Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cooperation wins at Manassas

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cooperation wins at Manassas

    Winning Back a Battlefield
    Deal Restores Manassas Parcel to 1862 Conditions

    By Eric M. Weiss
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Friday, June 18, 2004; Page B01

    A wetland restored to its Civil War-era condition was on public display yesterday at the Manassas Battlefield as National Park Service officials formally thanked the agency responsible for creating an authentic landscape on more than 100 acres.

    In an unusual partnership, the Smithsonian Institution restored the area to make up for land it disturbed when building its National Air and Space Museum annex near Dulles International Airport. Otherwise, battlefield managers said, the Park Service might never have found the money to restore land at the park near Manassas that Congress had seized from a mall developer in the 1980s.

    Park Service Director Fran P. Mainella said it would have been many years before the cash-strapped agency could have afforded to do the project itself.

    "It's a great accomplishment that rightly makes each partner proud," Mainella said. She was joined by Smithsonian officials, volunteers in heavy wool Civil War uniforms and even a slithering water snake that appeared to be enjoying some of the new wetland.

    With some financial help from Virginia, the Smithsonian has restored 115 acres to the way they were during the Second Battle of Manassas in August 1862. Workers rearranged 90,000 cubic yards of dirt and planted more than 50,000 native plants and grasses at a cost of more than $1.4 million.

    They were charged not only with re-creating every hill and berm, but also with restoring nature's original plumbing on the site, making sure that places that were wet in 1862 will be wet in the future. The mud and the snake and other water-borne critters visible yesterday attested to their success.

    The land, west of the original battlefield park between Interstate 66 and Route 29, was bulldozed during the 1980s by developer John T. "Til" Hazel, who was planning the William Center, a giant mall and subdivision.

    Although the Hazel land was private and not part of the park, historians said it was integral to understanding the Second Battle of Manassas and included grounds where Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee's headquarters had stood. Hazel's development plan led to a national outcry by preservationists, and images of backhoes and bulldozers ripping up a Civil War battlefield galvanized the public. In 1988, Congress bought Hazel's land and added it to the battlefield.

    When the Smithsonian was planning the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center at Dulles, it needed to find a way to replace seven acres of an emerging boggy area that it would disturb for the new Air and Space Museum annex.

    Lin Ezell, a top museum official, was driving one day and saw the brown sign for the Manassas Battlefield. She realized that restoring wetlands on another federal property in the same area -- instead of buying expensive private property for the project -- would be the cheapest and easiest solution. She got back to the office and called the park.

    Robert K. Sutton, the superintendent of Manassas National Battlefield Park, was more than amenable.

    "I said yes," Sutton recalled, even though "I didn't know exactly when or how."

    "We couldn't build at Dulles without a wetlands [replacement] plan," Ezell said. "I called Bob, and the rest is history."

    A huge help in the project were detailed topographical maps of the area during the Second Battle of Manassas. The maps were commissioned for the retrial of Union Gen. Fitz-John Porter, who was trying to clear his name after being court-martialed for cowardice during the battle. The maps helped prove that Porter did all he could during the battle, which was won by Confederate forces.

    Mainella, who served as Florida's parks director before being named to head the Park Service in 2001, said forming partnerships like the one at Manassas is the only option for the Park Service as it struggles to keep up with maintenance and resource protection at the nation's 388 parks.

    "We all need each other," Mainella said.

    Sutton said he is still looking for partners to help finish the picnic area near the restored wetland and to help build a solar-powered restroom at the site.
    Mike "Dusty" Chapman

    Member: CWT, CVBT, NTHP, MOC, KBA, Stonewall Jackson House, Mosby Heritage Foundation

    "I would have posted this on the preservation folder, but nobody reads that!" - Christopher Daley

    The AC was not started with the beginner in mind. - Jim Kindred

  • #2
    Yes!

    Thank you for the good news, Dusty. It's encouraging to see such a large piece of such an important battlefield reclaimed and restored. With all the heavy development in that part of Virginia, the victory is especially sweet!

    Comment


    • #3
      An Insider's View of the Wetlands Restoration

      :angry_smi I've been a volunteer at Manassas Battlefield for 5 years now so I'm familiar with the goings-on at this park. The irony is that there is NO historical evidence that a wetlands existed on that portion of the battlefield during the Civil War. I know the article mentions the map prepared for Porter's trial (a post-war map, BTW), but the historians I speak with at Manassas National Battlefield Park agree there were no wetlands in the area of Stuart's Hill or the Cundiffe House site during the war (the site of the new swamp).

