued 

use of VA Route 234 and U.S. Route 29 as the 

main commuter routes in the park. This 

analysis determined that this use would result 

in moderate adverse impacts on the cultural 

landscapes in the park. 

Any construction to expand the highway, 

combined with the increased traffic flow in the 

park resulting from this expansion, would 

create a potential impact on the integrity of 

park resources and the visitor experience. 

Traffic-induced noise accounts for most or all 

of the sound in key locations in the park. It is 

reasonable to assume the noise level in the 

park would increase with additional traffic, 

further diminishing the opportunity to enjoy 

the peaceful and solemn setting of the 

battlefield. This would pose a major long-term 

adverse impact on the visitor experience at 

Manassas National Battlefield Park. Therefore, 

it was determined that this is not a viable 

alternative, as required under the National 

Environmental Policy Act, and it was not 

subjected to further analysis. 
70 

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 

In accordance with NPS Director’s Order #12, 

the National Park Service is required to identify the environmentally preferable alternative in 

all environmental documents. The environmentally preferable alternative is determined 

by applying the criteria suggested in the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

The Council on Environmental Quality 

provides direction that the environmentally 

preferable alternative is the alternative that will 

promote the national environmental policy as 

expressed in Section 101 of the National 

Environmental Policy Act, which considers 

• fulfilling the responsibilities of each 

generation as trustee of the environment 

for succeeding generations 

• assuring for all generations safe, healthful, 

productive, and aesthetically and culturally 

pleasing surroundings 

• attaining the widest range of beneficial 

uses of the environment without 

degradation, risk of health or safety, or 

other undesirable and unintended 

consequences 

• preserving important historic, cultural, and 

natural aspects of our national heritage 

and maintaining, wherever possible, an 

environment that supports diversity and 

variety of individual choice 

• achieving a balance between population 

and resource use that will permit high 

standards of living and a wide sharing of 

life’s amenities 

• enhancing the quality of renewable 

resources and approaching the maximum 

attainable recycling of nonrenewable 

resources 

Alternative A (no-action) would not resolve 

traffic problems. Commuter and commercial 

traffic would remain detrimental to the visitor 

experience, cultural resources, and visitor 

safety at the park. 

Implementation of alternative A would not 

fully achieve criteria 1 through 5 above. 

Alternative A does not completely fulfill the 

responsibilities to protect resources, nor does 

it assure a safe and culturally pleasing 

surrounding for succeeding generations 

(Criteria 1 and 2). Furthermore, alternative A 

does not attain the widest range of beneficial 

use without degradation and risk of health and 

safety (Criterion 3). For example, traffic levels 

adversely impact the battlefield resource, 

safety, and visitor use and experience. 

Alternative A fails to preserve and protect 

some of the cultural aspects and natural 

heritage of the park because of the traffic 

conditions (Criterion 4). Finally, alternative A 

does not fully achieve a balance between the 

resource and the surrounding population 

because commuter traffic through the park 

would continue to affect the battlefield cultural 

landscape and visitor experience (Criterion 5). 

Therefore, alternative A is not the 

environmentally preferred alternative. 

The two action alternatives, B and C, are 

focused primarily on rehabilitation and preservation of the battlefield resources and the 

enhancement of the visitor experience, which 

is instrumental to the park’s mission and purpose. Therefore, many of the actions under 

alternatives B and C have beneficial impacts on 

the cultural environment and visitor experience with some compromise on the natural or 

social environment. 

As an example, the cultural landscape 

rehabilitation (forest thinning) under 

alternative B would have greater benefit to the 

battlefield landscape and visitor experience 

than alternative C because it would rehabilitate 

the landscape to its wartime appearance. The 

conversion of some forested areas to grasslands and/or scrubland in both alternatives B 

and C would be beneficial to grassland and 

scrubland species of plants and animals. More 

of this type of conversion would be done in B 

than C. However, to accomplish this; the park 

would clear more forested area, creating a 
Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

71 

greater adverse impact on woodland 

vegetation and wildlife than alternative C. 

Similarly, because it would remove the visitor 

center from Henry Hill, alternative C would 

have greater benefits than alternative B by 

rehabilitating the historic battlefield landscape. 

However, the relocation of the visitor center to 

the east side of the park would likely have 

greater adverse impacts to water resources. 

When identifying the environmentally 

preferred alternative and assessing impacts to 

the natural, socioeconomic, and cultural 

environments, it is important to understand 

the primary purpose of the park as identified in 

the establishing legislation. The park’s mission 

is “to preserve and protect the sites, structures, 

and objects associated with the Battles of First 

and Second Manassas and, through 

interpretation, foster an understanding and 

appreciation of their significance in the 

broader context of the American Civil War for 

the inspiration and benefit to the public.” 

The two action alternatives, alternatives B and 

C, fulfill the National Park Service’s responsibility as a trustee for the environment for succeeding generations (Criterion 1) through resource protection and preservation. The 

proposed actions included in alternatives B 

and C would assure that all generations have 

safe, healthful, and aesthetically and culturally 

pleasing surroundings (Criterion 2) because of 

the visitor services enhancements, transportation improvements, battlefield scene rehabilitation, and historic structure preservation and 

rehabilitation. Under alternatives B and C, the 

National Park Service seeks to preserve the 

cultural and natural heritage aspects (Criterion 

4) of the park. Both alternatives seek to restore 

a balance between the population and the resource (Criterion 5) by eliminating commuter 

and commercial traffic on the portions of U.S. 

Route 29 and VA Route 234 that run through 

the park to enhance cultural resources, the 

soundscape, and the visitor experience. 

Overall, both alternatives promote national 

environmental policy as expressed in Section 

101 of the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Alternative B maximizes use of the Henry Hill 

visitor center and a separate Second Manassas 

visitor contact station. The battlefield 

landscape rehabilitation under alternative B 

would have a greater beneficial impact on the 

cultural landscape compared to the relocation 

of the visitor center off the battlefield under 

alternative C. Nevertheless, they also create 

adverse impacts on natural resources. 

Both alternatives B and C propose creating a 

new access road and bridge into the park. 

However, alternative C also would develop a 

new visitor center and entry point on the east 

side of the park. This action would lead to 

greater impacts on natural resources than the 

actions identified in alternative B and could 

have a limited impact on land use patterns 

outside the park boundary. 

Site-specific environmental analyses have not 

been completed to compare the degree of 

impacts of the landscape rehabilitation efforts 

and the visitor center. However, the natural 

resource impacts associated with the new 

visitor center under alternative C are 

anticipated to be greater than impacts resulting 

from the landscape rehabilitation. While both 

actions have adverse impacts, the full range of 

landscape rehabilitation activities under 

alternative B would also have some beneficial 

impacts because it would create greater habitat 

diversity in the park. Therefore, alternative B 

would best fulfill Criterion 3. Of the three 

alternatives, it would have the greatest benefits 

for the least amount of degradation to the 

environment. 

Alternative B also maximizes the use of the 

Henry Hill visitor center and Second Manassas 

visitor contact station with fewer adverse 

impacts, which better fulfills Criteria 3 and 6. 

Alternative B proposes the continued use of 

both facilities. Under alternative C, the 

National Park Service would begin planning to 

remove the existing visitor center and build a 

new visitor center near Stone Bridge. Because 

alternative B would maximize the use of the 

Henry Hill visitor center and the Second 

Manassas visitor contact station, alternative B 

is the environmentally preferred alternative. 
72 

MITIGATION MEASURES / BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

Congress 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 

United States Code 1). As a result, the National 

Park Service routinely evaluates and 

implements mitigation whenever conditions 

occur that could adversely affect the 

sustainability of national park system 

resources. 

To ensure that implementation of the action 

alternatives protects unimpaired natural and 

cultural resources and the quality of the visitor 

experience, a consistent set of mitigation 

measures would be applied to actions 

proposed in this plan. 

The National Park Service would prepare 

appropriate environmental reviews, such as 

those required by the National Environmental 

Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act, 

and other relevant legislation, for the future 

actions described in the alternatives. As part of 

the environmental review, the National Park 

Service would avoid, minimize, and mitigate 

adverse impacts when practicable. 

The implementation of a compliancemonitoring program could be considered as a 

way to stay within the parameters of National 

Environmental Policy Act and National 

Historic Preservation Act compliance 

documents, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Section 404 permits, and other key regulations. 

The compliance-monitoring program would 

oversee these mitigation measures and would 

include reporting protocols. 

The following mitigation measures and best 

management practices would be applied to 

avoid or minimize potential impacts from 

implementation of the alternatives. These 

measures would apply to all alternatives. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

If site-specific actions proposed under this 

General Management Plan would have the 

potential to impact water resources, water 

quality, or other aspects of the natural 

environment, the National Park Service would 

subject the projects to site-specific planning 

and compliance. Additional environmental 

analysis and documentation would be needed 

to comply with the National Environmental 

Policy Act prior to implementation. Examples 

of actions where additional analysis would be 

needed might include, but would not be 

limited to, the U.S. Route 29 bridge removal 

and reconstruction in a different location, 

landscape scene rehabilitation, and other 

projects that may require land disturbance. 

For construction or scene rehabilitation, the 

National Park Service contract administrators 

would specify that contractors use appropriate 

sediment and erosion control measures; 

minimize discharge to water bodies; regularly 

inspect construction equipment for leaks of 

petroleum and other chemicals; and provide 

for dust control, the addition of pollution 

control devices on construction equipment, 

and the use of low-polluting fuels. Where 

ground disturbance is anticipated, best 

management practices to control soil erosion 

and loss during construction activities would 

include minimization of disturbance areas, use 

of silt fences, revegetation, or other applicable 

practices to control drainage and erosion in 

accordance with an approved sediment and 

erosion control plan. 

The National Park Service would maintain the 

riparian buffers along all streams to mitigate 

potential bank erosion and channel siltation 

from forest removal areas. Forest removal 

operations would incorporate Virginia 

Department of Forestry best management 

practices to avoid erosion problems, 

particularly where disturbance would occur on 

slopes. Riparian buffers as identified here may 

be maintained as wooded buffers or shrub and 
Mitigation Measures / Best Management Practices 

73 

grass buffers, depending on the significance of 

the historic views to be restored at specific 

sites within the park. 

Upon the completion of the Battlefield Bypass 

and the transfer of the portions of U.S. Route 

29 and VA Route 234 within the park to NPS 

jurisdiction, the addition of pollution control 

devices on maintenance equipment and the use 

of low polluting fuels would be called for in 

any future plans. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The National Park Service would conduct sitespecific planning and compliance for projects 

that have the potential for impacts on historic 

resources. The National Park Service would 

make efforts to avoid adverse impacts through 

use of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for Archeology and Historic Preservation as 

well as screening and/or sensitive design that 

would be compatible with historic resources. If 

adverse impacts could not be avoided, the 

National Park Service would mitigate these 

impacts through a consultation process with all 

interested parties. 

As appropriate, archeological surveys and/or 

monitoring would precede any construction. 

Limited information is available about existing 

archeological resources in the park. Known 

archeological resources would be avoided, and 

new facilities would be located in previously 

disturbed areas to the greatest extent possible. 

If National Register-eligible or -listed 

archeological resources could not be avoided, 

an appropriate mitigation strategy would be 

developed in consultation with the Virginia 

Department of Historic Resources (the state 

historic preservation office). 

If previously undiscovered archeological 

resources were uncovered during 

construction, all work in the immediate 

vicinity of the discovery would be halted until 

the resources could be identified and 

documented and an appropriate mitigation 

strategy was developed in consultation with 

the state historic preservation office. 

In the unlikely event that Native American 

human remains, funerary objects, sacred 

objects, or objects of cultural patrimony were 

discovered during construction, provisions 

outlined in the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act (25 United 

States Code 3001) of 1990 would be followed. 

Other human remains would be treated in 

accordance with applicable local regulations. 

Through best management practices, the 

National Park Service would rehabilitate the 

battlefield and cultural landscape to the 

greatest extent feasible. This process could 

entail the rehabilitation of important historic 

viewsheds through thinning and clearing of 

selected wooded areas, rehabilitation of 

historic forested areas through natural 

succession, and rehabilitation of agricultural 

fields by removing noncontributing and 

incompatible structures and incorporating new 

structures using compatible design. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

If site-specific actions proposed under this 

General Management Plan would have the potential to impact the social setting, economy, or 

other aspects of the socioeconomic 

environment, the National Park Service would 

subject the projects to site-specific planning 

and compliance. Additional environmental 

analysis and documentation to comply with 

the National Environmental Policy Act would 

be needed prior to implementation. Examples 

of actions where additional analysis would be 

needed would include, but not be limited to, 

the controlled access into the park. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

The air quality non-attainment for ozone 

standards might offer exploratory partnering 

and/or funding opportunities with neighboring 

jurisdictions to lessen nearby vehicular traffic. 

This might reduce the noise and, thus, improve 

the park’s soundscape for visitors. 
74 

FUTURE STUDIES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS NEEDED 

Following completion and approval of a 

General Management Plan for Manassas 

National Battlefield Park, other, more detailed 

studies and plans would be needed for 

implementation of specific actions. As 

required, additional environmental 

compliance for conformance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, National Historic 

Preservation Act, and other relevant laws and 

policies, and public involvement would be 

conducted. Those additional studies would 

include, but would not be limited to 

• Environmental assessment for 

improvements to the Second Manassas 

visitor contact station. 

• Controlled access study and 

environmental assessment for 

implementation of controlled access or 

gates on U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 

and transportation improvements. 

• Environmental assessment and assessment 

of effect for the removal and 

reconstruction of the U.S. Route 29 Bridge 

over Bull Run. 

• Environmental assessment and assessment 

of effect for battlefield landscape and 

scene rehabilitation activities described in 

this plan, taking into consideration the 

cultural landscape reports performed for 

the Brawner Farm and Stuart’s Hill areas. 

• Section 106 compliance and assessment of 

effect for historic rehabilitation and 

preservation projects in this plan. 

• Environmental assessment for a new 

visitor center and associated site 

improvements at the eastern boundary of 

the park near Stone Bridge, as proposed in 

alternative C. 

• A cultural landscape report for the entire 

park is needed to enhance the park’s 

existing partial cultural landscape 

inventories, and to make specific 

landscape treatment recommendations 

that would be reconciled with the 

battlefield landscape and scene 

rehabilitation activities proposed and 

described in this plan. Separate cultural 

landscape reports have been prepared for 

the Brawner Farm and Stuart’s Hill areas, 

but none have been prepared for other 

parts of the park, or for the park as a 

whole. Implementation of such activities 

would call for additional compliance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 and Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 

• Visitation surveys to assess seasonal visitor 

use and anticipated staffing, interpretive, 

and transportation needs. 

• A park-wide archeological survey is 

recommended to assist the National Park 

Service with the protection of 

archeological resources that are threatened 

by looting and park use. The park holds 

high research interest for historical 

archeology, and the likelihood of 

uncovering useful information is high. 

While high-quality data exists for some 

specific sites within the park, most of the 

park has not been surveyed. 

• A park-wide resource stewardship plan, in 

accordance with updated park planning 

standards and Director’s Order #2-1. 

• A trails management plan that has been 

approved via the Section 106 compliance 

process is recommended to facilitate trails 

maintenance and planning. The purpose of 

the trails management plan is to outline the 

extensive, comprehensive trail network 

located within Manassas National 

Battlefield Park and to prescribe 

acceptable standards and uses compatible 

with preserving park resources and the 

environment. The document's purpose is 

to provide visitors with a trail system that 

will enable them to enjoy the battlefield, 

gain an appreciation of the significance of 

the two battles of Manassas, and have a 

sense of the environment present at the 

time of the battles. 
75 

SUMMARIES 

NPS guidance in Director’s Order #12 and 

Handbook: Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision 

Making requires that environmental impact 

statements include summaries that will 

facilitate reader understanding. 

• The important features of each alternative 

that were described in this chapter are 

summarized in Table 2-2. The relative 

costs for each alternative are included at 

the ends of each alternative’s description. 

• Table 2-3 addresses the Director’s Order 

#12 requirement for a summary that 

presents “the impacts of each alternative, 

including a determination of potential 

improvement to park resources.” The table 

includes both adverse and beneficial 

effects of the alternatives and identifies 

their intensity (negligible, minor, 

moderate, or major) and duration (shortterm or long-term). More detailed 

information supporting Table 2-3 on the 

effects of the alternatives is provided in the 

“Environmental Consequences” chapter. 
76 

Table 2-2: Alternatives Summary 

Alternative A— 

No Action 

Alternative B— 

The Two Battles of Manassas 

Altern

The Defining Mo

Continue current management. Continue to implement the 1983 General Management Planactions on a limited basis. Visitor experience remains compromised because of heavy commuter traffic. 

A comprehensive understanding of each battle. Visitor experience is greatly enhanced with the elimination of commuter traffic. 

A comprehensive understanstrategic importance of eacthe war. Visitor experience elimination of commuter tr

Concept 

● Current management practices would be 

continued; First Manassas would continue to receive greater interpretation and visitor attention because of the difficulty of traversing the portions of U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 in the park. However, the park is able to devote more time and facilities to both battles, especially with the more recent additions of the Brawner Farm and Stuart’s Hill tracts. 

● Orientation and visitor services for both battles 

would primarily be carried out from the Henry Hill visitor center. 

● Visitors would gain an understanding of both 

battles by visiting the many sites associated with each battle. 

● Only small components of the altered historic 

landscape would be rehabilitated. 

● Both battles would be presented as distinct military 

events. The additions of the Brawner Farm and Stuart’s Hill tracts provide a much greater opportunity to present a more comprehensive story of Second Manassas. 

● Heavy volumes of commuter and commercial truck 

traffic would be eliminated from the park, greatly enhancing the visitor experience. 

● Orientation and visitor services for both battles 

would be carried out from two locations. The Henry Hill visitor center would be the primary orientation point for the park as a whole, and would serve as the starting point for First Manassas tours. 

● A Battle of Second Manassas visitor contact station 

at Stuart’s Hill (and eventually at Brawner Farm) would interpret the Battle of Second Manassas and would serve as the starting point for Battle of Second Manassas tours. 

● Visitors would gain a thorough understanding of 

both battles by visiting the many sites associated with each battle. 

● Rehabilitation of the historic scene would be 

important to enhance visitor understanding of battle events and tactics. 

● Visitors would gain an o

battles by visiting the si

● The importance of the 

presented as they relate Civil War. Other storieslocal families, including and communities that wManassas battles, could park. 

● The overall reasons and 

how the war ended woWar museum; perhaps groups. 

● Heavy volumes of comm

traffic would be eliminagreatly enhance the vis

● Orientation and visitor s

be carried out from a nconstructed near Stone 

● Important view corridor

enhance visitor understtactics. 
77 

Table 2-2: Alternatives Summary 

Alternative A— 

No Action 

Alternative B— 

The Two Battles of Manassas 

Altern

The Defining Mo

Management Prescriptions and Specific Actions 

● Visitors would be oriented to the park and 

introduced to both battles at Henry Hill. Visitors would receive additional information on Second Manassas at a visitor contact station on Stuart's Hill. 

● The interpretive materials at the Henry Hill visitor 

center would still focus on the overall importance and strategy of First Manassas. The visitor contact station at Stuart’s Hill would focus on Second Manassas. 

● Orientation and visitor services for both battles 

would primarily be carried out from the existing visitor center. 

● An automobile/bicycle tour route of several of the 

major battle sites would continue to exist, and would focus primarily on the major sites of Second Manassas. Visitors would tour First Manassas sites on foot via the Henry Hill Loop Trail. The First Manassas Hiking Trail would also be available for longer hikes. 

● Each site would present the specific battlefield 

engagement, and provide a parking area and interpretive displays. Most areas would have a short-loop hiking trail. However, interpretive programs would still be primarily concentrated at the visitor center. 

● Two separate, long-loop interpretive hiking trails (5 

miles each) would start at the Henry Hill visitor center and would connect major engagement sites of each battle. These trails would provide an opportunity to learn more about the individual engagements and battles. 

● Bridle trails would continue to remain separate 

from the hiking trails.

● Visitors would be oriented to the resources of First 

Manassas at the visitor center on Henry Hill and to the resources of Second Manassas at a visitor contact station at Stuart’s Hill and, eventually, at Brawner Farm. 

● The interpretive materials at the Henry Hill visitor 

center would focus on the overall importance and strategy of the First Battle, and the Second Manassas visitor contact station primarily would interpret the Second Battle. 

● Orientation and visitor services for both battles 

would be carried out from two locations. 

● Separate automobile and bicycle tour routes would 

be developed for each battle. The sites would generally be visited in chronological order. Each site would include a parking area, interpretive displays, and a short-loop trail. Interpretive programs would be concentrated in these areas. 

● Each site would present the role of the conflict and 

other key engagements in the two battles. 

● Two separate, long-loop interpretive hiking trails (5 

miles each) would connect major engagement sites of each battle, enhancing the visitor’s understanding of the battles. 

● The First Manassas loop trail would start at the Henry 

Hill visitor center and connect the sites of the first battle. The Second Manassas loop trail would originate at Brawner Farm and would explore many of the important battle sites of the second battle. 

● Bridle trails would be separate from the interpretive 

loop hiking trails. 

● Visitors would be orient

visitor center, to be con

● The importance of the 

presented as they relate Civil War. Other storiesthe local families and Athat were impacted by also be interpreted in th

● Orientation and visitor s

be carried out from a ce

● The overall reasons and 

and major Civil War topand technological devein a Civil War museum the park; perhaps in pa

● From the visitor center, 

an automobile/bicycle tsites from both battles. any order; formal tour rtour site would include extensive level of interploop trail. Interpretive pconcentrated in these a

● Each tour site would pr

and other key engagemExpanded interpretation the overall story of the First and Second Manasarcheology, social histo
78 

Table 2-2: Alternatives Summary 

Alternative A— 

No Action 

Alternative B— 

The Two Battles of Manassas 

Altern

The Defining Mo

 Management Prescriptions and Specific Actions 

● Roads through the park would continue to remain 

open to heavy volumes of commuter and commercial truck traffic. Park management would explore other options to reduce or eliminate vehicular traffic. 

● A new entrance road and parking area for 

Brawner Farm would be constructed off Pageland Lane. Access to the visitor contact station at Stuart’s Hill would continue to be provided from Pageland Lane. 

● All wartime structures, as well as other important 

structures and sites, such as the Henry House, L. Dogan House, Thornberry House, and Robinson House ruins, would be preserved. 

● The current pattern of open fields and wooded 

areas would remain, and only small components of altered historic landscapes would be rehabilitated. The historic landscape would be explained through interpretive displays. Extensive scene restoration would not occur. 

● Park offices would be retained in current locations. 

● Roads through the park would be closed to heavy 

volumes of commuter and commercial truck traffic. 

● A new entrance road and parking area for Brawner 

Farm would be constructed off Pageland Lane. 

● The new access road and parking area for Stuart’s 

Hill would be developed and the existing road would be rehabilitated. 

● All wartime structures would be preserved. Brawner 

Farm and the Henry House, Thornberry House, and L. Dogan House would serve as important interpretive sites, and the outline of the Robinson House would be ghosted. 

● Cultural landscape rehabilitation would reestablish 

major historic views and clear prominent battlefield sites. 

● Park offices would be retained in current locations. 

The maintenance area could be expanded in the future, and other park operations could be increased by adaptively reusing existing park structures. 

● Authorization would be sought from Congress for 

the park to expand its boundary to include four specific tracts of land: the Davis Tract, the Stonewall Memory Garden Tract, the Dunklin Monument area, and a three-quarter-acre area owned by the Civil War Preservation Trust. 

● Separate interpretive lo

each) would originate aBrawner Farm, and wouengagement sites of eafollow existing trails and understanding of the bseparate from the inter

● Roads through the park 

volumes of commuter a

● A new entrance road a

Farm would be constru

● All wartime structures w

Brawner, Henry, and L. Thornberry House wousites and all structures waccommodate visitor us

● Cultural landscape reha

few important view correstoration would not o

● Park offices would be re

The maintenance area cfuture, and other park oby adaptively reusing exoffice and/or administra

relocated to the visitor’

● Authorization would be 

the park to expand its bspecific tracts of land: tMemory Garden Tract, and a three-quarter-acrPreservation Trust. 
79 

Table 2-3: Summary of Impacts of Implementing the Alternatives 

Impact Topics Alternative A— No Action Alternative B— The Two Battles of Manassas 

The Defini

Natural Environment 

Air Quality

● Negligible long-term adverse impacts on air 

quality would persist. Cumulative impact on air quality would be moderate short-term and adverse. 

● Negligible to minor short-term adverse impacts to 

air quality would occur during construction activities and landscape rehabilitation. A negligible long-term beneficial impact to air quality within the park would occur. A minor long-term adverse impact on air quality would occur outside the park from the redistribution of traffic. Cumulative impacts on air quality would be adverse and minor. 

● Negligible t

to air qualiactivities annegligible lquality withlong-term aoccur outsiof traffic. Cwould be a

Soundscape ● A moderate long-term adverse impact on the 

park’s soundscape would persist. A moderate long-term adverse cumulative impact would occur. 

● A negligible long-term adverse impact on the 

soundscape would occur from the new contact station and other small projects. Minor short-term adverse impacts on the soundscape would result from forest removal activities. Moderate long-term beneficial impacts would result from traffic and transportation changes. No long-term cumulative impacts on noise would occur. 

● A minor to 

impact on the relocatredirection term adverbe associatcumulative 

Vegetation and Wildlife ● Negligible long-term adverse impacts on vegetation and wildlife would occur. 

Moderate long-term adverse cumulative impacts would occur. 

● The impact on vegetation and wildlife would be 

long-term adverse and minor because of the potential removal of vegetation to construct the new access road at Stuart’s Hill and improve parking. 

● There would be beneficial impacts to vegetation at 

Stuart’s Hill from rehabilitation of the existing roadbed. 

● The reduction of traffic and travel speeds would 

reduce the number of animals killed by vehicles, which would be a minor long-term beneficial impact. 

● The long-term adverse impacts associated with the 

new access road and bridge would be moderate. 

● Potential long-term adverse impacts to wildlife 

from diversion of traffic and changes in traffic levels on other roads outside the park would likely range from negligible to minor. 

● The reduction of woodlands would have a minor 

long-term adverse impact on forest species and a minor long-term beneficial impact on species that prefer grasslands and edge habitats. 

● The long-te

the new viswould be m

● The reduct

reduce the which wouimpact. 

● Potential lo

from diverslevels on otlikely range 

● The impact 

Stuart’s Hilminor becavegetation parking. Thvegetation roadbed. 

● The reduct

negligible tforest specterm benefgrasslands 
80 

Table 2-3: Summary of Impacts of Implementing the Alternatives 

Impact Topics Alternative A— No Action Alternative B— The Two Battles of Manassas 

The Defini

● Collectively, the cumulative impact would be 

anticipated to be minor to moderate long-term and adverse. 

● Collectively

anticipated and advers

Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species and Natural Communities 

● No effect on threatened, endangered, or rare 

species or their habitats would occur. No cumulative impact would occur. 

● Forest removal to rehabilitate the historic 

landscape may affect but is not likely to adversely affect species that prefer open fields or edge habitat. Woodland species may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. 

● Proposed actions would have no effect on 

threatened or endangered species and may affect but are not likely to adversely affect their habitats, because no supporting habitats would be disturbed. 

● The cumulative impact would affect but not likely 

adversely affect threatened and endangered species. 

● Forest remo

affect but ithat prefer Woodland likely to be 

● Proposed a

adversely aspecies or thabitats wo

● The cumula

likely adverendangere

Water Resources (Water Bodies, Water Quality, Wetlands, and Floodplains) 

● Negligible long-term adverse impacts on 

water resources would occur. 

● The cumulative adverse impact would be 

long-term and moderate. 

● The new Stuart’s Hill access road would have 

short-term negligible adverse impacts. 

● Transportation-related improvements would have a 

long-term beneficial impact by reducing the volume of polluted runoff that would reach water resources in the park. 

● The removal of the U.S. Route 29 bridge would 

likely have a minor long-term beneficial impact on the floodplain and stream and negligible shortterm adverse impacts during demolition. 

● The new bridge over Bull Run and its associated 

approach roads would have moderate long-term adverse impacts on the floodplain, stream and, potentially, wetlands. 

● The cumulative adverse impact would be longterm and moderate. 

● Transporta

have a longthe volume water reso

● The remova

likely have on the flooshort-term 

● The new vi

Run, and ithave modethe floodplwetlands. 

● The new St

short-term 

● The cumula

term and m
81 

Table 2-3: Summary of Impacts of Implementing the Alternatives 

Impact Topics Alternative A— No Action Alternative B— The Two Battles of Manassas 

The Defini

Cultural Resources ● Few if any adverse effects to archeological 

resources would occur. If significant archeological resources could not be avoided during construction, impacts would be adverse. 

● There would be no adverse effects associated 

with the preservation and rehabilitation of historic structures and cultural landscapes or construction of parking areas, loop trails, and interpretive displays. 

● Moving artifacts and archives to a facility 

outside the park would cause a minor adverse long-term impact. However, there would be minor to moderate beneficial impacts associated with providing more space for adequate curation, storage, and research. The cumulative impact to museum collections would be beneficial long-term and of minor to moderate intensity. 

● Any adverse cumulative impacts would be a 

small component of that cumulative impact. 

● If archeological resources could not be avoided 

during construction, impacts would be adverse. 

● No adverse effect would be anticipated as a result 

of construction for a Second Manassas visitor contact station. There would be no adverse effects associated with preservation and rehabilitation of historic structures and cultural landscapes or construction of small parking areas, loop trails, and interpretive displays. Restricting access to U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 would have a beneficial impact on historic structures and cultural landscapes. 

● Removing the U.S. Route 29 bridge over Bull Run 

would have a beneficial effect on the cultural landscape. 

● Moving artifacts and archives to a facility outside 

the park would cause a minor adverse long-term impact. However, there would be minor to moderate beneficial impacts associated with providing more space for adequate curation, storage, and research. The cumulative impact to museum collections would be beneficial long-term and of minor to moderate intensity. 

● Any adverse cumulative impacts would be a small 

component of that cumulative impact. 

● If archeolog

during con

● No adverse 

result of coaccess roadadverse effrehabilitatiolandscapes areas, loop Restricting Route 234 historic stru

● Removing t

Run would cultural lan

● Museum co

adequately artifacts anpark would impact. Homoderate bproviding mstorage, anmuseum coterm and o

● Any advers

small comp

Transportation/Traffic ● Commuter and commercial traffic would 

continue to have major long-term adverse impacts on transportation within the park, causing excessive delays and potential safety risks for motorists. No cumulative impact would occur. 

● The controlled access measures would have a 

major long-term beneficial impact on transportation in the park because of the reduction in commuter and truck traffic in the park. A major long-term beneficial cumulative impact would occur. 

● The contro

major longtransportatreduction ipark. A maimpact wo
82 

Table 2-3: Summary of Impacts of Implementing the Alternatives 

Impact Topics Alternative A— No Action Alternative B— The Two Battles of Manassas 

The Defini

Socioeconomic Environment ● Negligible impacts to the existing 

socioeconomic environment would occur. Negligible cumulative impact would occur. 

● Negligible long-term adverse impacts would occur 

for residents requiring access through the park. Negligible long-term adverse impacts to emergency response would occur. A few businesses could experience minor adverse longterm impacts. Minor adverse cumulative impacts would occur. 

● Negligible 

occur for repark. Negliemergency businesses long-term impacts wo

Recreation ● No impacts to the existing recreation 

conditions would occur. No cumulative impact would occur. 

● Minor long-term beneficial impacts would result 

from the enhanced recreational opportunities. A minor beneficial cumulative impact would occur. 

● Minor long

from the eminor beneoccur. 

Visitor Experience ● Major long-term adverse impacts would occur, primarily because of conflicts between 

park visitors and non-park traffic. Cumulative impact would be moderate long-term and adverse. 

● The elimination of commuter and truck traffic, 

removal of the existing U.S. Route 29 bridge, battlefield scene rehabilitation, and preservation and maintenance of historic structures would have a major long-term beneficial impact on the visitor experience. A moderate beneficial cumulative impact would occur. 

● The elimina

removal of battlefield and maintehave a majvisitor expecumulative 

Park Operations and Maintenance 

● Minor long-term adverse impacts would 

occur. Negligible cumulative impact would occur. 

● Minor and moderate long-term adverse impacts 

would occur because of changed operations associated with a visitor contact station for Second Manassas, new interpretive programs, change in ownership of the roads, and controlled access into the park. Negligible cumulative impact would occur. 

● Minor and 

would occuassociated interpretive the roads, Negligible c
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

85 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes the existing environment of the Manassas National Battlefield Park 

and the surrounding region. It focuses on 

describing the key park resources, uses, 

facilities and socioeconomic characteristics 

that provide the necessary background and 

setting information for the study team to 

determine the likely effects, described in the 

Environmental Consequences chapter, of the 

alternatives. Some features are also discussed 

because they provide context, and/or must be 

considered in environmental impact 

statements. 

The affected environment section is general in 

nature because of the programmatic approach 

of general management planning. There are 

many sources from which more detailed 

information can be obtained on the natural, 

cultural, and human environment of Manassas 

National Battlefield Park. Many of these 

sources were used in the preparation of this 

General Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement and are listed in the “Selected 

Bibliography” near the end of this volume. 

Additional information on park resources can 

be found on the Internet at 

www.battlefieldbypass.com and in the 

Manassas National Battlefield Park Bypass 

Existing Conditions Report (2003) prepared by 

the Federal Highway Administration and the 

National Park Service. 
86 

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 

AIR QUALITY 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

certain major air pollutants, including sulfur 

dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, 

ozone, carbon monoxide, and lead, were 

established under the 1970 Clean Air Act 

Amendments. Areas in the United States that 

meet these standards are known as attainment 

areas. Areas in which the standards are not met 

are known as nonattainment areas. 

Manassas National Battlefield Park is in 

Virginia Air Quality Control Region VII, which 

is in severe nonattainment for ozone. The 

region is in attainment for the other pollutants. 

Section 118 of the Clean Air Act requires 

federal facilities such as Manassas National 

Battlefield Park to comply with all federal and 

state air quality standards and regulations. 

Section 176 of the act requires federal facilities 

to conform to state programs designed to 

attain and maintain those standards. 

The 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments established a program to preserve, protect, and 

enhance the air quality in certain areas of the 

United States. One hundred and fifty-eight of 

those areas, including national parks over 

6,000 acres and wilderness areas over 5,000 

acres, were designated mandatory Class I areas 

with little additional air pollution permitted 

over baseline concentrations. Stringent air 

quality standards, known as increments, were 

established for those areas for certain air 

pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 

oxides, and particulate matter, from new or 

modified existing major stationary sources. 

The nation’s remaining areas, such as Manassas National Battlefield Park, are Class II areas. 

The Clean Air Act established less stringent 

increments for those areas for the three 

pollutants cited above. 

The major source of air pollution within the 

park is vehicle emissions. However, the major 

sources of regional air pollution are outside the 

park and include stationary sources in the 

surrounding counties, motor vehicle use in the 

region, and other sources in the Washington, 

D.C. metropolitan area. Historically significant 

views and the visual setting are integral to the 

visitor experience and can be diminished by air 

pollution. 

SOUNDSCAPE 

The NPS’ Management Policies and Director’s 

Order #47: Soundscape Preservation and Noise 

Management recognize natural soundscapes as 

a park resource and call for the National Park 

Service to preserve natural soundscapes. 

Presently, the soundscape and noise levels at 

the park are greatly influenced by vehicular 

and truck traffic on U.S. Route 29, VA Route 

234, and I-66. 

The National Park Service conducted a traffic 

noise and vibration assessment for Manassas 

National Battlefield Park in 1996. The 

vibration assessment looked at the effects of 

vibration from the vehicular traffic on the park 

resources such as the Stone House, and the 

traffic noise assessment examined the effect of 

traffic on the visitor experience. 

The study found that the risk to the building 

resulting from damage caused by trafficinduced vibration is small (Peccia 1996). 

In contrast, the noise assessment stated that 

the existing traffic noise levels create noise 

impacts serious enough to consider noise 

abatement at several of the key visitor sites at 

the park (Peccia 1996). When noise levels were 

compared to land-use compatibility guidelines, 

many of the park’s resources would be 

discouraged from use as sites for cultural 

activities because of existing noise levels. 

VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE 

Vegetation 

The park’s vegetation is a patchwork of open 

fields and forest communities representing 
Natural Environment 

87 

different successional stages and ecological 

conditions. The open fields are maintained 

through agricultural leases and mowing by 

park personnel. Many of these grasslands 

contain native grass communities, particularly 

Indian grass/little bluestem. Grasslands cover 

about 35 percent of the park. The forest 

communities, which cover approximately 50 

percent of the park, are primarily deciduous 

stands of oak-hickory, pine/cedar forest, 

mixed pine/hardwood stands, and bottomland 

hardwood stands. 

The Virginia Department of Conservation and 

Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage 

completed a vascular plant inventory of 

Manassas National Battlefield Park in March 

2001. The species list was added to the Virginia 

Biological and Conservation Data System. Of 

over 700 taxa inventoried in the park, 124 are 

invasive, exotic species. 

The coniferous forest (mainly pine/cedar 

community) is in a successional stage of 

growth that developed from previously open 

fields and is characterized by Virginia pine 

(Pinus virginiana), eastern red cedar (Juniperus 

virginiana), and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata). 

The mixed forest is in a transitional stage that 

occurs in comparatively small, scattered 

stands. Oak-hickory dominates the deciduous 

forest in upland areas and represents the 

climax growth stage in the park. Stands are 

often more than 100 years old and commonly 

consist of white oak (Quercus alba), northern 

red oak (Quercus rubra), black oak (Quercus 

velutina), white ash (Fraxinus americana), and 

hickory (Carya sp.). 

Floodplain bottomland forests, found 

primarily along Bull Run, represent old, 

undisturbed forests with many mature 

floodplain trees. Tree species include pin oak 

(Quercus palustris), swamp white oak (Quercus 

bicolor), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), 

and American elm (Ulnus americana). Various 

bottomland hardwoods also occur along the 

riparian fringe of tributary streams. Small 

patches of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and 

eastern white pine (Pinus strobus) occur on 

somewhat drier slopes and bluffs (VDCR 

DNH 2001). Map 3-1 depicts the historic 

vegetative communities that existed at the time 

of the battles of Manassas. 

Wildlife 

To date, the park staff has documented 168 

bird species, 26 mammal species, 23 reptile 

species, and 19 amphibian species within the 

park. The National Park Service maintains a 

current list of species known or likely to use 

the habitat of the park. More detailed 

information can be found on the park’s 

website at http://www.nps.gov/mana/pphtml/ 

managementdocuments.html. Common 

species known to occur in the park include 

white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), 

eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), red 

fox (Vulpes vulpes), raccoon (Procyon lotor), 

beaver (Castor canadensis), and many species 

of songbirds. 

Within Manassas National Battlefield Park, 

mammals are protected from hunting pressure 

and surrounding urban development. The 

fragmented forests interspersed with shrubs 

and meadows are good habitats for mammals 

such as eastern fox squirrels, eastern 

chipmunks, eastern cottontails, short-tailed 

shrews, and the eastern mole. Some are more 

specialized in their habitat needs, like the red 

fox, which prefers open, shrubby, and brushy 

areas. White-tailed deer are among the most 

prominent mammals in Manassas National 

Battlefield Park. Numerous amphibians and 

reptiles also can be found in the park near 

vernal pools, small depressions, and other 

wetlands. Spring peepers, wood frogs, and 

spotted and marbled salamanders are 

amphibians commonly found in the park. 

White-tailed deer pose a number of resource 

management challenges in the park because of 

their impacts on the vegetative community. 

The large deer population has impacted the 

ability of the park to reforest historically 

wooded areas, establish streamside buffers, 

and created vegetative buffers from 

development. The foraging activity disrupts 

natural forest succession processes in the park 

and removes woody vegetation cover needed 

for ground-nesting birds. The maintenance 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

88 

division in the park reports that deer consume 

between 75 percent and 90 percent of newly 

installed perennials and annuals. 

Distance sampling of deer within the park 

began in 2000 and has been conducted 

annually. The current deer density in Manassas 

National Battlefield Park is estimated at 67 

deer per square kilometer. This greatly exceeds 

the estimated carrying capacity of 15.4 deer per 

square kilometer for the Virginia Piedmont. 

The buck-to-doe ratio is 1-to-5.75, indicating 

overpopulation, and the fawn-to-doe ratio is 

0.27-to-1, indicating a stressed population. 

All forests in the park have a prominent 

browse line. In 2000, the park established 30 

deer exclosures to determine the impacts the 

white-tailed deer have on vegetation in the 

park. In 2004, the effects of deer browsing on 

three forest types were compared. Results 

indicated that white-tailed deer are having a 

substantial adverse impact on the structure and 

woody seedling composition of forests in the 

park. In each forest type, the forb cover and 

vertical plant cover were suppressed, and 

species richness and seedling survival rates 

were reduced. 

Private property owners and local 

governments in the area have expressed 

concern about the deer population. Of 

particular concern is that resident deer from 

the park move into and repopulate areas 

following deer management efforts outside the 

park. 

Manassas National Battlefield Park supports 

one of the best grassland and shrubland 

species suites in the region, with healthy 

populations of several state bird species of 

conservation concern. These include the 

eastern meadowlark, grasshopper sparrow, 

field sparrow, prairie warbler, brown thrasher, 

and eastern towhee. In 2005, a Henslow's 

sparrow pair, a state threatened species, was 

reported on the site. Manassas National 

Battlefield Park is known to support 168 bird 

species, including 54 confirmed breeders. 

Edge species of birds known to inhabit areas of 

the park near potential historic landscape 

modifications include the eastern meadowlark 

(Sturnella magna), prairie warbler (Dendroica 

discolor), indigo bunting (Paserina cyanea), 

grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus 

savannarum), yellow-breasted chat (Icteria 

virens), American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), 

barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), and eastern 

bluebird (Sialis sialis). Other species typically 

found in edge or forested areas include the 

common yellowthroat (Geothylpis trichas), 

American robin (Turdus, migratorius), cedar 

waxwing (Bombycilla cedorum), eastern wood 

pewee (Contopus virens), and chimney swift 

(Chaetura pelagica). 

Other species are adapted to the forest interior 

and primarily nest away from edges in the deep 

forest. Many of these forest interior species 

require large (greater than 375 acres), 

contiguous tracts of forest for breeding, and 

few are found in forest stands of less than 25 

acres (USFS 1996, 1992). Only a few forest 

interior species are known to occur in the areas 

of potential landscape modification. These 

include the scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea), 

Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), 

blue-gray gnatcatcher (Poleoptila caeruelea), 

and wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina). These 

are area-sensitive species that are more 

common in larger rather than smaller wooded 

areas and may not successfully breed in small 

patches of otherwise suitable habitat. Although 

these birds are considered forest interior 

species, they occur in less than optimum 

conditions and can be found in areas other 

than forest interior habitat. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Rare 

Species and Natural Communities 

Manassas National Battlefield Park is classified 

under the Piedmont Region, Culpeper Basin. 

This Triassic basin historically supported a 

number of plants now considered rare by the 

Commonwealth of Virginia. Since settlement 

by Europeans, the original grasslands in Prince 
Unfinished Rai rl o

d Gr a ade

Henry

Hill

Buck Hill

Matthews

Hill

Dogan Ridge

BatteryHeights

Chinn Ridge

Stuart's

Hill

Deep

Cut

eland 

g Pa ane L

Chinn Road

Sudley

Road

R on 

t ve

o Gr oad

Fe

herbed Lane at

Lee Highway/Warrenton Turnpike

Vegetation Types

National Battlefield Park Boundary

Unfinished Railroad GradeNon-NPS public landwithin park boundaryPrivately owned landwithin park boundaryPrivately owned land within park

boundary; NPS owns scenic easement

Privately owned outside park boundary

Deciduous ForestMixed ForestConiferous ForestCrops - Corn, Wheat, Oats

Meadow, Lawn, and Pasture

Cultivated Areas - Orchards and Gardens

Brush or Sparse VegetationOther Ground CoverNo Information Available

Map 3-1Historic Vegetation Patterns

Map Symbols

00 0

1000 2000

375 750 1125 1500

FEET

METERS

3000 4000 5000

NORTH U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service

DSC • October 2005 • 379•20117

66

66

234

234 622

705

29

29

Bu l l Ru n

89

Natural Environment 

91 

William County that supported these now 

scattered populations have been eliminated by 

agriculture, suppression of natural fires, and 

construction. In recent years, large portions of 

the Triassic basin in Prince William and 

surrounding counties have been subjected to 

intensive development pressure as the 

metropolitan Washington, D.C. area has 

expanded westward. As a result, many of the 

natural areas in the surrounding region have 

been destroyed, and the park is increasingly 

becoming a natural oasis as development in the 

region increases. 

