HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-06 Potential Impact AnalysisPOTENTIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF MINING OPERATIONS AT
THE MIDDLEMARSH AND RESERVES PROPERTIES
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Eric S. Andreus, P.G. 73 e-
Project Hydrogeologist
SAIC Ref. No.: 01- 1633 -00- 2190 -000
Prepared for:
G.W. Clifford Associates, Inc.
117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Prepared by:
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
1129 Business Parkway South, Suite 10
Westminster, Maryland 21157
August 2002
Reviewed by: Submitted by:
Michael D. Haufler, P.G.
Senior Technical Manager
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Scope of Study
2.0 WETLANDS
2.1 Affected Environment
2.2 Potential Impacts
3.0 FORESTS
4.1 Affected Environment
4.2 Potential Impacts
5.0 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
5.1 Affected Environment
5.2 Potential Impacts
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
Page
1
2
2
2
4
3.1 Affected Environment 4
3.2 Potential Impacts 5
4.0 STREAMS 6
6
6
8
8
9
Figure 1, Wetland Following Text
Figure 2, Forested Areas Following Text
Figure 3, Streams and Floodplains Following Text
Figure 4, Hydrogeologic Map Following Text
Potential Impact Analysis 11111I Chemstone
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Scope of Study
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
1
Rezoning of the two Global Chemstone (GC) parcels north of the existing facility from the exist-
ing agricultural use to future mineral extraction requires approval from Frederick County, Vir-
ginia. The approval process, as outlined in the Rezoning Application Package from the Depart-
ment of Planning and Development, requires assessment of potential impacts resulting from this
change in land use. Potential groundwater impacts are of particular concern to local constituents
and are a key focus of these assessments.
There are two parcels included in this study, named by convention in accordance with a mining
reserves report (Southeastern Geoscience, 1990, for Chemstone Corporation). The parcel to the
north is termed the Middle Marsh property and the one to the south, adjacent to Cedar Creek, is
termed Chemstone Northern Reserves property.
The potential impacts addressed by SAIC include wetlands, forests, streams, and groundwater.
Our tasks coincide with County rezoning requirements and are completed at a level similar to
that of an environmental assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Specific details of the work are provided in each section.
Potential Impact Analysis •al Chemstone
2.0 WETLANDS
The assessment of the affected environment and potential impacts to existing wetlands includes
the following:
Use of applicable National Wetlands Inventory Mapping.
Use of applicable USDA soils mapping.
Use of applicable 100 -year floodplain mapping.
Field examination of potential wetlands.
Mapping of the potentially affected environment.
Comparison of the mapping with potential open -pit mining areas.
2.1 Affected Environment
2
Potential wetlands areas include those mapped as wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
Mapping and as hydric soils in USDA soils mapping. Flood -plain areas (based on 100 -year
flood -plain mapping) and stream -side areas that could be considered waters of the United States
were examined but are assessed in the Streams Section of this report.
Based on field observations, true wetlands areas may be somewhat different than indicated in the
mapping. Detailed, formal delineations are required as part of a separate permitting process.
As indicated on Plate 1, the Middle Marsh and Northern Reserves properties contain approxi-
mately 0.3 and 1.9 acres, respectively, of potential wetlands.
2.2 Potential Impacts
Areas of potential impact include those where actual reserves exist and mining can take place.
These areas are delineated in the reserve evaluation for the Middle Marsh property (Southeastern
Geoscience, 1990). The potential impact area for the Northern Reserves property is estimated in
this study from existing geologic mapping. The potential impact areas also include estimated
stockpile, berm, spoils, and plant footprints.
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
Potential Impact Analysis Chemstone
As shown on Plate 1, overlay of these zones on the affected environment indicates the potential
impact areas for each parcel. This results in less than 0.4 acres of total potential wetlands that
could be affected by the rezoning. This area should be considered an estimate, since formal wet-
land delineations have not been completed.
