DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Quantico National Cemetery Prince William County, Triangle, Virginia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Quantico National Cemetery Prince William County, Triangle, Virginia Draft ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENTS OF THE Quantico National Cemetery Prince William County, Triangle, Virginia Department of Veterans Affairs 425 I Street, NW Washington DC 20001 May 2016 Page intentionally left blank. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENTS OF THE QUANTICO NATIONAL CEMETERY PAGE 2 PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, TRIANGLE, VIRGINIA Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 11 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................. 11 1.2 Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................................... 13 1.3 Scope of the Analysis .................................................................................................................. 14 1.4 Decision Making .......................................................................................................................... 14 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ......................................................... 15 2.1 Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................... 15 2.1.1 Environmental Best Management Practices, Permits, and Approvals ............................... 18 2.2 Alternatives Analysis ................................................................................................................... 19 2.2.1 Evaluated Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 19 2.2.2 Alternative Eliminated from Detailed Consideration .......................................................... 20 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ..................................................... 20 3.1 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................... 22 3.1.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 22 3.1.2 Effects of the Preferred Alternative .................................................................................... 23 3.1.3 Effects of the No Action Alternative ................................................................................... 24 3.2 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................... 24 3.2.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 24 3.2.2 Effects of the Preferred Alternative .................................................................................... 25 3.2.3 Effects of the No Action Alternative ................................................................................... 26 3.2.4 Minimization and Best Management Practices .................................................................. 26 3.3 Geology, Topography, and Soils .................................................................................................. 26 3.3.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 26 3.3.2 Effects of the Preferred Alternative .................................................................................... 29 3.3.3 Effects of the No Action Alternative ................................................................................... 30 3.3.4 Minimization and Best Management Practices .................................................................. 30 3.4 Water Resources ......................................................................................................................... 31 3.4.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 31 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENTS OF THE QUANTICO NATIONAL CEMETERY PAGE 3 PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, TRIANGLE, VIRGINIA 3.4.2 Effects of the Preferred Alternative .................................................................................... 31 3.4.3 Effects of the No Action Alternative ................................................................................... 32 3.4.4 Minimization and Best Management Practices .................................................................. 32 3.5 Wildlife and Habitat .................................................................................................................... 32 3.5.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 32 3.5.2 Effects of the Preferred Alternative .................................................................................... 33 3.5.3 Effects of the No Action Alternative ................................................................................... 34 3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species and Bald Eagles ............................................................... 34 3.6.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 34 3.6.2 Effects of the Preferred Alternative .................................................................................... 36 3.6.3 Effects of the No Action Alternative ................................................................................... 