In 1997 and 1998, the Virginia Department of 

Conservation and Recreation's Division of 

Natural Heritage inventoried Manassas 

National Battlefield Park for rare, threatened, 

and endangered species and significant natural 

communities. According to that report, 

Manassas National Battlefield Park is "one of 

the region's most unspoiled areas” (VDCR 

DNH 1998). The rare and significant habitats 

that occur in Manassas National Battlefield 

Park are the upland depression swamp forest, 

oak-hickory forest (both threatened elsewhere 

in Virginia because of development), eastern 

white pine forest, and piedmont mountain 

swamp forest. 

A Division of Natural Heritage study 

completed in 1997 inventoried potential 

habitats within the park for threatened, 

endangered, and rare species and significant 

natural communities. This inventory found no 

federally or state-listed threatened or 

endangered species. Similarly, the 1997 

vascular plant inventory found no federal or 

state endangered species. 

Some rare plants do occur in Manassas 

National Battlefield Park. The DNH studies 

identified 13 occurrences of state-listed rare 

plants associated with diabase or metasiltstone 

substrates, including four each of Appalachian 

quillwort (Isoetes appalachiana) and marsh 

hedgenettle (Stachys pilosa var. arenicola), two 

each of blue hearts (Buchnera americana) and 

hairy beardtongue (Penstemon hirsutus), and 

one of buffalo clover (Trifolium reflexum). 

Other rare species documented include 

Mead's sedge (Carex meadii), hoary puccoon 

(Lithospermum canescens), and purple 

milkweed (Asclepias purpurascens). 

The populations of Appalachian quillwort 

were in found small, shallow intermittent 

streams. Hairy beardtongue, blue-hearts, and 

marsh hedgenettle are associated with open 

habitats. The park contains the majority of the 

known Virginia populations of marsh 

hedgenettle. Buffalo clover is characteristic of 

prairies and savannas west of the Appalachians 

and was found in an open canopied Virginia 

pine stand. 

The Division of Natural Heritage also found 

six occurrences of communities considered 

rare or significant. Three occurrences of basic 

oak-hickory forest, covering about 72 acres, 

were found in the western portion of the park 

on diabase uplands. These stands are classified 

as white oak/eastern redbud/bottlebrush grasscliff muhly. This community type is 

uncommon to rare in Virginia and is highly 

threatened because of widespread destruction 

by development in its primary northern 

Virginia range. 

Also found were one occurrence each of 

upland depression swamp, eastern white pine 

forest, and piedmont/mountain swamp forest. 

• The upland depression swamp comprises 

about 3 acres of seasonally flooded 

wetland south of Battery Heights. This 

community type is also uncommon to rare 

in Virginia and is threatened because of 

widespread destruction by development in 

its primary northern Virginia range. 

• The eastern white pine forest community 

consists of a 10- to 15- acre stand of mixed 

eastern white pine, eastern hemlock, and 

oaks on a steep bluff overlooking Bull Run. 

This forest type is significant because of 

the type’s rarity in the piedmont. 

• The piedmont/mountain swamp forest 

covers about 40 acres on the alluvial 

floodplain of Bull Run. The dominant 

canopy species is pin oak. Pin oak swamps 

are rare in Virginia, although they are 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

92 

locally common in the northern Virginia 

Triassic basin. 

While no federally listed, proposed, and 

candidate threatened or endangered species 

were known to exist in the park, the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service provided information about threatened 

and endangered species in Loudoun, Fairfax, 

and Prince William Counties. The information 

provided by the Department of the Interior is 

reproduced in Appendix E: Threatened, 

Endangered, and Rare Species and Natural 

Communities. 

Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) may 

occasionally be seen, but are transient in the 

area. A number of rare invertebrate species are 

known to exist in Prince William County and 

may potentially occur in the park. Three of 

these species are state or federal species of 

concern or are state-listed. They include two 

mussels, the state-endangered brook floater 

(Alasmidonta vericosa) and the yellow lance 

(Elliptio lanceolata), and a butterfly species of 

concern, the regal fritillary (Speyeria idalia). 

Other potential rare invertebrates include 

several aquatic species of amphipods, clubtails, 

and a stonefly. 

WATER RESOURCES (WATER BODIES, 

WATER QUALITY, WETLANDS, AND 

FLOODPLAINS) 

The park is within the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed, and its main watercourse is Bull 

Run, which forms most of the park’s eastern 

boundary. The primary stream within the park 

is Youngs Branch, which meanders south and 

east through the park, eventually draining into 

Bull Run. 

The Youngs Branch watershed is 

approximately 3,000 acres, most of it within 

the park boundary. The main tributary of 

Youngs Branch begins near Brawner Farm as 

an intermittent stream. As it flows eastward, it 

joins with other tributaries, including Dogan 

Branch and Chinn Branch, to become a 

perennial stream. 

As stream flow increases, the 100-year 

floodplain widens as permitted by the 

adjoining terrain. Bull Run has a primarily 

wooded, asymmetrical 100-year floodplain 

bounded by adjacent bluffs. 

Wetlands in the park are typically found along 

the park’s bodies of water. Map 3-2 shows the 

locations of the streams, ponds, and wetlands 

at Manassas National Battlefield Park. 

There are ten farm ponds scattered throughout 

the park. Most of these ponds were formed 

from the installation of small earthen dams on 

small streams. All dams are classified as 

downstream, low hazard potential, minor size. 

In the late 1990s, the park took corrective 

actions to repair many of the dams. Today, the 

dams are in good condition. 

A water quality investigation was conducted 

for the park in 1995 (Wyatt Group 1995). All 

streams sampled were reported to be within 

acceptable levels, although some stream bank 

erosion was noted and occasional high levels 

of fecal coliform were noted after rain. 

It is the park’s practice to plant native species 

of vegetation in areas where stream bank 

stability is less than desired. Otherwise, the 

park maintains bank stability by protecting 

existing riparian buffer areas. Farm ponds and 

beaver ponds were noted to have beneficial 

effects on stream health by removing 

sediments. 

Additional data were collected and presented 

in the Baseline Water Quality Data Inventory 

and Analysis Report (1997). The park has 

recently initiated a basic water quality 

monitoring program to analyze trends in water 

quality. 

In the summer of 1997, the National Park 

Service began a cooperative arrangement with 

the Audubon Naturalist Society. Since that 

time the National Park Service and Audubon 

Naturalist Society have collected data on water 

quality and macro-invertebrate diversity while 

conducting water quality workshops within 

the park. 
U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service

DSC • October 2005 • 379•20118

Bu l l Ru n Bu l l Ru n

00 0

1000 2000

375 750 1125 1500

FEET

METERS

3000 4000 5000

NORTH

National Battlefield Park Boundary

National Battlefield Park LandUnfinished Railroad GradeNon-NPS public land within park boundaries

Privately held land within park boundaries

Privately held land within park boundaries;

NPS holds scenic easementPrivately owned land outside park boundary

StreamsPondsWetlands

Map 3-2Existing 

SYMBOL KEY

Water Resources 

and Wetlands 

Bull Run

Catharpin

Run

You gn s Br nach

Youngs Branch

l o H

uk ms

r B an

hc

h C

nni

hc

n

a

r B

Dogan Branch

Unfinished Rai rl o

d a Grade

Henry

Hill

Buck Hill

Matthews

Hill

Dogan Ridge

Battery Heights

Chinn Ridge

Stuart's

Hill

ageland P ane L

Chinn Road

S u dley Road

R Groveton oad

Featherbed Lane

Lee Highway/Warrenton Turnpike

66

66

234

234

622

705

29

29

93

Natural Environment 

95 

Preliminary data for Youngs Branch indicate 

poor diversity within the stream, attributed to 

high water temperatures caused by poor 

canopy cover, sediment run-off, and marginal 

bank stability caused by high storm flows. Lack 

of a woody buffer along the stream may also 

have contributed to weak stream banks. 

Increased flows are probably the result of 

increased development outside the park. 

Water quality monitoring, conducted when 

possible by the regional water resources 

division, collects data on water temperature, 

air temperature, depth of stream, flow rate, 

specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, 

salinity, alkalinity, nitrite, phosphorus, 

ammonia, carbon dioxide, and chloride. This 

water chemistry data, along with 

macroinvertebrate information, allows the 

park to better evaluate stream health. 

The National Park Service officially recognizes 

the wetland definition used by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service as outlined in 

Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater 

Habitats of the United States (USFWS 1979). 

The National Wetland Inventory map 

(Manassas Quadrangle dated 1983) was 

reviewed to identify known wetlands at the 

park. The watercourses in the park, including 

the adjacent riparian and bottomlands as well 

as ponds, are classified as various types of 

wetlands. Palustrine forested wetlands at the 

park include the floodplain bottomland 

forests, found primarily along Bull Run. They 

represent old, undisturbed forests with many 

mature floodplain trees. Species generally 

include pin oak, swamp white oak, green ash, 

and American elm. 

Two forested wetland systems worthy of 

special consideration have been identified at 

the park, including an upland depression 

swamp and piedmont/mountain swamp forest. 

The upland depression swamp comprises 

about 3 acres of seasonally flooded wetland 

south of Battery Heights. The piedmont/ 

mountain swamp forest covers about 40 acres 

on the alluvial floodplain of Bull Run (DCR 

DNH 1993). Various bottomland hardwoods 

also occur along the riparian fringe of tributary 

streams. Small palustrine emergent wetlands 

exist sporadically around the park, and are 

generally associated with the small ponds or 

swales at the lower elevations. 
96 

CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 

Twice in two years, major armies of the United 

States and the Confederate States met in 

combat at Manassas. The Battle of First 

Manassas (July 21, 1861), the war’s first major 

land battle, ended in a stunning Confederate 

victory that shattered hopes for a short and 

easy war. Thirteen months later, the Battle of 

Second Manassas (August 28-30, 1862), a battle 

four times larger than the first, brought 

another Southern triumph and gave 

Confederate forces their greatest opportunity 

for strategic success. 

Manassas National Battlefield Park, 

established in 1940, preserves important 

portions of these two overlapping battlefields 

and the sites associated with them. The 

cultural resources related to the Civil War that 

comprise the park survive today as evocative 

reminders of the nation’s fratricidal struggle. 

The following is a brief description of the 

cultural resources. More information on each 

site can be found in Appendix A: Description 

of Resources and Appendix B: Description of 

the Battle Events. 

HISTORIC STRUCTURES 

Manassas National Battlefield Park was listed 

in the National Register of Historic Places on 

October 15, 1966, as part of that year’s 

National Historic Preservation Act. The nomination form to follow up on that designation 

was submitted in 1981. In 2004, the park 

superintendent submitted a revised concurrent 

nomination to the Virginia State Historic 

Preservation Office, to reflect the new park 

areas added since the 1981 document, and to 

add non-park land to the National Register 

boundaries. The nomination was approved in 

January 2006. 

The revised 2004 form lists 62 structures, 

monuments, and sites as contributing to the 

park’s significance. These include houses, 

farms, and Civil War memorials as well as 

landscape features such as roads, woodlands, 

and fields important in shaping the battles’ 

events. 

The List of Classified Structures is an 

inventory of contributing historic structures 

that gives guidance to the planning process by 

providing an inventory and list of treatment 

measures for these structures. At Manassas 

National Battlefield Park, 40 structures, 

including monuments, roads, houses, and a 

bridge, have been included on the List of 

Classified Structures. 

• Thirty-six of these have been designated as 

structures that must be preserved and 

maintained. 

• Another three structures have been 

categorized as resources that should be 

preserved and maintained. 

• One structure was classified as a resource 

that may be preserved or maintained. 

Map 3-3 highlights the resources included on 

the park’s List of Classified Structures. 

Among the battlefield’s historic structures, the 

Stone House and the Lucinda Dogan House 

merit special attention as the park’s only 

wartime buildings rehabilitated to their 1860s 

appearance. Within the park, only one other 

building, the Thornberry House, dates to the 

time of the battles, albeit with some alteration. 

Several other buildings, including the Henry 

House, John Dogan House (Rosefield), and 

Brawner Farm House, serve to mark the 

locations of Civil War period dwellings and 

function as aids to interpretation. 

In addition to the battle-related resources, the 

park contains an appreciable number of 

commemorative features that postdate the 

fighting. The Henry Hill area includes several 

monuments and markers. These include the 

remains of a wartime monument to Confederate Colonel Francis Bartow that is perhaps 

the earliest Civil War monument anywhere, 

and an equestrian statue honoring Confederate 

General Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson, who 
U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service

DSC • October 2005 • 379•20119

Bull

R

u

n

Bull

R

u

n

Unfinished Railroad

SYMBOL KEY

National Battlefield Park Boundary

National Battlefield Park LandUnfinished Railroad GradeResources included in 

Manassas NBP's

List of Classified Structures (LCS)

Non-NPS public land within park boundaries

Privately Held Land 

Within Park Boundaries

Privately Held Land 

Within Park Boundaries;

NPS Owns Scenic Easement

Map 3-3List of Classified Structures

00 0

1000 2000

375 750 1125 1500

FEET

METERS

3000 4000 5000

NORTH

Privately owned land outside park boundary

Stone

Bridge

StoneHouse J. Dogan House

(Quarters #5)

L. Dogan House

Thornberry House(Sudley Post Office)

GrovetonConfederateCemetery

HenryHouse

Ball FamilyCemetery

Hooe Family

Cemetery

Pittsylvania

Cemetery

Chinn House

(Foundation)

Manassas NBPVisitor Center

Brawner

Farmhouse

New York Monuments- 5th New York Volunteer Infantry- 10th New York Volunteer Infantry- 14th Brooklyn

Henry Hill Monument

Bartow Monument and BaseJackson Equestrian Monument

GrovetonMonument(Deep Cut)

Groveton

Confederate

Monument

Judith Henry

Gravesite

Rickett's Battery Capture

7th Georgia Monument

(4th Position)

Sutton Farm

(Quarters #6)

General Bee Monument

Stovall

Monument

Colonel

Fletcher Webster

Monument

7th Georgia Monument(5th Position)

New YorkAvenue Gates

66

66

234

234 622

705

29

29

ageland P ane L

Chinn 

Road

Sudley Road

eton Road ov Gr

eatherbed F ane L

Lee Highway/Warrenton 

Turnpike

97

Cultural Environment 

99 

received his nom de guerre nearby. Other 

prominent monuments include a pair of 

sandstone obelisks erected by Union veterans 

in 1865, one on Henry Hill and one adjacent to 

the Deep Cut, and three monuments near 

Groveton commissioned by the State of New 

York to honor the 5th and 10th New York and 

the 14th Brooklyn regiments. 

Those examples notwithstanding, monuments 

are not extensive at Manassas National 

Battlefield Park. The park contains fewer than 

20 formal monuments and troop markers 

scattered across the battlefield. The largest 

postwar commemorative feature on the 

battlefield landscape is the Groveton 

Confederate Cemetery, which contains the 

remains of more than 260 Confederate dead 

from the two battles. 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

In 1996, the National Capital Region of the 

National Park Service conducted three cultural 

landscape inventories of different parts of the 

park. These inventories did not include the 

Stuart’s Hill tract, which had previously been 

studied by the University Of Georgia, School 

Of Environmental Design. The 1996 effort 

produced a cultural landscape rehabilitation 

report. Each study included a reconnaissance 

section that identified the scope of the cultural 

landscape, what is known about the resource, 

and future research needs. Each study also 

contained an analysis and evaluation section, 

which provided a site history of the landscape 

development, defined the characteristics that 

contribute to the historic character of the 

landscape, and identified the individual 

features associated with those characteristics. 

The historic battlefield landscape constitutes 

the park’s most important resource and 

provides the setting for understanding the 

events of the Civil War battles fought here. 

Although the ground cover has changed in 

some areas, the terrain remains largely 

unaltered, and key landscape features survive. 

Within the battlefield landscape are numerous 

resources that contribute to the park’s 

significance, including historic buildings, 

archeological sites and ruins, remnants of 

historic fence lines, cemeteries and burial sites, 

traces of wartime roads and farm lanes, the 

reconstructed Stone Bridge, and the graded 

bed of the Unfinished Railroad. 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Archeological surveys have been carried out in 

several sections of the park, but no 

comprehensive park survey has been 

undertaken. The surveys that have been 

completed are, for the most part, related to 

park development projects or specific park 

research requirements. Since the early 1980s, 

surveys of selected areas of the park identified 

92 archeological sites. Of these sites, more than 

two-thirds are in "good" condition. These 

surveys revealed that the park contains a 

variety of prehistoric and historic resources. 

A park-wide survey of all archeological sites is 

necessary to identify and evaluate the park’s 

archeological resources and to provide park 

management with the information necessary to 

ensure that such resources are protected, 

conserved, and managed appropriately. Such a 

survey is also necessary to ensure that park 

management decisions do not inadvertently 

impact archeological resources. 

Archeological resources dot the historic 

landscape and provide evidence of the impact 

of war on the local community. Physical 

remains of antebellum plantations, modest 

farmsteads, slave quarters, and outbuildings 

combine to demonstrate the complexity of the 

rural, agricultural setting of the battles and 

help to delineate the historic scene. In addition 

to the many ruined house sites, traces of earthworks scattered along Bull Run, remnants of 

soldiers’ huts, and depressions from disinterred battlefield burials are among the archeological features that call to mind the convulsive 

events of the 1860s. 

Nearly all the recorded prehistoric sites need 

further fieldwork, as there is little available 

information. One potential prehistoric 

research issue is the development of a context 

of lithic scatters, which are common 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

100 

prehistoric resources within the park 

boundaries (Little 1995). Another issue of 

historical archeological interest concerns the 

life of African-Americans before and after the 

battles and the Civil War (Little 1995). 

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS 

AND ARCHIVES 

Original documents and historic artifacts 

relating to the Battle of First Manassas, the 

Battle of Second Manassas, and the families 

and farms impacted by these battles constitute 

the primary focus of the collection and 

material for museum exhibits housed in the 

Henry Hill visitor center and Second Manassas 

visitor contact station. The collection also 

includes 40 cannon tubes displayed on 

reproduction carriages and distributed at 

battery sites throughout the park. These 

museum collections are used as part of the 

visitor center’s and visitor contact station’s 

role as orientation points. The museum 

elements visible to the public are selected to 

match and enhance the other orientation 

displays at these facilities, and are also tied to 

the interpretive elements and cultural 

landscape of the battlefields themselves. 

Less than one percent of the more than 

165,000 objects in the park’s growing museum 

collections are ever on exhibit. The remainder 

of these objects is kept in onsite and offsite 

storage facilities. The bulk of the archeological 

and architectural material and furnishings is 

maintained at the Museum Resource Center, a 

regional storage facility in Landover, 

Maryland. Because of limited onsite storage 

space at the Henry Hill visitor center, only the 

less bulky objects that directly support the 

park’s primary interpretive themes and offer 

the greatest research value can be maintained 

at the park. 

One full-time museum specialist is responsible 

for managing the park museum collections in 

accordance with established NPS standards. If 

needs are beyond the limits of training, 

experience, and available equipment and 

facilities, the museum specialist coordinates 

conservation measures with professional 

conservators. There is no dedicated space for 

conservation laboratory work, photography, 

or exhibit preparation. Additional space is 

currently maintained at Stuart’s Hill for the 

storage and processing of archival materials in 

the collection. 

The present onsite museum collections and 

archive facilities are nearing capacity. The 

anticipated growth of the collection will 

eventually require more offsite storage for 

museum objects at the Museum Resources 

Center, and additional space to accommodate 

museum records and electronic media. 
101 

TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS 

Manassas National Battlefield Park is just 

north of I-66, surrounding the intersection of 

U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234. This location 

places the park within the heavily populated 

Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, and 

along a major transportation corridor that 

serves increasingly developed northern 

Virginia. Map 3-4 shows the roads and trails in 

the Manassas National Battlefield Park. 

U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 are regional 

highways that run east-west and north-south, 

respectively, within the Manassas National 

Battlefield Park. Both roads are two lanes wide, 

except that U.S. Route 29 becomes a multilane, 

divided highway in the western portion of the 

park. The two highways meet at a signalized 

intersection in the center of the park. 

Currently, these highways are used by park 

visitors, commuters, truckers, and regional 

travelers. 

As part of the Battlefield Bypass study, the 

Federal Highway Administration completed an 

existing conditions report that details the 

transportation conditions of the park and 

surrounding area. This General Management 

Plan / Environmental Impact Statement is a 

programmatic study, and is therefore more 

general in nature. For more detailed 

information on roadway capacity and levels of 

service on the roadways and intersections in 

and adjacent to the park, please refer to the 

Battlefield Bypass study (FHWA 2005). 

TRAFFIC COUNTS 

AND LEVELS OF SERVICE 

Traffic counts collected as part of the 

Battlefield Bypass study’s existing conditions 

report indicate that U.S. Route 29 carries 

between 9,000 and 13,200 vehicles per day, and 

VA Route 234 carries between 9,800 and 

14,100 vehicles per day (FHWA 2002). The 

existing corridor levels of service and average 

daily traffic counts are shown in Table 3-1. 

Table 3-1: Levels of Services for U.S. 

Route 29 and Virginia Route 234 

Corridors 

Road Segment 

Levels of 

Service Average Daily 

Traffic 

AM PM

U.S. Route 29 East of 

VA Route 234 

F F 13,166 

U.S. Route 29 West 

of VA Route 234 

E E 9,089 

VA Route 234 North 

of U.S. Route 29 

E E 9,815 

VA Route 234 South 

of U.S. Route 29 

E E 14,079 

Source: Manassas National Battlefield Park Bypass Study 

Draft EIS (FHWA 2005).

While definitive data are not available, 

anecdotal observations indicate that at least 95 

percent of this traffic volume is attributable to 

“through” trips that do not include a stop in 

the park. 

The traffic capacity analyses were performed 

by the Federal Highway Administration, based 

on the procedures specified by the 

Transportation Research Board Special Report 

209: Highway Capacity Manual, 1997. Level of 

service is a qualitative rating of the 

effectiveness of a highway or highway facility 

in serving traffic, in terms of operating conditions. The Highway Capacity Manual identifies 

operating conditions ranging from A, for best 

operations (low volume and the unimpeded 

ability to travel at the speed limit) to F, for 

worst conditions. The levels of service used for 

signalized intersections in the Battlefield 

Bypass study are summarized below. 

• LOS A describes operations with an 

average delay of less than 10.0 seconds. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

102 

• LOS B describes operations with an 

average delay in the range of 10.1 to 20.0 

seconds per vehicle. 

• LOS C describes operations with delays in 

the range of 20.1 to 35.0 seconds per 

vehicle. Individual cycle failures, where all 

waiting vehicles do not clear the intersection during a single green time, may begin 

to appear at this level. This is generally 

considered the lower end of the range of 

the acceptable level of service in rural 

areas. 

• LOS D describes operation with delays in 

the range of 35.1 to 55.0 seconds per 

vehicle. Individual signal cycle failures are 

noticeable. This is generally considered the 

lower end of the range of acceptable levels 

of service in urban areas. 

• LOS E describes operations with delays in 

the range of 55.1 to 80.0 seconds per 

vehicle. Individual cycle failures are 

frequent occurrences. LOS E has been set 

as the limit of acceptable conditions (at 

capacity). 

• LOS F describes operations with average 

delays in excess of 80.0 seconds per 

vehicle. There are many individual cycle 

failures. This LOS is considered to be 

unacceptable to most drivers. 

The intersection of U.S. Route 29 and VA 

Route 234 operates at level of service F during 

both the morning and evening peak hours. The 

intersection has a delay in excess of 80 seconds 

per vehicle, which is considered to be 

unacceptable to most drivers. 

The volume of through-traffic using routes 

within the park has become a serious 

detriment to the quality of the visitor 

experience the park can provide. The mix of 

pedestrian and vehicle traffic, as well as the 

mix of slower recreational traffic and higherspeed, through-traffic also poses safety hazards 

for park visitors. 

SAFETY 

A transportation study for the park was completed in June 1996. This study found that most 

vehicular accidents within the park occur on 

U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234, while 

relatively few accidents occur on internal park 

roads. The accident rates on U.S. Route 29 and 

VA Route 234 are comparable to those of 

similar roads in Prince William County. 

The study identified the signalized intersection 

at U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 as being 

problematic and a safety concern because the 

intersection is operating at capacity during the 

morning, noon, and evening peak travel 

periods. Erratic vehicular movement 

associated with traffic congestion was cited as 

the primary safety concern (Peccia 1996). 

Another safety concern is potential conflicts of 

pedestrians or bicyclists with the heavy 

vehicular traffic on U.S. Route 29 and VA 

Route 234. Presently, a number of the park’s 

trails cross U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234. 

EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

To respond to serious incidents, the National 

Park Service relies on local emergency services. 

Emergency response to Manassas National 

Battlefield Park is provided by local fire 

departments and emergency response 

facilities. 

The park is served primarily by Stonewall 

Jackson Volunteer Fire Department, Station 

11, at 7814 Garner Drive in Manassas. The 

station is approximately 1.7 miles from the 

park’s southern entrance on VA Route 234 and 

approximately 3 miles from the intersection of 

U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 at the center 

of the park. The response time to this location 

is approximately 5 minutes, but can be greater, 

depending on traffic congestion on the roads. 

The station is equipped with ambulances and 

fire engines. 
U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service

DSC • October 2005 • 379•20120

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

Bu l l

R

u

n

;

;

;

;

Stuart's Hill Trail 

Deep CutLoop Trail

Unfinished Rai rl o da Grade

66

66

234

234 622

705

29

29

P

P

P

Henry

Hill

Buck

Hill

Matthews

Hill

Dogan Ridge

Battery Heights

Chinn

Ridge

Stuart's

Hill

HENRY HILLVISITOR CENTER

STUART’S HILL VISITOR CONTACT STATION &PARK HEADQUARTERS

ageland P ane L

Chinn Road

S u dley Road

R on t ve o Gr oad

eather F ed Lane b

Lee Highway/Warrenton Turnpike

Batt el v ei w Pa kr way

Sudley Church

ThornberryHouse

BrawnerFarm

L. Dogan House

Portici

Van

Pelt

Pittsylvania

Deep Cut

New YorkMonuments

Lewis House

Stone

House

RobinsonHouse

StoneBridge

Sudley Loop Trail

Stone Bridge Loop Trail

Chinn Ridge Loop Trail

Matthews HillLoop Trail

Unfinished Railroad Loop Trail

Deep Cut

Loop Trail

Brawner Farm

Loop Trail

Stuart's Hill Loop Trail

V

P

P

P

P

Circulation Legend

National Battlefield Park Boundary

National Battlefield Park LandParking AreaHorse Trailer Parking AreaUnfinished Railroad GradeHistoric House SitePreserved war time structureOther historic siteFirst Manassas Trail

Second Manassas Trail

Henry Hill Loop TrailOther 

Walking Trails

Bridle Trails

Map 3-4Existing Circulation Facilities

00 0

1000 2000

375 750 1125 1500

FEET

METERS

3000 4000 5000

NORTH

P

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

Non-NPS public land with park boundaryPrivately owned landwithin park boundaryPrivately owned land within park

boundary; NPS owns scenic easement

Privately owned landoutside park boundary

+

103

Transportation/Traffic 

105 

The western end of the park is served by the 

Prince William County Gainesville District 

Volunteer Fire Department, Station 4, at 14450 

John Marshall Highway (State Highway 55). 

The station is approximately 3 miles from the 

western entrance of the park. The response 

time to the central area of the park is 7 to 12 

minutes. The station is equipped with 

ambulances, fire trucks, and a rescue squad. 

Emergency response may also be provided by 

the West Centreville Volunteer Fire 

Department Station 38, at 6001 O’Day Drive in 

Centreville. The station is approximately 3 

miles from the eastern entrance on U.S. Route 

29. The station is equipped with ambulances 

and fire trucks. 

The park falls within the jurisdiction of the 

National Capital Region Museum Emergency 

Response Team (MERT). This group, 

composed of experts in cultural resource 

management, is prepared to respond quickly to 

regional incidents, such as natural disasters or 

special events, which may threaten or 

endanger museum collections, both cultural 

and natural, and associated historic structures 

and archeological sites. 
106 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

POPULATION 

The park is located in Prince William and 

Fairfax Counties and is near Loudoun County. 

The local economic region consists of these 

counties plus Arlington County and the 

independent Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax City, 

Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park. 

As of April 2000, Fairfax County’s population 

was 969,749 (Census, 2000). Its population is 

now believed to have surpassed one million. 

From 1990 to 2000, Fairfax County’s population increased by 18.5 percent. Individuals 

identifying themselves as “white” made up 69.9 

percent of the population, followed by “Asian” 

at 13 percent, and “African American” at 8.6 

percent. American Indians, Native Hawaiians, 

and Other Pacific Islanders made up the 

remaining 8.5 percent. Individuals 65 years old 

and over comprised 7.9 percent of the 

population. 

Loudoun County’s population increased by 

96.8 percent from 1990 to 2000, and as of the 

2000 census, it had a population of 169,599. 

White individuals made up 82.8 percent of the 

population, followed by African Americans at 

6.9 percent, with Asians, American Indians, 

Native Hawaiians, and Other Pacific Islanders 

making up the remaining 10.3 percent. 

Individuals 65 years old and over comprised 

5.6 percent of the population. 

Prince William County’s April 2000 population 

was 280,813. From 1990 to 2000, Prince William County’s population increased by 30.6 

percent. White individuals made up 68.9 

percent of the population, followed by African 

Americans at 18.8 percent. American Indians, 

Asians, Native Hawaiians, and Other Pacific 

Islanders made up the remaining 12.3 percent. 

Individuals 65 years old and over comprised 

4.8 percent of the population. 

Based on a review of Prince William County 

Geographic Information Systems information 

and aerial photography, there are 

approximately 70 to 75 residential homes that 

are within the park boundaries or that require 

access through the park boundaries to access 

their property. The Battlefield Bypass study 

identified 37 private in-holdings in Prince 

William County and 17 private in-holdings in 

Fairfax County (FHWA 2002). In addition to 

the in-holdings, which refer to privately owned 

properties that are either fully or partially 

located within the legislative boundaries of the 

park, there are approximately 20 private 

landowners that require use of state and U.S. 

routes in the park to access their properties. 

ECONOMY 3

In terms of earnings, the service sector of the 

economy is by far the most important for the 

local region and the state as a whole. However, 

the closer a jurisdiction is to Washington, D.C., 

the more important the federal government 

sector becomes to earnings. 

Between 1999 and 2000, median household 

income in Virginia increased by 4.3 percent, to 

$46,789. In Prince William County, income 

increased by 6.9 percent, to $67,466, while 

Fairfax County income increased 8.1 percent, 

to $84,009. 

The trade, transportation, and utilities 

industrial category employed the largest 

portions of the state’s workforce in 2000 at 

18.5 percent. Government employed 17.8 

percent of the workforce, and professional and 

business services employed 16.2 percent. 

EMPLOYMENT 

The Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince 

William County area of northern Virginia 

contained nearly 25.6 percent of the state’s 

workforce in 2000. One measure of an area’s 

social and economic well-being is 

 

3 Source for all data: the Virginia Employment Commission 

website: http://velma.virtuallmi.com/ 
Socioeconomic Environment 

107 

unemployment. This statistic measures the 

number of people that were available for work 

and were unable to find suitable work. In 2000, 

the unemployment rate for Virginia (2.7 

percent) was below that of the country as a 

whole (3.7 percent). The unemployment rates 

for each of the political units that make up the 

local region ranged from 1.6 percent to 2.8 

percent. For the affected area, the employment 

situation was better than it was for the country 

or state. 

PER CAPITA INCOME 

Personal income is a commonly used measure 

of the purchasing power available to the 

residents of a geopolitical unit. Prince William 

County together with Manassas and Manassas 

Park (average per capita income of $29,967 in 

2000) were somewhat behind the state average 

of $31,120 and slightly higher than the country 

as a whole (average per capita income of 

$29,469). Bureau of Economic Analysis data 

show that for 2000, except for Prince William 

County, Manassas, and Manassas Park, the 

local area had per capita incomes ranging from 

$40,290 to $51,227, which is substantially 

higher than the rest of the state and the nation 

in terms of per capita personal income. 

POVERTY 

The poverty rate is another measure of the 

economic and social well-being of an area. In 

2000, the percent of persons living below the 

poverty level within the affected area ranged 

from 2.8 percent to 7.8 percent. Throughout 

the affected area, the percentage of persons 

living below the official poverty level in 2000 

was substantially lower than the state (9.6 

percent) and national (12.4 percent) averages. 

Growing population, growth in industry 

earnings, relatively high per capita incomes, 

and relatively low unemployment and poverty 

rates all indicate that the affected area has a 

vigorous, robust economy supporting a stable 

social environment. 
108 

RECREATION 

The battles, location, historic resources, and 

historic significance of Manassas National 

Battlefield Park make it unique among the 

many parks and recreational areas of the 

affected region. The Henry Hill walking tour is 

the primary way that visitors experience the 

Battle of First Manassas, while the park’s 

driving tour is the primary way for people to 

experience the Battle of Second Manassas. The 

park also features walking, hiking, and 

horseback riding facilities. 

Picnicking and hiking are available at the 400-

acre Conway Robinson Memorial State Forest, 

which is 1/4 mile west of the park. In addition, 

there are numerous other parks and recreation 

facilities within the local area that provide a 

wide variety of public recreational 

opportunities. 

Bull Run Regional Park, operated by the 

Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority, is 

approximately 4 miles east of the Henry Hill 

visitor center. This facility features a broad 

range of recreational activities, and accommodates large groups’ special events. 
109 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Resources available for visitor use include one 

visitor center, one visitor contact station, a 

picnic area, 5,071 acres of battlefield park, 12 

miles of tour road, 150 interpretive park signs, 

21 miles of hiking trails, and 23 miles of bridle 

trails. 

VISITATION USE AND PATTERNS 

The visitor use and patterns of use described in 

this section provide background for 

understanding levels of use and impacts of this 

use on the park’s resources. Visitor use data 

have been collected for many years. 

Recreational visits for 2003 depicted in Table 

3-2 are indicative of the normal park visitation 

patterns at Manassas National Battlefield Park. 

The park is open all year. 

Visitation at most parks is seasonal, with the 

lowest level of use in the winter and the highest 

in the summer. Spring and autumn are usually 

seasons of transition, with use going up in the 

spring and down in the fall. However, 

visitation patterns at Manassas National 

Battlefield Park differ from this typical model. 

Summer visitation is considerably higher than 

winter visitation. However, pleasant weather, 

combined with spring blossoms or autumn 

foliage, create peak visitation during spring and 

fall weekends. 

Annual visitor use figures are presented in 

Table 3-3. Annual visitor use at the park 

fluctuates from year to year. While it has 

increased slightly, visitation has generally been 

stable. A similar trend is expected in the future. 

VISITOR PROFILE 

Three general categories of visitors at the 

Manassas National Battlefield Park are as 

follows: 

• General visitors—These people usually 

have limited specific interests in, or 

knowledge of, the battles. They visit the 

park to gain a general understanding of the 

park’s significance. These visitors usually 

spend less than two hours in the park, 

mostly at the visitor center and the Henry 

Hill area. 

• Historical visitors—These individuals have 

a good understanding of the overall 

significance of the battles, and they are 

looking to examine and understand the 

actions and details of the two battles. They 

will spend about five hours in the park 

touring the battle sites. 

• Recreational visitors—This people are 

seeking recreational experiences such as 

cross-country skiing, fishing, hiking, 

horseback riding, jogging, nature study, 

picnicking, and sledding. They usually 

Table 3-2: Visitor Use for 20031

Month Recreation Visits 

January 20,033 

February 24,609 

March 82,093 

April 146,231 

May 93,407 

June 50,962 

July 54,314 

August 118,450 

September 64,394 

October 36,462 

November 36,457 

December 32,541 

Total 759,953 

Source: National Park Service, Public Use Statistics Program 

Center, PSPC-WASO, available on the Internet at 

www2.nature.nps.gov/stats/. 

1Non-recreation visits were reported as a constant 40 per 

month for an annual total of 480 non-recreational visits. These 

numbers, respectively, would be added to the monthly and 

yearly figures to obtain total visits for a particular month or the 

year.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

110 

come to the park on spring, summer, and 

fall weekends and holidays. 

As described above, the heaviest use of the 

park occurs during fall and spring weekends. 

At these times, local use increases dramatically. 

Seasonal variations are as follows: 

• Spring: heaviest use occurs on weekends 

and is usually concentrated around Stone 

Bridge, the visitor center, and the 

surrounding area. Increased use by seniors 

and school groups occurs, as well as more 

use by hikers, joggers, and picnickers. 

• Summer: family groups on extended 

vacations dominate the park. Peak daily 

use occurs between the hours of 11:00 a.m. 

and 4:00 p.m. The heaviest use is on the 

weekends. 

• Fall: senior citizen and organized tour use 

increases, especially in October. Use is 

concentrated on weekends. Area residents 

make increased use of the park for 

recreational activities. 

• Winter: visitation is the lightest of any 

season. Area residents and business 

commuters predominate during this 

period. Heaviest use occurs during periods 

of snowfall, when cross-country skiing, 

sledding, and snow play are the main 

attractions. 

PROJECTION OF FUTURE USE 

A variety of factors affects park use. 

Forecasting visitor use is subject to a high 

probability of error because the method 

generally used is simplistic, relatively few data 

points are available to establish the trend, and 

there is no cause and effect relationship 

between past use, future use, and extraneous 

variables beyond the control of the National 

Park Service. In addition, the high levels of 

non-park vehicular traffic on U.S. Route 29 

and VA Route 234 preclude accurate counts of 

park-related traffic. Based on historical data, it 

is assumed that visitation would probably 

increase over the long term. This pattern also 

reflects the general trend for most national 

park system units. 

Table 3-3: Annual Visitor Use, 

1983 to 2003 

Year 

Recreation 

Visits1

NonRecreation 

Visits2

Total 

Visits 

2003 759,953 480 760,433 

2002 779,147 480 779,627 

2001 822,684 480 823,164 

2000 692,006 480 692,486 

1999 815,338 480 815,818 

1998 972,709 480 973,189 

1997 1,025,826 480 1,026,306

1996 725,086 480 725,566 

1995 676,087 480 676,567 

1994 917,534 480 918,014 

1993 614,897 480 615,377 

1992 867,606 480 868,086 

1991 905,485 480 905,965 

1990 799,972 480 800,452 

1989 767,138 480 767,619 

1988 778,861 420 779,281 

1987 667,014 No data collected 667,014 

1986 793,274 No data collected 793,274 

1985 723,998 No data collected 723,998 

1984 703,100 No data collected 703,100 

1983 720,754 No data collected 720,754 

Source: National Park Service, Public Use Statistics Program 

Center, PSPC-WASO, available on the Internet at 

(www2.nature.nps.gov/stats/)

1 Recreation visits are the entries of persons, for any part of a 

day, onto lands or waters administered by the National Park 

Service for recreation purposes. 

2

 Non-recreation visits are entries of persons going to and from 

in-holdings, trades people with business in the park, non-NPS 

personnel (such as guides) pursuing a gainful business, and other 

non-NPS entries for purposes other than recreational pursuits. 
111 

PARK OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 

Manassas National Battlefield Park had a base 

operating budget of approximately $2,526,500 

in Fiscal Year 2004 and a work force of 29 

permanent positions and 9 seasonal positions. 

This work force was supplemented in 2004 by 

approximately 11,900 hours (more than 5.8 

full-time-equivalents) of Volunteers-in-Parks 

service. The park’s base budget in Fiscal Year 

2004 was supplemented by approximately 

$6,000 of donated funds and $163,300 fee 

enhancement funds from entrance fees. 

Management staff includes the superintendent 

and cultural and natural resources managers. 

Staff is organized into four operating divisions: 

Interpretation, Visitor Protection, Maintenance, and Administration. Staff expertise and 

specialties include one museum curator, one 

historian, one natural resource program 

manager/geographical positioning system 

specialist, one computer specialist, and two 

exhibit specialists. This staff is supplemented 

and/or supported using special project funds, 

contracts, and/or the assistance or expertise of 

various NPS entities and other organizations, 

as available. 

Park administration structures include 

• one visitor center 

• one visitor contact station 

• one central maintenance facility 

• park headquarters 

• one law enforcement office building 

• one horse barn 

• one hay barn/fire cache building 

• one tack building 

• one resource management building 

• three employee housing units 

The park includes 4.65 miles of paved and 7.6 

miles of unpaved roadways and two picnic 

areas. Additional information on the park 

operations is available from the Annual 

Performance Plan for the Manassas National 

Battlefield Park, which can be obtained at 

http://www.nps.gov/mana/administration/ 

GPRA%202003/gpra2003.htm. 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

115 

INTRODUCTION 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

mandates that environmental impact statements disclose the potential environmental 

consequences of a proposed federal action. In 

this case, the proposed federal action would be 

the adoption of one of the alternatives 

described in this General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement for Manassas 

National Battlefield Park. This chapter 

describes the potential impacts associated with 

the three alternatives. By assessing the 

environmental consequences of all the 

alternatives on an equivalent basis, the 

National Park Service and other decisionmakers can decide which alternative creates 

the most desirable combination of beneficial 

results with the fewest adverse effects on the 

environment. 

The environmental consequences associated 

with the proposed actions are analyzed on a 

qualitative level because of the general nature 

of the alternatives and proposed actions. Thus, 

this environmental impact statement should be 

considered a programmatic analysis. 

Future implementation proposals would be 

tiered (procedurally connected) to this broadscale General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement, and 

additional planning and environmental 

analysis would be conducted in accordance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act, 

Director’s Order #12, the NPS’ Management 

Policies, and other regulations. This situation is 

especially true for the transportation 

improvements (controlled access measures) 

and cultural landscape rehabilitation (forest 

removal and revegetation) described under 

alternatives B and C. As a result, the analysis in 

this document is designed to provide the park 

superintendent with general management 

direction. 

METHODOLOGY FOR 

ASSESSING IMPACTS 

Potential impacts are described in terms of 

type (beneficial or adverse), context (sitespecific, local, or regional), direct versus 

indirect, duration (short-term or long-term), 

and intensity (negligible, minor, moderate, or 

major). Clarification of each of these concepts 

is provided below. 

Impact Type 

For each impact topic, the effects of the 

proposed action could be either adverse or 

beneficial. In some cases, the actions could 

result in both adverse and beneficial impacts 

for the same impact topic. 

Intensity 

This evaluation used the approach for defining 

intensity (or magnitude) for an impact as 

presented in Director’s Order #12. Each 

impact was determined to be negligible, minor, 

moderate, or major. For each impact topic, the 

criteria defining the thresholds for each 

intensity level were determined. Most of the 

intensities are expressed qualitatively because 

this General Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement is a programmatic document. 

Context 

The context of each impact is described in 

terms of site-specific, local, or regional. For 

instance, the construction of a new visitor 

center may have site-specific adverse impacts 

to terrestrial resources while the reduction in 

commuter traffic in the park would have 

localized benefits to the visitor experience. 

Duration 

The planning horizon for this General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement is approximately 20 years. In general,
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

116 

impacts that occur within one year or less were 

classified as short-term. Long-term effects 

would last for more than one year. Duration 

definitions are provided for each impact topic. 

Direct Versus Indirect Impacts 

Direct impacts are those caused by an action at 

the same time and place as the action. Indirect 

impacts are reasonably foreseeable but occur 

later in time, at another place, or to another 

resource. An example of difference involves 

the removal of vegetation (direct impact), 

which would cause soil erosion and 

sedimentation, thus affecting the water quality 

(indirect impact) of a nearby waterway. 

Impairment to Park Resources and Values 

The NPS’ Management Policies require analysis 

of potential effects to determine whether 

actions would impair park resources. NPS 

managers must always seek ways to avoid or 

minimize, to the greatest degree practicable, 

adversely impacting park resources and values. 

Laws regarding the management of national 

park system units give the National Park 

Service the management discretion to allow 

impacts to park resources and values when 

necessary and appropriate to fulfill the 

purposes of a park. Although Congress has 

given the National Park Service the 

management discretion to allow certain 

impacts, that discretion is limited by the 

statutory requirement that the National Park 

Service must leave park resources and values 

unimpaired, unless a particular law directly 

and specifically provides otherwise. 

Any impact to any park resource or value could 

constitute an impairment. However, an impact 

would be more likely to constitute an impairment if it has a major or severe adverse effect 

on a resource or value whose conservation is 

• necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation or 

proclamation of the park 

• key to the natural or cultural integrity of 

the park 

• identified as a goal in the park’s general 

management plan or other relevant 

National Park Service planning documents 

Impairment may result from NPS activities in 

managing the park, visitor activities, or 

activities undertaken by concessioners, 

contractors, and others operating in the park. 

