WASHINGTON–ROCHAMBEAU REVOLUTIONARY ROUTE

2y ago
18 Views
2 Downloads
5.87 MB
182 Pages
Last View : 8d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Joanna Keil
Transcription

Resource Study & Environmental AssessmentWASHINGTON–ROCHAMBEAUREVOLUTIONARY ROUTENortheast and National Capital RegionsNational Park Service—U.S. Department of the InteriorOctober 2006

About this DocumentThis document is the Resource Study and Environmental Assessment (study/EA) for the Washington-RochambeauRevolutionary Route. It describes the National Park Service’s preferred approach to preserving and interpreting routeresources and one other alternative. The evaluation of potential environmental impacts that may result from implementation of these alternatives is integrated in this document.This study/EA is available for public review for a period of 30 days. During the review period, the National ParkService is accepting comments from interested parties via the Planning, Environment and Public Comment websitehttp://parkplanning.nps.gov/, at public meetings which may be held, and at the address below. At the end of the review period, the National Park Service will carefully review all comments and determine whether any changes shouldbe made to the report.No sooner than thirty (30) days from the end of the review period, the National Park Service will prepare and publisha finding of no significant impact (FONSI) to explain which alternative has been selected, and why it will not have anysignificant environmental impacts. A summary of responses to public comments will be prepared. Factual correctionsor additional material submitted by commentators that do not affect the alternative may be incorporated in erratasheets and attached to the study/EA. The study/EA and FONSI will be transmitted to the Secretary of the Interior whowill make a recommendation to Congress.Publication and transmittal of this document should not be considered an endorsement or a commitment by theNational Park Service to seek or support either specific legislative authorization for the route or appropriation for itsimplementation. Authorization and funding for any new commitments by the National Park Service will have to beconsidered in light of competing priorities for existing units of the national park system and other programs. Anyfuture federal involvement in the Washington-Rochambeau route as a national historic trail must be based on aspecific congressional authorization.To submit comments, get additional copies or more information contact:National Park ServiceWashington-Rochambeau Study Team15 State Street, 10th FloorBoston, MA 02109-3572(617) 223-5051 ph.(617) 223-5164 fx.This document is available online at http://www.nps.gov/boso/w-r/Cover illustration:Generals Washington and Rochambeau at Yorktown in Siège d’Yorcktown, by Louis-Charles-Auguste Couder, 1836.Courtesy of Galerie des Batailles, Château de Versailles, France.

ERRATAWASHINGTON-ROCHAMBEAU REVOLUTIONARY ROUTE STUDY- OCTOBER 2006ERRATAP. i, col. 1, line 29CHANGE13 rebellious colonies that would formproclaimedP. i, col. 2, line 8ADD COMMAGeneral Charles, Lord CornwallisP. i, col. 2, line 32ADDWashington andP. i, col. 2, line 38ADDwintered in WilliamsburgP. 9, col. 1, line 18ADDWashington andP. 9, col. 1, line 20ADDarmy wintered in Williamsburgmost ofTOself-the Continentalsand surrounding areasmost ofthe Continentalsand surrounding areasP. 9, col. 2, line 15CHANGEJune 1781TOP. 10, Fig. 2.1CHANGENewburgTOP. 13, col. 1, line 12ADDPhilipsburg (modern name Greenburgh)P. 14, col. 2, line 13REPLACE(Scarsdale and HartsdaleP. 19, col. 1, line 16CHANGEThatcherTOThacherP. 24, Fig. 2.4CHANGEPohicTOPohickP. 25, Chron. July 6CHANGEWhite PlainsGreenburgh)TOPhilipsburg (modern nameP. 26, Chron. October 28CHANGEOctober 28TOOctober 29P. 34, Fig. 3.1CHANGENewburgTONewburghP. 38, Fig.3.2CHANGENewburgTONewburghP. 43, photo captionCHANGEparadeTOunitP. 54, Fig. 4.10CHANGENewburgTONewburghP. 72, photo captionCHANGERoger’sTORodgersP. 72, col.1, line 1CHANGEFredericksburg TOAlexandriaP. 138, Hasbrouck HouseCHANGECHANGEPoughkeepsie TO11/26/1982TONewburgh1/20/1961P. 141, Brick MarketCHANGE(1772)TO(1761-1772)P. 141, Brown HallCHANGEBrownTOUniversityADDUniversity Hall, the only building at the University until1832,CHANGEMoshassukADDeastP. 141, College Hill Historic DistrictP. 141, Nathanael Greene HomesteadSeptember 2007CHANGEsideTOAugust 1781NewburghWITHGreenburghMoshassuckof North Main Streetbuilt his residence fromTOin 1774. DELETE 17831 of 2

WASHINGTON-ROCHAMBEAU REVOLUTIONARY ROUTE STUDY – OCTOBER 2006ERRATAP. 141, Gov. Jos. Wanton Jr.(Hunter) HouseCHANGE1748P. 142, Old Colony HouseDELETEentryP. 142, Old State HouseTO READOld State or Colony HouseCHANGEDesigned byTOAttributed to Richard Munday andbuilt in 1739-41 to houseTO READthe General Assembly of the State of Rhode Island andProvidence Plantations. During the Revolution, the ColonyHouse served as a hospital for British and later Frenchforces quartered in Newport. The first Roman Catholicmasses in Rhode Island were celebrated here in 1780-81by the Abbé de Glesnon, French Army chaplain underRochambeau. In 1781, when Washington came toNewport to visit the French Army, a banquet was held inthe great hall on the first floor.DELETECHANGErestored(1675)TOCHANGEhouse builtTOwhich dates from to the early18th century, and altered in 1758P. 143, Wanton-Lyman-Hazard HouseP. 143, William Vernon HouseTO1748-1754(c. 1697)P. 143, Rathburn-Gardner-Rivera House CHANGERathburnP. 143, Captain Mawdsley HouseADD(also known as the Jireh Bull-John Mawdsley House)P. 143, Friends Meeting HouseCHANGEJamestownP. 144, Joseph Russell HouseADD(also known as the Joseph and William Russell House)P. 144, Pardon Tillinghast HouseCHANGEPardonCHANGEListed 11/24/1968 as part of the Newport Historic DistrictTOListed 4/11/1973ADDBuilt in 1760, the John Tillinghast property was identifiedas the Pardon Tillinghast property on the 1781 list. Itprovided winter headquarters to Captain Croublierd’Opterre and Camptain Marie Louis Thomas, marquis deGazarac, who served as aide-de-camp to his cousin thebaron de VioménilP. 144, Presbyterian ChurchDELETEentryP. 144, Robert Lawton HouseADD118 Mill Street provided quarters to Major d’Espeyron ofthe Soissonnais Regiment.P. 145, Colonial Nat’l Historical ParkADDoriginal and reconstructed earthworks.DELETEthat were leveled before the end of 1781.P. 145, Green Springs Historic DistrictDELETEentryP. 146, SaratogaCHANGEBattleSeptember 2007TOTOTOTORathbunNewportJohnBattles2 of 2

ContentsSUMMARYiChapter 1: PURPOSE AND NEED1IntroductionStudy Objectives11Chapter 2: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND9Definition of the Route and Study AreaHistorical SummaryChronology of the Route91125Chapter 3: ALTERNATIVES27OverviewAlternatives DevelopmentAlternatives Under ConsiderationAlternative A – No ActionAlternative B – National Historic TrailThe Environmentally Preferred AlternativeThe Preferred AlternativeAlternatives Eliminated from Consideration2727323235404040Chapter 4: N ATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM43ACT REQUIREMENTSOverviewTrail Study Elements4343Chapter 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT79OverviewNatural ResourcesCultural ResourcesVisitor Use and ExperienceSocioeconomic ResourcesTransportation and AccessOperations and Administration79798586878889

Chapter 6: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES91OverviewMethodology for Assessing ImpactsAlternative A – No ActionAlternative B – National Historic Trail91919395Chapter 7: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION99OverviewStudy ProcessProject Scoping and Civic EngagementOther Consultations9999100103APPENDICES107A: LegislationB: Route ResourcesC: Interpretive ThemesD: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ResponsesE: References and AbbreviationsF: Study Team109126150156163167FIGURES AND TABLESFigure 2.1: Study AreaFigures 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4: Historical Route MapsFigure 3.1: Alternative A – No ActionFigure 3.2: Alternative B – National Historic TrailFigures 4.1 to 4.9:Detailed Maps of the Potential National Historic TrailFigure 4.10: Land Use and Ownership1022–24343844–52Table 3.1: Comparison of AlternativesTable 4.1: Trail Lengths by StateTable 5.1: Federally Listed SpeciesTable 5.2: Other Species of ConcernTable 5.3: Visitation at Select Related NPS UnitsTable 5.4: Population LevelsTable 6.1: Summary of Consequences39438283–8487889854

