Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
003-06 O-N Minerals (Chemstone) - 639.13 Acres RA to EM - Back Creek - Backfile (3)
Preserve Frederick A grassroots campaign to promote, compatible development that strengthens our communities and preserves our rural character. i A grassroots campaign to promote compatible development that strengthens our communities and preserves our rural character www.shenandoahvaIleynetwork.org/PreserveFrederick.htmI Preserve Frederick www.geocities.com/saveMiddletown/now P.O. Box 562 Donations by mail: Piedmont Environmental Middletown, Virginia Council -Preserve Frederick 22645 (540) 868-0498 Preserve Frederick (540) 869-5031 P.O. Box 562 Preservefrederick@yahoo.com Middletown, VA 22645 Be certain you indicate: SVN Frederick in the memo line Preserve Frederick Speech Outline Introduction 1. Larry Hamilton Inadequasies of O-N Minerals' application 2. EM Uses -Wendy Hamilton 3. View shed and zoning -Dale Nichols 4. Archeological Survey/Cemetery-Dee Burgoyn Comprehensive Plan 5. Middletown -Carl Bernhards Jr. Comprehensive Plan 6. Mining Location -Julie Clevenger 7. Open Spaces and Protection of Environment -Mary Bowser 8. Land Uses -Terri Loria 9. Local Heavy Industrial -Fred Potter Water 10. Water — Personal Story — David Nichols 11. AU Mining -Dr. Ranna Lachlan 12. Karst -Bob Luce 13. Water 1 — Unsafe Containment — Rob Magnus 14. Water 2 — Lease — Shayne Lachlan 15. Water 3 — Capacity — Growth - Paul Clevenger Quality of Life 16. Middletown Story -Betsy Hickman 17. Blasting -Testimonial from Kim Cunningham -spoken by Debbie Miller 18. Blasting hazards -Hal Stalcup Air Quality 19. Quantity of air pollutants -Anne Carter Health 20/1 Neuro Disorders -water -Eric Steere (Eric got 2 pgs) 22. Particulate Matter -air -Keith McNeely 23. Educational effects and toxins -Sharon Santemyers 24. Truck Emissions -Rebecca Stalcup 25. Safety and Proximity -Laurie Hunter 26. Public Safety and trucks- Officer Kevin or Liz Barrington Traffic 27. Road degradation and routes- Joe Hickman Environmental 28. Part 1 Kaine Letter- ReGene Rybol 29. Part 2 Kaine Letter -Dr. Charles Hagan Economic Impact 30. Tourism -Bill Hunter 31. (a) Real Estate — Steve DeBreuller 31. (b) Real Estate — Community Impact — Clarence Steere O-N Minerals Executive Summary 32. Steve Beall 33. Kurt Borgoyn 34. Gary Nichols Commissioners Concerns from April 5, 2006 35. Steve Miller Petition Submission/Public Support for Denial 36. Brooke Dalton Conclusion 37. (a) Clean Up Batter - Paul Kisak 37. (b) Jeff Carter 38. Quality of Life — Vienna - Walter McCauley 4 Introduction for Preserve Frederick — Larry Hamilton Madame Chairman, Commisioners — my name is Larry Hamilton and I live in Back Creek District. I'm a member of Preserve Frederick. When this all began I said we didn't have any answers and we certainly didn't even know the questions. But -- on April 5th -- with 12 days notice -- we thought we were prepared. We hit the ground running and haven't stopped. Your gift of 60 days is appreciated. Tonight, some members of Preserve Frederick will be telling you why we oppose O-N's rezoning proposal. Two weeks ago, a reporter asked us to name the one thing most concerning about this request. Not possible. An ugly strip mining operation tangled up with industrial uses and future water storage will all negatively impact historic Middletown's community and -his County. The County's roadmap - the Comprehensive Plan - does not provide the compass or give direction for addressing massive incompatible land use changes like this. Serious issues of liability on many different levels may come back to haunt us all if this is passed. As taxpayers and voters, we bear the burden and pay the consequences — one way or the other. We strongly believe a dirty, industrial corridor like this, has the potential to affect every citizen in Frederick County, the Shenandoah Region — all the way to the Chesapeake Bay and beyond. This is not simply a vote for mining and heavy industrial land uses — it is a vote for water. That is wrong. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority's connection to this industrial land use application needs to be completely extracted and thoroughly examined on its own merits in a public forum. Three of the County's crown jewels are at risk here. Cedar Creek, our National Historic Park and Middletown enhance the vitality of this County's quality of life, tourism, rural beauty and charm. It is why we all choose to live here. As Commissioners, you can provide leadership and common sense. Say no to this and yes to other compatible development that strengthens our communities and preserves our rural character. Again, we thank you and ask that this application be denied. Inadequacies of Comp Plan - EM Uses —Wendy Hamilton Good evening — I'm Wendy Hamilton from Back Creek District and a founding member of Preserve Frederick. The goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to protect and improve the living environment in Frederick County. Tearing down forests, devastating groundwater sources, devaluing farms and homes — is a far cry from that. This degrading industrial application includes uses that won't work for our rural community. O-N quickly points out the silence of the comp plan on EM uses. Silence is no excuse to consider or allow dirty industry in the very place that helps support some of Frederick County's clean industry and where tourists flock to watch Civil War reenactments while spending their hard earned dollars. While the County Comprehensive Plan has yet to be finished - the County has known it has needed to address locations for EM zoning. Neither taxpaying voters or vacationers should have to pay this kind of price because this work hasn't been completed. . When my kids were little and they wanted something important, they'd practically jump through hoops to get it. I think most people do. O-N's inaction by not responding promptly with a new application or adequately addressing proffers as suggested by Commissioners weeks ago, speaks volumes. We wonder if they are scrambling now to catch up only because last week Preserve Frederick informed 27,500 homeowners about the County's third battle over a massive dirty industry proposal that was tied to water? O-N's financial gains cannot be given at a higher value than homeowners, businesses and high tax generating, clean industry. Congressman Wolf and our U. S. Senators valued this area enough to provide us with a national treasure. We won't let this country down. We'll fight this Battle of Cedar Creek too. This elegant piece of property deserves respect, stewardship and protection. O-N says they are a good neighbor. Actions speak louder than words. As a good neighbor they can prove themselves by deeding all of this land over to the United States Government to be added to the Park boundaries as was originally intended. Please deny this application. Thank you. 2 Inadequacies — Viewshed — Zoning — Dale Nichols My name is Dale Nichols, I live in Back Creek District, and I am a member of Preserve Frederick. My family dates back 8 generations in Frederick County. Viewshed mitigation won't work. Drive past the National Historic Park at Belle Grove and look. Berms... addressed in O-N/s June, 2005 Proposed Proffer Statement, does not identify berms minimum height, it only states berms shall be limited to a maximum of 30 feet. We've been told by Mr. Maddox that we'll need a 40 foot berm (the height of a 4 story building) to shield us from the proposed quarry they want to dig 1200 feet from our back door. Nothing - nothing will insure our viewshed and shield our home from quarry dust, dirt and particle matter. We call our home "Sunset Porch" because of the magnificent and breathtaking views and sunsets. It's why we bought this piece of property 10 years ago. We shouldn't have to worry about looking right into a quarry pit. When we looked at our property - before purchasing it - this land was zoned RA. Multiple quarry companies have owned this land over 50 years, why did they all wait to apply for rezoning? Again we say, Frederick County knew this property could be mined in the future, why did they continue to allow residential development to occur all through this part of the valley? We did our homework. Chemstone told us 10 years ago, before we purchased our property, that this land was to be used as a buffer for the Middletown quarry. And 10 years ago, families on Westernview were asking the same question and told the same answer. Zoning laws in place then and now should be protecting us. If this can happen here, how confident can the rest of the County citizens feel? County officials LITERALLY hold our quality of life, our health, our property values, our children's lives - in their hands. The ripple effect of this decision will be felt for centuries to come. Please listen carefully to all the issues, consider the lives of the citizens of Historic Middletown. The Battle of Cedar Creek changed history on this land, and so will your decision. We ask you all to say no to this application. Thank You! Inadequacies — Archaeological Survey — Cemetery — Dee Burgoyn My name is Dee Burgoyn. I live in Back Creek District and am a member of Preserve Frederick. Phase 1 Archaeological Surveys are promised to Historic Resources Advisory Board for Belle Grove and the National Historic Park - to locate, identify, and comprehensively record all historic sites, buildings, structures and objects on the property if this land were to be rezoned. O-N did not respond to the request for Phase 2 and Phase 3 Surveys if they were warranted. O-N has proffered 8 acres of land to Belle Grove if this application for rezoning is approved. Why does the land have to be rezoned in order for them to give 8 acres to Belle Grove? Can't they already just give it to them? This valley is rich with history. All of it has relevance to who we are and how we got here. One needs only to see the reenactment photo with the quarry operations in plain sight to understand that adding more quarries, asphalt plants or sewage treatment facilities is not going to be a tourist draw or encourage clean industry to locate here There's one more thing that has been overlooked that merits talking about. We are all stunned that at no time in this application is there a whisper of the 12 family members that are buried in the property north of Chapel Road near the abandoned farmhouse. The Tabler Cemetery is clearly marked on the 1986 deed of sale. This family lived there - farmed that land - and were buried there over 125 years ago. They likely watched Custer lead all his soldiers from Blue Spring across to the Cedar Creek Battlefield. They were neighbors of the people who lived in the old farmhouse on Westernview Dr, now owned by my husband and I. These people were laid to rest for eternity in the same location as the proposed quarry. We think that needs a mention. Why wasn't this cemetery addressed in the application - or were we not supposed to know about that either? I don't know about you but I sure care what happens to my family's final resting place. We are very disappointed that O-N has acted like this burial site does not exist. Please vote no to this application. Thank you. 11 Comp Plan — Middletown — SPEAKER My name is Preserve Frederick. I'm live in Back Creek District and am a member of Briefly and to the point, Middletown's Comprehensive Plan is concise in it's need and objective. It's Vision Statement, Section II, page 49 of the Local Economy sums up Middletown's outlook of the contradictions of this application: "The town continues to build upon its major economic resource including Lord Fairfax College, The National Historic Park, the Wayside Theater, the small-town character & the pedestrian -friendly environment. The Town and County continue to identify and develop economic opportunities that are unique to Middletown, including compatible commerce & LIGHT industry, in order to broaden the local tax base and avoid becoming a solely "bedroom" community. " To further support Middletown's stance on historic preservation and future development in the community, Section III page 5 under the Business Goal reads: "The town needs to develop skills and policies that will better enable it to attract and maintain a desired mix of business establishments, and to ensure that the business types, their SCALE, and their locations are in conformance with the planning policies described in SECTION II"- which I just quoted above. And perhaps the most damaging contradictions are: Section II- Page 72 under Implementation Actions and Next Steps Longer Term Actions: "Coordinate with the County and VDOT to implement "traffic calming" elements within and around the Town, especially along Main Street." and in addition, "Work with the County, battlefield representatives and local landowners to better define the battlefield preservation areas." There isn't anything more contradictory to these 4 guidelines then a heavy, dirty industrial corporation plopping itself down in the middle of a rural, historic, national park & battlefield community. Clearly incompatibility screams it's name loud and strong.... Please vote no on this mining re -zoning. Comp Plan — Breakdown for FC - Mining Location — Julie Clevenger Good Evening, my name is Julie Clevenger, I live in Back Creek District and am a founding member of Preserve Frederick. The gaping hole in the Comprehensive Plan is complete lack of direction for where to allow mining operations in the county. Under ISSUES OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL CONCERNS, section 6-11 it states: "Policies are needed concerning how to deal with new requests for large mining operations". This one line sums up the very basic conflict of this entire proposal. Without guidelines for mining, how are you, as public officials expected to make judgments that are fair and knowledgeable on a proposal as vast and vague as this one is? Mining has been occurring in this county for over 100 hundred years. It's mystifying why no guidelines were set forth to be followed before now. One thing is crystal clear - before a proposal of this size is even considered, very cautious guidelines must be in writing for all parties; county, citizens, business industry and developers. Under the comp plan section, 6-11, it states; "Necessary facilities & infrastructure improvements need to be provided for planned business and industrial uses." and also "Uses in these areas should be carefully planned to avoid conflicts and to insure that adequate roads & facilities are provided. Historic Middletown is not equipped or structured to handle intense, heavy, dirty industry baggage that will come with an expansion of 3 new quarries and all the other uses allowable - to our small town. Historic buildings, community businesses, all are the signature that makes us "Middletown". Every aspect of this proposal spells conflict for our town. It's old, rich history and architecture are not conducive to industrial infrastructure changes. Another very contradictory point of the application vs the County's comp plan, 6-11, states: "Business and Industrial Uses need to be separated from Residential Uses, and in some cases, each other to avoid problems that can arise." I cannot fathom where a mining and industrial uses proposal like this would not carry with it huge burdens on the both general public and residents alike. Liabilities that both the county and these potential industries would be subject to could be numerous and costly. This is completely incompatible zoning- Residential & Extractive Manufacturing side by side, are not compatible period. Please vote no on this mining re -zoning. Thank you. 6 Open Spaces — Protection of Environment -Mary Bowser My name is Mary Bowser. I live Back Creek District in the cabin my husband's grandfather built near the historic mill sites on Meadow Brook near it's junction with Cedar Creek. Barry's mother was born at home in one of the houses near Meadow Mills Church. I am a member of Preserve Frederick and am the private homeowner representative and Chairperson of the Advisory Commission for the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove Battlefield National Park. Frederick County's Comprehensive Plan, Land Use section 6-1, states at the beginning, that our county is divided into definitive rural & urban areas, and I quote; "Sufficient lands need to be included in the Urban Development Area. In addition, providing sufficient land in the UDA should also decrease development pressures in the rural areas." This sufficient land refers to land on the East side of Frederick County, not the West. To further support the West's agricultural backbone, the plan further explains, "As land is developed in the eastern portion of the Urban Development Area, the stream valleys are being preserved as environmental open space. This approach contributes to the protection of floodplains and water quality and provides a continuous system of green space. This approach should be continued ". Passing a re -zoning of Rural Areas to Extractive Manufacturing in Middletown, for quarries, a water plant & other uses such as concrete & asphalt plants is in direct violation of yet another important area of our comprehensive plan. It develops an area that has been designated a preserve of environmental open space, and should remain as such. Finally, section 6-7 states: "intrusion of either non-residential or residential uses of different types, can have significant negative impact on existing residential areas. Appropriate separation between uses is needed." This guideline is reinforced in section 6-12 stating: "Different types of business & industrial uses need to be properly separated from each other & from residential uses." This statement needs no explanation. Please vote no on the O-N mining re -zoning- thank you Comp Plan — Land Uses -Terri Loria My name is Terri Loria, I live in Back Creek District and am a member of Preserve Frederick. Further studies of Frederick County's comp plan, Section 6-8, states: "development in locations which have steep slopes, floodplains, or other UNIQUE environmental features, can have a negative impact on the physical environment. Development should be carried out in a manner that protects these features." Looking around historic Middletown, it's apparent there are more unique environmental features here than anywhere else in our county. I would assert that the comprehensive plan may in fact, be pinpointing Middletown's rolling hills, slopes & geography in this section. Floodplains mean wetland habitats, homes for many different endangered species of animals & plants and a diversion for heavy rainfall to the floodplain instead of developed areas that would cause disastrous flood damage. Under the Land Use of the comprehensive plan, section 6-12 it clearly defines that "entrances to community should be evaluated for needed improvements. Measures aimed at increasing the appeal of areas to tourists & businesses need to be developed and implemented." Such a sharp increase in industrial traffic and pollutants from O-N's mining, are in no way creating the small town ambiance that is a key economic ingredient to Middletown's businesses and tourism. The added negative visual impacts, traffic and noise will only erode the town's assets of Main Street, the National Park, the Battlefield and it's rural character. 'The additional TRANSPORTATION section of the comp plan, section 6-14 states: '`Managing traffic in such a way as to minimize backups & congestion is a primary goal of the corridor plans." Over 1,300 dump - truck - trips - per day is in no way helping to minimize congestion within the main corridor to our quaint, one -light town. Please vote no on the O-N mining re -zoning and thank you for your attention... Comp Plan — Location of Heavy Industry — RAS — Fred Potter Hello, my name is Fred Potter and I live in the BACK - CREEK District. I am a member of Preserve Frederick. Extractive Manufacturing zoning has several allowances that should be highlighted. These uses are an open invitation to everything from concrete plants to fast food restaurants, to production factories. Our county and town have more to offer citizens than this. What we have is special and could become even more desirable if planned properly. You are well aware of the vast allowances that Virginia State EM zoning offers, O-N's proffers suggest no restrictions on the EM zoning for Middletown, this is unreasonable and unfair to the citizens. Route 50 East corridor consists of 3,000 acres. It is the largest land use plan in development and has the greatest potential for commercial growth. It is an industrial corridor for tractor trailers and big industry. These roads are equipped for heavy traffic and oversized vehicles. According to 6-18 & 6-19 of the comp plan, the heaviest traffic to this corridor is 1,406 vehicles traveling this segment in 1989 between Routes 522 and 655. These figures represent the same amount of traffic slated to occur on our Scenic Route 11 Byway if this re -zoning is passed. Our non -industrial town will be bombarded in both land use & road use respects. Middletown is simply not set up to be an industrial zone. The Rural Areas Study, which has never been completed. A great deal of citizen input went into that project and it should be referred to in regards to this re -zoning. There are 3 expectations and goals to the study that are strong points to consider. 1. Recognition that growth & change are inevitable. 2. Desire to manage growth & change to ENSURE PERPETUATION OF RURAL CHARACTER. 3. Desire to manage growth & change to MITIGATE MYRIAD IMPACTS ON THE COMMUNITY. In closing, under the Land Uses portion of the comprehensive plan, 6-15, it states: "Conflicts occur when incompatible uses or zoning districts are adjacent to one another." This statement stands alone. Please Vote no on this mining re -zoning. 0 Water — Personal Story — David Nichols 1. My name is David Nichols from Back Creek District, I'm a member of Preserve Frederick. 2. My family has lived next to the Chemstone property since 1955, and for the most part, they have been good neighbors. 3. Mr. Stinson has repeatedly stated that Chemstone wants to be good neighbors, but after reading this application, I don't see how this would be possible. 4. The rezoning of 639 acres from Rural Agriculture to Extractive Mining is entirely too much. 5. Our property sits at the corner of Chapel and Hites road, if this application is approved, we could have any number of industrial uses in our back yard. 6. These include Water and Sewage Treatment plants, Electric Generating Plants, Prestressed Concrete plants, asphalt plants, and many other uses 7. 1 am also concerned about the amount of water that would be pumped from this property. Mr. Chuck Maddox, who is a consultant for both Chemstone and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, stated at the last meeting there would be 10 million gallons of water per day pumped from this property. This can not be good for neighboring wells and springs. This also brings up the question of liability and who would pay for potential damages. 8. It is important to remember we are not dealing with a small local company. O-N Mineral is in the business of making money. I don't think it is right for this company to expand it's operation by 639 acres when there is no clear advantage to the citizens of Frederick County. The citizens look to you, the Planning Commission, as well as the Board of Supervisors to put the best interests of the people before the financial well being of a foreign owned company. 9. 1 ask that you vote no on this request . Thank You 10 Water — AU — Mining — Dr. Ranna Lachlan My name is Dr Ranna Lachlan. I live in Back Creek District and am a member of Preserve Frederick. I am a miner's daughter. I have no issue with mines. I lived in a mining community as a child and come from Australia - which is famous world wide - for mining industries. My father worked and/or headed up operations for four mining corporations. Two common themes were that they were or are located in remote areas, in Australia's famous Outback, in water -poor areas and nowhere near existing towns. Where towns and mines do exist side by side there are towns that grew up around the mines to service those mines - NOT the other way around. Granting this rezoning will allow a mine to swallow up an historic town that exists for multiple other reasons than the mine. The change in its historic character, as well as the character of the land surrounding the town would be irreversible. Irreversible. My father grew up in an agricultural family, in beautiful countryside, raising sheep and wheat. The land was his love. Miner though he was, he would never have participated in an operation that would pillage and scar such pristine, fertile, historic, and hallowed land as this rezoning would permit if granted. It IS hallowed land, being part of the Mississippean Native American heritage and the place of fallen confederate and northern soldiers alike. My father respected such things. He would never have supported the potential damage to a sensitive, clean waterway - Cedar Creek. These water issues will have implications all the way to the Chesapeake Bay due to pressure on Cedar Creek, part of the Chesapeake catchment area. Our back yard is actually the back yard of millions of people. My father would not have supported the approach to water harvest and usage evidenced by the contract between O-N and FCSA. Neither do I. 1 come from the driest continent on earth. Australians know their most precious resource is water. It is liquid gold. Growth without effective long range plans for water provision and water infrastructure is simply irresponsible and unsustainable. I know. I lived at a mine that failed for lack of water. Long range planning, long range harvesting, harnessing, storage, distribution, conservation, and frugal use of SUFFICIENT quantities of water is a matter of survival and a part of the consciousness of the population. I am astonished that in the 2000 lease agreement, O-N cedes water rights to the Sanitation Authority in return for the incredible sum of $1.00. $1.00 for liquid gold. Preserve the liquid gold of Cedar Creek and our precious underground water in the Middletown area. Please vote NO on this mining rezoning. 11 Water— BOB LUCE — KARST - Ph.D. Geochemistry Stanford University;Certified Professional Geologist — Virginia Good evening. My name is Bob Luce. I live in Middletown. I am retired after more than 34 years as a professional geologist. Approximately the first half of my career was spent with the U.S. Geological Survey and the second half was with environmental engineering firms or as an independent consultant. I have managed large investigations of contaminated groundwater movement in karst terrains in both Missouri and North Carolina. I generally support the mining industry, but because of the present usage of the surrounding land I think that rezoning is inadvisable in this case. Here are my reasons: Extension of limestone mining west and north of Middletown could bring consequences detrimental to the health and well being of people living on farms and in residences in proximity to the operation. In addition to causing occasional flyrock, blasting will open existing rock fractures or develop new fractures that could cause nearby wells to dry up and/or drainfields to malfunction. In this karst terrain, ground subsidence and collapse can be enhanced not only by blasting but also by groundwater withdrawals in conjunction with mining and mineral processing. Fluctuating groundwater tables can further accelerate karst development. Also, fracturing induced by blasting can release residual clays from sinkholes and voids, thereby fouling water wells. Operation of crushing, grinding, calcining and loading facilities near the mining area brings the potential for large accumulations of dust and hazardous metals offsite. Some of these negative consequences could be avoided or mitigated with an enforced very conservative mining plan incorporating large buffer zones. However, we have seen no such plans. Even with such plans, there always will be an element of risk because of uncertainty in the locations of subsurface connections in a karst area. ROBERT W. LUCE Geochemist/Hydrogeologist 2930 Long Meadow Road Middletown, Virginia 22645 Phone/fax (540) 869-3764 Lucerw@shentel.com 12 Water 1— FCSA — Unsafe Water Containment — Rob Magnus My name is Rob Magnus and I live in Back Creek District and am a new business owner in Middletown. I am a member of Preserve Frederick. This massive industrial land use rezoning application is being paid for by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, according to their March2, 2000 lease agreement with GlobalStone Chemstone Corporation. FCSA is charged with providing water services to Frederick County and is a private non-profit company which works with limited oversight from county officials. Frederick County's Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission have made great strides in planning for growth. They have demonstrated they are looking out for the best interests of this county, their dedication to smart planning is evident through their initiatives, including UDA and Rural Areas Study and we believe they do everything they can to see that the growth is managed so future generations can continue to work from a solid infrastructure that's being put in place now. Water and sewers are key to growth. Mr. Shickle stated in 2005 that he would prefer to see a regional approach for water and go to the river. However, the FCSA has focused their efforts on groundwater extraction and karst holding pits, or "reservoirs". Karst holding pits present the very real possibility of water contamination and have been proven to be unreliable for safety reasons The FCSA is paying for this rezoning so they can get access to the pits and groundwater on the property. This is a method of supplying water which has proven not to live up to expectations. What O-N gets is a massive rezoning that would otherwise not be approved on its own merits. What a county gets is a water source that's not dependable. Do we need to destroy the historic and natural resources of 639 acres for this? I think our county officials will agree that this is not the best way to ensure a strong future. Please vote no on the mining rezoning. Thank you. 13 Water 2 — Lease -- Shayne Lachlan My name is Shayne Lachlan and I live in Back Creek District. I am a member of Preserve Frederick. You each have a copy of the FCSA lease agreement and Chemstone. It outlines the transfer of water rights from the Middletown, Clearbrook and Strasburg quarries to the FCSA. 10,000 customers, including residents, business and major industries supplied by the FCSA, should not be forced to bear the burden of costs associated with this application. There are costs associated with expansion in any business. However, the customers of a quasi -public utility should not be forced to finance a quarry rezoning application. Section 6 of the lease agreement outlines how FCSA will be responsible for compensating neighboring property owners for the loss of wells. But who will prove what made the wells go? And who is responsible for determining that and when and how? Section 7 outlines Authority's responsibility for cost of relocating baseball fields in the Clearbrook so that O-N can expand mining operations onto land where our little leaguers play ball. Section 8 describes how the Authority is paying for the costs of rezoning, including consultant and filing fees, attorney's fees and court costs. How can they justify these costs given the amount of water the current quarry sites are yielding? O-N does not own the property they now mine in Middletown. That land is owned by Genstar. FCSA agreed to lease water rights with Middletown, Clearbrook and Strasburg. Genstar is not a party to this contract. (Section 10) This agreement raises too many red flags. Is this the type of partnership we should rely on for successful future growth. The UDA is being built on the assumption that groundwater from the Middletown quarry site will able to yield 10 million gallons a day. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to secure a dependable water supply from the river as Board of Supervisor's chairman suggested in 2005? . Please vote no on the mining rezoning. Thank you. 14 Water 3 — Capacity — Growth — Paul Clevenger My name is Paul Clevenger,) live in Back Creek District. I'm a founding member of Preserve Frederick and have a Masters license in Mechanical. I showed up at April hearing to fight a limestone quarry. Instead, Mr. Maddox told us that if the quarry rezoning was approved, we'd have an additional 10 million gallons of water supply each day. That got me digging to find what significance water would have in our fight. In the August 28, 2001 letter to Mr. Shickle from Mr. Jones of the FCSA, there is a diagram of plant locations and capacities: Stephens City is 6 mgd; Clearbrook is 4 mgd; and Middletown is 10 mgd. However, FCSA's response from SAIC to the Commonwealth in May 2005, states there's an available water source of 7.2 million gallons per day, including 2 mgd from Winchester. Engineers for the water authority stated the potential yield for Middletown and Strasburg quarries had not been determined. The FCSA has made promises it may not be able to keep, because the water currently isn't there. It is uncertain whether they will actually secure the resources they've promised or be anywhere near projections. In 2001, they projected quarries near Clearbrook would make the county self- sufficient until 2020. Today, there's an FCSA pump located on Route 11, near Kernstown, pumping an amount of water from the city of Winchester supplement water to FCSA. Our UDA now has about 10,000 homes, and 10,000 more coming. Based on Commonwealth and County's figures on average number of residents per home - 5.2 mgd per day should be available for these homes. Of 7.2 mgd available, that leaves only 2 mgd for current businesses and other growth. The water we've been told this County has available is not there. We need to extract water from the application —get some reliable answers about how much we have and the safest way to get it. The County's future is at risk, going forward with this application does nothing to secure it. Please vote no on the mining rezoning. Thank you. 15 QoL- Middletown Story — Betsy Hickman I'm Betsy Hickman, I live in Back Creek District and am a member of Preserve Frederick. Four years ago, I moved into a beautiful house on Main St. in Middletown. While taking a stroll around town one night I began thinking about all the things I've learned about O- N's quarry expansion in the last 8 weeks. As a matter of fact, all of Middletown is talking and thinking about it. As I walked, I began to look around me and realized, if this expansion goes through there will be a lot of things that will change. I have seen a beautiful bride, on her way to her wedding, stepping out of a horse drawn carriage in front of the Wayside Inn. I have heard the wonderful sounds of music, and the mouth watering smells drifting out of the Irish Isle. Many times I have stopped and looked to see what "wonderful" things Anita has to offer. Then there are the mornings when the aroma of Rt. 11 Chips fills the air. I have taken family and friends to plays at Wayside Theatre. It's a wonderful, quaint, little town and my family loves it here. If this expansion goes through, I don't think we'll be able to enjoy any of these things anymore. Not if they're gone. Why would they stay? What bride wants her wedding reception drowned out by the noise of constant trucks? Who will come to a mining town to see a play? Who will want to shop along Main St. with all of the dust, noise, and pollution? Who will be able to smell the fish and chips with the smell of diesel exhaust drifting through the air? And how can my children safely cross the street to play with friends on the other side of Rte 11? As I look at our town, I try not to see the future, businesses and families packed up and gone because of the industrial zone at our doorstep. I try not to see a deserted Main St., the only thing coming down it is a never-ending line of trucks bringing with them an ill wind, one that you can almost smell today. Members of the Frederick County Planning Commission, I urge you to preserve what we have here in Middletown today. Please don't be the ones who open the door on that bleak future that I saw on my walk. I ask that you deny this rezoning application for O-N Minerals. Thank you. 16 Blasting — Personal Story for Kim Cunningham — Debbie Miller Hello, my name is Debbie Miller and I live in the Back Creek District. I am a member of Preserve Frederick. Tonight I'm here to tell a story on behalf of Kimberly Cunningham, who is unable to be here this evening because of her job demands. Kimberly is a resident of Shenandoah County. She has a history with O-N and Global Chemstone that dates back 8 years in May. Kimberly's complaints to Global & O-N started about 1 month after she moved in to her home. To date, 8 years later, when she has filed complaints, her concerns go unresolved and unaddressed. She has called and made her complaints about blasting to Judy Wymer and a man she believes is Bill Hyman. She is told, "we'll check into this and call you back" — and they don't. Here is a list of occurrences at her home, as a result of O-N's quarry in Strasburg and very likely what we could experience: A Seismograph is placed in her yard on a daily basis dependent on direction of blasting for the day. She said she has observed measurements up to 9.1. Pictures are knocked off the walls, shelves fall, and she has had to anchor her wall hangings and decor so that the blasting doesn't shake them loose. Claims to the company for large cracks that have developed in her house foundation have been rejected. The company states that they are due to "normal settling". Heavy truck traffic and the associated jake braking create disturbances as they travel past her home, into all hours of the night, awakening her children. Frequent rock and gravel falling from recently loaded trucks creates driving hazards. Dust/ash continually falls on/in her house and car. Windows and doors must be kept closed even on the nicest of days. A newly washed car becomes filthy within a day. Windshield wipers cannot be used to clear off dust that settles on the windshield as this will create scratches on the glass. Kim has never been compensated for any damages to her property of vehicles. Is this what we have to look forward to? Please vote no on this application. 17 Blasting — Clarke County — Hal Stalcup My name Hal Stalcup is and I live in Back Creek District. I am a member of Preserve Frederick. What could be more incompatible with a residential area than a limestone quarry? O-N claims to be a good neighbor, but common sense tells me that good neighbors don't show up with explosives. Living next to a good neighbor, one can feel fairly certain their children can play in the yard without worrying about blasting mishaps. On April 251h of this year one of these mishaps occurred. A blast at a limestone quarry in neighboring Clarke County sent rocks the size of baseballs and basketballs flying right where I drive past for work every morning. One 50-pound rock was sent 1,760 feet onto the property of a nearby resident. Another rock set in flight by the blast hit a vehicle parked 5 feet from a residence, causing an estimated $10,000 damage to the vehicle. O-N has explained how their blasts are regulated and that it's blasting contractor is highly qualified. But they're governed by the same regulations as the Clarke County quarry. Accidents do happen and people do make mistakes. But accidents that occur at a blasting site put lives at risk. In the Clarke County incident, a 50-pound rock was sent 1/3 mile into a residential area. In the May 4th article in the Clarke Times Courier, residents are quoted as saying they "thought they were under attack as the whistling rocks whizzing by sounded like incoming missiles." O-N stated in their application that they intend to mine within 500 feet of residential properties (100 if they could be permitted to do so). This shows blatant disregard for the safety of their neighbors. If it's all the same to you, I'll take the neighbors I already have. Barking dogs and crying children, I can deal with. Please vote no on the mining rezoning. Thank you. Air Quality — Anne Carter Hello, my name is Anne Carter, I live in Back Creek District and am a founding member of Preserve Frederick. In 2005 Emissions Report to the Department of Environmental Quality, O-N Minerals reported a total of 471 tons of Nitrogen Oxides between it's Strasburg, Middletown and Clearbrook Operations. Nitrogen Oxides happen when fuel is burned at high temperatures, as in a combustion process. In this same report, O-N Minerals reported a total of 253 tons of Sulfer Dioxide emitted into the county's air. Sulfer Dioxide occurs when fossil fuels such as coal and oil are burned. In addition to this report, O-N Minerals reported a total of 69 tons of particulate matter of 10 micrograms or larger in to the air last year. All of these air pollutants affect the air quality and the health of the community. The ValleyAir Now Outreach team was created in response to the Enviromental Protection Agency's (EPA's) imminent designation of the City of Winchester and Frederick County as being in non -attainment with the 8-hour ozone air quality standard. In lieu of being designated a non -attainment area, the governments of Winchester and Frederick County entered into a proactive, voluntary agreement, an Ozone Early Action Plan with EPA to work to improve air quality in the region. It would be contradictory for officials to support ValleyAIR Now and also approve the rezoning application by O-N Minerals. The magnitude of this expansion, as well as the land use opportunities that would be available in the event of an approval, will have an impact on the air quality in this area. Please support the efforts to improve clean air to our community and deny this application to rezone. Thank you 19 Health — Neural Disorders — Water — Eric Steere I'm name is Eric Steere, I live in Gainesborough District. I am a former Physical Therapist and currently completing my 41h year medical studies to become a doctor from GW/AUC. I want to talk to you about waterborne pollutants in our region. My documentation from the CDC and State -sponsored health authorities. The when/where Karst Groundwater Study by Stephenson and Beck tells us there were several minerals that well exceeded maximal tolerated levels. Water tests were done directly on water found in local well systems from 1995 until this April 2006. The tests revealed high levels of several heavily toxic elements. Mining will undoubtedly create fractures and widen already existing fractures in karst. By fracturing the earth we introduce alternate routes for impure water to bypass the natural filters and drain natural aquifers and water reservoirs. Summary of values Karst Groundwater Study Stephenson and Beck Dissolved Solid max. contamination level ppm concentration levels found % over Max. Nitrate 10 8.33-16.6 83.3-166% Cadmium 0.005 .012-.02 41 % 1 ron 0.3 1.05-2.2 733% Lead 0.015 <.5 <3333% Cadmium — 41 % — causes direct kidney damage resulting in secondary HTN, osteoporosis, liver and neuro damage. Nitrates — at 83-166% changes iron in red blood cells disallowing oxygen delivery. Iron - 733% above maximum - targets the liver, heart, and kidney causing damage and failure. Lead - 3333% above maximim - released in coal burning or mining — excessive exposure leads to megaloblastic anemia, birth defects, bone defects, learning problems These are levels in our aquifers as of this date. Adding a new factory and mining operation will undoubtedly raise these levels. 20 If a coal -burning limestone plant is built for processing it will introduce new water -based toxins into the atmosphere and water in the form of Acid Rain and Mercury poisoning. In addition to toxic minerals, one must consider very natural realities in the form of other biological infections that are well demonstrated in their capacity to get into our bodies via our water system. Parasites: Giardia, Cryptosporidiasis; Bacterial: Shigella, e-coli; Viral: HAV All are transmitted by fecal to oral transmission, have varying levels of severity and are well documented for their transmissibility through water systems. In 1993, Cryptosporidia infected over 300,000 people in the Milwaukee area by contaminated water. Think of yourself over a period of about a week having 50 bowel movements a day — It's a life threatening potential in the elderly, the very young and the immunocompromised. Repetitive blasting of karst regions will substantially raise the risk of fracture and contamination. Are we willing to take that risk with public safety? Please deny this application. Thank you. Eric Steere — Continued - pgs 20-21 21 Health — Particulate Matter — Keith McNeely My name is Keith McNeely, I live in Back Creek District and am a member of Preserve Frederick. I am a Cardio-Thorasic Intensive Care nurse at Winchester Medical Center. Airborne pollutants and fine particulate matter generated by limestone mining operations — extraction and refining of limestone products will affect the health of Frederick County residents. This massive mining proposal puts residents of the Middletown area directly in harm's way. Because of the westerly prevailing winds, residents of Middletown, students at Lord Fairfax and Middletown Elementary School will be directly exposed to far greater emissions from blasting, extraction & refining of minerals. Too many residents in the County already suffer from asthma from environmental triggers. Linked to this, are other chronic obstructive lung diseases including emphysema and chronic bronchitis. These disease processes affect primarily children and the elderly. Asthma affects 1 in 4 children and causes shortness of breath, wheezing, tightness in the chest, coughing & increased mucus production. When was the last time you had to remember to take a breath? These children do on a daily basis. We will be harming more of our children and our elderly if this application is allowed. The American Lung Association of Virginia reports that Northern Virginia received an F for levels of particulate pollution and ozone. Particulate matter - breathed in - causes irritation and inflammation of the lungs. Long-term exposure, destroys and scars lung tissue. Sulfur dioxide and nitric oxides seed cloud cover which forms deadly acid rain, and carbon monoxide, is a major contributor to the greenhouse effect and a deadly airborne toxin. Emissions are measured in tons per year - and the leading contributor is already O-N, dwarfing emissions from other industry in the County. Valley Air Now minutes from March 2006 state PM levels have been stagnant and project, that levels will go up 10% by 2018. Too much now, why add so much more? These emissions and pollutants plague our valley and cause the haze and smog that we see and breathe daily and contribute to increases in respiratory cases in the County. For the sake of our health, I urge you to deny this request. Thank you. 22 Health — Educational Issues w/toxins — Sharon Santmyers My name is Sharon Santmyers, I live in the Back Creek District and am a member of Preserve Frederick. My family chose to live in a county where the public schools were treasured. I'm here because as a public school educator I understand how this application could affect our school system. Surface mining releases toxic chemicals into the air and groundwater. According to the EPA, over'/2 of all toxic chemicals reported are known or suspected neurological or developmental toxins. These toxins greatly interfere with children's growth and learning. The neurological development of unborn children is at risk when their pregnant mothers are exposed to air and groundwater toxins. These effects translate into learning disabilities, dyslexia, mental retardation, pervasive developmental disorders (autism), and behavioral disorders. Children who live near mine sites are at a greater risk for these neurological impairments. The public schools are left to deal with this issue, as mandated by federal special education laws such as IDEA. As a special education teacher, my concerns about this mining application and additional possible uses concerning county's public schools are legitimate. The National Academy of Sciences estimates 3% of all neurological and developmental defects in children in this nation are caused by exposure to known toxic substances. 360,000 children struggle daily to keep up academically with their peers, have difficulty meeting the reading, writing, and mathematics proficiency skills that the grade level curriculum demands. Many cannot remain focused on a task. The frustration that these students experience becomes the catalyst for other negative social factors like, dropping out of school, decreased probability of attaining a skill for employment, and increased need to seek public assistance. Don't we want to provide the safest and best environment for our children to grow up in? I believe this application would have grave consequences for giving them that opportunity. Taxpayers will foot the bill for additional added special education services. Money that could be spent more wisely on other needs for cash strapped school budgets. I ask that you deny this application. Thank you. 23 Health — Truck Emissions — Rebecca Stalcup My name is Rebecca Stalcup, I live in the Back Creek District and am a member of Preserve Frederick. Increased mining and its adverse effects on health and well-being of our community should be of grave concern to everyone. Increased truck traffic which may go from 506 vehicle trips per day to 1300 will have severe consequences for our community. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency believes diesel exhaust is one of the greatest public health risks of all air pollutants. Diesel combustion releases fine particles and gases into the air. Commonly called soot, these particles are typically smaller than 2.5 micrometers or 1/30 the width of a strand of hair. Diesel soot is part of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5), an air -quality contaminant regulated under the Clean Air Act. Diesel soot contains many toxins and can be inhaled into the deepest parts of the lungs where it is able to enter the bloodstream. It can accumulate in lungs over time, obstructing oxygen transfer to blood and causing many health problems. Scientific studies indicate fine particles are linked directly to asthma; bronchitis; acute and chronic respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath and painful breathing; cancer; and premature deaths. Diesel exhaust worsens symptoms of asthma. Children have immune and respiratory systems that are still developing and breathe up to 50 percent more air per pound of body weight than adults do. Breathing in soot from diesel exhaust causes acute and chronic respiratory problems like asthma and is the leading serious chronic illness among children and leading cause of school absenteeism. Elderly and people with weakened immune systems, respiratory or cardiopulmonary diseases are also more susceptible to harm. Those with heart or lung disease are more likely to die when exposed to soot. Scientists and health experts have been unable to identify a safe level of exposure to diesel exhaust. The Health Assessment Document prepared by the EPA and corroborated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Heath and the World Health Organization, states that inhaled diesel exhaust likely causes cancer in humans. Please deny this application. Thank you. 24 QoL — Proximity to quarry — Laurie Hunter My name is Laurie Hunter and I live in Back Creek District. I am a member of Preserve Frederick. It goes without saying that quarries and mines are dangerous places. They are far too dangerous to be within a couple feet from where our children play or swim daily. Too close to homeowners outside gardening and grilling. There are over 14 children and dozens of pets that live and play just steps away from the land O-N wants to mine. Many of the homes on Westernview Dr, border the Middle Marsh property, North of Chapel Road and are only 200 feet (the building restriction line) from the edge of the property requested to be rezoned. Our children and families play in their backyards even closer to that property line. The recent Clarke County blasting mishap proves rocks can fly almost 2,000 feet during blastings at quarries. Global Chemstone's James River Plant in Bote - tourt County VA, experienced a terrible tragedy in 1996. A young teen, given permission to be there, was standing in shallow water in the river which bordered Chemstone property. He was electrocuted while fishing and died. Electrical faults, resulting from improper installation of a water pump cable and circuitry were the primary cause of the accident. Faults had energized the ground conductor to the pump and a path for current flow to earth existed through a wire rope which ran into the river at the site of the electrocution. The company was given one citation and six orders from MHSA on August 12, 1996. We haven't heard a word about berm height for our area. How hard would it be for a child to climb any size berm just steps from our back yards, that "separates" us from the quarry? And who here thinks children can't find a way to look for adventure and climb over or under a fence? Dangerous equipment, huge open pits - the potential for tragedy exist for our children. Do not put them in harm's way. Quarries and mines are far too dangerous to be anywhere near where our families live and play. Please say NO to the rezoning request by O-N Chemstone 25 QoL— Public Safety — Traffic — Kevin/Liz Barrington Good evening. My name is Kevin/Liz Barrington and I live in Back Creek District. I am a member of Preserve Frederick. Road traffic safety is something that everyone should be concerned about. Driver inattention, dangerous driving, weather conditions all contribute to increased traffic crashes. As this County grows in population and with new businesses, more vehicles of all sizes are put onto roads. As a police officer with years experience, public safety is my life. Let me tell you why I'm worried. As local residents, we see quarry materials being transported all over back roads, often to avoid the weight scales on Valley Pike and Rte 81. Vehicles that are 75 feet long, weighing 80,000 pounds — often exceeding the posted speed limit are barreling down narrow back country roads. These roads have unsafe shoulders, tight curves and are hilly. Traveling those same roads are my wife/husband with our small children, teenagers with new licenses, elderly people with slower reaction times, precious cargo in school busses stopping to pick up and deliver, farmers on tractors, bicyclists, horseback riders... I could go on. We all expect our families to arrive home safely after they drive off in the morning. As a law enforcement officer, I can tell you from personal experience that sometimes they don't. There is little defense when an 80,000 pound truck hits something at a high rate of speed. Someone will be hurt or killed. It's happened in other places, it will happen here. There is no amount of money that can pay for the price of a human life. Tripling the amount of heavy industrial traffic trips in our local community and countryside is a recipe for disaster. The odds are increased that someone will be hurt or worse. According to the U. S. Department of Transportation in the year 2000, the last know data available, traffic crashes cost this nation over $230 Billion — that's with a B - dollars every single year. As taxpayers, the state and county bear that burden of: medical costs, long term rehabilitation, funeral costs, insurance rates for health and vehicles, lost wages, increased police and rescue services, etc. As a law enforcement officer sworn to protect the public, I see this as a very bad idea. Let's keep what we have safe. Please vote no to this application. Thank you. 26 Traffic — Road Degradation — Routes — M-Town Res — Joe Hickman My name is Joe Hickman and I live in Back Creek District. I'm a member of Preserve Frederick. VDOT's response to O-N's proposal only addresses, "that it appears that there will be little measurable impact to Route 727". Rte 727 is McCune Rd — the access road to the Middletown plant. Residents in the community don't travel that road. VDOT's only comment about the truck traffic turning at the intersection of 5t" St. and Main Street in Middletown - was that they had reviewed it. Route 11 has just been designated as a Scenic Byway. As a state road, Route 11 may very well stand up to the heavy truck traffic for a period of time, but then what? Minute after minute, day after day, 50,000-80,000 pound trucks rumbling over them, will eventually degrade the surface of Main Street and all other roads they travel and will need to be repaired. Those repairs come at State taxpayer expense. Everywhere we turn the roads are covered with limestone dust and gravel. The noise of 'fake' breaking and as trucks gear up pulling onto Main Street from a standing stop is already constant. It wakes us up night after night. The Middletown Town Council has serious concerns about the truck traffic through our quaint, historic town. Their May 8, 2006 Resolution highlights citizens concerns about this proposal, the resolution includes this statement about traffic: 'Whereas, increased limestone mining is projected to create negative traffic and noise impacts, with up to 1400 industrial vehicles traveling through the town of Middletown each day, which amounts to nearly one truck per minute, 24 hours a day, seven days a week." All those truck trips through town, referenced in this application are only for the trucks carrying limestone materials. The application is silent on heavy, industrial truck trips for all of the other proposed uses. Rolling caravans of heavy, industrial trucks are not compatible with our rural, historic community for many reasons, air, noise, dust. Resident safety is another issue which must be seriously considered. The costs to the community are what taxpayers will bear. Please deny this application. Thank you. 27 Environmental — Pt 1 - Kaine Letter — Regene Rybol My name is Regene Rybol. I'm a resident of the Back Creek District and a member of Preserve Frederick. Governor Tim Kaine and Secretary of Natural Resources L. Preston . Bryant, responded to Middletown's concerns regarding O-N's application. A 3-page letter was written addressing the environment, wildlife, and historical impacts to our community and region as result of this application's approval. In summary of this letter, these were the pertinent points that should be highlighted: • Virginia Dept of Game & Inland Fisheries has identified terrestrial and aquatic habitats that will be affected and are within this proposed project area. Wood turtles, a state threatened species, several state threatened species of birds including: Loggerhead Shrikes, Bewick's Wren and Upland Sandpipers. The illusive American Bald Eagle has been sighted and noted for the past 4 years, by many different citizens. These sightings were within the proximity of Belle Grove and Meadow Mills Lane, including the day that the HRAB review was written in December 2005. Middletown town council member, Mark Brown, pointed out the eagle flying above the heads of the review board. We are currently working with officials at DGIF on the nest location. These birds are on the endangered species list and are covered under the Bald Eagle Protection Act. There is also a Class V Coldwater Stream which supports a stockable trout fishery and according to Wil Orndorff of the Virginia Department of Conservation, is a highly desirable wildlife resource that should be treated as delicately as a threatened species. There are too many critical environmental reasons too allow this rezoning. Please vote NO on this mining re -zoning. Environment — Pt. 2 — Kaine Letter — Dr. Charles Hagan My name is Dr. Charles Hagan and I live in the district. I am a member of the Preserve Frederick group. Governor Kaine and Secretary Bryant's letter also addresses wetlands issue. There are roughly 2.2 acres of wetlands that will be impacted as a result of this proposal. Their habitats, plantlife and animal life, will be lost if not recognized and preserved. This project may qualify as a federal undertaking, and therefore the Army Corp of Engineers would require O-N to receive a federal wetlands permit. Additionally, the Army Corp and Department of Historic Resources would both be involved, if this project is deemed a federal undertaking, and a section 106 Review will be in order, as will citizen's presence at the review. The Section 106 Review will take into consideration the wetlands, and the effects on the historic properties of Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation. The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation has identified Cedar Creek and the Shenandoah River as potential components of the State's scenic river system. Cedar Creek is in serious danger if this proposal passes as is our 5th most endangered river, the Shenandoah. This issue is made even more disturbing as detailed plans showing that Cedar Creek is in fact part of an intricate "water plan" and they are looking to extract 2.2 millions gallons per day from this water source for further development in the county. This extraction will further endanger the Shenandoah River. Congressman Frank Wolf, Governor Kaine, Secretary Bryant and Ron Stouffer of the Army Corps of Engineers have all been notified by the citizens of this application and the proposed impacts on the water systems and historic resources. All of them are encouraging Frederick County and O-N to maintain a "balanced approach" to accommodate economic and environmental concerns to the County. 639 acres of elegant countryside is not a balanced approach any way you look at it... neither is 300 acres, or 200 acres or 100 acres... Please vote no on this mining re -zoning. Thank you... 29 Economic Impacts — Tourism — Bill Hunter My name is Bill Hunter and I live in Back Creek District. I am a member of Preserve Frederick. Someone told me they thought this massive strip-mining project might benefit the economy of Middletown and Frederick County. I can't see how. It's dirty industry, low tax industry, low job industry - sure not like new high tech industry could. I think we should really talk about the negative impacts on tourism and other businesses. Like, the our new national park and businesses like Wayside Theater, Anita's Wonderful Store and the Irish Isle are the ones who will pay dearly. Tourism is Virginia's second largest industry, representing $15.3 billion investment in our economy, and employing more than 280,000 people. Nearly 10 percent of the state's tourism dollars change hands in the Shenandoah Valley. In 2003, Winchester and Frederick County alone generated in excess of $72 million in tourism -related taxable sales. The Cedar Creek Battlefield is one of the remaining few where reenactors can carry out the order of battle on the ground their ancestors fought and died on. It's the ground where the future of this nation was determined. Sure, all of Virginia is battlefield land. But, Congress felt that the land in question was significant enough to make part of it a National Historic Park. The re -enactors of First Bull Run were drawn to it enough to make this the first year they hold this important event on our local treasure. We don't want to keep them from coming back. Tourists come here because of all it has to offer. Attractions in and around Middletown are huge parts of the whole package. There is nothing in this proposal that even begins to look like it can make Middletown and the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Park better or more enjoyable. Area businesses depend largely on tourism for survival. If you take away all the tourists, you put these businesses in jeopardy. It puts all those jobs in jeopardy. Sacrifice of many for the benefit of few is not good business. Reducing or eliminating the high tax revenues generated from these businesses to bring one that doesn't -will not benefit the county. Please vote no on the mining rezoning. Thank you. 30 Economic Impacts — Real Estate — Clarence Steere My name is Clarence Steere and I live in Gainesborough District. I am a member of Preserve Frederick. Mining is an important industry, but it has its place. Today, Middletown is not the same as it was when all 639 acres of farmland was sold to steel and mining nearly 52 years ago. The town now has a National Historic Park, a thriving historic presence and rapidly growing number of residential developments. Had the companies made their intentions known from the beginning, Middletown would be very different today. The residents of Middletown and surrounding areas should not be made victims of a company's poor planning. The impact on the quality of life as well as monetary values of bordering and nearby homes is a major concern for area residents. We're not just talking about the residences around Belle Grove or on Westernview Drive. This is every residence in and around Middletown, where the truck traffic, noise and dust will alter the way of life. My guess is, people didn't move to this area to be in a mining town. There won't be anyone else moving in if it is. Upon reassessment of the nearby properties, the property value decrease will also result in a dramatic impact on the revenue generated through real estate taxes. When you take into consideration how many individual properties are affected and the values of those properties, this proposed expansion will result in a decline in local tax revenue. During the past five decades when companies enjoyed the financial benefits of only paying taxes on rural agricultural uses and leasing to farmers, a community was built. The members of this community should not have to sacrifice the lives they've built because or poor planning. Please vote no on the mining rezoning. Thank you. 31 O-N Executive Summary —Steve Beall My name is Steve Beall. I live in Gainesborough District and I am a member of Preserve Frederick. Tonight, we would like to take a few minutes to give you a financial summary for O-N Minerals. This company declared bankruptcy in 2004 and has emerged from bankruptcy in the last two years. Their combined net operating loss for 2004 and 2005 is approximately $38 million. They continue to operate under the burden of a serious debt load that severely restricts their operation and is a constant threat to bring down their business. In April of 2006 (less than 2 months ago) O-N filed a form 15 with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission announcing its intent to deregister its common and preferred stock and suspend its reporting obligations under SEC rules. This is a very serious move that most public companies would resist making as long as they possibly could. By this filing with the SEC, O-N is not obligated to voluntarily comply with periodic reporting requirements in the future. This means many of the financial details concerning this company will no longer be available to the public and can be kept private. While O-N has every right to make this change, it raises substantive questions about the intent of the company to share operating results, business transactions, or other relationships that may significantly affect the financial future of the company — and our community. We ask that you deny this application. Thank you. 32 O-N Executive Summary — Kurt Burgoyn My name is Kurt Burgoyn. I live in Back Creek District and am a member of Preserve Frederick. Legal Proceedings: Quoting from the 10-K filed with the SEC by O N on March 17, 2006 "at December 31, 2005 the Company was a co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims of about 47,000 claimants" the document goes on "with respect to silica at December 31, 2005, the Company was a co-defendant in cases involving about 15,219 claimants". In that same document, the Company makes the following statement "management cannot predict whether or not the company's available insurance will be adequate to cover any and all abestos claims that arise in the future or that the company will have the ability to otherwise successfully defend or resolve such cases. If there are not developments that reduce the impact of asbestos litigation or its costs, the company's available insurance may be insufficient to cover all future claims and there could be a material adverse effect on the company's results of operations, liquidity, and financial condition". Over the years, O-N has operated large shipping vessels that sail the Great Lakes. As of yesterday, June 6, the company announced the sale of six more of these vessels and plans to sell their remaining three vessels. It is obvious, the company continues to be forced to sell important assets to generate cash to pay their debt obligations in order to survive. Considering their financial difficulties and bankruptcy in 2004, one might think compensation for senior management would have decreased or stayed the same. Their Form 10-K reveals that earnings for the CEO went from $446,000 in 2003 to $1,419,000 in 2005. Earnings for the other top executives of the company showed similar increases during that period of time. These increases are puzzling considering that some creditors were not being paid on time during the time of the bankruptcy. On May 12, 2006, O-N announced an agreement with Wolverine Power Cooperative of Cadillac, Michigan. They gave Wolverine an option to purchase 440 acres of property previously mined by O-N at its quarry in Rogers City, Michigan. Over the next two years, Wolverine will explore the feasibility of constructing a plant using coal technology to generate and transmit electric power. 33 O-N Executive Summary — Gary Nichols My name is Gary Nichols. I live in Back Creek District and am a member of Preserve Frederick. Comments Even if O-N has the desire to be a good neighbor, they may not have the resources that would allow them to operate safely and to properly protect their neighbors. What if someone is injured or property is damaged from their normal operations, would anyone ever be able to collect for this liability? If O N offers a number of attractive proffers in order to convince the County to pass this rezoning request, will they even be able to carry out those proffers in the future? What if they fail to perform the promised proffers - what recourse will the citizens have? Who will enforce these promises? Will we be forced to take O-N to court if they fail to perform? They already have over 60,000 claims against them. Would our claim be number 60,001? The company has had to sell off assets recently in order to survive. This has included some of their operations as well as their shipping vessels. Isn't it possible they plan to sell this land to heavy industrial users and they are simply trying to maximize on the value of their property by having it all zoned for Extractive Manufacturing? Isn't it ironic that one of the vessels they just sold was the S.S. Middletown? Does the company have any thoughts of building a coal fired power plant in historic Middletown? EM zoning could allow it. If this rezoning is approved, can you imagine turning over 639 acres of historic and scenic land that is zoned for heavy industrial use to a company that is desperate financially? Do you believe they would protect it or destroy it? Approving this rezoning request for this company could lead to disastrous results for Frederick County and its citizens. We ask for denial. Thank you. 34 Concerns From Commisssioners - 4/5/06 — Steve Miller Hello, my name is Steve Miller and I live in the Back Creek District and I am a member of Preserve Frederick. At the April 5th hearing, the following questions & concerns were voiced by commissioners regarding the inadequacies of the O-N Minerals application. *Monitoring of water quality & quantity of citizens' wells & water systems *Change the maximum 30 foot berm allowance, to an average of 30 foot berms *Denote the minimum for the height of the berms *O-N Minerals Chemstone has changed hands several times. Who will be the next owner? Are future owners tied to existing proffers & unclearly related to this application? Agreements should be attached to proffers & be clearly stated and understandable to ALL PARTIES INVOLVED. *Who mediates remediation? *Please state the method of administration of seismographs- where shockwave travels *Resolve groundwater & seismograph issues. Houses get air shock, seismograph monitors ground shock) *Proffer is very broad & basic- we would like to see site limitations, topograhical map with berms- need specific answers. * The commission would like to get DMME involved to clarify issues *Would there be an escrow fund or bond for well owners? They should not have to hire a lawyer and go to great personal expense if wells go dry. *There has been no problem with a drawdown at Clearbrook, but with FCSA drilling on Middletown property, a different problem is posed. *Expansion of mine is necessary and we would like plan showing berms, details, phasing program, increasing buffer zones, etc. There has been no response, answers or outreach since the onset of this application by O-N Minerals. Please vote no for this mining re -zoning application. Thank you for your time. 35 Petitions — Public Support for Denial — Brooke Dalton Good evening, my name is Brooke Dalton and I live in Middletown and I'm a member of Preserve Frederick. Tonight I'm coming before you as a representative of Middletown. This year I was crowned Miss Middletown Honorary Fire Chief for the Middletown Volunteer Fire & Rescue. My concerns are regarding the town that I have loved and grown up in my entire life. My history with Middletown begins with my grandparents, Wayne & Judy Dalton. My grandfather served as Mayor of Middletown, both of my grandparents are well known and liked in our community. My father and mother, Mark & Lynnette Dalton have also lived here their whole lives and are strong members of our community in both their civic and volunteer duties. As a third generation native to Middletown, I'd like to state how disappointed I am that Middletown is having to defend itself against this rezoning. I know as time passes, the town is destined to change. I hope it retains it's historical values and maintain it's family -oriented atmosphere, like what I've grown up in. There are lots of other places to get limestone in Virginia - you don't need to blast right on top of a historical battlefield where thousands died and gave their lives for our freedoms. I am proud to live in this County. Citizens are worth more than holes in hallowed ground and piles of reclamation dirt. I represent the future of Middletown and I'd like to make a request at this time. Would everyone who is opposed to this rezoning application, please stand up? On behalf of all of those who are standing and the names that are on these petitions, we are respectfully ask that you deny rezoning 639 acres of historic countryside. Thank you. 36 Kisak Precedes Jeff Carter - Conclusion My name is Jeff Carter and I live in Back Creek District. I am a member of Preserve Frederick. The idea that Middletown and surrounding areas would come together with such passion as those who spoke before you tonight is astounding to me. What community in America today should be forced to defend its way of life? None. But the members of this community have risen to the challenge. Other residents of this county take for granted what a beautiful and historic place they live in. They should not cast out the riches they've inherited by defacing a land so blessed by history and natural beauty. Others see what Frederick County has to offer. This land is within a stone's throw from our nation's capital and in a region with unprecedented growth. Its also one of the most beautiful places on earth. The resources that have been bestowed upon us are gifts: natural, historic and economic. Creating a balance is the challenge before us. As other localities struggle with lost industry and see residents moving away, here, we have growth knocking on our door. Given the unique position of our County, is it wise to expand an industry that provides very few jobs and contributes so little to the local economy -one that has such a negative impact on our natural and historic resources? Shouldn't we leverage our unique situation to bring in industry that would make us even stronger? Here's the longer answer: Frederick County's comp plan is designed to direct the right growth to the right place. It has failed to do so with mining, which is important because the limestone belt stretches the length of the county. Just because O-N's predecessors initially located a mine next to three incredible public assets -- creek, park and Middletown -- does not mean it is appropriate for O-N to triple its operations there. As it says in the Sentenel, Frederick County has more than 1,000 acres zoned for mining and extractive manufacturing. How much more does it need to accommodate and where? Middletown is not the place. Please vote no on the mining rezoning. Thank you. 37 Personal Story — Walter McCauley My name is Walter McCauley; I live at 7948 Church Street in Middletown; I am a member of Preserve Frederick. Madame Chairwoman, Gentlemen of the Commission: You have heard much tonight about the impact of the proposed mining and other uses included on physical health. But equally important is emotional health. The mind and the body are not separate entities, they interplay, the health of one affects the health of the other; and emotional health is dependent upon a satisfying quality of life. In support of that statement, I submit this for your consideration: after World War II, when they began the reconstruction of Vienna, Austria, the first thing they rebuilt was the Opera House. The occupying troops in the city —American, British, French —all asked them, why are you rebuilding this, why aren't you building roads or municipal buildings or housing; and the Viennese told them, after so much horror and ugliness, we need light and beauty in our lives. And that is why I am speaking against this proposed rezoning; because it will take the light —and the beauty —out of Middletown. We do not need more sources of anxiety or irritation or stress in our lives. We need places like Middletown for our emotional well being; and for our emotional well being, we need them to remain as they are. On behalf of all of us, I ask that you deny this application. Thank you. t: This request to rezone 639 acres for open pit mining is a sizable request and generates many unanswered questions. In spite of the magnitude of this request, O N Minerals has been reluctant to volunteer information and address concerns and issues raised by citizens in our area. O N Minerals knew that requesting expansion of a quarry operation in the Middletown area would be a controversial request that would clearly get the attention of farmowners, homeowners, and businesses in Frederick County. For this reason, you would have thought their rezoning application to the Planning Commission would have been very comprehensive and would have addressed many of the known concerns about possible pollution, noise, traffic, blasting, and possible damage to the water supply in the Southern portion of Frederick County. Instead, O N Minerals submitted a bare bones application for this rezoning that addressed very few of the critical details. Even their verbal presentation at the initial Planning Commission meeting was very general and glossed over many of the details that surround this issue. What is the reason for their casual approach to this issue? Could it be that the company is incompetent and has misjudged the seriousness of this request? Could it be they have been assured this rezoning request will be approved and therefore, they have no intentions of responding to citizens' concerns? The truth is obvious. Their apparent lack of effort up to this point is clearly an intentional part of their strategy. They have had years to prepare for this rezoning request and clearly have chosen to be vague and non committal. Could it be they are banking on having the Board of Supervisors approve this request? Why would the Board be inclined to approve this huge rezoning request? You have heard that expanding this open pit mining operation would bring very little additional tax revenues to the County. You have heard that this expansion would not bring new jobs to the area. The truth is, there are very few, if any, good reasons for the County to favor expanding this quarry. There could be another reason the County seems to be willing to consider this request. In March of 2000, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) and Global Stone Chemstone Corporation (Global) signed an agreement that will give FCSA rights to water in quarries in the Middletown area when they are abandoned. The addition of FCSA as a partner in this rezoning request completely clouds this entire issue. How can a quasi governmental entity partner with a private company and submit a rezoning request to its own County government? Wouldn't Frederick County consider this to be a serious conflict of interest when trying to fairly evaluate the merits of allowing a 2.5 mile long quarry in the heart of Southern Frederick County? Does this arrangement create political pressure to blindly approve this quarry expansion on the the assumption it might help solve Frederick County's long term water crisis? This agreement is recorded in the Frederick County Clerk's office in Deed Book 961 at Page 542 and in the Shenandoah County Clerk's office in Deed Book 915 at Page 401. This agreement between FCSA and Global is for the purpose of lease and transfer of water rights of the Global properties in Middletown, Clearbrook, and Shenandoah County. The FCSA has entered into this agreement in an effort to provide future water service for the county. The provisions of this agreement are factual and raise questions as to the liability that Frederick County will assume through the partnership between the FCSA and the mining company. Some of the more important provisions of this agreement include: 1. Global and FCSA would both be allowed to continue their specified uses. This provision could place undetermined liability on both parties for any detrimental effects on adjacent properties that may occur from both uses. Global retains the primary and superior rights over the Authority for use of this property. 2. It appears the Authority has assumed all liability for suits brought by citizens regarding water extraction. Does this release Global for responsibility and liability for water extracted from the mining operation? Who will prove responsibility if both entities are actively engaged in their specified uses at the quarry sites? Does this provision place undue liability on the Authority and citizens of Frederick County? 3. As a provision of this agreement, not only has the FCSA agreed to endorse this rezoning request, they have made the decision to partner with O N Minerals and to pay all expenses associated with this rezoning request on behalf of this private company. The Sanitation Authority has publicly confirmed they are paying the rezoning expenses for this request. What is the current cost of this rezoning application, attorney's fees, engineering fees and other fees that have been paid by the Authority? Is the FCSA a public authority created for the benefit of the citizens of Frederick County? Does this agreement interfere with the due process of rezoning in Frederick County and is it providing unfair advantage to the rezoning applicant? Are the adjacent land owners to the rezoning and those who oppose this rezoning at a loss of fair representation in review of this rezoning application? Is the engineer and spokesman for the quarry rezoning also representing the FCSA? Does this agreement breach the public's right to due process in a rezoning? 4. Will the existing Middletown quarry be abandoned by the year 2025 when Frederick County is projected to need additional water service? Doesn't Global really control the ability to determine when the quarries are considered abandoned or not abandoned? Doesn't this control jeopardize the Authority's ability to plan for bringing this water source on line in a timely manner? 5. Part of the current Middletown quarry site is owned by Genstar. Is Genstar a party to this agreement? Does Genstar retain a right at any time to stop the Authority's intended use of this quarry? 6. The Authority is entitled to first right -of -refusal for acquisition of the specified quarry sites at such time that the quarry should desire to convey the subject property. However, Global shall not be obligated to offer any of its land to the Authority in the event of a merger by Global or its parent corporation or an internal corporate restructuring. Is this provision so broad that it releases the quarry corporation of its obligation to the Authority? Is the Authority taking a serious risk in supporting this rezoning without assurances of future fee simple ownership of lands for its public service facilities? 7. The agreement puts the Authority on notice there are no quarantees that the existing or future quarries would have available water and Global does not warrant that the water would be fit for human consumption. It is clear that the Authority has been planning this with the quarry owners for well over six years as evidenced by this agreement from 2000. Why wasn't this planning for rezoning made a part of the Frederick County 2003 Comprehensive Plan? Why is the Authority so strongly tied to these quarries? Why has the Authority signed a one sided agreement that leaves virtually all control of these quarries to other parties. Why has the Authority entered into an agreement that carries significant risks but, in no way provides any quarantees for water from these quarries? If this rezoning request is denied by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, will O N Minerals bring a lawsuit against the Authority and Frederick County for a breach of this agreement? By endorsing this rezoning request as far back as 2000, the Authority has issued a blanket endorsement for this current rezoning application without any regard for how much pollution, noise, additional traffic, or damage to current water supplies or wells this expanded mining operation may cause. Is it any wonder the citizens of Frederick County are completely frustrated by this process? First we find ourselves commenting against a large mining company that is openly refusing to address concerns surrounding this issue. On top of that, their efforts are being actively supported and funded by our own Frederick County Sanitation Authority. It is clear; the Authority has made their decision. They are willing to pursue possibile sources of water even if it means tearing up a good portion of Southern Frederick County over the next 50 years. Even it that means damaging businesses and residences in the area. Even if it means sacrificing potential tourism business for the area and even if it means destroying some of the most scenic and historical area in our state. Does this single minded approach render the Authority's mission statement useless: "To provide affordable and reliable water and wastewater service to our customers while protecting public health and the environment"? Considering the extreme measures the Authority seems to be willing to endorse in search of water, shouldn't there be overwhelming evidence that would support their decision to rely on these quarries as future water sources for the County? Unfortunately, based on the Authority's history of relying on quarries as long term, reliable water sources, the opposite is true. For many years, the leaders of Frederick County have recognized that the County needs to develop a long term solution to water needs , in this area. In the last ten to fifteen years, the County has pursued fairly aggressive growth initiatives which have allowed for significant growth of houses and businesses in the County. This increased development and future development that has already been approved, has brought even more attention and pressure to the water issue. Over the last ten to fifteen years, the County has been presented with various studies that have laid out options for addressing water needs. For a variety of reasons, the County has chosen not to act on some of the long term (more costly) solutions that were presented. Some of these solutions would involve working with surrounding counties or cities on a regional approach to agree on long term water stategies for the entire area. Some of these options are probably still available to the County and may be developed in years to come. In the meantime, it appears the County has chosen to pursue more short term (25 years) solutions. This strategy has focused on utlizing groundwater (springs, production wells, and quarries) as the main source of water supply. This strategy has not worked as planned and currently, the County is being forced to buy more water from the City of Winchester than ever before just to satisfy current customers. The Sanitation Authority currently maintains water treatment plants at a quarry in Stephens City and a quarry in Clearbrook and water is pumped out of those quarries for customers in Frederick County. The Stephens City quarry was brought on line first and impressive projections were made by the Authority regarding the amount of water this quarry would provide. See an article attached from The Winchester Star dated October 18, 2000: "The Frederick County Sanitation Authority approved changes to its water contract with the Town of Stephens City that would allow it to withdraw 4 million gallons per day. The current maximum rate is 3 million gallons per day. "It is an easy solution and a viable solution, and it means we don't have to look for additional wells," said Wellington H. Jones, director of the Sanitation Authority. "Four million gallons a day is reasonable... conservative," said Eric Andrews of Science Applications International Corporation. "This information confirms what we planned in developing a water supply that can yield 6 million gallons a day," Jones said. Scientists found that 3.2 million gallons could be drawn from the quarries each day during dry conditions. As much as 4.9 million could be drawn each day during normal to wet conditions." The Sanitation Authority is currently able to pump less than 1.5 million gallons per day from the Stephens City quarries and these quarries are in danger of being pumped dry. The quarries in Clearbrook were brought on line in September of 2002 with equally impressive projections. A July 24, 2001 article from The Winchester Star highlighted the anticipated opening of this water plant: "The $5.1 million northern plant, scheduled to open in September, 2002, will be able to produce 4 million gallons per day of water and make the county self sufficient until 2020, said Sanitation Authority Director -Engineer Wellington H. Jones. When completed , this plant will eliminate the county's need to buy water from the City of Winchester." The Sanitation Authority is currently able to pump less than 1.5 million gallons per day from the Clearbrook quarries and there are serious concerns about the ability of these quarries to be able to provide a long term, reliable water supply for the County. Also attached is a copy of a report dated August 2000 by the Sanitation Authority to the Board of Supervisors regarding the water status update. This report also contains some revealing statements: Wellington H. Jones: "Now to update you on the long range water supply plant that I presented to you three years ago. The fundamental premise of that plan has not changed, that is, ground water will be our primary source in the short and intermediate range, or the next 25 years, wth additional capacity provided by surface water in the long range or beyond the year 2025. What has changed is the addition of the Clearbrook Quarry as a source. Using these quarries has increased the water available in that plan by 30%. This is all possible because of the community spirit of Joseph Farrell, manager of Global Stone/Chemstone Corp., the companty that purchased the quarry in Clearbrook last year. The authority is currently developing this source, which combined with the Stephens City quarries, and the Bartonsville well field, will provide water to meet demand for the next 25 years. Very significantly, the addition of the Clearbrook source provides a high level of reliability in all aspects of the operation of our system. Earl Sutherland, Vice President of Gilbert W. Clifford and Associates: "The actual data supports the conclusion, that somewhere around 8 million gallons a day of demand will occur on an average monthly basis in the FCSA water system 25 summers from now. The real number that we are trying to go for in the year 2025, 25 summers from now, is 8 million gallons a day. In the year 2002, the Frye Quarry system (Clearbrook) will come on line in its initial configuration and it will sustain the authorities operating condition for a very, very long time. And then as another final bar with a question mark on it, which is the final exploitation of the Frye Quarry which takes us out to the magic year of 2025 and source yield of 8 million gallons a day. Finally in 2003, the final element of the project comes on line with the north plant at the Frye Quarry source, in which the service authority will then have an aggregate production capacity of 10 million gallons a day and an aggregate source capacity of 6.2 million gallons will actually quantify your resources and allow the county to manage them to their utmost and like Wendy said that is going to be taking place over the next 3-1/2 years or so. That will provide a new foundation for the water resource planning for the valley here." Wellington H. Jones said: "Finally the Sanitation Authority does need the full cooperation and backing of the Board of Supervisors in our request for new water sources. We were very fortunate to have had Global Stone/Chemstone Corp. step up and get Frederick County out of what could have been a very difficult situation having our water contract expire with the city. I also would like to thank the many Frederick County landowners who stepped up and allowed us to drill exploration wells on their property when there was so much adverse negative press going on at the time. We are pretty much over the hump now and we can ease up in our search for water. However, we will need to identify and secure possible well sites and water sources. This should be a priority on all future authority boards. We would like for the Board of Supervisors to make developers proffer well sites to the Sanitation Authority. This alone would secure possible well sites for the future and for the future of Frederick County. To summarize what you have just heard during the whole program, based on our projections, the system demand will be 8 million gallons per day of sustainable source and 12 million gallons of production capacity." In addition, there were once plans to develop production wells in Bartonsville and the Degrange Property along with wells at the site of Orchard View School. All of these plans failed to provide any productive wells. Back in 2000, the Sanitation Authority may have truly believed quarries could play an integral part of the short term water solutions for Frederick County. Based on their actual experience since that time, it appears their water strategy was flawed. As part of this rezoning request, the engineer has represented that the quarries in Middletown hold the potential for 10 million gallons per day. Recent history has proven projections like this are nothing more than projections that cannot be documented or substantiated. The Sanitation Authority has failed to establish a track record of success with quarries that would lend any credibility to current representations being thrown around about the potential for the Middletown quarries. Therefore, does the Authority truly believe these quarries will help solve Frederick County's water crisis or are they just carrying through on an obligation that was established as a result of the agreement with Chemstone in March 2000? Based on recent history, shouldn't a comprehensive study be done to review water options that are available to Frederick County? What if the area goes through 50 years of open pit mining only to discover the Authority guessed wrong again on this third set of quarries? The stakes are very high here and once again it is clear the discussion on the merits of expanding this quarry should not be confused with the discussion on the long term stategy for solving Frederick County's water problems. They are two different issues that need to be treated separately. O N Minerals has failed to prove that this rezoning request supports the expansion of this open pit mining operation. In addition, the Sanitation Authority has failed to prove this rezoning request warrants approval as part of the water solution for Frederick County. Now is not the time to ignore the facts of this case. Now is the time to reject this application. FREDE:RICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY P,0. Box 1877 11tnrheUtr VA 22604.8177 JAMS% T. ANDERNl)1, Chutrman HOBERT N CARPENTER. 17cr-cha,rman RIINF.RT P. MO%%ERY. Sri-rrraturrr JOHN CTCYENK RIC'HARD A RUCKMA^ DARWINS.BRADEN Mr. Richard (_. Shickle 292 Green Spring Road Winchester VA 22603 Dear Chairman Shickle- Auriast 28.2001 A%Ohnf:lolu If. Jonen. P.E. L nptuter--Ut rector Ph. - (540) K6K-11161 Fo4- 1540)868-142'1 the enclosed "Capability Statement" was drafted io provide in concise terms the current capacity for service of the Sanitation Authority. 'The attachments show the location of plants and their capacities, and describe the ongoing United States Geological Survey study of the carbonate area of Frederick County. "rhe Authority believes it is important you have the facts concerning these important issues if you have any questions, would like a more detailed explanation, or a presentation, please call me. /ths attachients r f: Robert N. Carpenter John R. Riley, Jr. Sincerely yours, H. Jones, P. F-- Engmeer-Director WATER AT VOUR SERVICE FREIDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY CAPABILITY STATEMENT' BACKGROUND "the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) is responsible for providing potable water and treating wastewater to required standards, for the residents of Frederick County. A Board of Directors, (BOD) who while appointed by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, acts independent of them, to provide direction and guidance to the FCSA. The BOD maintains a close working relationship with the County Planning Commission as well as the County Planning Office. There are some areas of the County that do not have the population densities that would justify service from the FCSA, and accordingly individual, privately owned wells, and septic fields serve those areas, The FCSA has an ongoing; contract with the United States Geological Swrvey to provide recognized professional level independent hydrologic information relating to ground water sources and availability as well as provide insight into the geologic features of Frederick County that would have an effect on the availability of water for the residents of the county. In addition, the FCSA contracts with independent professionally licensed engineering firms for well drilling, data gathering, and analysis. At the present time the FCSA operates from essentially two primary sources of water: 2) former limestone quarries, that during their operating life required de -watering are pumped ;From, and 2) treated water being purchased from the City of Winchester to make up the balance of the current demand. This water is purchased under the terms of an agreement negotiated during the year 2000. Wastewater is treated at two facilities, with a third planned: Parkins Mills, Crooked Run, (planned) and the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. WA'r ER Southern Frederick County There are three adjacent abandoned quarries that are used as source water. These quarries are located near Stephens City, Virginia and identified as The North Quarry, the Middle Quarry, and the South Quarry, These quarries have been in existence for approximately 90 years, having been initially opened as high calcium limestone sources for local needs. The quarries have always had a water problem requiring them to be de -watered to conduct the mining operation in a dry environment. The quarries are approximately 150 feet in depth with the southern most quarry being the deepest at 317 feet. There appears to be some hydrologic connection between the quarries even though they are physically separated on the surface. The de -watering of the -1- southernmost quarry has a measurable effect on the Middle and Northern quarry static water levels. De -watering operations during the active phase of mining produced volumes of water in excess of the quantities currently being produced by the FCSA. The water produced by de -watering was pumped to a nearby surface drainage swale and sent down stream. The source of the recharge water for these quarries is not known in detail at present, but is being studied by the USGS as a part of their ongoing program. It is reasonably certain that it is not from isolated thunderstorms that traverse the area during the summer season, rather it is more likely from a much larger area coming frorn seasonal snow melt and rains. The water produced from these quarries is treated, to make it potable, at the Diehl treatment. facility located in the Stephens City area, adjacent to the quarries. Water purchased from the City of Winchester is treated prior to acceptance. Northern Frederick County A second water treatment facility is currently under construction in the northern end of' the County, in the Clearbrook area. This facility is anticipated to be coming on line during the year 2002. When completed, this facility will provide treatment and transportation capability for water produced from a nearby limestone quarry, that while not in current use, is still carried on the Mine Safety and Health Agency roles. An option to drill and produce water from five identified nearby well sites has been secured, wluch will provide the possibility of additional water for this facility, as required. Treated water is curiently being; purchased from the City of Winchester according to the terms of an agreement that was negotiated during the year 2000. This contract was originally negotiated as a 2-year contract, with options to renew for two additional two - yew periods. CURRENT WATER PURCHASE & PRODUCTION CAPABILITY PURCHASE: City of Winchester — At present the FCSA is purchasing 1.15 MGD to supplement the water produced from the Stephens City quarries. PRODUCTION FCSA is at present producing - 2.30 MGD from the Stephens City quarry operations. CURRENT DEMAND -- FCSA SYSTEM The combined volume of 1.15 MGD purchased from the City of Winchester, in addition to the 2.3 IMGD produced from the Stephens City quarries, for a total of 3.45 MGD, is meeting the present demand for FCSA water. -2- USGS VA 2(1)0 Pro3ect VA134. Fredenek County Carbonate Aclulf... http.ltva.water.usgs.gtiviprojccts/va]34 hti SGS sdsaoe iar a cA■trylrtg wwftl Water Resources of V i rgi n i a Seal of Frederick County Project Title Frederick County Carbonate Aquifer Appraisal Number VA0134 Location Frederick County Cooperating Agencies Frederick. Countv Project Chief George Harlow Period of Project October 2000 - Present '1aVVWW: 1_rederick Coot Auifer Appraisal 'Team - llavid_Nelms lZ�r Moberg, Frederick County Carbonate Aquifer Appraisal Frederick County scene Problem The carbonate aquifer system of the Northern Shenandoah Valley provides an important water supply to local communities. This is an area with an expanding economy and a growing population, and this aquifer is likely to be further developed to meet future water needs An improved understanding of this complex aquifer system is required to effectively develop and manage it as a sustainable water supply Hydrogeologic information provided by a detailed aquifer appraisal will provide useful information to better address questions about (1) the quantity of water available for use, (2) the effects of increased pumpage on ground -water levels and instream flows, (3) the relation between karst features and the hydrology and geochernrstry of the surface- and ground -water flow systems, and (4) the quality of the ground -water supply and its vulnerability to current and potential future sources of contamination The area to be considered in this proposed study encompasses the carbonate fortttations in Frederick County, Virginia bounded on the east by the Martinsburg Formation, and on the west by Little North Mountain. Objective The objective of this study is to better characterize the carbonate aquifer system in the Northern Shenandoah Valley and provide relevant hydrogeologie information that can be used to guide the development and management of this important water resource. Relevance and Benefits 1 of 2 8/28/01 10-40 A) IJSGS VA 2000 Pro)uct VA134. Frederick County Cartionatc Aquil... itttp://va.water usgs.goviprolectsiva114 him Work on this project will contribute to the knowledge of water resources in the carbonate aquifers of Frederick County and the northern Shenandoah Valley of Virginia The study will set the framework for further investigation of fundamental processes controlling the occurrence and movernent of water in the carbonate aquifer syst.ein Over the long term, information from this study will be incorporated with current and past investigations in neighboring states to increase our knowledge of the hydrogeologic controls on ground water flow in the karst telTain of the Middle Atlantic States. Approach This study will be carried out as four major work elements to include (1) Hydrogeologic Framework, (2) Ground -Water Flow System, (3) Water Balance, and (4) Water (Quality. The study will be m�mpleted in three and one-half years beginning in October 2000. A field reconnaissance will be completed, existing geologic, hydrologic, and associated information will be collected, organized, and evaluated, and limited field data collection activities will be conducted in Federal FY 2001. Based on all evaluation of this information, field investigations will be expanded in FY 2.002 and 2003. Data analyses will be completed in 2003, and a final report will be produced in FY 2004. Continued monitoring and further investigation of specific water management issues will likely be carried out thereafter Vnginia 1'rotecis ,or. Water Resources_ of Virginia Contact GS=W_VArmd webmas!gLdusus-S�c U_.S.__[)oartment of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Privacy Statemcrn Di�launef URL: hap //va.water. uvg.v.goviprgiectsiva/34.himl Isast modified. Tuesday, June 19, 2001 10:52:48 AM 2 of 2 8/28101 10 40 At l_r"Mmi" Q __84. dwo �ia�n:sn-.evrax�t��rnto�aae� Y•:�e { rt i (Ya R, VV b:• e•• r Ptd a d t e K I ( a��s�a s t)erhl I!Wale&- Nji..Tlo. PIRni _Cedar C cek Future ource 10 MGIf V ry it Y H A: (f I �y I Northern cuter 1 Treatment Plant I 4 MCA FREDERICK COUNTY ��ANIJATRON AUTHORITY Han( - Plant 'N a�f svaAt. k '�'ir<it.'er�F'.KIB. 1 Pang FREDIERICK COUNTY SANII,ATION -- p,0. Box 1977 Wtochsgter. VA 22604-9377 j&ME& T. ANDFRSON, f:igai►r't" ImItWIN S. $RAIDLN, ywf-4;h ig—sn RflVWRT 1P. M()WERY. C.6'.A., See•treaurrsr j®IIN STEVENS RICH,k" A. RIN.'KMAN, P.E A%,rtdSt 19. 20(}5 C'omtronwealth of V'rP'ria pepailmiltnt of Fnvironr rental QIity Ms, Non-na C. Job, Regional VWP Engineer p,0. Box 3000 Harrisonburg VA 22801-9519 RE EREI>IC; Joist t'emit Application Nuanher 03-0393 Virginia watt' r Withdrawal from Blue Spring, Frederick C:()unty> b Jones P.E. -.j eat•pc`�ClOr ( mil 968a429 Dear Ms. Job' have F,nclosed is a copy of our response to your May 9, 2005 letter. It appears the US PaStstl Se infir-e may lost our first rnailirig. I aim disappointed you did not notify us that you had not received the infosrnatton h June 9 e. maJi g. ; Trice the check had been received. howevctr, I should have fbilowed up on Th y p y. i�naiiing to insttr_ our reply was satisfactor t to the Authority- I appreciate any effort you can snake to i assure yo'u this servi; e i$ ve. ,rnPortan expedite this Process. It -you have any gt,e6tions, please call >lrie Andreas or me. 1tbs f:rnclosures Sincerely yours, W. H. Jones, P. E. Engineer -`Director WATER Af y0C.R SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QuA.rTY WATER QUALITY DMSiON PERMIT APPLICATION FEE FORM EFFECTIVE JUL Y 1, 2004 INSTRUCTIONS Applicants for indNidual Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES), Virginia Pollutln Abatement (VPA} Virginia Water Protection (VWP), Surface Water Withdrawal (SWW). and Ground Water Withdrawai (GWW) Permits are required to pay permit application fees, except farming operations engaged in production for market. Fees are also r+equilmd for registration for coverage under General Permits except for to general permit, for sewage treatment systems with discharges of 1,000 gallons per day (GPD) or IwA and for Corrective Action Plans for leaking underground storage tanks- Except for VWP permits, fees must be paid when applications for permit issuance, reissuance• or modification are submitted. Appkarts; for VWP permits will be notified by the DEQ of the fee due. Applications will be considered incomplete if the proper fee is not paid and will not be processed until the fee Is received. (' - the reissuance fee does not apply to VPDEB and VPA permits - see the fee scheduler included with this form for details.) The permit fee schedule Is included with this form. Fees for permit issuance -or reissuiarecs avid for pwrnit modification are included. Once you he" determined the fee for the type of apptkadon you are submitting, complete this form. The original copy of the form and your check or money order payable to Treasurer of vuginla should be mailed to - Department of Environmental Quality Receipts Control P.G. Box 10150 Rktunond, VA 23240 A Copy of the form and a copy of your check or money order should accompany the permit application. You should retain a copy for your records. Please direct any questions regarding this form or fee payment to the DEQ Oates to which you we aubmitting your application. APPUCANT NAME: Frederick Coemty Sanitation Athy SSNJFIN: 54- MI187 ADDRESS: P.Q. f ,�g& 1877 DAYTIME PHONE: I 5Q ) AriajCF,1 Area Code 3jj }gsrpX VA 77" FACiLI YfACTMTY NAME: Blue SO ZLM Water Withdrawal LOCATION: �., aftnIn�Maj;�-ab Bead- Niddl4atmai_Yf alma TYPE OF PERMIT APPUIED FOR (from Few Schedule):_ VWP Individual - BetiLe 1.0 ,and 1-99 f� TYPE OF ACTION: x New Issuance Reissuance �� Mod3tication AMOUNT Of FEE SUBMITTED (from Foe Schedule)* �St, 5, L-tXLM IIMST1NG PERMIT NUMBER (if applicable): N/A —_-- DEQ OFFiCE TO WHICH APPUCATION SUBMITTED (check one) r Ab(rVdWV31NR0 HurtsondurWRO WaodbrrdgwWVRO Lyn0hburW3CR01 �, Ridlrtton4�Ro e, Ric#stmorsdAdu><tgtirartns RasrwkaAAlCRO. ., VpYlnla BaachmliRO FOR DEQ use C14LY Daw: ..... DC Ilk � Qrfglnai Form end Chuck - VEQ Receipts CarttMI. RJChnmeu+d Copy of Form and Copy of Check - DEQ Reglonaf Office or permit Program Ofr" science Applications International CorpOratton An Employee -Owned Company L1ay 19, 2005 Norma C. Job ,egional VW? Enepneet Commonwealth of Virginia 4411 Early Roar' p.0. Box 3000 Harrisonburg, V A 2280 1 -9519 1 qAy 20 I i Lj Re: .Joint Permit Application Number 05-039 3 Water Wirhdrawal from Blue Spring, Frederick County, Virginia Additional information and Permit Application Fee Request Letter Dear Lis. Job - In response to your May 9, ?005 letter, and with the assistance of Mr. Wellington Jones, PE, we cffcr the foilowinl; responses to your information request: J. What are the current demands and how has historical average demand changed over the years that Frederick County Sanitation Authority has been required to report water usage? Graph or plot average water use over the tine Frederick County Sanitation Authority has been reporting. The demand for water during fiscal year 2005 (July 1, 2004 to April 30, 2005) by the frederick County Sanitation authority is 4.768 million gallons per day. During fiscal year 1984, the Au- thority's average daily demand was 0,535 million gallons. During that twenty-Mo year period water demand has increased an average of 10.45 % annually. The average daily demands for fiscal years 1984 through 2005 is shown in the following table and graph: Fiscal j Average Fiscal Average Fiscal Average Demand Year O*mand Year Demand Year MGR MG13 MGD _ �—L85 84 1!! 0.535 9 � -- 1.35 99 2.901 85 I 0 594 92 1.328 p1 343.41 86 0,627 93 1648 a2 3 56�7 87 u.771 94 1.92 2.25 03 3 921 88 0.886 95 96 1.97 04 5.053 $8 0.938 97 2.494 05 4.1768 90 1,143 II 1 1 98 2.493 , 1129 AuS/ness Parkway South, Suite 10, W©stminsfor, MD 2115' • (410) 8 76-028 0 • Fax: (41G) 867-5535 ems. Norma C. en ed iiiTo ter The Authority has developed additional sources taafiluationve not eandtdisinfecuonW�Th Au horns Plants (see following table). All groundwater requires 1tv is in the process of brigirig online all of the gro h waters sources rc s cX`ept the Cover well. l:his source will be brought online in canjuncnon Source Name Safe Yield e Notes 0.S MGD Groundwater — Cover Well - - 0.5 1GD Groundwater. Lon acre, Well - 0. MMGi) Groundwater ----_� Plant Well - 1.0 MGD Groundwater Whet7el grin Well MGD - - -----� Th or water In-1 the e Authority is currently developing a joint Permit Application ed rotas Sempel withdrawals Spr ngThe Auis - othcr-spHng visited in November 2004. That spring thority does not intend to develop a well field in the vicinity of that spring' tential source of The Authority has contracted three sites to Perform exploratoryth���5 bz°omp eied 5Ye water supply. That drilling is expected to commence _ and end of 2006. The Atthority also has a leaseon the of potential yield arries at lof those quarriesrhas not been tently operated ny Global Stone/Chernstone P ies is for side channel storage for a surface withdrawal determined. Another use of the quarr from Cedar Creek 3. We understand that the Waterfront Blue Spring will be pumped to a quarry that u che ur- et! being used for water supply. At what rate dOewtmuquarry h? At what rate as lite During t. re Y � drawn down and if so by lto drought was the quarr3 � pumped in 3002 and how much did it draw down ter Under normal conditions how nruc wa- ter is stored in the quarry? Source has a rated capacity, or normal recharge rate, of 3.2 mgd. The Stephens City Qt iarrY However, during the drought of 2002 the water levels droppewattlevels during dthe drought were duced pumping rates. As shown on the following graph, and 100 feet below normal ir. the approximately 30 feet below normal it the North Query a e to a rroxirnately 1.0 mgd. Un- South Quarry, despite a 50 percent reduction tit total pump ele` ation) there remains approxi- der normal conditions (at an approximate 675-foot pumping proximately equal mately 150,000,000 gallons in storage. In this scenario, there is also an ap amount of unused storage capacity available to accept additional water from Blue Spring or other sources. $GIeNcff APPLIGAVONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION SCIENCE APPLICAVONS WERNATIONAt CORPORA VON .s.NgEM_z C. Job ^-. - ---^ -----lull' Y - FCSA Water Demand 64 $6 86 07 88 89 90 91 82 93 94 05 " 97 18 99 00 07 92 03 04 05 Fiscal Year 2. What are the current supplies and what is the safe yield of the current system? Include all components bath surface water supplies and ground water supplies and any planned addi- tional groundwater supplies. Is the other spring that we visited with Frederick County .Sani- tation Authority going to he turned into a well field? The Frederick Ceusity Sanitation Authority currently uses the following source water supplies: Source Dame Safe Yield Type Notes 3.2 MGD Surface Town restricts with- drawal to 3.0 MGD ' Clearbmok Qt4arry 2.2 MGD Surface --- Icy contract tlu-ough City of Winchester Surface 2022, if available _ Total The City of Winchester source is through an agreement which obligates the City to provide up to 2.0 N1GD and an additional 2.0 MOD can be provided if the City has it available. The total supply currently available to the Authority is rated by the Virginia Department of Health as 7.4 MGD. However, the Town of Stephens City has restricted the Authority's withdrawal from the Stephens City Qijarry to TO MGD- Therefore, actual source water available to the Authority is 7.2 MGD SCIENCE APPOCATIONS INTERNATIONAL_ CORPORA770N COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA GUIDANCE FOR CONDUCTING A COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SUPPLY NEEDS ASSESSMENT MAY 2000 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA GUIDANCE FOR CONDUCTING A COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SUPPLY NEEDS ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 3 Preamble................................................................ I. General................................................................ 4 II. Projection of Future Water Needs ..... • • • • • ........................ • • • 5 5 A. Planning for Waterworks Expansion ........................... 5 B. Planning Horizon ............................................. 5 C. Population Projections .. • • • • • • ........................ • • .. 6 D. Economic Development ................................... • 6 E. Domestic Consumptive Use .................................... 7 F. Definition of Pure Water .... • ......................... • • • • • • III. Determination of Current Water Capacities ........................... 8 A. Permit to Construct and Operate a Waterworks ..... • • • • 8 B. Virginia Water Protection Permit ....... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 8 C. Ground Water Withdrawal Permit ........................... 9 D. Water Withdrawal Reporting .................................... 9 IV. Securing an Adequate Source ............................................. 1010 A. General .................................................. 11 B. Surface Water Source Defined .................. • •"""' 11 C. Water Management Areas .................................... 11 1. Surface Water Management Areas .................. 2. Ground Water Management Areas 12 D. Utilizing Best Source of Water Available .................. 13 13 E. Natural Water Sources (Ground Water and Surface Waters) F. Safe Yield ...................................................... 14 14 G. H. Risks............................................................... Water Resources Policies on Water Supply and Storage 14 I. Powers of Local Governments/Planning Districts • • • • • • • • . 15 J. Technical Planning Assistance ••••••••••••••••••.•"""' 5 11 K. Engineering Reports and Studies ...................... • • • • 18 AppendixA ........................................................................ 19 AppendixB ........................................................................ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA GUIDANCE FOR CONDUCTING A COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SUPPLY NEEDS ASSESSMENT specific situation, applications for federal grants or permits, or other such planning activities to facilitate intergovernmental cooperation and coordination." Commentary - Provision of technical assistance to local governments will help promote and secure the maximum beneficial use of the water resources of the Commonwealth. K. Engineering Reports and Studies 12 VAC 5-590-200 - "Construction permits are issued by the [State Health] commissioner, but all requests for a construction permit are directed initially to the Field Office. The procedure for obtaining the permit includes the following steps: (i) the submission of an application, (ii) a preliminary engineering conference, (iii) the submission of an engineer's report (optional at the discretion of the Field Director), and (iv) the submission of plans, specifications, design criteria and other data in the number requested by the [State Health] commissioner." 12 VAC 5-590-200C -"The engineer's report and preliminary plans for waterworks shall present the following information where applicable:... 2c. An appraisal of the future requirements for service, including existing and potential industrial commercial, institutional and other water supply needs... 3. Where two or more solutions exist for providing public water supply facilities, each of which is feasible and practicable, the report shall discuss alternate plans and give reasons for selecting the one recommended, including financial considerations.... 5. Water Consumption -The report shall include: a. A description of the population trends as indicated by available records, and the estimated population which will be served by the proposed water system or expanded system. b. Present and future water consumption values used as the basis of design. c. Present and future yield of the sources of supply... 8. Source of water supply -Describe the proposed source or sources of water to be developed and the reasons for their selection by supplying the following data: a. Surface water sources (1) Hydrological data, stream flow, and weather records; (2) Safe yield, including all factors that might affect it; (3) Maximum flood flow, together with approval for safety features of spillway and dam from appropriate reviewing authority; (4) Summarized quality of raw water with special references to fluctuations in quality, changing meteorological conditions, sources of contamination, measures to protect the watershed, etc. Page 16 of 20 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA GUIDANCE FOR CONDUCTING A COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SUPPLY NEEDS ASSESSMENT b. Groundwater sources (1) Sites considered, (2) Advantages of site selected, (3) Elevation with respect to surroundings and 100-year flood, (4) Probable character of geological formations through which source is to be developed, (5) Unusual geological conditions affecting site, (6) Summary of source exploration, test well depth and method of construction, placement of liners or screens; pumping test, hours, capacity; water level and specified yield, water quality, (7) Possible sources of contamination." 12 VAC 5-590-200F - "A summary of complete design criteria shall be submitted for the proposed project, including, but not limited to, the following where applicable: 1. Yield of sources of supply. 2. Reservoir surface area. 3. Area of watershed. 4. Estimated water consumption. 5. Number of proposed services. 6. Fire -fighting requirements..." Commentary - The Waterworks Regulations are very definitive in specifying what actions and decisions a waterworks owner must make when developing a water supply. The excerpts shown above are only some of the information the Virginia Department of Health requires the owner to provide. Furthermore, the Virginia Department of Health requires a preliminary engineering report before the waterworks owner begins final design of the waterworks. When all the information has been provided and final plans and specifications have been developed, the Virginia Department of Health undertakes an extensive engineering evaluation to ensure that the consumers on the waterworks will be provided pure water. Page 17 of 20 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA GUIDANCE FOR CONDUCTING A COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SUPPLY NEEDS ASSESSMENT APPENDIX B Consumptive Uses 12 VAC 5 — 590 — 690. "Capacity of Waterworks. The design capacity of the waterworks shall exceed the maximum daily water demand of the system. Waterworks shall normally be designed on the following basis of water consumption. If deviations are made, they shall be based on sound engineering knowledge substantiated in the designer's report and approved by the [D]ivision [of Water Supply Engineering]. A. Daily water consumption rates (annual daily water demand): Dwellings, per person 100 gpd High schools with showers, per person 16 gpd Elementary schools without showers, per person 10 gpd Boarding Schools, per person 75 gpd Motels at 65 gallons per person, minimum per room 130 gpd Trailer courts at three persons per trailer, per trailer 300 gpd Restaurants, per seat 50 gpd Interstate or through highway restaurants, per seat 180 gpd Interstate rest areas, per person 5 gpd Service Stations, per vehicle serviced 10 gpd Factories, per person, per eight -hour shift 15-35 gpd Shopping Centers, per 1,000 sq. ft. of ultimate floor space 200-300 gpd Hospitals, per bed 300 gpd Nursing homes, per bed 200 gpd Page 19 of 20 • COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA GUIDANCE FOR CONDUCTING A COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SUPPLY NEEDS ASSESSMENT Home for the aged, per bed 100 gpd Doctor's office in medical center 500 gpd Laundromats, 9 to 12 # machines, per machine 500 gpd Swimming Pools, per swimmer 10 gpd Theaters, drive-in type, per car 5 gpd Theaters, auditorium type, per seat 5 gpd Picnic Areas, per person 5 gpd Camps, resort, day and night with limited plumbing per camp site 50 gpd Luxury camps with flush toilets, per camp site 100 gpd Page 20 of 20 I A non -exhaustive listing gfkey toxic elements that may invade a local well system and karst/aguifer. These listings are taken direct from local and Federal government internet listings or are well understood by the medical community to have these effects. Cadmium — Breathing high levels of cadmium severely damages the lungs and can cause death. Eating food or drinking water with very high levels severely irritates the stomach, leading to vomiting and diarrhea. Long-term exposure to lower levels of cadmium in air, food, or water leads to a buildup of cadmium in the kidneys and possible kidney disease. Other long-term effects are lung damage and fragile bones. Animals given cadmium in food or water had high blood pressure, iron -poor blood, liver disease, and nerve or brain damage. • Transmission: oral intake • Symptoms: vomiting, diarrhea, organ failure, fragile bones Outcome: The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that cadmium and cadmium compounds may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens. Reference: Illinois Department of Public Health Under Cooperative Agreement %with the Agency ror Toxic Substances and Disease Registry mn « etsdr.cdc PIIA \\auC011ht,\N,e 'OC nnni 'urn •\%\\\ aIs, lr C:Ic sm It;ict,` ;nm, Nitrates — alters body's iron state in its red blood cell from Fe+3 to Fe-2 disallowing oxygen carrying capacity and reducing transport of feeding body's need for oxygen. • Transmision: Oral intake via contaminated water systems • Symptoms: Rapid heart rate, blue lips/eyelids (central cyanosis) , rapid breathing, easy fatigue • Outcome: Methemoglobinuria, possible death Iron - Accidental iron overdose is a leading cause of poisoning deaths in children under 6 in the United States. Transmission: oral intake via contaminated drinking water (most common is from ingesting iron pills) Symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and gastrointestinal bleeding, which can progress to shock, coma and death. Outcome: Even if the child appears to recover from these initial problems, severe gastrointestinal bleeding, lethargy, liver damage, heart failure, and coma can occur from 12 hours to two days later. If the victims survive, they can develop other problems, such as gastrointestinal obstruction and more extensive liver damage, three to six weeks after the poisoning. littp://www.c (san. fcla.,ov/—dms/bi,yiron.litml Lead - released in coal burning or mining — replaces iron in red blood cells disallowing transport of oxygen and destroying the natural progressive development of red blood cells to their final mature form. • Transmission: intake via airway and oral ingestion via contaminated drinking water and eating contaminated food. Symptoms: weakness, excessive tiredness, irritability, constipation, anorexia, abdominal discomfort (colic), fine tremors, and wrist drop. Additionally, damage to the kidneys and the nervous system, anemia, high blood pressure, impotence'. infertility, and reduced sex drive can also occur with overexposure to lead. Lead poisoning, neurological effects, and mental retardation have occurred in the children of workers engaged in the occupations mentioned above. Outcome: Megaloblastic anemia, birth defects. bone defects, progressive learning defects, mental retardation, Nip: ��wti�.cdc.,u� niosh, topics, lead. iylercury — released in coal burning or mining — <10 • no adverse effects — levels seen in most of population 50-100 — Increasing prevalence and severity of the effects listed above. In children via maternal exposure, signs of delayed development. At much higher levels, retardation, blindness, and deafness. 100-200 • low prevalence of paresthesias (sensory changes) • decreased visual fields • decreased hearing acuity • ataxia (loss of the ability to coordinate muscular movement) 200 and above: Increasing prevalence and severity of the effects listed above. In children via maternal exposure, signs of delayed development. At much higher levels, retardation, blindness, and deafness. 0 http://bases.bireme.br/cgi- bill/wxislind.exe/iah/online/?isisScript=iah/iah.xis&next,\ction=lnk&base=:Vll_:DL[N1: I 996-2006&exprSearch=8602703&inclexSearch=U[&fan,=i http://www.scielo.br/scielo.pllp'?script=sci arttext&pid=S ]516-3 1801999000600007 GIARDIA - Parasite found in fresh -water streams into which local sewage is dumped. • Transmission: fecal -oral transmission either direct or contaminated drinking water, pool water Symptoms: chronic diarrhea, abdominal cramps, bloating, frequent loose and pale greasy stools, fatigue and weight loss. Outcome: Normally illness lasts for 1 to 2 weeks, but there are cases of chronic infections lasting months to years. Chronic cases, both those with defined immune deficiencies and those without, are difficult to treat. ilttp:'� �����ti��.cfsan.lda.�zov�--mu��%chap22.html hull): \•\ 1V\V.CCIC.Uoy Ilcldod dhlnd: C1lseasel1110- alnLTe110-'lS ellosls Shigella - Bacterial infection. Most who are infected with Shigella develop diarrhea, fever, and stomach cramps starting a day or two after they are exposed to the bacterium. The diarrhea is often bloody. Some persons who are infected may have no symptoms at all, but may still pass the Shigella bacteria to others through fecal to oral contact (unclean water, improper hand washing). Shigella infections can also be acquired by drinking or swimming in contaminated water. Water may become contaminated if sewage runs into it, or if someone with shigellosis swims in it. Transmission: Fecal -oral transmission either through drinking tainted drinking water or improperly prepared food or food washed with tainted drinking water Symptoms: Infections are associated with mucosal ulceration, rectal bleeding, drastic dehydration; fatality may be as high as 10-15% with some strains. Reiter's disease, reactive arthritis, and henlolvtic urernic svndrome are possible sequelae that have been reported in the aftermath of shigellosis.Complications: childhood - associated fever with seizures, can be hospitalized, very old, very young and immunocompromised at risk of death Outcome: Infants, the elderly, and the infirm are susceptible to the severest symptoms of disease, but all humans are susceptible to some degree. http://www.cf'san.lda.L,ov/—mow/chap 19.htnll E. coli O157:H7 is one of hundreds of strains of the bacterium Escherichia coli. Although most strains are harmless and live in the intestines of healthy humans and animals, this strain produces a powerful toxin and can cause severe illness. The combination of letters and numbers in the name of the bacterium refers to the specific markers found on its surface and disting uishes it from other types of E coli. Among other known sources of infection are consumption of sprouts, lettuce, salami, unpasteurized milk and juice, and swigirning in or drinking sewage -contaminated water. + Transmission: • Symptoms: severe diarrhea, often bloody, Hemorrhagic colitis is the name of the acute disease caused by E. coli 015TH7. The illness is characterized by severe cramping (abdominal pain) and diarrhea which is initially watery but becomes grossly bloody. Occasionally vomiting occurs. Fever is either low-grade or absent. The illness is usually sel-f-limited and lasts for an average of 8 days. Some individuals exhibit watery diarrhea only. • Complications: potential death in the very young and the very old and immunocompromised. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/—iiiow/chapl J.html Hepatitis A Virus is spread from person to person by putting something in the mouth that has been contaminated with the stool of a person with hepatitis A. This type of transmission is called "fecal -oral." For this reason, the virus is more easily spread in areas where there are poor sanitary conditions or where good personal hygiene is not observed Transmission: fecal -oral transmission during the shedding and contagious portion of the disease via mixing;; of black water with drinking water Symptoms: When disease does occur, it is usually mild and recovery is complete in 1-2 weeks. • Complications: Occasionaly, th„ symptoms are severe and convalescence can take several months. Patients sui for from feeling chronically tired during convalescence, and their inabilit1i to work can cause financial loss. Less than 0.4% of the reported cases in the U.S. are fatal. These rare deaths usually occur in the elderly. http://www.efsan.fda.gov/—niow/chgp3 l .html littp://www.atsdr.edc.gov/cabs/mercurvimet-cLirvcabs effect Ittml Copper - • Tranmission: intake via airway or oral intake via water run-off contamination • Symptoms: nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, irritation to nose and throat • Outcome: focal damage to liver and kidneys, can cause death http:,v x%v.dtsdr.cdc.�_To�,ttactsl ,Ihtuni Arsenic: Typically found as a waste product of mining and fossil fuel burning plants Transmission: via airway or ingesting Symptoms: Exposure to lower levels for a long time can cause a discoloration of the skin and the appearance of small corns or warts. Sore throat, irritated lungs. Ingesting very high levels of arsenic can result in death. Exposure to lower levels can cause nausea and vomiting, decreased production of red and white blood cells, abnormal heart rhythm, damage to blood vessels, and a sensation of "pins and needles" in hands and feet. • Outcome: noted as a possible cause of cancer, but still under investigation. MUD: '�'•�`•�..i[ti�lI'.�i1C.t t)� ll?\I�I'(�C1lC� In_.Il[illl Infection of the local karsts and well systems might be possible with the introduction of mining blasts fracturing the local natural rock strata . It is highly likely to drain local well systems at best and cause faster introduction of unfiltered and/or contaminated ground water at worst. Below is a small and nonexhaustive list of potential suspects that could infest our drinking water. Cryptosporidium parvum : Cryptosporidium is a mild gastrointestinal parasite and is is infamous for an outbreak in Milwaukee that sickened 300,000 people. • Transmission: fecal -oral transmission either direct or contaminated drinking water, pool water • Symptoms: Watery diarrhea (up to 50 stools per day) Outcome: resolves in days to weeks, but put elderly, very young and immunocompromised at risk of death MISSION STATEMENTS O-N Minerals http://www.op-lebLiynorton.com/about on/hse.php At Oglebay Norton Company, we are committed to being responsible corporate citizens. Our regard for ethical business practices, the environment, the communities we serve, and the health and safety of our associates is strong. We believe that the sustainability of the business depends on our commitment to operating in a way that benefits the communities where we operate as well as our owners and investors Environmental Stewards We are committed to conducting all our business activities as stewards of the environment. We will act in a way that preserves not only the company's fixture but also the future of the communities where our employees live and we operate. We believe that mining and production in an enviromnentally sensitive manner is a critical component to our business success. Winchester -Frederick County Economic Development Commission phone: 540-665-0973 www.winva.com We believe, as hopefully you do, there is nothing that exerts more influence in the location process than demonstrated success and dedication to the existing economic base. Over 100 businesses experience Winchester's commitment each year. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT MISSION STATEMENT: http://www.co.frederick.va.us/planninganddevelopment The mission of the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development is to lead in the development of policies and procedures pertaining to all aspects of community growth and development, as well as administer existing policies and procedures fairly and accurately. VISION STATEMENT: The Frederick County Department of Planning and Development will achieve the Mission Statement hough the monitoring of various local, state and national growth trends and issues to ascertgin appropriate policies, rpglations pO procedures. The clepartgient will utilize this informgfjpp to estgblish and maint4jp a procp5s W41ph will positively j} fluence the type, quality anq J'patigri of development to progj} q � livable community tb4t is well b4lgpced. ` tie departgj qt will educate and advise elected apq Appointed officials of this jnforinfttion to allow for informed and consistent decision making. Frederick County Sanitation Authority http://fesa-water.com " To provide affordable and reliable water and wastewater service to our customers while protecting public health and the environment." CONSERVATION EASEMENT AUTHORITY- www. co. frederick.va.us/PlanningAndDevelopment/ConservationEasementAuthority The Frederick County Conservation Easement Authority was established in 2005 to provide a means to assist county landowners in protecting and preserving farm and forest land, open space, scenic vistas, historic sites, water resources and environmentally sensitive lands. Because of conservation easements, the county and landowners now have a mechanism to work together to help retain much of the valued rural character of Frederick County. FREDERICK COUNTY Building Inspections http://www.co.frederick.va.us/Building_Inspection/Buildinglnspection l .html Mission's Statement: The Frederick County Building Inspections Department exists to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the county's citizenry as it relates to the construction, use and design of buildings. (reference this dept in talking about how the county knew when building our homes here in Middletown we were building next to a quarry & karst geology. Measures should have been taken to build our homes on sinkhole & karst territory) Frederick Count! Fire & Rescue http://www.co.frederick.va.us/firelies Because of the varied geographical makeup of the county, the Frederick County Fire & Rescue department is confronted with the problems of a rural department, including inadequate water supply, wildland-urban interface incidents, and agricultural incidents. Virginia Dept of Health http://www.vdh.state.va.us/ Our mission is to achieve and maintain optimum personal and community health by emphasizing health promotion, disease prevention and environmental protection. VDOT's Virginia Byway Program Mission: htip://www.virginiadot.org/infoservice/fag-bMgys.asp The program identifies road corridors containing aesthetic or cultural value near areas of historical, natural or recreational significance. By designating certain roads as Virginia Byways, widely distributing "A Map of Scenic Roads in Virginia,"and promoting the Virginia Scenic Roads Web site,the program encourages travel to interesting destinations and away from high -traffic corridors. VDOT http://www.virginiadot.ory-/infoservice/vdot-values.asp VDOT will plan, develop, deliver and maintain, on time and on budget, the best possible transportation system for the traveling public. P.O. Box 562 F Middletown, VA 22645 preservefrederick@yahoo.com .I P""'), www.preservefrederick.org Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 To: The Frederick County Board of Supervisors From: Wendy Hamilton, President, Preserve Frederick Re: O-N Minerals Mining Rezoning Application We respectfully request that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors deny the mining rezoning request for the following reasons: • The applicant has refused many and varied requests to scale back the size of the rezoning to reduce the impacts on southern Frederick County. • O-N Minerals has failed to revise and detail its proffer offer to adequately meet the concerns of county planning staff and local residents. • Such a large expansion of limestone mining is in direct conflict with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan for the area and other local economic development efforts. • Truck traffic projections, now at 400 trips through Middletown per day, are far too high to retain the scenic and small town character of the community. • O-N Minerals proffers regarding damage to local wells or residences could leave Frederick County with enforcement problems for years to come. • The proffer offer to phase limestone mining has never been used in Virginia and would tie the hands of future boards of supervisors to an industrial use that is already controversial in the community. Thank you very much for your careful consideration of this rezoning. Preserve Frederick promotes compatible development that strengthens our communities, protects our historic and natural resources and preserves the rural character of Frederick County. O-N Land at Cedar Creek It " �' Proposed Mining Corridor N Proposed Rezoning Current Mining Operation National Park 0 0.5 1 t Miles proposed Industrial Mining Corridor Proposed Rezoning • Current Nlihirng", -'40 Q • Operatiop r c�&10k 'I 0 Proposed .� �� Rezoning �eAe a�a SHENANDOAH G� COUNTY FREDERICK COUNTY Data source: Frederick County, VDCR. Although efforts have been made to verify data, accuracy is not guaranteed Historic Resources on O-N Land at Cedar Creek National Park Proposed Rezoning ►v Current Mining Operation Proposed Mining L Corridor Battle of Cedar Creek Confederate Troop Movements and Positions Federal Troop Movements and Positions e Cemetery t +� Federal Camps At 0 0.25 0.5 fiieswanders } , l , ,Miles Cemetery ♦� Nieswanders • •� Fort Q I e, J .' „ 0 s + 41 e • A �etle afia iddletown Data source: Frederick County, VDCR. Although efforts have been made to verity data, accuracy is not guaranteed P P O D Mining Rezoning Alternative Plan Current,'Mihing V16peratio n� National Buffer ,r _ 0 500 1,000 �...., Battlefield Park J Feet r skfr Cedar Creek Battlefield/Belle Grove Plantation, Frederick County On October 19, 1864, the Battle of Cedar Creek, the Civil War's last major battle in the Shenandoah Valley, took place between the towns of Strasburg and Middletown along Cedar Creek. Union forces under General Phillip Sheridan won a decisive victory that ended the Confederacy's power in the Valley. Belle Grove, an 18th century mansion now owned by the National Trust for His- toric Preservation, served as Sheridan's headquarters and was the scene of heavy fighting during the battle. The Cedar Creek Battlefield/Belle Grove Plantation is recognized to be of critical historical significance. This significance arises not only from the Battle of Cedar Creek, but from the fact that the area served as a hotly contested supply area for the Confederate forces and a main artery of inva- sion along which forces under the command of Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jubal Early, John Singleton Mosby, Phil Sheridan and George Armstrong Custer struggled for domination. In 2002, after years of preservation efforts by the National Trust and the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, Congress created the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. The small town of Middletown, with a population of 1,9oo, relies heavily on the revenue generated by heritage tourism at Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove. Visitors help support the small shops and businesses that line the town's Main Street. ' On March 13, 2007 the Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT) an - Main street, Middletown nounced its 2007 list of most endangered Civil War battlefields which included Cedar Creek Battlefield (and Belle Grove Plantation). According to a press release issued by the National Trust, the threats to these historic resources are twofold: (1) a potential devastation of the area by extensively expanded strip mining; and (2) installation of massive towers and power lines that will fundamentally alter the historic character of the area. First, O-N Minerals proposes to dramatically expand their quarry operation from its current 58 acres to 639 acres. If this massive acreage is rezoned from rural to industrial, it will be the largest rezoning in the history of Frederick County and will result in five strip mining quarry holes on core battlefield areas. The rezoning will result in waste piles, industrial facilities and 1,40o quarry dump trucks per day (one every 6o seconds) traveling Middletown's historic Main Street. These activities will tear up critical historical and natural assets and blight an area that occupies a critical and unique place in our country's history. The second threat to the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation is the proposed Dominion Power and Allegheny Power Soo -kilovolt electric transmission line. (See Virginia's North- ern Piedmont listing) Local and regional grassroots organizations and many Frederick County residents join the National Trust and Civil War Preservation Trust in their concern about preserving this historic site. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors is encouraged to take into consideration the adverse impact these threats will have on the environment, the local economy and the historical context of Cedar Creek Battlefield and the area's unique historic resources. (4) :) %-Jam_ M l APVA Preswv"+t�l vi r� t n iQ. - No *+ enda��urecf s-br� �. �tFe. 5 20 0 • �)�;• Y� •� _t _1 .. _ _ yC ry- � ' ��y � �1..� ��y!�y � - �� . -,: yy • 1•� ter. � � £ ..�!!�. � �—` s� r• '+ i .� Nr� � ' i�...i Ar- - �,.a�, .. � • � .. �•��` �l �p� `� ��..._ -w.�y. • .... _. .. ....��. _ �_ - 1 ''= �-1, � l � � ����V ��� �� P.O. Box 562 P""'), Middletown, ah 22645 o.com6to (/�-- I preservefrederick@yahoo.com www.preservefrederick.org Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 To: The Frederick County Board of Supervisors From: Wendy Hamilton', President, Preserve Frederick Re: O-N Minerals Miming Rezoning Application We respectfully request that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors deny the mining rezoning request for the following reasons: • The applicant has refused many and varied requests to scale back the size of the rezoning to reduce the impacts on southern Frederick County. • O-N Minerals has failed to revise and detail its proffer offer to adequately meet the concerns of county planning staff and local residents. • Such a large expansion of limestone mining is in direct conflict with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan for the area and other local economic development efforts. • Truck traffic projections, now at 400 trips through Middletown per day, are far too high to retain the scenic and small town character of the community. • O-N Minerals proffers regarding damage to local wells or residences could leave Frederick County with enforcement problems for years to come. • The proffer offer to phase limestone miming has never been used in Virginia and would tie the hands of future boards of supervisors to an industrial use that is already controversial in the community. Thank you very much for your careful consideration of this rezoning. Preserve Frederick promotes compatible development that strengthens our communities, protects our historic and natural resources and preserves the rural character of Frederick County. Historic Resources on O-N Land at Cedar Creek National Park Proposed Rezoning Current Mining Operation Proposed Mining Corridor Battle of Cedar Creek Confederate Troop Movements and Positions Federal Troop Movements and Positions Federal Camps Tabler Cemetery t 0 0.25 0.5 Nieswanders ,Miles Cemetery t Nieswande {: l Fort ♦ AM- W ow a " ♦ �G ♦ ti C" , ; A a �p �a •, {0) 1 dell 40 afi G f A A - iddletown Data source: Frederick County, VDCR. Afthough efforts have been made to verify data, accuracy is not guaranteed Q P 0 v Mining Rezoning Alternative Plan " Buffer r 0 500 1,000 l I J Feet Current,'!dining V16peration� National Battlefield Park Kip ;r: 1% Cedar Creek Battlefield/Belle Grove Plantation, Frederick County On October 19, 1864, the Battle of Cedar Creek, the Civil War's last major battle in the Shenandoah Valley, took place between the towns of Strasburg and Middletown along Cedar Creek. Union forces under General Phillip Sheridan won a decisive victory that ended the Confederacy's power in the Valley. Belle Grove, an 18th century mansion now owned by the National Trust for His- toric Preservation, served as Sheridan's headquarters and was the scene of heavy fighting during the battle. The Cedar Creek Battlefield/Belle Grove Plantation is recognized to be of critical historical significance. This significance arises not only from the Battle of Cedar Creek, but from the fact that the area served as a hotly contested supply area for the Confederate forces and a main artery of inva- sion along which forces under the command of Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jubal Early, John Singleton Mosby, Phil Sheridan and George Armstrong Custer struggled for domination. io In 2002, after years of preservation efforts by the National Trust and the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, Congress created the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. The small town of Middletown, with a population of 1,9oo, relies heavily on the revenue generated by heritage tourism at Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove. Visitors help support the small shops and businesses that line the town's Main Street. ' On March 13, 2007 the Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT) an - Main Street, Middletown nounced its 2007 list of most endangered Civil War battlefields which included Cedar Creek Battlefield (and Belle Grove Plantation). According to a press release issued by the National Trust, the threats to these historic resources are twofold: (1) a potential devastation of the area by extensively expanded strip mining; and (2) installation of massive towers and power lines that will fundamentally alter the historic character of the area. First, O-N Minerals proposes to dramatically expand their quarry operation from its current 58 acres to 639 acres. If this massive acreage is rezoned from rural to industrial, it will be the largest rezoning in the history of Frederick County and will result in five strip mining quarry holes on core battlefield areas. The rezoning will result in waste piles, industrial facilities and 140o quarry dump trucks per day (one every 6o seconds) traveling Middletown's historic Main Street. These activities will tear up critical historical and natural assets and blight an area that occupies a critical and unique place in our country's history. The second threat to the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation is the proposed Dominion Power and Allegheny Power Soo -kilovolt electric transmission line. (See Virginia's North- ern Piedmont listing) Local and regional grassroots organizations and many Frederick County residents join the National Trust and Civil War Preservation Trust in their concern about preserving this historic site. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors is encouraged to take into consideration the adverse impact these threats will have on the environment, the local economy and the historical context of Cedar Creek Battlefield and the area's unique historic resources. (4) 7f1 APVA Presw^vc&t ,.. W r5 1 Yi L , - M o s,+ E:ndar.5,recp "s-ton 7c-, S*e- s 20 0 7 'Nq Egli; Mav 31, 2006 Mr. Soanpler, Our I -Team photographer dubbed our mine stories to a DVD for your use. This is permission for you to use the story to show to others in your area, to educate them. However, you do not have our permission to give this DVD to another television station to use in their reporting of any story they may choose to do. A media outlet would have to contact me at WCPO-TV directly for permission to use any of our copyrighted material. 4-1 i I've referred your possible story to the VP of News at TV in Washington, DC. His name is Bill Lord. He hired me as a reporter in Nashville many years ago. Please keep me posted on what hap with your story. ,n Laure Quinlivan ` p Cc: Phil Drechsler, WC Mati Miller, WCPO-TV, Bob Morford, WCPO-TV 1720 Gilbert Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-1401 (513)721.990a www.wcpo.com CINCINNATI.COM NKY.COM I ENQUIRER I POST WCPO I CIN WEEKLY Classifieds I Cars I Homes ' • Better R Y ults: ..� Ct .. V HOME WCPO WCPO Shows Don't Waste Your $ I -Team 9 On Your Kids' Side More... 9News Biographies Clyde Gray Carol Williams Steve Raleigh More... Recipes Program Schedule What's on now/today What's on this week ABC shows News rebroadcasts Radio partners Special programming Community Affairs Advisory Board Careers In Media Speaker's Bureau Supplier Diversity Prog. Press Releases Quarterly FCC Reports WCPO History The Uncle AI Show News Department Website History Video Vault Photo Gallery About Us By The Numbers Virtual Station Tour E-Postcards WCPO Digital Pet Pals Advertise With Us WCPO.com News Weather Sports Health Video Webcams Business WCPO Local Shows and Segments Main Page I Archived Stories I Documentaries I Story Tips &war s I HistoryI Email Newsletter -Team Mine Investigation Reported and Web Produced by: I -Team AUDIO/VIDEO Updated: 05/05/03 09:03:57 10 Watch this 9News video Brian Patrick, 91News anchor, on set: Imagine the neighbor from hell ... someone We use RealVideo format only. who destroys your home, pollutes your Click here for help. property and makes you sick Julie O'Neill, 9News anchor, on set: Dozens of Boone and Gallatin County residents say that's their reality, since the Sterling Mine started blasting. (- Team reporter Laure Quinlivan has an exclusive investigation. Laure Quinlivan, 9News I -Team reporter, on set: The families have filed a lawsuit and their story is a little like the movie 'Erin Brokovitch'. They fear a rich and powerful neighbor is slowly killing them. 1-Team 'bong' and animation. Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, voice over video: Doug Jackson bought this land for his retirement. He thought the rolling hills of Boone County were perfect for his horses and his dream house, a dream house he's now abandoned. Doug Jackson, Boone County resident, on camera: "I had to move into this and this is where I am stuck. This is where I sleep." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, on camera: "Oh gosh." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, voice over video: Jackson now lives crammed between tape shelves in this former video store. Doug Jackson, Boone County resident, on camera: "This is where I have to live" Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, voice over video: Jackson says he was forced out when a bad neighbor moved in: Sterling Ventures Mine. http://www.wcpo-com/wcpo/localshows/iteam/2lb6613e.html 5/26/2006 About WCPO This used to be farm land. These homes on Route 42 in Gallatin County and Giveaways on Southfork Road in Boone County were here before the mine came in 1998. Recipes Doug Jackson's home is closest. Traffic Pet Pals Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, on camera: "Can you always hear that Search noise?" Help/Contact Us EEO Report Doug Jackson, Boone County resident, on camera: "Always, always all through the night. That goes all night long." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, voice over video: In addition to noise, Jackson and his neighbors say mine dust has contaminated their homes "you can't live in that" and blasting has cracked and damaged their foundations. Lexington businessman Alex Boone owns the mine, and denies causing any damage. Alex Boone, Sterling Mine owner, on camera: "Every shot that we ever shot at the mine has been recorded, they are all well within, well below both federal, state and standards that we agreed to that were even below those." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, voice over video: Boone claims you can't even hear the blasts, but listen to what Doug Jackson got on tape the day the mine sent over an engineer over to check his damage claims. Doug Jackson, Boone County resident, on camera: "Now what do you think of that?" Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, voice over video: Boone says in the four years they've been mining underground, you can't hear blasting. Neighbors invited the I -Team to hear what they hear every night. It's March 18, 8:37 p.m. [Sounds of blasting.] Alex Boone, Sterling Mine owner, on camera: "We have never had anything that I think could effect a person's home around the mine." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, on camera: "The homeowners' biggest worry is damage to their health. Our I -Team investigation finds the EPA has cited the mine many times for polluting the air with dust. Experts say it's a health hazard, but Alex Boone claims it's harmless. He says his mine employees have never had a respitory problem." Alex Boone, Sterling Mine Owner, on camera: "They don't need a breathing apparatus or a mask or anything, so no I don't think there's any health risk." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, voice over video: NEIGHBORS DO. Alva Wood, lives next to mine, on camera: "1 use Advair twice a day." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, on camera: "And you've got to have that with you all the time?" Alva Wood, lives next to mine, on camera: "Everywhere I go, I'm never without it anymore." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, voice over video: 83 YEAR OLD ALVA WOOD ISN'T THE ONLY NEIGHBOR NOW USING AN INHALER. NINE YEAR OLD KELSEY PAYNE HAS DEVELOPED SEVERE ASTHMA. HER DOCTOR RECENTLY ORDERED A CAT SCAN OF HER CHEST. [Video shows Kelsey crying during CAT scan.) WCPO.com Ac http://www.wcpo.com/wcpo/localshows/iteam/21 b6613e.html 5/26/2006 Mike Payne, Boone County resident, on camera: "And the doctor said the best thing we can do is to get her away from this because it is so unhealthy for her. She can't survive with this dust coming down through here like this." Shelley Payne, Boone County resident, on camera: "But we can't get away, we can't move cause you can't sell a broken house." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, voice over video: THE PAYNES DONT LET THEIR KIDS PLAY OUTSIDE. THEY DON'T WANT THEM BREATHING THIS. Doug Jackson, Boone County resident, on camera: "This is what we have to live with and if you can breathe in this, you're a better person than I am." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, voice over video: THIS IS DOUG JACKSON'S HOME VIDEO OF THE MINE EXHAUSTING DUST. AFTER BLASTING UNDERGROUND, THE MINE VENTS THE AREA, USING BIG FANS TO BLOW DUST INTO THE AIR. PREVAILING SOUTHWEST WINDS DUMP IT RIGHT ON HOMES ON SOUTHFORK ROAD. Doug Jackson, Boone County resident, on camera: "You can't breathe. You'll cough." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, voice over video: NEIGHBORS SAY IT'S RUINED THEIR LIVES. WOOD CAN NO LONGER DRINK THE WATER FROM HIS CISTERN, GROW CROPS IN HIS FIELD OR HAVE VISITORS. Alva Wood, lives next to mine, on camera: 'They can't sit out here and inhale this stuff." Betty Merida, Boone County resident, on camera: "I smell it and it's disgusting." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, voice over video: BETTY MERIDA AND HER HUSBAND LLOYD DON'T LET THEIR GRANDKIDS VISIT THEM ANYMORE. THEY DON'T GRILL OUT. THEY'VE LIVED HERE 31 YEARS. Betty Merida, Boone County resident, on camera: "It's made our lives a living nightmare. We leave home because of the severe headaches and we sleep somewhere else" Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, voice over video: HER HUSBAND NOW NEEDS BREATHING TREATMENTS. Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, on camera: "Please explain the health risks of breathing mine dust and respond to neighbors who say mine dust from your mine has made them sick." Alex Boone, Sterling Mine Owner, on camera: "I don't believe that there is any health risk." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, voice over video: NO HEALTH RISK? THE I -TEAM FOUND HIS MINE'S OWN SAFETY DATA SHEET SAYS SILICA IN MINE DUST IS A "KNOWN HUMAN CARCINOGEN." Dr. Kenneth Reed, certified industrial hygenist, on camera: "I was shocked to see the amount of dust" Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, voice over video: DR. KENNETH REED IS A CERTIFIED INDUSTRIAL HYGENIST HIRED BY THE FAMILIES. HIS http://www.wcpo.com/wcpo/localshows/iteam/21 b6613e.html 5/26/2006 FIRM ANALYZED AIR SAMPLES TAKEN OUTSIDE HOMES WITH THIS GILLIAN PUMP. Dr. Kenneth Reed, certified industrial hygenist, on camera: "We set it so it sucks at the same rate as breathing, 2 liters per minute." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, voice over video: DR. REED FOUND THE DUST CONTAINS ELEVATED LEVELS OF CRYSTALLINE SILICA IN THE FORM OF QUARTZ. Dr. Kenneth Reed, certified Industrial hygenist, on camera: 'The quartz gets down into the lung and can cause lung cancer." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, on camera: "No doubt about it?" Dr. Kenneth Reed, certified industrial hygenist, on camera: "No doubt about it." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, on camera: "Do you believe as an expert that some of the health problems that people are having around here are due to the dust that comes from the plant?" Dr. Kenneth Reed, certified industrial hygenist, on camera: "Absolutely." Jack Payne, Boone County resident, on camera: "I just can't breathe." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, voice over video: NEIGHBOR JACK PAYNE'S DOCTOR ATTRIBUTES "HIS SHORTNESS OF BREATH, SORE THROAT AND COUGHING TO HIS HEAVY EXPOSURE TO LIMESTONE DUST. " "LITERATURE REPORTS THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS ARE SILICOSIS AND INCREASED RISK OF LUNG CANCER." Dr. Robert Hollis, physician, on camera: "How about your sinuses? Are they bothering you?" Alva Wood, lives next to mine, on camera: "Yeah I've got a headache right now." Laure Quinlivan, 1-Team reporter, voice over video: DR ROBERT HOLLIS TREATS ALVA WOODS AND LLOYD MERIDA. Dr. Robert Hollis, physician, on camera: "Real hard deep breaths. Okay, you're going to need to double up on the Pulmacort. Use two puffs at least twice a day. You're starting to get some wheezing down here in these lobes." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, on camera: "Do you believe that the mine has caused some of their health problems?" Dr. Robert Hollis, physician, on camera: "Certainly this has exacerbated some of their problems. They may have had some pre-existing conditions that were exacerbated and then they've been just terribly upset by the mine and affluent dust and the disruption to their life." Doug Jackson, Boone County resident, on camera: "I am worried about getting cancer." Jack Payne, Boone County resident, on camera: "I'm supposed to be going http://www.wcpo.com/wcpo/localshows/iteam/2lb6613e.html 5/26/2006 to a lung specialist." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, voice over video: NO ONE HAS LUNG CANCER YET, BUT JACK PAYNE AND ALVA WOOD HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH EMPHESEMA AND SILICOSIS, SCARRING OF THE LUNG. SEVERAL OTHERS HAVE SINISITUS AND ASTHMA. Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, on camera: "So you're saying that the mine dust has nothing to do with their asthma, their silicosis, their emphesema?" Alex Boone, Sterling Mine owner, on camera: "I don't believe so, no." Helen Payne, Boone County resident, on camera: "I think they're just literally killing people down here." Jack Payne, Boone County resident, on camera: "He doesn't care what he does to us." Mike Payne, Boone County resident, on camera: 'This man came in to make his money, big businessman." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, on camera: "We thought you'd like to see where Alex Boone lives. Its nowhere near a limestone mine. He's in the middle of Bluegrass country." Laure Quinlivan, 1-Team reporter, voice over video: BOONE'S SPRAWLING ESTATE IN LEXINGTON IS NAMED WIMBLEDON FARMS. HIS HORSES HAVE BIG FIELDS, A JUMPING ARENA, AND A NEW BARN. NEXT TO BOONE'S HOME IS A GUESTHOUSE AND SWIMMING POOL. HE KEEPS HIS PERSONAL HELICOPTER IN THE GREEN BUILDING AND SHARES A LANDING STRIP WITH A NEIGHBOR. OUR INVESTIGATION FINDS THE MINE BRINGS IN 11 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR IN SALES, BOONE CLAIMS ITS CLOSER TO 7 MILLION. Helen Payne, Boone County resident, on camera: "We just want out. And I feel like it's his responsibility." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team reporter, voice over video: NEIGHBORS SAY BOONE HAS REFUSED TO BUY THEIR HOMES AND REFUSED TO EVEN TALK WITH THEM. Mike Payne, Boone County resident, on camera: "And all the while he was destroying everything we loved." Dr. Kenneth Reed, certified industrial hygenist, on camera: "I just believe that the people who operate this mine are just completely amoral and they have not recognized this as a problem, they have not listened to the people in this community complain about it as a problem. They've done nothing about it." I-Team'bong' and animation out. Laure Quinlivan, 9News I -Team reporter, on set: IF YOU WONDER WHY GOVERNMENT REGULATORS DON'T CRACK DOWN AND PUT THIS MINE OUT OF BUSINESS, I'LL SHOW YOU TUESDAY NIGHT AT 5:30. TOMORROW AT 5:30 P.M. WE'LL AIR THIS STORY AGAIN, IF YOU WANT TO TELL YOUR FRIENDS. 