A determination on impairment is made for 

most impact topics, consistent with Sections 

1.4.5 and 1.4.7.1 of the NPS’ Management 

Policies. A determination of impairment is not 

required for visitor experience (unless the 

impact is resource-based), transportation, 

socioeconomics, and park operations. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations, which implement the National 

Environmental Policy Act, require assessment 

of cumulative impacts in the decision-making 

process for federal projects. Cumulative 

impacts are defined as “the impact on the 

environment that 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” (40 Code of Federal Regulations

1508.7). Cumulative impacts are considered for 

all alternatives and are presented at the end of 

each impact topic analysis. 

Cumulative impacts are evaluated in a regional 

context, which varies by impact topic. 

Cumulative effects were determined by 

combining the impacts of the proposed action 

with other past, present, and reasonable 

foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts 

can result from individually minor but 

collectively significant actions occurring over a 

period of time. Therefore, it was necessary to 

identify other ongoing or foreseeable future 

projects at Manassas National Battlefield Park 

and, as necessary, the surrounding region. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT SCENARIO 

As part of the analysis and consideration of 

potential cumulative impacts, other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable projects 
Introduction 

117 

were identified. For each project, the National 

Park Service considered the potential 

cumulative effect when combined with the 

potential impacts of actions and management 

decisions proposed in this General 

Management Plan. A brief overview of other 

ongoing or past studies and pending projects in 

the immediate area follows. Projects that have 

the potential for cumulative effects are 

discussed further in the impact analysis. 

Projects with Potential 

Cumulative Impacts 

Manassas National Battlefield Park Bypass 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(Battlefield Bypass Study) 

U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 transect the 

Manassas National Battlefield Park. The 

volume of commuter traffic that uses these 

roads has resulted in traffic safety and 

congestion problems, adverse impacts to 

visitor experience, and problems for basic park 

operations. In response to the conflicting uses 

of roads within the park, Congress passed the 

Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Amendments of 1988, requiring the study of 

alternatives to the current situation. 

That legislation served as the impetus for the 

Battlefield Bypass study described in the 

“Purpose of and Need for the Plan” section. 

The Battlefield Bypass study analyzes the 

impacts of relocating both U.S. Route 29 and 

VA Route 234 from their current locations 

within the park, and includes analysis of all 

elements leading to the preparation of an 

environmental impact statement. These 

include, but are not limited to, traffic modeling 

and evaluations, cultural resource evaluations, 

socioeconomic evaluations, natural resource 

evaluations, and alternatives development. 

The Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Amendments of 1988 and Federal Highway 

Administration policy required the Prince 

William and Fairfax County Boards of 

Supervisors and the Commonwealth 

Transportation Board to approve a bypass 

alternative. All of these entities approved 

Alternative D, modified. The Federal Highway 

Administration and National Park Service are 

preparing a final environmental impact 

statement and record of decision. 

Approval of the Battlefield Bypass by the 

Commonwealth Transportation Board was 

contingent on the mitigation of traffic impacts 

resulting from the closure of U.S. Route 29 and 

VA Route 234 within the park. The Board’s 

concerns included the impact on emergency 

access if the bridge over Bull Run on U.S. 

Route 29 was removed. 

To address this concern, the preferred 

alternative was modified. The modern highway 

bridge on U.S. Route 29 would be removed, 

and a new bridge would be constructed south 

of the existing bridge in a location with fewer 

adverse impacts on the cultural landscape, 

visitor experience, and interpretation. A 

detailed discussion of the changes to 

alternative B has been incorporated into the 

chapter of this document entitled “Alternatives 

including the Preferred Alternative.” The 

environmental impacts and costs of the new 

access road and bridge are addressed in this 

document (see the “Environmental 

Consequences” section and appendix D) 

because these facilities would be within park 

boundaries. However, because these changes 

are related to mitigation measures associated 

with the Battlefield Bypass study, 

implementation of these actions would occur 

in conjunction with the development of the 

Battlefield Bypass. Further information on the 

Battlefield Bypass can be found on the Internet 

at http://www.battlefieldbypass.com. 

I-66 Multimodal Transportation and 

Environmental Study (I-66 Study) 

Interstate 66 runs east-west through northern 

Virginia and is immediately south of Manassas 

National Battlefield Park. The Virginia 

Department of Transportation and the 

Department of Rail and Public Transportation 

have initiated the I-66 study for improving 

mobility along the I-66 corridor from just west 

of the I-66/I-495 (Capital Beltway) interchange 

in Fairfax County to the I-66/U.S. Route 15 

interchange near Haymarket in Prince William 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

118 

County. An earlier major investment study 

selected multimodal transportation 

improvements in the I-66 corridor to enhance 

safety while providing increased capacity for 

current and projected future travel demands. 

The current I-66 study will examine 

configurations and locations of improvements 

to the I-66 travel lanes; Metrorail; commuter 

and local bus service, transit stations, and 

parking; and other facilities. The Federal 

Highway Administration and the Federal 

Transit Administration, acting as joint lead 

federal agencies, are working with the Virginia 

Department of Transportation and the 

Virginia Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation to prepare an environmental 

impact statement as required by and in 

accordance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act. Further information on this project 

can be found on the Internet at 

http://www.infoi66.com. 

Tri-County Parkway Location Study and 

Environmental Impact Statement (TriCounty Parkway Study) 

The Virginia Department of Transportation 

has completed a draft environmental impact 

statement and location study for a new 

roadway, referred to as the Tri-County 

Parkway. The Virginia Department of 

Transportation started this study in 2002 to 

evaluate a new north-south transportation link 

in northern Virginia to connect the City of 

Manassas with I-66 and the Loudoun County 

Parkway in the Dulles area. 

On November 17, 2005, the Commonwealth 

Transportation Board approved the “West 2” 

alignment for the Tri-County Parkway. This 

alignment runs essentially parallel to the 

Battlefield Bypass Alternative D, modified, 

along the west side of the battlefield. 

Now that the Commonwealth Transportation 

Board has selected an alternative for the TriCounty Parkway west of the park, Virginia 

Department of Transportation, National Park 

Service, and Federal Highway Administration 

are working closely to design one roadway 

from I-66 to VA Route 234 north of the park 

that will accommodate the bypass and the TriCounty Parkway within one right-of-way. 

Virginia Route 234 Bypass North 

During the 1990s, the Virginia Department of 

Transportation conducted a study to plan the 

alignment and construction of a bypass for VA 

Route 234 around the City of Manassas. The 

proposed route would run west of the park, 

rejoining VA Route 234 north of the park at 

Catharpin. During preparation of the 

environmental impact statement for this 

project, budgetary and other concerns forced 

the Virginia Department of Transportation to 

cease work on the northern portion of the 

route, and to construct only the portion south 

of I-66. The resumption of the northern 

portion of the VA Route 234 bypass is a matter 

of continued discussion and planning. 

Stuart’s Hill Tract Rehabilitation 

and Picnic Area Construction 

The Stuart’s Hill Tract rehabilitation and 

picnic area construction project was a 

collaborative effort between the National Park 

Service and the Smithsonian Institution. The 

Stuart’s Hill Tract was acquired in 1988 by the 

National Park Service. Part of that tract 

included an area where a private developer had 

begun alterations for a mixed-use community 

that drastically altered the landscape. 

Alterations included the establishment of an 

entrance road, re-contouring of the area, and 

establishment of a drainage network. 

The Stuart’s Hill Tract rehabilitation project 

entailed returning previously disturbed areas 

to their historic grades, creating wetlands, 

replanting native vegetation, and developing a 

new picnic facility and area. The wetland 

creation part of the project served as 

compensatory wetland mitigation for the 

Smithsonian Institution, for wetland impacts 

associated with the National Air and Space 

Museum’s Udvar-Hazy Center near 

Washington-Dulles International Airport. 
119 

IMPACTS ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 

AIR QUALITY 

Methodology 

The impact assessment for air quality focused 

on changes to the levels of air emission from 

the proposed actions under each alternative. 

The analysis also considered the physical 

impacts associated with any new 

developmental plans and anticipated visitor 

uses. The context of the evaluation was 

Manassas National Battlefield Park and 

immediate surrounding area. 

For this programmatic study, the impacts 

discussed are qualitative. The potential impacts 

on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

and other impacts outside the park associated 

with the closure of U.S. Route 29 and VA 

Route 234 to commuter and commercial traffic 

are included in the Battlefield Bypass study 

described above. For the purposes of this 

document, it is estimated that more than 95 

percent of the park’s traffic volume is 

attributable to “through” trips that do not 

include a stop in the park. 

Definition of Intensity Levels 

Analyses of the potential intensity levels of 

impacts resulting from each alternative on air 

quality were derived from the information 

available from Prince William County and 

regional agencies in northern Virginia. 

Definitions for the thresholds of change for the 

intensity of impacts on air quality are as 

follows: 

• Negligible: The impact is localized and not 

measurable or at the lowest level of 

detection. 

• Minor: The impact is localized and slight 

but detectable. The impact would have no 

effect on the ability to comply with 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

• Moderate: The impact is readily apparent 

and appreciable. The impact could have an 

effect in the area on the ability to comply 

with National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards.

• Major: The impact is severe and highly 

noticeable. The impact would have an 

effect on the ability to comply with 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

• Duration: A short-term impact would last 

less than one year and would affect only 

one season’s use by visitors or the length of 

construction activities. A long-term impact 

would last more than one year and would 

be more permanent in nature. 

Alternative A—Continuing Current 

Management Practices (No-Action) 

Under the no-action alternative, there would 

be no change in the region’s levels of emission 

from vehicular traffic at the Manassas National 

Battlefield Park or surrounding area. The noaction alternative would not change any 

county’s ability to comply with the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards. Local impacts 

on air quality presently exist from emissions 

generated during rush hours from traffic 

congestion at the intersection of U.S. Route 29 

and VA Route 234. Over time, the local 

emission levels would be expected to increase; 

however, levels would increase only slightly 

because the intersection is at or near its 

operational capacity. These existing conditions 

have a localized adverse impact on air quality 

in the park. The impact is long-term and 

negligible. 

Cumulative Impacts. A number of past, 

present, and pending road and other 

construction projects in close vicinity to 

Manassas National Battlefield Park have the 

potential to produce short-term adverse 

impacts on air quality from fugitive dust and 

emissions during construction. In the long 

term, the air quality impacts depend on the 

final route selection and designs for each 

project. However, for the purposes of 

evaluating the cumulative impact scenario, it is 

assumed that there would be a negligible 

impact on air quality in the vicinity of 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

120 

Manassas National Battlefield Park. This 

would occur because traffic is only being 

rerouted from U.S. Route 29, VA Route 234, 

and other roads, and there would be lower 

emissions generated from shorter delays at 

intersections. 

The incremental impact associated with 

implementation of alternative A would be 

expected to be small. The increased emissions 

levels under alternative A, when combined 

with other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects, such as pending 

road construction projects, would be expected 

to have a moderate short-term adverse 

cumulative impact on air quality in the vicinity 

of Manassas National Battlefield Park. 

Conclusion. Negligible long-term adverse 

impacts on air quality would continue along 

the VA Route 234 and U.S. Route 29 corridors. 

Adverse cumulative impacts would be moderate; however, the incremental contribution 

of Alternate A would be small. Because there 

would be no major adverse impact to resources 

or values, there would be no impairment of the 

park’s resources or values. 

Alternative B—The Two Battles Of 

Manassas (Preferred Alternative) 

Removal to the bridge over Bull Run on U.S. 

Route 29, the construction of a new bridge and 

access road, other construction-related 

activities associated with improving visitor 

services, and landscape rehabilitation under 

alternative B would have a localized adverse 

impact on air quality as a result of fugitive dust, 

particulates, and emissions produced by 

construction equipment. This impact would be 

short-term and minor because the amount of 

disturbed area at any given time would be 

relatively small. Forest removal operations are 

expected to be conducted in phases, which 

would limit the amount and extent of 

construction activity occurring at any time. 

Some fugitive dust, particulates, and emissions 

produced by construction equipment would 

still be in the air to some degree despite the 

mitigation measures of using low-polluting fuel 

and having pollution control devices installed 

on the construction equipment. The adverse 

impact would be short-term and negligible 

because the projects are limited in areal extent 

and because best management practices (such 

as watering and seeding for erosion control) 

would be implemented to reduce 

construction-related impacts. 

Closure of roads through the park to heavy 

commuter traffic would result in a long-term 

negligible improvement in local air quality 

along those road corridors within the park. 

Rerouted traffic would contribute to emissions 

along roads outside the park. Emissions 

outside park boundaries are considered as part 

of the Battlefield Bypass study. The 

redistribution of vehicular traffic would not be 

expected to have an adverse impact on any 

jurisdiction’s ability to comply with National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards; therefore, the 

adverse impacts to air quality in the region 

would be expected to be minor and long-term. 

The magnitude of impacts on air quality 

outside the park resulting from redistributing 

the commuter and commercial traffic is being 

evaluated as part of the Battlefield Bypass 

study, but this impact on air quality is 

anticipated to be minor long-term and adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts. The constructionrelated activities and forest removal operations 

under alternative B, when combined with 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future projects such as the Manassas National 

Battlefield Park Bypass, I-66 improvements, 

and Tri-County Parkway, would have an 

adverse cumulative impact on air quality. 

Traffic congestion and fugitive dust during 

construction would add to the localized shortterm impact on air quality. The incremental 

impact associated with implementation of any 

of the proposed activities under alternative B 

would be expected to be small and would not 

have a noticeable contribution to the 

cumulative impact. 

The magnitude of the impact on air quality 

resulting from the other road improvement 

projects and redistribution of commuter and 

commercial traffic outside the park is being 
Impacts on the Natural Environment 

121 

evaluated in more detail as part of the 

Battlefield Bypass study and the Tri-County 

Parkway study. The cumulative impact 

depends on the final route selection. However, 

the impact is likely to be minor long-term and 

adverse; therefore, the overall cumulative 

impact would likely be minor. 

Conclusion. Negligible to minor short-term 

adverse impacts to air quality in the park 

would occur periodically during construction 

activities and landscape rehabilitation. In the 

long term, there would be a localized reduction 

in traffic-related air pollutants along the 

portions of U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 

within the park, a negligible beneficial impact. 

The magnitude of impacts on air quality 

resulting from redistributing the commuter 

and commercial traffic outside the park is 

being evaluated as part of the ongoing 

Battlefield Bypass study. This long-term impact 

is anticipated to be adverse and minor. 

Cumulative impact on air quality would be 

adverse and minor. 

Additional mitigation measures could further 

minimize the construction-related short-term 

impacts to air quality. Such measures could 

include, but are not limited to, dust control, 

pollution control devices on construction 

equipment, and the use of low-polluting fuels. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

impacts on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the Secretary of 

Interior’s order establishing Manassas 

National Battlefield Park; (2) key to its natural 

or cultural integrity or to opportunities for its 

enjoyment; or (3) identified as a goal in its 

general management plan or other relevant 

National Park Service planning documents, the 

park’s resources or values would not be 

impaired. 

Alternative C—The Defining 

Moments of the Battles of Manassas 

Relocating the visitor center off Henry Hill to a 

new location to the southeast of Stone Bridge 

would have similar construction-related 

impacts to that of alternative B except the 

footprint and magnitude of construction 

would be larger. Fugitive dust, particulates, 

and emissions produced by construction 

equipment would have short-term minor 

adverse impacts on air quality. In the long 

term, the new visitor center and other 

improvements proposed under alternative C 

would have negligible to minor adverse 

impacts on air quality because the projects are 

small in areal extent and best management 

practices (such as watering and seeding for 

erosion control) would be implemented to 

reduce construction-related impacts. 

The type of impacts for forest removal 

operations would be similar to those described 

under alternative B, although the extent of 

forest removal would be smaller. There would 

be a localized short-term decrease in air quality 

as a result of dust, particulates, and emissions 

produced by construction equipment. This 

impact would be negligible because the 

disturbed area would be relatively small. Forest 

removal operations are expected to be done in 

phases, which would limit the amount and 

extent of construction activities occurring at 

any time. 

Closure of roads through the park to heavy 

commuter traffic would result in a long-term 

negligible improvement in local air quality 

along those road corridors within the park. 

Rerouted traffic would contribute to emissions 

along roads outside the park, which is being 

considered as part of the Battlefield Bypass 

study. The redistribution of vehicular traffic 

would not be expected to have an adverse 

impact on the County’s ability to comply with 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards; 

therefore, the adverse impacts to air quality in 

the region would be expected to be minor and 

long-term. 

Cumulative Impacts. The cumulative impacts 

would be the same as described for alternative 

B. The construction-related activities and 

forest removal operations under alternative C, 

when combined with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects such as 

Manassas National Battlefield Park Bypass, I66 Improvements, and Tri-County Parkway, 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

122 

would have an adverse cumulative impact on 

air quality. Traffic congestion and fugitive dust 

during construction would add to the localized 

and short-term impacts on air quality. The 

incremental impact associated with 

implementation of any of the proposed 

activities under alternative C would be 

expected to be small and would not have a 

noticeable contribution to the cumulative 

impact. 

The magnitude of impacts on air quality 

resulting from the other road improvement 

projects and redistributing the commuter and 

commercial traffic outside the park is being 

evaluated in more detail as part of the 

Battlefield Bypass study and the Tri-County 

Parkway Study. The cumulative impact 

depends on the final route selection. However, 

the impact is likely to be minor, long-term and 

adverse; therefore, the overall cumulative 

impact would likely be minor. 

Conclusion. Impacts to local air quality during 

construction and landscape rehabilitation 

would range from negligible to minor, and 

would be short-term and adverse. Closure of 

U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 to commuter 

and commercial traffic would result in a 

localized reduction in vehicle-related air 

pollutants along the portions of these routes 

that fall within park boundaries. The result 

would be a negligible long-term beneficial 

impact to air quality within the park. The 

potential effects of rerouting traffic from the 

road closures are discussed in more detail in 

the Battlefield Bypass study. This long-term 

impact is anticipated to be adverse and minor. 

Cumulative impacts on air quality would be 

adverse and minor. 

Additional mitigation measures could further 

minimize the construction-related short-term 

impacts to air quality. Such measures could 

include (but are not limited to) dust control, 

pollution control devices on construction 

equipment, and the use of low polluting fuels. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

impacts on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the Secretary of 

Interior’s order establishing Manassas 

National Battlefield Park; (2) key to its natural 

or cultural integrity or to opportunities for its 

enjoyment; or (3) identified as a goal in its 

general management plan or other relevant 

National Park Service planning documents, the 

park’s resources or values would not be 

impaired. 

SOUNDSCAPE 

Methodology 

The NPS’ Management Policies state that the 

National Park Service will strive to preserve 

the natural quiet and natural sounds associated 

with the physical and biological resources of 

parks. Section 4.9 of Management Policies

requires the rehabilitation of degraded 

soundscapes to the natural condition 

whenever possible, and the protection of 

natural soundscapes from degradation because 

of noise (undesirable human-caused sound). 

The National Park Service is specifically 

directed to “take action to prevent or minimize 

all noise that, through frequency, magnitude, 

or duration, adversely affects the natural 

soundscape or other park resources or values, 

or that exceeds levels that have been identified 

as being acceptable to, or appropriate for, 

visitor uses at the sites being monitored” 

(Management Policies, Section 4.9). 

Noise can adversely affect park resources by 

modifying or intruding on the natural 

soundscape, and can also indirectly impact 

resources by interfering with sounds important 

for animal communication, navigation, mating, 

nurturing, predation, and foraging functions. 

Noise can also adversely impact park visitor 

experiences by intruding on or disrupting 

experiences of solitude, serenity, tranquility, 

contemplation, or a completely natural or 

historical environment. The methodology used 

to assess noise impacts in this document is 

consistent with the NPS’ Management Policies 

and Director’s Order #47, Soundscape 

Preservation and Noise Management. 
Impacts on the Natural Environment 

123 

Definition of Intensity Levels 

Analyses of the potential intensity levels of 

impacts on the soundscape were derived from 

the available literature on the Manassas 

National Battlefield Park. The thresholds of 

change for the intensity of impacts on 

soundscape are defined as follows: 

• Negligible: Effects on the natural sound 

environment would be at or below the 

level of detection and such changes would 

be so slight that they would not be of any 

measurable or perceptible consequence to 

the visitor experience or to biological 

resources. 

• Minor: Effects on the natural sound 

environment would be detectable, 

although the effects would be localized, 

and would be small and of little 

consequence to the visitor experience or to 

biological resources. 

• Moderate: Effects on the natural sound 

environment would be readily detectable 

and localized, with consequences to the 

visitor experience or to biological 

resources at the regional level. 

• Major: Effects on the natural sound 

environment would be obvious and would 

have substantial consequences to the 

visitor experience or to biological 

resources in the region. 

• Duration: A short-term impact would last 

less than one year and would affect only 

one season’s use by visitors or the length of 

construction activities. A long-term impact 

would last more than one year and would 

be more permanent in nature. 

Alternative A—Continuing Current 

Management Practices (No-Action) 

Under the no-action alternative, U.S. Route 29 

and VA Route 234 would remain open to 

commuter and commercial traffic through the 

park. The battlefield and historic resources 

along U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 would 

continue to be adversely affected from noise 

generated from vehicular traffic. 

When noise levels were compared to land-use 

compatibility guidelines, the noise levels were 

found to be above the generally accepted 

threshold for cultural activities and city parks. 

The desired soundscape of a battlefield setting 

is tranquil, peaceful, and still. This setting is 

desired to allow the visitor to imagine the 

series of historical events that took place on 

the battlefield. The noise from vehicular traffic 

compromises this setting and the visitor 

experience. Over the next 20 years, this 

condition and noise level may worsen as traffic 

levels on I-66, U.S. Route 29, and VA Route 

234 increase. Therefore, the no-action 

alternative would have a moderate long-term 

adverse impact on the park’s soundscape. 

Cumulative Impacts. Other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects, such as 

the proposed road projects described in the 

cumulative impact scenario, would have shortterm adverse impacts on the soundscape from 

construction activities and long-term adverse 

impacts from noise generated by vehicles on 

the new roads. When these noise impacts were 

combined with the noise impacts from 

vehicular traffic at the park, the cumulative 

adverse impact would be long-term moderate 

and adverse. 

If the roads were not closed to local commuter 

traffic, as is the case under alternative A, the 

Manassas National Battlefield Bypass and 

other regional road projects would be 

expected to displace some of the traffic on U.S. 

Route 29 and VA Route 234 to other roads. 

This displacement would lessen traffic in some 

areas, but would not reduce traffic levels on 

the park roads to the extent that noise would 

be reduced to acceptable levels. Therefore, the 

noise generated from traffic would be 

expected to continue if the National Park 

Service did not restrict use of the roads. 

The overall cumulative impact to noise would 

be expected to be moderate, with the noaction alternative incremental contribution 

being moderate. However, the degree of the 

impact is dependent on the outcome of each 

road project. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

124 

Conclusion. Noise generated from traffic on 

U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 during peak 

travel periods would continue to have a 

moderate long-term adverse impact on the 

park’s soundscape. A moderate long-term 

adverse cumulative impact would occur. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

impacts to resources or values, there would be 

no impairment of the park’s resources or 

values. 

Alternative B—The Two Battles 

of Manassas (Preferred Alternative) 

Removal of the bridge over Bull Run on U.S. 

Route 29, the construction of the new bridge 

and access, and other construction-related 

activities associated with improving visitor 

services under alternative B would have a 

localized adverse impact on the soundscape 

caused by noise generated by construction 

equipment and activities. The adverse impact 

would be short-term and negligible. Long-term 

adverse impacts on the soundscape from the 

new contact station and other small projects 

would be negligible because park visitation, 

visitor patterns, and use would not increase to 

a point that would have a noticeable effect on 

the soundscape. 

Under alternative B, the National Park Service 

would control access would restrict commuter 

and commercial traffic on U.S. Route 29 and 

VA Route 234. The controlled access would 

greatly lower the traffic volumes on the roads. 

In addition, speed limits within the park would 

be reduced to 25 miles per hour. As a result, 

noise levels generated from vehicular and 

truck traffic would also be reduced. 

The controlled access and reduced speeds 

would help achieve the desired soundscape of 

the park. The desired soundscape of a 

battlefield is tranquil, peaceful, and still, where 

visitors can imagine the series of historical 

events that took place on the battlefield. Thus, 

the road closures and reduced speeds would 

have a moderate long-term beneficial impact 

on the soundscape of the park. Controlled 

access and the diversion of vehicles around the 

park would likely have a moderate adverse 

impact on noise outside the park; however, the 

intensity of the impact would depend on the 

route selected. Noise-associated impacts 

outside the park are being considered as part 

of the environmental review for the Battlefield 

Bypass study. 

There would be an adverse localized shortterm impact on the soundscape caused by 

noise generated during forest removal 

operations. This impact would be minor 

because the length of construction and noise 

generated would be relatively small. Forest 

removal operations would be performed in 

phases, which would limit the amount and 

extent of construction activity occurring at any 

time. 

Cumulative Impacts. Other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects such as 

the road projects described in the cumulative 

impact scenario would have short-term 

adverse impacts on the soundscape from 

construction activities. When these impacts 

were combined with the construction-related 

impacts of alternative B, the cumulative 

adverse impact would be short-term and 

minor. In the long term, the impact of 

alternative B on soundscape would be 

relatively beneficial because of the reduction in 

noise resulting from the decrease in vehicular 

traffic in the park. No long-term cumulative 

impacts on the soundscape would occur 

because alternative B would have no long-term 

adverse impacts on the soundscape and 

because no long-term impacts were identified 

in the cumulative impact scenario. 

Conclusion. Controlled access and reduced 

speed limits within the park would have a 

moderate long-term beneficial impact on the 

soundscape. Negligible to minor short-term 

adverse impacts on the soundscape would 

occur during construction activities to upgrade 

visitor services areas and during forest removal 

operations. Only short-term minor cumulative 

impacts on the soundscape would occur. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

impacts on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the Secretary of 
Impacts on the Natural Environment 

125 

Interior’s order establishing Manassas 

National Battlefield Park; (2) key to its natural 

or cultural integrity or to opportunities for its 

enjoyment; or (3) identified as a goal in its 

general management plan or other relevant 

National Park Service planning documents, the 

park’s resources or values would not be 

impaired. 

Alternative C—The Defining 

Moments of the Battles of Manassas 

Relocating the visitor center off Henry Hill to a 

new location to the east of Stone Bridge would 

help rehabilitate the soundscape of the 

battlefield resource at Henry Hill and would 

introduce a new noise source at another 

location in the park. Additional study for the 

relocation of the visitor center would take into 

consideration the potential noise impacts to 

other nearby resources. Construction activities 

associated with building a new visitor center 

would have minor short-term adverse impacts 

on the soundscape. In the long term, the new 

visitor center and other improvements 

proposed under alternative C would improve 

the soundscape on the battlefield by removing 

the visitor center from the battlefield. By 

relocating visitor-related sounds to an area of 

the park removed from the major sites of 

battle, the activities under alternative C would 

be more compatible and desirable based on the 

park’s purpose to preserve the story of the two 

battles of Manassas. Therefore, a minor longterm beneficial impact would occur on the 

park’s soundscape. 

Under alternative C, the National Park Service 

would control access on U.S. Route 29 and VA 

Route 234 and restrict commuter and 

commercial traffic. The controlled access 

would greatly lower the traffic volumes on the 

roads within the park. In addition, speed limits 

within the park would be reduced. As a result, 

noise levels generated from vehicular and 

truck traffic would also be reduced. The 

controlled access and reduced speeds would 

help achieve the desired soundscape of the 

park. The desired soundscape of a battlefield 

setting is tranquil, peaceful, and still, where 

visitors can imagine the series of historical 

events that took place on the battlefield. Thus, 

the road closures and reduced speeds would 

have a moderate long-term beneficial impact 

on the soundscape. 

Impacts would be similar to those described 

under alternative B, although the extent of 

construction and forest removal operations 

would be smaller. There would be a localized 

short-term impact on the soundscape caused 

during the forest removal. This impact would 

be negligible to minor because the length of 

construction and noise generated would be 

relatively small. Forest removal operations 

would be performed in phases, limiting the 

amount and extent of construction activities 

occurring at any time. 

Cumulative Impacts. The cumulative impact 

would be the same as described for alternative 

B. Other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects such as the road 

projects described in the cumulative impact 

scenario would have short-term adverse 

impacts on the soundscape from construction 

activities. When these impacts were combined 

with the construction-related impacts of 

alternative C, the cumulative adverse impact 

would be short-term and minor. In the long 

term, the impact of alternative C on 

soundscape would be beneficial because of the 

reduced noise resulting from decreased 

vehicular traffic in the park. No long-term 

impacts to the soundscape were identified in 

the cumulative impact scenario; therefore, no 

long-term cumulative impacts on the 

soundscape would occur. 

Conclusion. Controlled access and reduced 

speed limits within the park would have a 

moderate long-term beneficial impact on the 

soundscape. Negligible to minor short-term 

adverse impacts on the soundscape would 

occur during construction activities to upgrade 

the visitor services areas and implement forest 

removal operations. Minor short-term 

cumulative impacts on noise would occur. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

impacts on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the Secretary of 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

126 

Interior’s order establishing Manassas 

National Battlefield Park; (2) key to its natural 

or cultural integrity or to opportunities for its 

enjoyment; or (3) identified as a goal in its 

general management plan or other relevant 

National Park Service planning documents, the 

park’s resources or values would not be 

impaired. 

VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE 

Methodology 

In the impact assessment for vegetation and 

wildlife, the National Park Service focused on 

changes to the levels of populations of species 

and the effects on habitat and natural 

communities. The National Park Service also 

considered the physical impacts associated 

with any new developmental plans and 

anticipated visitor uses. The context of the 

evaluation was the park and surrounding area. 

For this programmatic study, the impacts 

discussed are qualitative and, in most cases, 

additional planning and environmental 

analysis would be conducted to determine sitespecific impacts on vegetation and wildlife. 

Definition of Intensity Levels 

Analyses of the potential intensity of impacts 

to vegetation and wildlife were derived from 

the available literature on Manassas National 

Battlefield Park and professional judgment of 

the park staff. The thresholds of change for the 

intensity of impacts on vegetation and wildlife 

are defined as follows: 

For vegetation: 

• Negligible: Individual native plants may 

occasionally be affected, but no 

measurable or perceptible changes in plant 

community size, type, integrity, or 

continuity would occur.

• Minor: Impacts on native plants are 

measurable or perceptible and localized 

within a relatively small area. The overall 

viability of the plant community would not 

be affected and, if left alone, would 

recover. 

• Moderate: Impacts on native plants would 

cause a change in the plant community 

(e.g., abundance, distribution, quantity, or 

quality); however, the impact would 

remain localized. 

• Major: Impacts on native plant 

communities would be substantial and 

highly noticeable, and would affect a 

sizable portion of affected community type 

in or outside the park. Mitigation measures 

required to offset the adverse effects 

would be extensive and their success 

would not be guaranteed. 

For wildlife: 

• Negligible: Wildlife and habitats would not 

be affected or the effects would be at or 

below the level of detection, and the 

changes would be so slight that there 

would not be any measurable or 

perceptible consequence to the wildlife 

species populations. 

• Minor: Impacts on wildlife and habitats 

would be detectable, although the effects 

would likely be localized, small, and of 

little consequence to the species’ 

population. Mitigation measures, if needed 

to offset adverse effects, would be simple 

and successful.

• Moderate: Impacts on wildlife and habitats 

would be readily detectable and localized, 

with consequences at the population level. 

Mitigation measures, if needed to offset 

adverse effects, would be extensive and 

likely successful. 

• Major: Impacts on wildlife and habitats 

would be obvious and would have 

substantial consequences to wildlife 

populations in the region. Extensive 

mitigation measures may be needed to 

offset adverse affects. 

• Duration: A short-term impact would last 

less than one year and would affect only 

one season’s use by visitors or the length of 

construction activities. A long-term impact 

would last more than one year and would 

be more permanent in nature. 
Impacts on the Natural Environment 

127 

Alternative A—Continuing Current 

Management Practices (No-Action) 

Under the no-action alternative, the National 

Park Service would continue with current 

management practices, including the present 

use of the facilities. Controlled access into the 

park would not be implemented. The visitor 

center and contact station would not change. 

The National Park Service would conduct 

small-scale, periodic clearing activities to 

maintain the battlefield landscape. Clearing 

would be achieved using a variety of potential 

methods, including mechanical methods and 

prescribed fire. These small-scale activities 

would have little effect on plant populations in 

the park because the areas affected would be 

small. The activities would not displace or alter 

habitat in a way that affects wildlife 

populations because the park staff would avoid 

such areas. Therefore, negligible adverse 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife would 

occur. 

Cumulative Impacts. The small clearing 

activities under alternative A, when combined 

with other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects such as pending 

road construction projects, would have a 

moderate adverse cumulative impact on 

vegetation and wildlife. The pending road 

projects have the potential to have moderate 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife; however, 

the degree of the impact is dependent on the 

final route selection for each project. The 

incremental impact associated with 

implementation of alternative A would be 

small. Overall, the cumulative impact would be 

moderate long-term and adverse. 

Conclusion. Negligible adverse impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife would occur. A 

moderate adverse cumulative impact could 

occur; however, the incremental impact 

associated with alternative A would be small. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

impact to resources or values, there would be 

no impairment of the park’s resources or 

values. 

Alternative B—The Two Battles 

of Manassas (Preferred Alternative) 

Changes at the Second Manassas visitor 

contact station, and the proposed new access 

road and improved parking area at Stuart’s Hill 

would have minor short-term and long-term 

adverse impact on vegetation and wildlife 

because some trees would be removed and 

some wildlife would be temporarily displaced 

during construction. Additional environmental 

evaluations and field studies would be required 

for implementation. The impact on vegetation 

and wildlife would be long-term adverse and 

minor because of the potential removal of 

vegetation for the new road and improved 

parking. The National Park Service would 

practice avoidance and minimization to the 

extent practicable during the planning and 

design and then develop appropriate 

mitigation to minimize impacts. There would 

be beneficial impacts to vegetation from 

rehabilitation of the existing roadbed. 

The closure of U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 

234 to heavy commuter traffic would have a 

beneficial impact on the wildlife in the park. 

The reduction in vehicular and truck traffic 

through the park would reduce the noise and 

human activity that discourages wildlife use 

near the road. Travel speeds would also be 

reduced throughout the park. With the 

reduction of traffic and travel speeds, the 

number of animals killed by vehicles would 

likely be reduced. A minor long-term 

beneficial impact would occur on wildlife 

within the park. 

The proposed access road and bridge would 

require the destruction of wildlife habitat, 

removal of vegetation, and displacement of 

some wildlife species. The degree of impact 

depends on the future location of the road and 

bridge; however there is no location along the 

Bull Run stream valley where total avoidance 

of impacts to forested area, wetlands, and 

wildlife habitat could occur. The long-term 

adverse impacts associated with the new access 

road and bridge would be moderate. 

The National Park Service would practice 

avoidance and minimization to the extent 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

128 

feasible during planning and design to develop 

appropriate mitigation to minimize impacts. 

Prior to implementation, the National Park 

Service would assess the potential impacts and 

evaluate the potential alternatives in 

accordance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act, Director’s Order #12, and the NPS’ 

Management Policies. 

Diversion of traffic and changes in traffic levels 

on other roads outside the park are being 

considered in the Battlefield Bypass study. At 

the time of this evaluation, the potential effects 

on wildlife of closing the roads outside the 

park are uncertain, because many variables 

that need to be considered, such as location 

and design of the bypass, surrounding habitat, 

and wildlife migration patterns and 

populations. However, as a result of changes to 

traffic flows and levels, potential long-term 

adverse impacts to wildlife would likely range 

from negligible to minor. 

Rehabilitation of portions of the historic 

landscape would result in the phased removal 

of approximately 327 acres of second-growth 

forest, which would be converted to open 

fields. Map 4-1 shows the extent of proposed 

forest removal. Most of this acreage consists of 

oak–hickory or Virginia pine forest with a 

small portion of loblolly pine, white pine, and 

mixed forest. Approximately 82 acres of open 

fields would be allowed to regenerate through 

natural succession back to oak-hickory forest. 

In the long term, there would be a net loss of 

245 acres of forest. The clearings will be 

maintained using a variety of methods, 

potentially including mechanical methods and 

prescribed fire. These acreages are estimates 

and are presented for comparison of the 

alternatives only. The cleared forestland would 

be converted to early successional habitats 

such as grassland and/or scrubland. 

Rehabilitation of the historic landscape would 

benefit some species of migratory birds and 

adversely affect others. The approximately 327 

acres of forested habitat to be removed 

represents some 15 percent of the forested 

habitat within the park. The net loss of 245 

forested acres represents approximately 11 

percent of the park’s total forested acreage. 

This newly cleared land would be managed as 

open fields. This would create additional 

habitat for species that prefer open fields or 

edge habitat between forests and fields, 

including small mammals, such as mice and 

voles, and birds, including the prairie warbler, 

field sparrow, and several species of hawks. 

The 82 acres of open field allowed to return to 

woodlands would expand the park’s existing 

woodlands and provide habitat for woodland 

species such as squirrels, woodpeckers, and 

raccoons. Species that use edge habitat 

between forests and fields would also benefit. 

In the short-term, this regenerating habitat 

would favor early successional species. As tree 

regeneration begins to dominate the sites, birds 

such as the yellow-breasted chat, common 

yellowthroat, indigo bunting, and prairie 

warbler would likely occupy the sites. With 

canopy closure and development of more 

mature stands, canopy nesters such as eastern 

wood-pewees would likely occur. The 

relatively small size of the regeneration areas 

would minimally expand the existing 

woodlands, which may not appreciably 

enhance breeding habitat for area-sensitive, 

forest-interior birds. 

The net loss of forests would impact areasensitive, forest-interior species, whose 

populations would likely decrease or be 

displaced through direct loss of forest habitat, 

increase in edge habitat, and increase in edge 

effects. There could be increased competition 

with edge species for food, nest sites, and 

space. An increase in the proportion of edge to 

forest interior is likely to lead to higher nest 

parasitism and nest predation. Nests along 

forest edges and in small forest tracts 

experience higher rates of loss from foxes, 

raccoons, cats, dogs, blue jays, and other 

predators. 

Overall, the reduction of woodlands by 

mechanical methods or with prescribed fire 

would result in a minor change in the area of 

vegetative or wildlife communities within the 

park as a whole. However, based on the 

anticipated acreage of woodland cleared, 
U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service

DSC • October 2005 • 379•20121

SYMBOL KEY

00 0

1000 2000

375 750 1125 1500

FEET

METERS

3000 4000 5000

NORTH

National Battlefield Park Boundary

National Battlefield Park LandUnfinished Railroad GradeCurrent Forested AreasProposed Forest Cuts (Alternative B)

Proposed Forest Cuts (Alternative C)

Proposed Reforestation (Alternative B)Non-NPS public land within park boudnaries

Privately held land within park boundaries

Privately held land within park boundaries;

NPS owns scenic easementPrivately owned land outside park boundary

Map 4-1Proposed Forest Cuts and

Reforestation Sites

eland 

g Pa ane L

Chinn Road

Sudley

Road

R on 

t ve

o Gr oad

Fe

herbed Lane at

Lee Highway/Warrenton Turnpike Henry

Hill

Buck Hill

Matthews

Hill

Dogan Ridge

BatteryHeights

Chinn Ridge

Stuart's

Hill

Deep

Cut

Bu l l Ru n

Unfini he s d Rai rl o

d Gr a ade

66

66

234

234 622

705

29

29

129

Impacts on the Natural Environment 

131 

minor long-term adverse impacts would occur 

from the disruption of the habitat. 

Although these acreages are representative of 

the magnitude of change expected, some 

further refinement of the actual boundaries of 

the historic scene rehabilitation areas would 

likely occur based on more precise field 

surveys. The National Park Service would 

conduct additional environmental analysis and 

documentation prior to proceeding with 

implementation in each resource area. 

Bottomland forests and riparian vegetation 

within the perimeters of designated cut areas 

would be maintained, which would minimize 

the impacts on bird and other species that use 

this habitat. 

Cumulative Impacts. When combined with 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future projects, the construction-related 

activities under alternative B would have a 

short-term adverse cumulative impact on 

vegetation and wildlife. The incremental 

impacts associated with alternative B would be 

small. The Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Bypass, Tri-County Parkway, and other nearby 

road projects have the potential to have 

adverse impacts on forested areas and 

associated wildlife because of clearing and 

construction activities to build the new roads. 

Collectively, the cumulative impact would be 

anticipated to be moderate long-term and 

adverse. 

Studies support the finding that grasslands are 

declining at higher rates than forested lands. In 

Virginia, open, idle grasslands have been 

reduced by 55 percent since 1945 (Franzreb, K. 

E. and K. V. Rosenberg 1997). The conversion 

to grassland would thereby help to offset the 

impacts of forest removal. While the impacts of 

this removal would be noticeable within the 

park itself, the regional value of the newly 

created grasslands would be such that the 

overall regional impacts to vegetation and 

wildlife would be minor. 

Conclusion. Vegetation and wildlife would 

experience both beneficial and adverse 

impacts, relating to habitat modifications and 

changes in traffic patterns in the park. 

Specifically, 

• The impact on vegetation and wildlife at 

Stuart’s Hill would be long-term adverse 

and minor because of the potential 

removal of vegetation to construct the 

road and improve parking. There would be 

beneficial impacts to vegetation from 

rehabilitation of the existing roadbed. 

• The reduction of traffic and travel speeds 

would reduce the number of animals killed 

by vehicles, which would be a minor longterm beneficial impact. 

• The long-term adverse impacts associated 

with the new access road and bridge on 

U.S. Route 29 would be moderate. 

• Potential long-term adverse impacts to 

wildlife from diversion of traffic and 

changes in traffic levels on other roads 

outside the park would likely range from 

negligible to minor. 

• The reduction of woodlands would have a 

minor long-term adverse impact on forest 

species and a minor long-term beneficial 

impact on species that prefer grasslands 

and edge habitats. 

• Collectively, the cumulative impact would 

be minor to moderate long-term and 

adverse. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

impacts on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the Secretary of 

Interior’s order establishing Manassas 

National Battlefield Park; (2) key to its natural 

or cultural integrity or to opportunities for its 

enjoyment; or (3) identified as a goal in its 

general management plan or other relevant 

National Park Service planning documents, the 

park’s resources or values would not be 

impaired. 

Alternative C—The Defining 

Moments of the Battles of Manassas 

The construction of a new visitor center to the 

east of Stone Bridge would have adverse 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

132 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife. In general, 

the new visitor center and associated access 

road and bridge would require the destruction 

of wildlife habitat, removal of vegetation, and 

displacement of wildlife species. The degree of 

the impact would depend on the future 

location of the visitor center, road, and bridge; 

however, there is no location along the Bull 

Run stream valley where total avoidance of 

impacts to forested areas and wildlife habitat 

could occur. A moderate long-term adverse 

impact is likely. 

The National Park Service would practice 

avoidance and minimization to the extent 

feasible during planning and design to develop 

appropriate mitigation to minimize impacts. 

Prior to implementation, the National Park 

Service would assess the potential impacts and 

evaluate the potential alternatives in 

accordance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act, Director’s Order #12, and the NPS’ 

Management Policies. Removal of the Henry 

Hill visitor center would allow rehabilitation of 

that area, most likely to open fields that would 

reflect the historic landscape. This would 

result in a negligible long-term beneficial 

impact on species that use grassland habitats. 

The closure of U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 

234 to heavy commuter traffic would have a 

beneficial impact on the wildlife at the park. 

The reduction in vehicular and truck traffic 

through the park would reduce the noise and 

human activity that discourages wildlife use 

near the road. Travel speeds would also be 

reduced throughout the park. With the 

reduction of traffic and travel speeds, the 

number of animals killed by vehicles would 

likely be reduced. A minor long-term 

beneficial impact would occur on wildlife. 

Diversion of traffic and changes in traffic levels 

on other roads outside the park are being 

considered in the Battlefield Bypass study. At 

the time of this evaluation, the potential effects 

on wildlife of closing the roads outside the 

park are uncertain, because many variables 

need to be considered, such as location and 

design of the bypass, surrounding habitat, and 

wildlife migration patterns and populations. 

However, as a result of changes to traffic flows 

and levels, potential long-term adverse impacts 

to wildlife would likely range from negligible 

to minor. 

The proposed new access road and improved 

parking area at Stuart’s Hill would have minor 

short-term and long-term adverse impact on 

vegetation and wildlife because some trees 

would be removed and some wildlife would be 

temporarily displaced during construction. 

Additional environmental evaluations and field 

studies would be required for implementation. 

The impact on vegetation and wildlife would 

be long-term adverse and minor because of the 

potential removal of vegetation for the new 

road and improved parking. The National Park 

Service would practice avoidance and 

minimization to the extent practicable during 

the planning and design and then develop 

appropriate mitigation to minimize impacts. 