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
3
Potential Impact Analysis Chemstone 4
3.0 FORESTS
The assessment of the affected environment and potential impacts to existing forest areas in-
cludes the following:
Selections of appropriate forest stand criteria were selected based on the existing land
cover, including pasture and fallow fields, cedar, cedar (grazed), cedar /osage, and
oak/hickory stands.
Use of the oak/hickory forest community as an equivalent to the "mature woodlands" as
considered by the County (these are not true biologically mature or virgin forests).
Field examination of forest area zones (without field marking).
Field mapping of the potentially affected environment on aerial photographs.
Comparison of the mapping with potential open -pit mining areas.
3.1 Affected Environment
The five different vegetation covers found on the two parcels are shown on Plate 2.
There is an area in the southern portion of the Middle Marsh property that can be described as an
Oak Hickory Forest. Species observed in this small forest island include red oak (Quercus ru-
bra), white oak (Quercus alba), chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), mockemut hickory (Carya to-
mentosa), and white pine (Pinus strobus) in the overstory, and sassafras (Sassafras albidum),
dogwood (Corpus florida), and hop hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana) in the understory. This is
likely a re- growth of abandoned farmland, as there is an almost complete lack of old dead snags,
and/or decomposing trees, which would be indicative of an older, truly mature forest. Neverthe-
less, this area provides habitat for Oak Hickory biota, which likely include blue jays, wild tur-
key, scarlet tanager, rose breasted grosbeak, gray squirrel, fox squirrel, Northern flying squirrel,
and Eastern chipmunk.
The remainder of the Middle Marsh property is clearly agricultural and includes sharp delinea-
tions between fallow agricultural and active agricultural land. Much of the fallow agricultural
land is dominated by Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), which is an invasive, early
successional species that is relatively shade intolerant. Other species observed in these sections,
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
Potential Impact Analysis a Chemstone
5
particularly along the creeks, include black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), black walnut (Juglans nigra), osage orange (Maclura pomifera), Eastern redbud
(Cercis canadensis), and honeysuckle (Lonicera spp.). The area just to the north of the intersec-
tion of Route 627 and Middle Marsh Creek is predominantly Eastern red cedar and is heavily
grazed.
The Northern Reserves property is difficult to access due to lack of roads, steep slopes, and
heavy vegetation. The site contains a larger Oak Hickory Forest community, as described above.
This site offers a larger and more contiguous forest than the Oak Hickory Forest on the Middle
Marsh property, and likely offers better biotic habitat for the variety of species described above.
There are areas of dense Eastern red cedar on the upland portions of this site as well as Eastern
red cedar pasture.
3.2 Potential Impacts
Areas of potential impact include those where actual reserves exist and mining can take place.
These areas are delineated in the reserve evaluation for the Middle Marsh property (Southeastern
Geoscience, 1990). The potential impact area for the Northern Reserves property is estimated in
this study from existing geologic mapping. The potential impact areas also include estimated
stockpile, berm, spoils, and plant footprints.
As shown on Plate 2, overlay of these zones on the affected environment indicates the potential
impact areas for each parcel. This results in a total of eight acres of potential mature forests that
could be affected by the rezoning. This area should be considered a maximum, since the term
mature forest could be applied more stringently and significantly reduce the affected environ-
ment areas accordingly.
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
Potential Impact Analysis Chemstone
4.0 STREAMS
The assessment of the affected environment and potential impacts to existing streams includes
the following:
Identification of perennial streams in the area.
r Estimation of watershed areas and potential flows using USGS data from local gauging
stations.
Mapping of 100 -year floodplain areas.
Mapping of the potentially affected environment.
Comparison of the mapping with potential open -pit mining areas.
4.1 Affected Environment
As shown on Plate 3, the major stream in this area is Cedar Creek, which flows southeastward
adjacent to the Northern Reserves property. Two tributaries to Cedar Creek cross the Middle
Marsh property before joining Cedar Creek. Middle Marsh Brook and Watson Run flow in a
southwesterly direction and have contributing drainage areas of approximately 1,105 and 826
acres respectively. They are not true perennial streams (they had no flow during the October
2001 field inspections). Using the Opequon Creek gauging station records, these streams are es-
timated to have average flows of 0.69 to 0.52 cfs, respectively.