9News anchor on set: WHAT ABOUT THE FAMILIES' LAWSUIT? http://www.wepo.com/wcpo/localshows/iteam/2lb6613e.html 5/26/2006 Laure Quinlivan, 9News [-Team reporter, on set: THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO GO TO TRIAL LAST MONTH, BUT THE JUDGE PUSHED THE MINE OWNER INTO MEDIATIATION WITH THE FAMILIES. IF THEY DON'T REACH A SETTLEMENT THE TRIAL WILL BE IN NOVEMBER. Contact the I -Team Stephen Hill shillRwcpo.com Hagit Limor hlimor wgpo.com Laure Quinlivan guinlivan@wcpo.com Enquirer • Post • 9WCPO • CiN Weekly CINCINNATI.COM I ENQUIRER I POST I WCPO i CIN WEEKLY I Classifieds Cars I Homes I Jobs I Custoi Search I Feedback I Advertising I News Tips other E.W. Scripps sites: DIY I HGTV I Food Network I Fine Living I GA( Terms of Use I CCo gyyrright Info I Privacy Policy Comparison Shop for Bedroom Furniture and Housewams at Shop ll la 3 Bit WCPo-Tv Is an equal opportunity em> to eer. All material ® 2006 WCPO-TV Scripps Howard Broadcasting Company. All Rights Reserved. http://www.wcpo.com/wcpo/localshows/iteam/21 b6613e.html 5/26/2006 CINCINNATI.COM I NKY.COM I ENQUIRER I POST I WCPO I CIN WEEKLY I Classifieds I Cars I Homes Ct P1-88a-Sat�le-�nf� y IR�1'i� it Dentist.. HOME WCPO WCPO Shows Don't Waste Your $ I -Team 9 On Your Kids' Side More... 9News Biographies Clyde Gray Carol Williams Steve Raleigh More... Recipes Program Schedule What's on now/today What's on this week ABC shows News rebroadcasts Radio partners Special programming Community Affairs Advisory Board Careers In Media Speaker's Bureau Supplier Diversity Prog Press Releases Quarterly FCC Reports WCPO History The Uncle AI Show News Department Website History Video Vault Photo Gallery About Us By The Numbers Virtual Station Tour E-Postcards WCPO Digital Pet Pals Advertise With Us WCPO.com News Weather Sports Health Video A glamorous ne%v smile... A sen.5ational new life. 4v WCPO Local Shows and Segments Main Page I Archived Stories I Documentaries I StoMr Tips Awards I History I Email Newsletter May 13: Sterling Mine Result Reported and Web Produced by: I -Team Updated: 05/13/03 17:13:44 David Rose, 9News Anchor, on set: Good evening. Kentucky's top environmental official was in Northern Kentucky today reading to our I -Team report on the Sterling Mine in Gallatin County. Andrea Canning, 9News Anchor, on set: Cabinet Secretary Hank List says he'll investigate personally after watching I -Team reporter Laure Quinlivan's stories last week. Laure Quinlivan, I -Team Reporter, on set: We FedExed our stories to Cabinet Secretary Hank List, but before he could watch them, he says the owner of Sterling Mine came to him in Frankfort. The mine owner told him he runs a good, clean operation. But Secretary List says that's not what he saw when he watched our I -Team report. Cabinet Secretary Hank List, SOT (sound on tape) "I was not aware there was an issue up there 'til Thursday. Your tape is very condemning of the operation. Visually, it looks very bad." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team Reporter, VO (voice-over): Environmental Secretary Hank List is talking about this resident's home video of blowing mine dust. Nat Jackson, resident SOT (sound on tape) "This is what we have to live with." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team Reporter, VO (voice-over): The I -Team showed how neighbors of the Sterling Limestone Mine say mine dust has contaminated their properties. Webcams Alva Woods, neighbor SOT (sound on tape) Business "It's limestone dust all right." About WCPO Giveaways Laure Quinlivan, I -Team Reporter, VO (voice-over): And make them sick. 83-year old Alva Woods has emphysema. He's never smoked. http://www.wcpo.com/wcpo/localshows/iteam/20cdO966.html 5/26/2006 Recipes Neighbor Jack Payne doesn't smoke either. He also has emphysema. Traffic Pet Pals Jack Payne, neighbor SOT (sound on tape) Search "I just can't breathe." Help/Contact Us EEO Report Laure Quinlivan, I -Team Reporter, VO (voice-over): Many neighbors now have severe asthma, including nine-year old Kelsey Payne. Her doctor ordered this cat scan. Kelsey Payne, NASOT (natural sound on tape), crying in cat scan Mike Payne, neighbor SOT (sound on tape) "The doctor says the best thing we can do for her is get her away from this." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team Reporter, VO (voice-over): Mike Payne and other neighbors came today to the Northern Kentucky Chamber where Secretary List was holding an environmental forum. He promised residents he'll investigate the mine. Betty Merida, neighbor SOT (sound on tape) "I hope to God he does get involved. Somebody's going to have to before we all die." Helen Payne, neighbor SOT (sound on tape) "I told him I thought the EPA in Boone County wasn't doing their job and as many complaints as been turned in they turned their head on all of us." Cabinet Secretary Hank List, SOT (sound on tape) "if you criticize the EPA you're criticizing me. I'm the one responsible for the actions of my employees." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team Reporter, VO (voice-over): List says he'll look into the mine's repeated violations — and allegations the local EPA office hangs up on people who complain. He'll meet soon with local EPA inspector Clay Redmond, who today declined comment on our I -Team reports. Clay Redmond, EPA Inspector, SOT (sound on tape) "I don't think I need to be on tv." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team Reporter, SOT (sound on tape): "Well, we'd certainly like to get your reaction since you are the local inspector for the EPA. Sure you don't want to say anything?" Laure Quinlivan, I -Team Reporter, VO (voice-over): List says what most surprised him in our I -Team report was this: >b>Blast from Doug's, NASOT (natural sound on tape) "How about that one!" Laure Quinlivan, I -Team Reporter, VO (voice-over): The mine blasting neighbors hear day and night. >b>Blast from Helen's, NASOT (natural sound on tape) "What did you think about that one? " Laure Quinlivan, I -Team Reporter, VO (voice-over): Mine owner Alex Boone told the I -Team you can't hear the blasting, and his mine dust is harmless. Boone met last Thursday with Secretary List. Cabinet Secretary Hank List, SOT (sound on tape) http://www.wcpo.com/wcpo/localshows/iteam/20cd0966.html 5/26/2006 "I've got a video they have given me and I've got a video you have given me and I'm stuck right in the middle" "The only way for me to get a real feel for what is there is to go look at what's there." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team Reporter, SOT (sound on tape): "Are you going to go there yourself? " Cabinet Secretary Hank List, SOT (sound on tape) "I personally have to. You've basically elevated this to the point where I need to get personally involved and I need to physically go and look at this site." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team Reporter, SOT (sound on tape): "Well I hope that when you do that, you'll let us know so we can follow you and follow the process." Cabinet Secretary Hank List, SOT (sound on tape) "Well, I think it's pretty doubtful I'm going to invite you to come follow me." Laure Quinlivan, I -Team Reporter, on set: You can't blame me for trying! We called the mine for comment today and the mine attorney just faxed us 20-pages. He says these are scientific tests that prove the Sterling mine dust is harmless. Alex Boone says his mine workers don't even wear masks. Andrea Canning, Mews Anchor, on set: How long will the Secretary take to completely investigate this situation? Laure Quinlivan, I -Team Reporter, on set: It'll no doubt take him a while to go through all the documents and talk to people involved. Then he'll be going to the mine to see for himself. We'll keep in touch with him and follow-up so viewers know what happens. Contact the I -Team Stephen Hill shiIICcDwcpo.co http://www.wepo.com/wcpo/localshows/iteam/20cd0966.html 5/26/2006 April 17, 2008 Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director Department of Planning and Development 107 Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Ruddy: Subject: Rezoning Application #03-06 from O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Frederick County may be on the cusp of major change. The action of the Board of Supervisors on April 23, 2008 will signal if there is to be a significant and detrimental change to the future of the County. We have made an effort to present, succinctly, a view of the future should the rezoning application be approved. To fully address the subject would require a very sizable statement. Our observations regarding the subject rezoning application are attached. Our initial reaction to the rezoning application was Not in My Back Yard! We have since concluded that the basic issue at this time is neither NIMBY, water, nor mining alone. Rather, the basic issue is very fundamental, the future of Frederick County. Approval of the application could, literally, put the future of the County at the whims of a single for -profit corporation rather than the citizens. We strongly urge rejection of this rezoning application. Sincerely, Robert W. S ang r and Judith A 276 Westemvie Drive Middletown, Virginia 22645 Back Creek District Phone: 869-9744 Email: � -; _,n _ APR 17 2C )8 Spangler COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Approval of the O-N rezoning application would be contrary to many of the goals of the Frederick County 2007 Comprehensive Plan, e.g., >Protect the historic resources in Frederick County >Promote the preservation and protection of Civil War Battlefield resources >Provide support to agriculture as a major industry >Provide support to travel and tourist related activities >Protect the natural environment >Identify and protect important natural resources >Develop land according to the characteristics of the land and the facilities available >Develop land in accordance with standards that provide for appropriate quality of development >Carefully locate & limit business and industrial areas to avoid conflicts with other uses and to avoid traffic impacts >Provide for quality business and industrial areas >Protect the environment & avoid other adverse impacts in business & industrial areas >Maintain agriculture as a significant portion of the County's economy >Maintain the rural character of areas outside of the Urban Development Area >Insure that land development activities in the rural areas are of appropriate quality >Protect the rural environment The Comprehensive Plan also calls for a study to develop standards to be used in evaluation of proposals for new EM, Extractive Manufacturing areas. More than a quarter century has passed since U.S. Steel indicated its interest in expanding the area to be mined but the standards have not been developed. The 639 acres proposed for rezoning is a massive amount of land, just short of one square mile. By comparison, Sherando Park encompasses 330 acres and Clearbrook Park 55 acres. The Virginia Arboretum is located on 170 acres. The 639 acres added to the existing mining operating area would create an industrial mining corridor of 1,261 acres-- 418 acres more than Central Park in New York City. Is this what we want to leave for future generations? How much better it would be to leave clean parks, woodlands, and historic sites as a legacy. HEALTH IMPACTS During its public meetings, O-N has maintained that the dust generated by its mining activities are NOT detrimental to the health of nearby residents because: 1) it does not harm O-N employees, and 2) the dust created is no more than that stirred up by the mowing of a lawn. The enclosed DVD, obtained from WCPO 9 in Cincinnati, Ohio, shows, dramatically, some of the effects of mine operations on its neighbors; the attached May 31, 2006 letter from Ms. Laure Quinlivan indicates how the DVD was obtained and that permission was granted for it to be used for educational purposes. The DVD contains a report on the Sterling Limestone Mine in Gallatin County, Kentucky that was aired on May 5, 2003 and a follow-up report aired May 13, 2003. The reports were developed by the I -TEAM of WCPO 9. Transcripts of the airings are attached to Ms. Quinlivan's letter. Dust, even without silica, can have very serious health effects on a person depending on the age and health of the individual. The owner of the Sterling Limestone Mine says he does not believe the dust causes a health problem because his employees do not wear masks, but the DVD shows that large volumes of dust are pumped out of the mine. This suggests that the dust in the area of a blast is removed rather quickly after a blast; therefore, the workers would not be exposed to much, if any, dust. Great quantities of dust created by a blast at O-N Minerals (ON) will be cleared away from the quarry in short order only when there is a high wind in the area. Because there is not always sufficient wind, a lot of this dust now falls on the south end of Middletown. See Photo #1 of dust plume. Mining would progress northward, if the application were to be approved, and even greater quantities of dust would be deposited on Middletown and, of course, be inhaled by a much greater number of people. The Washington Post (February 6, 2008, page A2) published a story titled, Dust Storms Orerseas Carty Contaminants to U.S. see attachment. It has long been known that dust from volcanic activity can stay in the atmosphere several years and travel around the earth several times before dropping to earth. Now it has been documented that asthma increases in the Caribbean following African dust storms and three-inch African locusts have been found alive in the Caribbean after such dust storms. "Researchers," it was reported, "have also found that the dust clouds contain not only harmful minerals and industrial pollutants, but also living organisms: bacteria, fungus, and viruses...." Mercury from coal-fired, electric generating plants west of the County is one undesired pollutant that is deposited on all of Frederick County, including the quarry. As a blast throws up dust, it also throws up those harmful pollutants that have been deposited on the quarry. See Photo #2 for a picture of pollution hanging over the quarry and environs. When building our home, we chose to have only windows that could not be opened for medical reasons. This resulted in there being three windows that can be opened because of code requirements and they are opened only infrequently. This home has only two -retired occupants yet there is a greater abundance of dust than we experienced in our previous homes. After living here for a couple of years, we finally realized the excess dust is a result of the quarry blasting in the operating area that is approximately 2.5 miles south of our home. The original in-house air filters have been upgraded in an effort to minimize the dust; two portable air filters are also used. See Photo 93 for a comparison of a clean filter and a filter that had been changed after less than sixty days; this illustrates the accumulation of dust in a relatively short time frame. We would expect to have to change 2 filters much more often if young children were living here and opening and closing doors frequently. ECONOMIC IMPACTS Devaluation of properties near quarries has been studied in many places with the result usually the same; property values decline. An example is at the Mad River Neighborhood Association web site (www.grecnulountainacccss.net/--mi-lia/) regarding a proposed quarry at Moretown, Vermont where just proposing a quarry affects those values as much as 10% to 50%; the estimates are from a study by a state -certified appraiser who appears to have done a very credible job. The Vermont State Appraiser agrees. Should the O-N rezoning application be approved, it is anticipated that property values -- especially those adjacent to and near the quarry operation --will decline precipitously. Such an impact has already occurred at 1875 Hites Road in Frederick County. The property is across the road from the property to be rezoned. It was listed for sale at $422,900. and received an offer rather quickly. The potential buyers learned of the proposed rezoning, decided against the purchase, and lost their deposit. This property does not, and likely will not, have a view of the proposed mining operation. It was sold for $370,000. Properties that will have a view of the mining operation or a view shed interrupted by an unsightly berm of rocks and dirt for many years are likely to be assailed by vibration, noise and dust on a daily basis; it is expected those property values will be adversely impacted much more. At the O-N public meeting of 4-10-08 for nearby residents, company officials said the entrance to and exit from the property is expected to remain the same. O-N proffers to restrict traffic to 200 very large vehicles, i.e., dump trucks, based on an average of vehicles to the property over the previous 30 days; this compares to some 70 or more such vehicles currently. This would amount to 400 very large vehicles passing the intersection of 5°1 and Main Streets in Middletown at an interval of 1.8 minutes based on a 12 hour day. The number of such vehicles could be much higher on a given day because the average would be based on 30 consecutive days that would include Saturdays and Sundays when O-N is not usually operating. Thus, there is an added economic impact on the business and residential properties in Middletown. The reenactment of the Battle of Bull Run in July 2006 attracted more than 10,000 battle participants and visitors. The current quarry operations are a negative for visitors to the battle reenactments and Belle Grove. A report in the Shenandoah Valley Business Journal of May 2006, page 13 reported the 2003 tourism -related taxable sales as $33,622,247 for Frederick County and $39,419,809 for Winchester. The negative impact of increased destruction of view shed from the battlefield and Belle Grove will have an increasingly negative impact on the taxable income of Winchester as well as the County over time because those visitors who relate an unfavorable opinion of their visit to others will discourage others from wanting to visit or move here. Additionally, there have been TV 3 reports on the proposed rezoning, another is currently being prepared, and, if the rezoning is approved, there will likely be more. O-N noted in its application that the quarry has been around for about 110 years. Belle Grove Plantation and the Wayside Inn are both older by about a century and are deserving of a respite from the existing assault and potential ravages that may be imposed by increased mining and possibly heavy -industrial, smog -creating industries. The economic impact will first be felt strongest and immediately in the southern part of the County but it will eventually be felt by all County residents as County becomes known as a grimy, gritty mining county. QUARRY WATER The contract between the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) and O-N provides for pits created by mining to be turned over to FCSA when the mining is completed. At its public meetings, O-N has estimated that it may be mining the existing Middletown pit for as long as 25 years. That would be the earliest the FCSA would receive a pit. Based on that O-N estimate, if the rezoning is approved, it is quite possible that mining of the rezoned land would continue for at least another 100 or more years. Contract Section 13. CONVEYANCE OF QUARRY SITES also states that O-N "... except in the event of a merger by Global or its parent corporation or an internal corporate restructuring... Global shall not be obligated to offer any of its land to the Authority." O-N has been reorganized at least once and sold since the rezoning application was originally submitted. If at any time the County irritates O-N sufficiently, and in any manner, it would be rather simple for O-N to exercise that portion of.... to declare the contract void by simply conducting an internal corporate restructuring regardless of whether a need for restructuring exists. Thus, the County may find that it is subject to O-N policies and goals for the next 100 years or longer in order to obtain the pits to supply its water needs. Section 8 of the contract requires FCSA to pay all costs associated with the rezoning process. Could that include the costs of O-N information meetings with residents? PROFFERS Per 1.2: O-N proffers not to engage in certain uses on the Properties but it does not proffer out the possibility of selling or leasing part of the properties to others who may wish to engage in those uses. It has done that in Michigan for an organization that has built a coal-fired, fluidized -bed, power generating plant. Of course, O-N sells large quantities of limestone for use in the plant! Per 2.3: Earthen berms limited to a height of 30 feet are not likely to protect the view shed of many properties surrounding the O-N Properties. Even adding trees of 30 feet height will not prevent certain properties from looking into the pits. And, even with vegetation, it will likely be some 40 or more years for the pits are hidden. Per 9.1: Providing that property owners within 1,500 feet of the O-N boundaries contact O-N and agree to participate in a pre -blast survey (paid by for whom?), O-N will restore buildings if analysis (paid for by whom?) determines that the damage was caused by O-N operations. Further the property owner would be subject to visits by O-N and/or its engineering firm to inspect the party's residences/outbuildings to monitor the condition of the same. Use of the word monitoring suggests this would be an ongoing activity rather than an inspection at a particular time to determine damage for an analysis. Per 9.2: Providing that property owners within 1,500 feet of the O-N boundaries contact O-N and agree to participate in a "voluntary well monitoring survey," O-N officials stated in its 4-10-08 meeting that it would immediately, upon being contacted by a land owner who reports well deterioration, provide water to the property and proceed to remediate the condition. That is not stated in the proffers. Rather, the condition will first be investigated per the proffers. Who will pay for the survey and the investigation is not stated. If the well has deteriorated, the adjoining property owner can be assured of a replacement well; there is no indication that a property owner within 1,500 feet of the O-N Properties boundaries will receive any corrective action or a new well. CEDAR CREEK BATTLEFIELD Cedar Creek is a truly historic piece of hallowed ground. The battle at Cedar Creek was one of the instrumental events that led to the reelection of President Lincoln and the United States as we know it today. In addition to the known casualties from the battle on October 19, 1864, there were reportedly 2,600 men unaccounted for, many of whom could have been buried where they fell in unidentified, unmarked graves. According to the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, at least 60 per cent of the property proposed for rezoning was core battlefield land. (See History Under Siege by the Civil War Preservation Trust.) Yet O-N persists that there was no fighting on the land proposed for mining. NOISE At approximately 2.5 miles from the O-N crusher, we clearly hear the the crusher when it is being operated. We also hear the "rock breaker" when it is being operated. The blasting is, of course, quite loud and results in the shaking of our house if certain strata are blasted. As the proposed mining operation would proceed northward, we would without doubt be impacted by an increasing volume of noise. The proposed final stage of mining north of Chapel Road would bring the noise to within about 1,500 to 2,000 feet of our house. The berm would be about 500 feet south of our neighbors' houses across the street. And O-N officials would have us believe its operations would not intrude on the quality of life of its adjoining and nearby neighbors. SUMMARY O-N has insisted in its public meetings and, reportedly in private conversations, that Frederick County has as much as promised that all it had to do was submit an application for rezoning and it would be approved. When pressed, O-N produced the attached April 7, 1980 letter from Mr. John R. Riley as the basis for that claim. We can not find a basis in the letter for the O-N claim and believe this claim is typical of other O-N claims that do not seem to be substantiated by fact. Approval of the rezoning application will make the County subject to the policies of a private, profit -making corporation which seems to have little regard to the needs of the county, especially its neighbors in Middletown and surrounding areas. Any increase in taxes from O-N would be minimal compared to the loss of County tax income from decreased property values and tourism. 77- 77'V 2 I N it Dust Storms Overseas Carry Contaminants to U.S. Scientists Study Whether Diseases Are Also Transported By Doug Struck Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, February 6, 2008; A02 Seventy-five years ago, aviator Charles_Lindbcsh turned the controls of his pontoon plane over to his co-pilot, wife Anne Morrow Lindbergh, while flying above Iceland. He thrust a makeshift metal arm holding a sticky glass plate from the cockpit. He wanted to see if the winds high aloft the Earth were as clean as they seemed. They were not. Now, with NASA satellites and sampling by researchers around the world, scientists know that great billowing clouds of dust waft over the oceans in the upper atmosphere, arriving in North America from deserts in Africa and Asia. Researchers have also found that the dust clouds contain not only harmfiil minerals and industrial pollutants, but also living organisms: bacteria, fimgus and viruses that may transmit diseases to humans. Some say an alarming increase in astluna in children in the Caribbean is the consequence of dust blown from Africa, and predict they will find similar connections in the Southeast and Northwest United States. Scientists are beginning to look at these dust clouds as possible suspects in transcontinental movement of diseases such as influenza and SARS in humans, or foot-and-mouth disease in livestock. Until recently, epidemiologists had looked at people, animals and products as carriers of the diseases. "We are just beginning to accumulate the evidence of airborne dust implications on human health," said William A. Sprigg, a climate expert at the University of Arizona. "Until now, it's been like the tree falling in the forest. Nobody heard, so nobody knew it was there." The World Meteorological Organization, a science arm of the United Nations, is alarmed enough to set up a global warning system to track the moving clouds of dust and to alert those in the path. Sprigg is heading the project. He foresees a system soon in which forecasters can predict "down to the Zip code" the arrival of dust clouds. That forecast could prompt schools and nursing homes to keep their wards inside, and help public health doctors predict a surge of respiratory complaints. Analysis of soil samples has long shown that minerals picked up from barren deserts reach distant shores, for good or bad. The Amazon rain forest in South America, for example, gets phosphate nutrients from dust blown in from northern Africa's Sahara Desert. Industrial development has added heavy metals and toxic chemicals to that airborne mix. Korea and Japan periodically chafe as storms of "Yellow Dust" wash over from China, bringing a caustic mix of sand and industrial pollutants. Even natural minerals can be harmfiil to humans, and dust - borne particles have been linked to annual meningitis outbreaks in Africa and silicosis lung disease in K_az_akhstan and North Africa. The Dust Bowl storms of the 1930s in the United States brought graphic descriptions of choking sediment getting into the lungs of people and felling livestock. But the advent of satellite images gave scientists a sobering look at how even faraway storms can reach us. Traveling for a week over the Pacific from the Gobi and Taklimakan deserts in Asia, clouds carrying hundreds of millions of tons of dust regularly reach the northwestern United States. From the Sahara and Sahel deserts in Africa and the East, they roll across the Atlantic to the Caribbean and reach the southeastern United States in three to five days. Authorities in Los .Angeles estimate that on some days, one - quarter of the city's smog comes from China. "There is plenty of evidence from space observations of the Northern Hemisphere that there is a persistent ring of industrial emission dust and other pollutants in the air. You can actually see this bathtub ring around the Northern Hemisphere," said Stanley A. Moram, who heads the Earth Data Analysis Center at the University of New Mexico and collaborates with Sprigg. "If something breaks out, it can move very quickly into other areas," he said. 4 Dust storms may be increasing as global warming and desertification expand arid areas. The dust swirls into the atmosphere containing plant pollens, fiingal spores, dried animal feces, minerals, chemicals from fires and industry, and pesticide residues. Astluna in the Caribbean increased just as an African drought increased the amount of dust washing over the islands. Asthma has increased in 13arbados 17 times since 1973, when the African drought began, according to a national study there, and researchers have documented an increase in pediatric hospital admissions when the dust storms are worst. Scientists previously had thought bacteria and viruses picked up by the dust storms would die on long flights, when they are exposed to ultraviolet radiation and extreme temperatures. But three-inch African locusts have been found alive in the Caribbean after dust storms. In the late 1990s, Eugene Shinn, who was studying the widespread die -off of Caribbean coral reefs for the U.S. Geological Survey in Florida, began wondering if smaller living organisms came with the dust. He eventually linked live microbes brought from Africa to sea fan disease, which was infecting the coral. Shinn enlisted USGS microbiologist Dale Griffin. They and other colleagues devised a method of collecting air samples, using a contraption built with a vacuum pump from 1-Lome Depot drawing air through a two-inch round sterile filter. In the first test, collected during a dusty day in 2000 over the Vir0J Islands, Griffin said he thought they might find evidence of four or five different nicroorgamsms growing colonies on the filter. Instead, he found 30 colonies, each with billions of cells. "I did not expect that many," he said. "And we know that whatever grows on the filter represents only about 1 percent of what's really there. People just don't think about microorganisms moving around the atmosphere, at least that far." Griffin said that "in Florida in the summer, when the dust storms are pulsing across, if you walk outside and breathe, 50 percent of the particles you breathe come from Africa," more than 4,000 miles away. They contain mold spores and bacteria that increase allergies and respiratory diseases. Shinn, who is now retired, said that there has not been enough response to these findings. "No one in authority really wants to hear about this problem, even when it is known that African dust sporadically exceeds EPA air standards in places like Miami during the summer months," Sham said in a letter recently. "No government agency wants to face this problem because no one knows what to do about it. "In my opinion, nothing will change regarding either African or Asian dust until we have a catastrophe such as a large-scale avian flu, West Nile virus, or some other deadly outbreak that cannot be explained away by the usual suspects," he said. "Meanwhile we will continue to employ agents to check for fruit in baggage and dirt on tourists' shoes while hundreds of millions of tons of soil dust carrying live microbes continue to be transported unchecked overhead." Unchecked, perhaps, but not unwatched. The early warning system being devised by Sprigg will track those storms, integrating the data with weather forecasts, so that local authorities have notice of one to three days to take precautions. Parts of the system have already been set up in China and (tlropc. In addition to medical precautions, police can be warned about deteriorating driving visibility and airports can plan to reroute planes, Sprigg said. He said he hopes the next step will be more aggressive medical research to determine the composition and human health threats of what is in those dust clouds. "I really see some practical applications here," he said. "We are just getting started." Vo/Lo/GVVD If.Uf rnn 34V 4bO V10V U-N M1Nthh LJ GHtM61UNt IgjVVI/VVI Arebrrirk (90nutu P,e1jurtment of Planning nub pr5glaprav l JOHN RILIY rf.-%kMlkc OI<ICTOE April 7, 1980 Mr. G. L, Robbins, Manager Mineral Property & Development United States Steel Corporation 600 Grant Street Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Dear Mr. Robbins: r. O. Box e07 D Coun-r souAxw WIHGHlXi1ER, VIROTNIA 22601 In response to your letter dated March 19, 198011 1 would like to inform you that the Planning Commission for Frederick County will not consider the 542 acres owned by U. S_ Steel Corporation near Middletown during the comprehensive rezoning proposal for -Frederick County. The purpose of the establishment of the Extractive Manufacturing District is to protect active mining interests and to designate - properties that are currently in use for mining purposes. The Planning Commission recognizes the -intent. of U. S. Steel Corporation to eventually mine this property in.the foreseeable future. At this time the planning Co'- -ion "would minty consider a rezoning from -an- agricultural zone to an EM zone on an individual petition basis, Should U_ S. Steel Corporation or an individual interested in the U. S. Steel property choose to submit a rezoning application to the Department of Planning and Development, we will be happy to process the same. If I can provide any additional information or* applications for rezoning, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ey, U. S. STEEL CORPORATION John R, RilDirector JRR:bj s RECEIVED 41'r; 14 1980 RAW MATERIALS SERVICES 709/B62-45e2 P.O. Box 562 jj P""'), Middletown, VA 22645 preser w.pre eick@yahoo.corg / www.preservefrederick.org Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 To: The Frederick County Board of Supervisors From: Wendy Hamilton, President, Preserve Frederick Re: O-N Minerals Mining Rezoning Application We respectfully request that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors deny the miring rezoning request for the following reasons: • The applicant has refused many and varied requests to scale back the size of the rezoning to reduce the impacts on southern Frederick County. • O-N Minerals has failed to revise and detail its proffer offer to adequately meet the concerns of county planning staff and local residents. • Such a large expansion of limestone miring is in direct conflict with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan for the area and other local economic development efforts. • Truck traffic projections, now at 400 trips through Middletown per day, are far too high to retain the scenic and small town character of the community. • O-N Minerals proffers regarding damage to local wells or residences could leave Frederick County with enforcement problems for years to come. • The proffer offer to phase limestone mining has never been used in Virginia and would tie the hands of future boards of supervisors to an industrial use that is already controversial in the community. Thank you very much for your careful consideration of this rezoning. Preserve Frederick promotes compatible development that strengthens our communities, protects our historic and natural resources and preserves the rural character of Frederick County. Historic Resources on O-N Land at Cedar Creek National Park Proposed Rezoning � • A Current Mining Operation Proposed Mining L .. Corridor Battle of Cedar Creek Confederate Troop Movements and Positions CemeteryTabler t ft • Federal Troop Movements and Positions I Federal Camps ,� Nieswanders k ,y 0 0.25 0.5 y l t t Miles Cemetery d Nieswander Q ,� •� Fort t ♦' ♦ +w' +.� A C �♦ : ,** A • A 11a Middletown s � �• .-A 0 � n. s r lle ♦,w�♦� � a e afi X 11 G aa� Data source: Frederick County, VDCR. Although efforts have been made to verify data, accuracy is not guaranteed Q n Mining Rezoning Alternative Plan d x Ole Current"m i ruing 6peratio n� COS\ , Proposed •er, MinIng Si •.� ,s �♦M Buffer 500 1,000 :AM ..,, Feet Battlefield National Park Cedar Creek Battlefield/Belle Grove Plantation, Frederick County On October 19, 1864, the Battle of Cedar Creek, the Civil War's last major battle in the Shenandoah Valley, took place between the towns of Strasburg and Middletown along Cedar Creek. Union forces under General Phillip Sheridan won a decisive victory that ended the Confederacy's power in the Valley. Belle Grove, an 18th century mansion now owned by the National Trust for His- toric Preservation, served as Sheridan's headquarters and was the scene of heavy fighting during the battle. The Cedar Creek Battlefield/Belle Grove Plantation is recognized to be of critical historical significance. This significance arises not only from the Battle of Cedar Creek, but from the fact that the area served as a hotly contested supply area for the Confederate forces and a main artery of inva- sion along which forces under the command of Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jubal Early, John Singleton Mosby, Phil Sheridan and George Armstrong Custer struggled for domination. In 2002, after years of preservation efforts by the National Trust and the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, Congress created the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. The small town of Middletown, with a population of 1,900, relies heavily on the revenue generated by heritage tourism at Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove. Visitors help support the small shops and businesses that line the town's Main Street. ` On March 13, 2007 the Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT) an - Main street, Middletown nounced its 2007 list of most endangered Civil War battlefields which included Cedar Creek Battlefield (and Belle Grove Plantation). According to a press release issued by the National Trust, the threats to these historic resources are twofold: (1) a potential devastation of the area by extensively expanded strip mining; and (2) installation of massive towers and power lines that will fundamentally alter the historic character of the area. First, O-N Minerals proposes to dramatically expand their quarry operation from its current 58 acres to 639 acres. If this massive acreage is rezoned from rural to industrial, it will be the largest rezoning in the history of Frederick County and will result in five strip mining quarry holes on core battlefield areas. The rezoning will result in waste piles, industrial facilities and 1,40o quarry dump trucks per day (one every 6o seconds) traveling Middletown's historic Main Street. These activities will tear up critical historical and natural assets and blight an area that occupies a critical and unique place in our country's history. The second threat to the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation is the proposed Dominion Power and Allegheny Power Soo -kilovolt electric transmission line. (See Virginia's North- ern Piedmont listing) Local and regional grassroots organizations and many Frederick County residents join the National Trust and Civil War Preservation Trust in their concern about preserving this historic site. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors is encouraged to take into consideration the adverse impact these threats will have on the environment, the local economy and the historical context of Cedar Creek Battlefield and the area's unique historic resources. (4) %_J;: I1�! 7f11 APVA Pr'eswva+� ,..Vir5iriia - Nos,+ �nctc red 14sjbnc, Sire, s 2007 A �K �7. Page 1 of 1 Mike Ruddy From: Tara Shostek [tshostek@robertbecht.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:56 AM To: rshickle@shentel.net Cc: gary@garylofton.com; garydove4@comcast.net; supervisorewing@yahoo.com; plemieux@visuallink.com; gfisher@visuallink.com; cdehaven@crosslink.net; mruddy@co.frederick.va.us Subject: Chemstone Rezoning Request Dear Chairman Shickle, Attached please find a letter outlining the reasons I believe Chemstone's request to rezone its Middletown property should be denied. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 540-869-7415. Mr. Ruddy, I would appreciate it if you would include the attached letter in the Chemstone Public Record. Best regards, Tara Shostek tshostek@robe tbecht.com 4/22/2008 Tara B. Sh®stek 550 Chimney Circle Middletown, Virginia 22645 540-869-7415 tshostek@robertbecht.com robertbecht.com (Non -practicing regulatory attorney licensed to practice in MD, DC and NY) April 21, 2008 Via e-mail: rshicklena,shentel.net Chairman Richard C. Shickle Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: 0-N Minerals Chemstone Company (RZ# 03-06) Dear Chairman Shickle: I am a resident of Middletown, and I have reviewed Chemstone's rezoning application and Proffer statement, and I urge you to deny Chemstone's request to rezone this property to an Extractive Manufacturing (EM) District. The permitted uses in an EM District are not compatible with the uses permitted under the Rural Area districts of the surrounding areas, or the established pattern of development in this area, which includes low -density residential properties, historic properties, small businesses and farms. Even if you could find these uses compatible, Chemstone's proffers do not adequately safeguard the public from the impacts of its proposed operations. For these reasons, the rezoning application should be denied. Extractive Manufacturing is Not Compatible with Current Land Uses The purposes of the zoning ordinances are to plan community development, ensure property uses are compatible with each other, and prevent development from harming existing residents or businesses. Zoning ordinances also give notice to landowners of the purposes for which surrounding properties are used. Chemstone allowed unsuspecting people to build homes and businesses on surrounding properties. Current uses of surrounding properties include a National Park, private residences and small businesses (restaurants, a community theatre and antique stores), which are not compatible with an EM District. to: Chemstone's property is currently zoned as a Rural Area (RA) District, which is intended "...preserve large, open parcels of land, tree cover, scenic views, sensitive environmental areas and prime agricultural and locally significant soils... [and] facilitate lot designs that blend in with the existing landscape and preserve some larger tracts of undeveloped land in order to maintain the rural character of the County, as well as provide a choice to home buyers." Frederick County Code Article V, § 165-49. O-N Minerals Chemstone Company (RZ# 03-06) April 21, 2008 Page 2 of 2 People living in this RA District built their homes in reliance on other properties being similarly zoned. The RA District requires development to be "sensitive to the existing features of the natural terrain...." Id. It also requires lot development to have the "best possible relationship between the development and the land. Individual lots and streets should be designed to minimize alteration of the natural site features, relate positively to surrounding properties and protect the views from surrounding areas." Id. An EM District is intended to "provide for mining and related industries, all of which rely on the extraction of natural resources." Frederick County Code Article XI, § 165-84. Deep pit mining, which includes blasting, rock crushing, heavy truck traffic, a loud conveyor belt system and bright lights with no limits on operating times, is the antithesis of "minimizing the alteration of the natural site features." EM uses are not compatible with the existing residential uses of the surrounding properties, the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, or the small businesses currently operating in Middletown. Proffer Statements are Inadequate to Mitigate Adverse Impacts Even if one were to somehow find these uses compatible, Chemstone's Proffer Statement with a revision date of March 18, 2008 ("Statement") is inadequate to mitigate the adverse impacts to surrounding properties, which include private residences, the Cedar Creek, Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, Chapel Road (used by school buses), and the small businesses in Middletown. In some cases, the wording of a Proffer is so poorly written or contains so many exceptions, that it makes no proffer at all. For example, in Proffer 1.2, Chemstone attempts to proffer out certain uses permitted in an EM District. Chemstone states that "the `Applicant' hereby proffers not to engage in the following uses on the Properties...." With this wording, Chemstone could create a subsidiary or lease property to a third party who could engage in these uses. Under this proffer, the maximum intensity of development from an EM District would be legally permissible. Therefore, the maximum possible impacts must be assumed. In Proffer 2.2, the Applicant proffers the "maximum" height of the buffers. How is this proffer helpful to anyone but Chemstone? Surrounding properties are not concerned with buffers being too high. What minimum standards is Chemstone proffering to minimize adverse impacts? Proffer 4.1 states that the Applicant will guarantee the FCSA's rights to the water under the "existing agreements." Are there agreements other than the agreement dated March 2, 2000 between Chemstone and the FCSA? All agreements should be disclosed. Proffer 8.1 states that the Applicant will limit truck traffic to a maximum of "200 truck loads per day averaged over the prior 30 days through the scale house...." This limit is disingenuous because it includes days Chemstone is not operating. Proffer 9.1 discusses pre -blast surveys, and states that the "Applicant's [sic] and/or its engineering firm shall further have the right to visit and inspect the parry's residences/outbuildings to monitor the condition of the same." Proffers are intended to limit O-N Minerals Chemstone Company (RZ# 03-06) April 21, 2008 Page 3 of 3 adverse impacts on surrounding areas, not establish Applicant rights to enter other people's properties. Proffer 9.3 states that Chemstone will maintain an insurance policy or bond for a period of one year following cessation of active mining operations. What triggers the release of funds under the bond? Does ON have to authorize the release of funds, or is the release automatically triggered by a claim? Chemstone states in Proffer 10 that its reclamation plan is to deliver the property to the FCSA for water storage. What is the contingency plan if the FCSA does not exercise its right to assume the property once mining has been completed? Under the FCSA/Chemstone agreement, Chemstone agrees to convey the property to the FCSA but the FCSA it is not legally obligated to assume the property. What if the FCSA enters into a regional water plan that does not include using the quarry pits and it does not need the property? Why was Proffer 10.1 of the August 28, 2006 Proffer Statement deleted? This proffer obligated Chemstone to bond reclamation activities, and obtain a rider to provide for the reclamation and/or remediation activities. Several of the proffers have exceptions that are so overbroad that they are not proffers at all. Proffer 1.2 says "[Chemstone] will not use coal and natural -fired power plants on the property... unless power plants are necessary to support extractive mining activities." Proffer 15 says the "Applicant will not install any permanent lighting fixtures... unless we need them for mining activities." In other words, Chemstone proffers not to do these things, unless it needs to. Chemstone Does Not Address County and Citizen Concerns Chemstone has had two years since the filing of its application to amend its Proffer Statement to answer questions raised by the Planning Commission and address citizen concerns. Chemstone has failed to do either. In its January 3, 2006 letter to Mr. Chuck Maddox, The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) outlined its concerns with the Application. One issue was that "Cedar Creek be bridged so that quarry trucks can use this route instead of going through historic Middletown and passing by the Belle Grove entrance." Maddox Letter at p. 2. According to the application, an average of 200 Chemstone trucks will go through Middletown. The HRAB also asked that "[t]he conveyor system being discussed should be studied further to ensure that it does not impact the view shed or create noise issues. The amount of traffic this system will alleviate should be provided as well. The applicant should propose a plan for the conveyor system that will not have a huge visual impact on the surrounding landscape." Maddox Letter at p. 2. Chemstone does not give any details about the possible conveyor system. It is proposed that Chapel Road be closed during construction of a tunnel under the road. Will a by-pass be installed so traffic using Chapel Road will not be disrupted? Has a traffic impact statement been conducted that determines the impact of the closure of Chapel Road? What will happen to the school bus routes that use Chapel Road? O-N Minerals Chemstone Company (RZ# 03-06) April 21, 2008 Page 4 of 4 Some other unanswered questions include: Will the quarry ever operate on a 24-hour basis? There are no Proffers limiting the hours of operation. Will lights be operated all night long? Will they be shielded or visible beyond the property? I-Iow will Chemstone mitigate light pollution? Where will crushers be located? There is no proffer that they will be limited to inside the pits? The Time for Chemstone to Rezone This Property Has Passed The time has passed for Chemstone to re -zone its Middletown property to an EM District. As shown by the attached letter, in 1980, US Steel asked that this property be included as part of a county-Aride rezoning process. US Steel was told at that time to file a rezoning application with the county. US Steel failed to file the application, and Chemstone similarly failed to file an application when it acquired the property. Since that time, Congress established the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, businesses in Middletown have prospered, and residential properties have been built around the Chemstone Property. People reasonably relied on the current zoning districts when they planned their businesses and homes. If Chemstone truly wanted to protect its rights to quarry this property, it should have filed a rezoning application when it acquired the property. Conclusion Existing uses of the properties surrounding Chemstone's properties are not compatible with an EM District. Since Chemstone's proffers do not adequately limit the uses available on the property, the maximum intensity of development and maximum possible impacts must be assumed. Furthermore, nothing in the record shows that Chemstone's property is unsuitable for continued agricultural uses. In fact, the current zoning is compatible with surrounding uses, and there is no evidence that surrounding areas would be used for anything but residential, small business or agricultural purposes. For these reasons, Chemstone's rezoning request should be denied. Sincerely yours, Tara B. Shostek cc (via e-mail): Gary A. Lofton, Back Creek District (gary@garylofton.com) Gary W. Dove, Gainesboro District (garydove4@comcast.net) Bill M. Ewing, Opequon District (supervisorewing@yahoo.com) Philip A. Lemiuex, Red Bud District (plemieux@visuallink.com) Gene E. Fisher, Shawnee District (gfisher@visuallink.com) Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Stonewall District (cdehaven@crosslink.net) Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director (mruddy@co.frederick.va.us) Vo/c3/4VVo 1I.3r rnn Z14V 4bO aIOV U-1V MINtHALJ UHL(461UNt IM UV I/VV I Artbraritk to aillau Pcpartmeni of Planning anb pff1gloyravu# JOHN Ru_ve PLA.Hmmr dfnxcTox April 7, 1980 Mr. G_ L, Robbins, Manager Mineral Property & Development United States Steel Corporation 600 Grant Street Pittsburgh; Pennaylvaria 152JV Dear Mr. Robbins: P. 0. Hox 607 a COUn-r SputieR W1JHc;HX19(QA, VIROiNIA 22601 In response to your letter dated March 19, 1980, I woUd like to inform you that the Planning Commission for Frederick County will not consider the 542 acres owned by U. S. Steel Corporation near Middletown during the comprehensive rezoning proposal for Frederick County. - The purpose of the establishment of the Extractive Manufacturing District is to protect active Mining interests and to designate properties that are currently in use for mining purposes. The Planning Commission recognizes the_intent.cif U. 5. Steel Corporation to eventually mine this property in the t'oreseeable future. At this time the Planning Commission would only consider a rezoning from -an' agricultural zone to an EM 7--o on an individual petition basis, ' Should U. S. Steel Corporation or an individual interested in the U. S. Steel property choose to submit a. rezoning application to the Department of Planning -and Development, we will, be happy to. process the same. If I can provide any additional information or applications for rezoning, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 9� iley, U. S. STEEL CORPORATION John R. R Director JRR : bi s RECEIVED Ar'r; 14 1980 RAW MATERIALS SERVICES 703/ee2-4532 %E 04/21/2008 17:56 FAX 202 367 1865 CIVIL WAR PRES TRUST Q001 'C' CIVIL WAR PRESERVATION TRUST Saving America's Hallowed Ground Theodore Sedgwick James Llghthlzer Chairman • Fresldtnl Fax To: Michael Ruddy Company: Frederick County Planning Dept Fax: 540-665-6395 Pages: 4 (including cover page) From: Civil War Preservation Trust Dote; 4/21/2008 ❑ Urgent ❑ For Your Information ❑ Please Reply ❑ Review Comments: Attached are Civil War Preservation Trust comments for the Board of Supervisors regarding the April 23 public hearing on the Carmeuse rezoning proposal at Cedar Creek. If possible, we would like to have our comments included in the presentation packets for the Supervisors at Wednesday's meeting. Thank you. WASHINGTON OFFICE HAGERSTOWN OFFICE 1331 H Street NW • Suitc 1001 • Washington, DC 20005 11 Public Square • Suite 200 • Hagerstown, MD 21740 Phone: (202) 367-1861 or (800) 298-7878 • Fax; (202) 367-1865 Phone: (301) 665-1400 or (888) 606.1400 • Fax: (301) 665.1416 04/21/2008 17:57 FAX 202 367 1865 CIVIL WAR PRES TRUST Z 002 CIVIL WAR PRESERVATION TRUST Saving America's Hallowed Ground Theodore Sedgwick James Ughthizer Chairman President April 21, 2008 The Honorable Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Frederick County Board of Supervisors 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you on behalf of the Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT), a 65,000-member national nonprofit battlefield preservation organization. Our mission is to protect our nation's endangered Civil War sites and promote appreciation of these hallowed grounds. CWPT has saved more than 25,000 acres of hallowed ground throughout the United States, including 874 acres in historic Frederick County. Most recently, CWPT opened a hiking and biking trail at the Third Winchester Battlefield — a trail that has already become a popular amenity for local residents and tourists to the county. CWPT respectfully urges the Board of Supervisors to vote against the Carmeuse Lime & Stone Rezoning as presently proposed, because of its direct impact on unprotected parts of the Cedar Creek Battlefield. The rezoning of 639 acres from rural agriculture to industrial mincing would result in a significant disturbance to one of the most picturesque and historically significant battlegrounds in the Shenandoah Valley (see map, enclosed)_ Cedar Creek Battlefield was determined to be one of the most historically significant battlegrounds in the nation by a blue ribbon panel created by Congress in 1990. In an exhaustive 1993 report, the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission identified Cedar Creek as a Priority I site, its highest designation. Further, the report identified much of the land being targeted in the rezoning proposal as "core battlefield land" -- by definition the most important part of a battlefield. If approved, the current rezoning proposal would destroy more than 500 acres of core battlefield land adjacent to the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. Despite overwhelming evidence about the historic nature of the property, in its public comments Carmeuse has tried to minimize the important role this land played in the struggle at Cedar Creek. The battle, which occurred on October 19, 1864, was a decisive Union victory that effectively ended Confederate control of the Valley and helped secure President Lincoln's reelection. According to author Robert K. Krick, one of Virginia's most accomplished historians, the specific ground slated for mining was where "General George A. Caster's Union WASHINGTON OFFICE HAGERSTOWN OFFICE 1331 1-1 Street NW • Suite 1001 • Washington. DC 20005 11 Public Square • Suite200 • Hagerstown, MD 21740 Phone: ,(202) 367-1861 or (800) 298-7878 • Fax: (202) 367-1865 Phone: (301) 665-1400 or (888) 606.1400 • Fax: (301) 665-1416 04/21/2008 17:57 FAX 202 367 1865 A CIVIL WAR PRES TRUST [?] 003 Letter to Frederick County Board of Supervisors (continued) Page Two April 21, 2008 cavalry thundered down on the exposed left tlank of the Confederate line at the battle's final climax. General Cuvier Grover's Federal infantry piled in just to Custer's left (east)." The ground was left bloodied during this assault with more soldiers lying dead and wounded on the ground than advancing ahead. General Clement Evans' Georgia brigade of the Confederate army bore the brunt of the Union attack and suffered heavy losses. This blood-soaked ground is now staring at destruction if the rezoning is approved (Mr. Krick's letter about the property is attached). CWPT was pleased with the county planning commission's June 2006 decision to recommend against the rezoning proposal. We are hopeful the Board of Supervisors will reach the same conclusion. Since the planning commission vote, Preserve Frederick — a local group of concerned citizens — have crafted their own compromise plan that CWPT enthusiastically supports. "Plan B," as the proposal has become known, would protect the northerly, more historically significant portion of the land under consideration for rezoning, while allowing mining to expand to the south of the current plant, buffered from the park. Although only 158 acres, the site south of the current plant contains a limestone vein rich enough to keep the plant in business for three decades. CWPT sees Plan B as a fair compromise that allows the mining company to expand operations while still protecting the unique historic resources that would be affected if all land proposed was rezoned for mining. Unfortunately, up tb this point Carmeuse has largely ignored the proposals in Plan B and continues to push for an ektensive mining expansion. A vote against the rezoning proposal as currently constituted would compel Carmeuse to take another look at Plan B. i To reiterate, due to the historic and irreplaceable nature of this land, CPT respectfully requests that the Board of Supervisors reject the cW current rezoning request by Carmeuse. We remain hopeful that a compromise plan based on Plan B can yet be reached between the parties. The project's proximity to land CWPT has previously worked to preserve makes us particularly eager to engineer a creative and universally beneficial compromise. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, i I James Campi, Policy and Communicatigns Director Civil War Preservation Trust enclosures 04/21/2008 17:57 FAX 202 367 1865 .,1 CIVIL WAR PRES TRUST Q 004 November 15, 2007 James J. Campi Civil War Preservation Trust 1331 H Street, NW,Suite 1001 Washington, DC 20005 Dear Mr. Campi: ROBERT. K. KRICK Post omcc Box 1327 rrcdcrlcksburg, V1rgin1a.22402 I am delighted to have a chance to comment on the horrifying prospect of the possible destruction of a portion of Cedar Creek battlefield by gravelling operations. I recently heard that the proposed developer has somehow ascertained that nothing actually happened there, which is amusing and entirely predictable. That always results insuch cases: `twas so at Brandy Station a few years ago, and many another spot. The soldiers who fought and bled on the ground, and drew the maps that accompany their official reports, for some reason marked their positions in the wrong place apparently?! Perhaps it was a.conspiracy, begun in the fall of 1864, to thwart 2.1st-century developers? Surely the people, the media, and the governing officials of the lower Valley cannot 'be gullible enough to fall for such an egregious misrepresentation? On the ground in question, General George A. Custer's Union cavalry thundered down on the exposed left flank. of the Confederate line at the battle's final climax. General Cuvier Grover's Federal infantry piled in just to Custer's left (east). A northerner who participated in the assault wrote of the advance: "every inch of it was a bloody one. Scores upon scores dropped from the ranks. There were more lying on the ground than there were survivors running ahead." The Georgia brigade of General Clement A. "Evans faced the brunt of the attack. Evans wrote wearily to his wife the next day: "What a defeat yesterday eveningl....I have slept but one hour in over sixty hours... _At 4 o'clock p.m. the enemy attacked our left flank... & by heavy force broke and drove us back to our camps .... Oh how distressed I am .... They broke the lines on my right, poured in on my left and forced me back..., Some of the fighting of my brigade was done hand to hand." My respect for the citizenry in Virginia's beautiful and historic Valley is strong enough to leave me confident that they will scorn the ludicrous lies about what happened where, and protect the scenes of mortal combat at Cedar Creek. J Mike Ruddy From: Brent Laurenz [blaurenz@civilwar.org] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 4:28 PM To: mruddy@co.frederick.va.us Cc: Jim Campi Subject: April 23 Board of Supervisors Hearing I have attached comments from the Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT) to the Board of Supervisors regarding the Carmeuse rezoning proposal at Cedar Creek being discussed at the April 23 hearing. I have also attached a map of the battle and a letter from noted historian and author Robert Krick describing part of the battle at Cedar Creek. If possible, we would like to have these comments included in the presentation packets for the Supervisors at Wednesday's meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions. Brent Laurenz, Policy Associate Civil War Preservation Trust 1331 H Street NW, Suite 1001 Washington, DC 20005 202.367.1861 x220 (Office) 202.725.6072 (Cell) blaurenz@civilwar.org NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION° April 22, 2008 Mr. John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Rezoning Application #03-06 (March 18, 2008) / Carmeuse Lime & Stone Dear Mr. Riley: I am writing on behalf of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which has owned Belle Grove Plantation since 1964, to express our grave concerns and strong opposition to the March 18, 2008 application to rezone 639 rural acres now owned by Carmeuse Lime & Stone in order to radically expand the Belgium -based conglomerate's quarry operation. I have attached the National Trust's June 7, 2006 letter to the Frederick County Planning Commission also regarding the quarry expansion. The National Trust respectfully urges the Board of Supervisors to remand the amended application to the Planning Commission for much -needed analysis and additional input from impacted property owners and the public. The proposed quarry expansion threatens Belle Grove Plantation, which is located immediately adjacent to the quarry. Belle Grove is a National Historic Landmark and the heart of the 3,500-acre Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park — one of the most important historic treasures and heritage tourism attractions in Frederick County and the United States, The National Trust is very seriously concerned that Carmeuse's quarry expansion would directly and indirectly harm not only the property of the National Trust at Belle Grove but also the National Historical Park. According to the National Park Service's American Battlefield Protection Program, the quarry expansion would "destroy significant portions" of the battlefield and aggravate the "existing adverse effects of quarry operations on the setting and viewshed of the protected, intact portions of the battlefield." 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 P 202.588.6000 F 202.588.6038 a info@nthp.org www.PreservationNation.org Mr. John R. Riley, Jr. April 22, 2008 Page 2 Importantly, Carmeuse's proposed quarry expansion also would have profound impacts on the historically significant landscape beyond the boundaries of the -National Historical Park. Unfortunately, the quarry expansion would destroy more than 500 acres of the most important core battlefield landscape adjacent to the National Park, according to the Civil War Preservation Trust. To allow meaningful evaluation of the impacts of the quarry expansion, the National Trust requested in its June 7, 2006 letter that, before expansion of the quarry is considered, the property owner should be directed by Frederick County to conduct the following studies: (1) Viewshed analysis of the potential harm to the visual character of nearby historic, scenic, and natural resources; (2) Environmental analysis of the potential harm from increased quarry truck traffic to public safety, the National Historical Park, and Middletown; and, (3) Vibration analysis of the potential harm from blasting and other industrial activity at the quarry on historic properties, such as Belle Grove's 1797 Manor House and associated structures. On June 7, 2006 the National Trust also recommended that, before expansion of the quarry is considered, the quarry owner should negotiate and sign a binding agreement with the National Trust and other adjacent private property owners to address the following: (1) Mitigation for the existing and future visual harm from the quarry operation and facility; (2) Measures to avoid or reduce the harm of the quarry's haul truck traffic on historic properties; and, (3) Protection for historic structures against potential vibration damage from the quarry operation. However, Carmeuse has not conducted the requested studies or negotiated the proposed mitigation and protections. In fact, despite our publicly expressed concerns regarding the quarry expansion and Belle Grove's past constructive relationship with the former owner of the quarry, Carmeuse has not approached the National Trust or Belle Grove, Inc. to meet with us, discuss our concerns, or present .to us the March 18, 2008 amended proposal and proffers to the County. Furthermore, we have not received a copy nor had an opportunity to review the new set of proffers we understand was delivered by Carmeuse to Frederick County on April 18, 2008. Nevertheless, we wish to express our concerns regarding the rezoning application and our view that the March 18 set of proffers do not provide the protection necessary to ensure the preservation of surrounding historic resources. Mr. John R. Riley, Jr. April 22, 2008 Page 3 First, we believe Frederick County should not approve the rezoning application because the National Trust, Belle Grove, Inc., and other interested parties have been given an inadequate opportunity to fully consider Carmeuse's March 18 proffers. Perhaps more importantly, these parties also have not been afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the Applicant's new set of proffers submitted to Frederick County on April 18, 2008. Second, the National Trust encourages Frederick County to adopt the long-term, incremental approach to rezoning described in Belle Grove, Inc.'s April 21, 2008 letter. This approach would allow Frederick County to maintain appropriate control, monitor progress, and impose additional reasonable requirements necessary to protect the public's interest in the irreplaceable historic, cultural, and natural resources that surround the quan'y. Third, we believe that landscaped earthen berms alone, as described in Proffer 2.3, are not adequate to protect the world-famous vistas surrounding the Carmeuse property. In fact, Carmeuse's proposed approach has the potential to devastate Belle Grove, Cedar Creek Battlefield, and the National Historical Park. Therefore, we support the conclusions of the March 20, 2006 Staff Report for the Planning Commission, which calls for the Applicant to complete a viewshed analysis and mitigation plan -- before the rezoning application is considered by the Board of Supervisors -- in order to achieve a "tailored approach that integrates the natural landscape with customized berming and landscaping that mitigates the visual impacts of the mining operations in an effective manner." Fourth, we remain concerned about potential harm from blasting to historic resources at Belle Grove and the National Historical Park. In our view, an objective third -party engineer should be hired by Frederick County or the individual property owner using funds provided by the Applicant to conduct the pre -blast survey, monitoring, and post -blast investigation and analysis. Proffer 9.1 does not adequately protect the interests of Carmeuse's neighbors. However, the National Trust believes that the emphasis should be on avoiding damage from quarry blasting to surrounding property, rather than remediation and repair, per Proffers 7.1 and 9.1. Finally, the National Trust remains willing to meet with representatives of Carmeuse Lime & Stone, Frederick County, and other historic preservation organizations to discuss our concerns and the Applicant's proffers, and to determine if there is a mutually satisfactory way to expand the mining operation in a manner which is not detrimental to the historic resources surrounding the quarry. Mr. John R. Riley, Jr. April 22, 2008 Page 4 In conclusion, Carmeuse's March 18 rezoning application is opposed by the following organizations dedicated to the preservation and protection of Belle Grove, Cedar Creek Battlefield, and the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park: the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, National Park Service, Belle Grove, Inc., Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, Civil War Preservation Trust, APVA — Preservation Virginia, National Parks Conservation Association, and National Trust for Historic Preservation. Thank you in advance for considering the views of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. el Robert Nieweg Director & Regional Attorney Southern Field Office National Trust for Historic Preservation NATIONAL TRUST f-HISTORIC PRESERVATIOW June 7, 2006 Ms. June Wilmot Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Rezoning Application 303-06 for O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Quarry Dear Chairman Wilmot: I am writing on behalf of the National Trust for Historic Preservation to express our very strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of 639 acres owned by O-N Minerals in order to greatly expand the corporation's quarry and extractive manufacturing operation. The National Trust is the longtime owner of historic Belle Grove Plantation, a National Historic Landmark, which is immediately adjacent to the quarry. Belle Grove also is the heart of the 3,500-acre Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, which was established by Congress with the strong support of local residents in 2002. We believe this ill-considered proposal to radically expand the O-N Minerals quarry operation would compromise preservation efforts and irrevocably harm historic resources in the Town of Middletown, the Cedar Creek Battlefield National Historic Landmark, the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, as well as core Civil War battlefield land that is outside the National Historic Landmark and the National Historical Park. We urge the Planning Commission to consider that the National Historical Park and Town of Middletown are being crushed between the proposed expansion of the quarry on one side, and the proposed expansion of Interstate 81 on the other side. Together, these two proposals threaten the quality of life and traditional character of the area. Many local residents believe that the Town of Middletown and the surrounding agricultural and historic landscape merit maximum effort to avoid, reduce, or mitigate adverse impacts. The National Trust concurs with the National Park Service's detailed and expert analysis of the O-N Mineral rezoning proposal, which was submitted to the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development on March 27, 2006. Unfortunately, as the National Park Service indicates, the documentation filed with the rezoning proposal fails to account for a variety of adverse impacts from the quarry operations, including visual impacts from waste piles and the Protecting the Irreplaceable 1785 IMASSACHusE'I"1'S AVENUE, NW • NYASIIINGTON. DC: 2oo3G 202.588,6000 ' FAX: 202.588.6038 ' TTY: 202.588.6200 ' WWW.NAT10NAi.TitUST.01ZG Ms. June Wilmot June 7, 2006 Page 2 lime plant, air quality impacts from dust and emissions, as well as noise and vibration impacts. We are also concerned by the threat of increased heavy truck traffic through Middletown and along Route 11 through the National Historical Park. In addition to the noise, vibration damage, and visual intrusion of trucks, this heavy truck traffic is likely to intimidate and endanger residents and visitors alike, thereby frustrating private enterprise and undermining economic development. We concur with the National Park Service's conclusion that the O-N Minerals proffer statement fails to provide "additional protection for the area's historic resources." The National Trust also shares the concerns expressed by Belle Grove, Inc. regarding the proposed rezoning. First, the existing impacts of the quarry are already an unacceptable intrusion on the viewshed of Belle Grove and the National Historical Park. The proposed expansion will significantly exacerbate this existing problem. Second, O-N Minerals in its rezoning proposal has failed to adequately consider the severe adverse impacts on historic properties that are threatened by the quarry expansion. Consequently, before any rezoning or expansion of the quarry is contemplated, O-N Minerals should be directed by the Planning Commission to: 1. Conduct a professional -quality viewshed analysis of the current and future adverse impacts of the quarry to nearby historic, scenic, and natural resources. 2. Conduct a professional -quality analysis of the current and future adverse impacts of the quarry's haul truck traffic on public safety, the National Historical Park, and the economic well-being of Middletown. 3. Conduct a professional -quality analysis of potential vibration impacts on historic properties from the quarry operations, including both blasting activities and haul truck traffic. 4. Negotiate and sign a binding agreement with the National Trust, the National Park Service, the Town of Middletown, Frederick County, and adjacent property owners, which would address the following: a. Mitigation for the existing and future adverse visual impacts of the quarry's waste pile and lime plant; b. Measures to avoid and minimize the adverse impacts of the quarry's haul truck traffic on the National Historical Park and the Town of Middletown; and c. Measures to protect historic properties from potential vibration damage. Finally, we understand that only 78 of the 639 acres at issue would be used for mining. The remaining 561 acres proposed for rezoning would be used for unspecified extractive manufacturing activities. Local members of the National Trust have raised concerns that the rezoned property could be used for concrete and asphalt manufacturing, crushed stone operations, brick, block, and pre -cast concrete production, oil and gas extraction, mining, and Ms. June Wilmot June 7, 2006 Page 3 processing sand and gravel, and sewage treatment facilities. In our view, these sorts of industrial uses are absolutely inappropriate for this historic and agricultural setting. The National Trust's perspective on appropriate land use in this area of Frederick County is reflected in the 2004 Rural Areas Study and, more specifically, in Mayor Gene T. Dicks's November 8, 2004 letter incorporated in the Study. Mayor Dicks outlines the Town's desire to maintain the rural character of the landscape south of town and to "limit visual impact" to the battlefield and "ensure extensive buffers and setbacks from any new development." Mayor Dicks writes: All new development in this area at the south edge of Town should be designed to preserve the character of the views from the battlefield. Protect the area that will become the new Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park from development or land uses that would be detrimental to the historic setting and rural character of the battlefield landscape. In light of the unique and irreplaceable nature of the historic resources at risk, and given the potential severe adverse impacts and the high degree of uncertainty about the future use of the rezoned land, we respectfully urge the Frederick County Planning Commission to deny the rezoning request. Thank you for considering the views of the National Trust. Sincerely, E�� "VL�4- Elizabeth S. Merritt Deputy General Counsel APR 2 3 20 1 C.. � l / I.CJ li! �V L �re6eiv� �re�� Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 To: The Frederick County Board of Supervisors From: Wendy Hamilton, President, Preserve Frederick Re: O-N Minerals Milling Rezoning Application P.O. Box 562 Middletown, VA 22645 preservefrederick@yahoo.com www.preservefrederick.org We respectfully request that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors deny the mining rezoning request for the following reasons: • The applicant has refused many and varied requests to scale back the size of the rezoning to reduce the impacts on southern Frederick County. • O-N Minerals has failed to revise and detail its proffer offer to adequately meet the concerns of county planning staff and local residents. • Such a large expansion of limestone Ytlitlillg is in direct conflict with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan for the area and other local economic development efforts. • Truck traffic projections, now at 400 trips through Middletown per day, are far too high to retain the scenic and small town character of the community. • O-N Minerals proffers regarding damage to local wells or residences could leave Frederick County with enforcement problems for years to come. • The proffer offer to phase limestone mining has never been used in Virginia and would tie the hands of future boards of supervisors to an industrial use that is already controversial in the community. Thank you very much for your careful consideration of this rezoning. Preserve Frederick promotes compatible development that strengthens our communities, protects our historic and natural resources and preserves the rural character of Frederick County. Historic Resources on O-N Land at Cedar Creek National Park Proposed Rezoning Current Mining Operation Proposed Mining L a Corridor Battle of Cedar Creek N Confederate Troop Movements and Positions Federal Troop Movements and Positions �. Tabler v Cemetery t Federal Camps j A 0 0.1 0.5 fteswanders l 1 Miles Cemetery i Nieswande l Fort 4f 40 A Ai •� ,°e, 6� A r s 4o- Middletown Data source: Frederick County, VDCR. Although efforts have been made to verity data, accuracy is not guaranteed ryj 7j Mining Rezoning Alternative Plan Cu'&6ht'Mihirj' V////// / ///; /, 9 16peration National 0 500 1,000 40,raw "ft•Battlefield Park J Feet ski ter. 1119 Cedar Creek Battlefield/Belle Grove Plantation, Frederick County On October 19, 1864, the Battle of Cedar Creek, the Civil War's last major battle in the Shenandoah Valley, took place between the towns of Strasburg and Middletown along Cedar Creek. Union forces under General Phillip Sheridan won a decisive victory that ended the Confederacy's power in the Valley. Belle Grove, an 18th century mansion now owned by the National Trust for His- toric Preservation, served as Sheridan's headquarters and was the scene of heavy fighting during the battle. The Cedar Creek Battlefield/Belle Grove Plantation is recognized to be of critical historical significance. This significance arises not only from the Battle of Cedar Creek, but from the fact that the area served as a hotly contested supply area for the Confederate forces and a main artery of inva- sion along which forces under the command of Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jubal Early, John Singleton Mosby, Phil Sheridan and George Armstrong Custer struggled for domination. In 2002, after years of preservation efforts by the National Trust and the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, Congress created the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. The small town of Middletown, with a population of i,9oo, relies heavily on the revenue generated by heritage tourism at Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove. Visitors help support the small shops and businesses that line the town's Main Street. ' On March 13, 2007 the Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT) an - Main Street, Middletown nounced its 2007 list of most endangered Civil War battlefields which included Cedar Creek Battlefield (and Belle Grove Plantation). According to a press release issued by the National Trust, the threats to these historic resources are twofold: (i) a potential devastation of the area by extensively expanded strip mining; and (2) installation of massive towers and power lines that will fundamentally alter the historic character of the area. First, O-N Minerals proposes to dramatically expand their quarry operation from its current 58 acres to 639 acres. If this massive acreage is rezoned from rural to industrial, it will be the largest rezoning in the history of Frederick County and will result in five strip mining quarry holes on core battlefield areas. The rezoning will result in waste piles, industrial facilities and 1,40o quarry dump trucks per day (one every 6o seconds) traveling Middletown's historic Main Street. These activities will tear up critical historical and natural assets and blight an area that occupies a critical and unique place in our country's history. The second threat to the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation is the proposed Dominion Power and Allegheny Power Soo -kilovolt electric transmission line. (See Virginia's North- ern Piedmont listing) Local and regional grassroots organizations and many Frederick County residents join the National Trust and Civil War Preservation Trust in their concern about preserving this historic site. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors is encouraged to take into consideration the adverse impact these threats will have on the environment, the local economy and the historical context of Cedar Creek Battlefield and the area's unique historic resources. (4) 7f1 t. APVA Pr f-5 W VcL+t6- \f r5 i n i g. - M o sh F1c1 a 5,w e_ c4 + s�i pr, �. StFe. s 2007 I r A ` y r' /- - / G",J e/ L C' May 27, 2008 Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Frederick County Board of Supervisors 292 Green Spring Road Winchester. VA 22603 Dear Mr. Chairman: R0. Box 562 Middletown, VA 22645 I)reservefreder ick ,t<yahoc.com vrrrvr.preservefredenck org On May 23rd, you received a letter from the Civil War Preservation Trust requesting an opportunity to work with Carmeuse Lime & Stone to acquire and preserve the core battlefield area north of Carmeuse's existing Chemstone mining operation. A letter was also sent to the corporate office in Pittsburgh. We believe that this offer represents the best possible outcome for Frederick County. With careful mitigation of the southern parcel adjacent to Cedar Creek, it preserves the company's mining rights and satisfies the FCSA lease agreement with the company. By placing the northern parcel in preservation, it will give Middletown and the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park an opportunity to realize the benefits of cultural tourism which will boost the economic revenue for all of Frederick County. In addition it would preserve more than 500 acres of Cedar Creek's core battlefield and mitigate many of the impacts of the rezoning, and is more in keeping with the tenets of the county and town comprehensive plans for that area.. We respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors table the rezoning request to allow the parties — public agencies, private organizations, the company, and the county— to come to consensus regarding an acceptable resolution for Frederick County and Middletown that will ensure a legacy that will last forever. Sincerely, V� Wendy Hamilton President, Preserve Frederick 540-869-5024 cc: Frederick County Board of Supervisors Mr. John Riley, Frederick County Administrator Mr. Eric Lawrence, Frederick County Planning Director Prewve Frederick prornoles compalibk dene%pmenl lha/ .rbzvtg/hens oru' communilio—, proleas our Lirloric and nalma/ re ouret.r, and piwerves lho rural character ol I nederick Cow/p, 1,'irgiuia. Page I of 2 .,, Eric Lawrence From: Dr Ranna-Lesley Lachlan [ranna@ranna.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 10:32 AM To: elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us Subject: O-N Proffer ERROR May 26, 2008 TO : Mr Eric R. Lawrence. FROM: Dr Ranna-Lesley Lachlan (PhD, RPP, VCST, BFA, Grad.D. Mat.Anth.), 491 Chimney Circle, Chimney Hills Estates, Middletown, VA 22645. Backcreek District SUBJECT: Portions or Properties? Inconsistent terminology in O-N Proffer Statement, May 22, 2008, leaves the proffers open to even wider interpretation than before. Dear Mr Lawrence, One of the main criticisms by several Supervisors, Mr Ruddy, and the Attorney for the County was that significant features of previous proffer statements were open to wide interpretation. Yet there is a flaw throughout O-N's newest proffers (May 22, 2008) which repeats that situation to a greater and more fundamental degree. In the previous proffers, O-N has specified their entire property for rezoning (except the Middletown Woods) as per the Tax Map Parcels. Accordingly, the starting point from which they would have measured their 1,500 feet radius for any well or blasting remediation was from the boundary of the tax Map parcels. In the new proffers, O-N has specified "portions". In particular, at the top of the proffer statement, O-N refers to "Portions of Tax Map Parcels ... [etc]...." Below that, it is stated in the first paragraph, lines 1 and 2 that "... the use and development of the portions of the above -referenced parcels..." However, Lines 4 and 5, first paragraph, refer to "the Properties" and in Lines 7 and 8 it is stated that "Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Properties...". Now, the rezoning is being sought over "portions" and it can be inferred from this sentence that "the Portions" are "the Properties", but this is not openly stated anywhere. Throughout the remainder of the entire document O-N continues to use the term "the Properties", tying the proffers to them, as they have done in all previous proffers, but here presumably referring to the portions. That is, the proffers would be tied to the portions. Yet, it is ambiguous because proffer 3.2 refers to "portion of the Properties" as does proffer 5.1. Then, reading further, when you get to the proffer sections where well and blast damage remediation (9.1, 9.2, 9.3) is specifically tied to "the Properties", which now are reduced portions of the land O-N owns, this brings the 1,500 feet radius for well and blasting remediation in closer to O- N and further away from some neighbors. Although Mr Stinson and Mr Lawson are on public record at the April 23, 2008, hearing (and elsewhere) as saying if one inch of a neighbor's land is within 1,500 feet of the Properties, O-N will fix damaged wells or blasting damage. However, the new proffers do not spell out if they mean within 1,500 feet from the tax parcel boundary or 1,500 feet from each rezoned portion's boundary. My interpretation would be the latter, and that is the point: These two significant features of the proffers - well remediation and blasting remediation, slender as they are, will be open to interpretation because of the ambiguity of language and terminology where "the Properties" and "the Portions" seem to be referring to the same thing, but it is not clearly spelled out. If these terms are not meant to refer to the same thing, then the language of the proffer statement must be changed to remove that level of ambiguity and to eliminate any element of leaving it up to residents, the county, and attorneys to interpret what O-N meant. (P.S. A related scenario follows: since the proffers are specifically tied to activity associated with the smaller rezoned portions/ parcels, I presume that this means that if an incident occurred on a neighbor's property O-N could simply argue : "Oh, we weren't blasting on one of the new portions, we were blasting on one of the pre-existing, pre -zoning quarrying parcels" and squiggle out of the proffers.) (Message also emailed to To: Chairman Mr R. Shickle and fellow Board Supervisors, Frederick County, Virginia; Mr Mike Ruddy; Mr R. Williams [currently listed on County web site as County Attorney].) Dr Ranna-Lesley Lachlan (PhD, RPP, VCST, BFA, Grad.D, Mat.Anth.) 491 Chimney Circle, Chimney Hills Estates, Middletown, VA 22645, USA. Tel: USA 540-533-5403 Director - American Polarity Therapy Association, Ethics Liaison Founder - 6th Dimension & Raima@ Arts Incorporated, LLC. The Ranna@ identity is an international trademark registered with the United States Patents and Trademarks Office. DISCLAIMER: This email and all attachments are private, confidential, and without prejudice, and may contain information that is the subject of privilege. They are intended only for the original 5/27/2008 Page 2 of 2 recipient. If you are nobthat reci�Xjmt, please erase the email and attachment/s, and notify the sender. If you are not the original intended recipient yet read these documents, all liability that may ensue rests with you/ the reader of this message. No liability or legal recourse accrues to the author of the original message. Unless expressly authorized by the sender, no recipient can use, copy or distribute the information contained in this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this e-mail in error, please delete/destroy all copies immediately and contact the author by return e-mail or by calling USA 540-533-5403. Rana® Arts Incoprorated, LLC and its Gth Dimension Project do not warrant that this e-mail, or its attachments, is free from virus or other defects and it accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or any attachment. 5/27/2008 M AY 2 1 2008 Tara B. Shostek 550 Chimney Circle Middletown, Virginia 22645 540-869-7415 tshostek@robertbecht.com May 19, 2008 Via e-mail: rshicklekshentel.net Chairman Richard C. Shickle Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: O-N Minerals Chemstone Company (RZ# 03-06) Dear Chairman Shickle: It has recently come to my attention that O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company - Strasburg ("O-N Strasburg") and O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company - Middletown ("O-N Middletown") have recently violated the conditions of their operating permits by exceeding the allowable particulate matter emissions allowed under their operating permits. I ask that you take the following information under advisement when reviewing O-N's rezoning application, and deny the application. O-N Strasbury, Has Violated the Conditions of Its Title V Permit On June 13, 2007, O-N Strasburg conducted a mandatory test of its atmospheric hydrator (U10), which found filterable particulate matter emissions at 2.45 lb/hr. (See Strasburg Order by Consent dated February 1, 2008, which is attached.) O-N's July 30, 2002 Permit limits emissions at this hydrator to 1.0 lbs/hr (4.4 tons/year). O-N Strasburg was issued a Notice of Violation on September 14, 2007 alleging that the filterable particulate matter emissions for this hydrator exceeded O-N Strasburg's Title V permit limit. In response to the notice of violation O-N asserted that the test results did not accurately represent the emissions from the hydrator, and the DEQ found "there was reasonable evidence that the measured test results were not representative of actual PM emissions from the hydrator." However, because O-N was unable to demonstrate compliance with Condition V.A.3 of its Permit within the specified timeframes, O-N was fined $3,107.00. The DEQ also provided a plan and schedule for O-N to return into compliance with its requirements. The plan included re- testing the facility using EPA Method 5, or other DEQ approved method. (See Strasburg Order by Consent.) Chairman Richard C. Shickle May 19, 2008 Page 2 of 2 On January 17, 2008, O-N conducted the follow-up emission test. O-N's report to the DEQ showed that the particulate matter emissions from the atmospheric hydrator averaged 1.86 lb/hr, which still significantly exceeds the emissions permitted under O-N's Title V permit. The DEQ issued a second Notice of Violation dated March 18, 2008. (See O-N Strasburg Second NOV dated March 18, 2008, a copy of which is attached.) O-N's Strasburg facility is in violation of its Title V permit and could be subject to civil penalties up to $32,000 per day, per violation of the Air Pollution Control Law, Air Board regulations, order or permit condition. Additional civil penalties could also be imposed. O-N Middletown Has Violated the Conditions of Its Stationary Source Permit O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company - Middletown was recently fined by the DEQ for violation of its Stationary Source Permit when a DEQ inspector observed the loading of a truck from the product storage bin using a loading tube without the required air pollution controls. (See Middletown Consent Order dated December 4, 2007, a copy of which is attached.) The Stationary Source Permit states that "particulate emissions from the sand plant equipment, including the truck -rail loadouts, shall be controlled by fabric filter baghouses... which shall be in operation when the equipment is operating." (Middletown Consent Order at P. 2.) The DEQ inspector found credible evidence of the exceedance of emission limits, which violates Conditions 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of O-N's Stationary Source Permit. The DEQ issued a Notice of Violation on July 16, 2007 and O-N and the DEQ agreed upon a civil charge of $4,505.00. Relying on O-N to Meet Existing Legal Obligations is Not Sufficient to Mitigate the Adverse Impacts of This Rezoning Application In its rezoning application, proffers and oral presentations, O-N has stated that it is already bound by laws, regulations, and other legal obligations, and therefore does not need additional restrictions to mitigate the adverse impacts of this rezoning. O-N's failure to comply with the conditions of its Title V Permit and its Stationary Source Permit, shows that O-N is unable or unwilling to meet even its basic legal obligations. Based on its present operating practices, reliance on O-N's purported self -regulation via compliance with existing legal obligations is misplaced. These current violations are particularly egregious because they resulted in additional particulate matter being discharged into the local community, and they occurred at a time when Chemstone is seeking to enlarge its operations and move them even closer to existing residential and agricultural properties. Chairman Richard C. Shickle May 19, 2008 Page 3 of 3 For these reasons, relying on O-N to comply with existing legal obligations is clearly not sufficient to mitigate the adverse impacts of this rezoning application. Very truly yours, 40!ck Tara B. Shostek Encl. cc w/encl.: Gary A. Lofton, Back Creek District (gary@garylofton.com) Gary W. Dove, Gainesboro District (garydove4@comcast.net) Bill M. Ewing, Opequon District (supervisorewing@yahoo.com) Philip A. Lemiuex, Red Bud District (plemieux@visuallink.com) Gene E. Fisher, Shawnee District (gfisher@visuallink.com) Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Stonewall District (cdehaven@crosslink.net) Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director (mrudd a,co.frederick.va.us) (Please place a copy of this letter in the Public File for the above referenced rezoning application.) C r S�,asbur, Ordec b Ct�1s��+ Fe b. y avo� COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY VALLEY REGIONAL OFFICE Preston Bryant 4411 Early Road, P.O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801 David K. Paylor Secretary orNatural Resources (540) 574-7800 Fax (540) 574-7878 Director ; tvww.deq.virginin_gov 6 R. Bradley Chewning, P.E. Regional Director STATE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ENFORCEMENT ACTION ORDER BY CONSENT ISSUED TO O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company — Strasburg Registration #: 80252 SECTION A: Purpose This is a Consent Order issued under the authority of Va. Code §§ 10.1-1187, -1184,-1307(D), -1309, and-1316(C), between the State Air Pollution Control Board and O-N Minerals Company, for the purpose of resolving certain alleged violations of environmental law and regulations. SECTION B: Definitions Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the following words and terms have the meaning assigned to them below: 1. "Va. Code" means the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. 2. `Board" means the State Air Pollution Control Board, a permanent citizens' board of the Commonwealth of Virginia as described in Code §§ 10.1-1301 and 10.1-1184. 3. "Department" or "DEQ" means the Department of Environmental Quality, an agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia as described in Va. Code § 10.1-1183. 4. "Director" means the Director of the Department of Environmental Quality. 5. "Order" means this document, also known as a Consent Order, and incorporates the additional terms and conditions as set out in Appendix A to this document. i r O N Minerals — Strasburg Consent Order Page 2 of 7 r 6. "O-N Minerals" means O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company - Strasburg, a Virginia Company which owns and operates a limestone crushing and processing facility. 7. "Facility" means O-N Minerals' limestone crushing and processing facility located at 1696 Oranda Road, Strasburg, Virginia 22657. 8. "VRO" means the Valley Regional Office of DEQ, located at 4411 Early Road, P.O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801. 9. "The Pen -nit" means O-N Minerals' Virginia Title V Operating Permit, dated July 30, 2002. . SECTION C: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law 1. O-N Minerals is the owner and operator of the Facility, which is the subject of a Notice of Violation (NOV) issued on September 14, 2007. 2. Condition V.D.2 of O-N Minerals' Permit states: Once each permit term, at a frequency not to exceed five years, a performance test shall be conducted for particulate matter (PM) on the hydrator (U10) using EPA Method 5 (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A) or other DEQ approved method. The test shall be performed, and demonstrate compliance with the standard according to Condition V.A.3. The test shall be conducted and reported and data reduced as set forth in 9 VAC 5-50-30. The Permittee shall submit a test protocol at least 30 days prior to testing. Two copies of the test results shall be submitted to the Director, Valley Region, within 60 days after test completion and shall. conform to the test report format enclosed with this permit. (9 VAC 5-50-30 and 9 VAC 5-80-110) 3. Testing required by Condition V.D.2 -of the Permit was conducted on June 13, 2007, within the timeframe specified in the Permit. On August 13, 2007, DEQ received the results of 0-N Minerals' Emission Test Report for Filterable Particulate Matter Emissions for the hydrator at the Strasburg facility. The report was submitted after a meeting between O-N Minerals and DEQ on July 24, 2007. During the meeting, 0-N Minerals reported Method 5 test results of 2.45 lb/hr, which exceeds the permit limit of 1.0 lb/hr. . 4. Condition V.A.3 of O-N Minerals' Permit states that particulate emissions from the operation of the atmosphere hydrator (U10) shall not exceed the following limitations: 1.0 lb/hr and 4.4 tons/yr. O-N Minerals' Permit expired on July 30, 2007, and has not been reissued. 6. O-N Minerals completed the testing required by Condition V.D.2 of the Permit within specified timeframes. In the meeting on July 24, 2007, and in subsequent written correspondence, O-N Minerals asserted that the test results did not provide an accurate representation of emissions from the hydrator based on unique properties of the process and emissions point. In a letter from Department to 0-N i i O-N Minerals — Strasburg Consent Order Page 3 of 7 £° i Minerals dated September 14, 2007, Department concurred that, while Method 5 is the most appropriate filterable particulate matter test method for the source, there was reasonable evidence that the measured test results were not representative of actual PM emissions from the hydrator. 0-N Minerals responded to the NOV in a timely manner, and in electronic mail communication on October 29, 2007, expressed its intent to cooperatively resolve the testing ambiguities referenced in item C.4. above. Since O-N Minerals was unable to demonstrate compliance with Condition V.A.3 of the Permit within specified timeframes, this Order provides a plan and schedule for O-N Minerals to return to P compliance, including an appropriate civil charge for an extended compliance deadline. SECTION D: Agreement and Order By virtue of the authority granted State Air Pollution Control Board pursuant to Va. Code §§ 10.1- 1186(2), 10.1-1309, and 10.1-1316(C), orders O N Minerals, and 0-N Minerals voluntarily agrees to the following conditions in settlement of the violations cited in this Order: 1. O-N Minerals agrees to a civil charge of $3,107.00 in settlement of the violations cited in this Order. Payment must indicate that the civil charge is paid pursuant to this Order, and shall include O-N Minerals' Federal Identification Number. Payment shall be by check, certified check, money order, or cashier's check payable to "Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Virginia" and sent to Receipts Control, Department of Environmental Quality, Post Office Box 1104, Richmond, Virginia 23218. 2. O-N Minerals shall comply with the terms and conditions as set out in Appendix A of this Order. SECTION E: Administrative Provisions 1. The Board may modify, rewrite, or amend the Order with the consent of 0-N Minerals, for good cause shown by O-N Minerals, or on its own motion after notice to O-N Minerals and its opportunity to be heard. 2. This Order addresses and resolves only those violations specifically identified herein. This Order shall not preclude the Board or the Director from taking any action authorized by law, including but not limited to: (1) taking any action authorized by law regarding any additional, subsequent, or subsequently discovered violations; (2) seeking subsequent remediation of the Facility as may be authorized by law; or (3) taking subsequent action to enforce this Order. This Order shall not preclude appropriate enforcement actions by other federal, state, or local regulatory authorities for matters not addressed herein. 3. For purposes of this Order only, 0-N Minerals admits the jurisdictional allegations in the Order. However, by entering into this Consent Order, O-N Minerals does not admit any liability to the Board arising out of the transactions or occurrences alleged by the Board, nor does it admit to any of the Board's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Nothing in the allegations, the proposed penalties, this Consent Order, or the signing, execution, or implementation of this Consent Order constitutes an admission by O-N Minerals or evidence of, or shall be treated as an admission or evidence of, any allegation or of any ON Minerals — Strasburg Consent Order Page 4 of 7 violation of the statute and regulations referred to herein, in any litigation or forum whatsoever. 4. O-N Minerals consents to venue in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond for any civil action taken to enforce the terms of this Order. O-N Minerals declares it has received fair and due process under the Administrative Process Act; Va. Code §§ 2.2-4000 et seq., and the Air Pollution Control Law and it waives the right to any hearing or other administrative proceeding authorized or required by law or regulation, and to any judicial review of any issue of fact or law contained herein. Nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of the right of 0-N Minerals to any administrative proceeding for, or to judicial review of, any action taken by the Board to enforce this Order. 6. Failure by O-N Minerals to comply with any of the terms of this Order shall constitute a violation of an order of the Board. Nothing herein shall waive the initiation of appropriate enforcement actions or the issuance of additional orders as appropriate by the Board or the Director as a result of such violations. Nothing herein shall affect appropriate enforcement actions by any other federal, state, or local regulatory authority. 7. If any provision of this Order is found to be unenforceable for any reason, the remainder of the Order shall remain in full force and effect. 8. O-N Minerals shall be responsible for failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this Order unless compliance is made impossible by earthquake, flood, other acts of God, war, strike, or such other occurrence. O-N Minerals shall show that such circumstances were beyond its control and not due to a lack of good faith or diligence on its part. 0-N Minerals shall notify the DEQ Regional Director in writing when circumstances are anticipated to occur, are occurring, or have occurred that may delay compliance or cause noncompliance with any requirement of the Order. Such notice shall set forth: a. The reasons for the delay or noncompliance; b. The projected duration of any such delay or noncompliance; C. The measures taken and to be taken to prevent or minimize such delay or noncompliance; and d. The timetable by which such measures will be implemented and the date full compliance will be achieved. Failure to so notify the Regional Director within 24 hours of learning of any condition above, which O-N Minerals intends to assert will result in the impossibility of compliance, shall constitute a waiver of any claim to inability to comply with a requirement of this Order. O-N Minerals — Strasburg Consent Order Page 5 of 7 10. This Order is binding on the parties hereto, their successors in interest, designees and assigns, jointly and severally. 11. This Order shall become effective upon execution by both the Director or his designee and O-N Minerals. Notwithstanding the foregoing, O-N Minerals agrees to be bound by any compliance date which precedes the effective date of this Order. 12. This Order shall continue in effect until: a. ON Minerals petitions the Director or his designee to terminate the Order after it has completed all requirements of the Order and the Director or his designee approves the termination of the Order; or b. The Director or the Board may terminate this Order in his or its whole discretion upon 30 days' written notice to O-N Minerals. Termination of this Order, or of any obligation imposed in this Order, shall not operate to relieve ON Minerals from his obligation to comply with any statute, regulation, permit condition, other order, certificate, certification, standard, or requirement otherwise applicable. 12. By appropriate signature below, O-N Minerals voluntarily agrees to the issuance of this Order. And it is so ORDERED this day of , 2008. Amy That her Owens, Regional Director Valley Regional Office Department of Environmental Quality O-N Minerals voluntarily agrees to the issuance cP°'� n ao Datf Commonwealth of Virginia 1 City/County of a c,e The foregoing document was signe4 and acknowled ed before me this day of . , 2008, by ' who is O-N Minerals — Strasburg Consent Order Page 6 of 7 (name) r�> f O-N Minerals, on bebalf of O-N Minerals. otary Public My commission expires: _ %41 &009 O-N Minerals — Strasburg Consent Order Page 7 of 7 APPENDIX A In addition to the foregoing, the Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board orders O-N Minerals, and 0- N Minerals agrees to implement this corrective action plan as an additional provision to this Order: Pursuant to Condition V.D.2 of the Permit, repeat performance tests shall be conducted for particulate matter (PM) on the hydrator (J10) using EPA Method 5 (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A) or other DEQ approved method. The tests shall be performed no later than February 29, 2008. Tests shall be conducted and reported and data reduced as set forth in 9 VAC 5-50-30. The details of the tests are to be arranged with the Air Compliance Manager, Valley Regional Office. The Permittee shall submit a test protocol prior to testing. One copy of the test results shall be submitted to the Air Compliance Manager, Valley Regional Office, within 30 days after test completion and shall conform to the test report format provided in the Permit (9 VAC 5-50-30 and 9 VAC 5-80-110). 2. Valid results from the testing may be used to modify the limit for particulate matter stated in Condition V.A.3 of ON Minerals' Permit. Physical or operational modifications made during testing may also be required by the Permit to ensure future compliance with applicable limits. Should DEQ and O-N Minerals determine that a modification to the Permit is appropriate; 0- N Minerals shall submit a Form 7 Air Permit Application within a reasonable timeframe specified by DEQ. 3. O-N Minerals shall submit a revised Form 805 to update the compliance certification in its Title V permit application within 15 days of the effective date of this Order. The compliance certification shall include Conditions 1 and 2 of this Appendix, which will be incorporated as a compliance plan in the reissued Title V permit. ti7 f✓ `�zs Lill 1W O -lV S-�casbtxrOi ma('C)" t4, a 004 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY VALLEY REGIONAL OFFICE L. Preston Bryant, Jr. 4411 Early Road, P.O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801 David K. Pavlor Secretary of Natural Resources (540) 574-7800 Fax (540) 574-7878 Director www.deq.virginia.gov Amy Thatcher Owens Regional Director March 18, 2008 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. Spencer Stinson General Manager O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company P.O. Box 71 Strasburg, VA 22657 NOTICE OF VIOLATION RE: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company - Strasburg Permit No. 80252 AIRS No. 51-171-0003 NOV No. AVR06446 Dear Mr. Stinson: This letter notifies you of information upon which the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) may rely to institute an administrative or judicial enforcement action. Based on this information, DEQ has reason to believe that O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company - Strasburg (O-N Minerals) may be in violation of the Air Pollution Control Law and Regulations. This letter addresses conditions at the facility named above, and also cites compliance requirements of the Air Pollution Law and Regulations. Pursuant to Va. Code § 10.1- 1309(A)(vi), this letter is not a case decision under the Virginia Administrative Process Act, Va. Code § 2.2-4000 et seq. DEQ requests that you respond within 10 days of the date of this letter. O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company - Strasburg Notice of Violation Page 2 of 3 OBSERVATIONS AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS On February 7, 2008, DEQ received O-N Minerals' Emission Test Report for Filterable Particulate Matter Emissions for the atmospheric hydrator at the Strasburg facility. This report was submitted to meet the requirements of Permit condition 1 of Appendix A of the Consent Order between DEQ and O-N Minerals dated February 1, 2008, and Condition V.D.2 of O-N Minerals' Title V permit dated July 30, 2002. The required testing was conducted on January 17, 2008. Observation: The test results indicate that particulate matter emissions from the atmospheric hydrator averaged 1.85 lb/hr during the test. Lezal Reauirements: Permit condition TV.V.A.3 of your Title V permit dated July 30, 2002, states: Particulate emissions from the operation of the atmosphere hydrator (U10) shall not exceed the limitations specified below: Particulate Matter 1.0 lb/hr 4.4 tons/yr Annual emissions shall be calculated monthly as the sum of each consecutive 12 month period. (9 VAC 5-80-110 and Part I, Condition 5 of 5/5/87 Minor NSR Permit) ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY Va. Code § 10.1-1316 of the Air Pollution Control Law provides for an injunction for any violation of the Air Pollution Control Law, the Air Board regulations, an order, or permit condition, and provides for a civil penalty of up to $32,500 per day for each violation of the Air Pollution Control Law, regulation, order, or permit condition. In addition, Va. Code §§ 10.1- 1307 and 10.1-1309 authorize the Air Pollution Control Board to issue orders to any person to comply with the Air Pollution Control Law and regulations, including the imposition of a civil penalty of up to $100,000 for violations. Also, Va. Code § 10.1-1186 authorizes the Director of DEQ to issue special orders to any person to comply with the Air Pollution Control Law and regulations, and to impose a civil penalty of not more than $10,000. Va. Code §§ 10.1-1320 and 10.1-1309.1 provide for other additional penalties. The Court has the inherent authority to enforce its injunction, and is authorized to award the Commonwealth its attorneys' fees and costs. O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company - Strasburg Notice of Violation Page 3 of 3 FUTURE ACTIONS DEQ wishes to discuss all aspects of these observations with you, including any actions needed to ensure compliance with state law and regulations, any relevant or related measures you plan to take or have taken, and a schedule, as needed, for further activities. In addition, please advise us if you dispute any of the observations recited herein or if there is other information of which DEQ should be aware. In order to avoid adversarial enforcement action in the future, you may be asked to enter into a Consent Order with DEQ to formalize a plan and schedule of corrective action and to settle any outstanding issues regarding this matter, including the assessment of civil charges. In the event that discussions with staff do not lead to a satisfactory conclusion concerning the contents of this letter, you may elect to participate in DEQ's Process for Early Dispute Resolution. If you complete the Process for Early Dispute Resolution and are not satisfied with the resolution, you may request in writing that DEQ take all necessary steps to issue a case decision where appropriate. For further information on the Process for Early Dispute Resolution, please visit DEQ's website under "Laws & Regulations" and "DEQ regulations" at http://www.deg.virizinia.p,ov/reg`lations/pdf/Process for Early Dispute Resolution 8260532 pdf or ask the DEQ contact listed below. Please contact me at rdphillipsaa,,deg.virginia.gov or (540) 574- 7846 within ten days of the date of this letter to discuss this matter and to arrange a meeting. Sincerely, ai� 0 Ronald D. Phillips Air Compliance Manager cc: Compliance/Enforcement file Air Compliance Manager/VRO Sharon Foley/VRO Barry Brandon/VRO COMMONWEALTH of VIRGI IA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY VALLEY REGIONAL OFFICE L. Preston Bryant, Jr. 4411 Early Road, P.O. Box 3000, Harrisoabi-ug, Virginia 22801 Secretary of Natural Resources (540) 574-7800 Fax (540) 574-7878 www_deq.virginia.gov m i dd le -+Owl) Con s< r+ (Dr-6 -er T)ec. 4, a vo � David K_ Paylor Director Amy Thatcher Owens Regional Director STATE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ENFORCEMENT ACTION ORDER BY CONSENT ISSUED TO O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company — MiddIetown Registration #: 80452 SECTION A: Purpose This is a Consent Order issued under the authority of Va. Code §§ 10.1-1187, -1184,-1307(D), -1309, and -131 b(C), between the State Air Pollution Control Board and O-N Minerals Company, for the purpose of resolving certain alleged violations of environmental law and regulations. SECTION B: Definitions Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the following words and terms have the meaning assigned to them below: "Va. Code" means the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. 2. `Board" means the State Air Pollution Control Board, a permanent citizens' board of the Commonwealth of Virginia as described in Code §§ 10.1-1301 and 10,1-1184. 3. "Department" or "DEQ" means the Department of Environmental Quality, an agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia as described in Va. Code § 10.1-1183. 4. "Director" means the Director of the Department of Environmental Quality. ON Minerals - Consent Order Page 2 of 6 "VRO" means the Valley Regional Office of DEQ, located at 4411 Early Road, P.O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801. 9. "CFR" means Code of Federal Regulations. 10. "Permit" means O-N Minerals' Stationary Source Permit to Modify and Operate, dated August 29, 2006, and amended on December 20, 2006. 11. "Regulation" means the Virginia Regulations for the Control and Abatement•of Air Pollution, 9 VAC 5-10-10 et seq. SECTION C: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law O-N Minerals is the owner and operator of the Facility, which is the subject of a Notice of Violation issued on Ally 16, 2007. On April 30, 2007, a DEQ inspector visited the referenced facility and observed a truck being loaded from the product storage bin using a loading tube without the required air pollution controls. The DEQ inspector observed excessive particulate matter from the loading operation. DEQ issued a Request for Corrective Action (RCA) to O-N Minerals for this observed condition and requested calculations to 'estimate particulate emissions from the use of the uncontrolled loadout. 2. O-N Minerals responded to the RCA with letters dated June 5, 2007 and June 20, 2007.O-N Minerals stated that the uncontrolled loadout tube had been replaced with a controlled tube and that operators had been trained in the proper use of the loadout. 0-N Minerals also stated that the alleged use of the uncontrolled tube may have caused excess emissions. The response from O-N Minerals and the DEQ inspector's observations of the uncontrolled loadout appear to provide credible evidence of the exceedance of emission limits. 3. Condition 3 of O-N Minerals' Permit states that particulate emissions from the sand plant equipment, including the truck -rail loadouts, shall be controlled by fabric filter baghouses. Condition 3 further states that the fabric filters shall be in operation when the. equipment is operating. (9 VAC 5-80-1180 and 9 VAC 5-50-260) 4. Condition 13 of O-N Minerals' Permit states that particulate emissions from the operation of the limestone crushing and processing facility shall not exceed specified limits. These limits are derived from the estimated overall emission contribution from operating limits. Exceedance of the operating limits shall be considered credible evidence of the exceedance of emission limits. Compliance with these limits may be determined as stated in Conditions 3, 4, 5, 6, and. 7. (9 VAC 5-80-1180 and 9 VAC 5-50-260) 5. O-N Minerals representatives met with DEQ officials on July 24, 2007 to discuss the allegations of violation and remedial measures taken up to the date of the meeting and agreed to the payment of a civil penalty in accordance with regulations set out by the State Air Control Board. ON Minerals - Consent Order Page 3 of 6 SECTION D: Agreement And Order By virtue of the authority granted it in Va. Code §§10.1-1309 and 10.1-1316, the Board orders O-N Minerals, and O-N Minerals voluntarily agrees, to pay a civil charge of $4,50.5.00 within 30 days of the effective date of the Order in settlement of the violations cited in this Order. Payment shall be made by check, certified check, money order or cashier's check payable to the "Treasurer of Virginia", delivered to: Receipts Control Department of Environmental Quality Post Office Box 1104 Richmond, Virginia 23218 The payment shall include O-N Minerals' Federal ID number and shall state that it is being tendered in payment of the civil charge assessed under this Order. SECTION E: Administrative Provisions The Board may modify, rewrite, or amend the Order with the consent of O-N Minerals, for good cause shown by 0-N Minerals, or on its own motion after notice to O-N Minerals and its opportunity to be heard. 2. This Order addresses and resolves only those violations specifically identified herein. This Order shall not preclude the Board or the Director from taking any action authorized by law, including but not limited to: (1) taking any action authorized by law regarding any additional, subsequent, or subsequently discovered violations; (2) seeking subsequent remediation of the Facility as may be authorized by law; or (3) taking subsequent action to enforce this Order. This Order shall not preclude appropriate enforcement actions by other federal, state, or local regulatory authorities for matters not addressed herein. For purposes of this Order and subsequent actions with respect to this Order, 0-N Minerals admits the jtu-isdictional allegations contained herein. The parties understand and acknowledge that the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained herein are the contentions of the Board. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed an admission of law or fact or evidence of the same, or of any violation of any federal, state or local law, statute, regulation or ordinance by O-N Minerals. 4. O-N Minerals consents to venue in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond for any civil action taken to enforce the terms of this Order. 5. O-N Minerals declares it has received fair and due process tinder the Administrative Process Act, Va. Code §§ 2.2-4000 et seq., and the Air Pollution Control Law and it waives the right to any hearing or other administrative proceeding authorized or required by law or regulation, and to any judicial review of any issue of fact or law contained herein. Nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of the right of O-N Minerals to any ON Minerals - Consent Order Page 4 of 6 administrative proceeding for, or to judicial review of, any action taken by the Board to enforce this Order. 6. Failure by O-N Minerals to comply with any of the terms of this Order shall constitute a violation of an order of the Board. Nothing herein shall waive the initiation of appropriate enforcement actions or the issuance of additional orders as appropriate by the Board or the Director as a result of such violations. Nothing herein shall affect appropriate enforcement actions by any other federal, state, or local regulatory authority. 7. If any provision of this Order is found to be unenforceable for any reason, the remainder of the Order shall remain in Rill force and effect. O-N Minerals shall be responsible for failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this Order unless compliance is made impossible by earthquake, flood, other acts of God, war, strike, or such other occurrence. O-N Minerals shall show that such circumstances were beyond its control and not due to a lack of good faith or diligence on its part. O-N Minerals shall notify the DEQ Regional Director in writing when circumstances are anticipated to occur, are occurring, or have occurred that may delay compliance or cause noncompliance with any requirement of the Order. Such notice shall set forth: a. the reasons for the delay or noncompliance; b. the projected duration of any such delay or noncompliance; C. the measures taken and to be taken to prevent or minimize such delay or noncompliance; and d. the timetable by which such measures will be implemented and the date full compliance will be achieved. Failure to so notify the Regional Director within 24 hours of learning of any condition above, which O-N Minerals intends to assert will result in the impossibility of compliance, shall constitute a waiver of any claim to inability to comply with a requirement of this Order. 9. This Order is binding on the parties hereto, their successors in interest, designees and assigns, jointly and severally. 10. This Order shall become effective upon execution by both the Director or his designee and O-N Minerals. Notwithstanding the foregoing, O-N Minerals agrees to be bound by any compliance date which precedes the effective date of this Order. 11. This Order shall continue in effect until: a. O-N Minerals petitions the Director or his designee to terminate the Order after it O-N Minerals - Consent Order Page 5 of 6 has completed all requirements of the Order and the Director or his designee approves the termination of the Order; or b. The Director or the Board may terminate this Order in his or its whole discretion upon 30 days' written notice to O-N Minerals. Termination of this Order, or of any obligation imposed in this Order, shall not operate to relieve O-N Minerals from his obligation 'to comply with any statute, regulation, permit condition, other order, certificate, certification, standard, or requirement otherwise applicable. 12. By appropriate signature below, 0-N Minerals voluntarily agrees to the issuance of this Order. O-N Minerals - Consent Order Page 6 of 6 And it is so ORDERED this day of k L, 200 1. A-,-, 91(07e,/� Al�y T6tchd Owens, Regional Director Valley Regional Office Department of Environmental Quality O-N Minerals voluntarily agrees to the issuance of this der. B . Date: Commonwealth of Virginia City/County of SHENANDOAH The foregoing document was signed and acknowledged before me this 29tlday of November ,2007 ,by Spencer Stinson (name) General Manager of O-N Minerals, on behalf of O-N Minerals. (title) N Public My commission expires: 12/31/2010 ID 169454 who is May 20, 2008 M AY 2 1 2008 TO: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director, Planning & Development Frederick County 107 Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 FROM: Judith Spangler , Back Creek District 276 Westernview Drive Middletown, VA 22645 Attached is a statement on Historic Resources of Frederick County. I would like for this to be filed for the Public Record. Thank you. HISTORIC RESOURCES OF FREDERICK COUNTY This month marked the grand opening of the Winchester -Frederick County Visitor Center and Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation National Historic District Civil War Orientation Center. The Center will showcase Civil War history, much of which can be found in close proximity to the area O-N is requesting to be rezoned. Concern has been expressed either at the Hearing or in correspondence by: National Historical Park of Cedar Creek and Belle Grove, National Park Service American Battlefield Protection Program, National Park Service National Trust for Historic Preservation Civil War Preservation Trust Potomac Conversancy Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation Geological Resources Division, National Park Service Preserve Frederick Residents of five districts of Frederick County and two neighboring counties In addition, Cedar Creek and Belle Grove are on the CWPT's most endangered list for 2007 because of the proposed rezoning. Cedar Creek Battlefield, Belle Grove Plantation, Monte Vista and St. Thomas Episcopal Church are all on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places, and a designated Scenic Byway are all situated near and endangered by the Middletown Quarry. Belle Grove brings in multitudes of visitors throughout the year to attend many events, including a Garden Fair, Ice Cream Social, Antiques Appraisal Fair, Living History Days, special Thanksgiving and Christmas Tours, Easter Egg Roll for the children, the annual and very popular Civil War Reenactment, and in 2010 a return of the National Sheep Dog Trials. If Winchester/Frederick County is determined to promote Civil War tourism and to protect valuable historic and natural resources as evidenced by the new Visitor Center, then the O-N plan should not be approved as proffered. Denial would save historic and natural resources of Frederick County for years to come, while approval would affect Frederick and surrounding counties and be disruptive to residents and tourists for 50+ years. A supporter of a recent ordinance banning most billboards in Washington County, VA, said, "What you have to do is look at this in relationship to where you want to be in 20 years, in 30 years ... I can tell you that people come to the mountains because they want to see trees. They want to see something that is more unique than what they're leaving.... " Frederick County is unique, of historical interest, and beautiful with mountains, orchards, rivers and creeks. Much can be preserved for residents and tourists alike by adhering to the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. May 21, 2008 To: Board of Supervisors, Frederick County, Vir i From: Robert Spangler, Backcreek District � C,,7 Subject: Proffers for Application for Rezoning #03-06 Gentlemen: At your hearing of 4-23-08, Mr. Ruddy announced that the subject proffers had been revised and submitted 4-18-08 and were placed on the County web site on 4-21-08. Several days subsequent to the hearing this non -computer geek finally found the revised proffers and reviewed them in a preliminary fashion to ascertain changes on 5-5-08. It has been a scramble since to review them in detail and try to make sense of the details and gather information. Mr. Ruddy and staff have done a commendable job of reviewing and reporting on the proffers of 4-18-08. There remain many unanswered questions and details not addressed which are troubling because, as stated in the report presented by Mr. Ruddy, "It is evident that many of the potential impacts of this request are unknown and have not been clearly identified in the impact analysis. The potential scope of the impacts are not fully understood. The most significant example of this with this application is the historic and cultural resources." The natural environment and endangered species should be added to his list. The good work of the Planning Department does not address or even raise many questions such as are included in the attachment hereto. Approval of the application without addressing all issues raised in a satisfactory manner will be, it is believed, a mistake that cannot be easily reversed, especially after mining activities have started. And the consequences will reverberate for many, many decades. Copy to: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director Department of Planning and Development MAY 22= O-N MIDDLETOWN MINING OPERATIONS In recent months O-N has said it has mined out its Middletown quarry and needs more land immediately. Information from the O-N annual reports of 2005 and 2006 report "Measured, Indicated, and Potential Reserves of 181,100,000 of tons at its Strasburg, Middletown, and Clearbrook mines." (From the O-N 10-K/A SEC filing in August 2005, the average annual production for the properties was 3,000,000 tons and estimated proven and probable reserves was 165,700,000 tons. [Note: The Company did not include reserves that had not met SEC Industry Guide 7 regulations.]) An aerial photograph released by O-N shows that only about'/2 of the 80 to 200 feet thick layer --according to DMME--of New Market Limestone that exists on the 300 acres leased from Genstar has been mined. Assuming 1/3 of the potential reserves of 165,700,000 tons are in the Middletown quarry, there still exists about 27,000,000 tons. Since the Middletown mine has been worked for about 30 years, there should still be about 30 years of mining left. This assumes, as O-N has stated, there is to be no increase in production. This 30 year estimate compares favorably with the 25 years of mining left at the Genstar site that Mr. Stinson acknowledged during O-N's August, 2006 public meetings at the Wayside Inn and contrary to Mr. Stinson's assertion at the April 23, 2008 Board of Supervisors hearing during which Mr. Stinson stated that O-N has mined the bulk of the material fi-om the Middletown quarry and needs to rezone these other parcels. So, it appears that either O-N will increase production after the rezoning is complete, or it has about 25 to 30 years of mining left at the Middletown quarry. ISSUES WITH PROFFERS 1.2 If power plants are to be used, they should be of the portable type O-N described in its public meetings; therefore, "portable" should be inserted in the descriptive note after the word "using." 2.1 Vehicle access to Properties limited to existing entrance but "access by vehicles needed for periodic maintenance of the Properties shall not be limited." Not clear as to type of vehicle or what constitutes periodic maintenance. Does it intend that vehicles for construction of berms or similar activities be permitted to enter from Chapel Road? At its 4-2-08 public meeting, O-N informed attendees that it will provide a tunnel under Chapel Road so as to not close the road to local traffic; nothing was included in the proffer to that effect nor has the tunnel placement been identified. Further, because it is anticipated that the tunnel will be built using a cut and cover method because of costs, it may be necessary to close Chapel Road at least partially if not completely for a time; there is no traffic impact study or proffer nor an indication that the property will be closed to traffic after construction is completed. 2.2 How and by whom is site plan to be reviewed, approved and enforced? County Attorney says approval should be by the County enforcement is not addressed. 2.3 Berms to be a maximum height of 30 feet. The Planning Committee, in discussion, said maximum of 30 feet not acceptable. The Department of the Interior calls for berms to vary in height. This proffer discusses Phase I plat and Phase II plat while the Generalized Development Plan shows plats for Phases I, II, III & IV. The proffers should be corrected before any action is taken on the rezoning application. The berms at Strasburg have been planted with a declared invasive species, the tree of heaven (ailanthus); future plantings should be Department of Forestry directed Coniferous plantings. 3.1 The 8 acre site should be deeded to the appropriate organization as recommended by the Department of the Interior within a short time and without restrictions for the use of Applicant per the recommendation of the County Attorney. Reportedly the intent to contribute the property was publicly stated several years ago. This proffer seems to be added as an inducement for approval of the rezoning, and, in fact, is not needed if O-N truly intends to go forward with the contribution that can be --and could have been --made at any time. 3.2 The applicant has had 22 months in which to conduct an Archeological survey but still wants to delay until after the property is rezoned and should not be acceptable to the Board. Is there a concern about what may be found that would clearly show why the property should not be rezoned? Should an archaeological survey conducted after Board approval find a reason the property should not have been rezoned, can the approval be reversed? If conducted after rezoning, then much that is _found may be lost because of O-N control of access to the property. In its 4-2-08 public meeting, O- N rejected the idea that the Nieswander Fort could be located and be restored because it no longer stands on the Properties even though photographs of the building are available; O-N should at least donate the fort to the National Park Service for relocation on the Battlefield where proper dedication and interpretation can be given regarding its existence dating from the French and Indian Wars. "Given the importance of the landscape and key terrain within the proposed quarry expansion, most of which retains a high degree of integrity from the Civil War period, the American Battlefield Protection Program can only recommend against rezoning of these critical parcels." (Paul Hawke, Chief, American Battlefield Protection Program, National Park Service memo of April 16, 2008) O- N has also long argued that the area proposed for mining is not a part of the core battlefield of Cedar Creek contrary to historical information and maps. This suggests O-N would not be a good custodian of the historical aspects of the Properties. 3.3 When right-of-way is opened it should be available for access to "visitors" as well as relatives to those in the cemetery. Will the access be opened only on the Properties and not across private lands? Will the Applicant expect to have access across private land, especially since it expects to use the right-of-way it opens? Does O-N intend to use this right-of-way as a means of access for heavy equipment and trucks to build berms on the property; it is not clear that O-N would NOT use the access in this manner. Because what maintenance is to be done and what is considered a maintenance vehicle, this should be clarified prior to acceptance of such a proffer. 4.1 While a contract is extant between Applicant and FCSA, there can be no "guarantee" that the FCSA water rights will continue to exist if Applicant decides to exercise the following from Contract Section 13, "except in the event of a merger by Global or its parent corporation or an internal restructuring. In such event(s) Global shall not be obligated to offer any of its land to the Authority." Further, the owner of the land being mined at the Middletown quarry belongs to Genstar/Lafarge who would also have to consent to the action per Contract Section 10. At the 4-5-06 Planning Commission meeting, the O-N representative stated that mining operations are such that O-N may not be able to turn over any of the pits until it completes all mining on the Properties. This suggests that the water may not become available for more than 50 years per the statement of Mr. Lawson at the 4-23-08 BOS hearing. 5.2 As recommended by the County Attorney, the beginning phrase in the first sentence should be 2 deleted because the Applicant should be responsible for the remediation of any damage caused by any mining activities. 6.1 How "adverse impacts" from dust are to be determined is not included and it is not clear that these would include the physical results of inhaling the dust, particularly by the young and the elderly. 7.1 O-N stated at its 4-2-08 public meeting that it knows of the blasting technique whereby shock waves can be used to cancel shock waves. There is no proffer to use that technique which could minimize if not eliminate damage from blasting. 8.1 According to O-N, the proffered 200 truck loads maximum, based on the average of the prior 30 days, was offered so it could exceed the current level of 50 to 70 truck loads in the event of an emergency situation. Does this mean they could have many, many more truck loads on a given day? For example, in 30 days @ 200/day there could be a total of 6,000 truck loads. If there were only 70/day for the prior 30 days (2,100), could there be 3,900 truck loads on the 31s` day? Also, presumably the 200 would only be for the independent truckers because they indicated an unlimited number for their vehicles used in maintenance. O-N has repeatedly said that it will not increase production if the rezoning is approved. If there is to be no increase in production, then it is unlikely O-N would need to proffer more than the current traffic of 50 to 70 truck loads per day. Considering the stated speed at which O-N is to undertake activities as soon as the rezoning is accomplished, it appears likely there will be an increase in production for which O-N is planning an increase --roughly a tripling --in the number of truck loads per day. 9.1 There is a concern that the pre -blast surveys conducted by the Applicant's "independent engineering firm" and paid by the Applicant may tilt its findings, subconsciously or otherwise, to the benefit of its client. The property owner should be in the position of selecting the independent engineering firm and having the Applicant bear the expense. The Applicant establishes its right in this proffer to monitor the citizen's property, perhaps continuously, which could impose a burden on the citizen. DMME requires the Applicant to conduct seismic monitoring; apparently only one seismograph is required for this purpose. At this time, widely separated residences experience considerable shaking from the same blast which would require several seismographs for appropriate monitoring. 9.2 This section suggests that an allegation by a property owner that mining operations caused "a change of condition" to his well will be all that is needed to require O-N to restore or replace a well that can be shown to have deteriorated since the pre -blast survey. Section 5.2 says the deterioration must be due to the mining operations. That point should be made clear in this section. Neighboring property owner's wells are to be restored while adjoining property owners may be provided a replacement well. Further, the FCSA contract with O-N places responsibility for remediating wells with FCSA. A well owner suffering a failure should be serviced immediately regardless of the contract. In recent months O-N has said it has mined out its Middletown quarry and needs more land. Information from the O-N annual reports of 2005 and 2006 report "Measured, Indicated, and Potential Reserves of 181,100,000 of tons at its Strasburg, Middletown, and Clearbrook mines." (From the O-N 10-K/A SEC filing in August 2005, the average annual production for the properties was 3,000,000 tons and estimated proven and probable reserves was 165,700,000 tons. [Note: The Company did not include reserves that had not met SEC Industry Guide 7 regulations.]) An aerial photograph released by O-N shows that only about '/a of the 80 to 200 feet thick layer --according to DM1VIE--of New Market Limestone that exists on the 300 acres leased from Genstar has been mined. Assuming 1/3 of the potential reserves of 165,700,000 tons are in the Middletown quarry, there still exists about 27,000,000 tons. Since the Middletown mine has been worked for about 30 years, there should still be about 30 years of mining left. This assumes, as O-N has stated, there is to be no increase in production. This 30 year estimate compares favorably with the 25 years of mining left at the Genstar site that Mr. Stinson acknowledged during O-N's August, 2006 public meetings at the Wayside Inn and contrary to Mr. Stinson's assertion at the April 23, 2008 Board of Supervisors hearing during which Mr. Stinson stated that O-N has mined the bulk of the material from the Middletown quarry and needs to rezone these other parcels. So, it appears that either O-N will increase production after the rezoning is complete, or it has 30 years of mining left at the Middletown quarry. 9.3 An insurance policy or surety in the amount of $1,000,000.00 per occurrence is proffered. A given occurrence may involve 3 or more properties which could cost more than $1,000,000.00 so the proffer should be per property or considerably increased to take care of multiple properties being damaged at the same time. COMMENT APPLICABLE TO 9.2 AND 9.3--Far a property to be considered for remediation it must be within 1,500 feet of the boundary of the Applicants property. This distance was probably selected because of the cone of depression in the water table that would be created because of draw down. This would probably be a minimum distance because blasting in a karstic area has been shown to affect properties at much greater distances. The size and rapidity of the development of a sink hole is related to the amount of water available to dissolve the calcium carbonate in the limestone. A blast may enlarge an opening that will permit a greater volume of water to flow thus speeding the development of a sink hole. A paper on groundwater is being prepared and will be sent in the near future. 10.1 This proffer says that O-N will not conduct any reclamation activities because the pits will be turned over to the FCSA. O-N should be held responsible for restoration of the area around the pits except for that area to be used by FCSA. 11.1 DMIVIE decibel guidelines apparently do not restrict the distance at which the sounds can be clearly heard because those sounds are easily heard at a distance of 2.5 miles. Can a definition of "all reasonable efforts" be the "least cost effort" or could criteria be set forth that would ensure the proffer is adhered to and enforceable? DMME has no authorization to inspect or enforce any off -site damages; therefore, a separate organization should be designated by the County to conduct investigations. 12.1 The word "permanently" has been removed from the first sentence. Presumably then there is the intent to install permanent light fixtures. "Lighting for devices or machines that convey materials" suggest that devices such as a conveyor belt may be used in the pits. There is the opportunity in this proffer for O-N to use conveyor belts on a 24 hour basis to feed the crusher that does work on a 24 hour basis "to fill the bins" as stated by Mr. Stinson at the 4-23-08 hearing. 13.1 Ms. D. Graham, Backcreek District, has prepared a statement, to be submitted, regarding this proffer. 14.1 The County should determine whether it is appropriate for the Applicant to choose the "recognized environmental" entity to check water emissions per the County Attorney. 14.2 It is not clear to what property "outside of the rezoned Properties" refers. Is this other property owned by O-N or does it concern property not owned by O-N? A specific plat needs to be referenced so as to identify the property. 14.3 The County needs to determine whether the 200 feet setback is adequate to protect Cedar Creek and the "attached and incorporated plat" should be specifically described. O-N has declared on several occasions that the property to be rezoned does not have karst. By definition the area is karstic. In view of available information, parcel 90-A-23 probably should not be mined because of the potential impact of the blasting on rock bordering Cedar Creek. Openings could be made in the rock that could allow water from the pit to flow directly into the creek or water to flow from the creek into the pit. 15.1 Parcel 23 is referenced as the area in which work would be started after rezoning is approved; presumably this is parcel 90-A-23 which is south of the area being mined at present. This mining would continue for an "estimated 20 years." The compromise offered by Preserve Frederick said the mining is expected to last at least 30 years and O-N has stated in its public meetings that it expected mining at the current location to last for up to 25 years. Concurrent mining of the two areas would cause an increase in operations contrary to O-N statements in public meetings that there would be no increase in the mining operations. CONCLUSION On the whole these proffers are seriously lacking the clarity and specificity needed to preclude O-N fi-om interpreting them in ways that would allow O-N to take actions or positions diametrically opposed to the apparent intent of the proffers. Thus, if the rezoning application is approved, Frederick County would be lacking in the tools needed to enable appropriate enforcement of the proffers. And, approval would commit the County to a process for many decades, at least in excess of 50 years per Mr. Lawson at the 4-23-08 hearing. County inaction in the development of standards by which to determine whether it is appropriate to locate residential developments adjacent to quarries has led to the possible creation --should the application for rezoning be approved --of a partial taking of property and diminishment of a healthy environment for surrounding residents. ARCHAEOLOGICAL DELINEATION AND RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE HISTORIC TABLER AND NISEWANDER FAMILY CEMETERIES, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ECS PROJECT NO. 21:9244 Prepared For: MR. SPENCER STINSON O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) FEBRUARY 7, 2008 REVISED MARCH 6, 2008 ECS MID -ATLANTIC, LLC r>v�u��r�r,.rruc� Geotechnical - Construction Materials - Environmental Cultural Resources Mr. Spencer Stinson Chemstone Operation 1696 Oranda Road Strasburg, VA 22657 February 7, 2008 Revised March 6, 2008 ECS Project No. 21:9244 Reference: Archaeological Delineation and Restoration Plan for the Historic Tabler and Nisewander Family Cemeteries, Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Stinson: ECS Mid -Atlantic, LLC (ECS) is pleased to provide you with the revised report of our Historic Cemetery Delineations for the referenced properties. Our services were provided in general accordance with ECS Proposal No. 21:17309-REP, dated December 14, 2007. If there are any questions regarding this report please contact us. Respectfully submitted, ECS Mid -Atlantic, LLC. / / 4 " -, /- '-'� �' W_ � L Raymond Ezell, RPA Senior Archaeologist )�ouglas J. Finch Environmental Services Manager RDE/lACultural Resources\Projects\4000-4999\4966 On Minerals Cem Deli neation'Report\Revised Final Repoa.Doc I l 915 Maple Grove Driv r, Suite 206, Fredericksburg, VA 22407 - (540) 785-6100 - FAX (540) 785-3577 o www.ecslimited.com Aberdeen, MD • Baltiiiiore, MD • Chantilly, VA • Charlottesville, VA • Frederick, MD • Fredericksburg, VA • Manassas, VA • Ocean City, MD* Richmond, VA • Roanoke, VA • Virginia Beach, VA • Waldorf, MD • Williamsburg, VA • Winchester, VA • York, PA * testing services only FINAL REPORT PROJECT Archaeological Delineation and Restoration Plan for the Historic Tabler and Nisewander Family Cemeteries, Frederick County, Virginia. CLIENT O-N Minerals (Chemstone) 1696 Oranda Road Strasburg, VA 22657 SUBMITTED BY ECS Mid -Atlantic, LLC 915 Maple Grove Drive, Suite 206 Fredericksburg, Virginia 22407 PROJECT 21:9244 DATE February 7, 2008 REVISED March 6, 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During January 2008, ECS Mid -Atlantic, LLC (ECS) conducted cemetery delineations at the historic Tabler and Nisewander family cemeteries west of Middletown, in Frederick County, Virginia. The delineations were conducted on behalf of O-N Minerals (Chemstone) which owns the property. The delineations were designed to locate and identify the limits of the historic cemeteries. The results of this investigation are to be used for planning and cemetery restoration purposes. To this end, the cemetery delineation consisted of archival research, fieldwork, and report preparation. The cemetery delineations determined the horizontal extent, minimum number of graves, and alignment of these graves in each cemetery. The Nisewander cemetery was found to contain at least 22 individual interments and the potential (based upon size) to contain up to approximately 60 individual graves from the 18t"-early 19t►' centuries. The Tablet family cemetery was found to contain at 5 individual interments from the late 19t►' century. If these cemeteries are to be avoided by quarry operations, ECS recommends that these cemeteries should be restored to their historic appearance. If avoidance of the cemeteries by quarry activity is not possible, a professional archaeological excavation of the burials and their re -interment at another location in Frederick County under the guidelines of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) should be conducted. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page EXECUTIVESUMMARY................................................................................................ TABLEOF CONTENTS................................................................................................... LISTOF FIGURES........................................................................................................... iv I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1 A. Description of Project Area.................................................................................... 1 B. Geology and Topography....................................................................................... 5 C. Hydrology............................................................................................................... 5 11. RESEARCH I DESIGN............................................................................................ 6 A. Archival Research................................................................................................... 6 B. Fieldwork................................................................................................................6 C. Report Preparation.................................................................................................. 6 I1I. HISTORIC CONTEXT.......................................................................................... 7 A. The Development of Frederick County.................................................................. 7 IV. RESULTS............................................................................................................. 17 A. Archival Review................................................................................................... 17 B. Delineation Fieldwork.......................................................................................... 33 C. Cedar Creek Battlefield Condition Integrity Assessment and Impact to Project Area................................................................................................3 8 V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CEMETERIES RESTORATION ....................... 46 VI. REFERENCES CITED......................................................................................... 52 APPENDIX I: Representative Photographs H LIST OF FIGURES Figure ire Page Figure 1. Map of Virginia Showing the Approximate Location of the Project Area......... 1 Figure 2. Location of the Project Area................................................................................ 2 Figure 3. Location of the Nisewander Family Cemetery .................................................... 3 Figure 4. Location of the Tabler Family Cemetery............................................................ 4 Figure 5. Troop Positions During the Late Morning of October 19, 1864....................... 14 Figure 6. Vicinity of Tabler Family Cemetery................................................................ 18 Figure 7. Nisewander and Tabler Cemetery Areas on Historic Mapping ........................ 19 Figure 8. Historic Mapping of the Area........................................................................... 20 Figure 9. 1885 Map ofthe Opequon Magesterial District ............................................... 21 Figure 10. Nisewander Family Cemetery on Historic Mapping ...................................... 22 Figure 11. Photographs ofNisewander's Fort................................................................. 24 Figure12. 1986 Land Plat................................................................................................ 29 Figure 13. Schematic Planview of Tabler Family Cemetery ........................................... 34 Figure 14. Schematic Planview of the Nisewander Cemetery .......................................... 37 Figure 15. Map of the O-N Minerals Parcels, 2008.......................................................... 40 Figure 16. Northeast Oblique of House on Tabler Tract, 2008........................................ 42 Figure 17. Views West and South from Middle Marsh Brook and Tabler Cemetery ...... 43 Figure 18. Views North and East from Middle Marsh Brook, and Tabler Cemetery........ 44 iv This report presents the results of cemetery delineations on Tax Map 84: Parcel 8 and Tax Map 83: Parcel 109 in Frederick County, Virginia (Figure 1). These delineations were conducted during January 2008 by ECS Mid -Atlantic, LLC (ECS) for O-N Minerals (Chemstone) which proposes to develop the property for industrial/quarry use. Although the project was not required by regulatory agencies, the project was conducted in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's standards (Department of the Interior, 1983, 48 44720-44723), as well as the state standards entitled Guidelines For Conducting Cultural Resource Survey in Virginia: Additional Guidance for the Implementation of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines (48 FR 4472, September 29, 1983) 1999 (rev. 2000). Map of Virginia Showing the Approximate Location of the Project Area. The project area includes two locations where historic cemeteries have been noted by O- N Minerals (Chemstone) personnel (Figures 2-4). The historic Tabler family cemetery is located on Tax Map 84: Parcel 8 several hundred feet north of Chapel Road (Rte. 627) west of Middletown. This cemetery is on a small bench just west of Middle Marsh Branch. The historic Nisewander family cemetery is situated on Tax Map 83: Parcel 109 and is adjacent to the south side of Chapel Road (Rte. 627) along the margin of a pasture. This area is on the gentle slope of a ridge on the east side of Middle Marsh Branch. At the time of this project, the Nisewander family cemetery was dominated by a stand of third - growth mixed hardwoods with a ground cover of introduced periwinkle (Vinca sp.) roses, vines, ivy, and other undergrowth. Mature hardwoods included Locust, Ash, Oak, Cherry, and Sycamore. Vegetation at the Tabler family cemetery included a few Cedars and Osage Orange trees. No ornamental groundcover was noted at this cemetery. 8M d 714 Tabler Family Cemetery /o//• o i• 11 ~ I - • I Uy Nieswandyis F.. ?(. % Nisewander Family Cemetery 673 •:- O-N MINERALS CEMETERY ' r FIGURE 2 DELINEATIONS r✓ �''`' ECS Project 21:9244 Lll February 2008 Locations of Project Area .dnu,cr-.tea ,ruya ir�p 2 Vicinity of Nisewander's Fort Site O-N MINERALS CEMETERY DELINEATIONS Location of the Nisewander Family Cemetery Nisewander Cemetery YlAiJ.rl.Alf J_A�1'lJ� FIGURE 3 ECS Project 21:9244 February 2008 Tabler Family Cemetery ,• r, r r ! ,J O-N MINERALS CEMETERY FIGURE 4 DELINEATIONS �-- ECF Project 21: 9244 Location of the Tabler Family Cemetery February 2008 wr�r��a ,ru�axtvu,cs 4 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ) CS Project No. 21:92,14 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) B. GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY The project area is located within the Valley and Ridge physiographic province and is situated within the Middle Marsh Branch drainage. The terrain of the project area consists of gently sloped northeast/southwest trending ridges and shallow valleys. In general, the Valley and Ridge province is characterized by alternating ridges of resilient sandstone and limestone formations that have greatly affected the flow of the major drainages' and their attendant tributaries, creating a modified rectilinear or trellis pattern of drainage. The major geologic formations underlying the project area include the Conococheague limestone and sandstones, the Beekman dolomite formation, the Martinsburg and Oranda shales and limestone formation, and Oeln limestone and shale formation (Gathright et al. 1993). C. HYDROLOGY The largest watercourse in the vicinity of the project area is Middle Marsh Branch which runs from southwest adjacent to the cemeteries to Cedar Creek to the South. Cedar Creek flows south to the North Fork of the Shenandoah River. The Shenandoah River then flows northeast to the Potomac River and thence to the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) II. RESEARCH DESIGN The historic cemetery delineations were designed to locate and identify unmarked historic graves associated with the late 19t1i century Tabler family cemetery and the late 18th-early 19th century Nisewander family cemetery. Utilizing the results of the delineation fieldwork and archival review, recommendations were also made for the restoration of the cemeteries to their original historic/vernacular character. This cemetery delineation consisted of archival review, fieldwork, analysis, and report preparation. A. ARCHIVAL RESEARCH Archival review for the cemetery delineations was conducted with two primary goals: (1) to identify any historic records or cartographic sources pertaining to the presence of the cemeteries, and (2) to delineate (if possible) the number of historic burials present within each cemetery and dates of use. IIistorical documentary and cartographic review was conducted using the resources of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR), the Library of Virginia, Library of Congress, Handley Regional Library, and the Central Rappahannock Regional Library. B. FIELDWORK The primary purpose of the cemetery delineation was to identify the location and extent of the cemetery thought to be associated with the historic occupations of the landforms. This locale was carefirlly examined for headstones, footstones, or east/west oriented depressions indicative of historic Christian burials. The locale was also carefully inspected for common plant species normally associated with 18-19t1' century Christian burial sites including periwinkle, cedar trees, roses, and lilies commonly associated with such burial areas. The fieldwork involved the use of heavy equipment equipped with a smooth -blade, operated by an operator under the direct supervision of a professional archaeologist. The heavy equipment was utilized to carefiilly strip away the plowzone down to sterile subsoil in an attempt to delineate any graveshafts that might be present at each cemetery. Field notes were made of the process, and the exposed graveshafts were mapped and photographed. Scaled drawings of the investigated locales were made, as well as the limits of the suspected cemetery. C. REPORT PREPARATION The results of the archival review, fieldwork, and analysis were synthesized and are summarized in this report. The report describes the results project and is illustrated by selected maps and drawings. Appendix I presents representative photographs of the cemetery locales. 