There would be beneficial impacts to 

vegetation from rehabilitation of the existing 

roadbed. 

Creation of view corridors would result in the 

removal of approximately 72 acres of secondgrowth forest to be converted into open fields. 

Map 4-1 shows the areas of forest removal. 

These acreages are estimates and are presented 

for comparison of the alternatives only. 

Bottomland forests and riparian vegetation 

within the perimeters of designated cut areas 

would be maintained. Acreage rehabilitated to 

open fields would provide habitat for mice, 

voles, hawks, deer, foxes, or other species that 

prefer open fields or edge habitat between 

forests and fields. The clearings will be 

maintained using a variety of methods, 

potentially including mechanical methods and 

prescribed fire. 

Overall, the reduction of woodlands by 

mechanical methods or with prescribed fire 

would have a negligible to minor change in the 

area of vegetative or wildlife communities 

within the park as a whole. However, based on 

the anticipated acreage of woodland cleared, 

negligible to minor long-term adverse impacts 

would occur from the disruption of the habitat. 
Impacts on the Natural Environment 

133 

Cumulative Impacts. When combined with 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future projects, the construction-related 

activities under alternative C would have an 

adverse cumulative impact on vegetation and 

wildlife. The incremental impacts associated 

with alternative C would be small. The 

Manassas National Battlefield Park Bypass, 

Tri-County Parkway, and other nearby road 

projects have the potential to have adverse 

impacts on forested areas and associated 

wildlife because of clearing and construction 

activities to build the new roads. Collectively, 

the cumulative impact would be anticipated to 

be moderate long-term and adverse. 

Various studies support the finding that 

grasslands are declining at higher rates than 

forested lands. In Virginia, open, idle 

grasslands have been reduced by 55 percent 

since 1945 (Franzreb, K. E. and K. V. 

Rosenberg 1997). The conversion from forest 

to grassland would help to offset the impacts of 

forest removal. The small scale of this removal 

(72 acres, or less than 5 percent of the park’s 

forested area) would be only somewhat 

noticeable within the park itself. The value of 

the newly created grasslands would be such 

that the overall long-term regional impacts to 

vegetation and wildlife would be minor. 

Conclusion. Vegetation and wildlife would 

experience both beneficial and adverse 

impacts, relating to habitat modifications and 

changes in traffic patterns in the park. 

Specifically, 

• The long-term adverse impacts associated 

with the new visitor center, access road, 

and bridge would be moderate. 

• The reduction of traffic and travel speeds 

would reduce the number of animals killed 

by vehicles, which would be a minor longterm beneficial impact. 

• Potential long-term adverse impacts to 

wildlife from diversion of traffic and 

changes in traffic levels on other roads 

outside the park would likely range from 

negligible to minor. 

• The impact on vegetation and wildlife at 

Stuart’s Hill would be long-term adverse 

and minor because of the potential 

removal of vegetation to construct the 

road and improve parking. There would be 

beneficial impacts to vegetation from 

rehabilitation of the existing roadbed. 

• The reduction of woodlands would have a 

negligible to minor long-term adverse 

impact on forest species and a negligible to 

minor long-term beneficial impact on 

species that prefer grasslands and edge 

habitats. 

• Collectively, the cumulative impact would 

be anticipated to be minor to moderate 

long-term and adverse. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

impacts on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the Secretary of 

Interior’s order establishing Manassas 

National Battlefield Park; (2) key to its natural 

or cultural integrity or to opportunities for its 

enjoyment; or (3) identified as a goal in its 

general management plan or other relevant 

National Park Service planning documents, the 

park’s resources or values would not be 

impaired. 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, 

AND RARE SPECIES AND NATURAL 

COMMUNITIES 

Definition of Intensity Levels 

Analyses of the potential intensity of special 

status species were derived from the available 

literature on Manassas National Battlefield 

Park and previous consultation or studies 

involving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and Virginia Department of Conservation and 

Recreation. The thresholds of change for the 

intensity of impacts on special status species 

are defined as follows: 

• No effect: The action would cause no effect 

on the special status species or critical 

habitat. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

134 

• May effect but is not likely to adversely 

affect: The action would be expected to 

result in discountable effects on a species 

or critical habitat (that is, extremely 

unlikely to occur and not able to be 

meaningfully measured, detected, or 

evaluated), or it would be completely 

beneficial. 

• Likely to adversely affect: The action would 

likely result in a direct or indirect adverse 

effect on a species or critical habitat, and 

the effect would not be discountable or 

completely beneficial. 

• Duration: A short-term impact would last 

less than one year and would affect only 

one season’s use by visitors or the length of 

construction activities. A long-term impact 

would last more than one year and would 

be more permanent in nature.

These definitions are consistent with the 

language used to determine effects on 

threatened and endangered species under 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

Alternative A—Continuing Current 

Management Practices (No-Action) 

Under the no-action alternative, current 

management practices would have no effect on 

threatened, endangered, or rare species or 

their habitats. No actions under the current 

management practices were identified now or 

over the next 20 years that would have an 

effect on threatened and endangered species 

because no supporting habitats would be 

disturbed. 

Cumulative Impacts. There would be no 

cumulative impact because there would be no 

impacts on threatened, endangered, or rare 

species or their habitats as a result of 

maintaining current management practices. 

Conclusion. The no-action alternative would 

have no effect on threatened, endangered, or 

rare species or their habitats. No cumulative 

impact would occur. Because there would be 

no major adverse impact to resources or 

values, there would be no impairment of the 

park’s resources or values. 

Alternative B—The Two Battles 

of Manassas (Preferred Alternative) 

There are populations of state-listed rare plant 

species near segments of existing trails and 

other portions of the park that could be 

susceptible to disturbance from trail work or 

other construction. Trail work would be 

accomplished without disturbing these 

populations, although slight realignment of 

trails may be necessary. Therefore, it would 

have no effect on species of special concern. 

Additional environmental studies would be 

conducted prior to work outside the original 

footprint of the existing trails at the park. 

Transportation improvements would have no 

effect on threatened, endangered, or rare 

species or their habitats. This would occur 

because, through further planning and 

environmental analysis for the proposed 

transportation improvements, such as the 

bridge removal, the National Park Service 

would practice avoidance to the greatest extent 

possible. 

Approximately 327 acres of forested habitat 

would be removed and managed as open fields 

to rehabilitate the cultural landscape. This 

would create additional habitat for species that 

prefer open fields or edge habitat between 

forests and fields. The only area-sensitive 

forest species known to occur within the cut 

areas is the wood thrush, which occurs in 

relatively small woodlands. 

No impacts to important natural communities 

would occur from cultural landscape 

rehabilitation. No known populations of statelisted rare plant species are within the forest 

removal areas. However, some populations of 

these species occur in open fields adjacent to 

one area to be cleared. Clearing limits and 

access routes would be established and clearly 

marked or fenced to avoid these populations. 

Best management practices, including erosion 

control measures, would be implemented to 

mitigate possible indirect impacts to these 

populations from runoff from disturbed areas. 

Acreage converted to open fields would 

provide additional potential habitat for the 

state-listed rare species that are associated with 
Impacts on the Natural Environment 

135 

these open habitats. These species include 

hairy beardtongue and blue-hearts. 

The proposed actions described in alternative 

B would have no effect on threatened, 

endangered, or rare species, and are not likely 

to adversely affect their habitats. 

Consequently, they would have no effect on 

species populations at the park because the 

habitat is still abundant. 

Historic landscape modification would benefit 

some species of migratory birds and adversely 

affect others, with an overall net loss of forest 

habitat and a concomitant net gain of open 

fields. These actions may affect but are not 

likely to adversely affect species that prefer 

open fields or edge habitat, including the 

prairie warbler and field sparrow, which are 

two species of concern. Net loss of woodlands 

is not likely to adversely affect habitat suitable 

for forest species, particularly area-sensitive 

species, which include the Acadian flycatcher 

and wood thrush. Overall, the loss of 

woodlands may affect but is not likely to 

adversely affect populations of the species at 

the park because the habitat is still abundant. 

Cumulative Impacts. When combined with 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future projects, the construction-related 

activities under alternative B may affect but are 

not likely to adversely affect threatened and 

endangered species. The incremental impacts 

associated with alternative B would be small. 

The Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Bypass, Tri-County Parkway, and other nearby 

road projects have the potential to have 

adverse impacts on rare, threatened, and 

endangered species and associated habitat 

because of clearing and construction activities 

to build the new roads. Collectively, the 

cumulative impact would be anticipated in the 

long term to affect but not likely adversely 

affect threatened and endangered species. 

Conclusion. The proposed actions described 

in alternative B would have no effect on 

threatened, endangered, or rare species and 

may affect but are not likely to adversely affect 

their habitats, because no supporting habitats 

would be disturbed. Forest removal to 

rehabilitate the historic landscape may affect 

but is not likely to adversely affect species that 

prefer open fields or edge habitat, including 

two species of concern, the prairie warbler and 

field sparrow. Woodland species, including the 

Acadian flycatcher and wood thrush, may be 

affected, but are not likely to be adversely 

affected. The cumulative impact would affect 

but not likely adversely affect threatened and 

endangered species. 

Because this alternative may affect but is not 

likely to adversely affect a resource or value 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill 

specific purposes identified in the Secretary of 

Interior’s order establishing Manassas 

National Battlefield Park; (2) key to its natural 

or cultural integrity or to opportunities for its 

enjoyment; or (3) identified as a goal in its 

general management plan or other relevant 

National Park Service planning documents, the 

park’s resources or values would not be 

impaired. 

Alternative C—The Defining 

Moments of the Battles of Manassas 

There are some populations of state-listed rare 

plant species near segments of existing trails 

that could be susceptible to disturbance from 

trail work. Trail work would be accomplished 

without disturbing these populations, although 

slight realignment of trails may be necessary. 

Therefore, it would have no effect on species 

of special concern. Additional environmental 

study would be conducted prior to trail work 

outlined for alternative C. 

Additional environmental analysis would be 

conducted prior to selecting a site for the new 

visitor center site. The National Park Service 

would fully consider the potential impacts on 

threatened, endangered, or rare species or 

their habitats and practice avoidance to the 

extent feasible. Best management practices, 

including erosion control measures, would be 

implemented. 

Transportation improvements would have no 

effect on threatened, endangered, or rare 

species or their habitats because, through 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

136 

further planning and environmental analysis 

for the proposed transportation 

improvements, such as the bridge removal and 

development of the new access road and 

bridge in a different location, the National 

Park Service would practice avoidance to the 

greatest extent possible. 

Approximately 72 acres of forested habitat, less 

than 5 percent of the forested habitat within 

the park, would be removed and managed as 

open fields to provide view corridors. This 

would create limited additional habitat for 

species that prefer open fields or edge habitat 

between forests and fields. There would be a 

minor benefit to these species, such as the 

prairie warbler. These impacts would not be as 

extensive under this alternative as they would 

be in alternative B, because of the relatively 

limited removal of woodlands. The only areasensitive forest species known to occur within 

the cut areas is the wood thrush, which does 

occur in relatively small woodlands. As a result, 

this alternative may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect this species. 

No impacts to important natural communities 

would occur. No known populations of statelisted rare plant species are within the forest 

removal areas. However, some populations of 

these species occur in open fields adjacent to 

one area to be cleared. Clearing limits and 

access routes would be established and clearly 

marked or fenced to avoid these populations. 

Best management practices, including erosion 

control measures, would be implemented to 

mitigate possible indirect impacts to these 

populations from runoff from disturbed areas. 

Acreage converted to open fields would 

provide additional potential habitat for statelisted rare species associated with these open 

habitats, which include hairy beardtongue and 

blue-hearts. 

Cumulative Impacts. When combined with 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future projects, the construction-related 

activities under alternative C may affect but are 

not likely to adversely affect threatened and 

endangered species. The incremental impacts 

associated with alternative C would be small. 

The Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Bypass, Tri-County Parkway, and other nearby 

road projects have the potential to have 

adverse impacts on rare, threatened, and 

endangered species and associated habitat 

because of clearing and construction activities 

to build the new roads. Collectively, the 

cumulative impact would be anticipated in the 

long term to affect but not likely adversely 

affect threatened and endangered species. 

Conclusion. The proposed actions described 

in alternative C may affect but are not likely to 

adversely affect threatened, endangered, or 

rare species or their habitats because no 

supporting habitats would be disturbed. Forest 

removal to create view corridors may affect but 

is not likely to adversely affect the prairie 

warbler, which prefers open fields or edge 

habitat. Woodland species, including wood 

thrush, may be affected, but are not likely to be 

adversely affected. The cumulative impact 

would affect but not likely adversely affect 

threatened and endangered species. 

Because this alternative may affect but is not 

likely to adversely affect a resource or value 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill 

specific purposes identified in the Secretary of 

Interior’s order establishing Manassas 

National Battlefield Park; (2) key to its natural 

or cultural integrity or to opportunities for its 

enjoyment; or (3) identified as a goal in its 

general management plan or other relevant 

National Park Service planning documents, the 

park’s resources or values would not be 

impaired. 

WATER RESOURCES (WATER BODIES, 

WATER QUALITY, WETLANDS, AND 

FLOODPLAINS) 

Methodology 

The impacts discussed for water resources are 

qualitative because the actions described under 

each alternative are conceptual at this stage of 

the planning process. Additional planning and 

environmental analyses would be conducted to 

determine site-specific impacts as more 

detailed plans are developed. 
Impacts on the Natural Environment 

137 

Definition of Intensity Levels 

Analyses of the potential intensity of water 

resources were derived from the available 

literature on Manassas National Battlefield 

Park. The thresholds of change for the 

intensity of impacts on water resources are 

defined as follows: 

• Negligible: An action would have no 

measurable or detectable effect on the 

quality, functions, or values of water 

bodies, wetlands, floodplains, or water 

quality. The impact would be localized and 

not measurable or at the lowest level of 

detection. 

• Minor: An action would have measurable 

effects on the quality, functions, or values 

of water bodies, wetlands, floodplains, or 

water quality. The impact would be 

localized and slight but detectable. 

• Moderate: An action would have clearly 

detectable effects on the quality, functions, 

or values of water bodies, wetlands, 

floodplains, or water quality. The impact 

would be readily apparent and 

appreciable. 

• Major: An action would have substantial 

effects on the quality, functions, or values 

of water bodies, wetlands, floodplains, or 

water quality. The impact would be severe 

and highly noticeable. 

• Duration: A short-term impact would last 

less than one year and would affect only 

one season’s use by visitors. A long-term 

impact would last more than one year and 

would be more permanent in nature. 

Alternative A—Continuing Current 

Management Practices (No-Action) 

Under the no-action alternative, the National 

Park Service would continue current management practices. Ongoing management activities, such as small-scale scene rehabilitation, 

could have adverse impacts on water resources 

from sediment production during forest 

removal or construction activities. With best 

management practices, the long-term adverse 

impacts would be negligible because the area 

of disturbance would be a sufficient distance 

from any water resources, and the indirect 

effects of sediment production would be 

minimized through the use of best 

management practices such as silt fencing. 

Cumulative Impacts. Other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects, such as 

the road projects described in the cumulative 

impact scenario, could have moderate longterm adverse impacts on water resources from 

construction activities, depending on the final 

corridor selected for each road alignment. 

Alternative A would add a moderate 

incremental impact. When these impacts were 

combined with the construction-related 

impacts of alternative A, the cumulative 

adverse impact would be long-term and 

moderate. 

Conclusion. The no-action alternative would 

have long-term negligible adverse impacts on 

water resources. The cumulative adverse 

impact would be long-term and moderate. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

impact to resources or values, there would be 

no impairment of the park’s resources or 

values. 

Alternative B—The Two Battles 

of Manassas (Preferred Alternative) 

The new access road and improved parking lot 

at Stuart’s Hill could have an adverse impact 

on water resources. The proposed new road 

would not directly affect wetlands or floodplains, but sediment runoff into nearby water 

resources could occur. With the use of 

sediment and erosion control measures, the 

adverse impact would be short-term and 

negligible. 

Transportation- related improvements under 

alternative B would have limited impact on the 

park’s waters, wetlands, or floodplains. The 

removal of commuter and truck traffic, with 

associated reductions in pollution from those 

vehicles, from the portions of U.S. Route 29 

and VA Route 234 that run through the park 

would have a long-term beneficial impact to 

water resources by reducing the amount of 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

138 

polluted runoff that would reach these 

resources. 

The removal of the U.S. Route 29 bridge over 

Bull Run would have a minor long-term 

beneficial impact to the stream and floodplain 

and minor short-term adverse impacts during 

demolition. Minor sediment erosion would 

occur, although appropriate sediment and 

erosion control practices could make the 

adverse impacts to Bull Run negligible. 

Additional environmental analysis and 

documentation would be conducted by the 

National Park Service prior to removal of the 

bridge. 

A new road and bridge over Bull Run would be 

built to connect U.S. Route 29. This action 

would have moderate long-term adverse 

impacts on the stream, floodplain, and, 

potentially, wetlands. These impacts could 

include a localized decrease in quality and 

modification of floodplain processes. 

The location of the new access roads would 

depend on the alignment of the proposed 

Battlefield Bypass. An additional study would 

be conducted prior to selecting any location 

and alignment. The National Park Service 

would practice avoidance and minimization to 

the extent feasible during the planning and 

design, and would then develop appropriate 

mitigation to minimize impacts. Prior to 

making any decisions or implementation, the 

National Park Service would assess the 

potential impacts and evaluate the potential 

alternatives in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, Director’s Order’s 

#12, and the NPS’ Management Policies. 

No seasonally flooded bottomland forests, 

including riparian stream corridors and 

seasonally flooded depressions or pools, 

would be affected by construction or historic 

scene rehabilitation proposals. Riparian 

buffers would be maintained along all streams 

to mitigate potential bank erosion and channel 

siltation from forest removal areas. Forest 

removal operations would also incorporate 

Virginia Department of Forestry best 

management practices to avoid erosion 

problems, particularly where disturbance 

would occur on slopes. No new construction 

or historic scene rehabilitation proposals 

would occur within 100-year floodplains. The 

adverse impact on water resources would be 

short-term and negligible. 

Existing structures within the 100-year 

floodplains that would continue to be 

preserved under the alternative include the 

Stone House and Thornberry House. 

Continued preservation of these historic 

structures, whose locations are integral to their 

significance, is considered an excepted action 

under National Park Service guidelines for 

compliance with Executive Order 11988, 

“Floodplain Management.” Preservation and 

maintenance activities would have a negligible 

impact on water resources. 

Cumulative Impacts. Other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects, such as 

the road projects described in the cumulative 

impact scenario, could have moderate longterm adverse impacts on water resources from 

construction activities, depending on the final 

corridor selected for each road alignment. 

Alternative B would add a moderate 

incremental impact. When these impacts were 

combined with the construction-related 

impacts of alternative B, the cumulative 

adverse impact would be long-term and 

moderate. 

Conclusion. Water resources would 

experience both beneficial and adverse 

impacts. Specifically, 

• The new Stuart’s Hill access road would 

have short-term negligible adverse 

impacts. 

• Transportation-related improvements 

would have a long-term beneficial impact 

by reducing the volume of polluted runoff 

that would reach water resources in the 

park. 

• The removal of the U.S. Route 29 bridge 

would likely have a minor long-term 

beneficial impact on the floodplain and 

stream and negligible short-term adverse 

impacts during demolition. 
Impacts on the Natural Environment 

139 

• The new bridge over Bull Run and its 

associated approach roads would have 

moderate long-term adverse impacts on 

the floodplain, stream, and potentially 

wetlands. 

• The cumulative adverse impact would be 

long-term and moderate. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

impacts on a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the Secretary of Interior’s 

order establishing Manassas National Battlefield Park; (2) key to its natural or cultural 

integrity or to opportunities for its enjoyment; 

or (3) identified as a goal in its general 

management plan or other relevant National 

Park Service planning documents, the park’s 

resources or values would not be impaired. 

Alternative C—The Defining 

Moments of the Battles of Manassas 

Under alternative C, the National Park Service 

would construct a new visitor center to the east 

of Stone Bridge. Appropriate sediment and 

erosion control practices would mean that the 

construction of the visitor center would likely 

have a negligible adverse impact on water 

resources, specifically Bull Run and its 

associated wetlands and floodplains. However, 

the new visitor center would require a new 

bridge over Bull Run and associated approach 

roads to connect the visitor center with U.S. 

Route 29. 

The new bridge and approach road would 

have moderate long-term adverse impacts on 

the stream, the floodplain, and, potentially 

wetlands. The location of the new visitor 

center and access roads would depend on the 

alignment of the proposed Battlefield Bypass. 

An additional study would be conducted prior 

to selecting any location and alignment. The 

National Park Service would practice 

avoidance and minimization to the extent 

feasible during the planning and design, and 

would then develop appropriate mitigation to 

minimize impacts. Prior to making any 

decisions or implementation, the National 

Park Service would assess the potential impacts 

and evaluate the potential alternatives in 

accordance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act, Director’s Order #12, and the NPS’ 

Management Policies. 

The removal of commuter and truck traffic, 

which would reduce pollution from those 

vehicles, from the portions of U.S. Route 29 

and VA Route 234 that run through the park 

would have a long-term beneficial impact to 

water resources by reducing the amount of 

polluted runoff that would reach these 

resources. The removal of the existing U.S. 

Route 29 bridge would have a long-term 

beneficial impact to the stream and floodplain 

and minor short-term adverse impacts during 

demolition. Minor sediment production would 

occur. However, through appropriate 

sediment and erosion control practices, the 

adverse impacts to Bull Run would be 

negligible. Additional environmental analysis 

and documentation would be conducted by 

the National Park Service prior to removal of 

the bridge. 

The new access road and improved parking lot 

at Stuart’s Hill could have an adverse impact 

on water resources. The proposed new road 

would not directly affect wetlands or 

floodplains, but sediment runoff into nearby 

water resources could occur. With the use of 

sediment and erosion control measures, the 

adverse impact would be short-term and 

negligible. 

No seasonally flooded bottomland forests, 

including riparian stream corridors, and/or 

seasonally flooded depressions or pools would 

be affected by construction or historic scene 

rehabilitation proposals. Riparian buffers 

would be maintained along all streams to 

mitigate potential bank erosion and channel 

siltation from forest removal areas. Forest 

removal operations would also incorporate 

Virginia Department of Forestry best 

management practices to avoid erosion 

problems, particularly where disturbance 

would occur on slopes. No new construction 

or historic scene rehabilitation proposals 

would occur within 100-year floodplains. The 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

140 

adverse impact on water resources would be 

short-term and negligible. 

Existing structures within the 100-year 

floodplains that would continue to be 

preserved under the alternative include the 

Stone House and Thornberry House. 

Continued preservation of these historic 

structures, whose locations are integral to their 

significance, is considered an excepted action 

under National Park Service guidelines for 

compliance with Executive Order 11988, 

“Floodplain Management.” Preservation and 

maintenance activities would have a negligible 

impact on water resources. 

Cumulative Impacts. Other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects such as 

road projects described in the cumulative 

impact scenario could have moderate longterm adverse impacts on water resources from 

construction activities depending on the final 

corridor selected for each road alignment. 

Alternative C would add a moderate 

incremental impact. When these impacts are 

combined with the construction-related 

impacts of alternative C, the cumulative 

adverse impact would be anticipated to be 

long-term and moderate. 

Conclusion. Water resources would 

experience both beneficial and adverse 

impacts. Specifically, 

• Transportation-related improvements 

would have a long-term, beneficial impact 

by reducing the volume of polluted runoff 

that would reach water resources in the 

park. 

• The removal of the U.S. Route 29 bridge 

would likely have a minor long-term 

beneficial impact on the floodplain and 

stream and negligible short-term adverse 

impacts during demolition. 

• The new visitor center, new bridge over 

Bull Run, and its associated approach 

roads would have moderate long-term 

adverse impacts on the floodplain, stream, 

and potentially wetlands. 

• The new Stuart’s Hill access road would 

have short-term negligible adverse 

impacts. 

• The cumulative adverse impact would be 

long-term and moderate. 

Because there would be no major adverse 

impacts on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the Secretary of 

Interior’s order establishing Manassas 

National Battlefield Park; (2) key to its natural 

or cultural integrity or to opportunities for its 

enjoyment; or (3) identified as a goal in its 

general management plan or other relevant 

National Park Service planning documents, the 

park’s resources or values would not be 

impaired. 
141 

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES 

CULTURAL RESOURCES LISTED, OR 

ELIGIBLE TO BE LISTED, IN THE 

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC 

PLACES 

Potential impacts to cultural resources 

(archeological resources, historic structures, 

and cultural landscapes) either listed in or 

eligible to be listed in the National Register of 

Historic Places were identified and evaluated 

in accordance with the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation’s regulations 

implementing Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (36 Code of Federal 

Regulations 800, Protection of Historic 

Properties). This was accomplished by (1) 

determining the area of potential effects; (2) 

identifying cultural resources present in the 

area of potential effects that are National 

Register-listed or -eligible; (3) applying the 

criteria of adverse effect to affected resources; 

and (4) considering ways to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate adverse effects. 

Under the Advisory Council’s regulations, a 

determination of adverse effect or no adverse 

effect must be made for affected National 

Register-listed or -eligible cultural resources. 

An adverse effect occurs whenever an action 

alters directly or indirectly any of the 

characteristics of a cultural resource that 

qualify it for inclusion in the National Register. 

This would include diminishing the integrity 

(the extent to which a resource retains its 

historic appearance) of the resource’s location, 

design, setting, materials, workmanship, 

feeling, or association. Adverse effects also 

include reasonably foreseeable effects caused 

by the alternatives that would occur later in 

time, be farther removed in distance, or be 

cumulative (36 Code of Federal Regulations

800.5(a)(1)). A determination of no adverse 

effect means there is an effect, but the effect 

would not meet the criteria of adverse effect 

(36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.5(b)). 

In this General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement, the criteria 

for characterizing the severity or intensity of 

impacts to National Register-listed or -eligible 

archeological resources, prehistoric or historic 

structures, and cultural landscapes are the 

Section 106 determinations of effect: adverse 

effect or no adverse effect. 

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS 

Potential impacts to museum collections 

(prehistoric and historic objects, artifacts, 

works of art, archival documents, and natural 

history specimens) are described in terms of 

context (are the effects site-specific, local, or 

even regional?), duration (are the effects shortterm, lasting less than a year; long-term, lasting 

more than a year; or permanent?) and intensity 

(is the degree or severity of effects negligible, 

minor, moderate, or major?). The definitions 

of impact intensity for museum collections 

follow: 

• Negligible: Impact is at the lowest levels of 

detection — barely measurable with no 

perceptible consequences, either adverse 

or beneficial. 

• Minor: Would affect the integrity of few 

items in the museum collection but would 

not degrade the usefulness of the 

collection for future research and 

interpretation. 

• Moderate: Would affect the integrity of 

many items in the museum collection and 

diminish the usefulness of the collection 

for future research and interpretation. 

• Major: Would affect the integrity of most 

items in the museum collection and 

destroy the usefulness of the collection for 

future research and interpretation. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

142 

ALTERNATIVE A—CONTINUING 

CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

(NO-ACTION) 

Archeological Resources 

Archeological resources adjacent to or easily 

accessible from public access areas would be 

vulnerable to surface disturbance, inadvertent 

damage, and vandalism. Soil compaction, a loss 

of surface archeological materials, alteration of 

artifact distribution, and a reduction of 

contextual evidence would result. Continued 

ranger patrol and increased emphasis on visitor 

education would help discourage inadvertent 

disturbance of cultural remains and vandalism. 

Any sites or areas with archeological resources 

that were subject to continued degradation 

could be closed to visitor access to better protect 

the resources. Few, if any, adverse effects would 

be anticipated. 

The limited construction associated with 

implementation of alternative A (small parking 

areas and short loop trails and the installation 

of interpretive displays) could potentially 

impact archeological resources. Archeological 

surveys would precede any construction, and 

known archeological resources would be 

avoided to the greatest extent possible. If 

National Register-listed or -eligible 

archeological resources could not be avoided, 

an appropriate mitigation strategy would be 

developed in consultation with the Virginia 

State Historic Preservation Officer. Any 

construction-related impacts to such 

archeological resources would be adverse; 

however, because archeological resources 

would be avoided to the greatest extent 

possible, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 

Cumulative Impacts. The construction of U.S. 

Route 29 and VA Route 234, and the 

development of the Manassas visitor center 

and other park infrastructure, may have 

adversely impacted archeological resources 

because of disturbance during excavation and 

construction activities. 

The development and expansion of 

communities near the park may have disturbed 

archeological resources outside park 

boundaries. The continuation of such 

development could result in future adverse 

impacts to archeological resources. Other 

present and reasonably foreseeable actions 

occurring throughout the region, such as 

construction of the Tri-County Parkway, 

Battlefield Bypass, and other road projects, 

also have the potential to disturb archeological 

resources outside the park’s boundaries. 

Impacts to National Register-listed or -eligible 

archeological resources that could not be 

avoided would be adverse. 

Actions associated with implementation of 

alternative A could potentially impact 

archeological resources at the park. Few if any 

adverse effects to archeological resources are 

anticipated from inadvertent damage or 

vandalism. However, if National Registerlisted or -eligible archeological resources could 

not be avoided during the construction of 

parking areas, trails, and interpretive displays, 

the impacts to such archeological resources 

would be adverse. Because significant 

archeological resources would be avoided to 

the greatest extent possible during 

implementation of alternative A, the actions 

associated with the alternative would be 

expected to contribute only minimally, if at all, 

to the adverse impacts of other past, present, 

or reasonably foreseeable actions. 

The cumulative impact of this alternative in 

conjunction with development occurring 

outside the park would be adverse. However, 

any adverse impacts to archeological resources 

resulting from implementation of alternative A 

would be a very small component of that 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Few if any adverse effects to 

archeological resources are anticipated because 

of inadvertent disturbance or vandalism. 

Avoidance of National Register-listed or 

eligible archeological resources during 

construction would result in no adverse 

impacts to archeological resources. If 

significant archeological resources could not 

be avoided during construction, the impacts to 

such resources would be adverse. A 

memorandum of agreement, in accordance 
Impacts on Cultural Resources 

143 

with 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.6, 

Resolution of Adverse Effects, would be 

negotiated between the staff of Manassas 

National Battlefield Park and the Virginia State 

Historic Preservation Officer. The 

memorandum of agreement would stipulate 

how the adverse effects would be mitigated. 

The actions associated with alternative A 

would to contribute only minimally, if at all, to 

the adverse impacts of other past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable actions. Although the 

cumulative impact would be adverse, any 

adverse impacts to archeological resources 

resulting from implementation of alternative A 

would be a very small component of the 

cumulative impact. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts to 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the Secretary of Interior’s order establishing 

Manassas National Battlefield Park; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the park or 

to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or 

(3) identified as a goal in the park’s general 

management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents, there would be no 

impairment of park resources or values. 

Historic Structures 

and Cultural Landscapes 

To appropriately preserve and protect 

National Register-listed or -eligible historic 

structures and cultural landscapes, all 

stabilization and preservation efforts, as well as 

daily, cyclical, and seasonal maintenance, 

would be undertaken in accordance with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995). 

Consequently, stabilization and preservation 

would have no adverse effects on historic 

structures and cultural landscapes. 

Preparation of historic structure reports or 

cultural landscape reports, as appropriate, 

would precede the rehabilitation of National 

Register-listed or -eligible historic structures 

or cultural landscapes, and any rehabilitation 

would be undertaken in accordance with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995). Any 

materials removed during the rehabilitation of 

historic structures would be evaluated to 

determine their value to the park’s museum 

collections and/or for their comparative use in 

future preservation work. Rehabilitation 

would have no adverse effects on historic 

structures or cultural landscapes. 

Careful design would ensure that the 

construction of small parking areas and loop 

trails, as well as the installation of interpretive 

displays, would minimally affect the scale and 

visual relationships among landscape features. 

In addition, the topography, vegetation, and 

land use patterns of landscapes would remain 

largely unaltered. No adverse impacts would 

be anticipated. 

Continued uncontrolled access to U.S. Route 

29 and VA Route 234 by commuter traffic and 

commercial trucks would cause dissonant 

sights and sounds to intrude on the battlefield 

landscape. Impacts to both the cultural 

landscape would be adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts. Over the years, historic 

structures in Manassas National Battlefield 

Park have been adversely impacted by the wear 

and tear associated with visitor access, natural 

processes such as weathering and erosion, and 

development. Construction of U.S. Route 29 

and VA Route 234, the development of the 

Manassas visitor center and other park 

infrastructure, erosion, and the growth of 

woodlands in what were once grasslands and 

scrublands have also adversely affected the 

park’s cultural landscapes, resulting in the 

alteration of landscape elements such as 

topography, spatial organization, land use 

patterns, and vegetation. 

As described above, the impacts associated 

with implementation of alternative A would 

primarily result in no adverse effects to the 

park’s historic structures and cultural landscapes. Because the actions associated with 

alternative A would contribute only minimal 

adverse impacts to the adverse impacts of 

other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable 

actions, the adverse impacts of alternative A 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

144 

would be a small component of the adverse 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. There would be no adverse 

effects associated with either the preservation 

and rehabilitation of historic structures and 

cultural landscapes or the construction of 

small parking areas, loop trails, and interpretive displays. Continued uncontrolled access to 

U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 by commuter 

traffic and commercial trucks would intrude 

on the battlefield landscape. Because the 

actions associated with alternative A would 

contribute only minimal adverse impacts to the 

adverse impacts of other past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable actions, the adverse 

impacts of alternative A would be a small 

component of the adverse cumulative impact. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts to 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the Secretary of Interior’s order establishing 

Manassas National Battlefield Park; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the park or 

to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or 

(3) identified as a goal in the park’s general 

management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents, there would be no 

impairment of park resources or values. 

Museum Collections 

Manassas National Battlefield Park’s museum 

collections, both onsite and offsite, would 

continue to be adequately inventoried, 

accessioned, and protected according to NPS 

standards. Because onsite storage facilities are 

nearing capacity, eventually more of the park’s 

museum collections would need be moved to 

an offsite facility, such as the Museum 

Research Center in Landover, Maryland 

(where the bulk of the park’s museum 

collections are stored). The utmost care would 

be exercised during the packing, moving, and 

unpacking of all collections; therefore, potential impacts to museum collections associated 

with the risk involved in moving artifacts and 

archives would be negligible and short-term. 

Moving additional artifacts and archives from 

the park to a facility outside the park would be 

less convenient for park staff that require use 

of the collections for research. This would 

result in a minor adverse long-term impact. 

However, there would be minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts associated with providing 

more space for adequate curation, storage, and 

research. 

Cumulative Impacts. Manassas National 

Battlefield Park’s museum collections would 

continue to be adequately stored and protected according to NPS standards, both onsite 

and offsite. In the future, more of the park’s 

museum collections would have to be moved 

to an offsite repository for adequate curation, 

storage, and research. Prior to the 

establishment of the park in 1940, artifacts and 

archives associated with the Battles of First and 

Second Manassas may not have received the 

care and protection such resources are 

accorded today. Adverse impacts would have 

been long-term and of minor to moderate 

intensity. 

Implementation of alternative A would 

potentially contribute both minor to moderate 

adverse and beneficial impacts to the minor to 

moderate adverse impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. 

The cumulative impact to museum collections, 

however, would be beneficial long-term and of 

minor to moderate intensity. 

Conclusion. Museum collections would 

continue to be adequately stored and 

protected according to NPS standards, both 

onsite and offsite. Moving artifacts and 

archives from the park to a facility outside the 

park would be less convenient for park staff 

members who require use of the collections for 

research, which would be minor adverse longterm impact. However, there would be minor 

to moderate beneficial impacts associated with 

providing more space for adequate curation, 

storage, and research. The cumulative impact 

to museum collections would be beneficial 

long-term and of minor to moderate intensity. 

The implementation of alternative A would not 

result in impairment of park resources. 
Impacts on Cultural Resources 

145 

ALTERNATIVE B—THE TWO BATTLES 

OF MANASSAS (PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE) 

Archeological Resources 

Archeological resources adjacent to or easily 

accessible from public access areas would be 

vulnerable to surface disturbance, inadvertent 

damage, and vandalism. Soil compaction, a loss 

of surface archeological materials, alteration of 

artifact distribution, and a reduction of contextual evidence would result. Continued 

ranger patrol and increased emphasis on visitor education would help discourage inadvertent destruction of cultural remains and 

vandalism, and any sites or areas with 

archeological resources that are subject to 

continued degradation could be closed to 

visitor access to better protect the resources. 

Few if any adverse effects would be 

anticipated. 

A number of actions associated with 

implementation of alternative B could 

potentially impact archeological resources. 

These include 

• constructing new visitor facilities at the 

Brawner Farm 

• constructing a new access road and bridge 

over Bull Run 

• landscape rehabilitation 

• installation of underground utilities for 

new facilities 

• development of automobile/bicycle tour 

routes, parking areas, hiking and 

equestrian trails and restrooms 

• building a new access road to park facilities 

at Stuart’s Hill 

Archeological surveys would precede any 

construction, and known archeological 

resources would be avoided during 

construction to the greatest extent possible. If 

National Register-listed or -eligible 

archeological resources could not be avoided, 

an appropriate mitigation strategy would be 

developed in consultation with the Virginia 

State Historic Preservation Officer. Any 

construction-related impacts to such archeological resources would be adverse. However, 

because archeological resources would be 

avoided to the greatest extent possible, no 

adverse impacts are anticipated. 

Prior to the removal of the U.S. Route 29 

bridge, and before the clearing of trees for 

landscape rehabilitation, surveys for 

archeological resources would be designed and 

conducted in consultation with the Virginia 

State Historic Preservation Officer. Significant 

archeological resources would be left in situ if 

possible. If disturbance of such resources was 

unavoidable, the excavation, recordation, and 

mapping of the resources would be completed 

before the removal of the structures or trees, to 

ensure that significant archeological data that 

otherwise would be lost is recovered and 

documented. Impacts to any National 

Register-listed or -eligible archeological 

resources would be adverse. 

The extent of archeological resources associated with the Battles of First and Second 

Manassas in the four tracts of land (Davis 

Tract, Stonewall Memory Garden Tract, 

Conservation Trust Parcel, and Dunklin 

Monument) proposed for acquisition by the 

park is unknown. However, transfer of this 

land to the National Park Service would ensure 

that any archeological resources discovered 

would be accorded the protection of federal 

preservation law, including Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, as 

amended in 1992 (16 United States Code 470 et 

seq.), which would result in a beneficial effect. 

Cumulative Impacts. The construction of U.S. 

Route 29 and VA Route 234, and the development of the Manassas visitor center and 

other park infrastructure, may have adversely 

impacted archeological resources because of 

disturbance during excavation and 

construction activities. 

The development and expansion of communities near the park may have disturbed archeological resources outside park boundaries. The 

continuation of such development could result 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

146 

in future adverse impacts to archeological 

resources. Other present and reasonably 

foreseeable actions occurring throughout the 

region, such as construction of the Tri-County 

Parkway, Battlefield Bypass, and other road 

projects, also have the potential to disturb 

archeological resources outside the park’s 

boundaries. Impacts to National Registerlisted or -eligible archeological resources that 

could not be avoided would be adverse. 

Actions associated with implementation of 

alternative B could potentially impact 

archeological resources at the park. Few, if 

any, adverse effects to archeological resources 

are anticipated from inadvertent damage or 

vandalism. If, however, National Registerlisted or -eligible archeological resources could 

not be avoided during the removal and 

construction of the U.S. Route 29 bridge, or 

during the removal of trees for landscape 

rehabilitation, the impacts to such 

archeological resources would be adverse. 

Because significant archeological resources 

would be avoided to the greatest extent 

possible during implementation of alternative 

B, the actions associated with the alternative 

would be expected to contribute only 

minimally to the adverse impacts of other past, 

present, or reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Although the cumulative impact would be 

adverse, any adverse impacts to archeological 

resources resulting from implementation of 

alternative B would be a small component of 

that cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. If significant archeological 

resources could not be avoided during construction, the impacts to such resources would 

be adverse. A memorandum of agreement, in 

accordance with 36 Code of Federal Regulations

Part 800.6, Resolution of Adverse Effects, would 

be negotiated between the staff of Manassas 

National Battlefield Park and the Virginia State 

Historic Preservation Officer. The 

memorandum of agreement would stipulate 

how the adverse effects would be mitigated.

The actions associated with alternative B 

would be expected to contribute only 

minimally to the adverse impacts of other past, 

present, or reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Although the cumulative impact would be 

adverse, any adverse impacts to archeological 

resources resulting from implementation of 

alternative B would be a small component of 

that cumulative impact. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts to 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the Secretary of Interior’s order establishing 

Manassas National Battlefield Park; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the park or 

to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or 

(3) identified as a goal in the park’s general 

management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents, there would be no 

impairment of park resources or values. 

Historic Structures 

and Cultural Landscapes 

To appropriately preserve and protect 

National Register-listed or -eligible historic 

structures and cultural landscapes, all 

stabilization and preservation efforts, as well as 

daily, cyclical, and seasonal maintenance, 

would be undertaken in accordance with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995). 

Consequently, stabilization and preservation 

would have no adverse effects on historic 

structures and cultural landscapes. 

Historic structures could suffer increased wear 

and tear from higher levels of visitation, but 

monitoring the carrying capacity of historic 

structures could result in the imposition of 

visitation levels or constraints that would 

contribute to the stability or integrity of the 

resources without unduly hindering 

interpretation for visitors. Unstaffed or 

minimally staffed structures could be more 

susceptible to vandalism. Continued ranger 

patrol and increased emphasis on visitor 

education would help discourage inadvertent 

harm to or vandalism of historic structures. 

Any structures subject to continued 

degradation could be closed to visitor access to 

better protect the resources. Few, if any, 

adverse effects would be anticipated. 
Impacts on Cultural Resources 

147 

Preparation of historic structure reports or 

cultural landscape reports, as appropriate, 

would precede the rehabilitation of National 

Register-listed or -eligible historic structures 

or cultural landscapes, and any rehabilitation 

would be undertaken in accordance with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995). Any 

materials removed during the rehabilitation of 

historic structures would be evaluated to 

determine their value to the park’s museum 

collections and/or for their comparative use in 

future preservation work. Rehabilitation 

would have no adverse effects on historic 

structures or cultural landscapes. 

As noted above, preparation of a cultural 

landscape report would precede the rehabilitation of the battlefield landscape. Clearing trees 

in areas that were not forested during either 

battle and returning the landscape to 

grasslands and/or scrubland would convert the 

landscape to more of a semblance of its 

historic appearance. Vistas of the battlefield 

would again show the relationship of hills, 

ridges, and water features to the positions of 

the embattled Union and Confederate troops, 

and would contribute to a better 

understanding of both battles by the visitor. 

There would be no adverse impacts to cultural 

landscapes. 

Removing the U.S. Route 29 bridge over Bull 

Run would eliminate a modern intrusion from 

the viewshed of the stone bridge and the 

battlefield landscape. Removal of the bridge 

would have a beneficial effect on the cultural 

landscape. 

Any new construction for a Second Manassas 

visitor contact station at the Brawner Farm and 

a new access road and bridge over Bull Run 

would be carefully sited to be as visually 

unobtrusive as possible and to minimally affect 

the scale and visual relationships among 

character-defining landscape features. 

Sensitive design of the new facilities, the use of 

appropriate materials and colors in 

construction, and select plantings of native 

vegetation as visual buffers, if necessary, would 

permit new facilities to be as compatible as 

possible with the historic landscape. No 

adverse effects would be anticipated. 

Careful design would ensure that the 

rehabilitation of parking areas and the 

expansion or development of trails would 

minimally affect the scale and visual 

relationships among landscape features. In 

addition, the topography, vegetation, 

circulation features, and land use patterns of 

any historic district or cultural landscape 

would remain largely unaltered, resulting in no 

adverse effects. 

The under-grounding of utilities for new 

facilities would have minimal, if any, effect on 

the existing topography, spatial organization, 

or land use patterns of historic sites or cultural 

landscapes. Once the underground utility line 

was installed and the trench was backfilled, the 

disturbed ground would be restored to its preconstruction contour and condition and 

revegetated as necessary. There would be no 

adverse impacts to cultural landscapes. 

Restricting access to U.S. Route 29 and VA 

Route 234 by commuter traffic and 

commercial trucks would reduce dissonant 

sights and sounds that currently intrude on the 

battlefield landscape. Restricting commuter 

traffic and commercial truck access to U.S. 

Route 29 and VA Route 234 would result in a 

beneficial impact to cultural landscapes. 