SummaryThis study addresses the requirements of theWashington-Rochambeau Revolutionary RouteNational Heritage Act of 2000, Public Law 106473. The Act directs the Secretary of the Interiorto conduct a resource study of the 600-mile routetaken by the armies of General George Washington and Count Rochambeau between Newport,Rhode Island, and Yorktown, Virginia, in 1781and the return to Boston, Massachusetts in 1782,in order to:1 identify the full range of resources andhistoric themes associated with the route;2 identify alternatives for National ParkService involvement with preservation andinterpretation of the route; and3 include cost estimates for any necessaryacquisition, development, interpretation,operation, and maintenance associatedwith the alternatives identified.This study was prepared by the National ParkService (NPS), and includes an EnvironmentalAssessment (EA) that evaluates the probable impacts to the natural, cultural, and socioeconomicenvironments associated with each alternative.It is the purpose of this study to provide theSecretary of the Interior with objective findingsto support a recommendation to Congress.The key historical events are as follows. As partof the alliance with the 13 rebellious colonies thatwould form the United States, French GeneralJean Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, comte de(Count) Rochambeau, sailed into Newport,Rhode Island, in July of 1780 as head of the Expédition Particulière, an army of 5,300 officers andmen. After wintering in Newport, Rochambeau’sarmy marched through Rhode Island and Connecticut in June and July of 1781, and joinedGeneral George Washington’s Continental Armyin Philipsburg, New York.Abandoning the idea of attacking New York, heldby the British under General Sir Henry Clinton,the two generals devised instead a southern campaign to attack General Charles Lord Cornwallisin Virginia. In August and September, their armiestook a combination of strategic roads and waterways that led them through New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, the future District ofColumbia, and Virginia, reaching Williamsburgin late September. Together they attacked andheld under siege the British-fortified town ofYorktown. A French fleet under the commandof Admiral de Grasse blocked the ChesapeakeBay to either reinforcement from New York orsea escape from Yorktown. On October 19, 1781,after three weeks of siege, General Cornwallissurrendered toGeneral Washington, markingYorktown asone of the mostdecisive Americanvictories in theWar for Independence.Shortly afterwards, Washington and theContinentalsreturned to defendnorthern posts.Rochambeau andhis army winteredin Williamsburg,A statue of Rochambeau marks the site wherethe French troops landed in Newport, RhodeIsland, in July 1780.SUMMARY

then marched north in the summer of 1782.In the towns and cities they passed throughalong the way, both the American and Frenchforces were warmly greeted and celebrated.While small contingents stayed in different portsand left for France the following year, the bulkof Rochambeau’s army sailed from Boston onChristmas Eve, 1782.volved in the struggle for American independencewas largely overlooked. Interpretive themes forthe route would focus on the marches as a crosscultural experience that helped shape the American identity and as a tangible manifestation of theinternational war effort. The route is nationallysignificant as evaluated against National HistoricLandmark criteria.In all, nine states and the future District ofColumbia formed the route and supported themarch, providing ports, roads, campsites, officers’lodging, provisions of food, and supplies: Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts,New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, RhodeIsland, and Virginia.Following public scoping and analyses of theresources, two management alternatives weredeveloped. They are:Over time, as the heroes of the war were portrayed as American countrymen building a newnation, popular history came not to include theimportant role that France and other nationsplayed in helping to win independence fromGreat Britain. The ethnic and racial diversity in-iiWASHINGTON-ROCHAMBEAU REVOLUTIONARY ROUTEA – No ActionVarious efforts by the states and local communitiescould continue without additional federal involvement. These uncoordinated efforts could continueto enhance public awareness of the 600-mile routefocused on the 225th commemoration of themarch in 2006–07. No congressional action wouldbe required and any federal involvement wouldremain limited to providing technical assistance asallowed under existing laws.

B – National Historic TrailThe Washington-Rochambeau RevolutionaryRoute would be authorized and designated byCongress as a national historic trail (NHT) withinthe National Trails System. The trail would runbetween Newport, Rhode Island, and Yorktown,Virginia, returning to Boston, Massachusetts ,along the specific land- and water-based routesknown to have been used by the French andContinental armies, for the purposes of historicpreservation and public enjoyment. The NPSwould administer the trail in partnership witha designated trail advisory council, a nonprofittrail organization, state and local agencies, andother interest groups, guided by a comprehensive trail management plan. The NPS would alsobe authorized to provide technical and limitedfinancial assistance to preserve route resourcesand interpret the route. The federal government would not acquire land or other resourcesassociated with the historic route. Development of a trail management plan would cost 300,000– 400,000. Annual operating costsCartographic map used by Rochambeau, during the March toYorktown, includes the different camp sites between Yorktownand Boston.would be 300,000– 400,000, with potentialeconomies based on joint administration of theStar-Spangled Banner National Historic Trailand the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail if they become designated. Allfunding proposals are contingent on NPS funding limitations and priorities.Alternative B is both the NPS-preferredalternative and the environmentally preferred alternative. Implementation of thisalternative would not impair any NationalPark Service resources or values, or haveany significant impacts on resources withinthe study area.This study evaluates the route against establishedcriteria for national historic trails, describes theexisting natural, cultural, and socioeconomicSUMMARYiii

resources associated with the route, outlines potential environmental consequences, and findsthat the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route is suitable for designation as a nationalhistoric trail.This document is available for public review fora period of 30 days. During the review period,the NPS is accepting comments from interestedparties on the Internet, at public meetings, bymail, and by fax. At the end of the review period, the NPS will carefullyreview all comments anddetermine whether anychanges should be made tothe report.No sooner than thirty (30)days from the end of thereview period, the NPSwill prepare and publish aFinding of No SignificantGeneral George WashingtonImpact (FONSI) to explainwhich alternative has been selected, and whyit will not have any significant environmentalimpacts. A summary of responses to public comments will be prepared. Factual corrections oradditional material submitted by commentatorsthat do not affect the alternative may be incorporated inerrata sheets and attached tothis document. The study/EAand FONSI will be transmittedto the Secretary of the Interiorwho will make a recommendation to Congress.Publication and transmittalof this document should notbe considered an endorseJean Baptiste Donatienment or a commitment byde Vimeur, the comte dethe NPS to seek or supportRochambeauivWASHINGTON-ROCHAMBEAU REVOLUTIONARY ROUTEeither specific legislative authorization for theroute or appropriation for its implementation.Authorization and funding for any new commitments by the NPS will have to be considered inlight of competing priorities for existing unitsof the national park system and other programs.Any future federal involvement in the Washington-Rochambeau route as a national historictrail must be based on a specific congressionalauthorization.

1 Purpose and NeedsINTRODUCTIONThe cooperation between the ContinentalArmy under General George Washington andFrench forces under Jean Baptiste Donatien deVimeur, the comte de (Count) Rochambeau, inthe Yorktown campaign is widely regarded byhistorians as a decisive factor in winning the siegeof Yorktown, leading ultimately to victory in theRevolutionary War. Yet the story of the nine-state,600-mile march that culminated in that siege isnot well known by the general public. The marchis referred to as the Washington-RochambeauRevolutionary Route, or “the route,” in thisreport. Over time, as the heroes of the war wereportrayed as American countrymen building anew nation, popular history came not to includethe important role that France and other nationsplayed in helping to win freedom from GreatBritain. The routeprovides a vividexample of theseinternational contributions as well asthe ethnic and racialdiversity involvedin the struggle forAmerican independence.Intermittent effortsto commemorateSoldiers of the First Rhode IslandRegiment and of the Canadianand re-enact theRegiment from the Journal ofmarch have beenJean-Baptiste-Antoine de Verger.undertaken since atleast the 1920s. Various state and local initiativeshave resulted in the placing of commemorative signage and markers along the route. Otherefforts have focused on preservation of historicroads, buildings, campsites, and related resources. But these patchwork efforts have been dif-ficult to sustain or coordinate over time amongthe various states and localities that make upthe long route. In the mid-1970s, the U.S. Senate joined with the House of Representatives torecognize the route’s significance, passing a resolution establishing the Washington-RochambeauHistoric Route. No funding was associated withthis resolution and no federal role was established. The Washington-Rochambeau NationalHistoric Route Committee was subsequentlyestablished to raise funds and mark the route,but its efforts were difficult to sustain. Over thelast several years, grass-roots efforts, first inConnecticut and more recently in other states,have been initiated to enhance public awareness of the route and promote preservation andinterpretation of its resources. Local, state, andnational organizations have again expressedconcerns that the significance of the march is notadequately understood by the public, that associated resources such as campsites are not wellknown and may be threatened by development,and that federal support is needed to facilitatesustained interpretation and appreciation of theroute and preservation of its historic resources.STUDY OBJECTIVESResponding to concerns about preservationand interpretation of resources associated withthe route, legislation was introduced in the Houseof Representatives in 2000 by Congressman JohnLarson (Connecticut’s First District) and inthe Senate by Senator Joseph Lieberman(Connecticut) and was cosponsored by 42 Congressmen and Congresswomen, including 7 outside the study area, authorizing the WashingtonRochambeau Revolutionary Route NationalHeritage Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-473). SeeAppendix A. The Act directs the Secretary of theCHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED

Interior to conduct a resource study of the 600mile route, to1identify the full range of resources andhistoric themes associated with the route;2identify alternatives for National ParkService involvement with preservation andinterpretation of the route; and3include cost estimates for any necessaryacquisition, development, interpretation,operation, and main

September 2007 1 of 2 WASHINGTON-ROCHAMBEAU REVOLUTIONARY ROUTE STUDY- OCTOBER 2006 ERRATA ERRATA P. i, col. 1, line 29 CHANGE 13 rebellious colonies that would form TO self- proclaimed P. i, col. 2, line 8 ADD COMMA General Charles, Lord Cornwallis P. i, col. 2, line 32 ADD Washington and most of the Continentals

Related Documents:

address-family ipv6 unicast network . 2001:468::/48 route-policy EX1 redistribute connected route-policy EX2 neighbor 2001:db8::1 route-policy EXAMPLE1 in route-policy EXAMPLE2 out vrf FOO address-family ipv6 unicast import route-policy EXAMPLE1 export route-policy EXAMPLE2 Single-policy at attachment point Attach a policy at:

4/1/2019 4 Route Numbers Route Signing Route Number Route Suffix Route Qualifier New York State Department of Transportation HPMS Codes: Route Signing 1 Not Signed 2 Interstate 3 US 4 State 5 Off‐Interstate Business 6 County 7 Township 8 Municipal 9 Parkway or Forest Route 10 None of the above

MCAT Shuttle Service Area Characteristics by Route Route Route Service Area Population Route Service Area (Square Miles) Route Service Area Density Route Start Year M1 184,387 115.51 1,596 2005 M2 102,994 26.58 1,498 2005 M3 87,223 63.99 1,364 2007 M4 95,923 18.83 5,094 2008 M5 55,181 5.75 9,397 2008

CCNA 200-125 network. One route is from EIGRP and has a composite metric of 20514560. Another route is from OSPF with a metric of 782. The last is from RIPv2 and has a metric of 4. Which route or routes will the router install in the routing table? A. the OSPF route B. the EIGRP route C. the RIPv2 route D. all three routes E. the OSPF and RIPv2 .

‘Add line’ to map your walking route Create your route by clicking and dragging the ‘add line’ tool around your route You can then add ‘points’ along your route and write about that point and add a photo to tell your story To share your map click on the share button and email your map & story to

After all waypoints are set, lick the reate Route button, and your route will be create d. The route will display as a thick black line on the map. If the route looks acceptable, you may want to save it as a new route, which will save it to your dashboa

is hunted courtesy of Mr. Stewart’s Cheshire Fox-hounds and Mr. Jefford’s Andrews Bridge Hounds. Bounded by Route 30 from Gap to Coatesville, Route 100 to Chadd’s Ford, Route 1 to Conowingo, the Susquehanna River to Route 372, and Route 372 to Gap, all in Pennsylvania. Ardrossan Beagle

asset management periods to drive the size, shape and resource requirement for the estate. With the nature of property, change takes time to achieve and with budget constraints, innovation driving an expectation to improve and the current baseline where changes to the estate compared to its size have been minimal. As this review progresses it is clear that utilisation of the estate can be .