0 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) II1. HISTORIC CONTEXT A. THE DEVELOPMENT OF FREDERICK COUNTY The earliest European settlement of what is now Frederick County had its tentative beginnings in the first quarter of the 18th century when explorers and fir trappers entered the valley attracted by the promise of rich natural resources. Despite the evidence of major pre -contact trail systems, the region that is known today as Frederick County had only a small native population when it was first settled by the European colonists in the early 18t" century. Although famines or epidemics of European origin might have depopulated the region, a more probable explanation is that the area became a buffer zone located between the Iroquois to the north and the powerful Cherokees to the south. While neither tribe claimed the area for settlement, it appears that both groups used the area for hunting. The Shawnee were the predominant native population identified in the region at contact. Exploration and Early Settlement, 1716-1783 The Shenandoah Valley was first seen by European trappers in the early 18t" century, but the first well -documented explorer was Alexander Spotswood who is said to have viewed the valley on August 1, 1716. Accompanied by a group of some 50 fellow adventurers dubbed "The Knights of the Golden Horseshoe," Spotswood crossed into the valley through Swift Gap Run and returned back to the Tidewater with glowing reports about the region. The presence of large groups of hostile Shawnee Indians prevented many settlers from entering the valley, but by 1726, German immigrants from eastern Pennsylvania were making inroads into the region, and they soon founded the settlement of New Mecklenburg (Greene 1926). These new settlers were encouraged through tax waivers and land grants to settle in the area, and thus help protect Virginia's western borders. By 1730, surveys were being conducted in the area, and a survey of 583 acres on Abraham's Creek was identified on this date. Colonel Robert Carter, the agent of Lord Fairfax, was awarded 63,000 acres in the region from Governor Gooch of Virginia, and settlers soon flocked to the region. In 1738, Frederick County was created by the division of the pre-existent Orange County, although no formal Frederick County government was created until 1743. Much of the lands in the region were soon surveyed by a young Virginia planter named George Washington who surveyed properties throughout the area in 1747 and 1748. Washington maintained close ties with the region between 1748 and 1765, and during this time he had a survey office located in the town of Winchester (Greene 1926). By 1750, many settlers were in place along the fertile floodplains of the Shenandoah River, although political and military actions by the French in the Ohio River valley rapidly changed the situation (Rice 1986:18). Following the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle of 1748, France took steps to strengthen their claim on the lands to the south and east. In the 7 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations GCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) following three years, the French signed peace treaties with the tribes north of the Ohio, and the predations by the French -backed tribes forced many English traders to the south. Soon, a series of French forts were constructed along the upper reaches of the Ohio River, posing a direct threat to the English colonists. In January 1754, Governor Dinwiddie of Virginia created the First Virginia Regiment and ordered the immediate construction of forts at the Forks of the Ohio River and sent out militiamen to start construction (Titus 1991:78-79). In April of the same year, two companies of Virginia militia, under the command of Major George Washington, were sent out to garrison the western frontier forts. Washington's force skirmished with a smaller French unit near Great Meadow, Pennsylvania, and fearing a large-scale French attack, Washington halted his advance and quickly built a small fort, naming it Fort Necessity. A large French force soon arrived and laid siege to the fort, forcing its surrender. Washington was allowed to withdraw his troops back to Virginia only after promising the French that no other British forts would be constructed in the Ohio Valley for a year, thereby initiating the French and Indian War. Despite the presence of numerous forts on the Virginia frontier, hostile Indian attacks increased, and many settlers chose to move back east to avoid the threat of warfare. As the threat of war with the French and their Indian allies escalated, Governor Fauquier of Virginia made a formal plea to the British Board of Trade on behalf of the beleaguered settlers, seeking formal protection from the Crown (Titus 1991). Despite the Board's tacit approval of settling the area, the settlers were warned to not arouse the Indians, and the powerful Shawnee tribe was promised use of the area for hunting. The native populations at first tolerated their new neighbors, but intercultural conflicts between the two groups soon escalated into open war. George Washington was elected to the Virginia House of Burgess in 1758, and again in 1761, and this period of time saw the gradual expulsion of the Shawnees to the west (Greene 1926). Continuing taxation by the British Crown on their subjects in the colonies began to take their toll on the colonists, who chafed under the edicts. After the colonies declared their independence on July 4, 1776, King George III of England ordered the military forces of the Crown to end the colonist's rebellion by force of arms. The lower Shenandoah area promptly raised two companies of infantry for the new Continental Army, and one company, under the command of Captain (later General) Daniel Morgan, fought with distinction throughout the war. Progress and Prosperity, 1783-1860 As the Revolutionary War continued, British forces were drawn back east to help engage the Continental Army forces on the Atlantic seaboard, leaving the British western frontier forts either abandoned or in disrepair. The remnants of the various Native American tribes in the Shenandoah Valley area, already weakened internally and externally by the decades of warfare, pulled back from this portion of Virginia, creating a relatively quiet and stable frontier by 1785. 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations GCS Project No. 21:92411 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) Many gristmills were soon in operation in Frederick County, taking advantage of the bounty reaped from the rich soils of the river floodplains. During the late 18t" and early 19"' century, Virginia underwent a radical transition from the early colonial tobacco - based plantation economy and a new diversified grain -based economy that would characterize the region through the 19t" and into the 20t" century. By the time of the American Revolution, all arable land in the Tidewater and Piedmont regions of Virginia had been planted in tobacco at least once, and most areas were experiencing the effects of severe soil depletion. Between 1790 and 1820, as many as 250,000 Virginians moved from the older settled parts of the state to the recently opened southwest frontier, taking approximately 150,000 enslaved Africans with them. Despite the obvious benefits of the transition from tobacco to grain crops, the farming methods of the late 18°i and early 19t" centuries continued to have a deleterious effect on exhausted soils. Under the traditional three -crop rotation system, a field first would be planted in corn, the following year in wheat, then left unplowed the third year to provide grazing for cattle and hogs. Recognizing the need for improved agricultural practices, Loudoun County farmer John A. Binns spearheaded the agricultural reform movement in Virginia. Binns' (1803) Treatise on Practical Farining, which won the admiration of President Thomas Jefferson, outlined a formula for improving crop yields that would come to be known as the "Loudoun System." In his widely read book, Binns recommended deep plowing, the use of gypsum to restore soil productivity, and revising the old crop rotation pattern to include a third year of clover (Poland 1976: 84-88). Frederick County continued to be the domain of small subsistence level farmers throughout the first half of the 19°i century, and the agrarian character of the county remained much as it had been in the late 18t" century. The War of 1812 found the citizens of Frederick County ready and willing to protect their new country from English aggression, and three companies were raised, including one raised by Willoughby Morgan, the son of Revolutionary General Daniel Morgan. Following the war, the Town of Winchester continued to become more urbanized, and by 1829, iron water pipes were being laid through the town, drawing water from the springs that issued forth from the limestone formations on the town's north side, near the site of colonial Fort Loudon. The earlier north/south trending native American trail, known as the Warrior Path, was improved and soon became known as the Great Wagon Road. Regular stagecoach service along this road was instituted in 1817, and, in 1834, the Valley Turnpike Company was founded. Canals vied for the trade along the James and the Rappahannock rivets until the late 1830s, but neither turnpikes nor canals could compete with the railroad. New transportation routes were rapidly expanding and the Winchester and Potomac Railroad Company was incorporated on March 14, 1832 to connect the Town of Winchester with the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal at Harpers Ferry, 32 miles to the north (Moredecai 1940). The Valley Turnpike Company M O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations GCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) had improved the early Great Wagon Road, and a macadamized turnpike known as the Valley Pike was completed in 1840. This major road provided an avenue for the flow of goods and people through the Shenandoah Valley during the following years, and it became a critical strategic route for the movement of troops and materials for both the Confederate and the Federal forces during the Civil War (Reidenbaugh 1996:2-3). Civil War and Secession, 1861-1865 By the 1860s, the issues of slavery and states' rights had precipitated armed conflict, and Virginia dissolved her ties to the Federal government. With the passing of the Ordinance of Secession on April 17, 1861, Frederick County immediately raised troops for the defense of Virginia and the Confederacy. The first units of volunteer militia were formed up and they immediately marched north to wrest control of the Federal government arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. For the first year of the war, Confederate Frederick County was largely untouched by the Federal forces, although small skirmishes were noted across the valley. By early 1862, the Shenandoah Valley region took on strategic importance for both the Confederacy and the Union. With the creation of the Mountain Department, 35,000 Federal troops, under the command of General John C. Fremont, were tasked with protecting the Federal rail lines and the destruction of the Confederate Virginia and Tennessee railroad which ran from Richmond to Knoxville. The town of Winchester, located to the north of the project area, soon became the focus of both side's military actions, and the town was under alternating Confederate and Federal control some 72 times during the next 4 years (Ebert and Lazazzera 1988:52). Third Battle of Winchester At the Third Battle of Winchester on September 19, 1864, Federal forces, under General Sheridan attacked Confederate cavalry troops north of Middletown and forced them to retreat southward towards Strasburg. In a bold attempt to end the Confederate control of the rich Shenandoah Valley following this battle, General Sheridan ordered his troops to destroy all the resources of the area in an attempt to break the back of Confederate resistance. For the next three weeks, the Federal forces raided and burned any properties in the Valley that they could find, resulting in the confiscation of 50,000 head of livestock and the destruction of 2,000 barns and 120 mills, with a loss of an estimated 500,000 bushels of grain. The burning of the countryside effectively depleted the civilian resources in the Shenandoah Valley. Confederate troops under the command of General Jubal A. Early encamped south of Cedar Creek remained a viable fighting force. Battle of Cedar Creek At the Battle of Cedar Creel-, on October 19, 1864, Confederate forces under the command of General Early, surprised the Federal troops encamped on the north bank. of Cedar Creek. The ferocity of the pre -dawn Confederate attack initially overwhelmed the Federal troops and forced them to retreat, but by that afternoon General Sheridan rallied 10 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations GCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) his forces north of Middletown and ordered a counter-attack. By day's end, the Federals had pushed the Confederate forces back south across the creek and claimed victory. Significance of the Battle of Cedar Creek This battle effectively crushed the organized Confederate military resistance in the Shenandoah Valley, and coupled with Federal General William T. Sherman's successful campaign in Atlanta, ensured the re-election of President Abraham Lincoln in 1864. The Battle of Cedar Creek is thus considered to be one of the last major battles of the Civil War. The Federal Army of the Shenandoah, numbering 32,000 men under the command of Major General Phillip H. Sheridan was encamped along the north bank of Cedar Creek on October 17th and 18t" of 1864. General Sheridan had been summoned to a conference in Washington, D.C. and in his absence Major General Horatio Wright, the commander of the Federal Sixth Corps, was temporarily in charge of the force. His headquarters was located at the Belle Grove plantation. Opposing the Army of the Shenandoah were five Confederate infantry divisions and two cavalry divisions numbering 21,000 men under the command of Lt. General Jubal A. Early. On the night of October the 17t1i, Confederate Major General John Gordon and the well-known Confederate topographic engineer Jedediah Hotchkiss climbed Signal Knob on Massanutten Mountain to reconnoiter the disposition of the Federal forces along Cedar Creek. They devised a daring but risky plan to turn the Federal left flank (Whitehorne 1987). In the late evening of the 18t" and the early pre -dawn hours of October 19t", three divisions of the Confederate Second Corps under the overall command of Confederate General Gordon left their positions and quietly crossed the North Fork of the Shenandoah River. After capturing the small force of Federal pickets guarding Boman's and McInturffs Fords, Gordon's Division then re -crossed the North Fork, and by 4 A.M. the Confederate force had formed up in line of battle beyond Crook's Corps. Kershaw's and Wharton's divisions moved north along the Valley Pike through the town of Strasburg. Kershaw's division moved to the right and stopped at Bowman's Mill Ford in preparation for the pre -dawn attack. Wharton's division continued along the Valley Pike to Hupp's Hill, where they deployed for the assault on the Federal left flank. The Confederate artillerymen massed their guns on the Valley Pike south of Strasburg, awaiting the news of the infantry assault so that they could quickly be brought to bear on the most vulnerable portions of the Federal lines. Confederate Brigadier General Thomas Rosser's cavalry division advanced along the Back Road to Cupp's Ford, and Confederate Brigadier General Lunsford Lomax's cavalry division was ordered to advance on the Front Royal/Winchester Road and cross over the Valley Pike near Newtown (modern-day Stephens City). For reasons that are still unclear, Lomax did not advance as ordered (Whitehorne, personal communication 2006). 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations l CS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) The weather favored the Confederates, and the entire area was blanketed in dense fog in the pre -dawn hours, masking the Confederate movements and their positions. Flush with their recent success in the burning of the Valley, the Federal troops had prepared defensive positions to defend their camps from attack from the east, using Cedar Creek as a natural obstacle. At 5 A.M. on the morning of October the 19th, Kershaw's division opened the attack with intense volleys of fire on Thoburn's division, followed immediately by the assault which overran the surprised Federal troops (Whitehorne 1992). The initial Confederate attack by Kershaw on Thoburn's division was successful, and the Confederate forces quickly pushed northward through the hastily -abandoned Federal XIX Corps camp. The Federal 1st and 3`d Divisions were already preparing for a reconnaissance that morning, and they maintained their positions in the face of the determined Confederate attacks until they were flanked, forcing them to retreat to the north. General Gordon's division began its advance at 5:20 A.M., smashing through the VIII Corps flank. Although Hayes' veteran troops initially stood their ground, the Confederate division soon turned the Federal left, and by 5:30 A.M, the VIII Corps was in retreat. Hearing the roar of battle, Wharton's division quickly advanced to the banks of Cedar Creek at 5:40 A.M. and deployed, awaiting the approach of the Confederate artillery. The Confederate artillery set up their guns on the heights of Hupp's Hill and began bombarding the Federal XIX Corps. At this time, a detachment of Confederate cavalry attempted to reach the Belle Grove plantation house, hoping to capture Federal General Sheridan; however, he had been summoned to a meeting in Washington D.C. two days earlier. The Confederates continued their assault pushing the Federal forces northward, but by 10:00 A.M. General Merritt's Cavalry Division extended the Federal line east of the Valley Pike, nearly'/4 of a mile northeast of Middletown. The Confederate forces paused along Old Forge Road on the northern edge of Middletown to reorganize and prepare for the next phase of the battle. So far, the battle had been a stunning victory for General Early, resulting in the capture of over a thousand Federal soldiers, nearly two dozen field guns, and enough food and supplies to sustain them for the next few weeks. At 1:00 P.M. the Confederate forces reformed, and continued north to Miller's Mill Road for their final assault on what they believed to be a disorganized and broken Federal force. i The area adjacent to Lord Fairfax Community College was described by Dr. Joseph W. A. Whitehorne (1992) as the extreme northeastern portion of the battlefield. Having already been forced to hastily move his remaining guns north and east to prevent their capture, Artillery Captain Henry A. DuPont requested permission to move Gibb's Battery onto the turnpike. Crook replied "I can give you no support," to which I answered that I did not need any support, as there was a body of our cavalry there. He gave me the desired permission and 12 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations > CS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) I went to the battery and put it in position near the turnpike to the north of Middletown and opened fire with marked effect. The officer in command of the cavalry, who belonged to the New York Mounted Rifles, said to me: --"You are going to have these guns captured." I said: "No, I sliall not unless you desert me:" and later General Devens gave me a squadron of cavalry to support the Battery which, as our lines fell back, moved north on the turnpike until the retrograde movement ceased (Dupont:1921:17). After retiring nearly a mile north of Middletown, DuPont was rejoined by the 5 remaining guns of Battery B, 5tl' U.S. Artillery, which increased his force to nine gums. DuPont finally set up the two partial batteries north of the town, south of the Dinges farm. DuPont's guns were protected by a squadron of General Deven's cavalry, which dismounted and formed a skirmish line to protect the batteries. What-ton's and Pegram's Confederate forces were stopped by the combination of the artillery fire from DuPont's guns and General Devens's cavalry troopers. After riding south from Winchester, General Sheridan established his command post near the Dinges farm and re -assumed command of the Federal force (Figure 5). Sheridan then ordered Custer's cavalry division to ride west towards the left flank of the Confederate lines, seeking a gap in the Confederate line. As Custer's cavalry moved west, Confederate General Gordon ordered his command to shadow the movement of the Federal troopers westward to prevent the Federal cavalry from flanking his force. This westward movement resulted in a gap between his force and Confederate General Kershaw's troops to the east (Whitehorne, personal communication 2006). About 3:00 P.M., General Merritt's cavalry advanced on the Union left, putting pressure on the Confederate right flank north of Middletown. The firepower of the Federal cavalry skirmishers forced the Confederate skirmishers back on their main line along the Miller's Mill Road and west. Custer maneuvered into position on the Federal right, confronting Confederate General Gordon's men near Middle Marsh Branch. About 3:30 P.M., Custer's cavalry and elements of the XIX Corps advanced against the Confederate left flank composed of Gordon and Kershaw's troops. Merritt's forces had been encamped along Middle Marsh Branch in the vicinity of Nisewander's fort before the battle began. With his ammunition running dangerously low, DuPont was compelled to send three of his artillery pieces north to the Federal ammunition train to refill their limber chests. As the Federal left flank continued its advance southward, DuPont moved Battery L of the I" Ohio Artillery and two guns of Battery B of the 5"' U. S. Artillery forward and placed them in position a short distance north of Middletown. Gibb's Napoleons and the shells from the rifled guns of Light Battery B fired with great effect on the Confederates as their northward advance stalled (DuPont: 1921:20). Custer continued his movement west beyond Middle Marsh Branch, thinning the Confederate lines. He then launched a counter-attack that overran Gordon's division. General Kershaw was flanked by the Federal counter-attack, and General Ramseur's force was flanked by the Federal cavalry and the accompanying infantry forces. The Confederate line began to unravel from west to east, putting additional pressure on Ramseur at the center. 13 Source: Hotchkiss (1864) Scale: NTS O-N MINERALS CEMETERY DELINEATIONS Troop Positions During the Late Morning of October 19, 1864 WHARTON y AL NORTH r. V m10�A1rLAUkdVUC 14 -IT BATTERY B. )S ARTILLERY r FIGURE 5 ECS Project 21:9244 February 2008 - NJ O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations > CS Project No. 2 L9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) At 4:00 P.M. General Sheridan ordered an advance which led to fierce fighting all along the front. Ramseur's division at the Confederate center near Miller's Mill bore the brunt of the attack and repulsed several Federal assaults, in spite of the withdrawal of Kershaw and Gordon's troops on his left flank. Ramseur's defenses held until he was mortally wounded and General Early was unable to hold his left flank intact (Whitehorne 1992). With the loss of Ramseur, the Confederate resistance in this area began to collapse. Wharton's division repulsed two more Federal counterattacks, but Merritt's cavalry broke through the Confederate line forcing Wharton's division back. With the Confederate lines buckling, DuPont continued advancing his artillery batteries back south along the Valley Pike using his gums to support the Federal counterattack. Following a final Federal frontal assault and faced with Federal cavalry attacks on both flanks, the battered Confederate forces began their withdrawal from the battlefield. What began as a stunning Confederate victory in the early morning hours became a bitter defeat in the late afternoon at the hands of a much larger pursuing Federal force. The Confederate forces along the pike retreated hastily, although in fairly good order, southward along the valley towards the Federal camps they had overrun earlier that morning. Merritt pressed forward with his division, pursuing the Confederates closely as they retreated across Cedar Creek (Whitehorne 1992). DuPont continued to move his artillery south along the Valley Pike, shelling the retreating Confederates so effectively that the bridge over Spangler's Mill Run was badly damaged by the masses of retreating Confederate troops and equipment. This damage to the bridge resulted in the loss of many Confederate cannons, a large part of the Confederate baggage train, and a large number of the Federal guns captured in the early morning hours of the battle. The Federal pursuit lasted until nightfall, with General Early's battered Confederate troops finally re -grouping at Fisher's Hill, south of Strasburg, some eight miles south of the project area. The Confederate force had marched and fought its way over 15 miles during the course of the battle, and it had suffered the loss of nearly 15 percent of its soldiers killed, wounded or missing. In addition to the troop casualties, the Confederates lost the eighteen Federal cannon they had captured in the early morning hogs of the battle and over two dozen of their own critical field guns during their retreat. This pivotal battle marked the end of organized large-scale Confederate military power in j the Valley. Confederate General Early had failed to carry the day, and after the defeat at Cedar Creek, he was humiliated. Most of the men in Early's Corps rejoined General Robert E. Lee to defend Petersburg in December, while General Early remained in the Valley in command of a skeleton force. His force was nearly destroyed at Waynesboro, and Early barely escaped capture with a few members of his staff. General Lee finally relieved Early of his command in March, 1865, because he had doubts about Early's ability to inspire confidence in the men he would have to recruit to continue operations. Lee wrote to Early of the difficulty of this decision: 15 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) While my own confidence in your ability, zeal, and devotion to the cause is unimpaired, I have nevertheless felt that I could not oppose what seems to be the current of opinion, without injustice to your reputation and injury to the service. I therefore felt constrained to endeavor to find a commander who would be more likely to develop the strength and resources of the country, and inspire the soldiers with confidence.... [Thank you] for the fidelity and energy with which you have always supported my efforts, and for the courage and devotion you have ever manifested in the service ... (Eicher & Eicher 2001). By 1864, Frederick County residents had learned that large troop concentrations of either Federal or Confederate forces meant great loss of food, provisions, and livestock, and many farmers moved their livestock as far away from troops as was possible, to save them from being appropriated by either side. Many of the larger antebellum houses, used by both sides as headquarters and field hospitals survived, but all were damaged during the conduct of the war. The greatest impact to Frederick County was the near total loss of all livestock and crops to military raids by both sides in the years of combat. By the end of the war, most of the farms in the county had been pillaged, losing livestock and hundreds of valuable horses to both sides, taken with the promise of later payment. Four years of war had a devastating effect on Virginia, and Frederick County was no exception. The combined loss of manpower and draft animals, the neglect of agricultural land, and the emancipation of the slave population had a detrimental effect on the county's economic and social landscape in the postwar era. 16 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations GCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) IV. RESULTS A. ARCHIVAL REVIEW The archival review examined various historic maps to determine if the cemeteries had been illustrated during the 19th century (Figures 6-10). Figure 6 shows the James D. Tabler farmstead north of Chapel (Old Forge) Road but does not show the Tabler family cemetery or the Nisewander family cemetery adjacent to Chapel Road. Figure 7 shows the Nisewander family cemetery east of Middle Marsh Branch and shows a dwelling and fencelines near the Tabler family cemetery locale. However, the Tabler cemetery itself is not illustrated. Figure 8 also fails to show the Tabler family cemetery. Figure 9, an 1885 map of the area, does not show either cemetery. Figure 10 illustrates the Nisewander family cemetery in relatively close proximity to the Nisewander Fort ruins across Middle Marsh Branch. Nisewander Family Cemetery The Nisewander Family Cemetery is believed to be associated with the David Nisewander family and subsequent owners of the property. The Nisewander family was one of the original twenty families that traveled with Jost Hite to the Shenandoah Valley from Pennsylvania in 1731. Christian Nisewander (b. 1685) and his wife, Mary Magdalena, purchased 435 acres from Hite's 3395-acre land patent granted from Lord Fairfax, proprietor of the Northern Neck. The Nisewander descendents purchased and received land grants in the region for numerous tracts and settled in Frederick County north of Cedar Creek (O'Dell 315-316). The name Nisewander was seen as many forms in records from the 18th century and early 19th century. Alternate spellings were found as, Nighswander, Niswanger, Nicswanger, Nieswander, Nieswanger, and Nicewanker. The parcel on which the cemetery lies was part of a tract of land purchased by David Nicewanker (Nisewander) on May 215t, 1772 for 300 pounds. The parcel was owned by William Evins (Evans) and his wife Dority (Dorothy?), who had received the land from Paton on March 14"', 1753. The original tract encompassed 400 acres. The deed between David Nisewander and William Evans described the parcel as having 267 acres and "lying ... on the little Middle Marsh..." (FCDB 15: 329-331). The remaining 133 acres of land, which was the part of the original 400 acres, appeared to have been transferred to Adam Reagley (FCSB 1782-1808:71). From the land transfer from Evans to Nisewander, it appeared that there was a previous owner associated with the property named, Paton. The reference to Paton as a potential previous owner may be a misspelling of the word, "patent." From a 1790 land survey, a 16 acre, 13 rod, and 11 poles tract was surveyed for David Nisewanger (Nisewander), which was considered residual of the lands of William Evans. It was noted in the survey that William Evans received a patent granted by Lord Fairfax, the late proprietor of the Northern Neck, dated March 14"', 1753 (FCSB 1782-1808, 71). From this information, it appeared that William Evans received a land patent of 400 acres in 1753. He divided the land into two parcels and sold the lands to David Nisewander and Adam Reagley. 17 mb on R S it N. Waltels •' Tabler Cemetery Locale o LT' L SC "C `� ! `\Q. ♦ �� �6 1 .+ 15 ` Source: Hotchkiss (1864) Scale: NTS NORTH O-N MINERALS CEMETERY FIGURE 6 DELINEATIONS ECS Project 21:9244 Vicinity of Tabler Family CemeteryWC, February r rY 2008 "uCkAirL_A"vu c 18 20 ?I f-WALTEPTO -- al C ,1f G•dwy 1090) „oV f GPra/c( Walters \ Norvilla Sc c'o / Jak Watre ri (cart -loth} (fare -r9F6) u (c l9ael -y a n Wilt James �< lT'�. / Norfnan Wirt < h r C' M.' Fet' P � � • f ca. /tl to �-r. ¢° enani . Christ phef- tier (W MA Davit `+ "•r •erar < a e'^r .r �prric ©UNMAI ARMY,01,7 s)( P/e)(CA N7r) n rMill F J'-Je c/ erl o1h� O REGRovP.:, �\ l %,. r'(N,erwar e� 91 `�U •.Nd'�carlp• � roAM -t'PM 'W, / H Di er'Ten fc• i �,:d•18rn} �Y Fi`y.. •'••�� a P•' C v de • ••:` .: , rro poa b Q• O Di es L-rave a�rJ r frdury ae/ c Ito Adamt wc" �� vi J Dines, ' - 'c ear -1oHr) \` `.0 • :. (Whitehall) 085i) I �' .�o/M c•. ? r. .. I - / aril: akeman (/9/ \ �� G/ Herbert L rrirJc renanr Ay q' Fc a�'• \�i p}id own /y [�'\� (Pair Cline •cad :Alt �=a Y ° :•. S fir* �El n1'ary / SI:ERI°AN ATrAeA E/y Cock INnM �t\�c?,:: '/,� •Benin a/op oo, /f• r9e�Orr� �F.4: 3o rM RfrA TE / Je a CreU/< • /BJ�J : A\; ,'• Q Cca. /Yp^ ��N ION MY 41 44°uFl�0.p)` C4r en Nfll) F rELO. CC NFEDER %/Cr' '// t, car / \ o R - y ? f. / lP S puRrvEb dLRp P V ChQr/er F7°ckry� i °� S a::- / 61/H use (,a.171i ;., ceOAa i /9� a ` t a e, O c py \ J..,. {� rE Fa)rf q �e v// mei Covert ont (CA tPP\ �1 L ��8� •: PAD \ Vr- Q oC a t�k - Brin er Graveyard ( �� •" John M. Mil r P Y H ( \ tl \ �r V/ Vuea It �E Py °Ardrn,s �0 -1.111 r• (/ feel. i.on (Hatt;eNrtorrB� de imvel Mc Cvh ear rhGrvve rrd Y•7 30pn Movn •Gar vmrtcry (ca /Bwo ;wy /T P) ems, �ZP �0P °ol . Wafter "Ap.l,. h cA for*) SGr �e 01 / 1, ear • : �iller• iD Q`pCc. oP0 � y �1 MILL \\ I oP0 0 0 t J+� • ✓h, ^ aAc,t • OA 9)` �i rrcE o„�a .Herbert Sfitlrlr)• rnelirt fla/dwirrtr Mill \� Geor9e W. H sell �e%y` ' Orvi/le Willey' 5r. 4 Jr. T• v9.sJ 'Jars (/9S2 \ O C/OenciI H,11 ) Sol i971 P1�6 . Charles W He (If783}. (re°r9e niell (ca. 1920) / t (t a/v" ' It ac Hense (ca. l8foi Hor""enr (1419_g1 ro S �r � a= Byrd W lliamr (ca /9 `� P JSteele ,y o a es •' \ J W4n [Ce Wal er 9� ([a /900) • r, (/9J8) Pwar lca o �\ Hvuse of Pvb/ic p` �i ,/oryah W kClr+Q Fit, 0 ..e 1/, Tovr/rr iaSini rshrP fret the c 'r Arr,c t BGr.Zve ar •hi, (�.C. riowen) •P' Ff:EDERfcI C y \z (Mr Z. 4ravcyard)(feo,) i -P Cear/y •rnQr scwno ^_ °Sperry-Ri,ker•Gra and WARREN COUNT -� —�1/2 1 tulle FREDE G>;_ J o +000 2000 3000 {eef S000 6000 7000 + a..��NI-IA a^+e Mr i Source: Scheel AL NORTH O-N MINERALS CEMETERY FIGURE 10 DELINEATIONS ECS Project 21:9244 �Lr'v Nisewander Family Cemetery on February 2008 Historic Mapping Iu7U1f"N11N 22 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations GCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) David Nisewander also purchased a small tract of land from Adam Reagley on August 2°d, 1784 for 5 shillings comprising 20 acres, 2 rods, and 26 poles that was adjacent to his property and was part of the 133-acre tract Reagley purchased from William Evans. The 133-acre tract was part of the 400-acre tract owned by Evans (FCDB 20:202). Buildings situated on the Nisewander tract were not illustrated in the early deeds. There was a large house on the site referred to during the Civil War and through general local history as Nisewander's Fort. The stone house was believed to have been constructed by William Evans circa 1755, or after 1753 when he received the land patent in 1753 for 400 acres. From historical accounts, it was believed that Nisewander enlarged the Evans house to its appearance seen in Figure 11. Evidence on the historical photographs that this may have occurred was found in the asymmetrical fenestration pattern on the fagade elevation. It appeared from the photographs that the window openings were placed closer together on the left side of the building and had wider spacing on the right side. It also appeared that the chimneys have different widths, which was another indication that the building may have been constructed in stages. The stone house was demolished circa 1960, when the owner allowed the stone to be carted off the site from the deteriorated remnants of the building. The house may have been used as a fortification (or station) in the 1750s through 1780s due to Indian attacks in the Shenandoah Valley. According to historical accounts, the house was also the site of a number of meetings of the United Brethren led by Bishop Newcomer (Kalbian 1999:212). The house was also used during the Civil War as Union troops encamped in the area. The site of the house is currently listed as an archeological site and no above ground remnants remain. Information about David Nisewander is sparse. Christian and Mary Magdalena Nisewander were a part of a group of settlers that arrived with Jost Hite in the Frederic]', County region in 1731. Known children of Jacob and Mary Nisewander are Jacob (b. circa 1715 — d. circa 1754) and Christian. It is not known if these were all the children the couple had or if those listed are the ones that came with the Nisewanders to Virginia. The known sons of Jacob, son of Christian and Mary Magdalena Nisewander, and Mary Nisewander were John, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, and Jacob. It is not clear as to the relationship of David Nisewander within these lines. He could have been a second generation descendent and appeared to have been the relative age of Jacob and Mary Nisewander's children based upon approximate death dates. It is unknown if he was a descendent of Christian, son of Christian and Mary Nisewander, or another possible progeny of Christian and Mary Nisewander. It is known that Mary Magdalena Nisewander married Jost Hite in 1741 after the 1738 death of Christian Nisewander. There were no progeny of the Jost Hite and Mary Magdalena Nisewander union (O'Dell 1995:315-316). David Nisewander appeared to have been a wealthy man, due to availability of money illustrated in loans made and the size of the house known as Nisewander's Fort. The size of the house was quite large, having three full stories and an attic story. Similar stone houses that remain or were documented were two stories or one story with a full -height basement and an attic. The large size of this building indicates that Nisewander was quite prominent within the region. 23 24 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ) CS ProjeclNo. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) The availability of money at the time is another indication of wealth. There is a reference to a Deed of Trust between David Nisewander and Robert Gamble dated 1780 where Nisewander loaned Gamble 3800 or 3080 pounds (noted as two different amounts) and received collateral of a 272 acre tract owned by Gamble (FCDB 18:409 and FCDB 20:13). Nisewander's assets are only itemized for 1787 and 1801. David Nisewander was taxed in 1787 for 10 horses, mares, colts or mules and 16 head of cattle. In 1801 David Nisewander's was listed as having three males in his household and 20 horses for which he was taxed $2.40. There are no slaves listed under David Nisewander's ownership (FCPR 11:2). Nisewander was also a tenant farmer for Robert Wormeley Carter of Sabine Hall, Richmond County, Virginia. Carter owned approximately 40 tracts of land in Frederick County and leased the property for use as agricultural properties. Nisewander had a long-term lease with Carter to farm a 169-acre tract known as "Lot #23" (FCDB 23:59). From death records, two sons of Jacob and Mary Nisewander died in the late 1780s. John Nisewander died circa 1785 and Abraham Nisewander died circa 1789. There is no death date for David Nisewander, but from official records housed at the Frederick County Clerk's Office, David Nisewander did not appear on any tax rolls or in any deed or land transactions after 1805. It is assumed that he died sometime in 1805. No will or sale of lands was found for David Nisewander and his landholdings at his death are unknown or who inherited his property. It is assumed that David Nisewander died in 1805 because of the cessation of records with his name, but also because an Abraham Nieswander (Nisewander) was taxed in 1806 listing two white males in the household, 19 horses for a total tax of $2.28, which is very similar to the 1801 assets listed for David Nisewander (FCPR 11:2). It is assumed for subsequent deed transfers that Abraham Nisewander inherited the property from the David Nisewander estate. It is unclear about the relationship between David and Abraham Nisewander. Abraham Nisewander may have been David Nisewander's son or nephew. It is known that Abraham Nighswander (Nisewander) married Lydia on June 23`d, 1793 (Vogt 1984:216). While there is no deed or will transferring the property from David to Abraham Nisewander, a subsequent deed transfer referred to the sale of the tract from William Evans to David Nisewander. The cemetery associated with the Nisewander tract is not described in the deed between Evans and Nisewander. The description of the tract included a house, buildings, orchards, ways, waters, watercourses, profits, hereditaments, and appurtenances. The first instance of the cemetery's description is within a October 16t", 1823 Articles of Agreement between Abraham Nisewander and John Tice of Lebanon County in Pennsylvania. The Articles described a parcel of 422.5 acres to be sold to John Tice for $9500. The parcel had increased in size to 422.5 acres from the purchase size of 267 acres. There is no additional transfer to David Nisewander to account for the increased size of the parcel. The description in the 1823 Articles of Agreement from Abraham Nisewander to John Tice includes a caveat, "excepting for the graveyard situated on the premises" (FCDB 47:445). A subsequent deed executed April 2nd, 1824 from Abraham Nisewander and Lydia, his wife, to John Tice, late of Pennsylvania, confirms the sale of the property as "mentioned in the deed to David Nisewander." Both deeds, William Evans to David Nisewander, and Abraham Nisewander to John Tice, refer to a boundary line joining the 25 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) lands of Sarah Campbell. Other indicators that this parcel is the same containing the original 1782 transfer to David Nisewander from William Evans is that in 1824 adjacent boundaries include the lands of Major Isaac Hite and Jacob Jodese who resided in the vicinity of this tract (FCDB 48:349). Information on John Tice and his wife, Barbara Ann, was also relatively sparse. They were noted in the 1830 US Census as having a family of seven. John Tice was listed as being between the ages of 40 and 50, and Barbara Ann was listed as being between the ages of 30 and 40. From the Census records, they most likely had a son between the ages of 20 and 30, a daughter between the ages of 15 and 20, a son between the ages of 10 and 15, a son between the ages of 5 and 10, and a daughter under 5 years in age (US Census 1830). John Tice and his wife, Barbara Ann, sold the tract, which had decreased in size to 380 acres on May 18"i, 1836 to Strother Morse (Moore) for $6000.00. The parcel was described as being conveyed to John Tice by Abraham Nieswanger (Nisewander). The tract's boundary neighbors were D. L. Danner, Dr. W. M. Hite, Doctor A. Brown, Sarah Campbell, and Major Isaac Hite. There were two notations within the deed that refer to a roadway and the cemetery. The cemetery notation was similar to the transfer in 1824 reading as "excepting from the land the Burial Ground situated on said tract" (FCDB 65:234-235). Moore remained on the tract for approximately two decades. The 1840 US Census yielded that the Moore family comprised eight members. Strother and Mary Moore had a daughter between the ages of 10 and 15, one son and two daughters between the ages of 5 and 10, and one daughter and one son under the age of 5 (US Census 1840). The following US Census in 1850 listed the family by name and age. Information also contained within the Census showed that Strother Moore's occupation was a farmer and that he and his family were born in Virginia. The assessed value of his lands was $1100. It also appears from this Census that one daughter had died between 1830 and 1840 that was between the ages of 5 and 10 from the previous Census taken, and another was born in the 1830s. The 1850 US Census shows that Strother Moore owned seven slaves. Four of his slaves were black males ranging in age between 16 and 25 and two were black females of 47 years and 9 years. One slave listed is partially unreadable and the age, gender and race are undetermined (US Census 1850). On September 20t1', 1854 Strother Moore and his wife, Mary, sold the tract described as 400 acres for $14,000 to Abraham Stickley. The tract was described as being the one sold to Moore by John Tice and his wife Barbary (Barbara) Ann on 18 May 1836. The adjacent neighbors were William Lang, D. W. Barton, James D. Tabler, David S. Miller, and H.H. Hite. There was an additional notation about a wagon road access for the use of the farm formerly belonging to D. S. Danner. There was also a notation about the cemetery, "excepting from the land the burying ground situated on said tract..." (FCDB 82:13). �91 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations 1 CS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) Stickley had large landholdings extending from Cedar Creek to Opequon Creek. I-Ie did not reside on the tract associated with David Nisewander. His home was located near Vaucluse Station on a tract he purchased in 1826 (FCDB 73:289). It is most likely that he acquired the Nisewander tract as a landholding for farming purposes. It is unknown what the function of the house was during Stickley's ownership, and it is assumed that it may have been used as a tenant house. Abraham Stickley owned ten slaves in 1860 ranging in age from 1 to 80 years. Most were eighteen years or under and female, and two were 80 years old. His son, Benjamin, owned three slaves under the age of 16 and male (US Census 1860). It is not probable that Stickley had only slaves working his lands due to the age and gender of the slaves. He also may have had farmhands, which was not uncommon during the period. Abraham Stickley died in the late 1860s. His will of June I It", 1867 outlined his large landholdings and the division of his landholdings (FCWB 28:354). His heirs divided his estate very similar to the wishes in his will, which outlined the tracts he owned at his death. According to the deed that divided the property among Abraham Stickley's heirs, his son Benjamin Stickley received the place where he resided, which was most likely at Vaucluse Station named "Little Marsh" and a parcel named the "Moore Tract." Anna Stickley, daughter, received the "Chrissman Spring Tract" situated near Opequon Creek. Son, William, received an 883-acre tract adjacent to "Kline" situated between Opequon Creek and Cedar Creek. David, son of Abraham, received the "Backas" lands near the tract William received (FCDB 89:357-358). The 1885 map of the Opequon District shows that Nisewander's Fort is still extant in 1885 on the west side of Middle Marsh. Benjamin Stickley had a building situated on the east side of Middle Marsh as noted on the map. Stickley did not reside on the tract and his residence was listed north of the Moore tract near Vaucluse Station on Valley Turnpike (US Route 11). Benjamin Stickley retained the two tracts, "Little Marsh" and "Moore Tract," he inherited from his father Abraham Stickley. He renamed these tracts under his ownership changing the "Moore Tract" to `Buffalo Marsh Farm," and changing "Little Marsh Tract" to "Vaucluse Station Farm." While the "Buffalo Marsh Farm" was located on Middle Marsh, there is a Buffalo Marsh situated to the west of Middle Marsh. It is unknown why Stickley would have named the tract for Buffalo Marsh since it was not situated on the Buffalo Marsh, but numerous references to the farms in the vicinity indicated that Buffalo Marsh was an important landmark. The `Buffalo Marsh Farm" had diminished to 385 acres from 400 acres during Benjamin Stickley's ownership, which may account for a more accurate assessment of the size of the tract as there is no small transfer of lands to account for the decrease of 15 acres (FCDB 89:357-358). Benjamin Stickley died intestate circa' 1890 and his heirs divided his land -holdings among themselves. Edgar A. Stickley, son of Benjamin Stickley, and Susan M., his wife, and James D. Line and Katie M., his wife and daughter of Benjamin Stickley, transferred the "Buffalo Marsh Farm" to Nannie D. Stickley, daughter of Benjamin Stickley. At this transfer on May 25"', 1894 the `Buffalo Marsh Farm" is described as having 202 acres. Nannie Stickley married F. Estes Kline after receiving the tract from the Benjamin Stickley heirs (FCDB 2113:10). She predeceased her husband, who with the Nannie D. 27 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) Stickley Kline heirs sold the "Buffalo Marsh Farm" tract on July 30t", 1952. Nannie Kline had willed her husband, F. Estes, all her real estate and directed him to pay off a $1000 debt to Claude Stickley, who predeceased Nannie Kline, with the balance to be divided between Nannie Kline's niece, Mildred Link, and her nephew, Everett D. Kline. The sale in 1952 transferred the tract to Irvan T. O'Connell (FCDB 224:434). Irvan T. O'Connell retained the tract for three years, selling the tract on January 29t", 1955 to United States Steel Corporation. At this sale the tract had 201.807 acres, which is similar to the 202-acre size that Nannie Stickley Kline inherited in 1894 (FCDB 235:114- 115). United States Steel sold the tract along with three other tracts to Chemstone Corporation on June 27tt', 1986 (FCDB 620:186-195). Chemstone became O-N Minerals subsequently. The cemetery is not noted in any deed records filed in the Frederick County Court Clerk's Office after the 1854 Strother Moore deed. Subsequent surveys of tine parcel did not note the cemetery (Figure 12). It is unclear exactly who is buried in the cemetery. A minimurn of 22 graves have been identified within the cemetery during the delineation (Appendix I). The simple fieldstone markers were broken near ground level and there are no inscriptions visible on any of the stones. It is likely that the cemetery served the Nisewander family and is the possible burial site of David Nisewander. It may have also served subsequent owners, such as the Tice family and Moore family. The Moore daughter who most likely died between 1830 and 1840 may be buried in this cemetery. Since there are no records to indicate who is buried in the cemetery, it is unknown as to when the first or last burial occurred. From ownership information, it is assumed that the cemetery was active from circa 1780 through the early 19tt' century and ended in 1854. It has been purported that Jost Hite (or Hite family members) may have been buried in this cemetery. Research conducted on Jost Hite's life and location of his burial yielded that Hite is most likely buried at Opequon Memorial Churchyard near Kernstown, Virginia in Frederick County. There is no grave marker for Jost Hite. Jost Hite resided at a plantation named Long Meadow with his favorite son Isaac Hite. His first wife, Mary, died in 1738 and was buried at Long Meadow. After Jost Hite married Mary Magdalena Nisewander in 1741, he remained at Long Meadow. According to historical accounts, when Jost Hite died circa 1761, there was a controversy as to his burial site. Allegedly, a grave was dug at Long Meadow for him, but at the last minute it was decided that he would be buried at the Opequon Churchyard (Wilkins 1980:233). It has been purported that the location of Jost Hite's grave is ten to fifteen feet north of the sanctuary wall near the bell tower entrance (Gordon 1996). Mary Magdalena who died in 1792 was buried by his side (Opequon Church File). Robert Allen, who was an old friend of Jost Hite, was buried on his other side in 1769 (Gordon 1996). .z ocvW ►rr go oca PO4f fwmo $' 4riv- ax" d iir' Awc "zim on, to, s r�� Ji1 �• � s��„�� ig� Ji'Dr'ots•rf Tabler Family Cemetery 01 s ,,i� �� tq ,� ,�� as �9•�r �* •� � .� ��,�� Ic it r ( 'M � dr _ �, . iM/ +� Nisewander V '� L JV-"tV Family Cemetery . r. 1 •tetra re w4w bt Oil owl of'sI, ram; •rw{rr - 4r %frA3k'aar re • —. _ .� . � u Source: FCDB 620:192 IAL NORTH O-N MINERALS CEMETERY FIGURE 12 DELINEATIONS ECS Project 21:9244 1986 Land Plat ffux February 2008 Ii���,ATLANTI� 29 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) Tabler Family Cemetery The Tabler Family Cemetery is situated on a parcel of land that was owned by Jacob Hottel of Shenandoah County, Virginia. Jacob Hottel was also known as Jacob ("Snitz") Hottel-Huddle, Jr. He was the son of Jacob Hottel of Shenandoah County, Virginia. Jacob ("Snitz") Hottel was born most likely in January 1766. A biography of him notes that he was an industrious and successful farmer in Shenandoah County who made investments in farmland owning over 900 acres of land in Shenandoah, Page, Frederick and Rockingham Counties, Virginia. He also owned land in Licking County, Ohio. It is unclear how he came to own the Tabler tract of land as there are no transfers of land to Jacob ("Snitz") Hottel to indicate his acquisition of the Tabler tract. He did purchase the mill on Cedar Creek from Jost Hite and had interests in the region and knowledge of the region associated with the Tabler tract (Huddle 1982:13-15). Jacob ("Snitz") Hottel died prior to March 12ti', 1845, and his heirs divided his estate. On September 19"', 1846, the heirs, who included Abraham Stickley and once owned the tract associated with the Nisewander Family Cemetery, sold two parcels to James D. Tabler, who is listed as being late of Washington County, Maryland. Tabler purchased the tracts for $3500 paid in installments of $2500 and $1000. The two parcels are described as having 167.5 acres and 215 acres. The parcel on which the Tabler Family Cemetery is located was associated with the 167.5-acre parcel. It was described as being bound by Strother Moore, formerly John Tice, Isaac Wamson, Joseph Miller, Moon, David Dinges, and George Brimley (FCDB 75:331-332). James D. Tabler remained on the tract from 1845 until his death in 1873. According to 1850 U S Census records, James D. and Catherine, his wife, Tabler had five children residing with them. Eliza Tabler was the oldest at 19 years of age followed by Samuel Tabler at 13 years of age. Joanna was 11 years of age followed by George F. who was 7 years of age. The youngest was Melker Tabler at 6 years of age. James D. Tabler's occupation was not listed, but his farm was valued at $5000. Also noted was that James D. Tabler was born in Virginia, while his wife and daughter, Eliza, and sons, Samuel and George F. were born in Maryland. His son, Melker, and daughter, Joanna, were born in Virginia. The location of the birth of Joanna Tabler may be incorrect as she falls between Samuel and George F., who were listed as born in Maryland. The Census taker may have inadvertently listed the last two children as born in Virginia as they appear on the following Census page. Also noted in the record was that there were two free Blacks residing with the Tablers in 1850. Susan Balser, a woman of 22 years of age, and David Baker, of 2 years of age, and who may have been Susan Baker's son, are listed in the Tabler household. The Tablers did not own slaves in 1850 (US Census 1850). By 1860, the Tabler household comprised James D. and Catherine, and their son, Melker Tabler. Two additional Tabler family members were listed in the household; Franklin of 17 years of age and Rosanna at 45 years of age. The relationship of these Tablers is not known, but it is suspected that they are related to James D. Tabler. Joana Tabler had died in 1858 and was buried in the family cemetery, and it appears that the older children, 30 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) Eliza, Samuel, and George F. Tabler had left home. In 1860, James D. Tabler's farm was valued at $2000 and his personal estate was valued at $1663 (US Census 1860). The last US Census of 1870 showed that James and Catherine Tabler resided on the farmstead with their son, George F. and a farmhand named, Thomas M. Tabler. Thomas M. Tabler is the same age as Melker Tabler, and is likely Melker Tabler, who took on the name Thomas Melker Tabler. By 1870 the value of the farm was assessed at $13,000 and the personal estate was valued at $1200. After James D. Tabler's death in 1873, it appears that George F. Tabler occupied the farmstead. In the 1880 US Census, George F. Tabler and his wife, Susanna A. (Brewer), resided at the farm with their daughters, Elizabeth, Anna and Amy. In addition, Henry Brewer, Susanna's father, and a nephew named, Henry A. Brewer resided with George F. Tabler and his family. Interestingly, Thomas M. Tabler, son of James D. and Catherine Tabler, and his family resided on an adjacent farmstead (US Census 1880). James D. Tabler's heirs were unable to amicably divide his estate after his death in 1873 and filed two Chancery Causes to divide the land holdings. Resolved by 1883, George F. Tabler and his wife, Susan A. sold two tracts of land to George H. Borden. The sale of October 26t", 1883 listed the two tracts containing 121.5 acres of land north of the County Road (Route 627). The sale for $4500 described the tracts as part of a larger tract owned by James D. Tabler. The two tracts comprised 55.25 acres and 66 acres (FCDB 99:332- 333). George Borden retained ownership of the tracts until February 1", 1896 when he sold a 42 acre, 3 rod, and 16 pole tract of land to A. Taylor Ritter and Oliver B. Ritter for $1714. The tract of land is described as being located on Buffalo Marsh 1.5 miles north of Middletown. The notations include that the tract was purchased from the heirs of James D. Tabler. Additional notations within the deed stated that there are improvements on the land including a barn (FCDB 1 17:171). Oliver B. Ritter increased his landholding in the early 20th century with the addition of two parcels to the 42+-acre tract acquired from George Borden. On November 15t", 1912, B.F. Watson and M.P., his wife, sold a 120-acre tract of land for $6500 located two miles north of Middletown and it was described as being on the "north side of the road leading from Middletown to Marlboro," which is Route 627 (FCDB 135:233). An additional purchase of 4 acres, 1 rod, and 8 square poles was made to O(liver). B. (011ie) Ritter from R.E. and Mary C. Brumback, husband and wife, on May 13"', 1915, which was part of a land purchase from the Baldwin heirs (FCDB 138:94). The inclusion of these two tracts to the existing 42+-acre tract increased Oliver B. Ritter's landholdings to 166+ acres. Oliver B. Ritter died intestate circa 1946 and a Chancery Cause decided on January 281h, 1947, ordered the sale of his lands. Emma Ritter and Ina K. Dalton, executor of O.B. Ritter, deceased, sold to J.J. Pickeral a 173.6-acre tract, which included the three land I transactions that Oliver Ritter made in the late 19t" and early 20t" centuries. The sale of the land was made March l2tl', 1947 for $12,550 (FCDB 199:511-512). 31 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations CCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) J.J. Pickeral and his wife, Dorothy W., sold the tract on January 29t", 1955 to United Sates Steel Corporation (FCDB 235:117-119). United States Steel sold the tract along with three other tracts to Chemstone Corporation on June 27th, 1986 (FCDB 620:186- 195). Chemstone became O-N Minerals subsequently. The Tabler Family cemetery was noted on the 1986 survey of the lands transferred from United States Steel to Chemstone Corporation. From the Tabler Cemetery File housed in the Archives of the Handley Library in Winchester, Virginia, there are purported multiple burials in this family cemetery. A listing from the file is provided below. Tabler Family Cemetery Burials (from Handley Library archives) Name Caroline Virginia Tabler Catherine Myers Tabler Harry Clifford Tabler James Daniel Tabler Joanna Tabler Mary Clara Tabler Susana Tabler William Davidson Tabler Born 15 July 1881 28 July 1803 7 November 1872 6 June 1801 28 March 1839 7 November 1872 6 January 1828 15 July 1881 Died 15 October 1881 17 March 1871 12 December 1883 20 April 1873 25 December 1858 7 November 1872 6 January 1829 17 October 1881 According to the file, James Daniel Tabler was the family patriarch and was married to Catherine Myers Tabler. They had two daughters, Susanna Tabler and Joana Tabler, and one son, Thomas Melker Tabler. Thomas Melker Tabler married Lydia Funldlouser Tabler on May P, 1870. Thomas Melker Tabler was listed as 26 years of age and Lydia F. Funkhouser was listed as 24 years of age (Buck 1994:183). Thomas and Lydia Tabler had twins in 1872, Mary Clara and Harry Clifford. Both died in their youth. Lydia Funkhouser Tabler died prior to 1881 and Thomas Melker Tabler married Sarah Funkhouser, sister to Lydia Funldlouser. Thomas Melker and Sarah Funkhouser Tabler had twins, Caroline Virginia and William Davison who lived for three months. According to the file, it is belied that Thomas Melker Tabler and both wives, Lydia Funldlouser and Sarah Funkhouser, were buried in the cemetery (Tabler Cemetery File). There is conflicting information from the field delineation, archeological evidence, and historical research from the US Census records, and the information housed in the Handley Library Archives for the burials in the Tabler Family Cemetery. It appears that assumptions about the number of Tabler family members buried in the Tabler Family Cemetery are based upon the genealogical record of the family. Based upon the archeological evidence and delineation, there are only five burials in the Tabler Family Cemetery. Thomas Melker Tabler and his descendants resided on an adjacent farm and it is possible that his family members are buried on that adjoining tract. It is unknown 32 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations GCS Project No. 21:92,14 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) where the other Tabler family members are buried that are listed within the Archives of the Handley Library. B. DELINEATION FIELDWORK Fieldwork for the historic cemetery delineations consisted of a pedestrian survey of the cemetery locales and a careful inspection of the cemetery areas for any visible grave markers (headstones/footstones), grave depressions or disturbed soils, as well as introduced perennials commonly associated with historic cemeteries (e.g. vinca sp. cedars, lilies, etc.). The initial reconnaissance of the Nisewander family cemetery revealed several native fieldstone grave markers within a dense stand of mature mixed hardwoods and a ground cover dominated by Vinca sp. Flowering evergreen perennial groundcover is commonly associated with historic Christian burial grounds. Based on topographic relief, landform configuration, and indicator species criteria, this landform was perceived to retain a high potential for the location of several unmarked historic graves. Visual reconnaissance of the Tabler family cemetery revealed a total of 4 formally inscribed grave markers (headstones and footstones) or large fragments thereof, a whitewashed wooden grave marker (partially gnawed), and several possible native fieldstone markers situated in two north/south oriented rows. No flowering evergreen perennial groundcover was noted at the Tabler cemetery; however, cedars and other hardwoods were located within the cemetery limits. Following the initial reconnaissance and consultation with the representatives of O-N Minerals (Chemstone) heavy equipment was brought to the project area. Heavy equipment under the direct supervision of ECS archaeologists carefully removed the topsoil from adjacent to and within the cemetery locale. The machine stripping was conducted by a backhoe equipped with a smooth blade, under the direct supervision of a professional archaeologist to identify any unmarked graveshafts in the surrounding subsoil. Any subsurface soil ano►nalies were marked and assessed. Tabler Family Cemetery Mechanized stripping encompassed a total area of 2687.5 ft 2 adjacent to and within the cemetery to delineate the layout and number of graves present. This cemetery delineation revealed 5 historic graves (Figure 13). Historic Christian burials are normally oriented at an approximate angle of 90 degrees east of north along their long axis. The heads (west ends) of the graveshafts identified in this cemetery are oriented at angles of 135' (+/-) east of north. Even though there is variation from an exact east -west layout, this is typical for a traditional Christian burial ground. The graves are arranged in two rows. Row I contains Graves 1-4 and row 2 contains Grave 5. Osage Orange (bodark) trees have been planted at the head or foot of some graves and a cedar tree has been planted at the foot of Grave 5. Several other cedars occur near the periphery of the cemetery on the west side and northeast corner: however, these lack great maturity. 33 / 11 3150 Inscribed Headstone Footstone Whitewashed Wooden ®Marker Graveshaft ® Osage Orange Tree 0 Cedar Tree G-1: Henry Brewer G-2: James D. Tabler G-3: Catharine Tabler G-4:Joana Tabler G-5: Unknown O-N MINERALS CEMETERY (� FIGURE 13 r r ' ECS Project 21:9244 DELINEATIONS February 2008 Schematic Planview of the Tabler Family Cemetery ,— -- -� *AJ rA--=L--LL}:.l1J V"JGCS _ 34 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) The soils at this cemetery are clayey and silt loams, and they contain dense pockets of rock residuum. Areas along the western, northern, and southern margins of the cemetery area had large amounts of fieldstone present just below the historic plowzone, and may have been where spoil from graveshafts was placed at the time of one or more burials. The naturally rocky soil in the cemetery area made the identification of graveshafts somewhat difficult even with the assistance of mechanized stripping. Identification of graveshaft locations was made primarily by a combination of soil stripping, examination of soil compaction, soil discoloration, and location of in situ grave markers. The three possible fieldstone markers at this cemetery were inspected and the underlying soils were stripped to beneath the plowzone. These areas were determined to be free of historic graves. The fieldstones were limestone rubble and had not been set into the ground and were not of the typical size and shape for vernacular fieldstone grave markers utilized in the region during this period. O-N Minerals personnel indicated that these stones were placed here by a clean-up crew who had previously removed ground cover from the cemetery locale. Additional areas surrounding the periphery of the intact graves were also stripped to determine if outlier graves were present (a common occurrence at historic family cemeteries). No additional graveshafts were identified. Gravestone inscriptions were transcribed from headstones and footstones found at this cemetery. The headstone from Grave 1 reads: Our Father HENRY BREWER Born Aug. 20, 1803 Died June 15, 1880 Rest in Peace Albin & Bro. Win IAA The footstone from this grave is inscribed, "H.B." The headstone from Grave 2 reads: In Memory of Our Father James D. Tabler Born June 6, 1801 Departed this life April 20°i 1876 Aged 68 Years 10 months & 11 days The headstone from Grave 3 reads: In Memory of CATHARINE wife of Elder Janes D. Tabler Born July 28, 1803 AND departed this life 35 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) May 17, 1871 Aged 67 years 9 months & 19 days A. Eagan The footstone from this grave is inscribed, "C.T." The headstone from Grave 4 reads: JOANA daughter of Janes D. & Catharine TABLER Born March 28 Departed this life Dec 25 1858 Aged 19 Years 8 months & 27 days The formal markers for James Tabler, Catharine Tabler, and Henry Brewer appear to have had portions of the inscriptions pre -engraved on the stones (based on differences in script). This was probably done by the manufacturer who would have had a number of alternatives available for purchase. This is especially noted by the combination of the phrase, "departed this life," the stylized "AND ", an epitaph, and an inscribed divider line on the markers. Two of the markers retained makers marks. Henry Brewer's marker was manufactured by Albin & Brothers of Winchester; while, Catharine Tabler's marker was manufactured by A. Eagan. Nisewander Family Cemetery Mechanized stripping encompassed a total area of 11,200 ft.z at the cemetery locale to delineate the layout and number of graves present. The soils at this cemetery are somewhat loose clayey and silt loams, and they contain isolated pockets of rock residuum. This cemetery delineation revealed a minimum of 22 historic graves (Figure 14). A total of 17 of these appeared to be those of adults and 5 appeared to be subadults (based on distances between markers). Cemetery stripping was made more difficult and was slowed tremendously by the numerous trees, stumps, and large roots on the surface and buried below grade. After stripping began and in order to meet the project schedule, the decision was made by the archaeological principal investigator to strip only within the top 1.5 ft. to avoid any potential for buried human remains to be dislodged by pulled trees in the lightly compacted soils. This alteration of methodology proved useful and discovered numerous fieldstone grave markers (headstone/footstones) buried just beneath the ground surface. however, since time constraints on the fieldwork did not allow for stripping completely down to subsoil, additional undocumented graves may be located within the cemetery area. 20 ft. �- I Z-i Headst4 Footstc Graves Locust White I Ash Tr Sycam Cherry Barbed O-N MINERALS CEMETERY FIGURE 14 DELINEATIONS r ' ECS Project 21:9244 Febntary 2008 Schematic Planview of the Nisewander Cemetery — - � u Ica-.ta-r�._sav�vu� n)7 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) Based on the general dimensions of the cemetery, there may be up to several dozen additional graves amongst the graves already identified. It should be also understood that stripping was accomplished with a high degree of confidence around the periphery of the cemetery, and no additional graves were found in these areas. Historic graves appear to be confined to the wooded area along the margin of this pasture lot. Graves at the Nisewander family cemetery were segregated into clusters rather than distinct rows in this cemetery, which is common for burial grounds of this size. A northern cluster was noted and contained 14 graves. One of these graves was located at the northwest corner of the cemetery at the base of a large Locust tree. This headstone may actually be a formally inscribed grave marker, but the portion that would have retained the inscription was broken off and missing. The southern cluster of graves at this cemetery consisted of 8 graves aligned on slightly different degree orientation. A pile of fleldstones at the southwest corner of the cemetery may represent the location of a grave as well. The apparent clustering in the Nisewander family cemetery indicates that the cemetery may have functioned for an extended period of time and contains multiple extended families or families associated with successive owners of the property. The lack of formal headstones is not uncommon given the fact that Federal soldiers camped in close proximity to the cemetery and were known to have frequently taken grave markers to use in the floors of huts and for hearths and chimneys. Early 20t" century improvements to Route 627 may have also disturbed an unknown number of graves as well. C. CEDAR CREEK BATTLEFIELD CONDITION INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT AND IMPACT TO PROJECT AREA The Battle of Cedar Creek occurred in Frederick, Warren and Shenandoah Counties, Virginia. The location of the battle is sited today along U S Route 11 (Valley Pike) from Fisher's Hill to north of Middletown, and between Cedar Creek and Middletown. The Battle occurred on October 19t" 1864, and was a decisive victory for the Union Army. The battle was defined by a Confederate victory in the morning, which transformed to a Union victory by the end of the day. The core area of the Battle of Cedar Creels has been identified as two areas of 15,607 and 6,252 acres. The larger acreage is situated in the area of Cedar Creek, extending from the North Fork of the Shenandoah to north of Middletown. The area also encompasses the initial Confederate position at Fisher's Hill south of Strasburg. The O-N Minerals project area is situated within the larger acreage (15,607) identified as a part of the Battle of Cedar Creels. The O-N Minerals project area is situated on 539.45 acres along Middle Marsh Brook, primarily sited between the two branches of the Brook. The boundaries of the project area cross State Route 627, Marlboro Road (Figure 15) within the Cedar Creels Battlefield I< 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations GCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) area. This section will analyze the activity of the Battle on the project area as well as assess the condition of its landscape. According to historical documents and military maps of troop movement and action, the Union Army of the Shenandoah, which comprised 32,000 men under Major General Philip H. Sheridan was encamped north of Cedar Creek from near Middle Marsh Brook to the south of the Valley Turnpike (US Route 11). These encampments extended within the project area. The XIX Corps was reportedly encamped to the west of Middle Marsh Brook. Brigadier General Wesley Merritt's Calvary division under the command of Major General Alfred Torbert was encamped near Nisewander's Fort (see Figure 11). The fort was a stone house believed to have been constructed circa 1755 and enlarged circa 1780. During the Civil War, the parcel was owned by Abraham Stickley and most likely used as a tenant house or house for farmhands. The house is currently an archeological site and there are no above ground ruins. During the Battle of Cedar Creek, the Union forces withdrew north from the Confederate attack along Middle Marsh Broolc. The project area contains portions of the Middle Marsh Brook (see Figure 15), and the line of withdraw would be situated on both sides of the Brook. After Major General Philip H. Sheridan arrived north of Middletown he regrouped his forces to counterattack. Brigadier General George A. Custer's Calvary division was placed on the right flank riding on the west side of Middle Marsh Brook. He engaged Major General George Gordon's troops near Middle Marsh Brook. Custer drove the troops back across the Brook as the Confederate line began to unravel. Custer pushed all the way to Cedar Creek at Hottel's Mill Ford. By dusk he had pushed the Confederates back to Fisher's Hill. 39 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGIN 1_� Middle Marsh Brook O-N Minerals Parcels Cedar Creek WA4 7Y F, Existing Quarry v County Boundary Taxmapc Par tax frede.. rick_va_s d ❑ 0-11 f inerals i Parcel Watercourses Route 627 Valley Pike (US Route 11) .e a. Frederick County Dept. of GIS For questions lease contact the Frederick county Dept. of GIS at 540-665-5614 DRAFT Parcel Mapping Service O-N MINERALS CEMETERY DELINEATIONS Map of the O-N Minerals Parcels, 2008 NO R'l't I "J,rao .iraVrd—At&lJKJvn+4:3 40 FIGURE 15 ECS Project 21:9244 February 2008 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) The O-N Minerals project area comprises areas of the flanking attack of Custer's Calvary forces and the encampments of the XIX Corps under Brigadier General Wesley Merritt. Shown on Battlefield maps (see Figures 7-8), the area denotes general topographic features of rolling hills descending toward the Brook. The area was most likely cleared due to farming and the addition of the troops on the landscape provided for open fields. The site of the former Nisewander's Fort is also situated within this area, though there is no evidence of the fort above grade. Immediately after the Civil War, the landscape returned to its original function as farm and pastureland associated with the Stickley family on the parcel south of Route 627 and the Tabler family on the parcel to the north of Route 627. Stickley had purchased the south parcel containing Nisewander's Fort in 1854, which became part of his landholdings in the region. It is unknown if additional buildings were erected on the parcel. The Nisewander family cemetery, with approximately 22 burials, is situated on this parcel and probably pre -dates the Civil War with burials ceasing in 1854 (or before). The stones in the cemetery are unmarked and documentation naming the burials in the cemetery is unknown. The Tabler family had purchased the parcel north of Route 627 in 1845. The cemetery associated with the Tabler family began to be used prior to the Civil War and continued to be utilized until the early 1880s. The house situated on the parcel south of the cemetery, just west of Middle Match Brook, appears to date to the late 19th century. The woodwork for the structural system and construction methods dates to the turn of the 20"' century. The foundation of the house is stone and may predate the house. The house is in deteriorated condition (Figure 16). From the 1885 map of the vicinity, there is no house noted on the Tabler parcel on the west bank of the Middle Marsh Brook (see Figure 9). It is unknown if there were additional outbuildings on the parcel and it is assumed that for farming activities there may have been other farm buildings on the site or in close proximity. Most of these types of buildings did not impact the landscape. Both the north and south parcels situated opposite of each other on Route 627 were continually used as agricultural properties through the 1950s. There have been no major modifications to the landscape. The landscape comprises rolling hills that descend toward the Brook. Cedar trees have been allowed to grow primarily along the west side of the parcels. The landscape associated with the Battle of Cedar Creek within the project area has high integrity. The sale of the parcels comprising the project area in 1955 ceased activities on the landscape. Immediately abutting the project area is a subdivided residential community with lots of approximately three to five acres in size. Parcels to the east and west comprise agricultural functions, including pasture and forest. The south comprises the existing quarry. Modern houses are visible from the tracts situated on hills to the east (Figures 17-18). These are considered intrusions to the landscape and were identified in an assessment of the battlefield as integrity comprising additions. CII O-N MINERALS CEMETERY FIGURE 17 DELINEATIONSL ECS Project 21:9244 Views West and South from Middle February 2008 Marsh Brook and Tabler Cemetery ►iilllL�J.AYIL:�(�l1rpC 43 O-N MINERALS CEMETERY FIGURE 18 DELINEATIONS ECS Project 21:9244 Views North and East from Middle February 2008 Marsh Brook and Tabler Cemetery 44 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) The expansion of the quarry to the parcels flanking Route 627 will impact the landscape of these parcels. It will also impact the site of Nisewander's Fort. The expansion of the quarry will also impact the areas associated with Merritt's bivouac and Custer's Calvary maneuvers against Gordon. While these areas are associated with the battle, much of the decisive maneuvers associated with the battle are situated to the east along the Valley Pike. This area is situated at the west boundary of the identified battlefield and its development will not diminish the overall integrity of the battlefield. 45 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations GCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CEMETERIES RESTORATION Any cemetery restoration carried out by O-N minerals should be conducted in close consultation with appropriate professional experts in the fields of archaeology/anthropology, history, and landscape design. The following section provides recommendations for O-N Minerals (Chemstone) to implement if one or both of these cemeteries is anticipated to be avoided by quarry acitivities and preserved for the benefit of the general public and residents of Frederick County. Restoration Recommendations for the Historic Tabler and Nisewander Family Cemeteries The Tabler family cemetery is small and reflects the interment of several members of a single family. Four formally inscribed headstones, and 2 inscribed footstones are present at this cemetery. The Nisewander family cemetery is large and may reflect the interment of several members of several extended families who once occupied this property. There are at least 22 individual interments here. Given its large size, there may be as many as 60 individuals interred at this cemetery. Field delineation at the Nisewander family cemetery placed wooden stakes at the heads of graves and blue pin flags at the feet of graves. Restoration of the cemeteries should emphasize the appropriate historic elements and features and should be congruent with the past use of the cemetery locales. Restoration should show obvious continuity with the historic fabric of the Tabler and Nisewander family cemeteries during the late 18r1'-early 19t" century and the late 19t" century and include restoration of the ornamental vegetation and the markers themselves. Fill and Landscape Contourin 1. Clean fill should be transported to these cemeteries to maintenance the ground surface contours at each cemetery. A maximum of 6 inches of additional fill is recommended to be placed on each cemetery. 2. Clean fill should be spread on each cemetery by hand or with the assistance of a small bobcat or lawn tractor. No heavy machinery (e.g. backhoe, dozer, farm tractor) should be used for this operation. 3. Fill should be placed in all holes, depressions, and ruts to smooth all landscape contours. 4. Once spread, the fill should be slightly mounded at the bases of all markers to drain water from the markers. M O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations 1 CS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) Cleaning and Repair of Headstones and Pootstones If markers are to be transported off site for cleaning, then appropriate measures should be taken to ensure stability during loading, unloading, and transportation. It is recommended that all cleaning and repair work be carried out on -site. 1. Use a non-ionic soap. One of the most readily available soaps is Orvus12, commonly used in association with horse and sheep husbandry. It can be found in feed stores. Mix a solution of one heaping tablespoon of Orvus a to one gallon of clean water. 2. Pre -wet the stone thoroughly with clean water and keep the stone wet during the entire washing process. 3. Thoroughly wash the wet stone using natural bristled, wooden handled brushes of various sizes. Keep brushes wet at all times. Do not use plastic bristled or handled brushes, as color from the handles may leave material on the stone that will be very difficult to remove. Plastic may also strip away the outer layer of stone and cause pores to be exposed and failures. 4. Wash all surfaces and rinse thoroughly with lots of clean water. 5. Lichens and algae can be removed by thoroughly soaking the stone and then using a wooden scraper to gently remove the biological growth. This process may need to be repeated several times. 6. Not all stains can be removed. Do not expect the stones to appear new after cleaning. 7. Do not clean marble, limestone or sandstone more than once every 18 months. Every cleaning removes some of the outer table of the stone. However, occasionally rinsing with clean water to remove bird droppings and other accretions is acceptable. 8. Repair of broken markers should only be attempted if the broken fragments can be tightly refitted. Cement should not be used to reattach broken fragments, as cement is much harder than stone and may cause failures in other areas. A professional stone conservator should be consulted to repair badly broken markers. 9. The Tablet- cemetery contains a whitewashed wooden marker. This marker has suffered damage from rodent gnawing along its margins. This marker should be replaced with a marker of the same size, original shape, and wood species. The replacement marker should be painted with appropriate white outdoor paint. 47 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Projeet No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) 10. Replacement of the fieldstone head/foot markers at the Nisewander cemetery is recommended. Given that an additional 3-6 inches of soil will be placed on this cemetery, it will be very likely to bury many stones that are broken/worn off near the existing ground surface. 11. Replacement fieldstone markers should be of a similar parent material and have regular surfaces. Replacement head markers should be approximately 13-15 inches long x 10-12 inches wide x 2-3 inches thick. Replacement foot markers should be 13-15 inches long x 6-8 inches wide x 2-3 inches thick. (30% of the head/foot markers should be set into the ground. See next section for recommendations on setting markers.) 12. No machine dressing of stones is recommended and only minimal hand dressing Should be done to approximate the shape of the historic markers. Resetting Tilted/Displaced Headstones and Footstones Only gravestones that are severely tilted or displaced should be reset since resetting may cause other damage to the stone. Assume that all stones are fragile and have some form of internal cracking or damage. 1. Excavate around the stones very carefully. Steel shovels can easily damage stone. It is best if you excavate from the backside of the stone to avoid damage to the inscription. Always try to keep firin earth on one side, to provide a strong, compacted earth face against which to reset the stone. 2. Stockpile the spoil or use additional "clean" soil. Do not allow soil to mix with the surrounding grass. Not only does this look unprofessional and inappropriate in a cemetery setting. 3. Once the stone is free of earth, carefully remove it from the ground and lay aside on several 2 x 4's for support. 4. If additional excavation of the hole is desired leave one side compact. Create a firm base for the stone which will evenly distribute its weight. If the base of the stone is relatively flat, set an even layer of brick or tabular stone as a base, then about an inch of sand. 5. Replace the stone in the hole, be sure that enough stone remains below ground to support the upper portion and prevent it from retilting after being reset. For 19t►' century markers (headstones/footstones) about 30 percent of the length of the stone must remain below ground level. 6. Use a builder's level to position the stone level both vertically and horizontally. It is important to realize that a monument is generally considered level when it appears level with respect to the surrounding terrain. O-N Minerals Cemetery Dclincalions ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March G, 2008) 7. The markers at the Tabler cemetery have no foundations and can be leveled using small pea gravel or similar material. Add material in shallow fills and ensure that the screenings are tamped down between lifts. 8. Refill the excavation using the original or clean spoil. It may be necessary to use bricks or gravel to hold the stone upright. Gravel may also assist in drainage around the stone, especially in heavy, clay soils. Tamp this material every few inches to ensure that it is well settled. 9. Fill to encourage drainage away from the stone and reset the sod. Replacing Ornamental Plants and Groundcover The restoration of historic cemeteries is not complete without the reintroduction of ornamental plants that would have been utilized during historic times. It is the use of these types of plants that on many occasions signified the use of such areas as burial locations. Ornamentals include trees, shrubs, flowers, and groundcover. 1. The primary ornamental groundcover for historic cemeteries throughout Virginia was Vinca nfinoi- (Periwinkle). This is an evergreen groundcover that spreads along the ground in a manner consistent with English Ivy. During the spring, it is flowered with small pink/purple flowers. Vinca sp. should be planted both in between and on top of graves at intervals of about 5 feet. 2. The cemetery area should be reseeded with standard contractors blend grass to avoid erosion. The vinca will take 2-3 seasons to begin to spread, and once it has reached maturity, it will begin to choke out the grass. Eventually, the vinca will replace all the grass in the cemetery. 3. Lawn maintenance should be done with string trimmers and hand tools only with grass being kept from growing around the markers to prevent surface staining. Care should be used during trimming to avoid damage to headstones and inscriptions. 4. Ornamental flowers should also be introduced to the area and be planted along the margins of the cemeteries and/or over each grave. Typical ornamental plants include roses, lilies (e.g. day lilies, lilies of the valley, tiger lilies), gardenia, or prickly yucca. Lilies and roses are preferred in this context. 5. Oaks, Locusts, Sycamore, Ash, Cedars, and Osage Orange trees have been purposefully introduced and have grown to maturity in these cemeteries. If trees are to be transplanted to these cemeteries, care should be taken to place them far enough away from markers, fencing, and other elements that may be damaged or displaced over time from tree growth and root runs. 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations 1 CS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) 6. If desired, these types of trees should be planted as border or perimeter species to mark the boundaries/corners of these cemeteries. 7. The Tabler cemetery contains trees that appear to have been planted over several of the graves. Planting of new trees over existing graves is not recommended. Installation of Fencing Iron fencing is typically found on historic cemeteries in Virginia. Iron fencing should be used in conjunction with stone/brick corner columns and be placed approximately 10-15 feet outside any perimeter or boundary trees at either cemetery. 1. The single best protection of ironwork is maintenance and painting. Ironwork should be repainted.every five to 10 years, or at the first signs of rust. 2. Joints are vulnerable in ironwork. Water will be drawn into these spaces by capillary action and corrosion can be very severe. Another problem area is where cast and wrought iron come into contact since this creates corrosion from electrolytic action. 3. A problem occurs when ironwork is anchored in damp stonework. As the iron rusts it expands to many times its original size, exerting pressure on the stone and ultimately shattering the stone. Often the ironwork was mounted into the stone using molten lead. This combination can cause serious corrosion. Another problem is when iron is mounted using molted Sulfur which causes very rapid corrosion. 4. Hand preparation using a wire brush is good at removing bull', corrosion, but it leaves much corrosion untouched. While cast iron is hard, wrought iron is softer and the surface can be easily roughened. Using abrasives also removes the mill scale, which is iron's natural protective coating. 5. Once cleaned of corrosion it is critical that a rust inhibitor be applied quickly. With one primer coat it is almost impossible to produce a continuous film without pinholes. A second coat is essential and works better than a second topcoat since it is designed to inhibit rust from breaking through the final paint coat. 6. Paint should be an alkyd rather than latex and should be designed for use with the primer. In no case should the paint be applied thickly, this obscures detail and does not appreciably lengthen the lifespan of the paint. Gloss enamels should be avoided. 7. Gates or entrances in fencing at both cemeteries should be from the proper approach aspect. The approach aspect of the Nisewander cemetery is from the west or south. The approach aspect of the Tabler cemetery is from the west. 50 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) Commemorative markers may be appropriate to place at either cemetery to give basic interpretation for visitors and the interested public. A simple brass (or other appropriate alloy) plate secured into a stone pedestal should be sufficient for this task. Brief text explaining the results of the archaeological and archival work should be presented as a means to interpret and memorialize those interred at these cemeteries. ECS stands ready to assist O-N Minerals (Chemstone) to implement any of the above mentioned restoration recommendations. 51 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations CCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) VI. REFERENCES CITED Archives of the IIandley Library, Winchester, Virginia. n.d. Tabler Cemetery File. n.d. Opequon File Boatner, Mark Mayo 1987 The Civil War Dictionary". Rev. edition, Random House, New York, New York. Buck, D. A. 1994 Marriages of Frederick County, Virginia, 1853-1880, Abstracted and Compiled. Published by author, Winchester, VA Delaney -Painter, Nancy and Susan L. McCabe 2004 Index to Burials in Frederick County, Virginia, 2" ed. Willow Bend Books, Winchester, VA. D. J. Lake and Company 1885 Opequon Magisterial District, Frederick County. Published by author, Philadelphia, PA. Doran, Michael F. 1987 Atlas of County Boundary Changes in Virginia: 1634-1895. Iberian Publishing Co., Athens, Georgia. Frederick County 1753-2008 Deed Record Books (FCDB). On file, Frederick County Court House, Winchester, Virginia. 1782-1808 Survey Book (FCSB). On file, Frederick County Court House, Winchester, Virginia. 1787 Personal Property Tax Records. On file, Frederick County Court House, Winchester, Virginia. 1801-1807 Personal Property Tax Records. On file, Frederick County Court House, Winchester, Virginia. Gordon, C. Langdon 1996 The Old Burying Grounds of Opequon Presbyterian Church: 1736-1938. Published by author, Winchester, VA. Gretag Macbeth Corporation 2000 Munsell Soil Color Charts. Gretag Macbeth, Little Britain Road, New Windsor, New York. 52 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations GCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) Hillier, Richardson 1931 The Hite Family and the Settlement of the West. Thesis, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. Huddle, Rev. W. D. and Lulu May huddle 1982 The history and descendents of John Hottel. C. J. Carrier Co., Harrisonburg, PA. Jackson, Ronald Vern 1978 First Census of the United States, 1790: Records of the State Enumerations 1782 to 1785 Virginia. Accelerated Indexing Systems, Inc. Bountiful, Utah. Kalbian, Maral S. 1999 Frederick County, Virginia: History through Architecture. Winchester -Frederick County Historical Society, Winchester, VA. Kaplan, Barbara Beigun 1993 Land and Heritage in the Virginia Tidewater: A History of King and Queen County. Cadamus Fine Books, Richmond, Virginia. King, George H. S. 1961 The Register of Overrvharton Parish: Stafford County, Virginia 1723-1758. Privately published by author, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Kulikoff, Allan 1986 Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern Cultures in the Chesapeake, 1680-1800. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Little, Elbert L. 1980 National Audubon Society Field Guide to Trees (Eastern Region). Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York. Manarin, Louis H., and Clifford Dowdey 1984 The History of Henrico County. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. McLearen, Douglas C. 1989 Phase III Archaeological Investigations of the 522 Bridge Site (44WR329), Warren County, Virginia. Prepared by Virginia Commonwealth University Archaeological Research Center. Prepared for Virginia Department of Transportation. Moore, Larry E. 1991 A Little History of the Doeg. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 46(2): 77-86. 53 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ) CS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) Nugent, Nell M. 1992 Cavaliers and Pioneers: Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents and Grants, Volume 1: 1623-1666. Virginia State Library and Archives, Richmond. O'Dell, Cecil 1995 Pioneers of Old Frederick County, Virginia. Walsworth Publishing Company, Marceline, MO. Official Records 1884 The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Series I, vol. XI, Part 1: Reports. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Poland, Charles Preston, Jr. 1976 From Frontier to Suburbia. Walsworth Publishing Company, Mai -aline, Missouri. Studebaker, Marvin F. 1959 Free Stone from Aquia. Virginia Cavalcade IX(1):35-41. Titus, James 1991 The Old Dominion at War: Society, Politics, and Warfare in Late Colonial Virginia. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina. Umstattd, Elizabeth Madison Coles 1999 Hite Family Homesteads: Nektar to Shenandoah, Rev. Ed. Published by author, Villanova, PA. Vogt, John and T. William Kethley, Jr. 1984 Virginia Historic Marriage Register, Frederick County Marriage, 1738-1850. Iberian Press, Athens, GA. Wayland, John W. 1980 A History of Shenandoah County, Virginia. Baltimore Regional Publishing Company, Baltimore, MD. Whitehorne, Joseph W. A. 1987 The Battle of Cedar Creek. The Wayside Museum of American History and Arts, Strasburg, VA. Wilkins, James Richard 1980 Pioneers and Patriots: A History of the John Wilkins Family and some Related Families of Virginia: Tit ok-Hite- Wall- Winn and others: 1618-1979. Published by author, Winchester, VA. 54 �re6eyv� �re�r� 7 Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 To: The Frederick County Board of Supervisors From: Wendy Hamilton, President, Preserve Frederick Re: O-N Minerals Mining Rezoning Application P.O. Box 562 Middletown, VA 22645 preservefrederick@yahoo.com www.preservefrederick.org We respectfully request that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors deny the mining rezoning request for the following reasons: • The applicant has refused many and varied requests to scale back the size of the rezoning to reduce the impacts on southern Frederick County. • O-N Minerals has failed to revise and detail its proffer offer to adequately meet the concerns of county planning staff and local residents. • Such a large expansion of limestone mining is in direct conflict with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan for the area and other local economic development efforts. • Truck traffic projections, now at 400 trips through Middletown per day, are far too high to retain the scenic and small town character of the community. • O-N Minerals proffers regarding damage to local wells or residences could leave Frederick County with enforcement problems for years to come. • The proffer offer to phase limestone mincing has never been used in Virginia and would tie the hands of future boards of supervisors to an industrial use that is already controversial in the community. Thank you very much for your careful consideration of this rezoning. Preserve Frederick promotes compatible development that strengthens our communities, protects our historic and natural resources and preserves the rural character of Frederick County. Historic Resources on O-N Land at Cedar Creek National Park Proposed Rezoning Current Mining Operation Proposed Mining Corridor Battle of Cedar Creek Confederate Troop Movements and Positions Federal Troop Movements and Positions Tabler Cemetery t Federal Camps Alf 0 0.25 0.5 f4ieswanders + �Miles ; Cemetery Nieswander '.. 0 1 Fort A �. 4 .r M 4 i a !• r►� V! Pk'" • ® e AL �0 r � - afi aa� iddletown Data source: Frederick County, VDCR. Although efforts have been made to verity data, accuracy is not guaranteed P Mining Rezoning Alternative Plan " Buffer 1 0 500 1,000 I I I Feet r Currer►t�Miriirig Operation� National Battlefield Park Mining Rezoning Alternative Plan " Buffer 1 0 500 1,000 I I I Feet r Currer►t�Miriirig Operation� National Battlefield Park lkrf mac: 7� Cedar Creek Battlefield/Belle Grove Plantation, Frederick County On October 19, 1864, the Battle of Cedar Creek, the Civil War's last major battle in the Shenandoah Valley, took place between the towns of Strasburg and Middletown along Cedar Creek. Union forces under General Phillip Sheridan won a decisive victory that ended the Confederacy's power in the Valley. Belle Grove, an 18th century mansion now owned by the National Trust for His- toric Preservation, served as Sheridan's headquarters and was the scene of heavy fighting during the battle. The Cedar Creek Battlefield/Belle Grove Plantation is recognized to be of critical historical significance. This significance arises not only from the Battle of Cedar Creek, but from the fact that the area served as a hotly contested supply area for the Confederate forces and a main artery of inva- sion along which forces under the command of Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jubal Early, John Singleton Mosby, Phil Sheridan and George Armstrong Custer struggled for domination. In 2002, after years of preservation efforts by the National Trust and the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, Congress created the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. The small town of Middletown, with a population of 1,900, relies heavily on the revenue generated by heritage tourism at Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove. Visitors help support the small shops and businesses that line the town's Main Street. ' On March 13, 2007 the Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT) an - Main street, Middletown nounced its 2007 list of most endangered Civil War battlefields which included Cedar Creek Battlefield (and Belle Grove Plantation). According to a press release issued by the National Trust, the threats to these historic resources are twofold: (1) a potential devastation of the area by extensively expanded strip mining; and (2) installation of massive towers and power lines that will fundamentally alter the historic character of the area. First, O-N Minerals proposes to dramatically expand their quarry operation from its current 58 acres to 639 acres. If this massive acreage is rezoned from rural to industrial, it will be the largest rezoning in the history of Frederick County and will result in five strip mining quarry holes on core battlefield areas. The rezoning will result in waste piles, industrial facilities and 1,40o quarry dump trucks per day (one every 6o seconds) traveling Middletown's historic Main Street. These activities will tear up critical historical and natural assets and blight an area that occupies a critical and unique place in our country's history. The second threat to the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation is the proposed Dominion Power and Allegheny Power Soo -kilovolt electric transmission line. (See Virginia's North- ern Piedmont listing) Local and regional grassroots organizations and many Frederick County residents join the National Trust and Civil War Preservation Trust in their concern about preserving this historic site. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors is encouraged to take into consideration the adverse impact these threats will have on the environment, the local economy and the historical context of Cedar Creek Battlefield and the area's unique historic resources. (4) APVA Pr•eswvc&t�, V r5 i n t, , _ M o s,+ ftar.�.^ecf #-1;s,ta,,< <. � .e. s 2o 0 7 J� Alt r e T l,,e Winchester Star Pagc I O t _, - Today's Weather - Winchester, VA 64 OF Scattered Clouds at 10; 18 A Aka Click for Forecast W Ilic %% inchesler filar Deliver mom -Edition Tllr\\isiaWr Var R Already a subscriber to the eEdition? Click here'. The Star's new e-edition What's in it for you? Every page of The Winchester Star delivered to your desktop. It's the print edition -- minus the ink on your hands. Sample E-Edition Questions or comments MULTIMEDIA SITE FEATURES Auctions Auto Guide Homes Guide Help Wanted Lap By Lap NASCAR Place Classifieds Advertising Rates Stocks Dear Abby Thursday, May 29, 2008 Back to Home Page Board backs quarry's plan for expansion By Robert Igoe The Winchester Star Winchester — Cheers and tears filled the Frederick County Office Complex on Wednesday as county officials gave their blessing to the expansion of a local quarry. In a 4-3 vote, the Board of Supervisors approved a request from 0-N Minerals Chemstone to rezone 394 acres to the north and south of its Middletown quarry from Rural Areas to Extractive Manufacturir The new zoning will allow the company to mine high- grade limestone from property that it owns. The vote came 30 days after an emotional public hearing that featured nearly 60 residents offering views about the request. Following the lengthy hearing, the supervisors voted to table a decision on the request so Chemstone could make changes in its proffer statements to better address traffic, environmental, and quality -of -life issues. APVideo Former Press Secretsr�/ s Book Bashes Bush -A ► Play. Fleischer Wonders 9Mut Happened' to McClellan ► Play Texas Appeal Says L'AS—FLDS Families Are Flight Risks ► Flay FREE HOME SEARCH http://www.winchesterstar.com/article_details.php?Artic leID=7023 5/29/2008 The Winchester Star Page 2 of 3 Movie Listings TV Listings Other Newspapers Online Games The Star Story Engagement Form Wedding Form Anniversary Form Birth Announcement Form BYRD NEWSPAPERS The Winchester Star Daily News -Record The Warren Sentinel Shen. Valley -Herald Page News & Courier The Valley Banner .THE VALLEY SCOPE* ----------..----------------------------------- SoArlse :_�I;surance Agency 540-869-4366 877-676-6467 UFRRST 11W Off YOM HOUSE IN AS UnTlE AS 1/3To 1.41TME TIME DOUGLAS HYATT .54a S$p 4234 511 LOY =AMJLY hiropracti I want to be your Wednesday's meeting was just as packed as last month's session. Though no public hearing was held, several residents used the public comment period to address the rezoning issue. "I resent the fact that you are telling us that we will enjoy being 1,200 feet from a quarry," said Gary Nichols. "What if you're wrong? I don't want the burden placed on us. It should be placed on the applicant to prove this is the right thing to do. If they cannot do that, this should not be rezoned." The opposition came chiefly from organizations such as Preserve Frederick, Belle Grove Inc., and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which fear the expansion will threaten nearby historic properties such as the Cedar Creek Civil War battlefield and the Belle Grove Plantation, both south of Middletown. On the other side of the issue were Chemstone's employees and partner vendors, who said the rezoning was needed to preserve the 28 jobs at the quarry. They also argued that the expansion would not have negative effects on the community. "I think this is a good and prudent use of land," said Dave Kollar, president and founder of DK Industrial Services Corp. "Chemstone will be a good neighbor. One thing that we do not need is more housing developments that will put an even greater burden on our roads, schools, and services. And what else can that property be used for?" During a presentation to the supervisors, Chemstone attorney Todd Lawson and General Manager Spencer Stinson said that in Treasa Vogel of Middletown displays her response to sentiments during the discussion of the issues Chemstone quarry rezoning request. raised by (Scott Mason) the county's legal advisers and Planning Department, the company agreed to reduce the rezoning area from 639 acres to 394 acres, eliminating 245 acres along the perimeter of the property. The company also addressed concerns over traffic impacts by agreeing to a limit of 86 truck trips per day, with an allowance for up to 200 trucks in emergency cases — which Lawson said would equate to unforeseen circumstances such as an inability to get stone taken from the quarry by rail. "If we're resorting to these many trucks, that would be an economic hardship for us," he said. Stinson said the company's trucks must follow a Ada try Goole ■ ■ Winchester Virginia Jobs Found 481 Jobs in your area. Make $104100 / hour with benefits. www.FastLora]Jobs.com Virginia Foreclosures Amazing Homes at fraction of the cost. Virginia Foreclosures Trulia con, http://www.winchesterstar.com/article_details.php?ArticleID=7023 5/29/2008 The Winchester Star Page 3 of 3 specific route to avoid causing traffic problems in Middletown, and that drivers who violate the route would be barred from the facility. Lawson also said mining in the rezoned areas north of the quarry and south of Chapel Road would begin no earlier than 10 years from now, and the remainder of the property would be mined no sooner than 20 years from now. The motion to approve the request was made by Supervisor Gary Lofton, who said he spent the previous 30 days reviewing comments made at the public hearing and doing his own research into the rezoning's potential effects on the community. "I looked at other quarries and talked to people who live around them," he said. "The majority of the people I spoke to did not have issues with trucks, noise, or dust. And, in my studies, I found no decrease in property values related to a quarry." Voting in favor with Lofton were Chairman Richard C. Shickle Sr., Gene E. Fisher, and Gary W. Dove. Supervisors Philip Lemieux, Charles S. DeHaven Jr., and Bill M. Ewing voted against the request. Lofton also expressed his disappointment that many opposition groups did not take advantage of opportunities to talke directly with Chemstone about their concerns. "Some of these issues [the groups] have were not addressed," he said. "But that's not because the quarry did not want to listen to them, but because these groups did not want to talk to the quarry face-to-face, and that disappointed me." Preserve Frederick President Wendy Hamilton issued a statement reflecting her disappointment in the decision. "This defeat for the preservation stakeholders and the local community doesn't just affect Middletown and southern Frederick County," she said. "It is a loss of irreplaceable Civil War history for the nation." — Contact Robert Igoe at rigoe@winchesterstar.com Back to Home Page Click here to review past issues of www.winchesterstar.com May 291 May 281 May 271 May 261 May M ARCHIVES Copyright OO 2002-2008 by The Winchester Star - All Rights Reserved. PRIVACY POLICY http://www.winchesterstar.com/article_details.php?ArticleID=7023 5/29/2008 TheWionheatn Star Page I of 3 'Toduy'sWeather ' Wednesday, May 28, 2008 Winchester, VA no"F ��l/'/� =-�0= »��eo C|no, zn`v^m ��� Y����r~��^����r^«� f-�� ~����-`°���LIVE ^� ' �� "�=��^ °A=�^� �� ����]��= u/.","° ,���-� .""l o/'"k for Forecast . ;' n� '�°]]mT\lodmo(c,Sior ^^^^ quarry v ~~^^r~~-^^~~^^~^^ Va. titan Sues Wn^, xw"rmmo�m Q���.mYJ���t�o Frederick /ck uua/u eyes �~F� � ' �!�������p*' `~/ /����`���� [��C}�|�O ~ Doctors: cm^ ��/mxm�^M^'x°° By Robert Igoe p/rr The Winchester Star - Winchester — The talking has ended, and now it is time for the Frederick County Board ofSupervisors to decide whether quarry will be allowed to expand it, -- ~ operations. --- The supervisors will meet at7:z5 p.m. today in the Already a subscriber to Frederick County Office Complex to discuss a request the eedibon7Click here! from o w Minerals chemstonoto rezone se4acres to the north and south o,its limestone mine near The star'nnew a-eoiuun Middletown from nvru| Areas to Extractive What's Manufacturing. Every page o[The The change would allow the company toextract high - Winchester Star delivered grade limestone from property it owns adjacent to its to your desktop. current limestone mining operation. It's the print edition — minus ,he ink on your The supervisors held a public hearing on the issue in hando. April, but postponed a vote on the request toallow ChemsLonetime Lo provide more details about Sample E-Edition transportation impacts, historic resource protection, and environmental concerns. Questions or comments More than 60residents attended the hearing Lnweigh |non�heissue MULTIMEDIA . .,,~°~~, ,,°,~~��,�� Supporters say the expansion is needed for the Get Local business to remain competitive and to prevent the loss ����� �������5: ^~ FEATURES o[jobs from the quarry, which employs zopeople. Pmered by Auctions Auto Guide Detractors fear that expanded operations would > View TV Listings Homes Guide threaten nearby historic properties, which include the BeUeGmvoP|antobnn CedarCneek8a�|ef|e|d Help Wanted' ' and family cemeteries.�apoy�apmxoox� Place Classifieds Opponents also say the company has not shown Advertising Rates enough willingness todevelop a plan that would expand Stocks mining operations in a manner that would not damage Dear Abby the historic properties. htt» cozu/az1o}n dotai|o 08 5/28/2008 The Winchester Star Page 2 of 3 Movie Listings TV Listings Other Newspapers Online Games The Star Story Engagement Form Wedding Form Anniversary Form Birth Announcement Form BYRD NEWSPAPERS The Winchester Star Daily News -Record The Warren Sentinel Shen. Valley -Herald Page News & Courier The Valley Banner *THE VALLEY SCOPE* Uii� � F�sfh ru FIR' ST_ FAY CUFF YOUR tIM5f IN AS UITUAS 1/3To L2THE TIME WITFIOU7 RaiNANCING YOUR fX.IS M5 MORTGAGE] DouGL45 H}1TT 540-550-4234 Ch— LOY FAMILY iropractic Scrime _ Insuranco Agency 540-869-4366 877-676-6467 "Rezoning would allow for the radical expansion of the quarry," said Robert Nieweg, director and regional attorney for the National Trust for Historic Preservation's Southern Field Office. "We've looked at what the quarry intends to do to protect our property, and we have every reason to believe it will be a disaster. "We're looking for an opportunity to work with the quarry's owner to accommodate growth of the quarry without destroying historic resources," he said. According to Nieweg, whose organization owns the Belle Grove Plantation, the expansion proposed by Chemstone would place blasting operations within 1,300 feet of Belle Grove's historic manor house. He said promises by Chemstone to repair any property damage caused by its operations miss the point of his organization's concern. "Our goal is for the quarry to act in a way that it does not damage our property," Nieweg said. "If historic property is harmed, there's often no way to repair it." He said concerns raised by the National Trust and other nonprofit groups have not been adequately addressed by Chemstone. One example they offer is Chemstone's offer to build 30-foot berms around the expanded quarry to shield the mining operations from view. Nieweg said his attempts to suggest an alternate shielding plan have been met with a "cookie -cutter" response from the company, which then reiterated its original proposal. Chemstone General Manager Spencer Stinson said the company has presented many opportunities for dialogue with opposition groups in the past two years, and those opportunities have been wasted. "We've met with many different people about this rezoning," he said. "And we've invited many more groups, and they have not met with us at all." Nieweg has offered to hire an independent facilitator to mediate a compromise between Chemstone and the opposition groups, which include the National Trust, the National Park Service, Belle Grove Inc., the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, Preserve Frederick, the National Parks Conservation Association, and the Civil War Preservation Trust. Stinson said he has never been presented with a compromise offer from the detractors, and only Preserve Frederick has had any direct talks with Chemstone. "There is no need for a facilitator," he said. "If they want to talk about this, they need to call us. I find it odd that there is a call for a facilitator from people who never called us." Stinson said Chemstone's latest offer — the one that will be considered tonight by the Board of Supervisors — offers many compromises, including a reduction of Ads by Google Winchester Virginia Jobs Found 481 Jobs in your area. Make $10- $100 / hour with benefits. vAvw.FastLocalJobs.com Search Winchester Homes Free Access to Search Thousands of Homes for Sale in Winchester Area vAvw.FindAHomeVA COIF http://www.winchesterstar.coiii/article_dctails.php?A-ticleID=6998 5/28/2008 The Winchester Star Page 3 of 3 rezoned acreage from the originally requested 639 acres to 394 acres; a reduction in traffic limits from 200 trucks per day to 86 trucks per day, with emergency provisions for increased traffic; and the donation of 8 acres as a historic preserve within 60 days of the rezoning's approval, rather than 12 months. "We did this in the spirit of trying to accommodate people who had concerns," he said. "We got together as a company and reduced this acreage as far as we could." — Contact Robert Igoe at ri„goe winchesterstar.com Back to Home Page Click here to review past issues of www.winchesterstar.com Ma_y 28.1 May 271 May .._201 May 24I May„23 ARCH.11 .ES Copyright © 2002-2008 by The Winchester Star - All Rights Reserved. PRIVACY POLICY http://www.winchesterstar.com/article_details.php?ArticleID=6998 5/28/2008 11 - National Trust Urges Preservation of Cedar Creek Battlefield I Press R... htip://www.nationaltrust.org/news/2007/20070313_cedarbelle.litml The National Trust for Historic Preservation The National Trust provides leadership, education, advocacy, and resources to save America's diverse historic places and revitalize our communities. Press Release National Trust Urges Preservation of Cedar Creek Battlefield Washington, D.C. (March 13, 2007) - Today, the Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT) announced its 2007 list of the most endangered Civil War battlefields, and one of the sites on CWPT's list is the Cedar Creek Battlefield, a National Historic Landmark that includes Belle Grove Plantation, a historic site owned and operated by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Following is a statement by Richard Moe, president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, responding to today's most endangered listing of the Cedar Creek Battlefield. "The National Trust is greatly concerned by the threat to each of the Civil War battlefields highlighted on the Civil War Preservation Trust's 2007 most endangered list, but as the owners of Belle Grove Plantation, we take an especially strong interest in preserving Cedar Creek," said Richard Moe, President of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. "As stewards of these lands, the National Trust is committed to ensuring that this sacred soil is not transformed into a gravel pit in the shadow of a power line." Background The threats to Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Battlefield are twofold. First, the National Trust adamantly opposes O-N Minerals' proposal to radically expand their quarry operation, which is immediately adjacent to Belle Grove. The expanded quarry, with its waste piles, industrial facilities, and heavy truck traffic, would destroy core battlefield land, compromise the National Park's scenic vistas, and degrade the area's pristine rural landscape. And second, the National Trust is seriously troubled by the proposal of Dominion Power and Allegheny Power to construct a new 500-kilovolt electric transmission line —with its 150-foot towers and 200-foot right of way —through the Northern Piedmont region in Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. Thus far, little or nothing has been done by Dominion Power and Allegheny Power to take into account the potential harm this power line would inflict on the rural landscape, local communities, and historic places along the proposed route. The Battle of Cedar Creek is an important chapter in the saga of the Civil War, and the battlefield on which it was fought needs to be preserved. About Belle Grove Plantation The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which took ownership of Belle Grove Plantation in 1964, was the first organization to provide leadership in the preservation of this 214 year -old historic site around which the Civil War Battle of Cedar Creek was fought. Today, the National Trust owns and protects 283 acres of the original plantation and battlefield, and the Trust's non-profit partner, Belle Grove, Inc. owns and protects an additional 107 acres of historic and battlefield property. The National Trust and Belle Grove, Inc. work in close coordination with their key partners, the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, and the National Park Service, to protect the 3,500-acre Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. The National Park was created by Congress with the strong support of local residents in 2002 to preserve both the battlefield and the antebellum plantation. Contact Information Phone: 202-588-6141 pr@nthp.org • Press Releases • Speeches 1785 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20036-2117 • tel: 202.588.6000 • 800.944.6847 • fax: 202.588.6038 @ 2007 National Trust for Historic Preservation. All rights reserved. Privacy Statement I Terms of Use 1 of 1 3/26/2007 11:35 AM "he Winchester Star Pagel of 3 k'r? out taxarit ' . �11 L Ph,rt r star l.�+r► � r.win,*h - t'S 00104NOWA'u%r l lil k'Ha $ - Today's Weather - Winchester, VA 63 OF Clear at 9:06 Arr:` Click for Forecast The )Vintrhester Star Deliver-E-Edition Already a subscriber to the eEdition? Click here! The Star's new e-edition What's _in._it for you? Every page of The Winchester Star delivered to your desktop. It's the print edition -- minus the ink on your hands. Questions or comments SITE FEATURES Auto Guide Homes Guide Auctions Help Wanted Lap By Lap NASCAR Place Classifieds Advertising Rates Stocks Dear Abby Movie Listings TV Listings Other Newspapers Online Games Friday, April 25, 2008 Back to Home Page Chemstone, opponents seek quarry expansion solutions By Robert Igoe The Winchester Star Winchester — Both sides in a battle over expanded quarry operations in Middletown hope a delay in a decision about rezoning 639 acres of property will result in an acceptable compromise. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors voted to table a decision to rezone the property, located to the north and south of O-N Minerals Chemstone's limestone mine near Middletown, from Rural Areas to Extractive Manufacturing because it felt the company had not provided enough information on issues such as traffic impacts, protection of historic resources, and environmental concerns. The vote on the rezoning request is now scheduled to take place at the board's meeting on May 28. Supporters and opponents have been awaiting the supervisors' decision since June 2006, when the Frederick County Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the request. One day after ApVideo . s Student Accused of h4ass-murder Plot i s Play FLDS Mothers Talk After Legal Pleas Fail it►' Play White House: N. .* Korea Assisted Syria On Nukes k ►' Play Get Local TV Listings zs Powered by ..'' m3D13 > Viety TV Listings "A Coun Holm ( F �M011e Home, ty�ev.h+s ��iaus�_ ir,P�s Lam okii�3f.,�. �!EYtt, H- 1t4�EV http://www.winchesterstar.coin/article_details.php?ArticleID=6274 4/25/2008 The Winchester Star Page 2 of 3 The Star Story Engagement Form Wedding Form Anniversary Form Birth Announcement Form BYRD NEWSPAPERS The Winchester Star Daily News -Record The Warren Sentinel Shen. Valley -Herald Page News & Courier The Valley Banner *THE VALLEY SCOPE* LOY FAMILY �<h_iropra'fticl SON05e Inauranco Agency 540-869-4366 877-676-6467 ►-. UFIRST_ E1Y0FT1UURHCf15E IN h5 U TEEAS 1P3To SiLTuETIME WiTFr= REE[NANCINC HYA 540-550-4234 Wednesday's four-hour public hearing on the rezoning request, during which 60 people addressed the Board of Supervisors to protest or defend the planned mining expansion, Chemstone General Manager Spencer Stinson discussed what comes next for his Debbie Harmon of Winchester (center) company. was among those in the standing -room - only crowd on Wednesday night at the Stinson said Frederick County Office Complex, where the the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on a rezoning request that would rezoning is allow O-N Minerals Chemstone to expand needed to its mining operations near Middletown. allow (Jeff Taylor) Chemstone to extract high-grade limestone from a recently discovered vein under its property, and is important to preserving the 28 jobs at the Middletown facility. "We have 30 days to discuss the request with county staff and officials," he said. "We want to try to work out the issues that remain." At the vanguard of the opposition is the grass -roots organization Preserve Frederick, which feels that mining the 481 acres north of Chemstone's current operations would threaten historic properties including the Belle Grove Plantation, Cedar Creek Battlefield, and two historic family cemeteries. Organization President Wendy Hamilton said on Thursday that the group is not opposed to the proposed mining expansion, just the scale of it, particularly to the north of Chemstone's current operations. "We were disappointed that there was no decision reached on Wednesday," she said. "But this does give the company the opportunity to go back and do something serious about the issues that have been brought up constantly. The size of this operation is unreasonable and needs to be scaled back." Hamilton said Preserve Frederick does not oppose mining of the 158 acres south of the current mine over a 10-year period. Stinson would not identify any particular issue as being Ads by Goople AutoCAD® 2009 The software you know and trust now with new features. Free Trial. mvmAutodesk corn/Auto CAD -Trial http://www.winchesterstar.coni/article_details.php?ArticleID=6274 4/25/2008 The Winchester Star t Page 3 of 3 the top priority that needs to be addressed before next month's board vote, but agreed that "a few" matters need to be resolved. "We've had a positive attitude throughout these proceedings," he said. "By discussion and compromise, we can always come to a decision that will work and be fair for all sides involved." — Contact Robert Igoe at rigoe@winchesterstar.com Back to Home Page Click here to review past issues of www.winchesterstar.com April 25 1 April 241 April_23 I April 221 April 21 ARCHIVES Copyright © 2002-2008 by The Winchester Star - All Rights Reserved. PRIVACY POLICY http://www.winchesterstar.con-i/article_details.php?Al-ticleID=r274 4/25/2008 , The Winchester Star Page 1 of 4 v .• y�.�ii Stout t "Rib,lili i� y "r �r hoit�s�ri�talr�� � eE 12 k V!Vinaheftf t Online —News S�au 4 tia Cliclx Hari SUBSCRIBEHOME I CLASSIFIEDS ` PAST ISSUES i I -Today's Weather- Thursday, April 24, 2008 Winchester, VA 65 OF Back to Home Page ScatteredClouds Frederick board att9:439:43 AAM Pst Click for Forecast postpones vote on 't 711e Wiuell"ter Star 1F Deliver .m.y_E-Edition quarry plan 'ffxllirxixtcrStxr Supervisors want further IP Video study r vr�Women Attacked for is Amid Record �jj nCos By Robert Igoe ► =Play The Winchester Star Search Continues for 3 missing Chicago Children .; _ flay � �a Police: School Hit ; 41 Winchester — Nearly two years after one Frederick List Uncovered County board recommended the denial of a request to Itr expand a local quarry, another board is still grappling a flay Already a subscriber to with the proposal. the eEdition? Click here! At its regular meeting on Wednesday, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on a request by O-N The Star's new e-edition Minerals Chemstone, a subsidiary of Carmeuse Lime & What's ._-in_.it foryou? Stone based in Belgium, to rezone 639 acres to the north and south of its current quarry operations west of Every page of The Middletown from Rural Areas to Extractive Winchester Star delivered Manufacturing. toour desktop. �� Get Local Y P• TY Listings It's the print edition-- After four hours of comments from citizens and111111111111111t, Pur erect by minus the ink on your company representatives, the supervisors decided to hands. table a vote on the request until their May 28 meeting. > View TV Listings Questions or comments "I believe the devil is in the details," said Supervisor Gary Lofton when the board called for a vote at 11:30 SITE FEATURES P•m. "I do not think that I am comfortable that the � applicant has provided all of the information we need. Auto Guide They are trying, but they're not there yet. In order to Homes Guide make an informed decision, I want to see the rest of Auctions this information." Help Wanted Lap By Lap NASCAR O-N Minerals Chemstone is seeking the rezoning so it F t Place Classifieds can mine some seams of high-grade limestone on g ,# property that it owns. Horne Advertising Rates Mort gage Stocks The county Planning Commission recommended denial Dear Abby of the rezoning request following a public hearing on Movie Listings June 7, 2006, during which 57 people spoke for and 1. �� COUDR r" TV Listings against the plan. Hoin Other Newspapers ( Ho trfi Chemstone says the mining operations will be , Online Games conducted with no ill effects on nearby residents or htip://www.winchesterstar.conl/article—details.php?ArticleID=6253 4/24/2008 The Winchester Star Page 2 of 4 The Star Story Engagement Form Wedding Form Anniversary Form Birth Announcement Form BYRD NEWSPAPERS The Winchester Star Daily News -Record The Warren Sentinel Shen. Valley -Herald Page News & Courier The Valley Banner ,THE VALLEY SCOPE* FAY Off YLUR HOUSE IN As UTELEAS 1l3 TO 1Y2THE TMiE )MTHOUT REFINANCING YOUR EX mt r, MOI?Ta,,od DoUGtAS H)nAT 540 55Q-9?34 _ SONrISCA Insuranco Agancy 540-869-4366 877-676-6467 LOY FAMILY hiropractic historic properties, including the Cedar Creek Battlefield, the Belle Grove Plantation, and two family cemeteries. One of the plan's chief opponents is Preserve Frederick, a citizens' group that believes no amount of safeguards can guarantee the protection of the historic properties or local water supplies. Deputy Planning Director Michael Ruddy told the supervisors that he reviewed the company's latest proffer statement, submitted on Friday, and said that while the proposal attempts to address issues regarding transportation, historic areas, noise, dust, water supplies, and other concerns, the statement is still incomplete and lacks enough specifics on how these issues would be mitigated. "We want to make sure these impacts are analyzed before this can be approved," Ruddy said. "The board must examine these mitigation efforts." In their presentation, Chemstone officials attempted to clarify the issues. General Manager Spencer Stinson said just 13 percent of the rezoned property will be used for actual mining, and that the mining will be conducted in three phases. The first phase will focus on the southern portion of the property, with operations in the northern end to begin in two additional phases beginning no earlier than 10 and 20 years later for properties north and south of Chapel Road, respectively. Once the mining is finished, Stinson said, the pits will create five lakes and reservoirs that will be used for public water supplies and wildlife habitats. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority already uses water from existing quarry pits, and Stinson said that procedure supplies 30 percent of the county's water and saves the county $1 million in water -purchasing costs. Stinson also said Chemstone provides 28 jobs that will be preserved with the rezoning near Middletown. The local company also operates mining facilities in Strasburg and Clear Brook, and has 210 people working at its three facilities. These employees earn a payroll of $10 million annually, Stinson said. In the latest proffer statement, he said, the company agreed to limit its vehicle traffic to 200 truckloads per day, averaged over 30 days, and to limit access to the facility to its current entrance on McCune Road. Stinson also said the county government would have immediate access to company records to verify compliance with the traffic limits. Among other proffers, Stinson said Chemstone has promised to provide: * Three groundwater monitoring wells. Home a ww,hc.m�kt;xx.trE l:raoki�g�f�arf�; Ada by Goode ff i i Country Inn at Highview Enjoy the fall colors with us Jacuzzi & fireplaces in rooms! mAm.thecou ntryinnathiglry Your Virginia0—uarry since 1915. Ask the Stone Experts Use our Project Wizard for help. www.FrazierQuarry.coin/ http://www. winchesterstar. com/article_details.php?ArticleID=625 3 4/24/2008 The Winchester Star Page 3 of 4 * Earthen berms around active quarry pits, which would be 10 to 30 feet in height and be covered with decorative vegetation. * Assurances that the rezoned property would be used for mining operations only. * Creation of an 8-acre historic preserve. * An architectural survey of all properties in the rezoned areas prior to any mining operations. * Preservation and maintenance of the historic Nisewander and Tabler family cemeteries on the property. Of the 400 residents who attended the public hearing, 60 signed up to speak. Several of the speakers were Chemstone employees and their families, who praised Chemstone as a responsible and generous employer. "Chemstone is a good neighbor and a good friend," said Kermit Orndorff. "When I wanted to build a home for my family, they gave me stone. Two of my children were awarded scholarships through Chemstone. When I was a Girl Scout leader, they opened their hearts and sponsored a trip for us. They donated stone for a parking lot at the church where I worship. I'm one of many people they helped." Mary Rutherford, a truck driver from Berryville, said the company is an important employer. "We need to keep these quarries open," she said. "This company puts food on a lot of people's tables — not just employees, but companies that work with them. What will people do when stone isn't available to build their homes?" Among those who opposed the request was Millbrook High School junior Calvin Hunt. "Frederick County is a great place to live," he said. "I want to live here and raise a family. But I want to live in a place that protects its natural and historic resources. These resources would be destroyed before my children would be able to enjoy them." Richard Dye, who owns property adjoining the rezoning area, worries how the operations would hurt his future plans. "I hope to build my retirement home on this property, and sell 5-acre lots to other people who have the same dream," he said. "This proposal means that those houses can't be built." Two supervisors, Philip Lemieux and Bill M. Ewing, opposed tabling the rezoning request. Lemieux said that after waiting two years to take action, and enduring a four-hour public hearing, the residents deserved a final decision. htip://www.winchesterstar.coin/article_details.php?ArticlelD=6253 4/24/2008 The Winchester Star Page 4 of 4 "There are enough flaws in this proffer statement," he said. "I'd rather see this denied, but able to come back within a year." "These people have waited two years for an answer," Lofton said. "To put it off another year or so isn't right." Attending the meeting in the Frederick County Office Complex were Lofton, Lemieux, Ewing, Richard C. Shickle Sr., Gene E. Fisher, Gary W. Dove, and Charles S. DeHaven Jr. — Contact Robert Igoe at rigoeCalwinchesterstar.com Back to Home Page Click here to review past issues of www.winchesterstar.com April 24 I April._23 1 April 221 April 211 April 1.9. ARCHIVES Copyright © 2002-2008 by The Winchester Star - All Rights Reserved. PRIVACY POLICY http://www.winchesterstar. com/article_details.php?Al ticleID=6253 4/24/2008 The Winchester Star Page 1 of 4 HOME I SUBSCRIBE I CLASSIFIEDS I LINKS I COMMUNITY j CONTACT US I PAST ISSUES _4 - Today's Weather - Winchester, VA 46 OF Clear at 9,21 Ani ,'_` ' Click for Forecast 7ite Wirichuster Star Del.iver._my._ E-Edition '+�� '1'tn:ll'itklu�ltr Slur 0 =_ E�,4 Already a subscriber to the eEdition? Click here! The Star's new e-edition What's_ in__.t for you? Every page of The Winchester Star delivered to your desktop. It's the print edition -- minus the ink on your hands. Questions or comments Auto Guide Homes Guide Auctions Help Wanted Lap By Lap NAscAR Place Classifieds Advertising Rates Stocks Dear Abby Movie Listings TV Listings Other Newspapers Tuesday, April 15, 2008 Back to Home Pa4e Quarry roadblock removed Majority of Middletown councilors support rezoning request By Jessica J. Burchard The Winchester Star Middletown — The Town Council will not oppose O-N Minerals' application to rezone 639.19 acres of land for a limestone mining operation near Middletown. On Monday night, the council declined to support a proclamation made by Councilor Marshall J. "Mark" Brown, who objected to 0-N Minerals' revised proffer statements distributed at an informational meeting on April 2 at the Wayside Inn. He was one of 80 residents to attend that meeting. "The proffer is very clear," he said. "The proffer has not changed significantly. O-N has not gone any further." The revised statements feature a phasing plan for future limestone mining operations and restoring two historic cemeteries. Other council members said on Monday they now support the rezoning application because of the revised proffers. "I think they've done a better job. I went over Joseph Ferrell, vice president/manager of O-N Minerals, looks over the company's limestone quarry southeast of Middletown on July 3, 2006. The firm is seeking a property rezoning that would allow it to Poly amist Mothers Speak Out About Sep trnhort ` Play Web Clues Lead Officials to Missing 3 41:16ne , t'lay Delta, Northwest Agree to combine a Play vow ar. h e me b iisz<i n to loottingifor�°.a <NEVii�HUME?; http-/iwww.winchesterstar.com/ai-ticle_details.plip?ArticleID=6021 4/15/2008 The Winchester Star Page 2 of 4 Online Games [the proffer The Star Story statements] mine another vein of limestone in southern Engagement Form this Frederick County. The request goes weekend," before the Board of Supervisors next Wedding Form Martha H week. Anniversary Form "Marty" (Scott Mason) Birth Announcement Form Ingram said --------------------------------------------------- at the council's meeting on Monday night. "I think BYRD NEWSPAPERS they've really made an effort to do the thing their The Winchester Star neighbors have asked them to do." Daily News -Record The Warren Sentinel As an example, she pointed to the statement's offer of Shen. Valley -Herald free pre -blast surveys of property within 1,500 feet of Page News & Courier the rezoned property's boundaries. The Valley Banner The surveys will be done by an independent -THE VALLEY SCOPE* engineering firm, and O-N Minerals will monitor all the ................................................... blasting and keep records as required by the Virginia Division of Mines, Minerals, and Energy. (UFIRST FAY"OFF YOUR HOUSE IN "The only concern I have in all of this is the increased AS LF"2THES I/3TO'V2THETIhtE traffic, gram sawould o see them " In id. "I ld like tthdispense WITHOUT REFINANCING trucks in different directions." YOUR O:ISnNG moFTGAGIA DOUGL95 HYATT t- s4a55a4234 ,:� The proffer statements in the rezoning request limit truck traffic to 200 truckloads per day over a 30-day period. O-N Minerals would keep a record of all truck traffic in and out of its expanded mining area. WIr15C� Insurance Agency The Frederick County Board of Supervisors is expected 540-£69-4366 to make a decision on the rezoning request at its 877-676.6467 meeting on April 23. Representatives from O-N Minerals Chemstone, the t' Pennsylvania -based corporation's local branch that is I seeking to mine a new vein of limestone near its current quarry in southern Frederick County, anticipate the board will have a lot of questions. Body Dialed Up! "We are going to do a full presentation on the project," Ut1-BROOut YoutUnt3, said Bill Hardigg, O-N Minerals spokesman. "We will Callfor IM11111el have experts there to answer questions and speak C1LOYFAMILY about the issues." 1iropractiC In addition to the experts, Hardigg said he and O-N Minerals Chemstone General Manager Spencer Stinson and legal council Ty Lawson will attend the supervisors' meeting. O-N Minerals, a division of Carmeuse Lime & Stone based in Belgium, now operates limestone mining operations near Middletown, Strasburg, and Clear Brook. This marks the second time Chemstone has come to county officials with the rezoning request with a list of proffers — incentives offered to governing bodies to lessen the impact of development. In 2006, the county Planning Commission recommended denial of the original request. The revised presentation to be offered on April 23 will include copies of the new proffer statements and maps of the area. Ads by Goo$ie M"i"Vi Argentina Gold Historic Inca gold mine to be reworked with modern technologies ,wuw.SolteraMining.com htip://www.winchesterstar.coi /article_details.php?ArticleID=6021 4/15/2008 The Winchester Star Page 3 of 4 The maps will show how the phasing of the project is expected to lessen concerns of residents living near the quarry. currently in use at the O-N Minerals According to Chemstone quarry near Middletown. the proffer (Scott Mason) statements, O-N Minerals will wait 10 years after rezoning is approved to begin mining in the area south of Chapel Road. The company will wait 20 years to quarry the property north of Chapel Road. "It is unusual for an industrial -type project to be done in phases," said Lawson, an attorney with the firm of Lawson and Silek, which is representing O-N Minerals. "I'm not sure how the Board of Supervisors will view it.,. Phasing was added to the rezoning request to allow time for earthen berms to be created. The berms will have 10 to 30 feet of vegetation to act as a barrier between the quarry and the town. About 80 percent of the property to be rezoned will be left open or leased to farmers. Even with the phasing and other revisions to the proffer statement, some residents plan to speak out against the rezoning at the meeting. "This is a historic town. This is an economy that thrives," said Wendy Hamilton, a volunteer with Preserve Frederick. "To turn it into a mining operation with trucks rumbling through it every day is just not acceptable." Preserve Frederick is a nonprofit organization established in April 2006 to oppose the Chemstone quarry expansion. It has about 300 members from across the county in its database. The organization has suggested an alternative to O-N Minerals' mining plan. Preserve Frederick's Plan B would remove 533 acres on the north end of the Cedar Creek Battlefield from the rezoning application, and allow for limestone mining on 158 acres of land in the southern parcel. Hamilton sees Plan B as a fair compromise. "We know change has to happen, but let's do it in a way that makes sense," she said. Brown, members of Preserve Frederick, and other opponents plan to attend the Board of Supervisors http://www.winchesterstar.com/article_details.php?ArticleID=6021 4/15/2008 The Winchester Star Page 4 of 4 meeting to ask the county to deny the rezoning application. "What took place tonight leaves me extremely disappointed that the mayor and council members are not out there defending the town," Brown said on Monday after his proclamation died for lack of a second. "I plan to be [at the board meeting] to oppose it.,, O-N Minerals has a hotline that residents can call with questions about the proposed expansion of its Middletown limestone mining operation. The number is 540-465-6807. — Contact Jessica J. Burchard at jburchard@winchesterstar.com Back to Home Page Click here to review past issues of www.winchesterstar.com April _151 April 141 April 121 April 11 IApril_1.0 ARCHIVES Copyright © 2002-2008 by The Winchester Star - All Rights Reserved. PRIVACY POLICY htip://www.winchesterstar.coin/article_details.php?ArticleID=6021 4/15/2008 The Winchester Star Page 1 of 2 f , - Today's Weather - Winchester, VA 56 OF Overcast at 8:31 AM zv \ ���.,� Click for Forecast Tlfc NVincliester Star Deliver_my E-Edition Already a subscriber to the eEdition? Click here! The Star's new e-edition What's in it for you? Every page of The Winchester Star delivered to your desktop. It's the print edition -- minus the ink on your hands. Questions or comments Auto Guide Homes Guide Auctions Help Wanted Lap By Lap NASCAR Place Classifieds Advertising Rates Stocks Dear Abby Movie Listings TV Listings Other Newspapers Online Games Wednesday, April 23, 2008 Back to Home Page Middletown police are worried about large itrucks By Jessica J. Burchard The Winchester Star Middletown — The Middletown Police Department has a growing concern about large trucks and tractor - trailers parked in the town's residential neighborhoods. Police Chief Phil Breeden suggested at a Town Council Committee meeting on Tuesday changing a town ordinance to limit where the vehicles could be parked. "We have a discrepancy here that needs to be corrected," Breeden said. Ordinance 8-10.1 prohibits vehicles weighing more than 2,000 pounds from parking on any residential streets. "I think what this was meant to do was to keep larger trucks and trailers outside of residential neighborhoods," Breeden said. "It needs to be reworded to include any area designated as residential." Councilor Marshall J. "Mark" Brown said he is worried about completely changing the ordinance. "My issue is that I would like to see a variance given to a rig owner," he said, referring to professional drivers who park their trucks at their homes. Breeden, however, does not support exemptions to the proposed ordinance change. "I've got four truck drivers on Cypress Way within five houses of each other," Breeden said. "It just sort of escalates." All the trucks are parked in the driveways of the homes, but the drivers' early -morning departures disrupt the sleep of other people living on the street, he said. Prosecutor S.C. Student Faces WMD Charge lli Play Mail Carrier Saves Falling Baby P ' •^ , ►-, Play Jake Long Signs with Dolphins play Home M Alortgage Get Local TV Listings { Powered by 1.7 > View TV Listings W71, vavx.hamshusX info Low okingfora http://www.winchesterstar.con'I/article_details.php?ArticleID=6213 4/23/2008 The Winchester Star Page 2 of 2 The Star Story Engagement Form Wedding Form Anniversary Form Birth Announcement Form BYRD NEWSPAPERS The Winchester Star Daily News -Record The Warren Sentinel Shen. Valley -Herald Page News & Courier The Valley Banner *THE VALLEY SCOPE* S�lY[15e Insurance Agoncy 540-869-4366 877-676-6467 ,bfF YOUR HOUSE IN AS LFFM AS t3 TO 112THE TIME IHOUI REFINANCING DOUGLtS HYATT iroprdCtl Town Maintenance Supervisor Donald Riffe said he used Lo drive a truck, so he sympathizes with the drivers. "My complaint is that you're dead tired and you have to find a place to park," he said. Brown suggested the committee consult Town Attorney Stephen Butler for advice on amending the ordinance. Butler was not in attendance on Tuesday, because he only attends regular meetings of the Town Council. Attending the Town Council Committee meeting in the Town Offices were Brown, John A. Copeland, and Mayor Gene. T. Dicks. Councilors Martha H. "Marty" Ingram, Mary Shull, Donald Breeden, and Gerald D. "Dave" Sinclair Jr. were absent. — Contact Jessica J. Burchard at jburchard@winchesterstar.com Back to Home Page Click here to review past issues of www.winchesterstar.com Ap..ri.l.. 23 1 April 221 April 211 April1.9.1 April_ 18. ARCHIVES Copyright © 2002-2008 by The Winchester Star - All Rights Reserved. PRIVACY POLICY Ads ay taOo$le }%j'1% Homes WinchesterVa View thousands of homes for sale in Winchester, VA. Fast & free! homegain.com http://www.winchesterstar. com/article_detail s.php?ArticleID=6213 4/23/2008 The Winchester Star littp://www.winchestei-star. com/TheWincliesterStar/0703 13/Area—wait. asp Weather - Winchester, VA 46 °F / 8 °C Mostly Cloudy at 6:40 AM -. f Click for Forecast TODAY'S FRONT PAGE (PDF File) 011u'L F,E Xe URN,0 Homes Guide Auto Guide Auctions Help Wanteds Lap By Lap ru m Place Classifieds Advertising Rates Stocks Dear Abby Movie Listings TV Listings Online Games Other Newspapers The Star Story ---------------------------- BYRD NEWSPAPERS The Winchester Star Daily News -Record the Warren Sentinel Shen, Valley -Herald Page News & Courier The Valley Banner cT'11G V ALL13Y SCOPE � ---------------------------- Vir_ginia's Travel Information Service WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA US I PAST ISSUES You are currently logged in as mike ruddy Click Here to Logout Tuesday, March 13, 2007 AbOVidoo Back To Home Page Woman Attacked by j NYC's Public Enemy Wait continues for decision °N 1 Play on Middletown quarry General Pace fails expansion ;... � Play ° Missing Georgia Boy, Probable Abduction By Mark R. Dorolek °► Play The Winchester Star Winchester — Residents waiting for Frederick County %"�� \. CO officials' decision about a quarry expansion request Wit ��OITI7must wait a little longer.M011�' V'FFFFFFFFF�e More than nine months have passed since the county Planning Commission recommended that O-N Minerals' rezoning request be denied — and a couple FAITI-I more months may go by before any new information is TEMPLE available, said Bill Hardigg, who was hired by the C1 ntISTIAN CHURCH limestone mining company to handle communications. Winrr,esrei; Virginia "I would like it to be sooner rather than later," he said. i O-N is trying m'`t..• _ to have 639.13 .;; i acres rezoned so it can continue its 'limestone extraction operation just — - - - .._.._.--......_........._ outside Joseph Ferrell, vice president and general Middletown. manager of O-N Minerals, looks over the Chemstone operations in Middletown last August. "We are going (Photo by Ginger Perry) through the process and i working with the county," Hardigg said. 1 of 4 3/13/2007 8:41 AM The Winchester Star http://www.winchesterstar. com/The W inchesterStar/070313/Area wait. asp He said county officials have asked O-N for details about the mining operation and the phasing of work if the rezoning gains approval. O-N is working on detailed maps that would show county officials the future sites of mining operations. Hardigg said two veins may be mined, but mapping them is difficult because the company must drill multiple holes to find the exact location. "The area between the veins will be a little fuzzy because we just don't know definitively where it goes," he said. Since the paths of the veins are not exact, a question remains about the land that would be disturbed by the mining operation, Hardigg said. "For example, it may be that 30 acres will be disturbed, but the total amount disturbed is not going to change," he said. Hardigg said the location of the veins will not affect what happens on the property and that the berms planned to shield the view of the operation from residents are still required. O-N is also evaluating a new traffic study. Hardigg said the original study was flawed and O-N is trying to schedule a meeting with the Virginia Department of Transportation to discuss the new study. The original study estimated that the quarry expansion would more than double vehicle trips — from 506 a day to 1,305. "With the new proffer, that brought the count down," Hardigg said. O-N has agreed to cap 200 truckloads per day (averaged over one week) for limestone loads filled at the site. — Contact Mark R. Dorolek at mdorolek(d,winchesterstar.com Back to Home Page Email this article to a friend I Valley Health by �bY�xm�r e! t�k slu-mandoalr 2 of 4 3/13/2007 8:41 AM The Winchester Star http://www.wiiicliesterstar.com/TlieWiiicliesterStar/0703 13/Area—Wait.asp Ads by G000000gle Stephens City Real Estate Search Stephens City, VA MLS Listings Without a Realtor! www.homesclub.com Winchester Virginia Jobs Looking to find Virginia jobs? Visit our Virginia jobs guide. Virginia-Jobs.info Winchester Va Real Estate Searchable Home Listings Database for Winchester, Frederick Co. Va www.drewvanlaeken.com Homes Winchester Va Find all Winchester, VA homes for sale. Maps, MLS & more. homegain.com 3 of 4 3/13/2007 8:41 AM The Winchester Star hap://www.wincliesterstat-. com/The W inchesterStat-/070313/Area wait. asp Click here to review past issues of www.winchesterstar.com Today I March 12 1 March 10 1 March 9 1 March 8 1 March 7 1 March 6 ARCHIVES Copyright © 2002-2007 by The Winchester Star - All Rights Reserved. PRIVACY POLICY This site was designed by Iveka MGMOM Ads by Google Blythewood Estate Gorgeous views of Blue Ridge Mtns. 7000 sq. ft; 20 acres; in NoVA blythewood esta te.com Advertise on this site 4 of 4 3/13/2007 8:41 AM The Winchester Star littp://www.wiiicliestei-star.com/TlieW iiicliestei-StarIO60830/Opiiiioil_d... s - - Today's Weather - You are currently logged in as mike ruddy Winchester, VA Wednesday, August 30, 2006 72 -F / zz -c Mostly Cloudy Back To Home Page at 9:00 AMA� , Click for Forecast a VLl? SITE FFEATURESDebr Homes Guide Yes, but still something different Auto Guide about O-N Auctions Help bl+anteds of Ili many ways, we've been here before — and too many Lap By �c>tlt Place Classifieds Place las I times, it seems. The bonds linking the proposed O-N ergi las Rates Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning near Middletown and Stocks those involving Cardinal Glass and The Shockey Dear Abby Companies in the not -too -distant past provide a certain Movie Listings sense of d6jA vu. Three times in the past eight years, Tel Listings industry has faced off against citizenry stridently Online Games opposed to either its expansion or its mere presence. Other Newspapers But, on due consideration, the Chemstone proposal is The Star Story ---------------------------- different than the other two. For starters, O-N Minerals BYRD NEWSPAPERS is an established industry wishing not so much to The Winchester Star expand its operation as to continue it — on land on Daily News -Record which it holds a 99-year lease. By way of contrast, The warren Sentinel Cardinal Glass, a firm with no local history, desired to Shen. Valley -Herald ' build a new plant here. And J. Donald Shockey, though Page (dews & Courier one of our own, sought to construct a new high-tech The Valley Banner I industrial park. In these latter cases, a palpable fear of THE VALLEY SCOPE the unknown — even in the case of Mr. Shockey __-________________________ fueled the opposition. O-N Minerals is a known � quantity. s But just as O-N's proposal is different, so, too, this go -around is the coalition aligned against it. The folks Virginia's Travel comprising the Preserve Frederick group are more Information Service organized than the Save the Valley contingent formed to fight Cardinal Glass, and are far less shrill than the I foes of Mr. Shockey. This group has done its homework and, as such, has raised the bar of opposition. Hence, the dialogue we've witnessed, not only on the this page but in two public meetings conducted by O-N, has on the whole been more civil, more congenial than t:�'aatreiat=x;£t:xr, �+irs�i��i:€ EM Ernesto Hits Florida Heads North Ernesto Makes Landfall in Florida Keys Colorado Orders Karr Back to California US Offbeat I Entertainment World, I Technology ICaught On Tape THE PICCADII LY PRINTING CO3MPAIv`Y Free Home Buying & , R Building Seminars REGISTER NOW. 1a�Yi'LDUIy) t}}irrttOm I of 4 8/30/2006 9:32 AM The Winchester Star http://www.wincliesterstar.com/TlieWinchesterStar/060830/Opinion_d... those in years past. Both parties are to be commended — O-N for going the extra mile, and its opponents for not doing so. Let us explain. The Chemstone folks have scheduled no less than three public meetings to present its proffer statement and answer questions. They also will conduct tours of their limestone quarry in an effort to allay the concerns of neighbors. By the same token, those opposed to the planned rezoning of 639.13 acres have come armed with knowledge and, for the most part, well -reasoned queries — and not so much with pointed barbs. Has the debate been contentious? Yes, at times it has. That's to be expected, particularly given what's at stake — livelihoods in limestone on the one hand, home and hearth on the other. O-N wants to continue mining its stone. Its neighbors do not want it done in their own backyards. Still, neither side has shown itself to be totally beyond constructive criticism. O-N, perhaps because it has never through such a rigorous process, must hone its message and avoid statements that appear contradictory. Its representatives — principally Vice President Joseph Ferrell and Middletown operations manager Spencer Stinson — have ably stressed that the company's intent is simply to continue its mining operations. But we're somewhat surprised that they have not emphasized the timeline for development, particularly as it concerns those northernmost portions of the 639-acre tract that abut the Westernview subdivision. The impression we've received is that property -owners in this area believe quarry development will take place almost immediately, should the rezoning be approved. The fact of the matter, at least as we see it, is that O-N will not begin mining that land for at least another 25 to 30 years. For the most part, rezoning foes have couched their opposition deliberately, clearly, and cogently. Their questions have been penetrating. But their enthusiasm slouches toward officious hectoring when their comments and questions suggest a knowledge greater than the professionals who extract limestone for a living. Finally, the absence of a certain third party has clouded what otherwise have been two largely productive public meetings. Six years ago, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority signed an agreement with O-N i i I Valley Health 2 of 4 8/30/2006 9:32 AM The Winchester Star littp://www.wincliesterstar.com/The W incliesterStar/060830/Opinion_d... granting it the rights to any water left in the quarries once mining operations are complete. What's more, it's been stated that the FCSA will defray the costs of this rezoning application. This arrangement has prompted many queries about what may lie in store — public utility plants, for instance — for the acreage in question. Yet, the FCSA has not graced these meetings with its official presence, the result being that Mr. Ferrell has been left to respond to inquiries best answered by the authority. Mr. Ferrell assured those assembled that FCSA Engineer -Director Wellington Jones would answer any and all questions if contacted by telephone. If this is true, we ask Mr. Jones to be as forthright in his responses as Mr. Ferrell has tried to be in the former's glaring absence. Not only do O-N's opponents deserve such consideration, but so, too, do the folks at the quarry and the FCSA's rate -paying clients. Back To Home Page Have an opinion you want to share for publication as a Letter to the Editor in The Winchester Star? Now you can e-mail us your letters. In the message subject line, please write "letter to the editor." The same guidelines apply as for handwritten or typed letters: They must be no more than 150 typed legibly written words. All submissions to the editorial page must include the author's name, address, and telephone number. All letters are subject to editing. Writers who want their work to be considered for publication in Open Forum, The Star's reader -written opinion column, should limit their submissions to no more than 500 words. Please include "Open Forum" in the subject line of the message if submitting by e-mail. You may also write us at: The Winchester Star Letters to the Editor 2 N. Kent St. Winchester, Va. 22601 Back to Home Page Email this article to a friend Discover the new VOL 3 of 4 8/30/2006 9:32 AM The Winchester Star http://www.wincliesterstar.com/TheW inchestei-Stai-/06083O/Opinion_d... Click here to review past issues of www.winchesterstar.com Todd I Aug. 29 1 Aug. 28 1 Aug. 26 1 Aug. 25 1 Aug. 24 1 Aug. 23 ARCHIVES Copyright© 2002-2006 by The Winchester Star - All Rights Reserved. PRIVACY POLICY This site was designed by Iveka Ads by G000000qle Classified Ads Go beyond online job searching. 274 local companies and growing. www.marketlO.com New Lux Single Fam Homes $50K Incent. Move In Now or Build Nat. Gas, 1 min from 1-70, Hag. MD www. manorhousebuilder: Virginia New Homes Search new homes in Virginia. Find builders, loan quotes & more. www.homes.com Classified Ads Check your local classifieds. Find cars, housing, jobs, pets, more! www.00dle.com 4 of 4 8/30/2006 9:32 AM The Wi)�le<R0 Star littp://www.winciiesterstar. coin/The W inchesterStar/060621 /Area_auth... IV it V!inchesier, virgilrin CONTACT US 1 PAST ISSUES I I' Welcome to The Winchester Star 11, - Today's Weather - You are currently logged in as mike ruddy Winchester, VA Wednesday, June 21, 2006 61 °F j 16 °c Clear Back To Home Page at 6; 40 AM J Click for Forecast --� Authority Pays Application Y _7 PP ��°I URE Homes Guide Fee For O-N Minerals In Auto Guide Auctions I Lease Accord Help Wanteds Lap By Lap lusc%R Place Classifieds By Mark R. Dorolek Advertising Rates The Winchester Star Stocks --- — Dear Abby Dear The Frederick County Sanitation Authority admitted to MoviI Listings TV Listings paying the application fee for the O-N Minerals, which Online Games runs the Chemstone quarry near Middletown, at Other Newspapers Tuesday's meeting. ---------------------------- BYRD NEWSPAPERS When asked by Middletown resident Paul Clevenger The Winchester Star whether the Sanitation Authority paid the application Daily News -Record fee, Engineer -Director Wellington H. Jones said they The Warren Sentinel did. Shen. Valley -Herald Page Valle &Courier NewThe Jones said it was part of a lease agreement with O-N Valley Banner Minerals that was reached in March of 2000. I "Instead of paying them up front, they said, `This is what we want'," Jones said. Eric R. Lawrence, planning director for the Frederick Virginia's Travel County Planning and Development Department, said Information Service the Sanitation Authority is an independent government agency so it can enter into agreements without the approval of the Board of Supervisors. At its June 7 meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend the denial of the rezoning request. The ultimate decision will be made by the Board of Supervisors. Sanitation Authority member Darwin S. Braden said it f Associated Press Tap Headlines • Another One of Saddam's Lawyers Killed • North Korea Wants Direct Talks With U.S. • al-Qaida Video Shows Alleged 20th Macker • Bush Begins Talks With European Leaders • Japan Agrees to Lift Ban on U.S. Beef Sports Headlines • Miami Heat Win NBA Championship • Groups C and D Championships Up for Grabs • Heat Arrive Home With the NBA Trophy U.S. Considers Intercepting North Korean Missile Growing Arizona Wildfire Closer to domes Heat Blaze Back to Win NBA Finals i US I Offbeat I Entertainment World l Technology lCaught On Tape In Your Opinion I of4 6/21/2006 9:03 AM The Wikhestet Star http://www.wiiicliesterstar.com/TheWiiicliestei-Star/06062 I /Area_auth... is not unusual for them to enter into these types of agreements involving quarries. "The quarries are unique and they are used as storage for us," Braden said. Braden said he did not know what the cost of the application fee was. He said a natural flow of groundwater into a quarry would be good for the area. "That would hold this community for a long while," Braden said. "A few wet summers and you would have water for a long time." O-N Minerals is requesting to rezone 639.19 acres to continue its limestone mining operation. Under the agreement with O-N Minerals, the Sanitation Authority would have access to the water once the mining was complete. In the application, the Sanitation Authority states that it supports the rezoning request. Officials from O-N Minerals could not be reached for comment. Back to Home Page Email this article to a friend With the Newest Restaurants Opening Are You... O Happy With the Options O Hoping for More Choices 0 Weary from the Long Waits 0 Wondering if Anyone Cooks Anymore Vote Now! View Stats ' V`, ~ e..`k TI-IF PICCADILLY PRINTING COMPANY ply-, Online _ wW*=rIUlduacom P'`�`f f, 2 of 4 6/21/2006 9:03 AM COMMENTARYT - Quarry Expansion Rezoning Would Endanger Battlefield By JEFFREY M.CARTER In regarding the 0-N Minerals (Chemstone) expansion in Middletown, I. would like to express my concern for Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historic Park, should the application for rezoning be approved. The application before the Frederick County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors proposes the rezoning of 639.13 acres of land adjacent to the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historic Park. This land is currently un- developed and zoned rural agricultural. If the application is approved, the land will be zoned for extractive manu- facturing and used to expand the current quarrying operation that is visually in- trusive from the park itself. If this ex- pansion takes place, the National His- toric Park will suffer greatly. While waste piles, silos, dust clouds, bright lights, and noise currently pollute the historic setting and panoramic mountain views from the battlefield grounds, an expansion this significant would devas- tate the national historic park. The sites for the proposed new quar- ries are expansive and historically signif- icant. I believe much, if not all, of the property in question was originally slat- ed to become part of the national his- toric park because of its significance. While I am uncertain why this prop- erty was unable to be included in the fi- nal boundary of the park, I do know that uses such as extractive manufacturing should not be allowed on ground that plays such an important role in our na- tion's history. Uses allowed with extrac- tive manufacturing zoning include the extraction and processing of minerals, concrete and asphalt manufacturing plants, water treatment facilities, and other uses that are inappropriate for OPEN FORUM battlefield land. The applicant has docu- mented plans for a water treatment fa- cility as well as numerous large-scale mineral extraction pits as deep as 250 feet beneath the ground our ancestors fought and died on. The historical significance of the pro- posed quarry site is well documented. Custer's decisive flanking attack on John Gordon was staged there. The site of Merritt's bivouac, the ruins of the 18th- century Nieswander's Fort, and many other historical sites and staging areas will be eradicated if quarrying is allowed to move forward. Historians and ances- tors of those who fought in the battle re- trace the steps of the soldiers each day. Quarrying on this large a scale would be among the most detrimental land us- es for the battlefield area. The ground that plays such a significant role in the history of the Civil War would literally be removed, leaving the land unrecogniz- able even after reclamation. We have reached a turning point with the Cedar Creek battlefield. The current quarrying facility has been in operation for many decades and has only a few years of extracting .left until the desired minerals from the site are exhausted. We can either take a stand, put a stop to the expansion, and eventually reclaim the scenic views for future generations to enjoy, or allow it to happen and watch our national historic park decline in sup- port and public interest. All who respect the importance of the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historic Park should urge the supervi- sors to deny this rezoning application. Open Forum is a column available to Star readers to ¢ddress a subject o their choice. Jeffrey M. Carter is a resident of Middletown. .It Inside Get to know Warren County. SHERANDO A SURE THING Sports, ci Mucp,d ado about it inch Vdley Scene, D1 Residents square off with Chemstone on proposal for quarry Grass -roots group concerned about impact on air quality, historic resources By Becky Krystal Daily Staff % riter M DDLETOWN — One side says it's only trying to continue the quarry work it has been con- ducting for years. The other says that kind of industry is incom- patible with its way of life. The showdown between 0-N Minerals Chemstone Co. and residents opposed to its rezon- ing application in Frederick County will likely occur at an upcoming Planning Commis- sion meeting. The application calls for 639 acres spread out on two parcels west of Middletown — they sand- with Chemstone's current opera- tions — to be converted from the current "rural areas" zoning to extractive manufacturing. One parcel, bisected by Chapel Road (Va. 627), is east of Belle View Lane (Va. 758) and west of Hites Road (Va. 625). The other property is bounded by Cedar Creek, the Shenan- doah County line and Meadow Mills Road (Va. 624). "All we're trying to do is rezone that property to contin- ue the mining operation that already exists," namely the extraction of limestone ore, said QUARRY A5 7 144 ET IM _ [ 1 `ti 4.F ,2 �' t �;? a. M.