Cumulative Impacts. Over the years, historic 

structures in Manassas National Battlefield 

Park have been adversely impacted by the wear 

and tear associated with visitor access, natural 

processes such as weathering and erosion, and 

development. Construction of U.S. Route 29 

and VA Route 234, the development of the 

Manassas visitor center, and other park 

infrastructure, erosion, and the growth of 

woodlands in what were once grasslands and 

scrublands have also adversely affected the 

park’s cultural landscapes, resulting in the 

alteration of landscape elements such as 

topography, spatial organization, land use 

patterns, and vegetation. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

148 

As described above, the impacts associated 

with implementation of alternative B would 

primarily result in no adverse effects to the 

park’s historic structures and cultural 

landscapes. Because the actions associated 

with alternative B would contribute only 

minimal, if any, adverse impacts to the adverse 

impacts of other past, present, or reasonably 

foreseeable actions, the adverse impacts of 

alternative B would be a very small component 

of the adverse cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Carefully siting and designing 

new construction for a Second Manassas 

visitor contact station at the Brawner Farm and 

for a new access road and bridge over Bull Run 

would permit new facilities to be as compatible 

as possible with the historic landscape, and no 

adverse effects would be anticipated. There 

would be no adverse effects associated with 

either the preservation and rehabilitation of 

historic structures and cultural landscapes or 

the construction of small parking areas, loop 

trails, and interpretive displays. Clearing trees 

from areas that were not forested during either 

battle and returning the landscape to more of a 

semblance of its historic appearance would 

contribute to a better understanding of both 

battles by the visitor. Restricting access to U.S. 

Route 29 and VA Route 234 by commuter 

traffic and commercial trucks would have a 

beneficial impact on historic structures and 

cultural landscapes. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts to 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the Secretary of Interior’s order establishing 

Manassas National Battlefield Park; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the park or 

to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or 

(3) identified as a goal in the park’s general 

management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents, there would be no 

impairment of park resources or values. 

Museum Collections 

Manassas National Battlefield Park’s museum 

collections, both onsite and offsite, would 

continue to be adequately inventoried, 

accessioned, and protected according to NPS 

standards. Because onsite storage facilities are 

nearing capacity, eventually more of the park’s 

museum collections would need be moved to 

an offsite facility, such as the Museum 

Research Center in Landover, Maryland 

(where the bulk of the park’s museum 

collections are stored). The utmost care would 

be exercised during the packing, moving, and 

unpacking of all collections; therefore, 

potential impacts to museum collections 

associated with the risk involved in moving 

artifacts and archives would be negligible and 

short-term. 

Moving additional artifacts and archives from 

the park to a facility outside the park would be 

less convenient for park staff that require use 

of the collections for research. This would 

result in a minor adverse long-term impact. 

However, there would be minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts associated with providing 

more space for adequate curation, storage, and 

research.

Cumulative Impacts. Manassas National 

Battlefield Park’s museum collections would 

continue to be adequately stored and 

protected according to NPS standards, both 

onsite and offsite. In the future, more of the 

park’s museum collections would have to be 

moved to an offsite repository for adequate 

curation, storage, and research. Prior to the 

establishment of the park in 1940, artifacts and 

archives associated with the Battles of First and 

Second Manassas may not have received the 

care and protection such resources are 

accorded today. Adverse impacts would have 

been long-term and of minor to moderate 

intensity. 

Implementation of alternative B would 

potentially contribute both minor to moderate 

adverse and beneficial impacts to the minor to 

moderate adverse impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. 

The cumulative impact to museum collections, 

however, would be beneficial long-term and of 

minor to moderate intensity. 

Conclusion. Museum collections would 

continue to be adequately stored and 
Impacts on Cultural Resources 

149 

protected according to NPS standards, both 

on-site and off-site. Moving artifacts and 

archives from the park to a facility outside the 

park would be less convenient for park staff 

members who require use of the collections for 

research, which would be a minor adverse 

long-term impact. However, there would be 

minor to moderate beneficial impacts 

associated with providing more space for 

adequate curation, storage, and research. The 

cumulative impact to museum collections 

would be beneficial long-term and of minor to 

moderate intensity. The implementation of 

alternative B would not result in impairment of 

park resources. 

ALTERNATIVE C—THE DEFINING 

MOMENTS OF THE BATTLES OF 

MANASSAS 

Archeological Resources 

Archeological resources adjacent to or easily 

accessible from public access areas would be 

vulnerable to surface disturbance, inadvertent 

damage, and vandalism. Soil compaction, a loss 

of surface archeological materials, alteration of 

artifact distribution, and a reduction of 

contextual evidence would result. Continued 

ranger patrol and increased emphasis on 

visitor education would help discourage 

inadvertent destruction of cultural remains 

and vandalism, and any sites or areas with 

archeological resources that are subject to 

continued degradation could be closed to 

visitor access to better protect the resources. 

Few if any adverse effects would be 

anticipated. 

A number of actions associated with implementation of alternative C could potentially 

impact archeological resources. These include 

• constructing a new visitor center east of 

the Stone Bridge, including a new access 

road and bridge over Bull Run 

• landscape rehabilitation 

• installation of underground utilities for 

new facilities 

• the development of hiking and equestrian 

trails, restrooms, and picnic areas 

• building a new access road to park facilities 

at Stuart’s Hill 

Archeological surveys would precede any 

construction, and known archeological 

resources would be avoided during construction to the greatest extent possible. If National 

Register-listed or -eligible archeological 

resources could not be avoided, an appropriate 

mitigation strategy would be developed in 

consultation with the Virginia State Historic 

Preservation Officer. Any construction-related 

impacts to such archeological resources would 

be adverse. However, because archeological 

resources would be avoided to the greatest 

extent possible no adverse impacts are 

anticipated. 

Prior to the removal of the existing visitor 

center at Henry Hill, the U.S. Route 29 bridge, 

and the parking area at Battery Heights, and 

before the clearing of trees for landscape 

rehabilitation, surveys for archeological 

resources would be designed and conducted in 

consultation with the Virginia State Historic 

Preservation Officer. Significant archeological 

resources would be left in situ if possible. If 

disturbance of such resources was unavoidable, the excavation, recordation, and mapping 

of the resources would be completed prior to 

the removal of the structures or trees, to 

ensure that significant archeological data that 

otherwise would be lost is recovered and 

documented. Impacts to any National 

Register-listed or -eligible archeological 

resources would be adverse. 

The extent of archeological resources 

associated with the Battles of First and Second 

Manassas in the four tracts of land (Davis 

Tract, Stonewall Memory Garden Tract, 

Conservation Trust Parcel, and Dunklin 

Monument) proposed for acquisition by the 

park is unknown. However, transfer of this 

land to the National Park Service would ensure 

that any archeological resources discovered 

would be accorded the protection of federal 

preservation law, including Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, as 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

150 

amended in 1992 (16 United States Code 470 et 

seq.), which would result in a beneficial effect. 

Cumulative Impacts. The construction of U.S. 

Route 29 and VA Route 234, and the 

development of the Manassas visitor center 

and other park infrastructure, may have 

adversely impacted archeological resources 

because of disturbance during excavation and 

construction activities. 

The development and expansion of 

communities near the park may have disturbed 

archeological resources outside park 

boundaries. The continuation of such 

development could result in future adverse 

impacts to archeological resources. Other 

present and reasonably foreseeable actions 

occurring throughout the region, such as construction of the Tri-County Parkway, Battlefield Bypass, and other road projects, also have 

the potential to disturb archeological resources 

outside the park’s boundaries. Impacts to 

National Register-listed or -eligible 

archeological resources that could not be 

avoided would be adverse. 

Actions associated with implementation of 

alternative C could potentially impact 

archeological resources at the park. Few, if 

any, adverse effects to archeological resources 

are anticipated from inadvertent damage or 

vandalism. If, however, National Registerlisted or -eligible archeological resources could 

not be avoided during construction activities, 

the removal of existing structures, or during 

the removal of trees for landscape 

rehabilitation, the impacts to such 

archeological resources would be adverse. 

Because significant archeological resources 

would be avoided to the greatest extent 

possible during implementation of alternative 

C, the actions associated with the alternative 

would be expected to contribute only minimally to the adverse impacts of other past, 

present, or reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Although the cumulative impact would be 

adverse, any adverse impacts to archeological 

resources resulting from implementation of 

alternative C would be a small component of 

that cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. If significant archeological 

resources could not be avoided during 

construction, the impacts to such resources 

would be adverse. A memorandum of 

agreement, in accordance with 36 Code of 

Federal Regulations Part 800.6, Resolution of 

Adverse Effects, would be negotiated between 

the staff of Manassas National Battlefield Park 

and the Virginia State Historic Preservation 

Officer. The memorandum of agreement 

would stipulate how the adverse effects would 

be mitigated. 

The actions associated with alternative C 

would be expected to contribute only 

minimally to the adverse impacts of other past, 

present, or reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Although the cumulative impact would be 

adverse, any adverse impacts to archeological 

resources resulting from implementation of 

alternative C would be a small component of 

that cumulative impact. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts to 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the Secretary of Interior’s order establishing 

Manassas National Battlefield Park; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the park or 

to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or 

(3) identified as a goal in the park’s general 

management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents, there would be no 

impairment of park resources or values. 

Historic Structures 

and Cultural Landscapes 

To appropriately preserve and protect 

National Register-listed or -eligible historic 

structures and cultural landscapes, all 

stabilization and preservation efforts, as well as 

daily, cyclical, and seasonal maintenance, 

would be undertaken in accordance with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995). 

Consequently, stabilization and preservation 

would have no adverse effects on historic 

structures and cultural landscapes. 

Historic structures could suffer increased wear 

and tear from higher levels of visitation, but 
Impacts on Cultural Resources 

151 

monitoring the carrying capacity of historic 

structures could result in the imposition of 

visitation levels or constraints that would 

contribute to the stability or integrity of the 

resources without unduly hindering 

interpretation for visitors. Unstaffed or 

minimally staffed structures could be more 

susceptible to vandalism. Continued ranger 

patrol and increased emphasis on visitor 

education would help discourage inadvertent 

harm to or vandalism of historic structures. 

Any structures subject to continued 

degradation could be closed to visitor access to 

better protect the resources. Few, if any, 

adverse effects would be anticipated. 

Preparation of historic structure reports or 

cultural landscape reports would precede the 

rehabilitation of National Register-listed or -

eligible historic structures or cultural 

landscapes, and any rehabilitation would be 

undertaken in accordance with the Secretary of 

the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). Any materials 

removed during the rehabilitation of historic 

structures would be evaluated to determine 

their value to the park’s museum collections 

and/or for their comparative use in future 

preservation work. Rehabilitation would have 

no adverse effects on historic structures or 

cultural landscapes. 

As noted above, preparation of a cultural 

landscape report would precede the rehabilitation of the battlefield landscape. Clearing 

trees in areas that were not forested during 

either battle and returning the landscape to 

grasslands and/or scrubland would convert the 

landscape to more of a semblance of its 

historic appearance. Vistas of the battlefield 

through the clearings would again show the 

relationship of hills, ridges, and water features 

to the positions of the embattled Union and 

Confederate troops, and would contribute to a 

better understanding of both battles by the 

visitor. There would be no adverse impacts to 

cultural landscapes. 

Removal of the visitor center at Henry Hill and 

the U.S. Route 29 bridge over Bull Run would 

eliminate modern intrusions from the battlefield landscape, and return the landscape to 

more of a semblance of its historic appearance. 

There would be no adverse impacts to cultural 

landscapes.

The new visitor center east of the Stone Bridge, 

including a new access road and bridge over 

Bull Run, would be carefully sited to be as 

visually unobtrusive as possible, and to minimally affect the scale and visual relationships 

among character-defining landscape features. 

Sensitive design of the new structures, the use 

of appropriate materials and colors in construction, and select plantings of native vegetation as visual buffers, if necessary, would 

permit new structures to be as compatible as 

possible with the historic landscape. No 

adverse effects would be anticipated as a result 

of the construction of a new visitor center east 

of the stone bridge. 

Careful design would ensure that the rehabilitation of parking areas and the expansion or 

development of trails would minimally affect 

the scale and visual relationships among landscape features. In addition, the topography, 

vegetation, circulation features, and land-use 

patterns of any historic district or cultural 

landscape would remain largely unaltered, 

resulting in no adverse effects. 

The undergrounding of utilities for new facilities would have minimal, if any, effect on the 

existing topography, spatial organization, or 

land-use patterns of historic sites or cultural 

landscapes. Once the underground utility line 

was installed and the trench was backfilled, the 

disturbed ground would be restored to its preconstruction contour and condition and 

revegetated as necessary. There would be no 

adverse impacts to cultural landscapes. 

Restricting access to U.S. Route 29 and VA 

Route 234 by commuter traffic and commercial trucks would reduce dissonant sights and 

sounds that currently intrude on the battlefield 

landscape. Restricting commuter traffic and 

commercial truck access to U.S. Route 29 and 

VA Route 234 would result in a beneficial 

impact to cultural landscapes. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

152 

Cumulative Impacts. Over the years, historic 

structures in Manassas National Battlefield 

Park have been adversely impacted by the wear 

and tear associated with visitor access, natural 

processes such as weathering and erosion, and 

development. Construction of U.S. Route 29 

and VA Route 234, the development of the 

Manassas visitor center, and other park infrastructure, erosion, and the growth of woodlands in what were once grasslands and scrublands have also adversely affected the park’s 

cultural landscapes, resulting in the alteration 

of landscape elements such as topography, 

spatial organization, land use patterns, and 

vegetation. 

As described above, the impacts associated 

with implementation of alternative C would 

primarily result in no adverse effects to the 

park’s historic structures and cultural landscapes. Because the actions associated with 

alternative C would contribute only minimal, if 

any, adverse impacts to the adverse impacts of 

other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable 

actions, the adverse impacts of alternative C 

would be a small component of the adverse 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Carefully siting and designing the 

new visitor center east of the Stone Bridge, 

including a new access road and bridge over 

Bull Run would permit new facilities to be as 

compatible as possible with the historic 

landscape, and no adverse effects would be 

anticipated. There would be no adverse effects 

associated with either the preservation and 

rehabilitation of historic structures and 

cultural landscapes or the construction of 

small parking areas, loop trails, and 

interpretive displays. Clearing trees from areas 

that were not forested during either battle and 

returning the landscape to more of a semblance of its historic appearance would contribute to a better understanding of both battles by 

the visitor. Restricting access to U.S. Route 29 

and VA Route 234 by commuter traffic and 

commercial trucks would have a beneficial 

impact on historic structures and cultural 

landscapes. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts to 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the Secretary of Interior’s order establishing 

Manassas National Battlefield Park; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the park or 

to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or 

(3) identified as a goal in the park’s general 

management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of park resources or values. 

Museum Collections 

Manassas National Battlefield Park’s museum 

collections, both onsite and offsite, would 

continue to be adequately inventoried, 

accessioned, and protected according to NPS 

standards. Because onsite storage facilities are 

nearing capacity, eventually more of the park’s 

museum collections would need to be moved 

to an offsite facility such as the Museum 

Research Center in Landover, Maryland 

(where the bulk of the park’s museum 

collections are stored). The utmost care would 

be exercised during the packing, moving, and 

unpacking of all collections; therefore, potential impacts to museum collections associated 

with the risk involved in moving artifacts and 

archives would be negligible and short-term. 

Moving additional artifacts and archives from 

the park to a facility outside the park would be 

less convenient for park staff who require use 

of the collections for research. This would 

result in a minor adverse long-term impact. 

However, there would be minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts associated with providing 

more space for adequate curation, storage, and 

research. 

Cumulative Impacts. Manassas National 

Battlefield Park’s museum collections would 

continue to be adequately stored and protected according to NPS standards, both onsite and off-site. In the future more of the 

park’s museum collections would have to be 

moved to an off-site repository for adequate 

curation, storage, and research. Prior to the 

establishment of the park in 1940, artifacts and 

archives associated with the Battles of First and 

Second Manassas may not have received the 
Impacts on Cultural Resources 

153 

care and protection such resources are 

accorded today. Adverse impacts would have 

been long-term and of minor to moderate 

intensity. 

Implementation of alternative C would 

potentially contribute both minor to moderate 

adverse and beneficial impacts to the minor to 

moderate adverse impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. 

The cumulative impact to museum collections, 

however, would be beneficial, long-term, and 

of minor to moderate intensity. 

Conclusion. Museum collections would 

continue to be adequately stored and 

protected according to NPS standards, both 

on-site and off-site. Moving artifacts and 

archives from the park to a facility outside the 

park would be less convenient for park staff 

members who require use of the collections for 

research, which would be a minor adverse 

long-term impact. However, there would be 

minor to moderate beneficial impacts 

associated with providing more space for 

adequate curation, storage, and research. The 

cumulative impact to museum collections 

would be beneficial long-term and of minor to 

moderate intensity. The implementation of 

alternative C would not result in impairment of 

park resources. 
154 

IMPACTS ON TRANSPORTATION 

METHODOLOGY 

In the impact analysis for transportation, the 

National Park Service considered the potential 

effects of the proposed controlled access 

measures, such as gates, entrance stations, 

signs, and road closures, and transportation 

improvements on internal circulation patterns, 

safety, and traffic operations within the park. 

Only broad judgment can be made on the 

potential direct and secondary impacts on 

traffic outside the park boundaries. These 

potential impacts are being evaluated in detail 

as part of the Battlefield Bypass study. As a 

result, the implementation of any controlled 

access or road closures is dependent on the 

outcome of the Battlefield Bypass study, and 

additional analysis would be needed to further 

supplement the transportation analysis in this 

General Management Plan. 

Unless specified, this impact analysis refers to 

the proposed transportation-related actions 

collectively as transportation improvements. 

With a large-scale plan such as a general 

management plan, future implementation 

proposals would typically be tiered 

(procedurally connected) to the broad-scale 

general management plan, and additional 

planning and environmental analysis would be 

conducted in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, Director’s Order 

#12, and the NPS’ Management Policies. This is 

especially true with the transportation improvements and controlled access measures 

described under alternative B and alternative 

C. As a result, this analysis is primarily 

qualitative and is designed to provide the park 

superintendent with overall management 

direction. Effects of transportation 

improvements are also considered under other 

impact topics, including soundscape, the 

socioeconomic environment, and visitor 

experience. 

DEFINITION OF INTENSITY LEVELS 

Analyses of the potential intensity of 

transportation (traffic) were derived from 

various studies and information available on 

the traffic conditions at the Manassas National 

Battlefield Park such as the Manassas National 

Battlefield Park Bypass Study Existing Conditions Report (FHWA 2002), and the Manassas 

National Battlefield Park Transportation Study

(NPS 1996). Definitions for the thresholds of 

change for the intensity of impacts on transportation are as follows: 

• Negligible: Effects would not be considered 

detectable and would have no discernible 

effect on traffic flow and/or traffic safety 

conditions. 

• Minor: Effects on traffic flow and/or traffic 

safety conditions would be slightly 

detectable but not expected to have an 

overall effect on those conditions. 

• Moderate: Effects would be clearly 

detectable and could have an appreciable 

effect on traffic flow and/or traffic safety 

conditions. 

• Major: Effects would be substantial, with a 

highly noticeable influence on traffic flow 

and/or traffic safety conditions and could 

permanently alter those conditions. 

• Duration: A short-term impact would last 

less than one year and would affect only 

one season’s, or the length of construction 

activities, use by visitors. A long-term 

impact would last more than one year and 

would be more permanent in nature. 

ALTERNATIVE A—CONTINUING 

CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

(NO-ACTION) 

Under the no-action alternative, the National 

Park Service would not control access on or 

close U.S. Route 29 or VA Route 234. The 

traffic signal at the intersection of U.S. Route 

29 and VA Route 234 would remain in place 
Impacts on Transportation 

155 

because of heavy traffic volumes. The traffic 

flow and operations would continue to be 

adversely impacted by existing conditions. 

Levels of service are described by a letter 

designation ranging from “A” to “F,” with level 

of service “A” representing essentially 

uninterrupted flow, and level of service “F” 

representing a breakdown of traffic flow with 

excessive congestion and delay. The signalized 

intersection capacity analysis results in an 

overall level of service, representative of all 

movements through the intersection. Level of 

service “D” or better is typically considered 

acceptable in most metropolitan areas. Under 

alternative A, the intersection of U.S. Route 29 

and VA Route 234 would continue to operate 

at Level of Service “F.” 

As northern Virginia and Prince William 

County populations continue to grow, commuter traffic volumes and traffic operations on 

U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 would be 

expected to worsen unless a bypass is constructed, alternate routes outside the park are 

improved, or other controlled access measures 

are implemented. As the bypass alternatives are 

further refined, the traffic modeling for each 

alternative would predict the impacts of the 

bypass on traffic volumes on U.S. Route 29 and 

VA Route 234 within the park. It is anticipated 

that the bypass alone would reduce traffic 

volumes on U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 

but not to the level that would be acceptable to 

the motorists. Therefore, additional control 

access measures would be needed to achieve 

the desired traffic levels and operations. Under 

the no-action alternative, commuter and truck 

traffic would continue to have a major longterm adverse impact on transportation within 

the park. Traffic would cause excessive delays 

for, and could pose a safety threat to, park 

visitors in automobiles, on bicycle, or on foot, 

especially during peak periods. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The projects described in the cumulative 

impact scenario would all have beneficial 

impacts on transportation in the park because, 

taken together, they would increase regional 

mobility while creating a small potential 

reduction of traffic volumes on park roadways. 

Alternative A does not propose any additional 

projects that would create cumulative impacts. 

Therefore, no cumulative transportation 

impacts would occur under alternative A. 

Conclusion 

Under alternative A, the continually rising 

levels of non-park commuter and commercial 

traffic would continue to have a major longterm adverse impact on transportation within 

the park. It would cause excessive delays for, 

and could pose a safety threat to park visitors 

in automobiles, on bicycle, or on foot, 

especially during peak periods. No cumulative 

impacts would occur. 

ALTERNATIVE B—THE TWO BATTLES 

OF MANASSAS (PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE) 

Under alternative B, the National Park Service 

would implement traffic control measures to 

eliminate commuter traffic in the park. For the 

purposes of this alternative, the National Park 

Service considered a scenario that included the 

construction of gates, entrance stations, or 

some other form of control in the following 

locations: 

• on VA Route 234 north of the Northern 

Virginia Community College entrance 

• along VA Route 234 north of VA Route 

622 (Featherbed Lane) 

• along U.S. Route 29 east of VA Route 705 

(Pageland Lane) 

• along U.S. Route 29 west of the eastern 

park boundary 

The National Park Service would remove the 

existing U.S. Route 29 bridge over Bull Run 

and develop a new road and bridge over Bull 

Run south of the current location. The new 

access road would include a controlled access 

point. 

Controlling access into the park on VA Route 

234 north of the Community College would 

eliminate commuter traffic and facilitate 

greater contact between park staff and visitors. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

156 

As a result, the access control facility would 

likely be in the form of an entrance station. In 

addition, an entrance station may be desirable 

at the other park entrances. Under this 

scenario, all commuter traffic would be 

expected to be diverted to other roadways 

outside the park because of the controlled 

access measures at each of the three major 

entrances into the park. 

A bypass and combination of measures 

described above could be successful in 

reducing commuter traffic in the park. 

Therefore, phased implementation of 

controlled measures is being considered by the 

National Park Service. Additional study would 

be performed to determine the appropriate 

control devices and measures. This section 

provides the National Park Service with 

general management direction that the 

controlled access at entry points would be 

used to achieve the elimination of commuter 

traffic within the Park. 

Under the controlled access scenario at the 

four major entrances, a level of service “B” or 

better would be achieved on the road and at 

each intersection. Implementation of 

controlled access would have a major direct 

long-term beneficial impact on traffic 

operations. The level of service would increase 

from “F” to “B.” In addition, these 

improvements would have an indirect 

beneficial long-term impact to the visitor 

experience and pedestrian and motorist safety 

within the park from decreased traffic 

volumes. The reduction in traffic volumes 

would increase the visitor carrying capacity at 

the park, which may allow the park to receive 

increased visitation and, therefore, increased 

revenues. 

The placement of an entrance station on the 

south end of the park on VA Route 234 would 

require provisions to minimize the potential 

impacts associated with queuing of 

automobiles. Based on a preliminary review, 

the queue scenario during peak visitation 

would require that the National Park Service 

make provisions for an additional gate or 

entrance to minimize the delays to community 

college and nearby commercial properties 

south of the park. It is estimated that the queue 

for a one-lane entrance station could create 

considerable backups that would impact the 

operation of other roads, and could adversely 

impact nearby residences and businesses. 

Additional study would be required during the 

design of any controlled access on VA Route 

234. However, the preliminary investigation 

indicates that provisions for a second lane 

would be necessary to handle the incoming 

traffic during peak visitation periods. It is 

anticipated that through future planning and 

design, the impacts on transportation would be 

minimized to have a negligible adverse impact 

on the nearby college and businesses. 

The U.S. Route 29 bridge over Bull Run would 

be removed and a new road and bridge over 

Bull Run would be developed. Because the new 

access road would include a controlled access 

point, there would be no increase in commuter 

traffic volumes associated with the new access 

route and bridge. The removal of the U.S. 

Route 29 bridge over Bull Run would help 

rehabilitate the cultural landscape and historic 

setting of the Stone Bridge by eliminating the 

modern highway bridge from the Stone Bridge 

viewshed. The development of the new access 

road and entrance station would be part of the 

phased approach to reduce commuter traffic in 

the park and would have a major direct longterm beneficial impact on transportation in the 

park. The removal of the existing modern 

highway bridge and development of the new 

access road and bridge in a different location 

would be an irreversible commitment of 

resources and is called out as such at the end of 

this “Environmental Consequences” chapter. 

Other transportation improvements would 

have a beneficial impact on traffic flow, 

circulation, and operation as well as visitor 

safety. These actions include: 

• eliminating the traffic signal at the 

intersection of U.S. Route 29 and VA 

Route 234 

• reducing speed limits to 25 miles per hour 

• designating bicycle lanes along primary 

roads 
Impacts on Transportation 

157 

• placing another four-way stop sign and 

pedestrian crossing signs at intersections 

with secondary roads and trail routes 

• replacing orientation and directional signs 

The transportation improvements proposed 

under alternative B would have a long-term 

moderate beneficial impact on transportation 

systems, thereby improving motorist and 

pedestrian safety in the park. 

Cumulative Impacts

The transportation improvements under 

alternative B, when combined with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

projects, would have a beneficial cumulative 

impact on transportation. The incremental 

impacts associated with alternative B would be 

moderate. The transportation improvements 

identified in the Battlefield Bypass study, TriCounty Parkway study, I-66 study, and VA 

Route 234 Bypass North study would have 

beneficial impacts on transportation because 

of increased capacity of the regional roadway 

network surrounding the park. Collectively, 

the cumulative impact would be major longterm and beneficial. 

Conclusion 

The controlled access measures under 

alternative B would have a major long-term 

beneficial impact on transportation within the 

park because of the reduction in commuter 

and truck traffic in the park. The controlled 

access measures and transportation 

improvements would also result in a long-term 

moderate beneficial impact on motorist and 

pedestrian safety. The impacts on 

transportation operations and congestion from 

the closure of the roads are being considered 

under the Battlefield Bypass study. The 

National Park Service would conduct 

additional planning and environmental 

analysis prior to choosing a preferred method 

for controlling access into the park and closing 

the roads to the public. Additional public 

outreach would be part of the planning 

process. Cumulatively, the transportation 

improvements would have a major long-term 

beneficial cumulative impact on the regional 

transportation system when added to other 

regional transportation projects in the 

immediate vicinity of the park. 

ALTERNATIVE C—THE DEFINING 

MOMENTS OF THE BATTLES OF 

MANASSAS 

Under alternative C, many of the proposed 

transportation improvements, such as 

controlled access at four entrances and 

removal of the U.S. Route 29 bridge over Bull 

Run, would be the same as alternative B. 

Therefore, the impacts from these actions 

would be the same as alternative B. 

One exception is the proposed visitor center 

near the new access road and bridge over Bull 

Run on the east side of the park. Potential 

transportation impacts associated with a new 

visitor center would depend on the specific 

location of the visitor center. Additional study 

would be conducted to further assess the 

potential effects of a new visitor center and 

new access point on transportation. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative impact would be the same as 

described for alternative B. The transportation 

improvements under alternative C, when 

combined with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects, would 

have a beneficial cumulative impact on 

transportation. The incremental impacts from 

alternative C would be moderate. The 

transportation improvements identified in the 

Battlefield Bypass, Tri-County Parkway, I-66, 

and VA Route 234 Bypass North studies would 

have beneficial impacts on transportation 

because of increased capacity of the regional 

roadway network surrounding the park. 

Collectively, the cumulative impact would be 

major long-term and beneficial. 

Conclusion 

Overall, controlled access measures would 

have a major long-term beneficial impact on 

transportation in the park by eliminating 

commuter and commercial traffic and 

dramatically reducing traffic volumes. The 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

158 

transportation improvements when added to 

other proposed projects would have a major 

long-term beneficial cumulative impact on 

transportation. 
159 

IMPACTS ON THE SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

METHODOLOGY 

The analysis focused primarily on the potential 

impacts to residents who require access 

through the park to get to their homes. Further 

study would be performed by the National 

Park Service to determine the specific type and 

location of controlled access, such as gates, 

entrance stations, and/or signs. 

For this programmatic study, the impacts 

discussed are qualitative. Additional planning 

and environmental analysis would be 

conducted to determine site-specific impacts 

on the socio-economic environment. As part 

of the Battlefield Bypass study, the Federal 

Highway Administration and the National 

Park Service are considering the potential 

impacts to the socioeconomic environment 

outside park boundaries resulting from the 

closure of U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 to 

heavy commuter traffic. 

DEFINITION OF INTENSITY LEVELS 

Definitions for the thresholds of change for the 

intensity of impacts on socioeconomics are as 

follows: 

• Negligible: Impacts on socioeconomic 

conditions would be below or at the level 

of detection. The impact would be 

localized and not measurable or at the 

lowest level of detection. 

• Minor: Impacts on socioeconomic 

conditions would be slight but detectable. 

• Moderate: Impacts on socioeconomic 

conditions would be readily apparent and 

would result in changes to socioeconomic 

conditions on a local scale. 

• Major: Impacts on socioeconomic 

conditions would be readily apparent, 

resulting in demonstrable changes to 

socioeconomic conditions in the region. 

• Duration: Short-term impacts are 

temporary in duration and typically are 

transitional effects associated with 

implementation of an action, such as 

construction activities, and end in less than 

one year. Long-term impacts may have a 

permanent effect on the socioeconomic 

environments and their effect extends 

beyond one year. 

ALTERNATIVE A—CONTINUING 

CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

(NO-ACTION) 

Under the no-action alternative, there would 

be no change in the ability of an individual to 

access residential areas or private or public 

facilities in or adjacent to the park boundaries. 

There would be no change to local businesses 

that use U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 to 

transfer goods and commodities. Therefore, 

the impact to the socioeconomic environment 

would be negligible. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Negligible cumulative impacts would occur 

because there would be a negligible change to 

the socioeconomic environment caused by the 

no-action alternative. 

Conclusion

The no-action alternative would have 

negligible impacts to the socioeconomic 

environment. Cumulative impacts would be 

negligible. 

ALTERNATIVE B—THE TWO BATTLES 

OF MANASSAS (PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE) 

Under the controlled access scenario 

described in the transportation section, 

residents would be required to enter their 

properties through some method of controlled 

access such as a gate or entrance station. The 

National Park Service would make special 

provisions for residents who require access 

through the park to get to their property. 

These provisions would give the residents and 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

160 

their guests and service providers the ability to 

use the gates as needed for the purposes of 

accessing their home and/or property. It is 

anticipated the effects on residents would be 

the equivalent to living within a gated 

residential community. The inconvenience to 

residents is estimated on average to be less 

than 30 seconds each time someone has to use 

the gate. The long-term adverse impacts to 

these residents would be negligible. 

The time associated with using the gate would 

be offset by eliminating the delays associated 

with current traffic conditions within the park. 

For instance, during peak commuter traffic, 

residents currently have to wait through as 

many as two to three traffic signal cycles (up to 

two minutes) to pass through the intersection 

of VA Route 234 and U.S. Route 29. Under 

alternative B, commuter traffic would be 

substantially reduced with levels of service at 

major intersections and roads within the park 

improving to level of service “B” or better. 

Overall, the controlled access measures would 

have long-term beneficial impacts on the social 

setting because of decreased delays at 

intersections and reduced traffic volumes on 

the state and U.S. routes in the park. 

The implementation of gates or controlled 

access would provide residents the security 

benefits that are typically associated with a 

gated community. Controlled access would 

eliminate access to property within the park 

boundaries for individuals who do not have 

permission or purpose. 

Special provisions would be made for 

expedited park access for emergency response 

vehicles. In most cases, response times would 

be shorter than current conditions because the 

commuter traffic within the park would be 

eliminated. The overall effect would be 

negligible. 

The Manassas National Battlefield Park is 

served primarily by Stonewall Jackson 

Volunteer Fire Department, Station 11, at 7814 

Garner Drive, Manassas. The station is 

approximately 1.7 miles from the southern 

entrance on VA Route 234 and approximately 

3 miles from the central area of the park. The 

response time is approximately 5 minutes, but 

may be greater depending on traffic congestion 

on the roads. The response time would not be 

expected to change because of the 

development of controlled access points on 

VA Route 234 and U.S. Route 29 because 

reduced traffic congestion (made possible by 

the bypass) would offset any additional time 

necessary to enter through the controlled 

access points. The overall effect would be 

negligible. 

Road closures and controlled access would 

have adverse impacts on nearby local businesses that use U.S. Route 29. The impacts 

would depend on the location of a bypass and 

are therefore being considered as part of the 

Battlefield Bypass study. The impacts 

associated with controlled access would be 

minor if a bypass route was provided and 

would likely affect only a few businesses. 

Other proposed actions under alternative B 

such as orientation and visitor services, 

cultural landscape rehabilitation, and 

preservation and maintenance of historic 

structures would have a negligible adverse 

impact to residents or businesses within or 

adjacent to the park boundaries. 

Cumulative Impacts 

When combined with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects such as 

pending road construction projects, the 

socioeconomic impacts of alternative B would 

have adverse cumulative impacts. The 

socioeconomic impacts largely depend on the 

alternatives selected for each pending road 

project. However, the impacts would likely be 

minor because of the potential impacts on only 

a few residents. The incremental impacts 

associated with implementation of alternative 

B would be expected to be small. Therefore, 

the cumulative impacts would be anticipated to 

be minor. 

Conclusion 

Implementation of alternative B would have 

negligible long-term adverse impacts on 
Impacts on the Socioeconomic Environment 

161 

residents living within the new controlledaccess area because of the delays associated 

with controlled access measures. The impacts 

could be offset by the benefits of the reduction 

in traffic and associated delays at the 

intersections within the park. In addition, 

there would be an added security benefit to 

residents, similar to living within a gated area. 

Negligible impacts to emergency response 

would occur. A few businesses could 

experience minor adverse long-term impacts. 

Minor, adverse cumulative impacts would 

occur. 

ALTERNATIVE C—THE DEFINING 

MOMENTS OF THE BATTLES OF 

MANASSAS 

Under alternative C, the proposed transportation improvements, such as controlled access 

at entrances would be the same as for 

alternative B. Therefore, the impacts on the 

socioeconomic environment would be to the 

same as those described for alternative B. 

Cumulative Impacts 

When combined with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects such as 

pending road construction projects, the 

socioeconomic impacts of alternative C, would 

have adverse cumulative impacts. The 

socioeconomic impacts would largely depend 

on the alternatives selected for each pending 

road project. However, the impacts would 

likely be minor because of the potential 

impacts on only a few residents. The 

incremental impacts associated with 

implementation of alternative B would be 

expected to be small. Therefore, the 

cumulative impacts would be anticipated to be 

minor. 

Conclusion 

Implementation of alternative C would have 

negligible long-term adverse impacts on 

residents living within controlled access area 

because of the delays associated with the new 

controlled-access measures and removal of the 

U.S. Route 29 bridge over Bull Run. The 

impacts would be offset by the reduction in 

traffic and associated delays at the intersections within the park. In addition, there 

would be an added security benefit to 

residents, similar to living within a gated area. 

Negligible impacts to emergency response 

would occur. The National Park Service would 

conduct additional planning and environmental analysis prior to implementation. 

Minor, adverse cumulative impacts would 

occur. 
162 

IMPACTS ON RECREATION 

METHODOLOGY 

In the impact assessment for recreation, the 

National Park Service focused on changes to 

the levels of recreational opportunities for 

Manassas National Battlefield Park visitors. 

The National Park Service also considered the 

physical impacts associated with any new 

developmental plans and anticipated visitor 

uses. The context of the evaluation was the 

park and immediate surrounding area. 

DEFINITION OF INTENSITY LEVELS 

Analyses of the potential intensity levels 

resulting from each alternative on recreation 

were derived from the available information 

from the park, Prince William County, and 

regional agencies in northern Virginia. 

Definitions for the thresholds of change for the 

intensity of impacts on recreation are as 

follows: 

• Negligible: The impact is localized and not 

measurable and would not have a 

noticeable effect on the level of recreation 

opportunities or recreation facilities 

available for public use. 

• Minor: The impact is localized but 

detectable and would have a slight effect 

on the level of recreation opportunities or 

facilities available for public use. 

• Moderate: The impact is readily apparent 

and appreciable and would result in a 

noticeable increase or reduction in the 

level of recreation opportunities or 

facilities available for public use. 

• Major: The impact is severe and highly 

noticeable. The impact would result in a 

permanent loss or gain of recreation 

opportunities or facilities available for 

public use. 

• Duration: A short-term impact would last 

less than one year and would affect only 

one season’s use by visitors or the length of 

construction activities. A long-term impact 

would last more than one year and would 

be more permanent in nature. 

ALTERNATIVE A—CONTINUING 

CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

(NO-ACTION) 

Under the no-action alternative, there would 

be no change to recreational opportunities or 

facilities available at the park or at nearby 

parks. Current management practices would 

maintain the recreational opportunities such as 

hiking and horseback riding at the park. 

Outside the park, current management 

practices would have no effect on recreational 

opportunities at nearby parks, ball fields, and 

other recreational areas. Therefore, there 

would be a negligible long-term impact on 

recreation. 

Cumulative Impact 

A negligible impact on recreation would occur; 

therefore, the cumulative impact would be 

negligible. 

Conclusion 

A negligible impact on existing or future 

recreational opportunities or facilities would 

occur. Cumulative impacts would be 

negligible. There would be no impairment to 

park resources or values. 

ALTERNATIVE B—THE TWO BATTLES 

OF MANASSAS (PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE) 

The new access road and improved parking as 

well as a new equestrian trial at Stuart’s Hill 

would enhance recreational facilities at the 

park. As a result of new trails, alternative B 

would have a minor long-term beneficial 

impact on recreation. 

Cumulative Impact 

The picnic area construction as part of the 

Stuart’s Hill Tract rehabilitation had 
Impacts on Recreation 

163 

recreational benefits to the park. This project, 

in combination with alternative B would have 

long-term beneficial impacts to the park. The 

incremental impact from alternative B would 

be minor, and the overall cumulative impact 

would be minor and beneficial. 

Conclusion 

Alternative B would have a minor long-term 

beneficial impact from the addition of and/or 

improvements to new hiking and bridle trails. 

A minor beneficial cumulative effect on 

recreation would occur. There would be no 

impairment to park resources or values. 

ALTERNATIVE C—THE DEFINING 

MOMENTS OF THE BATTLES OF 

MANASSAS 

The new access road and improved parking as 

well as a new equestrian trail at Stuart’s Hill 

would enhance recreational opportunities. As 

a result of new trails, alternative C would have 

a minor long-term beneficial impact on 

recreation. 

Cumulative Impact 

The cumulative impacts would be the same as 

described for alternative B. The picnic area 

construction as part of the Stuart’s Hill Tract 

rehabilitation had recreational benefits to the 

park from the addition of the picnic area. This 

project in combination with alternative C 

would have long-term beneficial impacts to the 

park. The incremental impact from alternative 

C would be minor, and overall, the cumulative 

impact would be minor and beneficial. 

Conclusion 

Alternative C would have a minor long-term 

beneficial impact from the addition of and/or 

improvements to new hiking and bridle trails. 

A minor beneficial cumulative effect on 

recreation would occur. There would be no 

impairment to park resources or values. 
164 

IMPACTS ON VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

METHODOLOGY 

This impact analysis considers various aspects 

of visitor experience and use at Manassas 

National Battlefield Park. Topics include the 

effects on visitors’ ability to experience the 

park’s primary resources and their natural and 

cultural settings, including vistas, natural 

sounds and smells, and wildlife; overall visitor 

access to the park; the freedom to experience 

resources at one’s own pace; education and 

interpretive opportunities; and access for 

people with disabilities. The analysis is based 

on how visitor use and experiences would 

change with the way management 

prescriptions were applied in the alternatives. 

The analysis is primarily qualitative rather than 

quantitative because of the conceptual nature 

of the alternatives. 

DEFINITION OF INTENSITY LEVELS 

The thresholds of change for the intensity of 

impacts on visitor experience are defined as 

follows: 

• Negligible: Any change would not be 

perceptible or would be barely perceptible 

by most visitors. 

• Minor: Changes would occur in a few 

visitors’ experiences that would be 

noticeable, but would result in little 

distraction or improvements in the quality 

of the experience. 

• Moderate: Changes would occur in a large 

number of visitors’ experiences that would 

result in a noticeable decrease or 

improvement in the quality of the 

experience. This would be indicated by a 

temporary change in frustration level or 

inconvenience. 

• Major: There would be a substantial 

improvement or a severe drop in the 

quality of many visitors’ experience, such 

as the addition or elimination of a 

recreational opportunity or a permanent 

change to an area. 

• Duration: A short-term impact would last 

less than one year and would affect only 

one season’s use by visitors. A long-term 

impact would last more than one year and 

would be more permanent in nature. 

ALTERNATIVE A—CONTINUING 

CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

(NO-ACTION) 

Visitors would continue to experience major 

long-term adverse impacts because of heavy 

volumes of commuter and commercial truck 

traffic through the park. Drivers of non-park 

traffic attempting to get through the park as 

quickly as possible would continue to conflict 

with the slower-moving park traffic. Park 

visitors are usually looking for the visitor 

center, headquarters, and various automobile 

tour stops throughout. The faster-moving nonpark traffic is distracting and potentially 

dangerous to park visitors attempting to locate 

park facilities, and often creates problems for 

visitors who wish to make the frequent stops 

and turns necessary to access the many park 

facilities and interpretive sites. In addition, the 

noise of existing traffic volumes would 

continue to encroach on the peaceful and 

solemn setting of the battlefield. 

Visitor exposure to and understanding of the 

Battle of Second Manassas has continued to 

improve over the years, especially with the 

additions of the Stuart’s Hill and Brawner 

Farm tracts. Park staff has also enhanced 

interpretation of the battle via a separate 

automobile tour route and the establishment of 

the Stuart’s Hill visitor contact station. 

However, the Battle of First Manassas still 

receives greater visitor attention because of the 

location of the Henry Hill visitor center near 

the main entrance to the park, the location of 

the visitor center on one of the main battle 

sites of First Manassas, and the difficulty of 

traversing the park roads because of the 

aforementioned traffic situation. 
Impacts on Visitor Experience 

165 

Park visitors would continue to have a good 

understanding of the two battles, but they 

would lack a comprehension of the overall 

importance of the two engagements within the 

context of the Civil War. In addition, they 

would not have an overview of the Civil War, 

such as the rationale for the war, the overall 

strategies of the two armies, and the factors 

that led to the culmination of the conflict. The 

existing condition of the historic landscape, 

which is noticeably different from the wartime 

era, would continue to influence visitor 

understanding of the battles. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The potential impacts on visitor experience is 

highly dependent on the corridor selected for 

each transportation project identified in the 

cumulative impact scenario. The Battlefield 

Bypass, I-66, and VA Route 234 Bypass North 

projects are expected to be close to, abut, or 

even in some cases, transverse park property, 

depending on the alternate selected. These 

projects could have an adverse impact on the 

visitor experience from increased noise and 

changes to the viewshed. With proper planning 

and mitigation, the adverse impact on the 

visitor experience would be expected to be 

minor. In combination with the impacts of the 

no-action alternative, the cumulative impact 

would be moderate long-term and adverse. 

Conclusion 

Visitor experience and use would continue to 

be adversely impacted by heavy volumes of 

commuter and commercial traffic. The 

interpretation of the two battles has improved 

substantially over the years, but visitor focus 

would remain on First Manassas because of 

the location of the visitor center and the heavy 

volumes of non-park vehicles that inhibit 

viewing many of the Second Manassas sites. 

Park visitors would not have an understanding 

of the importance of the two battles in context 

of the Civil War or an overview of the Civil 

War in general. In addition, the failure to 

rehabilitate major components of the historic 

landscape to their wartime appearance would 

continue to hamper the visitor understanding 

of the battles. As a result of these factors, and 

primarily because of the conflicts between 

park visitors and non-park traffic, a major 

long-term adverse impact would occur to the 

visitor experience and use. Cumulative impacts 

would be moderate long-term and adverse. 