Each creek is impacted by the agricultural nature of the surrounding area. There is cattle grazing
in and near the creeks and the channels are vegetated with forbs, bearing evidence to the fact that
there has not been enough water to scour out the vegetation in recent weeks or months.
4.2 Potential Impacts
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
6
Areas of potential impact include those where actual reserves exist and mining can take place.
These areas are delineated in the reserve evaluation for the Middle Marsh property (Southeastern
Geoscience, 1990). The potential impact area for the Northern Reserves property is estimated in
this study from existing geologic mapping. The potential impact areas also include estimated
stockpile, berm, spoils, and plant footprints.
Potential Impact Analysis COI Chemstone
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
7
As shown on Plate 3, overlay of these zones on the affected environment indicates the potential
impact areas for each parcel. This results in a total of 793 linear feet of potential stream channel
that could be affected by the rezoning and a total of 13 acres of potentially affected 100 -year
floodplain. These quantities should be considered maximums, since many potential impacts can
be mitigated by avoidance. There should be little to no impacts to stream flow from the pro-
posed operations since they will not use surface water for processing or dust control (provided by
dewatering pumping).
Potential Impact Analysis CI Chemstone 8
5.0 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
The assessment of the affected environment and potential impacts to groundwater resources in-
cludes the following:
Delineation of interconnected geologic formations based on existing mapping and field
observations.
Delineation of potential zones of surface water and groundwater contribution based on
topographic drainage catchments areas.
Identification of photogeologic fracture traces as potential zones of increased
groundwater flow.
Inventory of potential groundwater users and wells within 1,500 feet of the property
boundaries through the Frederick County Health Department, by field observation, by
aerial photo analyses, and use of tax mapping parcel boundaries.
Estimation of groundwater pumping for the existing pumping records and quarry con-
figuration based on interviews with Global Chemstone personnel and aerial photo
analysis.
Estimation of zones and magnitudes of groundwater drawdown surrounding the poten-
tial mining areas using a digital groundwater model and pumping rates extrapolated
from existing operations and mining areas, maximum drawdown from the proposed
mine depth, and aquifer parameters from pumping tests in the carbonate aquifer.
Identification of potential karst areas from existing State geologic publications and field
inspection.
Mapping of the potentially affected environment.
Comparison of the mapping with potential groundwater impacts.
5.1 Affected Environment
The parcels lie in the Shenandoah Valley portion of the Great Valley Physiographic Province.
This area is underlain by carbonate rocks of the Great Valley sequence, which in this area in-
cludes the Beekmantown, New Market, and Lincolnshire formations. The New Market Forma-
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
Potential Impact Analysis Chemstone
9
tion (Mosheim Formation) is a high calcium limestone and is the mineral resource identified for
extraction.
Where saturated, these formations constitute a local section of the carbonate rock aquifer system
of the Great Valley. Recharge to the aquifer system is generally from local precipitation. In
general, the carbonate rock aquifers of the Great Valley are highly productive and have relatively
high rates of recharge. Groundwater moves through the rock through cracks, fissures, solution
openings, and bedding partings in the rock mass. Based on drilling records in the Great Valley,
the groundwater system extends to at least 700 feet in depth in this area.
Groundwater use in the area is limited. The aggregate quarry between the two study parcels
withdraws approximately 84,000 gpd on an annual average basis: There are 30 on -site well and
septic systems within 1,500 feet of the property boundaries of the two parcels. Of these, domes-
tic water use is generally between 200 and 400 gpd per unit, approximately 10 to 30 percent of
which is consumptive.
Pumping rate
Depth to water table
Water table drawdown
Aquifer transmissivity
Aquifer thickness
5.2 Potential Impacts
Potential impacts from mining in the two parcels originate from the dewatering required in the
mining operation itself, as the extraction process extends below the water table. In general, as
the mining process exposes water bearing fractures, groundwater enters the mine and is pumped
out so that mining can continue. The resulting impacts are similar to those associated with a
large diameter groundwater well.