• x.l r.. 1 - N.... LCil...... tu- y Two trucks turn onto 5th Street from Main Street in Mid- d?etovurn toward the Q-N Minerals Co.'s Chemstone quar- ry this week. Some residents are concerned about an increase in truck traffic it the quarry expands. House rejects budget, will, try again next week By Garren Shipley . Daily. Staff \k-riter RICHMOND Virginia's budget process is moving for- ward again, but the clock is E back into a conference commit- tee. Legislators from the House and Senate have agreed to get back to work next week and try to come up with a deal. Legislators have until June Northern Virginia. copyright © 2006 Shenandoah Publishing House, Inc. Conspiracy to commit securities . and wire fraud Securities fraud Wire fraud False statements to auditor insider trading Former Enron executives Jeffrey Skilling, left, and Ken Lay, Skilling convict By Erin McClam -11ie Associated Prcas HOUSTON — All along, Kenneth Lay, Jeffirey Skilling and their high- octane lawyers contended that the notion of a prodigious fraud that infected and ultimately took down opinion begged to And on Thursda; In a devastatini Skilling were conv criminal counts, in cy to hide the fa company by sellin mism to Wall Stre security and reflects our humanity," said Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., McCain's partner in the Senate compro- mise. "It is intended to keep out those who would harm us and welcome those who contribute to our country." Quarry Continued from Al Spencer Stinson, Chemstone's general manager. Residents, some who have banded together to form a grass- roots campaign called Preserve Frederick, couldn't disagree more. They say many issues — air quality and historic resources among them — have spurred their efforts to defeat the rezon- ing. "You cannot narrow this down to one bullet point," resident Wendy Hamilton said. "It's too huge." Frederick County resident Julie Clevenger said she has spo- ken to others who are upset about a potential increase in trucks traveling through town, citing the transportation impact analysis submitted by Chem - stone that under one scenario estimates 1,305 average vehicle trips per day, up from 506 now. "That service study does not reflect what we expect," Stinson said. "You do a `what if,' and the `what if, is what's the worst." Clevenger said other concerns include blasting and the impact on wells. "What could be more incom- patible with a strip-mining oper- ation than an adjacent residen- tial area?" resident Jeff Carter said. "We absolutely expect to be able to co -exist with neighbors," Stinson said. He said Chemstone or its pred- ecessors have owned the land in question since the mid-1970s. Frederick County Deputy Planning Director Michael T. Ruddy said most of the houses in the surrounding subdivisions were built between 1996 and 2000. That 'time frame raises the question of whether residents should have been aware that they were moving near a quarry that could expand -in the future. ,'We knew that [land] was zoned rural," Hamilton said. "The county allowed the hous- es to come in" knowing the land was owned by Chemstone, Cle- venger said. "Frederick County needs to step up to the plate and protect its residents, Carter said. . The sides may never meet before the scheduled public hear- ings. "We see our application being misquoted or put in the worst light possible," Stinson said. "None of those people [who have established a Web site against the rezoning] have ever contact- ed us." "We're waiting for him," Carter said of Stinson. The Planning Commission is scheduled to consider the rezon- ing June 7 at 7 p.m. in the board room of the county administra- tion building. ► Contact Becky Krystal at rkrystal@nvdaily.com JUNIORS Hr �rS� Ikr>¢ 11 SWIMWEAR 4/ i i From Island Soul , Body ID and, more Reg. 54.00=88.00, k ' SALE 39 99-65 99 i�r ;k. t CIM W z SALE1. £` ENTIRE STOCK SAN QALS For the entire family. Every brand! Every style! Every color! Reg. 25.00-60.00, SALE 15.99-49.99 GUYS SHORTS From Levi's', Supply Company', Sun River', more. Reg. 20.00-40.00, SALE 12.00-24.00 400/o OFF GUYS SCREEN TEES Graphic and humor tees; Corona', OCC', more. Reg. 18.00-24.00, SALE 10.80-14.40 500/o OFF BOYS 2T 20 SHIRTS From Graphite'. Knit and woven styles. Reg. 16.00, SALE 8.00 30 0 o 04 F F INFANTS TAKE -ME -HOMES ' I B b ` Cree ers dress sets MEN'S AMERICAI SHIRTS From Sun River Knit and woven styles. M-XXL. Reg. 26.00, SALE 14.99 ■ From Specla ty a y . p 1 1 =` and more for baby. Reg. 16.00, SALE 11.20 Just a sample of the savings you will find. Interim markdowns may have been taken. .}. OFF ALL DAY + Bonus VIP Points � 1IM'S FORMAL WEAR " 10% I1VP� Available through special order when you open a new credit card account.' f3T"" " ` at most Peebles stores. ELM -Subject to credit approval. Exclusions apply. Royal Plaza Shopping Center- Front Royal Luray Shopping Center- L Monday to Saturday 10-9 • Sunday 12-5 Monday to Saturday 10-8 • Sund,, VV 1CiVuJ' CUJU LG 11110UC111CQ11V1 I.VLLIIW S11C 11taravVi11VVU 1VV11CU 1111C L.11C CU IV 2L11 al; Richard .Cook's motive, and yVhow of destruction of property. Air Force dropped a MOAB on it," The moistur authorities allege he caused the Jan. Cook's attorney, Tim Coyne, asked Ambrogi said, referring to the massive off valve on State refuses mining request O-N Minerals had wanted to resume Chemstone work By Sally Voth Daily Staff Writes STRASBURG — 0-N Miner- als' request to resume lime- stone mining operations at its long -dormant Chemstone quarry just south of Strasburg hasn't been granted by the state, for now. About a year ago, 0-N Min- erals applied for a surface - mining permit from the Vir- ginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy. It wants to mine five days a week, plus some Saturdays, extracting roughly 300,000 tons of.high- calcium limestone each year. Residents living close to the abandoned Strasburg Junction mine, near U.S. 11, have expressed concerns that if Chemstone is allowed to re- open its quarry, which hasn't been in operation in 30 years, there will be traffic, noise and dust problems, and that their water could be affected, as well as the value of their homes. A determination was made on the application a couple days ago and sent to Chem - stone, according to Conrad Spangler, director of the Divi- sion of Mineral Mining of the Department of Mines, Miner- als and Energy. "That determination has been done based on the appli- cation as we have it and the concerns that we have heard from the residents around the mine," he said Friday. "There are some items that the com- pany will need to address in a CHEMSTONE,A3 "THERE ARE SOME ITEMS THAT THE COMPANY TO ADDRESS ... IN THIS APPLICATION WOULD BE ABLE TO APPROVE IT. CONRAD SPANGLER, DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF MINERAL MINING OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MINES, MINERALS AND ENERGY After 34 years, soldier's family will bury Dennis Grundman/Daily Linden resident Darlene Wooldridge goes through a notebook con- taining memorabilia of her brother, Calvin C. "Grady" Cooke Jr., who was killed in Vietnam in 1972. After 34 years of uncertainty, Cooke's remains have been returned to Wooldridge and her family. Kissinger acknowledged U.S. could live with By Calvin Woodward 71ie Associated Press WASHINGTON — Henry Kissinger quietly acknowledged to China in 1972 that Washington could accept a com- munist takeover of South Vietnam if that evolved after a withdrawal of U.S. troops — even as the war to drive back the communists dragged on with diplomacy r mounting deaths. Washington President Nixon's envoy told Chinese Security Ar Premier Zhou Enlai, "If we can live gathered frc with a communist government in the goverm China, we ought to be able to accept it and obtain) in Indochina." group's deck Mssinger's blunt remarks surfaced in Kissinger', a collection of papers from his years of ;ON, #�LU#%ER FOR A HUMANITARIAN GROUP THAT TRIES TO PREVENT DEATHS AMONG ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS Explosion Continued from Al result of the blast and stayed at the facility for about six weeks. The suspect then left and went to stay with a rela- tive in Rochester, NX. The investigation took several more weeks before a grand jury indicted him May 4. His mother-in-law, Gail Wood, testified that he, called her and said he would surren- der to authorities. Cook was arrested May 4, according to court records. Wood said Friday that she 'has known Cook for about 13 years and that he could live with her at 108 Buchannan Drive, a proposal Ambrogi protested. "The citizens deserve better," the prosecutor said. She said a person could not see Cook's property from hers about five houses away. Her home uses electricity and not natural gas, she said in response to a question from Ambrogi. Wood also testified she spoke to two neighbors about the pos- sibility of her son-in-law stay- ing with her. "I spoke with one beautiful man who said, `God has forgiv- en him and I have also,"' Wood said. Chemstone Continued from Al larger. or greater manner in this application before we would be able to approve it. Those things are items that generally were highlighted for us through the public hearing and public involvement process that we've just com- pleted." There's no time frame on when Chemstone must com- plete changes or provide addi- tional information in its appli- cation, Spangler said. "That's really under their control at this time," he said. People living within 1,000 feet of the mine were notified of Chemstone's intention, and given time to lodge complaints. A public hearing was held in April. According to a statement of findings from Gary Barney, a hearing officer with the Divi- sion of Mineral Mining, resi- dent concerns included dam- age to wells, homes and septic systems from blasting; the pos- sibility of flyrock; possible landslides; decreased property values; heavy truck traffic; and health problems from noise and dust. On the issue of property val- ues, the division has no regula- Rich Cooley/Daily file A firefighter walks at the scene of the Jan. 30 house explosion in Stephens City. "Were you aware of the amount of damage done to these homes ... and you don't think he poses a danger to himself or the neighborhood?" Ambrogi asked. "I think at the time he was, but I don't think so now," Wood replied. tory authority, the report says. It recommends that 0-N Min- erals turn in additional infor- mation on landscaping, drain- pipe installation and how it will prevent tracking debris on the road at its entrance on Green Acre Drive. The division lists various steps Chemstone must take involving dust -control, noise - control, water impact, traffic, landscaping and how it will handle blasting complaints from nearby residents. Reached at his office Friday afternoon, Spencer C. Stinson, general manager for 0-N Min- erals' Chemstone operations, had no comment other than that the company plans to fol- low through on the recommen- dations and continue with the permit process. ' Green Acre Drive resident Janet Heishman, who has been vocal in her opposition to the resumption of mining, was relieved by the state agency's findings. "I'm really glad that they're looking into this stuff, because I told them in one of my letters that considering the number of [mining] accidents that have happened in Virginia and West Virginia, I think they need to take a really hard look at how However, when asked if she would put her house, assessed at $225,000 to $250,000, up for her son-in-law's bond, she said she could not. That response, coupled with the charges, spurred the judge's decision to deny the motion for bond, Prosser said. The judge granted Coyne's motion to have his client undergo'a psychological exam. Prosser ordered Cook to return to court July 6, though Coyne advised the test may not be complete by then. ► Contact Alex Bridges at abridges@nvdaily.com What comes next The"Virginia Department of -onto the public road. 'Mines;.Mherals; and -Energy's ., Division of Mineral Mining has" ►-Provldln lan,for han-:� .' " , 9 a p provided ON Minerals dling water;supply com- „(Chemstone) "with steps It plaints should take before it can . �► Doing a site; assessment on`. obtain a permit to" mine a *the effects, of noise on adja- `Jimestone guarry.south,oIf . ,��: cent, residents;:"and including Strasburg: , ". ` . actions that might be taken "include:: ,above buffering, comparative. 'These �; "workelevation-and screening;, Preparing.a blasting plan berms ,that.includes procedure'- lp- " Detailing predicted: effects " it.wil(use for.handling blasting `, of dust,: describing wind;direc- :complaints; prior notification` tion and speed, and how dust ofblasts'to neighbors;'se,is- willbe controlled."Ways to,, �mic monitoring of blasts, ' lessen the effect include wet videotaping blasts; a=list of suppression and berms, limit- observed holidays and'how it:°..'ing.the amounfof,acres,dis- , "Will "preVent;flyr'ock turbed:at one "time and the ►; Submitting"information'on use.of tarps:' how it plans, to landscape the ► Submitting more informa- entrance from Green Acre':-'. ."tion on�how ifwill"restrict. Drive and how it will prevent: ' . access to the quarry and how, debris from being tracked. �-. it will b& screened., , these safety issues are being taken care of," she said. "I don't mind playing this waiting game. The longer the state takes, the better a job I figure they will do." ► Contact Sally Voth at svoth@nvdaily.com Chemstone blasting br*ing'S,M0re.,c*om-p1a'ints FrederickCounty supervisors have yet to consider plan to expand operations By Becky Krystal Dailj, Staff VItiter WINCHESTER — A rezon- ing application that would allow 0-N Minerals Chem - stone to expand its quarry operations has yet to formally reach the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. But that status has not pre-' vented contention over what impact current blasting may be having on properties near the Middletown operation, particu- larly following a blast in late November. Michael ' D. Abbott, public relations manager for the Vir- ginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, said his agency received six complaints about Chemstone between Nov 30 and Dec.18. The identity of. complainants is confidential, but Chemstone officials . and others. have acknowledged recent discus, sions about concerns arising fi•om blasting. Chuck Conner, assistant dis- trict engineer for the Lexing- ton field office of the Depart- ment of Environmental Quali- Quarry. Continued from 131 unavailable for comment. Meanwhile, resident Paul Kisak said the water flow to his home went dry the same day the campground noticed its problem. "We stopped getting water into the house," he said. Kisak and Stinson exchanged communications about the situ- ation. Msak, Who has several engi- neering degrees, discovered that a pipe running between his well and home had sheered in two places. He believes the breakage may have to do with Chemstone. "I can say that it's consistent with a violent ground shock wave, but honestly I definitely cannot say convincingly that they caused -it," Kisak said. "But it is consistent." He said this is the second time he has dealt with that ty Office of Drinking Water, said the owner of Battle of Cedar Creek Campground contacted his office when the facility's water supply dropped off after the blast in question. Chemstone's general manag- er, Spencer Stinson, said the company was also contacted about the campground's water problems, which prompted the owner to close for several days. Stinson said Chemstone had a well -drilling company come to the campground. He said Chemstone paid for the well pump to be lowered. The campground's owner, Randy L. Orndorff, was QUARRY B3 kind of fracture in the past eight years at his home off Chapel Road, where he has lived since 1992. Stinson doubts either the campground or Kisak's prob- lems resulted fi•om blasting. He said Chemstone gave Orn- dorff the benefit of the doubt because "he's in reasonable proximity to us [and] we under- stand his concerns," but the company is skeptical about Msak's claims. "If the pipe was in our quar- ry, then yeah," he said. "But he's almost two miles away." "We tend to. experience. the most intense' and the farthest distance of the blasting," Kisak said. "All of a sudden it feels like We just experienced an earthquake." Stinson said he thinks com- plaints from the quarry's neighbors are tied to Chem- stone's rezoning application, stating that Msak and others are "engaged in a campaign of harassment." "Suddenly, there's this ava- lanche of complaints," he said. "... We haven't changed any- thing in our operations." Abbott said'his department is investigating the six com- plaints it received, one of which mentions loss of water and five of which list vibra- .tion and property damage concerns from blasting. Stinson said work continues on a proffer statement for the rezoning. "Right now we don't have any requests to get it back in front of the board of supervisors," said Michael T. Ruddy, Freder- ick County's deputy planning director. Contact 'Becky Kiystal at rkiystal@nvdaily.com The O-N Minerals Chemstone quarry near Middletown is shown in August. A rezoning application that would allow O-N to expand its operations : has yet to reach the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. Alan Lehman/Daily file m m m -` n The y w & ti rn_ — e, co co 0103 Y, NOVEMBER $, 20C Quarry's goal: Being good neighbor by opencer C, Stinson Hardly a day goes by that somebody doesn't ask us about the status of the Middletown Quarry rezoning. That is not surprising, given the impor- tance of limestone quarrying to the local economy, agriculture, environmental protection and human health. This September we received a letter from the group Preserve Frederick outlining its own alternative zoning plan to 0-N Minerals for our Middletown Quarry property. We sent them a written response in Septem- ber, as they requested. We were surprised, therefore, when they went public last week to express their disappointment that the process has gone on for more than a year and that we do not "want to look very close- ly at an alternative rezoning plan." I think it's important to clari- fy our company's position. But first I would like to point out that 0-N Minerals, as the owner of the property, deter- mines the timing of this rezon- ing application. We will submit our plan when we feel it is ready. I would also like to point out that 0-N Minerals has held three public meetings with local residents and many pri- vate meetings with stakeholder groups. We have published revised proffers to address these issues. Preserve Frederick has pro- posed that .0-N Minerals rezone only the southern parcel of the property and adopt the recommendations of the Fred- erick County Planning Depart- ment to mitigate traffic and other impacts around the southern- parcel. In fact, we have already gone beyond the recommendations of the plan- ning staff in our revised prof- fers. What concerns_us about the Preserve Frederick alternative rezoning plan is that it shows a great deal of emphasis on buffers for our neighbors around the northern parcel of our property but not similar treatment for our neighbors around the southern parcel. Throughout this process, we have made commitments to all - our• neighbors about truck traf- fic, buffers and screening. The neighbors around the southern parcel adjoin our truck route and our crushing and screening equipment. They deserve con- sideration in any rezoning plan. The proffers we have pub- lished will place a limit on trucks of 200 loads a day at the scaleliouse, averaged over a weekly basis. The proffers include limits on blasting. They contain extraordinary guaran- tees for the wells and founda- tions of all property owners within 1,500 feet of our proper- ty lines. They eliminate many allowed industrial uses of the property. They provide environ- mental guarantees and include the donation of historically sig- nificant properties. These prof- fers were developed in consul- tation with our neighbors and stakeholder groups, and we are working on several open issues with the parties concerned. Another concern we have about the Preserve Frederick alternative plan is its insis- tence that "historic resources associated with the Battle of Cedar Creek are concentrated on Parcel 83 A 109" (the north- ern .parcel of our property). Actually, the area of signifi- cance is approximately eight acres on the southern parcel, which we have already pledged to donate for study. To call our northern parcel significant, and prevent our use of it, is to 'exercise the worst kind of double standard. No significant fighting took place there. However, the town of Middletown recently allowed a townhouse development to go forward on the ground where the main afternoon battle was fought. Limestone quarrying has been done in Middletown since Pioneer days. The Middletown Quarry has been operating for more than 50 years, and with the deposits remaining on this property, it can continue to operate at the same pace for 50 years or more. The Middletown Quarry produces the best qual- ity limestone in the Eastern United States. It is the prover- bial "goose that lays a golden egg," providing high -quality industrial jobs, a healthy profit and a resource essential to human health and the environ- ment. We firmly believe we can negotiate on all the issues sur- rounding this rezoning with specific engineering and legal safeguards. We will submit a rezoning application when we are satisfied that we have gone as far as we reasonably can on every issue. We want to protect this resource. We respect our neigh- bors and will go out of our'way not to inconvenience them. We are willing to meet with," answer questions and negotiate with any individual or group that has an interest in this rezoning. Stinson is general manager of 0-N Minerals' Chemstone oper- ation. About. `bust' and other words o f art By James J. Kilpatrick A request comes to hand from Don Hollister of Asheville, N.C. He' asks for • a ruling on "bust," both as noun and verb. Is an old order changing; yielding place to new? He cites to a news story about an illicit drug operation that was "busted" by federal agents. In a separate incident, an ABC reporter in New York City cov- ered the near panic that result- ed from the "busting" of an underground steam pipe. Thie ,o . ..._i __. . ... achieved respectability, but it is creeping in that direction. In polite company, the verb of choice is still "to burst." Hearts have been bursting for eons, and bombs have been bursting in air : since the national anthem first was badly sung. Troubadours still burst into song. In last month's floods, rivers "burst" from their banks. As a noun, "burst" dates from 1610. IIt provides a workable rhyme for first, cursed and dur•st. Otherwise, not much can be said in its behalf dates from the bosomy sculp- tures of the 1700s. A century later its usage began to expand like a bra size. Poe perched his raven upon that pallid bust of Pallas. Eliot had kindly thoughts of the maiden, uncorseted, whose friendly bust gave promise of pneumatic bliss. Over the course of 150 years, the noun gradually has come to mean "a spree; a hearty drinking session, as in 'beer bust'; a complete. failure, flop; a busted trusts; overachievers have busted their guts; 'and many a poker player has suc- cumbed to a busted flush. To get back, at last, to reader Hollister: Except -to define the female bosom, "bust" is slang. And slang is a first cousin to "argot" and "jargon." In certain contexts,_ for certain reader- ships, such informality is not merely acceptable, it's expect- ed. For whom do .we write? Once we answer that question, we will know w},Ptl,n,, . :_ The Winchester Star ,. Page 1 of 3 F - � ,, � -�_ ; � orri�i� as h� � w� +rt + etar tat Winohestafs Online; News Sot ro� �ti, • •:CLASSIFIEDS I LINKS I COMMUNITYCONTACT Weleoine to The, Winchester Sjjrk11,tft year `- - Today's Weather - Winchester, VA 66 OF Clear at s:s8 AM A Click for Forecast ' The Winchester Star Delivermy_ E.-Edition ��'t1K 1lirxixst,r $!nr I k 4 im�{3 (`� ?f lei';i Already a subscriber to the eEdition? Click here! The Star's new e-edition What's..in.._it for vou? Every page of The Winchester Star delivered to your desktop. It's the print edition -- minus the ink on your hands. Sample E-Edition Questions or comments MULTIMEDIA Auctions Auto Guide Homes Guide Help Wanted Lap By Lap NASCAR Place Classifieds Advertising Rates Stocks Dear Abby Friday, June 20, 2008 Back to Home Page Historical groups at odds over rezoning By Drew Houff The Winchester Star Front Royal — Bad blood between two partners likely will continue, at least in the near future, if Thursday morning's meeting of the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park Foundation is any indication. The National Trust for Historic Preservation and Belle Grove Inc. announced on Wednesday that they would sever ties with the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation due to the Civil War group's failure to oppose an expansion of a quarry near the battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation property south of Middletown. At Thursday's meeting, Linden "Butch" Fravel, a member of the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, sat behind Elizabeth McClung, the executive director of Belle Grove Inc., but the two did not speak. Fravel, in fact, left the meeting following a presentation on the ecology of the park, which includes Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek battlefield. McClung, who stayed, said after the meeting that she was disappointed in how the two park partners have strayed from trying to accomplish things together. She said the values shared by the preservation groups are essential to the character of the park, making it important for them to work together. "We are losing open space, historic land, and the context for historic sites along the way," McClung said. "Therefore, it's really crucial for groups whose missions are to preserve historic and natural resources to closely collaborate. "That time has long passed for a small nonprofit to stand alone and unilaterally take action. It's really very strangely naive and misguided for any one, small nonprofit to single-handedly believe they are protecting and speaking for a whole group." McClung said she was concerned that the Cedar Creek Beating, Officer Fired ;Y+Play Nariners Fire clarcri r : Play Students Suspended IT Over Prank o ?► Play ete-rsxwr_� LIVE q:05Ah4 ET: Sing 60d'a 610rjl4 July 28•Aug. 1, 2008 Fire: 1j.11M I. e0'a31et C+.wol V'136tor Iy Jtlt; I, i 8j.k sv_e tIMC EST ?i?£S FREE HOME SEARCH f a r %OTTV (u M011we Get ti < TV Listings PDwered by ;,_ ... Cl" UAIS > View TV Listings http://www.winchesterstar.com/article_details.php?Aj-ticleID=7517 6/20/2008 The Winchester Star Page 2 of 3 Movie Listings TV Listings Other Newspapers Online Games The Star Story Engagement Form Wedding Form Anniversary Form Birth Announcement Form BYRD NEWSPAPERS The Winchester Star Daily News -Record The Warren Sentinel Shen. Valley -Herald Page News & Courier The Valley Banner *THE VALLEY SCOPE* hLOY FAMILY ero ractic W�l rAugufflMINIfFfiffm See Loth our upper and lower showrooms!I Battlefield Foundation had voted two months ago not to use Belle Grove's property for this year's re-enactment of the Battle of Cedar Creek, which will be held in October, but had never bothered to inform anyone from Belle Grove of the decision. On Wednesday, Fravel said the foundation had spent about $70,000 over the past five years renting land from Belle Grove for the re-enactments, so the foundation's vote was a cost-cutting measure. McClung disputed that figure on Thursday, claiming that Belle Grove had only charged about $5,000 per year, making a total of about $25,000. This year's re-enactment will still take place on the foundation -owned battlefield. Belle Grove will host its own activities during the event, but independent of the foundation. The fallout between the two groups stems from the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' recent rezoning of property owned by Carmeuse Lime and Stone, which plans to expand the limestone mining operations of its Chemstone quarry near Middletown. Belle Grove Inc. claims that in April, the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation reversed its opposition to the quarry expansion, then cut a deal with the quarry owner to accept a land gift of 8 acres. "We feel that the actions of the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation group compromised the ability of a larger coalition of nonprofit groups to have any input or leverage on the quarry application, and that's what is so disappointing about it," said McClung, whose Belle Grove Inc. opposed the expansion. "Because they had a signed agreement none of us knew about, they settled for crumbs on the table rather than be able to sit up at the table with all of us, including the quarry and the county, to find really equitable solutions that would have helped the quarry grow and all of the nonprofits in the national park grow inside as well." In a telephone interview Thursday afternoon, Rob Nieweg, director of the southern field office for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which owns Belle Grove, said his organization had ended its relationship with the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation for the foreseeable future as a protest. McClung said the decision not to participate in this fall's Battle of Cedar Creek re-enactment does not mean Belle Grove will not be a part of the event in the future. In other business on Thursday, the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park Advisory Commission heard a report on streams, plants, and wildlife within the park from Shenandoah University professor Woodward Bousquet. Bousquet said a biological assessment done by him and his students tried to use methods utilized by federal organizations to determine water quality. Ada by Goode M M, 4 Sale in Winchester eBay Dropoff & Instore Consignment Simple & Fast Way to Buy & Sell wwwAsaleinwinchesler.co 10 Rules for Stomach Fat Obey these 10 Idiot Easy Rules & Drop 9 Ibs every 11 Days. www.FatLoss41diots.com http://www.winchesterstar.com/article_details.php?ArticleID=7517 6/20/2008 The Winchester Star Page 3 of 3 The aquatic survey studied fish as a measure of water quality, with healthy fish demonstrating healthy streams, including Cedar Creek. Bousquet said some fish do not tolerate any pollution, so the absence of those fish may indicate problems. Other fish, he said, only eat insects, so their absence shows that insect life is gone from that stream. Plant life, Bousquet said, also helps to explain conditions, as pollution, toxins, animals, and invasive plants can lead to the absence of indigenous plants, trees, or shrubs. Wood turtles are rare in the region, and box turtles have become more scarce, but people can find both within the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, he said. Attending the commission meeting at the Warren County Government Center in Front Royal were McClung, Fred Andreae, Mary Bowser, Patrick Farris, Diann Jacox, Randy Jones, Howard Kittell, Sarah Mauck, Rick Redmond, Gary Rinkerman, Pam Sheets, and Dan Stickley. Also attending were Fravel, Bob Grogg, and Chris Stubbs. Gene Dicks, Jim Smalls, and Kris Tierney were absent. On the Internet... www.nps.gov/cebe — Contact Drew Houff at dhouff@winchesterstar.com Back to Home Page Click here to review past issues of www.winchesterstar.com June 20 1 June _19 1 June 18 1 June 17 1 June_16 ARCHIVES Copyright © 2002-2008 by The Winchester Star - All Rights Reserved. PRIVACY POLICY http://www.winchesterstar.coin/article_details.php?ArticleID=7517 6/20/2008 1% The Winchester Star Page 1 of 3 77-24 . & ` x « .., o(Inester znu-,rder ilro 7r5l Sri � VVInch Bt .St T. li �tl h 3 is Wine News Source;, Cli�k,Her�a f -Today's Weather- Thursday, June 19, 2008 Winchester, VA 60 OF Back to Home Page ApV Scattered Clouds plantation foundation ��� at s:16 AM ;:., : Levee Proteirtatajor Town �y From ar Flooding .Tit"`k for Forecast part ways due to �� ii►=play 'rc il-inchc4ter Star Deliverm E-Edition disagreement over ofSeWoodstoWit Rest ______..y_—.. of Season With Tam t;'f;,'" - Ligament quarry y 1�;,'tiK 11irKixslt«rSltir n Amid Health .IaReidetsSart Clean Up By Eric Beidel :+►' play The Winchester Star •.. ....— a.. c„x�..:.._, .:.�..._ae.caawau_zu k..sm.�-.m,.zn_> :>.._.�::�-ate,- - u. ..: .,.. _ .sssww 9 P partnership , Middletown — A longtime reservation artnershi � � a has been threatened by a beef over expanded mining operations near the Cedar Creek Battlefield. i= _- The National Trust for Historic Preservation and Belle FRTEHdhttS*H. Already a subscriber to Grove Inc. have announced that they will end any the eEdition? Click here! involvement with the Cedar Creek Battlefield Elam Foundation.aS. The Star's new e-edition What's..in_.it for you? The Belle Grove Plantation, located on the battlefield south of Middletown, dates to the 18th century, and its CN�� Every page of The board of directors had allowed the use of its property t Winchester Star delivered by the Battlefield Foundation for its annual Civil War re- f3ing 004'�, 610ry1 200 to your desktop. enactment activities. Juiy2'`tPq' 1'$ It's the print edition-- riftttlrtxcdMm;rw;xCnnrc--; Wr,ch,„�:oa. Y,r is minus the ink on your Rr}IrtrrtvJOY }5,21005, Belle Grove will no longer allow the use of its property t ,r>:>J.5, 4 WC, hands. by the foundation because of the foundation's position on the quarry expansion, according to a press release Sample E-Edition issued Wednesday by the National Trust. Questions or comments "We certainly respect the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation's past contributions to the stewardship of the battlefield," said Anne Buettner, president of Belle MULTIMEDIA Grove Inc.'s Board of Directors. "But we cannot silently and passively overlook the foundation's recent actions, 'T��� which were taken unilaterally and without the prior ^/j}[ ES F knowledge of its partners in the overall preservation Auctions effort. Auto Guide Homes Guide The Belgian mining conglomerate Carmeuse Lime and _ Help Wanted Stone recently won rezoning approval from the f`1� Lap By Lap rvascaR Frederick County Board of Supervisors to expand its limestone mining activities at its Chemstone quarry, r Hp'i'iE Place Classifieds located near the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Moftw Advertising Rates Historical Park south of Middletown. -••-- Stocks Dear Abby Belle Grove Inc. claims that in April, the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation reversed its opposition to the http://www.winchesterstw.com/article_details.php?ArticleID=7480 6/19/2008 The Winchester Star Page 2 of 3 Movie Listings TV Listings Other Newspapers Online Games The Star Story Engagement Form Wedding Form Anniversary Form Birth Announcement Form BYRD NEWSPAPERS The Winchester Star Daily News -Record The Warren Sentinel Shen. Valley -Herald Page News & Courier The Valley Banner *THE VALLEY SCOPE* See both our upper and lower showrooms! PAYOFF YOUR HOUSE IN AS LITTLEAS W TO 112THET1ME � 1N1'7TFLOLr1 MiNANCING YOUR DUS UN MORTGAG' DOUGLAS HikTT'r.-''' 540-550-4234 to LOY �Ahi hiroprac'1LYtic quarry expansion, then cut a deal with the quarry owner to accept a land gift of 8 acres. "We took no stance" on the quarry expansion issue, said Linden "Butch" Fravel, who serves on the Battlefield Foundation's board. "There was no communication with Belle Grove on this, that was the problem." Fravel said his board voted two months ago to not use the plantation's property for this October's re- enactment of the Battle of Cedar Creek in an effort to save money. He said, the foundation had spent about $70,000 over the past five years renting land from Belle Grove for three days each October. The foundation will still hold re-enactments on its more than 300 acres of battlefield property. "I'm disappointed," said Mike Kehoe, another member of the foundation's board. The gift from the quarry owner "deals with a lot more than 8 acres," he said. "We did what was best to protect the property." Preservationists have argued that the expanded mining operation would harm views and eat up historical land. Blasting from the mine could damage historical structures, they say. Buettner said that Cedar Creek Battlefield representatives took actions that "undermine the efforts of their partners and that jeopardize the region's treasured historic sites." Belle Grove will continue to use its site to host events commemorating the 1864 battle, but will do so independently of the Battlefield Foundation. "I'm sorry they took that position," Kehoe said. "We certainly don't want to alienate ourselves from any of our partners. I guess there's a lot of fence -mending to do, because there's still a lot of battlefield to preserve." A phone message left for the Battlefield Foundation's executive director, Suzanne Chilson, was not immediately returned on Wednesday night. — Contact Eric Beidel at ebeidel@winchesterstar.com Back to Home Page Click here to review past issues of www.winchesterstar.com June.19.1June. 18,1June 171June._16IJune 14 ARCHIVES, Copyright © 2002-2008 by The Winchester Star - All Rights Reserved. PRIVACY POLICY Ads by--ioo le Shenandoah Valley Pottery Visit the Authority on Shenandoah Valley Pottery www.shenandoahpottery .corn http: //v,ww.winchesterstar. com/article_details.php?ArticleID=748 0 6/19/2008 4 The Winchester Star Page 3 of 3 http://www.winchesterstar.con-i/article_details.php?ArticleID=7480 6/19/2008 Page 1 of 3 Mike Ruddy From: WJHMADD84@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 1:31 PM To: mruddy@co.frederick.va.us Subject: Sec L. Preston Bryant/Apr 26, 06 letter Dear Mike, In reviewing Sec. L. Preston Bryant's, (VA Secretary of Natural Resources) to Julie Clevenger on April 26, 2006 it appears the DHR has addressed historic resources on the 2 O-N parcels north and south of Chapel Rd, specifically in paragraphs 7 and 8. This letter is in the O-N file at the County PD office. (para 7)" Additionally, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) has been tracking the rezoning application for several months. On December 20, 2005, DHR advised the Frederick County Department of Planning through its History Advisory Board that the proposal had the potential to result in significant adverse impacts on archaeological and historic resources located directly in the parcel in question. Accordingly, DHR recommended that the County require the applicant to conduct an assessment of all archaeological and historic architectural resources within the parcel before taking action on the rezoning application. Based on follow up discussions with the County's planning staff, it is DHR's understanding that the County is likely to require O-N Chemstone to undertake such an assessment. (para 8)Be advised that if wetlands are affected, such an investigation may be required of O-N Chemstone pursuant to Section 106 of the National Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, as a condition of receiving a federal wetlands permit from the Corps. If the project comes to be defined as a feral undertaking, the Corps, would be required to consult with DHR, and DHR would consider in its review and recommendations not only the effect of the project on historic resources located on the development parcel but also the potential visible impacts of the development on nearby historic property such as the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation." According to the way I read Sec. Bryant's letter Frederick County already has a document from him (DHR) pertaining to the historic resources. Also, I've included below sections of the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites and in conversation with our experts, this clearly identifies not just troop movement on the 2 upper )-N parcels, it was turned the course of the battle and is very relevant for protection by the County because if rezoned - it will be forever lost. I noticed that in the Ezell report they still insist on using maps from 1864. The Nieswander Fort, even though buried deep in the report is an important piece in Frederick County's history. The very eloquent spin doctor for O-N, Bill Hardigg was very quick to dismiss this issue at the Wayside meeting last week. As were Mr. Stinson and Mr. Lawson. Clearly, they don't want anyone to look to deeply into that report. I did. I'll be in touch. Did you have any success in finding a way to scan the report and finally be able to send it? I know that there are several very interested in getting it. If not, we'll pay for copying. Thanks, Wendy Hamilton President, Preserve Frederick - 869-5024/664-6352 4/9/2008 Page 2 of 3 http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abp_p/shenandoahlsys3-15.html http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abp)/shenandoah/systab15.html Campaign: Sheridan's Valley Campaign Principal Commanders: [c] Lt. Gen. Jubal A. Early; [u]Maj. Gen. Philip Sheridan, Maj. Gen. Horatio Wright Forces Engaged: [c] Five infantry divisions (Gordon, Wharton, Ramseur, Pegram, Kershaw), two cavalry divisions, about 15,265; [u] Three infantry corps (Wright, Emory, Crook), two cavalry divisions (Merritt and Custer), numbering 31,944. Casualties: [c] 2,910 (320k/1,540w/1,050m); [u] 5,665 (644k/3,430w/1,591m) Significance: The battle of Cedar Creek dealt the crushing blow to the Confederacy in the Shenandoah Valley and, together with William T. Sherman's successes in the Atlanta Campaign, spurred the reelection of President Abraham Lincoln. The battle can be ranked in size and intensity with the battle of Opequon (Third Winchester) and both are included among the major battles of the Civil War. The Confederate surprise attack at Cedar Creek is considered one of the most daring and successful maneuvers of its kind and is studied by military theorists today. It was a feat "unduplicated" during the Civil War. General Sheridan's arrival on the field of battle to rally his broken troops passed into American verse and folklore as "Sheridan's Ride," and offers a dramatic example of the effect of charismatic leadership. Rarely have the scales of victory and disaster swung to such extremes during battle: the morning's brilliant Confederate success was transformed into a Union victory by day's end. Phase Eight. Cavalry Maneuvers/Collapse of CS Left: About 1500 hours, Merritt advanced on the Union left, putting pressure on the CS right flank north of Middletown. Heavy US skirmish lines forced CS skirmishers back on their main line along the Miller's Mill Road and west. Custer maneuvered into position on the US right flank, confronting Gordon's men near Middle Marsh Brook. About 1530 Custer's division of cavalry and elements of the XIX Corps advanced against the CS left flank (Gordon and Kershaw), which was hanging in the air. Custer continued extending west beyond Middle Marsh Brook, thinning the CS line. He then launched a powerful attack that overran and scattered Gordon's division. The Confederate line now began to unravel from west to east, putting additional pressure on Ramseur's command at the center. Current Condition of the Battlefield In spite of the damage wrought by interstate highway construction, encroaching development in the vicinity of Middletown, and a large-scale quarry along Middle Marsh Brook, the integrity of Cedar Creek battlefield is high. The battlefield core is very large, extending from Hupp's Hill to rte. 633 north of Middletown, and from the North Fork Shenandoah to Middle Marsh Brook. The study area encompasses the initial Confederate position at Fisher's Hill. Perception of Threats to the Battlefield The quarries along Cedar Creek and Middle Marsh Brook are large- scale operations that are gradually working northeast along the valley. It appears that the quarry company owns land all the way to rte. 627 and possibly beyond. If continued north another half mile, this quarrying will eradicate the ruins of 18th-century Nieswander's Fort, site of Merritt's bivouac and George A. Custer's decisive flanking attack against John B. Gordon. The quarry works are visually intrusive from various parts of the battlefield. Identified Sites and Features Associated with the 4/9/2008 Page 3 of 3 Battlefield Nieswander's Fort Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. 4/9/2008 Page 1 of 5 Mike Ruddy From: WJHMADD84@aol.com Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:15 AM To: elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us Cc: mruddy@co.frederick.va.us Subject: Re: clarification on BOS email Hi Eric, Our thoughts (core group and Preserve Frederick Board) remain the same - 639 acres is not acceptable. Am pasting in the NoVa Daily article from today's paper. 80 graves located on side where Nieswander Fort was demolished by the company in the 1980's - now they say it must have been a prominent and respected family to have had a 3 story stone home. Stones were dumped all over the county, I've had several people tell me that. There's a huge, huge, pile of stones on the Tabler property - don't know where they came from - whether it was a big stone fence they tore out or the original Tabler homestead - or stones from the Fort. I don't know how old the 2 story wood frame house is. The old stone spring is still standing. Tabler cemetery has 11 graves identified in Archives at Handley Library. Henry Brewer, born early 1800's is a new stone unearthed there and not documented in the Archives. How many more are there? Wendy Hamilton 869-5024 Monday, March 31, 2008 Uncovering history: Some family cemeteries better preserved than others By Josette Keelor -- Daily Staff Writer MIDDLETOWN — Many residents of Frederick County already know about some of the cemeteries rooted in the county's history, but they might not be familiar with the many smaller, historic graveyards nestled along lesser -traveled country roads or on farmland. Though some of the cemeteries are well preserved, others have fallen into disrepair over the years, making a cemetery's history difficult to uncover. "I just think that [it] is very important to preserve these places as much as you can, because they disappear so quickly," says Lois Marbert, of Centreville, a descendant of the Carper family, whose graves have been preserved in Carpers Valley Cemetery in Winchester. Even though those buried there are not Marbert's direct relatives, she says that the preservation of the cemetery, which dates back to the 1870s, is important to her. Other valley residents with ties to the cemetery, agree. 101 Spencer Stinson, general manager of Chemstone, kneels beside headstones at the Tabler family cemetery on the company's property on the west side of Middle Marsh Brook west of Middletown. Chemstone recently hired an archaeologist to research this site and an older site, that has not been identified, to preserve the two cemeteries near its 3/31/2008 Page 2 of 5 "It's very important to me," says Lucy Welch of Frederick County, also a descendant of the Carper family. "I have an ancestor buried in the Carper Valley Cemetery," she says, adding that she is grateful for the restoration efforts of cemetery owner Ken Kovach. Part of the effort resulted in restoration of the tombstone of Welch's great-grandmother, Virginia "Jenny" Carpenter. Though many cemeteries are preserved, at least in part, by family members who know about them, others become lost over time. In recent weeks, Chemstone, owned by Charmeuse Lime & Stone, and based in Strasburg, has worked to uncover the truth about a section of its land in Middletown, beneath the foliage and overgrowth near Middle Marsh Brook. Company representatives say they discovered a historic cemetery that they believe belonged to the Nisewander family. The company knew about another cemetery on its land, belonging to the Tabler family, but with the discovery of the other, older cemetery, Chemstone chose to delve into the history of both. proposed quarry operations. Rich Cooley/Daily (Purchase photo Stinson walks along a cemetery of unknown origin on Chemstone property. It is believed to date from at least the early 19th century. Rich Cooley/Daily _(_Purchase photo) The Tabler Family Cemetery is located several hundred feet north of Chapel Road, west of Middletown. Bill Hardigg, of Chemstone, says the cemetery is about 150 years old. It has been recorded for several years in the "Index to Burials in Frederick County, Virginia," 2nd Edition, which was published in 2004 and can be found in the historical archives at the Handley Regional Library in Winchester. The head of the Tabler family was a meager farmer, and the cemetery contains only a few graves, Hardigg says. The family purchased the land in 1845, according to "Archaeological Delineation and Restoration Plan for the Historic Tabler and Nisewander Family Cemeteries, Frederick County, Virginia," written by archeologist Raymond Ezell, of ECS Mid -Atlantic LLC in Fredericksburg. Five individual graves have been discovered in the Tabler cemetery. There are 300 such graveyards in the county, Hardigg says, explaining that many of these old burial plots date back to the late 19th century. "Index to Burials in Frederick County, Virginia" lists 145 cemeteries in the county, along with 31 more that were lost over time. The cemetery believed to belong to the Nisewander family is not on the list. The cemetery is believed to have been started in the late 18th century. Hardigg estimates that the land on which the cemetery lies was purchased by the Nisewander family around 1750. About 80 graves are located on the property, east of Middle Marsh Brook on Chapel Road, but Ezell says that only 22 have been identified. Though the cemetery was only recently discovered, Spencer Stinson, general manager for Chemstone in Strasburg, says that the cemetery was denoted on documents from the Civil War era. "This was on the maps of the Battle of Cedar Creek," he says, indicating that it was marked on a map made by the cartographer of Civil War Confederate Gen. Jubal Early and on another produced by Union Gen. Philip Sheridan's cartographer. The earliest year that a grave would have been introduced to the cemetery is 1783, says Stinson. That grave most likely belonged to David Nisewander. 3/31/2008 Page 3 of 5 Investigators were unable to continue their archeological study of the cemetery because of extensive tree roots blocking their path. Because no one wants to risk disturbing the graves that might exist within the overgrowth, Hardigg says, the dig has ended. He estimates that another 60 graves might exist in that location. "There [is] a large number of unmarked graves, which is not seen as often," Ezell says. "In one confined cemetery, [it] is a bit unusual, I think." The infrequency of unmarked graves sharing the same location as marked graves can be attributed to many different reasons, he explains. One reason could be that wooden grave markers once identifying the graves deteriorated over the years, "which was very common, especially in the early period of Virginia's history," says Ezell. Other reasons could be that the headstones were removed and not replaced, or that Civil War Union soldiers stole the headstones to make hearth areas for their camps in the winter months. Ezell says that this was a very common occurrence. Despite the belief that the Nisewander family owned the land, the history of the cemetery is still unknown. Little is known about the Nisewander family, which spelled its name various ways in records from the 18th and early 19th centuries, including "Nieewander," "Nighswander" and "Niswanger." "The Nisewander Family Cemetery is I think especially significant," Ezell says. "David Nisewander appears to have been a very well-off ... individual." Hardigg says that judging by the three-story stone structure that once stood on the property, Nisewander was probably an important figure in the community. "Three-story stone houses were not exactly prominent in the 18th century in Shenandoah [Valley]," says Hardigg, explaining that someone who had owned a house such as this, especially one fortified to prevent against Native American attacks, must have been a wealthy individual. As a result of recent archaeological research, the Nisewander Family Cemetery is mostly barren, but Stinson says that he plans to reblanket the ground with periwinkle, which formerly covered the area around the graves now marked with orange flags at the head of each grave and blue flags at the foot. Periwinkle, he says, was a traditional ground cover in cemeteries. The plant is not native to the area on Chapel Road, says Stinson, so that was one indication that a historic cemetery was lying on Chemstone's land. "That's one of the ways that you can identify a graveyard," Hardigg says, explaining that other historic graveyards in the area also contain periwinkle, such as the Milburn Chapel Graveyard, on Milburn Road, off McCanns Road, north of Winchester. The cemetery dates back to at least the early 19th century, based on the identifiable grave markers, including those of the Magruder family. Dr. Daniel Magruder, who is listed as having died in 1842, is buried along with his wife, Eleanor, son, Abram D., and daughter, Ann Amelia, the latter of which died in 1808. One grave marker, restored in marble, marks the resting place of Meredith Helm, a colonel in the U.S. Army during the Revolutionary War, and lists his death as Oct. 12, 1804. Chemstone has decided that although it plans extraction mining in the area of Middle Marsh Brook, zoning for historic preservation will protect the land on which the cemeteries rest, says Hardigg. "Nobody's going to live on it, because Chemstone owns the land, and they have other plans," he says. "We're going to put in our historical marker," Stinson says. The Nisewander Family Cemetery is from the Revolutionary War era, he says, "so it's pretty important to preserve." Family and friends who are interested in learning more about historic family cemeteries in the area can find information in the Handley Regional Library archives or ask at their local library. 3/31/2008 Page 4 of 5 * Contact Josette Keelor atjkeelor@nvdaily.com In a message dated 3/31/2008 10:43:32 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us writes: Thanks Wendy. Appreciate the update. We strive to be aware of the community's interests and implement same as appropriate, so it's very helpful to learn about your organization's thoughts. Eric R. Lawrence, AICP Director, Department of Planning and Development Frederick County 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 540-665-5651 540-665-6395 (fax) elawrencna co.frederick.va.us ham://www.co.frederick.va.us/PlanningAndDevelopmenUPIanningAndDev.htm www.co.frederick.va.us -----Original Message ----- From: WJHMADD84@aol.com [mailto:WJHMADD84@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 5:25 PM To: elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us Cc: mruddy@co.frederick.va.us Subject: clarification on BOS email Hi Eric, 3/31/2008 Page 5 of 5 By the way, that email I forwarded to you did not go out to the Preserve Frederick email database. It went to the core group in Middletown who have been working on this issue since April 4, 2006. ) Wendy Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. 3/31/2008 HIC \\ inchcsthr I Page I of,') Order your favorite ff Winchesterr Star Th�Wmehester Star Photo ra hsinchester's Online News Source Click Here COMMUNITY• - Today's Weather - Winchester, VA 43 OF Overcast at 8:53 AM Click for Forecast WThe Winchester Star Deliver my E-Editio_n � n.•»r��rt �u�t tgro IEIiI��rii Already a subscriber to the eEdition? Click here! The Star's new e-edition What's in it -for -you? Every page of The Winchester Star delivered to your desktop. It's the print edition -- minus the ink on your hands. Questions or comments SITE FEATURES Auto Guide Homes Guide Auctions Help Wanted Lap By Lap NASCAR Place Classifieds Advertising Rates Stocks Dear Abby Movie Listings TV Listings Other Newspapers Thursday, April 3, 2008 Back to Home Page Middletown quarry plans draw strong opposition By Jessica J. Burchard The Winchester Star Middletown — A presentation of revised proffer statements from O-N Minerals drew sharp criticism during a public meeting on Wednesday night. Nearly 80 residents attended the information meeting at the Wayside Inn, 7783 Main St., to listen to a presentation about the new proffers attached to a rezoning request that would allow the company to expand its quarry operations near Middletown. The corporation's local division, O-N Minerals Chemstone, also operates limestone mining operations in Clear Brook and Strasburg. The company, now owned by Carmeuse Lime & Stone based in Belgium, will present the revised rezoning request — incentives offered to governing bodies to lessen the impact of development — to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at 7 p.m. on April 23. The county Planning Commission recommended the denial of 0-N Minerals' original rezoning request in 2006. The major proffer changes for the proposed rezoning of 639.19 acres northwest of Middletown include a phasing plan for future limestone mining and restoring two historic cemeteries. "What the proffer guarantees is that no sooner than 10 years will we be mining south of Chapel Road, no sooner than 20 years will we be mining beyond Chapel Road," said O-N Minerals Chemstone General Manager Spencer Stinson during the presentation. The phasing will allow for Chemstone to create earthen berms and plant vegetation to act as a barrier between the quarry and the town. ApVideo UW-Madison Student Found Murdered in � Home ► P"av Bush Call for Ne•w. NATO Memtwm L�keiy to Fad P. Pia, Teens' K�cl u )pi g Pos%Vy linked to Drug Trade P. t,!,, Get Local TV Listing P—ered by M3 Q13 > View TV Listings http://www.winchesterstar.com/article_detaiIs.php?ArticIeID=5758 4/3/2008 The Winchester Star Page 2 of 3 Online Games The Star Story Engagement Form Wedding Form Anniversary Form BYRD NEWSPAPERS The Winchester Star Daily News -Record The Warren Sentinel Shen. Valley -Herald Page News & Courier The Valley Banner *THE VALLEY SCOPE* ----------------------------------- - SOMISEInsurance Agency 540-869-4366 877-676-6467 TI-11,011 WIM A4 OEE YOtOI HGUSE 1N AS LrMX AS 1/3 TO "THE TIME WETHOUI RIFINANCING (UMDUSE1NG MOUGAGE1 DOUGIAS H"rr i 544 550- 4234 I want to be +ULLI �,Fr vEir"aLtic NZ.V13 "We're trying to get the berms in at least 10 years ahead of time to give them time [to grow]," said Ty Lawson, an attorney with the firm of Lawson and Silek, representing O-N Minerals. Many residents were concerned that the berms would be too close to their properties — a few hundred feet. Areas outside of the immediate mining area would be left as pasture or forests. These areas account for about 80 percent of the land to be rezoned. The Tabler and Nisewander family cemeteries are in open areas. The newly discovered Nisewander cemetery is on the south side of Chapel Road (Route 627) along an area of pasture. It has 20 to 60 graves and is believed to have been used from 1780 through 1854. The Tabler Cemetery is on a small lot west of Middle Marsh Branch Creek. It has five graves, with the first burial in 1858 and the last in 1880. Even if the rezoning is not approved, 0-N Minerals has said the graveyards will be restored and marked as historic sites. Anita Holley, a local business owner, said no amount of berms or open land would be sufficient. "As I see it, Middletown would be better off if you packed up and left," she said. "What are you doing for us? It seems to me all you're doing is putting out fires." Stinson defended the quarry by explaining that the operations in Strasburg, Clear Brook, and Middletown employ 210 people, including 28 in Middletown. The company also pays $20 million in taxes, wages, and other services for its three locations. About $7 million comes from the Middletown quarry. Representatives from Preserve Frederick, a nonprofit organization established in April 2006 to oppose the Chemstone quarry expansion, were disappointed with the proffers. "We provided them with an alternative plan and they've ignored us," said Wendy Hamilton, president of the organization. "We offered that to them in August. The county agreed, but [0-N Minerals Chemstone] has completely ignored anything we've asked of them." Preserve Frederick's Plan B would remove 533 acres on the north end of the Cedar Creek Battlefield from the rezoning application and allow for limestone mining on 158 acres of land in the southern parcel. It also calls for a variety of measures outlined by the county government to reduce the impacts of dust, noise, and traffic in and around Middletown. fk* Home looking for, a NEWjHOME? T"i,!rs. Ads by Goggle Post Free Classifieds Ads Post 100% Free Ads on Kijiji.com. Find Local pets, Cars, Jobs, etc. vv_vw. K ijiji.wrn/Free= Classifieds http://www.winchesterstar.com/article_details.php?ArticleID=5758 4/3/2008 fhe Winchester Star Page 3 of 3 Despite the vocal opposition to the proposed rezoning, Stinson considered the three-hour meeting a success. "From my perspective, it was productive in terms of language," he said. "There are several areas where we're looking at making additions to the language." — Contact Jessica J. Burchard at jburchard@winchesterstar.com Back to Home Page Click here to review past issues of www.winchesterstar.com April 31 April 2 1 April_1 I March 311 March 29 ARCHIVES Copyright G 2002-2008 by The Winchester Star - All Rights Reserved. PRIVACY POL..ICY http://www.winchesterstar.com/article_details.php?ArticleID=5758 4/3/2008 I /41 - 7l) WX In P // /3y auy Vln1�i� )IIY�Le I Ji, 5' ✓ S�G�v" o A- e ASS �,,J, �`S S%i�J /1� o o c < —u t S' i ��,,,, ivy c�irrv, o f r R.� _ a ✓ � � S �a� . � GI/cc� s e e,"-Ir,IAf��"v'L.x...t-''�aS i �J�R� 't v�� ��r1n1C� f n (/��� cl 2 {-ec..e� c� t �� �� W,✓ c ALL-) CIO 6A-) lzl-e "64 1 REZONING: PROPERTY: RECORD OWNER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE(S) PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT RZ# 03-06 Rural Areas (RA) to Extractive Manufacturing (EM) 639.13 Acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 83-A-109 and 90-A-23 (the "Properties") O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Chemstone - Middletown June 13, 2005 January 16, 2006 February 8, 2006 August 28, 2006 March 18, 2008 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject properties ("Properties"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers on the Properties that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above -referenced EM conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Properties with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Properties adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. Any proffered conditions that would prevent the Applicant from conforming with State and/or Federal regulations shall be considered null and void. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, O-N Minerals (Chemstone)" dated March 18, 2008 (the "GDP"). l 1. Land Use 1.1 The Properties shall be developed with extractive manufacturing land uses pursuant to the mining permit approved by the Division of Mineral Mining (DMM) of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, and shall therefore conform to the Mineral Mining Law and Reclamation Regulations for Mineral Mining of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 1.2 The Applicant hereby proffers not to engage in the following uses on the Properties: Oil and natural gas extraction; Asphalt and concrete mixing plants; Brick, block and precast concrete products; Cement and lime kilns; and Coal and natural gas -fired power plants* *This is not to be interpreted as a restriction against using power plants on the Properties as necessary to support extractive mining activities. 2. Site Development 2.1 Properties' access via public secondary roads shall be limited to the existing quarry entrance on McCune Road (Route 757). Access by vehicles needed for periodic maintenance of the Properties shall not be limited. 2.2 Distance buffers shall be provided along the perimeter of the Properties in addition to those required by the Zoning Ordinance. The depth of said buffers shall be determined at the time of site plan submission, and will vary based upon the topography of the site boundary. 2.3 Earthen berms installed around the Properties' active quarry pits shall be landscaped to minimize impacts to the viewshed of the surrounding community. Such landscaping shall consist of a mix of deciduous and coniferous plantings placed in a random mamier in order to be consistent with existing vegetation patterns. Said berms shall be limited to a maximum height of 30 feet. 3. Historic Resources 3.1 The Applicant shall create an 8 acre historic reserve as shown on the GDP, within which archeological resources and other historic activities have been identified. Further, the Applicant shall place restrictions on the reserve land for how the reserve will be used by the Properties' owner and future owners. Said reserve land shall be dedicated to a recognized historical association and/or group within one year of final rezoning. 3.2 The Applicant shall complete a Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Northern Reserve and Middle Marsh Properties as depicted on the GDP within one year of final rezoning or prior to any land disturbance of the portion of parcel 83-A-109 and parcel 90-A-23. Said survey shall locate, identify, and comprehensively record all historic sites, buildings, structures, and objects on the parcels. Such survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines for a Phase 1 Survey as defined in the Virginia Department of Historic Resources "GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY IN VIRGINIA - Chapter 7: Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Virginia," 1999 (Rev. Jan. 2003). 3.3 Two cemeteries have been identified on the Properties. The first cemetery is located adjacent to Chapel Road and is in an area that is not designated for mining and is also outside of the berming area. That cemetery is currently undergoing a historical restoration. The second cemetery is located in the area where berming is slated to be installed. The Applicant proffers the berming will be located in such a way as to not encroach on the cemetery. This cemetery is also currently undergoing a historical restoration. In addition, the cemetery is accessed through a right-of-way which is of record providing access to the cemetery from Route 625. The Applicant proffers to open said right-of-way so that it can be used for access by the relatives of those in the cemetery. It is anticipated that once said right-of-way has been opened, the Applicant will provide continued maintenance and have use of same. 4. Rights to Water Supply 4.1 The Applicant shall guarantee the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) rights to the water resources available on the Properties in accordance with the existing agreements between the Applicant and FCSA. Ground Water 5.1 The Applicant shall install a minimum of three monitoring wells to effectively establish and monitor the groundwater level in order to avoid detrimental impacts to surrounding properties. Said wells shall be installed prior to any land disturbance of the portion of the Properties identified as parcel 83-A-109 by the GDP, and shall be located within 500 feet of the Properties' boundaries. A minimum of one monitoring well shall be installed within 500 feet of the Northern Properties' boundary. 5.2 Subject to and consistent with the provisions of paragraph 9.2, the Applicant shall remediate any adverse impacts to wells located on surrounding properties caused by mining operations on the Properties. Costs associated with any required remediation shall be borne by the Applicant. Furthermore, the Applicant agrees to participate in a pre -blast survey and well monitoring survey, as further described herein. The intent of the aforementioned l surveys is to provide a mechanism to remediate any adverse impacts to wells and/or structures, which are caused by the mining operations on the Properties. 6. Dust Control 6.1 Dust from drills, shot piles, material handling, screens, crushers, conveyors, feeders, hoppers, stockpiles, load -outs, and traffic areas shall be controlled by wet suppression or equivalent, and controlled by and consistent with the terms of the Department of Environmental Quality general air permit. The Applicant shall remediate any adverse impacts to surrounding properties caused by dust associated with the mining operations on the Properties. 7. Blasting Control 7.1 All blasting associated with mining operations on the Properties shall be limited by the mining permit approved by the Division of Mineral Mining (DMM) of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy. Peak Particle Velocities (PPV) associated with blasting on the Properties shall not exceed the levels stipulated by said permit. In addition, Applicant agrees to have an approved blasting plan in place at all times. An example of the current blasting plan is attached. Further, in addition, Applicant agrees that there will be no block holing or adobe blasting conducted on the Properties. Any damage to surrounding properties caused by blasting on the Properties shall be remediated at the Applicant's expense. 8. Traffic 8.1 The Applicant agrees to restrict truck traffic to the Properties to a maximum of 200 truck loads per day averaged over the prior 30 days through the scale house hauling mined materials on and/or off the proposed quarry site from the existing quarry entrance. The maximum number of trips will be regulated by the Applicant and its successors and/or assigns. A record of the actual number of truck trips per day shall be kept current (and maintained for one year) by the Applicant at its scale house office. Said record shall be made available in a form which confirms the number of trips and the form will be produced to Frederick County officials upon demand with reasonable notice. 9. Pre -Blast Surveys 9.1 The Applicant will offer voluntary pre -blast surveys of properties that are within 1,500 feet of the Properties' boundaries. The aforementioned surveys will be conducted by an independent engineering firm, which will investigate and document the pre -blast conditions of the participants' residences and/or outbuildings. All citizens who have property adjacent to the Properties can and are encouraged to participate in the survey by contacting the Applicant and scheduling a mutually agreeable time for the independent engineering firm to visit the party's residence to document and survey the pre -blast condition of the party's J residences/outbuildings. The Applicant's and/or its engineering firm shall further have the right to visit and inspect the party's residences/outbuildings to monitor the condition of the same. A record of those pre -blast conditions will be kept by the independent engineering firm with copies retained by the Applicant and the participating property owner. In the event of a change in condition, which is alleged by the adjoining property owner as a result of mining operations, the engineering firm will then conduct a follow-up visit and investigation and use the pre -blast information as a control and basis for subsequent analysis. Said analysis shall be used to determine the cause of any negative change in condition. If it is determined there is a change in condition in the residences/outbuildings, which has been caused by the Applicant's mining activities on the Properties, then the Applicant agrees to remediate and/or repair said negative change in condition to restore it to its status prior to blasting operations. In addition, the Applicant agrees to establish seismic monitoring of the proposed quarry site to monitor all blasting activities and keep records of said seismic monitoring as required by the Virginia Division of Mines, Minerals and Energy. 9.2 The Applicant will offer voluntary well monitoring surveys of properties that are within 1,500 feet of the Properties' boundaries. The aforementioned surveys will be conducted by an independent well drilling firm, which will investigate and document the pre -blast conditions of the participants' wells. All citizens who have property located within 1,500 feet of the Properties' boundaries can and are encouraged to participate in the survey by contacting the Applicant and scheduling a mutually agreeable time for the independent well drilling firm to visit the party's residence to document and survey the pre -blast condition of the party's well. A record of these pre -blast conditions will be kept by the independent well drilling firm, with copies retained by the Applicant and the participating property owner. In the event a change of condition is alleged by the property owner as a result of mining operations, the well drilling firm will then conduct a follow-up visit and investigation and use pre -blast information as a control and basis for subsequent analysis. If it is determined that the status of the neighboring property owner's well has deteriorated from the condition it was in at the time of the pre -blast survey, then the Applicant agrees to restore the well to its condition existing at the time of the pre -blast survey and/or provide the adjoining property owner a replacement well of the same condition (or better) of that which existed at that time of the pre -blast survey. 9.3 In addition to the above, the Applicant agrees to maintain in force an insurance policy or other sufficient security for a period of time covering the active mining operations on the Properties and to maintain in effect for a period of one year from the date of cessation of said mining operations, and to cover the costs of any remediation and/or repair, which is required pursuant to the terms of sections 9.1 and 9.2 above. Said policy or surety shall be in the amount of no less than One Million and 00/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence. 10. Reclamation 10.1 It is intended that pursuant to the terms of the agreement reached with the FCSA that at the time of cessation of mining activities, the Properties' quarry pits shall be used by the FCSA as water reservoirs. The control of the water levels in the quarry pits shall be handed over to the FCSA. It is intended that the quarry pits at that time will contain quantities of water monitored and directed by the FCSA, and which will be conducive to the general betterment of natural habitat. 11. Noise Abatement 11.1 Operations on the Properties will not exceed the Virginia Department of Mines and Minerals Engineering's decibel guidelines. The Applicant will make all reasonable efforts to locate mining machinery in the quarry pit or behind berms. 12. Lighting 12.1 There shall be no permanently affixed lighting structures above -ground on the berms other than as may be used for conveying or pit crushing facilities or for mining activities, with the exception as may be required for or provided by regulations that affect the plant operations, including but not limited to, Mine Safety Health Administration ("MSHA"), Virginia Department of Mines and Minerals and Energy ("DMME"), and any other governmental or regulatory body that oversees mining operations, there shall be no permanently affixed lighting structures. Conveying and pit crushing facilities shall also be interpreted as including such other devices or activities that perform similar or related functions that may come into use and/or existence at some time in the future while the extractive mining use is still in effect on the Properties. 13. Air Pen -nit 13.1 The Applicant shall maintain its existing general air permit controlling emissions in accordance with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality standards and also see that the existing general air permit covers all activities conducted on the rezoned Properties. 14. Environment 14.1 In addition to compliance with the VPDES water discharge permit already in place, the Applicant agrees to work with a recognized environmental entity of the Applicant's choosing during its operations to ensure that the water emissions from water flowing from the quarry operations on the Properties is of a quality consistent with the water quality in Cedar Creek so as to maintain an environment conducive to natural habitats. No additional water discharge points will be added. 14.2 The Applicant agrees that the area currently in trees, which is outside of the rezoned Properties, and which is more specifically described in the attached and incorporated plat, intentionally is not part of this rezoning. Applicant intends to use best management practices of the trees located thereon. 14.3 The Applicant proffers to keep its mining operations at least 200 feet from the edge of Cedar Creek. In other designated areas (as designated on the attached and incorporated plat), the distance may be increased. 15. Phasing 15.1 The Applicant agrees that mining activities on the Properties shall occur with the following phasing: After the rezoning is approved, the Applicant will start creating berms on the newly rezoned Properties and the Applicant shall start quarrying in the area identified as the Northern Reserve. Mining in the Northern Reserve area shall occur from the time period commencing with the approval of the rezoning for a period of time which is estimated to be twenty years. For the newly zoned area, which is north of the existing EM zoned property, and south of Chapel Road, mining activities will commence no earlier than ten years from the date that the rezoning referenced herein is approved. For the newly zoned area, which lies north of Chapel Road, mining will commence no earlier than twenty years from the date that the rezoning referenced herein is approved. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES Respectfully submitted, O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) COMPANY By: Its: 4c4-" ` 14y4:P�=vc— STEWC'.�R C. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this o?D�day of /n , 2008, by �h 9,r6-,, 1- My commission expires: %;l ' NOTARY' :. (� M S S 10 Y\ .JJ�✓� �l b Q�� 1 �; PUBLIC [� REG # 357188 _ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES i ' 4I3012( `& ' 0 ,�,_ �. Mike Ruddy From: Dr Ranna-Lesley Lachlan [ranna@ranna.com] Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 1:17 AM To: rwillia@co.frederick.va.us Cc: Mike Ruddy Subject: Dillon Rule re Chemstone - possible applicability May 23, 2008 TO: Mr Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney, Frederick County, Virginia. CC: Mr Mike Ruddy. FROM: Dr Ranna-Lesley Lachlan API D, RPP , vcsT, BFA, Grad. D. Mat Anti.) 491 Chimney Circle, Chimney Hills Estates, Middletown, VA 22645, USA (Mail: PO Box 971, Stephens City, VA 22655, U.S.A.) Tel:540-533-5403 ranna ranna.com SUBJECT: State Threatened Species in Chemstone expansion environs; Dillon Rule; Rezoning #03-06 Dear Mr Williams, I have been urged by an independent environmental consultant to bring to your attention the following information about a species on the State Threatened species list and documented in habitat on and near the Chemstone properties. It was pointed out to me that the Dillon Rule, which applies to Virginia, might have some bearing on the handling of Chemstone's quarry expansion rezoning application in light of the presence of this Threatened species. I am not an attorney so, with respect, I submit this to you for your consideration while the process about the Chemstone application continues. State Threatened Species at Further Risk Through Proposed Expanded Quarrying Activity Why has there been no Environmental assessment of impact to State Threatened Species in and near the proposed quarry area? Why has there been no mention of habitat assessment specifically for threatened or endangered species at any stage of the process? The Wood Turtle is on the Virginia State Threatened Species list and Wood Turtles are well documented in Cedar Creek and the Cedar Creek watershed. They are a semi -aquatic species needing creeks and woodlands. Because they are so heavily poached, the distributions of Wood Turtles are not disclosed to the public. However, it is reasonable to state that because Wood Turtles are well documented in Cedar Creek and its watershed, they are also located in parts of Middle Marsh Brook which is part of the Cedar Creek watershed - at least at and near the point of entry of Middle Marsh Brook into Cedar Creek. The presence of this State designated Threatened species makes these parts of the rezoning application area envirorunentally sensitive. The proposed relocation of Middle Marsh Brook, along with potentially devastating impacts on Cedar Creek as a result of (i) that relocation, (ii) interaction between groundwater and surface water, and (iii) blasting (see my paper regarding groundwater impacts, May 22, 2008), pose added dangers to the Wood Turtle, already a threatened species. There are also species of freshwater mussels on the Va Threatened and Endangered Species list which, reportedly, might also appear in and near the quarry project area. Without further study, this poses an additional caution as to the wisdom and viability of contemplating a major rezoning that would affect habitat and around Cedar Creek. While it is recognized that the Department of Environmental Quality and Va Department of Game and Inland Fisheries would become involved during any State permit phase of the quarry operation, the neglect of any mention of specific habitat assessment for specific .r, State designated threatened species in any of the incarnations of Chemstone's application and proffers does not bode well for environmentally sensitive habitat tthat supports such species and therefore, does not bode well for those species. Given that the rezoning application involves the habitat of a species on the Va State Threatened Species list, the appropriate environmental, habitat, and wildlife impact investigations should be done prior to the Board of Supervisors attempting to make a decision on the application. Comprehensive Plan 2007 - Environment The following query and observation arising from the Comprehensive Plan 2007 apply a cautionary pause: 1. Is the Wood Turtle, and its habitat, included in the Frederick County "environmental. database... [ to be used] ... in making general land use planning and zoning decisions... [and] ... to monitor environmental. impacts" (Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, 2007, p. 5 - 51)? 2. This rezoning application impinges on the habitat of a species on the VA Threatened Species list and is at odds with the County's Enviromnental Policy, especially "Implementation Methods: 2. Avoid development in identified environmentally sensitive areas." (Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, 2007, p. 5 - 50). Dillon Rule State Virginia is a Dillon Rule State. Since the Wood Turtle is on the Virginia State Threatened Species list, the County is under obligation to exercise particular vigilance in regard to any potential or inadvertent violations of that rule when considering the quarry expansion application and its potential impact on the Wood Turtle or other State designated threatened species. Conclusion In the absence of any prior assessment of the impact of this proposed project on habitat and wildlife, especially the State designated Threatened Species, the Wood Turtle, along with the direct contradiction that the project poses to the County's own Enviromnental policy and the cautions that Dillon Rule brings to this matter, the application by Chemstone should not be considered. Additional Information VA DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES: John Kleopfer - Ph: 804-829-6703 SURFACE WATER SPECIALIST AND CONSULTING ENGINEER: Timothy R. Bondelid - Ph: 540-987-8693 REFERENCE: O'Connell, K., "Cedar Creek Revealed: A Study of the Ecological and Historic Context of Cedar Creek", Potomac Conservancy, R 2007. Dr Ranna-Lesley Lachlan (PhD, RPP, VCST1, BFA, Grad.D. Mat.Anth.) Director - American Polarity Therapy Association, Ethics Liaison Founder - 6th Dimension Project of Ranna® Arts Incorporated, LLC. 491 Chimney Circle, Chimney Hills Estates, Middletown, VA 22645, USA. (Mail: PO Box 971, Stephens City, VA 22655, USA.) Tel: USA 540-533-5403 The Ranna® identity is an international trademark registered with the United States Patents and Trademarks Office. DISCLAIMER: This email and all attachments are private, confidential, and without prejudice, and may contain information that is the subject of privilege. They are intended only for the original recipient. If you are not that recipient, please erase the email and attachments, and notify the sender. If you are not the original intended recipient yet read these documents, all liability that may ensue rests with you/ the reader of this message. No liability or legal recourse accrues to the author of the original message. Unless expressly authorized by the sender, no recipient can use, copy or distribute the information contained in this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this e-mail in error, please delete/destroy all copies immediately and contact the author by return e-mail or by calling USA 540-533-5403. Ranna® Arts Incoprorated, LLC and its 6th Dimension Project do not warrant that this e-mail, or its attachments, is free from virus or other defects and it accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or any attachment. Mike Ruddy From: Dr Ranna-Lesley Lachlan [ranna@ranna.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 4:31 PM To: Richard C. Shickle Cc: Gary A. Lofton; Philip A. Lemieux; Gary W. Dove; Charles F. DeHaven, Jr.; Bill M. Ewing; Gene E. Fisher; Mike Ruddy Subject: Dillon Rule, O-N & VA Threatened Species Attachments: pastedGraphic.tiff; ATT00078.htm; WoodTurtle.dat; ATT00081.htm May 22, 2008 To: Chairman Mr R. Shickle and fellow Board of Supervisors, Frederick County, Virginia. cc: Mr Mike Ruddy From: Dr Ranna-Lesley Lachlan (PhD, RPP, VCST1, BFA, Grad.D. Mat.Anth.), Backcreek District Subject: PAPER: State Threatened Species at Further Risk Through Proposed Expanded Quarrying Activity - Rezoning #03- 06. Gentlemen, Please find below, and also attached as a Windows friendly document, a paper on the likelihood that the proposed Chemstone rezoning could further threaten an already State designated Threatened species, presenting additional reasons that the rezoning not be approved. I respectfully submit it for your consideration and information. Page 1 of 2 Dr Ranna-Lesley Lachlan (PhD, RPP , VCST, BFA, Grad. D. Mat Anth.) PO Box 971, Stephens City, VA 22655, U.S.A 491 Chimney Circle, Chimney hills Estates, VA 22645, USA> Tel: 540-533-5403 ranna « ranna.com State Threatened Species at Further Risk Through Proposed Expanded Quarrying Activity Why has there been no Environmental assessment of impact to State Threatened Species in and near the proposed quarry area? Why has there been no mention of habitat assessment specifically for threatened or endangered species at any stage of the process? The Wood Turtle is on the Virginia State Threatened Species list and Wood Turtles are well documented in Cedar Creek and the Cedar Creek watershed. They are a semi -aquatic species needing creeks and woodlands. Because they are so heavily poached, the distributions and range of Wood Turtles are not disclosed to the public. However, it is reasonable to state that because Wood Turtles are well documented in Cedar Creek and its watershed, they are also located in parts of Middle Marsh Brook which is part of the Cedar Creek watershed - at least at and near the point of entry of the Brook into Cedar Creek. The presence of this State designated Threatened species makes these parts of the rezoning application area environmentally sensitive. The proposed relocation of Middle Marsh Brook, along with potentially devastating impacts on Cedar Creek as a result of (i) that relocation, (ii) interaction between groundwater and surface water, and (iii) blasting (see my paper regarding groundwater impacts, May 22, 2008), pose added dangers to the Wood Turtle, already a threatened species. There are also species of freshwater mussels on the Va Threatened and Endangered Species list which, reportedly, might also appear in and near the quarry project area. Without further study, this poses an additional caution as to the wisdom and viability of contemplating a major rezoning that would affect habitat surrounding Cedar Creek. While it is recognized that the Department of Environmental Quality and Va Department of Game and Inland Fisheries would become involved during any State permit phase of the quarry operation, the neglect of any mention of specific habitat assessment for specific State designated threatened species in any of the incarnations of Chemstone's application and proffers does not bode well for environmentally sensitive habitat that supports such species and, therefore, does not bode well for those species. Given that the rezoning application involves the habitat of a species on the Va State Threatened Species list, the appropriate environmental, habitat, and wildlife impact investigations should be done prior to the Board of Supervisors attempting to make a decision on the application. Comprehensive Plan 2007 - Environment The following query and observation arising from the Comprehensive Plan 2007 apply a cautionary pause: 1. Is the Wood Turtle (and other possible Va Threatened Sepcies) included in the Frederick County "environmental database... [ to be used] ... in making general land use planning and zoning decisions... land] ... to monitor environmental impacts" (Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, 2007, p. 5 - 51)? 2. This rezoning application impinges on the habitat of a species on the VA Threatened Species list and is at odds with the County's Environmental Policy, especially "Implementation Methods: 2. Avoid development in identified environmentally sensitive areas." (Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, 2007, p. 5 - 50). Dillon Rule State Virginia is a Dillon Rule State. Since the Wood Turtle is on the Virginia State Threatened Species list, the County is under obligation to exercise particular vigilance in regard to any potential or inadvertent violations of that rule when considering the quarry expansion application and its potential impact on the Wood Turtle or other State designated threatened species. Conclusion hi the absence of any prior assessment of the impact of this proposed project on habitat and wildlife, especially the State designated Threatened Species, the Wood Turtle, along with the direct contradiction that the project poses to the County's own Environmental policy and the cautions that Dillon Rule brings to this matter, the application by Chemstone should not be considered. Additional Information file://C:\Documents and Settings\Mike\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.0... 6/23/2008 Page 2 of 2 VA DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES: John Kleopfer - Ph: 804-829-6703 SURFACE WATER SPECIALIST AND CONSULTING ENGINEER: Timothy R. Bondelid - Ph: 540-987-8693 REFERENCE: O'Connell, K., "Cedar Creek Revealed: A Study of the Ecological and Historic Context of Cedar Creek", Potomac Conservancy, R 2007. file://CADocuments and Settings\Mike\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.0... 6/23/2008 Mike Ruddy From: Dr Ranna-Lesley Lachlan [ranna@ranna.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 3:21 PM To: Richard C. Shickle; Philip A. Lemieux; Michael T DeHaven, Jr.; Bill M. Ewing; Gary A. Lofton Cc: Mike Ruddy Subject: O-N Water Table Draw Down Attachments: karstwatertablel.dat; ATT00064.htm Ruddy, AICP; Gary W. Dove; Charles F. May 22, 2008 To: Chairman Mr R. Shickle and fellow Board of Supervisors, Frederick County, Virginia. cc: Mr Mike Ruddy From: Dr Ranna-Lesley Lachlan (PhD, RPP, VCST1, BFA, Grad.D. Mat.Anth.), Backcreek District Subject: PAPER: Why Has the Issue of Significant Water Table Draw Down Been Lost in Regard to Rezoning 903-06? Gentlemen, Please find below, and also attached as a Windows friendly document, a paper on potential impacts to groundwater beyond the 1,500 feet limit in Chemstone's proffer statement, and other likely impacts as a result. During research for this paper, I have consulted DEQ, DCR, hydrologists, karst specialists, ground water and surface water experts, texts and others, including my contributing author. As one karst specialist commented after vetting the paper, "You have done your homework!" I respectfully submit it for your consideration and information. Dr Ranna-Lesley Lachlan (PhD, RPP, VCSTI, BFA, Grad.D. Mat.Anth.) 491 Chimney Circle, Chimney I-lills Estates. Middletown, VA 22645, USA. Tel: USA 540-533-5403 Director - American Polarity Therapy Association, Ethics Liaison Founder - 6th Dimension & Ranna® Arts Incorporated, LLC. The Ranna® identity is an international trademark registered with the United States Patents and Trademarks Office. NOMENCLATURE: In the following paper, "Chemstone" refers to what is now "Carmeuse - Chemstone" Why Has the Issue of a Significant Water Table Draw Down Been Lost? During the April 5, 2006 Frederick County Planning Commission Hearing Mr. Chuck Maddox stated that modeling for ground water contours had been plotted by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIL). The water draw down on -site was expected to be about 20 feet, off site about 10 feet, and an expected 15 feet in the Westernview Subdivision and at some residences to the east and the west. In its June, 2005 Proffer Statement, O-N stated that the water table draw down would happen up to 9,600 feet from the property (cited in McCoy, C., Chief, Planning Evaluation & Permits Branch, Geologic Resources Division, Public Record writtne statement April 17, 2008). Mr. Maddox stated that the modeling was conducted by drilling two wells. The first well was pumped, and the draw down on the second well was measured. Then the order of pumping and measuring was reversed. Of course, the testing was done in insitu rock that has not been subjected to quarry blasting which can redirect aquifers and open new paths for water to flow. Why has the water table draw down disappeared from the dialog and from O-N's subsequent proffer statements? Why is O-N proffering to ostensibly remediate neighboring wells located 1,500 feet from O-N's property, when O-N has admitted that a significant water table draw down will occur 9,600 feet from its property? If Chemstone genuinely had the intention of mining these parcels of land for as long as their attorney recently publicly claimed (BOS Hearing, April 23, 2008), and of assuring the safety of neighbors' wells, why did they not install a comprehensive system of monitoring wells on various aquifers decades ago, or even since the filing of this rezoning application, so that they would have a viable data set with which to adequately devise remediation needs? Arbitrary Well Remediation Distance: 0-Ns Proffer Limiting Remediation of Well Damage to Properties Located Within 1,500 feet of the O-N Property is Arbitrary, Particularly Considering the Karst Topography of the Area The U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5161 entitled "Hydrogeology and Ground -Water Availability in the Carbonate Aquifer System of Frederick County, Virginia" and a paper entitled "U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings" describes the karst nature of Frederick County. Despite the claims of O-N to the contrary both of these documents clearly describe the area proposed for rezoning as karst topography with the attendant potential for ground water pollution. Furthermore, the Potomac Conservancy's map of the geology of the area of the proposed quarry expansion and surrounding areas clearly indicates that the terrain is karst. Every single DEQ, DCR, and independent groundwater, karst and hydrological specialist consulted by community members (including the author of this paper) about this project has identified the area as karst limestone topography. In karst topography, groundwater does not conform to a convenient circle or to convenient horizontal distances from a specific point, whether 1,500 feet or 9,600 feet. Any attempt to ascertain the distance from the quarry property to areas of potential quarry related groundwater impacts is pure speculation, particularly when these distances are assigned without dye testing and long term, multiple - well, multiple aquifer monitoring. hi actuality, ground water in karst topography exhibits hetereogeneous flow patterns. Dye tracing demonstrates that water travels up to several kilometers/ miles per day in karst topography. Activities like quarrying can simultaneously have no effect on a well 100' away and catastropic effect on a well as much as several miles away, depending on the specific acquifers involved. Unless wells are connected to specific acquifers that have been monitored over an extended period of time, it is difficult to predict what the impact on those wells will be generally, and to what horizontal distance from the proposed quarry project area. Given that fluctuations in wells in karst topography can be for a variety of reasons including climatic issues such as drought, the tapping of an aquifer by neighbors' wells, AND the impact of mining, it is essential that pre -rezoning, pre -quarrying monitoring wells should be distributed throughout the surrounding area for a substantial period of time. "Knowing the flow paths and likely receptors of the groundwater before any incident happens would make mitigation efforts more effective." (Balfour, W., April122, 2008, Public Record written statement.) Long term prior monitoring would provide a broader data set that then allows a more confident assessment regarding potential impacts of quarrying on groundwater in surrounding areas. Keying -in the results from this long term monitoring with the data set from USGS monitoring wells currently already in existence in the Shenandoah Valley would ensure that changes in groundwater can more accurately be assessed and anticipated. This would ensure that the proffers are sufficient to mitigate ALL adverse impacts. A really good, comprehensive monitoring program PRIOR to rezoning would establish what a normal fluctuation range is for wells in the area surrounding the subject property, and to more legitimate horizontal distances, which would then facilitate Chemstone's incuding all potentially affected properties in its proffers. It is inappropriate for O-N to limit well damage remediation and mitigation to properties located no further than 1,500 feet from the O- N property, particularly when this distance is without scientific basis and, therefore, arbitrary. Any responsible proffer statement would incorporate prior long term monitoring of wells and aquifers extending beyond 1,500 feet from O-N's property, and such monitoring must occur prior to considering rezoning or increased quarrying. Any responsible proffer should also contain a mechanism for automatic expansion of the fnal proffer statement in order to accommodate data that subsequently demonstrate the full quarrying impacts on various acquifers, both in terms of vertical fluctuations in water levels and the horizontal distances to wluch these are experienced. If there is a localized effect different from fluctuations on monitoring wells in other counties or localities, it would be reasonable to conclude that quarrying activity is the cause. The proffer should also address the other ways in which wells can be affected by quarrying. Silting up and contamination of wells as a result of changes of water flow can occur. Again, the impact distances are indeterminate without substantial prior monitoring. Ground Water Contamination in Karst Topography: Surface "Accidents", Porosity, Contaminant Entry Points, Sink Holes, Dynamic Interactions Above and Below, Damage to Creeks The interaction between groundwater and surface water in karst topography is extremely dynamic. Since limestone is so porous, any contaminating "accident" on the ground surface, whether on un-alined land or in the quarry pit itself, can rapidly seep into the aquifer and thereby introduce pollutants to the ground water. Given that ground water can travel miles in a single day, those pollutants can quickly be transported to nearby wells. The interaction between groundwater and surface streams is also so dynamic that it is also possible that pollutants thus introduced can be transmitted rapidly into streams like Middle Marsh Brook and Cedar Creek. "Solubonal openings and faults can easily transmit groundwater rapidly off site and carry potential contaminates to well users and to spring resurgences in valleys.... Insuring that groundwater resources are protected is of utmost importance." (Balfour, W., Aprill 22, 2008, Public Record written statement.) Additionally, it cannot be ruled out that the ultimate water table draw down and resultant cone of depression will be greater than that obtained from the SAIC tests. As in all karst regions, a significant water draw down can result in sinkholes, which can become entry points for contamination into the ground -water system. "Dewatering of the aquifer near the mining operation may make incidents of subsidence more common. This could lead to cracked foundations and soil pipe collapses that could be expensive to mitigate. Blasting could also exacerbate these problems." (Balfour, W., Aprill 22, 2008, Public Record written statement.) Contamination sources may include agricultural runoff - pesticides, herbicides, and animal waste, industrial pollution, underground storage tanks, landfills or private septic systems, all of which can be found in the Shenandoah Valley. As stated above, contaminated water can travel miles in a short time in karst terrain. Blasting in an area can accelerate the development of sinkholes by opening or enlarging pathways leading to greater water flows and dissolution of the limestone. A paper by Mehmet Ekmekci titled, "Impact of Quarries on Karst Groundwater Systems" describes the potential for adversely affecting the quantity and quality of the hater in a karst groundwater system. Groundwater is also part of the stream bed for surface waterways like Middle Marsh Brook and Cedar Creek. Any impacts on groundwater and the underlying karst can impact these waterways. It therefore also carmot be ruled out that blasting in 90-A-23 will pose a hazard for Cedar Creek and surface waterways, including seasonal creeks, because fracturing of the rock may produce any or all of the following adverse results: 1. the opening of pathways for water contaminated by the mining operation, and by other nearby conaminant sources, to flow directly into Cedar Creek; 2. the pathways may be such that the water from Cedar Creek will flow from the creek into the mining pit; and/or 3. the flow of water in Cedar Creek may be diverted into another channel. Significant impacts on downstream water supplies drawn from the Shenadoah River north fork, and on habitat and wildlife in the area, including Threatened species (see paper on VA Threatened Species - Wood Turtle in Cedar Creek watershed) would follow from arty of these adverse results. O-N's proffer (14.3) of providing a 200 foot buffer between its operations and Cedar Creek will not be sufficient to protect Cedar Creek. It is expected that a buffer at least the size of the one currently provided will be needed to protect this comparatively clean waterway. Additional studies should be conducted before parcel 90-A-23 is rezoned, as O-N's current proffers are inadequate to mitigate the impact on Cedar Creek. Contradictory to Comprehensive Plan 2007 - Environment The proffer satatement and the potential impacts on ground water and surface water systems are not supported by, and are contradictory to, the following important elements of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan 2007. 1. "Issues concerning quality, quantity, use, and protection of water resources are directly related to land development issues. (P. 5 - 44.) 2, "In all, over half the population of the County relies on groundwater as the sole source of water supply. The most productive aquifers in the county are the limestone -carbonate aquifers." (P. 5 - 45.) 3. "The capacity of the land to carry development in rural areas will depend upon a number of factors, including... The need to protect natural resources, including groundwater aquifers..." (P. 5 - 49.) 4. "Implementation Methods: #2. Avoid development in identified environmentally sensitive areas." (P. 5 -50.) 5. "Implementation Methods: #3. Review ordinances to develop performance standards for various uses which may threaten groundwater or surface water quality." (P. 5 - 50.) 6. "Implementation Methods: #7. Prohibit uses that damage or pollute the enviromnent." (P. 5 - 51.) Conclusion O-N's current proffers are wholly inadequate to address the constellation of issues raised here and inadequate to uphold the County's environmental requirements as presented in the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. For the reasons discussed in this paper, O-N's rezoning application should be denied. Additional Information Tlus document has been compiled from multiple sources with input from joint authors. The following suggested contacts and references can provide additional information. DEQ CONTACT: Joel Maynard - Ph. 540-574-7864 DCR CONTACT: Bill Balfour - Ph. 304-497-0859 RECOMMENDED REFERENCES: Jennings, J.N., Karst, MIT Press, 1971. Palmer, A., Cave Geology, Press of Cavebooks, www.cavebooks.com, 2007 PUBLIC RECORD REFERENCES: Bill Balfour, Written Statement, April 22, 2008 to Board of Supervisors and Planting Department. Carol McCoy, Written Statement, April 17, 2008, in Public Record file. (Chief, Planning Evaluation & Permits Branch, Geologic Resources Division, National Park Senwice.). KARST GEOLOGY MAP OF PROPOSED QUARRY AREA AND SURROUNDS: Potomac Conservancy based on DCR resources, April 15, 2008. NOMENCLATURE: "O-N" and "Chemstone" refer to what is now "Carnneuse - Chemstone". AUTHOR: Dr Ramna-Lesley Lachlan (PhD, RPP, VCST1, BFA, Grad.D. Mat.Anth.) CONTRIBUTING AUTHOR: Mr Robert Spangler (Retired Executive) APR 2 5 2006 UNIVENTY April 22, 2006 Mr. Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 re. Rezoning Application #03-06, O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Dear Mr. Ruddy: I attended the Frederick County Planning Commission's public hearing on April 5 regarding rezoning application #03-06 (O-N Minerals, Chemstone). In response to the request you made at the end of the meeting, I am submitting questions and comments about the application for consideration by the planning staff, the applicant, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors. These remarks are based upon my familiarity with Cedar Creek and its surrounding watershed that comes, in large part, from an ecological assessment that I conducted with four undergraduates in Shenandoah University's Environmental Studies Program in 2004. Our studies focused on evaluating water quality and on identifying ecological communities and habitats throughout the watershed in Frederick, Warren and Shenandoah Counties. We conducted these investigations in collaboration with the Potomac Conservancy, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Virginia Natural Heritage Program. Our findings are contained in Cedar Creek Revealed: A Study of the Ecological and Historic Context of Cedar Creek, a report released by the Potomac Conservancy this past December. I have provided copies of this report to you, to Mr. Chuck Maddox (Patton Harris Rust & Associates) and to Mr. Karl Everett (Environmental Health and Safety Manager, O-N Minerals). I understand that the Potomac Conservancy has provided copies to members of the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission. Additional copies are available from the Conservancy's Winchester office, 19 West Cork St., 667-3606. My interest in the area has continued since our 2004 project. Under my supervision, another group of Shenandoah undergraduates will begin a second round of studies in Cedar Creek and its watershed next month. The comments'thi*t follow are my personal questions and recommendations only; as such, they do not constitute an official position of Shenandoah University. 1460 University Drive, Winchester, VA 22601-5195 1 www.su.edu 1. Review evaluations. In regard to the review evaluations listed on pp. 2-3 of the planning staff report dated March 20, 2006, I am surprised that the VA Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF), the Virginia Natural Heritage Program, and the Army Corps of Engineers were not invited to review the Chemstone rezoning request. The project has potential impacts on water quality, wetlands, floodplains and terrestrial habitats. uestion: Why weren't any of these agencies part of the review and evaluation process for a 600-plus-acre rezoning application? Recommendation: Staff members in these agencies possess the expertise to identify and evaluate those environmental impacts and then advise the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors accordingly. These agencies need to be consulted in regard to a project of this magnitude. 2. Environmental protection goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The rezoning application and the report by the Frederick County planning staff makes several references to the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Among the elements of the Plan directly referenced are those pertaining to agriculture (Comprehensive Plan, p. 6-55), mining operations (p.p. 6-9-11- 72), rural businesses (p. 6-60), water supply (pp. 5-3-4), historic resources (pp. 2-11-13) and transportation (pp. 7-1). Other relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan are not addressed. These are provisions (pp. 5-8-9) that pertain to environmental quality. They include the following three goals: • Protect the natural environment from damage due to development activity. • Provide for development according to the capacity of the natural environment to carry that development. • Identify and protect important natural resources. Among the implementation methods and proposed actions listed in the Comprehensive Plan (pp. 5-8-9, 10-9) to achieve these goals are: • Avoid development in identified environmentally sensitive areas. • Prohibit uses that damage or pollute the environment. • Continue to require that information on carrying capacity be included with development proposals and use that information to evaluate the impacts of the proposals. uestion: Why are these goals and implementation methods not specifically addressed in the staff report and rezoning application? Recommendation: Protecting environmental quality is an essential component of the Plan's primary goal, "to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County" (p. 1-1). It is also a worthwhile end for its own sake. Rezoning applications and staff reviews need to include greater attention to these commendable goals when, as in this case, the impacts are potentially substantial. 2 3. Impact analysis. The rezoning application provides an Impact Analysis Statement by Global Stone Chem -stone Corporation dated February 2006. This document draws from the Potential Impact Analysis prepared by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in August 2002 and included as Appendix A. Such analyses should enable the planning staff, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to determine how well a proposed rezoning or development enables the County to meet the three goals related to environmental protection that appear in the Comprehensive Plan (pp. 5-8-9). In fact, the Impact Analysis Statement (p. 4) states that the, "scope of the SAIC study is extensive, and is comparable to that of an environmental assessment (ES) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)." In my opinion, the Impact Analysis Statement and the appended SAIC study — while informative in many respects — are inadequate in others: a. Lack of limitations on the scope of operations. I agree with the planning staff's reservations (rezoning report, pp. 6-7) about the maximum scope of operations that could take place if the proposed rezoning is approved. Recommendations: First, I recommend that maps accompanying the rezoning application should designate specific areas that will not be disturbed, including not only historic sites but also stream beds, riparian zones, flood plains, steep slopes and distinctive ecological communities. Second, the applicant should be required to guarantee conditions that assure that the impacts resulting from the rezoning (if approved) will be limited to and consistent with those discussed in the SAIC Impact Statement and the additional impacts identified through further analyses I recommend in Item I above, and in Items 3b and 3c below). b. Inadequate analysis of steep slopes forests and other ecological features on the Northern Reserves. The SAIC's Potential Impact Analysis, Section 3.1-Affected Environment (Forests) states: 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 ... [and 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 of the upland portions of this site as well as Eastern red cedar pasture. [emphasis added] However, Global Stone's Impact Analysis Statement (p. 4) states that no steep slopes greater than 50% are present. Although I have not conducted actual slope measurements, a May 2005 kayak trip I made down Cedar Creek past the Northern Reserves, plus my examination of the topographic map and aerial photography, indicates that steep slopes are indeed present on the property. The limestone bluffs and cliffs that rise steeply from Cedar Creek's edge to the uplands above are one of the scenic, although little-known, gems of the Shenandoah Valley. Their ecological characteristics are also noteworthy. Our 2004 investigations at Cedar Creek Battlefield sites approximately a mile from the Northern Reserves showed that the limestone -based slopes and the adjacent forested uplands represent some of the watershed's most diverse ecological communities. Distinctive bluff vegetation includes arborvitae trees (Thuja occidentalis) and the globally imperiled shrub Canby's mountain lover (Paxistima canbyi). The deciduous forests above contain an impressive variety of plant species (over 100 in a single 400 square -meter plot, for instance) including five not previously recorded in Frederick County. Recommendation: It is probable that the scenic and ecological characteristics of the Northern Reserves are similar to the areas Shenandoah University investigated in 2004. The Northern Reserves and Middle Marsh properties need to be more thoroughly evaluated, and their environmental features identified. Such areas represent distinctive elements of Frederick County's natural heritage. They are likely to be compromised by the development that would follow the proposed rezoning. These scenic and ecological features need to be afforded the same protection that is proposed for historic resources and for environmental features already identified in the rezoning application. (The latter are discussed on pp. 4-5 of Global Stone Chemstone Corporation's Impact Analysis Statement.) c. Inadequate Analysis of Potential Impacts on Surface Water. The SAIC's Potential Impact Analysis, Section 4-Streams (p. 6) states that an estimated 793 of 10,984 linear feet of stream channel in the Middle Marsh property (i.e., Watson Run and Middle. Marsh Brook) could be impacted by quarrying and associated operations such as stockpiles, berms, spoil piles and buildings. A table in the Impact Analysis Statement by Global Stone Chemstone Corporation (p. 4) indicates that 0 of 8,921 linear feet of streams in the Northern Reserves (i.e., Cedar Creek) could be affected. The Impact Analysis Statement further states (pp. 4-5): Areas for excavation, processing and storage will be located and managed to protect identified environmental features from deleterious impact. ... Moreover, in any case where disturbance is proposed, appropriate mitigation strategies will be employed pursuant to the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Office and all applicable state and federal regulations. ... Encroachment within riparian areas will be limited [as per the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance] ... which will likely result in a lesser impact on stream areas than projected in the SAIC study. Despite increasing development in the watershed, studies by Shenandoah University and by the Friends of the Shenandoah River show that Cedar Creek's water quality is among the best in the Shenandoah Valley. It is appropriate that the applicant's analyses for the Chemstone rezoning are designed to include the impacts not only of the quarrying itself but also of the associated buildings, roads, stockpiles and so forth. I also appreciate the fact that the applicant intends to limit encroachment in riparian areas. I found it difficult, however, to interpret the small (letter size) aerial photographs I examined that depicted the areas of potential impacts to the two sites. This limited my ability to evaluate discussions provided by the applicant and the planning staff. If the Chemstone rezoning is approved, my concerns are that the eventual impacts on surface water quality and stream habitats could be much greater than those identified in the rezoning application if actual excavation and associated operations extend beyond the areas "projected" 4 and "estimated" by the applicant. If the steep cliffs above Cedar Creek, for instance, are disturbed, the riparian zone and Cedar Creek could be severely compromised. If mitigation and erosion -sedimentation control measures along Watson Run and Middle Marsh Brook are inadequate, these streams could be compromised as well. Questions: What government agencies (local, federal, state) will monitor the construction, operation and reclamation of the quarrying operations on these two sites? How often will on -site inspection and environmental monitoring occur? Recommendations: First, if the applicant will not limit industrial operations to the type and extent described in the application (see p. 6 of the planning staff s rezoning report, and Item 3a above), then the applicant should evaluate the maximum potential impacts on water quality and other characteristics that could occur after the rezoning, if approved. Second, the applicant should guarantee conditions that assure that the impacts resulting from the rezoning will be limited to and consistent with those discussed in the application. Without these evaluations and guarantees, it does not appear possible to assure that streams and other features on and adjacent to the site will be adequately protected. 4. Impacts on the viewshed of Cedar Creek. Impacts on the viewshed from historic sites and the surrounding community are discussed in several parts of the application materials including the planning staffs rezoning report (pp. 6, 10) and the applicant's proffer statement (p. 2). However, impacts on the viewshed of Cedar Creek itself are not addressed. Cedar Creek's beauty and recreation potential, while they may be under -appreciated, have not gone unnoticed. For instance, Ed Grove's whitewater canoeing guidebook Classic Virginia Rivers (Eddy Out Press, 1992) describes Cedar Creek as, "perhaps the best trip for shepherded novices in the state," and states that an adjacent stream section is "a positively delightful trip for all who love nature". Fishing occurs at many places along the creek. Recommendation: Cedar Creek's beauty and recreation potential should not be compromised. In considering the Chemstone rezoning application, the potential impacts on the viewshed from Cedar Creek should be given the same attention as other viewsheds, as should provisions to avoid damaging the creek's aesthetic and recreational qualities. 5. Mitigating impacts on groundwater — In its proffer statement, O-N Minerals Chemstone Company (Section 5.2, p. 3) agrees to, "remediate any adverse impacts to wells located on surrounding properties caused by mining operations...." uestion: Although I teach environmental science courses, I am not a professional hydrologist. Nevertheless, I am curious about the burden of proof in the event that adjacent wells appear to be affected. Wells run dry for reasons other than adjacent quarrying operations. How will it be determined that impacts to wells are caused by mining operations? Thank you for considering these observations, questions and recommendations. Please contact me if you would like further information. Sierely, Woodward S. Bousque Professor of Environmental Studies and Biology Coordinator, Environmental Studies Program cc: Mr. Karl Everett, O-N Minerals Chemstone Operation Mr. Chuck Maddox, Patton Harris Rust & Associates Ms. Heather Richards, Potomac Conservancy Ms. June Wilmot, Frederick County Plamiing Commission on MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on June 7, 2006. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Philip A. Lennieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner; John A. Bishop, Transportation Planner; Candice Perkins, Planner Il; Bernard S. Suchicital, Planner; Kevin T. Henry, Planning Technician; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Kerr, the minutes of April 19, 2006 were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Kerr, the minutes of May 3, 2006 were unanimously approved as presented. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1756 Minutes of June 7, 2006 -2— COMMITTEE REPORTS Transportation Committee — 05/22/06 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported that the Transportation Committee discussed the possibility of raising the bus fare in the County from $.50 to $1.00. He said Lord Fairfax passengers were polled to determine the best times for routing the buses. Commissioner Oates said impact fees in the Rural Areas were also discussed. Economic Development Commission (EDC) — 06/02/06 Mtg. Conunissioner Thomas said a study developed by the EDC was discussed to educate the public on the cost of commuting. Commissioner Thomas reported that the cost of commuting to Fairfax was $18- 20,000 per year; the cost of commuting to Leesburg was in the $6,000 range; and the cost of commuting to Herndon, along with other surrounding areas, was in between. Conunissioner Thomas said the EDC is working on a plan to get this information out to the public. Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 05/25/06 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that the DRRS discussed the possibility of widening the sidewalk width requirement from four feet to five feet. He said additional discussion will take place. City of Winchester Planning Commission City Liaison, Mr. David Shore, stated that the City has begun an 18-month update of their Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Shore said that some -of the interesting projects currently taking place include the Valley Avenue widening, the Papermill Road re -alignment, and initial discussions on the future road going from South Pleasant Valley Road over to the Russell Farm projects. APPOINTMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MODEL COMMITTEE Chairman Wilmot reported that that Board of Supervisors has asked for appointments to Development Impact Model Committee from the Planning Commission. Chairman Wilmot said she was pleased to report that both Commissioner Manual and Commissioner Thomas have agreed to serve. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1757 Minutes of June 7, 2006 -3— CERTIFIED PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Chairman Wilmot expressed congratulations to two Planning Commissioners, Mr. Paige Manuel and Mr. Gary Oates, for their recent completion of the CPEAV's Certified Planning Commissioners Program. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any item not on this evening's agenda; however, no one came forward to speak. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning 403-06 of O-N Minerals (Chemstone), submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 639.13 acres, commonly referred to as the Middle Marsh property and the Northern Reserve property, from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers. The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Rt. 758), west of Hites Road (Rt. 625) and on both sides of Chapel Road (Rt. 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and Shenandoah County, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Rt. 624). The properties are identified by P.I.N.s 83-A-109 and 90-A-23 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Denial Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director, reported that this rezoning application was previously presented to the Planning Commission at their April 5, 2006 meeting and was tabled for 60 days. Mr. Ruddy said there were numerous issues that were unresolved and concerns that were discussed at the April 5, 2006 meeting. He said those items included, but were not limited to, the following: the potential impacts associated with the more intensive use of the properties; the applicant had not proffered a commitment to the use of the property beyond those that would be enabled by the broader EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Zoning Classification; the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB), with the collaboration of the historical stakeholder groups, expressed concerns regarding view shed coordination and mitigation and cultural resource surveys on the property; transportation impacts in general were discussed, and more specifically, at the intersection of Route 625, Fifth Street, and Route 11 within the Town of Middletown; potential groundwater, dust, and blasting controls on adjacent properties, along with general environmental concerns, were discussed; and finally, the rural view shed was a topic of discussion. He said the goal of the comments provided previously, and particularly those of the HRAB, were to promote an approach to this rezoning application that was mutually beneficial to the applicant, to the environment, to the adjacent community, to the historic preservation stakeholders, and to the historic context of the surrounding landscape. Mr. Ruddy said that prior to tabling, the Planning Commission provided additional comments to the applicant to assist them in their modification of their rezoning request. He said that since the April 5, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, staff has not received any materials from the applicant towards modification of the rezoning application and the concerns and issues identified at the April 5 Planning Commission meeting remain unaddressed at this time. Mr. Ruddy added that following the mailing of tonight's Planning Commission agenda, the staff received a request to table this application from the applicant's representative. Mr. Ruddy said this request should be considered by the Planning Commission this evening, consistent with the Planning Commission's Bylaws. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1758 Minutes of June 7, 2006 -4= Mr. Ruddy continued, stating that since the April 5, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, the staff has received a significant amount of correspondence regarding the rezoning application, some of which has been included in the agenda; he noted many more letters have been received since the agenda was mailed. Also included with the correspondence is a revised resolution from the Town of Middletown expressing their concerns; a letter from, Mr. Woody Bousquet, a -local environmentalist related to Shenandoah University; and a letter from the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation. Mr. Ruddy stated that this afternoon, the Commonwealth of Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources,' Mr. L. Preston Bryant, requested that the letter included in the Commission's previous agenda be presented again this evening. In addition, Mr. Ruddy said that since the Planning Commission's last meeting, the staff and the applicant met with Mr. David Bennett, with the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy (DMME), to discuss the role of the DMME in the pennitting and monitoring of operations such as the Global Chemstone. Commissioner Kriz inquired what other uses could take place on the property besides extractive manufacturing, if the property was rezoned to EM. Mr. Ruddy replied there were a variety of uses, including concrete production, block manufacturing, and other relatively intensive industrial and manufacturing uses. Chairman Wilmot next called for the applicant to come forward. Mr. Joseph Ferrell, the Vice President and General Manager of O-N Minerals Inland Division, which includes the Chemstone operation, stated that through interactions with the staff and the Commission's previous meeting, they understood there were numerous issues involving dust, blasting, viewshed, wells, water conservation, traffic, and other possible land uses. Mr. Ferrell said they were in the process of developing very detailed answers to each of these issues; and, they will need time to work through those issues, as well as the information received from the public this evening. He asked the Commission to table the rezoning to give them the opportunity to fully flush out and address the issues. Mr. Ferrell said he anticipated listening as the citizens made their comments and will incorporate those comments in their efforts to provide a complete and comprehensive package to the Planning Commission. Chairman Wilmot next declared the public hearing open and called for speakers to come forward - Ms. Suzanne Chilson came forward to speak on behalf of the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation in Middletown, which is in the Back Creek District. Ms. Chilson said the Cedar Creek Battlefields Foundation has been working for decades to preserve a small part of the Valley's history and has succeeded in acquiring over 600 acres of the battlefield in Middletown. She said that in 2002, Congress recognized the historic importance and natural beauty of the area and created the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Parks, consisting of over 3,000 acres. Ms. Chilson stated that the Foundation's Board of Directors and members believe that the request by O-N Minerals to change the zoning on 639 acres would not only increase the level of mining and truck traffic on Valley Pike, but would open the door to other intrusive industries, such as concrete and asphalt operations. She noted that these activities would negatively impact the Foundation's property on Cedar Creek, which lies directly downstream from the quarry. Ms. Chilson said the Cedar Creek Battlefields Foundation urges the Planning Commission to carefully consider this request and deny the application in its present form. Ms. Elizabeth McClung, the Executive Director of Belle Grove Plantation in the Back Creek District, presented written statements from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which is the landowner of Belle Grove Plantation, and from Belle Grove Plantation's Board of Directors. Ms. McClung said that Belle Grove Plantation's Board of Directors, the Staff, and volunteers can not support the proposal in its present form. She said the quarry's current operations have direct impact on Belle Grove and are already problematic in terms of Belle Grove's historic landscape and view shed, and for the public safety of visitors from around the world. She said that without significant written revisions to the proposal and careful oversight by the Planning Commission, the Chemstone rezoning application and expansion will only worsen the conditions. Ms. McClung Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1759 Minutes of June 7, 2006 -5— urged the Planning Cominission to readdress all of the recommendations submitted by the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) on January 3; 2006, and require these recommendations to be met before the application is again considered. Ms. McClung said Belle Grove Plantation's main concerns include two: first, view shed impact; they encourage the quarry to work with Belle Grove, the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, and the National Park Service to undertake a comprehensive view shed analysis and to subsequently present a written plan and timeline to mitigate, remove, screen, and/or plant the existing large waste pile to the northwest of Belle Grove and the existing lime plant, which is visible from both. Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Foundation's property. Secondly, the traffic and public safety issues area concern; the quarry truck traffic through Middletown and along Route 11 is already a challenge for local traffic, as well as visitors. Ms. Stephanie Pendleton, speaking on behalf of the Greater Middletown Business Association, said that Middletown, with a population of about 1,200, currently has no industry since Route 11 Potato Chips moved to New Market, and looks to its few retail businesses as its sole source of business tax income. Ms. Pendleton said these businesses range from live theater to restaurants, hotels, motels, antique shops, and gas station convenience stores; she said these businesses derive the majority of their income from visitors to Middletown, rather than the residents themselves. With that in mind, she said it is critical to their livelihood and ultimately to Middletown itself, that the community continues to be a desirable destination for tourists. Ms. Pendleton said the rezoning of RA -zoned properties immediately west of Middletown would spell economic disaster for Middletown's member businesses. She said the increase in heavy commercial vehicles would envelope the community in constant background traffic noise; she said existing truck traffic is already intrusive. She noted that with the increased noise pollution comes the added air pollution from commercial traffic which currently deposits a grey layer of fine limestone particles and diesel soot on most exterior surfaces. Ms. Pendleton pointed out that immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of Middletown lies the Nation's newest national park, the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historic Park; she commented that tourists and Virginia residents alike come to the Shenandoah Valley to enjoy the clean air and open vistas. She said thanks to the last 100 years of dedicated conservationists, politicians, and landowners, the public can today enjoy one of the most incredible historical and natural resources within the eastern United States. With that in mind, she asked that the Commission recommend denial of the rezoning application. Mr. Carl Bernhard, a Middletown resident in the Back Creek District, requested that the Commission vote against the proposed rezoning of all the land that borders the one side of small, historic Middletown. Mr. Bernhard said he moved to Middletown just six months ago from Germantown, Maryland to escape the large commercial developments and traffic issues, the very same negative issues that many of the residents fear will come with this rezoning. He believed the rezoning would negatively impact not only the residents' lives today, but the lives of future generations. Mr. Bernhard said that he was not only a fourth - generation resident and great grandson of a quarryman, but the Vice President of the Greater Middletown Business Association, a member of the Garden Club, a member of the Belle Grove and Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, and a member of Preserve Frederick. He said all of the members of these local organizations have voiced grave concerns. He said the rezoning of so much land all at once for the purpose of mining and extraction of water will greatly impact the County as we currently know it; he said the affects of the rezoning will be everlasting and will affect future small businesses from moving into the area. Mr. Bernhard said the increase in the number of commercial trucks alone on Middletown's small main street can and will decrease the desire of many to live in this area. Ms. Theresa Domhen Adams, a resident of Middletown in the Back Creek District, asked what the citizens wanted to surround themselves with, not just the Middletown residents, but Frederick County residents as well. She asked if we wanted to embrace the environment or to scar and destroy it permanently. Ms. Adams stated the mine itself is an eyesore and a pollutant, and to extend that further would be a disgrace. Ms. Adams implored the Commission to recommend denial of the rezoning. Frederick County Planning Commission Yage 1 Mu Minutes of June 7, 2006 aM. Mr. Larry Hamilton, a resident of Back Creek District and a member of Preserve Frederick, said the members of the Preserve Frederick organization oppose the rezoning proposal of O-N Minerals. Mr. Hamilton believed an unsightly strip-mining operation, tangled up with industrial uses and future water storage, will negatively impact historic Middletown's community and Frederick County. Mr. Hamilton said the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan does not provide a direction for addressing massive incompatible land use changes such as this one. He commented that serious issues of liability on many levels may be a future problem; he said the taxpayers and voters will bear the burden and pay the. consequences. Mr. Hamilton added that a dirty industrial corridor like this has the potential to affect every citizen in Frederick County and .the Shenandoah Region, all the way to the Chesapeake Bay and beyond. He believed this was not simply a vote for mining and heavy industrial uses, but a vote for water, wluch is wrong. He said the Frederick County Sanitation Authority's (FCSA) connection to this industrial land use application needs to. be completely extracted and thoroughly examined on its own merits in a public forum. Mr. Hamilton commented that Cedar Creek, the National Historic Park, and Middletown, which all enhance the vitality of.the County's quality of life, were at risk. Mrs. Wendy Hamilton, a_ founding member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, said the goal of the Comprehensive Policy Plan is to protect and improve the living environment in Frederick County. Ms. Hamilton conunented that although the Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address EM uses, tearing down forests, devastating groundwater sources, and devaluing farms and homes will not work with their countryside community. She said that a loud, dirty industry is not appropriate in a place that supports some of the County's clean industry and where tourists flock to watch Civil War reenactments. She said that 0-N Minerals' inaction of not responding promptly with. a new application or addressing issues speaks volumes. She added that Congressman Wolf and United States Senators valued this property enough to provide this area with a national -treasure and this elegant piece of property deserves respect, stewardship, and protection. She requested that the Commission recommend denial of the rezoning application. Ms. Dale Nichols, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, expressed a variety of concerns regarding impacts to the residents' quality of life, their health, their property values, and the safety of their children. Ms. Nichols' opinion was that view shed mitigation would not work; she said she would need at least a 40-foot berm, the height of a four-story building, to shield her from the quarry which is proposed to be dug 1,200 feet from her back door. She said there was nothing that would ensure her view shed or shield her home from quarry dust, dirt, and particle matter. Ms. Nichols said that when she purchased her property ten years ago, the area was zoned RA (Rural Areas), and she was told by Chemstone that this land was to be used as a buffer for the Middletown quarry. She commented that numerous quarry companies have owned this land over 50 years and she asked why they all waited to apply for rezoning. She believed that Frederick County knew this property could be mined in the future; she asked why the County continued to allow residential development to occur all through this part of the Valley. Ms. Nichols believed the zoning laws then and now should be protecting the residents. She asked the Commission to recommend denial of the rezoning. Ms. Dee Burgoyn, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of the Back Creek District on the Old Pickerall Place, said that Phase I Archeological Surveys are promised to the HRAB for Belle Grove and the National Historic Park to locate, identify, and comprehensively record all historic sites, buildings, structures, and objects on the property, if this land were to be rezoned. She said, however, that O-N Minerals did not respond to the request for Phase II or Phase III Surveys, if warranted. Ms. Burgoyn noted that O-N has proffered eight acres to Belle Grove, if this application for rezoning is approved. She wondered why the land had to be rezoned in order for the applicant to give eight acres to Belle Grove. She commented that this Valley is rich with history; she said that one only needs to see a re-enactment photo with the quarry operations in plain site to understand that adding more quarries, asphalt plants, or sewage treatment facilities is not going to be a tourist draw, nor would it encourage clean industry to move here. Ms. Burgoyn also mentioned the 12 family members who are buried in the property north of Chapel Road near the abandoned farmhouse. She said this cemetery dates back 125 years ago and is clearly marked on the 1986 Deed of Sale. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1761 Minutes of June 7, 2006 -7— Ms. Linda Shepard, a resident at 2432 Laurel Lane in historic Middletown, expressed her concerns about the accuracy of some the facts being distributed by the group, Preserve Frederick. Ms. Shepard said the quarry is in her backyard and she contends with quarry's trucks everyday. She did not believe the additional trucks from Chemstone's expansion would ruin Middletown. She did not see her neighborhood as a dirty industrial corridor and she did not believe her property values would be affected because of the rezoning. She asked the Commission to consider whether or not they would refuse the applicant's rezoning based on a lot of rumor and innuendo. Mr. John K. Owings, a resident at 2239 Sixth Street in Middletown, said his home faces the quarry on Sixth Street and over the years he has noticed the large berms of dirt on the battlefield, the increased dust, and the increased rumble of trucks. Mr. Owings believed Middletown was one of the last remaining true gems of the Valley; however, it was slowly being chipped away. Mr. Owings said the local residents do not want a big quarry that will increase more dust, more dirt, more pollution, and more truck traffic especially. Mr. Robert Spangler, a resident at 276 Westernview Drive in the Back Creek District, spoke in opposition. He stated that the March 2000 agreement between the FCSA and Chemstone would provide Chemstone with many financial benefits. Mr. Spangler said that according to the agreement, FCSA agrees to pay the costs for getting the land rezoned, to pay the construction costs for relocating ball fields, to pay for installing and maintaining monitoring wells, to pay for water loss from nearby wells which are proven to be caused by FCSA, to pay for pipelines and pumping equipment and allow Chemstone to use, and to hold Chemstone harmless from all issues raised by regulators or private citizens. Mr. Spangler said that after Chemstone is exhaustively mined, FCSA would have a water storage pit with which to partially serve the Urban Development Area (UDA) of the County. He said that Chemstone would not have the -expense of filling the pits and reclaiming the land, leaving instead, a permanent eyesore. Mr. Spangler offered another scenario where Chemstone may decide it is more profitable to sell or lease portions of their land to other industry. Mr. Jun Giraytys, a resident at 301 Longview Lane in the Back Creek District, said he was a member of the Air Improvement Task Force for Winchester -Frederick County and he was a certified consulting meteorologist; however, tonight he was speaking strictly as a private citizen. Mr. Giraytys believed the 1,800 trucks should be a serious concern. He said the focus of the air quality issues tend to be on ozone, but particulate matter, specifically the 2.5 micron, is a concern because it penetrates the lungs and is the most serious problem in terms of health issues. Mr. Giraytys said the diesel trucks currently used by Chemstone are not required to meet the new EPA Standards for vehicle ernissions because they are grandfathered; he predicted those trucks would be in service for a substantial amount of time. Mr. Giraytys strongly recommended that an estimate of the amount of PM 2.5 pollution emitted by those trucks be calculated and a strategy developed for mitigation. Dr. Woodward Bousquet, coordinator of the Environmental Studies Program at Shenandoah University and a resident of Winchester, said he and four of his students recently studied water quality and ecological habitats of Cedar Creek and its surrounding water shed. He said their findings are contained in a report released by the Potomac Conservancy entitled, Cedar Creek Revealed. Dr. Bousquet said he had several concerns about the rezoning application for the Chemstone property. First, he said several State and Federal agencies with expertise to identify and evaluate environmental impacts were not a part of the evaluation process, yet the Comprehensive Policy Plan for Frederick County states the County will protect the natural environment from damage due to development activity, that the County will identify and protect important natural resources, and the County will avoid development in environmentally sensitive areas, and prohibit uses that damage or pollute the environment. Dr. Bousquet asked how the County can meet these goals without involving the appropriate State and Federal agencies. Secondly, the applicant included an impact analysis that did indeed evaluate. some of the potential environment impacts, but it was his professional opinion that the impact analysis is inadequate in several respects. He pointed out an example of a discrepancy within the impact analysis dealing with steep slopes. Dr. Bousquet said both he and his students are not particularly familiar with this property, but know of property just a short distance away that is comparable and those properties have some of the most diverse Frederick County Planning Commission rage r ion Minutes of June 7, 2006 S biological communities and scenic natural features of the region. Dr. Bousquet concluded by stating that the future of the natural resources of our region and the collective future as residents deserve more careful consideration. Ms. Anita Holley, of Back Creek District, stated that she owned a business called, "The Wonderful Store," located at 7841 Main Street in Middletown, and she lived above the store on the second floor. Ms. Holley said that she owns this historic property which is already suffering from the vibrations caused by the trucks. Ms. Holley said that what she was about to say may be considered extreme; however, she believed the situation was extreme. She said that one definition of rape is the violent destructive treatment of something, such as the rape of a beautiful stretch of countryside or to rape the land for its resources. Ms. Holley added to that the rape of a peaceful, healthy lifestyle; she said she moved to Middletown from New York City six years ago. She said her business was in its fifth year and growing and she runs it single-handedly. She said a large amount of her business comes from visitors from out of town and she believed her business and lifestyle were in jeopardy. She believed the Chemstone expansion was a very real and personal threat to her future. Ms. Amy Hartman, a member of Preserve Frederick and resident of the Back Creek District, said that Middletown's Comprehensive Plan sums up the Town's outlook on the contradictions of the rezoning application and she proceeded to read several sections of the Plan. Ms. Hartman said there was not anything more contradictory to the guidelines in the Plan than a heavy, dirty industrial corporation operating within a rural, historic national park and battlefield community. She said it was clearly incompatible and ask that the Commission vote no on the mining rezoning. Mr. Chris Stubbs, with the National Park. Service (NPS) at Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, said they were located adjacent to the Chemstone property. He said the park includes the Belle Grove Plantation, the Cedar Creek Battlefield, and other important historic and natural resources in Frederick, Shenandoah, and Warren Counties. Mr. Stubbs said the National Park Service (NPS) submitted a letter in March of 2006 to the Frederick County Planning Department. He proceeded to summarize the points of the letter, as follows: the NPS is concerned about increased truck traffic in Middletown as depicted by Chemstone's traffic impact analysis; the proposed additional 801 truck trips per day will distract from the historic character of the area and pose a safety threat to residents and visitors; Chemstone has suggested they could construct a conveyor system that would decrease the amount of truck traffic required by the mine expansion; Frederick County is encourage to require this conveyor system as a condition of the rezoning proposal; the NPS is concerned about the impact to the view shed, the landscape, and the historic scene; viewed from Route 11, Belle Grove, and the Cedar Creek Battlefield, there is a striking visual impact from the large-scale mining operation on the historic properties; the NPS believes Chemstone should fully analyze the impacts and present acceptable methods for mitigating them; the NPS is concerned about air quality and fugitive dust emissions, noise, and vibration from blasting, particularly to Belle Grove Plantation; and ground water draw down and possible surface water impacts from the drawdown. Mr. William Graham, a registered engineer of the Commonwealth of Virginia and a resident of Back Creek District, commented there was no greater scarring of the outer layer of the earth's crust, nor any greater negative impact on foliage, air, or water quality than a quarry. He said a quarry leaves acres of rocks exposed forever, with little or no chance that water will ever approach the edges of the cavity to fill the void or that foliage will ever be able to grow on the remaining exposed rock surfaces. Mr. Graham said that what was acceptable to the public or good for the economy in past years, when portions of Chemstone first began operations in the Shenandoah Valley, should no longer automatically be assumed or granted and must be questioned by the Board about whether it is ecologically appropriate. Mr. Graham mentioned the considerable information that was available on the internet regarding quarries; he said one website, a quarry -mining trade magazine, had topics such as, "overcoming community opposition to your operation" or "affective approaches with local zoning and permit officials." Mr. Graham said it was obvious the mining industry is increasingly required to struggle for zoning permits all over the United States. Mr. Graham suggested that Chemstone sell Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1763 Minutes of June 7, 2006 their land, or they could remove the minerals underground, excavating subterraneously, leaving the land surface undisturbed. Mr. Graham asked the Commission to heed the wishes of their constituents, and the health and ecological problems expressed, and he requested the Commission vote no on the request. Ms. Julie Clevenger, a founding member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of the Back Creek District, said there was a gaping hole in the Comprehensive Policy Plan because there was a complete lack of direction regarding mining operations. She referred to the sections of the Plan regarding business and industrial concerns, which stated that ."policies. are needed concerning how to deal with new requests for large mining operations." Ms. Clevenger asked how public officials could be expected to_ make fair and knowledgeable judgments on a proposal as vast and as vague as this one, without appropriate guidelines. She said that mining has been occurring in Frederick County over the last 100 years and yet, guidelines have not been set forth. Ms. Clevenger believed that before a proposal of this size is considered, very cautious guidelines need to be in writing for all parties, including the County, the developers, the citizens, and the business industry. She quoted additional sections of the Comprehensive Policy Plan that called for, "... necessary facilities and infrastructure improvements need to be provided for planned business and industrial uses..." and, "...to ensure that adequate roads and facilities are provided." She said that historic Middletown was not equipped or structured to handle intense heavy and dirty industries that would come from a quarry expansion. Ms. Clevenger said that every aspect of the proposal spells conflict for their town, which is characterized by historic structures and community businesses. She said Middletown's old, rich history and architecture are not conducive to industrial infrastructure changes. Ms. Mary Bowser, a resident of the Back Creek District, said she lives in a cabin built by her husband's grandfather near the historic mill, where Meadowbrook meets Cedar Creek. Ms. Bowser quoted sections of the Comprehensive Policy Plan dealing with land use. She said that passing a rezoning of rural areas to extractive manufacturing in Middletown is in direct violation of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. She said it develops an.area that should be designated as a preserve of environmental open space. In addition, Ms. Bowser quoted sections of the Comprehensive Policy Plan dealing with the separation of business and industrial uses, as wells as the separation from residential uses. Ms. Terri Loria, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of the Back Creek District, also quoted sections of the Comprehensive Policy Plan dealing with "steep slopes and other unique environmental features,"... and "...where development should be carried out in a manner that protects these features." She said that Middletown has more unique environmental features than any where else in Frederick County. Ms. Loria believed the Comprehensive Plan was specifically pinpointing Middletown's rolling hills, slopes, and geography. She said measures aimed at increasing the appeal of areas to tourists and businesses need to be developed and implemented; however, the sharp increase in industrial traffic and pollutants from the mining operation are in no way creating small-town ambiance, which is the key economic ingredient to the success of Middletown's businesses and tourism. She added that negative visual impacts, traffic, and noise will only erode the Town's assets consisting of Main Street, the National Park, the Battlefield, and the area's rural character. She further added that 1,300 dump truck trips per day will in no way help to minimize congestion of the main corridor through their quaint, one -light town. Mr. Fred Potter, a member of Preserve Frederick and resident of Back Creek District, spoke about the other uses permitted within the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Zoning District, from concrete plants to fast-food restaurants, to production factories. Mr. Potter said that Frederick County and Middletown have something special that could be made even more desirable, if planned properly. He noted that O-N Chemicals has not offered any restrictions on the uses of the EM Zoning in Middletown; he believed this was unreasonable and unfair to the citizens. Mr. Potter pointed out that the Route 50 East corridor, which consists of 3,000 acres, is the County's largest land use plan and has great potential for commercial growth. He noted that it was an industrial corridor for tractor trailers and big industry; he noted that roads here are equipped for heavy traffic and over -sized vehicles. Additionally, he said the heaviest traffic to this corridor is 1,406 vehicles traveling the segment between Routes 522 and 655. He stated that this trips -per -day amount represents the same amount of traffic slated to Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1764 Minutes of June 7, 2006 -10— occur on the scenic Route 11 Byway. He said that if this rezoning is passed, Middletown will be bombarded with both land use and road use impacts, and Middletown was not set up to be an industrial zone. Mr. Potter commented that the Rural Areas Study has not yet been completed, but a great deal of citizen input went into this project and should be referred to in regards to this rezoning. He noted three expectations and goals to this study that should be considered. First, recognition that growth and change are inevitable; second, the desire to manage growth and change to unsure perpetuation of rural character; and third, the desire to manage growth and change to mitigate the impacts on the community. Mr. Potter quoted a section of the Comprehensive Policy Plan under land use which stated that, "... conflicts occur when incompatible uses or zoining districts are adjacent to one another." Mrs. Patricia Gochenour, a resident of the Red Bud District, had concerns about continued pollution of the air and water and the affects of that pollution on wildlife and man. She stressed the importance of community education, what it means to build a community on Karst topography, and how a community can protect its water supply. She announced an educational opportmiity hosted by the Shenandoah Basin Project this Friday, June 9, at Orknely Spring, entitled, "Save the Sheandoah Valley's Water, Air, Land, and Heritage." She asked that the Planning Commission vote no on the rezoning request. Ms. Tara Shostek, a resident of the Chimney Hills connnunity in Middletown, commented that Chimney Hills is a relatively new conununity consisting of approximately 40 homes in varying states of completion. Ms. Shostek believed the quality of life for all of the families in these new homes would be destroyed, if this rezoning was approved. She said that when they researched the area, they found it to be a historic, one -light town, not a mining community. She said they relied on the RA Zoning of the surrounding area and they had a reasonable expectation that uses of these properties would not significantly change. She asked how Frederick County could justify rezoning this property for mining and heavy industrial uses when it is wholly inconsistent with the current residential use. Ms. Shostek said that she and her husband moved to Middletown to escape the congestion and pollution of the City. She added that the rezoning application is inadequate and should not be approved. She said that since her property is not directly adjacent to the Chemstone property, the application does not specifically address impacts to her house, her well, and her family. Mr. David Nichols, a resident of the Back Creek District, said his family has lived adjacent to the Chemstone property since 1955 and for the most part, Chemstone has been a good neighbor. Mr. Nichols said Mr. Stimpson, the General Manager of Chemstone, has repeatedly stated that Chemstone wants to be good neighbors; however, after reading Chemstone's rezoning application, he doesn't see how it would be possible. He said the rezoning of 639 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) is entirely too much. Mr. Nichols said his property sits at the corner of Chapel and Hites Road and if this application is approved, he could have any number of industrial uses in his back yard. Mr. Nichols read a list of some of the permitted uses, including: water and sewage treatment plants, electric generating plants, pre -stress concrete plants, asphalt plants, and many other uses. He was also concerned about the amount of water that would be pumped from this property. He said that Mr. Chuck Maddox, who is a consultant for both Chemstone and the FCSA, stated at the April meeting that there will be ten million gallons of water per day pumped from this property; he said this can not be good for neighboring wells and springs. Mr. Nichols also raised the concern of liability and who would pay for potential damages. Mr. Nichols believed it was important to note that this is not a small, local company; he said 0-N Minerals is in the business of making money. He did not think it was right for this company to expand its operation by 639 acres when there is no clear advantage to the citizens of Frederick County. He said the citizens look to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to put the best interest of the citizens before the financial well being of 0-N Minerals. Dr. Ranna Lachlan, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of the Back Creek District, said that she was a miner's daughter and she lived in mining communities as a child and teenager. She said she comes from Australia which is famous world-wide for its significant mining industry. Dr. Lachlan said her father headed -up the operations for five mining corporations and two common themes were the location of mines in remote, water -deprived areas in Australia's famous outback and no where near existing towns. Dr. Lachlan said Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1765 Minutes of June 7, 2006 -1 1— that where towns and mines do co -exist, they are towns that grow up around the mines to service the mines, not the other way around. She said the granting of this rezoning will allow the mine to swallow a historic town that already exists for multiple other reasons than the mine. She said the change in the Town's historic character, as well as the land surrounding the Town, would be irreversible. She believed this operation would pillage and scar pristine fertile, historic, and hallowed land; she defined the area as hallowed land because it was a part of the Mississippian Native American Heritage Region and the final resting place of fallen Confederate and Northern soldiers alike. She also mentioned the potential damage to an environmentally -sensitive, clean water way such as Cedar Creek; she noted that these water issues will have implications all the way to the Chesapeake Bay. Dr. Lachlan said the local residents' back yards are actually the back yards for millions of people. Mr. Bob Luce, a resident of Middletown and a retired professional geologist. Mr. Luce said that he managed large investigations of contaminated groundwater movement in karst terrains in both Missouri and North Carolina. Mr. Luce said he generally supports the mining industry, but because of the preset use of the surrounding land, he thought rezoning was inadvisable in this case. He said the extension of limestone mining west and north of Middletown could bring consequences detrimental to the health and well-being of people living on farms and in residences in proximity to the operation. In addition to causing occasional fly rock, blastingwill open existing rock fractures or develop new fractures that could cause nearby wells to dry up and/or drainfields to malfunction. He explained that in this coarse terrain, ground sustenance and collapse can be enhanced, not only by blasting, but also by groundwater withdrawals in conjunction with mining and mineral processing. He said that fluctuating groundwater tables can further accelerate karst development. Also fracturing induced by blasting can release residual clays from sinkholes and voids, thereby fouling water wells. He added that the operations of crushing grinding, cal -citing, and loading facilities near the mining area brings the potential for large accumulations of dust and hazardous metals. Mr. Luce said that some of these negative.consequences could be mitigated with a very conservative and enforced mining plan incorporating large buffer zones; however, no such plans have been provided. He concluded by saying that even with such plans, there will always be an element of risk because of the uncertainty in the locations of subsurface connections in a karst area. Mr. Rob Magnus, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of the Back Creek District, said he was a new business owner in Middletown. Mr. Magnus said that this massive industrial land use rezoning application is being paid for by the FCSA, according to a March 2, 2000 lease agreement between FCSA and Global Stone/ Chemstone Corporation. He said the FCSA is charged with providing water services to Frederick County and is a private, non-profit company which works with limited oversight from County officials. He said Frederick County's Board of Supervisors and Planning Commmission have made great strides in planning for growth; they have demonstrated they are looking out for the best interests of this County. Smart planning is evident through their initiatives, including the UDA and the Rural Areas Study. Mr. Magnus believed that everything is done to see that growth is managed so future generations can continue to work from a solid infrastructure that's being put in place now. He believed water and sewer was the key to growth. He commented that back in 2005, the Board of Supervisors' Chairman, Mr. Richard Shickle, stated that he would prefer to see a regional approach for water utilizing the river; however, the FCSA has focused their efforts on groundwater extraction and karst holding pits or reservoirs. He believed Karst holding pits present a very real possibility for water contamination and have proven to be unreliable for safety reasons. The FCSA is paying for this rezoning so they can get access to the pits and groundwater on the property. This is a method of supplying water which has proven not to live up to expectations. He said that what O-N gets is a massive rezoning that would otherwise not be approved on its own merits and the County gets an undependable water source. Mr. Shayne Lachlan, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of the Back Creek District, noted that each of the Commission members should have a copy of the FCSA's agreement with Chemstone which outlines the transfer of water rights from the Middletown, Clearbrook, and Strausburg quarries to the FCSA. He commented that the 10,000 customers, including residents, businesses, and major industries supplied by the FCSA, should not be forced to bear the burden of costs associated with the application. He said there were costs associated with expansion in any business; however, the customers of this quasi -public utility should not be Frederick County Planning Commission rage i /oo Minutes of June 7, 2006 forced to finance a quarry rezoning application.. He noted that Section Six of the lease agreement outlines how FCSA will be responsible for compensating neighboring property owners for loss of wells, buthe asked who will will be responsible for determining the when and how. He said prove what made the wells go dry and who Section Seven outlines the FCSA's responsibility for the cost of relocating baseball fields in Clearbrook so that O-N can expand mining operations; Section Eight describes how the FCSA is paying for the costs of rezoning, including consultant and filing fees, attorney's fees, and court costs. He asked how the FCSA could justify the costs considering the amount of water the current quarry sites are yielding. He said that 0-N does not own the property they now mine in Middletown; the land is owned by Genstar. He said the FCSA agreed to lease water rights with Middletown, Clearbrook, and Strausburg; however, since Genstar is not a party of the contract, the agreement raises many red flags.. Mr: Lachlan said the UDA is being built on the assumption that the groundwater from the Middletown quarry site will be available to yield ten million gallons per day; he asked if it wouldn't be more reasonable to secure a more dependable water supply from the river. Mr. Paul Clevenger, a founding member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of the Back Creek District, said Mr. Maddox had stated .that if the quarry rezoning was approved, the residents would have an additional ten million gallons of water per day. Mr. Clevenger said Mr. Maddox's statement prompted him to investigate the significance of water in this situation. He reported that correspondence between Board of Supervisors' Chairman, Richard Shickle, and the FCSA's Director, H. Wellington Jones, dated August 2g, 2001, outlined the amounts of water planned to be available to Stephens City, Clearbrook, and Middletown. Mr. Clevenger next read the .amounts of available water reported by the FCSA's consultant group to the Commonwealth of Virginia in May of 2005, and he noted some discrepancies. He said the FCSA engineers reported that potential yields from the Middletown-Strausburg quarries have not yet been -determined. Mr. Clevenger believed the FCSA has made promises it may not be able to keep. He said, for example, in 2001 FCSA projected quarries near Clearbrook would make the County self-sufficient until 2020; however, today the County's water supply is being supplemented by the Cityof Winchester. Mr. Clevenger stated that the UDA now has 10,000 homes with 10,000 more coming. He said that based on the Virginia Commonwealth and the County's figures, 5.2 million -gallons of water per day will be needed to serve existing residents. Mr. David Kollar, the President of D-K Industrial Services in the Gainesboro District and a resident of the City of Winchester, asked that the Commission recommend approval of the rezoning application only after the applicant, the staff, and other select, qualified organizations or. individuals cooperatively discuss how this operation could work for everyone. It was Mr.. Kollar's opinion that a rural community, a park, and a functioning, expanding quarry could co -exist, collaborate, and thrive within the same environment. Mr. Kollar said he had this conviction because he has seen it functioning well in Vermont, Texas, and other areas throughout the east coast of the United States. He said there are examples it could be modeled after. He believed that once all of the facts and various components are brought forward on why this expansion should be approved, he believed the Commission could, in good conscience, vote in favor of the rezoning. Ms. Heather Richards, the Director of Headwaters Conservation for the Potomac Conservancy, said that Potomac Conservancy is a non-profit river conservation organization dedicated to protecting the health, beauty, and enjoyment of the Potomac River and its tributaries. She said in 2003, the Potomac Conservancy identified Cedar Creek and its watershed as an area of particular importance in the Shenandoah Valley due to its landscape of relatively undisturbed farms and forests. Ms. Richards stated that at the end of 2005, they released a report, published in conjunction with the Shenandoah University, which detailed the ecological and historic context of the Cedar Creek Watershed. She said the research conducted by the students; as well as the Division of Natural Heritage and the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, was carried out on land adjacent to the property under consideration for rezoning. Ms. Richards said the research reported several rare plant communities in existence in this area, in particular, rare limestone cliff habitats which support a variety of unique plant species and mature hardwood forests. She said that given the geology and aspects of the property, it was entirely possible that similar ecosystems and rare communities could exist on the Chemstone property. She added that the uniqueness and special ecological character of the property should be thoroughly examined before any Frederick County Planning Commission rage i i o i Minutes of June 7, 2006 — 13 — deternnination is made on this issue. Ms. Richards continued, stating that in addition to the sensitive ecosystems, they were also concerned about the impact of a larger and more intensive quarry operation or other permitted uses wider EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District on water quality and aquatic life in Cedar Creek; she said significant efforts should be made to preserve or restore forested buffers along Watson Run, Middle Marsh Brook, and Cedar Creek. She stressed that any influx of water mmning off of the site could choke off the diverse aquatic life in Cedar Creek. She concluded by saying that Cedar Creek was widely regarded by State agencies, by citizen monitoring groups, and by independent researchers as one of the cleanest streams in the Shenandoah Valley and she urged the Commission to recommend denial of the application. Ms. Betsey Hickman, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, stated that four years ago she moved to Middletown. She said that if the mining expansion is passed, she believed many things will change and the quality of life she has experienced will change. She described some of the good sites, sounds, and aromas of Middletown and she described it as a lovely and quaint little town. She believed the increased trucks, noise, dust, and pollution would have a negative affect on the future of Middletown, including its businesses, the residents, and tourism. Ms. Debbie Miller, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of the Back Creek District, came forward to speak on behalf of Kimberly Cunningham, who was not able to be present this evening. Ms. Miller said that Ms. Cunningham is a resident of Shenandoah County and has an eight -year history with O-N Minerals and Global Chemstone. She stated that Ms. Cunningham's complaints to Chemstone started about one month after she moved into her home and today, eight years later, after filing complaints, her complaints go unresolved and unaddressed. Ms. Miller relayed a list of occurrences at the residence of Ms. Cunningham in Strasburg and very likely what Middletown residents could experience, as follows: seismograph readings are as high as 9.1, pictures have been knocked off walls, shelves have fallen, and cracks in the house foundation have been reported; heavy truck traffic and associated jack -braking creates disturbances at all hours of the night; frequent occasions of fallen debris from trucks consisting of rock and gravel; and considerable amounts of dust and ash, both inside and outside of the house. Mr. Hal Stalcup, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, came forward to speak of the incompatibility of a limestone quarry and a residential area. Mr. Stalcup was concerned about blasting mishaps. He reported an occasion on April 25, 2006, where a limestone quarry blast occurred in neighboring Clarke County sent rocks the size of baseballs and basketballs through an area where lie drives to work. He reported that a 50-pound rock was sent 1,760 feet into the property of a nearby resident; another rock sent in flight by the blast hit a vehicle parked five feet from a residence causing an estimated $10,000 damage to the vehicle. Mr. Stalcup said that 0-N has explained how their blasts are regulated and that their blasting contractor is highly qualified; however, they are governed by the same regulations as Clarke County's quarry. He said that accidents do happen and people make mistakes. He said accidents that occur at a blasting site beside residential areas put lives at risk. Mr. Stalcup said that O-N Minerals reported they intend to mine within 500 feet and as close as 100 feet of residential properties, if they could be permitted to do so. Mr. Jim Peters, a resident at 8233 Middle Road in Strasburg, said he lived across Cedar Creek in Shenandoah County and was a hydro -geologist by profession. Mr. Peters believed there was considerable scientific evidence to indicate a great deal of uncertainty about the affects that extractive mining will have on the local groundwater system. He said the U.S. Geological Survey recently completed a five -county study dealing with a groundwater system in a karst environment; among the conclusions of the study is that within a karst environment, the prediction of the affects of withdrawals on the groundwater system are highly unpredictable and very difficult to evaluate. Mr. Peters said that an accurate evaluation of the affects of groundwater withdrawal needed for extraction of mining on the water supplies of nearby domestic wells is unlikely until mining and water withdrawals actually begin; he said this may be too late to correct adverse affects. He said that because of the uncertainty involved, he asked that the application be denied in order to protect the drinking water of current and future citizens of this area. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1768 Minutes of June 7, 2006 -14— Mr. Richard Dye, owner of property within the Back Creek District, said he shared a 4,600-foot boundary with the Chemstone property proposed for rezoning. Mr. Dye said he has owned this land since 1978 and hoped to build a retirement home on the property; he intended .to sell five -acre lots to other prospective homeowners, so he could acquire the money to'build his retirement home. Mr. Dye said the impacts of a quarry next door will render this area unsuitable for a residence. He said the proposed rezoning will be devastating to the value of his property and he urged the Commission to recommend denial. Mr. Eric Steere, a resident of the Gainesboro District, said he was a former physical therapist and currently is completing his fourth year in medical studies at George Washington AUC to become a doctor. Mr. Steere wanted to speak to the Commission about water -borne pollutants in this region and his documentation stems from the CDC and State -sponsored health authorities. 'Mr. Steere had presented a handout to the Commissioners regarding the topics of his discussion. Mr. Steere'reported the results of water tests done.on local well. systems from 1995 until April, 2006, which revealed occasional high levels of heavily -toxic elements, including nitrate, cadmium, iron, and lead. He said that cadmium was found at times to be 41% above the maximum levels and it can cause direct kidney damage, resulting in secondary hypertension, osteoporosis; and in animal studies causes liver and neural damage. He said the nitrates were found at 83%-166%; iron was found at 733% above maximum; and lead, which is found in coal burning and mining, was at slightly below 3,333% above the maximum. He named all of the health problems associated with the high levels of these elements. Mr. Steere said that mining will undoubtedly create fractures and widen already existing fractures irn karst. He said that by fracturing, alternate routes are introduced that will bypass the natural filtration systems. He was concerned the mining will also drain the natural aquifers, the water reservoirs, and local wells. Mr. Keith McNeely, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, said that he was a cardio-thoracic intensive care unit nurse at Winchester Medical Center. Mr. McNeely said that air- borne pollutants and fine particulate matter generated by limestone mining operations, extraction, and mining of limestone products will affect the health of Frederick County residents. He said this massive mining proposal puts residents of the Middletown area directly in harms way because of the westerly prevailing winds. Residents of Middletown and students at Lord Fairfax Community College and Middletown Elementary School will be directly exposed to far greater emissions from blasting, extraction, and refining of minerals. He said that too many residents in the County already suffer from asthma from environmental triggers linked to this or other chronic obstructive lung diseases, including emphysema and chronic bronchitis; he noted that these disease processes affect primarily children and the elderly. He believed the county would be harming more children and the elderly, if this application is allowed. Mr. McNeely reported that the American Lung Association of Virginia reports that Northern Virginia received ain "F" for levels of particulate pollution and Ozone. He said the particulate matter, breathed in, causes irritation and inflammation of the lungs; long-term exposure destroys and scars lung tissue. He added that emissions are measured in tons per year and the leading contributor is already O- N Minerals, dwarfing emissions from other industries in the County. He further added that Valley Air Now minutes from March 2006 state, "... p.m. levels have been stagnant and project the levels will go up ten percent by 2018." For the sake of the public's health, Mr. McNeely urged the Commission to recommend denial of the request. Ms. Sharon Santemyers, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, said that as a public school educator, she understood how this application could affect the school systems. Ms. Santemyers stated that surface mining releases toxic chemicals into the air and groundwater. -She stated that according to the EPA, over one half of all toxic chemicals reported are known or suspected neurological or developmental toxins. She said these toxins greatly interfere with children's growth and learning. She said the neurological development of unborn children is at risk when their pregnant mothers are exposed to air and groundwater toxins. The effects translate into learning disabilities, dyslexia, mental retardation, pervasive development disorders, and behavioral disorders. Ms. Santemyer said that children who live near the mine sites are at a greater risk for these neurological impairments. Ms. Santemyer quoted some statistics on the numbers of Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1769 Minutes of June 7, 2006 — 15 — children with neurological acid developmental defects in the nation whose illnesses were caused by exposure to known toxic substances; she provided statistics on the numbers of school children who have difficulty with basic proficiency skills. Ms. Rebecca Stalcup, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, stated that increased truck traffic emissions will have severe health consequences for the community. Ms. Stalcup stated that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports that diesel exhaust is one of the greatest public health risks of all air pollutants. She explained that diesel combustion releases fine particles and gases into the air, commonly called soot, and these particles are typically smaller than the 2.5 microns or 1/30 the width of a strand of hair. Ms. Stalcup further explained that diesel soot is a part of fine particulate matter and an air -quality contaminant regulated wider the Clean Air Act. She noted that diesel soot contains many toxins and can be inhaled into the deepest parts of the lungs where it is able to enter the bloodstream. She said that scientific studies indicate fine particles are linked directly to asthma, bronchitis, acute and chronic respiratory symptoms, such as shortness of breath, painful breathing, cancer, and premature death; she noted how children are more greatly affected. In conclusion, she said that the health assessment document prepared by the EPA and corroborated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the World Health Organizations states that inhaled diesel exhaust likely causes cancer in humans. She asked for the Commission to recommend denial of the application. Ms. Laurie Hunter, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, came forward to speak about the safety and proximity of the proposed mining operation. Ms. Hunter said that mines and quarries are very dangerous places and are far too dangerous to be within a couple feet from residences where children play, where residents garden, and residents cook out. She said there are 14 or rriore children living in the Westernview subdivision, not including pets. She said many of the homes on Westernview Drive border the Middle Marsh property, just north of Chapel Road and homes are built 200 feet from the property that 0-N Minerals has requested for rezoning. She was concerned about flying rocks and debris from blasting. She said that the Global Chemstone's James River plant in Botetourte County in Virginia reported a terrible tragedy in 1996 where a young teenager who was fishing died as a result of an electrical fault which resulted from improper installation of a water pump cable that ran into the river; she said that Global Chemstone was found to be at fault. Ms. Hunter said the residents have not yet heard about the bean heights for their area; she had concerns about young children climbing over a berm or a fence. Mr. Kevin Barrington, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, carve forward to speak about road traffic safety. Mr. Barrington said that as this Cownty grows in population with new businesses, more vehicles of all sizes are put onto the roadways. Mr. Barrington said he was employed as a police officer in the Commonwealth of Virginia and public safety is his life. Mr. Barrington said local residents see quarry materials being transported all over back roads, often to avoid the weight scales on Valley Pike and I- 81; he said vehicles that are 75-feet long and weighing up to 80,000 pounds are often seen exceeding the posted speed limit and barreling down back country roads. He said these back roads are unsafe, have unsafe shoulders, tight curves, and are hilly. He noted that families travel these roads, along with teenagers with new licenses, elderly persons with slower reaction times, school buses, farmers riding farm equipment, and people riding on horseback. As a law enforcement officer, he said he could speak from personal experience that there is little defense when an 80,000 pound truck hits something at a high rate of speed and someone is either hurt or killed. Mr. Barrington said that tripling the amount of heavy industrial traffic trips in the local community and countryside is a recipe for disaster. He said that according to the U. S. Department of Transportation, in the year 2000, the latest known data available, traffic crashes cost this nation over 230 billion dollars. Mr. Joe Hickman, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, said that VDOT's response to O-N Minerals' proposal stated that "... it appears there will be little measurable impact to Route 727 or McCwne Road,..." which is the access road to the Middletown plant and is not traveled by Town residents. Mr. Hickman said that VDOT's only comment about the truck traffic that will travel through historic Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1770 Minutes of June 7, 2006 Middletown was that they had "reviewed it." He commented that Route 11 has just been designated as a scenic byway. He said Route 11 is a state road and may very well stand up to the heavy truck traffic for a period of time, but eventually, 50-80,000-pound trucks traveling over these roads will degrade the surface of Main Street and all of the roads the trucks travel. Mr. Hickman rioted that all of the roads are covered with limestone dust and gravel and sections of Main Street turn white from the packed lime dust. He said the noise from jake braking, as trucks gear -up pulling up to Main Street from a standing stop, is already constant, night and day. He said the Middletown Town Council already has serious concerns about the truck traffic through this quaint, historic town. Mr. Hickman said the Council's May 8, 2006 resolution highlights citizens' concerns about this proposal and includes this statement about traffic: "Whereas increased limestone muting is projected to create negative traffic and noise impacts with up to 1,400 industrial vehicles traveling through the Town of Middletown each day... which amounts to nearly one truck per minute, 24 hours per day, seven days a week. Mr. Hickman said that all of the truck trips referenced in the application are only for the trucks carrying limestone materials; the application is silent on heavy industrial truck trips for all other proposed uses. He added that rolling caravans of -heavy industrial trucks are not compatible with the rural, historic community for many reasons, including fumes, noise, Ms. ReGene Rybol, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek, stated that Governor Tim Kaine and the Secretary of Natural Resources, L. Preston Bryant, Jr., responded to Middletown's concerns regarding 0-N Minerals' application with a three -page letter addressing possible impacts to the environment, wildlife, and historical impacts to the community and the region: Ms. Rybol summarized the important points of Secretary Bryant's letter as follows: The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) has identified terrestrial and aquatic habitats that will -be affected and are within this proposed project's area. State -threatened species that have been identified include wood turtles and several species of birds, including the loggerhead shrikes, Bewick's wren, and upland sandpipers. The American Bald Eagle has been sighted and noted for the past four years by many different citizens; these sightings were within the proximity of Belle Grove and Meadow Mills Lane and include a sighting on the day the HRAB review was written in December of 2005. She said the Bald Eagle is on the endangered species list and is protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act. She added that the nearby Meadow Brook is designated as a Class V Coldwater Stream capable of supporting a stockable trout fishery and according to Will Orndorff of the Virginia Department of Conservation it is a highly -desirable wildlife resource and should be treated as delicately as 6 threatened species. In conclusion, she said there are too many critical environmental issues and she urged the Commission to vote no Dr. Charles Hagan, a resident of Back Creek District and president of the Shenandoah Audubon Society, said he personally surveyed the project area and the surrounding woodlands. Dr. Hagan said this.area of Cedar Creek has water so clear that you can see the fish from the tops of the limestone bluffs that rise from the creek side. He, said it was a relatively unblemished habitat for a large and diverse group of wildlife species, including neo-tropical migrants, various species of water birds and waterfowl, wood warblers, occasional osprey, and other birds that were at one time, common in the Shenandoah Valley. Dr. Hagan said the DGIF has identified specific habitat affects, which may endanger threatened species. Dr. Hagan said that wildlife habitat loss is often not noticed until its gone forever and cannot be retrieved. He said the issue is not whether the Shenandoah Valley will be developed, but how it will develop and whether material desire will ultimately lessen the quality of life that residents sought here in the first place. He believed the proposal was a flawed plan and places too much stress on a beautiful natural area already impacted by the extractive industry. He urged the Commission to vote no. Mr. Bill Hunter, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, talked about the economic aspects of the proposal. Mr. Hunter did not think the mining expansion would benefit the local economy because it was a dirty, low -tax, low job industry, and could not be as beneficial as other high-tech industries might be. He thought the primary focus should be the negative impacts on tourism and business. He mentioned the new national park and businesses, such as the Wayside Inn and Theatre, Anita's, and the Irish Isle, which he felt would be affected if tourism is impacted. Mr. Hunter said that tourism is Virginia's second largest Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1771 Minutes of June 7, 2006 -17— industry,'representing a 15.3 billion dollar investment in the economy and employing more than 290,000 people. He added that.nearly 10% of the State's tourism dollars change hands in the Shenandoah Valley. He further added that in 2003, Winchester and Frederick County alone generated.an excess of 72 million dollars in tourism - related, taxable sales. He noted that the Cedar Creek Battlefield remains one of the few places where re -enactors can carry out the order of battle on the ground that their ancestors fought and died on. He remarked that Congress believed the land in question was significant enough to make it a part of a national historic park. Mr. Clarence Steere, a resident of Gainesboro District, said that mining is an important industry, but it has its place; he said Middletown is not the same place it was 52 years ago. He said that considerable changes have taken place since the 693 acres were sold to Chemstone. Mr. Steere said the town now has a national historic park, it has a thriving national heritage of historic importance, and a rapidly growing number of residential developments. He said. if these mining companies had made known their intentions when they purchased this property, then many of the people who have come to Middletown to set up their shops and homes wouldn't be faced with what they are faced with today. He added that it is not just the residences around Belle Grove and Westernview Drive alone who are opposed, but it is all of Middletown. Mr. Steere commented that no one will be exempt from the noise, the dust, and the pollution. He added that during the last five decades, the companies that owned this land had no problem paying the taxes for rural-agricultual land and leasing it to fanners. Mr. Steve Beall, a member of Preserve Frederick, came forward to give the Commission a financial summary for O-N Minerals. Mr. Beall said the company declared bankruptcy as recently as 2004, but has emerged from bankruptcy in the last two years. He said their combined operating loss for 2004 and 2005 is approximately 38 million dollars. He reported that they.continue to operate under the burden of a debt load that severely restricts their operation and is a constant threat to bring down their business. Mr. Beall noted that in April 2006, less than two months ago, O-N Minerals filed a Fonn 15 with the US Securities and Exchange Commission; they announced their intent to de -register common and preferred stock and suspend their reporting obligations under the SEC rules. Mr. Beall believed this was a very serious move and most public companies would obviously resist making such a move.. He said that by this filing with the SEC, O-N Minerals is not obligated to voluntarily comply with reporting requirements in the future, which means that many of the details concerning this company will no longer be available to the public and can be kept private. He said that while 0-N Minerals has every right to make this change, it raises significant questions about the intent of the company to share operating results, business transactions, and other relationships that may significantly affect the financial future of the company in the community. Mr. Beall asked that the Commission vote no. . Mr. Kurt Borgoyn, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, wanted to further expound on some of the issues raised by Mr. Beall. Mr. Borgoyn quoted from the 1 OK filed with the SEC by 0-N Minerals in March 2006, and on December 31, 2005, the company was a co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos -induced illnesses involving claims of approximately 47,000 claimants. He said the document goes on with respect to silica; the company was co-defendant in cases involving about. 15,219 claimants. He next quoted a statement in the document by O-N Minerals as follows, "Management can not predict whether or not the company's available insurance will be adequate to cover any and'all asbestos claims that arise in the future or that the company will have the ability to otherwise successfully defend or resolve such cases. If there are not developments that reduce the impact of asbestos litigation or its costs, the company's available insurance may be insufficient to cover all future claims and there could be materially -adverse affects on the company's results of operation, liquidity, and financial condition." Mr. Borgoyn added that over the years, 0- N Minerals has historically operated large shipping vessels and as of yesterday, the company announced the sale of six additional vessels and plans to sell the remaining three. He said it was obvious the company continues to be forced to sell important assets to generate cash to pay debt obligations. Mr. Borgoyn further added that considering the financial difficulties and bankruptcy in 2004, one might think compensation for senior management may have decreased; however, the 1 OK revealed that earnings for the CEO went up from $446,000 in 2003 to in excess of 1.4 million dollars for 2005. He said that earnings for other top executives of the Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1772 Minutes of June 7, 2006 company showed similar increases. Mr. Gary Nichols, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, said that he has lived in Frederick County for most of his life. Mr. Nichols stated that even if O-N Minerals has the desire to be a good neighbor, he was concerned they may not have the resources that would allow them to operate safely and to properly protect their neighbors. He asked what would happen if someone was injured or property damaged from their normal operations; he asked if anyone would ever be able to collect for this liability. He said that if O-N Minerals offers a number of attractive proffers in order to convince the County to pass this rezoning, he wondered if they will even be able to carry out the proffers into the future. He asked what recourse County citizens would have, if the company fails to perform the promised proffers. He asked who would enforce the promises. Mr. Nichols asked if the county citizens would be forced to take O-N to court, if O-N Minerals failed to perform. He noted_they already had over 60,000 claims against them and he wondered if Frederick County would be number 60,001. Mr. Nichols commented that this company has had to sell assets recently in order to survive and this has included some of their operations, as well as their shipping vessels. He asked if O-N Minerals might consider selling off some of this land to heavy industrial users and they are simply trying to maximize on the value of their -property by having it all zoned for extractive manufacturing. Mr. Nichols thought it was ironic that one of the shipping vessels just sold was the "S. S. Middletown." In conclusion, Mr. Nichols asked if the company had any plans of constructing a coal-fired power plant in historic Middletown; he said under EM Zoning it would be permitted. Mr. Nichols said that if this is approved, 639 acres of historic and scenic land, zoned for heavy industrial use, would be turned over to a company that is desperate financially; he asked if the company would protect the.land or destroy it. He believed that approving the rezoning request would lead to disastrous results for Frederick County. Mr. Stephen Miller, a member of preserve Frederick and a resident of the Back Creek District, came forward to review all the concerns raised by the Frederick County Planning Commission at their April 5, 2006 meeting during their initial consideration of the rezoning. Mr. Miller summarized the concerns as follows: The monitoring of water quality and quantity of citizens' wells and water systems; change the maximum 30-foot berm allowance to an average of 30-foot berms; specify the minimum height of berms; future owners are bound by the proffers; all agreements should be attached to the proffers and be clear and understandable to all parties involved; determine who will mediate remediation; methods for administration of seismographs need to be stated; groundwater and seismograph issues need resolved; the proffer is broad and basic; site limitations and topographical map should be included; involvement of DMME to clarify issue; will an escrow or bond fund be established for well owners; residents should not have to hire a lawyer at their own expense if their well goes dry; there has been no problem with a drawdown at Clearbrook, but with FCSA drilling on Middletown property, a different problem is posed; plans should show berms, details, phasing program, increased buffers, etc. Mr. Miller said there has been no response, answers, or outreach since the onset of this application by O-N Minerals. Ms. Brooke Dalton, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, said this year she was crowned Miss Middletown Honorary Fire Chief from Middletown Volunteer Fire and Rescue. Ms. Dalton said she was a third generation Middletown resident and stated that both her parents and grandparents lived in Middletown all of their lives. Ms. Dalton expressed her hope that Middletown could retain its historical and family -oriented atmosphere. She next asked all those persons in the audience who were opposed to the rezoning application to please stand. (The room was filled to capacity and almost all of the persons in the room stood.) Ms. Dalton next presented petitions consisting of approximately 500 names. Ms. Dalton asked the Commission to recommend denial of the rezoning on behalf of all those persons standing and the approximately 500 people represented by the petitions. Mr. Jeff Carter, a founding member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, thought it was astounding that Middletown and the surrounding areas would come together with such passion as those who spoke before the Commission tonight. Mr. Carter asked what community in America today should be forced to defend its way of life; he thought none should, but the residents of his community rose to the challenge. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1773 Minutes of June 7, 2006 719- Mr. Carter said this area was blessed with history and natural beauty; he talked about the areas natural, historic, and economic gifts. Mr. Carter, said that other localities struggle with lost industry and with residents moving away, but this area has growth knocking on its door. He asked if it was wise to expand an industry that provides very few jobs and contributes so little to the local economy, especially one that has a negative impact on natural and historic resources. Mr. Carter said that Frederick.County's Comprehensive Policy Plan is designed to direct the right growth to the proper area; however, it has failed to do so with mining, even though its limestone belt stretches the length of the County. Mr. Carter argued that despite the fact O-N Minerals' predecessors initially located a mine next to three incredible public assets, it does not mean it is appropriate for 0-N. to triple its operations there. He stated that Frederick County has more than 1,000 acres zoned for mining and extractive manufacturing; he asked how much more the County needed to accommodate and where. Mr. Walter McCauley, a resident at 7948 Church Street in Middletown and a member of Preserve Frederick, said the Commission has heard many comments on the impacts to physical health, but he believed.the impacts on emotional health were equally important. Mr. McCauley said the mind and body are not separate entities; they interplay. He said the health of one affects the health of the other and emotional health is dependent upon the satisfying quality of life. He relayed a story about the rebuilding of an opera house Vienna, Austria'after World War II. He said the Vieimese people wanted to reconstruct the Opera House prior to reconstructing roads, municipal buildings, or housing. He said when the Viennese people were asked why they chose to rebuild the opera house first, they replied that after so much horror and ugliness,' they needed light and beauty in their lives. Mr. McCauley said he wanted to speak against the proposed rezoning because it would take the light and the beauty out of Middletown. He said people do not need more sources of anxiety, irritation, or stress in their lives. He said places like Middletown were needed for emotional well-being. He asked that the Commission recommend denial of the rezoning. Mr. Byron Smith, a resident of the Back Creek District, said he recently moved into this area. Mr. Smith raised the issue of safety for the local children and their safety riding on school buses. He.said that during his morning travels, he has seen school buses and big trucks miss hitting each other's mirrors by inches; he said he has observed trucks traveling behind school buses and if the school bus had to suddenly stop, there would have been no way the truck could have stopped safely behind the bus. Mr. Smith said a newspaper reported an incident in Prince George's County about a dump truck loaded with gravel ran into the back of a school bus, which pushed the school bus head-on into a pick-up truck. He said the accident killed the school bus driver, injured several children, and killed the driver of the pick-up truck. Mr. Smith didn't believe- the citizens of Middletown needed this in their community. He asked the Commission to vote no on this. application.. Mr. Paul Kisak, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of the Back Creek District, said there were many people this evening who could not say all they wanted to say because of the two -minute limit. Mr. Kisak said this is not over and everyone has much more to say and a lot more to do. He said that everyone appreciates the Commission's time and patience and hopes the Commission will continue to give everyone the opportunity to express their viewpoints. He again thanked the Commission and requested that they vote to deny the application. Ms. Julie Clevenger returned to the podium and requested the Commission proceed with a vote on the application this evening and not table. Ms. Clevenger said that the constituents have been ready; they only had 60 days to prepare and they have come very prepared along with many things that were not able to be said, as mentioned by Mr. Kisak. She said there is a lot more available to bring forward. She said that based on what they have brought forward this evening, she hoped the Commission would take this into consideration and vote no or yes, but not to table. Mr. Keith McNealy stated that ten years ago, when he purchased his property, which adjoins Global Chemstone's property, he went to the offices of Global Chemstone and inquired what their intentions were for the property. He said he was told this property was a buffer and would never be developed in his lifetime. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1774 Minutes of June 7, 2006 -20— Mr. McNealy said it is ten years later and they have pulled the wool over his eyes. He warned the Commission not to let Chemstone do the same to the-Comnnission. Mr. David Kollar returned to the podium to address Ms. Clevenger's request for a vote this evening and not have the application tabled. Mr. Kollar said that if that is a consideration, could the Commission consider tabling the application for further examination by the staff and the applicant. Since everyone who had wanted to speak had been given the opportunity to do so, Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Chairman Wilmot thanked everyone on behalf of the Commission for a very comprehensive public hearing. She next provided an opportunity for the applicant to return to the podium to add any further information or intent on a future motion. Mr. Lawson returned to the podium and renewed the applicant's request for a tabling. Mr. Lawson said they want to have the opportunity to fully respond to the Commission's and the citizens' cominents that were raised. Chairman Wilmot asked Mr. Lawson if he would like to waive the time frame on a possible tabling and Mr. Lawson replied yes. He had no specific anticipated time frame, but thought it would probably be within the 90-day range. Commissioner Ours asked Mr. Lawson why no new information had been submitted since the Planning Commission's initial consideration of this application. Mr. Lawson noted that dialogue has been taking place, referencing meetings between the staff and the DMME. Mr. Lawson said he was working on a proffer statement that would incorporate not only items already in State and Federal regulations, but items that are site specific and what can be accomplished by this landowner. Commissioner Mohn asked the staff to review the State's role in mediating disputes and dealing with various off -site impacts. Mr. Ruddy said that during discussions with Mr. Benner of the Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy (DMME), it became clear that while the DMME regulates the operation of the mining company, along with permitting and safety issues, the scope of their involvement beyond the property or permit is very limited. In fact, he said the DMME is reluctant to become involved with any of the issues that may revolve around blasting or water issues. With this explanation, Commissioner Mohn assumed then, that it may be a misconception to suggest that the State or Federal government would provide protections to the local community and Mr. Ruddy believed that assumption was accurate. Commissioner Mohn inquired of staff if O-N Minerals had submitted a Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment (CPPA) application by the June 1, 2006 deadline or if the land subject to the rezoning was in any way planned for something other than rural areas use, such as a text amendment. Mr. Ruddy replied that no comprehensive plan amendment has been submitted by the applicant in this location, nor was this area considered for another planned use other than rural areas. Commissioner Ours asked the staff about requirements for remediation of the land after it has been mined, such as within a certain time frame. Mr. Ruddy said there were considerable requirements; however, it became very clear through discussions that -there were a lot of opportunities to modify 'requirements and approach things in a different manner. Commissioner Thomas inquired if the property was given to the FCSA before remediation, if this would negate any responsibility on 0-N Minerals' part to remediate the property. Mr. Ruddy replied that particular issue would be under the purview of the DMME. Commissioner Thomas assumed that once the property changed hands and was turned over to a quasi -public entity, the regulations would change. Commissioner Thomas said that if this rezoning request is tabled this evening, he would need to have a clear understanding of the agreement between the FCSA and O-N Minerals prior to this conning back before the Commission. Commissioner Thomas said there were terms and statements within the agreement that were confusing, such as, "termination of liability," "hold harmless," "transfer of property," "water rights," and Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1775 Minutes of June 7, 2006 -21— this could have a significant impact on his decision on the rezoning. In addition, he thought it was important for the community to be aware because there were statements that could be interpreted in different ways and may have significant liability, not only on surrounding property owners, but the FCSA. He added that the FCSA passes their liability on to everyone who purchases water from them. Mr. Ruddy confirmed Commissioner Thomas' prudent request for involvement from the FCSA's Counsel and the County's Counsel as the discussion on this moves forward. Commission members commented that the public's presentation was far better than what was provided by the applicant, in terms of the information provided and organization. Commissioner Thomas next summarized issues that he believed were noteworthy, as follows: The traffic impact analysis submitted was woefully inadequate and needs to be redone. The use of numbers of vehicles for trip generation in the traffic impact analysis is inappropriate when 60-70% of the traffic will be 40- ton dump trucks and will not result in an accurate analysis. A route analysis needs to be done which examines the geometries and conditions of the road, in particular, the impact of 800-900 severely -loaded 40-ton trucks on the road itself. A strip map should be included so the community understands the vehicle traffic pattern that will occur with heavily -loaded vehicles from the quarry, through Middletown, and onto their destination. The environmental impact analysis is lacking; there was nothing within the environmental impact analysis that addressed air quality. A particulate matter study is needed with a wind -rose analysis showing the distribution of the particulate matter, the levels of particulate matter that will be experienced by the surrounding residents, and the particulate matter size that will be distributed. In light of all the nearby farms and livestock, information is needed on how the particulate matter may affect surrounding agricultural and orchard land uses; for example, the affect of particulate matter on grazing cattle and the pollination of orchard fruit trees. In addition to outside dust, dust inside homes also needs to be addressed. Particulate matter of this size will get inside new homes as well as older homes and all homes within a couple mile area will have a significant dust problem within the home. Regarding the subject of determining liability for water wells and blasting damage, how will the applicant monitor existing wells from a quality and quantity standpoint and how will the existing homes be inventoried and evaluated. A plan should be developed with a process for damage assessment and appeals that doesn't require surrounding homeowners to invest an extensive amount of money hiring lawyers and suing. Due to the significant size of this project, a bonding process above the minimum State standards is needed to protect the surrounding homeowners against potential future damages and liabilities, if the company has financial difficulties and moves out of the area. No information was provided by the applicant regarding meetings with surrounding property owners; neighborhood meetings should take place to convey the applicant's plan, how the property owners will be protected, and what the applicant's blasting plan will be. Since the biggest potential problems ,"ill come from areas outside of the quarry site, and the State only regulates on -site, permitted areas, something significantly more than the minimum State -regulated requirements is needed. For example, one seismograph in a blasting area with this kind of topography is substantially inadequate; there should be three -to -five for every blasting plan. The liability for surrounding homeowners for water wells and blasting needs to be substantially expanded. The applicant needs to examine allowed uses in an EM area and consider what is realistically going to be done there and the uses that are not going to be needed should be taken out through a proffer to avoid confusion by adjoining property owners about what can be done here. Another significant item is the life of the quarry operation; specifically, will it be a five-year operation or a 50-year operation, and what is the applicant's phase plan for development of the quarry and the extent of that development. Is it the applicant's intent to proceed down the Valley with this operation and are there plans for remediation of areas left behind as the operation moves along, or are the areas left open through the entire process. Has the applicant considered a mining operation versus an open quarry? Although a mining operation would have less impact on the visual area and produce less dust, it still has the same amount of impact on blasting and water wells. In conclusion, Commissioner Thomas believed the applicant needed at least 90 days to put together a package that would even begin to approach the expected quality for review and consideration. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1776 Minutes of June 7, 2006 _22_ Commissioner Morris said there was nothing that could be proffered that would make this an acceptable rezoning for-liim. He believed the issues raised by the public were valid and require mitigation, which could not be accomplished in anyway except by denying the rezoning. For those reasons, Commissioner Morris was not in favor of granting a 90-day extension and he believed the Commission should proceed with voting this evening. Commissioner Oates agreed with many points raised by Comnnissionier Thomas. In addition, Commissioner Oates wanted the applicant to revisit the issues raised by the HRAB, the Town of Middletown, and Public Works. Commissioner Oates said he was very much concerned with well issues and would like to see some type of bonding process; he did not want the burden of proof to fall on the local residents. He also wanted to see increased buffer distances to keep the operation further away from residences. Commissioner Oates said his concern with voting this evening was the possibility of the Board of Supervisors sending it back to the Planing Commission again; he thought the applicant should be given the opportunity to revise the application so that the package accurately reflects what is being sent to the Board. Commissioner Unger was also concerned about the buffer and he thought the operation was getting too close to the residences. In addition, he was concerned about the unsightly appearance of dirt piles that residents of the community would have to look at for the next ten, 25, or 50 years. Commiissioner Unger asked whether the applicant night be able to produce a drawing showing what they anticipate their operation to look like over the next ten, 25, and 50 years so that the community knows what to expect. Commissioner Ours also agreed with the issues raised by Commissioner Thomas. However, it seemed to Commissioner Ours that if there are that many concerns, then there was a problem with this rezoning. He was very concerned about how the land would be remedied. He wondered if it would even be possible to mitigate the impacts on the view shed, especially when this property comes within feet of residential property. Commissioner Ours said he read the March 2000 Agreement between Global Chemstone and the FCSA. He said that if this were to go forward and at some point, the mining is completed and the property conveyed per the agreement, the FCSA is not in the business of land remediation. Commissioner Ours also raised the traffic issue. He said the affects of the truck traffic from the quarry operation is evident driving through the Town of Middletown and he was concerned about the affects from even more truck traffic. Commissioner Ours said that one of the big issues the Planning Commission has deliberated with in the past with industrially -zoned areas is how to get the traffic from the industrial areas out onto the interstate. He recalled previous Commission deliberations about areas in northern Frederick County, which were in rural areas. However, in this case, the area in question is an actual thriving community. Commissioner Ours commented on the size of the national historic park and noted it extends far beyond just the Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek area; he said it encompassed numerous homes in the area and goes directly up to the border of this rezoning. In conclusion, Commissioner Ours believed this rezoning went against the essence of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Commissioner Kriz also agreed with Commissioner Thomas' summary of pertinent issues. He thought it would be difficult for the applicant to come back within 90 days, considering all of the issues raised, particularly the health issues, and have those issues adequately addressed. He agreed with some of the other Commissioners that a vote should be taken this evening. Commissioner Mohn also questioned how the applicant could adequately address the issues, if he had 90 days or a year in terms of the amount of analysis that was needed in this case. Commissioner Mohn said that if the applicant did proceed with all of the studies, he wasn't sure whether the results would make a difference to him because, fundamentally, this was a land -use issue. He stressed that the time for expansion of this quarry and the industrial use of these particular properties has long passed. He said the surrounding community is clearly residential at this point in time. Commissioner Mohn pointed out that the Commission had previously asked for additional information 60 days ago and nothing was produced. Commissioner Mohn believed this Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1777 Minutes of June 7, 2006 -23— rezoning request should be considered in the spirit of the'Comprehensive Policy Plan. Commissioner Kerr said that many of the issues raised by Commissioner Thomas were raised to the applicant 60 days ago and the Commission has received no response. Commissioner Kerr wondered what quality of response would be received in 90 more days. Commissioner Kerr commended the citizens who attended the meeting because it was very enlightening for him. Commissioner Thomas agreed with all of the comments made by the other Commission members; however, he was concerned about the Commission's responsibility to the Board of Supervisors and to the citizens. He believed the Commission's responsibility was to send a package forward that is worthwhile and gives the Board the ability to review a complete package. He said the rezoning application in its present form does not -afford the Board any opportunity to review; he said the Board will have no option other than to send the application back to the Commission. Addressing Commissioner Thomas's remarks, Commissioner Mohn said the Commission has to vote on what it receives. He said the Commission has received inadequate applications in the past and they have not been given endless amounts of time to provide additional analysis at their discretion. He stated that if the Commission's recommendation was for denial, he hoped it would be based on the Comprehensive Policy Plan and not on any amount of the technical analysis, or the water, or other issues. He believed this was a fundamental land use issue. Comnssioner Mohn was adamant that this land use does not work and was not compatible. Commissioner Ours made a motion to deny the rezoning application and he requested that all materials that were provided to the Commission from the public be included as part of the record that goes forward to the Board of Supervisors. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Morris. Commissioner Light also agreed with Commissioner Thomas' review of the issues. Commissioner Light believed it would be difficult to rezone this property at this time because of all the residential development that has occurred around the Chemstone site. On the other hand, Commissioner Light said he didn't hear any real complaints from the public about the quarry's present-day operation. Commissioner Light said he could not determine from the application whether Chemstone would limit their operation to an active core area or even how much quarrying they planned to do. He couldn't say whether he would disagree with the rezoning that limited quarrying down to a very few acres and if there were proffers with captures, triggers, or dates because it could be an opportunity to protect the surrounding residents. He suggested that a revised application and proffer could result in a minor amount of rezoned land with protections; whereas, the neighbors have no protection today. He thought the battlefields may have a better opportunity for a topographical view shed protection system, which would protect Belle Grove and the battlefields through a rezoning, than what they have today. In addition, protection standards against increased traffic could be incorporated, which is something that is not done today. Commissioner Thomas continued to be concerned about sending this application forward to the Board of Supervisors in its present state: He was concerned about doing a disservice to both the Board and the citizens without allowing the applicant to go back and improve the application with a phasing plan, or offering a commitment to a smaller area, or providing protections for surrounding areas. Commissioner Mohn did not think the anticipation of the Board's action should be a consideration for the Commission. He also did not believe it was the Commission's responsibility to find ways to package rezonings in some format that will be okay for the Board to pass. Commissioner Mohn said he did not hear anything this evening that makes him think something could be done with the proposal to make it compatible as a land use. He commented that it was the Board's prerogative to send it back to the Commission and to tell the Commission if they want an extensive analysis done. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1778 Minutes of June 7, 2006 -24— Commissioner Oates also preferred not to forward the application in its present form to the Board of Supervisors. He preferred to send a package that, if it was approved, would not be nearly as bad as what was in front.of the Commission today. At this point, Chairman Wilmot called for a vote for the motion that was on the table. The majority vote was in favor of the motion to recommend denial of the rezoning request. BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of Rezoning 403-06 of 0-N Minerals (Chemstone), submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 639.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with the caveat that that all materials that were provided to the Commission from the public be included into the record that goes forward to the Board of Supervisors. This application includes the Middle Marsh property, located east of Belle View Lane (Rt. 75 8), west of Hites Road (Rt. 625) and on both sides of Chapel Road (Rt. 627), and the Northern Reserve property, which is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and Shenandoah County, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Rt. 624). The vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. DENIAL): Watt, Morris, Oates, Wilmot,. Ours, Kriz, Kerr, Mohn NO: Unger, Manuel, Light, Thomas (Note: Commissioner Triplett was absent from the meeting.) DISCUSSION DISCUSSION OF THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA (UDA) AND THE SEWER AND WATER SERVICE AREA (SWSA) BOUNDARIES. No Action Required Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, presented the proposed Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) Boundary Modifications, which were a component of the on- going UDA Study. Mr. Ruddy said it was determined that prior to moving forward with the more creative and proactive land use policy efforts of the UDA Study, the UDA and SWSA boundaries should appropriately reflect the current land use designations of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, as an initial step. In addition, he said the UDA and SWSA boundaries should follow logical and consistent boundaries or features and relate to each other. Mr. Ruddy said the modifications of the UDA and SWSA boundaries to more appropriately reflect the current land use designations of the Comprehensive Policy Plan will result in an approximate reduction of 6,624 acres in the UDA and a reduction of approximately 1,495 acres; the proposed UDA would be 16,220 acres in size and the proposed SWSA would be 25,254 acres in size. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1779 Minutes of June 7, 2006 -25— Mr. Ruddy added that the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee endorsed the UDA/SWSA Boundary Modification Exercise at their meeting on May 8, 2006 with two suggestions. The first, the maintenance of the B2 portion of the Jordan Springs Monastery property within the SWSA should be incorporated into the mapping; and second, the recognition of the Echo Village residential community should be incorporated into the policy language. Mr. Ruddy proceeded to show a series of slides depicting the eight areas in the County where modifications were proposed. Commissioner Thomas inquired if this exercise could be construed in any way as a "taking" by reducing the UDA or inhibiting the value of properties in the view of property owners. Commissioner Thomas also asked what the Commission was hoping to solve by going through this exercise. Mr. Ruddy said the study committee does not believe that any of these actions would result in a "taking" situation because the value would be placed on the current land use designations of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Plamning Director Eric R. Lawrence added that the actual zoning of a property dictates what can or can not be done on a property and has the identified permitted uses. Mr. Lawrence said this exercise will not take away the property's permitted uses. Commissioner Thomas commented that whether or not the property is within the UDA is a primary factor when considering a rezoning application. He said a property owner will now be required to go through two legislative actions; getting the property within the UDA and getting the proper zoning. Other Commissioners believed that before this action could be considered a regulatory taking, the properties would have to be down -zoned, causing certain development rights to be taken away. However, it was thought the action could possibly change the perceived value of the properties being removed. Some members thought it would be best to clear up the boundaries now, so the existing land would be consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. It was noted that only.a few areas would be impacted in the way suggested because the vast majority of the land affected was zoned either commercial, industrial, or was within the Town of Stephens City; very few areas had the potential for RP development. Commissioners wanted to make sure the affected property owners were informed through written notification of the proposed modifications because it was a significant land use action. It was noted that the area maps were presented at the three separate public meetings held to inform the public of this exercise. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1780 Minutes of June 7, 2006 ob. —26— ADJOURNMENT Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Mohn, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 7, 2006. Respectfully submitted, �Uy A - (u,& (rVV.-t- M. Wilmot, Chairman wrence, Secretary Page 1781 ip P""'P' /:,-"er� August 31, 2007 Mr. John Riley Frederick County Administrator 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Riley, F0. Box 562 Middletown, VA 22645 preservefrederick@yahoo.com www.preservefrederick.org I want to thank you, Mr. Ruddy and Mr. Lawrence for meeting with Anne and me today regarding the #03-06 O-N Minerals (Chemstone) application. We appreciate you reviewing our proposal and offering input on how to proceed. We have sent a certified/registered letter this afternoon to the CEO, CFO and Senior Vice President of Operations of Olgebay Norton in Cleveland. We requested that we receive a response by September 17a'. We are also sending copies of the letter and proposal to you, the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Ruddy, Mr. Lawrence and the Preserve Frederick Board of Directors. We will call you as soon as we get a response from Olgebay Norton. If you have any questions regarding this proposal or anything else, please feel free to contact me at 540-869-5024 or you can email me at wjhmadd84La aolxom. Sincerct"y; Wendy Hami on CC. Eric Lawrence, Frederick County Director of Planning Michael Ruddy, Frederick County Deputy Planning Director Preserve Frederick promotes compatible development that strengthens our communities, protects our historic and natural resources, and preserves the rural character of Frederick County, Viqinia P.O. Box 562 Middletown, VA 22645 reservefrederick@ ahoo.com ? P,."P, , p www.preservefrederick.org August 31, 2007 Mr. Michael J. Minkel Senior Vice President, Operations Oglebay Norton Company 1001 Lakeside Avenue, 151" Floor Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Minkel, I am writing on behalf of concerned citizens in southern Frederick County, Virginia, regarding your company's (O-N Minerals — Chemstone) pending application for a rezoning of 639 acres near Middletown from agricultural to extractive manufacturing uses. The rezoning was denied on June 7, 2006 by the Frederick County Planning Commission and is pending before the County Board of Supervisors. More than 14 months ago, company officials agreed to amend the application to address concerns raised by the planners and residents about the scope and scale of the rezoning and the potential impacts of greatly expanded mining and other industrial uses at that location. To encourage resolution of the rezoning issue, Preserve Frederick, a non-profit local citizens group, offers the attached alternative plan for your consideration. This alternative rezoning plan was designed to accomplish four goals: • Significant mining rights are retained. • Historic resources are preserved. • Natural resources are protected. • Traffic, dust and noise problems are addressed. Our local elected officials and county staff have encouraged Preserve Frederick to send you this alternative plan. It was well -received by all of the major stakeholders affected by the rezoning, including adjacent landowners, battlefield preservation groups and the National Park Service, and the Greater Middletown Business Association. We believe it balances the needs of your company with those of the community. For this reason, we are unlikely to be able to gain local support for any major changes to the attached alternative rezoning plan. We ask that you please review this alternative plan and the attached letter of county recommendations dated January 3, 2006 from planner Candice E. Perkins and respond to Preserve Frederick by September 17, 2007 . Preserve Frederick promoter compatible development that strrrrgthens our communities, protects our historic and natural resources, and preserves the rural character of Frederick County, Virginia. Specifically, please let us know 1) If your company is willing to amend the rezoning application to reflect the terms in this alternative plan or 2) If your company finds the alternative plan an unacceptable option for the property. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to working with you and your company to end the long delay in resolving the Middletown inuring rezoning. Sincerely, Wendy Hamilton President CC. Michael D. Lundin, President and Chief Executive Officer, Oglebay Norton Julie A. Boland, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer, Oglebay Norton Frederick County Board of Supervisors John Riley, Frederick County Administrator Eric Lawrence, Frederick County Director of Planning Michael Ruddy, Frederick County Deputy Planning Director Preserve Frederick Board of Directors Alternative: Middletown Mining Rezoning Alternative to the O-N Minerals rezoning application for 639 acres near Middletown: rezone only Parcel 90-A-23 from agriculture to extractive manufacturing, subject to following restrictions: • Restrict limestone mining to "Disturbance Area" marked on map above. • Extinguish all other land uses permitted in the extractive manufacturing zoning category. • Preserve buffers on Cedar Creek and adjoining landowners, with no soil or other disturbance within the buffer. • Implement a soil erosion control plan on dirt mounds created by mining. • Adopt the recommendations for control of traffic, dust, noise and visual impacts contained in the Frederick County Planning Department review of the O-N Minerals rezoning application. • Withdraw application to rezone Parcel 83-A-109. Benefits of Middletown Mining Rezoning Alternative /Confeder ate Morning Pos�twns t - �= deral Morning Povbons 4 ^c. / _ A Significant Mining Rights Retained: O-N Minerals facilities in Frederick County represent just 10 percent of the company's known limestone reserves. Combined with existing operations, limestone on Parcel 90 A 23 (southern portion of map) would support mining operations for at least 30 years. Historic Resources Preserved: The historic resources associated with the Battle of Cedar Creek are concentrated on Parcel 83 A 109 (northern portion of map). Historic resources on the southern parcel are already impacted visually by the existing limestone mining operation. Natural Resources Protected: Properly designed buffers on the southern parcel can greatly reduce, mitigate or eliminate the impacts on Cedar Creek and rare plant and animal species upland. Traffic, Dust, Noise Addressed: County staff recommendations would greatly reduce, mitigate or eliminate these impacts. Reasonable Alternatives to O-N Minerals Application #03-06 ELIMINATE FROM APPLICATION • All of Parcel # 83-A-109 • All other uses in Extractive Manufacturing Zoning ADDITIONS TO REZONED PARCEL #90-A-23 • Large buffers on Cedar Creek and neighbors • No disturbance in buffers • Soil erosion plan in mining area • A biological study on an environmentally sensitive area • All requested proffers in 1-03-06 Historic Resources Advisory Board letter written by Candace Perkins to O-N. (See letter) COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planting and Development 50/"5-S6S1 FAX: 5401665-6395 January 3, 2006 Mr. Chuck Maddox, Jr. P.E. Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: O-N Minerals (Chemstons) Rezoning Proposal Location: The subject parcels are situated generally west and Adjacent to the Town of Middletown. Property Identification ?Numbers (PINs):53-A-90, 91 Zoning District: RA (Rural Areas) Dear Mr. Maddox: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning proposal during their meeting of December 20, 2005. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valig:j, information provided by the applicant as well as information provided by various groups that were in attendance of the meeting. UbtoIJI aesourcjj Advisory RoalA CoUgms The 1992 National Park Service Stu¢v of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley_ shows a portion of the property in question as being located within the core battlefield of the Battle of Cedar Creek and the property (691 acres) also contains the site where the Nieswanger Fort once stood. It is the intent of the applicant to rezone this property to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Zoning District to accommodate the expansion of the quart' operation. The HRAb expressed concern that the proposed rezoning was ,iui protecting the v iewshed of the battlefield and the Belle Grove property as ti yell as the archeological resources present on the Cedar Creek Battlefield and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. The HRAB felt that the applicant still needs to address many issues with this rezoning before it should be considered by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The HRAB could support the approval of this project if the following suggestions are considered in order to mitigate impacts on the historic resources: • A Phase I Archeological Survey needs to be done on the site, focusing on core battlefield areas and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. If warranted by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, subsequent studies should be performed. (Phase 11!IIr). • A detailed Viewshed Mitigation Analysis./Plan needs to be completed that will show the effects ofthe new quarry operation from key points (critical areas and views/pull-offs to be determined by the National Park Service, Relle. rTrove And the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation). This plan needs to be completed before any land disturbance is allowed on the site and implementation of any 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Wtuchester, Virgt%da 22601-S000 C7 Mr. Chuck Maddox Re: O-N Minerals Rezoning Proposal January 3, 2006 Page 2 suggestions that may result from the plan should be given a proffered timeline. In addition, the viewshed study should also ensure that views from Chapel Road are not impaired. • Cedar Creek should be bridged so that quarry trucks can use this route instead of going through historic Middletown and passing by the Belle Grove entrance. • The conveyer system being discussed should be studied further to ensure that it does not impact the viewshed or create noise issues. The amount cf traffic this system will alleviate should be provided as well. The applicant should propose a plan for the conveyer system that will not have a huge visual impact on the surro;jnding landscape. • A timeline for the removal of the existing stockpile of dirt (overburden) that can be seen from the Cedar Creek Battlefield needs to be provided with this proposal. • Strategic landscaping needs to be looked at, as well as preserving natural existing landscaping, as opposed to high berms to try to screen the operation. A detailed landscaping study needs to be done for the site, • The location for the overburden from the new quam/ operation needs to be provided so that large piles of dirt similar to the current operation are not present, maximum elevations for new berms need to be proffered. A documented plan for any new berms and overburden stockpiles needs to be provided. • Perimeter fencing and lighting details need to be provided so that they do not affect the adjacent historic uses. • The proffers provided to the HRAB included an eight acre reserve for Belle Grove. The proffer states that, "Said reserve shall be set aside for future dedication to Belle Grove Foundation". This proffer includes no timeline for the dedication of the property and as provided, the dedication coald never happen. A specific timeline for the dedication of this property needs to be provided to ensure that the Foundation is given this property. Please contact me with any questions cove:ning rhesc comMtllts fiuin ttte HRAB. Sin rely, Candice E. Perkins Planner II CEP/bad cc: Rhoda Kriz, Harold Lehman, HRAB :Members Bill Ewing, Opequon District Supervisor Mike Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director Alternative: Middletown Mining Rezoning Alternative to the O-N Minerals rezoning application for 639 acres near Middletown: rezone only Parcel 90-A-23 from agriculture to extractive manufacturing, subject to following restrictions: • Restrict limestone mining to "Disturbance Area" marked on map above. • Extinguish all other land uses permitted in the extractive manufacturing zoning category. • Preserve buffers on Cedar Creek and adjoining landowners, with no soil or other disturbance within the buffer. • Implement a soil erosion control plan on dirt mounds created by mining. • Adopt the recommendations for control of traffic, dust, noise and visual impacts contained in the Frederick County Planning Department review of the O-N Minerals rezoning application. • Withdraw application to rezone Parcel 83-A-109. Benefits of Middletown Mining Rezoning Alternative . /Confederate Morning Positions . /FederalMorning Positions a Ht;newhere FederalsRegrouped +Q-N Lands at -Cedar e C artherst Confederate Advance �,'-/�\°�l �i n ^VCuster's Flank Attack �yyrederal Vlth Corps Trenches CCJ •?4 - Federal Camps Jd� Edinburg Limestone Lincolnshire Limestone New Market Limestone r•,' i.r ; `�` Significant Mining Rights Preserved: O-N Minerals facilities in Frederick County represent just 10 percent of the company's known limestone reserves. Combined with existing operations, limestone on Parcel 90 A 23 (southern portion of map) would support mining operations for at least 30 years. Historic Resources Preserved: The historic resources associated with the Battle of Cedar Creek are concentrated on Parcel 83 A 109 (northern portion of map). Historic resources on the southern parcel are already impacted visually by the existing limestone mining operation. Natural Resources Protected: Properly designed buffers on the southern parcel can greatly reduce, mitigate or eliminate the impacts on Cedar Creek and rare plant and animal species upland. Traffic, Dust, Noise Addressed: County staff recommendations would greatly reduce, mitigate or eliminate these impacts. PRESERVE FR D RICK ro,notinJc com patihfe bevef0j jnent t"t�strenstnens our communities, Aotects our Waturaf and 1fistoric &vources analpreserves our rural' aracter PROTECTING OUR PAST — PRESERVING OUR FUTURE Mining Alternative — PLAN B ELIMINATE FROM APPLICATION • ALL of Parcel # 83-A-109 — located directly north and south of Chapel Road • ALL other uses in Extractive Manufacturing Zoning ADDITIONS TO REZONED PARCEL #90-A-23 - known as `Northern Reserves — is the southernmost portion of O-N properties, located next to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove area. • Large buffers on Cedar Creek and neighbors • No disturbance in buffers • Well managed soil erosion/overburden plan in mining area that will sustain plant growth • A biological study on an environmentally sensitive area • All requested proffers in January 03, 2006 Historic Resources Advisory Board letter written by Candice Perkins to O-N to include bridge over Cedar Creek which will address Middletown traffic concerns Alternative: Middletown Mining Rezoning D r Alternative to the O-N Minerals rezoning application for 639 acres near Middletown: rezone only Parcel 90-A-23 from agriculture to extractive manufacturing, subject to following restrictions: • Restrict limestone mining to "Disturbance Area" marked on map above. • Extinguish all other land uses permitted in the extractive manufacturing zoning category. • Preserve buffers on Cedar Creek and adjoining landowners, with no soil or other disturbance within the buffer. • Implement a soil erosion control plan on dirt mounds created by mining. • Adopt the recommendations for control of traffic, dust, noise and visual impacts contained in the Frederick County Planning Department review of the O-N Minerals rezoning application. • Withdraw application to rezone Parcel 83-A-109. Benefits of Middletown Mining Rezoning Alternative Significant Mining Rights Preserved: O-N Minerals facilities in Frederick County represent just 10 percent of the company's known limestone reserves. Combined with existing operations, limestone on Parcel 90 A 23 (southern portion of map) would support mining operations for at least 30 years. Historic Resources Preserved: The historic resources associated with the Battle of Cedar Creek are concentrated on Parcel 83 A 109 (northern portion of map). Historic resources on the southern parcel are already impacted visually by the existing limestone mining operation. Natural Resources Protected: Properly designed buffers on the southern parcel can greatly reduce, mitigate or eliminate the impacts on Cedar Creek and rare plant and animal species upland. Traffic, Dust, Noise Addressed: County staff recommendations would greatly reduce, mitigate or eliminate these impacts. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/663-%51 FAX: UW665-6395 January 3, 2006 Mr. Chuck Maddox, Jr. P.E. Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Rezoning Proposal Location: The subject parcels are situated generally west and adjacent to the Town of Middletown. Property Identification Numbers (PINs):53-A-90, 91 Zoning District: RA (Rural Areas) Dear Mr. Maddox: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning proposal during their meeting of December 20, 2005. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, information provided by the applicant as well as information provided by various groups that were in attendance of the meeting. Histotrig j&gsoureg Advisory Board Concerns The 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley shows a portion of the property in question as being located within the core battlefield of the Battle of Cedar Creek and the property (691 acres) also contains the site where the Nieswanger Fort once stood. It is the intent of the applicant to rezone this property to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Zoning District to accommodate the expansion of the quarry operation. •bite H-kAb expressed concern that the proposed rezoning 'Ads ,lVi protecting file viewshad ofthe battlefield ar,d the Belle Grove property as well as the archeological resources present on the Cedar Creek Battlefield and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. The HRAB felt that the applicant still needs to address many issues with this rezoning before it should be considered by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The HRAB could support the approval of this project if the following suggestions are considered in order to mitigate impacts on the historic resources: • A Phase I Archeological Survey needs to be done on the site, focusing on core battlefield areas and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. If warranted by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, subsequent studies should be performed. (Phase lI/IIf). • A detailed Viewshed Mitigation Analysis/Plan needs to be completed that will show the effects ofthe new quarry operation from key points (critical areas and views'pul]-offs to be determined by the National Park Service 1RFlle (?rove and the Cedar Creek Rattlefield Foundation). This olan needs to be completed before any land disturbance is allowed on the site and implementation of any 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Mr. Chuck Maddox Re: O-N Minerals Rezoning Proposal January 3, 2006 Page 2 suggestions that may result from the plan should be given a proffered timeline. In addition, the viewshed study should also ensure that views from Chapel Road are not impaired. • Cedar Creek should be bridged so that quarry trucks can use this route instead of going through historic Middletown and passing by the Belle Grove entrance. + The conveyer system being discussed should be studied further to ensure that it does not impact the viewshed or create noise issues. The amount of traffic this system will alleviate should be provided as well. The applicant should propose a plan for the conveyer system that will not have a huge visual impact on the surrounding landscape. • A timeline for the removal of the existing stockpile of dirt (overburden) that can be seen from the Cedar Creek Battlefield needs to be provided with this proposal. • Strategic landscaping needs to be looked at, as well as preserving natural existing landscaping, as opposed to high berms to try to screen the operation. A detailed landscaping study needs to be done for the site. • The location for the overburden from the new quarry operation needs to be provided so that large piles of dirt similar to the current operation are not present, maximum elevations for new berms need to be proffered. A documented plan for any new berms and overburden stockpiles needs to be provided. • Perimeter fencing and lighting details need to be provided so that they do not affect the adjacent historic uses. • The proffers provided to the HRAB included an eight acre reserve for Belle Grove. The proffer states that, "Said reserve shall be set aside for future dedication to Belle Grove Foundation". This proffer includes no timeline for the dedication of the property and as provided, the dedication could never happen. A specific timeline for the dedication of this property needs to be provided to ensure that the Foundation is given this properrd. Please contact me with any questions couce ring these comritcnts fioni the HRAB. Sin rely, Candice E. Perkins Planner II CEP/bad cc: Rhoda Kriz, Harold Lehman, HRAB Members Bill Ewing, Opequon District Supervisor Mike Ruddy, Deputy- Planning Director We have several questions for you regarding the timing for Supervisors' discussion of Plan B and action on the mining rezoning. 1. Can the Board schedule a discussion of Plan B at an upcoming work session or during a full BOS meeting before the end of October? If appropriate, we would like to present Plan B to the Board and expect the board to discuss and comment at that time. We are asking for this timetable because of the pressure we are under to get things moving on this matter before the election. After 15 months, local residents are calling for a 'sense' from the Board and those running for office of where they stand on this issue. 2. If O-N flatly rejects Plan B or refuses to respond to our request for an answer by Sept. 17, can the Board of Supervisors go ahead and schedule a public hearing and vote on the existing application by the end of October? Does the board believe it must get a directive from the applicant before it can act? 3. Is it realistic to hope that the Board will deny the rezoning if O-N is unwilling to consider Plan B, the community's preferred alternative to the current application? 4. If the scenarios above don't work to bring the matter forward, how else can we achieve a public discussion of Plan B and the future of mining near Middletown before the election? From the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165: ZONING § 165-10. P1amling Commission public hearing. [Amended 11-12-2003] The Plaiming Commission shall hold at least one public hearing on any proposed amendment after notice as required by § 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia and may make appropriate changes in the proposed amendment as a result of such hearing. Upon the completion of its work, the Commission shall present the proposed amendment to the Board, together with its recommendations and the appropriate explanatory materials to the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission shall present its recommendations to the Board within 90 days after the first Commission meeting following the referral of the amendment to the Connnission. § 165-11. Board of Supervisors public hearing. [Amended 11-12-2003] Before approving and adopting any amendment, the Board shall hold at least one public hearing thereon, pursuant to public notice as required by § 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, after which the Board may make appropriate changes or corrections in the proposed amendment; provided, however, that no additional land may be zoned to a different classification than was contained in the public notice without an additional public hearing after notice required by § 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia. An affinnative vote of a majority of the members of the Board shall be required to amend this chapter. The Board shall act on rezoning petitions within 12 months of the time when the petition was received by the Zoning Administrator. Should a request for a rezoning be disapproved by the Board of Supervisors, at least 12 months shall expire before another application for rezoning of substantially the same land to the same zoning district designation shall be considered. REZONING Preapplication Discussion with Planning Dircctorl Zoning Review Committee j Complete Petition and Proffers I filed with Zoning Administrator I Fee Paid I Advertisement for Public H+waring of Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting I Rtoommendation of Planning Commission Soard Of Supervisors Pubtio Hearing Rezoning Denial of Rezoning Granted I ' t Alternative: Middletown Mining Rezoning O-N Properties r Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park �Y 67 Frederick County, Virginia Proposed Buffers and Disturbance Area I O Disturbance Area j O Buffer Tax Parcel 90 (A) 23 liv National Historical Park _ •� i Edinburg Limestone Lincolnshire Limestone New Market Limestone Stele 16,000 So— NPS it VaIM7 St.dyIf Baa Ma.= USG57.5 S % Se d—g a.1 Mal dlatown I`. --- amEunpin. t9Be. Alternative to the O-N Minerals rezoning application for 639 acres near Middletown: rezone only Parcel 90-A-23 from agriculture to extractive manufacturing, subject to following restrictions: • Restrict limestone mining to "Disturbance Area" marked on map above. • Extinguish all other land uses permitted in the extractive manufacturing zoning category. • Preserve buffers on Cedar Creek and adjoining landowners, with no soil or other disturbance within the buffer. • Implement a soil erosion control plan on dirt mounds created by mining. • Adopt the recommendations for control of traffic, dust, noise and visual impacts contained in the Frederick County Planning Department review of the O-N Minerals rezoning application. • Withdraw application to rezone Parcel 83-A-109. Benefits of Middletown Mining Rezoning Alternative nfederate Morning Po9tions _- V� Vederal Morning Positions -'� 1 ne where Federals Regrouped, I O—N Luag Ids at Cedar artherst Confederate Advance I NCuster's Flank Attack iM 4IFederal Vlth Corps Trenches'' - Federal Camps Edinburg Limestone Lincolnshire Limestone New Market ALppA i L.a Significant Mining Rights Preserved: O-N Minerals facilities in Frederick County represent just 10 percent of the company's known limestone reserves. Combined with existing operations, limestone on Parcel 90 A 23 (southern portion of map) would support mining operations for at least 30 years. Historic Resources Preserved: The historic resources associated with the Battle of Cedar Creek are concentrated on Parcel 83 A 109 (northern portion of map). Historic resources on the southern parcel are already impacted visually by the existing limestone mining operation. Natural Resources Protected: Properly designed buffers on the southern parcel can greatly reduce, mitigate or eliminate the impacts on Cedar Creek and rare plant and animal species upland. Traffic, Dust, Noise Addressed: County staff recommendations would greatly reduce, mitigate or eliminate these impacts. PR S RVE FR D RICK Awnotin!y co7rtpati,Gfe Oev kj ment th-�at ��strenSth-ens our communities, 3 Wa rotects our tura%anc�- istoric & esources am%reserves our rural -Craracter PROTECTING OUR PAST — PRESERVING OUR FUTURE Mining Alternative — PLAN B ELIMINATE FROM APPLICATION • ALL of Parcel # 83-A-109 — located directly north and south of Chapel Road • ALL other uses in Extractive Manufacturing Zoning ADDITIONS TO REZONED PARCEL #90-A-23 - known as `Northern Reserves — is the southernmost portion of O-N properties, located next to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove area. • Large buffers on Cedar Creek and neighbors • No disturbance in buffers • Well managed soil erosion/overburden plan in mining area that will sustain plant growth • A biological study on an environmentally sensitive area • All requested proffers in January 03, 2006 Historic Resources Advisory Board letter written by Candice Perkins to O-N to include bridge over Cedar Creek which will address Middletown traffic concerns Alternative: Middletown Mining Rezoning Alternative to the O-N Minerals rezoning application for 639 acres near Middletown: rezone only Parcel 90-A-23 from agriculture to extractive manufacturing, subject to following restrictions: • Restrict limestone mining to "Disturbance Area" marked on map above. • Extinguish all other land uses permitted in the extractive manufacturing zoning category. • Preserve buffers on Cedar Creek and adjoining landowners, with no soil or other disturbance within the buffer. • Implement a soil erosion control plan on dirt mounds created by mining. • Adopt the recommendations for control of traffic, dust, noise and visual impacts contained in the Frederick County Planning Department review of the O-N Minerals rezoning application. • Withdraw application to rezone Parcel 83-A-109. Benefits of Middletown Mining Rezoning Alternative _ �/C nfederate Morning Positions �' V. /Federal Morning Positions MIne where Federals Regrouped ^#artherst Confederate Advance NCuster's Flank Attack 4IFederal Vlth Corps Trenches - Federal Camps Edinburg Limestone Lincolnshire Limestone New Market Limestone \, -N Lands at, -Cedar {� t Significant Mining Rights Preserved: O-N Minerals facilities in Frederick County represent just 10 percent of the company's known limestone reserves. Combined with existing operations, limestone on Parcel 90 A 23 (southern portion of map) would support mining operations for at least 30 years. Historic Resources Preserved: The historic resources associated with the Battle of Cedar Creek are concentrated on Parcel 83 A 109 (northern portion of map). Historic resources on the southern parcel are already impacted visually by the existing limestone mining operation. Natural Resources Protected: Properly designed buffers on the southern parcel can greatly reduce, mitigate or eliminate the impacts on Cedar Creek and rare plant and animal species upland. Traffic, Dust, Noise Addressed: County staff recommendations would greatly reduce, mitigate or eliminate these impacts. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 50/665-5651 FAX: 5401665-6393 January 3, 2006 Mr. Chuck Maddox, Jr. P.E. Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Rezoning Proposal Location: The subject parcels are situated generally west and adjacent to the Town of Middletown. Property Identification ?Numbers (PINs):53-A-90, 91 Zoning District: RA (Rural Areas) Dear Mr. Maddox: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning proposal during their meeting of December 20, 2005. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, information provided by the applicant as well as information provided by various groups that were in attendance of the meeting. Histodi Resoureg Advisory Board Concerns The 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley shows a portion of the property in question as being located within the core battlefield of the Battle of Cedar Creek and the property (691 acres) also contains the site where the Nieswanger Fort once stood. It is the intent of the applicant to rezone this property to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Zoning District to accommodate the expansion of the quarry operation. 'l he HRA8 expressed concern that the proposed rezoning was nut protecting the v iewshed of the battlefield and the Belle Grove property as well as the archeological resources present on the Cedar Creek Battlefield and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. The HRAB felt that the applicant still needs to address many issues with this rezoning before it should be considered by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The HRAB could support the approval of this project if the following suggestions are considered in order to mitigate impacts on the historic resources: • A Phase I Archeological Survey needs to be done on the site, focusing on core battlefield areas and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. If warranted by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, subsequent studies should be performed. (Phase 11?III). • A detailed Viewshed Mitigation Analysis/Plan needs to be completed that will show the effects ofthe new quarry operation from key points (critical areas and views/puti-offs to be determined by the National Park Service, RFlle (?rove and the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation). This plan needs to be completed before any land disturbance is allowed on the site and implementation of any z67 North Kant Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virgtuis 22601-S000 Mr. Chuck Maddox Re: O-N Minerals Rezoning Proposal January 3, 2W6 Page 2 suggestions that may result from the plan should be given a proffered timeline. In addition, the viewshed study should also ensure that views from Chapel Road are not impaired. • Cedar Creek should be bridged so that quarry trucks can use this route instead of going through historic Middletown and passing by the Belle Grove entrance. • The conveyer system being discussed should be studied further to ensure that it does not impact the viewshcd or create noise issues. The amount of traffic this system will alleviate should be provided as well. The applicant should propose a plan for the conveyer system that will not have a huge visual impact on the surrounding landscape. • A timeline for the removal of the existing stockpile of dirt (overburden) that can be seen from the Cedar Creek Battlefield needs to be provided with this proposal. • Strategic landscaping needs to be looked at, as well as preserving natural existing landscaping, as opposed to high berms to try to screen the operation. A detailed landscaping study needs to be done for the site. • The location for the overburden from the new quarry operation needs to be provided so that large piles of dirt similar to the current operation are not present, maximum elevations for new berms need to be proffered. A documented plan for any new berms and overburden stockpiles needs to be provided. • Perimeter fencing and lighting details need to be provided so that they do not affect the adjacent historic uses. • The proffers provided to the HRAB included an eight acre reserve for Belle Grove. The proffer states that, "Said reserve shall be set aside for future dedication to Belle Grove Foundation". This proffer includes no timeline for the dedication of the property and as provided, the dedication could never happen. A specific timeline for the dedication: of this property needs to be provided to ensure that the Foundation is given this property. Please contact me with any questions eouce.ming rhesc; .omnirnt6 fioin the HRAP3. Sin rely, Candice E. Perkins Planner 11 CEP/bad cc: Rhoda Kriz, Harold Lehman, HRAB Members Bill Ewing, Opequon District Supervisor Mike Ruddy, Deputy- Planning Director We have several questions for you regarding the timing for Supervisors' discussion of Plan B and action on the mining rezoning. 1. Can the Board schedule a discussion of Plan B at an upcoming work session or during a full BOS meeting before the end of October? If appropriate, we would like to present Plan B to the Board and expect the board to discuss and comment at that time. We are asking for this timetable because of the pressure we are under to get things moving on this matter before the election. After 15 months, local residents are calling for a 'sense' from the Board and those running for office of where they stand on this issue. 2. If O-N flatly rejects Plan B or refuses to respond to our request for an answer by Sept. 17, can the Board of Supervisors go ahead and schedule a public hearing and vote on the existing application by the end of October? Does the board believe it must get a directive from the applicant before it can act? 3. Is it realistic to hope that the Board will deny the rezoning if O-N is unwilling to consider Plan B, the community's preferred alternative to the current application? 4. If the scenarios above don't work to bring the matter forward, how else can we achieve a public discussion of Plan B and the future of mining near Middletown before the election? From the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165: ZONING § 165-10. Planning Commission public hearing. [Amended 11-12-20031 The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing on any proposed amendment after notice as required by § 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia and may make appropriate changes in the proposed amendment as a result of such hearing. Upon the completion of its work, the Commission shall present the proposed amendment to the Board, together with its recommendations and the appropriate explanatory materials to the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission shall present its recommendations to the Board within 90 days after the first Commission meeting following the referral of the amendment to the Commission. § 165-11. Board of Supervisors public hearing. [Amended 11-12-2003] Before approving and adopting any amendment, the Board shall hold at least one public hearing thereon, pursuant to public notice as required by § 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, after which the Board may make appropriate changes or corrections in the proposed amendment; provided, however, that no additional land may be zoned to a different classification than was contained in the public notice without an additional public hearing after notice required by § 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia. An affrnnative vote of a majority of the members of the Board shall be required to amend this chapter. The Board shall act on rezoning petitions within 12 months of the time when the petition was received by the Zoning Administrator. Should a request for a rezoning be disapproved by the Board of Supervisors, at least 12 months shall expire before another application for rezoning of substantially the same land to the same zoning district designation shall be considered. 4 REZONING Preapplication Discussion with Planning Director/ Zoning Review Committee Complete Petition and Proffers filed with zoning Administrator I Fe• Paid I A.dvartisement for Public Hearing of Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting I Rtcommendafion of Planning Commission Board Of Supervisors Public Hearing Rezoning Denial of Rezoning Granted DAAIO-Okl. The Middletown Quarry Rezoning Questions and Answers about: • Rezoning (page 2) • Limestone (page 3) • Safety (page 5) • Health (page 7) • Trucks (page 8) • Other Uses (page 11) • The Battlefield (page 13) • Environment (page 14) CARMEUSE LIME & STONE CHEMSTONE OPERATION 351 MCCUNE ROAD PO BOX 87 MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645 www.carmeusena.com TEL 540-869-1066 Who is Carmeuse Lime & Stone? Carmeuse Lime & Stone recently purchased Oglebay Norton, the parent company of O-N Minerals (Chemstone), owner/operator of the Middletown Quarry. The purchase contract was signed in October 2007 and completed in February 2008. Based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Carmeuse Lime & Stone is the largest producer of lime products in North America. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Carmeuse Group, a leading global producer of lime and lime -related products based in Belgium. The company has chosen to keep the name "Chemstone Operation" for the Strasburg, Middletown and Clearbrook operations, since this is how they are known locally. For simplicity, this brochure will refer to the company as ".Chemstone," meaning the local operation which is wholly owned by the parent company. Questions about the Rezoning How will the rezoning change the operation of the Middletown quarry? Very little will change. The crushing equipment, truck entrance and amount of limestone quarried will not change with the rezoning. The only thing that is expanding is the length of the quarry pit. Why does the quarry need to expand? The quarry operation is not getting bigger. The quarry will continue to follow the same limestone vein it has been following for 50 years, with the same number of employees, the same equipment, and the same number of trucks and railcars. Only the length of the quarry will expand as it follows the limestone vein. The property north and south of the Middletown Quarry was purchased over 40 years ago for this K purpose. The intent to quarry this limestone has neverchanged Why does the quarry need to rezone so much land? Only about 12 percent of the 691 acres owned by Chemstone will be quarried. The rest of the land will be used as buffer, to protect neighbors from noise and vibration. • The quarry will extract limestone from an estimated 25 acres of the 145 acres to be rezoned in the Northern Reserve Property. (Approximately 13 acres will not be rezoned, eight of which will be set aside and dedicated to a recognized historical organization.) • The quarry will extract limestone from an estimated 60 of the 493 acres to be rezoned in the Middle Marsh Property. This comes to approximately 12 percent of the land. (Approximately 40 acres will not be rezoned.) What will it look like? Like the existing quarry, the quarry expansion will be done in stages. High forested berms (up to 30 feet) will be built and planted before each active phase, along with fencing and other measures to screen the quarry from view and to keep children and trespassers away from danger. Why do we need a quarry here? The Shenandoah Valley has some of the best limestone in the world, and the purest is located in the Strasburg and Middletown quarries. This vein of limestone has been continuously quarried since the 1870's at Strasburg, and since the early 1950's at Middletown. Questions about Limestone What does the quarry do? We quarry and crush limestone for shipment. We also grind limestone for agricultural use and animal feed. Lime and hydrated lime are not made or processed on this property. What is limestone used for? Limestone and limestone products are essential for environmental protection, agriculture, food processing, building materials and thousands of manufacturing uses, including: • air pollution control, water purification, sewage treatment, environmental cleanups, and to counteract acid rain damage in lakes and streams, • as supplements and food additives to purify and process food and to fight bone loss in older adults, • as soil amendments in agriculture and supplements for livestock. What is the difference between lime and limestone? Limestone is calcium carbonate. This is the only material processed at the Middletown Quarry. When crushed into small rocks, limestone is known as aggregate. When ground into, powder, limestone may be called "ag lime" or "agricultural lime." This form is commonly used for slow treatment of soils to keep them from turning acid. When limestone is heated in a kiln, it is converted to calcium oxide, also known as lime or quicklime. This form is commonly used in manufacturing. When water is added to calcium oxide, it becomes calcium hydroxide, also known as "slaked lime," "hydrated lime" or "hydrate." This form is commonly sold for quick application on lawns and gardens to control acidity. Which of these products are made at the Middletown Quarry? Middletown grinds limestone into dust, known as "ag lime," which is applied directly to farmer's fields to sweeten the soil. Our ground limestone is also added to animal feed as a calcium supplement. The quarry also grinds limestone into high calcium sand for glassmaking. Other limestone products are m manufactured from the quarry's limestone at other facilities. Questions about Safety Is it safe? Yes. Quarrying is a heavily regulated industry, and the Middletown Quarry has an excellent safety record. What about blasting? The Middletown Quarry has never had to fix a well, window, or house. Blasting is heavily regulated. An independent professional blasting company performs the blasting. All blasting must be videotaped, and seismographs must be set up on the nearest property to the blast. Explosives are not stored at the quarry. What if blasting or water withdrawal damages my well? The rezoning proffers will guarantee all wells of property owners who own property within 1,500 feet of the boundary of the exiting quarry and the rezoned land, as long as the property owner agrees to participate in a baseline well survey. If wells have quality problems or run dry for any reason, the Middletown Quarry will restore the well to its condition existing at the time of the survey and/or provide the adjoining property owner a replacement well of the same condition. This proffer will be guaranteed by performance bonds. Wells on more distant properties will be handled on a case -by -case basis. If the cause is determined to be Middletown Quarry operations, the owner will be appropriately compensated. What if a blast damages my foundation? Any damage to surrounding properties caused by blasting will be remediated at our expense. Our new blasting proffer includes additional protections for homeowners and property owners within 1,500 feet of the boundary of the 5 existing quarry and the rezoned land, as long as the property owner agrees to participate in a pre - blast survey. With your permission, an independent engineering firm will investigate and document the pre -blast conditions of your residences and/or outbuildings to make sure that no damage to the structures or their content (china, crystal, pictures, etc.) is caused by tremors from the blasting. If you have problems caused by mining operations, the engineering firm will conduct a follow-up visit and investigate the cause of any negative change in condition. If it is determined there is a change in condition in the residences/outbuildings, which has been caused by the Applicant's mining activities on the Property, then the Applicant agrees to remediate and/or repair said negative change in condition to restore it to its status prior to blasting operations. Structures on more distant properties will be handled on a case -by -case basis. If the cause is determined to be Middletown Quarry operations, the owner will be appropriately compensated. What other measures will you take to prevent blasting problems? The rezoning proffers rule out two blasting practices which are known to cause problems — "block holing" and "adobe blasting." In addition, the proffers will require an approved blasting plan in place at all times. What about karst formations? Karst is underground limestone that has been eroded by water. Luray Caverns is a karst formation. Water withdrawals from karst, by drought, wells or quarries can create a sinkhole. All limestone areas are not karst. The Middletown property is not the sort of limestone formation that has karst. If quarry activities did cause a sinkhole on another property, we would be required to remediate. This has not happened in the past at the Middletown Quarry, and we do not expect a problem in the future. 6 Questions about Health What about dust? Is limestone dust safe? Yes. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) classifies limestone dust as non -toxic. It can be a nuisance, however, so we take several measures to control dust, including water sprays and filter collectors. • The limestone at Middletown was Codex - tested and passed for human consumption. However, we don't currently sell to customers that use it for that purpose. • Limestone dust is considered to be safe enough to mark the baselines on Little League ball fields (and all other sports fields). • Farmers apply limestone dust ("ag lime") to their fields in quantities of hundreds of tons. • Ground limestone is added to many foods and medicines as a calcium supplement. Limestone dust is also pressed into tablet form, flavored, and sold in the drugstore as an antacid and calcium supplement. What if dust causes a problem on my property? Our proffers require us to remediate any adverse impacts to surrounding properties caused by dust associated with the quarry operations. What if you breathe limestone dust? High concentrations of limestone dust may cause discomfort (i.e., cough or phlegm) or minor irritation of the nose and lungs, but it is non -toxic and does not permanently damage the lungs. Dust levels at the Middletown Quarry are low enough that workers are not required to wear protective equipment. What about silicosis? Limestone does not cause silicosis. The limestone quarried in Strasburg and Middletown has been tested and found to be very low in silica. Our limestone dust is safer than the dust your neighbor raises by mowing the lawn. 7 Silica exposure is a health hazard if workers do not use proper procedures when using silica sand and certain types of rock containing quartz. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) sees no need to propose standards for limestone dust from rural agricultural and quarry operations: "Current scientific evidence does not show significant public health risks associated with long-term exposure to [windblown dust and soils, agricultural sources and mining sources]. " What are these silicosis lawsuits I've heard about? Chemstone's former parent company, Oglebay Norton, owned dozens of subsidiaries. None of these subsidiaries has ever faced a lawsuit for silicosis from any of its neighbors. Oglebay Norton Industrial Sands produces silica sand, including sand -blasting products. Oglebay Norton Industrial Sands operates in Ohio, Colorado, Texas and California. Like most companies in the silica sand business, Oglebay Norton Industrial Sands faces thousands of silicosis lawsuits from the employees of other companies that do sand -blasting. The Federal court that specifically looked into litigation involving silica found widespread abuse in these lawsuits, and over 10,000 have been dismissed. None of these lawsuits against Oglebay Norton Industrial Sands have to do with quarrying or processing. None of them involve limestone products. Questions about Trucks How much will truck traffic increase because of the rezoning? The quarry operation (crushers, employees, etc.) is not getting bigger, so truck traffic will not increase because of the rezoning. Will trucks come through my neighborhood? After rezoning, trucks loaded at the quarry will use the same route and the same entrance. This M. route is McCune Road (Route 757) to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624) to Veterans Road (Route 625) to Route 11. The rezoning proffers will limit truck entrances to the existing entrance and scalehouse. How does Chemstone enforce its truck route? Over the years, we have had a couple of complaints about trucks using the wrong truck route. Neighbors called us and we talked to the trucks drivers. Truck drivers who won't follow the rules can be banned from the Middletown Quarry. If you see that one of our trucks is taking a shortcut through your neighborhood or driving in an unsafe manner, please note the time and license number or company name and call Chemstone at 540-869- 1066 or 540-465-5161. We have electronic records of when each truck leaves our facility. If it has come from our quarry, we will speak to the driver and let you know the outcome. Our trucks and our customers' trucks may come through your neighborhood only if they have a legitimate reason, such as a delivery of stone or ag lime to one of your neighbors. How many trucks does the quarry load today? Currently, the quarry loads about 50 to 70 trucks a day. The quarry also loads about 40 to 50 railcars a week. Each railcar carries about four truckloads. The number of trucks the quarry can load depends on the throughput of the quarry — crushers, loaders, employees, etc. —which won't increase with the rezoning. How do we know truck traffic won't increase? The proffers of the quarry rezoning will place a limit on trucks of 200 loads a day at the scalehouse (averaged over the previous month). This will account for normal fluctuations in I business, changes in market conditions, and any foreseeable emergency such as a temporary rail outage. What about the 1,300 trucks your traffic study projected? The original traffic study prepared by our consultants was badly flawed. It projected a level of truck traffic at two -and -a -half times the maximum throughput of the Middletown facility. No one paid attention to the absurdly high numbers because the Level of Service on affected roads and intersections did not change. Chemstone has no confidence in this survey and had the study re -done, because a traffic study is required by the rezoning application. We do not expect the public to have confidence in traffic studies, so we have proffered a daily limit of 200 loads a day at the scalehouse, averaged on a 30 day basis. Aren't quarry trucks crowding the roads around Middletown? Roads and intersections near the quarry are very lightly used. They are currently at VDOT Level of Service A or B, which means they are free flowing during rush hour. The intersection of Route 625 and Route 1 I is at Level of Service A for thru traffic and turns from Route 11, and Level of Service B for thru traffic and turns on Route 625. This may change slightly over time because of an increase in other traffic in the area. However, quarry operations will have no perceptible future impact. The quarry trucks are only a fraction of the trucks that go through Middletown, which is located on Route 11, one of the oldest truck routes in the United States. Middletown also has a truck stop within its boundaries, which attracts trucks from I-81. 10 Questions about Other Uses of the Property I've heard you can put an asphalt plant in an E-M zoning. What about other uses besides quarrying if the rezoning is approved? Chemstone will exclude non -quarry uses that neighbors may find objectionable. These have been specified in the proffers attached to the rezoning. These excluded uses are: • Oil and natural gas extraction, • Asphalt and concrete mixing plants, • Brick, block and precast concrete products, • Cement and lime kilns, • Coal and natural gas -fired power plants. (This is not to be interpreted as a restriction against power generating equipment necessary to support quarry operations.) Will Chemstone build houses on the property that isn't mined? The new zoning will prevent this. Residential housing, which is allowed on 5-acre lots by right in agricultural zoning, is not allowed in an E-M zoning. What will happen after the limestone has been quarried? Quarries have excess water and old quarry pits. Water authorities need water and reservoirs to hold it. These arrangements can save the public millions of dollars. In November of 2000, Chemstone entered into a contract with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority to give them all excess water, old quarry pits, and land for treatment facilities at its facilities in Middletown, Clearbrook, and Strasburg (Oranda Road location only, not the Strasburg Junction). The Authority will decide what to do with old quarry pits, but the current plan is to use them as water reservoirs. 11 Is quarry water sufficient to meet public drinking water needs? According to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, over three fourths of the public drinking water in Frederick County comes from limestone quarries. Chemstone's Clearbrook quarry currently supplies over a third of the County's drinking water (1.25 to 1.5 million gallons per day). What is this "secret deal" I've heard about with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority? The contract between Chemstone and the FCSA is a publicly available document. Key features of the contract are: • Chemstone agrees to give the FCSA all excess water, old quarry pits, and land for treatment facilities at Middletown, Clearbrook, and Strasburg. • Chemstone must operate and maintain its own pumping equipment for active quarry operations. • The FCSA will erect, install, and maintain facilities at each site to extract, purify, and distribute the water. • The FCSA agrees to hold Chemstone harmless for any issue in which the Authority is extracting, purifying, or distributing water removed from Chemstone's property. • The lease started November 2000, and will last a minimum of 30 years. The FCSA can renew their agreement for two terms of 20 years each by paying Chemstone $25,000 for each renewal. • In return for water, reservoirs and land, the Authority agreed to pay for the construction of ball fields to replace those at Clearbrook, and to pay for the cost of rezoning. • The Authority has a "right of first refusal" on quarry property. 12 Questions about Historic Resources Is the land to be rezoned in the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park? In 2002, Congress created the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park consisting of over 3,000 acres. None of the acreage to be rezoned is within the boundaries of the National Park Service overlay. What fighting occurred on the land to be rezoned? Little fighting occurred on this land, aside from troop movements, the most famous of which was General Custer's cavalry movement, which began north of Westernview Drive about 3:30 in the afternoon and swept diagonally across the northern (Middle Marsh) quarry property. No major engagements were fought on the 639 acres to be rezoned. The Cedar Creek battlefield included several major engagements from the area north of Chapel Road to the north fork of the Shenandoah River. When Dr. Edwin C. Bearss, former head historian of the National Park Service, laid out the battlefield, he included everything between the quarry and the Valley Pike. Homes, businesses, Lord Fairfax Community College and Interstate 81 have all been built on battlefield land where major engagements occurred. What about graveyards on the property? There are two graveyards, a farm graveyard from the late 19th century (Tabler family cemetery) and a colonial graveyard established by "David Nicewander" (also spelled Nieswander) in the late 1700's. Neither cemetery is in the area to be quarried. As part of the rezoning, Chemstone has done an archeological assessment, delineation and is in the process of restoration of these cemeteries. 13 What other historic resources are there? As part of the proffers, Chemstone has agreed to dedicate (and not rezone) eight acres of historic interest near Belle Grove to a recognized historical association. Questions about the Environment Will this be harmful to the environment? Limestone products are essential to protecting the environment. The pollution controls that have cleaned up America's air, water and soils over.the past 40 years depend on the limestone products mined and manufactured by quarries like Middletown. • Limestone products are used to neutralize acid soil, treat acid mine drainage from coal mining, and counteract acid rain damage in lakes and streams. • Limestone products are used in pollution control equipment (acid gas scrubbers) to remove the sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, mercury and other pollutants from the smokestacks of power plants and factories. • Hydrated lime is used in water and sewage treatment to reduce acidity, to soften and purify water, and to remove phosphates. Will the rezoning impact local streams? The current quarry operation discharges about 1.5 million gallons of water a day into Middle Marsh Brook. This is a permitted discharge and its quality is regulated by the government. The water is good quality and poses no threat to local streams. The proffers limit any future discharges to this existing discharge point. The proffers also contain an agreement for Chemstone to work with a -recognized environmental entity of Chemstone's choosing to ensure that the water flowing from the quarry operations is of a quality consistent with water quality in Cedar Creek so as to maintain natural habitats. 14 What if limestone dust accidentally gets into local streams? The water discharge permit places limits on this. However, limestone and limestone products are commonly placed into lakes and streams to counteract acid rain damage. Will forests be cut down? Only about eight acres out of 101 acres of mature woodland may need to be cut. As stated in the proffers, Chemstone will use best management practices on forests that it owns on areas that will not be rezoned. What about wetlands? There are less than three acres of wetlands on the property, and the potential impact is less than a tenth of an acre. What about lighting? The proffers forbid any permanent lighting structures above ground on the berms except those necessary for safe mining operations or required by law and regulations. What about phasing? Phasing refers to the timeline dictating when quarrying will occur over the next several decades. The proffers contain a phasing plan. After rezoning, quarrying will begin on the area to the south of the existing quarry, where it will continue for about 20 years. No earlier than ten years from the date of rezoning, quarrying may begin on the area north of the existing quarry and south of Chapel Road. No earlier than 20 years from the date of rezoning, quarrying may begin on the rezoned area north of Chapel Road. What about noise? The proffers require that all reasonable efforts be made to locate machinery in the quarry pit (below ground) or behind berms. 15 How do I know that these promises will be kept? What is a proffer? Chemstone makes its promises in a legally binding document called a proffer statement, which becomes part of the zoning. Any future owners must also abide by the zoning proffers. What if Chemstone gets into financial difficulty? Chemstone has bonded its proffers, where appropriate, so that promises will be kept regardless of any financial difficulties Chemstone or a future owner may have. What if Chemstone is bought by another company? Generally, the local management and operations of a profitable facility like the Middletown Quarry will change very little even in the event of a change in ownership. The quarry's former parent company, Oglebay Norton, was recently purchased by Carmeuse Lime & Stone. Aside from a few personnel changes, quarry operations continue as before. From the public's point of view, if a merger or acquisition occurs, the proffers, required bonds and contractual arrangements with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority are also binding on any future owner. More questions? Comments? Call our project hotline at 540-465-6807. 40V %; Printed on recycled paper August 28, 2006 ON Minerals Chemstone/Middletown Meeting Present from ON -Minerals: Joe Ferrell, VP Inland Division Spencer Stenson, General Manager Chemstone Plant Bill Harding, Conununications Ty Lawson, Counsel Chances to Proffers as a result of last week's meeting: • Damage to persons by blasting o Proffered out types of blasting which typically cause harm o New technology (precision detonators with computer chips) used on the blasting plan o Not specifically listed in proffers b/c harm to people automatically covered • Coal fire power plant added to types of uses proffered out Questions and Answers: • Lady was present at last week's meeting, thought that public utilities were being proffered out completely but now it doesn't look like they are? o ON thought she meant the coal fire power plants which were added to the list of proffered out uses, FCSA is a public utility so they cannot proffer out all public uses • Want something proffered in as to what exactly they'll be doing, specific uses o ON will be extracting Limestone, there may be a crusher, agricultural uses will remain on some portions of the property zoned EM, which is allowed by zoning ordinance • Should use the language of the zoning ordinance when describing proffered uses. Mr. Lawson agrees to do so. • Concerns over public utilities usage on property: o Strasburg plant has a small package plant on site because the operation is too big for the septic field, are there any concerns with this? No, residents concerned with large scale processing or packaging plant o Further concern about natural gas power plan, utility scale o Residents of county pay taxes, don't want the county to get sued because they opened a new power plant (*this didn't make sense and the man didn't explain any further) o ON reluctant to totally proffer out a package plant in the event that the septic system fails like what happened down in Strasburg, they cannot conflict with the contract already in place with FCSA but Mr. Lawson will look into it. • Even if ON proffers out a plant, if public need arises then without a public hearing for a special permit, a plant can be built/operated? o Mr. Lawson informs that the restrictions remain on the property and any revision to the proffers will require a new public process • If FCSA starts the condemnation process on the property, are they required to notify surrounding property owners? o Any change in proffers requires a new public process • The map (not provided but available in large scale on wall) shows the excavation area, what assures residents that you'll stay within that area? o May change slightly because ON cannot see the new market limestone without mining, no way to test in advance (*this causes attendees to get angry - they think there is a way to tell in advance, ON maintains there isn't) o The new market limestone is what's worth mining, the rest of it isn't so that's what ON will mine for • Setback from chapel road? o Berms, similar to Brucetown mine • Impact of berms on the floodplain? o They don't interact with the stream, and they have a built in drainage system • How many homes are within the 1500 foot perimeter that is guaranteed? o ON sent letters to 78 properties and 51 or 52 property owners because some owned more than one property • Has anyone considered the affect of changing to EM on Residential and Agricultural properties? o The quarry has been here for 50 years, there are other sites in Frederick County without issues o Atlanta Plant and Rockville, MD plant have not experienced any decrease in property values • It is irresponsible of ON to say that there will not be an impact on surrounding areas, these examples are major cities o A mining town in Alabama showed 18-22% drops in property values ➢ ON would be interested to see the details because they haven't heard about this kind of result from any study • Changes in tonnage verses 100 years or 50 years ago? o Certainly increased because times have changed • Concerns about development, already counted 26 trucks at 7:30am in half an hour, knows they aren't all from ON, highway traffic is a concern for Middletown residents. (*No response from ON because there wasn't an actual question, just expressed concern over truck traffic) • How close do ON executives live to Middletown, can they empathize? o Many employees live and work near the Middletown plant o Trucks/operations have been here for many years o No reason why residents cannot continue what they had planned on doing before the rezoning (*man who asked question concerned about his coffee shop business and people having to watch trucks while they drink their coffee) • Residents aren't trying to run ON out of Middletown, they just don't want the quarry in their back yards, when they moved to Middletown they asked ON and someone (no names, or written statements) gave a timeline of 20-30 years before this land would be developed — why? o No, chemstone never agreed to that, exec remembers the property and that isn't what they told her husband, no one would have guaranteed that timeline There was a verbal agreement that the land wouldn't be developed in this lifetime, that the state wouldn't allow ON to cross Chapel Rd, who would have bought here if they had known the truth? o Well, we're not going to be there in 10 years. Berms need to be built to begin screening, projected to be north of Chapel Rd in 30-35 years. ➢ Put a timeline in the proffer statement to ensure that you'll stick to that timeline so you don't sell the land to a larger company who will move through the earth faster ■ Response: We proffered the number of truck trips per day which puts a limit on the rate of movement • Company needs to have a plan, in writing, to show where they're going and when. o ON doesn't have a plan beyond the Middletown property because of the nature of the mining work they do — can't predict where the limestone is underground to the exact dot. o Residents want a schedule for mining and for what happens after the mines are finished, ON maintains that they can't provide any more detailed schedules than what they've been offering at these meetings • If ON gets their rezoning, there's nothing in the proffers to require them to stick to the schedule they're offering here. o No response given • Did ON take core samples to determine location of limestone veins? o Yes, the core samples helped to graph the snap on the wall • Any additional veins? o Approximate locations only • Which creek is ON redirecting? o Middle March Creek only • Why did ON put in the bern-is so early? o To allow the trees a chance to grow • Height restrictions on berms? o 30ft maximum is proffered, no minimum height is proffered • So technically the berms could be zero? o Yes, where topography shields the mine, there's no need for bern-is o A maximum height was proffered because that's what was sought on the application • ON employee who works with core samples confirms that they cannot exactly pinpoint the veins, they sample everyday and are continuously throwing out samples where they thought the veins were located but in actuality they aren't • Why didn't ON rezone at the point of purchase? o In 1980, the previous owner did send a letter to the Planning Cormnission asking for a rezoning to EM but the PC asked for a specific plan for the rezoned land • What about the berms that don't have trees or grass, they're just dirt? o The clay mounds need to be redistributed, ON attempted to hydro seed them last spring but the seed died due to lack of rain, they will reseed them in the fall. • Is there a timeframe for relocating the clay? o Yes, Chemstone has offered it to Middletown for infill dirt and stormwater pond reinforcement o These mounds keep growing because the current zoning prohibits the redistribution of it in the RA; the rezoning will mean no more mounds of clay. • An average of 200 trucks per day could mean zero one day and 400 the next, why don't you just eliminate truck traffic through Middletown all together by using roads that exist elsewhere? o The Middletown plant doesn't have enough storage to have zero trucks one day and then 400 the next o Going around Middletown would mean a bridge over Cedar Creek and utilizing existing low water bridges which would mean opposition from other organizations and federal agencies o * * the man who asked this question kept trying to start arguments, other residents even had to cut him off so that they could ask their questions • "ON is going out of their way to be a bad neighbor" • ON employee: ON never slanders anyone, they're holding these meetings, newspaper articles and comments from residents are speculation, ON has never had a dry well law suit like the paper has claimed. He's been working there for 3 years and they've moved through 200-300 feet of rock, they're not going anywhere fast. • Mrs. Clevenger said that she never meant for anyone's comments to seem like they were attacking ON but that residents felt blindsided by the notice about the rezoning and so they were voicing their opinions to remediate that effect • Why, when residents have made calls after big blasts and filed complaints they've never seen seismographs or any monitoring on their property? o The Department of Mining & Minerals (DMME) doesn't notify ON about who complains, they monitor that on their own o DMME didn't register any vibrations above the legal limit ➢ Man who asked question agreed saying that he didn't feel any at his house either, but what if he had felt them. (??) ■ No response. • Does ON own any other land within 30 miles of Middletown? o Yes, ON has a quarry in Clearbrook and there are 2 in Strasburg • ON claimed there wouldn't be a drop in the water table and that this mine is not located in Karst but the FAQ sheet says differently? o Yes, there's Karst there but ON is taking measures to prevent sinkholes, they've proffered that they will monitor for any manifestations on the property (ie: sinkholes) If FCSA wants to put in a high production well, will you allow it? o Not sure, need to check the agreement and make sure they don't violate it o Mr. Lawson confirms that it is technically allowed but that ON can't speak for FCSA o FCSA can't utilize the land until they abandon mined areas and the water fills up • Is anyone here from FCSA? o Not to ON's knowledge but then residents pointed out that Mr. Brayden was present. • Mr. Brayden, from the FCSA Board of Directors, had the following comments: o FCSA has 30,000 customers and a responsibility to theirs o They are always looking for new water sources o Drilling is risky in the sense that there isn't always water where you've drilled and then you wasted money o Using the quarry is a sure source of potable water o The EPA treads lightly in regards to creating new reservoirs but the quarry will provide an existing reservoir and that is FCSA's intent for the property to his knowledge o The reservoir would help get the community through a drought or help fanners when there's an Ag drought. General Notes: ** There were about 100 people there at the beginning, people filtered out throughout the night, only 2 people from Chemstone other than the presenters. **Chuck DeHaven and Greg Unger were present but neither one spoke or was asked to speak, Mrs. Clevenger talked to them before everything started so she at least new they were there ... **That was pretty much it as far as useful Q&A, there were three or four people there who were against the rezoning who wanted to just keep picking fights with the ON execs but that usually ended up pretty one sided and ON would just ignore them or let them finish. There were a couple of instances when the VP would make continents like "you're finished" or whatnot when these couple of people were arguing but that was pretty much it. **Residents argumentative on this topic of time schedules, ON execs occasionally neglect to answer questions but no yelling or anything hostile on their part like at the last meeting The Middletown Quarry Rezoning Questions and Answers about: • Rezoning • Limestone • Safety • Health • Trucks • Other Uses • The Battlefield • Environment L 21 CHEMSTONE OPERATION 351 MCCUNE ROAD PO BOX 87 MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645 www.oglebaynorton.com TEL 540-869-1066 Questions about the Rezoning How will the rezoning change the operation of the Middletown quarry? Very little will change. The crushing equipment, truck entrance and amount of limestone quarried will not change with the rezoning. The only thing that is expanding is the length of the quarry pit. Why does the quarry need to expand? The quarry operation is not getting bigger. The quarry will continue to follow the same limestone vein it has been following for 50 years, with the same number of employees, the same equipment, and the same number of trucks and railcars. Only the length of the quarry will expand as it follows the limestone vein. The property north and south of the Middletown Quarry was purchased over 40 years ago for this purpose. The intent to quarry this limestone has never changed Why does the quarry need to rezone so much land? Only about 12 percent of the 691 acres owned by O-N Minerals will be quarried. The rest of the land will be used as buffer, to protect neighbors from noise and vibration. • The quarry will extract limestone from an estimated 25 acres of the 145 acres to be rezoned in the Northern Reserve Property. (Approximately 13 acres will not be rezoned.) • The quarry will extract limestone from an estimated 60 of the 493 acres to be rezoned in the Middle Marsh Property. This comes to approximately 12% of the land. (Approximately 40 acres will not be rezoned.) What will it look like? Like the existing quarry, the quarry expansion will be done in stages. High forested berms (up to 30 feet) will be built and planted before each active phase, along with fencing and other measures to keep children and trespassers away from danger. Why do we need a quarry here? The Shenandoah Valley has some of the best limestone in the world, and the purest is located in the Strasburg and Middletown quarries. This vein of limestone has been continuously quarried since 1896 at Strasburg, and since the early 1950s at Middletown. Questions about Limestone What does the quarry do? We quarry and crush limestone for shipment. _ We also grind limestone for agricultural use and animal feed. Lime and hydrated lime are not made or processed on this property. What is limestone used for? Limestone and limestone products are essential for environmental protection, agriculture, food processing, building materials and thousands of manufacturing uses, including: air pollution control, water purification, sewage treatment, environmental cleanups, and to counteract acid rain damage in lakes and streams, • as supplements and food additives to purify and process food and fight bone loss in older adults, • in agriculture as soil amendments and supplements for livestock. 2 What is the difference between lime and limestone? Limestone is calcium carbonate. This is the only material processed at the Middletown Quarry. When crushed into small rocks, limestone is known as aggregate. When ground into powder, limestone may be called "ag lime" or "agricultural lime." This form is used for slow treatment of soils to keep them from turning acid. When limestone is heated in a kiln, it is converted to calcium oxide, also known as lime or quicklime. This form is used in manufacturing. When water is added to calcium oxide, it becomes calcium hydroxide, also known as "slaked lime," hydrated lime" or "hydrate." This form is commonly sold for quick application on lawns and gardens to control acidity. Which of these products are made at the Middletown Quarry? Middletown grinds limestone into dust, known as "ag lime," which is applied directly to farmer's fields to sweeten the soil. Our ground limestone is also added to animal feed as a calcium supplement. The quarry also grinds limestone into sand for glassmaking. Other limestone products are manufactured from the quarry's limestone at other facilities. Questions about Safety Is it safe? Yes. Quarrying is a heavily regulated industry and the Middletown Quarry has an excellent safety record. What about blasting? The Middletown Quarry has never had to fix a well, window, or house. Blasting is heavily regulated. An independent professional blasting company performs the blasting. All blasting must be videotaped, and seismographs must be set up on the nearest property to the blast. Explosives are not stored at the quarry. What if blasting or water withdrawal damages my well? The rezoning proffers will guarantee all wells of property owners who own property within 1,500 feet of the boundary of the exiting quarry and the rezoned land, as long as the property owner agrees to participate in a baseline well survey. If wells have quality problems or run dry for any reason, the Middletown Quarry will restore the well to its condition existing at the time of the survey and/or provide the adjoining property owner a replacement well of the same condition. This proffer will be guaranteed by performance bonds. Wells on more distant properties will be handled on a case -by -case basis. If the cause is determined to be Middletown Quarry operations, the owner will be appropriately compensated. What if a blast damages my foundation? Any damage to surrounding properties caused by blasting will be remediated at our expense. Our new blasting proffer includes additional protections for homeowners. With your permission, an independent engineering firm will investigate and document the pre -blast conditions of your residences and/or outbuildings to make sure that no damage to the structures or their content (china, crystal, pictures, etc.) is caused by tremors from the blasting. If you have problems caused by mining operations, the engineering firm will conduct a follow up visit and investigate the cause of any 3 negative change in condition. If it is determined there is a change in condition in the residences/outbuildings, which has been caused by the Applicant's mining activities on the Property, then the Applicant agrees to remediate and/or repair said negative change in condition to restore it to its status prior to blasting operations. What other measures will you take to prevent blasting problems? The rezoning proffers rule out two blasting practices which are known to cause problems — "block holing" and "adobe blasting." In addition, the proffers will require an approved blasting plan in place at all times. What about karst formations? Karst is underground limestone that has been eroded by water. Luray Caverns is a karst formation. Water withdrawals from karst, by drought, wells or quarries can create a sinkhole. All limestone areas are not karst. The Middletown property is not the sort of limestone formation that has karst. If quarry activities did cause a sinkhole on another property, we would be required to remediate. This has not happened in the past at the Middletown Quarry, and we do not expect a problem in the future. Questions about Health What about dust? Is limestone dust safe? Yes. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration classifies limestone dust as non- toxic. It can be a nuisance, however, so we take several measures to control dust, including water sprays and filter collectors. • The limestone at Middletown was Codex -tested and passed for human consumption. However, we don't currently sell to customers that use it for that purpose. Limestone dust is considered to be safe enough to mark the baselines on Little League ball fields (and all other sports fields). • Farmers apply limestone dust ("ag lime") to their fields in quantities of hundreds of tons. Ground limestone is added to many foods and medicines as a calcium supplement. Limestone dust is also pressed into tablet form, flavored, and sold in the drugstore as an antacid and calcium supplement. What if dust causes a problem on my property? Our proffers require us to remediate any adverse impacts to surrounding properties caused by dust associated with the quarry operations. What if you breathe limestone dust? High concentrations of limestone dust may cause discomfort (i.e. cough or phlegm) or minor irritation of the nose and lungs, but it is non -toxic and does not permanently damage the lungs. Dust levels at the Middletown Quarry are low enough that workers are not required to wear protective equipment. What about silicosis? Limestone does not cause silicosis. The limestone quarried in Strasburg and Middletown has been tested and found to be very low in silica. Our limestone dust is safer than the dust your neighbor raises by mowing the lawn. Silica exposure is a health hazard if workers do not use proper procedures when using sand and certain types of rock containing quartz. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) sees no need to propose standards for limestone dust from rural agricultural and m quarry operations: "Current scientific evidence does not show significant public health risks associated with long-term exposure to [windblown dust and soils, agricultural sources and mining sources]." What are these silicosis lawsuits I've heard about? Our parent company, Oglebay Norton, which has dozens of subsidiaries, has never faced a lawsuit for silicosis from any of its workers or neighbors. A subsidiary of our parent company, Oglebay Norton Industrial Sands, produces silica sand, including sand -blasting products. Oglebay Norton Industrial Sands operates in Ohio, Colorado, Texas and California. Like most companies in the silica sand business, Oglebay Norton Industrial Sands faces thousands of silicosis lawsuits from the employees of companies that do sand -blasting. The Federal court that specifically looked into litigation involving silica found widespread abuse in these lawsuits, and over 10,000 have been dismissed. None of these lawsuits against Oglebay Norton Industrial Sands have to do with quarrying or processing. None of them involve limestone products. Questions about Trucks How much will truck traffic increase because of the rezoning? The quarry operation (crushers, employees, etc.) is not getting bigger, so truck traffic will not increase because of the rezoning. Will trucks come through my neighborhood? After rezoning, trucks loaded at the quarry will use the same route and the same entrance. This route is McCune Road (Route 757) to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624) to Veterans Road (Route 625) to Route 11. The rezoning proffers will limit truck entrances to the existing entrance and scalehouse. How does O-N enforce its truck route? Over the years, we have had a couple of complaints about trucks using the wrong truck route. Neighbors called us and we talked to the trucks drivers. Truck drivers who won't follow the rules can be banned from the Middletown Quarry. If you see one of our trucks is taking a shortcut through your neighborhood or driving in an unsafe manner, please note the time and call O-N at 540-869-1066 or 540-465-5161. We have electronic records of when each truck leaves our facility. If it has come from our quarry, we will speak to the driver and let you know the outcome. Our trucks and our customers' trucks may come through your neighborhood only if they have a legitimate reason, such as a delivery of stone or ag lime to one of your neighbors. How many trucks does the quarry load today? Currently, the quarry loads about 50 to 70 trucks a day. The quarry also loads about 40 to 50 railcars a week. Each railcar carries about four truckloads. The number of trucks the quarry can load depends on the throughput of the quarry — crushers, loaders, employees, etc.) —which won't increase with the rezoning. How do we know truck traffic won't increase? The proffers of the quarry rezoning will place a Emit on trucks of 200 loads a day at the scalehouse (averaged over the previous month). This will account for normal fluctuations in business, changes in market conditions, and any foreseeable emergency. 5 What about the 1,300 trucks your traffic study projected? The original traffic study prepared by our consultants was badly flawed. It projected a level of truck traffic at two -and -a -half times the maximum throughput of the Middletown facility. No one paid attention to the absurdly high numbers because the Level of Service on affected roads and intersections did not change. O-N has no confidence in this survey and has requested a redo, because a traffic study is required by the rezoning application. We do not expect the public to have confidence in traffic studies, so we have proffered a daily limit of 200 loads a day at the scalehouse, averaged on a 30 day basis. Aren't quarry trucks crowding the roads around Middletown? Roads and intersections near the quarry are very lightly used. They are currently at VDOT Level of Service A or B, which means they are free flowing during rush hour. The intersection of Route 625 and Route 11 is at Level of Service A for thru traffic and turns from Route 11, and Level of Service B for thru traffic and turns on Route 625. This may change slightly over time because of an increase in other traffic in the area. However, quarry operations will have no perceptible future impact. The quarry trucks are only a fraction of the trucks that go through Middletown, which is located on Route 11, probably the oldest truck route in the United States. Middletown also has a truck stop within its boundaries, which attracts trucks from I-81. Questions about Other Uses of the Property I've heard you can put an asphalt plant in an E-M zoning. What about other uses besides quarrying if the rezoning is approved? O-N will exclude non-quany uses that neighbors may find objectionable. These have been specified in the proffers attached to the rezoning. These uses are: • Oil and natural gas extraction, • Asphalt and concrete mixing plants, • Brick, block and precast concrete products, • Cement and lime kilns. Will O-N build houses on the property that isn't mined? Residential housing, which is allowed on 5-acre lots by right in agricultural zoning, is not allowed in an E-M zoning. What will happen after the limestone has been quarried? Quarries have excess water and old quarry pits, and water authorities need water and reservoirs to hold it. These arrangements can save the public millions of dollars. In November of 2000, Global Stone Chemstone Corporation entered into a contract with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority to give them all excess water, old quarry pits, and land for treatment facilities at its facilities in Middletown, Clearbrook, and Strasburg (Oranda Road location only, not the Strasburg Junction). The Authority will decide what to do with old quarry pits, but the plan is to use them as water reservoirs. 2 Is quarry water sufficient to meet public drinking water needs? According to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, over three fourths of the public drinking water in Frederick County comes from limestone quarries. The Clearbrook quail supplies over a third of the County's drinking water (1.25 to 1.5 million gallons per day). What is this "secret deal" I've heard about with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority? The contract between Global and the FCSA is a publicly available document. Key features of the contract are: • Global (O-N Minerals) agrees to give the FCSA all excess water, old quarry pits, and land for treatment facilities at Middletown, Clearbrook, and Strasburg. • Global (O-N Minerals) must operate and maintain its own pumping equipment for active quarry operations. • The FCSA will erect, install, and maintain facilities at each site to extract, purify, and distribute the water. • The FCSA agrees to hold Global (O-N Minerals) harmless for any issue in which the Authority is extracting, purifying, or distributing water removed from Global's property. The lease started November 2000, and will last a minimum of 30 years. The FCSA can renew their agreement for two terms of 20 years each by paying Global $25,000 for each renewal. In return for water, reservoirs and land, the Authority agreed to pay for the construction of ball fields to replace those at Clearbrook, and to pay for the cost of rezoning. The Authority has a "right of first refusal" on quarry property. Questions about the Battlefield Is the land to be rezoned on the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park? In 2002, Congress created the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park consisting of over 3,000 acres. None of the acreage to be rezoned is within the boundaries of the National Park Service overlay. What righting occurred on the land to be rezoned? Little fighting occurred on this land, aside from troop movements, the most famous of which was General Custer's cavalry movement, which began north of Westernview Drive about 3:30 in the afternoon and swept diagonally across the northern (Middle Marsh) quarry property. No major engagements were fought on the 639 acres to be rezoned. The Cedar Creek battlefield included several major engagements from the area north of Chapel Road to the north fork of the Shenandoah River. When Dr. Edwin C. Bearss, former head historian of the National Park Service, laid out the battlefield, he included everything between the quarry and the Valley Pike. Interstate 81, homes, businesses and Lord Fairfax Community College have all been built on battlefield land where major engagements occurred. 7 Questions about the Environment Will this be harmful to the environment? Limestone products are essential to protecting the environment. The pollution controls that have cleaned up America's air, water and soils over the past 40 years depend on the limestone products mined and manufactured by quarries like Middletown. • Limestone products are used to neutralize acid soil, treat acid mine drainage from coal mining, and counteract acid rain damage in lakes and streams. • Limestone products are used in pollution control equipment (acid gas scrubbers) to remove the sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, mercury and other pollutants from the smokestacks of power plants and factories. • Hydrated lime is used in water and sewage treatment to reduce acidity, to soften and purify water, and to remove phosphates. Will the rezoning impact local streams? The current quarry operation discharges about 1.5 million gallons of water a day into Middle Marsh Brook. This is a permitted discharge and its quality is regulated by the government. The water is good quality and poses no threat to local streams. The proffers limit any future discharges to this existing discharge point. The proffers also contain an agreement for O-N to work with a recognized environmental entity of the O-N's choosing to ensure that the water flowing from the quarry operations is of a quality consistent with water quality in Cedar Creek so as to maintain natural habitats. What if limestone dust accidentally gets into local streams? The water discharge permit places limits on this. However, limestone and limestone products are commonly used to counteract acid rain damage in lakes and streams. What about wetlands? There are less than three acres of wetlands on the property, and the potential impact is less than a tenth of an acre. How do I know that these promises will be kept? O-N Minerals makes its promises in a legally binding document called a proffer statement, which becomes part of the zoning. Any future owners must also abide by the zoning proffers. O-N Minerals has bonded its proffers, where appropriate, so that promises will be kept regardless of any financial difficulties O-N Minerals or a future owner may have. Further questions? Comments? Call our project hotline at 540-465-6807. zl� 11AJ PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: PROPERTY: RECORD OWNER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE(S) RZ# 03-06 Rural Areas (RA) to Extractive Manufacturing (EM) 639.13 Acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 83-A-109 and 90-A-23 (the "Properties") O-N Minerals Chemstone Company O-N Minerals Chemstone Company Chemstone - Middletown i'' June 13, 2005 January 16, 2006 February 8, 2006 6ugust 28, 2006� The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property" or "Properties"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above -referenced EM conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. Any proffered conditions that would prevent the Applicant from conforming with State and/or Federal regulations shall be considered null and void. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, O-N Minerals (Chemstone)" dated June 13, 2005 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: 1. Land Use 1.1 The Property shall be developed with extractive manufacturing land uses pursuant to the mining permit approved by the Division of Mineral Mining (DMM) of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, and shall therefore conform to the Mineral Mining Law and Reclamation Regulations for Mineral Mining of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 1.2 The Applicant hereby proffers not to engage in the following uses on the Property, which are typically allowed in the extractive mining district: Oil and natural gas extraction; Asphalt and concrete mixing plants; Brick, block and precast concrete products; Cement and lime kilns; and Coal-fired power plants. 2. Site Development 2.1 Site access via public secondary roads shall be limited to the existing quarry entrance on McCune Road (Route 757). Access by vehicles needed for periodic maintenance of the Property shall not be limited. 2.2 Distance buffers shall be provided along the perimeter of the Properties in addition to those required by the Zoning Ordinance. The depth of said buffers shall be determined at the time of site plan submission, and will vary based upon the topography of the site boundary. 2.3 Earthen berms installed around active quarry pits shall be landscaped to minimize impacts to the viewshed of the surrounding community. Such landscaping shall consist of a mix of deciduous and coniferous plantings placed in a random manner in order to be consistent with existing vegetation patterns. Said berms shall be limited to a maximum height of 30 feet. 3. Historic Resources 3.1 The Applicant shall create an 8 acre historic reserve as shown on the GDP, within which archeological resources and other historic activities have been identified. Said reserve shall be dedicated to a recognized historical association and/or group within one year of final rezoning. 3.2 The Applicant shall complete a Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Property within one year of final rezoning or prior to any land disturbance of the portion of the Property identified as 83-A-109 by the GDP. Said survey shall locate, identify, and comprehensively record all historic sites, buildings, structures, and objects on the Property. Such survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines for a Phase 1 Survey as defined in the Virginia Department of Historic Resources "GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY IN VIRGINIA - Chapter 7: Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Virginia," 1999 (Rev. Jan. 2003). 4. Rights to Water Supply 4.1 The Applicant shall guarantee the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) rights to the groundwater resources available on the Properties in accordance with existing agreements negotiated between the Applicant and FCSA. I 5. Ground Water wawq � W&kAM 5.1 The Applicant shall install a minimum of three monitoring wells to effectively establish and monitor the groundwater level in order to avoid detrimental impacts to surrounding properties. Said wells shall be installed prior to any land disturbance of the portion of the Property identified as 83-A-109 by the GDP, and shall be located within 500 feet of the Property boundaries. A minimum of one monitoring well shall be installed within 500 feet of the NProperty Boundary. -� ;A S wt f1111`—M�o7,'QA& 5.2The Applicant shall remediate any adverse impacts to wells located on surrounding properties caused by mining operations on the Property. Costs associated with any required remediation shall be borne by the Applicant. Furthermore, the Applicant agrees to participate in a pre -blast survey and well monitoring survey, as further described herein. The intent of the aforementioned surveys is to provide a mechanism to remediate any adverse impacts to wells and/or structures, which are caused by the mining operations on the Property. 6. Dust Control 6.1 Dust from drills, shot piles, material handling, screens, crushers, conveyors, feeders, hoppers, load -outs, and traffic areas shall be controlled by wet suppression or equivalent, and controlled by and consistent with the terms of the Department of Environmental Quality general air permit. The Applicant shall remediate any adverse impacts to surrounding properties caused by dust associated with the mining operations on the Property. , 6.2 All materials being stockpiled shall be kept adequately moist to control dust during storage and handling or covered as necessary to remediate any adverse impacts to surrounding properties to minimize emissions. 7. Blasting Control��� 7.1 All blasting associated with mining operations on the Property shall be limited by the mining permit approved by the Division of Mineral Mining (DMM) of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy. Peak Particle Velocities (PPV) associated with blasting on the Property shall not exceed the levels stipulated by said permit. In addition, Applicant agrees to have an approved blasting plan in place at all times. An example of the current blasting plan is attached. Further, in addition, Applicant agrees that there will be no block holing or adobe blasting conducted onsite. Any damage to surrounding properties caused by blasting on the Property shall be remediated at the Applicant's expense. 8. Traffic 8.1 The Applicant agrees to restrict truck traffic to a maximum of 200 truck loads per day averaged over the prior 30 days through the scale house hauling mined materials on and/or off the proposed quarry site from the existing quarry entrance. The maximum number of trips will be regulated by the Applicant and its successors and/or assigns. A record of the actual number of truck trips per day shall be kept current by the Applicant at its scale house office. 9. Pre -Blast Surveys 9.1 The Applicant will establish a mechanism for voluntary pre -blast surveys of properties that are immediately adjacent to the quarry operations. The aforementioned surveys will be conducted by an independent engineering firm, which will investigate and document the pre -blast conditions of the participants' residences and/or outbuildings. All citizens who have property adjacent to the quarry operations can and are encouraged to participate in the survey by contacting the Applicant and scheduling a mutually agreeable time for the independent engineering firm to visit the party's residence to document and survey the pre -blast condition of the party's residences/outbuildings. A record of those pre -blast conditions will be kept by the independent engineering firm with copies retained by the Applicant and the participating property owner. In the event of a change in condition, which is alleged by the adjoining property owner as a result of mining operations, the engineering firm will then conduct a follow- up visit and investigation and use the pre -blast information as a control and basis for subsequent analysis. Said analysis shall be used to determine the cause of any negative change in condition. If it is determined there is a change in condition in the residences/outbuildings, which has been caused by the Applicant's mining activities on the Property, then the Applicant agrees to remediate and/or repair said negative change in condition to restore it to its status prior to blasting operations. In addition, the Applicant agrees to establish seismic monitoring on the proposed quarry site to monitor all blasting activities and keep records of said seismic monitoring as required by the Virginia Division of Mines, Minerals and Energy. 9.2 The Applicant will establish a mechanism for voluntary well monitoring surveys of properties that are within 1,500 feet of Applicant's Property boundaries. The aforementioned surveys will be conducted by an independent well drilling firm, which will investigate and document the pre -blast conditions of the participants' wells. All citizens who have property located within 1,500 feet of the Applicant's Property boundaries can and are encouraged to participate in the survey by contacting the Applicant and scheduling a mutually agreeable time for the independent well drilling firm to visit the party's residence to document and survey the pre -blast condition of the party's well. A record of these pre -blast conditions will be kept by the independent well drilling firm, with copies retained by the Applicant and the participating property owner. In the event a change of condition is alleged by the property owner as a result of mining operations, the well drilling firm will then conduct a follow-up visit and investigation and use pre -blast information as a control and basis for subsequent analysis. If it is determined that the status of the neighboring property owner's well has deteriorated from the condition it was in at the time of the pre -blast survey, then the Applicant agrees to restore the well to its condition existing at the time of the pre -blast survey and/or provide the adjoining property owner a replacement well of the same condition of that which existed at that time of the pre -blast survey. 