ALTERNATIVE B—THE TWO BATTLES 

OF MANASSAS (PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE) 

Visitors’ exposure to and understanding of 

both battles of Manassas would be enhanced 

with the Second Manassas visitor contact 

station at Stuart’s Hill (and eventually Brawner 

Farm), and the continued use of the Henry Hill 

visitor center. The interpretive materials at the 

Henry Hill visitor center would focus on the 

overall importance and strategy of the First 

Battle, while the Second Battle would be 

interpreted at a separate visitor contact station. 

Reduced vehicular traffic in the park and a new 

access road to Stuart’s Hill and improvements 

to the parking lot would greatly facilitate use of 

and access to the picnic area at Stuart’s Hill 

and the Second Manassas visitor contact 

station until the contact station is moved to 

Brawner Farm. 

As a result, the Second Manassas automobile 

and bicycle tour route and hiking trails would 

receive greater levels of visitor use. 

Correspondingly, those visitors interested in 

First Manassas would be able to focus on this 

battle and could follow the automobile tour 

route created under this alternative. Visitors to 

both battle sites would be exposed to revised 

wayside exhibits that focus on the importance 

of each engagement and an overview of these 

important battles. 

The enhancements associated with 

improvements at the visitor center, visitor 

contact station, tour routes, trails, and other 

interpretive materials collectively would have a 

long-term beneficial impact of moderate 

intensity on the visitor experience. 

There would be a major long-term beneficial 

impact to visitor experience from the removal 

of the heavy volumes of commuter and 

commercial truck traffic from the park. Park 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

166 

visitors would be able to drive on the park 

roads at their own pace without being 

concerned about fast-moving, non-park traffic. 

Visitors would be able to easily locate park 

facilities and key interpretive sites, and there 

would be substantially less noise because of 

reduced traffic volumes. The lower noise levels 

would be more compatible with the desired 

cultural and park land use. 

The rehabilitation of the cultural landscape to 

the wartime era would greatly enhance the 

visitor understanding of the two battles. 

Improved views to and from the battlefield 

would enable the visitor to better visualize the 

series of historic events that took place on the 

battlefields. The rehabilitation of the cultural 

landscape would have a moderate long-term 

beneficial impact on the visitor experience. 

The loss of forested area would have negligible 

impacts on the visitor experience because the 

removed area represents a small portion of the 

park’s forest. 

The preservation and in some cases 

rehabilitation of historic structures and sites 

would ensure that the resources are preserved 

for future generations to enjoy. A moderate 

long-term beneficial impact on visitor 

experience would occur. 

The new access road and improved parking 

and a new equestrian trial at Stuart’s Hill 

would enhance the visitor experience. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The Battlefield Bypass, I-66 study, Tri-County 

Parkway, and VA Route 234 Bypass North 

projects would increase regional mobility and 

help reduce traffic volumes in the park. 

Increased mobility and reduced delays within 

the park would improve the visitor experience. 

Under alternative B, the controlled access and 

other improvements would also enhance the 

visitor experience by ensuring that traffic 

within the park was almost entirely composed 

of park visitors. Under alternative B, 

transportation improvements inside and 

outside the park would have a moderate 

beneficial cumulative impact on the visitor 

experience. 

Conclusion 

A major long-term beneficial impact would 

occur for visitor experience at Manassas 

National Battlefield Park from the 

implementation of alternative B. Visitor 

experience and use would be substantially 

improved from the removal of all commuter 

and commercial truck traffic from the portions 

of U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 that are 

within the park. Interpretation of the two 

battles as distinct military events would greatly 

enhance visitor understanding. Revising the 

wayside exhibits to focus on the importance of 

each engagement within the overall war and an 

overview of these important battles would also 

add to the visitors’ knowledge. In addition, the 

rehabilitation of the cultural landscape to the 

wartime era and preservation of historic 

structures would greatly improve the visitor 

understanding of the two battles. A moderate 

beneficial cumulative impact would occur for 

visitor experience. 

ALTERNATIVE C—THE DEFINING 

MOMENTS OF THE BATTLES OF 

MANASSAS 

Visitor exposure to and understanding of the 

Civil War, an overview of both battles, and the 

context of the battles in relationship to the 

Civil War would be enhanced with the new 

visitor center and revised interpretive media. 

The construction of the new visitor center 

would educate visitors about the overall causes 

of the Civil War, the strategies of the armies, 

and the approaches that resulted in the 

conclusion of the war. The impacts of the 

battles on local families, including African 

American families and communities, would be 

interpreted. At both battle sites, visitors would 

also be exposed to revised wayside exhibits 

that focus on the overview of these important 

engagements, their context in relationship to 

the battle, and the overall story of the Civil 

War. Thus, visitors would gain a much greater 

understanding of the Civil War and the 

impacts of the battles of Manassas. 

There would be a major long-term beneficial 

impact to visitor experience from the removal 

of the heavy volumes of commuter and 
Impacts on Visitor Experience 

167 

commercial truck traffic from the park. Park 

visitors would be able drive on park roads at 

their own pace without being concerned about 

fast-moving, non-park traffic. They would be 

able to easily locate park facilities and key 

interpretative sites, and there would be 

substantially less noise associated with the 

lower traffic volumes. The lower noise levels 

would be more compatible with the desired 

cultural and park land use. 

The development of important view corridors 

to key battlefield sites would enhance the 

visitor understanding of the two battles. 

Preservation of all wartime structures would 

facilitate comprehension of components of the 

engagements. Preservation, stabilization, and 

in some case rehabilitation would ensure that 

the resources were preserved for future 

generations to enjoy. A moderate long-term 

beneficial impact on the visitor experience 

would occur. 

The new access road and improved parking 

and a new equestrian trial at Stuart’s Hill 

would enhance the visitor experience. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative impact would be the same as 

described for alternative B. The Battlefield 

Bypass, I-66 study, Tri-County Parkway, and 

VA Route 234 Bypass North projects would 

increase regional mobility and help reduce 

traffic volumes in the park. Increased mobility 

and reduced delays within the park would 

improve the visitor experience. Under 

alternative C, the controlled access and other 

improvements would also improve the visitor 

experience. The transportation improvements 

resulting in increased mobility in combination 

with eliminating commuter and commercial 

traffic would have a moderate beneficial 

cumulative impact on the visitor experience. 

Conclusion 

A major long-term beneficial impact would 

occur for visitor experience at Manassas 

National Battlefield Park from the implementation of alternative C. The visitor 

experience would be substantially improved by 

the removal of all commuter and commercial 

traffic from the portions of U.S. Route 29 and 

VA Route 234 that are in the park. Visitor 

exposure to and understanding of the Civil 

War, an overview of both battles, and the 

context of the battles in relationship to the 

Civil War would be enhanced with revised 

exhibits and interpretive media. In addition, 

the development of important view corridors 

to key battlefield sites and rehabilitation of 

historic sites would enhance visitor understanding of the two battles. A moderate 

beneficial cumulative impact would occur for 

visitor experience. 
168 

IMPACTS ON PARK OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 

METHODOLOGY 

For the purposes of this analysis, park 

operations refer to the quality and 

effectiveness of the infrastructure, such as 

maintenance areas, roads, and administrative 

facilities, used to operate the park and the 

ability to maintain the park’s infrastructure to 

protect and preserve vital resources and 

provide for an effective visitor experience. This 

includes an analysis of the condition and 

usefulness of the facilities and developed 

features used to support the operations of the 

park. 

DEFINITION OF INTENSITY LEVELS 

The thresholds of change for the intensity of 

impacts on park operations and maintenance 

are defined as follows: 

• Negligible: Park operations would not be 

affected or the effect would be at low levels 

of detection and would not have an 

appreciable effect on park operations. 

• Minor: Impacts would be detectable and 

would be of a magnitude that would not 

have an appreciable effect on park 

operations. 

• Moderate: Impacts would be readily 

apparent and would result in substantial 

change in park operations in a manner 

noticeable to the staff and public. 

• Major: Impacts would be readily apparent, 

would result in a substantial change in park 

operations in a manner noticeable to staff 

and the public, and would be markedly 

different from recent operations. 

• Duration: A short-term impact would last 

less than one year and would affect only 

one season’s use by visitors. A long-term 

impact would last more than one year and 

would be more permanent in nature. 

ALTERNATIVE A—CONTINUING 

CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

(NO-ACTION) 

Under the no-action alternative, there would 

not be a noticeable change in the level of 

staffing and the use of facilities at the park. 

Traffic levels within the park would adversely 

affect park operation because of delays during 

peak hours along U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 

234, and at their intersection. This impact 

would be minor long-term and adverse. 

Cumulative Impact 

No other projects within the cumulative 

impact scenario were identified that would 

have an adverse impact on park operations and 

maintenance; therefore, negligible cumulative 

impact would occur. 

Conclusion 

The traffic in the park would continue to have 

a minor long-term adverse impact would occur 

for park operations. Negligible cumulative 

impacts would occur. 

ALTERNATIVE B—THE TWO BATTLES 

OF MANASSAS (PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE) 

Under alternative B, the National Park Service 

would update the interpretive displays, 

exhibits, programs, and orientation at the 

Henry Hill visitor center to focus on the story 

of First Manassas. A separate, fully staffed 

visitor contact station would focus on Second 

Manassas. New exhibits and interpretive 

programs would tell the story of Second 

Manassas. 

The updated interpretive materials and revised 

interpretative focus at each visitor facility 

would require a minor short-term change in 

staff activities. The change would occur 

gradually over time as additional support or 

funding became available. The Second 
Impacts on Park Operations and Mainenance 

169 

Manassas visitor contact station would require 

added maintenance, protection, and 

interpretation. The long-term impact on park 

operations would be minor and adverse. 

The new access road and improved parking at 

Stuart’s Hill would provide safer access the 

facilities for both visitors and park staff. 

Under alternative B, the controlled access into 

the park and the change in ownership of the 

portions of U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 in 

the park would have an adverse impact on park 

operations. One of the concepts for controlling 

access at the entry points to the park includes 

entrance gates staffed by a park employee. 

Currently, the park does not have staff 

identified or available to fill these posts. 

However, entrance gates would allow the park 

to collect entry fees, which in turn could 

support these new positions. 

Currently, visitors can enter the park and view 

many resources without having contact with 

park staff or volunteers. The proposed contact 

stations would result in more contact between 

visitors and park staff, which would facilitate 

early orientation to the park. The National 

Park Service would have to commit additional 

staff and funding to maintain the newly 

acquired roads within the park. Alternative B 

would have a moderate long-term adverse 

impact on park operations and would result in 

a long-term change in park operations. 

Cumulative Impact 

No other projects within the cumulative 

impact scenario were identified that would 

have an impact on park operations and 

maintenance; therefore, no cumulative impact 

would occur. 

Conclusion 

Alternative B would have minor and moderate 

long-term adverse impacts on park operations 

and maintenance because of changed 

operations associated with a visitor contact 

station for Second Manassas, new interpretive 

programs, change in ownership of the roads, 

and controlled access into the park. Negligible 

cumulative impacts would occur. 

ALTERNATIVE C—THE DEFINING 

MOMENTS OF THE BATTLES OF 

MANASSAS 

Under alternative C, the National Park Service 

would relocate the visitor center off Henry Hill 

and would construct a new visitor center to 

service the park. The visitor center would have 

interpretive displays, exhibits, programs, and 

orientation focused on the comprehensive 

story of the Civil War. The updated 

interpretive materials and revised 

interpretative focus would require a minor 

short-term change in staff activities. The 

change would occur gradually as additional 

support or funding became available. The 

long-term impact on park operations and 

maintenance would be minor and adverse. 

Under alternative C, the controlled access into 

the park and the change in ownership of the 

roads would have an adverse impact on park 

operations. Currently, the park does not have 

staff identified or available to service the 

proposed entrance stations. However, 

entrance gates would allow the park to collect 

entry fees, which in turn could support these 

new positions. 

Currently, visitors can enter the park and view 

many resources without having contact with 

park staff or volunteers. The proposed contact 

stations would result in more contact between 

visitors on park staff, which would facilitate 

early orientation to the park. With the change 

in ownership of the roads, the National Park 

Service would have to commit staff and 

funding to maintain the roads within the park. 

Alternative C would have a moderate adverse 

impact on park operation and would result in a 

long-term change in park operations. 

Cumulative Impact 

No other projects within the cumulative 

impact scenario were identified that would 

have an adverse impact on park operations and 

maintenance; therefore, no cumulative impact 

would occur. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

170 

Conclusion 

Alternative C would have minor and moderate 

long-term adverse impacts on park operations 

and maintenance because of changes in 

operations associated with the new visitor 

center, new interpretive programs, park 

acquisition of U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234, 

and controlled access into the park. Negligible 

cumulative impact would occur. 
171 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

ALTERNATIVE A—CONTINUING 

CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

(NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE) 

Visitor safety and experience continues would 

continue to be seriously compromised by 

heavy volumes of commuter and commercial 

truck traffic. The interpretation of the two 

battles has improved substantially over the 

years, but visitor focus would remain primarily 

on First Manassas because of the location of 

the visitor center, the content of its interpretive 

programs, and the heavy volumes of non-park 

traffic that inhibits viewing many of the Second 

Manassas sites. In addition, the failure to 

rehabilitate major components of the historic 

landscape to their wartime appearance would 

continue to prevent visitors from 

understanding the comprehensive story of the 

battles. 

ALTERNATIVE B—THE TWO BATTLES 

OF MANASSAS (PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE) 

The scene rehabilitation would have an 

unavoidable long-term adverse impact on the 

net area of woodlands at the park, but is 

necessary to rehabilitate the battlefield 

landscape. 

The new bridge and access road across Bull 

Run would have unavoidable adverse impacts 

on water resources. 

Controlled access into the park would have 

unavoidable adverse impacts on commuters 

and nearby businesses and residents that use 

the road to transport goods and services. 

ALTERNATIVE C—THE DEFINING 

MOMENTS OF THE BATTLES OF 

MANASSAS 

There would be a small decrease in the 

woodlands within the park from forest cutting 

performed to establish view corridors. 

The new bridge and access road across Bull 

Run would have unavoidable adverse impacts 

on water resources. 

The construction of a new visitor to the east of 

Stone Bridge would have an unavoidable 

adverse impact on vegetation. 

Controlled access into the park would have 

unavoidable adverse impacts on commuters 

and nearby businesses that use the road to 

transport goods and services. 
172 

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

ALTERNATIVE A— CONTINUING 

CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

(NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE) 

Under the no-action alternative, there would 

be no short-term use of the environment that 

would encroach on the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity. 

ALTERNATIVE B—THE TWO BATTLES 

OF MANASSAS (PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE) 

Under alternative B, there would be a net loss 

of 245 acres of woodlands and a concomitant 

net gain of open fields resulting from historic 

landscape rehabilitation. The scene 

rehabilitation would greatly enhance the 

visitor understanding of the two battles. 

However, there would be a negligible to minor 

long-term loss of biological productivity from 

the loss of forest. 

ALTERNATIVE C—THE DEFINING 

MOMENTS OF THE BATTLES OF 

MANASSAS 

Under the proposed action, there would be the 

loss of approximately 72 acres of woodlands 

and a concomitant net gain of open fields 

resulting from historic landscape 

rehabilitation. The scene rehabilitation would 

greatly enhance the visitor understanding of 

the two battles. However, there would be a 

negligible long-term loss of biological 

productivity from the loss of forest. In 

addition, the construction of a new visitor 

center would involve land disturbance and 

impacts to vegetation, which would reduce 

biological productivity but would enhance the 

visitor’s understanding of the Civil War, 

adding long-term productivity to the 

battlefield resource. 
173 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 

ALTERNATIVE A—NO-ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE 

There would be no irreversible and 

irretrievable commitment of resources. 

ALTERNATIVE B—THE TWO BATTLES 

OF MANASSAS (PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE) 

In Alternative B, the removal of the U.S. Route 

29 bridge over Bull Run and construction of a 

new access road and bridge over Bull Run 

would be an irreversible commitment of 

resources. 

ALTERNATIVE C—THE DEFINING 

MOMENTS OF THE BATTLES OF 

MANASSAS 

In alternative C the construction of a new 

visitor center east of Stone Bridge, with a new 

access road and bridge over Bull Run, would 

be an irreversible commitment of resources. 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

177 

PUBLIC MEETINGS, SECTION 106 CONSULTATION, 

AND INTERAGENCY COORDINATION 

PUBLIC MEETINGS 

This General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement was 

developed with the participation of governmental agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and members of the public at large. 

Formal public participation began in March 

1996, when the park superintendent sent a 

letter to more than 800 people and groups on 

the park’s initial mailing list. This letter 

described the effort to develop a new general 

management plan for the park and invited all 

addressees to participate in the project. 

The invitation announced the first round of 

public meetings, to be held at the visitor center 

on March 18 and 20, 1996, and also included a 

mail-back comment form. The comment form 

asked recipients to describe any issues and 

concerns they had about the park, as well as 

their ideas for the future of the battlefields. 

The letter was also posted on the park’s 

Internet site and electronic comments were 

encouraged. In addition, the meetings were 

announced in local newspapers, on local 

television, and in the Federal Register

The first public meetings provided attendees 

with the opportunity to learn about the planning effort, ask questions, and voice their ideas 

about the park. The mail-back comment form 

was also distributed at the public meetings. 

More than 100 people attended the meetings 

and more than 250 comment forms and 

electronic responses were received. 

Additional informal meetings were held during 

this first round of public participation. The 

project was discussed with groups associated 

with the park, including the Bull Run Civil War 

Roundtable and the Battlefield Equestrian 

Society. The project team also met with groups 

that expressed interest in specific aspects of 

the plan, such as the Prince William Bicycle 

Association, the Friends of Manassas National 

Battlefield Park, and the Prince William 

Wildflower Society. 

From the meetings and comment forms, the 

project team learned that respondents cared 

deeply about the battlefields and were concerned with almost every aspect of the park, 

including traffic, trails, adjacent development, 

historic buildings, visitor facilities, interpretation, the natural environment, partnerships, 

the historic scene, and recreational uses. 

The responses, along with the results of the 

park’s data gathering study, provided a range 

of major issues facing the future of the park. 

The project team next reviewed past Congressional legislation that shaped the park and 

examined the important battlefield resources 

and stories. Collectively, this information 

helped the project team develop goals for the 

park’s future and preliminary alternatives to 

achieve those goals. 

To help communicate ongoing planning issues, 

and encourage further public participation, a 

newsletter was distributed based on the park 

mailing list, and anyone expressing interest in 

the process. The first newsletter, sent in 

January 1997, re-stated the preliminary goals 

and alternatives, to make sure they addressed 

the ideas discussed during the first round of 

public participation. 

On February 10 and 11, 1997, public meetings 

were held at the park visitor center. As with the 

first round of public meetings, the meetings 

were publicized in local papers, and the 

newsletter and meeting announcement were 

posted on the park’s Internet page. An article 

was included in the Civil War News to 

encourage participation by the Civil War 

community. Meeting participants were invited 

to respond to the goals and help the planning 

team refine the preliminary alternatives and/or 

develop new alternatives. Ideas from these 

meetings and the responses were used to refine 

the alternatives and develop the draft plan. 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

178 

As the draft general management plan was 

being prepared in 1997, the project team 

continued to meet with interested groups and 

study the impacts of the alternatives. The 

National Park Service contracted with Virginia 

Natural Heritage to study areas identified in 

the alternatives where woodlands would be 

removed and the historic field patterns would 

be rehabilitated to ensure threatened and 

endangered species would not be impacted. 

The National Park Service also contracted with 

Robert Peccia and Associates to supplement 

the traffic modeling provided by the Virginia 

Department of Transportation in the U.S. 

Route 29 study to understand the impacts of 

relocating through traffic from the park. 

In 2000, the National Park Service put the 

general management plan process on hold to 

concentrate on separate, but related, 

transportation concerns. This included the 

Battlefield Bypass, which would re-route U.S. 

Route 29 and VA Route 234 around the park, 

removing commuter traffic from these roads 

within park boundaries. The environmental 

impact study for the bypass began in 2001, and 

a preferred alternative was selected in 2005. 

Public meetings for the Manassas National 

Battlefield general management plan resumed 

in 2002 with a public focus group meeting, 

designed specifically to address issues 

surrounding transportation and circulation in 

the park. This meeting occurred on December 

5, 2002, with 18 individuals in attendance. A 

new newsletter was sent to the mailing list in 

the fall of 2003. A total of 60 written and 

electronic comments were received. 

SECTION 106 CONSULTATION 

Agencies that have direct or indirect 

jurisdiction over historic properties are 

required by Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

(16 United States Code 470, et seq.) to take into 

account the effect of any undertaking on 

properties eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places. To meet the requirements of 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800, the 

National Park Service sent letters to the 

Virginia Department of Historic Resources 

(the state historic preservation office) and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 

inviting their participation in the planning 

process. Both offices were sent copies of all 

project newsletters with a request for 

comments. The Virginia Department of 

Historic Resources was invited to all public 

meetings and was provided with a copy of the 

Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement. Their 

comments are shown in the comment letters 

later in this section. 

Table 5-1 lists the cultural resources present at 

Manassas National Battlefield Park, the 

treatment and use of each resource, and the 

presumed need for any future review by the 

state historic preservation officer and/or the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION 

Coordination with federal, state, and local 

agencies began concurrently with the public 

information program. Government agencies 

such as the Virginia Department of Historic 

Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Virginia Department of 

Transportation, Virginia Department of 

Conservation and Recreation, and nearby 

jurisdictions received the park 

superintendent’s initial letter in March 1996. 

These organizations were invited to attend all 

public meetings. Special briefings were also 

held with elected officials and staff from 

Fairfax and Prince William Counties. 

Throughout the process (from 1996 through 

the present), government agencies were also 

invited to participate in a routine series of 

interagency coordination meetings. The 

attached letter to the Virginia Department of 

Historic Resources is one example of the 

project team’s coordination efforts. 

In addition, representatives from the park’s 

general management planning team 

participated in coordination meetings for the 

Battlefield Bypass study. 
Public Meetings, Section 106 Consultation, and Interagency Coordination 

179 

Table 5-1: GMP Actions Requiring Section 106 Compliance 

Alternative A

General Management Plan Action Compliance Requirements 

Rehabilitate Brawner Farm House, while preserving the 

structure to accommodate internal visitation and 

interpretation. 

Project underway. 

Alternative B 

General Management Plan Action Compliance Requirements 

Move the interpretation of Second Manassas to a visitor 

contact station at Brawner Farm and accommodate yearround visitation. 

Examine options to develop a new entry road and 

improve parking facilities at Stuart’s Hill to minimize the 

visual impact of the high-voltage transmission lines in that 

quadrant of the park. 

Requires further state historic preservation officer (SHPO) and 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) review. 

Request the following boundary adjustments: 

● The 136-acre Davis Tract, 

● The 43-acre Stonewall Memory Garden Tract, 

● The 0.75 acre Conservation Trust parcel, and 

● The 6-acre Dunklin Monument tract. 

No SHPO or ACHP review required. 

Rehabilitate the landscape to its wartime appearance:

● Remove approximately 327 acres of existing forest 

and manage that land as grassland or open field. 

● Allow approximately 82 acres of existing grassland 

and open fields to regenerate to forest through 

natural succession. 

Requires further SHPO and ACHP review. 

Remove the existing Brawner Farm and Battery Heights 

parking areas along U.S. Route 29. 

Requires further SHPO and ACHP review. 

Develop the First Manassas automobile/bicycle tour 

(interpretive materials only—no new roadway needed).

No SHPO or ACHP review required. To be carried out after the 

completion of the Manassas National Battlefield Park Bypass. 

Upgrade trails and interpretive media as needed on the 

First Manassas Hiking Trail.

Requires further SHPO and ACHP review. 

Develop the Second Manassas automobile/bicycle tour 

(interpretive materials only—no new roadway needed). 

No SHPO or ACHP review required. To be carried out after the 

completion of the Manassas National Battlefield Park Bypass. 

Develop the Second Manassas hiking trail by upgrading 

existing trails, creating new trails, and providing 

interpretive materials.

Requires further SHPO and ACHP review. 

Upgrade the Lucinda Dogan House to accommodate 

year-round visitation. Rehabilitate the structure’s 

appearance by removing nonconforming structural 

elements and outbuildings. 

Requires further SHPO and ACHP review. 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

180 

Table 5-1: GMP Actions Requiring Section 106 Compliance 

Alternative B (Continued) 

General Management Plan Action Compliance Requirements 

Create a “ghosted” outline of the Robinson House ruins. Requires further SHPO and ACHP review. 

Transfer the portions of U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 

inside the park to NPS jurisdiction and close these roads 

to non-park traffic:

Remove the existing U.S. Route 29 Bridge over Bull Run. 

and mark bicycle lanes on primary roads throughout the 

park. 

Requires further SHPO and ACHP review. To be carried out after the 

completion of the Manassas National Battlefield Park Bypass. 

Design and develop a new recreation area off Groveton 

Road. 

Requires further SHPO and ACHP review. 

Develop a new equestrian trail near Stuart’s Hill. Requires further SHPO and ACHP review. 

Alternative C 

General Management Plan Action Compliance Requirements 

Construct a new visitor center, parking area, and access 

roadways to the east of Stone Bridge and Bull Run.

Requires further SHPO and ACHP review. 

Remove the existing visitor center at Henry Hill. Requires further SHPO and ACHP review. 

Develop interpretive displays at Brawner Farm (a less 

extensive action than in Alternative B). Examine options 

to develop a new entry road and improve parking 

facilities at Stuart’s Hill to minimize the visual impact of 

the high-voltage transmission lines in that quadrant of 

the park. 

Requires further SHPO and ACHP review. 

Request the following boundary adjustments: 

● The 136-acre Davis Tract, 

● The 43-acre Stonewall Memory Garden Tract, 

● The 0.75 acre Conservation Trust parcel, and 

● The 6-acre Dunklin Monument tract. 

No SHPO or ACHP review required. 

Upgrade key interpretive sites throughout the park for 

moderate to high visitor use. Sites include Brawner Farm, 

Chinn Ridge, Deep Cut/Unfinished Railroad, Groveton, 

Henry Hill, Matthews Hill, Portici, Sudley, Stone Bridge, 

and Stone House. 

● Develop extensive interpretive materials at each site. 

● Upgrade parking facilities and loop trails at each site. 

Requires further SHPO and ACHP review. 
Public Meetings, Section 106 Consultation, and Interagency Coordination 

181 

Table 5-1: GMP Actions Requiring Section 106 Compliance 

Alternative C (Continued) 

General Management Plan Action Compliance Requirements 

Using existing trails, develop two separate 5-mile-long 

hiking trails for the Battles of First and Second Manassas. 

No SHPO or ACHP review required. 

Restore important wartime view corridors by removing 

approximately 72 acres of existing forest and managing 

that land as grassland or open field. 

Requires further SHPO and ACHP review. 

Remove the modern residence and outbuildings from the 

Groveton area. 

Requires further SHPO and ACHP review. 

Upgrade the Lucinda Dogan House to accommodate 

year-round visitation. Rehabilitate the structure’s 

appearance by removing nonconforming structural 

elements and outbuildings. 

Requires further SHPO and ACHP review. 

Remove the existing Brawner Farm and Battery Heights 

parking areas along U.S. Route 29. 

Requires further SHPO and ACHP review. 

Transfer the portions of U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 

to NPS jurisdiction and close these roads to non-park 

traffic: 

● Construct a new bridge and approach roads to the 

south of the existing bridge’s location. 

● Remove the existing U.S. Route 29 Bridge over Bull 

Run. 

● Install access control facilities at the park’s remaining 

entrances along U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234. 

Special provisions would be made for in-holders and 

their guests and service providers, and for emergency 

vehicles. 

● Remove signalization, turn lanes, and excess 

pavement from the intersection of U.S. Route 29 and 

VA Route 234. 

● Reduce speed limits to 25 miles per hour. 

● Designate and mark bicycle lanes on primary roads 

throughout the park. 

Requires further SHPO and ACHP review. To be carried out after the 

completion of the Manassas National Battlefield Park Bypass. 

Design and develop a new recreation area off Groveton 

Road. 

Requires further SHPO and ACHP review. 

Develop a new equestrian trail near Stuart’s Hill. Requires further SHPO and ACHP review. 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

182 
Public Meetings, Section 106 Consultation, and Interagency Coordination 

183 
184 

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 

The review period for the Draft General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact

Statement was between December 30, 2005 and 

February 28, 2006. Two public meetings were 

held on February 8 and 9, 2006 at the park 

visitor center at Henry Hill. Thirteen people 

attended one meeting and seven people 

attended the other meeting. 

During the public comment period, 28 

comments were received from 28 state and 

federal agencies, organizations, and 

individuals. In general, respondents supported 

the management efforts described in the Draft 

General Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement. The six respondents who 

expressed a preference supported the 

implementation of alternative B. Specifically 

respondents expressed support for reducing 

traffic flow within the park and improving the 

visitor experience. One respondent also noted 

that alternative B would provide benefits for 

wildlife, particularly birds. 

One respondent expressed a preference for the 

no-action alternative. The Environmental 

Protection Agency supported the no-action 

alternative with construction of the Battlefield 

Bypass. 

The Virginia state historic preservation officer 

has indicated her support for alternative B, the 

preferred alternative, as modified in this final 

plan. The Virginia office of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service agrees that the actions 

proposed in the General Management Plan 

would not adversely affect federally listed 

species or federally designated critical habitat 

because no federally listed species are known 

to occur in the project area. Please see 

appendix E for additional information. 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

requires the National Park Service to respond 

to substantive comments. Substantive 

comments are those that (1) question the 

accuracy of the information/data provided, (2) 

question the adequacy of the environmental 

analysis, (3) present reasonable alternatives to 

those presented in the draft document, or (4) 

cause changes or revisions in the preferred 

alternative. 

Most of the comments received referred to 

actions in the park that are part of daily 

operations or would be relevant during 

implementation of the actions proposed in this 

plan. These comments addressed topics such 

as automobile tour routes, alternative 

transportation planning, park signs, trail 

improvements, battle reenactments, and 

landscape rehabilitation in specific locations. 

Because a general management plan is a 

programmatic document designed to provide 

guidance in relation to park management goals 

and how to achieve desired future conditions, 

issues related to the daily management of the 

park are not directly addressed in a general 

management plan. Most of these comments 

will be considered during planning and 

implementation of the proposed actions. 

A few commenters suggested actions that are 

against NPS policy, are contrary to the goals of 

the park, or are covered under other plans. For 

example, it was suggested that the park have 

battle reenactments. Reenactments are 

prohibited by NPS policy and will not be 

considered (see the NPS’ Management Policies, 

Section 7.5.9). 

Several respondents on the Draft General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement included comments relevant to the 

Manassas National Battlefield Park Bypass 

Study. These comments have not been 

addressed, as they are outside the scope of the 

General Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement. Fairfax County also 

expressed concern regarding other 

transportation issues connected to the closure 

of U.S. Route 29 to commuter and commercial 

truck traffic. Because these issues involve 

transportation impacts outside the park, these 

issues are beyond the scope of this document 

and will be addressed as part of the Battlefield 
Response to Comments 

185 

Bypass environmental impact statement. 

Additional information related to the 

Battlefield Bypass can be found at 

http://www.battlefieldbypass.com 

COMMENTS THAT RESULTED IN A 

CHANGE TO THE FINAL DOCUMENT 

The National Park Service received a number 

of substantive comments that suggested 

changes to the Draft General Management Plan 

/ Environmental Impact Statement to address 

factual errors. These included a comment from 

the County of Fairfax, Virginia. The county 

noted that the description of the current land 

use on the east side of the park was incorrect. 

The Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement stated that 

construction of the proposed visitor center in 

alternative C would result in negligible to 

minor impacts on land use, based on the high 

level of development already present in this 

area. The county indicated that this area is one 

of the least-densely developed parts of the 

county. The description of the land use outside 

the east boundary has been revised 

accordingly. 

Implementation of the action alternatives 

proposed in this General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement would be 

unlikely to have a greater than minor impact 

on surrounding land uses outside the park 

boundary. The development of a new visitor 

center on the eastern boundary of the park is 

not part of the preferred alternative. If, in the 

future, the National Park Service determines 

that development of a new visitor center would 

be beneficial to management of Manassas 

National Battlefield Park, additional planning 

and environmental compliance would be 

completed as necessary. 

The Commonwealth Transportation Board 

approved the development of a Battlefield 

Bypass contingent on the mitigation of traffic 

impacts resulting from the bypass. Within the 

park, the board was concerned about the 

impact on emergency access if the modern 

highway bridge on U.S. Route 29 was removed. 

Fairfax County also expressed concern about 

emergency access. 

To address this concern, the preferred 

alternative was modified. As in alternative C, 

the modern highway bridge on U.S. Route 29 

would be removed. A new bridge and access 

road would be constructed south of the 

modern bridge in a location with fewer adverse 

impacts on the cultural landscape, visitor 

experience, and interpretation. These impacts 

were addressed in the Draft General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement as part of alternative C. A detailed 

discussion of the changes to alternative B was 

incorporated into the “Alternatives, including 

the Preferred Alternative” chapter of this 

document. 

Replacing the U.S. Route 29 bridge would 

benefit the cultural resources in the park by 

removing the modern structure from a site that 

played a key role in the Battles of First and 

Second Manassas. Removing the bridge would 

also allow for more complete interpretation of 

the site and would enhance visitor experience 

and safety in the area. 

The environmental impacts and costs of the 

new access road and bridge are addressed in 

this document (see the “Environmental 

Consequences” section and appendix D) 

because these facilities would be within park 

boundaries. However, because these changes 

are related to mitigation measures associated 

with the Battlefield Bypass study, 

implementation of these actions would occur 

in conjunction with the development of the 

Battlefield Bypass. 

The Coalition for Smarter Growth suggested 

that consideration should have been given to 

an action alternative that did not include the 

construction of a bypass around the park. The 

National Park Service has determined that 

such an alternative would be contrary to a 

Congressional mandate and the management 

goals for Manassas National Battlefield Park. 

The National Park Service believes an 

adequate range of alternatives was considered 

in the Draft General Management Plan / 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

186 

Environmental Impact Statement. Additional 

text has been developed to clarify the matter 

and is included under the heading “Alternative 

Considered but Eliminated from Further 

Analysis” in the “Alternatives, including the 

Preferred Action” chapter of this document. 

OTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED 

The National Park Service received a number 

of comments that did not result in changes to 

the final document. These comments are 

addressed here in an effort to clarify how 

issues related to management of the park. 

Several respondents suggested developing 

additional roads to increase visitor access to 

resources in the park, particularly for visitors 

with limited mobility. The National Park 

Service is committed to providing visitors with 

appropriate access and an opportunity to 

experience park resources in accordance with 

the Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility 

Standards (ABAAS). 

Many of the venues in the park are currently 

accessible to visitors with limited mobility. In 

developing and implementing this General 

Management Plan, the National Park Service 

must strike a balance between important but 

sometimes conflicting resources or values. For 

example, when developing the alternatives, the 

park staff had to weigh the tradeoffs between 

the preservation and protection of the park’s 

cultural and natural resources; the 

enhancement of visitor experience and safety, 

including accessibility; and the park’s 

operational concerns. 

Virtually the entire park is within the cultural 

landscape, as reflected in the management 

zoning for the action alternatives. Hence, the 

character of the battlefield could be 

diminished if more areas of the battlefield were 

made accessible. While it is unlikely that 

additional roads would be developed, the park 

staff would consider ways to improve 

accessibility to buildings and structures and the 

landscape in the park while minimizing 

impacts to park resources. 

Several respondents made comments relative 

to management of specific resources. These 

included wetlands and other habitats, and the 

management of fire and hazardous resources. 

The importance of the habitat (including 

wetlands) in the park has increased over time 

as the region had become more developed. 

Management of these important resources 

must be balanced with the purpose and 

significance of the park as a battlefield. The 

National Park Service would continue to 

consult with federal, state, and local agencies, 

as appropriate, during implementation of this 

plan to minimize any adverse impacts 

associated with the proposed action on natural 

resources in the park. In addition, 

implementation of this plan does not change 

management actions related to fire 

management, which are guided by the park’s 

fire management plan. Similarly, the National 

Park Service will continue to comply with 

appropriate laws and policies relative to 

management of hazardous materials. No 

actions under this plan would change the 

park’s current management practices in either 

of these areas. 

Commenters were generally supportive of the 

landscape rehabilitation measures proposed in 

the general management plan. Some concern 

was expressed by the Environmental 

Protection Agency, the Virginia Department of 

Game and Inland Fisheries, and Virginia 

Department of Conservation and Recreation 

over the total acreage of forested area to be cut 

under the preferred alternative. These entities 

provided detailed comments related to specific 

proposed timber cuts. 

The general management plan is a 

programmatic level document and these 

comments go beyond the scope of the 

document. The National Park Service 

recognizes that the park contains important 

woodland habitat. Management actions related 

to natural resources in the park must be 

balanced with the park mission. Based on 

previous projects, the National Park Service 

believes it can successfully meet goals relating 

to restoration of the battlefield landscape of 

the park while protecting the important 
Response to Comments 

187 

natural resources of the park. For example, the 

National Park Service consulted with the 

Department of Conservation and Recreation, 

Division of Natural Heritage regarding timber 

cuts to reestablish historic sight lines on the 

Brawner Farm. This consultation enabled the 

National Park Service to preserve two timber 

stands identified as pristine woodland by the 

Division of Natural Heritage. The proposed 

cuts are the minimum necessary to achieve the 

park goal of reestablishing these lines for 

visitor understanding of the evolution of the 

battle. The National Park Service would 

continue to work with the Division of Natural 

Heritage and other state and local government 

entities as necessary during implementation of 

this General Management Plan. 

Other reviewers expressed concern over the 

potential impacts of the closures of VA Route 

234 and U.S. Route 29 prior to the development of the bypass. As stated in alternative B, 

the preferred alternative, these roads would 

remain open to through traffic until a Battlefield Bypass was complete. Once the bypass 

was complete, the National Park Service would 

assume management of these roads. The speed 

limit on the non-bypass VA Route 234 and U.S. 

Route 29 would be reduced at that time to 

enhance visitor experience and safety in the 

park. 

Under the preferred alternative, the National 

Park Service proposes to install entrance 

stations to control access into the park. As 

noted in the Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement, the National 

Park Service would continue to work with 

residents in the park who could be affected by 

installation of the entrance stations. 

One respondent noted that the new visitor 

center at Stone Bridge proposed under 

alternative C should also be included under 

alternative B because it would “greatly increase 

the visual and physical enhancement and 

understanding of both battles.” The visitor 

center proposed under alternative C was not 

included under alternative B because of the 

associated costs. The benefits from an 

interpretative standpoint do not offset the 

costs associated with the new building 

(appendix D). 

Several reviewers expressed opposition to 

removing the modern bridge on U.S. Route 29 

at the east end of the park and building a new 

bridge farther downstream. The National Park 

Service believes that a new bridge would 

benefit the cultural resources in the park by 

removing the modern structure from a site that 

played a key role in the Battles of First and 

Second Manassas. In addition, removal of the 

bridge would allow for more complete 

interpretation of the site and would enhance 

visitor experience and safety in the area. 

The environmental impacts and costs of the 

new access road and bridge have been 

addressed here because these actions would 

occur within park boundaries. However, 

because these changes are related to mitigation 

measures within the Battlefield Bypass study, 

implementation of these actions would occur 

in conjunction with the Battlefield Bypass. 

One respondent questioned the validity of the 

park’s estimate of the number of people who 

visit the battlefield on an annual basis. The 

estimates cited in this plan were calculated by 

the Public Use Statistics Office, which coordinates visitor counting protocols systemwide 

and provides visitation statistics for areas 

administered by the National Park Service. The 

estimates are calculated based on park-specific 

information and are collected in several ways. 

Park staff count the actual number of people 

who enter the visitor center on a daily basis. 

This count reflects both visitors who pay an 

entrance fee as well as school groups, children 

under age 16, and annual pass holders who do 

not pay an entrance fee. The park also has 

several traffic counters located on roads 

leading to trailheads to track recreational use 

by hikers, joggers, horse trail users, and other 

individuals who visit the park throughout the 

year without entering the main visitor center. 

When the visitor use statistics are calculated, 

the National Park Service model is able to 

account for vehicles that enter and exit from 

the same gate as well as the possibility of 

multiple people in the same vehicle. In this way 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

188 

the visitation estimates include both one-time 

visitors and repetitive seasonal visitation. The 

needs of both groups are addressed in the final 

general management plan. 

Following are reproductions of the comment 

letters received that included substantive 

comments or those received from federal 

agencies and state or local governments. 
Comment Letters

189
190

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

191
192

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

193
194

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

195
196

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

197
198

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

199
200

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

201
202

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

203
204

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

205
206

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

207
208

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

209
210

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

211
212

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

213
214

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

215
216

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

217
218

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

219
220

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

221
222

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

223
224

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

225
226

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

227
228

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

229
230

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

231
232

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

233
234

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

235
236

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

237
238

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

239
240

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

241
242

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

243
244

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

245
246

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

247
248

Consultation and Coordination
Comment Letters

249
250

Consultation and Coordination
251 

LIST OF AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS 

TO WHICH THIS DOCUMENT WAS SENT 

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Federal Transit Administration 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk 

District 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

 Natural Resources Conservation Service 

 U.S. Forest Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

 National Oceanic & Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Northeast Region 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

 Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Field 

Office 

 National Park Service 

 Office of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance 

 Office of Environmental Project Review 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. SENATE 

The Honorable Mr. James Webb 

The Honorable Mr. John Warner 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

The Honorable Mr. Tom Davis 

The Honorable Mr. Frank Wolf 

STATE OFFICIALS 

The Honorable Tim Kaine, Governor of the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

The Honorable Charles Colgan, Senator, 

Virginia General Assembly 

The Honorable Robert Marshall, House 

Member, Virginia General Assembly 

STATE AGENCIES 

Virginia Department of Aviation 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

Virginia Department of Forestry 

Virginia Department of Game and Inland 

Fisheries 

Virginia Department of Historic Resources 

(State Historic Preservation Office) 

Virginia Department of Transportation 

Virginia Marine Resources Commission 

Virginia Outdoor Foundation 

REGIONAL AGENCIES 

AND ORGANIZATIONS 

National Capital Planning Commission 

Northern Virginia Regional Commission 

Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority 

Northern Virginia Soil and Water 

Conservation District 

Northern Virginia Transportation Authority 

COUNTY AND LOCAL 

AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS 

Fauquier County Administrator 

Fairfax County 

 Board of Supervisors 

 Department of Planning and Zoning 

 Department of Transportation 

Loudoun County 

 Administrator 

 Board of Supervisors 

 Director of Transportation 

Prince William County 

 Board of Supervisors 

 Department of Public Works 

 Soil and Water Conservation District 

 Transportation Division 

Manassas, Virginia, local government 

Manassas Park, Virginia, local government 

Town of Haymarket, local government 

ORGANIZATIONS AND BUSINESSES 

Bull Run Civil War Roundtable 

Civil War Preservation Trust 

Coalition for Smarter Growth 

Gate Post Estates Home Owners Association 

National Trust for Historic Preservation 

Piedmont Environmental Council 

Sudley Springs-Catharpin Civic Association 

APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, 

PREPARERS, AND INDEX 

255 

APPENDIX A: DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCES 

BRAWNER FARM 

Near the western edge of the park, the 

Brawner Farm area witnessed the initial 

fighting in the Battle of Second Manassas. The 

most prominent landmark on the wartime 

landscape was the residence of tenant farmer 

John Brawner and his family. The present 

structure, which was likely built or added to 

after the Civil War, now occupies part of the 

site overlooking the Warrenton Turnpike 

(present day U.S. Route 29). The two-story 

structure is in good condition. None of the 

farmstead’s ancillary structures remain, but 

archeological traces dot the grounds. 

Across much of the farm, evidence of historic 

field patterns remains, with cedar rows 

denoting the location of fence lines. A mixed 

pine and hardwood forest covers most of the 

once-cleared fields in the eastern portion of 

the farm. The historic woodlot, known 

variously as Brawner Woods or Gibbon’s 

Woods, nevertheless is a discernible hardwood 

stand in the southeastern corner of the farm 

adjacent to U.S. Route 29. The location of the 

wartime orchard, however, is unknown, 

although remnants of two later orchards exist 

northeast and east of the house. In addition to 

the unimproved driveway, a new access road 

off Pageland Lane provides access to the 

Brawner Farm. The access road leads to a loop 

parking area, and a pedestrian trail extends 

from the parking lot to the house. 