      The Smithsonian needed a place to construct wetlands since they destroyed the wetlands near Dulles Airport for their new Aviation Museum and conveniently chose Manassas Battlefield - even Lin Ezell, the "top museum official" mentioned in the article stated that she "drove by the park" one day and realized the wetlands could be restored at this location. Great research, Lin!

      The partnership between the Smithsonian and MNBP has allowed Park Superintendant Bob Sutton to build his enhanced picnic area and "solar powered restroom" at the site (no joke, read the article). The problem with Sutton and his leadership is that he has made this park a recreational park and not the great national battlefield that it should be.

      If Sutton would spend more time improving the interpretation and signage at the battlefield and less time building "solar powered restrooms" and picnic areas we would have a park where visitors could explore and understand the 2 momentous battles that occured on this hallowed ground. Instead, visitors come to fly their kites on Henry Hill or go sleigh-riding down Buck Hill. Thanks Bob Sutton!

      Todd Berkoff
      Manassas National Battlefield Volunteer Since 1999

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Cooperation wins at Manassas

        Are the picnic area and solar powered outhouse also clearly delineated on Porter's topographical maps? :-)
        Bill Watson
        Stroudsburg

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Cooperation wins at Manassas

          Let's not look a gift horse in the mouth, fellas! At least it's not a strip mall, golf course or sub-divison! Bully! Cpl Dan Morgan 10thVA(IVR)

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Cooperation wins at Manassas

            Dan:

            Of course its better than a mall or a new housing development. My point was just that the upper-level management at MNBP is more concerned with restrooms and picnics areas and not with improving the interpretation of the park, clearing historic vistas and most importantly - having some displays in the Henry Hill Visitor Visitor Center devoted to the Second Battle of Manassas.

            As of now, there is NO mention of the Second Battle at all at the HH Visitor Center, where 99 percent of the visitors go when the visit the park. Besides from the Second Battle Self-driving tour, the 30-year old plaster-of-paris map and 5th NY Zouave mannequin at the Stuart's Hill facility are the on mentions of the Second Battle. Very sad. You would have no idea that a second battle took place at the park, a battle in which 25,000 men were casualties. It truly is an insult to their memory.

            I'll get off my soap box now but this problem of recreational use vs. battlefield park is a serious issue. I've given a lot of blood, sweat and tears to this park and I'm sad to see the direction its been going in during the last few years.

            Todd Berkoff
            Volunteer at MNBP

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Cooperation wins at Manassas

              Todd,

              You have a unique vantage point on this issue. Thanks for sharing your observations.

              I see it this way. The land is now safe from development. Part of it being swamp doesn't bother me much, as that in itself will keep it from being destroyed. Is my ideal to have picnic tables and restrooms in the area? No. But it beats people going in the woods on a battlefield!

              Park administrators come and go. Now, at least, we know the land is not going anywhere.......
              Mike "Dusty" Chapman

              Member: CWT, CVBT, NTHP, MOC, KBA, Stonewall Jackson House, Mosby Heritage Foundation

              "I would have posted this on the preservation folder, but nobody reads that!" - Christopher Daley

              The AC was not started with the beginner in mind. - Jim Kindred

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Cooperation wins at Manassas

                Well said Dusty!
                Todd, as equally alarming though as toilets and picnic sites at Manassas. Are the horseback riders at Gettysburg .
                These sites are supposed to be memorials to fallen Americans, etc. Not playgrounds for the folks that have no green space because their local government allowed all their open space to be built upon. I just wonder what the powers that be would do if say someone wanted to use the new WW2 memorial as a picnic area?
                Anyway, as Dusty said. At least the land is saved. Maybe when the administration changes a new director will be more attuned to what Mannassas is supposed to be.
                Barry Dusel

                In memory: Wm. Stanley, 6th PA Cav. Ernst C. Braun, 9th PA. Cav. John E. Brown & Edwin C. Brown, 23rd PVI

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Cooperation wins at Manassas

                  Well, if picnicking and flying kites gets people out to a battlefield that they would otherwise ignore, hurrah! Once they arrive, maybe a few start to read the signs and get interested. That can only lead to new WBTS aficianados. Besides, if they fight their way down the Sudley Road, which has no service stations with public restrooms (I found out the hard way), they deserve a porta-john even if they don't know who Fitz-John Porter is :D !

                  -Dave Eggleston
                  Dave Eggleston

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Cooperation wins at Manassas

                    I think some are missing an important point. The property was "saved" back in the 1980's. From what I've read the Smithsonian's activities on the property are not protecting the park from anything.