9.3 In addition to the above, the Applicant agrees to maintain in force a bond or a rider on an existing bond or other sufficient security for a period of time covering the active mining operations and to maintain in effect for a period of one year from the date of cessation of mining operations and to cover the costs of any remediation and/or repair, which is required pursuant to the terms of section 9.1 above. 10. Reclamation 10,.1 The Applicant will bond reclamation activities in the amounts determined by the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy and there shall be a rider affixed to said bond or some other sufficient security to provide for the work and/or reclamation and/or remediation activities set forth herein. 10.2 It is intended that pursuant to the terms of the agreement reached with the FCSA that at the time of cessation of mining activities, the quarry pits shall be used by the FCSA as water reservoirs. The control of the water levels in the quarry pits shall be handed over to the FCSA. It is intended that the quarry pits at that time will contain quantities of water monitored and directed by the FCSA, and which will be conducive to the general betterment of natural habitat. 11. Noise Abatement 11.1 Operations on the Property will not exceed the Virginia Department of Mines and Minerals Engineering's decibel guidelines. 12. Air Permit 12.1 The Applicant shall maintain its existing general air permit controlling emissions in accordance with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality standards and also see that the existing general air permit covers all activities conducted on the rezoned Property. 13. Environment 13.1 In addition to compliance with the VPDES water discharge permit already in place, the Applicant agrees to work with a recognized environmental entity of the Applicant's choosing during its operations to ensure that the water emissions from water flowing from the quarry operations on the Property is of a quality consistent with the water quality in Cedar Creek so as to maintain an environment conducive to natural habitats. 13.2 The Applicant agrees that in conjunction with its mining operations, there will be no new water discharge points added to the existing discharge to Cedar Creek. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES Respectfully submitted, O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) CORPORATION Its: STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2006, by NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: f Mike Ruddy From: Robert Spangler [rspan@visuallink.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 12:04 PM To: Willie A. Cochran; ANNE & JEFF CARTER; Bill and Patti Hanmer; Dale Nichols; David Nichols; Debbie & Steve Miller; DEE BORGOYN; Ed Craft; Gale/Rick Hesson; Gary/Dale Nichols; Hal/Rebecca Stalcup; Jeff Carter; Joe/Betsy Hickman; Judith Spangler; Kathryn Pfiefer; Kathy Kisak; Kurt Borgoyn; Larry Hamilton; Laurie & Bill Hunter; laurie.hunter@yahoo.com; Linda & Keith McNeely; Liz & Kevin Barrington; Lynnette Dalton; M. L. Monk; Mark Brown,; Mary Bowser; Paul Clevenger; Paul Kisak; Shayne/Ranna-Lesley Lachlan; SHELLIE SELLARDS; Shirley & Fred Potter; Tara Shostek; Theodora Rezba; Wendy Hamilton Cc: NVD letters to the Editor; Gene Fisher; Richard C. Shickle; Michael T. Ruddy, AICP; Adrian O'Connor; Philip A. Lemieux; Bill M. Ewing; Charles F. DeHaven, Jr.; Gary W. Dove; Gary Lofton Subject: Blast of 6-3-08 103 PANA-P10301 44_P 1030144.J PG... At about 10:54 am, we were shaken by a blast that raised a large dust cloud. A brisk wind was from the east and the dust can be seen moving west in the attached photo. Wille we were informed by Ty Lawson that Carmeuse would comply with the requirement that "no dust would leave the property." Does this constitute a violation of the requirement? If you would be interested, I have photographs of several blasts of the past couple of years showing the same thing. As usual, we are keeping all responses to these emails on file. Let me know what you experienced, if anything. By copy of this email, I am letting BOS and newspapers know what they are subjecting over 500 properties to in the future. And this picture (as well as 17 others) was taken at a distance of more than 2 miles; consider what it will be like when the blasting occurs at about 2,000 feet or less than one-half mile. Bob Spangler 1 O-N MINERALS II CHEMSTONE OPERATION ;n li 7 2 2 2006 1696 ORANDA ROAD PO BOX 71 O- N M I NE RAL 8 STRASBURG, VA 22657 TEL 540-465-5161 FAX 540-465-5150 www.oglebaynorton.com August 15, 2006 Gary A. and Priscilla L. Lofton 711 Buffalo Marsh Rd Middletown, VA 22645 Dear Neighbor: There have been a lot of concerns about the Middletown Quarry's planned rezoning. We received a lot of comments at the public hearing, and we intend to answer every one of them with new proffers. As a nearby neighbor of the quarry, these new proffers will give you specific legal rights, such as an unconditional guarantee of your well water. I'd like to invite you to meet with us in the Senseney Room at The Wayside Inn to discuss these guarantees and answer your questions about our plans. We will be holding three of these meetings during the last two weeks of August. You are free to attend whichever meeting is most convenient for you. Whether you are a new neighbor or have lived next to the quarry for years, you will want to attend one of these meetings. Among the new proffers we will present include limits on truck traffic, well and water guarantees, and blasting guarantees. We also intend to proffer out uses within the E-M zoning that are not connected with the current quarry operation, such as cement kilns or asphalt plants. You will also have a chance to ask questions about the use of the quarry by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, sightlines from various properties, and the phasing of quarry operations. I'd like to reassure everyone that the pace of quarry operations will not change at Middletown. We are merely following the same limestone vein that we have followed for the past 50 years, with the same people, at the same pace. A lot has been written about limestone lately. For those of you who are not familiar with it, it is a very safe and environmentally friendly material, and the vein at Middletown is one of the purest in the country. We've scheduled three dates in the Senseney Room at The Wayside Inn: Wednesday, August 23, Monday, August 28, and Wednesday, August 30. Attend whichever meeting is convenient, or come to all three. The meetings will start at 6 p.m. with snacks, dessert and coffee. We'll have a short presentation at 6:30, followed by a question and answer session. We'll be there as long as you need us. If you have any questions, please call us at (540) 465-6807. I look forward to seeing you at The Wayside Inn. Spencer C. Stinsc General Manager Chemstone Operation September 5, 2006 Mr. Michael Ruddy Frederick County Planning Commission 107 No. Kent St., 2' Floor Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Ruddy, I am writing to express my opposition to the request by Oglebay-Norton Minerals to rezone the property adjacent to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. This type of operation is inappropriate for this location. The existing operation already degrades the landscape at this park and any new expanded operation would destroy the experience of visiting this battlefield. The adverse impacts of expanded mining operations would be devastating. There would greatly increased truck traffic, pollution, blasting, night operations, and greatly increased use of groundwater. There are even plans to withdraw water from Cedar Creek. Piles of mining waste would be visible for miles. I have visited the park and enjoyed the rural experience of this area. I urge you to deny this application. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dennis P. Graham 83 Sunbrook Ln Hagerstown, MD 21742 D. Graham 83 Sunbrook In Hagerstown, 21742 Mr. Michael Ruddy Frederick County Planning Commission 107 No. Kent St., 2°d Floor Winchester, VA 22601 .SA3 itrycpK,151 ,—�l ��,yiHnriRltr;t,r�t,u:;gt„na7r..��'•6v':S�St�j �;U� i „mmunun:: ... Inn'^•..�.,,,, ,pt+7yr.., 5���}Qd �Y ¢�IC�.Y1v11r►5 Go,-•M ass, or. FINANCIAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OGLEBAY NORTON/CH.EMSTONE • Oglebay Norton (ON) presents itself on its website, in part as "a company --- that provides essential materials and aggregates to a broad range of markets, from building materials and home improvement to the environmental, energy, and metallurgical industries. Building on a 150-year heritage, our vision is to be the best company in the industrial minerals industry." • Concerning their statement with respect to the environment, the state of New Mexico, Department of Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources, in 2002 issued a Notice of Violation for: (1.) Failure to obtain an approved permit modification or revision to allow use of Holder 9 Waste Unit for disposition of sand tailings. (2.) Failure to minimize negative impacts to the hydrologic balance in both the permit and potentially affected areas. (3.) Failure to construct and maintain stockpiles to minimize mass movement. This failure caused disturbance in a previously undisturbed area outside the approved design limits of the mine. (4.) Failure to reclaim disturbed lands in a manner that controls erosion. Also, the Governor of New Mexico stated that he was not interested in negotiating with ON and intended to proceed with its efforts to have the mine shut down and the land reclaimed. He went on to say that the mining and milling operation threatened "not only our resources, but our lifestyle...." In conclusion, this mine was shut in the year 2004 by ON and they did not complete the reclamation but practically gave the land to local Native Americans who then were responsible for reclaiming the land. • In the year 2004, ON reported a net loss of $106 million. And in the year 2005, they reported a net loss of $17.25 million. The 2004 loss included an unusual charge related to their bankruptcy of about $85 million. Nevertheless, excluding that unusual charge, their combined net loss for 2004 and 2005 is approximately $38 million. • Considering the above facts, one might believe that senior management of ON would have suffered along with the shareholders whose stock became practically worthless, if not totally worthless. Let's look at the facts: The President and CEO earned a salary and bonus combined in the year 2003 of $446,000; in 2004, his earnings increased to $789,000 and in 2005, his earnings increased to $1,419,000. The Vice President and Chief Financial Officer in 2003 earned $236,000, which increased to $368,000 in 2004 and increased further to $708,000 in the year 2005. The Vice President and General Counsel (the corporate lawyer) earned $183,000 in 2003 which increased to $266,000 in 2004 and nearly doubled to $517,000 in 2005. What might one conclude from these numbers when considering that the company declared bankruptcy in 2004? In the months following bankruptcy the compensation (salary and bonus) of these three top executives increased by amounts that one would not even expect if the company had been highly profitable and generating outstanding cash flow during this time frame. Even if this compensation was somehow tied to a previously existing agreement, it boggles the mind to think that senior management would receive any increase, let alone the astounding amounts presented above while the company was going through bankruptcy and experiencing heavy debt. What is ON's explanation for this compensation pattern? • In April of 2006, less than 2 months ago, ON filed a Form 15 with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission announcing its intent to deregister its common and preferred stock and suspend its reporting obligations under SEC rules. The company also postponed its 2006 Annual Meeting of Shareholders originally scheduled for May 4, 2006 and as of this time no public meeting ha.F, been scheduled. By this filing with the SEC, ON is not obligated to voluntarily comply with periodic reporting requirements during a 90-day waiting period or thereafter if they so choose. Comment: While ON has every right to make this change, it raises substantive questions about the intent of the company to share operating results, business transactions, or other relationships that may significantly affect the financial future of the company. Question: What information is ON prepared to provide Frederick County on a quarterly or semi- annual basis should the rezoning be approved? • Legal Proceedings: Quoting from the Form 10-K filed with the SEC by ON on March 17, 2006 "at December 31, 2005 the Company was a co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims of about 47,000 claimants".... additionally, quoting from the same document, "with respect to silica at December 31, 2005, the Company was a co-defendant in cases involving about 15, 219 claimants".....continuing in the same document, the Company makes the following statement "management cannot predict whether or not the company's available insurance will be adequate to cover any and all asbestos claims that arise in the future or that the company will have the ability to otherwise successfully defend or resolve such cases. if there are not developments that reduce the impact of asbestos litigation or its costs, the company's available insurance may be insufficient to cover all future claims anc? there could be a material adverse effect on the company's results of otaerations, liquidity_.and financial condition." Question: Are silica and asbestos claims still being made against -ON and if so can they provide assurance to the Commissioners that they have sufficient resources to meet any and all obligations resulting from such claims? • Over the years, ON has indicated the importance of their marine vessels that sail the Great Lakes. However, as recently as May 12, 2006, less than one month ago, the company announced a definitive agreement to sell six more of its ships and, in addition, the company stated that it intends to sell its remaining three vessels. Comment: Even though the proceeds from the sale of these vessels will reduce debt in the short run, it will likely increase operating costs in the long run, particularly in light of their statements that these vessels have been an important part of their operating strategy. • On May 12, 2006 the company announced an agreement with 'Wolverine Power Cooperative of Cadillac, Michigan. Wolverine has een granted an opniont ers purchase 440 acres of property previously mined b ON at its quarry oS City, Michigan. Over the next two years, Wolverine will explore the feasibility of constructing a plant using coal technology to generate and transmit electric power. Comment: If ON is granted extractive manufacturing rights in Frederick County, it would have the power to enter into similar transactions, either alone or with a partner, and we end up with a coal -based utility, including poles, lines, pipes, meters, and sewer facilities associated with the utility. • In December 2005, less than 6 months ago, ON sold its Oklahoma Lime assets to a third party. The CEO of ON has stated that they have no intention at this time of divesting any other mineral operation. Comment: If ON is granted extractive mining rights they will retain the power to sell or lease any portion or all of the property they now own in Frederick County. This means that there is no assurance that a third party muting company won't come in and use the zoning privileges to add... other surface mining.... or natural gas... or sand and gravel... or asphalt and concrete or ....??? Overall Comment: Oglebay Norton is a company that has shown disregard for the environment, has mismanaged its resources and steered the operation into bankruptcy. Additionally, they have sold assets that they at one time considered to be of great importance to their company and have recently filed with the SEC to deregister which will allow them to operate behind closed doors. Is this a profile of a good business partner? I think not! aEVELAND BUSINESS Fight for control of Oglebay board at hand By MARK DODOSH 1:36 pm, July 3, 2007 A battle for control of the board of Oglebay Norton Co. appears to be in the offing. In a strongly worded letter to Oglebay Norton's beard, two investment funds overseen by Harbinger Capital Partners of New York have Indicated that they intend to seek to replace Oglebay's board because of Harbinger's dissatisfaction with the company's plans to grow via acquisition. Harbinger states in the letter that Oglebay "simply cannot afford large acquisitions in addition to the aggressive capital expenditures needed to reverse years of underspending" that occurred before and during the time that Oglebay was in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. "7o re -leverage the balance sheet for acquisitions at a time when there is already a strain on free cash flow is unacceptable," Harbinger stated. Harbinger In Its letter states that it "does not support management's planned aggressive growth by acquisition strategy." Rather, the letter states, Harbinger "believes that Oglebay should leverage Its strategic resources rather than its balance sheet by partnering with a larger company with complementary assets and greater financial resources." A call for change Harbinger goes on to state that it "is convinced that significant value enhancing opportunities for all of Oglebay's shareholders exist that are not being adequately pursued by the incumbent board and management." "Unfortunately, the actions to date of the Oglebay board do not, in our view, inspire confidence that Oglebay will effectively pursue these opportunities without a change In leadership," the letter states. "Accordingly, we are putting you on notice that Harbinger intends to nominate directors for election at this year's annual meeting who, once elected, will explore all available strategic alternatives in order to maximize shareholder value." http ://wv`tiv. crainseleN,eland.comlappslpbcs.dlllarticle'?AID=/200707031FREEl7070... 7/23/2007 Harbinger said it intends to submit a notice of its nominations for the board no later than July 26. A receptionist at Oglebay said in a call from CrainsCieveland.com at 1:15 p.m. Wednesday that company officials were involved in a conference call and were not Immediately available for comment. Oglebay experienced financial problems earlier this decade because of an aggressive acquisition strategy the provider of industrial minerals and aggregates had embarked upon In the late 1990s. Oglebay took on large amounts of debt to finance its acquisitions. By the end of 2002, Oglebay's long-term debt totaled $395 million, compared to $47.5 million at the end of 1997 — the year before its acquisition push began. The recession of earlier this decade along with the company's debt obligations hurt Oglebay's bottom line and led the company to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection from creditors in February 2004. The company emerged from bankruptcy proceedings at the end of January 2005. It currently is traded on the pink sheets under the symbol OGBY. Nacco's nemesis This is Harbinger's second encounter with a Cleveland -based company over the last year. Beginning last fall and continuing into this year, Harbinger was competing with Nacco industries Inc. for the hand of household appliance distributor Applica Inc. Nacco announced last summer that it had an agreement to combine Applica with Its Proctor- 5ilex/Hamilton Beach unit and to spin that business off into a new company. However, Harbinger in October would ink a takeover agreement with Applica, and would win a bidding war for the company despite Nacco's repeated attempts to climb over the price Harbinger was willing to pay for Applica. PRINTED FROM: http://www.crainscieveland.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? AID =/20070703/FREE/70703007/1090&template=printart © 2007 Crain Communications Inc. http://wwNv.crairiseleveland.corn/appslpbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070703/k REEI'7O70... 7/23/2007 ,— 5— U;v&s w mepiace Board Of Oglebay Notion Page 1 of 4 Search f'd.G�SUItS fior GoK` gi (^,,n ..r 5 A 1, Arint thiis,Relea�g Fn;yj;!aij p B6 _ onesswwe July 03, 2007 11:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time Harbinger Seeks to Replace Board of Oglebay Horton In Letter to current Board, Harbinger States That it Will Encourage Review of Strategic Alternatives NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE) --Harbinger Capital Partners Master Fund I, Ltd. and Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations Fund, L.P. (together, "Harbinger Capital Partners") today sent a letter to the Board of Directors of Oglebay Norton Company (Pink Sheets: OGB`) stating that it will seek to replace the Board and encourage a review of Oglebay Norton's strategic alternatives, The full text of the letter follows: Harbinger Capital Partners Master Fund I, Ltd, Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations Fund, L.P. 555 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10022 July 3, 2007 Board of Directors Oglebay Norton Company 1001 Lakeside Avenue, 15th Floor Cleveland, OH 44114 Attention; Thomas 0. Boucher Michael D. Lundin Ladies and Gentlemen: As you know, we are one of Oglebay's largest shareholders and have a keen interest in seeing the company maximize its performance and take actions that are in the best interests of its shareholders. http://home,businesswire.coal/pottal/site/googlefindex jsp?iidmViewId=news view... 7/23/2007 tiarrornget Harbinger believes that Oglebay is presently resntl ursing acquisitions have that are not in the best interests of shareholders. expressed to you previously, we believe that a series of leveraged acquisitions is ill advised, particularly in light of: . The Company simply cannot afford large acquisitions in addition to the aggressive capital expenditures needed to reverse years of underspending (while the company was in Chapter 11) and make Oglebay competitive from a productivity standpoint. We believe that the company would need to invest approximately $30 million per year for the next several years to builda competitive business. To re -leverage the balance sheet for acquisitions at a time when there is already a strain on free cash flow is unacceptable. . Acquisitions involve significant integration risks and demand a tremendous amount of management's time and attention (remember that overpaying for acquisitions and failing to integrate them was the reason that the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the first place). Management's time would be much better spent focusing on maximizing the value of the company's current asset base through productivity enhancements. As we have indicated to you before, Harbinger does not support management's planned aggressive growth by acquisition strategy. Harbinger believes that Oglebay should leverage its strategic resources rather than its balance sheet by partnering with a larger company with complementary assets and greater financial resources. This strategy would give the company greater critical mass, increased access to capital to fund the aggressive capital expenditures currently contemplated by management without over - leveraging its balance sheet, and the ability to accelerate the company's productivity initiatives. In an effort to further deliberations on these competing strategies, we requested representation on the Oglebay board equal to that which we could easily secure through cumulative voting at a meeting, but the current board chose to decline our request. We are deeply troubled by this reaction. As members of the company's http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/googlc/iiidex.,isp?ndmViewld=news view... 7/23/2007 board of directors, you are obligated to discharge your duties of care and loyalty for the benefit of the company's shareholders. We remind you that the company's management is not the constituency to whom you owe your fidelity. Harbinger is convinced that significant value enhancing opportunities for ali of Oglebay's shareholders exist that are not being adequately pursued by the incumbent board and management. Unfortunately, the actions to date of the ©glebay board do not, in our view, inspire confidence that Oglebay will effectively pursue these opportunities without a change in leadership. Accordingly, we are putting you on notice that Harbinger intends to nominate directors for election at this year's annual meeting who, once elected, will explore all available strategic alternatives in order to maximize shareholder value. We will submit the notice of our nominations no later than July 26, as required by Section 40 of Oglebay's regulations. If you believe nominations need to be submitted by any different date, we trust you will advise us as appropriate. Lastly, we are concerned that the Oglebay board lacks, commitrrient to even the most basic standards of .acceptable corporate governance practices. You have failed to hold an annual meeting of stockholders for in excess of two years. Indeed, although Qglebay recently committed itself to a late September annual meeting, it did so only following receipt of our .dune 16, 2007 letter calling for such a meeting. Given the disregard that -the board has shown to us and our fellow stockholders to date, we feel compelled to caution you that Harbinger will not tolerate any attempts to entrench the board and management or manipulate the corporate machinery as we prepare for the annual meeting which is so long overdue. ''eery truly yours, HARBINGER CAPITAL PARTNERS MASTER FUND I, LTD. By: Harbinger Capital Partneis Offshore Manager, L.L.C. By: 5/0 Philip Falcone Title: Senior Managing DizectPr iLARB"NGFR CAPITAL PARTNERS SPECIAL SITUATIONS FUND, L.P. By: }iaxbi.nger Capital Partners Special Situations G?, L.LC By: s/o Philip Falcone http://Iioine.businesswire.cotn,'-portal/situ/google/index.jsp?iidmVie-vvld=-iiews vices,... 7/23/..2007 'Lauinger Seeks to Replace Board of Oglebay Norton Page 4 of 4 Title. Senior Managing Director About Harbinger Capital Partners: The Harbinger Capital Partners investment team located in New York City manages in excess of $8 billion in capital through two complementary strategies. Harbinger Capital Partners Master Fund 1, Ltd. is focused on restructurings, liquidations, event -driven situations, turnarounds and capital structure arbitrage, including both long and short positions in highly leveraged and financially distressed companies. Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations Fund, L.P. is focused on medium to long term, control oriented and frequently less liquid distressed investments, with flexibility to use other investment strategies and types of securities when attractive opportunities arise. Contacts Kekst and Company For Harbinger Capital Partners: Mark Semer, 212- 521-4800 Sharing D, g Print this Release. Digg. a del.ici.o.us U Newsyine. � s Reddit Terms of Use l © Business Wire 2007 http://home,businesswi>ie.com/portal/site/google/index jsp?ndmViewld=news view... 7/23/2007 > Cleve4indxom°s Printer -Friendly Page Pagel of 2 womi=EV ND.00M THE PLAIN DEALER Oglebay Norton adopts poison pill to fight Harbinger Capital Harbinger Capital leans toward a sale of firm Thursday, July 26, 2007 Alison Grant Plain Dealer Reporter Oglebay Norton Co. has adopted a poison pill to deter an unsolicited takeover bid from New York hedge fund Harbinger Capital Partners. Harbinger, a major shareholder, recently charged that Oglebay invests poorly and should be combined with a larger company. In other words, Harbinger appears to want Oglebay sold so the fund can make a profit on its stock. Harbinger said it owns more than 18 percent of Oglebay's shares. Oglebay directors responded late Tuesday with an anti-takeover plan but also said they would explore a sale or merger. The poison pill allows Oglebay to look for alternative suitors and control the timing of any transaction after 153 years of independence as a Great Lakes shipping and minerals company. Oglebay's stock closed Wednesday at $23.30, down 70 cents. Oglebay trades as an over-the-counter stock. Oglebay sold the last of its freighters a year ago as it focused on its lime and limestone businesses. The industrial materials and aggregates industry is undergoing worldwide consolidation in a booming construction market that has seen year -after -year price increases for crushed stone. In recent months, Mexican cement maker Cemex completed a $14 billion hostile takeover of Australian rival Rinker Group Ltd. Vulcan Materials Co. bought Florida Rock Industries Inc. for $4.6 billion. Both deals involved the takeover company paying a substantial premium over where the target company's stock was trading. Oglebay's poison pill - which the company called a "shareholder rights plan" - allows existing shareholders to buy shares at a deep discount if Harbinger tries to acquire more stock in the company. A poison pill makes it impossible for an aggressor to complete a takeover, forcing the aggressor to negotiate with the board instead of unilaterally acting, said Paul Edwards, chairman of the securities law section at the McDonald Hopkins law firm in Cleveland. "This whole thing is being driven by Harbinger's bear hug," Edwards said. "If they can create volatility, they can profit." Harbinger said in a statement that it is committed to the strategy it announced this month, which included trying to oust Oglebay directors at the company's annual meeting in September. "This board has demonstrated yet again that it is only willing to take actions when pushed," Harbinger said, http://www.cleveland.com/printer/printer.ssO/base/business-3/118543 8838128710.xml&c... 8/28/2007 +r Cleveland.corn's Printer -Friendly Page Page 2 of 2 "and even then it will not do what is in the best interest of all shareholders." Harbinger has encountered other poison pills. Just this week, Navistar International Corp. disclosed that it had adopted a poison pill amid speculation that it was a takeover target and news that Harbinger held a 14 percent stake in the company. In Japan last month, Harbinger failed at a shareholders' meeting to block a merger between two food service giants that had been engineered through use of a poison pill. To reach this Plain Dealer reporter: agrant@plaind.com, 216-999-4758 © 2007 The Plain Dealer © 2007 cleveland.com All Rights Reserved. http://www.cleveland.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/business-3/1185438838128710.xml&c... 8/28/2007 Harbinger Moves to Buy Oglebay Norton: Associated Press Business News - MSN Money Page 1 of 1 July 26, 2007 1:48 PM ET Harbinger Moves to Buy Oglebay Norton NEW YORK (AP) - Harbinger Capital Partners has p dssociated Press made an unsolicited takeover offer for minerals company Oglebay Norton Co., a day after Cleveland -based Oglebay said it would explore strategic alternatives. The New York -based private -equity firm, which owns 18 percent of the miner of limestone and sand, announced Thursday its intention to offer Oglebay's other shareholders $31 a share, a 25 percent premium to Wednesday's closing price of $24.85 on the Pink Sheets. The offer values Oglebay at $448 million. Oglebay shares were up 21 percent at $30 in Thursday afternoon trading. Oglebay's board urged shareholders not to respond to the offer until the board has studied it and issued a recommendation. advertisement 255% Gains in Six The top picks recommended in D Gardner's Motley Fool Stock Advf. bering the S&P by 69%. David's #1 stock nabbed 255% g months and is still going strong. " returned 688%. 26 of their picks or more. Learn their secret plus David & Ti rated stocks in their latest investi free, right now. Click here for "The Motley Fool's 'C omparad to SS P returns 0, :!,1 21 % over th e i As o' t,115I2,20? Harbinger said the offer won't be formalized until Oglebay provides a shareholder list and related information Harbinger sent a letter July 3 to Oglebay's board saying the firm intended to nominate directors for election annual meeting who would explore Oglebay's strategic alternatives. Harbinger said Thursday that it believes a reaction to the pending proxy battle "and that the board may not be truly committed to taking any action tt shareholder value, particularly if it is detrimental to the position of current directors." As a result, Harbinger still plans to run a rival board slate. Oglebay said Wednesday its board adopted a so-called poison pill that will allow shareholders to buy addition, discount if any holder owning at least a 15 percent stake acquires more shares or if any other person or grou 15 percent stake. Oglebay gets about half of its revenue from construction products, ranging from fillers used in roofing and ca aggregates for road construction and other public works projects. Its other businesses are in the industrial, e energy segments. Oglebay emerged from bankruptcy three years ago and executives said several months back that a restructu completed. Oglebay, a 150-year-old company long involved in Great Lakes shipping and iron ore, was forced because of excessive debt taken on during prior management's efforts to diversify the company into busines< growth prospects than lake shipping. JPMorgan Chase & Co. is helping Oglebay in its review of strategic alternatives. Oglebay President and Chief I Lundin said now is the right time for such a move because of the company's "stronger foundation." © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten o http://news.moneyeentral.msn.comlprintarticle.aspx?feed=AP&date=20070726&id=723 51... 8/28/2007 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE OGLEBAY NORTON URGES SHAREHOLDERS TO TAKE NO ACTION AT THIS TIME WITH RESPECT TO HARBINGER'S UNSOLICITED TENDER OFFER Board of Directors to Issue Recommendation to Shareholders CLEVELAND, August 7, 2007 -- Oglebay Norton Company (Pink Sheets: OGBY.PK) today iounced that Trident Acquisition Co., LLC, a jointly -owned subsidiary of Harbinger Capital artners Master Fund I, Ltd. and Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations Fund, L.P. (together "Harbinger") has delivered to the Company a copy of a Form 041, which Harbinger indicated it filed with the Ohio Division of Securities regarding its unsolicited tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Oglebay Norton's common stock at $31.00 per share. Oglebay Norton urges all shareholders to take no action at this time with respect to Harbinger's unsolicited tender offer. The Board of Directors of Oglebay Norton, in consultation with independent legal and financial advisors, is in the process of carefully reviewing and evaluating Harbinger's unsolicited tender offer and will advise Oglebay Norton shareholders of the Board's position regarding the offer, including its reasons for that position. Oglebay Norton recommends that shareholders defer making any determination with respect to Harbinger's unsolicited tender offer until reading the Board's solicitation/recommendation statement. As previously announced on July 24, 2007, Oglebay Norton's Board has formed a special committee of independent directors to explore strategic alternatives to maximize shareholder due, including a possible sale or merger of the Company. The Company noted that there can )e no assurance that the exploration of strategic alternatives will result in any agreements or �A-ansactions. JPMorgan is serving as Oglebay Norton's financial advisor, and Jones Day as legal counsel. Oglebay Norton Company, a Cleveland, Ohio -based company with a 150-year tradition of service, provides essential minerals and aggregates to a broad range of markets, from building materials and environmental remediation to energy and industrial applications. For more information, see www.oglebaynorton.com. Safe Harbor Statement Certain statements contained in this release are "forward -looking" in that they reflect management's expectations and beliefs regarding the future performance of the Company and its operating segments. Such forward -looking statements are subject to uncertainties and factors relating to the Company's operations and business environment, all of which are difficult to r dict and many of which are beyond the control of the Company. The Company believes that J. a following factors, among others, could affect its future performance and cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by forward -looking statements made by or on behalf of the Company: (1) fluctuations in energy, fuel and oil prices and availability of such fuels; (2) fluctuations in integrated steel production in the Great Lakes region; (3) changes in residential and commercial construction demands, especially in the Great Lakes and Mid - Atlantic region; (4) economic conditions in California and population growth rates in the southwestern United States; (5) weather conditions, particularly in the Great Lakes region and flooding; (6) availability of third -party transportation for delivery of product; (7) the type and number of strategic alternatives available to the Company; (8) the outcome of periodic ,_ otiations of labor agreements; (9) changes in the demand for the Company's products due to ciianges in technology; (10) the loss, insolvency or bankruptcy of major customers, insurers or debtors; (11) difficulty in hiring sufficient staff that is skilled appropriately; (12) changes in environmental laws; (13) an increase in the number and cost of asbestos and silica product liability claims filed against the Company and its subsidiaries and determinations by a court or jury against the Company's interest; (14) the insolvency of insurers, the effects of any coverage litigation with insurers or the adequacy of insurance; (15) changes in Federal or State law with respect to asbestos or silica product liability claims; and (16) risks related to the low trading volume of the Company's stock and the de -registration of the Company's stock with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. CONTACT: Julie A. Boland Vice President, CFO, Treasurer and Corporate Secretary Oglebay Norton Company -216-861-8941 Page 1 of 2 08/13/07 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF OGLEBAY NORTON'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONTINUES TO EVALUATE STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVES TO MAXIMIZE SHAREHOLDER VALUE CLEVELAND, August 13, 2007 — Oglebay Norton Company (Pink Sheets: OGBY.PK) today announced that the Special Committee of its Board of Directors, after consulting with its independent financial and legal advisors, has determined to take no position at this time with respect to the unsolicited tender offer from Trident Acquisition Co., LLC, a jointly -owned subsidiary of Harbinger Capital Partners Master Fund I, Ltd. and Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations Fund, L.P. (together "Harbinger") for all of the outstanding shares of Oglebay Norton's common stock at $31.00 per share. The Special Committee will continue to carefully review and evaluate Harbinger's unsolicited tender offer and will advise Oglebay Norton shareholders of its position regarding the offer, including its reasons for that position. The Special Committee recommends that shareholders defer making any determination with respect to Harbinger's unsolicited tender offer until reading the Board's solicitation/recommendation statement. Michael Lundin, Oglebay Norton President and CEO, said, "A Special Committee of Oglebay Norton's Board of Directors, together with its team of outside advisors, is conducting a robust strategic alternatives process to maximize value for all shareholders. A number of parties have already expressed interest in the Company. The Special Committee intends to maintain a level playing field for all parties, including Harbinger." As previously announced on July 24, 2007, Oglebay Norton's Board formed a Special Committee of independent directors that is exploring strategic alternatives to maximize shareholder value, including a possible sale or merger of the Company. The Company noted that there can be no assurance that the exploration of strategic alternatives will result in any agreements or transactions. JPMorgan is serving as Oglebay Norton's financial advisor, and Jones Day as legal counsel. Oglebay Norton Company, a Cleveland, Ohio -based company with a 150-year tradition of service, provides essential minerals and aggregates to a broad range of markets, from building materials and environmental remediation to energy and industrial applications. For more information, see http://www.oglebaynorton.com. Safe Harbor Statement Certain statements contained in this release are "forward -looking" in that they reflect management's expectations and beliefs regarding the fixture performance of the Company and its operating segments. Such forward -looking statements are subject to uncertainties and factors relating to the Company's operations and business environment, all of which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond the control of the Company. The Company believes that the following factors, among others, could affect its future performance and cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by forward -looking statements made by or on behalf of the Company: (1) fluctuations in energy, fuel and oil prices and availability of such fuels; (2) fluctuations in integrated steel production in the Great Lakes region; (3) changes in (00176157.DOC;3) Page 2 of 2 08/13/07 residential and commercial construction demands, especially in the Great Lakes and Mid -Atlantic region; (4) economic conditions in California and population growth rates in the southwestern United States; (5) weather conditions, particularly in the Great Lakes region and flooding; (6) availability of third -party transportation for delivery of product; (7) the type and number of strategic alternatives available to the Company; (8) the outcome of periodic negotiations of labor agreements; (9) changes in the demand for the Company's products due to changes in technology; (10) the loss, insolvency or bankruptcy of major customers, insurers or debtors; (11) difficulty in hiring sufficient staff that is skilled appropriately; (12) changes in environmental laws; (13) an increase in the number and cost of asbestos and silica product liability claims riled against the Company and its subsidiaries and determinations by a court or jury against the Company's interest; (14) the insolvency of insurers, the effects of any coverage litigation with insurers or the adequacy of insurance; (15) changes in Federal or State law with respect to asbestos or silica product liability claims; and (16) risks related to the low trading volume of the Company's stock and the de -registration of the Company's stock with the United States Securities and Exchange Com nisslon. Contact: Julie A. Boland Vice President, CFO, Treasurer and Corporate Secretary Oglebay Norton Company 216-861-8941 {00176157.DOC;3} FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE OGLEBAY NORTON BOARD RECOMMENDS SHAREHOLDERS TAKE NO ACTION AT THIS TIME REGARDING HARBINGER'S UNSOLICITED TENDER OFFER AND NOT TENDER THEIR SHARES Special Committee of Independent Directors Continues Exploration of Strategic Alternatives Believes Evaluation of Strategic Alternatives Could Generate Value Greater than Harbinger's Offer CLEVELAND, August 22, 2007 — Oglebay Norton Company (Pink Sheets: OGBY.PK) today announced that its Board of Directors recommends that shareholders take no action at this time with respect to the unsolicited tender offer from Harbinger Capital Partners Master Fund I, Ltd. and Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations Fund, L.P. (collectively, "Harbinger") to purchase all of the outstanding shares of Oglebay Norton's common stock for $31.00 per share in cash. The Oglebay Norton Board reached its recommendation, in consultation with its financial and legal advisors, and after a Special Committee of independent directors advised the Board that it does not believe that it can properly evaluate Harbinger's offer, and is therefore unable to take a position with respect to Harbinger's offer, until the review of strategic alternatives, as previously announced on July 24, 2007, is complete and any alternative transactions have been carefully considered in relation to Harbinger's offer. Accordingly, the Board recommends that all Oglebay Norton shareholders take no action at this time with respect to Harbinger's offer and not tender their shares. Michael Lundin, Oglebay Norton President and CEO, said, "Oglebay Norton's Board of Directors is committed to maximizing value for all Oglebay Norton shareholders, and we are taking all appropriate steps to realize this goal. Our Board is undertaking a frill and thorough exploration of the Company's strategic alternatives, including a possible sale or merger. Numerous potential buyers have been contacted as part of this process, which we believe could generate value greater than the $31.00 per share offered by Harbinger. "Furthermore, our Board and management team are committed to continuing to execute on our strategic plan to further enhance shareholder value. Since being appointed, Oglebay Norton's new management team has successfully restructured the Company, sold non -core assets, reduced debt and costs, and increased the Company's net income. As a result of these and other achievements, we now have a stronger foundation in place. This, together with Oglebay Norton's high -quality reserves, positions us well to capitalize on the demand in our markets. We appreciate the support shareholders have expressed in our leadership team and in the actions we have taken to date and will continue to take," added Lundin. In recommending that all Oglebay Norton shareholders take no action at this time with respect to Harbinger's unsolicited offer and not tender their shares, the Oglebay Norton Board considered, among others, the following factors: The Special Committee believes that the outcome of the Company's evaluation of strategic alternatives could generate greater value for shareholders than Harbinger's $31.00 per share offer. Since announcing the formation of the Special Committee and its review of strategic alternatives to maximize shareholder value on July 24, 2007, the Company has received unsolicited interest from potential strategic and financial bidders concerning a potential transaction. In response to this interest and after authorization by the Board of Directors, on August 13, 2007, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. ("JPMorgan"), the Company's financial advisor in connection with the review of strategic alternatives, began contacting potential strategic and financial bidders to assess their interest in a possible business combination with the Company. The Special Committee believes that it is well suited to consider a sale of the Company. Harbinger has provided written notice to the Company that it intends to nominate seven directors for election at the Company's 2007 annual meeting and effectively replace all of the Company's independent directors. Four of Harbinger's nominees are directors and/or officers of General Chemical Industrial Products Inc., which the Company believes is owned approximately 85% by Harbinger. As further discussed in the Company's recommendation materials, beginning in late 2006 and continuing through June 2007, Oglebay Norton and General Chemical held discussions regarding a potential business transaction. The Special Committee believes that its independent members will have a more objective view with respect to a business combination involving the Company than a board hand-picked by Harbinger. Harbinger's offer provides limited ability to share in the Company's future prospects. Harbinger asserts that its offer provides the opportunity for shareholders who believe in the long - terms prospects of the Company to continue to hold an equity investment in the Company. Yet, if Harbinger's offer is consummated, the Company's remaining shareholders will likely hold a highly illiquid investment. Highly illiquid stocks are lightly traded and generally do not reflect the market's views of an issuer's performance as accurately as more liquid stocks. • Harbinger's offer does not contain a definitive financing plan. Harbinger's offer provides only a general description of its plans to finance its offer. Harbinger's offer documents state that Harbinger will be able to fund its offer entirely with "working capital and available lines of credit, revolvers, margin borrowings and from [its] ability to realize cash upon the sale of liquid securities." Given the recent deterioration of the financial markets, Harbinger could face significant challenges in its attempt to finance its offer. Harbinger's offer is highly conditional. Harbinger's offer is highly conditional for the benefit of Harbinger, resulting in substantial uncertainty for Oglebay Norton's shareholders as to whether it will be completed. In total there are 12 conditions, each of which must be satisfied before Harbinger will be obligated to purchase any shares tendered into their offer. Several of the conditions provide Harbinger with broad discretion to determine whether the conditions have or have not been satisfied. In addition, some of the conditions are not subject to any materiality thresholds at all or otherwise provide Harbinger with a broad range of grounds upon which they may decline to consummate the offer even if sufficient shares are tendered to satisfy their minimum tender condition. Oglebay Norton also stated that its Board has extended the distribution date under the Company's shareholder rights plan until the close of business on September 7, 2007. Oglebay Norton is distributing a recommendation statement to its shareholders. The recommendation statement contains complete information regarding the Board's determination and recommendation with respect to Harbinger's offer. The Board urges shareholders to consider this information carefully. JPMorgan is serving as lead financial advisor to Oglebay Norton, and Imperial Capital, LLC is co -financial advisor. Jones Day is serving as legal counsel, and Georgeson Inc. as proxy advisor. About Oglebay Norton Oglebay Norton Company, a Cleveland, Ohio -based company with a 150-year tradition of service, provides essential minerals and aggregates to a broad range of markets, from building materials and environmental remediation to energy and industrial applications. For more information, see www.oglebaynorton.com. Safe Harbor Statement Certain statements contained in this release are "forward -looking" in that they reflect management's expectations and beliefs regarding the future performance of the Company and its operating segments. Such forward -looking statements are subject to uncertainties and factors relating to the Company's operations and business environment, all of which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond the control of the Company. The Company believes that the following factors, among others, could affect its fixture performance and cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by forward -looking statements made by or on behalf of the Company: (1) fluctuations in energy, fuel and oil prices and availability of such fuels; (2) fluctuations in integrated steel production in the Great Lakes region; (3) changes in residential and commercial construction demands, especially in the Great Lakes and Mid -Atlantic region; (4) economic conditions in California and population growth rates in the southwestern United States; (5) weather conditions, particularly in the Great Lakes region and flooding; (6) availability of third -party transportation for delivery of product; (7) the type and number of strategic alternatives available to the Company; (8) the outcome of periodic negotiations of labor agreements; (9) changes in the demand for the Company's products due to changes in technology; (10) the loss, insolvency or bankruptcy of major customers, insurers or debtors; (11) difficulty in hiring sufficient staff that is skilled appropriately; (12) changes in environmental laws; (13) an increase in the number and cost of asbestos and silica product liability claims filed against the Company and its subsidiaries and determinations by a court or jury against the Company's interest; (14) the insolvency of insurers, the effects of any coverage litigation with insurers or the adequacy of insurance; (15) changes in Federal or State law with respect to asbestos or silica product liability claims; and (16) risks related to the low trading volume of the Company's stock and the deregistration of the Company's stock with the SEC. Contacts: Julie A. Boland Vice President, CFO, Treasurer and Corporate Secretary Oglebay Norton Company 216-861-8941 Andrew Siegel / Jaime Wert Joele Frank, Wilkinson Brimmer Katcher 212-3 5 5-4449 Jun ■ ■■ 02 06 01:14p S.& R.Lachlan 5408680675 Dr Ranna-Lesley Lachlan (PhD, BFA, RPP, VCST) RESIDENCE: 491 Chimney Circle, Chimney Hills Estate, Middletown, VA 22645, U.S.A MAIL: PO Box 971, Stephens City, VA 22655. TEL: 540-533-5403 ATTENTION: June Wilmot, Chair, Frederick County Planning Commission. Fax:540-665-6395 Ph: 540-678-0278 RE: ON MINERALS / CHEMSTONE REZONING APPLICATION Dear Chairperson Wilmot, Attached for the attention of yourself, members of the Planning Commission, and members of the Board of Supervisors, prior to the public hearing on Wed June 7, 2006, are letters from concerned residents of Chimney Hills Estate - Middletown regarding the Rezoning Application #03-06 for O-N Minerals/ Chemstone. I appreciate your efforts in this matter. Sincerely, C ock-'--b) Or Ranna-Lesley Lachlan (PhD, BFA, RPP, VCST) p.1 Jun 02 06 01:14p S.& R.Lachlan 5408680675 p.2 May 31, 2006 The Frederick County Board of Supervisors The Frederick County Planning Commissioners 107 North Kent Street 4th Floor Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: O-N Chemsrone's Rezoning_A�alication Dear Supervisors and Commissioners: I want to express my concern about O-N Chemstone's application to rezone 639 acres of property along Chapel Road m Middletown. from Rural Agricultural to Extractive Mining Uses. As a Middletown resident, I urge you to vote "No" on Chemstone's application_ Voting "No" will protect the health of the residents of Frederick County, mitigate the dramatic impacts on traffic from the proposed mine, protect Frederick County's wetlands, floodplains, wildlife, farmlands, its karst groundwater system and Cedar Creek. It will also ensure the continued success of the Belle Grove Plantation, the Wayside Inn, the National Battlefield Park and historic Mddletown. Chemstone's application is of grave concern to me because of the sinkholes, the effects blasting will have on our foundations and wells, destruction of the view -shed and that our property values will plummet Tourism dollars, which support historic Middletown and Frederick County, will be impacted as well - I appreciate your efforts on this vital issue and encourage you to act swiftly in carrying out the actions needed to protect Middletown. Please do not subject our families to a future of increased air toxins and traffic, the regular use of explosives, a questionable water supply, groundwater pollution and degraded aesthetics. Mining operations do not belong is a residential community, nor do they belong in our beautiful, historic county. Please vote "No" on Chemstone's rezoning application. Sincerely, Your Name: Address: 4 Phone Nrunber Rb-2 — 067 Q Jun 02 06 01:14p S.& R.Lachlan 5408680675 p.3 May 31, 2006 The Frederick County Board of Supervisors The Frederick County Planning Commissioners 107 North Kent Street 4th Floor Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: O-N Chemstone's Rezoning Application Dear Supervisors and Commissioners: I want to express my concern about O-N Chemstone's application to rezone 639 acres of property along Chapel Road in Middletown from Rural Agricultural to Extractive Mining Uses. As a Middletown resident, I urge you to vote "No" on Chemstone's application. Voting "No" will protect the health of the residents of Frederick County, mitigate the dramatic impacts on traffic from the proposed mine, protect Frederick County's wetlands, floodplains, wildlife, farmlands, its karst groundwater system and Cedar Creek. It will also ensure the continued success of the Belle Grove Plantation, the Wayside Inn, the National Battlefield Park and historic Middletown. Chemstone's application is of grave concern to me because of the sinkholes, the effects blasting will have on our foundations and wells, destruction of the view -shed and that our property values will plummet. Tourism dollars, which support historic Middletown and Frederick County, will be impacted as well. I appreciate your efforts on this vital issue and encourage you to act swiftly in carrying out the actions needed to protect Middletown. Please do not subject our families to a future of increased air toxins and traffic, the regular use of explosives, a questionable water supply, groundwater pollution and degraded aesthetics. Mining operations do not belong in a residential community, nor do they belong in our beautiful, historic county. Please vote "No" on Chemstone's rezoning application. Sincerely, Jun 02 06 01:14p S.& R.Lachlan 5408680675 1p.4 May 25, 2006 The Frederick County Board of Supervisors The Frederick County Planning Commissioners 107 North Kent Street 4th Floor Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: O-N Chemstone's Rezoning Application Dear Supervisors and Commissioners: I want to express my concern about O-N Chemstone's application to rezone 639 acres of property along Chapel Road in Middletown from Rural Agricultural to Extractive Mining Uses. As a Middletown resident, I urge you to do vote "No" on Chemstone's application. Voting "No" will protect the health of the residents of Frederick County, mitigate the dramatic impacts on traffic from the proposed mine, protect Frederick County's wetlands, floodplains, wildlife, farmlands, its karst groundwater system and Cedar Creek. It will also ensure the continued success of the Belle Grove Plantation, the Wayside Inn, the National Battlefield Park and historic Middletown. Chemstone's application is of grave concern to me because of the sinkholes, the effects blasting will have on our foundations and wells, destruction of the view -shed and that our property values will plummet. Tourism dollars, which support historic Middletown and Frederick County, will be impacted as well. I appreciate your efforts on this vital issue and encourage you to act swiftly in carrying out the actions needed to protect Middletown. Please do not subject our families to a future of increased air toxins and traffic, the regular use of explosives, a questionable water supply, groundwater pollution and degraded aesthetics. Mining operations do not belong in a residential community, nor do they belong in our beautiful, historic county. Please vote "No" on Chemstone's rezoning application. Sincerely, Yoiur ame: m4 ., Address: Jo I ChM z! cijy(,khlrc�e Phone Number: zNb %q-0WI Jun 02 06,01:15p S.& R.Lachlan 5408680675 p.5 May 25, 2006 The Frederick County Board of Supervisors The Frederick County Planning Commissioners 107 North Kent Street 4th Floor Winchester., Virginia 22601 Re: O-N Chemstone's Rezoning Application Dear Supervisors and Commissioners: I want to express my concern about O-N Chemstone's application to rezone 639 acres of property along Chapel Road in Middletown from Rural Agricultural to Extractive Mining Uses. As a Middletown resident, I urge you to do vote "No" on Chemstone's application. Voting "No" will protect the health of the residents of Frederick County, mitigate the dramatic impacts on traffic from the proposed mine, protect Frederick County's wetlands, floodplains, wildlife, farmlands, its karst groundwater system and Cedar Creek. It will also ensure the continued success of the Belle Grove Plantation, the Wayside Inn, the National Battlefield Park and historic Middletown. Chemstone's application is of grave concern to me because of the sinkholes, the effects blasting will have on our foundations and wells, destruction of the view -shed and that our property values will plummet. Tourism dollars, which support historic Middletown. and Frederick County, will be impacted as well. I appreciate your efforts on this vital issue and encourage you to act swiftly in carrying out the actions needed to protect Middletown. Please do not subject our families to a future of increased air toxins and traffic, the regular use of explosives, a questionable water supply, groundwater pollution and degraded aesthetics. Mining operations do not belong in a residential community, nor do they belong in our beautiful, historic county. Please vote "No" on Chemstone's rezoning application. Sincerely, Your Name:. R; r h ar d 6. Address: 701 Gk'.^rey C:rclL , Pt,ultf bwn/ V k 2IZ6gS" Phone Number: 4 0 8 G 7- p� 1 8 Jun 02 06 01:15p S.& R.Lachlan 5408680675 p.6 May 31, 2006 The Frederick County Board of Supervisors The Frederick County Planning Commissioners 107 North Kent Street 4th Floor Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: O-N Chemstone's Rezoning Application Dear Supervisors and Commissioners: I want to express my concern about 0-N Chemstone's application to rezone 639 acres of property along Chapel Road in Middletown from Rural Agricultural to Extractive Mining Uses. As a Middletown resident, I urge you to vote "No" on Chemstone's application. Voting "No" will protect the health of the residents of Frederick County, mitigate the dramatic impacts on traffic from the proposed mine, protect Frederick County's wetlands, floodplains, wildlife, farmlands, its karst groundwater system and Cedar Creek. It will also ensure the continued success of the Belle Grove Plantation, the Wayside Inn, the National Battlefield Park and historic Middletown. Chemstone's application is of grave concern to me because of the sinkholes, the effects blasting will have on our foundations and wells, destruction of the view -shed and that our property values will plununet. Tourism dollars, which support historic Middletown and Frederick County, will be impacted as well. I appreciate your efforts on this vital issue and encourage you to act swiftly in carrying out the actions needed to protect Middletown. Please do not subject our families to a future of increased air toxins and traffic, the regular use of explosives, a questionable water supply, groundwater pollution and degraded aesthetics. Mining operations do not belong in a residential community, nor do they belong in our beautiful, historic county. Please vote "No" on Chemstone's rezoning application. Sincerely, Your Name: i "r' i' Address: i V-Fi Phone Number: (574 ) Yrr ,� - 7 Jun 02 06 01:15p S.& R.Lachlan 5408680675 p.7 May 25, 2006 The Frederick County Board of Supervisors The Frederick County Planning Commissioners 107 North Kent Street 4th Floor Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: O N Chemstone's Rezoning Application Dear Supervisors and Commissioners: I want to express my concern about O-N Chemstone's application to rezone 639 acres of property along Chapel Road in Middletown from Rural Agricultural to Extractive Mining Uses. As a Middletown resident, I urge you to do vote "No" on Chemstone's application. Voting "No" will protect the health of the residents of Frederick County, mitigate the dramatic impacts on traffic from the proposed mine, protect Frederick County's wetlands, floodplains, wildlife, farmlands, its karst groundwater system and Cedar Creek. It will also ensure the continued success of the Belle Grove Plantation, the Wayside Inn, the National Battlefield Park and historic Middletown. Chemstone's application is of grave concern to me because of the sinkholes, the effects blasting will have on our foundations and wells, destruction of the view -shed and that our property values will plummet. Tourism dollars, which support historic Middletown and Frederick County, will be impacted as well. I appreciate your efforts on this vital issue and encourage you to act swiftly in carrying out the actions needed to protect Middletown. Please do not subject our families to a future of increased air toxins and traffic, the regular use of explosives, a questionable water supply, groundwater pollution and degraded aesthetics. Mining operations do not belong in a residential community, nor do they belong in our beautiful, historic county. Please vote "No" on Chemstone's rezoning application. Sincerely, Your Name: k[ t i E L Address: 1.33 fie_... "' INW L-i t�'�l Phone Number: '' t,'J "7 ; `` i Jun 02 06 01:15p S.& R.Lachlan 5408680675 1 p.8 May 31, 2006 The Frederick County Board of Supervisors The Frederick County Planning Commissioners 107 North Kent Street 4th Floor Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: O N Chemstone's Rezoning Application Dear Supervisors and Commissioners: I want to express my concern about O-N Chemstone's application to rezone 639 acres of property along Chapel Road in Middletown from Rural Agricultural to Extractive Mining Uses. As a Middletown resident, I urge you to vote "No" on Chemstone's application. Voting "No" will protect the health of the residents of Frederick County, mitigate the dramatic impacts on traffic from the proposed mine, protect Frederick County's wetlands, floodplains, wildlife, farmlands, its k rst Belle Grove dter system and CedPlantation, the Wayside Creek. Inn, the National ensure the continued success of theell Battlefield Park and historic Middletown. Chemstone's application is of grave concern to me because of the sinkholes, the effects blasting will have on our foundations and wells, destruction of the view -shed and that our property values will plummet. Tourism dollars, which support historic Middletown and Frederick County, will be impacted as well. I appreciate your efforts on this vital issue and encourage you to act swiftly in carrying out the actions needed to protect Middletown. Please do not subject our families to a future of increased air toxins and traffic, the regular use of explosives, a questionable water supply, groundwater pollution and degraded aesthetics. Mining operations do not belong in a residential community, nor do they belong in our beautiful, historic county. Please vote "No" on Chemstone's rezoning application. Sincerely, re Your Name: Address: Phone Number: `� Z Page I of 1 Mike Ruddy From: WJHMADD84@aol.com Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 1:05 PM To: mruddy@co.frederick.va.us Cc: wilmot22@verizon.net Subject: Letter from Sec Bryant Hello Mike, We received a letter Saturday (4/26) from Secretary Bryant. I had contacted them earlier this month about the BOS hearing. I've attached his response for County records. Will you see that Supervisors have this additional information or shall I send it along? I do not want it to appear as if we are trying to beat a dead horse. I've gotten lots of calls and emails from people wanting to know if they should continue to contact Supervisors and express their concerns. If you could give me some guidance on that, I would appreciate it. Also, it is our understanding that CCBF was going to contact BOS to clarify their position on the application. All of the partners would like to know exactly what that position is as well - several have asked directly and no one can get a direct answer. Has anything come in and is it in the file yet? "i11i11:, Wendy Hamilton President, Preserve Frederick 869-5024 664-6352 Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos 4/28/2008 April 23, 2008 Mrs. Wendy J. Hamilton PI-Csldem, PIeJcl-\ c i=rcdcrick 277 Wcsterm ic\\ Drive Middletown. Vir�-inia 226. 5-2072 RE: Proposed quarry rezoning in Frederick County, VA Dear Mrs. Hamilton: Thank you liar vOur recent entail to Governor Kaine concerning a renc\t cd application by O-N Minerals (C•hemstonc) to rezone 639 acres of ruralia�11riculttn-al land in Frederick County for quarry minim in the vicinity Of the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. The Goycrnor has asked rile to respond on his behalf, as Department of Historic RCSOLII-CCS (DHR) is an a-ency of my Secretariat. Ms. Kathleen S. Kilpatrick. DHR's Director, has been trackin', this rezoning issue 1br the past m o years. Belbre the Frederick County Planning Commission took action to deny O-N Minerals' previous rezoning proposal for this property. DHR advised the Frederick County Department ol� Planning through its Historic Resources Advisory Board that the proposed rczonin,, had serious potential to result in significant adverse impacts on archaeolooical and historic resources located directly on the parcel in question. At that time, DHR recommended iiial 111C C'olinty require the appliCalit ter COI1dLiC1 ali aSSCSSiiicni of all archaeolo!_Ica I and historic architectl.u-al rCSOLINCS \%ithin the entire 639-acre parcel before taking action on the rezonin, application. The Frederick County Planning Commission considered the Historic Advisory Board's comments along with other pertinent information in making; its decision to deny O-N Minerals' rezoning request in .tune 2000. Staffofthe National Park Service recently provided DHR with a review copy of the archacolo,-,ical study conmlissioncd by O-N Minerals in which the company has offered in support ol' its renc\\ ed rezoning rcqucst. It is Illy undcrstandin, that while DHR believes that the O-N Minerals Consultant's fieldwork and preservation recommendations regarding the two cemeteries are sound. DHR does not concur in the consultant's finding that the proposed development would not have a negative effect on the landscape associated with the Battle of Mrs. Wendy .1. Hamilton April 21, 2008 Pa-c 2 Cedar Creek %,%ithin the project area, ��hich the consultant's report admits has a high de-ree of inte,'rity. DHR also notes that a Phase 1 archacolo"ical survey of the area to idcntil'v all archaeological sites in the project area by using shovel cut tcstin" and a metal detector for the Civil Velar component has not been conducted. Please understand that in Vin6ma the authority to regulate local land use is the prerogative of local govemment and that the ultimate decision to approve the rezoning application is Frederick C ounty's to make. I strongly encourage you to continue to express your or.,,aniration's concerns about this rezoning proposal directly to your local elected officials and to the Frederick County Planning Commission. I commend wu anel your Or"aniiation. Preserve Frederick, for VOLIr actin c en`a_ement. as interested citircns in this matter and for presenting. O-N Minerals with an alternative minim, plan that',\ould alloy%• mining to go lorward, while protecting the known natural resources and significant historical assets that are located on the Chcrostone property and adjacent to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. In important local land use decisions such as this one, serious proposals to strike the right balance between good stewardship and reasonable economic development merit serious consideration by all interested parties. Sincerely,t a L. Preston Bryant. .lr. LBP.Ir: cbd Kathleen S. Kilpatrick, Director, Department of Historic RCSUtII-Ces ho Page I of 1 Mike Ruddy From: WJHMADD84@aol.com Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 8:05 PM To: jriley@co.frederick.va.us Cc: ktierney@co.frederick.va.us; elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us; mruddy@co.frederick.va.us Subject: (no subject) Dear Mr. Riley, Attached please find a letter to Mr. Shickle regarding the O-N Minerals rezoning and the decision to table for 30 days. We believe it was a good decision. I have sent it to Mr. Shickle and the rest of the supervisors in a separate email. We look forward to working with Frederick County, all of the key stakeholders committed to this issue and O-N on reaching a workable solution that benefits all. This letter is being sent to all supervisors, planning staff and County Administrator Riley. We will be sending hard copies via US mail to all supervisors. Mr. Stinson will receive a similar letter. I have included a copy of that for your review. We appreciate the great job that County staff has done on this application. I've heard several comments from the community in the past 2 days that were either at the hearing or watched on cable. Most have commented on what a great job Mike did in presenting the staff report. We fully agree. Respectfully, Wendy Hamilton President, Preserve Frederick 540-869-5024 preservefrederick(ayahoo.com Preserve Frederick promotes compatible development that strengthens our communities, protects our natural and historic resources and preserves our rural character in Frederick County, VA. Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos 4/28/2008 P.O. Box 562 Rt,i 1dletavn• VA 22645 ° 1 pieserveiredenckE-�hoo.cor;i ww•.r.;;reservei reeler ickorg April 25, 2008 Dear Chairman Shickle: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the #03-06 O-N Minerals/Carmeuse Lime & Stone rezoning Wednesday. We hope that in the next 30 days, with your help, O-N Minerals will acknowledge that their current rezoning proposal is far too large and will scale back their plans and reduce the impact of expanded mining on the Middletown community. We believe an acceptable compromise has already been placed on the table. O-N Minerals phase one plan for mining is nearly identical to Preserve Frederick's alternative plan. By accepting this compromise, the applicant would address the four main concerns outlined by Frederick County planning staff at the hearing on Wednesday, April 23, 2008. Both the O-N Minerals phase one plan and the Preserve Frederick alternative plan would: • Rezone parcel 90-A-23, a total of 158 acres, to extractive manufacturing uses, while proffering out all uses except limestone mining and public utilities, such as a water treatment plant. • Permit a new quarry and mining operation on a portion of this parcel, which is south of and already visually impacted by the existing limestone mine operation. • Create a minimum 200 foot buffer on Cedar Creek to protect water quality. • Establish berms and buffers to protect the viewshed and neighbors from noise, dust and other impacts of mining. • Provide every protection for Belle Grove Plantation including a comprehensive viewshed analysis. Our research indicates that this compromise would give the company access to limestone resources for the next 30 years. Contrary to Mr. Lawson's assertion at the hearing Wednesday that our alternative plan puts mining closer to Belle Grove, our plan provides for ample buffers for all historic resources. We have written to Mr. Stinson to ask him to discuss this compromise with Preserve Frederick and all other key stakeholders. We hope that the Frederick County supervisors will strongly encourage O-N Minerals/Carmeuse Lime & Stone to seriously consider reducing the size of their rezoning request in this manner. If the company is unwilling to accept such a compromise in the next 30 days, we hope you will vote to deny the rezoning. Respectfully, Wendy Hamilton President, Preserve Frederick CC: Supervisor Lofton, Supervisor Fisher, Supervisor Ewing, Supervisor Dove, Supervisor DeHaven, Supervisor Lemieux, Preserve Fruderir.k firnruules o mfhufible deoelapwent fhaf s1regIlmns our rommunifier, prolerfs our histosie wid nrxfrtral m.roun-es. and fzmiwves the t7ind character u/ Pirtle/7C1 C;ountl, Virginlu. y April 25, 2008 Mr. Spencer Stinson Carmeuse Lime & Stone - Chemstone Operation 1696 Oranda Rd. Strasburg, VA 22657 Dear Mr. Stinson, ?U. Bor. 562 Middletown, VA 22E4.5 preservef recenck;G'y,'iaace:n kvwk.preservefredeiick.o,g The Frederick County Board of Supervisors, in tabling your application for a rezoning near Middletown on Wednesday, has given both your company and the Middletown community 30 days to try to work out an option for limestone mining in southern Frederick County. We believe an acceptable compromise is already on the table. Your phase one plan for mining is nearly identical to Preserve Frederick's alternative plan. By revising your rezoning application to reflect this compromise, you could address the four main concerns outlined by Frederick County planning staff on the rezoning and the concerns of Middletown residents and community organizations. Both the O-N Minerals phase one plan and the Preserve Frederick alternative plan would result in: • Rezoning parcel 90-A-23, a total of 158 acres, to extractive manufacturing uses, while proffering out all uses except limestone mining and public utilities, such as a water treatment plant. • Permitting a new quarry and mining operation on a portion of this parcel, which is south of and already visually impacted by the existing limestone mine operation. • Creating a minimum 200 foot buffer on Cedar Creek to protect water quality. • Establishing berms and buffers to protect the viewshed and neighbors from noise, dust and other impacts of mining. • Provide every protection for Belle Grove Plantation including a comprehensive viewshed analysis. Our research indicates that this compromise would give your company access to limestone resources for the next 30 years. Contrary to Mr. Lawson's assertion at the hearing Wednesday that our alternative plan puts mining closer to Belle Grove, our plan provides for ample buffers for all historic resources. We hope that you will seriously consider this compromise. We would be happy to meet with you and the other concerned groups in Middletown to discuss the feasibility of such a plan within the next week or so. I can be reached at 540-869-5024. Sincerely, f Wendy Hamilton President, Preserve Frederick Pirserry I"ndoark priunoles compatible daeloptvcrrl lhrii slivq hens our tmmviuiiilie , proleelr our hirlorie mid iiallrrul mrourres, rand , ire vm,,.r /be rured character of I redefiek Coiariiy, I /irginia. Page 1 of 4 Mike Buddy From: Dr Ranna-Lesley Lachlan [ranna@ranna.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 3:21 PM To: Richard C. Shickle; Philip A. Lemieux; Michael T. Ruddy, AICP; Gary W. Dove; Charles F. DeHaven, Jr.; Bill M. Ewing; Gary A. Lofton Cc: Mike Ruddy Subject: O-N Water Table Draw Down May 22, 2008 To: Chairman Mr R. Shickle and fellow Board of Supervisors, Frederick County, Virginia. cc: Mr Mike Ruddy From: Dr Ranna-Lesley Lachlan (PhD, RPP, VCST1, BFA, Grad.D. Mat.Anth.), Backereek District Subject: PAPER: Why Has the Issue of Significant Water Table Draw Down Been Lost in Regard to Rezoning #03-06? Gentlemen, Please find below, and also attached as a Windows friendly document, a paper on potential impacts to groundwater bed the 1,500 feet limit in Chemstone's proffer statement, and other likely impacts as a result. During research for this paper, I have consulted DEQ, DCR, hydrologists, karst specialists, ground water and surface water experts, texts and others, including my contributing author. As one karst specialist commented after vetting the paper, "You have done your homework!" I respectfully submit it for your consideration and infonnation. Dr Ranna-Lesley Lachlan (PhD, RPP, VCSTI, BFA. Grad.D. Klat.Anth.) 491 Chimney Circle, Chimney Hills Estates, Middletown, VA 22645, USA. Tel: USA 540-533-5403 Director - American Polarity Therapy Association, Ethics Liaison Founder - 6th Dimension & Ranna® Arts Incorporated, LLC. The Ranna® identity is an international trademark registered with the United States Patents and Trademarks Office. NOMENCLATURE: In the following paper, "Chemstone" refers to what is now "Carmeuse - Chemstone" Why Has the Issue of a Significant Water Table Draw Down Been Lost? During the April 5, 2006 Frederick County Planning Commission Hearing Mr. Chuck Maddox stated that modeling for ground water contours had been plotted by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). The water draw down on -site was expected to be about 20 feet, off site about 10 feet, and an expected 15 feet in the Westernview Subdivision and at some residences to the east and the west. In its June, 2005 Proffer Statement, O-N stated that the water table draw down would happen up to 9,600 feet from the property (cited in McCoy, C., Chief, Planning Evaluation & Permits Branch, Geologic Resources Division, Public Record writtne statement April 17, 2008). Mr. Maddox stated that the modeling was conducted by drilling two wells. The first well was pumped, and the draw down on the second well was measured. Then the order of pumping and measuring was reversed. Of course, the testing was done in insitu rock that has not been subjected to quarry blasting which can redirect aquifers and open new paths for water to flow. Why has the water table draw down disappeared from the dialog and from O-N's subsequent proffer statements? Why is O-N proffering to ostensibly remediate neighboring wells located 1,500 feet from O-N's property, when O-N has admitted that a significant water table draw clown will occur 9,600 feet from its property? 5/22/2008 Page 2 of 4 If Chemstone genuinely had the intention of mining these parcels of land for as long as their attorney recently publicly claimed (BOS Hearing, April 23, 2008), and of assuring the safety of neighbors' wells, why did they not install a comprehensive system of monitoring wells on various aquifers decades ago, or even since the filing of this rezoning application, so that they would have a viable data set with which to adequately devise remediation needs? Arbitrary Well Remediation Distance: O-N's Proffer Limiting Remediation of Well Damage to Properties Located Within 1,500 feet of the O-N Property is Arbitrary, Particularly Considering the Karst Topography of the Area The U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5161 entitled "Hydrogeology and Ground -Water Availability in the Carbonate Aquifer System of Frederick County, Virginia" and a paper entitled "U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings" describes the karst nature of Frederick County. Despite the claims of O-N to the contrary both of these documents clearly describe the area proposed for rezoning as karst topography with the attendant potential for ground water pollution. Furthermore, the Potomac Conservancy's map of the geology of the area of the proposed quarry expansion and surrounding areas clearly indicates that the terrain is karst. Every single DEQ, DCR, and independent groundwater, karst and hydrological specialist consulted by community members (including the author of this paper) about this project has identified the area as karst limestone topography. In karst topography, groundwater does not conform to a convenient circle or to convenient horizontal distances from a specific point, whether 1,500 feet or 9,600 feet. Any attempt to ascertain the distance from the quarry property to areas of potential quarry related groundwater impacts is pure speculation, particularly when these distances are assigned without dye testing and long term, multiple -well, multiple aquifer monitoring. In actuality, ground water in karst topography exhibits hetereogeneous flow patterns. Dye tracing demonstrates that water travels up to several kilometers/ miles per day in karst topography. Activities like quanying can simultaneously have no effect on a well 100' away and catastropic effect on a well as much as several miles away, depending on the specific acquifers involved. Unless wells are connected to specific acquifers that have been monitored over an extended period of time, it is difficult to predict what the impact on those wells will be generally, and to what horizontal distance from the proposed quarry project area. Given that fluctuations in wells in karst topography can be for a variety of reasons including climatic issues such as drought, the tapping of an aquifer by neighbors' wells, AND the impact of mining, it is essential that pre -rezoning, pre -quarrying monitoring wells should be distributed throughout the surrounding area for a substantial period of time. "Knowing the flow paths and likely receptors of the groundwater before any incident happens would make mitigation efforts more effective." (Balfour, W., Aprill 22, 2008, Public Record written statement.) Long term prior monitoring would provide a broader data set that then allows a more confident assessment regarding potential impacts of quarrying on groundwater in surrounding areas. Keying -in the results from this long term monitoring with the data set from USGS monitoring wells currently already in existence in the Shenandoah Valley would ensure that changes in groundwater can more accurately be assessed and anticipated. This would ensure that the proffers are sufficient to mitigate ALL adverse impacts. A really good, comprehensive monitoring program PRIOR to rezoning would establish what a normal fluctuation range is for wells in the area surrounding the subject property, and to more legitimate horizontal distances, which would then facilitate Chemstone's incuding all potentially affected properties in its proffers. It is inappropriate for O-N to limit well damage remediation and mitigation to properties located no further than 1,500 feet from the O-N property, particularly when this distance is without scientific basis and, therefore, arbitrary. Any responsible proffer statement would incorporate prior long term monitoring of wells and aquifers extending beyond 1,500 feet from O- N's property, and such monitoring must occur prior to considering rezoning or increased quarrying. Any responsible proffer should also contain a mechanism for automatic expansion of the fnal proffer statement in order to accommodate data that subsequently demonstrate the full quarrying impacts on various acquifers, both in terms of vertical fluctuations in water levels and the horizontal distances to which these are experienced. If there is a localized effect different from fluctuations on monitoring wells in other counties or localities, it would be reasonable to conclude that quarrying activity is the cause. The proffer should also address the other ways in which wells can be affected by quarrying. Silting up and contamination of wells as a result of changes of water flow can occur. Again, the impact distances are indeterminate without substantial prior monitoring. Ground Water Contamination in Karst Topography: Surface "Accidents", Porosity, Contaminant Entry Points, Sink Holes, Dynamic Interactions Above and Below, Damage to Creeks The interaction between groundwater and surface water in karst topography is extremely dynamic. Since limestone is so porous, any contaminating "accident" on the ground surface, whether on un-mined land or in the quarry pit itself, can rapidly seep into the aquifer and thereby introduce pollutants to the ground water. Given that ground water can travel miles in a single day, those pollutants can quickly be transported to nearby wells. The interaction between groundwater and surface streams is also so dynamic that it is also possible that pollutants thus introduced can be transmitted rapidly into streams like Middle Marsh Brook and Cedar Creek. 5/22/2008 Page 3 of 4 "SOlUlional openings and faults can easily transmit groundwater rapidly off site and carry potential contaminates to well users and to spring resurgences in valleys. ... Insuring that groundwater resources are protected is of utmost importance." (Balfour, W., Aprill 22, 2008, Public Record written statement.) Additionally, it cannot be ruled out that the ultimate water table draw down and resultant cone of depression will be greater than that obtained from the SAIC tests. As in all karst regions, a significant water draw down can result in sinkholes, which can become entry points for contamination into the ground -water system. "Dewatering of the aquifer near the mining operation may make incidents of subsidence more common. This could lead to cracked foundations and soil pipe collapses that could be expensive to mitigate. Blasting could also exacerbate these problems." (Balfour, W., Aprill 22, 2008, Public Record written statement.) Contamination sources may include agricultural runoff - pesticides, herbicides, and animal waste, industrial pollution, underground storage tanks, landfills or private septic systems, all of which can be found in the Shenandoah Valley. As stated above, contaminated water can travel miles in a short time in karst terrain. Blasting in an area can accelerate the development of sinkholes by opening or enlarging pathways leading to greater water flows and dissolution of the limestone. A paper by Mehmet Ekmekci tilled, "Impact of Quarries on Karst Groundwater Systems" describes the potential for adversely affecting the quantity and quality of the water in a karst groundwater system. Groundwater is also part of the stream bed for surface waterways like Middle Marsh Brook and Cedar Creek. Any impacts on groundwater and the underlying karst can impact these waterways. It therefore also cannot be ruled out that blasting in 90-A-23 will pose a hazard for Cedar Creek and surface waterways, including seasonal creeks, because fracturing of the rock may produce any or all of the following adverse results: 1. the opening of pathways for water contaminated by the mining operation, and by other nearby conaminant sources, to flow directly into Cedar Creek: 2. the pathways may be such that the water from Cedar Creek will flow from the creek into the mining pit; and/or 3. the flow of water in Cedar Creek may be diverted into another channel. Significant impacts on downstream water supplies drawn from the Shenadoah River north fork, and on habitat and wildlife in the area, including Threatened species (see paper on VA Threatened Species - Wood Turtle in Cedar Creek watershed) would follow from any of these adverse results. O-N's proffer (14.3) of providing a 200 foot buffer between its operations and Cedar Creek will not be sufficient to protect Cedar Creek. It is expected that a buffer at least the size of the one currently provided will be needed to protect this comparatively clean waterway. Additional studies should be conducted before parcel 90-A-23 is rezoned, as O-N's current proffers are inadequate to mitigate the impact on Cedar Creek. Contradictory to Comprehensive Plan 2007 - Environment The proffer satatement and the potential impacts on ground water and surface water systems are not supported by, and are contradictory to, the following important elements of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan 2007. 1. "Issues concerning quality, quantity, use, and protection of water resources are directly related to land development issues." (P. 5 - 44.) 2, "In all, over half the population of the County relies on groundwater as the sole source of water supply. The most productive aquifers in the county are the limestone -carbonate aquifers." (P. 5 - 45.) 3. "The capacity of the land to carry development in rural areas will depend upon a number of factors, including... The need to protect natural resources, including groundwater aquifers..." (P. 5 - 49.) 4. "Implementation Methods: #2. Avoid development in identified environmentally sensitive areas." (P. 5 -50.) 5. "Implementation Methods: #3. Review ordinances to develop performance standards for various uses which may threaten groundwater or surface water quality." (P. 5 - 50.) 6. "Implementation Methods: #7. Prohibit uses that damage or pollute the environment." (P. 5 - 51.) Conclusion O-N's current proffers are wholly inadequate to address the constellation of issues raised here and inadequate to uphold the County's environmental requirements as presented in the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. For the reasons discussed in this paper, O-N's rezoning application should be denied. 5/22/2008 Page 4 of 4 Additional Information This document has been compiled from multiple sources with input from joint authors. The following suggested contacts and references can provide additional information. DEQ CONTACT: Joel Maynard - Ph. 540-574-7864 DCR CONTACT: Bill Balfour - Ph. 304-497-0859 RECOMMENDED REFERENCES: Jennings, J.N., Karst, MIT Press, 1971. Palmer, A., Cave GeoloD,, Press of Cavebooks, www.cavebooks.com, 2007 PUBLIC RECORD REFERENCES: Bill Balfour, Written Statement, April 22, 2008 to Board of Supervisors and Planning Department. Carol McCoy, Written Statement, April 17, 2008, in Public Record file. (Chief, Planning Evaluation & Permits Branch, Geologic Resources Division, National Park Service.). KARST GEOLOGY MAP OF PROPOSED QUARRY AREA AND SURROUNDS: Potomac Conservancy based on DCR resources, April 15, 2008. NOMENCLATURE: "O-N" and "Chemstone" refer to what is now "Canneuse - Chemstone". ************************ AUTHOR: Dr Ranna-Lesley Lachlan (PhD, RPP, vcsTt, BFA, Grad.D. Mat.Anth.) CONTRIBUTING AUTHOR: Mr Robert Spangler (Retired Executive) 5/22/2008 SCarmeuse Grrau[o Fires Reuease NAFIMAt CtIFfvlcALS For Immediate Release October 12, 2007 Carmeuse to Acquire Oglebay Norton for $36.00 Per Share In Cash LOUVAIN-LA-NEUVE, Belgium, Oct. 12 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- PITTSBURGH and CLEVELAND -- Carmeuse North America, a wholly -owned subsidiary of Carmeuse Group, and Oglebay Norton Company (Pink Sheets: OGBY.PK) today announced that they have entered into a definitive agreement under which Carmeuse will acquire all of the outstanding shares of Oglebay Norton for $36.00 per share in cash. The transaction, which is expected to close by the end of the year, is subject to, among other things, the expiration or termination of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act waiting period and approval by Oglebay Norton shareholders. The Special Committee of Oglebay Norton's Board of Directors has approved the merger agreement and unanimously recommends that all Oglebay Norton shareholders vote in favor of the transaction. The merger agreement contains a customary provision allowing the Oglebay Norton Board of Directors or the Special Committee to terminate the merger agreement in the event it receives another offer to purchase Oglebay Norton on terms more favorable to its shareholders than those contained in the merger agreement. "Oglebay Norton is a strong company with world -class assets and outstanding employees who we are proud to welcome to the Carmeuse family," said Thomas Buck, President and Chief Executive Officer of Carmeuse North America. "By combining the resources of our well -established companies, we will be better equipped to serve the needs of today's increasingly competitive and dynamic marketplace. This acquisition provides a high level of market diversity for Carmeuse. In particular, Oglebay Norton's considerable limestone business provides us with added resources to serve the rapidly growing Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) market, in which Carmeuse has a high level of technical expertise. We look forward to a quick completion of this transaction and to the seamless integration of our operations." "This transaction with Carmeuse provides meaningful and immediate cash value to all of our shareholders," said Michael Lundin, President and Chief Executive Officer of Oglebay Norton. "It is the culmination of the comprehensive strategic alternatives review process that was conducted by the Special Committee of our Board, together with the Company's financial and legal advisors, and validates our disciplined and deliberate approach to this process." "We are proud of the significant progress we have made at restructuring Oglebay Norton, enhancing the Company's financial flexibility and capitalizing on our strong competitive position in minerals and aggregates," added Mr. Lundin. "Carmeuse, a global leader in lime with a proven track record of success in acquiring and building companies, is the right partner for Oglebay Norton at the right time. We look forward to working closely with the Carmeuse team to deliver to our customers the many benefits inherent in this strategic combination. The ongoing efforts of our talented employees are key to Oglebay Norton's success. I thank them for their continued hard work and dedication." JPMorgan is serving as lead financial advisor and provided a fairness opinion to Oglebay Norton and Imperial Capital, LLC is serving as co -financial advisor. Jones Day is serving as legal counsel to Oglebay Norton and Porter Wright Morris & Arthur is serving as legal counsel to the Special Committee. KeyBanc Capital Markets is serving as financial advisor to Carmeuse, and Reed Smith LLP is serving as legal counsel. Carmeuse North America • 11 Stanwix Street 11"' Floor • Pittsburgh, PA 15222 - Tel: (412) 995-5500 • Fax: (412) 995-9955 • www.carmeusena.com SCarmeuse Group Press Release NARMA1 Ct{H,41CALS About Oglebay Norton: Oglebay Norton Company, a Cleveland, Ohio -based company with a 150-year tradition of service, provides essential minerals and aggregates to a broad range of markets, from building materials and environmental remediation to energy and industrial applications. For more information, see: www.oglebaynorton.com. About Carmeuse North America: Based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Carmeuse North America is the largest producer of lime and limestone products in North America, manufacturing and distributing over 6 million tons per year of lime products, and a further 4 million tons of chemical grade limestone and aggregates. Its 14 manufacturing facilities supply and serve 27 states and provinces in the eastern USA and Canada, and employ over 1,200 employees. For more information, see: www.carmeusena.com. About Carmeuse Group: The Carmeuse Group is a leading global producer of lime, with more than 140 years of experience in the extraction and processing of high calcium limestone and dolomitic stone into lime and lime -related products for industrial and commercial customers. Lime is used in multiple aspects of our everyday life (steel, construction, agro-food, paper, chemicals, plastics, carpets, paints, pollution control, water treatment, ...). Carmeuse is present in about 70 locations across Western Europe (in Italy, Belgium, France and the Netherlands), Central and Eastern Europe (Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Turkey) and North America (the United States and Canada) and Africa (Ghana). Total consolidated group net turnover amounted to 940 million Euros in 2006. For more information, see: www.carmeuse.com. Forward Looking Language Except for the historical and factual information contained herein, the matters set forth in this press release, including statements as to the expected benefits of the transaction, such as efficiencies, cost savings, market profile and financial strength, and the competitive ability and position and expected future performance of the combined company, and other statements identified by words such as "estimates," "expects," "projects," "anticipates," "intends," "plans," and similar expressions, are forward- looking statements within the meaning of the "safe harbor" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including Section 27A(i) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21 E(i) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These forward -looking statements are made subject to significant risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those stated, including the following: required approvals by Oglebay shareholders and regulatory agencies; the possibility that the anticipated benefits from the transaction will not be fully realized or may take longer to realize than expected; the possibility that costs or difficulties related to the integration of Oglebay's operations into Carmeuse will be greater than expected; possible disruption from the transaction making it more difficult to maintain relationships with customers, employees or suppliers; and the impact of competition on the combined company. You should not place undue reliance on these forward -looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this press release. Neither Oglebay nor Carmeuse undertakes any obligation to publicly release any revisions to these forward -looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this press release or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. Carmeuse North America • 11 Stanwix Street 11 `" Floor • Pittsburgh, PA 15222 • Tel: (412) 995-5500 • Fax: (412) 995-9955 • www.carmeusena.com �S NATU 3At rHE(JlCALs Contacts: Carmeuse North America Phil Johnson Senior Vice President 412-995-5574 Carmeuse Group Press Release Oglebay Norton Julie A. Boland Vice President, CFO, Treasurer and Corporate Secretary Oglebay Norton Company 216-861-8941 Andrew Siegel / Jaime Wert Joele Frank, Wilkinson Brimmer Katcher 212-355-4449 SOURCE Carmeuse North America; Oglebay Norton Company "Safe Harbor" Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Statements in this press release regarding Oglebay Norton Company's business which are not historical facts are "forward -looking statements" that involve risks and uncertainties. For a discussion of such risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ from those contained in the forward -looking statements, see "Risk Factors" in the Company's Annual Report or Form 10-K for the most recently ended fiscal year. Carmeuse North America • 11 Stanwix Street 11 "' Floor • Pittsburgh, PA 15222 • Tel: (412) 995-5500 • Fax: (412) 995-9955 • www.carmeusena.com Carmeuse Lime & Stone Press Release (lk' M S( NATURAI- CHEMICALS February 13th, 2008 For Immediate Release Contact: Phil Johnson, Senior Vice President Sales and Marketing Phone:412-995-5574 Carmeuse Closes Acquisition of Oglebay-Norton PITTSBURGH, PA, 13th February 2008: Carmeuse Lime & Stone, Pittsburgh, PA, the largest subsidiary of the parent company, Carmeuse Group, located in Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium is pleased to announce the completion of the acquisition of Oglebay-Norton on February 13th, 2008. Carmeuse was announced as the successful bidder for Oglebay Norton on October 12th, 2007 with a bid price of $36 per share. The transaction was subject to a Hart-Scott-Rodino filing, and the successful result of that filing has made way for the completion of the transaction. "We are delighted to be in a position to close this transaction today, and welcome the Oglebay Norton employees into Carmeuse," said Thomas Buck, President and CEO of Carmeuse Lime and Stone. "The Oglebay acquisition brings Carmeuse significantly expanded reserves of high quality limestone, diverse markets and products, well positioned production facilities, and a strong team of experienced people. We will utilize our increased geographic footprint and diverse market presence to expand our offering of products and services to our customers". Carmeuse will use the acquisition to expand its offering to the growing Flue Gas Desulfurization market, and to diversify its business base with product lines in filler materials and industrial sands. About Carmeuse Lime & Stone Based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Carmeuse Lime & Stone is the largest producer of lime products in North America, manufacturing and distributing over 6 million tons per year of lime products. Carmeuse Lime & Stone produces and sells a further 4 million tons of chemical grade limestone and aggregates. Its 14 manufacturing facilities supply and serve 27 states and provinces in the eastern USA and Canada, and employ over 1,200 people. For more information, see: www.carmeusena.com. About Carmeuse Group The Carmeuse Group is a leading global producer of lime, with more than 140 years of experience in the extraction and processing of high calcium limestone and dolomitic stone into lime and lime -related products for industrial and commercial customers. Lime is used in multiple aspects of our everyday life (steel, construction, agro-food, paper, chemicals, plastics, carpets, paints, pollution control, and water treatment). Carmeuse is present in over 100 locations across Western Europe (in Italy, Belgium, France and the Netherlands), Central and Eastern Europe (Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Turkey) and North America (the United States and Canada) and Africa (Ghana). Total consolidated group net turnover amounted to 940 million Euros in 2006. For more information, see: www.carmeuse.com. About Oglebay Norton Oglebay Norton Company, a Cleveland, Ohio -based company with a 150-year tradition of service, provides essential minerals and aggregates to a broad range of markets, from building materials and environmental remediation to energy and industrial applications. Carmeuse Lime & Stone - 11 Stanwix Street, 11th Floor - Pittsburgh, PA 15222 - Tel: (412) 995-5500 - Fax: (412) 995-5570 1 www.carmeusena.com Hydraulic Impacts of Quarries and Gravel Pits Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Natural aggregate (crushed stone, sand, and gravel) is a vital part of our economic infrastructure in Minnesota. Aggregate is used for road and bridge construction and in a variety of building materials. In 2003, the value of construction sand and gravel and crushed stone in Minnesota was approximately $245,000,000. As Minnesota's economy continues to expand, the demand for aggregate will continue to grow. Sand and gravel pits are located in every county in Minnesota. In 1990, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Minerals (DNR Minerals), estimated the number of active and inactive operations at 1500 with the view that this number was likely too low (Dennis Martin, pers. comm.). Quarries for mining limestone, dolomite, sandstone, and hard rock (granite and quartzite) are found in 34 counties. A 1990 DNR Minerals inventory found 165 active operations, 88% of which were limestone quarries (Nelson and others, 1990). That same inventory counted 1,367 inactive operations, 70% of which were limestone quarries. Aggregate mining is an extractive use of resources: mining alters the landscape and its natural hydrologic system. When a new pit or quarry is proposed or when an existing operation needs to expand, local governments and citizens typically have many questions about the impacts mining might have. Local governments, which are responsible for reviewing these operations, rarely have the budgets to hire experts to evaluate potential impacts of quarry and gravel pit proposals. The Minnesota Legislature's Aggregate Resources Task Force identified that local government units (LGUs) often lack the expertise to assess ground -water- models (Southwick and others, 2000). Quarries and pits can affect ground -water and surface -water systems in various ways. This project focused on the following potential impacts: • lowering of local ground -water and surface -water levels from mining operations and mine dewatering, • changes in turbidity levels in ground water due to blasting and quarry operations, • interruption of ground -water conduit flow paths by rock removal, and • temperature change (thermal impacts) in springs and surface -water streams. This report is intended to help local officials, the public, and the mining industry understand the main issues surrounding mine establishment and to provide suggestions for monitoring and mitigation strategies to prevent significant impacts on water resource. The research at these sites (Figure 1) provides the first comprehensive assessment of aggregate mining impacts on ground- water systems in Minnesota. This information can be used for siting of new aggregate mines and for more accurately assessing their impacts on local ground -water resources. It can also be used for planning purposes at the state and local level. 3 Project Site Map 100 0 100 Miles Figure 1. Site map. Results and Conclusions Table 1 lists the sites and the impacts that were studied during the project. The text following the table describes the results of the monitoring at the sites. Summary of Impacts and Study Results Site Impacts studied Study results Water level Significant decline in aquifer water levels due to quarry dewatering and rock removal. Kraemer Quarry Turbidity and well No impacts observed. construction Water level Significant decline in aquifer water levels due to quarry dewatering and rock removal. Golberg Quarry Turbidity and well No impacts observed. construction Hydraulic gradient between the upper and lower Spinler Quarry Water level aquifers has been reversed; the Straight River has been changed from a gaining to a losing stream. Fountain Quarry Turbidity Blasting caused a slight increase in spring turbidity levels. Ground water that previously discharged directly at Spring diversion the Big Spring now discharges in the quarry. Some of it sinks and emerges at the Big Spring; the rest flows Big Spring Quarry overland to Camp Creek. Temperature change Significant temperature increases were noted in a summer measurement. Monitoring is continuing. Water level Mining had minimal impact on aquifer water levels. Donovan Pit Temperature change Ground -water temperature changes were noted but were not consistent. Monitoring is continuing. Leitzen-Grabau Pit Water level Mining had minimal impact on aquifer water levels. Felton Pit Water level Mining has altered ground -water flow paths affecting the water supply to a calcareous fen. Table 1. Summary table of sites and impacts studied. Limestone Quarries Limestone quarries are found in southeastern Minnesota from the Twin Cities south to Iowa and west to Mankato. Some of these operations mine below the water table. In order to do this, the 5 quarries must be dewatered. Dewatering can locally depress the water table, altering ground- water flow paths and affecting nearby wells, springs, and surface -water bodies. Concerns have also been raised to DNR Waters and local government staff about the impacts of quarry blasting on domestic wells. To investigate these issues, three sites were studied: the Kraemer quarry in Dakota County, the Golberg quarry at Rochester, and the Spinler quarry in Steele County southwest of Owatonna. Monitoring wells at these sites were equipped with automatic water level and turbidity monitoring devices. Water -Level Impacts. At all three sites, the quarry dewatering has altered the local ground -water hydrology. In essence, the quarries act as huge wells, lowering the water table in the aquifer. The impact of the dewatering at the Kraemer Quarry is shown in Figure 2. This lowering could affect Kraemer Drawdown 10/12/2004 5000 Feet N Water Level O Monrtonng wells Figure 2. The impacts on ground -water levels of drawdown at Kraemer Quarry. neighboring wells and testifies to the need for careful evaluation of quarry dewatering proposals and long-term monitoring of the dewatering impacts on the local aquifer. To further evaluate conditions at the Spinler quarry, a three-dimensional model was used. With the quarry being dewatered continuously, the quarry is now draining a confined limestone aquifer and a surficial sand and gravel aquifer. Model results also indicate that the Straight River, adjacent to the property, was probably a gaining stream before quarrying began and is now losing flow to the quarry. P Turbidity Impacts. Turbidity monitoring in the wells at these sites showed no impact from blasting. One of the tools purchased for this project, a dowrnhole camera (a camera designed to video the inside of water wells) was used to inspect the wells. The camera allowed staff to visually inspect the condition of well casings. No damage from blasting or quarry operations was visible in any of the wells, including those within 20 ft to 200 ft of the quarry face. The wells will be checked again in several years to determine whether continuing quarry operations have had an impact as the wells age. The Fountain quarry at Fountain in Fillmore County is a dry quarry (quarrying operations are above the water table) that has been shown by dye tracing to be hydraulically connected to a nearby spring. Project staff monitored this spring for blasting and quarrying impacts on spring turbidity. This setting was chosen by staff to be analogous to the numerous older wells in southeastern Minnesota that are finished in the surficial limestone deposits that are being quarried. Typically, citizens with these wells are those who complain about quarrying impacts on their wells. The monitoring showed slight increases in turbidity after blasting (Figure 3). Based on known ground -water travel times, this material had to be present in the limestone's conduits (enlarged joints) prior to the blast. The blasting shook the limestone and the ground water and released some sediment. In an older well finished in the surface limestone deposit, this mechanism could cause turbidity levels to increase after a blast. 45 40 35 30 10 Fountain Big Spring Turbidity Blast 10/3/04 0:00 10/3/04 12:00 10/4/04 0:00 10/4/04 12:00 10/5/04 0:00 10/5/04 12:00 10/6/04 0:00 Time Figure 3. Monitoring showed slight turbidity increases after blasting at Fountain. The disruption of ground -water conduit flow paths by rock removal was studied at the Big Spring quarry at Harmony in Fillmore County; quarrying operations penetrated the conduit system more than 40 years ago. Ground water that formerly discharged at the Big Spring on Camp Creek now discharges in the quarry. This water either sinks back into the limestone to re-emerge at the Big Spring or flows overland to Camp Creek. Dye tracing demonstrated that approximately 90% of 7 the ground -water basin is now being routed through the quarry. Without any dewatering occurring, this quarry has altered ground -water flow paths. This water is more vulnerable to quarrying operations. Temperature measurements indicate that the Big Spring was 8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer (July measurement) than the water that first discharges in the quarry, and the stream flowing out of the quarry to Camp Creek was 17 degrees warmer (Figure 4). Temperature changes of this magnitude could have a negative effect on fish populations in Camp Creek, a designated trout stream. July 15, 2003 Thermal monitoring Temperature point 2000 0 2000 Feel Figure 4. Temperature monitoring of water at Big Spring Quarry in Harmony. Sand and Gravel Pits Impacts on Ground -Water Levels and Flow Direction. Sand and gravel pits are typically located in alluvial floodplains along streams and in glacial deposits. The sites studied for this project are shown in Figure 1 above. Two alluvial sand and gravel pits, Donovan pit and the Leitzen-Grabau pit, along the Zumbro River in Olmsted County were studied. The Letizen-Grabau pit was only a few feet below the water table at its highest point after heavy rains or snowmelt. The Donovan pit had a pond area created by mining that is 500 ft by 400 ft by 30 ft deep; in this area, sand and gravel was mined by dredging (Figure 5). Neither pit was dewatered. At both sites, there was no significant impact on ground -water levels from mining. The fluctuations that were seen in the monitoring wells were due to precipitation events (Figure 6). A common concern about these operations is their impact on water levels in nearby sandpoint wells. Our results show that this type of mining should not affect the water level in these wells. Figure 5. Donovan pit mining with a hydraulic dredge. Donovan Pit Nest 1 97 -- - - - 96 95 94 > 93 � —Well 1, v 92 —1s w 91 90 89 88 713102 12/30/02 6/28/03 12/25/03 6/22/04 12/19/04 Date Figure 6. Water level measurements, well nest 1, Donovan Pit. One sand and gravel site in a glacial deposit, Felton gravel pit, was studied for this project. The Felton pit is on a glacial lake beach ridge in Clay County. This operation mines sand and gravel with a dragline in an open pit below the water table. Although the pit is not dewatered, the mine has altered the ground -water flow direction in the sand and gravel deposit, which has affected a nearby calcareous fen (wetland with ground water for its water source). This type of wetland needs to be identified prior to mining in order to site and plan mining operations in a manner that will not disrupt the water supply to fens. Temperature Impacts. A second concern at alluvial sites is the impact open ponds could have on the temperature characteristics of the adjacent streams. These ponds change the thermal character of the ground water and could conceivably change temperatures in the streams adjacent to the pits. While some temperature monitoring was done for this project, its results were inconclusive primarily because of the intermittent schedule for taking temperature measurements. In order to increase the frequency of measurements and automate the process, temperature recorders (thermochrons) were purchased and deployed at the Donovan pit 1 month prior to the end of this project. This will allow monitoring to continue at the site for an extended time period. DNR staff conducted a dye trace through the sand and gravel to determine ground -water velocity in the deposit. Combined with the temperature data from the thermochrons, this information will be very useful for future thermal modeling. Recommendations Based on the results of this project, a list of recommendations was developed for local governments to use as they evaluate mining proposals. These recommendations are focused on what type of water -resource issues may be of concern and what information is needed from the mining company to address those concerns. Companies already obtain much of the needed information as they evaluate potential sites. The following information should be available to local units of government to help them evaluate quarry and pit proposals. Topographic Map One area of concern is the topography of a mining site. A map showing elevations, roads, floodplains, property lines, and other natural and human -made features should be provided. It can be used to address runoff, flooding, and equipment storage area questions. Geologic Map A geologic map of the site is an important piece of information that should be supplied by the mine operator. The information provided by a geologic map will provide answers to questions about the deposit's size and extent, geologic boundaries, clay or shale layers that are protecting lower aquifers, and the amount of unusable material that will need to be stockpiled and stored at the site. Hydrologic Information Assessing the potential impacts of mining operations on ground -water flow, wells, and surface waters requires hydrologic information. The direction of ground -water flow in the deposit, the location and construction of wells, and any surface -water bodies (streams, lakes, wetlands, and springs) should be displayed on a map of the area at the appropriate scale. If the mine is to be dewatered, the pumping point, volume, and discharge location should also be included. This information will allow local government staff and mining companies to assess the impact a quarry or pit will have on adjacent wells and surface -water features. 10 Karst Information Limestone quarries have some particular information needs due to their potential to affect water resources that are not immediately adjacent to the site. An experienced karst hydrologist or geologist should conduct an inventory and survey of springs, sinkholes, stream sinks, caves, and other karst features in the area. Dye tracing may be needed to determine the connection between sinkholes and stream sinks at the site and area springs. Properly assessing the hydrology of a limestone area should aid in siting new quarries in locations where they will not affect springs and streams. Mining Plan To visualize the size and scope of mining operations, a detailed mining plan should be provided. It should include mining stages; dimensions of the mine; and the location of processing areas, stockpiles, settling ponds, washing facilities, stormwater ponds, and roads. This plan could be combined with the topographic map to present an overall view of the site and the mine operations. Reclamation Plan A key issue is the use and character of a mining area after- ruining operations end. To address this issue, a reclamation plan should be prepared. It needs to detail what reclamation activities will be done during mining, reclamation methods, vegetation types, shape and slope of open water areas, and the future use of the site. This information will allow local governments and the mining companies to tailor the reclamation plan so that the design and use of the reclaimed area is compatible with the surrounding properties. Conclusions Ultimately, aggregate mines can only be located in areas where there are aggregate resources. Our studies have shown that in certain areas, these mines can affect the local water resources. Quarries and pits that actively dewater may have impacts on neighboring wells. Mine operations and dewatering schedules may need to be altered to minimize impacts on streams and springs. Areas that may need to be avoided include those with calcareous fens and large springs. A complete listing of the recommendations to local governments is found in the Outcomes sections in the main report. These recommendations, when implemented by local governments and followed by the mining industry, should reduce the impacts of quarries and pits and address the concerns many citizens have about the water resource impacts of aggregate mining. Acknowledgements Funding provided by the Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund as recommended by the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources. Assistance for the project was provided by the following project partners: • Aggregate Industries • Rover d Construction of Spring Grove, Minnesota • City of Harmony Volunteer Fire Department • Crane Creek Construction of Owatonna, Minnesota • Kraemer and Sons of Plain, Wisconsin 11 • Leitzen Concrete of Rochester, Minnesota • Minnesota Geological Survey, University of Minnesota • Milestone Materials Division of Mathy Construction, Onalaska, Wisconsin • Pederson Brothers Construction of Haimony, Minnesota • Salem Township, Olmsted County, Minnesota • University of Minnesota, Geology and Geophysics Department, Hydrogeochemistry Lab We appreciate the efforts of Tim Schlagenhaft, Jon Ellingson, and DNR Waters' staff in St. Paul who provided peer review of the report, as well as Nick Kroska, who edited the report. 12 Shenandoah Valley Civil War Battlefields http://www.npca.org/expIore_the_parks/new_parks/shenandoah.asp iz-�xP>_oF-E� T► i ■ HOME » Explore The Parks » New Parks NEW PARKS ■ Sonoran Desert ■ Northern Marianas ■ Petrified Forest ■ Bioluminescent Bay ■ Completing Canyonlands ■ Craters of the Moon ■ W. E. B. Du Bois ■ Erie Canalway ■ Gaviota Coast ■ Great Sand Dunes ■ Gullah/Geechee Culture ■ Kalaupapa ■ Loess Hills • Sand Creek ■ Shenandoah Battlefields �-">zKs NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION 1 Shenandoah Parks in the 21st Century Valley Initiative Civil War Battlefields In the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, lush mountain landscapes, rolling green farmland, and small towns today appear much as they did a century and a half ago. Howard J. Kittell, Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Commission But despite its natural beauty and seeming tranquility, the valley has seen war and devastation. It was a region of central importance during the Civil War and the site of a long chain of fierce battles. Throughout the war, Union and Confederate forces fought for control of the Shenandoah Valley, where a total of 325 armed conflicts took place. Residents endured occupation by both armies. The town of Winchester alone changed hands 70 times! The Confederate Army relied on food from Shenandoah farmlands, and the valley also provided a transportation corridor to the North, screened by the Blue Ridge Mountains. L.,., Its strategic w eraar-covA— ,,, importance made the valley the site of major military O•+r•• 4 campaigns. During ""C6" WAA" his Valley Campaign of 1862, still studied for its shrewd use of • -'� geography, Stonewall Jackson r� defeated three Union armies in three months and thereby ' diverted Union � J I o1—) 3/20/2006 12:08 PM Shenandoah Valley Civil War Battlefields http://www.npca.org/explore_the_parks/new_parks/shenandoah.asp attention from the Confederate capital at Richmond. Iry , w4 1 � Philip Sheridan's Courtesy Shenandoah Valley Battlefields 1864 campaign wrought "total war," Commission devastating the valley's agricultural capacity and bringing the war there to an end. The effects of "the Burning" can still be seen on buildings throughout the Shenandoah region. Today farming dominates the area. Some of the surrounding forested ridges and mountain passes have been protected in Shenandoah National Park and nearby national forests. Because the historical appearance of the Shenandoah Valley remains largely intact, it is a place that allows visitors to comprehend the events of the war in context. Shenandoah Battlefields at a Glance Highlights The Shenandoah Valley played a pivotal role in the Civil War, and many important wartime sites within the valley still retain their historical integrity. Threats As this historic, pastoral area faces the possibility of rapid development, quick preservation action is needed. Proposal Create management partnerships within the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District and designate the Cedar Creek area as a national battlefield. In fact, the valley provides an excellent opportunity to understand an entire theater of war, including campaigns, troop movements, and civilian involvement. It is still possible to follow historic roads, trace soldiers' footsteps across the battlefields, and gain a sense of wartime civilian life from historic towns, farms, and buildings. NPCA's Recommendation Although the Shenandoah Valley retains much of its historical appearance and its rural and agricultural character, major change is on the way. The valley is 75 miles west of Washington, D.C., and parts of it lie within commuting distance of the city's booming Virginia suburbs, including counties that are among the fastest growing in the nation. Accelerating development pressures mean that action for preservation must take place soon. The National Park Service notes that of the ten Civil War battlefields it has examined in the region, 70 percent of the core land retains its historical integrity but only 5 percent has been protected. Without action, the Park Service concludes, much of what remains intact will soon be lost. 2 of 3 3/20/2006 12:08 PM Shenandoah Valley Civil War Battlefields http://www.npca.org/explore_the_parks/new_parks/shenandoah.asp Congress passed legislation in 1996 that declared these battlefields and the surrounding counties as part of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District. The Historic District Commission and the National Park Service released a draft study in February 2000 that included options for protecting key battlefield locations within the District. The preferred alternative in the study would create a new nonprofit organization for managing partnerships to achieve the goals of the legislation that created the District. Visitor services and interpretation would be focused at Civil War orientation centers in five geographic locations. The National Parks Conservation Association supports this approach. In particular, we believe that the Cedar Creek area near Winchester is an excellent candidate for national battlefield designation. 3 of 3 3/20/2006 12:08 PM Shenandoah - Mission Text http://www.shenandoahatwar.org/frame_rpro_text.html Resource Protection More than the preservation of land. It's about the protection of a shared history, an American heritage. On these landscapes rests a multitude of memories, stories, lives, battles and lessons that make up much of what we know today as the Civil War. A great deal can be learned from our valuable past —ultimately, protecting this historic resource protects America's future. Here, find facts and figures about how we plan to make it happen. Facts A central part of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation's mission is to preserve Civil War battlefields in the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District, both directly and by enabling landowners and local organizations to do so. Exploring the rich legacy of the Valley's Civil War heritage is only possible with the protection of its historic places. The Battlefields Foundation's land and easement acquisition efforts concentrate on the ten battlefields named by Congress in the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District and Commission Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-333). These battlefields, listed in the table below, include more than 21,000 acres of core battlefield that retain historic integrity, largely because they are still in active farm and forest uses. Less than ten percent of this essential resource is protected from development that would destroy its historic value. During its first year, the Battlefields Foundation protected three TOP A parcels totaling 68 acres at Cross Keys, Fisher's Hill, and Third Winchester, all through fee simple purchase from willing sellers. The Foundation also helped local groups acquire the Mansion House at McDowell and Fort Collier in Winchester and is currently working with the owners of nine properties at six battlefields who want to protect their land. These projects will protect an additional 948 acres of land using fee simple acquisition and conservation easements. In addition, the Battlefields Foundation has helped our partners raise $550,000 from local governments and $3.5 million from the state to match federal funds in the effort to help preserve battlefields such as Cedar Creek and First and Second Kernstown. The Battlefields Foundation has also leveraged considerable investments from partnering organizations. For every dollar from the Foundation, its partners have contributed eight dollars to preserve and interpret Civil War resources in the National Historic District. The Battlefields Foundation's conservation efforts use voluntary measures that protect farm and forest land from conversion to more intensive commercial, industrial, and residential uses. The Battlefields Foundation neither has nor seeks condemnation authority. Instead, it pursues policies that aid private landowners who face development pressure to maintain their land in rural uses. As the National Historic District's Management Plan points out, it TOP A would be practically impossible as well as politically unfeasible to National Historic District Battlefields: 1- Second Winchester 2- First Kernstown 3- Second Kernstown 4- Cedar Creek 5- Fisher's Hill 6- Tom's Brook 7- First Winchester 8- Third Winchester 9- Cool Spring 10- Front Royal 11- New Market 12- Port Republic 13- Cross Keys 14- McDowell 1 of 3 3/20/2006 12:15 PM Shenandoah - Mission Text 4 http://www.shenandoahatwar.org/frame_rpro text.html protect all or even core battlefield lands from incompatible development. Thus, only key parcels that best support visitation, interpretation, and commemoration will be targeted by the Battlefields Foundation for protection. Our success depends on the voluntary stewardship of privately -owned lands. Private land ownership also accurately reflects the Valley's character both today and at the time of the Civil War. In addition, private land remains on the local tax rolls and its productivity helps to sustain the local economy. Various planning issues, protection tools, and partners play key roles in the protection of the Shenandoah Valley's Civil War battlefields. In the coming weeks and months, these will be explored further on this website. Information and updates will also be provided on the Battlefields Foundation's specific resource protection projects, so please check back often. Figures Battlefield Size, Integrity and Protection TOP • Core Study Core Core Battlefiield Areas Area Area Area (acres) (acres) Retaining Acreage Integrity Protected McDowell 2,258 4,539 2,258 261 Cross Keys 2,153 5,450 2,032 199 Port Republic 2,145 4,936 2,110 10 New Market 2,261 5,611 1,527 238 Tom's Brook 2,018 6,644 1,672 61 Fisher's Hill 2,751 9,644 2,328 261 Cedar Creek 6,252 15,607 5,475 582 Second Winchester 3,113 22,274 1,299 7 Second Kernstown 2,203 5,861 770 315 4.. 2 of 3 3/20/2006 12:15 PM Shenandoah - Mission Text http://www.shenandoahatwar.org/ftame_rpro_text.html Opequon (Third Winchester) Total Acreage 4,914 11,670 1,625 267 30,068 92,256 21,096* 2,133 (70%) (7%) *Study area acreage includes core area acreage. -Core Area Retaining Integrity from 2000. -Core Area Acreage Protected from 2002. Source: Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, National Park Service 1992; updated by Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District Commission and OCULUS, 2000. 3 of 3 3/20/2006 12:15 PM August 28, 2006 ON Minerals Chemstone/Middletown Meeting Present from ON -Minerals: Joe Ferrell, VP Inland Division Spencer Stenson, General Manager Chemstone Plant Bill Harding, Communications Ty Lawson, Counsel Changes to Proffers as a result of last week's meeting: • Damage to persons by blasting o Proffered out types of blasting which typically cause harm o New technology (precision detonators with computer chips) used on the blasting plan o Not specifically listed in proffers b/c hann to people automatically covered • Coal fire power plant added to types of uses proffered out Questions and Answers: • Lady was present at last week's meeting, thought that public utilities were being proffered out completely but now it doesn't look like they are? o ON thought she meant the coal fire power plants which were added to the list of proffered out uses, FCSA is a public utility so they cannot proffer out all public uses • Want something proffered in as to what exactly they'll be doing, specific uses o ON will be extracting Limestone, there may be a crusher, agricultural uses will remain on some portions of the property zoned EM, which is allowed by zoning ordinance • Should use the language of the zoning ordinance when describing proffered uses. Mr. Lawson agrees to do so. • Concerns over public utilities usage on property: o Strasburg plant has a small package plant on site because the operation is too big for the septic field, are there any concerns with this? No, residents concerned with large scale processing or packaging plant o Further concern about natural gas power plan, utility scale o Residents of county pay taxes, don't want the county to get sued because they opened a new power plant (*this didn't make sense and the man didn't explain any further) o ON reluctant to totally proffer out a package plant in the event that the septic system fails like what happened down in Strasburg, they cannot conflict with the contract already in place with FCSA but Mr. Lawson will look into it. • Even if ON proffers out a plant, if public need arises then without a public hearing for a special permit, a plant can be built/operated? o Mr. Lawson informs that the restrictions remain on the property and any revision to the proffers will require a new public process • If FCSA starts the condemnation process on the property, are they required to notify surrounding property owners? o Any change in proffers requires a new public process The map (not provided but available in large scale on wall) shows the excavation area, what assures residents that you'll stay within that area? o May change slightly because ON cannot see the new market limestone without mining, no way to test in advance (*this causes attendees to get angry - they think there is a way to tell in advance, ON maintains there isn't) o The new market limestone is what's worth mining, the rest of it isn't so that's what ON will mine for • Setback from chapel road? o Berms, similar to Brucetown mine • Impact of berms on the floodplain? o They don't interact with the stream, and they have a built in drainage system • How many homes are within the 1500 foot perimeter that is guaranteed? o ON sent letters to 78 properties and 51 or 52 property owners because some owned more than one property • Has anyone considered the affect of changing to EM on Residential and Agricultural properties? o The quarry has been here for 50 years, there are other sites in Frederick County without issues o Atlanta Plant and Rockville, MD plant have not experienced any decrease in property values • It is irresponsible of ON to say that there will not be an impact on surrounding areas, these examples are major cities o A mining town in Alabama showed 18-22% drops in property values ➢ ON would be interested to see the details because they haven't heard about this kind of result from any study • Changes in tomlage verses 100 years or 50 years ago? o Certainly increased because times have changed • Concerns about development, already counted 26 trucks at 7:30am in half an hour, knows they aren't all from ON, highway traffic is a concern for Middletown residents. (*No response from ON because there wasn't an actual question, just expressed concern over truck traffic) • How close do ON executives live to Middletown, can they empathize? o Many employees live and work near the Middletown plant o Tiucks/operations have been here for many years o No reason why residents cannot continue what they had planned on doing before the rezoning (*man who asked question concerned about his coffee shop business and people having to watch trucks while they drink their coffee) • Residents aren't trying to run ON out of Middletown, they just don't want the quarry in their back yards, when they moved to Middletown they asked ON and someone (no names, or written statements) gave a timeline of 20-30 years before this land would be developed — why? o No, chemstone never agreed to that, exec remembers the property and that isn't what they told her husband, no one would have guaranteed that timeline There was a verbal agreement that the land wouldn't be developed in this lifetime, that the state wouldn't allow ON to cross Chapel Rd, who would have bought here if they had known the truth? o Well, we're not going to be there in 10 years. Berms need to be built to begin screening, projected to be north of Chapel Rd in 30-35 years. ➢ Put a timeline in the proffer statement to ensure that you'll stick to that timeline so you don't sell the land to a larger company who will move through the earth faster ■ Response: We proffered the number of truck trips per day which puts a limit on the rate of movement Company needs to have a plan, in writing, to show where they're going and when. o ON doesn't have a plan beyond the Middletown property because of the nature of the mining work they do — can't predict where the limestone is underground to the exact dot. o Residents want a schedule for mining and for what happens after the mines are finished, ON maintains that they can't provide any more detailed schedules than what they've been offering at these meetings • If ON gets their rezoning, there's nothing in the proffers to require them to stick to the schedule they're offering here. o No response given • Did ON take core samples to detennine location of limestone veins? o Yes, the core samples helped to graph the snap on the wall • Any additional veins? o Approximate locations only • Which creek is ON redirecting? o Middle March Creek only • Why did ON put in the berms so early? o To allow the trees a chance to grow • Height restrictions on berms? o 30ft maximum is proffered, no minimum height is proffered • So technically the bernis could be zero? o Yes, where topography shields the mine, there's no need for berms o A maximum height was proffered because that's what was sought on the application • ON employee who works with core samples confinns that they cannot exactly pinpoint the veins, they sample everyday and are continuously throwing out samples where they thought the veins were located but in actuality they aren't • Why didn't ON rezone at the point of purchase? o In 1980, the previous owner did send a letter to the Planning Commission asking for a rezoning to EM but the PC asked for a specific plan for the rezoned land • What about the berms that don't have trees or grass, they're just dirt? o The clay mounds need to be redistributed, ON attempted to hydro seed them last spring but the seed died due to lack of rain, they will reseed theirs in the fall. • Is there a timeframe for relocating the clay? o Yes, Chemstone has offered it to Middletown for infill dirt and stormwater pond reinforcement o These mounds keep growing because the current zoning prohibits the redistribution of it in the RA; the rezoning will mean no more mounds of clay. • An average of 200 trucks per day could mean zero one day and 400 the next, why don't you just eliminate truck traffic through Middletown all together by using roads that exist elsewhere? o The Middletown plant doesn't have enough storage to have zero trucks one day and then 400 the next o Going around Middletown would mean a bridge over Cedar Creek and utilizing existing low water bridges which would mean opposition from other organizations and federal agencies o * * the man who asked this question kept trying to start arguments, other residents even had to cut him off so that they could ask their questions • "ON is going out of their way to be a bad neighbor" • ON employee: ON never slanders anyone, they're holding these meetings, newspaper articles and comments from residents are speculation, ON has never had a dry well law suit like the paper has claimed. He's been working there for 3 years and they've moved through 200-300 feet of rock, they're not going anywhere fast. • Mrs. Clevenger said that she never meant for anyone's continents to seem like they were attacking ON but that residents felt blindsided by the notice about the rezoning and so they were voicing their opinions to remediate that effect • Why, when residents have made calls after big blasts and filed complaints they've never seen seismographs or any monitoring on their property? o The Department of Mining & Minerals (DMME) doesn't notify ON about who complains, they monitor that on their own o DMME didn't register any vibrations above the legal limit ➢ Man who asked question agreed saying that he didn't feel any at his house either, but what if he had felt them. (??) ■ No response. • Does ON own any other land within 30 miles of Middletown? o Yes, ON has a quarry in Clearbrook and there are 2 in Strasburg • ON claimed there wouldn't be a drop in the water table and that this mine is not located in Karst but the FAQ sheet says differently? o Yes, there's Karst there but ON is taking measures to prevent sinkholes, they've proffered that they will monitor for any manifestations on the property (ie: sinkholes) If FCSA wants to put in a high production well, will you allow it? o Not sure, need to check the agreement and snake sure they don't violate it o Mr. Lawson confirms that it is technically allowed but that ON can't speak for FCSA o FCSA can't utilize the land until they abandon mined areas and the water fills UP Is anyone here from FCSA? o Not to ON's knowledge but then residents pointed out that Mr. Brayden was present. Mr. Brayden, from the FCSA Board of Directors, had the following comments: o FCSA has 30,000 customers and a responsibility to them o They are always looking for new water sources o Drilling is risky in the sense that there isn't always water where you've drilled and then you wasted money o Using the quarry is a sure source of potable water o The EPA treads lightly in regards to creating new reservoirs but the quarry will provide an existing reservoir and that is FCSA's intent for the property to his knowledge o The reservoir would help get the community through a drought or help farmers when there's an Ag drought. General Notes: * * There were about 100 people there at the beginning, people filtered out throughout the night, only 2 people from Chemstone other than the presenters. **Chuck DeHaven and Greg Unger were present but neither one spoke or was asked to speak, Mrs. Clevenger talked to them before everything started so she at least new they were there ... **That was pretty much it as far as useful Q&A, there were three or four people there who were against the rezoning who wanted to just keep picking fights with the ON execs but that usually ended up pretty one sided and ON would just ignore there or let there finish. There were a couple of instances when the VP would make comments like "you're finished" or whatnot when these couple of people were arguing but that was pretty much it. "Residents argumentative on this topic of time schedules, ON execs occasionally neglect to answer questions but no yelling or anything hostile on their part like at the last meeting The Middletown Quarry Rezoning Questions and Answers about: • Rezoning • Limestone • Safety • Health • Trucks • Other Uses • The Battlefield • Environment CHEMSTONE OPERATION 351 MCCUNE ROAD PO BOX 87 MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645 www.oglebaynorton.com TEL 540-869-1066 0 Questions about the Rezoning How will the rezoning change the operation of the Middletown quarry? Very little will change. The crushing equipment, truck entrance and amount of limestone quarried will not change with the rezoning. The only thing that is expanding is the length of the quarry pit. Why does the quarry need to expand? The quarry operation is not getting bigger. The quarry will continue to follow the same limestone vein it has been following for 50 years, with the same number of employees, the same equipment, and the same number of trucks and railcars. Only the length of the quarry will expand as it follows the limestone vein. The property north and south of the Middletown Quarry was purchased over 40 years ago for this purpose. The intent to quarry this limestone has never changed Why does the quarry need to rezone so much land? Only about 12 percent of the 691 acres owned by O-N Minerals will be quarried. The rest of the land will be used as buffer, to protect neighbors from noise and vibration. • The quarry will extract limestone from an estimated 25 acres of the 145 acres to be rezoned in the Northern Reserve Property. (Approximately 13 acres will not be rezoned.) • The quarry will extract limestone from an estimated 60 of the 493 acres to be rezoned in the Middle Marsh Property. This comes to approximately 12% of the land. (Approximately 40 acres will not be rezoned.) What will it look like? Like the existing quarry, the quarry expansion will be done in stages. High forested berins (up to 30 feet) will be built and planted before each active phase, along with fencing and other measures to keep children and trespassers away from danger. Why do we need a quarry here? The Shenandoah Valley has some of the best limestone in the world, and the purest is located in the Strasburg and Middletown quarries. This vein of limestone has been continuously quarried since 1896 at Strasburg, and since the early 1950s at Middletown. Questions about Limestone What does the quarry do? We quarry and crush limestone for shipment. We also grind limestone for agricultural use and animal feed. Lime and hydrated lime are not made or processed on this property. What is limestone used for? Limestone and limestone products are essential for environmental protection, agriculture, food processing, building materials and thousands of manufacturing uses, including: air pollution control, water purification, sewage treatment, environmental cleanups, and to counteract acid rain damage in lakes and streams, • as supplements and food additives to purify and process food and fight bone loss in older adults, • in agriculture as soil amendments and supplements for livestock. 1A What is the difference between lime and limestone? Limestone is calcium carbonate. This is the only material processed at the Middletown Quarry. When crushed into small rocks, limestone is known as aggregate. When ground into powder, limestone may be called "ag lime" or "agricultural lime." This form is used for slow treatment of soils to keep them from turning acid. When limestone is heated in a kiln, it is converted to calcium oxide, also known as lime or quicklime. This form is used in manufacturing. When water is added to calcium oxide, it becomes calcium hydroxide, also known as "slaked lime," hydrated lime" or "hydrate." This form is commonly sold for quick application on lawns and gardens to control acidity. Which of these products are made at the Middletown Quarry? Middletown grinds limestone into dust, known as "ag lime," which is applied directly to farmer's fields to sweeten the soil. Our ground limestone is also added to animal feed as a calcium supplement. The quarry also grinds limestone into sand for glassmaking. Other limestone products are manufactured from the quarry's limestone at other facilities. Questions about Safety Is it safe? Yes. Quarrying is a heavily regulated industry and the Middletown Quarry has an excellent safety record. What about blasting? The Middletown Quarry has never had to fix a well, window, or house. Blasting is heavily regulated. An independent professional blasting company performs the blasting. All blasting must be videotaped, and seismographs must be set up on the nearest property to the blast. Explosives are not stored at the quarry. What if blasting or water withdrawal damages my well? The rezoning proffers will guarantee all wells of property owners who own property within 1,500 feet of the boundary of the exiting quarry and the rezoned land, as long as the property owner agrees to participate in a baseline well survey. If wells have quality problems or run dry for any reason, the Middletown Quarry will restore the well to its condition existing at the time of the survey and/or provide the adjoining property owner a replacement well of the same condition. This proffer will be guaranteed by performance bonds. Wells on more distant properties will be handled on a case -by -case basis. If the cause is determined to be Middletown Quarry operations, the owner will be appropriately compensated. What if a blast damages my foundation? Any damage to surrounding properties caused by blasting will be remediated at our expense. Our new blasting proffer includes additional protections for homeowners. With your permission, an independent engineering firm will investigate and document the pre -blast conditions of your residences and/or outbuildings to make sure that no damage to the strictures or their content (china, crystal, pictures, etc.) is caused by tremors from the blasting. If you have problems caused by mining operations, the engineering firm will conduct a follow up visit and investigate the cause of any 3 negative change in condition. If it is determined there is a change in condition in the residences/outbuildings, which has been caused by the Applicant's mining activities on the Property, then the Applicant agrees to remediate and/or repair said negative change in condition to restore it to its status prior to blasting operations. What other measures will you take to prevent blasting problems? The rezoning proffers rule out two blasting practices which are known to cause problems — "block holing" and "adobe blasting." In addition, the proffers will require an approved blasting plan in place at all times. What about karst formations? Karst is underground limestone that has been eroded by water. Luray Caverns is a karst formation. Water withdrawals from karst, by drought, wells or quarries can create a sinkhole. All limestone areas are not karst. The Middletown property is not the sort of limestone formation that has karst. If quarry activities did cause a sinkhole on another property, we would be required to remediate. This has not happened in the past at the Middletown Quarry, and we do not expect a problem in the future. Questions about Health What about dust? Is limestone dust safe? Yes. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration classifies limestone dust as non- toxic. It can be a nuisance, however, so we take several measures to control dust, including water sprays and filter collectors. • The limestone at Middletown was Codex -tested and passed for human consumption. However, we don't currently sell to customers that use it for that purpose. • Limestone dust is considered to be safe enough to mark the baselines on Little League ball fields (and all other sports fields). Farmers apply limestone dust ("ag lime") to their fields in quantities of hundreds of tons. Ground limestone is added to many foods and medicines as a calcium supplement. Limestone dust is also pressed into tablet form, flavored, and sold in the drugstore as an antacid and calcium supplement. What if dust causes a problem on my property? Our proffers require us to remediate any adverse impacts to surrounding properties caused by dust associated with the quarry operations. What if you breathe limestone dust? High concentrations of limestone dust may cause discomfort (i.e. cough or phlegm) or minor irritation of the nose and lungs, but it is non -toxic and does not permanently damage the lungs. Dust levels at the Middletown Quarry are low enough that workers are not required to wear protective equipment. What about silicosis? Limestone does not cause silicosis. The limestone quarried in Strasburg and Middletown has been tested and found to be very low in silica. Our limestone dust is safer than the dust your neighbor raises by mowing the lawn. Silica exposure is a health hazard if workers do not use proper procedures when using sand and certain types of rock containing quartz. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) sees no need to propose standards for limestone dust from rural agricultural and 0 quarry operations: "Current scientific evidence does not show significant public health risks associated with long-term exposure to [windblown dust and soils, agricultural sources and mining sources]." What are these silicosis lawsuits I've heard about? Our parent company, Oglebay Norton, which has dozens of subsidiaries, has never faced a lawsuit for silicosis from any of its workers or neighbors. A subsidiary of our parent company, Oglebay Norton Industrial Sands, produces silica sand, including sand -blasting products. Oglebay Norton Industrial Sands operates in Ohio, Colorado, Texas and California. Like most companies in the silica sand business, Oglebay Norton Industrial Sands faces thousands of silicosis lawsuits from the employees of companies that do sand -blasting. The Federal court that specifically looked into litigation involving silica found widespread abuse in these lawsuits, and over 10,000 have been dismissed. None of these lawsuits against Oglebay Norton Industrial Sands have to do with quarrying or processing. None of them involve limestone products. Questions about Trucks How much will truck traffic increase because of the rezoning? The quarry operation (crushers, employees, etc.) is not getting bigger, so truck traffic will not increase because of the rezoning. Will trucks come through my neighborhood? After rezoning, trucks loaded at the quarry will use the same route and the same entrance. This route is McCune Road (Route 757) to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624) to Veterans Road (Route 625) to Route 11. The rezoning proffers will limit truck entrances to the existing entrance and scalehouse. How does O-N enforce its truck route? Over the years, we have had a couple of complaints about trucks using the wrong truck route. Neighbors called us and we talked to the trucks drivers. Truck drivers who won't follow the rules can be banned from the Middletown Quarry. If you see one of our trucks is taking a shortcut through your neighborhood or driving in an unsafe manner, please note the time and call O-N at 540-869-1066 or 540-465-5161. We have electronic records of when each truck leaves our facility. If it has come from our quarry, we will speak to the driver and let you know the outcome. Our trucks and our customers' trucks may come through your neighborhood only if they have a legitimate reason, such as a delivery of stone or ag lime to one of your neighbors. How many trucks does the quarry load today? Currently, the quarry loads about 50 to 70 trucks a day. The quarry also loads about 40 to 50 railcars a week. Each railcar carries about four truckloads. The number of trucks the quarry can load depends on the throughput of the quarry — crushers, loaders, employees, etc.) —which won't increase with the rezoning. How do we know truck traffic won't increase? The proffers of the quarry rezoning will place a limit on trucks of 200 loads a day at the scalehouse (averaged over the previous month). This will account for normal fluctuations in business, changes in market conditions, and any foreseeable emergency. 5 What about the 1,300 trucks your traffic study projected? The original traffic study prepared by our consultants was badly flawed. It projected a level of truck traffic at two -and -a -half times the maximum throughput of the Middletown facility. No one paid attention to the absurdly high numbers because the Level of Service on affected roads and intersections did not change. O-N has no confidence in this survey and has requested a redo, because a traffic study is required by the rezoning application. We do not expect the public to have confidence in traffic studies, so we have proffered a daily limit of 200 loads a day at the scalehouse, averaged on a 30 day basis. Aren't quarry trucks crowding the roads around Middletown? Roads and intersections near the quarry are very lightly used. They are currently at VDOT Level of Service A or B, which means they are free flowing during rush hour. The intersection of Route 625 and Route 11 is at Level of Service A for thru traffic and turns from Route 11, and Level of Service B for thru traffic and turns on Route 625. This may change slightly over time because of an increase in other traffic in the area. However, quarry operations will have no perceptible future impact. The quarry trucks are only a fraction of the trucks that go through Middletown, which is located on Route 11, probably the oldest truck route in the United States. Middletown also has a truck stop within its boundaries, which attracts trucks from I-81. Questions about Other Uses of the Property I've heard you can put an asphalt plant in an E-M zoning. What about other uses besides quarrying if the rezoning is approved? O-N will exclude non -quarry uses that neighbors may find objectionable. These have been specified in the proffers attached to the rezoning. These uses are: • Oil and natural gas extraction, • Asphalt and concrete mixing plants, • Brick, block and precast concrete products, • Cement and lime kilns. Will O-N build houses on the property that isn't mined? Residential housing, which is allowed on 5-acre lots by right in agricultural zoning, is not allowed in an E-M zoning. What will happen after the limestone has been quarried? Quarries have excess water and old quarry pits, and water authorities need water and reservoirs to hold it. These arrangements can save the public millions of dollars. In November of 2000, Global Stone Chemstone Corporation entered into a contract with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority to give them all excess water, old quarry pits, and land for treatment facilities at its facilities in Middletown, Clearbrook, and Strasburg (Oranda Road location only, not the Strasburg Junction). The Authority will decide what to do with old quarry pits, but the plan is to use them as water reservoirs. N Is quarry water sufficient to meet public drinking water needs? According to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, over three fourths of the public drinking water in Frederick County comes from limestone quarries. The Clearbrook quarry supplies over a third of the County's drinking water (1.25 to 1.5 million gallons per day). What is this "secret deal" I've heard about with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority? The contract between Global and the FCSA is a publicly available document. Key features of the contract are: • Global (O-N Minerals) agrees to give the FCSA all excess water, old quarry pits, and land for treatment facilities at Middletown, Clearbrook, and Strasburg. • Global (O-N Minerals) must operate and maintain its own pumping equipment for active quarry operations. • The FCSA will erect, install, and maintain facilities at each site to extract, purify, and distribute the water. • The FCSA agrees to hold Global (O-N Minerals) harmless for any issue in which the Authority is extracting, purifying, or distributing water removed from Global's property. The lease started November 2000, and will last a minimum of 30 years. The FCSA can renew their agreement for two terms of 20 years each by paying Global $25,000 for each renewal. In return for water, reservoirs and land, the Authority agreed to pay for the construction of ball fields to replace those at Clearbrook, and to pay for the cost of rezoning. The Authority has a "right of first refusal" on quarry property. Questions about the Battlefield Is the land to be rezoned on the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park? In 2002, Congress created the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park consisting of over 3,000 acres. None of the acreage to be rezoned is within the boundaries of the National Park Service overlay. What fighting occurred on the land to be rezoned? Little fighting occurred on this land, aside from troop movements, the most famous of which was General Custer's cavalry movement, which began north of Westernview Drive about 3:30 in the afternoon and swept diagonally across the northern (Middle Marsh) quarry property. No major engagements were fought on the 639 acres to be rezoned. The Cedar Creek battlefield included several major engagements from the area north of Chapel Road to the north fork of the Shenandoah River. When Dr. Edwin C. Bearss, former head historian of the National Park Service, laid out the battlefield, he included everything between the quarry and the Valley Pike. Interstate 81, homes, businesses and Lord Fairfax Community College have all been built on battlefield land where major engagements occurred. 7 Questions about the Environment Will this be harmful to the environment? Limestone products are essential to protecting the environment. The pollution controls that have cleaned up America's air, water and soils over the past 40 years depend on the limestone products mined and manufactured by quarries like Middletown. • Limestone products are used to neutralize acid soil, treat acid mine drainage from coal mining, and counteract acid rain damage in lakes and streams. Limestone products are used in pollution control equipment (acid gas scrubbers) to remove the sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, mercury and other pollutants from the smokestacks of power plants and factories. Hydrated lime is used in water and sewage treatment to reduce acidity, to soften and purify water, and to remove phosphates. Will the rezoning impact local streams? The current quarry operation discharges about 1.5 million gallons of water a day into Middle Marsh Brook. This is a permitted discharge and its quality is regulated by the government. The water is good quality and poses no threat to local streams. The proffers limit any future discharges to this existing discharge point. The proffers also contain an agreement for O-N to work with a recognized environmental entity of the O-N's choosing to ensure that the water flowing from the quarry operations is of a quality consistent with water quality in Cedar Creek so as to maintain natural habitats. What if limestone dust accidentally gets into local streams? The water discharge permit places limits on this. However, limestone and limestone products are commonly used to counteract acid rain damage in lakes and streams. What about wetlands? There are less than three acres of wetlands on the property, and the potential impact is less than a tenth of an acre. How do I know that these promises will be kept? O-N Minerals makes its promises in a legally binding document called a proffer statement, which becomes part of the zoning. Any future owners must also abide by the zoning proffers. O-N Minerals has bonded its proffers, where appropriate, so that promises will be kept regardless of any financial difficulties O-N Minerals or a future owner may have. Further questions? Comments? Call our project hotline at 540-465-6807. E:3 s 11AJ PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: PROPERTY: RECORD OWNER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE(S): RZ# 03-06 Rural Areas (RA) to Extractive Manufacturing (EM) 639.13 Acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 83-A-109 and 90-A-23 (the "Properties") O-N Minerals Chemstone Company O-N Minerals Chemstone Company Chemstone - Middletown June 13, 2005 January 16, 2006 February 8, 2006 6ugust 28, 2006) The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property" or "Properties"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above -referenced EM conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. Any proffered conditions that would prevent the Applicant from conforming with State and/or Federal regulations shall be considered null and void. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, O-N Minerals (Chemstone)" dated June 13, 2005 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: Land Use 1.1 The Property shall be developed with extractive manufacturing land uses pursuant to the mining permit approved by the Division of Mineral Mining (DMM) of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, and shall therefore conform to the Mineral Mining Law and Reclamation Regulations for Mineral Mining of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 1.2 The Applicant hereby proffers not to engage in the following uses on the Property, which are typically allowed in the extractive mining district: Oil and natural gas extraction; Asphalt and concrete mixing plants; Brick, block and precast concrete products; Cement and lime kilns; and Coal-fired power plants. 2. Site Development 2.1 Site access via public secondary roads shall be limited to the existing quarry entrance on McCune Road (Route 757). Access by vehicles needed for periodic maintenance of the Property shall not be limited. 2.2 Distance buffers shall be provided along the perimeter of the Properties in addition to those required by the Zoning Ordinance. The depth of said buffers shall be determined at the time of site plan submission, and will vary based upon the topography of the site boundary. 