In a valley west of the farmstead lie the 

headwaters of Youngs Branch. Beyond the 

stream the ground rises to a clear ridge, where 

Confederate artillery and infantry advanced 

during the August 28 battle in a successful 

effort to force the Federals to withdraw. 

Northeast of the farmstead, rising ground 

forms a spur of Stony Ridge that served as the 

position of S. D. Lee's Confederate artillery on 

August 30. Five Civil War-era cannon, spread 

across the ridge crest, mark the artillery 

battalion’s position and serve as an interpretive 

aid. To the east, the postwar forest growth has 

reduced the clear field of fire to approximately 

100 yards, entirely blocking key battlefield 

views toward the Deep Cut and Battery 

Heights. To the west, meanwhile, the open 

fields preserve the historic vista to the Bull Run 

Mountains, with Hopewell Gap clearly visible 

and Thoroughfare Gap somewhat obscured 

but still discernible. This view to the gaps 

provides an opportunity to interpret the 

Confederates’ movement to the battlefield. 

BULL RUN 

Bull Run, the principal tributary of the 

Occoquan River, flows along the eastern edge 

of the battlefield. Its steep banks and bluffs 

formed a natural defensive barrier for 

Confederate forces early in the war. Physical 

evidence of the Confederate defensive line 

survives in the form of scattered earthworks 

along the bluffs overlooking Bull Run. These 

earthworks include a shallow lunette used as 

an artillery position by Heaton's section of 

Rodger's Loudoun Artillery and rifle pits near 

Lewis Ford occupied by the 19th Virginia and 

Schaeffer's Battalion. The rugged terrain of the 

valley channeled troop movements to 

established crossing points such as Poplar 

Ford, Lewis Ford, and Balls Ford. Traces of the 

fords remain and are accessible by trail. Other 

stream crossings in the Sudley and Stone 

Bridge areas are described below. 

CHINN RIDGE 

Southwest of the intersection of the 

Warrenton Turnpike and the Sudley-Manassas 

Road, Chinn Ridge was the scene of major 

fighting in both battles. In each battle, 

Confederate counterattacks made control of 

this ridge a key component of Southern 

success. The most important wartime feature 

on the ridge was the plantation residence of 

Benjamin T. Chinn. Known as Hazel Plain, the 

frame house stood two-and-a-half stories tall 

on a sandstone foundation at the crest of the 

ridge, where it overlooked the length of the 

ridge and the valley of Chinn Branch. Despite 
APPENDIXES

256 

its exposed position on the battlefield, the 

house survived the war, and eventually 

succumbed to the ravages of time and the 

elements in the 20th century. In 1950 the NPS 

razed the house, and only the foundation and 

chimney bases remain intact. 

In addition to the house foundation, 

archeological traces of the numerous ancillary 

structures survive on the ridge and its 

southeastern slope. A 1983 archeological 

survey identified more than a dozen features 

associated with the plantation, mostly in the 

yard and fields east-southeast of the house site. 

Two notable features are down slope in the 

valley of Chinn Branch. About 200 yards east 

of the house site, the Hooe Family Cemetery is 

the burial ground of the family who built and 

owned Hazel Plain from 1809 to 1836. The 

headstones fell victim to vandalism in the 

1950s and 60s, and none remain within the 

stone cemetery walls today. Meanwhile to the 

northeast across Chinn Branch, Chinn Spring 

is still evident, albeit somewhat overgrown. 

Landscape patterns remain largely intact in the 

vicinity of the Chinn House site, with the 

grounds divided into unequal quarters and 

bordered by cedar rows marking historic fence 

lines. The southern grounds in particular 

display a high level of organization, with 

terraced lawns or gardens flanking the house 

on the west and east. Just north of the house 

site, the historic farm lane that bisects the 

grounds is now an asphalted park road giving 

access to VA Route 234 at the park's southern 

boundary. A nonhistoric park road intersects 

with the old road east of the house site and 

extends first northward along Chinn Branch 

and then eastward to a junction with VA Route 

234. Traces of other historic roads remain in 

the woods west and southwest of the house 

site. Of particular note are the well-worn traces 

of Comptons Lane, which runs parallel to a 

modern park trail. 

The only commemorative element on the 

Chinn Ridge landscape proper is a granite 

boulder bearing a bronze plaque honoring Col. 

Fletcher Webster, who fell leading the 12th 

Massachusetts at Second Manassas. The 

Webster Monument is about 400 yards northnortheast of the Chinn House site. 

The crest of Chinn Ridge proper remains 

mostly clear and reflects its historic 

appearance, except for a postwar grove around 

the Webster Monument. The slopes of the 

ridge, however, bear considerable postwar 

forest growth that hinders interpretive efforts. 

To the west, an extensive forest covers the 

undulating slope of the ridge, obscuring the 

position of Kerns' Union battery and blocking 

the view of the New York monuments to the 

west. Recent forest growth in the Chinn 

Branch valley entirely obstructs the view of 

Henry Hill, while scattered woods on the 

northern extremity of the ridge conceal the 

historic Stone House intersection. 

CUNDIFF 

In the southwestern part of the park, the 

Cundiff plantation, Meadowville, was the 

scene of much activity during the Battle of 

Second Manassas. Its position on the 

Warrenton Turnpike opposite the Brawner 

Farm placed the property in the midst of the 

action on August 28, and Union forces 

occupied the area, using the house as a 

temporary hospital. Union and Confederate 

forces skirmished in the area the following day, 

and on August 30, Confederate forces 

positioned here launched a massive 

counterattack. 

Today, only foundations mark the site of the 

Cundiff dwelling at Meadowville. The original 

house, part of which dated to the late 18th 

century, did not survive the war, and a later 

house built on the same site in the 1940s was 

razed prior to NPS acquisition. The 

archeological features of the domestic complex 

also include the remains of at least one 

outbuilding east of the house site. A driveway 

provides access to the house site and roughly 

follows the route of the historic Meadowville 

Lane. South of the house site, however, no 

visible trace remains of the wartime farm lane. 

The central portion of the plantation 

landscape lay mostly in open fields, with 
Appendix A: Description of Resources 

257 

woodlots toward the periphery. However, 

modern forest growth covers much of the area 

today, blocking historic views from Stuart's 

Hill to the west, and covering much of the 

ground where Confederate forces deployed 

during Second Manassas. Evidence of historic 

field patterns exists in the form of remnant 

fence lines. Although a few of the extant fence 

lines may date to the war period, most are from 

the 1871 partition of Meadowville. 

DOGAN RIDGE 

Spreading northwest from the intersection of 

U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234, the Dogan 

Ridge area was the scene of important action 

during both battles. During First Manassas, 

Union troops advancing onto the ridge 

threatened the Confederate line on 

neighboring Matthews Hill, and Northern 

artillerists shelled Southern positions on 

Henry Hill from the cleared crest of the main 

ridgeline. At Second Manassas, the property 

became a staging area for Union attacks against 

the Confederates' Unfinished Railroad 

position, while the high ground again served as 

a key artillery position. 

Beginning at the Sudley-Manassas Road 

opposite Matthews Hill, Dogan Ridge extends 

southwestward as an extension of the 

Matthews ridgeline. The most prominent 

feature on the wartime landscape was the 

farmstead of John Dogan, on the southwestern 

portion of the ridge. Known as Rosefield, the 

Dogan House stood on the crest of the ridge 

overlooking the Warrenton Turnpike about 80 

yards to the south. Built in the 1790s, the 

original house was one of several Carter family 

residences in the area until Dogan acquired the 

property in the 1840s. The antebellum dwelling 

burned during the Civil War; a new house, 

constructed in the 1880s, now stands on the 

approximate site and serves as a marker for the 

wartime structure. 

No visible evidence exists of the farmstead’s 

outbuildings, which lay west of the house, or of 

the wartime orchard to the southwest. The 

original farm lane does survive in part, 

extending as a driveway from the postwar 

house southeast to the Warrenton Turnpike, 

but the lane running northward to VA Route 

234 is no longer extant. Both adjacent 

highways generally follow their wartime 

alignments, except for a section of VA Route 

234 north of the main ridge. North of the ridge, 

the modern highway follows a new alignment 

immediately to the east of the well-defined bed 

of the original road. 

Throughout much of the property, continued 

agricultural use has helped preserve historic 

vegetation patterns, with open fields 

predominating on the main Dogan Ridge and 

parallel ridgelines to the northwest. However, 

dense rows of cedar and scrub growth have 

sprung up along historic fence lines, effectively 

shutting off views to Henry Hill, Matthews 

Hill, and the Groveton area. In the northern 

and western areas of the Dogan farm, wood 

lines appear little changed from the war 

period. As in the 1860s, the woodlots on the 

periphery of the farm merge with the larger 

Groveton Woods that extended north and 

northeast along the Groveton-Sudley Road 

(now Featherbed Lane) and the Unfinished 

Railroad. 

GROVETON 

The tiny village of Groveton sat at the junction 

of the Warrenton Turnpike (now U.S. Route 

29) with the Groveton-Sudley Road (now 

Featherbed Lane). Groveton witnessed key 

events during each day of fighting at Second 

Manassas and, in early accounts of the actions, 

even lent its name to the engagement. Historic 

maps and documentary evidence place the 

village proper on the northwest and southwest 

corners of the intersection, with a tavern, 

wheelwright shop, and blacksmith shop among 

the cluster of structures. Few traces of the 

crossroads community remain today, but 

recent structures evoke the historic setting. 

The most important remnant of the Groveton 

area is the Lucinda Dogan House, at the 

northwest corner of the intersection. Part of 

the adjacent Dogan family plantation known as 

Peach Grove, the one-and-a-half story log 

building originally served as an overseer's 
APPENDIXES

258 

house. In 1860, the structure became the 

Dogans' primary residence after the main 

plantation house burned. Veterans of Second 

Manassas later became welcome guests in the 

Dogan home, and the family participated in 

dedication ceremonies for the nearby New 

York monuments in 1906. The Prince William 

County Chamber of Commerce purchased the 

house and its immediate grounds in 1947 and 

donated the property to the park in 1949. NPS 

completed rehabilitation of the building in 

1961. The house is one of only three wartime 

buildings within the park boundaries. 

Just west of the Lucinda Dogan House and 

outside the park boundary, a two-story frame 

structure may contain the historic Dogan 

tavern, which stood on the site in the 1860s. 

No other vestige of the historic Groveton 

village survives, although archeological 

remains may exist. The tavern structure and 

the rest of the northwest corner of the 

Groveton intersection fall within the Stonewall 

Memory Gardens, a privately owned 84-acre 

landscaped cemetery. 

In addition, the cemetery property contains 

two other historic sites related to Groveton. 

The Peach Grove domestic complex stood on 

a knoll about 350 yards northwest of the village 

intersection. Although nothing remains of the 

house, and a modern cemetery office building 

now occupies the approximate site. The family 

burial ground survives nearby and is marked 

by a bronze tablet on a brick base. Meanwhile, 

the location of the wartime Groveton School 

House is not certain, but the structure may 

have stood about 400 yards north of the 

intersection, just within the northeast 

boundary of the cemetery property. Most of 

the remainder of the Peach Grove property 

falls within NPS boundaries and includes the 

Battery Heights area. Located on a ridge west 

of the modern cemetery, Battery Heights 

served as an important artillery position during 

Second Manassas. It was occupied by Federals 

on August 28 and by Confederates on August 

30. 

No trace of the historic village exists south of 

the Warrenton Turnpike, although several 

structures stood in the southwest corner of the 

intersection. To the south and facing the 

wartime Lewis Lane (now Groveton Road) is a 

two-story stone dwelling dating to 1918. 

Originally built as a school, the structure later 

underwent remodeling as a residence and now 

serves as housing for park staff. 

Several notable commemorative features lie 

east of the Groveton crossroads. About 275 

yards east of the Lucinda Dogan House, the 

Groveton Confederate Cemetery occupies a 

landscaped knoll overlooking Dogan Branch. 

Established in the late 1860s, the cemetery 

contains the remains of at least 266 

Confederate soldiers who fell in the Manassas 

battles. Of these burials, only two are fully 

identified by headstones. The cemetery also 

contains a stone obelisk erected in 1904 to 

honor the fallen Confederates. Thirteen stone 

markers encircle the monument, each bearing 

the name of a Confederate or border state. 

Other early 20th century improvements 

include a wrought iron perimeter fence and 

gate, dating to 1901, and a sidewalk 

constructed the same year as the obelisk. 

Across the Warrenton Turnpike on an 

extension of the cemetery ridge is the 14th 

Brooklyn Monument. Erected by the State of 

New York in 1906, the granite monument with 

bronze seal and plaque honors the 14th 

Brooklyn at the regiment's position at Second 

Manassas. This monument is surrounded by an 

iron enclosure. On the crest of a nearby ridge 

are granite monuments bearing bronze seals 

and plaques in honor of the 5th and 10th New 

York Infantry. Both regiments were 

overwhelmed in the Confederates' August 30 

assault. Iron enclosures also surround these 

New York Monuments, and an iron gate 

stands at the entrance to the access road off the 

Warrenton Turnpike. Because of the widening 

of the access road, known as New York 

Avenue, the iron gate is no longer functional. 

Across the highway, a later monument stands 

at the western end of the cemetery parking lot. 

Consisting of a bronze plaque on a sandstone 

base, the 1928 Groveton Monument 

commemorates the Second Manassas or 

Groveton battle. Two other monuments on the 
Appendix A: Description of Resources 

259 

Dogans' Peach Grove property are described 

in the section on the Unfinished Railroad. 

The 1860s road network appears largely intact, 

with U.S. Route 29, Featherbed Lane, and 

Groveton Road mostly corresponding to their 

wartime alignments. The lone exception is a 

short stretch of U.S. Route 29 east of the 

Groveton Confederate Cemetery, where a 

narrow trace and stone abutments mark the 

old crossing of Dogan’s Branch immediately 

upstream from the modern highway. The 

roads, while generally on their old beds, are 

not at the 1860s grade, as the state cut into the 

historic grade to minimize the undulations of 

the road surface. Despite the improvements, 

the modern roads have the appearance of rural 

byways and lend much to the historic scene at 

Groveton. 

The landscape of the Groveton area still 

possesses much of its open character, with 

open fields predominating east of the 

crossroads and also at Battery Heights to the 

west of the Stonewall Memory Gardens. 

Within the modern cemetery, however, the 

battlefield landscape has undergone noticeable 

change, including the addition of modern 

structures, a road network, and a pond. More 

importantly, modern forest growth covers the 

northern portions of the cemetery tract that 

the Dogans maintained as pastures in the 

1860s. Although outside NPS boundaries, this 

forest encroachment markedly hinders 

interpretation of Second Manassas, entirely 

obstructing views of the Deep Cut attack zone 

from Groveton and Battery Heights and 

contributing to the forest obstacles blocking 

the historic vista from the Brawner Farm. 

Much of this area was clear as recently as the 

1940s. 

HENRY HILL 

Situated southeast of the intersection of the 

Warrenton Turnpike and the Sudley-Manassas 

Road, Henry Hill served as the stage for some 

of the most dramatic events of both battles of 

Manassas. Confederate forces turned the tide 

of battle here at First Manassas, and at Second 

Manassas, Federal defenders made a tenacious 

stand that allowed the Union army to 

withdraw safely from the field. The area of 

Henry Hill comprises portions of the historic 

Henry and Robinson farms, and although 

neither wartime dwelling survives, the remains 

of these farmsteads serve as important 

battlefield landmarks today. The hill also is 

presently the site of the park's visitor center. 

The Henry farmstead, known also as Spring 

Hill, saw the heaviest fighting at First Manassas 

and suffered accordingly. Artillery fire during 

the battle left the owner, Judith Carter Henry, 

dead and her house severely battered. 

Confederate troops scavenging for wood later 

dismantled the structure, leaving only part of 

the chimney standing by the time of Second 

Manassas. Toward the close of the second 

battle, Union troops formed a defensive line on 

the western slopes of the hill and within the 

roadbed of the Sudley-Manassas Road to the 

west of the house site. VA Route 234 here 

generally follows its wartime alignment within 

a steep-banked roadbed. An abandoned 

stretch of the original roadbed extends 

southward from the wood line south of the 

visitor center driveway to the park boundary. 

A two-story frame house, built by the Henry 

family in 1870 and later enlarged, now 

occupies the site of the original one-and-a-half 

story residence. A postwar frame shed of 

undetermined age stands immediately to the 

north of the house. The Henry House has been 

rehabilitated, and the shed has been converted 

into public restrooms. To the west of the 

house, an iron enclosure surrounds the family 

burial plot, which includes the marked graves 

of Mrs. Henry and two of her adult children 

who died after the war. The gravestones, 

although weathered, remain in fair and legible 

condition. 

A gated and partly graveled driveway, 

presumably on the bed of the original farm 

lane, provides access to the farmstead from the 

Sudley-Manassas Road. Traces of the farm 

lane also appear in the fields northeast and east 

of the house, extending into the woods on the 

southeastern part of the farm. Within the 

woods the deeply worn farm trace survives as 
APPENDIXES

260 

part of a hiking trail. This trace figured 

prominently in First Manassas as the route that 

Jackson’s Virginians—and many Confederate 

reinforcements—followed into battle on 

Henry Hill. The trace terminates at its 

intersection with an historic farm road now 

known as Rock Road. This latter road, also 

part of the Confederate march route, generally 

follows a north-south alignment, running from 

U.S. Route 29 to Vandor Lane (postwar) and 

skirting past the eastern slopes of Henry Hill. 

Surfaced with gravel in the 20th century, Rock 

Road is currently a component of the park’s 

hiking trail system. 

Northeast of the Henry farm lay the remains of 

the Robinson farmstead, the scene of 

important fighting during the first battle and a 

victim of looting during the second battle. The 

original one-and-a-half story frame house, the 

residence of freedman James Robinson, 

survived the war intact. The Robinson family, 

however, constructed additions onto their 

wartime home in the 1870s and 80s and later 

razed the original part of the house to allow the 

construction of a new addition in 1926. The 

completed two-story house stood until the 

structure was destroyed by arson in 1993. NPS 

dismantled the ruined building and a modern 

shed the following year. The red sandstone 

foundation of the 1871/1926 house comprises 

the only visible remains. The original farm lane 

still serves as the driveway onto the property, 

providing access from U.S. Route 29 north of 

the site. Both the fence-lined drive and the 

worn roadbed of the turnpike served as 

Confederate defensive positions during First 

Manassas. 

After the battles, the Henry Hill area became 

the focus for commemorative activities, as 

veterans and their descendants erected 

memorials and markers on the battlefield. The 

earliest monument was an 1861 shaft honoring 

Confederate Col. Francis Bartow, who was 

killed at First Manassas. Remains of this 

monument (perhaps the earliest Civil War 

monument anywhere) and an intact 1936 

granite monument with a bronze plaque also in 

his honor are in the hollow southeast of the 

Henry House, presumably at the spot where he 

fell. Just east of the Henry House stands an 

1865 brownstone obelisk erected by Union 

soldiers to honor their fallen comrades at First 

Manassas. Veterans of the 7th Georgia Infantry 

later marked their regiment’s positions in the 

1861 battle with numerous stones, two of 

which survive on Henry Hill. One marker is 

south of the Henry House, and the other is 

positioned in a clearing 600 yards to the east. 

Members of the United Daughters of the 

Confederacy erected a granite monument in 

1939 to mark the area of Brig. Gen. Barnard 

Bee's mortal wounding in the first battle, and 

the Commonwealth of Virginia commissioned 

an equestrian statue of Brig. Gen. (later Lt. 

Gen.) Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson to 

commemorate his stand on Henry Hill in 1861. 

The 1940 Jackson statue and the nearby Bee 

monument are on the crest of the hill roughly 

200 yards southeast of the Henry House. All of 

the surviving, intact monuments are in fair to 

good condition. 

The visitor center, erected in 1942 and later 

enlarged, stands on the hill about 200 yards 

south of the Henry House and serves as the 

center of interpretive activity in the park. 

Despite the presence of the modern visitor 

center, the landscape retains much of its 

historic character, with the configuration of 

field and forest generally corresponding to the 

hill’s wartime appearance. The placement of 

artillery pieces along Jackson’s line and at 

Ricketts and Griffin's battery positions 

enhances the hill's evocative power. The open 

plateau where the heaviest fighting occurred in 

the first battle affords commanding vistas of 

much of the 1861 battlefield, with Van Pelt Hill 

to the northeast and Matthews Hill to the 

north in clear view and the Bull Run 

Mountains (with Hopewell Gap) visible in the 

distance to the north-northwest. Modern 

forest growth to the west and northwest, 

however, now largely obscures views of 

neighboring Chinn Ridge and Dogan Ridge. 

These important battlefield areas were visible 

from Henry Hill as recently as the 1950s. 
Appendix A: Description of Resources 

261 

LEWIS 

Southwest of Groveton, the Lewis plantation, 

Brownsville, saw significant action during the 

Battle of Second Manassas. Caught between 

the main lines of the contending armies, the 

property witnessed considerable skirmishing 

on August 29-30. Union artillery unlimbered 

on the high ground near the Lewis House on 

August 29, and during much of the battle 

Union skirmishers maintained positions along 

Lewis Lane (now Groveton Road). On the 

30th, Confederate forces under Maj. Gen. 

James Longstreet swept over the plantation in 

a massive assault on Union positions to the 

east. 

The ruins of the Lewis family’s domestic 

complex form the most important historic 

feature left on the landscape. Despite the 

military activity, the Lewis House—known as 

Brownsville or Folly Castle—survived the Civil 

War but was destroyed by fire in 1900. Later 

dwellings erected in the early 1900s and in 

1940 used the foundations and building 

materials of the earlier house. 

The foundations of the 1940 house and its 

predecessors occupy a knoll south of Youngs 

Branch and west of the junction of Lewis Lane 

and modern-day Pageland Lane. Archeological 

evidence of other structures remains in the 

yard to the north of the house site, while a 

cemetery and spring lie to the northeast. South 

of the house site, the extant driveway generally 

follows the path of the original farm lane 

sometimes referred to as Lewis Lane. 

The 1940 dwelling survived until its demolition 

as part of the William Center project in 1988. 

Before being aborted in 1988, the William 

Center project erased many important 

landscape features, impacting approximately 

100 acres. The William Center development 

obliterated much of Lewis Lane, as well as 

large portions of the tract north of Youngs 

Branch. Most notable among the alterations 

was the partial destruction of the central ridge 

that helped conceal Confederate positions in 

the western part of the tract. The William 

Center project re-configured the drainage 

network, added roads, altered surrounding 

hydrology and filled in wetland areas. 

Between June and November 2003, a 

partnership between the park and the 

Smithsonian Institution rehabilitated the area 

disturbed by the William Center project. This 

partnership was aided by the presence of 

unusually detailed topographic and hydrologic 

maps of the area—produced only a decade 

after the battles. With this information in hand, 

the Lewis area was re-graded to its 1862 

contours. Approximately 45 acres of wetlands 

were restored and upland areas were planted 

in native warm season grasses, creating a 

habitat type that is rapidly dwindling in 

Virginia. The area now bears much 

resemblance to its wartime appearance –the regrading and re-positioning of this section of 

the park is now considered to be within one 

meter of the contours present during the Battle 

of Second Manassas. 

MATTHEWS HILL 

Located one mile north of Henry Hill on the 

Sudley-Manassas Road, the Matthews Hill area 

was the stage of important action in both 

battles, particularly First Manassas. On 

Matthews hill the Union turning column first 

encountered Confederate resistance in the first 

battle, while in both battles Confederate troops 

pursued retreating Federals through the area. 

The partially cleared landscape recalls the site's 

wartime appearance, with sweeping vistas to 

the west toward Dogan Ridge and to the south 

toward the Henry Hill engagement area. A line 

of cannon on the crest indicates a Union 

battery position during First Manassas and aids 

in telling the battle story. South along the vista 

a draw separates the main hill from Buck Hill, 

which forms the lower shoulder of the ridge. 

The latter hill served as a Confederate artillery 

position in First Manassas and as the site of 

Major General John Pope's headquarters 

during Second Manassas. The cleared summit 

of Buck Hill affords a panoramic view of much 

of the battlefield, encompassing Henry Hill, 

Matthews Hill, Van Pelt Hill, and Dogan 
APPENDIXES

262 

Ridge, as well as portions of Chinn Ridge now 

draped in modern forest. 

East of the Matthews Hill vista, 20th century 

forest growth shrouds the landscape, covering 

fully one-half of the engagement area on the 

crest and the site of the Matthews' farmstead. 

A key landmark on the wartime landscape, the 

one-and-a-half story Martin Matthew House 

survived the war but fell into ruin during the 

early 1900s. Only foundations remain from the 

house, while depressions and scattered traces 

mark the location of outbuildings. The entire 

site now lies in a thick pine woods. A horse 

trail skirts the area, posing a potential impact 

to the archeological features of the site. 

Near the Matthews site, the stone Stovall 

Marker constitutes the only commemorative 

feature in the area. Erected in the late 19th 

century, the marble marker originally indicated 

the site where Georgia soldier George T. 

Stovall fell during the first battle. Only partially 

intact, the marker has since been moved and 

only approximates the site today. 

PITTSYLVANIA 

The Carter plantation, Pittsylvania, occupies 

the northeastern corner of the park, and was 

the scene of important troop movements 

during both battles. Confederate forces briefly 

took up positions here in marching from the 

Stone Bridge to Matthews Hill during First 

Manassas, and Union troops later maneuvered 

and retreated over the area. At the close of 

Second Manassas, Union forces withdrew 

through the property again and left destruction 

in their wake. 

The most prominent wartime element of the 

landscape is the Carter family's domestic 

complex. Built in the 1760s, the family's 

residence at Pittsylvania formed the nucleus of 

their once-extensive holdings in the area. The 

plantation, however, fell into decline before 

the war, and Union troops burned the house 

following Second Manassas, leaving only the 

ruined foundation to mark the site. Around the 

house ruins, remnants of other structures litter 

the area, including the foundation of a postwar 

house known as Pittsylvania II. Built in the late 

19th century, the later house occupied the yard 

south of the original house site until its 

demolition in 1970. 

Beyond a formal lawn area, still evident to the 

south of the house site, sits the Carter family 

cemetery. Partially surrounded by a late 19th 

century dry-laid stone wall, the cemetery 

contains an unknown number of graves, some 

of which are marked by fieldstones. Another 

burial ground, for the Carter slaves, lay 

unmarked a short distance to the northwest, 

where shallow depressions indicate grave sites. 

South of Pittsylvania, the Maggie Lewis House 

occupied low ground near Youngs Branch, but 

no visible trace exists of the wartime dwelling 

of this African American woman. 

The Pittsylvania area today bears little 

resemblance to its historic appearance, as 

successional forests have reclaimed much of 

the clear ground, including the site of the 

Carter house. The modern forest blocks 

significant views to Matthews Hill to the west 

and to Poplar Ford on Bull Run to the 

northeast. Other alterations include postwar 

farmsteads in the cleared areas northeast and 

southeast of the Carter house site. 

Nevertheless, some historic field patterns and 

portions of the farm road network remain 

evident. A postwar farm lane extends 

northward from U.S. Route 29 and, northeast 

of the house site, approximates the route of the 

road to Poplar Ford. Elsewhere, park trails 

partly follow routes analogous to period farm 

lanes linking Pittsylvania to Van Pelt Hill and 

Farm Ford to the east and to VA Route 234 to 

the west. 

PORTICI 

Occupying the southeastern corner of the 

park, Portici was the wartime plantation of the 

Francis W. Lewis family and the setting for 

important activity in both battles. Here, 

Confederate Gen. Joseph E. Johnston set up 

his battlefield command post at the height of 

the first battle, while at the close of the second 

battle, Union and Confederate cavalry clashed 

on the property in a brief but violent exchange. 
Appendix A: Description of Resources 

263 

The most notable feature on wartime 

landscape was the Lewis residence, Portici, 

which stood on a ridge overlooking the Old 

Warrenton, Alexandria, and Washington Road 

(now Balls Ford Road) and the valley of Bull 

Run. A full English cellar and a pair of massive 

brick chimneys were among the distinctive 

features of the 1820 plantation manor. The 

house survived the Battle of First Manassas, 

when it served as Johnston's headquarters and 

as a field hospital, but was destroyed by fire 

sometime following the second battle (the date 

of its destruction is uncertain). An 

archeological investigation of the property 

during the late 1980s uncovered the ruins of 

the domestic complex, including the debrisfilled remains of the cellar, but only scattered 

bricks and a lone wayside mark the site of 

Portici today. 

Scattered across the property are the remains 

of other dwelling sites related to the extended 

Lewis family, none of which were standing 

during the Civil War. Among the notable 

archeological features are the remains of 

Pohoke, which had been the seat of the 

plantation prior to the construction of Portici. 

The earlier house stood on a ridge north of the 

site of Portici, but no visible trace survives 

above ground. Several post-Civil War house 

sites dot the landscape, including Portici II and 

Portici III, both family dwellings that 

successively occupied the same site on a low 

ridge southeast of Portici. Portici III, also 

known as the F. Lewis/Wheeler House, stood 

on that site until the NPS removed the 

dilapidated structure to restore the setting of 

the 1862 cavalry engagement. 

Other Lewis family sites include the Ball 

Family Cemetery, which lies on a hill near the 

site of Pohoke and contains the remains of the 

Lewis' forebears. Five pairs of head- and 

footstones and several fieldstone markers 

designate the known burial sites. A stone wall, 

reconstructed in the 1930s, serves to protect 

the remaining grave markers, but the cemetery 

may extend beyond the walled area. 

Among the notable military features on the 

property are the remnants of camp huts and 

structures built and occupied by Confederate 

troops in the winter of 1861-62. Federal 

soldiers briefly occupied the camp after the 

Confederates abandoned the site in March 

1862. On a wooded hill west of Portici, the 

Confederate winter campsite straddles the 

park boundary and is the only known wartime 

campsite within the park. In recent years the 

site has suffered from relic hunting activity as 

well as the effects of the development of the 

adjacent Battlefield Business Park. 

The gently rolling landscape lies mostly in 

open fields, reflecting its two centuries of 

agricultural use. The high ground at the Portici 

house site still offers expansive views of the 

countryside to the south, now cluttered with 

suburban sprawl. Nevertheless, the open vista 

at Portici provides the only opportunity to 

interpret the Confederates’ movement from 

the Manassas Junction area during First 

Manassas. To the east, however, a thick belt of 

woods along Bull Run blocks the historic view 

of the Federals’ approach on the Warrenton 

Turnpike. These woods also screen from sight 

a large quarry operation. Along the western 

boundary of the property, a thin body of 

woods covers the site of the Confederate 

winter camp and helps to conceal part of the 

neighboring business park. 

From VA Route 234, the modern Battleview 

Parkway extends through the business park to 

Vandor Lane (also postwar) on the park’s 

southern boundary and provides vehicular 

access to the Portici area. Just south of the park 

boundary, Interstate 66 cuts a wide swath 

across the historic landscape, partially severing 

the plantation’s historic connection to the Old 

Warrenton, Alexandria and Washington Road 

(modern-day balls Ford Road) and slicing 

through part of the area of the 1862 cavalry 

engagement. An abandoned stretch of the 

historic road survives in the southeastern 

portion of the property and extends to Balls 

Ford on Bull Run. 

In the western portion of the tract, an historic 

farm road, now known as Rock Road, 

continues in use as a fire road and park trail. 

During First Manassas, Confederates advanced 
APPENDIXES

264 

to the Henry Hill area along this route, and 

Confederate President Jefferson Davis rode 

forward to Holkums Branch and encountered 

Stonewall Jackson after the fighting. 

STONE BRIDGE 

Marking the eastern entry to the park, the 

Stone Bridge area was the site of the opening 

shots of First Manassas and the primary route 

of retreat for Federals at Second Manassas. 

Originally constructed as part of the 

Warrenton Turnpike in the 1820s, the Stone 

Bridge was the primary wagon crossing over 

Bull Run. Although the bridge survived the 

fighting in 1861, the span lay in ruins by the 

time of Second Manassas: Confederates 

destroyed the bridge during their withdrawal 

from Bull Run in March 1862. Subsequently, a 

wooden bridge employed the old stone 

abutments, and a new stone bridge was 

constructed on the site in the 1880s. 

Today the reconstructed Stone Bridge remains 

one of the park’s most recognized features. 

Repointed and extensively repaired in 1990, 

the bridge is generally in good condition. 

Traces of the Warrenton Turnpike also survive 

at the approaches to the bridge. On the eastern 

approach to the bridge, the trace remains as a 

grass trail maintained for handicapped access, 

while to the west, a gravel pedestrian trail 

occupies the old roadbed that covers part of 

the historic road. The trace resumes west of 

the parking lot and is interrupted by the berm 

containing modern U.S. Route 29. Periodic 

flooding from Bull Run impacts portions of the 

trace west of the bridge. Upstream from the 

Stone Bridge was the site of Farm Ford, an 

important crossing point for Federals during 

First Manassas. The ford has fallen into disuse 

since the war and a site marker points to its 

general location along the hiking trail north of 

the bridge. 

Notable terrain features in the area include 

Bull Run, which loops through the area, the 

steep bluffs along the stream’s eastern (Fairfax 

County) bank, and a broad floodplain 

extending west from the bridge to Van Pelt 

Hill. Historically, the slope of Van Pelt Hill as 

well as much of the floodplain lay bare: 

Confederates felled the trees to allow for clear 

fields of fire for artillery. Forest growth has 

since reclaimed the clear-cut area, obscuring 

the view of the bridge and its approaches. 

STONE HOUSE 

One of only three rehabilitated wartime 

buildings within the park, the Stone House, is 

also one of the park's most recognized 

landmarks. Its location at the junction of the 

Warrenton Turnpike and the Sudley-Manassas 

Road helped determine its use. Built in the 

second quarter of the 19th century, the twoand-a-half story building has served variously 

as a tavern, post office, and residence. During 

the Civil War, the house sheltered Union 

wounded in both Manassas engagements and 

graffiti in an upstairs room provides graphic 

evidence of its occupation. Acquired in 1949 

and rehabilitated in the 1960s, the Stone House 

has become a key interpretive site. 

The surrounding landscape aids the 

interpretation of the site. The well in the front 

yard dates to the war and is the only other 

period feature on the grounds. To the north 

the abrupt slope of Buck Hill rises to the site of 

Pope's headquarters during Second Manassas. 

At the foot of Buck Hill, a 1928 bronze tablet 

memorializing First Manassas forms the only 

commemorative feature on the landscape. 

Meanwhile to the south and across the 

Warrenton Turnpike, Youngs Branch threads 

its way through a floodplain past the foot of 

Henry Hill. 

Modern U.S. Route 29 and VA Route 234 

occupy the roadbeds of the wartime Warrenton Turnpike and the Sudley-Manassas Road, 

respectively, which meet just west of the house 

at a historically significant intersection. South 

of the junction, VA Route 234 continues for a 

short distance on a new alignment, but the bed 

of the old road is discernible at Youngs 

Branch. Despite asphalt surfaces and the presence of a traffic signal, the two roads retain 

their rural character, and the intersection 

evokes the appearance of a country crossroads, 

allowing the public to appreciate the historic 
Appendix A: Description of Resources 

265 

setting with minimal intrusions. Heavy through 

traffic does compromise the visitor experience 

here, forming the gravest threat to the historic 

scene at the Stone House. Modern 

improvements to the intersection include the 

following: 

• Installation of mast-arm mountings for traffic 

signals

• Addition of left turn lanes to all four legs of 

the intersection; 

• Relocation of the parking lot to the East 

side of Stone House 

• Burying of utility lines 

• Alteration of the grade of VA Route 234 

going up Buck Hill 

• Addition of curbs and drains 

• Addition of a pedestrian bridge over 

Young’s Branch 

• Addition of pedestrian crosswalks across 

U.S. Route 29 

STUART’S HILL 

Located in the southwestern corner of the 

park, Stuart's Hill was the site of Gen. Robert 

E. Lee's headquarters during the Battle of 

Second Manassas. With its summit and eastern 

slopes cleared, the hill, among the highest 

points on the battlefield, allowed the 

Confederate commander to observe troop 

movements as well as maintain 

communications with his wing commanders 

from a signal station near the crest. Today, 

successional forest growth obscures the 

sweeping vistas of the 1860s, hindering the 

park’s efforts to interpret the site’s historic 

importance. A narrow corridor on the 

northeast slope of the hill provides a vista to 

the neighboring Brawner Farm. Otherwise, 

dense woods cover the hill’s eastern slopes. 

At the time of the war, the nearby Cundiff 

plantation, Meadowville, encompassed much 

of Stuart's Hill, including the area of Lee's 

headquarters. Although most development 

associated with the plantation lay east of the 

hill, wartime accounts describe the ruins of a 

structure on the crest. No visible trace remains 

of this building, but stone piles on the slopes of 

the hill mark the borders of wartime fields. 

Other remnant fence lines on the property date 

to the 1871 partition of the plantation. 

To the west, modern development has 

disturbed the historic setting, but a thin body 

of forest helps screen the intrusions from view 

of the crest. A modern park headquarters and 

interpretive facility now occupies the western 

slope, and a nonhistoric gravel drive provides 

vehicular access to the site. At the foot of the 

western slope lie a string of ponds where 

Union Brig. Gen. Rufus King and some of his 

men paused to rest before the Brawner Farm 

engagement on August 28. Although the ponds 

are of recent origin, they occupy the area of a 

pool of water where King and others found 

refreshment. To the northwest is the key 

intersection of the Warrenton Turnpike and 

Pageland Lane, both important corridors of 

military movement during the battle. The 

gravel-surfaced Pageland Lane retains the feel 

of a country byway, but the Warrenton 

Turnpike at this junction is now the modern 

four-lane divided U.S. Route 29. 

SUDLEY 

Situated at the confluence of Catharpin Run 

and Bull Run, the wartime community of 

Sudley was the scene of major events in each 

battle. The village lay along the route of 

Federal advance and retreat at First Manassas, 

and major action occurred in the area during 

Second Manassas, when the community 

marked the left flank of the Confederate line. 

Although little remains the war period, the 

extant structures and archeological sites 

provide a sense of the 1860s landscape. 

Adjacent to the park boundary on the SudleyManassas Road, Sudley Church remains a focal 

point for the community. Founded in the early 

19th century to serve the area’s growing 

Methodist population, Sudley Church later 

became a temporary hospital for Union 

wounded at First Manassas. Although the 

present structure bears no resemblance to the 

wartime building, the 1920s edifice occupies 
APPENDIXES

266 

the same site and serves as a key battlefield 

landmark today. The church’s cemetery lies 

immediately to the south and contains the 

graves of numerous residents associated with 

the park story. The recent expansion of the 

cemetery, however, occupies land acquired 

from the park in the 1980s and may impact the 

historic appearance of the setting. 

Across VA Route 234 to the northeast and on 

park lands, the building known as the 

Thornberry House lies atop a knoll 

overlooking the stream confluence. According 

to historic maps and documentary evidence, 

several structures occupied the property 

during the battles and served as overflow 

shelter for the Union wounded at Sudley 

Church. Recent research suggests that the 

south block of the present day one-and-a-half 

story building was constructed prior to the 

Civil War. The north block and lean-to shed 

were added later, although their date is 

uncertain. Portions of the building housed 

local post office operations at the turn of the 

century. NPS has completed rehabilitation of 

the Thornberry House to permit future public 

access to the building’s interior. The structure 

is one of only three wartime buildings within 

the park. 

Archeological features mark the location of 

other structures and features that comprised 

the wartime village. North of Thornberry 

House, on privately owned land across 

Catharpin Run, a stone pile marks the site of 

the historic spring house that adjoined Sudley 

Springs Ford. Union troops passed this feature 

on their march onto the battlefield at First 

Manassas. South of the Thornberry House, the 

ruins of the Amos Benson House lie adjacent 

to a pronounced cut of the Unfinished 

Railroad. The Bensons, parishioners of Sudley 

Church, helped tend to Union wounded at 

First Manassas, and their home, known as 

Christian Hill, became a battlefield landmark. 

After Benson and his wife died, the house fell 

into ruin early in the 20th century. Across the 

railroad cut from the Benson site, numerous 

disinterred soldiers' graves dot the ground. 

Outside the park, remnants of the historic 

Sudley Mill complex and its adjacent millrace 

lie north of Catharpin Run upstream from the 

modern crossing of VA Route 234. Few other 

traces remain on park land. No visible ruins 

survive from several nondescript structures 

that lay across the Sudley-Manassas Road from 

the church. These structures may have been 

moved to form the present Thornberry House. 

One farmstead, identified as the Cushing Farm, 

lay south of the church in the area of the 

cemetery expansion, but nothing remains 

above ground from the farmstead. Farther 

south beyond the Unfinished Railroad, 

foundations and depressions mark the site of a 

19th century farmstead. Traditionally 

identified as the wartime house site of Mahala 

Dean, a free African American, the features 

may date to a postwar farm. 

Evidence of the wartime transportation 

network in the Sudley area abounds despite 

some 20th century alterations. Modern VA 

Route 234 occupies much of the roadbed of 

the historic Sudley-Manassas Road south of 

the church. To the north, however, the 

highway follows a new alignment slightly west 

of the wartime road, and the historic route 

continues onto park land as a well-defined 

trace. The trace terminates at Sudley Springs 

Ford on Catharpin Run. Beyond the stream the 

road continued north to Sudley Ford, where 

the Union turning column crossed Bull Run at 

First Manassas. The site of Sudley Ford, on 

private land, falls partly within the Cedar Crest 

Country Club. 

Approaching from the west, the route of the 

historic Groveton-Sudley Road (now 

Featherbed Lane) also follows a new course 

through the Sudley area and intersects the 

Sudley-Manassas Road just north of the 

church. An abandoned stretch of the wartime 

road continues as a trace running northward to 

the site of the Sudley Mill complex. Meanwhile 

to the south, the cuts and fills of the 

Unfinished Railroad slice through the Sudley 

area and now form part of the park's trail 

system. (This feature is described in more 

detail below.) 
Appendix A: Description of Resources 

267 

The landscape in the Sudley area is somewhat 

more wooded today than in the 1860s. Across 

the Sudley-Manassas Road from the church, 

woods now blanket the former Benson 

property. To the southwest, forest growth 

covers a rocky knoll that South Carolina 

troops held during Second Manassas. 

UNFINISHED RAILROAD 

Extending across the northwestern portion of 

the battlefield, the Unfinished Railroad saw 

some of the heaviest fighting of the Battle of 

Second Manassas. Dubbed the Independent 

Line of the Manassas Gap Railroad, the line lay 

incomplete at the outset of war, with only the 

graded rail bed in place. The cuts and fills of 

the rail bed served as a defensive position for 

Stonewall Jackson's Confederates during the 

battle and a focus of Union assaults. Today the 

graded bed of the Unfinished Railroad remains 

intact along its two-mile course through the 

park. In addition to the cuts and fills of the 

roadbed, an abandoned quarry lies adjacent to 

the railroad just east of Pageland Lane on the 

park's western border. Remnants of stone 

piers for a planned trestle over Bull Run also 

survive at the park's eastern border, where the 

railroad crosses into a private golf course. 

Along most of the railroad's path through the 

battlefield, park trails run over and along the 

rail bed, causing soil compaction and erosion 

in numerous places. In some areas, trail 

construction has altered the appearance of the 

resource to accommodate pedestrian use. Still, 

the most notable change to the historic setting 

is in the ground cover. Successional forests 

have replaced open fields, particularly west of 

Featherbed Lane, which bisects the rail bed. 

Postwar forest growth in this area almost 

entirely obscures the key terrain where the 

Union attack on the railroad's Deep Cut 

occurred, completely blocking historic views 

from the Brawner Farm area. The recent vista 

at the Deep Cut is far too narrow to convey the 

historic appearance of this important 

landscape. East of Featherbed Lane the terrain 

generally retains its wooded character, with 

the wartime Groveton Woods covering much 

of the area of the railroad just east of the road. 

Farther to the east, however, woods now cover 

the rocky knoll near Sudley, where Maxcy 

Gregg's South Carolinians received heavy 

attacks on August 29. 

Two commemorative features serve to 

highlight the fierce fighting in the Deep Cut 

area. Erected by Union troops in 1865, the 

Groveton Monument (also known as the Deep 

Cut Monument) sits adjacent to the Deep Cut 

and overlooks the slopes where Union troops 

struggled to advance. At the foot of the slope 

next to Schoolhouse Branch, the Cedar Pole 

Marker indicates the position of Berdan's 

Sharpshooters along the stream during the 

attack on the Confederates' Deep Cut position. 

The extant pole and sign are replacements for 

the postwar marker, originally installed by a 

Union veteran. Nearby, shallow depressions 

indicate the location of disinterred soldiers’ 

graves from the battle. Other disinterred burial 

sites lay near the Unfinished Railroad in the 

Sudley area and north of the Brawner Farm. 