Potential impacts are estimated using a single hydrogeologic computer model (Two Day). The
parameters used in the model are as follows:
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
The depth of the mineral deposit (New Market Formation) determines the maximum potential
depth of mining and water table intrusion. Based on geologic mapping performed for the min
eral resource study, the New Market Formation terminates at a relatively shallow depth, to an
elevation of approximately 550 feet (Southeastern Geoscience, 1990), which greatly reduces the
potential water table drawdown impact.
Potential Impact Analysis CI Chemstone
The potential water table drawdown contour lines are shown on Plate 4. As shown, the estimated
drawdown off -site in areas of existing wells is 10 to 20 feet. Since most wells in this region have
in excess of 100 feet of available drawdown, the anticipated affect would likely be unnoticeable
in such supplies. Therefore, based on this model and the assumptions therein, there should be
few if any adverse impacts to existing water supplies in the Area. Since this is an area of poten-
tial karst (sinkholes), changes in the water table cam accelerate the surface expo lure of these ex-
isting subsurface features. Although no mitigation measures appear to be warranted at this time,
a groundwater and karst monitoring program should detect potential adverse impacts in advance
such that appropriate mitigation can be provided.
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
10
WIPP
i
1
lam' �l
rr v-
Cf.
ri
r 4Y
r` i t
,r'�
r✓
iie
I ,3i f
r
z
3 'P 'i•
E
_Yy. a
'4 th
I I
r
JJ
�A:
�e
Ntr-
"�r
s
'MSYj
'4.4.3.,
j4 aac
f 1 J l5.
r~
r
MIDDLE MARSH PROPERTY
Total Area 533 Acres
Potential Impact Area 138 Acres
Potential Wetland Area .3 Acres
Potential Wetland Impact None
f
ft F.'.
Cheinstone Northern Reserve °�s ar
Total Area 158 Acres
Potential Impact Area 45 Acres A :.1
6fl Y
Potential Wetland Area 1,9 Acres
Potential Welland Impact <.1 Acres.
1
S tlr
f' i f I
r ff df
f I
J
w
sWS06iD6a14pysw
IIIIIII
t, c s
y`.
LEONID
NOM&
ura u..•Iw+7u121.6a61emr:6.rmA
wasnca.
..rn.w�..r...ao
.ISHO,.Y.1t. 6 ,I,
+vWHaCrc+17 V t....a.
+rc....axam. =>x. 'n
c .k .gh.namavn.,e4.wc o... _+acrms..
e.I.Lo li ....wKn..au. 6..C.Mwln.w.r,fnev.a Cw..., tg.
S. K Va2e.nm; vurrs'r.... .,e.n.n RCn..a.vwmme..,...,.nay.y
u `(J.VWI�
cratOMC.1
BILDIN C
WeTIAND
na» 6.6amta
Total Area
Potential Impact Area
Mature Woodland Area
Potential Impact Area
Total Area
Potential Impact Area
Mature Woodland Area
Potential Impact Area
MIDDLE MARSH PROPERTY
533 Acres
138 Acres
38 Acres
None
LiGiND
,30.2w 16M�.ti u'y�r:
sz t z srercea
�re..'1n. YlPeAY
Am.r..a +.....e, ra+.WI. waranxs,n ua..ax.2.
31 0‘177aIrg �V.nr t.F.mrrYPr..rgf o...bpv.iPUlnwCwK.
Yapese nwI M alurud FanNaGaalurs
a1 ser mrTrW[. rF. r+ rtaa.. awro�nf .xa F{•:
6, Fa.+a +•rWa+r�r..abSVC QFrY..O Mr
fl V. Hr....MK MON.
aw W OkD
FORWIDARGt
fib
w
1
amo awl.= *41 amt.=
s
tt. r" 4
r
G r rNI.s+9 Y i I
t V y t d fa
ti
t
y x
•c f
4
�z
n
i
-1'
MIDDLE MARSH PROPERTY
c es
Total Area 533 Acres
Potential Impact Area 138 ACms
Streams 10.984 Feet
Potential Stream Impact 7 93 Feet
Floodplain Area 89 Acres
Potential Floodplain Ircact'ea 11 Acres
f f s
.,t 'l
r i
<l
•1 r s
r y
S
ri`' �I MAC
yt
s r y
Y wb.