2.3 Earthen berms installed around active quarry pits shall be landscaped to minimize impacts to the viewshed of the surrounding community. Such landscaping shall consist of a mix of deciduous and coniferous plantings placed in a random manner in order to be consistent with existing vegetation patterns. Said berms shall be limited to a maximum height of 30 feet. 3. Historic Resources 3.1 The Applicant shall create an 8 acre historic reserve as shown on the GDP, within which archeological resources and other historic activities have been identified. Said reserve shall be dedicated to a recognized historical association and/or group within one year of final rezoning. 3.2 The Applicant shall complete a Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Property within one year of final rezoning or prior to any land disturbance of the portion of the Property identified as 83-A-109 by the GDP. Said survey shall locate, identify, and comprehensively record all historic sites, buildings, structures, and I objects on the Property. Such survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines for a Phase 1 Survey as defined in the Virginia Department of Historic Resources "GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY IN VIRGINIA - Chapter 7: Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Virginia," 1999 (Rev. Jan. 2003). 4. Rights to Water Supply 4.1 The Applicant shall guarantee the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) rights to the groundwater resources available on the Properties in accordance with existing agreements negotiated between the Applicant and FCSA. L Invited We, lV1�n 5. Ground Water 5.1 The Applicant shall install a minimum of three monitoring wells to effectively establish and monitor the groundwater level in order to avoid detrimental impacts to surrounding properties. Said wells shall be installed prior to any land disturbance of the portion of the Property identified as 83-A-109 by the GDP, and shall be located within 500 feet of the Property boundaries. A minimum of one monitoring well shall be installed within 500 feet of the North rn Property ' Boundary. VA 1 n f--, 5.2 The Applicant shall remediate any adverse impacts to wells located on surrounding properties caused by mining operations on the Property. Costs associated with any required remediation shall be borne by the Applicant. Furthermore, the Applicant agrees to participate in a pre -blast survey and well monitoring survey, as further described herein. The intent of the aforementioned surveys is to provide a mechanism to remediate any adverse impacts to wells and/or structures, which are caused by the mining operations on the Property. 6. Dust Control 6.1 Dust from drills, shot piles, material handling, screens, crushers, conveyors, feeders, hoppers, load -outs, and traffic areas shall be controlled by wet suppression or equivalent, and controlled by and consistent with the terms of the Department of Environmental Quality general air permit. The Applicant shall remediate any adverse impacts to surrounding properties caused by dust associated with the mining operations on the Property. , 6.2 All materials being stockpiled shall be kept adequately moist to control dust during storage and handling or covered as necessary to remediate any adverse impacts to surrounding properties to minimize emissions. I 7. Blasting Control < . - �� 7.1 All blasting associated with mining operations on the �Properityshall be limited by the mining permit approved by the Division of Mineral Mining (DMM) of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy. Peak Particle Velocities (PPV) associated with blasting on the Property shall not exceed the levels stipulated by said permit. In addition, Applicant agrees to have an approved blasting plan in place at all times. An example of the current blasting plan is attached. Further, in addition, Applicant agrees that there will be no block holing or adobe blasting conducted onsite. Any damage to surrounding properties caused by blasting on the Property shall be remediated at the Applicant's expense. 8. Traffic 8.1 The Applicant agrees to restrict truck traffic to a maximum of 200 truck loads per day averaged over the prior 30 days through the scale house hauling mined materials on and/or off the proposed quarry site from the existing quarry entrance. The maximum number of trips will be regulated by the Applicant and its successors and/or assigns. A record of the actual number of truck trips per day shall be kept current by the Applicant at its scale house office. 9. Pre -Blast Surveys 9.1 The Applicant will establish a mechanism for voluntary pre -blast surveys of properties that are immediately adjacent to the quarry operations. The aforementioned surveys will be conducted by an independent engineering firm, which will investigate and document the pre -blast conditions of the participants' residences and/or outbuildings. All citizens who have property adjacent to the quarry operations can and are encouraged to participate in the survey by contacting the Applicant and scheduling a mutually agreeable time for the independent engineering firm to visit the party's residence to document and survey the pre -blast condition of the party's residences/outbuildings. A record of those pre -blast conditions will be kept by the independent engineering firm with copies retained by the Applicant and the participating property owner. In the event of a change in condition, which is alleged by the adjoining property owner as a result of mining operations, the engineering firm will then conduct a follow- up visit and investigation and use the pre -blast information as a control and basis for subsequent analysis. Said analysis shall be used to determine the cause of any negative change in condition. If it is determined there is a change in condition in the residences/outbuildings, which has been caused by the Applicant's mining activities on the Property, then the Applicant agrees to remediate and/or repair said negative change in condition to restore it to its status prior to blasting operations. In addition, the Applicant agrees to establish seismic monitoring on the proposed quarry site to monitor all blasting activities and keep records of said seismic monitoring as required by the Virginia Division of Mines, Minerals and Energy. 9.2 The Applicant will establish a mechanism for voluntary well monitoring surveys of properties that are within 1,500 feet of Applicant's Property boundaries. The aforementioned surveys will be conducted by an independent well drilling firm, which will investigate and document the pre -blast conditions of the participants' wells. All citizens who have property located within 1,500 feet of the Applicant's Property boundaries can and are encouraged to participate in the survey by contacting the Applicant and scheduling a mutually agreeable time for the independent well drilling firm to visit the party's residence to document and survey the pre -blast condition of the party's well. A record of these pre -blast conditions will be kept by the independent well drilling firm, with copies retained by the Applicant and the participating property owner. In the event a change of condition is alleged by the property owner as a result of mining operations, the well drilling firm will then conduct a follow-up visit and investigation and use pre -blast infonnation as a control and basis for subsequent analysis. If it is detennined that the status of the neighboring property owner's well has deteriorated from the condition it was in at the time of the pre -blast survey, then the Applicant agrees to restore the well to its condition existing at the time of the pre -blast survey and/or provide the adjoining property owner a replacement well of the same condition of that which existed at that time of the pre -blast survey. 9.3 In addition to the above, the Applicant agrees to maintain in force a bond or a rider on an existing bond or other sufficient security for a period of time covering the active mining operations and to maintain in effect for a period of one year from the date of cessation of mining operations and to cover the costs of any remediation and/or repair, which is required pursuant to the terms of section 9.1 above. 10. Reclamation 10,.1 The Applicant will bond reclamation activities in the amounts determined by the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy and there shall be a rider affixed to said bond or some other sufficient security to provide for the work and/or reclamation and/or remediation activities set forth herein. 10.2 It is intended that pursuant to the terms of the agreement reached with the FCSA that at the time of cessation of mining activities, the quarry pits shall be used by the FCSA as water reservoirs. The control of the water levels in the quarry pits shall be handed over to the FCSA. It is intended that the quarry pits at that time will contain quantities of water monitored and directed by the FCSA, and which will be conducive to the general betterment of natural habitat. 11. Noise Abatement 11.1 Operations on the Property will not exceed the Virginia Department of Mines and Minerals Engineering's decibel guidelines. 12. Air Permit 12.1 The Applicant shall maintain its existing general air permit controlling emissions in accordance with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality standards and also see that the existing general air permit covers all activities conducted on the rezoned Property. 13. Environment 13.1 In addition to compliance with the VPDES water discharge permit already in place, the Applicant agrees to work with a recognized environmental entity of the Applicant's choosing during its operations to ensure that the water emissions from water flowing from the quarry operations on the Property is of a quality consistent with the water quality in Cedar Creek so as to maintain an environment conducive to natural habitats. 13.2 The Applicant agrees that in conjunction with its mining operations, there will be no new water discharge points added to the existing discharge to Cedar Creek. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES Respectfully submitted, O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) CORPORATION Its: STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2006, by NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: COUNTY of FREDERICK �I Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 r� a .116: 6. w Al L 90 - A- - 29- MEADOW MILLS UNION CHAPEL RR 1 BOX 446 EDINBURG VA. APR 1- G, 22824-9801 016H26508243 $ 00.410 04/09/2008 Mailed From 22601 US POSTAGE NIXIE 232 DE 1 00 04/12/00 RETURN TO :SENDER NOT DCLTVERADLE AS ADDRESSED UNADLE TO FORWARD bC: 2!2501500099 *3017-09906-09--41 1„ I, i„ I,1, I I l l I I,,,,,, I I, I, I, I I,,, I I„III,,,111„1, I,,, I I„I COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING April 9, 2008 TO: TILE APPLICANTS) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #03-06 FOR O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, April D, 2008, at 7:15 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning 403-06 of O-N Minerals (Chemstone), submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 639.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers. The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758), west of Hites Road (Route 625) and on both sides of Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and Shenandoah County, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). The properties are in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 83-A-109 and 90-A-23. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 BOARD OF TRUSTEES Officers Dan C. Stickley, Jr. ck- Nancy H. Hess Vice char Kris C. Tierney T,-,.rer Susie M. Hill Secretary Boord Members: John P. Ackerly III Vincent F Callahan Faye C. Cooper John D. Crim II James A Davis Beverley H. Fleming 5 June 2006 JUN 6 2006 Frederick County Planning Commission 7 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: O-N Minerals/Chemstone Rezoning Request (REZ #3-06) Dear Members of the Planning Commission: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rezoning of 639 acres of land owned by O-N Minerals in southern Frederick County from RA to EM. The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation (SVBF or Foundation) is interested in this matter because the subject property includes substantial portions of the "core area" (were the most intense fighting occurred) of the Cedar Creek Battlefield. Also, the subject property as well as the quarry operation lies adjacent to and in the viewshed of the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. The Battlefields Foundation is one of the "public trust" landowners in the national park though at the present time it does not own land adjacent to the subject property. The SVBF has been designated the "management entity" for the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District by the Secretary of the Interior. As such it is tasked with helping to preserve 10 Civil War battlefields in the National Historic District including Cedar Creek. In addition, the SVBF is also identified as one of the "key partners" in the national park's legislation along with Frederick County and other public and private interests. Claude P. Foster The Foundation's comments are based on the application submitted to the Kay D. Frye county on 13 March 2006. It is our understanding that there have not been nes Roderick 0. Graves any changes to the application since this date. SVBF understands that a number of environmental, heath, and quality -of -life concerns have been W.Jackson Helm raised by this rezoning application. However, these comments are focused Richard R. G. Hobson specifically on the issues germane to the SVBF's scope of interest. Donavan E. Hower Kathleen S. Kilpatrick The proposal before you poses serious impacts regarding the battlefield's core area as well as to the national park. While the subject property lies Allen L. Louderback outside of the park's legislated boundary, it and the quarry operation lie D. Eveland Newman within the viewshed of the park and create significant challenges to the Nicholas P. Picerno National Park Service (NPS) and its partners in presenting a meaningful Alexander L. Rives experience to present and future park visitors. Also, a substantial portion of the Cedar Creek battlefield core area (as defined by the NPS in its 1992 James L. White Study of the Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia) lies Doreen S. Williams within the property proposed for rezoning. Portions of the property also Patricia L. Zontine Howard J. Kittell Executive Director Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation Post Office Box 897 New Market, Virginia 22844 ph: 540.740.4545 / 888.689.4545 fx: 540.740.4509 www.ShenandoahAtWar.org are included in the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Landmark District, so designated by the Keeper of the National Register in 1969. Should the Plamling Commission decide to approve the rezoning and forward it to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, the Battlefields Foundation requests that strenuous efforts be made to document the history of the site and to mitigate the variety of adverse impacts to the national historical park and adjacent areas. We ask that you consider: Archaeology: At a minimum a Phase I archaeological survey should be performed on the property and the results carefully documented, especially those areas that are in the core area of the Cedar Creek battlefield. A historian knowledgeable of this battle should also be involved with the survey, and if warranted, follow up surveys be conducted (Phases II and I1I). We understand that only a portion of the subject property is proposed to be quarried in the near fixture; this area should receive the most intense survey, since any quarrying will destroy the historic resource. Viewshed Mitigation and Strategic Landscapin Because the quarry is such a prominent feature on the landscape, especially when viewed from VA Route 11, the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation Visitor Center, and Belle Grove Plantation, a carefully -drawn plan for screening the quarry should be developed and agreed to by the subject parties. The plan should include use of earthen berms and substantial mature landscaping to reduce the visual and noise impacts of the quarry on the park. Given the lay of the terrain and the relationship of the quarry to the park, we understand that it might not be practicable to completely screen the quarry from the park. Plans for how the overburden is stored and ultimately disposed of also should be part of any approval for a use change. The NPS and private environmental and/or landscape plamning consultants could assist with the development of such a plan. Transport of Quarried Stone/Conveyor System: We understand that at the December 2005 meeting of the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board there was a discussion of creating a conveyor system to carry the stone from the quarry. This would reduce the amount of truck traffic through Middletown. The SVBF strongly encourages serious consideration of this option to reduce the volume of heavy truck traffic and its impacts (noise, dust, vibration, etc.) through the community. Middletown is designated a "gateway community" in the national park's legislation. This status carries with it particular opportunities for the town to work with the NPS in furthering both the visitor experience and economic impact of the park. One of the benefits of a national park is the projected economic effect of increased tourism to the area. However, the park will be only the "magnet" that draws the visitors; the economic impact will be generated by travelers eating, shopping, and sleeping in the adjacent communities. If the visitors' experience of Middletown is negative, then it and Frederick County will not experience the economic effect of the park; travelers could as easily eat/shop/stay in Strasburg — the park's other legislated gateway community. Land Reserve: We understand that O-N Minerals has proposed setting aside land that it would donate or dedicate to the Belle Grove Plantation. The SVBF strongly supports this proposal. The proposal before the county presents a most delicate balancing act between two types of economic development, preservation of nationally significant historic resources, and the long-term future of one of its communities. Southern Frederick County and the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park hold some of the most significant and treasured historic and natural resources of the Lower Shenandoah Valley. At the same time, the quarry is an important economic asset of Frederick County. Please weigh your choices carefully, follow approved county public policy and regulations, and request the highest level of mitigation possible should you decide to recommend the rezoning. Sincerely yours, Howard J. Kittel Executive Director cc: Spencer Stinson, O-N Minerals/Chemstone Frederick County Board of Supervisors J. Riley, County Administrator E. Lawrence, Director of Planning and Development r: COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA Office of the Gove=- L. Preston Bryant Secreta 1. Qr Natu:at Resources April 26, 2006 Ms. Julie Clevenger 451 W esternviei?,- Drive �,riddleto%vr `,TA 22645 Dear Ms. Clevenger: Thank you for writing Governor Kaine regarding the quarries proposed for development in the vicinity of Middletown. Governor Kaine has asked that I respond to you on his behalf. I understand that quarry excavation, and likely subsequent reservoir development, is proposed for several sites witL an approximately 639-acre tract in the vicinity of Cedar Creek and y,leadow Brook; just north of Middletown in Frederick County. The projects currently are in planning and rezoning stages and have not yet been coordinated with relevant state agencies, such as the Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, which may have regulatory authority over the quarry excavation or water supply aspects of this project. To date, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has not received any permit applications, including air and wetlands, for the proposed quarry expansion by O-1\ Chemstone. DEQ would not have a permit requirement unless the company decides to expand their crusher and conveyance systems, which would require changes to their existing air permit. I have asked the Virginia Department of Game and InIand Fisheries (DGlr) to help me identify potential project impacts on the local wildlife. and habitats. DGIF is the state wildlife agency and has jurisdiction over the Commonwealth's terrestrial wildlife, freshwater fish and other aquatic resources, and state or federally endangered or threatened species other than insects. DGIF is a consulting agency under the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and it provides environmental analysis of projects or permit applications coordinated through DEQ, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, the Virginia Department of Transportation, the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and other state or federal agencies. DGIF's role in these procedures is to determine likely impacts upon fish and wildlife resources and habitat, and to recommend appropriate measures to avoid, reduce, or compensate for those impacts. Based on early DGIF research, it is my understanding that a variety of terrestrial and aquatic habitats •`N-ould be affected by the proposed project. A preliminary- review of DGIF's wildlife data suggests that wood turtles, a state threatened species, may occur in the project area. Pa nck Henn Building 6 1111 East Broad Street 0 Richmond, Virginia 1,3Z19 0 804) 780•0044 • TTY (80-Cj 6Z8-11 Ms. Julie Clevenger April 26, 2006 Page 2 You also expressed concern that bald eagles, currently a federally threatened species; may nest on the tract as well. Arxy information that you can provide to DGIF about eagle nests in this location would be gx•eatly appreciated. DG1F's databases contain historic records of other imperiled bird species from this area, including the state threatened loggerhead shrike,. Bewick's wren, and upland sandpiper. The nearby Meadow. Brook is designated a Class V Coldwater Stream capable of supporting a stockable trout fishery. I have some concerns over potentially adverse impacts of the proposed project on these and other sensitive wildlife resources and habitats on the site. Additional information is needed so that we may further evaluate potential wildlife impacts. Additionally, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) has been tracking the rezoning application for several months. On December 20, 2005, DHR advised the Frederick; County Department of Planning through its History advisory Board that the proposal had the potential to result in significant adverse impacts on archaeological and historic resources located directly in the parcel in question. Accordingly, DHR recommended that the County require the applicant to conduct an assessment of all archaeological and historic architectural resources within the parcel before taking action on the rezoning application. Based on follow up discussions with the Countv's planning staff. it is DHR's understanding that the County is likely to require O-N Chemstone to undertake such an assessment. Be, advised that if wetlands are affected, such an investigation may be required of O-N Chemstone pursuant to Section 106 of the National Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, as a condition of receiving a federal wetlands permit from the Corps. If the project comes to be defined as a federal undertaking, the Corps would be required to consult with DHR, and DHR would consider in its review and recommendations not only the effect of the project on historic resources located on the development parcel but also the potential visual impacts of the development on nearby historic property such as the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation. Further; the Department of Conservation. and Recreation has identified, in its 2002 Virginia Outdoors Plan, Cedar Creels in Shenandoah and Frederick Counties as a potential component of the State's scenic rivers system. And both DCR and the Virginia Department of Transportation have recently determined that U.S. Route 11 qualifies for designation as a Scenic Byway. It is my hope that County officials consider these items as they contemplate the quarry and its potential impacts on the region's significant scenic, natural, and cultural resources. Because the authority to regulate local land use is the prerogative of local government in Virginia and the ultimate decision to approve the rezoning application is Frederick Countv's to make, I strongly encourage you to continue expressing your concerns about this project directly to your local elected officials. I also recommend that you contact l/Ir. Ron Stouffer of the Corps (703-221-6967) for further information on whether the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act may be triggered in this case by a federal permit application as O-N Cherrystone's development proposal moves forward. Governor Kaine and I are committed to conserving Virginia's rich natural diversity for all of its citizens. We also recognize that economic development and `eater supplies are vital to the Ms. Julie Clevenger April 26, 2006 Page 3 region and that a balanced approach is needed to accommodate economic and environmental needs. My agencies and I are committed to working with you and other interested parties; including the County and the permit applicants, to ensure this balance is achieved, and we look foz)vard to cooperating with you, your local government agencies, and other stakeholders in this regard. Again, I encourage you to contact David-Whitehurst, Director of DGIF"s lVildlife Diversity Division, and talk with him further about the role that the DGIF has in this project and the information that they have about wildlife resources, N/Ir. ti%. Thitehurst may be reached at 804-36;?-335 or via e-mail at paid.ti'hitehurst�u:d��if.vir�xinia.gov. Thank you for taking time to let Govemor Kaine know about your concerns. We. appreciate your interest in the natural resources of Virginia. Sincerely, L. Preston Bryant, Jr. LPBJr;'cbd Hydraulic Impacts of Quarries and Gravel Pits II. Outcomes Sections 1. Conclusions 2. Recommendations to Local Government Units for Quarries and Pits SECTION 1. CONCLUSIONS Based on our project monitoring and investigations, we have reached the following conclusions about the hydrologic impacts of quarries and pits: Impacts of Quarries Ground -Water Levels When limestone quarries are dewatered to allow mining below the water table, they alter ground- water levels and flow direction. In essence, the quarries become huge wells. Ground -water levels were found to have dropped up to 70 ft; this lowering of the ground -water levels can affect wells on neighboring properties and surface -water bodies. New quarries that will extract material below the water table will have to be sited carefully to avoid this impact, or a plan must be developed to provide an alternative water supply for property owners whose wells are affected. Ground -Water Flow Paths Limestone quarries can alter ground -water flow paths by the removal of the aquifer material and the subsequent breaching of the limestone conduits without active dewatering of the quarry. At one site investigated, 90% of the ground -water basin's flow is now surfacing in the quarry. Ground water that previously discharged at a spring now discharges in the quarry where it is exposed to quarrying activities. This premature surfacing of the ground water also alters its temperature, changing the temperature characteristics of the receiving stream and potentially affecting its aquatic life. Our investigations found this scenario most likely to occur when quarries are located upgradient from and close to springs. Modeling has shown that quarry dewatering at one site is drawing water from a nearby river. Additional impacts could not be assessed because of the lack of hydrologic data from areas surrounding the quarry. It is likely that the dewatering has decreased the yield of nearby wells at this site. Quarry Blasting Monitoring and visual inspections of the observation wells at two of the limestone quarry sites found no impact from quarry blasting on ground water turbidity or well integrity. Turbidity monitoring at a spring downgradient of one limestone quarry did find an increase in turbidity that could be attributed to quarry blasting; however, precipitation events had a greater impact on turbidity levels. Based on these findings, the domestic wells most likely to be affected by quarry blasting are older wells (completed before enactment of the state well code) finished in the surface limestone formation. Impacts of Pits Ground -Water Levels Our monitoring found no negative impacts on ground -water levels from sand and gravel pits in alluvial deposits that operate below the water table but do not dewater. These pits will not affect the quantity of water available to shallow domestic wells on neighboring properties. In the complex geology of glacial beach ridge settings, the removal of sand and gravel can alter ground -water flow paths and affect the supply of water available to wetlands that are fed by discharge from the sand and gravel. Ground -Water Temperature Open -water ponds created by sand and gravel mining change ground -water temperatures. The magnitude and extent of those changes is not yet known. This is an ongoing concern that needs further study. .19 SECTION 2. RECOMMENDATIONS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS FOR QUARRIES AND PITS The following list of questions and materials is designed to help local government staff and officials focus on water resource issues when evaluating aggregate mining proposals. Other issues that need to be considered such as noise, dust, and road impacts are not included in this document. Much of the information required to answer the questions is obtained by mining companies prior to applying for a permit as they conduct their own site evaluations. Topography These questions will allow you to assess the mining company's ability to identify any potential impacts of flooding or runoff in the affected area. • What is the slope of the area? • If the land is sloping, where will runoff go? • Is the site in a floodplain? To answer these questions, a topographic map of the site should be provided. The map should include the following features: • Elevations • Roads • Surface -water bodies • Property lines • Buildings • Equipment and fuel storage areas If part of the property is in a floodplain, an accurate floodplain delineation based on site survey and hydrologic data should be included in order to assess the risk of inundation of the mine, equipment, and fuel storage areas. Geology These questions will allow you to assess the operation's size, future expansion possibilities, depth of mining, and the potential for overburden stockpiling. • What is the size of the deposit? • How deep is it? • How much overburden is there? • Are there geologic boundaries (change from one type of material to another)? • Are there clay or shale units present that might act as aquitards? To answer these questions, a geologic snap, at the appropriate scale should be supplied. It should display the following: Areal extent and depth of the deposit Geologic units and contacts Confining units (clay, shale, siltstone) • Depth to bedrock (if applicable) • Cross -sections diagrams of the deposit and site • Fracture patterns and traces (rock quarries) • Test hole locations Hydrology These questions will allow you to assess the impact the proposed operation might have on wells and surface -water bodies. • What is the water table elevation in the deposit? • Which way is the water flowing through the deposit? • What aquifers are present? • Will the mine be wet or dry? That is, will it be dewatered? • Are there wells on the neighboring properties? • How deep are they? • Do they get their water from this deposit? • What is the likelihood for impact on these wells? It will be greater if they are in the same aquifer- that the deposit is. • Are there surface -water bodies nearby that might be at risk? To answer these questions, a map should be supplied that displays the following: • Water -table elevations with ground -water flow direction • Wells with depth, static water level, age, and construction • Surface -water bodies and their- elevation • Springs • Karst features (if applicable) • If the pit or quarry is to be dewatered, the plan for that should include the following: ■ dewatering points and their elevations ■ proposed volume and rate of dewatering ■ discharge point ■ duration of dewatering Karst Investigations Due to the nature of karst conduit ground -water flow, limestone quarries have the potential to affect water resources that are not immediately adjacent to the site. In order to evaluate this potential, some additional information is necessary; a licensed professional geologist with experience in karst mapping and hydrology should obtain this information: A survey in the area of known caves, joints, or fractures Mapping of sinkholes, stream sinks, and springs Trout stream locations Dye tracing to determine the ground -water flow paths and the potential connection of the site to springs in the area may be necessary. This information will help to ensure that the quarry is sited in an area with the least likelihood of affecting local springs through dewatering, contaminant introduction, or thermal degradation. Monitoring Monitoring Wells If impacts on nearby water resources or neighboring wells are possible, monitoring wells will be necessary. Such wells should be located around the perimeter of the mining area, and sited after consideration of the possible impacts and the current configuration of the water table, piezometric surface, or both. Where multiple aquifers are involved, such as removal or dewatering of a surficial aquifer during excavation of a lower unit, both the upper and lower units should be monitored by installing a deep well and a shallow well in a "well nest'. To establish ground -water flow directions, a minimum of three wells are needed. Additional Precautions These additional precautions are necessary if a formation is used both for sand and gravel operations and for water supply. Ground -water modeling may be needed to determine how much material can be mined without severely impairing aquifer function by changing the ability of the formation to transmit water. Mining should not be allowed to the edge of the formation (where it meets upland deposits). Since these operations typically result in an open -water area, those areas need to be protected. No fine-grained materials should be deposited in them and the areas should not be used for any type of waste disposal. Mining Plan Compiling the information on topography, geology, hydrology, karst (if applicable), and monitoring will allow for the development of a mining plan. The following questions will allow you to assess the overall scope of the mining operation, its impact on neighboring properties, and its plan of operation. • How large of an area will be mined? • How deep will the mine be? • How will mining operations be staged? • How will the overburden spoils be stored? • What mitigation measure will protect against flooding? • What mitigation measure will prevent or manage runoff onto surrounding properties and surface -water bodies? To answer these questions, a detailed mining plan needs to be supplied that displays the following: • Mining progression 7 • Final depth of the mine • Spoil pile locations and treatments • Material processing plans including washing sites, water sources, and treatment methods • Equipment maintenance areas • Road locations Reclamation Plan These questions will allow you to evaluate the adequacy of ongoing reclamation activities during mining and the condition of the property after mining ceases. • What reclamation activities will occur during active mining? • What will the slopes of the area be? • Will there be an open -water body? If so, what will be its shape, depth, and slope? • What type of vegetation will be planted? • What will be the land use after mining ceases? To answer these questions, a detailed reclamation plan should be supplied that displays the following: • Stages of reclamation • Reclamation methods • Source of reclamation material • Grading and slope of the reclaimed areas • Vegetation planning including map of plantings and description of seed mixtures and seed sources • Shape and slope of any open -water areas • Future use of the site Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation littp://www.cedarcreekbattlefield.org/ CEDARX CUREEK BATTLEFIELD FOUNDATION 142"d Reenactment of the Battle of Cedar Creek October 21 & 22, 2006 You may not be able to access all the features this website has to offer with this browser. We suggest you download Internet Explorer 5.5 or higher. Welcome to the Cedar Creels Battlefield Foundation Web Site. The Cedar Creels Battlefield Foundation has been working since 1988 to create, on the land where the 1864 Battle of Cedar Creels was fought, a memorial to the courage and devotion of the men who struggled there, and an educational resource for all people interested in their American heritage. The Foundation currently owns 308 acres located in the core area of the Cedar Creels Battlefield. The Foundation bought 158 acres of the battlefield surrounding the historic Heater House in 1989 and in 2000, added an additional 15o acres to its holdings. These include the Cedar Creels Visitor Center and the "crown jewel of the Cedar Creels Battlefield", the 135 acre tract along the banks of Cedar Creels on which are located the remains of the Federal XIX Corps Earthworlcs. The non-profit Cedar Creels Battlefield Foundation is currently raising funds to retire the remaining debt of $274,000 on this purchase and restore the Heater House. In 2002, the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park was established by Congress. Although the battlefield is now designated a National Park, the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation will continue to operate as an independent notfor profit organization. Reenactments sponsored by the Foundation will continue to be held annually on the original fields. In 2oo6, the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation will be hosting two major reenactments on its fields - the 145th Anniversary Reenactment of First Bull Run, (First Manassas), and the 142nd Anniversary Reenactment of the Battle of Cedar Creek. The Reenactment of Bull Run, which was originally fought on July 21, 1861, will be held on the weekend of July 22 & 23, 2oo6. The reenactment of Cedar Creek will be held on October 21 & 22, 20o6. Proceeds from the two events will benefit the preservation and interpretation of the Cedar Creek Battlefield and the restoration of the Heater House. Phone: 540.869.2064 Physical Address: Mailing Address: Toll -Free: 888.628.1864 8437 Valley Pike P.O. Box 229 Fax: 540.869.1438 Middletown, VA 22645 Middletown, VA 22645 Contact us via email with any questions you might have. 1 of 2 3/20/2006 1:39 PM Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation http://www.cedarcreekbattlefield.org/ Atop © Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation zoos 2 of 2 3/20/2006 1:39 PM Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation littp://www.cedarcreekbattlefieId.org/preservation/ Preservation Efforts and How You Can Help You may not be able to access all the features this website has to offer with this browser. We suggest you download Internet Explorer 5.5 or higher. Preservation of the Cedar Creek Battlefield The Cedar Creels Battlefield Foundation was chartered as a non-profit, tax-exempt organization in 1988 for the purpose of preserving 158 acres of the Cedar Creels Battlefield threatened by the development of a large industrial park on the grounds surrounding the Heater House. The newly formed Foundation purchased the land, and for the next 8 years struggled to meet quarterly payments of $4ok. 1. In 1996, the original note of $750k was paid in entirety, and two weeks later, the Foundation went into debt again with the purchase of a large commercial building overlooking the battlefield. This building currently houses the Cedar Creels Visitors Center, book shop, exhibit, and administrative offices of the Foundation. 2. In 2000, CCBF purchased an additional 12 acres adjoining the Visitors Center, as well as 135 acres along the banks of Cedar Creek upon which are located the vestiges of the XIX Corps earthworks. 3. In 2000, the debt on both the Visitors Center property and surrounding acreage was retired. 4. Currently, the Foundation still owes $290k on the earthworks property, (down from $1,205k). Proceeds from the annual October reenactments have helped pay for much of the battlefield land owned by the Foundation, and continue to fund the renovation of the Heater House, and the interpretation of the battlefield. Individuals and corporations wishing to support the Cedar Creels Battlefield Foundation may contribute in the following ways: 1. Donations 2. Cedar Creek Brigade - Annual Membership. (Brigade) 3. Square Foot - Honorary ownership of square foot of the Battlefield. (Square Foot) 4. Reverse the Trenches Print by Keith Rocco -Purchasers may claim $too as a tax-deductible donation from the Artists Proofs, and $150 tax- deductible donation from the Limited edition prints. (Rocco Print). 5. Heater House - Help renovate the 18th century home. (Heater House) 6. Reenactment Sponsor - Contact headquarters for information. 7. CCBF is a 501(C-3) organization and donations are i00% tax- deductible. Atop © Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation 2003 1 of 1 3/20/2006 1:39 PM r COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Virginia Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program wDCR Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation State Parks • Soil & Water Conservation • Natural Heritage Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance • Land Conservation Outdoor Recreation Planning • Dam Safety & Floodplains 2004 Annual Report March 31, 2005 Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Soil and Water Conservation 203 Governor Street, Suite 206 Richmond, VA 23219-2094 (804) 786-2064 Table of Executive Summary Contents Virginia's Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program, led by the Department Virginia's NPS of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), is a diverse network of state and local government programs that collectively help prevent degradation of water quality and Mission and Goals .......... I restore the health of our rivers, lakes, and bays. The Program utilizes partnerships to advance long and short-term goals for the reduction of nonpoint source pollution; NPS AnnttalReport through: financial, technical, and outreach assistance, and local capacity building to Overview....................2 achieve specific nonpoint source pollution control targets. Highlights and This annual report is written in response to Section 319 (h)(8) and (11) of the Clean Accomplishments ......... 4 Water Act (33 USC 1329). The 2004 Virginia Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Annual Report summarizes pollution prevention and control efforts throughout the state Watershed Prioritization 4 as funded by Section 319 of the Clean Water Act and describes the activities and • Watershed Reports accomplishments of the Commonwealth of Virginia regarding administration of • TMDL Program Virginia's nonpoint source pollution management programs in 2004. The activities Agricultural Programs 12 identified in this report build on previous accomplishments and set the stage for • Agricultural Cost -share continuing Virginia's ambitious environmental agenda. • Nutrient Management • Cooperative Extension The efforts to address nonpoint source pollution highlighted in this report reflect the • NRCSPrograrns commonwealth's commitment to protecting and restoring our natural resources. This Forestry 18 annual report describes anticipated pollution reductions that will be achieved through • Silvicultural WQAct agricultural cost -share assistance and water quality improvement projects. In addition, • Riparian Forest Buffer- the report describes pollution prevention accomplishments related to implementation of the Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program. Urban Programs 21 • Erosion & Sediment Control Meeting water quality standards for streams listed on Virginia's 303 (d) List of • StorrnwaterManagement Impaired Waters due to nonpoint sources of pollution is a primary focus of Virginia's Monitoring and Tracking 23 program. Total Maximum Daily Load implementation plans have been developed for • WQAssessment impaired waters in order to maximize water quality benefits, and approximately $1.5 • VA Citizen WQ Monitoring million of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Section 319(h) funds have been targeted, annually, towards implementation of these plans. Resource Extraction 24 • Orphaned Land Program Reduction of various pathogens, nutrients and sediments represents a major water • Orphaned Well Program quality accomplishment that has been achieved through on -the -ground implementation • Abandoned Mine Land of agricultural, urban and residential Best Management Practices (BMPs). Other Hydromodifrcation 26 accomplishments highlighted in this report help Virginia meet its responsibilities to • Hydromodifrcation Handbook protect and restore water quality. • INS TAR However, without sufficient funding and the flexibility to address priority water Grants & Technical Assist. 27 quality issues, it will be difficult to meet the challenge of protecting water quality in Coastal & Chesapeake Bay 27 Virginia. Reductions in EPA 319(h) funds and other resource limitations constitute a • Coastal NPS Program significant impediment to implementation. The loss of flexibility in the use of Section • Chesapeake Bay Grant 319(h) funds constitutes another potential obstacle to successful implementation. • Virginia Coastal Program Increasingly, the use of these funds is being pre -determined by federal guidance. State • Chesapeake Local Assist. discretion to target all available funding, based on identified priorities and the Statewide Initiatives 31 management program, is essential if we are to meet the long-term water quality • NPS Education challenges facing the Commonwealth of Virginia. • Conservation Land Assess, The NPS program will continue to lead efforts to create comprehensive watershed • Karst KProgram • KarstFloodManagement plans across the state to help address the impacts of nonpoint source runoff, and to facilitate and/or track implementation of nonpoint source watershed planning and Future Actions ....... 35 project efforts. These efforts will be accomplished by continuing to leverage and work with other governmental and nongovernmental partnerships, and supporting new nonpoint source control initiatives and partnerships as they arise. Nonpoint Source Pollution Program Mission and Goals Virginia's Nonpoint Source Pollution (NPS) Management Program is a diverse network of state and local government programs. Collectively, these programs help prevent degradation of water quality and restore the health of our lakes, rivers and bays by promoting and funding state and local watershed planning efforts, water quality monitoring, education and outreach, stream and wetland restoration, and other measures to reduce, prevent and track nonpoint source pollution loads. The NPS program is key in promoting partnerships and inter/intra -governmental coordination to reduce nonpoint sources, and helping bring both the necessary technical and financial resources to local watershed management planning, continued implementation of best management practices and restoration. The attainment of beneficial uses as measured by water quality standards compliance is the overriding purpose of control programs identified in the NPS management program. In 1999, a number of long-term and short-term priorities were identified in a management effort to meet statewide nonpoint source pollution control goals. This plan Virginia's Mission Statement: To control nonpoint source pollution, to restore and protect living resources and maintain other beneficial uses of Virginia's waters, and to help assure the protection of Virginia& outstanding quality of life identifies milestones for a five-year time frame through which progress towards the achievement of stated goals can be reported and monitored. The resulting NPS Management Plan described 19 long-term goals with 80 associated objectives aimed to reduce pollution from the nine NPS source pollution categories: 1.Watershed Prioritization, 2.Agriculture, 3. Forestry, 4.Urban-Construction and Development, 5.Monitoring and Tracking, 6. Resource Extraction, 7. Hydromodification, 8. Grants and Technical Assistance Coordination, and 9.Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control. Yearly work plans and agendas for the NPS program are geared Vi yinia NonpointSource Polfu6on ProJc ram 2004 Annua('Zeport around the implementation of the 1999 NPS Management Plan to achieve 5-year program goals by 2004 and Long-term program goals by 2014. In 2004, the Commonwealth continued implement its Nonpoint Source Management Plan by concentrating NPS efforts on the following priority areas: • Collaborative development and implementation of TMDLs • Coordination and expansion of the CREP and Agriculture -Cost -Share Programs • Inventory and abatement of NPS pollution from abandoned mineral mine sites • Expansion and delivery of Nutrient Management training and certification and nutrient management planning • Development and expansion of the Stormwater Management and the Erosion and Sediment Control Programs • Continued assistance for local watershed planning • Attainment of new Riparian Forest Buffer Initiative, under Chesapeake Bay Program • Protection of groundwater sources • Continued implementation of the Agricultural Stewardship Act • Continued development and implementation of Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Program • Continued development and implementation of Chesapeake Bay Program. DCR plans to update this NPS Management Program in the future to reflect the accomplishments and achievements and program changes that have occurred over the past five years. Vaye 1 ViTinia Nonpoinf.Source Poffufion 'Program 2004 Annual9pporf Nonpoint Source Pollution Program Overview INTRODUCTION Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution creates significant water quality problems in Virginia. NPS pollution results mainly from stormwater runoff from land surfaces that have been affected by man's activities on areas such as farmland, city streets, construction sites, suburban lawns, abandoned mine land and areas affected by forestry harvesting practices. The pollution is termed NPS because it doesn't discharge via a single point, such as a pipe, like point source pollution. In Virginia, nonpoint sources of pollution are the dominant source of water quality problems compared to point sources. The Clean Water Act of 1987, Section 319, required states to assess their state waters and identify those adversely affected by nonpoint sources of pollution. The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) completed Virginia's first NPS assessment in 1988, with subsequent updates and refinements in 1993, 1997, 2002 and 2004. The assessment ranks the state's 494 watersheds, for potential nonpoint Paye 2 source pollution, based on land use, livestock population, forest harvesting, erosion rates, disturbed acreage, and best management practice (BMPs) implementation. The rankings are used to help direct implementation of Virginia's nonpoint source pollution control programs, as well as cost - share and Section 319 funding, to watersheds with the greatest pollution potential. Every two years the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) publishes a listing of all waters in the state were applicable standards are not being met. In 2004 DEQ published a combined NPS assessment and stream list. The resulting 2004 305(b)/ 303(d) Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report (TMDL list) from the DEQ indicated that 6,894 miles (of 50,537 miles) of freshwater rivers and streams, 89,896 of the 120,751 acres of lakes had impaired waters and 1,810 of 1,557 square miles of estuarine area had impaired water quality. Overall, 442 of the 494 watersheds in Virginia had impaired waters in them. The majority of these listings were due to nonpoint source pollution. Water quality issues continue to plague the Commonwealth of Virginia, related mainly to increases in nonpoint source pollution. This situation highlights the importance of a well - coordinated, fully implemented Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program to the continued health and protection of Virginia's natural resources. BACKGROUND Section 319 of the 1987 Federal Clean Water Act requires that states develop and implement nonpoint source pollution management programs. The Virginia Nonpoint Source Management Program is coordinated by DCR as set forth in Section 10.1-10.4.1 of the Code of Virginia. This role includes the oversight of program development and implementation and interfacing with the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that Virginia's program is in conformance with the requirements of the Clean Water Act of 1987. DCR is also responsible for the management and distribution of federal and state funds for program implementation. In implementing the nonpoint source pollution program, DCR receives input from the Nonpoint Source Advisory Committee (NPSAC), an interagency committee comprised of representatives of federal and state agencies. NPSAC's mission is to serve as an interagency forum to facilitate effective implementation of nonpoint source programs in Virginia, and to achieve and maintain beneficial uses of water throughout the commonwealth. NPSAC includes representatives of the following agencies: Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Department of Conservation and Recreation, Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Forestry, Department of Health, Department of Mines Minerals and Energy, Department of Transportation, Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Marine Resources Council, US Farm Services Agency, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Geologic Service. Working through the NPSAC, Virginia developed its initial Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program in 1988 with the purpose of building upon existing NPS control efforts and establishing a comprehensive approach. The attainment of beneficial uses as measured by water quality standards compliance is the overriding purpose of control programs identified in the management program. Virginia's Nonpoint Source Program has been evolving ever since its original inception in 1988. The most recent update of the program was updated and approved by U.S. EPA in 1999. The management plan, Virginia Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program - December 1999, is still in effect today. DCR has overall statewide responsibility for implementing the management program and coordinating Section 319 NIPS programs with the cooperation of the individual agencies and organizations for implementing specific nonpoint source control activities outlined in the management plan. These other state, federal and local agencies play a significant role in implementing individual portions of this management program. The NIPS Program serves as both and implementer as well as a facilitator for activities in the state, when ultimately a majority of projects are funded by other state, local or federal agencies. Thus, the assessment, monitoring, and planning provided by Section 319 funds allows Virginia to integrate and coordinate multiple nonpoint source control efforts with multiple partners. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT In addition to federally mandated and funded NIPS programs through Section 319, in 1997, the Commonwealth of Virginia made an unprecedented commitment to water quality and nonpoint source pollution prevention through passage of the Water Quality Improvement Act (WQIA). This act created the Water Quality Improvement Fund (WAIF) which dedicated state monies to both point and nonpoint source water quality needs. In enacting the WQIA, the General Assembly (GA) pronounced that the restoration, protection, and improvement of the quality of state waters is a shared responsibility among state and local governments and individuals, and to that end, established the authority for cooperative programs related to nutrient reduction and other types of nonpoint source pollution. The purpose of the programs is to maintain and/or restore water quality standards in stream segments where NIPS pollution is a significant loading factor. The outcome of cooperative NIPS pollution programs has been a combination of existing efforts and new opportunities that address specific water quality impairments and improvements, supported by the public and numerous stakeholders. A primary objective of WQIF is to fund grants that will reduce the flow of excess nitrogen and phosphorus into the Chesapeake Bay through the implementation of the tributary strategies. The Virginia DEQ is responsible for administering point source grants, and the Virginia DCR administers nonpoint source grants. WQIF funds are provided, in accordance with the guidelines, to help stimulate nonpoint source pollution reduction through the Virginia Agricultural BMP Cost -share Program and water quality improvement projects within the regions listed above. As well as financial assistance, DCR staff provides technical assistance. No funding was provided for the WQIF for fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004. Fiscal year 2005 (July 1, 2004- June 30, 2005) saw a much -needed infusion of a total allocation of $9,417,500 dedicated to NIPS activities. In addition, the Virginia Marine Resource Commission dredging fund and the income tax check -off for Chesapeake Bay restoration were earmarked for NIPS pollution control, brining the total NIPS ViNJcinia Nonpoint Source Po(lulion ProJrram 2004 AnnuallZ' Mort funding to $10,510,687 for FY2005. Implementation of FY2005 funds will be directed through agricultural BMPs, CREP, competitive grants, and a partnership with the Department of Forestry. Additionally the 2005 General Assembly allocated additional WQIF money for FY2006 NIPS activities, estimated at approximately $26 million. SUMMARY Like many other years, 2004 was extremely rewarding and productive. The water quality accomplishments identified in this report help to ensure that Virginia meets its responsibilities to protect and restore water quality throughout the commonwealth. As described in this report, Virginia is clearly making significant progress toward implementing the Virginia Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program (1999). This report is not intended to be a complete summary of activities during the year, but rather, to highlight significant accomplishments and to provide information relative to nonpoint source program efforts. Further information on the overall program can be obtained by contacting Rick Hill, NIPS Planning and Grants Program Manager at DCR, (804) 786-7119. Your comments, questions, and feedback are welcomed and encouraged. Vi" yinia Nonpoinf Source Pollution ProJc ram 2004 Annuall,' por( Highlights and Accomplishments The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation has experienced many successes in managing nonpoint source pollution over the past year. Some of the accomplishments are highlighted in the following sections: • Watershed Prioritization • Agriculture • Forestry • Urban Programs • Monitoring and Tracking • Resource Extraction • Hydromodification • Grants and Technical Assistance • Coastal and Chesapeake Bay Programs • Statewide Initiatives WATERSHED PRIORITIZATION There is a growing recognition among state agencies, local governments and community organizations, of the importance of watershed management in helping the commonwealth of Virginia protect and PaJc e 4 restore water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and in our rivers, streams, and lakes. Watershed offices were established to improve local delivery of nonpoint source pollution control programs and to foster and coordinate watershed management. Watershed management offices provide the framework needed to meet the Commonwealth of Virginia's long-term watershed prioritization and management goal. This section of the annual report highlights watershed management activities within major river basins of the Commonwealth as well as the associated TMDL activities. These activities work towards implementing the Watershed Prioritization goals established in the 1999 the Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program. These goals specified having a well integrated and coordinated basin planning and management program and developing TMDL plans and implementation strategies. Specifically this section of the report will include activity reports on: • Watershed Basin Planning • Statewide TMDL development and implementation Watershed Basin Planninz Chesapeake Bay Watershed Shenandoah River Watershed 2004 was a very successful year for the Shenandoah watershed in terms of dealing with nonpoint source water issues. The established organizations, committees and working groups dealing with water quality and quantity issues continued to function and grow. The Shenandoah Pure Water 2000 was very active throughout 2004. Major actions included: participating in the removal of the McGaheysville dam on the Shenandoah River, working on development of GIS of sinkholes on I- 81 transport corridor to prevent toxic spills and hazardous materials from polluting source water for Shenandoah County water supplies, leadership of the Shenandoah Sojourn Il, and work on Wastewater Treatment Plant Network. Not only did the Pure Water Forum work with the traditional nonpoint source groups, but they also put on a workshop with wastewater treatment plants. Other Shenandoah Watershed activities in 2004 included having The Regional Watershed Resources Policy Committee continue to function and add new counties to their list of active participants. In addition the Page County Water Advisory Committee grew and moved further along toward the likelihood of developing county ordinances and zoning that will protect water. Nutrient Management continued to increase. Some of the notable accomplishments beyond the traditional work in nutrient management included Litter Transfer — 4,200 tons of litter was transferred from source to other users under the state program. A similar federal program transferred another 2,000 tons of litter. Finally, Tributaries Strategies meetings were held with much public interaction from a broad and diverse group of stakeholders attending and providing input. The hopes and expectations for the year 2005 are great. During 2005 it is expected that nutrient management plans will be written for a large number of acres involving urban areas. State owned or controlled lands will also be included in nutrient management. This will be in addition to the traditional agricultural work with nutrient management plans. In agriculture, the movement to phosphorous -based plans will continue. Attention will be paid to increase working relationships with more active and a growing number of groups that deal with water quality, water protection, and water supply and watershed management planning issues are anticipated. It is anticipated that the office will strengthen relations with James Madison University in ways that support water quality, and watershed planning; and increase enforcement and compliance of local programs involved in erosion and sediment control by increasing our staffing levels in this office. All of this will support the Tributaries Strategies. •^nit , - o �:r.:. Potomac River Watershed This past year the Potomac River Roundtable has been very involved in the development of the Potomac River Tributary Strategy. They hosted a Tributary Strategy "kick-off' event attended by over 100 diverse stakeholders, promoted public participation in the draft comment period, and have included the Strategies as an agenda item at each quarterly meeting. The Roundtable has been especially involved in outreach activities in support of the Strategies, hosting a LID Tour last fall and planning for a basin -wide forum this summer. Rappahannock River Watershed Members of the Rappahannock River Basin Commission have been discussing the Rappahannock Tributary Strategy and the implications and opportunities for local governments, including proposed funding sources. The Commission, which is composed of both local and state officials, has been an active participant by providing significant feedback during Strategy development, and is now actively searching for ways to help in implementation. The Rappahannock Conservation Council has also provided direct input and it is eager to assist in Tributary Strategy promotion and implementation. The Council has already developed promotional brochures and is developing strong regional ties among SWCDs and localities by using small grant funds to encouraging the development and implementation of various projects, such as rain gardens, educational field days, and CREP promotional activities. York River Watershed The newly re-established York River and Small Coastal Basin Roundtable is a forum for regional information exchanges to address water quality issues with the York River, Mobjack Bay and the Piankatank River Watersheds. The mission of the group includes establishing position statements for practices and policies that affect water quality in these watersheds, to influence state agencies and decision makers. The priority practices and policies they identified include: agricultural best management practices, nutrient tracking programs, funding opportunities, and nutrient point source and nonpoint source regulations. Uooer James River Watershed 2004 was a successful year for the Upper James watershed in terms of dealing with nonpoint source water issues. The Upper James River Roundtable reorganized and was looking for ways to strengthen its program. The Upper James River Roundtable is providing the lead support for forming an Upper James River basin Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Council that would cover Highland, Bath, Alleghany, Craig, Botetourt and Rockbridge Counties. RC&Ds provide a formal mechanism for citizens and government agencies to cooperatively Vi yinia Nonpoinf Source Pof?u6on ProJc ram 2oo4 Annua[5Peporf address a wide range of issues including: environmental education; land conservation; water quality; and outdoor recreation. Representatives from federal (US Forest Service, NRCS), state (DCR, DGIF), and local (Covington, Buena Vista, Rockbridge, Central Shenandoah PDC) agencies, Soil and Water Conservation Districts (Natural Bridge, Mountain Castles), and Dabney S. Lancaster Community College participate in this work. Key elements supporting the drive to implement an RC&D include the greater degree of sustainability with annual federal funding, the fiscal advantages of 501(c)(3) (i.e., non- profit) status, particularly with respect to obtaining and disbursing grants, and the ability of a RC&D Council to continue and expand upon the work of the Upper James Roundtable. Monthly meetings are planned through the end of 2005. A formal application package will be submitted to USDA before October. Other Upper James River Watershed activities in 2004 included the administration of numerous grants to deal with nonpoint source water quality issues. One excellent example was the grant to the Virginia Land Trust — for the purchase of riparian easements. Tributaries Strategies meetings were held with much public interaction from a broad and diverse group of stakeholders attending and providing input Hopes and expectations for 2005 are high. During 2005, it is expected that nutrient management plans will be written for a large number of acres involving urban areas. In addition, state lands will also be included in nutrient management. This will be in addition to the traditional agricultural work with nutrient management plans. In agriculture, the movement to phosphorous -based plans will continue. Work with more active and a growing number of groups that deal Vaye 5 ViNJcinia RonpoinfSource Poflulion ProJc am 2004 Annua(9.port with water quality, water protection, and water supply and watershed management planning issues are anticipated. The Upper James River Roundtable will be strengthened and will find better ways to find funding and play a meaningful leadership role for the area. Increase enforcement and compliance of local programs involved in erosion and sediment control by increasing staffing levels in this office. Middle James River Watershed The Piedmont James River Roundtable continued to focus on promoting the James River Tributary Strategy. Over the past four years, the Roundtable has sponsored local government informational sessions to ensure understanding of water quality issues and policies that may affect local governments. Local government sessions completed to date include: Albemarle, Amelia, Amherst, Bedford, Buckingham, Cumberland, Fluvanna, Goochland, Powhatan, and Prince Edward counties; City of Charlottesville; Region 2000 and Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commissions. The Thomas Jefferson SWCD, in partnership with the Roundtable and local government support, hosted a successful stormwater management and low impact development workshop. A second workshop with the same theme is being planned for the Richmond metropolitan area in 2005. The expansion of a local fertilizer label initiative continued with the securing of funds to contact and work with local and regional fertilizer suppliers. Other activities conducted by the Roundtable include website redevelopment, a regional public relations campaign and urban best management practices and stream restoration workshop development. Paye 6 Lower James River Watershed The Lower James River Roundtable, hosted by the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, has undertaken the planning process for the Lower James portion of the James River Tributary Strategy revision process and is working to facilitate the implementation of the Lower James portion of the James River Tributary Strategy. Currently the Roundtable is providing input on the effectiveness of street sweeping as a BMP for sediment removal in Hampton Roads and a bacteria -sampling protocol for use in TMDL implementation plans. The Roundtable is actively linked to the Elizabeth River, Lynnhaven River and other grassroots efforts. Southern Rivers Watersheds Eastern Shore (Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coastal) Building successful capacity building, monitoring and planning, the Eastern Shore Watersheds Network is dedicated to furthering environmental education and awareness and research in sustainable watershed restoration. The Network, a diverse group of Eastern Shore stakeholders, has made great strides in coordinating and implementing the multitude of natural resource planning efforts on the shore since their formation in 2000. Currently, the Network, in partnership with VIMS, is working on a water quality -monitoring program to assess sediment discharge in two bayside creeks and a household hazardous waste disposal program. The Network continues to work closely with VIMS, DEQ CZM, DCR, TNC and local stakeholders in building a seaside strategic conservation plan. Albemarle Sound Watersheds The Southern Watershed Area Management Program, hosted by the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC), continues to work with the Albemarle -Pamlico National Estuary Program in an effort to exchange planning, environmental management, watershed information with the neighboring North Carolina counties. Through recent grant funding from APNEP and the Virginia Coastal program, an effort is under way to update GIS mapping of the Southern Watershed Area in Chesapeake and Virginia Beach and extend the mapping to include Camden and Currituck Counties. This effort will involve collecting the most current GIS information available for the Southern Watershed Area and consolidating the information so that each of the participating localities has access to the four -locality data set for use in future planning efforts. Chowan River Watersheds The Chowan River Roundtable is continuing its work on capacity building within both the Virginia and North Carolina portions of the Chowan River Watershed. The Roundtable's work is focused on being bi-state project oriented and consistent with the goals and objectives of Virginia's agreement with North Carolina as a partner in the Albemarle -Pamlico National Estuary Program. Recently the Chowan River Roundtable, in coordination with J.R. Horsley SWCD and the Blackwater/ Nottoway River Keepers Association has been working with DEQ and DCR on the development of TMDLs in the Chowan watershed. Roanoke River Watershed During 2004, the Upper Roanoke River Roundtable (URRR) has been working actively to establish name recognition and create partnerships. The URRR now has representatives on the Virginia Roanoke River Basin Advisory Commission, the Smith Mountain Lake Association, the Smith Mountain Lake Chamber of Commerce, the South West Virginia Environmental Roundtable and the Radford University Business Assistance Program. The URRR is also involved in joint efforts with the City of Roanoke, Virginia's Explore Park and Roanoke County, the Science Museum of Western Virginia, Virginia Tech, the Western Virginia Water Authority and the Roanoke River Basin Association. The URRR outreach efforts include meetings with area governmental agencies, non-profit groups, regional citizen's groups, students and teachers and the general public. The URRR has developed a stand-alone exhibit for conferences, a membership brochure and an interactive website. They also created an email system and list serve for Board members and are working toward an online newsletter. The URRR was present and visible for various general environmental conferences including The National River Rally, Environment Virginia, the Citizens for Water Quality Summit and Roanoke's Earth Day (at Hollins University). The Upper Roanoke River Roundtable held its annual meeting on October 16 at Explore Park. The project priorities, which are based on a recently completed strategic plan, were decided for the coming year. The projects deemed to have the highest priority included the development of a general mailing to local households on important watershed issues. Promotion of public awareness and participation in the Roanoke TMDL plan development. In addition, priority was placed on the promotion and organization of a citizen water quality -monitoring event. This event is similar to the citizen - monitoring day that was held on October 15, 2004 near Roanoke. New River Watershed With the assistance of DCR, the New River Watershed Roundtable is approaching finalization of its structure. The Roundtable invited over 85 local government elected officials, industry representatives, local interest group leaders, SWCDs, sportsmen groups, etc. to a formal seating of the Executive Board for the New River Watershed Roundtable on January 26, 2005 in Wytheville. Upper Tennessee Watershed The Upper Tennessee River Roundtable, Inc. (UTRR), is nearing the halfway point of the three-year EPA grant received in 2003. The partnership, initiated by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, netted $800,000 for Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia (with nearly $500,000 going to Virginia). The UTRR now has a full-time coordinator, a part-time education specialist, and has contracted a grazing specialist to help implement projects related to rotational grazing. The UTRR recently implemented a new fund-raising program with eight fundraising teams that focus on the eight subsections of the Five Year Plan (i.e., Mining, Litter, Endangered Species, Agriculture, Forestry, Citizen Action, Education, and Urban). Big Sandy River Watershed The Big Sandy River Basin Coalition, Inc. (BSRBC), includes the states of Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia. Their recent partnership initiative with the Ohio River Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) is proving to be a fruitful venture. ORSANCO, because of their regulatory authority, has been able to bring partners to the table that VirJc inia Nonpoinf Source Poflufron ProJc ram 2oo4 Annual�' port previously had not been eager to do so. The BSRBC is considering the possibility of expanding their Board of Directors from a current level of five, to as many as 21 directors. The primary reasons for this expansion are to diversify the Board and increase their "reach" into the community by drawing on a larger group of people that have access to more resources and contacts. Watershed Field Coordinators DCR's six watershed field coordinators work in the six major watersheds located in Virginia's portion of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The watershed field coordinator's purpose is to implement Virginia's approach for engaging citizens to adopt various Chesapeake 2000 agreement measures. This position acts as a liaison between DCR watershed office staff and DCR workgroups, basin and small watershed groups, local governments, planning district commissions and Virginia's roundtables. The watershed field coordinators work to promote awareness of, and involvement in, watershed stewardship and tributary strategies, by fostering partnerships among community organizations, federal, state, and local agencies, to facilitate watershed management planning and sound land use in the Chesapeake Bay region. Watershed field coordinators are specialized positions, requiring specific focus on C2K implementation throughout the bay watershed of Virginia. Within each bay watershed, the watershed field coordinator must be familiar with the various community and watershed organizations and their activities and goals. PaJc e 7 V79inia NonpoinfSource Po((ufion ProJcram 2004 Annua(9,oporf Total Maximum Dailv Load Prot; ram (TMDL) The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) monitors the state's rivers, lakes and tidal waters for pollutants every year to determine if the public can use them for swimming, fishing and drinking. If pollution amounts are too high, the waters cannot support their designated uses and fail to meet Virginia water quality standards. These waters are considered "impaired." Through a 1999 Federal Court Consent Decree order, a federal court established a schedule for TMDL development in Virginia through 2010 for waters identified as impaired since 1998. For other waters, Virginia schedules the development of TMDLs within eight to twelve years of finding the waters impaired. Since 1999, DEQ, DCR, VDH, and DMME have developed plans, with public input, to restore and maintain the water quality of the impaired waters. These plans establish a "total maximum daily load," or TMDL, for the impaired waters. The agencies have also developed TMDL implementation plans and work with partners to reduce pollution to the level required by the TMDL. In January 2005, DEQ, in cooperation with the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) and the Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy (DMME), released a report that describes the 5- year progress of TMDL development, implementation plans and the application of best management practices in Virginia's TMDL program. The information provided in the annual report will help to identify strategies that will ensure continued success. The report is available on the DEQ web site at www.deg.virginia.gov/tmdl. (1) TMDL Development The Virginia TMDL program has successfully met the demands of a rigorous development schedule. The program completed 220 TMDLs from 1999 to 2004, and more than 200 have been contracted for completion by 2006. Of the 672 waters requiring a TMDL under the consent order schedule, the program has developed TMDLs for 202 waters and has secured contracts to complete TMDLs for 162 waters by 2006. Just over 300 waters remain and are scheduled for TMDL development by 2010. For non -consent decree impaired waters, the program has completed TMDLs for 18 waters, and 40 waters are under contract for TMDL development by 2006. The program has scheduled TMDL development for the remaining 902 waters within eight to 12 years of when the water was designated impaired. To develop a TMDL, the state considers: • Naturally occurring concentrations of pollutants in the impaired waters. • Pollution from fixed locations, such as a pipe or ditch (point sources). • Pollution sources without a single point of origin, such as agricultural activities and urban areas (nonpoint sources). (2) TMDL Guidance Manual for Implementation Plans DCR and DEQ produced the "Guidance Manual for Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plans". This manual provides guidance to local governments, soil and water conservation districts, planning districts or regional commissions, community watershed groups, and state and federal agencies on developing an implementation plan (IPs) for waters where TMDLs have been completed. The purpose of this manual is to ensure that implementation plans that are prepared by interested parties meet the state requirements through Virginia's 1997 Water Quality, Monitoring, Information and Restoration Act (WQMIRA), as well as other federal requirements. In addition to the requirements of WQMIRA, this guidance manual addresses the requirements of IPs based on EPA's "Guidance for Water - Quality Based Decisions: The TMDL Process", "Supplemental Guidance for the Award of Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants to Sates and Territories," and "Guidance for Developing Watershed -Based Plans for Impaired Waters." (3) TMDL Implementation Plans Implementation Plans describe ways to reduce pollution levels in the stream, and includes a schedule of actions, costs and monitoring. The TMDL program has completed six implementation plans covering 18 segments and scheduled 16 implementation plans covering 42 segments for completion by 2006. Completion of the 544-consent order waters and 902-non-consent order waters will be dependent upon available funding and staff. # of Plans # of Segments Completed 6 18 Scheduled 16 42 # of consent waters # of non - consent water Remaining 544 902 Work continued on the development of Implementation Plans for TMDLs. Additional Implementation Plans started in 2004 by DCR. These are summarized in the table below. Watershed Impairment (# of TMDLs) Location Buckingham Willis River (1) and Cumberland Fecal coliform Counties City of Cooks Creek and Harrisonburg & Fecal coliform, Blacks Run (4) Rockingham benthic County Bedford and Big Otter (5) Campbell Fecal coliform Counties Lower Blackwater, Franklin Maggoddee and Gills County Fecal coliform Creek (3) Thumb, Run, Deep Fauquier Fecal coliform Run, Carter Run, County E. coli Great Run (4) 11 Additional Implementation Plans to be developed in 2005 by DCR are summarized in the table below. Watershed (# of TMDLs) Location Impairment Dodd Creek and Mill Floyd and Montgomery Fecal coliform Creek (2) Counties Little Creek and City of Bristol,Fecal Washington colifom, Beaver Creek (3) County E.(oli, benthic (4) TMDL Implementation Projects The TMDL implementation program has been working in six watersheds, and five have shown improvement in water quality. It is too early in the implementation process to determine if water quality is improving in the sixth watershed. The table below gives an overview of the six watersheds and the progress made in each. The program and its partners work to achieve water quality standards by reducing pollution through the BMPs that were established in the implementation plan. BMPs are effective and practical ways to prevent or reduce pollution from nonpoint sources to ensure water quality. They can range from repairing septic systems, stream fencing, and planting riparian buffers. The portion of the watersheds covered by the implementation plans is about 158,663 acres or 248 square miles. In most watersheds, local soil and water conservations districts or DCR have taken the lead in overseeing the implementation of the best management practices. To determine the success of the practices on water quality, DEQ monitors the impaired streams. Dozens of voluntary and government funded BMPs are used throughout the watersheds. Voluntary efforts have been a key to success in the North River watershed. The Middle Creek is a successful example of Virginia's proactive approach to water quality improvement. This approach aims to clean impaired water bodies through voluntary methods in order to avoid the costly and time-consuming process of developing TMDLs and implementation plans. Virginia Nonpoinf Source Pol%uiion ProJc ram 2004 Annua(9 port In this watershed, stakeholder interest or other resource management programs that preceded TMDL completion drove water quality restoration. Further information on TMDL implementation projects led by DCR are summarized below. Included are the three pilot projects begun in 2001 and two new projects started in 2004. The sixth implementation project, Four Mile Run watershed, is a DEQ TMDL project and a summary is not included. a) New Projects Holman's Creek - The Holmans Creek (Shenandoah County) TMDL Implementation Plan (IP) for bacteria and benthic impairments was completed. The Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) was contracted by DCR to provide technical assistance to work with landowners and conduct educational activities in order to implement the agricultural and residential BMPs identified in the IP. Catoctin Creek - An IP for the bacteria impairments for the North Fork, South Fork and mainstem of Catoctin Creek in Loudoun County was completed. The Loudoun SWCD was contracted to provide technical assistance and educational activities to implement the agricultural BMPs and the Loudoun County Health Department was contracted to administer the residential implementation efforts. Table - Status of Implementation Projects Watershed or Location of Pollutant source Water quality Implementation activities Improvement North River/Rockingham County Agricultural, nonpoint Some improvement Middle Fork Holston River/Washington County Agricultural, nonpoint Moderate improvement . Blackwater River/Franklin County Agricultural, nonpoint Some improvement Four Mile Run/Arlington and Fairfax counties Urban, nonpoint Too early to determine Middle Creek/Tazewell County Coal mining activities Definite improvement Quail Run/Rockingham County Point source Definite improvement VirJcinia Nonpoint Source Pollulion ProJcram 2004 Annua(9'epor( b) Pilot Projects 2004 was the third year of BMP implementation for the three "pilot" TMDL implementation projects that were initiated in late 2001. These projects are based on TMDL implementation plans that were developed for bacteria impairments on 13 stream segments. The three Pilot Projects include: • The North River in Rockingham County, • The Blackwater River in Franklin County, and • The Middle Fork Holston River in Washington County. The number of Best Management Practices (BMPs) implemented in the North River, Blackwater River, and Middle Fork Holston watersheds from 2001 through 2004 are summarized in Tables 1-3 on the next two pages. Also the progress of BMP implementation in terms of percent of goal accomplished is provided. The specific BMPs by impaired stream segment and the load reductions also achieved were provided to EPA Region III in December 2004. (5) Areas of Concern and Recommendations for Future Actions Case studies have shown some water quality improvement in the three years of implementation post-TMDL development. The estimated total cost to develop TMDLs through 2010 is about $10.7 million. DEQ projects that, assuming level funding sources and accurate estimates, the agencies will be able to meet the consent order schedule and complete the development of the TMDLs required by 2010.There do exist, however, several unknown factors that could pose difficulties in meeting the TMDL schedule. These factors include: the quantity of non -consent order waters or impairments included in the TMDL schedule, implementation plan development costs, unforeseen complexities and modeling costs for more complex TMDLs. Challenges also exist in the development of TMDLs for complex pollutants Table 1 - BMP Summary for the North River Watershed such as mercury, and in the maintenance of a growing TMDL pool with the potential for future TMDL modifications to accommodate permit needs. A growing challenge for the program is the transition from developing TMDLs to actual water quality improvements. Because there are no new authorities for enforcing TMDLs, it has been Virginia's expectation to implement TMDLs using existing programs and funding sources. Existing resources include permits from DEQ and the DMME that limit discharges to state waters. These programs are utilized when stream impairments are attributed to a permitted facility. For non -permitted activities, Virginia's approach has been to use incentive -based programs such as the Virginia Agricultural Cost Share Program and the State Revolving Loan Fund. Control Measure Units Estimated Units Units 2 Percent Needed Completed Completed Agriculture Program Stream Exclusion Fencing Feet 612,480 30,093 5% Vegetative Cover on Critical Areas Acres 5,154 876 17% Forested Riparian Buffer Acres 0 10.3 n/a Nutrient Management Practices Acres 0 358 n/a Grassed Waterways Feet 0 4,785 n/a Residential Program Septic System Pump Out System 0 7 -- Septic System Repair System 10 6 -- Sewer Connections System 0 0 -- Septic System Installation System 17 3 -- Alternative Waste Treatment System System 27 3 -- Total On -Site System Installation System 54 12 22% 1 Numbers for septic system installation and alternative waste treatment systems are projected measures to correct 6 straight pipes. 2 The units completed column indicates cost -share and voluntary practices PaJc e 10 Vi yinia N0nP0inf Source PAU60n PrOJram 2004 Annua[9 por( i anie c - tsmr ->ummary Tor ine tsiaCKwaier river watersnea Control Measure Units Estimated Units Units Percent Needed Completed Completed Agriculture Program Stream Exclusion Fencing Feet 369,600 34,561 9% Vegetative Cover on Critical Areas Acres 0 4.7 n/a Forested Riparian Buffer Acres 0 5.2 n/a Residential Program Septic System Pump Out System 0 0 -- Septic System Repair System 0 3 Sewer Connections System 0 0 - Septic System Installation System 7 14 Alternative Waste Treatment System System 8 0 -- Total On -Site System Installation System 15 14 93% 1 Numbers for septic system installation and alternative waste treatment systems are projected measures to correct 15 straight pipes. [i IJIC J - LZ)IYIr JUllllllQIy IUI LIIC IVIIUUIC r'UIR nVIJLUll YYQll71,11t7U Control Measure Units Estimated Units Units Percent Needed Completed Completed Agriculture Program Stream Exclusion Fencing Feet 205,920 74,791 36% Vegetative Cover on Critical Areas Acres 0 0 n/a Forested Riparian Buffer Acres 0 n/a n/a Residential Program Septic System Pump Out System 0 120 Septic System Repair System 67 9 Sewer Connections System 8 2 -- Septic System Installation System 67 4 Alternative Waste Treatment System System 67 1 -- Total On -Site System Installation and System 209 16 8% Repairs 1 Numbers for septic system installation, repair, connection to public sewer and alternative waste treatment systems are projected measures to correct 209 straight pipes and failing septic systems. Virginia also offers dedicated funding Stewardship Act to correct pollution It will be the goal of Virginia's for the implementation of best sources on impaired streams. These natural resource agencies to work with management practices in watersheds efforts are being coordinated with the the general public to take this success with approved implementation plans. state's Watershed Permitting and to the next level by successfully Planning Task Force. remediating some impaired streams As a result of the Governor's within the next few years. Natural Resources Partnership Despite the challenges, Virginia's Agenda, DEQ, DCR, VDACS and TMDL program has shown that VDH began discussions and properly applied and maintained best development of strategies to identify management practices result in and replace straight pipes on impaired measurable improvements in water streams and to utilize the Agricultural quality. Vase 11 1/i yinia Nonpoin(Source Po((ulion ProJcram 2004 Annua(�'rpor( AGRICULTURE Agriculture is a large and diverse industry in Virginia and accounts for approximately 24 percent of Virginia's land area. Agricultural activities continue to be the most significant source of nonpont source pollution (NPS) in the state. The 2004 Water Quality Assessment suggests that about 70% of the total NPS nitrogen load and over 60% of the total NPS phosphorous and sediment loads come from agricultural land. These pollutants can escape crop field and livestock production areas and enter surface and ground water systems. DCR coordinates the various statewide agricultural nonpoint source pollution management programs. The programs focus on several areas: the Virginia Agricultural Cost -Share Best Management Program, the Virginia BMP Agricultural Tax Credit Program, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) and other related programs. Best management practices (BMPs) installed through the above programs are designed to reduce NPS pollution, which adversely impacts state waters. Soil loss (i.e. sediment) and excess nutrients (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus) are reduced by a variety of BMPs installed on both cropland and pastureland. Animal waste BMPs directly assist in managing and minimizing nutrient losses to surface and ground waters. All 33 practices eligible for cost -share, and 49 practices eligible for tax credits Pair e 12 provide some amount of reduction of Agricultural NPS contaminates, and assist the local Soil and Water Conservation Districts mission of improving water quality. This section focuses mainly on the reduction of soil loss, nitrogen, and phosphorus. However, animal waste BMPs also reduces the introduction of fecal coliform to state waters. Other BMPs are designed to reduce excess fertilizer and pesticide runoff, or create streamside buffers to intercept contaminated runoff and groundwater. This report highlights some of the accomplishments of the local, state and federal programs, including: • Agricultural BMP Cost -Share program, • Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) • Nutrient Management • Nutrient Management Field Specialists • Nutrient Management Certification Program • Nutrient Management Regulatory Revisions • Legislative Study of Nutrient Management Planning in Virginia • Poultry Waste Management Act • Poultry Litter Application Cost -Share project • Virginia Cooperative Extension Activities • National Resources Conservation Service • VDACS Pesticide Disposal Program • VDACS Agricultural Stewardship Program A,-ricultural BMP Cost - Share ProLyram and Tax Credit Pro; -ram This program provides financial incentives statewide to agricultural landowners and operators for the implementation of approved Best Management Practices (BMPs), which improve water quality, on crop and pasture lands and animal feeding operations. Nutrient and sediment reductions listed below have been achieved since 1992. These reductions correlate directly with all elements of the Cost -Share Program, including the amount of funding, participating farmers, acres under program management, and number of BMPs installed. • 13,348,080 pounds of nitrogen, • 2,545,571 pounds of phosphorus, and • 2,396,808 tons of soil. Available funding for the Virginia Agricultural BMP cost -share program has been variable in recent years. During fiscal year 2004 (July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004) financial support of the Agricultural BMP Cost - Share Program for the fiscal year was near an all-time low, however many aspects of the program implementation continued to be impressive. Program implementation included the following results for the Program categories: • 728 participating farmers, • 69,696 acres under program management, • 1,807 installed BMPs, and • Over $2.3 million in matching funds. Due to the success of the program, an additional 658,945 pounds of nitrogen, 134,245 pounds of phosphorus, and 121,130 tons of soil were prevented from reaching Virginia's waters. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Prozram CREP The program aims to improve Virginia's water quality and wildlife habitat by offering rental payments to farmers who voluntarily restore riparian buffers, filter strips and wetlands through the installation of approved conservation practices. CREP is an enhancement to the federal Conservation Reserve Program, which was established in 1985 and has enrolled more than 36 million acres nationwide. The Virginia CREP is actually comprised of two programs. The Chesapeake Bay CREP targets Virginia's entire bay watershed and calls for the planting of 22,000 acres of riparian buffer and filter strips as well as 3,000 acres of wetland restoration. The Southern Rivers CREP targets watersheds outside the bay drainage basin and will establish 8,500 acres of riparian buffer and filter strip plantings and 1,500 acres of wetland restoration. In addition, statewide there is a goal of having 9,000 acres in permanent CREP easements. Statewide, these programs are expected to reduce annual nitrogen loads to waterways by more than 648,135 pounds, phosphorus by more than 98,601 pounds and sediment by more than 52,669 tons. The anticipated reductions will help Virginia meet water quality improvement goals, particularly in the Potomac -Shenandoah region, wherein the state has agreed to reduce nutrient loads by 40 percent. Accomplishments by the CREP program are impressive. Since the June 2000 the following accomplishments have occurred: • 1,375 participating farmers • 6,388 acres of buffers and wetland restored (141.95% of goal) • 1,172 miles of stream bank protected • 47,289 Tons of sediment reduced (89.73% of goal) • 257,253 pounds of Nitrogen reduced (39.85% of goal) • 48,375 pounds of Phosphorous reduced (49.06 % of goal). Program signup, contract approval and project implementation are continuing throughout the CREP eligibility areas. Virginia's CREP enrollment period has been extended until December 30, 2007. Concern and Recommendations for BMP Cost -Share and CREP: Improving state budgets have led to an increase in funding for the State Ag BMP cost- share program and CREP revisions that are designed to accelerate the enrollment in CREP. Two different incentives that will provide $1.5 million in landowner incentives from state funds are being rolled out in early 2005. The first CREP easements have been recorded. However, even with increased state funding, meeting the 9,000-acre goal for permanent CREP easements will be difficult due to high legal and technical assistance costs. In the future, additional funds are needed for: technical assistance, legal expenses, program delivery expenses/costs, as well as funds to provide for landowner financial incentives. Nutrient Management Proper management of nutrients used in agriculture is critical to Virginia's efforts to reduce nonpoint source pollution of both surface and groundwater. DCR's Nutrient Management Program was established in 1989. The program's purpose is to encourage proper land application and efficient use of fertilizers, manures, sewage sludge and other nutrient sources utilized for agricultural and urban landscape purposes, in ways that protect and improve the quality of Virginia's ground and surface waters. DCR works closely with large and small agricultural operations to manage agricultural nutrients. DCR also educates urban landowners about the impacts of nutrient runoff from lawns, gardens, golf courses, parking lots, and other landscaped areas. DCR uses various strategies to encourage proper land application of fertilizer, manure, and sewage Vi yinia Nonpoint Source Voflu6on Vh ram 2004 Annua%por( sludge for agricultural and horticultural purposes. Nutrient Mana,-ement Field Specialists DCR's nutrient management specialists provide technical assistance to landowners. These specialists develop site -specific nutrient management plans (NMPs) with cooperating farmers, assist farmers with manure testing for nutrient levels, calibrate nutrient application equipment, and coordinate soil nitrate testing in agricultural crop fields. DCR's nutrient management specialists also assist localities in developing nutrient management programs and ordinances. The specialists developed 491 nutrient management plans covering 76,934 acres during 2004. This exceeds the projection of 60,000 acres annually as contained in the Virginia Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program plan document. Nutrient Mana-aement Regulatory Revisions DCR is in the process of amending the Nutrient Management Training and Certification regulations (4 VAC 5-15 in the Virginia Administrative Code). The regulations were last promulgated in 1995. Several significant modifications are proposed to be incorporated into the regulations. The proposed regulations would require all nutrient management plans to better address phosphorus loss potential from land and better address the timing of nitrogen containing materials such as manure and biosolids. Vase 13 VirJc inia Nonpoint Source PAufion ProJc ram 2004 Annual4�r' Pori A number of other technical changes are proposed in the promulgated NMP criteria to update soil specific crop yield expectations and crop nutrient needs based on the findings of the Virginia Agronomic Land Use Evaluation System (VALUES) update project funded through §319. Proposed regulations are expected to be released for comment by late spring of 2005, with final regulations expected to be in place by the end of calendar year 2005. DCR staff worked with a broad based technical advisory committee in crafting the regulations. Committee members represented various sectors of agriculture, the environmental community, academia, and related agencies. The revision of the Nutrient Management Training and Certification regulations to reflect technology available to date is another strategy identified in the Virginia's 1999 Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program plan document. Lezislative Studv ofNutrient Manazement Plannine The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) conducted an in-depth study of the effectiveness of nutrient management plans in Virginia throughout 2004. JLARC staff interviewed farmers and agency personnel and conducted surveys of farmers and certified nutrient management planners, participated in CAFO inspections for farms requiring NMPs, and conducted a thorough review of data related to the program. Pa4r e 14 A final report entitled "Review of Nutrient Management Plans in Virginia" found that the technical content of nutrient management plans developed in Virginia is generally good. The report contains recommendations to enhance future nutrient management efforts in the Commonwealth. The document suggests alternative policy options be considered to increase the acreage under NMPs. These options range from greatly increased incentives to increased regulatory requirements pertaining to the number of farms required to implement NMPs. Poultry Waste Management Act The Poultry Waste Management Act (HB 1207) was passed by the General Assembly and was signed by the governor in 1999. The regulations required poultry operations with at least 11,000 turkeys or 20,000 chickens to file a registration statement for the Poultry Waste VPA General Permit by October 1, 2001. These operations must comply with a DCR-approved Nutrient Management Plan, which includes requirements for proper storage of poultry litter. A total of 1,086 nutrient management plans have been approved by DCR for poultry operations covered in the General Permit. This represents essentially all known operations in the state projected to need a permit. The regulated operations produce 580,117 tons of manure annually. Of this total, 187,295 tons are land applied on the regulated operations on 125,831 acres, and 392,822 tons are sold to other farmers or used for alternative uses. Poultry companies operating in Virginia were very progressive in prompting growers to have nutrient management plans developed and approved prior to the deadline. The law and regulations also require NMPs developed after October 1, 2001 to limit the application of phosphorus to crop nutrient needs or crop removal, whichever is greater. Pilot Poultry Litter Application Cost -Share Pilot Proiect The Department of Conservation and Recreation in cooperation with the poultry industry has operated a pilot litter transport project. DCR used Water Quality Improvement Act state funds to provide $25,000, with industry matching an additional $25,000. The project is intended to develop markets for poultry litter in areas outside of Virginia's main poultry producing counties. Litter must come from Augusta, Page, Rockingham or Shenandoah County and be applied in any other county in Virginia outside of those listed as source counties. The receiving operation must submit an application along with a nutrient management plan to be considered for the program. The application rates in the nutrient management plan must be based on the soil test recommendation for phosphorus and also cannot exceed the nitrogen recommendation. The maximum allowable acreage is 150 acres per participant. In 2003, the cost share rate was $6 / acre and the program transported 1,328 tons to 11 producers covering 859 acres. In 2004, the cost share rate was increased to $10 per acre and the program transported 5,209 At this time, it is unsure if funding for the program will continue in 2005. As a result of the pilot, USDA-NRCS in Virginia has created a similar program under EQIP that cost shares $10 per acre on litter transported from a larger group of source counties to any location in Virginia. The operation must have a nutrient management plan and soil test levels for phosphorus cannot exceed moderate levels. This program does not have a maximum acreage per producer and is funded at approximately $250,000 in 2004 and 2005. Virv-inia Cooperative Extension The Virginia Cooperative Extension conducted a variety of nonpoint source educational and outreach programs for diverse audiences within the commonwealth. Mid Atlantic Agricultural Ammonia Forum: The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service's (CSREES) Mid -Atlantic Regional Water Quality Workgroup coordinated and conducted two agricultural ammonia forums (Woodstock, Virginia, March 16, 2004 and Chesapeake College, Wye, Maryland, March 19, 2004) for local Extension staff, NRCS, and Soil Conservation District staff, local and state government staff, agricultural professionals, producers, industry representatives, and others involved in nutrient management and water quality. The role of ammonia in the nitrogen cycle, impacts on air and water quality, and emerging science on agricultural and control and were discussed. Accomplishments of the forum included: 1) raising awareness of the contribution of agricultural nitrogen, especially ammonia, to nutrient enrichment; and 2) introducing participants to common ammonia sources and steps to reduce ammonia emissions. Water Quality P-Index Workshop: The CSREES Mid -Atlantic Regional Water Quality Workgroup coordinated and conducted a workshop in Winchester, Virginia on June 7, 2004. Experts from VA, WV, MD, DE, and PA convened a workshop to develop P source coefficients for waste products applied to land according to P Index. Results of the workshop were provided to regional State regulatory agencies for incorporation into the P Index. Nutrient Manaaement Symposium: VA Cooperative Extension Specialists from Virginia Tech conducted nutrient management training for certified planners at the American Forage and Grassland Council Conference in Roanoke, Virginia on June 14, 2004. Nutrient ManaL ement Certification Proeram DCR certifies private and public sector nutrient management planners, and conducts training sessions and examinations, as authorized in §10.1- 104.2 of the Code of Virginia. As of August 2004, 278 people are certified to develop nutrient management plans in Virginia. Vi yinia NonpoinfSource Poli`ulion Pry= 2004 Annual'PuPorl There are planners from fertilizer, seed, and pesticide suppliers, private consultants, employees of soil and water conservation districts, DCR, the Department of Environmental Quality, NRCS, and other categories as represented in the following table. Table 2. Nutrient Management Certificates issued through 2004. Categories Number of Individuals Fertilizer/Pesticide Industry 61 Private Consultants 42 DCR Employees 19 SWCD Employees 29 DEQ Employees 22 NRCS Employees 62 Extension Agents 9 Biosolids Industry 12 Academia 3 Misc. Individuals 19 Total Certified Persons 278 Non-DCR certified planners developed management plans for a total of 82,436 acres during the last annual reporting period. Most of the NRCS NPS pollution reduction efforts were concentrated in three major program areas: Farm Bill Programs, Conservation Operations and the Land Treatment Program under the PL-534 and PL-566 legislation. (1) Farm Bill Programs: In 2004, approximately 14.3 million dollars was appropriated for a variety of programs in Virginia. (a) Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) - The largest program, the Environmental Quality Incentive YiTina Nonpoint.S°ource Poffulron 19roJ6ram 2004 Annu(419?ePorf Program (EQIP), directed approximately $9.8 million to cost share contracts with producers to address resource problems under any of five statewide waster quality degradation priorities: erosion from cropland and grazing land management, nutrient pollution from cropland and pastureland, improper animal waste management systems, and NPS from forestry operations. Major efforts under these resource concerns included: • Installation of 19 waste storage facilities; • 15,000 acres of nutrient management, • 1500 acres of proper waste utilization on agriculture land; • 1,800 acres of tree planting • 1440 acres of forest stand improvement, • 1400 acres of cover crop; • 4,500 acres of residue management; • 515,000 feet of fencing, • 260,000 feet of water facility pipeline, • 1300 acres of pasture seeding and • 7,000 prescribed grazing plans. 2004 will be the last year NRCS operates the EQIP on a statewide ranking process. Starting next year with FY 2005 funds, each of the four NRCS administrative areas will receive an allocation. This is determined by the key resource indicators such as number of animal in confinement, acres of cropland, acres of grassland, etc. in an attempt to direct more funds to resource problems. (b) Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) and Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) - NRCS also administered several easement programs that will retain agricultural land in its current less intensive use. The Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) was used to purchase perpetual easements on six different tracts of land around the state. Funding for this program was $1.38 million dollars. All was used for current and prior year agreements. In Pair e 16 addition, all of the provisions of the Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) were utilized in Virginia for the first time in 2004. NRCS was able to utilize $ 542,000 in new money and prior year funds to enter into nine long- term rental agreements and five perpetual easements to preserve grasslands that were threatened with conversion to other uses. (c) Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) NRCS provides additional technical assistance to support the CRP and CREP programs. Accomplishments are reported by the Farm Service Agency and Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. In addition, NRCS did install an additional 563 acres of riparian forest buffers, 64,000 feet of field borders, 42 acres of grassed waterways and 86,000 feet (over 16 miles) of stream bank protection work under various programs. (2) Conservation Operations: NRCS provides most of the traditional technical assistance in the form of conservation planning to producers, Soil and Water Conservation Districts and other agencies and groups through this effort. Accomplishments under this program include: • Conservation planning of 72,000 acres of cropland • Conservation planning of 99,000 acres of grazing lands Practices were applied by NRCS on 42,000 acres of cropland and over 75,000 acres of grazing lands. In addition, Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMP), which include complete planning involving erosion control, nutrient management planning and animal waste management, were prepared for 110 animal operations. A total of 80 were certified as completely installed. (3) Land Treatment Program: Working under authorization contained in both Public Law 534 (Potomac Basin) and 566 (statewide), NRCS operated a cost share assistance program in 8 watersheds across the state. These efforts are for long term contracting to improved water quality in these basin. Funding of approximately $ 117,330 was allocated to 182 active contracts in order to install planned conservation practices. Pesticide Disposal Program The disposal of canceled, banned or unwanted pesticides poses a significant challenge to agricultural producers and other pesticide users due to its high cost. The proper disposal of waste pesticides eliminates a potential threat to health and the environment. The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), in cooperation with the Virginia Pesticide Control Board (PCB) and Virginia Cooperative Extension (VCE) completed the 2004 Pesticide Disposal Program in early December. Two hundred and three farmers, pesticide dealers and pest control firms disposed of 210,423 pounds of unwanted, outdated and banned pesticides during this year's collection encompassing 33 localities. Throughout the 14 years of Virginia's disposal project, 2,308 agricultural producers, pesticide dealers and pest control firms have participated in the program with 1,158,851 pounds collected and destroyed. For more information about the 2005 programs, contact Liza Fleeson at 804-371-6561. Information about this and other VDACS pesticide programs may be found at: http://www. vdacs.state. va. uV/)esticides/ind ex.htmt. Agricultural StewargjAk Program The Agricultural Stewardship Act (ASA) is the result of a joint effort by the agricultural and environmental communities, districts and agencies, to develop a common-sense solution to water pollution problems caused by agricultural operations. The Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VADACS) is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the ASA. The goal of the Act is to consider the needs of the farmer while meeting the requirements of the environment. The ASA addresses water pollution problems caused by nutrients, sediments and toxins entering state waters from agricultural activities. ASA also allows for a complaint and investigation procedure that forces compliance by agricultural operators when activities are determined to be causing water pollution. Complaints that an agricultural activity is producing water pollution go to the Commissioner of the VADACS to determine if an investigation is warranted. The purpose of the investigation is to determine whether the agricultural activity is causing or will cause water pollution. If no causal link is found, the Commissioner will dismiss the complaint. If the investigation determines that the activity is the cause, the farmer is given sixty days to develop a corrective plan. ASA provides a farmer six months to start implementing his plan and up to eighteen months for full implementation. If a farmer fails to implement a plan within the 18-month time limit, the Act requires the Commissioner to take enforcement action. During April 1, 2004 through February 28, 2005, the Commissioner received 31 official complaints regarding possible agricultural pollution. These official complaints fell into 7 different categories according to commodity: 1. Beef — 6 (19.4%); 2. Beef/Hog — 1 (3.2%); 3. Cropland — 12 (38.6%); 4. Dairy — 2 (6.5%); 5. Hog — 3 (9.7%); 6. Horse — 6 (19.4%); and 7. Horse/Cattle — 1 (3.2%). Eleven complaints indicated that both sediments and nutrients were involved. Five complaints were attributed to pollution problems involving nutrients only, while 15 faulted only sediments as contributing to pollution problems. The Commissioner's Office, together with local SWCD's in many cases, completed investigations for 27 of the 31 official complaints received. As of February 28, 2005, four complaints were awaiting a decision by the Commissioner. Of the 27 complaints on which the Commissioner acted before the end of the eleven -month period, Department investigations determined that 18 of the complaints revealed insufficient or no evidence of water pollution; therefore, these complaints were unfounded. In one case, the complaint was dismissed because the complaint related to matters outside of the purview of the ASA. In eight of the investigations, there was sufficient evidence to support the allegations that the agricultural activities were Vi yinia Nonpoinf Source Poflufion ProJc ram 2004 alnnua('Igporf causing or would cause water pollution. The Department is responsible for conducting six-month and 18-month field reviews to make sure that plans are on schedule as far as implementation and that implemented plans are maintained to prevent the re -occurrence of pollution problems identified by the Department in its response to complaints received under the ASA. At the recommendation of staff, the Commissioner conducted informal fact-finding conferences to determine whether two agricultural operations were maintaining their ASA stewardship plans and whether the plan for one operation was completed in compliance with the Act. The Commissioner issued corrective orders finding that two agricultural operations were out of compliance and establishing deadlines in which compliance must be achieved. A third corrective order was being prepared for issuance as of February 28, 2005. During the program year, VDACS participated in meetings held by state soil and water conservation districts (SWCD's) at the regional and state levels and participating in meetings held by various commodity and agricultural groups. Concerns and Recommendations Staff reductions and resource constraints represent a serious challenge for this program during the ensuing reporting period and beyond. Information about the Ag Stewardship Program may be found at: htto://www.vdacs.state.va.us/stewardshiD/index. html ViTina Nonpoin f Source Pollu6on VroJcram 2004 AnnUd'RrPorf 1 FORESTRY Virginia has approximately 16 million acres of forested land (68 per cent of the state). The primary pollutant associated with forestry operation is sediment resulting from soil loss during forest disturbing activities. Based on the NPS Assessment, about 17% of the total NPS Nitrogen loads and over 30% of the total NPS Phosphorous and Sediment loads may come from forested sources. In 1992 the Water Quality Task Force recommended that the Virginia General Assembly pass the Silvicultural Water Quality Act of 1993 (Article 12, §10.1-1181.1-7). This authorized the DOF to act to prevent pollution of state waters from silvicultural activities. The act was amended several times, the last being in 2002 to allow for the issuance of a civil penalty against the operator for failure to notify the Department of Forestry (DOF) of a commercial timber harvesting operation. Through the Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program (NPSPMP) and the Virginia Silvicultural Water Quality Law (SWQL), the commonwealth aims at reducing nutrient and sediment pollution entering Virginia's waters. DOF is actively involved in both water quality protection and the prevention of nonpoint source pollution from forestry practices through the SWQL and through statewide riparian forest buffer restoration work. PaJce 18 This report section includes information on the NPS forestry activities in 2004 as they apply to: The Silvicultural Water Quality Law and BMPS Riparian Forest Buffer Restoration Silvicultural Water Qualitv Law Since 1993, the efforts of the DOF and public/private organizations have trained over 4,500 loggers in Water Quality Techniques known as Best Management Practices or BMPs, inspected over 3,000 harvesting operations per year, and utilized the Silvicultural Water Quality Act (SWQA) to protect water quality. Education under the American Forest and Paper Association's (AF&PA) Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) program has allowed the DOF to train over 4,500 individual loggers and foresters on harvest planning and BMP's since 1996. Field personnel within each of the six administrative regions accomplish harvest inspections, averaging over 3,000 inspections per year. The purpose of these inspections is to make recommendations on the implementation of BMPs and to enforce the SWQA. Compliance Actions The SWQL, now in its 12`h year, is recognized nationally as a model for water quality compliance. As of the end of January 2005, there have been the following law actions since program inception: • 1606 Notices of Violations • 708 Informal Conferences • 466 Special Orders resulting from Informal Conferences • 195 Final Orders • $964,326 penalties assessed • $250,342 penalties collected Harvesting notification has improved statewide though there are still some issues with both notification and compliance. Penalties collected are placed in the Water Quality Penalty Fund. By law, penalties collected are to be used for education, demonstration of water quality protection techniques and research only. In addition to law compliance, a statewide audit has been in place since 1994 to track trends in BMP implementation and effectiveness. Eighteen of these audits have occurred —the goal being two per year. These audits have all used the same methodology to ensure consistency in trend data control methodology for consistency in compliance actions and training of DOF personnel. Recent Program Accomplishments Most recently, several important program elements were improved. The DOF completed the Fourth Edition of Virginia's Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality and the associated Field Guide. A Section 319 grant provided critical funding for this revision. In terms of education and information, the DOF, with the forest industry and Virginia Tech, conducted multiple Logger Training Sessions in 2004 to educate forest operators to the changes that have occurred in the new BMP Manual and changes to the SWQL. The DOF developed and manned several exhibits at the East Coast Sawmill and Logging Equipment Exposition dealing with Water Quality Education on Forestry Operations that reached an estimated 15,000 forestry professionals in a two- day period. This occurs in alternate years and will occur again in 2006. Riparian Forest Buffer Restoration In October 1994, the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council adopted Directive 94-1, which called upon the Chesapeake Bay Program to develop a policy that would enhance riparian stewardship and efforts to conserve and restore riparian forest buffers. In 1996, The Virginia Forest Riparian Buffer Initiative was established with the goal to protect all streams and shorelines by forested or riparian buffers. Bay Program partners agreed to develop an implementation plan for their respective Governor by June 30, 1998, including benchmarks on how these goals and recommendations would be met. The resulting plan committed Virginia to restoring 610 miles of riparian forest buffers by 2010. It reaffirmed Virginia's pledge to protect the state's water quality and to restore the health of the Chesapeake Bay. During 2004 alone, Virginia restored 423.3 miles of buffers statewide (241.4 stream miles in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and 181.9 stream miles in the Southern Watersheds). Virginia met its riparian buffer commitment early; as of June 30, 2004, Virginia had restored buffers along 2,407 miles of rivers and streams statewide, 1,433 within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and 974 within the collective "Southern Rivers" watersheds. Virginia has restored three times as many miles of riparian buffers as its original goal and has done so well ahead of the 2010 target date. In December 2003, Governor Warner committed to restoring 3,200 miles of riparian forest buffers in the Bay by 2010. Virginia has now committed to a much greater effort on the order of 30,000 miles as part of the state's Tributary Strategies. The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), a federal cost -share program that provides incentives to landowners to protect their streams, remains the most successful program in the state for promoting riparian forest buffer restoration as well as a successful example of state and federal cooperation. Soil and Water District staff, NRCS staff, and Department of Forestry (DOF) field staff continue to promote CREP and to provide private landowners with the necessary technical assistance to implement CREP projects. DOF continues to provide the bulk of planting stock for CREP projects. District, NRCS, and DCR staff handle most of the program administration. Continuation, if not expansion, of CREP in the 2007 Farm Bill will be critical if Virginia is to meet its 2010 buffer restoration goals. Several ongoing efforts seek to identify and target those stream segments most in need of buffer restoration. In addition to efforts on the part of Virginia's natural resources agencies, studies by various universities using remote sensing and geographic information systems have enabled agencies to target small watersheds where restoration is most critical to achieving Virginia's water quality goals. Tributary Strategies Virginia's Tributary Strategies program has driven this process in that portion of the state that falls within the Chesapeake Bay watershed in an Vi yinia Nonpoinf Source Voffufion VroJc ram 2oo4 Annua(9' prf effort to develop local watershed - based plans for specific actions aimed ultimately at restoring the health of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The conservation of existing riparian buffers will be crucial to the success of Virginia's new Riparian Buffer Initiative. Efforts to coordinate the goals and priorities of the riparian buffer initiative with state and local integrated watershed management programs have been accomplished in part through the sharing of information with all Tributary Strategy areas, Save Our Streams programs, and several local river associations, and through collaborative restoration efforts such as those in the Roanoke River Basin, Madison County, and the Potomac Watershed Partnership, and presentations at the Virginia Watershed Management Conference. The new Riparian Forest Buffer Initiative will be a major nonpoint source pollution reduction strategy for the ongoing tributary strategy process. Tracking Efforts Efforts are underway to improve tracking of buffer restoration projects, including an on-line tracking tool developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program and upgrades to the Department of Forestry's information management system. A buffer survival study is ongoing through a revegetation and seedling survival study at 10 sites in Virginia's portion of the Potomac watershed, and through a comparative study of riparian seedling survival between different planting methods. Incentive Proqrams A variety of incentives have been created to encourage landowners to conserve or restore riparian buffers. • Acquire Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture available through 2007. As of April 2003, more than 14,000 acres have been approved for enrollment in CREP. Vase 19 Vi yinia Nonpoin (Source Pollu6on ProJc ram Z00% Annual9,epor( • Implementation of legislation (H.B 1419 signed July 1998) authorizing tax incentives for riparian forest buffer lands in easements. • Enactment of a riparian buffer tax credit (2000) for individuals or S- corporations who own land on which timber is harvested and who forbear timber harvesting on portions of land abutting waterways for 15 years. • Local government revenue losses due to buffer land tax breaks made eligible for reimbursement from Water Quality Improvement Fund grants. • Ongoing efforts for enabling legislation to exempt riparian forest buffers from estate taxes. • Ongoing efforts to encourage localities to use stormwater utility fees for establishing riparian buffers. • Ongoing effort to consolidate and improve cost -share programs. There has been significant improvement in the coordination of cost -share programs among agencies to date. Within the Farm Bill, the Forest Land Enhancement Program and Environmental Quality Incentive Program target riparian plantings. • Ongoing effort to encourage flexibility in local subdivision and zoning requirements. • Annual efforts to increase funding for conservation through General Assembly Appropriations to the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation. • Recognition programs established through the Department of Conservation and Recreation watershed awards program and the Soil and Water Conservation District awards program. As mentioned above, efforts have been made to target buffer restoration efforts where the greatest benefits can be achieved. The availability of GIS and higher resolution imagery has aided in these efforts. One application developed by DOF, ForestRim, is a web -based internet mapping program that shows riparian forest buffer Par 20 plantings and assists in targeting restoration opportunities. Tracking responsibilities have been shared between DCR and DOF, with DCR reporting state cost -share and CREP numbers to DOF and DOF tallying volunteer efforts to achieve the final buffer totals. Online reporting capabilities currently in development will facilitate this process. Future Considerations The Virginia Riparian Working Group will continue to work closely to fulfill the goals and objectives of the Riparian Buffer Implementation Plan. The Department of Forestry will continue in its efforts to strongly encourage and support riparian planting and protection on all appropriate state-owned lands. These lands have been identified, and several sites have had buffers installed or had plans developed for implementation pending funding availability. Technical assistance from the Department of Forestry, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service will continue to be provided to these state agencies to restore their sites. Other objectives include: • Updating Executive Order 48 (99) and the signing of a new Executive Order on stream restoration. • Continued documentation of the location and extent of riparian easements across Virginia. • Monitoring of Virginia's nursery stock and supply to alleviate any potential shortfalls for seedlings. This will be accomplished by working with State and private nurseries to provide information about the program and its potential long-range seedling sales. • Research and quantification of vegetation survival and water quality effects within restored buffers. • Continued implementation of the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, now extended through 2007. • Development of implementation approaches for achieving the new Riparian Forest Buffer Directive calling for at least 10,000 new miles by 2010 and urban canopy goals in 5 pilot localities. • Partnering with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on a major restoration effort in the middle Potomac watershed. • Continued collaboration on and promotion of Virginia's Tributary Strategies. • Continued establishment of riparian buffer demonstration sites. �_*01 il tt*� � y Future Goals and Concerns DOF's future concerns regarding nonpoint source pollution center on the need for additional resources to complete goals. Meeting Virginia's share of the 10,000-mile buffer goal will require significant resources. Yet, Virginia's Tributary Strategies collectively call for 30,000 miles of buffers to be restored in the Chesapeake Bay watershed portion of the state in order to meet mandated nutrient and sediment reductions, a far more ambitious goal. Another goal of the agency is implementation of TMDL projects. Active participation on the part of the DOF will, again, require additional resources. Finally, the Department would like to contribute to completing research on regional curves for streams in Virginia and to further stream restoration work. URBAN PROGRAM S Although only seven percent of the land in Virginia is considered urban, urbanization of forest and agricultural land is occurring at a rapid rate in many parts of the Commonwealth. This urbanized growth results in NPS pollution as the result of precipitation washing nutrients, sediment, and other toxic substances from the impervious surfaces that make up these areas. DCR is charged in the Code of Virginia to "provide technical assistance, training, research, and coordination in stormwater management technology to local governments for the protection of properties and reduction in NPS pollution." The Virginia Stormwater Management Law enables localities to adopt comprehensive stormwater management programs and requires state agencies to control stormwater on active construction projects and the post -construction finished landscape. DCR staff provide technical assistance, comprehensive watershed planning advice, and training to urbanizing localities that have adopted erosion and sediment control, subdivision, drainage, stormwater, and other land development ordinances that address stormwater management. Further, DCR staff directly review, approve, and oversee implementation of construction and maintenance plans for Best Management Practices (BMPs) on state agency projects to ensure compliance with the Regulations. This report section includes a summary of urban programs' NPS activities in 2004 in the following areas: • Erosion and Sediment Control • Stormwater Management Erosion and Sediment Control: DCR implements the state Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Program according to the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law, Regulations, and Certification Regulations (VESCL&R). The ESC Program's goal is to control soil erosion, sedimentation, and nonagricultural runoff from regulated "land -disturbing activities" to prevent degradation of property and natural resources. The regulations specify "Minimum Standards," which include criteria, techniques and policies that must be followed on all regulated activities. These statutes delineate the rights and responsibilities of governments that administer an ESC program and those of property owners who must comply DCR's ESC Program regulates land -disturbing activities on state and federal lands, as well as on a specific group of activities undertaken by utility, interstate and intrastate pipeline and railroad companies and private construction companies. DCR establishes statewide standards and guidance, periodically reviews local programs, and provides training and educational opportunities. Vi yinia NonpoinfSource Pollu6on ProJcram 2004;fnnuUl%' Porf Accomplishments and Initiatives: In 2004, DCR staff reviewed 10 local government programs for consistency with the Erosion and Sediment Control Law and Regulations. Local programs consistent with the Law and Regulations enhance water quality by minimizing sediment and nutrients associated with land disturbing activities from entering the Commonwealth's waters. DCR staff conducted a total of 31 erosion and sediment control training classes. The classes include Basic Erosion and Sediment Control in Virginia, Erosion and Sediment Control for Inspectors, and Erosion and Sediment Control for Plan Reviewers. Approximately 1,500 individuals participated in these training classes during the reporting period. Two statewide certification exams were conducted and approximately 500 people were tested. The pass rate for these tests was over 75%. In addition to the certification exams, DCR provides online recertification programs. Approximately 250 individuals were re -certified through the online programs. Training and certification of individuals in erosion and sediment control improves water quality by reducing the impact of erosion and sediment on water quality. DCR also administers a Responsible Land Disturber training and certification program through online delivery of information, materials, and training. During the reporting period, approximately 2,100 individuals were trained and certified. Additionally, approximately 738 were re -certified through the online program. By making individuals responsible for land disturbance and offering training and information, this program improves awareness and helps ensure proper erosion and sediment control on construction sites. Pr�Jye 21 ViNJcinia Nonpoinf Source Po((ufion ProJcram 2oo4 Annua(�'eporf Oversight of state agency land disturbing activities is another important element of the state's urban nonpoint source programs. During this reporting period, DCR staff completed approximately 180 plan reviews for state agency projects. Staff also completed approximately 350 project inspections covering over 1,200 acres. For transportation projects, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) performed approximately 1,100 inspections based on annual standards and specifications approved by DCR. DCR staff inspected approximately 40 projects in response to complaints and to ensure compliance with the approved standards and specifications. DCR requires standards and specifications be submitted annually for linear projects such as rail, gas pipelines, and power transmission lines. DCR reviews and approves these standards and specifications. In addition, DCR may exercise direct oversight of major projects. For 2004, approximately 35 companies submitted annual standards and specifications for review and approval. Staff also responded to over 900 requests for technical assistance from local governments, state agencies, developers, and citizens. With regard to enforcement and compliance, staff responded to approximately 200 complaints by completing site visits and working with local programs to resolve the complaints. Although reductions have not been calculated, there are direct water quality benefits resulting from actions taken to resolve complaints and ensure compliance with the Law and Regulations. Areas Of Concern: Staff vacancies have impacted field delivery of the program. The Commonwealth continues to evaluate options that might be available to Vase 22 assist in addressing the staff vacancies. Stormwater Manap-ement: The Virginia Stormwater Management (SWM) Program seeks to protect properties and aquatic resources from damages caused by increased volume, frequency and peak rate of stormwater runoff. Further, the program seeks to protect those resources from increased nonpoint source pollution carried by stormwater runoff. SWM programs are implemented according to the Virginia Stormwater Management Law and Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations (VSWML&R). The law is codified at Title 10.1, Chapter 6, Article 1.1 of the Code of Virginia and the Regulations are found at Section 4VAC3-20 of the Virginia Administrative Code. These statutes specifically set forth regulations regarding land development activities to prevent water pollution, stream channel erosion, depletion of groundwater resources, and more frequent localized flooding to protect property value and natural resources. SWM programs operated according to the law are intended to address these adverse impacts and comprehensively manage the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff on a watershed - wide basis. DCR's SWM Program develops technical criteria and policies to support statewide implementation of the program. DCR engineers serve as the approval authority for SWM plans for projects on state and federal lands and inspect these projects to ensure compliance. Staff engineers also help localities, whether or not they have adopted an SWM program in accordance with VSWML&R, by reviewing ordinances and programmatic guidance and providing technical assistance to ensure compliance and to promote innovative, cost-effective solutions for protecting natural resources. The consolidation of the Commonwealth's stormwater management programs into DCR was initiated in the 2004 reporting period. The 2004 Virginia General Assembly unanimously passed House Bill 1177 transferring regulatory authority of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs related to municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) and construction activities from the State Water Control Board to the Soil and Water Conservation Board and transferred oversight of these programs from the Department of Environmental Quality to the Department of Conservation and Recreation. This transfer became effective January 29, 2005. As a result, DCR is responsible for the issuance, denial, revocation, termination and enforcement of NPDES permits for the control of stormwater discharges from MS4s and land disturbing activities under the Virginia Stormwater Management Program. The Department of Environmental Quality continues to manage the remaining NPDES program. The consolidation of the Virginia's stormwater management programs into DCR should streamline program implementation, increase program efficiencies and compliance, build on successful online initiatives, and improve water quality. MONITORING and TRACKING The overall goal of Virginia's nonpoint source pollution monitoring and tracing programs is to support the development, implementation and evaluation of the nonpoint source pollution management program. Monitoring and tracking measure the effectiveness of the management program to ensure that the beneficial uses of Virginia's waters are attained and maintained. This report section includes a summary of monitoring and tracking activities in 2004 for the following programs and projects: • Virginia Adopt -a -Stream Program • Virginia Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Program • GIS and Database Programs p. s � �a 4 ODCR Vir,inia Adopt -A -Stream Program The Virginia Adopt -a -Stream Program (VAASP), is a statewide program aimed at reducing litter while advancing citizen stewardship and understanding of the commonwealth's precious waterways. Adopt -A -Stream promotes education, public outreach, citizen involvement, partnership and community capacity -building through Virginia's diverse constituencies. The waterway cleanups supported by this anti -litter campaign provide a chance for local businesses, civic groups, watershed associations, churches, schools, environmental groups and scouts to work together or separately to do their part. Founded in 1998, VAASP has had 8,135 volunteers from 397 groups participate in the Adopt -A -Stream program. These groups have adopted 687 miles of stream and have removed 7,007 bags of litter since 1998. Objects most commonly recovered include: plastic bottles, aluminum cans, packaged food wrappers, cigarette butts, and other common finds such as tires, furniture and appliances. During 2004, approximately 2,334 VAASP volunteers accomplished the following activities: • 2,334 volunteers collected 2,316 bags of litter. • There were 105 cleanup events, enhancing over 687 shoreline miles. • There were 4 stormdrain stenciling events, stenciling an estimated 148 stormdrains. Virginia Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Program The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) coordinated with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Virginia Save Our Streams (VA SOS) and the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay to sign a revised Letter of Agreement to cooperatively implement the Virginia Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Vi inia NonpoinfSource Polfufion ProJcram 2004Annual1V' Porf Program. This foundational document brings two state agencies and two citizen -monitoring organizations together to actively promote and support citizen efforts to address local water quality issues. In 2004, DEQ reported that 801 volunteers monitored approximately 425 sites, covering at least 1,060 stream miles. Due to the professional nature of these groups, at least 25 training events took place. Citizen - based groups, such as the Virginia Save our Streams and the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay programs, conducted many of these training events. The training sessions resulted in the training and/or re -certifying of 506 citizen volunteers. Of these certified volunteers, 376 were trained in chemical monitoring and the remaining 120 volunteers were trained in detailed benthic macroinvertebrate procedures. With the growth in the number of citizen monitoring groups, data from these groups is becoming even more important in helping to determine the health of Virginia's waters. The data collected in 2004 by citizen monitors identified several areas of concern. The DEQ is currently evaluating these areas to help determine potential follow up monitoring sites. The final follow up monitoring list will be completed in the spring of 2005 and will be used by DEQ to set up monitoring site locations this summer, Virginia Save Our Streams Volunteer Monitoring Program - 2004 Summary Virginia Save Our Streams (VA SOS) continues to conduct statewide trainings for water quality monitoring. VA SOS has been training regional trainers as never before, as these regional volunteers are likely to find local support for their program and are able to provide good support for local VASOS monitors. The number of trainers increased from three regional trainers in 2003 to six in 2004 and VA SOS has at least two more local leaders who will undergo training to Va e 23 Vi yinia Nonpoinf.S°ource Pollufion ProJcram 2004 Annua(9 porf become a regional trainer in 2005.In 2004, VASOS maintained 215 monitoring sites and had 400 certified monitors. In addition, they held 15 general training sessions attended by 120 people. Approximately 18 groups participate with the VASOS monitoring program Areas Of Concern: Concerns are focused on not having the resources to meet the demands for training services. Because of diminished funding, VASOS had to charge for training services. In previous years, when money was not tight, VASOS held at least 40 and sometimes up to 60 training sessions a year. Last year, VASOS held 15 sessions. Another concern has been support from state agencies (DEQ and DCR) in helping VASOS and other volunteer monitoring organizations keep up with the priorities of the state agencies. In the past, both agencies have had at least one employee dedicated to volunteer monitoring activities and the agencies would have meetings every other month with leaders of Volunteer Monitoring Programs to share opportunities and make plans for the future. Staffing and resource limitations have reduced the availability of state assistance. GIS and Database Pro crams In 2004, GIS and technical resources of the Department of Conservation and Recreation continued to be developed and maintained to support the goals and objectives of the 1999 Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program. Staff worked to develop and enhance the various program databases, allowing for an increase in program efficiency and better tracking of participation in department programs. 2004 activities included: Past e 24 • Completed the development of the Virginia portion of the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (NWBD) along with county and city boundaries. • Incorporated detailed imagery into NPS program activities though the delivery of 2002 Virginia Base Map Product imagery programs and equipment to all regional offices. • Continued to provide updated and verified program information to regional and local entities. RESOURCE EXTRACTION The Virginia General Assembly determined that uncontrolled resource extraction activities in VA from mining of coal and non-guel minerals and the extraction of gas and oil, could contribute pollutants to water resources. The Resource Extraction section of the 1999 Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program specified a long-term goal of "Improving surface and ground water quality in watersheds... by reducing NPS pollution associated with abandoned and orphaned resource extraction sites." Virginia's General Assembly enacted reclamation laws in 1968 to minimize the adverse effects of mining on the environment. Legislation was enacted in 1978, which established a non -coal orphaned land reclamation program. This section of the report contains a summary of NPS activities in 2004 from the following program areas: • The Orphaned Lands Program • The Orphaned Well Program • The Abandoned Mine Land Program Ornhaned Land Program The Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME): Division of Mineral Mining (DMM) conducts the states Orphaned Land Program. Techniques for conducting a systematic, comprehensive field inventory of nonpoint sources of pollution on abandoned mineral mines in state watersheds were developed by the DMME. Using the Inventory and Implementation Program, DMME's Orphaned Land NPS Coordinator initiated efforts to reclaim high priority abandoned mineral mine sites in selected watersheds. This initiative is carried out with the agency's Orphaned Land Program. Orphaned lands are areas disturbed by the mining of minerals, not including coal, that were not required by law to be reclaimed or have not been reclaimed. More than 3,000 abandoned mineral mines exist throughout Virginia. Some of these sites may pose significant hazards to the environment and the health and safety of the public. The DMM Orphaned Lands Program has three primary functions: 1) Inspection and survey of abandoned mineral mine sites, 2) Design of reclamation plans for abandoned mine sites, and 3) Administration of contracts, under Virginia procurement law, to construct the reclamation designs. Since 1981, DMM has completed the reclamation of 610 acres of disturbed land at 83 abandoned mine sites in Virginia. The total value of contracts awarded for orphaned mineral mine reclamation is $3,153,707, through fiscal year 2004. There are approximately 3,000- abandoned mineral mine sites in Virginia and DMM has completed inventories on 1,449. The sites occur in all physiographic provinces and some sites were mined prior to the Revolutionary War. In fiscal year 2004, 394 sites were inventoried with the support of Section 319 Funds administered by the Department of Conservation and Recreation and EPA's Superfund Program. The Superfund Program supported an educational program whereby students from the University of Virginia, as part of their course work, inventoried orphaned land sites while gaining valuable field experience in assessing environmental and safety hazards. In fiscal year 2004, five orphaned land sites and four bond forfeiture sites were reclaimed; either directly by DMM or by private and public partnerships with DMM. The total acreage reclaimed was 74 acres for orphaned and bond forfeiture sites. Orphaned Well Program The state's DMME also manages Virginia's Orphaned Well Program, through its Division of Gas and Oil (DGO). The Virginia Gas and Oil Act defines "Orphaned Well" as "...any well abandoned prior to July 1, 1950, or for which no records exist concerning its drilling, plugging or abandonment." The Act establishes The Orphaned Well Fund for the purpose of plugging and restoration of orphaned wells. Money for the fund comes from permit surcharges, which must accompany each application for a new permit. Orphan well sites are prioritized according to their condition and potential threat to public safety and the environment. Those that represent the greatest risk are given the highest priority for plugging and site restoration. DGO has inventoried 120- orphaned well sites. Seven orphaned well sites and five bond forfeiture sites have been reclaimed encompassing 10 acres. In 2004, all known orphaned well sites in the Possum Hollow Creek drainage area in Lee County were plugged. Abandoned Mine Land Program The Division of Mined Land Reclamation (DMLR) conducts an abandoned mine land (AML) reclamation program to reclaim coal mine sties that were abandoned or left inadequately reclaimed before December 15, 1981. Funding for the reclamation comes primarily from the federal Office of Surface Mining (OSM) via reclamation fees paid by the coal industry, although DMLR is realizing success in obtaining non- federal funding for projects. Inventory data show over 58,000 acres of abandoned mine lands in Virginia with an estimated cost to reclaim at $441 million. For 2004, DMLR reclaimed approximately 917 acres of abandoned coalmine lands. Not included in this estimate is the amount of abandoned mine land reclaimed through re -mining. Through this process, active coal operations re - mine abandoned sites and reclaim them to current standards. ViNJcinia Nonpoint Source Pol%ufion ProJcram 2004 Annua(9ZOPorf DMLR does not have quantified data on abandoned land reclaimed through re -mining, but is very confident in stating that re -mining reclaims far more land, especially priority 3 problems, than the federally funded AML reclamation program. During 2004, DMLR accomplished reclamation on 38 abandoned mine land projects. These projects eliminated extreme dangers and adverse human health and safety impacts. Through this reclamation, there is also an environmental benefit. One of the environmental highlights for 2004 was completion of the Ely Creek Acid Mine Drainage Project. Through a partnership with the Army Corps of Engineers, Lee County, LENOWISCO Planning District Commission, DMLR improved 3.5 miles of stream that had been impacted by acid mine drainage. DMLR successfully partnered with a number of stakeholders in 2004 to increase the amount of reclamation accomplished. In addition to the partners noted above, additional partners included The Nature Conservancy, Tennessee Valley Authority, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, local soil and water conservation districts, and local watershed groups. The major concern for abandoned coal mine land reclamation is reauthorization of fee collection to fund reclamation efforts. Fee collection was set to expire September 30, 2004, but a continuing resolution agreed to in Congress extended the fee collection to June 30, 2005. Although the Senate and House of Representatives have taken some actions to reauthorize fee collection, passage of such of bill is not a certainty. PaJc e 25 Vi yinia Nonpoinf.Source Polfufion ProJc ram 2oo4 Annua(1P\o iorf HYDROMODIFICATION Issues relating to instream and riparian habitat, channel stability, aquatic resources, and watershed planning have received increased interest and are developing as focal points for environmental action. Hydrologic modification is considered the alteration of stream flow by human activities. All hydrologic modifications, whether properly or improperly implemented, may result in nonpoint source pollution. The use of coastal nonpoint program funds has provided an opportunity to accomplish several of the activities outlined in the Hydromodification Chapter of the 1999 Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program document. The primary purpose of the Hydromodification Chapter objectives is to improve the design standards, specifications, and implementation of best management practices for stream restoration activities. This includes establishing a work group, developing an in -field stream classification system, and establishing in -stream flows, reference reaches, and technical standards. It has become a priority to minimize the adverse effects of hydrologic modifications on water quality throughout Virginia through the use of proper design methodologies and best management practices. Hydromodif cation Handbook Developed during 2003, The Virginia Stream Restoration and Stabilization BMP Guide was completed and printed in early 2004. PaJc e 26 This manual contains information unavailable in another single document, and covers channel restoration, bank protection, bank stabilization, grade control, and flow deflection/concentration guidelines. 350 copies of the manual were printed and distributed to stream professionals throughout Virginia and to several interested parties outside of the state. For 2005, DCR plans to print more copies of the manual. The manual is also available on DCR's website: www.dcr.virgina.gov. INSTAR INSTAR (INteractive STream Assessment Resource) is an Arc-GIS based tool developed by the Center for Environmental Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University. It incorporates survey data on macroinvertebrates, fish, habitat and geomorphological assessments of randomly selected stream reaches throughout the coastal zone of Virginia. INSTAR allows users to obtain data collected at particular sites, make comparisons between sites or between hydrologic units, calculate reference reach equations, and assess stream health. In 2004, VCU researchers, with cooperation and support from VA- DCR, VA-DEQ, and the Virginia Coastal Program, completed Phase I of the ongoing stream health assessment project. In this phase, a virtual reference stream model for the lower and upper Coastal Zone within the Chesapeake Bay drainage of Virginia was developed. Using a suite of biotic, ecological, and geomorphological assessment tools to facilitate stream classification, the project team established regional stream reference reaches and provided a prioritization scheme for nonpoint source pollution activities in non -tidal coastal zone watersheds. The integration of new and existing data resulted in a database containing more than 12,000 data records from samples including fish, macroinvertebrates, habitat, water quality, and geomorphology collected from approximately 500 sites within sixty-three 14-digit hydrologic units (HUs) across the Chesapeake Bay watershed in Virginia. Built on ESRI's ArcIMS software and supported by three dedicated servers at VCU's Center for Environmental Studies, the current version of INSTAR allows internet- capable users to interact with an extensive database of stream reaches throughout the coastal zone of Virginia. Data included are fish assemblages, macroinvertebrate assemblages, mollusk presence, water quality information, habitat assessments, and geomorphology information. These data are maintained using ESRI's ArcSDE software in a Microsoft SQL database. During phase II of this project, which will run through December 2005, an additional 75 HUs will be sampled within the Coastal Zone, Fall Zone and Piedmont physiographic regions of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including small to medium sized non -tidal and tidal tributaries (3rd to 5th order) Archival data that meets INSTAR's quality control/quality assurance requirements and filters will be combined with the newly collected data and incorporated into the INSTAR application allowing completion of data acquisition and analysis for the Potomac, York and Rappahannock River drainages within Virginia. In addition, two pilot designer "versions" of INSTAR are being developed; one for use by a volunteer stream monitoring group Save Our Streams (SOS) and another for a local jurisdiction in Virginia. A local government outreach and education program is also being undertaken with VA-DCR in order to educate and train local government personnel on the existence and use of the INSTAR application. Phase II has received funding and logistical support from several federal, state, and local agencies and will incorporate and validate a large amount of existing stream data from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and other agencies. GRANTS and TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Virginia has established a mix of regulatory and voluntary approaches that aim to control a changing blend of NPS pollution. Virginia tends to favor, and place greatest reliance on, the voluntary actions of its citizens, to minimize land -disturbing actions that contribute NPS pollution to state waters. Voluntary approaches mean that citizens become informed about NPS pollution through education, and are persuaded and/or motivated to carry out best management practices. Some individuals are motivated by monetary incentives (tax credits, cost sharing assistance, low interest loans, etc.), others may be motivated to preserve natural resources they manage and minimize NPS pollution for the sake of the environment. The "ambassadors" of the conservation message are largely the staff of government agencies and organizations. These professional conservationists most directly interact with farmers, contractors, homeowners and others. Professional staff is more effective at "selling" conservation, and reducing NPS pollution, when they are provided appropriate training and development opportunities. DCR established a partnership of teams that coordinate training and development initiatives. The partnership recognizes the importance of maintaining skilled staff, which are critical to achieving NPS reduction commitments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, with TMDL implementation and obligations relating to impaired waters. COASTAL AND CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAMS The Commonwealth of Virginia has 120 miles of Atlantic Ocean coastline and approximately 2,500 square miles of estuary. In the late 1970's, declining water quality prompted the creation of the multi- state Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). The Chesapeake 2000 Agreement outlines 93 commitments detailing protection and restoration goals critical to the health of the Bay watershed. Reducing nutrient and sediment loads to receiving waters through implementation of tributary strategies remains a high priority for Virginia. Tributary strategies are water quality plans that are cooperatively Vi yinia Nonpoint source Polfution Proqram 2004 Annua[Vvport developed with stakeholders in each river basin. Virginia's Coastal and Chesapeake Bay Programs includes various interagency departments, divisions and projects. These programs are highlighted in this section: • Virginia Coastal Program • Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program • Division of Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance (DCBLA) • Chesapeake Bay Grant Program. Vir,-inia Coastal Pro, -ram The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 established a federal -state partnership program to protect the nation's coastal resources. The Virginia Coastal Program (VCP) was fully approved by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 1986, making the Commonwealth of Virginia eligible for federal funding for coastal resource protection. On June 26, 2002 Governor Mark Warner signed Executive Order Twenty-three, continuing the Virginia Coastal Program through June 2006 and outlined the role of the Virginia DEQ as the lead agency for the program. The DEQ VCP Office coordinates projects and programs with partner resource agencies, focusing on nine core areas: wetlands management, subaqueous lands management, dunes management, coastal lands management, nonpoint source water pollution control, point source water pollution control, point source air pollution control, fisheries management and shoreline sanitation. The VCP receives funding through Section 6217 of the CZMA for nonpoint source pollution control. These funds provide full support for the Virginia Coastal Nonpoint Program, which is administered by the Virginia DCR. Funding also supports several nonpoint source pollution Page 27 Vi yinia Nonpoint Source Po&&on ProJc ram 2oo4 afnnua(9 eoort related projects at the Division of Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance (DCBLA). The Coastal Nonpoint Program and CBLA projects are discussed in further detail elsewhere in this report. The Virginia Coastal Program is also involved in a variety of planning and enforcement projects that improve the commonwealth's ability to manage nonpoint source pollution and support several of the Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program's goals. Virginia's coastal zone contains all 310,813 acres of the commonwealth's tidal wetlands, and 909,097 acres (approximately 80%) of the state's nontidal wetlands. Protection of this resource is an important element of the Coastal Program. Since 1991, the Coastal Program has helped to acquire and preserve 1,802.88 acres of sensitive and significant coastal lands, including wetlands, sand dune systems, lowland and upland riparian buffers, and other wildlife habitat areas. The Virginia Coastal Program is currently preparing an update to its 2006-2011 Coastal Needs Assessment and Strategy Coastal Needs Assessment. Once the assessment is completed, Virginia will submit a report to NOAA outlining the new assessment as well as the strategies that the Coastal Program proposes to address improvements to the coastal areas of high priority need. Coastal Nonpoint Source (CNP) Pollution Control Pro, -ram Virginia's Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program continues to support the implementation of action items contained within the Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program document. Pair e 28 �fi/_ ifs Development and implementation of the coastal nonpoint source pollution control program (coastal nonpoint program) is required by Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. States are required to implement 56 "management measures" within six resource categories. Virginia submitted its program document in 1995 and received conditional approval in 1998. Subsequently, Virginia focused its efforts on meeting the program conditions and received full federal approval of the program in May 2001. Due to these efforts, many of the action items in the Coastal chapter of the 1999 Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program document have been completed. Several projects were completed during this reporting period using fiscal year 2003 and a portion of 2004 Coastal Nonpoint program (CNP) funds. These projects received $580,000 in funding from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Project highlights include: Shellfish Sanitation Program — Funds were provided to the Virginia Department of Health to modernize Virginia's Shellfish Sanitation program. This project translated paper files and maps into a digital format for use in a geographic information system. VDH can now conduct more extensive and efficient program analyses, more accurately update and maintain records, and make better use of mapping formats to convey information to the public. Impacts from Onsite Disposal Systems — This project evaluated the utility of using a fluorometer in an estuarine environment to identify human waste signatures. In field and controlled laboratory, settings, the equipment functioned properly and correctly identified human waste signatures. Based on the success of this project, the VDH decided to incorporate the tool into their Shellfish Sanitation program. Integrated Pest Management — Using information developed from a previous project, this project took five little used or misunderstood practices for corn, soybean, and small grains. Cooperative Extension Service Agents demonstrated these practices at six area farmer field days. Hundreds of farmers attended the large meetings at Virginia Ag Expo and the Tidewater and Eastern Virginia Agricultural Research and Extension Centers' field days. Attendance averaged 55 farmers at the smaller county field days. E 0 E. E. Marinas and Recreational Boating There are approximately 1,000 marinas and 230,000 boaters in the tidal waters of Virginia that share in the scenic beauty, economic benefits and general use of Virginia's waterways. This extensive interaction between users and natural resources increases the potential for negative impacts to water quality from nonpoint sources of pollution. Marina operators can prevent and reduce these potential impacts through a series of best management practices (BMPs). One such program is the Virginia Clean Marina Program. During this period there were many marina sites were visited. To date, there are 20 marinas that have met the minimum criteria and are designated as a "Virginia Clean Marina" and 29 additional marinas have pledged to take the necessary pollution prevention steps to achieve designation. Electronic copies of the Virginia Clean Marina Program's newsletter, Smart Harbors, is available at http://www.vims.edu/adv/vamarina/clean.html and http://www.deq.state.va.us/vacleanmarina/. Efforts relating to clean marina programs continue at all levels. Virginia has promoted the development of clean marina programs regionally and nationally with some success. At the regional level, Virginia has continued to work with Maryland, the National Park Service in Washington, D.C., and Delaware to coordinate our respective programs. CNP Initiatives and Water Qualitv Benefits Since CNP funds are not eligible for construction activities, none of the projects result in direct reductions in sources of nonpoint pollution. However, each project contributes to specific actions that will result in reductions through programmatic changes, staff support, monitoring, and outreach activities. Areas of Concern for CNP Proaram The CNP remains woefully under funded, in fact the CNP has sustained significant funding cuts in FY04 and may have all federal funding cut for FY05. There also seems to be a lack of commitment by the federal agencies to promote CNP implementation. EPA and NOAA need to prepare a strategy for conveying the importance of this program to upper management and the U.S. Congress. Staff in Virginia believe that an appropriate step to implement many of the management measures is to engage local government and provide funds for projects. Concurrently, there is a need to identify state agency program areas where funds can be applied to fill a program gap or enhance program effectiveness. However, to accomplish these objectives, federal funding must Future Actions for CNP Proaram With limited and declining funding levels, the focus of the program over the ensuing year will necessarily be on continuing existing initiatives and managing recently initiated projects. In particular, work will continue related to enhancing hydromodification and stream health outreach and development. As well as on -going Clean Marina support will continue. Division of Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance (DCBLA) The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act was passed in 1988 because nonpoint source pollution related to the use and development of land was a growing concern in Virginia. The Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board and the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department (CBLAD) were created by the act and given authority and direction to develop water quality protection regulations for tidewater Virginia communities. The regulations provide criteria for designating sensitive lands and additional criteria for use by the localities in granting, denying or modifying requests to use and develop land within those designated "Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas." In 2004, the CBLAD was merged with other departments/divisions and became a division of the Department Vi yinia Nonpoinf Source Poffu6on ProJc ram 2004 Annual'R Dorf of Conservation. Now called the Division of Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance (DCBLA), it is Integral to their mission to increase the participation in the Multi -jurisdictional Chesapeake Bay Program and implementation of the Commonwealth of Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and the associated Regulations. In addition to the ongoing functions of providing technical assistance and oversight, the board and division took several important steps to advance the goals of the Bay Act during the period from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2004. Local program revisions to address the amended Bay Act regulations were developed and reviewed, and the first local program reviews for local compliance review were undertaken. During this same period, the program also encountered a number of significant challenges including budget cuts and a merging of the agency in to the Department of Conservation and Recreation, with reductions in staffing at the new Division of Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance. By June 30, 2004, the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board had reviewed 61 of the 84 local Bay Act programs for compliance with the revised Regulations. Compliance Review Procedures The Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board adopted a set of policies and procedures for conducting compliance evaluations of local programs in September 2002. Staff of the division has used the adopted policies and procedures to evaluate implementation of the Bay Act and regulations in 14 of the 84 local programs. This initiative includes a set of checklists to be completed by both the local government program contacts and the department staff, and a series of field investigation reports that will be used to evaluate actual construction sites Page 29 r Vi yinia Nonpoinf Source Pol%u6on TroJc ram .2004 Annua(9,pporf for consistency with the act and regulations. The results of the field investigations have been combined with an analysis of the local program's constituent components (plan review processes, local ordinances and policies, and local program administration) to form an opinion of the program's consistency with the act and regulations. Based on these findings, the division prepares a staff report to the board outlining strengths and weaknesses of the local program, with recommendations for improvement and a timetable for implementation of the recommended programmatic changes. Technical Assistance and Outreach DCBLA continues to maintain an active role in education and outreach to help promote understanding and implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. During this reporting period, DCBLA staff provided information to localities through presentations at regional and local meetings, field investigations, and regular guidance. During April 19-23, 2004, the DCBLA held its 3rd Annual Workshop for local government staff: Perennial Stream Identification Workshop The first day was classroom instruction and the following days were field training within the different localities. A video of the workshop was produced and is available for distribution to local governments for their use in training staff. The Division set up its display booth at both the VDOT's Public Service Day and the Science Museum's "Surf and Turf' event, distributing brochures and pamphlets. Vase 30 The Division continues to make informational material available to the public through our agency website, such as the "Got Buffer?" brochure, guidance letters and the "Riparian Buffers Modification and Mitigation Manual". Additional materials that are planned for the website are the Shorelands Planning project and a Septic Pump -out informational page. DCBLA staff continued participation with other state agency staff on the Virginia Chesapeake Bay Interagency Workgroup, Nonpoint Source Advisory Committee, the Watershed Planning and Permitting Coordination Task Force, the VDOT interagency project review committee, and the Coastal Policy Team, the LID task force and workgroup coordinated by DEQ and the Corps of Engineers, respectively. Activities during this period included assistance with developing LID technical assistance in Virginia, helping to fit LID into the regulatory framework, developing an LID model ordinance and participating in workshops throughout the Commonwealth. Polecat Creek Monitoring Protect - Researchers completed the loth and last year of water quality monitoring for the Polecat Creek project. Funding for the project has been eliminated from DCBLA's budget. Faculty and graduate students of Virginia Tech calibrated monitoring equipment and gathered water chemistry samples from the monitored streams and rain gages, while faculty and staff of Virginia Commonwealth University continued to gather biological samples from the streams. Hydrologic data were prepared and sent to DEQ for refinements of rating curves. Quarterly reports were prepared and submitted to DCR/EPA. DCR senior management is investigating other sources of funding to determine if the project can be continued. During the next fiscal year, the analytical results will be integrated with those of the previous years and a final project report will be developed. As well, the physical monitoring stations will be dismantled and the monitoring sites restored to their natural conditions. These activities will conclude the Droiect. State Response to the Chesapeake Bay Program Staff has continued to be involved in the various activities of the interstate Chesapeake Bay Program. This involvement includes participation in the monthly meetings of the Land Growth and Stewardship Subcommittee (LGSS), the Development, Redevelopment and Revitalization Workgroup and the Watershed Assistance Workgroup (WAWG) and the Forestry Workgroup, the Nutrients Subcommittee, and the Urban Stormwater Workgroup. As members of the WAWG, DCBLA is playing a key role in the planning and development of a workshop that addresses the integration of land use planning and watershed management planning in Virginia. DCBLA staff have also represented Virginia on several Bay Program grant review committees. DCBLA staff has also played a vital role in the Tributary Strategy process. Each staff liaison attends the tributary strategy meetings within their region and serves as Co -leaders with other DCR staff. Other DCBLA staff members serve on the Tributary Steering Committee and provide input on nonpoint source issues and local government practices, in particular. Better Land Use Planning "Better Land Use Planning in Coastal Virginia", an exploratory paper and separate brochure, was developed in 2004. This document provides a brief introduction to the development pressures facing coastal Virginia and background on some of the coast's most critical natural resources. The bulk of the document is dedicated to exploring how regional, neighborhood, and site planning can help reduce the impacts of coastal development. Case studies are provided to demonstrate how many of these innovative land use -planning ideas are already being implemented by coastal Virginia communities. The document concludes with general recommendations for implementing better coastal development through amendments to local land use planning documents including comprehensive plans and zoning and subdivision ordinances. Both the brochure and exploratory paper are available to the general public as an Adobe Acrobat document at http://www.cblad.virginia.gov/program.cfm Chesapeake Bay Grant Prozram This year, DCR awarded approximately $500,000 to local governments, non-profit organizations and conservation districts, for low impact development and innovative urban BMP projects that result in long term or permanent reductions in nonpoint source pollution. All funded projects were required to support at least one specific objective within the Chesapeake 2000 Bay Agreement commitments under Development, Redevelopment and Revitalization (Section 4.2). DCR's interest was to fund projects that exceeded the minimum expectations required by law such as changes to plans for a new development to incorporate LID practices or the establishment of structures, features, or programs on existing developed lands that result in increased NPS pollution reductions. Through a competitive request for proposals process, a total of eighteen projects were selected and offered funding awards. Five Government By Example retrofit projects to incorporate LID into the existing sites were funded including the Northern Neck Planning District Commission office complex, City of Falls Church locations at City Hall and the City Property Yard, Fairfax County Providence Board of Supervisor's Office, Rappahannock County Elementary School, and Gloucester County's Public Library and Main Post Office in the Old Fox Mill Shopping Center. Four demonstration green roof projects ranging from 2,500 to 10,000 square feet were funded including the James Madison University Edith J. Carier Arboretum Environmental Education Center, the City of Alexandria's Health Department building, Albemarle County office building in Charlottesville, and a commercial site in the Richmond metropolitan area being coordinated by the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. Six projects were funded that influence the incorporation LID practices into new or redevelopment sites. These sites include the 15.6- acre St. Louis Catholic Church and School, a 240-acre new subdivision in Greene County, the 2-acre City of Richmond Intermediate Terminal redevelopment, a 13-acre Charlottesville Waldorf Foundation school site, up to four proposed or approved development sites in the Town of Orange, and a 80-acres waterfront property on Scott's Creek in cooperation with the Elizabeth River Project. VirJc inia Atonpoinf Source Volfufion VroJc ram 2004 Annua(9, porf Other projects included establishing an LID monitoring project at Longwood University to evaluate infiltration and runoff characteristics within Gross Creek, and two bioretention demonstration sites in the Shenandoah Valley. Additional information on the projects funded through the DCR Chesapeake Bay Grants Program is available on the DCR grants web page, www.dcr.virginia.gov/sw/grants. STATEWIDE PROGRAMS/ INTIATIVES NPS Pollution Education In cooperation with Virginia Cooperative Extension and local soil and water conservation districts, DCR conducts an active educational program on nonpoint source (NPS) pollution management. Annual mini - grant program funds area field days, field demonstrations, tours, workshops and other events that promote the implementation of best management practices that protect water quality. The purpose of these events is to demonstrate the latest technology and methods that reduce polluted runoff from farm and urban settings. Each year more than 4,000 farmers and land managers who impact more than 300,000 acres of crop, forest and urban land participate in this educational outreach effort. Vaye 31 Vi yinia Nonpoint Source Po&u6on ProJr, ram 2004 Annff(&R Pori Virginia Outdoor Foundation Conservation Easements The Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF) recorded a record number of conservation easements in 2004. Last year the foundation protected 41,603 acres of cultural and natural resource lands through the use of conservation easements including the first VOF easements in Amelia, Charlotte, Lunenburg, Mathews, and Roanoke. VOF conservation easements now protect 288,893 acres in 87 counties across the Commonwealth. Easements are a voluntary way to permanently protect land and are tailored to individual properties. State tax incentives have increased the benefits of gifts of easement, especially for landowners of modest means. Conservation easements guarantee that a property will be protected from development while keeping the land in private ownership. For more information on conservation easements and other land protection options, contact the Virginia Outdoors Foundation at 804- 225-2147 and at: www.virginiaoutdoorsfoundation.org Virzinia Conservation Lands Needs Assessment The Virginia Conservation Lands Needs Assessment (VCLNA) will be a flexible, widely applicable tool for integrating and coordinating the needs and strategies of different conservation interests, using GIS to model and map land conservation priorities and actions in Virginia. The VCLNA allows the manipulation of issue -specific data sets that can be weighted and overlaid to reflect the needs and concerns of a variety conservation partners — issues like: • Water quality improvement • Unfragmented natural habitats • Natural heritage resources • Outdoor recreation • Prime agricultural lands • Cultural and historic resources Sustainable forestry Drinking water protection DCR, with funding assistance from the DEQ's Virginia Coastal Program, the Chesapeake Bay Program, the VA DOF, and the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation, has completed the first phase of this effort — preparation of a Natural Landscape Assessment for Virginia's Coastal Zone. The VCLNA Natural Landscape Assessment (NLA) uses GIS technology to identify and prioritize natural lands and the habitat corridors necessary to support and enhance them. Primary focus of the NLA is ecological prioritization - Which are the most important natural, unfragmented lands, based on considerations of biological and ecological value and integrity? Products prepared for the Coastal Zone include atlases with maps interfacing the NLA with geospatial datasets showing areas of high development pressure, protected lands, and natural heritage resource sites. These atlases, as well as CDs containing VCLNA GIS data and models, have been widely distributed to coastal zone localities and Planning District Commissions as well as to land trusts and other conservation organizations and agencies statewide. In the next year, DCR will work to further expand the VCLNA-NLA. use are: • Targeting — to identify targets for protection activities such as conservation land purchase or easements. Prioritizing — to provide primary or additional justification for key conservation land purchases and other protection activities. Local planning — guidance for comprehensive planning and local ordinance and zoning development. Assessment — to review proposed projects for potential impacts to cores and other NLA features. Land management — to guide property owners and public and private land managers in making land management decisions that enhance ecological values. Public education — to inform the citizenry about the patterns and extent of habitat fragmentation. The Natural Landscape Assessment (NLA), though a fundamental complement to other conservation interests and needs, considers only a subset of the many issues that can determine the importance of a specific property. DCR has begun assembling the additional GIS datasets that are needed to make the VCLNA a comprehensive tool for the varied needs of all of Virginia's conservation partners. A priority will be acquisition and integration of datasets that serve to identify areas of the landscape that, through current land use and physiographic characteristics, have the greatest potential for affecting water quality. DCR will be working to apply and extend the Chesapeake Bay Program's Water Quality Protection Model as well as additional GIS models and data developed for the Resource Lands Assessment. DCR will also continue to work with Virginia Commonwealth University's Center for Environmental Studies to integrate VCLNA with their INSTAR application addressing aquatic resources. More information on VCLNA is available at the following website: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/dnh/vclna.htm Ground Water Protection The DEQ's Office of Ground Water Protection carried out the varied and successful activities supported by the Federal Clean Water Act Section 106 Ground Water Protection grant. DEQ provided funding to the Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission to support a Household Hazardous Waste Disposal Project. 4,260 pounds of waste were collected and properly disposed of by Care Environmental, Inc. DEQ also supported DCR's Karst Program through a small grant for Project Underground activities. Additionally, funds were earmarked for five Ground Water Festivals. These festivals are a continuing tradition with DEQ and their cooperators, are very popular with teachers and students alike, and are an excellent venue to teach Virginians about ground water resource protection and nonpoint source pollution impacts. For more information on DEQ's Ground Water Protection program contact Mary Ann Massie at mamassie(o�deq.virginia.gov Virginia's Karst Prollrram The Virginia Karst Groundwater Protection Program is funded by a Section 319 grant and managed by DCR's Division of Natural Heritage (DCR-DNH). The Karst Program works with groundwater and nonpoint source pollution problems in the 27- karst counties of Virginia. In 2004, the Karst Program continued to address the special nonpoint source pollution issues associated with the karst topography of Virginia's western counties. Dissolution over geologic time of limestone and dolostone has produced a karst landscape characterized by sinkholes, sinking streams, caves, and large springs. The interaction of surface and groundwater make such areas susceptible to water quality impairments, flooding, land surface collapse, and degradation of natural heritage resources. Land development, agricultural practices, on -site waste disposal, and highway operations all contribute to the NPS contamination of karst aquifers. A major goal for 2004 was the further development of conservation sites for Virginia's significant caves and rare cave fauna. Karst Program staff continued to work with the Virginia Cave Board and Virginia Speleological Survey to develop GIS- based conservation sites for Virginia's Designated Significant Caves. Most of these caves are hydrologically significant, in which case conservation sites correspond to watersheds. To date, approximately 1/3 of Virginia's nearly 400 significant caves are incorporated into conservation sites. Defined as the land areas where disturbance could impact a group of related natural heritage resources, conservation sites have no legal status. Instead, they are screening tools used to prioritize conservation efforts and to alert state environmental review staff to potential impacts. Heritage staff works cooperatively with private citizens, developers, and other agencies to avoid or mitigate these impacts, protecting both water quality and habitat. For cave conservation sites, dye trace studies are commonly required to determine the watershed of the cave. Due to of funding reductions within both the karst program and the VirJc inia Nonpoinf Source Pof%ufion ProJc ram 2004 Annual `%' Mori Cave Conservancy of the Virginias, the focus of conservation site work in 2004 was shifted from the delineation of new conservation sites to the prioritization and description of existing sites. The main results of this work were 1) the development of 381 polygons representing the locations of significant caves and other caves with significant biological resources, 2) the compilation of 200 surrogate conservation sites for project screening, 3) the prioritization of both the conservation sites and surrogate conservation sites through assignment of biodiversity rankings, and 4) the creation of six new conservation sites encompassing an additional 15 significant caves. The total number of conservation sites is now 72, encompassing 151 caves. The other 230 caves are covered by the surrogate sites, which will be replaced with conservation sites as they are developed. Of the 361 designated significant caves and additional approximately 20 caves containing documented natural heritage resources, 151 have been incorporated into conservation sites, representing about 40% of these caves. It should be noted that the 381 caves represent less than 10% of the total number of documented caves in Virginia. As new caves are found and known caves are more thoroughly studied, the number of significant caves and caves with natural heritage resources will grow. Estimating the percentage of karst watersheds delineated via dye tracing is more difficult. Certainly, the number is less than ten percent. Completion of the Karst Hydrology Atlas during 2005 will allow an accurate estimate to be made and will facilitate prioritization of future efforts to match areas with largest data gaps and greatest conservation need. Another data development goal of 2004 was to research the behavior of nutrients applied on croplands near Vac e 33 ViNJc initi Nonpoid Source Polfu6on Pro"M 2004 AMM(Peporf sinkholes so that meaningful nutrient management BMPs could be developed. Karst program staff helped to form an interdisciplinary team consisting of geologists and soil scientists at Virginia Tech and from the USDA to investigate this problem, and helped develop a proposal to USDA to fund the research. Unfortunately, the proposal was not funded in 2004. Staff will continue to pursue funding sources for this project in 2005. Another goal of 2004 was the better integration of karst-specific BMPs into the stormwater management program. Karst program staff worked with localities, including Pearisburg, Wytheville, Pulaski, and Warren County, on stormwater management issues in karst. In October, a public meeting was held in cooperation with Warren County and the Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District to present the results of a four-year study of the Cedarville Enterprise Zone, which focused on the fate of stormwater discharged into the karst aquifer. In the karst program's longest continuing environmental response project, staff leads an interagency effort to restore water quality to Batie Springs, in Lee County. The restoration of the Batie Creek Watershed continued during 2004, as accumulations of sawdust that had generated toxic leachate were removed and applied with lime and fertilizer as a beneficial soil amendment on nearby coal mine reclamation projects. This multi -year project has been the result of the combined efforts of DCR, DMME, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Tennessee Valley Authority, Curtis Russell Lumber Company, and the Cave Conservancy of the Virginias. Dissolved oxygen levels, for which Batie Creek has been listed on the 303d list of impaired streams, have returned to normal from near zero values in the mid-1990s, and the Lee Va e 34 County Isopod (Lirceus usdagalun), listed as Endangered due to its extirpation from the cave in the late 1980's, has returned, though not yet to pre -impairment population levels. In other projects related to streams on the 303d list, karst program staff continues to work with DEQ staff and private contractors on a case -by -case basis to ensure that karst issues are considered during TMDL development. Karst program staff visited Beaver Creek Spring in Rockingham County during 2004, and will be assisting DEQ in determining the watershed for the spring. The Karst Program continues to screen up to several hundred projects proposed for karst terrain each year for potential environmental impacts. During 2004, projects included utility corridors, residential subdivisions, industrial developments, and numerous Virginia Department of Transportation projects. A particularly important project that began in 2004 is the compilation of the Virginia Karst Hydrology Atlas, a web -based GIS resource through which the majority of data on karst hydrology in Virginia will be available to citizens, local governments, agency staff, and consultants. Although such documents are typically published in hard copy, the digital only Virginia Karst Hydrology Atlas will be updated continuously as new findings are made and new areas are studied, dramatically increasing its value. Education and outreach efforts during 2004 helped thousands of Virginians learn how to better protect their karst water resources. Eleven Project Underground workshops, attended by a total of 158 teachers, where held in 2004. These teachers will reach over 4,700 students with karst education information. The Karst Education Coordinator participated in five additional events that reached a more varied audience, and continued to serve in a leadership role on the Virginia Resource Use Education Committee. Staff led a session on "Karst Education" at the eastern regional meeting of the National Association of Science Teachers, held in Richmond in December. Staff is working on the development of a new lesson on karst features and topographic maps that would teach students about karst hydrology while addressing the Virginia Standards of Learning. Other activities of the Karst Program during 2004 included participation in the Great Valley Water Forum, which addresses both water quality and supply problems associated with the rapidly developing northern Shenandoah Valley; partnership with the USGS in the identification of springs in western Virginia for age dating; and the karst biota inventory of the Rye Cove area of Scott County, where expansion of the Kingsport, TN metropolitan area threatens to impact a karst system that hosts a wide range of globally rare fauna, including the endemic Rye Cove Cave Isopod (Lirceus culveri). Karst Program Recommendations Two things would greatly enhance the effectiveness of the karst program. Increased funding levels to support the delineation of new conservation sites and research on the behavior of nutrients applied on croplands near sinkholes so that meaningful nutrient management BMPs could be developed. During 2005, the Karst Program will continue to pursue the several long-term projects outlined in this report, while responding to citizen requests and to potential impacts to karst aquifers that are identified through the environmental project review office in DCR's Natural Heritage Program. Major goals for 2005 include the better integration of karst protection into stormwater management BMP's, the launching of the Virginia Karst Hydrology Atlas website, continued delivery of Project Underground Workshops, development of new Project Underground lessons, and an increase in the number of karst watershed and conservation site delineations through dye tracing. This last, very important item is largely dependent upon the level of funding available through our program and through conservation partners. Floodplain Manazement Pro;aram The Floodplain Management Program of DCR supports all efforts that promote sound floodplain management practices. This includes federal state and local initiatives, and specifically, the efforts of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). For flood insurance to be available through the NFIP, the Commonwealth of Virginia and individual localities must agree to participate in sound floodplain management activities that meet the minimum standards of the NFIP and its regulations. Local governments must adopt a NFIP compliant regulation and commit to its enforcement. There are 270 communities that currently participate in the NFIP; 16 local governments do not participate. The number of new NFIP communities has not changed since 2002. DCR's Floodplain Management Program staff provides leadership, training and technical assistance to local governments to ensure that local floodplain programs meet or exceed the minimum standards of the NFIP. The program also supports all floodplain management initiatives within the Commonwealth, including initiatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NRCS Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program; and the following FEMA program's: Community Assistance Program (CAP), Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Community Rating System (CRS), Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMAP), and Cooperative Technical Partnerships (mapping initiative). During 2004, the Program was able to: • Conduct Forty-two (42) Community Assistance Visits (detailed evaluations of local floodplain programs and ordinance enforcement); • Conduct eighteen (18) Community Assistance Contacts (evaluations of local floodplain programs and ordinance enforcement performed on the phone); • Conduct twenty-seven (27) Planning and Technical Assistance Visits (site visits to assist community officials and/or citizens with interpretation of floodplain ordinance or NFIP regulations); • Prepared two major program guidance plans for the next five years that were required by FEMA for program elements — one plan was for implementation of a statewide floodplain mapping initiative and the other was a strategy to enhance current operations in providing assistance to communities for compliance; • Respond to 291 technical and planning assistance requests from community officials and citizens, consultants, and state officials; • Conduct and participate in twenty (20) training workshops and conferences on floodplain management; and • Review over 70 applications under the 401/404 Joint Permit Application process and VDOT's interagency coordination process. During this period of time, there was one staff vacancy in DCR's Vi inia NonpoinfSource Pof& on ProJcram 2004 Annua[9 prf Floodplain Management Program for about a four -month period, which had an impact on the number of technical and planning assistance contacts and visits, and the number of permit applications that program staff was able to conduct. The impact of this vacancy was compounded by the necessity for staff to respond to the flooding that resulted from Tropical Storm Gaston in the Richmond Metro Area. '7�V7`Y�Z Ac7-90NS The considerable number of impaired waters and the challenge of restoring the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries represent major challenges for the Commonwealth of Virginia. In addition, issues related to funding availability and flexibility will continue to present a challenge during the ensuing year and beyond. In the long- term, meeting the water quality challenges facing the commonwealth will require new levels of funding and new thinking about how to reduce the water quality impacts of land development. For the future, Virginia has established the goal of partially or fully restoring 11 waterbodies by 2012. For the ensuing year, the focus will remain on implementation of the priority elements of the Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program, Chesapeake Bay restorations, and the implementation of corrective actions plans in impaired streams. With unprecedented levels of state funding in 2005, the commonwealth is poised to make significant progress in meeting water quality challenges. 'Pay 35 • f f DCR Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation State Parks • Soil & Water Conservation • Natural Henrige Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance • Land Conservation Outdoor Recreation Planning • Dam Safety & Floodplains RESOUArl- EX MA C T1 ON LONG- TERM GOAL (15 YEARS To improve surface and ground water quality in watersheds throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia by reducing nonpoint source pollution associated with abandoned and orphaned resource extraction sites in 20 - 25 sub -watersheds for the purpose of obtaining designated uses. This can be accomplished through proper site planning, implementation of best management practices, acid mine drainage remediation and land reclamation activities in associated high priority watersheds or areas with identified impaired stream segments. INTRODUCTION The Virginia General Assembly determined that uncontrolled resource extraction activities in Virginia, from the mining of coal and non -fuel minerals and the extraction of gas and oil, can contribute several pollutants to water resources. Legislation was passed to regulate these activities. Discussion of these laws will follow. Resource extraction activities are broken into three subcategories; coal mining, gas and oil, and mineral mining. The pollutants associated with each are as follows: Coal Mining: ground water impacts, heavy metal contamination, manganese, iron, sulfate, total suspended solids (TSS), acid mine drainage, erosion and sediment, and impacts on biota; RESOURCE EXTRACTION Gas and Oil: ground water impacts, TSS, erosion from land disturbance, and impacts from access roads; and Mineral Mining: ground water impacts, total suspended solids (TSS), acid mine drainage, erosion and sediment, impacts on biota, heavy metal contamination, and pH levels (ambient as well as site discharge). Additionally, material exposed by mining may also react with air contributing to acid mine drainage. On all active mining sites, all water discharges (including surface and ground water discharges) mustflowthrough a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System VlrgXi,4 Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program (NPDES) permitted discharge point, and is by definition a point source, and therefore, not a factor in the Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution Management Program. No point source discharges are allowed from gas or oil well sites in Virginia. Operators of active mines and well sites are required by state law to implement management practices that control the release of sediment from the site and meet current state and federal effluent standards for point source discharges. These active sites also must be reclaimed to a stable condition once the resource extraction activity is complete. However, many resource extraction sites ceased operation before laws requiring reclamation existed, and fall into the realm of NPS pollution. Water quality issues are addressed through a permit process requiring that a performance bond be furnished by the permittee to insure that final reclamation of the mine or well site is completed. The permit process for all resource extraction sites requires the operators to submit an Operation and Reclamation Plan as an integral part of the permit application. The Operation and Reclamation Plan consists of four major elements: • a description of the method of operation; • a description of the drainage system with appropriate design data; • a reclamation schedule including a description of intended use; and • maps illustrating the total area to be permitted. The Operation and Reclamation Plan must be designed to minimize the adverse effects on the environment and to facilitate integration of reclamation with the mining operation. All sites with active ground disturbances are inspected for reclamation at least twice annually to ensure compliance with state laws and regulations. The focus of this chapter is the NPS pollution associated with resource extraction activities that arises from abandoned coal operations, orphaned mineral mines, and gas or oil well sites. These sites were not subject to current regulatory requirements and operated without having to meet the NPDES effluent standards. Abandoned and orphaned sites can remain unvegetated for 100 years after extraction activities have ceased and represent the primary source of NPS pollution from mineral, gas and coal extraction. The definition of abandoned mines refers to coal mines abandoned prior to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977. Orphaned mineral mines are defined as those areas disturbed by the mining of minerals, not including coal, which were not required by law to be reclaimed or have not been reclaimed. Orphaned wells are those gas or oil wells that were abandoned prior to the enactment of current laws requiring reclamation. The potential for NPS pollution impacts of abandoned and orphaned mines on state waters is significant. Erosion and sedimentation can destroy aquatic habitat and ruin stream channels. Acid mine drainage (low ph), and the corresponding heavy metal contamination, can significantly impair the ability of a stream to support biota, killing plants and animals that cannot withstand low pH levels. Ground water contamination from abandoned and orphaned mines and wells is also a concern due to fracturing and open pathways for pollutants to enter an underground aquifer. These impacts are remediated through reclamation activities on nonpermitted sites. ISSUE I DEI UTI FI CA TION & PROGRAM ASSESSMENT This section describes the regulatory process, reclamation, research education and technical assistance, and funding needs regarding NPS issues and the programs in place to address the issues. The Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy (is the primary state agency that regulates the resource extraction industry in Virginia. The DMME's Divisions of Mined Land Reclamation, Gas and Oil, and Mineral Mining deal directly with NPS pollution by conducting reclamation activities. There are five categories of prioritization that define the degree of hazard to human health and safety, and impacts to the environment from abandoned coal mine lands (AML). The most serious AML problems are those posing a threat to health, safety and general welfare of the people and are considered to be "high priority." These are categorized as Priority 1 and 2. States are required by federal law to reclaim these two types before moving to lower priorities. Problems associated RESOURCE EXTRACTION VirgXi 2 honpoint Source Pollution Management Program with Priority 1 and 2 sites include clogged streams, dangerous impoundments, hazardous recreational water body, and polluted water for agricultural, industrial or human consumption. The Priority 3 designation focuses on problems known to be associated with the environment and includes waste dumps, equipment and facilities, haul roads, slurry, and runoff. Priority 4 problems include the adverse effects of coal SOURCE CA TEGORIFS mining practices on the protection, repair, replacement, construction, or enhancement of public facilities such as utilities, roads, recreation, and conservation facilities. Priority 5 involves the development of publicly owned land adversely affected by coal mining practices, including land acquired as provided in SMCRA for recreation and historic purposes, conservation, reclamation and open space benefits. INACTIVE SITES SOURCE CATEGORY POLLUTANT CATEGORY TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS HEAVY METALS LOW pH LEVELS Gas and Oil ✓ Mineral Mining ✓ ✓ ✓ Coal Mining ✓ ✓ ✓ Regulatory Process DMME Division of Mined Land Reclamation DMME's Division of Mined Land Reclamation (DMLR) administers the state law and regulations pertaining to coal surface mining reclamation and related water quality issues in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The primary law regulating these activities is Virginia's Coal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, Chapter 19 of Title 45.1 of the Code of Virginia, and attendant regulations. At present, there are approximately 60,000 acres under permit on 657 coal mines in southwest Virginia. The main issues with coal mining are total suspended solids (TSS), heavy metal contamination (manganese, iron, sulfate) and impacts on biota from low pH levels due to acid mine drainage. Each permit includes standards for ground water protection, water quality, public notification, and soil and erosion control. DMLR conducts regular inspections to determine compliance during site construction, production, reclamation and final abandonment. Production records are submitted and maintained at the DMLR office. DMME Division of Gas and Oil The authority to manage the gas and oil industry is found in Virginia's Gas and Oil Act, Chapter 22.1 of Title 45.1 of the Code of Virginia, and attendant regulations. This legislation requires that each gas and oil operation meet standards for environmental protection, public safety, and resource conservation. The DGO regulates permitting, development, operation and reclamation of gas wells, oil wells, gathering pipelines, compressor stations, and associated facilities. The main NPS pollution issues for gas and oil well are groundwater impacts and TSS from land disturbance erosion, and impacts from access roads. Each operating permit includes standards for RESOURCEEXTR cno Virgih'iid Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program groundwater protection, water quality, public notification, and soil and erosion control. DGO conducts regular inspections to determine compliance during site construction, drilling, production, reclamation and final abandonment. Production records are also submitted and maintained at the DGO office. At the end of 1998 Virginia had 1,036 conventional wells, 1,342 coal bed methane wells and 10 wells permitted for both conventional and coal bed methane production in southwest Virginia. DMME Division of Mineral Mining DMME's Division of Mineral Mining (DMM) provides for the safe and environmentally sound production of Virginia's non -fuel minerals. The primary law regulating these activities is the Mineral Mining Law, Chapter 16 of Title 45.1 of the Code of Virginia, and attendant regulations. Statewide, there are 493 non -fuel mines covering approximately 68,000 acres that are permitted and inspected by the DMM. These include quarries, sand and gravel pits, and other surface and underground mining operations. The main NPS pollution issues for mineral mining are TSS, heavy metal contamination and low pH levels from acid mine drainage. Mineral mining operations are not clustered in any one area but located throughout Virginia. A large portion of the minerals mined in Virginia are extracted for the construction of roads and commercial and residential buildings. Additionally, other minerals are used for agriculture, high temperature ceramics and glass making. Department of Environmental Quality Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regulations require all owners and operators of nonmetallic mining operations to apply for coverage under a Virginia Pollution Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) General Permit Regulation for Nonmetallic Mining (VR 680-14-21). The general permit covers processed water and mine pit dewatering associated with activities classified as nonmetallic mining industry. The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements set forth in the general permit include monthly measurements of the average and maximum point source flow and testing the effluent for total suspended solids (TSS) and pH from a grab sample once every three months. The DEQ director may require every permittee to conduct additional water quality monitoring to determine the effect of the pollutant(s) on the water quality, to prevent pollution of state waters and to satisfy the requirements of the Virginia State Water Control Law, the Clean Water Act and other DEQ regulations. Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department The Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department (CBLAD) provides assistance to 84 Tidewater local governments in developing, adopting and implementing local programs to protect water quality through the Virginia Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (the Act - §10.1 - 2100 et seq., Code of Virginia) and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations (9 VAC 10-20-10 et seq., Virginia Administrative Code). The local Bay Act regulations supplement existing land use ordinance requirements and include the requirement for designation of Resource Protection Areas along tidal shorelines, tributary streams, and tidal and nontidal wetlands. Land use in the RPAs is limited to water dependent facilities and redevelopment activities. Any other activities, such as mining operations, are not permitted by right in the RPA and such land uses should be considered by the local government on a case -by - case basis. Virginia Marine Resources Commission Submerged Lands Management Program (Sec. 28-2-1200 through 28.2-1213 of the Code of Virginia) The Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) administers the Submerged Lands Permitting Program throughout the state. In non -tidal areas this program includes waterways with flows greater than five cubic feet per second (CFS) or drainage areas greater than five square miles. Permits are issued through a joint permit review process involving local, state and federal agencies. Permits are reviewed based on compliance with statutory requirements and Subaqueous Guidelines as well as technical assistance provided by cooperating state and RESOURCE EXTRACTION VirgAd honpoint Source Pollution Management Program federal agencies. Technical assistance comments are received from DEQ, DCR, Department of Health (VDH), and DGIF. Impacts on water quality, water quantity, habitat and aquatic resources, as well as affects on adjacent properties, are considered during permit review. BMPs are included in permits when applicable, as are requirements for minimum flows and provisions for continued fish passage. When applicable, permits can also require compliance with erosion and sediment control practices described in the 1992 Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. Local Governments Local governments are responsible for developing and implementing comprehensive plans and local growth strategies. As such, the local jurisdictions are responsible for ensuring that mining operations are compatible with current and future land use. Local governments have a variety of options through local ordinances and codes to address compatible land use, water quality issues and erosion and sediment control. The Richmond Regional Planning District Commission (RRPDC) presented an analysis of local government management considerations for borrow pit operations for the Richmond area in the report Sand and Gravel Resources: Local Options for Protection and Regulation (November, 1989). The report presents five options available to localities to regulate sand and gravel operations through zoning: • prohibit sand and gravel mining in all or parts of the jurisdiction; • include sand and gravel mining as a permitted use in one or more existing zoning districts; • establish a surface mining district; • create a mining overlay district; and • allow mining in one or more existing zoning districts by the use of special zoning such as a special exception or conditional use permit. Special conditions are typically placed on the mining operation based on issues and concerns raised about each particular site. The Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC) has presented a similar analysis in the report Borrow Pit Management Strategy Study (January, 1996). Ad -Hoc Remining Task Force Reclamation of abandoned coal mines could be greatly accelerated through remining. Currently, DMLR is working with EPA through the Interstate Mining Compact Commission ([MCC) Remining Task Force to develop best management practices (BMPs) on remining coal mine sites that have existing acid mine drainage (AMD). The goal of the Remining Task Force is to have the effluent limitations on these sites reduced or eliminated if BMPs are implemented. At this time, Virginia is supplying data to EPA that shows BMPs are successful in the reduction of AMD discharge if they are properly installed. The goal of the project is to encourage operators to remine areas that they would not otherwise mine because of an AMD problem. The implementation of a BMP, or suite of BMPs would replace the effluent numeric limits. EPA has agreed that the NPDES regulating authority in each state may implement an experimental program to use BMPs for gathering data for a regulation change that EPA is considering. Reclamation DMME Division of Mined Land Reclamation The Division of Mined Land Reclamation (DMLR) administers the state law and regulations pertaining to coal surface mining and reclamation and related water quality issues in the Commonwealth of Virginia. DMLR's Abandoned Mine Land Section (AML) reclaims mines abandoned prior to the Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. Funds for reclamation projects come from a per -ton tax paid by coal mine operators. The AML program has reclaimed hundreds of abandoned sites at a cost of approximately $57 million since the program started in 1981. These sites have featured problems such as dangerous highwalls, landslide -prone areas, abandoned mine openings, burning refuse, hazardous structures, and mine subsidence. The Abandoned Mined Land (AML) Program in Virginia prioritizes abandoned coal mine sites for reclamation. There are five priority classifications with Priority 1 RESOURCE EXTRACTION Virgma Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program being the highest. First consideration is given to Priority 1 or 2 sites where public health and safety and the general welfare are endangered from the abandoned sites. States are required by law to reclaim all sites classified as Priority 1 or 2 before reclaiming Priority 3, 4, and 5 sites. Virginia's AML Inventory has identified 400 high priority problem areas. A problem area may have several features. Using inventory data on the total estimate to reclaim Priority 1, 2, and 3 problem areas and the amount already expended, it would take DMLR 128 years to reclaim all of the problems areas. This figure is skewed, however, by the amount of money required to reclaim Priority 3 (environmental hazard) areas, some of which could be reclaimed through remining. Omitting Priority 3 sites, it will take 50 years to complete the reclamation of Priority 1 and 2 problems at the current level of funding. DMME Division of Mineral Mining The enactment of non -fuel mine safety and reclamation laws recognized that, while providing needed resources for development, uncontrolled mining could result in safety and environmental hazards. Virginia's Orphaned Land Program was enacted in 1978 to alleviate the environmental and public health and safety hazards associated with abandoned mineral mine sites. The Orphaned Land Advisory Committee is composed of individuals from DMM, mineral mining industry, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VPI&SU), the Virginia Department of Transportation, DEQ, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, private citizens, and the Virginia Aggregates Association. This Committee assists DMM in evaluating sites and prioritizing reclamation activity. There are approximately 3,000 orphaned mineral mines throughout Virginia. To date, 73 reclamation projects have been completed encompassing 560 acres of eroded and unstable lands at a cost of $2.25 million. In 1996 a new protocol was developed to inventory orphaned mineral mines identified as DCR NIPS pollution high priority watershed designations. The intent is to integrate orphaned mineral mines data into the NIPS pollution prioritization system along with agriculture, urban development and forestry data. Approximately three to six sites are reclaimed annually. DMME Division of Gas and Oil The Virginia Gas and Oil Act established Virginia's orphaned well program. The program requires a $50 payment for every permit application submitted. These fees are placed into a fund, which is used to plug and reclaim the orphaned well sites. Currently, Virginia has identified approximately 70 orphaned wells. 1999 is the first year the DGO has been able to plug orphaned wells. To date, three have been completed at a cost of $51,000. Wells are plugged to prevent oil or gas from migrating into water zones, mines, caverns, and to prevent interaction with drinking water supplies. Research, Education and Technical Assistance Virginia Cooperative Extension Virginia Cooperative Extension (VCE) is involved in resource extraction pollution remediation through its Powell River Project. This is an applied research project and education effort of VCE to benefit the people, industries and governments of the Virginia coal region. The Powell River Project team sponsors and conducts research that develops cost-effective environmental protection practices for use by the coal industry. This is accomplished through cooperation with DMLR, the federal Office of Surface Mining (OSM) and the Virginia coal industry. Funding is provided by the state, through VPI&SU and VCE, and the coal industry. Topics addressed include revegetation of mine areas, and treatment and renovation of mine water discharges. VCE conducts educational programming to inform the coal industry, local governments and citizens in Virginia's coal -mining area about improved land reclamation and water quality protection technologies that have been developed through research. The programming also provides guidance in the application of research -based technologies. This information is made available to non -coal mining industries in other parts of the state. Natural Resources Conservation Service The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), RESOURCE EXTRACTION VIrgX4lvonpoint Source Pollution Management Program formerly the Soil Conservation Service, has not received federal funding for the Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP) program for the last three years. NRCS is presently completing the remaining sites in its inventory and should have the last site finished in 1999. A partnership agreement for the reclamation of the Guest River Watershed in Wise County, Virginia, is currently pending between NRCS and DMME's AML program. Although NRCS may not have the RAMP funds restored in future budgets, it supports all reclamation efforts in Virginia. NRCS will continue to provide soil survey and BMP information for all pending sites as well as those under construction. NRCS will continue to provide personnel and expertise to help the soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs), OSM and DMME to prioritize potential sites. NRCS will continue to review and make technical and BMP recommendations to all other agencies addressing AML sites. Virainia Institute of Marine Science The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), primarily through the Coastal Watershed Center (CWC) and under the authority of sections 28.2-1100,1205 and 1301 of the Code of Virginia, provides technical assistance to the commonwealth regarding activities that may impact the natural resources within the coastal waters of the state. This may include sand and gravel pits as well as other surface mining operations. The CWC conducts educational programming to inform local governments, state agencies and citizens about water quality issues and provides a technical report series on various topics regarding the waters of the commonwealth. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers DMME, through the DMLR's AML Section and the state sponsor, the Lenowisco Planning District Commission, is providing AML matching money for the Powell River Watershed Ecosystem Restoration Project in conjunction with the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). The study will look primarily at AMD impacts to the Powell River ecosystem related to coal mining. Reconnaissance and feasibility studies in the Ely, Pucket and Straight creek tributaries of the Powell River watershed will be completed this summer. AML matching funds committed to date total $400,000 on a 50/50 match. Design and construction phases of the project will start this fall with a construction start projected for 2000-2001. The Powell River Watershed Ecosystem Restoration Project is a multiphase, multiyear project with a total projected cost of $7 million over the next five to seven years. A streamline feasibility study for other watersheds of the North Fork of the Powell River Basin (Reeds, Jones, Bundy and Cox creeks) has just started. The USACOE is also preparing reconnaissance studies for the Upper (headwater) Powell River watershed and the Clinch River watershed. The DMME will work closely with the USACOE on this project as well. Local sponsors and funding sources have not been secured at this time. Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Under an agreement with the DMLR, DGIF provides technical assistance to the Abandoned Mine Land Section for reclamation activities. The purpose is to determine potential adverse impacts upon fish and wildlife resources and habitats, and to recommend appropriate measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for those impacts. Emphasis is often placed on habitat restoration and improvement techniques, which enhance the quality of wildlife habitat. Two Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) were established in 1984 to implement this coordination with DMLR for general surface mining and abandoned mine land reclamation projects. Funding Needs DMME operates inventory and construction programs designed to identify and eliminate public safety hazards and pollution from abandoned coal and mineral mines and gas and oil wells. While effective, the scope of these programs is severely limited by the funds that are available for NIPS pollution abatement. DMME Division of Mined Land Reclamation The DMLR's Abandoned Mined Land Section receives the majority of its funds from grants awarded to Virginia RESOURCEEXTRACTION Virgihd honpoint Source Pollution Management Program by the U.S. Department of Interior (DO]). These funds are derived from a reclamation tax levied upon the coal mining industry. The fees are collected for the purpose of reclaiming land mined for coal prior to August 3, 1977 and which was inadequately reclaimed by today's standards. Currently, all of the fees collected by the DOI are not being returned to the states in order to reclaim abandoned lands. This greatly diminishes the amount of reclamation that can occur on abandoned lands. Virginia's ability to address AML problems is influenced by the number and variety of problems identified in the AML inventory, the required prioritization of projects, funding allocations, and the 2004 current end -date of the AML Program. Work is far from complete at Priority 1 and 2 sites, correcting hazards such as clogged streams, highwalls, water filled pits, dangerous impoundments, refuse areas and mine subsidence. Acid mine drainages still pollute miles of streams. Additionally, funds are expended for public water supply projects in areas where the water has been degraded by past coal mining and for emergency reclamation projects. States are allowed to spend up to 30 percent of their funds on public water supply projects, set aside 10 percent of their funds for the treatment of acid mine drainage, and use funding as necessary to abate emergency situations. Additional AML funds are set aside for the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative, the Small Operators Assistance Program (SOAP), federal reclamation programs where states do not have an approved AML program, and federal, state and tribal administration of the program. Through September 30, 1998, about $155 million in reclamation fees has been collected in Virginia. Only about $57 million has been distributed back to the state. Virginia has more than $110 million remaining in high Priority 1 and 2 reclamation needs as estimated by DMME. The commonwealth also has $120 million in water projects eligible for AML funding, and $300 million in medium Priority 3 reclamation project needs. This totals $530 million for the higher priority projects in Virginia. Costs for lower Priority 4 and 5 needs have not been estimated. Virginia receives approximately $4.5 to $5 million each year for the program. At the current rate of available funding, it will take Virginia 50 years to reclaim its most critical sites abandoned prior to 1977. When eligible water projects and sites mined between 1977 and 1981 are added, it will take over 100 years. Currently, additional funding is being received for specific projects from EPA through section 104(b)(3) and 319 grants. DMME Division of Gas and Oil and Division of Mineral Mining The DMM uses interest earned from a state managed industry self -bonding program for reclamation of orphaned mine sites which were not required by law to be reclaimed or have not been reclaimed. The DGO uses monies appropriated by the General Assembly, interest earned from those monies, and a well permit surcharge to fund the reclamation of orphaned well sites. While the presence of these orphaned mineral mine and gas well funds is beneficial, they only allow for a limited number of sites to be reclaimed each year. With more than 3,000 abandoned mineral mine and gas and oil well sites in Virginia, DMME seeks to continue to expand the usefulness of its funds by leveraging them with grants for future projects. Approximately $153 million would be required to reclaim the estimated 3,000 abandoned mineral mines. Currently, additional funding is being received for specific projects from EPA through section 104(b)(3) and 319 grants. Virginia Cooperative Extension The VCE Powell River Project funding comes from a variety of sources, including state funds allocated to VPI&SU, and contributions by the coal industry and other southwest Virginia natural resource firms. Continuation of the Powell River Project's current programming is dependant upon funding provided by both the state and the coal industry. If Virginia's coal production continues to decline, industry support for these programs at current levels may be jeopardized. The Powell River Project is seeking to continue and expand research and education programming by seeking funds from a wider range of sources. RESOURCEEXTRACTION Virgti id Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program OBJEC TI VL S SHORT - TERM GOA L S> Four objectives (short-term goals) were identified by the work group regarding resource extraction activities. These goals target the abandoned and orphaned sites. This approach will address the issues identified by the work group: TSS, acid mine drainage, heavy metal contamination, impacts to biota, and surface and ground water quality. The abandoned coal mine sites that qualify for remining activity will be permitted and the associated potential water quality impacts will be addressed through the NPDES point source permit process. The objectives are: Objective 1. Determine the magnitude and quantity of nonpoint source pollution impacts to the environment from abandoned coal mines, orphaned mineral mine sites, and orphaned gas and oil wells so that reclamation activities can be prioritized Objective 2. Continue and enhance, where possible, the reclamation of abandoned coal mines, orphaned mineral mines, and orphaned gas and oil sites with the greatest potential for reducing nonpoint source pollution to surface and ground water from TSS, heavy metals, and acid mine drainage (low pH), that impact the health and safety of residents and living resources of Virginia Objective 3. Support and develop research and education activities to improve the knowledge and understanding of Virginia residents regarding resource extraction activities and the environment Objective 4. Identify opportunities for developing partnerships with state and federal agencies and other interested organizations to address nonpoint source pollution from abandoned mines TA a ES OF OBJEC TI VES & STRA TEGIES The milestones presented in this section reflect the fact that limited resources are available to quickly and completely address the extent of NPS pollution associated with abandoned and orphaned mine lands. Several activities conducted annually will continue based on the presumption that current levels of funding will be maintained. Additional activities, such as complete incorporation of the DMME mine land information into the DCR NPS Pollution Watershed Assessment process and the DEQ 305(b) and 303 (d) list reports, are new and will require innovative approaches to funding and for addressing the issues. Of increasing importance is the availability of Abandoned Mine Land funds and the use of remining activities for reclamation. More effective use of these two elements could increase the number of sites annually reclaimed resulting in greater annual water quality improvements. RESDURCEEXTRACTION Vrgti%glvonpolnt Source Pollution Management Program OBJECTIVE 1 Determine the magnitude and quantity of nonpoint source pollution impacts to the environment from abandoned coal mines, orphaned mineral mine sites, and orphaned gas and oil wells so that reclamation activities can be prioritized STRATEGIES RELATED TASKS AGENCIES & OTHERS TARGET YEAR FUNDING SOURCES 1.1 Incorporate mining data into NIPS •DMME 2003 - -General pollution water quality databases •DCR update Fund •DEQ annually thereafter Develop data format and •DMME 2000 -General protocol for agency •DCR Fund information exchange •DEQ -US Dept. of the Interior Initiate data incorporation into •DCR 2001 -General NIPS pollution watershed •DMME Fund prioritization process •DEQ Initiate incorporation of •DMME 2001 •319 grant abandoned site data •DCR -General information into 303(d) list of •DEQ Fund impaired streams -US Dept. of the Interior Develop targeted monitoring •DEQ 2003 -Unknown plan to support and strengthen •DMME reclamation efforts -Citizens groups 1.2 Continue programs to inventory and •DMME Ongoing •319 prioritize abandoned mine sites Grant -General Fund -US Dept. of the Interior 1.3 Review and evaluate progress •NPSAC Annually -N/A agencies RESOURCE EXTRACTION VlrgffVt1Z0Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program OBJECTIVE 2 Continue and enhance, where possible, the reclamation of abandoned coal mines, orphaned mineral mines, and orphaned gas and oil sites so that available resources are targeted to those sites with the greatest potential for reducing nonpoint source pollution to surface and ground water from TSS, heavy metals, and acid mine drainage (low pH), that impact the health and safety of residents and living resources of Virginia STRATEGIES RELATED TASKS AGENCIES & OTHERS TARGET YEAR FUNDING SOURCES 2.1 Utilize the NPS watershed •DMME Ongoing -General prioritization process developed in 1996 •DCR Fund •DEQ Systematically inventory and •DMME 2015 and •319 grant conduct site investigations on beyond -RAMP all orphaned mineral mine and AML sites in the state and continue funds ( if to refine the protocol as available) appropriate -General Fund 2.2 Ensure that habitat protection is an •DMME Ongoing •319 grant integral part of plans developed for the •DCR -RAMP reclamation of abandoned and orphaned •PDCs and AML mine sites •CBLAD funds ( if -Localities available) -General Fund Continue to include habitat •DMME Ongoing •319 grant restoration in reclamation •DGIF -RAMP (if activities available) AML funds ( if available) -General Fund Initiate work with localities to •CBLAD 2001 -Unknown ensure inclusion or re- •DCR creation of resource •DMME protection area buffer in •PDCs reclamation plans OBJECTIVE 2 (Cont.) RESOURCE EXTRACTION VirgffvA/Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program Continue and enhance, where possible, the reclamation of abandoned coal mines, orphaned mineral mines, and orphaned gas and oil sites so that available resources are targeted to those sites with the greatest potential for reducing nonpoint source pollution to surface and ground water from TSS, heavy metals, and acid mine drainage (low pH), that impact the health and safety of the residents and living resources of Virginia STRATEGIES RELATED TASKS AGENCIES & OTHERS TARGET YEAR FUNDING SOURCES 2.2 (Cont.) habitat protection Continue to work with natural •DMME Ongoing •319 grant resource agencies -RAMP and AML funds ( if available) 2.3 DMLR will remediate acid mine Complete implementation of •DMME 2001 -General drainage sites in the Ely Creek reclamation plan Fund watershed -US Dept. of the Interior •319 Grant 2.4 Continue to solicit funding for, and •DMME 25 sites •319 grant reclaim, 20 - 25 abandoned and annually -US Dept. orphaned mine sites per year (if current of the levels of Interior funding -RAMP are main- and AML tained) funds ( if available) Reclaim 15 - 18 coal sites •DMME Annually -US Dept. (at of the current Interior funding -RAMP levels) and AML funds ( if available) Plug 15 orphaned and •DMME 2005 -Permit forfeited wells fees Plug 15 orphaned and •DMME 2010 -Permit forfeited wells fees Plug 15 orphaned and •DMME 2015 -Permit forfeited wells fees OBJECTIVE 2 (Cont.) RESOURCE EXTRACTION V'rcyf'n'iWNonpoint Source Pollution Management Program Continue and enhance, where possible, the reclamation of abandoned coal mines, orphaned mineral mines, and orphaned gas and oil sites so that available resources are targeted to those sites with the greatest potential for reducing nonpoint source pollution to surface and ground water from TSS, heavy metals, and acid mine drainage (low pH), that impact the health and safety of the residents and living resources of Virginia STRATEGIES RELATED TASKS AGENCIES & OTHERS TARGET YEAR FUNDING SOURCES 2.4 (Cont.) solicit funding for, and Reclaim 3 - 6 mineral mine •DMME Annually -Orphan- reclaim, 20 - 25 abandoned and sites •DCR (at ed Mine orphaned mine sites per year current Funds funding •319 grant levels) 2.5 Seek release of tax generated AML -Industry Ongoing -N/A funds •DMME •DCR •DEQ 2.6 Pursue the development of remining Incorporate recommendations •DMME Ongoing -N/A regulations and incentives to encourage of Ad Hoc Remining Task •DCR the reclamation of abandoned coal mine Force •DEQ sites •NRCS -EPA -Industry Organi- zations Identify sites appropriate for •DMME Ongoing -N/A remining •DCR •DEQ •NRCS -Industry Organi- zations 2.7 The DMLR will remediate acid mine •DMME 2007 -USA- drainage sites in the Powell River COE watershed •Leno- wisco PDC •OSM 2.8 Remediate AMD sites in the Powell Continue with reclamation •DMME 2007 -USA- River watershed activities COE •Leno- wisco PDC •OSM OBJECTIVE 2 (Cont.) RESOURCE EXTRACTION VIrAIMNonpoint Source Pollution Management Program Continue and enhance, where possible, the reclamation of abandoned coal mines, orphaned mineral mines, and orphaned gas and oil sites so that available resources are targeted to those sites with the greatest potential for reducing nonpoint source pollution to surface and ground water from TSS, heavy metals, and acid mine drainage (low pH), that impact the health and safety of the residents and living resources of Virginia 2.9 Prioritize reclamation activities, Identify sites appropriate for •DMME 2010 •319 grant when possible, to coincide with current reclamation in support of the •DCR -US Dept. TMDL activities TMDL process •DEQ of the •NRCS Interior -Industry -RAMP organi- and AML zations Funds ( if available) 2.10 Review and evaluate progress •NPSAC Annual -N/A agencies WouRCEEXTRAmo VirAlMhonpoint Source Pollution Management Program OBJECTIVE 3 Support and develop research and education activities to improve the knowledge and understanding of Virginia residents regarding resource extraction activities and the environment STRATEGIES RELATED TASKS AGENCIES & OTHERS TARGET YEAR FUNDING SOURCES 3.1 Conduct research, and develop and •VCE Ongoing •VCE apply cost-effective land reclamation and Powell Powell environmental control strategies for River River reforestation of mined lands, Project Project remediation of acid mine drainage, •VPI&SU •Coal mined land revegetation, watershed •DMME industry restoration and other subject areas as •OSM •VPI&SU identified -USA- •DMME COE Expand the Powell River •VCE 2001 •VCE Project Reclamation Powell Powell Guidelines publication series River River for remediation of acid mine Project Project drainage and update the •VPI&SU -Coal remaining series as needed Industry •VPI&SU •DMME 3.2 Conduct educational programs to •VCE Ongoing •VCE inform appropriate clientele about land Powell Powell reclamation and environmental protection River River technologies developed through research Project Project -Coal industry •VPI&SU Continue conducting •VCE Annually •VCE environmental education Powell Powell programs at the Powell River River River Project Education Center for Project Project 1,000 students who attend -Coal schools in Virginia's coal- industry producing region •VPI&SU Conduct 1 -2 curriculum •VCE Annually •VCE development workshops for 20 Powell Powell - 25 teachers who bring their River River students to the Powell River Project Project Project Education Center -Coal industry •VPI&SU RESOURCE EXTRACTION VirgA'IlihWonpoint Source Pollution Management Program OBJECTIVE 3 (Cont.) Support and develop research and education activities to improve the knowledge and understanding of Virginia residents regarding resource extraction activities and the environment STRATEGIES RELATED TASKS AGENCIES & OTHERS TARGET YEAR FUNDING SOURCES 3.2 (Cont.) educational programs Develop education materials •DMME 2000 -Private regarding mineral extraction Dept. of industry activities in Virginia to help Education meet secondary school -Private Standards of Learning (SOLs) industry 3.3 Review and evaluate progress •NPSAC Annually •N/A agencies RESOURCE EXTRACTION Vir f'0iZ6Nonpolnt Source Pollution Management Program OBJECTIVE 4 Identify opportunities for developing partnerships with state and federal agencies and other interested organizations to address nonpoint source pollution from abandoned mines STRATEGIES RELATED TASKS AGENCIES & OTHERS TARGET YEAR FUNDING SOURCES 4.1 Present technology transfer •DMME Annually -N/A seminars annually within mining •DCR communities to promote the use of BMPs •DEQ •NRCS •VCE Powell River Project -Local gov't -Stake- holders 4.2 Continue the work of the Remining •DMME Ongoing -General Ad Hoc Advisory Work Group, whose •DCR Fund members represent the coal industry, •DEQ planning district commissions, state •NRCS colleges and universities, state and •VCE federal agencies and a national Powell environmental organization River Project -Local gov't -Stake- holders 4.3 Identify ways to increase interaction •DMME Ongoing -Unknown between research, education, mining •DCR and environmental communities •DEQ •NRCS •VCE Powell River Project -Local gov't -Stake- holders RESOURCE EXTRACTION VirgAn' ONonpoint Source Pollution Management Program k OBJECTIVE 4 (Cont.) Identify opportunities for developing partnerships with state and federal agencies and other interested organizations to address nonpoint source pollution from abandoned mines STRATEGIES RELATED TASKS AGENCIES & OTHERS TARGET YEAR FUNDING SOURCES 4.4 Identify ways to obtain increased or •DMME Ongoing -Unknown new funding for reclamation of •DCR abandoned mine sites •DEQ •NRCS •VCE Powell River Project -Local gov't -Stake- holders 4.5 Review and evaluate progress •NPSAC Annually -N/A RESOURCE EXTRACTION VirO ONonpoint Source Pollution Management Program WORK GROUP MEMBERS & A awcY/ORGAIVIZA Tl0/U REPRESENTED Resource Extraction Department of Conservation & Recreation Facilitator Mr. Mark Slauter Nonpoint Source Planning and Grants Program Manager Mr. Rick Hill Dr. John Anderson Virginia Commonwealth University Mr. Harry Augustine Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Mr. Rod Bankson Holman's Creek Project Mr. Allen Bishop Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy Mr. Meryl Christianson Friends of the Shenandoah Mr. Jerry Elkins Lonesome Pine Soil and Water Conservation District Mr. Scott Emery Hampton Roads Planning District Commission Mr. Brian Ganoe Natural Resources Conservation Service RESOURCE EXTRACTION Dr. David Gruber Biological Monitoring, Inc. Mr. Wayne T. Halbleib Virginia Aggregates Association Mr. Kirk Havens Virginia Institute of Marine Science Mr. Neal Kilgore Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Mr. Billy Mills Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers Association Mr. Shep Moon Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department Mr. Dan Poteet Pittston Coal Group Mr. Jon Rockett Powell River Project lr(�i011onpoint Source Pollution Management Program Mr. Tony Watkinson Virginia Marine Resources Commission Mr. Carl E. Zipper Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University RESOURCE EXTRACTION V-rg�'! 0Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program DMR - Division of Mineral Resources - Planners Information w http://www.mme.state.va.us/dmr/DOCS/Plan/plan3.html N tv 4 '�` ✓flli.f P .V � } I /A- Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy Fontaine Research Park, 900 Natural Resources Drive, Suite 500 Charlottesville, VA 22903 t + P; PHILOSOPHY OF PLANNING TO ACCOMMODATE AGGREGATE EXTRACTION Ensuring adequate aggregate supplies for the future requires creating a balance between the economic development needs of the region and local community needs and sensibilities. A pragmatic planning philosophy begins by noting that preserving local sources for aggregate is in the community's best interest because: • Aggregate is essential to our society, for building roads, schools, houses, shopping centers, etc. • Aggregate is bulky and, therefore, expensive to transport. Delivery of aggregate 10 to.25 miles can double its price, 50 miles delivery distance can triple its price. For a large metropolitan area such as northern Virginia, extra transport costs could cost taxpayers on the order of $50 to $100 million per year, if aggregate had to be transported in from surrounding states. • Aggregate extraction is a capital intensive industry, requiring lengthy time scales for planning and amortization of equipment. Thus, sufficient long term (25 to 50 years) reserve needs to be secured. • Over half and as much as 75 percent or more of aggregate use in a community is ultimately paid for by the taxpayer for roads, schools, public buildings, dams, and other necessities for both urban development and rural life. MIM ' ® � Any aggregate resource plan has to balance protection of environmental resources and the impact of mineral extraction. This balance is best achieved by: 1. Involving all interested groups in the decision -making process. This can be done through advisory committees, working groups to establish criteria for decision -making, and direct involvement through public meetings. 2. Placing emphasis on the fact that aggregate extraction is a transitory land use. Planning should emphasize a sequence of land use in which quarrying, after reclamation, is replaced by recreational or residential uses. 3. Planning reclamation strategies decades ahead of time (even before mining has been initiated) using community input to decide on final land use. Uses of quarry sites as water reservoirs, recreational lakes, park lands, or industrial sites should be considered. 4. Establishing buffer zones around extraction sites to minimize concerns over truck traffic, noise, and dust associated with future extraction activities. In addition, cooperative planning with industry'can successfully minimize the negative affects using landscaping and other proven strategies. �j,I/.:;:�.::L�rn;, n1 Ij�I #r•N.5 {i t ,; u. -..,� f ,II;/;:�;::L�rn;;� n1 ��=jl 1====11:::::11 •'•'•I iii 1=1 .'..r✓ raY'ti _`:l`4. S ��:`..? MlI""'ll"•"1 iii 1=1 Before any meaningful plan for ensuring future aggregate resources can be made, an aggregate resource identification program must be carried out. This is a purely regional geological problem and is best done by the state geological surveys (in Virginia, the Division of Mineral Resources). Such an identification program requires detailed, modern I of 2 3/31/2006 2:07 PM DMR - Division of Mineral Resources - Planners Information ti http://www.mme.state.va.us/dmt-/DOCS/Plan/plan3.html a � ' geological mapping using a skilled multidisciplinary team of geologists experienced with the regional geology. Modern geological resource mapping utilizes all the tools available to a geologist including: digital mapping techniques, satellite remote sensing data (including multi -spectral and radar imagery), GPS locational control, and relevant engineering test data. It is important that mineral resource identification be carried out by an organization that is independent and impartial. Next - Developing a Plan DMME Home I DMR Home I Return to Information for Planners Division of Mineral Resources Fontaine Research Park, 900 Natural Resources Drive, Suite 500 Charlottesville Ira 22903 Sales Office: (434) 951-6341 FAX: (434) 951-6365 Sales Hours: 8: 00 AM- 4:30 PM Mon. - Fri. Geologic Information: (434) 951-6342 2 of 2 3/31/2006 2:07 PM Virginix6tormwater Management Program http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/sw//stormwat.htm DCR home > S&W index > Stormwater Management search site Quick links w Intro, Overview !�_ Water Con ()3o NPS Pollution i11vJ�.- nervation *1 Ad opt-a-Strea m CREP Virginia Stormwater E&S Control Nutrient Management Program Management SWCDs Program Overview I Regulated Activities I SWM Programs I SWM Program Support I handbook Shoreline Erosion Publications/Downloads I SWM Permitting Advice Stormwater Management, The 2004 Virginia General Assembly unanimous) 8 Y y passed House Bill 1177 transferring VSMP Permitting regulatory authority of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs Water Quality related to municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) and construction activities from the Improvement Act State Water Control Board to the Soil and Water Conservation Board and transferred oversight of these programs from the Department of Environmental Quality to the Department of Conservation and Recreation. This transfer became effective January 29, 2005. As a result, DCR is responsible for the issuance, denial, revocation, termination and enforcement of NPDES permits for the control of stormwater discharges from MS4s and land disturbing activities under Expanded Program the Virginia Stormwater Management Program. The Department of Environmental g g 9 P Quality Listing continues to manage the remaining NPDES program. Click here to visit the Virginia Stormwater Management Program Permitting web page. Stormwater Management The Virginia Stormwater Management Program seeks to protect properties and aquatic resources from damages caused by increased volume, frequency and peak rate of stormwater runoff. Further, the program seeks to protect those resources from increased nonpoint source pollution carried by stormwater runoff. Quantity of Stormwater Runoff - Pervious surfaces, such as meadows and woodlands, absorb and infiltrate rainfall hence generate little runoff. Urban landscape typically covers such areas with impervious surfaces, such as pavement and rooftops. These impervious surfaces generate runoff every time it rains. (A typical city block generates nine times more runoff than a woodland area of the same size!) The quantity of runoff from these areas quickly overwhelms natural channels and streams, often causing channel erosion, localized flooding and property damage. Quality of Stormwater Runoff - The pervious and impervious surfaces in the urbanizing landscape collect pollutants such as automobile oil, grease, brake pad dust, sediment from construction sites, bacteria from animal waste, excess lawn care fertilizers and pesticides, as well as atmospheric deposition of phosphorus, nitrogen and other airborne pollutants. Rainfall washes these surfaces so that the initial flush of runoff can carry high concentrations of these pollutants to nearby drinking water supplies, waterways, beaches and properties. Pollution washed from the land surface by rainfall is called nonpoint source pollution. Click here to learn about an informational brochure and associated video entitled After the Storm, co -produced by the Weather Channel and EPA. These items can be used by localities to fulfill public outreach requirements under the permitting program. To address concerns associated with the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff from developed landscape, the Virginia General Assembly in 1990 established Virginia's Stormwater Management (SWM) Program. Program Overview SWM programs are implemented according to the Virginia Stormwater Management Law and Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations (VSWML&R). The law is codified at Title 10.1, Chapter 6, Article 1.1 of the Code of Virginia and the Regulations are found at Section 4VAC3-20 of the Virginia Administrative Code. Click 1 of 4 5/3/2006 11:07 AM Virginia'Stormwater Management Program http://www.der.virginia.gov/sw//ston-nwat.htm here for associated download(s).1 These statutes specifically set forth regulations regarding land development activities to prevent water pollution, stream channel erosion, depletion of groundwater resources, and more frequent localized flooding to protect property value and natural resources. SWM programs operated according to the law are intended to address these adverse impacts and comprehensively manage the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff on a watershed -wide basis. Regulated Activities Residential, commercial, industrial or institutional land development and conversion activities that involve land -clearing or soil movement are regulated. However, the following activities are exempt: 1. Permitted surface or deep mining operations and projects, or oil and gas operations; 2. Tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural, or forest crops; 3. Single-family residences or modifications to existing residences not part of a subdivision; 4. Land development projects that disturb less than one acre, unless lowered by the locality; and 5. Linear development projects, provided that (i) less than one acre of land will be disturbed per outfall or watershed, (ii) there will be insignificant increases in peak flow rates, and (iii) there are no existing or anticipated flooding or erosion problems downstream from the discharge point. SWM Programs DCR oversees regulated activities undertaken on state and federal property, while localities (counties, cities, towns) have the option to establish a local SWM program to regulate these same activities on private property in their jurisdiction. State stormwater regulations promote consistency among local SWM programs by developing technical criteria and administrative procedures with which property owners and agents must comply, Specifically, land development and land use conversion activities must prepare and seek approval of a SWM plan, also referred to as a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan by EPA, that describes all SWM controls and policies to be used to control the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff from the activity. The regulations also provide a framework for regional (watershed -wide) stormwater plans. Regional plans allow for the strategic placement of stormwater controls to achieve stormwater quality and quantity benefits for large areas. The regulations were written so that all parties will work together to implement a consistent program to restore and protect watersheds across political boundaries. A Virginia Stormwater Management Model Ordinance has been written to help communities develop and implement their own stormwater management ordinance to be consistent with the law and regulations. rClicic here for associated download(s).1 DCR SWM Program Support DCR's SWM Program develops technical criteria and policies to support statewide implementation of the program. DCR engineers serve as the approval authority for SWM plans for projects on state and federal lands and inspect these projects to ensure compliance. Staff engineers also help localities, whether or not they have adopted an SWM program in accordance with VSWML&R, by reviewing ordinances and programmatic guidance and providing technical assistance to ensure compliance and to promote innovative, cost-effective solutions for protecting natural resources. rClick here for associated download(s).1 Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook DCR in 1999 published the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook to serve as the primary guidance for SWM programs regarding basic hydrology and hydraulics, stormwater best management practice design and efficiency, and administrative guidelines to support compliance with state stormwater regulations. Also available are several associated technical bulletins not addressed in the handbook. rClick here for associated download(s).1 Publications/ Downloads Download Guidance Publications in support of the Stormwater Management Program are available for download (or order 2 of 4 5/3/2006 11:07 AM Virginia Stormwater Management Program http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/sw//stormwat.htm forms for the document) in Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF) below. Version 4.0 or later of the free Adobe Acrobat Reader Software is required to download these documents. Adobe Acrobat Reader 5 is available from the Adobe website. To save a PDF document, right -click on the link below and save the "target" file to your computer. Users with a standard phone line connection and/or an older PC, should download documents by section whenever that option is provided to reduce download time and ensure intact files. DCR Urban Program Contacts Reference provides contact information and service areas for DCR's Central and Watershed Offices SWM staff across the state. Economic Benefits of Protecting Virginia's Streams, Lakes and Watersheds - click here (270K) Local Stormwater Management Program Review Checklist - click here (10K) Report on 2003 Low Impact Development Workshops - click here (PDF, off -site) Stormwater Management Enforcement Manual (PDF) Virginia Stormwater Management Law, effective, July 1, 2001 (31K). Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations, effective July 1, 2001 (57K). Virginia Stormwater Utility Law, effective July 1, 2001 (18K). Note that an official, unedited text of these SWM statutes can be accessed at the Division of Legislative Services website. VSMP Construction Permit Inspection Report and Stormwater Programs Site Inspection Report (DCR199-169.pdf, PDF) VSMP Construction Permit Inspection Report and Stormwater Programs Site Inspection Report, detailed version (DCR199-170.pdf, PDF) Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook, Volumes 1 and 2, First Edition, 1999 - Download options: Order Form for hardcopy of the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook, Volumes 1 and 2, First Edition, 1999 (45K). By Volume Volume I - Intro and Chapters 1-3, complete (16.0 MB) Volume II - Chapters 4-6 and Glossary, complete (20 MB) By Chapter Chapter 1 - Program overview (572K) Chapter 2 - Stormwater and Urban BMPs (518K) Chapter 3 - Minimum Standards - design specs, maintenance requirements, etc. (14.7 MB) NOTE. the following downloads are the 14 subsections and Appendix that constitute Chapter 3. 3.01 Earthen Embankments (419K) 3.02 Principal Spillways (641K) 3.03 Vegetated Emergency Spillway (238K) 3.04 Sediment Forebay (258K) 3.05 Landscaping (432K) 3.06 Retention Basins (483K) 3.07 Extended Detention Basin (722K) 3.08 Detention Basin (to be provided later) 3.09 Constructed Wetlands (389K) 3.10 Infiltration Practices (760K) 3.11 Bio-Retention (1,921K) 3.12 Sand Filters (3,889K) 3.13 Grassed Swale (459K) 3.14 Vegetated Filter Strip (718K) 3.15 Manufactured BMP Systems (3.4 MB) Chapter 3 Appendix (172K) Chapter 4 - Hydrologic Methods (8.9 MB) 3 of 4 5/3/2006 11:07 AM VirginialStormwater Management Program http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/sw//stoi-mwat.htm Chapter 5 - Engineering Calculations (10 MB) Chapter 6 - Example Problems (5 MB) Glossary (176K) Virginia Stormwater Management Program - Technical Bulletins Technical Bulletin #1: Stream Channel Erosion Policy Guidance (59K) Technical Bulletin #2: Hydrologic Modeling and Design in Karst (49K) Technical Bulletin #3: Minimum Standard 3.10E - Plastic Chamber Systems (500K) Technical Bulletin #4: Performance- and Technology -Based Water Quality Criterion (260K) Technical Bulletin #6: Minimum Standard 3.11C - Filterra Bioretention Filter System (243K) Technical Bulletin #7: Minimum Standard 3.02 - Principal Spillway Trash Racks (155K) Technical Bulletin #8: Vector Control, Mosquitoes and Stormwater Management (36K) Virginia Stormwater Management Model Ordinance - click here (310K) Questions about the Virginia Stormwater Management Program or Erosion and Sediment Control Program? Just write SWMESquestions@dcr.virginia.gov. DCR home page DCR Home N State Parks ! Soil & Water Conservation r Natural Heritage 8 Dam Safety, Floodplain Management I Recreation Planning ■ Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance I Boards, Foundations I Land Conservation Last modified 4/20/06 . Address general inquiries to pco@dcr.virginia.gov. DCR's central phone number is (804) 786-1712. The agency's address is: Department of Conservation and Recreation 203 Governor Street, Suite 213 Richmond, VA 23219-2094 Please send website comments to webmaster. 4 of 4 5/3/2006 11:07 AM Belle Grove Plantation http://www.bellegrove.org/ Our Season Opens lloute .�lxuu Ilene l;ri»r Saturday, April 1st Calendar liveuL of lours Sunday, November Sth Becouung a Meurber Click for the 2006 Calendar of Events Nluxum store Battle of Cedar Creek WELCOME TO BELLE GROVE Upcoming Event.. hwilt Rentals PLANTATION in the Shenandoah Valley near aeu.r IGRONT PLANTATION i MapSL Iiettiotra Middletown, Virginia. Belle Grove is an 18th-century grain i N. ftIf, i Related Uu6 and livestock farm, which, in its prime (circa 1815), sIL%ER V.Nnrt%AKI contact Us encompassed about 7500 acres of land. The unique limestone house was completed in 1797 for Major Isaac A `✓v Hite and his wife Nell , sister of future President James MUST Madison. The house has remained virtually unchanged eN �VATi�..1. through the years, offering visitors an experience of the life ,`u and times of the people who lived there in the late 18th and i Jai early 19th centuries. During the Civil War, Belle Grove was at the center of the decisive Battle of Cedar Creek. i �- I rI Belle Grove Plantation 336 Belle Grove Road Middletown, VA 22645 Today, the plantation includes the main house and gardens, Y p g ' 1 I m atA� Phone: (540) 869-2028 original outbuildings, a classic 1918 barn, an overseers T10N I Fax: house, the slave cemetery, a heritage apple orchard, fields ! `�""'' `P'" =' ='"'« j Email Belle Grove it Bee Grove and meadows, and scenic mountain views. Please click for more information & a registration form. 02006, Belle Grove, Inc.. All rights reserved. 1 of 1 3/20/2006 1:36 PM U+,S. Civil War - Virginia Battlefields - Cedar Creek, Fisher's Hill, Tom... http://www.shenandoahatwar.org/cluster—cedar—creek.htmi ITvri AT WAR= protection---- nistory p Cedar Creek, Fisher's Hill, Tom's Brook, and Front 7t - Royal Visitor Information Gen. Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson achieved an important victory at Front Royal against a small Federal garrison. Then, in 1864 Gen. Philip H. Sheridan's Federal army won several major battles in the Cedar Creek and Strasburg area of the Valley, helping to ensure the re-election of President Abraham Lincoln and the North's continuation of the war. For information about exploring the Civil War sites in this cluster, visit one of these partners: • Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation • Belle Grove Plantation Click the names of the battlefields T ss Cedar fisher's Hill ` �� TOM'S Br00K m • Stonewall Jackson Museum at Hupp's Hill • Winchester -Frederick Countv Convention & Visitors Bureau cv Rai 1 of 2 3/20/2006 1:36 PM Welcome to Shenandoah at War - Cedar Creek http://www.shenandoahatwar.org/battlefields/c_creek_battlefield.html 2. Ergoomm saes I resource protection events mission contact �r..�Ca.L itlLuGJ�-� v�rt t d tot", history October 19, 1864 OCampaign: Sheridan's Shenandoah Valley Campaign Principal Commanders: CS — Lt. Gen. Jubal A. Early, Maj. Gen. John B. Gordon; US — Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sheridan, Maj. Gen. Horatio G. Wright Total Forces: 47,200 total, CS —15,300; US — 31,945 — t11MOrkrod 1 a111rlislorralrtrrimn �� rtrorvrrxrN �.•poiMdvrew Q vlrginla ovi Mar Trok Viro a hatoncal nrYlr Courtesy of The Official Virginia Civil War Battlefield Guide c,2001. Permission granted by Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Description: At dawn on October 19, the Confederate Army of the Valley under Gen. Jubal Early surprised the Federal army at Cedar Creek. Three Confederate divisions under Gen. Gordon had made a difficult night march along a mountain path to strike the Federal left flank before sunrise. Crossing the North Fork of the Shenandoah River, Gordon's divisions and Early's forces on the left soon routed the Federal VIII and XIX Army Corps. The Federal army, under the command of Gen. Horatio Wright during Sheridan's absence in Washington, retreated north some distance. The Federal line began to stabilize as elements of the Federal VI Corps fought hard in and around the cemetery on the west side of Middletown. Many hungry Confederates temporarily abandoned the pursuit to plunder the Federal camps for food. Several of Early's commanders urged another assault on the Federal lines but Early demurred. Gen. Sheridan had returned from Washington the night before and had overnighted in Winchester. Upon hearing news of the battle, he rode quickly from Winchester, rallying his straggling troops, along the way. In the afternoon, he launched a crushing counterattack, which recovered the camps lost in the morning and routed Early's forces. Significance: Sheridan's victory at Cedar Creek broke the back of the Confederate army and ended effective Confederate resistance in the Shenandoah Valley for the remainder of the war. President Abraham Lincoln rode the momentum of Sheridan's victories in the Valley, along with Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman's successes in Georgia, to re-election. Cedar Creek was one of the two largest battles fought in the Shenandoah Valley. I of 1 3/20/2006 1:34 PM Town of Middletown PO Box 696 Middletown, Virginia 22645 (540) 869-2226 ♦ Fax (540) 869-4306 Gene T. Dicks, Mayor June 6', 2006 Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 Enclosed for your records is the official Resolution adopted by Council on May 8`h 2006. This Resolution expresses some concerns of Council in consideration of the rezoning of O-N Minerals in the current form. Sincerely, C: Patricia J. Mullins, CMC Certified Municipal Clerk/Treasurer Enclosure • Patricia J. Mullins, Clerkrrreasurer • R. Philip Breeden, Chief of Police 9 Glen Miller, Maintenance Foreman TOWN OF MIDDLETOWN, VIRGINIA RESOLUTION OPPOSING PROPOSED O-N MINERALS REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL TO EXTRACTIVE MANUFACTURING LAND USES. **************************************************************** WHEREAS, O-N Minerals (Chemstone) has filed an application in Frederick County to rezone 639 acres from rural agricultural (RA> to extractive manufacturing (EM) uses on a site immediately west of the historic Town of Middletown, designated as the official Gateway to the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park; and WHEREAS, the Chemstone quarry site is adjacent to the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, recently named one of the ten most endangered Civil War battlefields in America, and clearly within the viewshed of historic Middletown; and WHEREAS, increased limestone mining at the Chemstone site will have significant negative environmental impacts on the greater Middletown area, notably increased air pollution emissions, pollution of groundwater supplies, and erosion of the historic and rural setting of the Cedar Creek and Belle Gruve Natit) naI Historical Park; and WHEREAS, increased limestone mining is projected to create significant negative traffic and noise impacts, with up to 1,400 industrial vehicles traveling through the designated historic district of Middletown each day, which amounts to nearly one truck per minute, 24-ho1xrs a day, seven days a week, and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning would permit other, related heavy industries to locate on the site, such as cement or asphalt plant, as has occurred on the Chem -stone quarry site at Clea-r-brook in northern Frederick County, where two cement plants have opened in the past 18 months, adding to air pollution from small particulates; and WHEREAS, the 2005 Middletown Comprehensive Plan calls for retaining the community's character by more fully developing Main Street "with more shopping and eating establishments" and for retaining Route 11 as a "major arterial roadway" that is also "a historic, pedestrian -friendly Main Street", and WHEREAS, the 2005 Middletown Comprehensive Plan seeks to build upon the town's major economic resources, Lord Fairfax Community College, Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, the Wayside Theater, the small-town character and the pedestrian - friendly environment; and WHEREAS, the 2005 Middletown Comprehensive Plan calls for the town and county to identify and develop economic opportunities that are unique to historic Middletown, including compatible commerce and light industry, in order to broaden the local tax base; and RESOLUTION - PAGE TWO WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning of 639 acres from agricultural to heavy industrial uses close to town will generate air, water, traffic, noise and dust impacts that are clearly not compatible with the Town of Middletown's economic development and other community, goals; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mayor and Commion Council for the Town of Middletown, Virginia, that we hereby*call on. the Frederick County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to deny in its current farm the application for rezoning of the D-N Minerals (Chemstone) site. Adopted this 8th day of May, 2006 Patricia J. Clerk Martha H. ingram Council Member Marshall J. Brown Council Member Gene T. Mayor G a 4ra 1 di.�D. 6 i no 1 a i i r Council Members Ponald E. Breeden Council Member Mary It Shull. Council Member FRANK R. WOLF ti 241 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515-4610 10TH DISTRICT, VIRGINIA (202) 225-5136 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 13873 PARK CENTER ROAD SUITE 130 SUBCOMMITTEES: 011111w HERNDON, VA 20171 (703)709-5800 CHAIRMAN —SCIENCE -STATE -JUSTICE- 945-9653 (IN STATE) COMMERCE Comm800) of the Oniteb *tatez 110 NORTH STREET TRANSPORTATION -TREASURY -HUD- �✓ TER, VA 2CAMERON WINCHE$TER, VA 22601 JUDICIARY -DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ( tt A A p Awt�y}t Ol4�L Of4'� [-�G1t4NLl�Q� (540) 667-0990 (800) 850-3463 (IN STATE) CO -CHAIR —CONGRESSIONAL www.house.gov/wolf HUMAN RIGHTS CAUCUS April 24, 2006 The Honorable Richard C. Shickle Chairman Frederick County Board of Supervisors 292 Green Springs Rd Winchester VA 22603 Dear Dick: I have enclosed correspondence which I received from one of my constituents, Julie Clevenger, regarding a matter under your department's jurisdiction. Ms. Clevenger and her neighbors express grave concerns over the potential long-term environmental harm that could result from some of the business plans being proposed by O-N Mineral Chemstone. I wanted to give you an opportunity to review her correspondence and respond to the points raised. I would be happy to pass along your thoughts to her. It would be helpful if you would address your response to me, to the attention of: Lucy Norment at my Herndon Office. Thank you for your time and courtesy in being attentive to the concerns of my constituent. With kind regards, FRW:ln Enclosure THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE OF RECYCLED FIBERS l��,u�,�� =L� � i,-��� �� �- McCary, Judy From: Marlow,Will Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 3:07 PM To: McCary, Judy Subject: FW: WriteRep Responses -----Original Message ----- From: writerep Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 1:02 AM To: Wolf, Write Subject: WriteRep Responses DATE: April 13, 2006 00:34 AM NAME: Julie Clevenger ADDR1: 451 Westernview Drive ADDR2: ADDR3: CITY: Middletown STATE: Virginia ZIP: 22645 PHONE: 5408680498 EMAIL: coppersmith@direcway.com msg: Greetings Congressman Wolf- My name is Julie Clevenger and I live in Historic Middletown, Virginia, which is just outside Winchester. I'm writing because we are in desperate times due to a corporation by the name of 0-N Mineral Chemstone. They are applying for 639.13 acres of beautiful wetlands, streams, aquifers, forest, and civil war land to be re -zoned from Rural to Commercial, with plans of quarrying the property and putting a huge water treatment facility on site. I believe another resident in our area called 3 weeks ago to speak to you. We were told that this was a "local level" problem. In actuality, this is a statewide issue, involving several State & Federal violations. I'm writing to specifically call your attention to the "big picture"- 0-N Minerals has privately (& secretly) contracted a water authority to claim rights to all water on the 639 acres. This water & aquifers are the feed to the Cedar Creek, Shenandoah River, Meadowbrook Stream, Chesapeake River and the Potomac. We are working with several aggressive organizations regarding the endangered species which will be wiped out due to this vast project (i.e. wood turtles, endangered insects & a pair of nesting American Bald Eagles). However, in regards to the water issues, historical civil war property, Cedar Creek/Belle Grove National Park and the I-81 Interstate widening project, these were all concerns that I feel our representatives should be aware of. We realize that this project taking place in Frederick County, Virginia is a master plan to something much bigger, hidden from our general public. It involves our interstate, a water treatment facility, mining operations to remove the rock to feed the highway project, and ultimately commercializing 639 acres of beautiful oak woods, streams and wildlife habitats. I would GREATLY appreciate any sort of advice or support your group would be able to extend to our town. We are a small town of population 1700 but our land here and it's natural resources are gold to developers and companies like O-N Minerals. We are facing a monstrosity of a project which includes a plan for (3) quarry reservoirs, a treatment plant, many wells & they've already tapped into our natural springs that surround the proposed acreage. All of this has been guarded from the public & the residents that live here. Our homes are built on "karst rock" which is unstable with the blasting & draining of water that O-N is proposing to do for the next 20-50 years just adjacent can help us, or know of a way to direct us in & businesses would be forever grateful - Thank you so much for your time... Sincerely, to our properties. If there is any way you getting some sort of support, our residents Julie S. Clevenger (540) 868-0498 (540) 327-2645 The A,ihester Star http://www.winchesterstar.com/TheWinchesterStar/060403/Area rezo... welcome• The Winchester Star 110th - Today's Weather - You are currently logged in as mike ruddy Winchester, VA 54 -F / 12 -c Monday, April 3, 2006 Light Rain Back To Home Page at 5:20 AM Advisory! Click for Forecast RezoningorQuarrySITE FEATURES I fDraws Homes Guide Town Protests Auto Guide Auctions 10 Middletown Residents Oppose Help Lop (peration Lop Byy lop twtsu Coming Near Homes Pk3ce Classifieds Advertising Rates By Mark R. Dorolek Stocks The Winchester Star Dear Abby Movie Listings MIDDLETOWN — About 50 residents in and around TV Listings Online Games I Middletown gathered Saturday to formulate a plan to Other Newspapers oppose rezoning of a quarry that would allow more ---------------------------- i limestone extraction and bring the operation closer to BYRD NEWSPAPERS I their property. The Winchester Star O-N Minerals Chemstone Company is trying to rezone Daily News -Record 639.13 acres from a rural designation to extractive The Warren Sentinel manufacturing, which would allow it to expand its Shen. Valley Herald excavation of limestone on its own property. Page News & Courier The Valley Banner "This is just an extension of our operations onto --------------------- property that we own," said Chemstone General —� Manager Spencer Stinson. 5i1If the rezoning is approved, some residents said they believe the mining operation would influence their Virginia's Travel Information Service quality of life. I "We will no longer be known as Middletown," said Julie Clevenger. "We will be known as the Middletown Quarry." The residents said they are worried that if more extraction was allowed it would bring in more traffic, more dust from the blasts that are performed to get the * Associated Press Top Headlines National News • Storms Across 6 States Leave 23 Dead • Cargo Plane Crashes at Dover Air Base • Rice, Straw to Iraqis: Form Gov't Quickly • Report Says Airline Service Has Suffered • GM to Sell Majority Stake in GMAC for $14B Virginia News • Moussaoui jury readies for second week of deliberations • Portion of resort destroyed by fire • Martin incurs Hamlin's ire at Martinsville • Stewart holds off Hendrick Sports Headlines • ChiSox Beat Indians 10-4 After Rain Delay • Mickelson Wins With Astounding 28-Under • Webb Amazes With Playoff Win Over Ochoa • Duke to Finals After Shutting Down LSU • Maryland Advances to 1st Championship Game You have no polls configured. THE PICCADILLY PRINTING COMPANY I of 3 4/3/2006 9:11 AM The W%nc hester Star http://www.winchesterstar.com/The W inchesterStar/060403/Area_rezo... I limestone, and that further extraction could disrupt their water table and affect their wells. "Our biggest concern is the truck traffic and the water table," said Middletown Mayor Gene T. Dicks. Middletown Councilman Marshall J. "Mark" Brown said he took a tour with Chemstone about the rezoning but was not told much about the issues he was concerned about. He said he is awakened constantly during the night and feels more traffic would be a bigger nuisance. Stinson said Chemstone has proposed building a conveyor belt to carry out the limestone and cut down on traffic, but currently it would have to be approved by multiple government entities. A traffic impact analysis states that vehicle trips would go from 506 round trips a day to 1,305 a day. Stinson said the analysis "overestimates" the amount of vehicle trips and it is more likely to be around 800 trips a day. Debra Miller said she does not want the blasts closer to her home because she feels it may disrupt the foundation of her house and the connection to her well. "All of the blasts are well regulated by the state," said Stinson. He said the blasts are designed to have as much material fall into the pit and Chemstone would make sure no wells were disturbed. Free Home Buying & . Building Seminars REGISTER NOW! 7 wf�Is� He said one of the added benefits is that the water left in the quarry after the extraction would be the property of the county and a good water source on the south end. "It is an addition to whatever resources are there, not a take -away," said Stinson. / Brown said the county may get the water but then they would have to buy it back from the county. Some of the residents are concerned that their view of the mountains will be tainted because machinery and dust will be visible. Jeff Carter said the combination of the traffic, dust, and potential environmental factors will have an impact on 2 of 3 4/3/2006 9:11 AM tar http://www.winchesterstar.com/TheWinchesterStar/060403/Area rezo. the community. "It is going to change the quality of air and the quality of life," said Carter. "When someone comes out here to buy a home they are going to take a look around and go somewhere else." Back to Home Page Email this article to a friend Ads by G000000gle Mining Dust Soiltac@ Premium Dust Control Agent The Global Leader for Dust Control www Sodtac corn Coal Stoker Stoves Save Money on your Heating Costs! Coal Stoves from Reading Stove Co. www. read ingstove.corn Nevada Mining Law Legal advice and services for exploration and mining companies. www renolaw.com Industrial Coal Handling Custom Systems for Flow Control of Bulk Materials. 80 Yrs Experience! www picor biz Click here to review past issues of www.winchesterstar.com Today I March 31 1 March 30 1 March 29 1 March 28 1 March 25 1 March 241 ARCHIVES Copyright© 2002-2006 by The Winchester Star - All Rights Reserved. PRIVACY POLICY This site was designed by Iveka I of 3 4/3/2006 9:1 1 AM COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director RE: FCSA / Global Chemstone Agreement DATE: April 21, 2006 Please find attached a copy of the agreement between the Frederick County Sanitation Authority and the Global Stone Chemstone Corporation. This is provided for your information, relative to the Chemstone Rezoning Application, as requested by Mr. Chuck DeHaven. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 HARRISON & JOHNSTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA �1 0. 80� ,SA Jib B,�9&, 1 PiG0542 W" THIS LEASE, made this day of , 2000, between GLOBAL STONE CHEMSTONE CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and qualified to do business in the Commonwealth of Virginia, its successors and assigns, of the one part, hereinafter called Global, and FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY, a Virginia corporation organized and existing under the provisions of the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act, §§ 15.2-5100, et seq., Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, of the other part, hereinafter called the Authority. RECITALS: WHEREAS, Global owns land (except as otherwise stated) situated at or near (1) Middletown (Frederick County), Virginia (except that a portion thereof is owned by Genstar/Lafarge under lease to Global) (2) Clearbrook (Frederick County), Virginia (3) Strasburg (Shenandoah County), Virginia on which are situated water -filled quarries which Authority believes can be developed to provide potable water supplies; and WHEREAS, Global has agreed to lease to the Authority the said �liter sources, together with the right to extract water- in quantities hereinafter- described, provided the extraction, purification and delivery be at the Authority's expense; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to memorialize their agreement by these presents. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, the parties agree: LEASE AND TRANSFER OF WATER RIGHTS: Global hereby leases to Authority so much of the aforesaid land situated at (1) Middletown (Frederick County), Virginia (2) Clearbrook (Frederick County), Virginia (3) Strasburg (Shenandoah County), Virginia HARRISON & JOHNSTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA nSA lri BK96II`G0543 as is occupied by water -filled quarries , together with the unlimited right to extract water from the quarry pits, except for that amount required by Global for its operations. Also granted by this Lease is the right of the Authority, at its expense, to erect, install and maintain such facilities as it from time to time deems necessary and appropriate to extract, purify and distribute said water at each site, location of said facilities to be mutually agreed to by both parties. The location and amount of the land subject to this Lease shall from time to time be land then occupied by water -filled quarries together with minimum adjacent land as is essary to keep and maintain security fences. This provision shall be construed reasonably effect its purpose. 2. ORIGINAL TERM OF LEASE: The original term of this Lease shall be thirty 0) years commencing on the j, day of , 2000. 3. RENEWAL: Provided the Authority is not otherwise in default under this agreement, the Authority shall have the right to renew for two (2) successive renewal of twenty (20) years each upon payment to Global of the cash sum of Twenty-five and Dollars ($25,000.00) for each renewal. Written notice of renewal shall be given lobal by the Authority not more than five (5) years nor less than two (2) years prior to the n of the original or any renewal term. As part of the consideration for said payment, lobal agrees and hereby grants to the Authority a right of first refusal during the term of this or any renewal. Said right of first refusal shall entitle the Authority to purchase the perty on the same terms and conditions which Global may have from a bona fide offeror, d right to be exercised, if at all, within fifteen (15) days of receipt of written notice from lobal. 4. USE OF PREMISES BY GLOBAL: As owner of the land subject to this Global shall keep and maintain the right to use said land including, but not limited to, quarrying operations as Global deems appropriate or to otherwise use the land in such .er as does not unduly interfere with the Authority's exercise of its rights hereunder. -2- HARRISON & JOHNSTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WINCH6SA ESTER, VIRGINIA k - ZAV, 1j1U"*PA5l�X_Tj BK a6 1 PG05� 4 Likewise, Authority shall exercise its rights under this Lease in such manner as will not unduly interfere with the mining and processing operations of Global of which the Authority has been made aware. The rights of Global to mine and process limestone ore from the Leased Premises at all times shall be primary and superior to the rights of the Authority to use and occupy the Leased Premises for withdrawal of water. HOLD HARMLESS: The Authority agrees to indemnify and hold harmless lobal, its shareholders, directors, officers, successors, and assigns on any issue which may raised by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, its successors and any other , state or local governmental agency that may have authority to regulate the extraction, cation, or distribution of the water removed from Global's property by reason of this This shall also extend to suits raised by private citizens regarding such water 6. MONITORING WELLS: The Authority will install and maintain at its such monitoring wells around the quarries as are recommended by its hydro eologists from time to time in order to monitor the effects of its extraction of water on eighboring property owners' water wells. The Authority shall be responsible for ompensating neighboring property owners for damages for water loss proved to be the result f Authority's extraction of water under the terms of this Lease. The results of such toring shall be made available to Global on request. 7. AUTHORITY ASSUMES COST OF RELOCATION OF BALLFIELDS: The uthority is advised that Global has an agreement with the County of Frederick, Virginia, ith regard to certain ballfields located on its Clearbrook property that if Global's mining :tivities require displacement of the ballfields, replacement ballfields will be provided at lobal's expense. The parties agree that if and to the extent such displacement occurs during e term of this Lease, or any extension thereof, the full cost of construction of replacement fields on land provided by Global will be borne by the Authority. -3- I HARRISON & JOHNSTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA �ia9 0' 1'6'05)45 8. COSTS OF REZONING TO BE BORNE BY AUTHORITY: The parties recite and understand that certain rezoning of Global's properties is contemplated. The Authority supports Global's efforts in that respect and agrees to pay for the cost associated with the rezoning process, including consultant and filing fees as well as attorney's fees and court costs. 9. BENEFITS FLOWING TO GLOBAL FROM AUTHORITY: In addition to such benefits as Global shall obtain in its quarrying operations by an extraction of some of the water in the quarries by the Authority, the parties agree that the Authority's obligations to pay for the matters recited in Paragraphs 7 and 8 shall be in lieu of further rental payments. 10. GLOBAL ONLY PART OWNER AT MIDDLETOWN: The parties understand that Genstar/Lafarge is owner of a portion of the land at Middletown, Virginia, which is under lease to Global and that consents by Genstar/Lafarge may be required from time to time. Specifically, Global's assignment of water rights to the Authority is or may be subject to Genstar/Lafarge consents from time to time. 11. GLOBAL USE OF AUTHORITY'S PIPELINES: While the Authority is responsible for the construction and maintenance of pipelines necessary for its purposes, Global will operate and maintain its own pumping equipment for active quarrying operations and will have the right to transfer water through the Authority's pipelines. It is agreed that if increase in cost for pumping equipment is necessary to meet adjusted head conditions for Authority's use, the capital cost will be paid by the Authority. 12. SITES FOR LOCATION OF TREATMENT PLANTS BY AUTHORITY: At each of the three (3) locations identified in Paragraph 1, at such time as the Authority shall have advised Global of the location and dimensions of a water treatment plant, Global agrees to execute and deliver to the Authority, at an annual rental of One Dollar ($1.00) per year, a perpetual lease of a sufficient parcel of land upon which the said plant is to be located. Plant location and water lines shall be located by mutual agreement of the parties. N HARRISON & JOHNSTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA " OSA L. NN,96i1)130546 13. CONVEYANCE OF QUARRY SITES: Global agrees that whenever it ines that it will no longer need a quarry site for its business, it will convey, in fee le, the quarry site, together with approximately fifty (50) feet of land adjacent thereto, to Authority for a consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) per conveyance. Global grants to the uthority a right of first refusal to purchase land not otherwise conveyed to the Authority, on e same terms and conditions heretofore set forth in Paragraph 3 above, except in the event f a merger by Global or its parent corporation or an internal corporate restructuring. In such s) Global shall not be obligated to offer any of its land to the Authority. 14. LIMITATION ON REPRESENTATIONS BY GLOBAL: Global does not ent or warrant the water within any quarry on its property that becomes subject to this ase to be fit for human consumption. Further, the Authority shall indemnify and hold armless Global, its directors, officers, employees, successors and assigns from any claims; or litigation that may arise from the use of the water by the Authority for the needs of communities it serves. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: GLOBAL STONE CHEMSTONE CORPORATION ry (SEAL) William Reid, Vice President FREDERI�CTY SANITATION AUTHORITY By -/�-" �� ,%.�•� (SEAL) Ja 6`s T. Anderson, Chairman TATE OFF. , OFTo-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ? .J day of AX�' 00, by William Reid as Vice President of Global Stone Chemstone Corporation, on behalf said Corporation. -5- HARRISON & JOHNSTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA a Y� r SA DK96"1FG0543 My commission expiresL� otary Public TATE OF VIRGINIA AT LARGE, UNTY OF FREDERICK, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this N! day of 000, by James T. Anderson as Chairman of Frederick County Sanitation Authority, on of said Authority. My commission expires J ' Notary Public S1IENANDOAH COUNTY, ss: 1'he foregoing writing with certificate of acknowledgement thereon as received at the Clerks Office of said County, was admitted to I ecord and indexed. The ta;ces imposed by Sect. 58.1-801 & 802 o! the Code of `Iirginia have been paid , 20 �_ tills d� &Y ofb Cierk ViRGDT1A: FRFDER iCK_ COLT '4TY, S .T. This iustr a i(rnt of writing was, produced to ine on ,uid with ii:rtl'L:'v;—gcnwnt to _to' Vr35:.i1lliaccl io reo0rd.Of 9nd 58.1-801 tiavc been paid, if assessublg� 4-44 -6- HARRISON & JOHNSTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA D&4Sod 0 FGSA B11(9 6, f I'G)0542 W� THIS LEASE, made this day of , 2000, between GLOBAL STONE CHEMSTONE CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and qualified to do business in the Commonwealth of Virginia, its successors and assigns, of the one part, hereinafter called Global, and FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY, a Virginia corporation organized and existing under the provisions of the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act, §§ 15.2-5100, et seq., Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, of the other part, hereinafter called the Authority. RECITALS: WHEREAS, Global owns land (except as otherwise stated) situated at or near (1) Middletown (Frederick County), Virginia (except that a portion thereof is owned by Genstar/Lafarge under lease to Global) (2) Clearbrook (Frederick County), Virginia (3) Strasburg (Shenandoah County), Virginia on which are situated water -filled quarries which Authority believes can be developed to provide potable water supplies; and . WHEREAS, Global has agreed to lease to the Authority the said �4ter sources, together with the right to extract water in quantities hereinafter described, provided the extraction, purification and delivery be at the Authority's expense; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to memorialize their agreement by these presents. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, the parties agree: 1. LEASE AND TRANSFER OF WATER RIGHTS: Global hereby leases to Authority so much of the aforesaid land situated at (1) Middletown (Frederick County), Virginia (2) Clearbrook (Frederick County), Virginia (3) Strasburg (Shenandoah County), Virginia HARRISON & JOHNSTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA BK96JPG0543 as is occupied by water -filled quarries , together with the unlimited right to extract water from the quarry pits, except for that amount required by Global for its operations. Also granted by this Lease is the right of the Authority, at its expense, to erect, install and maintain such facilities as it from time to time deems necessary and appropriate to extract, purify and distribute said water at each site, location of said facilities to be mutually agreed to by both parties. The location and amount of the land subject to this Lease shall from time to time be land then occupied by water -filled quarries together with minimum adjacent land as is to keep and maintain security fences. This provision shall be construed reasonably effect its purpose. 2. ORIGINAL TERM OF LEASE: The original term of this Lease shall be thirty 30) years commencing on the day of2000. 3. RENEWAL: Provided the Authority is not otherwise in default under this agreement, the Authority shall have the right to renew for two (2) successive renewal of twenty (20) years each upon payment to Global of the cash sum of Twenty-five and Dollars ($25,000.00) for each renewal. Written notice of renewal shall be given lobal by the Authority not more than five (5) years nor less than two (2) years prior to the on of the original or any renewal term. As part of the consideration for said payment, lobal agrees and hereby grants to the Authority a right of first refusal during the term of this or any renewal. Said right of first refusal shall entitle the Authority to purchase the perty on the same terms and conditions which Global may have from a bona fide offeror, right to be exercised, if at all, within fifteen (15) days of receipt of written notice from •.. 4. USE OF PREMISES BY GLOBAL: As owner of the land subject to this , Global shall keep and maintain the right to use said land including, but not limited to, uch quarrying operations as Global deems appropriate or to otherwise use the land in such as does not unduly interfere with the Authority's exercise of its rights hereunder. I HARRISON & JOHNSTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 0. .. ' z, ;0r, i.ciFA`3L .I[i.. 31{a6 I N 0 5 4 4 Likewise, Authority shall exercise its rights under this Lease in such manner as will not unduly interfere with the mining and processing operations of Global of which the Authority has been made aware. The rights of Global to mine and process limestone ore from the Leased Premises at all times shall be primary and superior to the rights of the Authority to use and occupy the Leased Premises for withdrawal of water. HOLD HARMLESS: The Authority agrees to indemnify and hold harmless bal, its shareholders, directors, officers, successors, and assigns on any issue which may raised by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, its successors and any other ral, state or local governmental agency that may have authority to regulate the extraction, ation, or distribution of the water removed from Global's property by reason of this This shall also extend to suits raised by private citizens regarding such water tion.. 6. MONITORING WELLS: The Authority will install and maintain at its such monitoring wells around the quarries as are recommended by its hydro ologists from time to time in order to monitor the effects of its extraction of water on ighboring property owners' water wells. The Authority shall be responsible for ensating neighboring property owners for damages for water loss proved to be the result f Authority's extraction of water under the terms of this Lease. The results of such nitoring shall be made available to Global on request. 7. AUTHORITY ASSUMES COST OF RELOCATION OF BALLFIELDS: The uthority is advised that Global has an agreement with the County of Frederick, Virginia, ith regard to certain ballfields located on its Clearbrook property that if Global's mining ivities require displacement of the ballfields, replacement ballfields will be provided at lobal's expense. The parties agree that if and to the extent such displacement occurs during term of this Lease, or any extension thereof, the frill cost of construction of replacement fields on land provided by Global will be borne by the Authority. -3- HARRISON & JOHNSTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 70n C A. l._• 1 B i A' 9 6 f f,G0545 8. COSTS OF REZONING TO BE BORNE BY AUTHORITY: The parties recite and understand that certain rezoning of Global's properties is contemplated. The Authority supports Global's efforts in that respect and agrees to pay for the cost associated with the rezoning process, including consultant and filing fees as well as attorney's fees and court costs. 9. BENEFITS FLOWING TO GLOBAL FROM AUTHORITY: In addition to such benefits as Global shall obtain in its quarrying operations by an extraction of some of the water in the quarries by the Authority, the parties agree that the Authority's obligations to pay for the matters recited in Paragraphs 7 and 8 shall be in lieu of further rental payments. 10. GLOBAL ONLY PART OWNER AT MIDDLETOWN: The parties understand that Genstar/Lafarge is owner of a portion of the land at Middletown, Virginia, which is under lease to Global and that consents by Genstar/Lafarge may be required from time to time. Specifically, Global's assignment of water rights to the Authority is or may be subject to Genstar/Lafarge consents from time to time. 11. GLOBAL USE OF AUTHORITY'S PIPELINES: While the Authority is responsible for the construction and maintenance of pipelines necessary for its purposes, Global will operate and maintain its own pumping equipment for active quarrying operations and will have the right to transfer water through the Authority's pipelines. It is agreed that if increase in cost for pumping equipment is necessary to meet adjusted head conditions for Authority's use, the capital cost will be paid by the Authority. 12. SITES FOR LOCATION OF TREATMENT PLANTS BY AUTHORITY: At each of the three (3) locations identified in Paragraph 1, at such time as the Authority shall have advised Global of the location and dimensions of a water treatment plant, Global agrees to execute and deliver to the Authority, at an annual rental of One Dollar ($1.00) per year, a perpetual lease of a sufficient parcel of land upon which the said plant is to be located. Plant location and water lines shall be located by mutual agreement of the parties. M IHARRISON & JOHNSTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 9 ' if'��056 13. CONVEYANCE OF QUARRY SITES: Global agrees that whenever it determines that it will no longer need a quarry site for its business, it will convey, in fee ple, the quarry site, together with approximately fifty (50) feet of land adjacent thereto, to Authority for a consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) per conveyance. Global grants to the thority a right of first refusal to purchase land not otherwise conveyed to the Authority, on same terms and conditions heretofore set forth in Paragraph 3 above, except in the event f a merger by Global or its parent corporation or an internal corporate restructuring. In such (s) Global shall not be obligated to offer any of its land to the Authority. 14. LIMITATION ON REPRESENTATIONS BY GLOBAL: Global does not sent or warrant the water within any quarry on its property that becomes subject to this ase to be fit for human consumption. Further, the Authority shall indemnify and hold armless Global, its directors, officers, employees, successors and assigns from any claims; or litigation that may arise from the use of the water by the Authority for the needs of communities it serves. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: GLOBAL STONE CHEMSTONE CORPORATION (SEAL) William Reid, Vice President FREDERIC�CTY SANITATION AUTHORITY By%'.�•�a4.�-- (SEAL) Jape`s T. Anderson, Chairman TATE OF , OF z% , To -wit. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ? ' day of z, 000, by William Reid as Vice President of Global Stone Chemstone Corporation, on behalf said Corporation. -5- BX96tI"G0547 My commission expires �3Li otary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA AT LARGE, COUNTY OF FREDERICK, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this N day of ' . i .l , 000, by James T. Anderson as Chairman of Frederick County Sanitation Authority, on ehalf of said Authority. My commission expires r3t,) LEI I, Notary Public SHENANDOAH COUNTY, ss: The foregoing writing with certificate of acknowledgement t ot as received at the Clerks Office of said County, was admitteddo tto ecold and indexed. The taxes imposed by Sect. 58.1-801 & B02 o! tiie Cude of `gIrginia have peen paid�-- this d 6y ofb- Clerk �i. Testa: VIRGINUk: FREDEP iCK CO IP4TY, S.C.T. This iustrtnnerit of yrriting vvas, produced to ire on lira V+;Cti o_-rtl.icLi1C 0I 8 k i :S;iCG�;,'!iiti tY: 1i1 :>'3iQ 4t!lliC:;> t� was ail niucd io recard.'Tax iri_pil.,.cd by Suc. 56.1-802 of HARRISON & JOHNSTON $ + and 58.1-801 liav�. been paid, if assess;i.tzlt. ATTORNEYS AT LAW WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA ff ' Qak r i' . 'vim � ,- •-'- +ice . J �, SA COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 . Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX:540/665-6395 FAX TRANSMISSION TO: &tdbC.ra. V �l Berl COMPANY: FAX #: a a - y I -1 Remarks: Date: 0 10 IOU Number of Pages (including cover sheet), From the desk of: n'1 1'S e l� f Immediate TX Result Report File Date Time Destination Mode TXtime Page Result User Name No. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jun. 6. 8:42AM 5407220417 G3TES 4"16" P. 8 OK 3897 # Batch E ECM Reduction A RX Notice M Memory S Standard * LAN —Fax L Send later D Detail t Delivery @ . Forwarding F Fine Q RX Notice Req. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director RE: FCSA / Global Chemstone Agreement DATE: April 21, 2006 Please find attached a copy of the agreement between the Frederick County Sanitation Authority and the Global Stone Chemstone Corporation. This is provided for your information, relative to the Chemstone Rezoning Application, as requested by Mr. Chuck DeHaven. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 1.. �_j ` , i A_ ,III. 1 '1 .1 HARRISON & JOHNSTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA ovJo e g- -SA Fam"'A �bn t FH >�4 1 THIS LEASE, made thisr day of , 2000, between GLOBAL STONE CHEMSTONE CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and qualified to do business in the Commonwealth of Virginia, its successors and assigns, of the one part, hereinafter called Global, and FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY, a Virginia corporation organized and existing under the provisions of the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act, §§ 15.2-5100, et seq., Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, of the other part, hereinafter called the Authority. RECITALS: WHEREAS, Global owns land (except as otherwise stated) situated at or near (1) Middletown (Frederick County), Virginia (except that a portion thereof is owned by Genstar/Lafarge under lease to Global) (2) C:learbrook (Frederick County), Virginia (3) Strasburg (Shenandoah County), Virginia on which are situated water -filled quarries which Authority believes can be developed to provide potable water supplies; and WHEREAS, Global has agreed to lease to the Authority the said ater sources, together with the right to extract water in quantities hereinafter described, provided the extraction, purification and delivery be at the Authority's expense; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to memorialize their agreement by these presents. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, the parties agree: LEASE AND TRANSFER OF WATER RIGHTS: Global hereby leases to Authority so much of the aforesaid land situated at (1) Middletown (Frederick County), Virginia (2) Clearbrook (Frederick County), Virginia (3) Strasburg (Shenandoah County), Virginia HARRISON & JOHNSTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA as is occupied by water -filled quarries , together with the unlimited right to extract water from the quarry pits, except for that amount required by Global for its operations. Also granted by this Lease is the right of the Authority, at its expense, to erect, install and maintain such facilities as it from time to time deems necessary and appropriate to extract, purify and distribute said water at each site, location of said facilities to be mutually agreed to by both The location and amount of the land subject to this Lease shall from time to time be land then occupied by water -filled quarries together with minimum adjacent land as is to keep and maintain security fences. This provision shall be construed reasonably effect its purpose. ORIGINAL TERM OF LEASE: The original term of this Lease shall be thirty 30) years commencing on theday of , 2000. RENEWAL: Provided the Authority is not otherwise in default under this agreement, the Authority shall have the right to renew for two (2) successive renewal of twenty (20) years each upon payment to Global of the cash sum of Twenty-five Dollars ($25,000.00) for each renewal. Written notice of renewal shall be given lobal by the Authority not more than five (5) years nor less than two (2) years prior to the iration of the original or any renewal term. As part of the consideration for said payment, lobal agrees and hereby grants to the Authority a right of first refusal during the term of this , or any renewal. Said right of first refusal shall entitle the Authority to purchase the on the same terms and conditions which Global may have from a bona fide offeror, right to be exercised, if at all, within fifteen (15) days of receipt of written notice from USE OF PREMISES BY GLOBAL: As owner of the land subject to this e, Global shall keep and maintain the right to use said land including, but not limited to, quarrying operations as Global deems appropriate or to otherwise use the land in such as does not unduly interfere with the Authority's exercise of its rights hereunder. HARRISON & JOHNSTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA f� 10611FC0544 Likewise, Authority shall exercise its rights under this Lease in such manner as will not unduly interfere with the mining and processing operations of Global of which the Authority been made aware. The rights of Global to mine and process limestone ore from the Leased Premises at all times shall be primary and superior to the rights of the Authority to use and occupy the Leased Premises for withdrawal of water. HOLD HARMLESS: The Authority agrees to indemnify and hold harmless lobal, its shareholders, directors, officers, successors, and assigns on any issue which may raised by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, its successors and any other , state or local governmental agency that may have authority to regulate the extraction, cation, or distribution of the water removed from Global's property by reason of this This shall also extend to suits raised by private citizens regarding such water tion. MONITORING WELLS: The Authority will install and maintain at its pense such monitoring wells around the quarries as are recommended by its hydro ologists from time to time in order to monitor the effects of its extraction of water on ighboring property owners' water wells. The Authority shall be responsible for mpensating neighboring property owners for damages for water loss proved to be the result Authority's extraction of water under the terms of this Lease. The results of such onitoring shall be made available to Global on request. 7. AUTHORITY ASSUMES COST OF RELOCATION OF BALLFIELDS: The uthority is advised that Global has an agreement with the County of Frederick, Virginia, ith regard to certain ballfields located on its Clearbrook property that if Global's mining ;tivities require displacement of the ballfields, replacement ballfields will be provided at lobal's expense. The parties agree that if and to the extent such displacement occurs during e term of this Lease, or any extension thereof, the frill cost of construction of replacement fields on land provided by Global will be borne by the Authority. -3- � HARRISON & JOHNSTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW I WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA COSTS OF REZONING TO BE BORNE BY AUTHORITY: The parties recite and understand that certain rezoning of Global's properties is contemplated. The Authority supports Global's efforts in that respect and agrees to pay for the cost associated with the rezoning process, including consultant and filing fees as well as attorney's fees and court costs. 9. BENEFITS FLOWING TO GLOBAL FROM AUTHORITY: In addition to such benefits as Global shall obtain in its quarrying operations by an extraction of some of the water in the quarries by the Authority, the parties agree that the Authority's obligations to pay for the matters recited in Paragraphs 7 and 8 shall be in lieu of further rental payments. 10. GLOBAL ONLY PART OWNER AT MIDDLETOWN: The parties understand that Genstar/Lafarge is owner of a portion of the land at Middletown, Virginia, which is under lease to Global and that consents by Genstar/Lafarge may be required from time to time. Specifically, Global's assignment of water rights to the Authority is or may be subject to Genstar/Lafarge consents from time to time. 11. GLOBAL USE OF AUTHORITY'S PIPELINES: While the Authority is responsible for the construction and maintenance of pipelines necessary for its purposes, Global will operate and maintain its own pumping equipment for active quarrying operations and will have the right to transfer water through the Authority's pipelines. It is agreed that if increase in cost for pumping equipment is necessary to meet adjusted head conditions for Authority's use, the capital cost will be paid by the Authority. 12. SITES FOR LOCATION OF TREATMENT PLANTS BY AUTHORITY: At each of the three (3) locations identified in Paragraph 1, at such time as the Authority shall have advised Global of the location and dimensions of a water treatment plant, Global agrees to execute and deliver to the Authority, at an annual rental of One Dollar ($1.00) per year, a perpetual lease of a sufficient parcel of land upon which the said plant is to be located. Plant location and water lines shall be located by mutual agreement of the parties. i .. SA N HARRISON & JOHNSTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA �94F'1 )i i 00K.i..�aFr 1%0546 13. CONVEYANCE OF QUARRY SITES: Global agrees that whenever it determines that it will no longer need a quarry site for its business, it will convey, in fee simple, the quarry site, together with approximately fifty (50) feet of land adjacent thereto, to Authority for a consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) per conveyance. Global grants to the uthority a right of first refusal to purchase land not otherwise conveyed to the Authority, on same terms and conditions heretofore set forth in Paragraph 3 above, except in the event f a merger by Global or its parent corporation or an internal corporate restructuring. In such s) Global shall not be obligated to offer any of its land to the Authority. 14. LIMITATION ON REPRESENTATIONS BY GLOBAL: Global does not ent or warrant the water within any quarry on its property that becomes subject to this se to be fit for human consumption. Further, the Authority shall indemnify and hold less Global. its directors, officers, employees, successors and assigns from any claims; ons or litigation that may arise from the use of the water by the Authority for the needs of communities it serves. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: GLOBAL STONE CHEMSTONE CORPORATION gy �� (SEAL) William Reid, Vice President FREDERICK CPUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY By -/'-" `T (SEAL) Ja 7' i✓s T. Anderson, Chairman TATE OF OF To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 00, by William Reid as Vice President of Global Stone Chemstone Corporation, on behalf said Corporation. -5- Lien tJ'.1 L FN y r:p b 'r i'G i1 5 4 7 My commission expires otary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA AT LARGE, COUNTY OF FREDERICK, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this AN � day of 2000, by James T. Anderson as Chairman of Frederick County Sanitation Authority, on behalf of said Authority. My commission expires i• Notary Public Sl0ANDOAH COUNTY, ss: The foregoing writing with certificate of acknowledgement thereon as received at the Clerk's Office of said County, was admitted to I ecold and indexed. The taxes imposed by Sect. 58.1-801 & 802 of the Code of `jIrginia have been paid 20 QL— this d day ofb�""7_ _qlaPi.,y`.+ Clerk $ l'ai. Taste: - VIRCINIA: FREDERICK COi1NT'Y7 SCT. This iustrwnerit of writing was produced to ine on mnd with o rtl%:caic ;A' iT,C1`,'ic C�,::= ?t ]? t.I aCiCe wiliC:;ed was aaa]ittca io rec<]r3.'nLk irnOoscd'by Sx;c. 56.1-SO2 of HARRISON & JOHNSTON and 58.1-891 ila�,c been paid, if dSSCSSiiiP� ATTORNEYS AT LAW WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA �.// cuk 41za :l t 4FCSA -b- United States Department of the Interior ""PAW SERVICE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park 7718'/2 Main St., P.O. Box 700 Middletown, Virginia 22645 In Reply Refer To: April 17, 2008 John R. Riley Jr. County Administrator Frederick County 107 North Kent St. Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Riley: We are writing to transmit our comments regarding the Carmeuse Lime and Stone, Chemstone Qperation ("Chemstone") rezoning request. The Chemstone property is adjacent to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park and is within the core area of the Cedar Creek Battlefield. Our letter responds to the revised proffer statement submitted by Chemstone, dated March 18, 2008, and supplements the letter we previously submitted in March 2006 on the rezoning request. We have asked the National Park Service's Geologic Resources Division to review and comment on the revised proffer statement and other information provided to us by Chemstone officials at their April 2, 2008 community meeting in Middletown. The Geologic Resources Division, based in Lakewood, Colorado, provides national leadership and specialized assistance for managing geologic resources and, protecting national park units from the adverse effects of mining and mineral development. Additionally, we have requested assistance from the National Park Service's American Battlefield Protection Program in reviewing the rezoning request and revised proffer statement. The American Battlefield Protection Program promotes the preservation of historic battlefields, both inside and outside of national park units, and since 1990 has provided $648,000 in grant money to purchase and protect 426 acres of land and other historic resources of the Cedar Creek Battlefield. Both the Geologic Resources Division and the American Battlefield protection program have expressed concerns about possible impacts to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, to the Cedar Creek Battlefield, to Belle Grove Plantation, and to the town of Middletown. We ask that you consider the attached memoranda and enter these comments into the official record for the Chemstone project. TAKE PR1D?'9E=, j INAMERICA� Please feel free to call me with any questions or concerns about the attached information. I may be reached in my office at (540) 868-9176, Sincerely, <Z—zt�0 Diann Jacox Superintendent Attachments: 1. Memorandum from Geologic Resources Division, National Park Service 2. Memorandum from American Battlefield Protection Program, National Park Service cc: Eric Lawrence, Director, Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Kris Tierney, Assistant County Administrator, Frederick County, Virginia INAMERiCA;�t United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Geologic Resources Division P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225 TRANSMITTED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL - NO HARDCOPY TO FOLLOW L2360 April 17, 2008 Memorandum To: Diann Jacox Superintendent, Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park From: /s/ Carol McCoy Chief, Planning, Evaluation & Permits Branch Geologic Resources Division National Park Service Subject: Carmeuse Lime and Stone Middletown Quarry Rezoning Request The Geologic Resources Division has reviewed the informational materials and revised proffer statements provided by Carmeuse Lime and Stone as part of their rezoning request for the Middletown Quarry and offers the following comments for your consideration. General Comments While the operational aspects of the quarry remain essentially unchanged, the proffers offered by Carmeuse Lime and Stone, the new owners of the Middletown Quarry, have been expanded and are more clearly communicated than those offered by the previous owner on August 28, 2006. Proffers are essentially promises made by the quarry owner/operator addressing specific operational parameters and mitigation measures which are made, in this case, to reduce the impact of ongoing and the proposed expanded quarry operations on the surrounding environment. Overall, we remain concerned that a large scale mining operation located directly adjacent to a nationally significant Civil War landscape and antebellum plantation, poses challenges to maintaining the area's historical setting and significance. As you know, Congress designated Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park as a unit of the National Park System on December 19, 2002 (see 16 U.S.C. §410 iii et seq.). Arnong other things, the Act established the park in order to "help preserve, protect and interpret a nationally significant Civil War landscape TAKE PR10E*'&E+.1 'NAM ERICA� and antebellum plantation for the education, inspiration, and benefit of present and future generations" [16 U.S.C. §410 iii (1)]. Further, the Act highlights that "[t]he panoramic views of the mountains, natural areas, and waterways provide visitors with an inspiring setting of great natural beauty" [16 U.S.C. § 410 iii-1(6)]. While the Middletown Quarry is not located in park boundaries, it is important to note that the Act states that "[t]he Secretary and the Commission shall encourage conservation of the historic and natural resources within and in proximity of the Park by land owners, local governments, organizations, and businesses." Given this explicit statutory language and direction contained in NPS Management Policies, we applaud the collaborative approach the park has taken in working closely with local permitting entities as well as Cedar Creek and Belle Grove partners to minimize possible adverse impacts to the park from existing and future mining operations. One of the predominant concerns that surfaces regarding the proposed rezoning of the Middletown property is why Carmeuse Lime and Stone continues to pursue the rezoning of 691 acres when the company insists that only 12% of that acreage will actually be mined. Carmeuse's Proffer Statement contends that rezoning the entire 691 acres from "Rural Areas" to "Extractive Manufacturing" will allow the company to use the remaining, unmined, 88% of the property as "... a buffer to protect neighbors from noise and vibration." We do not understand how rezoning the property to "Extractive Manufacturing" will allow any additional protections to adjacent properties that the existing "Rural Areas" designation would not. If Frederick County were to rezone portions of the Carmeuse property, then we recommend that the rezoning be limited to the acreage proposed specifically for mining and that the changes below be incorporated in the permit documents for the mine expansion. Specific Comments Proffer #2, Site Development, 2.3 — This section discusses a maximum berm height of 30 feet and landscaping the berms with a mix of deciduous and coniferous plantings. We suggest the berm height be varied, when possible, to best conform to the surrounding landscape. Proffer #3, Historic Resources, 3.1— The last sentence of this section states that "[s]aid [8 acre] reserve land shall be dedicated to a recognized historical association ...." The proffer should more clearly state whether the property will be deeded to a recognized historical association if that is the intent. Proffer #3, Historic Resources, 3.3 — When discussing the "second cemetery" located on the quarry property, this section states that "[t]he Applicant proffers to open said right-of-way so that it can be used for access by the relatives of those in the cemetery." If Carmeuse plans to block access to this historic cemetery to all but relatives of those in the cemetery, the proffer should state how access will be controlled and safe passage through the industrial operation by cemetery visitors will be assured. Proffer #5, Groundwater — Proffers in this entire section are inadequate to secure the protection, or remediation if necessary, of groundwater impacts associated with quarry operations. Section 5.1 states that Carmeuse will install a minimum of three monitoring wells . . AM ERICAA, �'"_��'° , . within 500ft of the property's boundaries." Yet, the Rezoning Application Materials previously submitted by Chemstone in 2005 revealed that up to a 1 Oft aquifer drawdown could occur up to 9600ft horizontally from the project boundary. Further, Section 5.2 promises the applicant ".. . shall remediate any adverse impacts to wells on surrounding properties caused by mining operations on the Properties." Section 5.2 fails to indicate at what distance Carmeuse will consider remediating groundwater -related problems. Proffer #5 also fails to address possible ground water influences on the surface waters of Cedar Creek. Groundwater drawdown associated with mining activities may potentially affect the quality and quantity of surface water available for Cedar Creek. The proffers should address mitigation of possible impacts to this water resource. Proffer #8, Traffic, 8.1 — hlformation provided by Carmeuse Lime and Stone states that the previous study projecting "1300 trucks per day" accessing the Middletown Quarry was in error. The company now proffers no more than 200 trucks per day passing through the quarry scale house. First, this proffer fails to make clear if the mine plan contemplates 200 loaded trucks per day leaving the site (400 trips through Middletown) or 200 round trips. Second, informational materials provided by Carmeuse state that "... the quarry operation is not getting bigger. The quarry operation will continue to follow the same limestone vein it has been following for 50 years with ... the same number of trucks and rail cars." Considering that Carmeuse is informing the public that the mining rate will not increase, we fail to understand why the company is proffering a 400% increase in truck traffic as the quarry expands. If mining rates are not increasing, the company should proffer a continued 50 trucks per day through the facility. The Geologic Resources Division appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions or if we can be of any further assistance, please contact Kerry Moss, External Minerals and Energy Development Coordinator, at 303-969-2634. TAKE PR1DE111 INAMERICA�% Blank Page United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE +m�9 1849 C Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20240 IN MLY AEMR Ta MEMORANDUM TO: Diann Jacox, Supetintendent, Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Hist al Park FROM: Paul Hawke, Chief, American Battlefield Protection Program % SUBJECT: Proposed Rezoning of Battlefield Parcels DATE: 16 April 2009 The American Battlefield Protection Program is quite concerned about the proposed rezoning of 691 acres of the Cedar Creek battlefield. I understand that O-N Minerals would like to rezone this agricultural land for the purposes limestone extraction. Such a drastic change in land use will destroy significant portions of the Cedar Creek battlefield landscape. Expanded mining will also intensify the existing adverse effects of quarry operations on the setting and viewshed of the protected, intact portions of the battlefield. The National Park Service, its partners, and the community recognize, of course, that Cedar Creek is one of the most important Civil War battlefields in Virginia and in the nation. I would like to address how the parcels under consideration contribute to that larger and pivotal history. The land proposed for rezoning is critical to understanding the way in which the Union and Confederate armies used the landscape for military benefit during the conflict. The heights of Red Hill above Cedar Creek on the southern parcel under consideration, and the stream valley of Middle Marsh Brook, which runs through the northern parcels under consideration, were especially important terrain features in this battle. Red Hill was the location of the fortified encampment of the Union VI Corps, and understandably so. Here is high ground protected by Cedar Creek itself to the west, a formidable obstacle to an attacking opponent. Well elevated, Red Hill provided not only a good defensive position, but also a good location for observation of adjacent fields. During the morning of 19 October 1864, as Confederate forces swept northwest across the Valley Pike, portions of the surprised Union XIX Corps retreated to the relative safety of their comrades' position on Red Hill. Archeological investigations will likely reveal the extent of the fighting that occurred on the heights and along the creek to the west of the hill. As the Confederate army pressed its attack and Red Hill became untenable, the Union troops retreated to the northeast, using the Middle Marsh Brook stream valley as a significant avenue of withdrawal. The terrain associated with the stream valley is and was wide and flat, making it an easily traversable, a key attribute when speed would have been needed. The Confederates pursued along the same terrain. This area is also the location of Brig. Gen. Wesley Merritt's cavalry encampment of October 18-19, near the local landmark of Nieswander's Fort. Historic maps and accounts are clear about the role this same Iand played in the last and perhaps most dramatic stage of the battle. The left wing of the reformed Confederate infantry line --mainly Maj. Gen. John Gordon's division --was positioned across the stream valley, bisecting it. Brig. Gen. George Custer's cavalry attacked from the north, focusing on the western end of the Confederate line. Stretched across the stream valley and unable to maintain cohesion at its flank, the Confederate left wing broke. These decisive actions took place on the northern section of land being considered for rezoning. The disintegration of the Gordon's division on the left caused the Confederate center to collapse, unable to hold its position under attack from its left and its front. The entire Confederate army retreated as Sheridan's troops "pushed with vigor." In dramatic fashion, Sheridan's Union army found itself victorious at the end of the day. Given the importance of the landscape and key terrain within the proposed quarry expansion, most of which retains a high degree of integrity from the Civil War period, the American Battlefield Protection Program can only recommend against the rezoning of these critical parcels. Lowe, David W. Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah galley of Virginia. Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior, 1992 (109-113). ECS Mid -Atlantic LLC. "Archaeological Delineation and Restoration Plan for the Historic Tabler and Nisewander Family Cemeteries, Frederick County, Virginia." Fredericksburg, VA, March 2008 (13, 41, 45). Sheridan to Grant, Official Records oj'the War of the Rebellion, Series 1, Vol. 43 (Part 1), 33. Whitehome, Joseph W.A. The Battle of Cedar Creek: Self -guided Tour. Washington, DC: Center of Military History, United States Army, 1992).