VAN PELT 

Overlooking the Stone Bridge and Bull Run, 

Van Pelt Hill was a strategic location during 

the Battle of First Manassas. Confederate 

forces deployed here to guard the stream 

crossing and maintained a signal station on the 

hilltop to communicate with their army's farflung positions. Southern artillerists also 

unlimbered here to discourage Federals from 

advancing over the nearby bridge and cleared 

the hillside facing Bull Run to permit a clear 

field of fire. 

The most prominent wartime feature was the 

farmstead of Abraham Van Pelt. Built in the 

1850s, the Van Pelt House stood on the crest 

and withstood Union shelling in 1861. The 

house was destroyed by fire in 1932, and only 

depressions remain to mark the location. The 

remains include the backfilled site of the house 

and several ancillary structures. The trace of 

the wartime farm lane survives just west of the 

house site and extends south to the traces of 

the original Warrenton Turnpike. These traces 

survive south of U.S. Route 29, which cuts 

through the southern portion of Van Pelt Hill. 
APPENDIXES

268 

West of the hill, near Youngs Branch, the 

historic roadbed and the modern highway 

merge. An historic farm lane, now known as 

Rock Road, intersects the Warrenton 

Turnpike south of the farmstead and forms 

part of the park's trail system. 

The Van Pelt landscape retains much of its 

open appearance. To the east, however, forest 

growth covers the slopes of the hill facing Bull 

Run. The vegetation blocks historic views of 

the stream and the nearby Stone Bridge and 

somewhat hinders interpretive efforts in this 

area. 
269 

APPENDIX B: DESCRIPTION OF BATTLE EVENTS 

FIRST MANASSAS—JULY 21, 1861 

Maps A-1 and A-2 depict the events of the 

Battle of First Manassas. 

Confederate Headquarters 

and Defense of Bull Run 

Confederate forces establish defensive 

positions along Bull Run protecting the 

strategic rail center of Manassas Junction and 

await approach of Union Army under Brig. 

Gen. Irvin McDowell. North of Lewis Ford, 

Southern defenders throw up rifle pits and gun 

emplacements along the stream. Confederate 

Gen. Joseph E. Johnston moves his 

headquarters to Portici at midday as the battle 

develops on the Confederate left. 

Confederate Defense of Bull Run 

Union forces advance along the Warrenton 

Turnpike and demonstrate at Stone Bridge, 

while a turning column marches north toward 

Sudley Ford. Union artillery direct initial shots 

at the Van Pelt House. 

Confederate defenders under Col. Nathan 

Evans learn of Union turning movement and 

shift from Van Pelt Hill to vicinity of 

Pittsylvania to guard possible crossing at 

Poplar Ford before marching toward 

Matthews Hill to check Union advance. Union 

Col. William T. Sherman locates crossing at 

Farm Ford at mid-morning and directs his 

troops to ford Bull Run. 

Union Advance and Retreat 

Union turning column crosses Bull Run at 

Sudley Ford and begins to march south along 

Sudley Road, crossing Catharpin Run at Sudley 

Springs Ford en route. Union wounded later 

find shelter and treatment at temporary 

hospital at Sudley Church; neighboring 

structures (now comprising Thornberry 

House) provide overflow shelter. Union forces 

withdraw across Sudley Ford (as well as other 

crossing points) at close of battle. 

Initial Fighting 

Fighting erupts as Union turning column 

marches south on Sudley Road and encounters 

Evans’ Confederates at Matthews Hill. The 

battle swells as Union troops spill onto Dogan 

Ridge and Confederate reinforcements arrive 

from Henry Hill. 

Southern resistance collapses as Confederates 

retreat from positions on Matthews Hill and 

Buck Hill to Henry Hill. Union troops pursue 

to the vicinity of the Stone House, but a lull in 

the fighting gives the Confederates reprieve. 

Core Fighting 

Confederate reinforcements arrive on Henry 

Hill at midday, and Southern resistance 

coalesces on the line of Brig. Gen. Thomas J. 

Jackson’s Virginians. Sporadic fighting 

continues near the Robinson House and on the 

northern area of Henry Hill while Union 

forces ready for a renewal of their advance. 

Union forces resume their offensive as Federal 

batteries advance to Henry Hill and take 

positions around the Henry House. Artillery 

duel leads to stalemated battle, and Union 

Capt. Charles Griffin seeks the advantage by 

moving two of his guns toward Jackson’s left 

flank. Confederate infantry seizes Griffin’s two 

exposed guns, launching a struggle for the 

Union batteries and the control of Henry Hill. 

With reinforcements steadily arriving, the 

Confederates gain possession of Henry Hill. 

Final Union Advance 

In an effort to turn the Confederate position 

on Henry Hill, O. O. Howard’s Union brigade 

advances to Chinn Ridge. 

Along a line extending from Sudley Road to 

the Chinn House, Confederate forces sweep 

across Chinn Ridge and drive off Howard’s 

brigade, leading to a general Union withdrawal 

from the field. 
APPENDIXES

270 

SECOND MANASSAS, 

AUGUST 28 -30, 1862 

Maps A-3 and A-4 depict the events of the 

Battle of First Manassas. 

Initial Fighting 

Confederate forces under Maj. Gen. Thomas J. 

Stonewall Jackson find concealment on 

wooded slopes of Stony Ridge and observe 

Union movements across their front on August 

28. 

An isolated Union division under Brig. Gen. 

Rufus King marches first north on Pageland 

Lane, then east onto the Warrenton Turnpike, 

headed for Centreville. 

Jackson’s Confederates fire on King’s column 

at the Brawner Farm and draw the Federals 

into battle. 

Advancing first through the Brawner Woods 

(or Gibbon’s Woods), King's infantry 

encounters Jackson’s troops in the fields east 

of the Brawner House in a battle that lasts until 

dusk. 

The combat intensifies as the battle lines 

spread onto the neighboring Lucinda Dogan 

Farm; at dark, King's Federals withdraw from 

the contested field. 

Union Attacks 

Union forces probe the slopes of Stony Ridge 

on August 29 and locate Jackson’s 

Confederates aligned along the cuts and fills of 

the Unfinished Railroad. 

In a series of piecemeal attacks on the 

Unfinished Railroad, Union troops pierce the 

Confederates’ front but fail to dislodge the 

defenders from their strong position. 

At dusk, Union troops probe westward on the 

Warrenton Turnpike and clash with a 

Confederate force advancing east of Groveton. 

Union attacks resume on August 30, 

culminating in a major assault on Jackson’s line 

at the Deep Cut of the Unfinished Railroad. 

With the help of Confederate artillery near the 

Brawner Farm, Jackson’s infantry repulses the 

Union assault at the Deep Cut. 

CONFEDERATE HEADQUARTERS 

AND STAGING AREA 

Gen. Robert E. Lee arrives on the battlefield 

during the late morning of August 29 and set 

up his headquarters on Stuart's Hill. 

Maj. Gen. James Longstreet's Confederate 

forces deploy across the Cundiff and W. Lewis 

farms (Meadowville and Brownsville, 

respectively) and await orders. 

Lee and Longstreet unleash a massive 

counterattack late in the day on August 30, as 

the Union assault on the Deep Cut collapses. 

Union Headquarters and Staging Area 

Maj. Gen. John Pope arrives on the battlefield 

at midday on August 29 and establishes his 

headquarters on Buck Hill. 

Union artillery unlimbers on Dogan Ridge to 

support attacks on the Confederates along the 

Unfinished Railroad.
Old Warrenton, A el xandr ai ,and Washington Road

Meadowville Lane

00 0

1000 2000

375 750

FEET

METERS

3000

NORTH

SYMBOL KEY

Current National Battlefield Park Boundary

Battle SitesFarmstead SiteUnfinished Railroad GradeWooded Areas (Wartime)Phase One Union Army

Phase One Confederate Army

Phase Two Union Army

Phase Two Confederate Army

Figure A-1Battle of First Manassas: Phases 1 and 2

U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service

DSC • October 2005 • 379•20122

Chinn Ridge

Matthews

Hill

Buck Hill Dogan Ridge

Battery Heights

Sudley Springs Ford

Henry Hill

Stuart's Hill

Balls

Ford

Lewis

Ford

Farm

Ford

Poplar Ford

Sudley

Ford

Hazel Plain

Unfin si hed Railroad Grade 

Sudley Church

Thornberry House

Henry House Brawner Farm

Groveton

L Dogan House

Portici

Van Pelt

Pittsylvania

Deep Cut

Cundiff House

Lewis House

Stone

House Robinson House

StoneBridge

Sudley

-

Manassas

Road

ane

L is 

w Le

Groveton-Sudley 

oad R

ageland P ane L

To Centreville 4 milesWashington DC 25 miles

Warrenton Turnpike

To Manassas Junction

5 miles

To

Gainesville

15 miles

271

Old Warrenton, A el xandr ai ,and Washington Road

Meadowville Lane

00 0

1000 2000

375 750

FEET

METERS

3000

NORTH

SYMBOL KEY

Current National Battlefield Park Boundary

Battle SitesFarmstead SiteUnfinished Railroad GradeWooded Areas (Wartime)Union Advance

Confederate DefenseUnion Retreat

Figure A-2Battle of First Manassas: Phase 3 and Union Retreat

U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park ServiceDSC • October 2005 • 379•20123

Chinn Ridge

Matthews

Hill

Buck Hill

Dogan Ridge

Battery Heights

Sudley Springs Ford

Henry Hill

Stuart's Hill

Balls

Ford

Lewis

Ford

Farm

Ford

Poplar Ford

Sudley

Ford

Hazel Plain

Unfin si hed Railroad Grade

Sudley Church

Thornberry House

Henry House Brawner Farm

Groveton

L Dogan House

Portici

Van Pelt

Pittsylvania

Deep Cut

Cundiff House

Lewis House

Stone

House

Robinson House

StoneBridge

Sudley - Manassas Road

ane L is w Le

roveton-Sudley G

oad R

ageland P ane L

To Centreville 4 milesWashington DC 25 miles

Warrenton Turnpike

To Manassas Junction

5 miles

To

Gainesville

15 miles

273

Old Warrenton, A el xandr ai ,and Washington Road

Meadowville Lane

U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park ServiceDSC • October 2005 • 379•20124

Chinn Ridge

Matthews

Hill

Buck Hill Dogan Ridge

Battery Heights

Sudley Springs Ford

Henry Hill

Stuart's Hill

Balls

Ford

Lewis

Ford

Farm

Ford

Poplar Ford

Sudley

Ford

00 0

1000 2000

375 750

FEET

METERS

3000

NORTH

SYMBOL KEY

Current National Battlefield Park Boundary

Battle SitesFarmstead SiteUnfinished Railroad Grade

Wooded Areas (Wartime)Phase One Union Army

Phase One Confederate Army

Phase Two Union Army

Phase Two Confederate Army

Figure A-3Battle of Second Manassas: Phases 1 and 2

Hazel Plain

Unfinished Railroad Grade

Sudley Church

Thornberry House

Henry House Brawner

Farm

Groveton

L Dogan House

Portici

Van Pelt

Pittsylvania

Deep Cut

Cundiff House

Lewis House

Stone

House Robinson House

StoneBridge

Sudley

-

Manassas

Road

ane

L is 

w Le

roveton-Sudley G

oad R

ageland P ane L

To Centreville 4 miles

Washington DC 25 miles

Warrenton Turnpike

To Manassas Junction

5 miles

To

Gainesville

15 miles

275

Old Warrenton, A el xandr ai ,and Washington Road

Meadowville Lane

U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park ServiceDSC • October 2005 • 379•20125

Matthew

Chinn Ridge

s

Hill

Buck Hill Dogan Ridge

Battery Heights

Sudley Springs Ford

Henry Hill

Stuart's Hill

Balls

Ford

Lewis

Ford

Farm

Ford

Poplar Ford

Sudley

Ford

00 0

1000 2000

375 750

FEET

METERS

3000

NORTH

SYMBOL KEY

Current National Battlefield Park Boundary

Battle SitesFarmstead SiteUnfinished Railroad Grade

Wooded Areas (Wartime)Union Army Phase 3

Confederate Army Phase 3

Final Union StandConfederate ReinforcementsUnion Retreat

Figure A-4Battle of Second Manassas: Phase 3 and Union Retreat

Hazel Plain

Unfinished Railroad Grade

Sudley Church

Thornberry House

Henry House Brawner

Farm

Groveton

L Dogan House

Portici

Van Pelt

Pittsylvania

Deep Cut

Cundiff House

Lewis House

Stone

House Robinson House

StoneBridge

Sudley

-

Manassas

Road

ane

L is 

w Le

ro G

eton-Sudley v

oad R

ageland P ane L

To Centreville 4 milesWashington DC 25 miles

Warrenton Turnpike

To Manassas Junction

5 miles

To

Gainesville

15 miles

277

279

APPENDIX C: REVELANT LEGISLATION AND SPECIAL MANDATES
280

Appendixes, Bibiliography, Preparers, and Index
281

Appendix C: Relevant Legislation and Special Mandates
282

Appendixes, Bibiliography, Preparers, and Index
283

Appendix C: Relevant Legislation and Special Mandates
284

Appendixes, Bibiliography, Preparers, and Index
285

Appendix C: Relevant Legislation and Special Mandates
286

Appendixes, Bibiliography, Preparers, and Index
287 

APPENDIX D: ESTIMATED COSTS 

The purpose of the cost estimate in a general 

management plan is to provide a general sense 

of the cost to implement one alternative 

relative to other alternatives considered. The 

relative costs associated with each of the 

alternatives in this plan have not changed. 

However, how these costs are presented in this 

Final General Management Plan has been 

modified to reflect a change in NPS policy 

regarding presentation of costs in general 

management plans. 

In the Draft General Management Plan there 

were three general components to the cost 

estimates – initial capital costs, annual 

operating costs, and replacement costs. Then 

the total life cycle costs — that is the cost of 

these actions spread over 20 years — were 

calculated to provide a sense of the total costs 

of managing the park over the life of the plan. 

To reflect the inherent uncertainty associated 

with the estimates, all costs were a range of -

30/+50% of the calculated costs. However the 

range of costs was so broad it did not provide a 

simple way to compare costs across 

alternatives. And while consideration of costs 

is an important component of the decisionmaking process, there was concern that 

calculating the total life-cycle costs of an 

alternative would again imply a level of 

certainty relative to costs that does not exist. 

To address these concerns in this Final General 

Management Plan, the relative costs associated 

with implementation of the alternatives are 

presented as a single number for each 

alternative. The costs no longer include lifecycle costs, and the revised cost table now 

includes information on deferred maintenance 

costs associated with each alternative. All costs 

were estimated based on 2005 dollars. The 

actual costs to implement the alternative could 

be higher or lower. For this reason these costs 

are not appropriate for budgeting purposes. 

The actual costs will be determined prior to 

implementation and will be based on the 

design of facilities and identification of 

detailed resource protection and visitor 

experience goals. The cost estimates presented 

represent the total costs of projects described 

in the alternatives. Potential cost-sharing 

opportunities with partners could reduce these 

overall costs. Approval of the general 

management plan does not guarantee that 

funding or staffing for proposed actions will be 

available. Full implementation of the approved 

general management plan may be many years 

in the future. 

ONE-TIME COST ESTIMATES 

Facility costs in this category are rough 

estimates and were developed based on the 

average cost of similar facilities. Actual costs 

for one-time facility and non-facility projects 

may be higher or lower depending on the final 

design, site conditions, and the contracting 

agency. These cost estimates do not include all 

items that will be listed in the more inclusive 

estimates to be developed in subsequent 

planning efforts. For example, the more 

inclusive estimates for the visitor center would 

include exhibits, furnishings, and landscaping. 

The results of the analysis along with notes on 

the assumptions are shown in table D-1. 

Because of the generalized nature of these cost 

estimates, table D-1 only breaks down costs 

into general categories. Those categories and 

the items they include are listed below. 

Parenthetical notes indicate items that are only 

included in alternative (B) or (C): 

• Park Enhancements: interpretive trails, 

bridle trails, forest cuts, and forest 

restoration. 

• Recreation Zone Enhancements: picnic 

tables, grills, trash cans, water fountains, 

bicycle racks, restroom facilities, and 

landscaping. 

• Transportation Enhancements: entrance 

stations and gates, intersection 

improvements and demolition, bridge 

demolition and construction, entry road 

construction, and horse trailer parking 

facility construction. 
APPENDIXES

288 

• Park Facility Enhancements: Stuart’s Hill 

visitor contact station improvements (B), 

demolition of existing visitor center at 

Henry Hill (C), construction of new visitor 

center (C), and boundary adjustments. 

ANNUAL COSTS 

Annual costs include staff salaries and annual 

operating and maintenance costs. 

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE 

Deferred maintenance costs are those needed 

to improve park assets to NPS standards. The 

estimate in this Final General Management Plan

is for the facilities that would be impacted in 

the alternatives. 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT 

Land acquisition costs for the proposed 

boundary adjustement in alternative B and C 

are included in the cost presentation.
A

289 

Table D-1: Range of Costs by Alternative 

Alternative A Alternative B — 

NPS Preferred 

Alternativ

Total Annual Operating Costs $2,374,000 $3,454,000 $3,874,00Staffing - FTE(2) 32 50 57One-Time Costs 

Deferred Maintenance (3) $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,0Facility and Non-facility Costs(4) $3,445,065 22,646,162 38,885,8Bridge and Road Construction(5) 0 $5,593,000 $5,593,0Boundary Adjustment 0 $4,800,000 $4,800,00

Total One-Time Costs $8,445,065 $48,432,162 $64,671,8

(1) Annual operating costs are the total annual costs for maintenance and operations associated with each alternative, includi

supplies, staff salaries and benefits, leasing, and materials. 

(2) Total full-time equivalent (FTE) employees are the number of staff required to maintain the assets of the park at a good lev

acceptable visitor services, protect resources, and administer the park. The FTE staff would not necessarily be NPS employemanagers would explore opportunities to work with partners, volunteers, and other federal agencies to effectively and effi

the park. FTE salaries and benefits are included in the annual operating costs. 

(3) Deferred maintenance costs are those needed to improve park assets to a good condition based on NPS standards and cal

These costs do not represent all maintenance in the park, just the facilities that would be affected during implementation o

alternative. 

(4) Included here are one-time facility costs related to construction and non-facility costs related to natural and cultural resour

management and visitor use projects. In the no-action alternative, one-time costs include only those costs already planned 

programs and with an approved funding source. 

(5) The costs associated with the demolition of the bridge on U.S. Route 29, construction of a new bridge, and the associated 

U.S. Route 29 are accounted for in the mitigation measures for the Battlefield Bypass and would likely be funded in a sepaappropriation. 
290 

APPENDIX E: THREATENED, ENDANGERED, 

AND RARE SPECIES AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES 

As part of this General Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement, a request was 

made to the United States Department of the 

Interior Fish and Wildlife Service for 

information related to threatened, endangered, 

and rare plant and animal species and natural 

communities in and around Manassas 

National Battlefield Park. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s response is included below. 
291

Appendix E: Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species and Natural Communities
292

Appendixes, Bibiliography, Preparers, and Index
293

Appendix E: Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species and Natural Communities
294

Appendixes, Bibiliography, Preparers, and Index
295

Appendix E: Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species and Natural Communities
296

Appendixes, Bibiliography, Preparers, and Index
297

Appendix E: Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species and Natural Communities
298

Appendixes, Bibiliography, Preparers, and Index
299 

APPENDIX F: MANASSAS NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK 

BYPASS ALTERNATIVE ROUTES 

A wide range of improvement alternatives was 

considered for the Bypass Study. The 

alternatives were identified and evaluated 

through an iterative screening process in 

cooperation with citizens, localities, and State 

and federal agencies. Except for the no-action 

alternative, alternatives deemed not reasonably 

capable of meeting the identified needs for the 

study were eliminated from further 

consideration. While required by National 

Environmental Policy Act regulations, the noaction alternative was also studied in detail 

because it serves as a baseline for comparing the 

other alternatives. 

The range of alternatives considered in detail 

encompasses the No-Action Alternative, and 

various build alternatives. The alternatives 

considered in detail are the No-Action 

Alternative (roads would remain open in the 

Park), and Candidate Build Alternatives A-G 

(Bypass Study, 2-1). Map A-5 shows these build 

alternatives, including the preferred alternative 

— alternative D, modified

. 
Appendixes, Bibiliography, Preparers, and Index

300
301 

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Blake, Jerrell and Bradley Bowden 

 1999 “Phase I Archeological Survey 

Along Two Proposed View-shed 

Buffer Corridors, Manassas 

National Battlefield Park.” 

Prepared by Gray & Pape, Inc. for 

Virginia Power. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department 

of Commerce 

 1997 Information extracted from 

Regional Accounts Data. Available 

on the Internet at http://www.bea. 

doc.gov/bea/regional/data.htm. 

Census Bureau, U.S Department of Commerce 

 1996 Information extracted from the 

U.S. Census Bureau’s website. 

Available on the Internet at 

http://www.census.gov. 

Cromwell, James R., Jr., and Robert McIver 

 1985 “A Phase I Evaluation of Three 

Streams in Prince William County, 

Virginia: Broad Run, Bull Run, and 

Quantico Creek.” James Madison 

University, Archeological Research 

Center. 

Davis, William C. 

 1995 The First Battle of Manassas. 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 

Eastern National Park and 

Monument Association. 

DeGraaf, Richard M. and John H. Rappole 

 1995 Neotropical Migratory Birds: 

Natural History, Distribution, and 

Population Change. Ithaca, New 

York: Comstock Publishing. 

Elder, J. 

 1989 “Soil Survey of Prince William 

County, Virginia.” U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Soil 

Conservation Service, Washington, 

D.C. 

Fairfax County Economic Development 

Authority 

 1996 “Fairfax County Characteristics.” 

Vienna, Virginia. 

 1998 “Fairfax County Profile.” Vienna, 

Virginia. 

Finch, Deborah M. and Peter W. Stangel, eds. 

 1993 “Status and Management of 

Neotropical Migratory Birds, 

General Technical Report RM229.” Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 

Fleming, G. P. and J. T. Weber. 

 2003 “Inventory, Classification, and 

Map of Forested Ecological 

Communities at Manassas 

National Battlefield Park, 

Virginia.” Natural Heritage Tech. 

Rep. 03-7. Richmond, Virginia: 

Virginia Department of 

Conservation and Recreation, 

Division of Natural Heritage. 

Unpublished report submitted to 

the National Park Service. 

Gaff, Alan D. 

 1988 Brave Men’s Tears: The Iron 

Brigade at Brawner Farm. Dayton, 

Ohio: Morningside House, Inc. 

Greene, Wilson 

 1995 The Second Battle of Manassas. 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 

Eastern National Park and 

Monument Association. 

Hennessy, John 

 1989 The First Battle of Manassas: An 

End to Innocence, July 18-21, 1861.

Lynchburg, Virginia: H. E. 

Howard, Inc. 

 1993 Return to Bull Run: The Campaign 

and Battle of Second Manassas.

New York: Simon & Schuster. 
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

302 

Johnson, T. G. 

 1992 “Forest Statistics for Virginia, 

1992.” Resource Bulletin SE-131, 

Southeastern Forest Experiment 

Station, U. S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Asheville, North Carolina. 

Kelly, Dennis 

 1983 The Battle and Campaign, Second 

Manassas. Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania: Eastern National 

Park and Monument Association. 

Little, C. and D. Muench. 

 1995 The Smithsonian Book of National 

Parks. Washington, D.C.: 

Smithsonian Books. 

Loomis, D. T., and K. E. Heffernan. 

 2003 “Classification and Mapping of 

Wetlands at Manassas National 

Battlefield Park, Virginia, Brawner 

Farm and Matthews Hill Tracts.” 

Natural Heritage Technical Report 

03-21. Virginia Department of 

Conservation and Recreation, 

Division of Natural Heritage, 

Unpublished report submitted to 

Manassas National Battlefield 

Park. 

Loudoun County Department of Economic 

Development 

 n.d. “Loudoun County, Virginia 

Summary Facts.” Leesburg, 

Virginia. 

 n.d. “Loudoun County Economic 

Indicators.” Leesburg, Virginia. 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior 

 1961a “Historic Structures Report, 

Architectural Data, Preparatory to 

the Restoration of the Stone 

House.” Manassas, Virginia: 

prepared by Orville W. Carroll, 

Manassas National Battlefield 

Park. 

 1961b “The Stone House, Embattled 

Landmark of Bull Run.” Manassas, 

Virginia: prepared by Francis F. 

Wilshin, Manassas National 

Battlefield Park. 

 1962 “Historic Structures Report, 

Dogan House, Architectural Data 

Section.” Manassas, Virginia: 

prepared by Orville W. Carroll, 

Manassas National Battlefield 

Park. 

 1963 “Historic Structures Report, Stone 

Bridge, Architectural Data 

Section.” Manassas, Virginia: 

prepared by Orville W. Carroll, 

Manassas National Battlefield 

Park. 

 1981 “Troop Movement Maps, Battle of 

First Manassas and Engagement at 

Blackburn’s Ford, July 18 and 21, 

1861.” Denver, Colorado: prepared 

by Edwin C. Bearss National Park 

Service, Denver Service Center, 

National Capital Team. 

 1982a Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Assessment, 

Manassas National Battlefield Park, 

Virginia. Manassas, Virginia: 

National Park Service. 

 1982b “Manassas Historic Sites Survey.” 

Denver, Colorado: prepared by 

Thomas E. McGarry, National 

Park Service, Denver Service 

Center, National Capital Team. 

 1983a General Management Plan, 

Manassas National Battlefield Park, 

Virginia. Manassas, Virginia: 

National Park Service. 

 1983b Land Protection Plan, Manassas 

National Battlefield Park, Virginia. 

Manassas, Virginia: National Park 

Service. 

 1984 Museum Handbook, Part II: 

Museum Records. Washington, 

D.C.: National Park Service. 
Selected Bibliography 

303 

 1985 “Historical Report on the Troop 

Movements for the Second Battle 

of Manassas, August 28 through 

August 30, 1862.” Denver, 

Colorado: prepared by John 

Hennessy, National Park Service, 

Denver Service Center, Northeast 

Team. 

 1986 “An Archeological Survey of 

Selected Portions of Manassas 

National Battlefield Park.” Denver, 

Colorado: prepared by Thomas E. 

McGarry and Charles F. 

Bohannon, National Park Service, 

Denver Service Center. 

 1989a “An Archeological Assessment of 

the Brawner Farm House.” 

Unpublished report by Kathleen A. 

Parker. On file at Manassas 

National Battlefield Park, 

Manassas, Virginia. 

 1989b Draft Development Concept Plan, 

Environmental Assessment, 

Brawner Farm Site, Manassas 

National Battlefield Park. Denver, 

Colorado: National Park Service, 

Denver Service Center. 

 1989c “Statement for Management, 

Manassas National Battlefield 

Park.” On file at Manassas 

National Battlefield Park, 

Manassas, Virginia. 

 1990 “Portici: Portrait of a Middling 

Plantation in Piedmont Virginia. 

Occasional Report No. 3.” 

Washington, D.C.: prepared by 

Kathleen A. Parker and Jacqueline 

L. Hernigle, National Park Service, 

National Capital Region. 

 1991a “A Cultural Landscape Restoration 

Report for the Stuart’s Hill Tract, 

Manassas National Battlefield 

Park.” Prepared by Brian Morris, 

Ian J.W. Firth, and Susan P. 

Bratton. On file at Manassas 

National Battlefield Park, 

Manassas, Virginia. 

 1991b “List of Classified Structures, 

Manassas National Battlefield 

Park.” 

 1992 “Cultural Resource Survey and 

Inventory of a War-Torn 

Landscape: The Stuart’s Hill Tract, 

Manassas National Battlefield 

Park, Virginia,” edited by L. Galke. 

Occasional Report No. 7. 

Washington, D.C.: Regional 

Archaeology Program, National 

Capital Region, National Park 

Service. 

 1994a Amendment to General 

Management Plan Environmental 

Assessment for Power Line 

Relocation, Brawner Farm and 

Stuart’s Hill. On file at Manassas 

National Battlefield Park, 

Manassas, Virginia, May. 

 1994b “Interpretive Prospectus: A Plan 

for the Interpretation of Manassas 

National Battlefield Park.” Harpers 

Ferry, West Virginia: National Park 

Service, Harpers Ferry Center, 

Department of Interpretive 

Planning. 

 1995a “Architectural Fabric Investigation 

and Documentation of the 

Robinson House, Washington, 

D.C.” Prepared by Kenneth Sandri, 

National Park Service, National 

Capital Region. 

 1995b “National Capital Area 

Archeological Overview and 

Survey Plan.” Prepared by Barbara 

J. Little. On file at Manassas 

National Battlefield Park, 

Manassas, Virginia. 

 1996a “Cultural Landscape Inventory, 

Northeast Quadrant, Manassas 

National Battlefield Park.” On file 

at Manassas National Battlefield 

Park, Manassas, Virginia. 

 1996b “Cultural Landscape Inventory, 

Northwest Quadrant, Manassas 

National Battlefield Park.” On file 

at Manassas National Battlefield 

Park, Manassas, Virginia. 
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

304 

 1996c “Cultural Landscape Inventory, 

Southern Quadrant, Manassas 

National Battlefield Park.” On file 

at Manassas National Battlefield 

Park, Manassas, Virginia. 

 1996d Transportation Study, Manassas 

National Battlefield Park. Denver, 

Colorado: prepared by Robert 

Peccia & Associates, Inc., for 

National Park Service, Denver 

Service Center. 

 1996e Traffic Noise and Vibration 

Assessment, Manassas National 

Battlefield Park. Denver, Colorado: 

prepared by Robert Peccia & 

Associates, Inc., for National Park 

Service, Denver Service Center. 

 1997a Cultural Resources Management 

Guidelines. Release No. 5, 1997. 

 1997b “Monthly Public Use Report.” 

Manassas Battlefield Park. 

 1997c “Baseline Water Quality Data 

Inventory and Analysis Report.” 

On file at Manassas National 

Battlefield Park, Manassas, 

Virginia. 

 1998a “Overview of a Changing 

Landscape: An Archeological and 

Historical Investigation of Sudley 

Post Office (44PW294).” Manassas, 

Virginia: prepared by Matthew B. 

Reeves Manassas National Battlefield Park, On file at Manassas 

National Battlefield Park. 

 1998b “Information from the Public Use 

Statistics Program Center.” 

Washington, D.C. 

 1998c “Information from the Denver 

Service Center, Resource 

Planning.” 

 2000a “Phase I and II Cultural Resource 

Investigation and Site Examination 

of Proposed Intersection 

Improvements at Routes 29 and 

234.” Washington, D.C.: prepared 

by Matthew Reeves, National Park 

Service, National Capital Region. 

 2000b “Pittsylvania: A Carter Family 

Plantation in the Virginia 

Piedmont.” Washington, D.C.: 

prepared by Joy Beasley, National 

Park Service, National Capital 

Region. 

 2000c “Sudley Post Office (Thornberry 

House): Physical History and 

Condition Assessment, draft 

report.” Washington, D.C.: 

prepared by architrave p.c. 

architects for National Park 

Service, National Capital Region. 

 2001a “An Archeological and Historical 

Investigation of Stone House 

(44PW298), Manassas National 

Battlefield Park.” Washington, 

D.C.: edited by Matthew B. Reeves, 

National Park Service, National 

Capital Region. 

 2001b “Archeological Investigation of the 

Robinson House Site 44PW288: A 

Free African-American Domestic 

Site Occupied from the 1840s to 

1936.” Washington, D.C.: edited by 

Mia T. Parsons, National Park 

Service, National Capital Region. 

 2001c “Archeological Survey of Historic 

Woodlot and Riparian Forest, 

Manassas National Battlefield 

Park.” Harpers Ferry, West 

Virginia: prepared by Andrew Lee 

and Mia Parsons, Harpers Ferry 

National Historical Park, 

Archeology Program. 

 2001d “Archeology at the Confederate 

Winter Camp Site, Manassas 

National Battlefield Park.” 

Washington, D.C.: prepared by 

John Bedell and Eric Griffitts, 

Louis Berger Group, Inc., for 

National Park Service, National 

Capital Region. 

 2001e Director’s Order #12 and 

Handbook: Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis, 

and Decision Making. [Washington 

D.C.] 
Selected Bibliography 

305 

 2001f “Dropped and Fired: 

Archeological Patterns of Militaria 

from Two Civil War Battles.” 

Washington, D.C.: prepared by 

Matthew B. Reeves, National Park 

Service, National Capital Region. 

 2001g “Holding the High Ground: 

Principles and Strategies for 

Managing and Interpreting Civil 

War Battlefield Landscapes.” 

Proceedings of the Gatherings of 

Battlefield Managers, Nashville, 

Tennessee, August 24-27, 1998, 

and Richmond, Virginia, March 

27-29, 2001. Washington: National 

Park Service, U.S. Department of 

the Interior. 

 2001h “No Maneuvering and Very Little 

Tactics: Archeology and the Battle 

of Brawner Farm (44PW452).” 

Washington, D.C.: prepared by 

Stephen R. Potter, et. al., National 

Park Service, National Capital 

Region. 

 2002a “Brawner Farm House: Historic 

Structure Report, 2002 

Addendum.” National Park 

Service, Historic Preservation 

Training Center. 

 2002b “Phase I and II Cultural Resource 

Investigation of Proposed Federal 

Highway Improvements at Parking 

Areas and Access Roads.” 

Washington, D.C.: prepared by 

Matthew Reeves, et al., National 

Park Service, National Capital 

Region. 

 2003a “Archeological Resource Study 

and Clearance for the Discovery 

Center Project at the Henry House, 

Manassas National Battlefield 

Park.” Harpers Ferry, West 

Virginia: edited by Mia T. Parsons 

and John W. Ravenhorst, Harpers 

Ferry National Historical Park, 

Archeology Program. 

 2003b Coming to Manassas: Peace, War, 

and the Making of a Virginia 

Community. A Historic Resource 

Study for Manassas National 

Battlefield Park. Prepared by Linda 

Sargent Wood, American Public 

History Laboratory. 

 2003c “Henry House: Historic Structure 

Report.” National Park Service, 

Historic Preservation Training 

Center. 

 2004a “Brawner Farm, Manassas 

National Battlefield Park, Cultural 

Landscape Report, Final Draft.” 

Washington, D.C.: prepared by 

Judith Earley and Kay Fanning, 

National Park Service, National 

Capital Region. 

 2004b National Register of Historic Places: 

Manassas Battlefield Historic 

District, Manassas National 

Battlefield Park, Virginia. 

 2004c “Strategic Plan for Manassas 

National Battlefield Park.” 

Available on the Internet at 

http://www.nps.gov/mana/ 

administration/GPRA%202005 

/gpra2005.pdf 

 2006 Management Policies: The Guide to 

Managing the National Park 

System. [Washington, D.C.]. 

Neville, Ashley, Joseph S. White III, and Eric 

Voigt 

 1995 “Phase I Cultural Resource 

Investigations of the Manassas 

Battlefield Park Transmission Line 

Corridor Relocation Project.” 

Prepared by Gray & Pape, Inc. for 

Virginia Power. 

Northern Virginia Economic Development 

Coalition and the Northern Virginia Planning 

District Commission 

 1997 Northern Virginia, An Economic 

Profile.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

306 

Rossell, C.R. Jr., B. Gorsira, and S. Patch. 

 2004 “Effects of White-Tailed Deer on 

Vegetation Structure and Woody 

Seedling Composition in Three 

Forest Types on the Piedmont 

Plateau.” Unpublished report 

submitted to Manassas National 

Battlefield Park. 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

 1995a Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for Historic Preservation Projects 

with Guidelines for Applying the 

Standards. Washington, D.C. 

 1995b Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines for 

Preserving, Rehabilitation, 

Restoring, and Reconstructing 

Historic Buildings. Washington, 

D.C. 

 1996 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes.

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration 

 2003 “Manassas National Battlefield 

Park Bypass Study, Existing 

Conditions.” Washington, D.C. 

Available on the Internet at 

http://www.battlefieldbypass.com/

resources.htm 

 2004 Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Bypass Study, Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement. Washington, 

D.C. Available on the Internet at 

http://www.battlefieldbypass.com/

resources.htm 

Virginia Department of Conservation and 

Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage 

 1998 “A Natural Heritage Inventory of 

Manassas National Battlefield 

Park.” Prepared for the National 

Park Service, Natural Heritage 

Technical Report 98-7. 

Zenzen, Joan M. 

 1998 Battling for Manassas: The FiftyYear Preservation Struggle at 

Manassas National Battlefield Park.

Pennsylvania Sate University Press. 
307 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Pam West, Director, Museum Resource Center 

Warren Brown, Program Manager, Park Planning 

& Special Studies 

Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Robert K. Sutton, Superintendent, 

Sharon Cleary, Acting Assistant Superintendent 

Ray Brown, Cultural Resource Program Manager 

Brian Gorsira, Natural Resource Program Manager 

National Capital Region 

Patrick Gregerson, Chief of Planning 

Denver Service Center 

Erin Flanagan, Community Planner, Project 

Manager 

John Paige, Cultural Resource Specialist, Project 

Manager (former) 

Larry Van Horn, Cultural Resource Specialist 

Linda Ray, Supervisor, Visual Information 

Specialist 

Jim Corbett, Visual Information Specialist 

Sandy Schuster, Editor 

 CONSULTANTS 

 Greenhorne & O'Mara 

 9001 Edmonston Road 

 Greenbelt, MD 20770 

 HNTB Architects 

 421 7th Street, NW 

 Washington, DC 20004 

 Parsons 

 1700 Broadway, Suite 900 

 Denver, Colorado 80290 

 
308 

INDEX 

air quality, 11, 24, 73, 79, 86, 119, 120–122 

archeological resources, 5, 11, 13, 25, 73, 74, 

81, 99, 141–143, 145, 146, 149, 150 

Arlington County, 106 

battlefield, 3, 4, 6, 8–11, 17–20, 23, 25, 34, 39, 

40, 47, 48, 53–60, 69–71, 73, 74, 77, 78, 82, 96, 

99, 109, 118, 123–125, 127, 143, 144, 147, 151, 

164, 166, 167, 171, 172, 177, 186 

Brawner Farm, 39, 45, 47, 48, 53, 54, 59, 60, 65, 

74, 76, 77, 78, 92, 96, 145, 147, 148, 164, 165, 

179–181, 187 

Bull Run, 5, 25, 27, 54, 55, 59, 65, 74, 80, 81, 87, 

91, 92, 95, 99, 108, 117, 120, 124, 127, 132, 

138–140, 145, 147–149, 151, 152, 155–157, 

161, 171, 173, 177, 180, 181 

Bypass Study, 6, 16, 19, 45, 56, 66, 68, 69, 101, 

106, 117, 119–122, 124, 128, 132, 154, 157, 

159, 160, 178, 184, 185, 187 

carrying capacity, 21, 22, 88, 146, 151, 156 

Chinn Ridge, 40, 45, 48, 53, 54, 59, 60, 180 

Civil War Museum, 59 

Clean Air Act, 10, 11, 24, 86 

controlled access, 25, 26, 47, 58, 73, 74, 81, 82, 

115, 124, 125, 127, 154–157, 159–161, 166, 

167, 169, 170, 171 

Conway Robinson Memorial State Forest, 108 

Cooperative Efforts, 21 

cultural, 3–5, 8, 9, 11–14, 18, 20–22, 25, 28, 29, 

35–39, 45, 47, 53, 55, 57, 58, 60, 67–74, 81, 85, 

86, 96, 99, 100, 105, 111, 115–117, 121–123, 

125, 126, 131, 133–136, 139–152, 156, 160, 

164, 166, 167, 178, 185–187 

Cundiff, 45, 53, 54 

Deep Cut, 45, 53, 54, 59, 60, 99, 180 

Dogan Ridge, 45, 92 

endangered species, see threatened and 

endangered species 

Endangered Species Act, 10–12, 25, 134 

Environmental Justice, 14, 29 

equestrian, 18, 20, 23, 35, 53, 55, 60, 65, 96, 

145, 149, 162, 163, 166, 167, 177, 180, 181 

Existing Conditions Report, 85, 101, 154 

Fairfax County, 3, 16, 29, 68, 92, 106, 117, 178, 

184, 185 

farmland(s), 4, 27, 28 

Fauquier County, 16 

floodplain(s), 10, 12, 25, 80, 87, 91, 92, 95, 136–

140 

Groveton, 45, 53, 55, 59, 65, 99, 180, 181 

Groveton Confederate Cemetery, 5, 59, 99 

Hazel Plain, 45 

Henry Hill, 18, 22, 39, 40, 45, 47, 48, 54, 58, 59, 

71, 76, 77, 96, 99, 100, 108, 109, 121, 125, 132, 

149, 151, 164, 165, 168, 169, 180, 184 

Henry House, 45, 54, 59, 60, 78, 96 

I-66 Study, 16, 117, 118, 157, 166, 167 

I-66, 16, 17, 86, 101, 117, 118, 120, 121, 123, 

157, 165 

interpretation, 6, 13, 16–18, 23, 34–36, 39, 40, 

47, 56, 58, 59, 66, 71, 76, 77, 96, 111, 117, 141, 

146, 151, 164–166, 169, 171, 177, 179, 185, 

187, 

John Dogan House, 45, 54, 55, 60, 96 

loop trail(s), 40, 45, 48, 53, 59, 77, 81, 142–144, 

148, 152, 180 

Loudoun County, 16, 68, 92, 106, 118 

Loudoun County Parkway, 16, 118 

Lucinda (L.) Dogan House, 19, 45, 54, 56, 59, 

60, 65, 66, 78, 96, 179, 181 

management prescription(s), 25, 28, 33, 35, 36, 

77, 78, 164 

management zones, 39 

Manassas National Battlefield Park 

Amendments of 1988, 6, 10, 16, 19, 68, 69, 

117 
Index 

309 

Matthews Hill, 40, 45, 48, 54, 180 

museum collection(s), 8, 13, 25, 47, 81, 100, 

105, 141, 143, 144, 147–149, 151–153 

Pittsylvania, 40, 48 

Portici, 28, 40, 45, 48, 59, 180 

prime farmland soils, 27, 28 

Prince William County, 3, 10, 16, 68, 91, 92, 

102, 105–107, 117, 119, 155, 162, 178 

rehabilitation, 10, 13, 19, 24, 25, 27, 30, 39, 40, 

45, 47, 48, 53, 54, 59, 60, 70–74, 78, 79, 81, 82, 

99, 115, 118, 120–122, 127, 128, 131, 132–

134, 137–139, 143–152, 160, 162, 163, 166, 

167, 171, 172, 184, 186 

Robinson House, 28, 45, 55, 60, 78, 180 

safety, 4, 6, 7, 12, 16, 17, 19, 26, 30, 36, 37, 45, 

47, 56, 58, 66, 69, 70, 81, 102, 117, 118, 154–

157, 171, 185–187 

Second Manassas, 6, 8, 9, 11, 18, 22, 34, 35, 39, 

40, 45, 47, 48, 53, 54, 56, 59, 60, 66, 67, 71, 74, 

76, 77, 81, 82, 96, 100, 108, 127, 144, 145, 

147–149, 152, 164, 165, 168, 169, 171, 179, 

181, 185, 187 

Stone Bridge, 5, 21, 22, 40, 45, 48, 53–55, 58–

60, 65, 66, 71, 74, 76–78, 99, 110, 121, 125, 

131, 139, 147, 149, 151, 152, 156, 171, 173, 

180, 187 

Stone House, 19, 40, 45, 48, 54, 59, 60, 65, 86, 

96, 138, 140, 180 

Thornberry House, 19, 28, 45, 54, 59, 60, 65, 

78, 96, 138, 140 

threatened and endangered species, 11, 12, 25, 

80, 88, 91, 92, 133–136, 178 

tour route, 18, 22, 40, 45, 47, 48, 53, 54, 59, 65, 

77, 145, 164, 165, 184 

trails, 18, 19, 21–23, 26, 27, 35–37, 39, 40, 45, 

47, 48, 53, 55, 59, 60, 65, 74, 77, 78, 81, 101, 

102, 109, 134, 135, 142–145, 147–149, 151, 

152, 157, 162, 163, 165, 177, 179, 181, 184 

Tri-County Parkway Study, 16, 118, 121, 122 

Unfinished Railroad, 45, 53, 54, 56, 59, 60, 66, 

99, 180 

VA Route 234 Bypass North, 17, 118, 157, 165–

167 

Van Pelt, 40, 48 

visitor center, 18, 21, 22, 27, 29, 40, 45, 47, 48, 

58, 59, 65, 66, 71, 74, 76, 77, 79–82, 100, 108–

111, 115, 121, 125, 127, 131–133, 135, 139, 

140, 142, 143, 145, 147, 149, 150–152, 157, 

164–166, 168–173, 177, 180, 184, 185, 187 
 

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. 

NPS D-69A May 2008 / Printed on recycled paper. 
U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service • Denver Service Center

Manassas National Battlefield Park