Chemstone Northern Reserve y f;! 6y r
f, r1 /i j;
Total Area 'E_FuLes
Potential Mining Aroa 35 ;.tree
Seas 8.921 Feet f A sti L
q o
Potential Stream Impact None r
Floodplaln Area 36 Acres tA I ,r< .t'
Potential Foodpla s Impact Area 1 Acres r r-
.'fir s
l2 r i:'� 14
yI.TG}�
is ux.
fr 4{ `'cyl x 1
y r
5 t
444
r N1
1 '4
N
3rR ,I�N�i 1 y, 1
N
4.,,
NOM
LIMPID Ir
.i rr �•wix �c! C'.n`r
•0
P.Posz.JG 46r... wa w✓.+.+n''�'�N.Iw+.me e++ °c6•l .w[.n
C 7 a new. MR. Y •66 -10 CF v .:.7+:+
a CY.+w :Z. wnnr Va u Y.Y4 aw✓
'S kNt9CR3C0 C... u..✓ e.. v' wlr2r. nmhwwf.wrnrsw
V. 33..... r 3....ca•.e.•cv:w y- .a+,... ��...�...w......
Z.r�....,, C 14N•.YM..ry �+...ve� -.M. wrr M wnY
y1 .5•i!:..1J:OPJw f�'9��3•Y
7. S.V♦n ave. aver,. -ate
Q Y r1 YTdID iAti10f1�iD1
Gsa1.M�0/V
g}1F.Y SAADRGMMV[AM
Q
3
.1=tr.•••
Stir
t
N
f\r
ol....40aa4204404.1
womegto ‘,4141•
4E885MSD nrilnrsunl':urn vrI
E54144
D9M&14CLfi4:litS1,
mas'[ivar
STRADVIAPHIC COLLN
TT «m:xl:--u:c OQ 42.un:.•rnne.
a.a =urs uun
er;o.Gnewrma MA, 1.4w.0n44+4t...
O✓1 .le,M.Vllrm.n.m
(1.4, Lerwe44-4 l.449
Och
mn✓ae.rp4:�....a.�r. rime
lyr' .wwurkO Km
n ywgau..1..+�s.U.a g t.. n3wso wgr,m."a
n
m�nris G KY..LJ. NrOwx �d4gei rF POO.
e.r. mo :r !nurmEraut.n
iu....s Cevmx..R9. l)033fs444cw4 ,,4- so..
rvlu xW!.em•.3u1.....Lu. ...uense4vMKo`&'
p ee.wname4,N,44, ono:. i:.vaw. ros��Y..•.BVQ•u.am*:�:+t o, a
n w� sea i. ,e. s�•A1M•,•wa..wr.w aa.c »•.w
n...
n 1w ...m...e.,.wmrkwar:.+l:.xwgw:.. nw,..;.a, u,n<.>.
1 M W rvry�r.,<Nail mn�e6W..vfsruv<.ynat'ea... a ......u...
R,.... «mlHLe v.p srney. <Aw':.� I�i®
O, M. Cu fPoHD 8 A$&O1 L4res
eer.nir 4,441116.17..
HYDA03EOLOIC MAP
amid,
January 2006
APPENDIX A
S hemstone Middletown
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
337 b
31Z A
N 22/
PO TIAL IMPACT ANALIIVOF MINING
it
4 PERATIONS AT THE MIDD MARSH AND
RESERVES PROPERTIES
Prepared by
Ob
Prepared for
G.W. Cliffyr$ Associates, Inc.
117 E. P dolly Stre Suite 2O
----Winchester, Yr .a 22601"
cience Applicationsnteriit Corporate,
:I sin-essP South, Suite
Westinster, Maryland 21-157
January 2006 Chemstone Middletown
APPENDIX
HISTORIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Prepared by
Lynn Sims PhD.
