A digital data center being considered for more than 2,000 acres next to Manassas National Battlefield Park in Virginia has been called the "greatest threat" in recent history to the battlefield and drawn opposition from filmmaker Ken Burns, who has urged Prince William County officials to oppose the project.
The "PW Digital Gateway" proposal requires the county to switch the zoning of the desired location from agricultural or estate and environmental resource to technology.
In a letter (attached below) sent January 5 to Ann Wheeler, chair of the county supervisors, Burns wrote that the battlefield park's superintendent, in a letter to Wheeler, had said the project is the "single greatest threat to Manassas National Battlefield Park in nearly three decades."
"The warning of the superintendent should not be taken lightly," wrote Burns, one of the country's preeminent documentary filmmakers whose credits include The National Parks: America's Best Idea. "As a student and chronicler of American history for more than 40 years, I can attest to how fragile our precious heritage is and how susceptible it can be to the ravages of 'progress.'
"I learned while making my documentary series The Civil War in the late 1980s—and again when I made my 2009 series on the history of the national parks—how crucial the preservation of our historic landscapes is, and I fear the devastating impact the development of up to 2,133 acres of data centers will have on this hallowed ground," he added.
Brandon Bies, the park's superintendent, wrote a lengthy letter to the county planner in December in which he pointed out that "a 10-acre portion of the application area falls within what the United States Congress has designated as part of Manassas National Battlefield Park -- lands which can and should be part of a National Park. In addition, not all areas where soldiers fought and died are within the park boundary. Over 100 acres of land under consideration have been designated by the congressionally authorized American Battlefield Protection Program as part of the battlefield 'core area.'"
"These are lands where battle action took place and are typically thought to be 'hallowed ground,'" continued Bies. "Changing the planned land use of these areas would inhibit the mission of the Park to preserve and honor the sacrifices of the 4,000 Americans who died at Manassas."
The First Battle of Bull Run (First Manassas) was fought near Manassas, Virginia, on July 21, 1861. The Second Battle of Bull Run (Second Manassas) was fought over nearly the same ground during August 28-30, 1862.
Back in 2008, Professor Emeritus Robert Janiskee wrote in the Traveler that concerns were growing over threats development posed to the battlefield.
The two battles commemorated at the 5,100-acre park, both Confederate victories, were fought less than 30 miles southwest of our nation’s capital in an area of northern Virginia that has experienced tremendous economic growth over the past few decades. Fast-growing Prince William and Fairfax counties are now so heavily developed that green space and large trees have become comparatively scarce in many areas. Locals fear that few mature trees will be left unless development is checked and strict tree protection ordinances are enforced. Another concern at Manassas and other Civil War battlefield parks is encroaching development that obscures historic sightlines. ... Some battlefield parks, such as Fredericksburg and & Spotsylvania National Military Park, are almost completely surrounded by development and exist as historic islands in a modern milieu. In such cases, historic sightlines extend only as far as the park boundary.
In reviewing the current proposal, Justin Patton, the Prince William County archaeologist, wrote that the project would "have a high potential to adversely affect cultural resources in the following forms: indirect effects such as Audio, and Visual; and direct effects in the destruction of the resource. Transportation improvements necessary to implement land use and zoning changes, will likely have an indirect and direct effects on our history as well."
Patton also noted that land within the proposal could hold significant archaeological artifacts from the Civil War:
The staff historian at the Manassas National Battlefield Park provided information on Civil War activity that occurred on or that may have occurred in the South Sector. That portion west of Pageland Land, Pageland farm, may contain Confederate encampments that were occupied during August and September 1861 and associated burials from soldier deaths in camp. There may also be soldier burials and camps as a result from the adjacent field hospital that was in use during and after the Second Battle of Manassas. Confederate artillery batteries were likely located in the area of the railroad bed, based on reports from relic hunters who found unexploded ordinance and dropped bullets. That portion east of Pageland Lane has potential for unmarked military graves and unexploded ordinance from a heated exchange of artillery fire on the morning of August 29, 1862.
The archaeologist also recommended that the proposed zoning redesignation be rejected for areas that the American Battlefield Protection Program identified as part of the battlefield 'core area.'"
A public meeting on the project is set for January 27 at the Beacon Hall Conference Center on the George Mason University SciTech Campus in Manassas.
Comments
I have said this once with Big Cypress and I'll say it again. Utilize Land and Water Conservation Funding to aquire these 2,000 acres. LWCF is fully funded and the only aspect lacking is to appropriate the funding within current or future fiscal years. LWCF is the biggest piggybank we have.
This is a terrible idea and would have a severe impact on one of the great civil war battlefields in the national park system. It has to be stopped at all costs.
Harry Butowsky
Mr. Burns is an elitist who is glorifying the Confederacy.
Would a destination type venue such as a brewery like the Two Silos/Farm Brew Live/Barrel Oak Winery, which is always active and packed with people year-round, be preferable to a data center next to the Battlefield Park? It wouldn't require a change to the Rural Crescent's current zoning.
One of the landowners received a letter from a brewery company looking to purchase 100 acres next to the Battlefield. When the landowner contacted the Brewery company, they said the location being adjacent to the Battlefield would give them a niche no one else can replicate, and it being in Northern Virginia with it's young workers and disposable income and close to I-66 and Loudoun would make it an ideal location.
If the National Battlefield Park plays its cards right, it can turn the threat of data centers into a boon. Here's how:
(1) Historic View-sheds.
The Rural Area Plan designation, which allows for agribusinesses and 10-acre residential lots, does not prevent historic view-sheds in the Battlefield Park from being disrupted in the future by new 10-acre McMansions or by wineries, breweries, and other large agri-tourism "event oriented" facilities.
Yet if the County changes the zoning laws to allow data centers, there is nothing to prevent the Park from working closely with the County to require that the data centers provide tree buffers and other mitigations such as height restrictions on structures.
(2) Traffic Congestion
The Rural Area designation and its moratorium on rezoning have done nothing to prevent the steadily increasing traffic backups within the Battlefield Park as well as along the Pageland corridor bordering the Park.
Yet, there is nothing to prevent the Park from working closely with the County to require data centers to implement road improvements to alleviate traffic congestion along Pageland Lane and Sudley Road.
(3) Traffic Through the Park
In 2013, The Park lost its battle to close off the portion of route 29 through its center to through traffic. Now is its chance! Why not require the data centers to implement road improvements to divert traffic around the Battlefield Park via Pageland Lane?
A few things
1. The federal government has an legal limit to how much the can offer to pay for a property. Frequently, there is somebody with deeper pockets willing to pay more than the federal government can offer. As a workaround, some nonprofits like the American Battlefield Trust, The Conservation Fund, and the Trust for Public Land will raise funds to purchase property then sell it at a loss to the National Park Service.
2. Eminent Domain, the forced taking of land by a goverment entity with monetary compensation, is not currently possible in today's political environment. Congressional representatives insist on appropriated funds being only used on willing sellers. That is those are willing to sell to federal goverment at the reduced rate the government is able to offer.
3. The park service is allowed to only purchase land within the authorized boundary of the park unit. Most of this land is outside of that boundary and getting congress to change that boundary can take decades. Some NPS LWCF funds are available through the American Battlefield Protection Program for a NGO, State, or local government to purchase full or partial interest (a conservation easement that prohibits development but retains the property in private ownership) but again these funds are limited and the seller has to be willing.
In 2013, The Park lost its battle to close off the portion of route 29 to traffic cutting straight through its middle. Now is its chance to seize the opportunity to realize this long-desired goal. It could work with the County to require that the proposed data center pay for road improvements to divert the through traffic to skirt around its southern border via Pageland Lane.
There is also nothing to prevent the Park from working closely with the County to require that the data centers provide tree buffers and other mitigations such as height restrictions on structures.
Under current zoning laws, 10-acre McMansions, wineries, breweries, and other large-scale agri-tourism "event-oriented" venues can be developed with no input from the Park.
A case in point: One of the Pageland Lane landowners has been contacted by a brewery like the Two Silos/Farm Brew Live/Barrel Oak Winery, which is always active and packed with people year-round. They are especially interested in the location because it is adjacent to the Battlefield would give them a niche no one else can replicate. Also, Northern Virginia, with it's young workers and disposable income and the proximity to I-66 and Loudoun would make it an ideal location.
Would such a venue, currently allowed without input from the Park, be preferable to a data center?