38 3.7 Noise ........................................................................................................................................... 38 3.7.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 38 3.7.2 Effects of the Preferred Alternative .................................................................................... 39 3.7.3 Effects of the No Action Alternative ................................................................................... 40 3.7.4 Minimization and Best Management Practices .................................................................. 40 3.8 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste .................................................................................. 40 3.8.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 40 3.8.2 Effects of the Preferred Alternative .................................................................................... 41 3.8.3 Effects of the No Action Alternative ................................................................................... 41 3.8.4 Minimization and Best Management Practices .................................................................. 41 3.9 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................... 41 3.9.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 41 3.9.2 Effects of the Preferred Alternative .................................................................................... 55 3.9.3 Effects of the No Action Alternative ................................................................................... 56 3.9.4 Minimization and Best Management Practices .................................................................. 56 3.10 Socioeconomics ........................................................................................................................... 56 3.10.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 56 3.10.2 Effects of the Preferred Alternative .................................................................................... 57 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENTS OF THE QUANTICO NATIONAL CEMETERY PAGE 4 PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, TRIANGLE, VIRGINIA 3.10.3 Effects of the No Action Alternative ................................................................................... 57 3.10.4 Minimization and Best Management Practices .................................................................. 57 3.11 Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................................... 57 3.11.1 Considered Cumulative Actions .......................................................................................... 58 3.11.2 Effects of Cumulative Actions on the Proposed Action ...................................................... 58 3.11.3 Effects of Cumulative Actions on the No Action Alternative .............................................. 58 3.12 Potential for Generating Substantial Public Controversy ........................................................... 59 4. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 59 4.1 Public and Agency Involvement .................................................................................................. 59 4.1.1 Agency Coordination ........................................................................................................... 59 4.1.2 Public Review .....................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Descendants of ROBERT FRENCH I 1 Generation No. 1 1. ROBERT1
    Descendants of ROBERT FRENCH I Generation No. 1 1. ROBERT1 FRENCH I was born in PERSHORE, WORCESTERSHIRE, ENGLAND. Child of ROBERT FRENCH I is: 2. i. ROBERT2 FRENCH II, b. PERSHORE, WORCESTERSHIRE, ENGLAND. Generation No. 2 2. ROBERT2 FRENCH II (ROBERT1) was born in PERSHORE, WORCESTERSHIRE, ENGLAND. He married MARGARET CHADWELL. Child of ROBERT FRENCH and MARGARET CHADWELL is: 3. i. EDWARD3 FRENCH, b. cir 1540, PERSHORE, WORCESTERSHIRE, ENGLAND. Generation No. 3 3. EDWARD3 FRENCH (ROBERT2, ROBERT1) was born cir 1540 in PERSHORE, WORCESTERSHIRE, ENGLAND. He married SUSAN SAVAGE cir 1570. She was born cir 1550 in ENGLAND. More About EDWARD FRENCH: Residence: OF PERSHORE More About EDWARD FRENCH and SUSAN SAVAGE: Marriage: cir 1570 Children of EDWARD FRENCH and SUSAN SAVAGE are: 4. i. DENNIS4 FRENCH, b. cir 1585, PERSHORE, WORCESTERSHIRE, ENGLAND; d. PERSHORE, WORCESTERSHIRE, ENGLAND. ii. WILLIAM FRENCH. 5. iii. GEORGE FRENCH I, b. cir 1570, ENGLAND; d. cir 1647. Generation No. 4 4. DENNIS4 FRENCH (EDWARD3, ROBERT2, ROBERT1) was born cir 1585 in PERSHORE, WORCESTERSHIRE, ENGLAND, and died in PERSHORE, WORCESTERSHIRE, ENGLAND. Child of DENNIS FRENCH is: 1 Descendants of ROBERT FRENCH I 6. i. ANN5 FRENCH, b. cir 1610, ENGLAND; d. 1674, ENGLAND. 5. GEORGE4 FRENCH I (EDWARD3, ROBERT2, ROBERT1) was born cir 1570 in ENGLAND, and died cir 1647. He married CECILY GRAY. She was born cir 1575 in ENGLAND. Child of GEORGE FRENCH and CECILY GRAY is: i. GEORGE5 FRENCH II, d. 1658; m. GRACE BAUGH; d. 1660. Generation No. 5 6. ANN5 FRENCH (DENNIS4, EDWARD3, ROBERT2, ROBERT1) was born cir 1610 in ENGLAND, and died 1674 in ENGLAND.