Military Historian
University of Richmond
CEDAR CREEK REPORT
The question is; "Will the quarry expansion interfere with the core battlefield
of Cedar Creek or impair an understanding and interpretation of what happened
there 19 October 1864
A problem in Virginia is so much history happened here you could put a fence
around the Valley as well as Eastern Virginia and call them both historical areas. We
cannot, and have not, and do not want to save all land where history "happened." We can
only save what we know to be significant. The property proposed for quarry operation
was the land ridden over by Brig. Gen. George Custer's Third Division of the Cavalry
Corps on the afternoon of 19 October 1864, part of the Federal counterattack against
Confederates under Lieut. Gen. Jubal A. Early.
The original morning offensive by the Confederates was a brilliant and
complicated plan involving a three- column converging night attack supported by cavalry
on both flanks. It was planned well, executed with force, gained the element of surprise,
and pushed the Federals back. About 0930 the Confederate attack lost its momentum.
The Federals were able to mount a counterattack about 3:30 that afternoon overwhelming
the Confederates and reversing, not only Confederate success that day, but eliminating
Confederate power in the Valley for the rest of the war. Part of the Federal counterattack
was a cavalry charge of about 3,000 troopers under Custer which swept down on the
Confederate left, or western, flank and mostly consolidated what Federal infantry already
had captured in the way of wagons, cannons, prisoners of war, battle flags, and supplies.
When the former head historian for the National Park Service, Dr. Edwin C.
Bearss laid out the battlefield, he included everything this side of the quarry to the Valley
Pike as the core battlefield. Since that designation individuals have built homes on the
core battlefield, Interstates have obliterated part of the battlefield used by Confederate
troops moving to the attack. Also business establishments now stand on land where the
battle took place, and Lord Fairfax Community College owns over 100 acres.
Among the famous Federal personalities at the battle, Maj. Gen. Philip Sheridan
the Commanding General operated in the middle and eastern part of the field near the
Valley Pike. Two future presidents of the United States, Col. Rutherford B. Hayes, and
Cpt. William McKinley were both on the eastern side of the field, again near the Valley
Pike.
Custer's name is known by most Americans. He was there, and performed
perhaps his best during the war. His tactics were pretty much the same through out his
career. That is without much preparation, planning, or consideration of tactics and
terrain, "Charge in fast, throw the enemy off balance, then react to what happens." These
were his tactics for 12 years, until he charged into a large group of Sioux and Cheyenne
along the Little Big Horn in present day Montana. Still, Custer was in this battle and it
was one of his finest actions. Aside from part of the Federal cavalry charging across a
piece of this land, nothing of significance happened on the land.
By October 1864, everyone on both sides was a professional. The outstanding
points of the battle of Cedar Creek are the Confederate plan and execution, the personal
leadership of Sheridan and other officers, the stubborn resistance of pockets of troops on
both sides, and the rout of Early's troops, which ended Confederate power in the Valley
and ended Early's career.
The accompanying map shows the route of Custer's charge and the proposed
extension of the quarry. Quarry owners are mindful of keeping the integrity of the
battlefield and are considering ways to minimize, and hide structures necessary for
mining, as well as considering ways tobenefit battlefield visitors understanding through
the use of platforms and interpretive devices.
In an aside, the battle was significant for Vermont units because by happenstance
every unit from the "Green Mountain" State on active duty was at this battle. Hanging in
their state capitgl in Montpelier is a huge painting of Cedar Creek.
Other fighting at the same time in 1864, east and south of Petersburg, also was
significant as it caused Gen. Robert E. Lee to leave his trenches and move west until he
was stopped at Appomattox Court House and surrender, 9 April 1865.