                    If it is true, as Todd and apparently the historians at the park say, that there were no wetlands in 1862 where wetlands are now being created than this activity is very unfortunate. The land was saved because it was a battlefield, albeit a partially compromised historic landscape, not for it to become a recepticle for some other organizations' wetlands mitigation requirements. This may set a very dangerous precedent.

                    True, the Smithsonian is kicking in money to "restore" the battlefield. But moving around 90,000 cubic yards of dirt sounds more like replicating the battlefield landscape. When Hazel originally moved all of the dirt some areas of the battlefield were compromised and thus lost their integrity. While I admit I have not seen the Porter maps, I find it hard to believe that they're detailed enough to provide the information necessary to rebuild a battlefield. If they are that detailed and show wetlands, but apparently are not corroborated by other historic maps and the accounts of the participants who fought there, than I'd have to question the validity of the Porter maps. Either way, it sounds like more wetlands are being created than what was historically present. Bad policy.

                    My two cents for what they're worth.

                    Eric
                    Eric J. Mink
                    Co. A, 4th Va Inf
                    Stonewall Brigade

                    Help Preserve the Slaughter Pen Farm - Fredericksburg, Va.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Cooperation wins at Manassas

                      Dusty pointed out exactly what I was saying. The simple fact is that it is not up for development. I understand that many have put in a lot of hard work, Bully to you! Again, Let's be thankful for what we have. As far as picnic areas, port-o-johns, etc... We could be hearing "FFFFFFOOOOOORRRREEEEE!!!!!!!! Cpl Dan Morgan 10thVA(IVR)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Cooperation wins at Manassas

                        I'm sorry but that is a very superficial look at this problem. It is much deeper than development or no development. Its about how we want to preserve and interpret these battlefields. Would you want picnic tables and porto-johns at the Virginia Memorial at Gettysburg or on top of Little Round Top?? Would you want people flying kites in the Cornfield at Antietam battlefield? Heck no. No one would dare do those things at Gettysburg or Antietam. Then why should it be allowed at Manassas?? It shouldn't.

                        The trend at national battlefields these days is to bring the land back to the war-time appearance - you see this with the eventual removal of the Visitor's Center and the clearing of the Codori Thicket at Gettysburg, the renovation of the Sunken Road at Fredericksburg, etc. The management at Manassas Battlefield needs to take note of this trend instead of selling out to the Smithsonian so they could build solar powered restrooms on Stuart's Hill. What's wrong with the current restrooms?!?

                        Lets open our eyes and get involved.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Cooperation wins at Manassas

                          Living relatively close to Manassas Battlefield, I have been visiting the park since I was a small child and I am very familiar with the destruction that took place to the Stuart Hill tract back in the 80's. I have to say that the new restoration is a tremendous improvement over the condition that it was in prior to the work being done. There were unfinished house foundations, concrete sewer lines, piles of debris and huge areas of land that had been desecrated by bulldozers which left dramatic scars. Now the land has been returned to open fields with rolling hills as opposed to unfertile land with exposed bedrock. The areas of added wetlands are in reality quite limited, even if they were not there in the 1860's.
                          Up until a little over a year ago the park had a picnic area located on Dogan Ridge which is in the very heart of the battlefield. Action took place here during both the first and second battles of Manassas. The park has removed this picnic area and restored the ground to its 1860's appearance. The new picnic area will be located on land that had troops move over it but saw very little battle action. I personally wish that there would be NO picnic area, however, it one is going to exist, I would rather have it at the new location. The good news is that the new picnic area HAS NOT been put in yet so there is still time to express your opposition to it. Let Superintendant Bob Sutton know how you feel!!!
                          My personal displeasure with Superintendant Bob Sutton is that he didn't do more to stop the Virginia Department of Transportation from widening the Sudley Road/Warrenton Turnpike intersection in front of the Stone House a few years ago. This had a very detrimental effect on the historic look of the park! Just my thoughts.
                          -Bill Lawson

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Cooperation wins at Manassas

                            Agreed. Picnic tables on Stuart's Hill is better than on Dogan Ridge. I guess one needs to decide the lesser of two evils.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Cooperation wins at Manassas

                              "I'm sorry but that is a very superficial look at this problem. It is much deeper than development or no development. Its about how we want to preserve and interpret these battlefields."

                              I think you need to have the land before you can interpret it. The fact that the land is now safe from development is a victory for preservation.
                              Fundamentally, if you are going to interpret a piece of property you need to have the property first. It would make no sense debating interpretation techniques if this area were the parking lot for a Sheetz.

                              I agree that there is a problem with interpretation at some parks, but lets not confuse the issue of interpretation with battlefield land preservation.
                              Brian Koenig
                              SGLHA
                              Hedgesville Blues

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X