    [Show full text]
  • Geographic Names
    GEOGRAPHIC NAMES CORRECT ORTHOGRAPHY OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES ? REVISED TO JANUARY, 1911 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1911 PREPARED FOR USE IN THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE BY THE UNITED STATES GEOGRAPHIC BOARD WASHINGTON, D. C, JANUARY, 1911 ) CORRECT ORTHOGRAPHY OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES. The following list of geographic names includes all decisions on spelling rendered by the United States Geographic Board to and including December 7, 1910. Adopted forms are shown by bold-face type, rejected forms by italic, and revisions of previous decisions by an asterisk (*). Aalplaus ; see Alplaus. Acoma; township, McLeod County, Minn. Abagadasset; point, Kennebec River, Saga- (Not Aconia.) dahoc County, Me. (Not Abagadusset. AQores ; see Azores. Abatan; river, southwest part of Bohol, Acquasco; see Aquaseo. discharging into Maribojoc Bay. (Not Acquia; see Aquia. Abalan nor Abalon.) Acworth; railroad station and town, Cobb Aberjona; river, IVIiddlesex County, Mass. County, Ga. (Not Ackworth.) (Not Abbajona.) Adam; island, Chesapeake Bay, Dorchester Abino; point, in Canada, near east end of County, Md. (Not Adam's nor Adams.) Lake Erie. (Not Abineau nor Albino.) Adams; creek, Chatham County, Ga. (Not Aboite; railroad station, Allen County, Adams's.) Ind. (Not Aboit.) Adams; township. Warren County, Ind. AJjoo-shehr ; see Bushire. (Not J. Q. Adams.) Abookeer; AhouJcir; see Abukir. Adam's Creek; see Cunningham. Ahou Hamad; see Abu Hamed. Adams Fall; ledge in New Haven Harbor, Fall.) Abram ; creek in Grant and Mineral Coun- Conn. (Not Adam's ties, W. Va. (Not Abraham.) Adel; see Somali. Abram; see Shimmo. Adelina; town, Calvert County, Md. (Not Abruad ; see Riad. Adalina.) Absaroka; range of mountains in and near Aderhold; ferry over Chattahoochee River, Yellowstone National Park.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation
    VLR Approved: 9/20/1988 NRHP Approved: 6/12/1989 United States Department of the Interior ' National Park Service National Register of Historic Places .NATIONAL Multiple Property Documentation Form REGISTER This form is for use in documenting multiple property groups relating to one or several historic contexts See lnstruclions in Guidelines for Completing National Reg~sterForms (National Register Bullet~n16). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the requested information. For additional space use continuation sheets (Form 10-900-a). Type all entries. A. Name of Multiple Property Listing ECW Architecture at Prince William Forest Park, 1933-42 8. Associated Historic Contexts The development of parks in Virqinia, 1933-42 .C. Geographical Data Prince Will iam Forest Park (nee' Chopawamsic RDA) is located approximately 30 miles south of the District of Columbia in Prince William County, Virginia. The park land and the entrance to it are situated west of the towns of Triangle. Dumfnes, and Quantico Marine Base. The park boundaries are coterminus with several thoroughfares: on the east by Interstate 95, on the south-southwest by VA Route 6 19, and on the north rjy VA Route 234. A seven-mile road loops through the center of the 1 1,122 -acre park, in addltlon to which there are man-made foot trai Is, firebreaks, lakes, dams, and branches of the Quant lco and Chopawamsic creeks. The bui ldings that compose cabln'tamps ( 1 ) Goodw i 1 l and (4) Pleasant are located in the central eastern portion on the park; Camp (3)Orenda and the maintenance area near the southern boundary; and Camps (2) Mawavl and (5) Happy land near the southwest edge of the park; the central and northern region contains a few trails but is almost completely unbroken forest.
    [Show full text]
  • Potomac Basin Large River Environmental Flow Needs
    Potomac Basin Large River Environmental Flow Needs PREPARED BY James Cummins, Claire Buchanan, Carlton Haywood, Heidi Moltz, Adam Griggs The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street Suite PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 R. Christian Jones, Richard Kraus Potomac Environmental Research and Education Center George Mason University 4400 University Drive, MS 5F2 Fairfax, VA 22030-4444 Nathaniel Hitt, Rita Villella Bumgardner U.S. Geological Survey Leetown Science Center Aquatic Ecology Branch 11649 Leetown Road, Kearneysville, WV 25430 PREPARED FOR The Nature Conservancy of Maryland and the District of Columbia 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Ste. 100 Bethesda, MD 20814 WITH FUNDING PROVIDED BY The National Park Service Final Report May 12, 2011 ICPRB Report 10-3 To receive additional copies of this report, please write Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe St., PE-08 Rockville, MD 20852 or call 301-984-1908 Disclaimer This project was made possible through support provided by the National Park Service and The Nature Conservancy, under the terms of their Cooperative Agreement H3392060004, Task Agreement J3992074001, Modifications 002 and 003. The content and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the policy of the National Park Service or The Nature Conservancy and no official endorsement should be inferred. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the opinions or policies of the U. S. Government, or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. Acknowledgments This project was supported by a National Park Service subaward provided by The Nature Conservancy Maryland/DC Office and by the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, an interstate compact river basin commission of the United States Government and the compact's signatories: Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.