Without a doubt ifCedar Creek was in any other state, much would be made of
the battle for out of the 53,000 soldiers engaged, there were 8,500 casualties. But there
are only two unit markers on the battlefield, and only one visible to the public. There are
several state markers along the Valley Pike which give an idea of the events for all who
stop to read
For the historian who wants to see the battle as the participants saw it, ground
level, or from horse back, that is still possible. Once the Confederate planners left Signal
Knob on Massanutten Mountain, they too were at ground level.
In summary, early in the day the Confederates attacked and forced the Federals to
retreat. That retreat took place this side of the proposed quarry operation. Only Custer's
sweeping counterattack later in the day crossed part of the land proposed to be quarried.
I have flown over the land in a helicopter, driven, and walked the land, read after
action reports of the participants, as well as studied the pertinent maps in the Library of
Virginia, the Virginia Historical Society, and in published books.
I believe an accurate, complete and useful interpretation of the day's events can
be viewed with the construction of the quarry. I further believe with the help of the
mining company, the interpretation of the battle will be better understood than it is now.
NIESWANDER'S FORT
The question is What do we know about the ruins noted on maps "Nieswander's
Fort?"
The ruins now labeledNieswandef sFort on maps probably date from 1 -1756,
during the French and Indian War when the Lower Valley of Virginia experienced many
Indian raids. Although there is no record of a Nieswander Fort in the records of the time,
there is evidence to infer the ruins came into existence as a result of Indian depredations,
and fear among residents of the Given the size of the site, most certainly
the "fort," built over a spring, was a blockhouse. It was probably much like Hupp's Fort,
his primary residence also built over a spring, and according to the state marker dates
from 1755. One problem in researching this period in the Lower Valley is in 1781
practically all ofthe documents relating to the and Indian War were destroyed in a
fire at the Virginia State Library.
Brothers Jacob and Christian Neuenschwandger came from Canton Bern,
Switzerland to Lancaster County, PA in 1711. From there they moved into the Lower
Valley between 21 October 1731 and 28 November 1732. Jacob was married to
Susannah, and Christian to Maria Magdelena. Christian settled five miles south of
Winchester, a half mile on the west side of the current Va11ey Turnpike, the old Indian
war trail which became broadened by wagon traffic. Settlers moving through the area
used it as the main thoroughfare. Jacob, who owned 435 acres purchased from Yost Hite
7 February 1738, settled three miles further south near Stephens City, also close to the
turnpike. The brothers were Mennonite in the Anabaptist tradition and shunned warfare,
militia service, and firearms. Their defense would be to avoid conflict by staying in a
blockhouse until danger had passed.
The settlement of Mennonites in the Lower Valley was encouraged by Virginia
and was in the tradition ofVirginran's settlement ofScotchlrish in the
Huguenots west of Richmond at Manakin Town on the James River, and Germans in
Germanna, Orange County. Virginia winked at religious conformity to the Church of
England in the case of frontiersmen. These groups were used as a "trip wire," or
warning, as they wouldbe the first casualties from Indian attacks.
Nieswanders were among the first white settlers in the Valley. Jacob had a son
named "Colonel" John Nieewanger, born in 1742, a first generation American who
became a military man. Often pacifist conviction died easily and early on the frontier
because of close contact with warrmg
To understand these people we must understand the pioneer spirit. A
frontiersman was a law unto himself, able to take care of his family, birth his children, set
broken bones, protect his family, and raise a crop to survive. The pioneer spirit caused
frontiersmen to keep on the frontier. 'Seldom a frontiersman "settle' and allow others
to pass him by to settle a further frontier. When he could hear his neighbor's dog barking
or see the smoke from another's chimney, he moved on further west.
Without a doubt, Virginia Governor Dinwiddie was the strongest of the colonial
governors in devising ways to protect Englishmen in North America. Even though there
are no French and Indian War battle sites in present day Virginia, many killings and
atrocities occurred here. The first hostile forces sent out in the war were Virginians, and
the first to shed blood were Virginians. Records estimate over 3,000 people from the
Valley died or were taken into captivity during this war.
