Defining Feature Integrity

VII. Defining Feature Integrity
The environment of Chemung County, New York and the immediate area of the Chemung Battlefield were influential in the tactics and movements of troops during the Battle of Chemung and in the preservation or disturbance of the battlefield. The Chemung River valley and the glacial ridges directed the Continentals approach towards the Village of New Chemung. Glacial ridges also allowed the British allied Native American warriors a means to attempt an ambush on the Continentals and the swamp related to a glacial kettle lake allowed an avenue of retreat when the ambush failed. Following the battle, the Chemung River valley became a fertile area for farms and residential settlement. The river, streams, and creeks allowed for basic industry and the growing population in the county promoted commercial and industrial development throughout the region. Transportation routes developed to support these later settlements. These developments have protected some portions of the battlefield and disturbed others. This section discusses the environmental setting of the battlefield during and after the battle. A discussion of soils and their possible effect on future archeological testing is also discussed.

7.1 Environmental Setting

The Chemung battlefield is widespread [text deleted]. Although it is a long battlefield, it is contained in the single environmental setting of the Chemung River Valley. It is part of the southwestern plateau section of New York in the Allegheny Plateau physiographic province (USDA 1973: 96). The range in elevation between the ridges and the valleys is about 200 to 800 feet depending on the size of the valley (USDA 1973: 96). Glacial action and the Chemung River define the topography and soils of the Chemung River Valley and the Chemung battlefield. This area of New York and Pennsylvania was completely covered with an ice sheet during the Pleistocene. The presence and recession of this ice deposited a layer of glacial till consisting of unsorted clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders across the entire county (USDA 1973: 96). Glaciation initiated the formation of ridges and valets in the county. The Chemung River and its tributaries helped through erosion to better establish the landscape. [text deleted]

Glaciers and drainages established two main soil types in the vicinity of the battlefield (Figures 27-33). The ridges and hills contain Arnot, Chenango, Homer, Howard, Lordstown, Mardin, Phelps, Valois, Volusia, and Woostern soil series. These soils are channery silt loams related to glacial till. The valleys consist of Alton, Alluvial land, Holly, Middlebury, Papakating, Pope, Tioga, and Udifluvents soil series, which are alluvial sediments associated with streams, creeks, and rivers. [text deleted] The areas of alluvial sediments in the valleys present the most possibility for deep deposits. Depending on the rate of deposition, the battle related deposits might be buried under later flood or stream deposits. Deep deposits may interfere with metal detecting or magnetometer survey. Areas of heavy stream flow may have eroded cultural deposits. As such, the areas of alluvial soils present some issues for identifying battle related deposits. The hills and ridges had little deposition after the glacial till and so battle related deposits would likely be identifiable near the surface. The Atherton, Unadilla, Willington, and Williamson soil series are related to glacial lake deposits. These soils have a high water table and mucky wetlands environment. Willington soils occur on stream terraces or lake plains and are made up of lake laid deposits. The water table is often high during the spring or periods of high precipitation (USDA 1973: 90). Atherton and Willington soils are mostly restricted on the battlefield to the swamp defining feature. These soils are stable in terms of deposition and as such, battle related deposits should be identifiable with little difficulty. Made land was also present in portions of the battlefield. Made lands are areas usually characterized as cut and fill. The presence of this fill most likely means battle related deposits have been deeply buried, and/or scraped away resulting in limited integrity remaining.

Figure 27. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Figure 28. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Figure 29. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Figure 30. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Figure 31. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Figure 32. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Figure 33. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

7.2 Post Battle Land Use and Alterations

Within the Chemung River Valley, Revolutionary War veterans and other Euro-American settlers expanded on the previous Native American villages to create an agricultural community in the region. The area surrounding the Chemung Battlefield had a Native American presence from the Archaic period to the Revolutionary War (Loren et al. 1996, 1997; Hohman et al. 1997; Knapp 2002; Knapp et al. 2003). Villages, farmed fields, and trails characterized this occupation shortly before and during the Revolutionary War. With the end of the war, these lands became enticing to the citizens of the new republic who either during the Sullivan-Clinton campaign saw the fertility and possibilities of the landscape or those who had heard of it. Euro-American settlement started in earnest immediately after the Revolutionary War (USDA 1973: 95). Many of the earliest settlers were veterans of the Continental Army, including the family of Isaac Baldwin Sr. (Grills and Zlotucha Kozub 2007). Their settlements were primarily agricultural with small villages and a basic industry based on mills and blacksmiths based on the county's creeks and rivers.

The landscape related to the Chemung Battlefield and the Sullivan-Clinton campaign aided early settlement. Not only were many of the settlers veterans, they used the paths followed by the campaign to establish transportation routes. The Chemung Battlefield was located along an established trail connecting various Indian villages in Pennsylvania and New York. The trail continued in use by Native Americans, and by early settlers to the region after the Sullivan-Clinton expedition [text deleted] Settlers positioned their farms, mills, and homes in relation to this trail and later road.

Two farming families provide good examples of the use of the Chemung River Valley during the 19th century, the Baldwins and the Lowmans. Both families were prominent in the early history of the region and in the landscape's development following the American Revolution. The Public Archaeology Facility has excavated farmstead sites related to both of these families (Knapp et al. 2003). The excavations of these sites concentrated on the household occupations from the early 19th century into the 20th century.

The Baldwin Family was one of the original settlers in what would become the Village of Lowman after the Revolutionary War. Issac Baldwin, Sr. and his family were originally from Connecticut and settled in the Wyoming Valley of Pennsylvania in the 1770s as part of Connecticut's claim to the area. The territorial conflict between Connecticut and Pennsylvania's claim over the Wyoming Valley led to the First Pennamite War (1769-1771) (Grills and Zlotucha Kozub 2007). The Baldwins most likely were involved in this conflict as Connecticut settlers. During the American Revolution, a more disastrous episode occurred with the Wyoming Massacre. This event probably inspired Issac and his four sons, Thomas, Rufus, Waterman, and Isaac Jr. (Lowman 1938:221) to join the Continental Army. Issac Sr., Issac Jr., Thomas and Rufus joined Captain Simon Spalding's Wyoming Independent Company, while Waterman joined Captain Durkee's company near Easton, Pennsylvania (Lowman 1938:214). The Baldwins who joined Capt. Spalding's company were part of the Sullivan-Clinton campaign and saw first hand the fertility of the Chemung Valley. After the war, Issac and his family settled in the Chemung Valley, tiring of the conflict in the Wyoming Valley between Connecticut and Pennsylvania (Grills and Zlotucha Kozub 2007).

The Baldwins were primarily farmers in the Chemung Valley. They supplemented their farming income by working as innkeepers, running a general store, operating some of the early mills in the region, and a liquor distillery. During the war, Waterman Baldwin had served as scout and been captured by the Seneca. The Seneca war chief, Cornplanter (Garganwahgah) adopted Waterman and in this position, Waterman learned to speak Seneca. Waterman served as an interpreter for Colonel Thomas Proctor in post war negotiations with Cornplanter. On this expedition, Col. Proctor and Waterman Baldwin stopped at Issac Baldwin Sr.'s inn and provided a glimpse of the battlefield's landscape after the battle.

Dined at Mr. Isaac Baldwin's, and halted for the night, and reviewed the ground on which the British and Indians were entrenched, for better than a mile, against the forces under the command of Major General Sullivan. I also saw many traces made by our round and grape shot against them, and a large collection of pieces of 5 1/2 inch shells, which I had the pleasure of formerly causing to be exploded amongst them. Expenses at Mr. Baldwin's for present diet, provisions, and forage, 53s. 910d. (American State Papers, Indian Affairs, 1792:150).

Waterman did not move to the Chemung Valley until 1798 (Lowman 1938:222).

With the close of the 18th century, the Baldwin family had started to retreat from the Chemung Valley. Silas and Waterman were the only Baldwins listed on the Chemung County tax rolls for 1799 (Grills and Zlotucha Kozub 2007). The Baldwins had sold their property by the end of the 1700s, but established the basic settlement that would become the Village of Lowman. Their farms, stores, residences, and early roads initiated a change to the valley and the battlefield's landscape. They cleared fields and allowed for increased settlement and movement through the area. The Lowman family who took over the lands of the Baldwins, and other early settlers would more dramatically reshape the battlefield's environment.

The Lowman's occupation in the area of the battlefield began at the end of the 18th century. Jacob Lowman was a river trader from Middletown, Pennsylvania. In 1792, he established a logging business at Tioga Point, Athens, Pennsylvania. He moved this enterprise to the Village of Chemung and later the area of the Newtown Battlefield, the village of Lowman in 1799 (Knapp et al. 2003). Jacob Lowman bought his initial property from a merchant, Guy Maxwell, in 1799 (Knapp et al. 2003). Maxwell bought the property in 1797 from William Wynkoop who had previously bought the parcel from Roger Conate. Conate was the original patent holder for the property and presumably a Revolutionary War veteran. He continued to buy land in the vicinity and at 1799 had a total acreage of 386 ha (953 acres) (Knapp et al. 2003: 138). Additions to his property continued into the 19th century. His industries included logging, trading, a whiskey distillery, and a dairy farm. These enterprises most likely had an effect on the western area of the battlefield. His logging probably made the biggest alterations to the landscape. It is uncertain how much of the area of the Chemung battlefield was wooded. The Village of Chemung and the surrounding plain probably had a low amount of woods being cleared for settlement and agricultural fields. Some of these fields are specifically identified by Continentals as being south of the village and the Chemung River (Lt. Thomas Blake from Cook 1887: 39). The rest of the battlefield probably still contained woods and swamps. Continental troops stated that their approach was hampered by steep defiles, swamps, and woods (Sgt. Moses Fellow from Cook 1887: 87). With settlement, Jacob Lowman and the other settlers cut down the woods and drained swamps to clear fields, as part of the logging industry, and for domestic use.

Farmsteads changed the nature of settlement in the area of the battlefield, but transportation had some of the biggest effects on the integrity of the battlefield's features. The majority of the battlefield's space was the Continental Army's avenue of approach from Fort Sullivan to New Chemung and the ambush point. This avenue of approach followed the historic Native American trail, and later settlers continued to rely on this path as a transportation route. In the late 18th century and early 19th century, transportation through the Chemung Valley was restricted to the Native American trail and some other local roads. As the 19th century continued, the growth of urban areas outside of the battlefield pushed the development of new transportation methods. Towns, such as Elmira, Binghamton, and Waverly, New York, and Sayre in Pennsylvania had become industrial and commercial centers requiring increased access to other markets. In the early to mid 19th century, canals were seen as the most expedient form of travel. The Erie Canal during the 1820s had shown the capabilities canals had in promoting economic trade. Across New York, smaller canals were built to connect separate markets. The push for the Chemung Canal began in the 1820s, with state approval received in 1829. Construction of the canal began in Elmira in 1830 and was completed in 1833. The canal connected Seneca Lake to the Chemung River.

The Junction Canal Company built a spur for the Chemung Canal in the 1850s. The spur passed along the southern base of the hogback and proceeded west until it met the Chemung River. A portion of the canal is still present in the area north of the Continental Army's avenue of approach (Figure 42) and south of the hogback. The canal had a minimal effect on the Chemung Battlefield being located west of the ambush point and swamp at the west end of the battlefield and running along the northern boundary of the plain defining feature.

Due to flooding and constant maintenance costs, the canal was not profitable and was quickly replaced by the Erie Railroad and later with the addition of the Delaware Lackawanna and Western Railroad. The Erie Railroad was first chartered in 1832 connecting New York City to Lake Erie. An 1834 map (Figure 45) proposed the route of the line just south of the Chemung River. The 1857 and 1902 maps show that the Erie railroad line ran along the south side of the Chemung River and probably had little to no effect on the battlefield (Figure 43). The New York Lackawanna and Western railroad was completed in 1882 and connected Binghamton to Buffalo as a competing line to the Erie Railroad. This line according to the 1902 map for the most part ran south of the Chemung Battlefield and ran approximately in line with the current NY-17/I-86 road. The location of the line most likely had little affect on the battlefield since it ran south of the defining features, including the Swamp and avenue of approach and retreat. There may have been some affect on the Ambush point defining feature as it crossed the glacial ridge associated with the ambush point. This may have cut out some of the southern end of the feature. At the eastern end of the battlefield, the railroad follows along the northern bank of the Chemung River that may coincide with the Continental's avenue of approach. Descriptions were limited on the exact path of the avenue of approach in this area. The 1779 map (Figure 37) of the expedition does suggest that the avenue of approach followed the northern bank. If this was the path, then the rail line would definitely have crossed the avenue of approach. The Delaware Lackawanna and Western Railroad ultimately merged with the Erie railroad in 1960 due to repair costs related to Hurricane Diane. The new company was called the Erie Lackawanna Railroad. Even before the merger, the Delaware Lackawanna and Western line between Binghamton and Corning was being closed and was completely unused by 1956. In the 1960s, NY-17 was moved south over much of the abandoned Delaware Lackawanna and Western line. The road was expanded to a four-lane highway. Currently NY 17 is being upgraded to Interstate 86. The highway for the most part runs south of the battlefield. It does cross a section of the ridge with the ambush point. The road and the current upgrades for the change over to I-86 may have cut into a portion of the Chemung ambuscade.

Figure 34. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Figure 35. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Figure 36. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Figure 37. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Figure 38. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Figure 39. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Figure 40. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Figure 41. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Figure 42. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Figure 43. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Figure 44. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Figure 45. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Figure 46. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Figure 47. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Figure 48. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Figure 49. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Figure 50. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Figure 51. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Figure 52. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Figure 53. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

7.3 General Threats to Defining Feature Integrity

Transportation

The major actions affecting the integrity of the battlefield are 19th century and modern transportation structures. Much of the battle was defined by the Continental army's avenue of approach from Fort Sullivan. Local county roads, railroads, and some highways approximately follow the probable avenue of approach. The local roads have little disturbance to the overall landscape of the trail used by the troops. What changes there have been consist of paving and shoulder work (Photo 2). The larger highways and roads have led to secondary disturbances to the landscape related to residential and commercial development. This is most pronounced along the eastern section of the battlefield [text deleted]

Previous archeological testing conducted by the Public Archaeology Facility has noted that the areas adjacent to these roads consist of fill and ground disturbance related to the construction of the road. The testing also suggested that such disturbance was restricted to the right of way for the road, approximately 10 to 50 meters (33 to 164 ft) off the side of the road. The local roads appear to follow historic roads and trails. Although their construction has disturbed the material condition of the historic roads and trails, those following the older routes have had little effect on the overall landscape. The major threat posed by these modern roads is their use for transporting water by truck for gas drilling just across the Pennsylvania border. The added traffic has hastened the deterioration of the road and future improvements may expand the width of these roads and add new exit ramps.

[text deleted]

[text deleted]

Photo 2. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Photo 3. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Photo 4. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Commercial Development

Other threats to the battlefield's landscape and features include commercial development within and adjacent to the battlefield. Commercial development is most visible along the avenue of approach [text deleted] The development consists of strip malls, stores, and light manufacturing businesses with associated structures and paved areas. The cut and fill methods of construction for the commercial infrastructure has most likely disturbed the avenue of approach defining feature in this section given its ephemeral nature. The commercial development has led to an alteration of the battlefield's landscape. Development has occurred at a lower level outside of the villages due to the presence of agricultural fields and local zoning regulations. However, this may change as economic factors have pushed some farmers in the area to sell or lease their land. [text deleted]

Photo 5. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Photo 6. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Photo 7. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Photo 8. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

7.4 Condition of Chemung Battlefield Defining Features

The following is a list of the current condition of each defining feature related to the battle in respect to the above mentioned sources of disturbance.

[text deleted]

Photo 9. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Photo 10. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Photo 11. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Photo 12. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

[text deleted]

Photo 13. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

[text deleted]

Photo 14. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Photo 15. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Photo 16. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

[text deleted]

Photo 17. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Photo 18. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

[text deleted]

Photo 19. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Photo 20. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Photo 21. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

[text deleted]

Photo 22. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Photo 23. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Photo 24. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Photo 25. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Photo 26. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

[text deleted]

Photo 27. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

[text deleted]

Photo 28. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

[text deleted]

Photo 29. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Photo 30. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

[text deleted]

Photo 31. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Photo 32. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

[text deleted]

Photo 33. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Photo 34. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

[text deleted]

Photo 35. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

[text deleted]

Photo 36. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

Photo 37. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).

The Chemung Battlefield's current landscape consists of residential neighborhoods, industrial and commercial zones, and agricultural farmland. Each of these various spaces has served to protect or disturb the battlefield's overall landscape. The battlefield's level of integrity is directly related to the level of urbanization found in the surrounding landscape. [text deleted]These features, as with most battlefield features, were fairly ephemeral. Fort Sullivan included constructed structures and deposits that may provide evidence of the occupation of the landscape. [text deleted] The historic descriptions of the path taken by the Continental forces are not clear as the march occurred at night and the scouts were repeatedly lost. As such it is difficult to develop a precise location for the path and the overall visual and cultural landscape has been altered by commercial and residential development so that there is nothing remaining of the battlefield's sense of place.

Preservation of the battlefield increases to the west with the decrease in urbanization. Settlement did occur throughout the area during the 19th century and 20th centuries, but at a decreased rate. Instead of commercialized villages, the rest of the battlefield is defined by farmland. Transportation routes, such as county roads, interstates, and highways, have exploited the historic paths. This exploitation, though, does help to reinforce the visual landscape of the Avenue of Approach defining features. The sense of Continental Army's path across the landscape can still be visualized.

The vicinity of the Plain, New Chemung, and Chemung Ambuscade defining features has the highest level of preservation. The Village of New Chemung may have been lost during the Battle of Chemung. However, its surrounding landscape of farmland and cornfields is still present. Later occupants have continued to use the landscape for farming. Modern intrusions related to technological improvements in farming and other industry, such as gas drilling, have made an impact on the landscape. However, they have not erased the battlefield's sense of place in the landscape. Cultural deposits from the battle and the Village of New Chemung are most likely still present in the fields providing research potential for academics. Other visitors could also visualize and interpret the flow of battle across this landscape given the minimal changes to the landscape.

This does not mean the battlefield is pristine or free of threats. Transportation, commercialization, and industrialization are present threats to the landscape. The development of hydrofracking drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania and proposed for New York State has not directly affected the battlefield, but indirect impacts are increasingly visible in the area surrounding the battlefield. Water trucks collecting water from the Chemung River [text deleted] are requiring infrastructural development for the collection of water and the construction and increased maintenance of roads. The drilling will also increase the development of the Chemung County landfill. For this reason, future research and preservation initiatives should focus on the valley containing the Plain, New Chemung, and Chemung Ambuscade defining features.