    [Show full text]
  • Prince William County, Virginia and Incorporated Areas
    VOLUME 1 OF 4 PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA AND INCORPORATED AREAS COMMUNITY COMMUNITY NAME NUMBER DUMFRIES, TOWN OF 510120 HAYMARKET, TOWN OF 510121 MANASSAS, CITY OF 510122 MANASSAS PARK, CITY OF 510123 OCCOQUAN, TOWN OF 510124 PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, 510119 UNINCORPORATED AREAS QUANTICO, TOWN OF 510232 September 30, 2020 REVISED: TBD FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 51153CV001B Version Number 2.6.4.6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 1 Page SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The National Flood Insurance Program 1 1.2 Purpose of this Flood Insurance Study Report 2 1.3 Jurisdictions Included in the Flood Insurance Study Project 2 1.4 Considerations for using this Flood Insurance Study Report 4 SECTION 2.0 – FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS 16 2.1 Floodplain Boundaries 16 2.2 Floodways 31 2.3 Base Flood Elevations 32 2.4 Non-Encroachment Zones 33 2.5 Coastal Flood Hazard Areas 33 2.5.1 Water Elevations and the Effects of Waves 33 2.5.2 Floodplain Boundaries and BFEs for Coastal Areas 35 2.5.3 Coastal High Hazard Areas 35 2.5.4 Limit of Moderate Wave Action 37 SECTION 3.0 – INSURANCE APPLICATIONS 37 3.1 National Flood Insurance Program Insurance Zones 37 SECTION 4.0 – AREA STUDIED38 4.1 Basin Description 38 4.2 Principal Flood Problems 38 4.3 Non-Levee Flood Protection Measures 40 4.4 Levees 41 SECTION 5.0 – ENGINEERING METHODS 41 5.1 Hydrologic Analyses 42 5.2 Hydraulic Analyses 55 5.3 Coastal Analyses 71 5.3.1 Total Stillwater Elevations 72 5.3.2 Waves 74 5.3.3 Coastal Erosion 75 5.3.4 Wave Hazard Analyses 75 5.4 Alluvial Fan Analyses 79 SECTION
    [Show full text]
  • World War II Quantico Takeover Stafford Homes Confiscated
    World War II Quantico Takeover Stafford Homes Confiscated War came unexpectedly to all Americans on December 7, 1941. It came to Stafford in October 1942, when the Marine Corps Base at Quantico required expansion of its training facilities and maneuver areas. On October 6, 1942, the U.S. Government formally notified those living in the northernmost one-fifth of Stafford that their lands were to be confiscated within two weeks and to vacate their properties. Some of those families had sent sons to fight in the Civil War, endured Union occupation, and sent sons to Cuba in 1898 and France in 1917-1918. Now they were being dispossessed of their homes and livelihoods. Among those who were evicted was William Weedon Cloe, a farmer, veteran of the First World War and a member of the Stafford School Board. The Washington Post of October 8th contained an article entitled “The War Comes Home to Farmers in Nearby Virginia.” Describing Cloe as “solid and substantial,” it quoted him: I went through the last war, volunteered as a matter of fact the day after the war was declared [it was actually the same day], and if they need my farm to get through this war, then they can have it...I’m classified 3-A now and if they need me for this one, I’m ready. Cloe probably did not speak for all of his neighbors, but the effect of their sacrifice was the same. They gave up their homes for their country. The farm, about 160 acres in 1942, now lies mostly under Lunga Reservoir.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Resources Survey Stafford County Virginia
    Historic Resources Survey Stafford County Virginia Final Report Prepared BY Traceries With Assistance From P Consulting Services and Preservation Technologies For Stafford County Planning Department and Virginia Department of Historic Resources June 1992 This project could not have been completed without the assistance and support of Stafford County's citizens and members of the Stafford County Planning Department. Several individuals have helped Traceries with this project by providing personal knowledge and information on Stafford County's architecture and history. Jeff O'Dell, Architectural Historian with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, provided overall guidance to Traceries during the survey and encouraged the close examination of Stafford County's agricultural resources. Jeff reviewed our survey forms, photographs and historic context report, and provided helpful comments and suggestions that were incorporated into the final products. Traceries extends special thanks to Kathy Baker and David Grover of the Stafford County Planning Department. Kathy and David and the Planning Department provided Traceries the opportunity to conduct this survey and report, and offered us guidance throughout the project. Kathy and David assisted Traceries in the administrative and research aspects of the survey and supported all of our efforts. Members of the Historical Society and Citizens to Serve Stafford County met with Traceries and helped to answer questions and guide us to historic resources in the county. Mr. and Mrs. John Scott, Barbara Kirby and Ruth Carlone spent time with members of the survey team and provided important insight into the county's history. Mr. George Gordon also met with Traceries to discuss the survey project.
    [Show full text]
  • Prince William Forest Park Geologic Resources Inventory Report
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Prince William Forest Park Geologic Resources Inventory Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2009/086 THIS PAGE: South Fork Quantico Creek ON THE COVER: Bridge over South Fork Quantico Creek NPS Photos Prince William Forest Park Geologic Resources Inventory Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2009/086 Geologic Resources Division Natural Resource Program Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225 March 2009 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Denver, Colorado The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and is designed and published in a professional manner. Natural Resource Reports are the designated medium for disseminating high priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. Examples of the diverse array of reports published in this series include vital signs monitoring plans; "how to" resource management papers; proceedings of resource management workshops or conferences; annual reports of resource programs or divisions of the Natural Resource Program Center; resource action plans; fact sheets; and regularly-published newsletters. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations and data in this report are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Site Report: Mullen Seminary Overlook 2014
    Seminary Overlook Property (±22.64 acres) City of Alexandria, Virginia WSSI #22385.01 Documentary Study Prepared for: Home Properties, Inc. 8229 Boone Boulevard, Suite 500 Vienna, Virginia 22182 April 2014 Prepared by: John P. Mullen, M.A., RPA and David Carroll 5300 Wellington Branch Drive, Suite 100 Gainesville, Virginia 20155 Tel: 703-679-5600 Email: [email protected] www.wetlandstudies.com ABSTRACT An archival and documentary study was conducted of the ±22 acre Seminary Hill/Seminary Towers property within the City of Alexandria, Virginia. Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc., of Gainesville, Virginia, conducted the study described in this report for the Home Properties, Inc. of Vienna, Virginia. The current study is in compliance with the City of Alexandria Archaeological Protection Code and followed a Scope of Work approved by Alexandria Archaeology. This property was historically part of Fairfax County until 1952, when the City of Alexandria annexed a large tract of land west of Quaker Lane, which included the study area. The property was originally contained with the large Terrett family estate, located south of Falls Church in the 18th and 19th centuries; this estate was subdivided in 1851. The study area was contained within Lot 1 of the subdivision; this was a ±142-acre parcel purchased by William B. Scarce, the proprietor of the Virginia House Tavern in Alexandria. Scarce sold the property to his brother-in-law, Henry Bontz and it remained in the Bontz family until the early 20th century. Ruth Barkley Warfield and her second husband retired Brigadier General Duncan Kennedy Major, Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature Conservancy's Watershed Approach To
    THE NATURE CONSERVANCY’S WATERSHED APPROACH TO COMPENSATION PLANNING FOR THE VIRGINIA AQUATIC RESTORATION TRUST FUND December 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART ONE: THE NATURE CONSERVANCY’S CONSERVATION BY DESIGN .... 2 Background ..................................................................................................................... 2 The Nature Conservancy’s Conservation By Design ..................................................... 3 Element I: Geographic service area delineation ............................................................ 4 Elements ii, iii and iv: Threats Assessment ................................................................... 8 Elements v and vi: Aquatic resource goals / objectives and a prioritization strategy.. 10 Element xii. Satisfying Criteria for Use of Preservation ............................................. 13 Element viii. A description of any public and private stakeholder involvement in the plan ................................................................................................................................ 13 Element ix. Long-term protection and management strategies ................................... 15 Element x. Monitoring and Evaluating Progress .......................................................... 15 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 17 PART II. OVERVIEW OF ECOREGIONAL PRIORITY CONSERVATION AREAS BY DEQ/CORPS SERVICE AREAS .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • URBANIZED AREA OUTLINE MAP (CENSUS 2000) Washington, DC--VA--MD
    URBANIZED AREA OUTLINE MAP (CENSUS 2000) Washington, DC--VA--MD Springfield Dis 95847 Springfield O d Old Colchester Rd x R Accotink Cr r Occoquan R n Fort Washington 29525 C Floral Park Rd d o Mount Vernon 54144 y rt d a 3 Piscataway Rd Dis 95847 o R taw 22 LEGEND River L L on sca Rd) Occoquan River Furnace Rd o r t Pi wy k tH Par Piscataway Cr S l SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL NAME STYLE ra lo (F International Dogue Creek y w CANADA H ) d d 3 R d r a 2 e R te Fort Belvoir Military Res 2 AIR (Federal) ¹ ) Lorton 47064 H s n d e y h n to R c w Coles Dis 90928 l ia s L’ANSE RES (1880) ) H x o d t g y Fort Belvoir 29008 n C I S n Hooses Run O w i ( d v H l i Trust Land / Home Land 3 O Piscataway Creek Trib L d ( 2 n Lake Ridge 43432 1 o Farmington B T1880 e m e t Farmington Rd E tHwy 223 r h S Rd E r R y t c Furnace Rd i ington Rd) R OTSA / TDSA / ANVSA S arm (R (F d 1 y KAW OTSA (5340) w Furnace H S Piscataway Cr n Tribal Subdivision Occoquan U d rt L Rd R Ai r po 58696 n SHONTO (620) S to t s R Landfill Dr g n t i e District 5, Piscataway 90432 v AIR (State) ¹ i 1 Lo Indian Head Hwy L 2 rto 3 n Tama Res (4125) ( R G G d Bealle Hill Rd Alhambra Ave o i S l tR B SDAISA r e Piscataway Cr l d t Accokeek 00250 a s o e c d) k R 2 Gunston Cove Elingwood Dr St k n I- 95 R 4 b e u ke u 2 Lumbee (9815) B r o n c n (G c l (A v un 3 d s Livingston Rd 7 ANRC ) to 3 Occoquan Dis 94943 n gston wy in Bealle tH Rd Jennifer Dr Liv Litton Ln S ) Hill Rd NANA ANRC 52120 Rd N e w Accokeek Rd Rd Urbanized Area d Menk a S s R t a l H l Rd L i Baltimore, MD 04843
    [Show full text]
  • The Curtis Collection: a Personal View of Prince William County
    The Curtis Collection A Personal View of Prince William County History Donald E. Curtis The Curtis Collection A Personal View of Prince William County History Donald E. Curtis Prince William County Historical Commission Prince William, Virginia 2006 Copyright © 2006 by the Prince William County Historical Commission Originally Printed, 1988 Prince William County Historical Commission Reprinted 2006 for the Prince William County Historical Commission Prince William County B&G Print Shop 5001 Prince William Parkway Prince William, VA 22192 Please direct all correspondence and book orders to: Prince William County Historical Commission 1 County Complex Court Prince William, VA 22192 ISBN: 978-0-9792155-2-0 BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS Corey A. Stewart, Chairman Maureen S. Caddigan, Vice Chairman Hilda M. Barg Martin E. Nohe Wally Covington John T. Stirrup, Jr John D. Jenkins . HISTORICAL COMMISSION Members Ruth M. Anderson Ellis B. Hawkins Sara B. Anderson Alexander Jones, Jr. Frederick R. Brown Jane B. MacDonald James M. Burgess, Jr., Vice Chairman Ronald L. Smith Stephen K. W. Chock Harry P. Stickley, III Rebecca Cumins David Swavely Janice M. Cunard Ron Turner Betty Duley, Chairman Elaine S. Yankey Staff Robert C. Bainbridge, Planning Office Liaison Justin Patton, County Archaeologist Heather Hembrey, Public Works Liaison Toni Brzyski, Secretary Don Wilson, Library Liaison CONTENTS Title Page Introduction....................................................................................................................1 A Personal Experience
    [Show full text]