A problem surfaced after General Edward Braddock's force of 2,500, including
George Washington and 250 Virginians, were ambushed traveling to Fort Duquesne, on
the Monongahela River, in July, 1755. The Braddock Road was cut west toward the
Ohio River but ran through the Lower Valley at Winchester. Unintentionally the road
also was an avenue for Indian raiding parties traveling east who now perceived the
English as cowards and poor fighters. The road ended in the Lower Valley at
Winchester, foupded in March 1744. By 20 February 1755 George Washington had
written to ask Governor Dinwiddie to increase the support to the frontier and to build a
fort at Winchester. Washington said, "The inhabitants who now are in forts are greatly
distressed for the want of ammunition and provisions and keep asking me for these. I
have none to give and see people in forts without food" Such colonial military failures
as Braddock's defeat always were followed by serious Indian raiding upon the frontier.
After March 1756 there were twenty skirmishes and over 100 casualties. Washington's
troops were spread as thin as two soldiers per mile on this frontier from 1754 to 1757.
The years 1755 —1756 will be remembered as the most murderous of frontier life.
Cabins and barns in the Valley burned like funeral pyres. Governor Dinwiddie made
George Washington command -in -chief of the Virginia forces in August, 1757 and in
charge of defenses in the Valley. Adding to Washington's problems was American
general distrust of a standing army as well as the pacifist beliefs of the settlers. The
solution hit upon was to stay on the defense by constructing a series of forts,
blockhouses, and stockades. This would allow small garrisons in conjunction with local
people to protect the settlers. Few forts had been built prior to 1756 but that year saw
completion of the majority of forts in the area. Forts were for depots, storage of food and
fodder, and rallying points in times of danger. The presence of forts also encouraged
people to move into the area. By September of 1757 Fort Loudoun was completed in
Winchester on an half acre of land, 96 feet on a side and including four bastions.
There were three classes of defensive structures on the frontier. The blockhouse
was the most simple, usually a square two -story log building, with the second floor
overhanging the first. There were numerous rifle holes in the Logs. Nieswander's Fort
was probably in this class. The stockade was much stronger than a blockhouse, often a
double log structure two stories high, surrounded at a distance by a high fence of stakes
or palisade. Forts were the ultimate structure, usually square having a blockhouse at each
corner with each blockhouse connected by a palisade fence.
Stockades and forts were for garrisons with sleeping arrangements and served as
places of refuge for many people. Blockhouses, when not designated to be built in an
area, often were made by families. These blockhouse were fabricated by community
labor and private funds, and therefore reserved for selected families in time of danger. A
situation could arise where a dozen or fewer Indians might cause those owning the
blockhouse to flee into it with the clothes on their backs and what they could grab.
In March 1756 the Assembly of Virginia authorized the building of a cordon of
forts on the frontier, the construction to be overseen by Captain Peter Hog. These
structures usually were on the heads of creeks extending toward the Allegheny
Mountains. There are several extant lists of these forts describing the number of militia
to be stationed there, distance from one to another, and the name the officer in charge.
They all had names and geographical location descriptions. Some were built some were
not. Fort Nieswander is not one of them. The name Nieswander, in all of its variations
of spelling, is not mentioned in connection with this cordon of forts project. The closest
was Stephen's Fort on Cedar Creek, ten or fifteen miles from Major Robert White's Fort
near the Capon River in the North Mountain neighborhood.
Even though Washington thought the best defense was a good offense, he was
unable to muster enough troops from the locals to take the offense. Washington wrote
"Those who now remain are collected in small forts, out of which there is no prevailing
on them to stir, 0.nd every plantation is deserted." Also there was no cooperation among
settlements in the Lower Valley. When the people of Hampshire County appealed to
Frederick County for help against an impending Indian attack, the people of Frederick
County said, "Let Hampshire take care of itself as we will do if we are attacked."
In summary the ruins called Nieswander's Fort, if the ruins are of a blockhouse,
was a private one reserved for the Nieswander family and friends. Its present location, on
a part of the Cedar Creek Battlefield far from a main road, as well as its undocumented
history, argue that saving the site would serve no historical purpose.
January 2006 hemstone Middletown
APPENDIX C
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS