HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-06 Civil War Preservation Trust Infor.05/23/2008 16:06 FAX 202 367 1865
Theodore Sedgwick
Chairman
To: Eric Lawrence
Fax:
From:
Comments:
Tod Sedgwick
CIVIL WAR PRES TRUST
CIVIL WAR PRESERVATION TRUST
540- 665 -6395
Tod Sedgwick
X Urgent X For Your Information
WASHINGTON OFFICE
1331 11 Street NW .Suite 1001 Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202)367.1861 or (800) 29S -7878 Fax: (202) 367-1865
Saving America's Hallowed Ground
Company: Frederick County Planning
Department
Pages:
3 (including cover page)
Date: May 23, 2008
Please Reply Review
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please contact me or Jim Campi
of the CWPT staff at 202 367 -1861. Thank you.
MAY 2 3 1008
001
James Llghthlzer
President
HAGERSTOWN OFFICE
11 Public Square Suite 200 Hagerstown, MD 21740
Phone: (301) 665 -1400 or (888) 606-1400 Fax: (301) 665.1416
05/2/2008 16:07 FAX 202 367 1865 CIVIL VAR PRES TRUST
May 23, 2008
CIVIL WAR PRESERVATION TRUST
Saving America's Hallowed Ground
Theodore Sedgwlek James Lighthizer
Chairman President
The Honorable Richard C. Shickle, Chairman
Frederick County Board of Supervisors
292 Green Spring Road
Winchester, Va. 22603
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The purpose of this letter is to reiterate the willingness of the Civil War Preservation Trust
(CWPT) to work towards a compromise solution in the matter of the Carmeuse Lime Stone
rezoning. We believe the revised proffers (dated May 22, 2008) still do not give adequate
consideration to historic land associated with the 1864 battle of Cedar Creek.
As part of a potential compromise, CWPT would be willing to consider acquisition of all or part
of the property in question.
CWPT has a strong record of working with developers and government officials to protect
battlefield land. In Prince William County, we worked with Centex Homes to protect 127 acres
of the Bristoe Station Battlefield. In Spotsylvania County, we worked with Tticord Homes and
Toll Brothers to protect 214 acres associated with the Chancellorsville Battlefield. In both
instances, local government officials were praised for working with CWPT to achieve
compromises that benefited all parties involved.
CWPT is no stranger to large- dollar land acquisitions either. In 2006, CWPT engineered the
largest private- sector battlefield acquisition in history, purchasing the $12 million Slaughter Pen
Farm on the Fredericksburg battlefield in Spotsylvania County. Last year, CWPT invested $4
million in the Glendale battlefield in Henrico County. In Frederick County, we have invested
$3.3 million in the Third Winchester battlefield $2.5 million for acquisition of the property in
1995, and $800,000 for very popular walking and biking trails opened in 2007.
CWPT has been able to make these acquisitions by securing federal and state battlefield
preservation grants, matched with generous donations from our members and private sector
foundations. We also have a strong record of working with like minded preservation groups,
such as the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation. Overall, CWPT has facilitated the
preservation of more than 25,000 acres of battlefield land for use by local citizens and tourists.
WASHINGTON OFFICE
1331 H Street NW Suite 1001 Washington, DC 20005
'hone. (202) 367 -1861 or (800) 298 -7878 Fax: (202) 367 -186$
1 Z 002
HAGERSTOWN OFFICE
11 Public Square Suite 200 Hagerstown, MD 21740
Phone: (301) 665.1400 or (888) 606 -1400 Fax: (301) 665 -1416
05/23/2008 16:07 FAX 202 367 1865 CIVIL WAR PRES TRUST
.r•
Letter to Chairman Richard C. Shickle
Page Two
May 23, 2008
There is no question that the debate over expansion of the Carmeuse quarry expansion has been a
long and heated one, creating divisions among Frederick County residents. A compromise
solution would help bridge these divisions, enable Carmeuse to mine part of the property for
decades to come, and provide the county with additional historic open space to attract the
onslaught of visitors expected for the Civil War Sesquicentennial commemoration, which begins
in 2011. Plus, it would help address some of the other concerns raised by local residents,
including an increase in truck traffic, ground water contamination, noise pollution, and air
quality issues.
At this point, the key to any compromise would be for the Board of Supervisors to either table or
reject the Carmeuse rezoning proposal as presently constituted. Without such action, the mining
company has no incentive to work with the preservation community, and CWPT will have no
opportunity to discuss acquisition options. We sincerely hope you will urge Carmeuse
representatives to meet with CWPT and other preservation groups so an alternative compromise
can be explored in good faith.
In a letter of' May 22, 2008, Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park
superintendent Diann Jacox proposed that the county, Carmeuse, and the preservation
community enter into facilitated discussions to explore potential compromise solutions. CWPT
would be most happy to participate in such discussions and, if necessary, help underwrite a
facilitator.
As we noted in our April 21, 2008 letter to the board, and as has been so eloquently stated by
other groups and local residents, the property in question is hallowed, blood soaked ground. In
1993, a blue- ribbon commission established by Congress identified Cedar Creek as a Priority I,
Class A site its highest designation (Only a few battlefields in the country, such as
Gettysburg, Antietam, and Chancellorsville, have this level of significance). If there are any
questions in the minds of county officials and board members about the historic significance of
this property, please do not hesitate to ask we would be happy to address them.
Thank you for your consideration. We sincerely believe a mutually acceptable compromise
solution is in the best interest of Frederick County, as well as the historic preservation
community. We would be most happy to work with you to engineer such a solution. If you have
any questions, please contact me or Jim Campi of the CWPT staff at 202 367 -1861.
Theodore Sedgwick, Chairman
cc: Fredrick County Board of Supervisors
Mr. John Riley, Frederick County Administrator
Mr. Eric Lawrence, Frederick County Planning Director
Z003
&Lc ECS MID ATLANTIC, LLC
aas ic Geotechnical Construction Materials Environmental Cultural Resources
Mr. Spencer Stinson
Chemstone Operation
1696 Oranda Road
Strasburg, VA 22657
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.
Raymond Ezell, RPA
Senior Archaeologist
Do glas L Finch
Environmental Services Manager
February 7, 2008
Revised March 6, 2008
ECS Project No. 21:9244
RDE /PCultural R courcesVProjects,4000- 4999v4966 On Minerals Cem Delineation AReport \Revisul Final Repon.Doc
915 Maple Grove Dri Suite 206, Fredericksburg, VA 22407 (540) 785 -6100 FAX (540) 785 -3577 www.ecslimited.com
Aberdeen, MD Ba re, 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
PROJECT
CLIENT
SUBMITTED BY
FINAL REPORT
Archaeological Delineation and Restoration Plan for the
Historic Tabler and Nisewander Family Cemeteries,
Frederick County, Virginia.
O -N Minerals (Chemstone)
1696 Oranda Road
Strasburg, VA 22657
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 18` -early 19 centuries. The Tabler
family cemetery was found to contain at 5 individual interments from the late I9`
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.
Chapter Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES iv
1. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Description of Project Area
B. Geology and Topography 5
C. Hydrology 5
II. RESEARCH DESIGN 6
A. Archival Research 6
B. Fieldwork 6
C. Report Preparation 6
III. 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 38
V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CEMETERIES RESTORATION 46
VI. REFERENCES CITED 52
APPENDIX I: Representative Photographs
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Figure 1. Map of Virginia Showing the Approximate Location of the Project Area.
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 of the Opequon Magesterial District 21
Figure 10. Nisewander Family Cemetery on Historic Mapping 22
Figure 11. Photographs ofNisewander's Fort 24
Figure 12. 1986 Land Plat 29
Figure 13. Schematic Planview o 'fabler 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
1. INTRODUCTION
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).
Figure 1. Map of Virginia Showing the Approximate Location of the Project Area.
A. DESCRIPTION OF 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.
o Rder For
u
N ees t C °fib \r�; iY
r i Nisewander Family Cemetery N, x'(
i t? 4 i
=JCL ..11 1.11 '.1:4;: (14. --0
I trl o f
r 1 f '.625 1∎.44— I 1 r i 41:A
<4 ,1/ '--A 4 O ff
�Cl �Ilyy��l d? f .mo
ti !i r y i \\cam..
O -N MINERALS CEMETERY
DELINEATIONS
Locations of Project Area
FIGURE 2
ECS Project 21:9244
February 2008
Vicinity of
Nisewander's Fort Site
O -N MINERALS CEMETERY
DELINEATIONS
Location of the Nisewander Family Cemetery
3
FIGURE 3
EC Project 21:9244
February 2008
M NM NM NM MN NM MI MN OM ME MO OM
O -N MINERALS CEMETERY
DELINEATIONS
Location of the Tabler Family Cemetery
FIGURE 4
ECS Project 21:9244
February 2008
4
O -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations
ECS Project No. 21:9244
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.
5
O -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations
ECS Project No. 21:9244
February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008)
11. RESEARCH DESIGN
The historic cemetery delineations were designed to locate and identify unmarked
historic graves associated with the late 19 century Tabler family cemetery and the late
18 -early 19 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. Historical documentary and cartographic review
was conducted using the resources of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources
(VDI -1R), the Library of Virginia, Library of Congress, Handley Regional Library, and
the Central Rappahannock Regional Library.
13. 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 land forms.
This locale was carefully 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 -19 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 carefully strip away the plowzonc 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 ofthe 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 1 presents representative photographs of the
cemetery locales.
6
0 -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations
ECS Project No. 21:9244
February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008)
III. 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 18 century when explorers and fur 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 18 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 identitied in the region at
contact.
Exploration and Early Settlement, 1716 -1783
The Shenandoah Valley was first seen by European trappers in the early 18 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
O -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations
ECS 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.
8
O -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations
ECS Project No. 21:9244
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 18 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 19 and into the 20 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 and early 19 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 Fanning, 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 century, and the agrarian character of the county remained much as it had been in
the late 18 century.
The War of 1812 found the citizens of Frederick County ready and willing to protect thcir
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 1 817, and, in 1834, the Valley Turnpike Company was
founded. Canals vied for the trade along the James and the Rappahannock rivers 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
9
O -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations
ECS 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 Creek 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
ECS 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- clection 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 17 and 18 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 17 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 thc Federal left flank (Whitehorne
1987).
In the late evening of the 18 and the early pre -dawn hours of October 19 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
Mclnturffs 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 thc 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).
11
O -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations
ECS I'roject 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 prc -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 19 Kershaw's division
opened the attack with intense volleys of tire 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 1 and 3` 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 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 held
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.
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 "1 can give you no support," to which I answered that 1 did not need any
support, as there was a body of our cavalry there. He gave me the desired permission and
12
O -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations
FCS 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 shall 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: 192 L 17).
After retiring nearly a mile north of Middletown, DuPont was rejoined by the 5
remaining guns of Battery B, 5 U.S. Artillery, which increased his force to nine guns.
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.
Wharton'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 ofNisewander'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 st 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
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
1 a "'°K�I'
Y i r y ',7 m p( 'rF;
y 3 ,i At 4 R,t y
F 7r'. 'j a te !i aIX CORPS
i �V
JA F
�•"'1
Tr>•S GC` �'1�'''g
C(
"'t Fir,-
t
"tA
R e f r.� *�rl"Y� -•fr. •+T ,p
ry y am, yj ice*
o- A y W ,,}p
T•W tEI
..".,t h.�.�.��llJ:
_N
Sbe command t tpost, laic
l October 1
mommy of October 9
9
r.r I i� 4•x'1" hs
t •f. YiA J S� y A r A ��',Y
i r Y M rm M
tr r' h t a viw'^r'� 4
K.. 4
n t k
yy .a$ f
tk t l
a t. m N
.af.y, (d¢
xS W r d
9
.d.q� 11 di
i X' JSA
A •��""r�'*
fC
��li�1
3
i
VI CORPS
.s.
ti ,rfl lr1' 31 y. F
d 3� �i tC -;F
rF r++s' g 4F
y y� F.., f
d18 4.
<M� px
±A
f.r
S ($t'kx
TM
.2
-$1
Captain
+}o"+
i65
11Y'�'
DuPont
1)
1
t
•�4�
c3
s batteries,
at
i t i
r
F
r i
�1 .`h 'd .Ibakx
afternoon Of October 9
r ,5r}I.#y,
re
CJORDON 9'
LICH I I3A 11 FRY L
y 1` OHIO AR IIILLRY
A A u
c 4 X %C $t
—'°A
r M 'C r r rr
KI R,iI111A I
n. .:z* y
to qk r.j.54' w -tiro
-`h''
LIGH NAIIIRY 13,
Si' US AR I ILI,FRY
•'T
AM
,a i h¢'T^"
e
4: x yti
Yw*m' r�YF A a r
'is,
a
x 4 `.Ili
r t
IL4M51 UK
x
J,
-r` AI
d
11 l l i
'�yF!'
Z E
t�
a r °1L
PECft #M
�I ji
3 F"f`� 'tir 4 �J L
ti
q r
t�4 s q t y! .r eT w
i
TTT
i76 lin
V.H V210N rf']
cr .`r r F Aic.
.1! pY
i i''
1 a
x
Source: Hotchkiss (1864)
Scale: NTS
NORTH
O -N MINERALS
CEMETERY
DELINEATIONS
Troop Positions During the Late
Morning of October 19, 1864
FIGURE 5
ECS Project 21:9244
February 2008
p Ft(
ILJJJ
A"
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
O -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations
ECS Project No. 21:9244
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 guns 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 hours 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
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
O -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 niy 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
ECS.I'roject No. 21:9244
February 7. 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008)
Nisewander Family Cemetery
IV. RESULTS
A. ARCHIVAL REVIEW
The archival review examined various historic maps to determine if the cemeteries had
been illustrated during the 19 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.
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 Northcrn 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 18 century and early 19 century. Alternate spellings were found as,
Nighswander, Niswanger, Nicewanger, Nicswander, Nieswanger, and Nicewanker.
The parcel on which the cemetery lies was part of a tract of land purchased by David
Nicewanker (Nisewander) on May 21 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
Source: Hotchkiss (1864)
Scale: NTS
NORTH
O -N MINERALS
CEMETERY
DELINEATIONS
Vicinity ofTabler Family Cemetery
FIGURE 6
ECS Project 21:9244
February 2008
18
O -N MINERALS
CEMETERY
DELINEATIONS
Nisewander and Tabler Cemetery
Areas on Historic Mapping
FIGURE 7
ECS Project 21:9244
February 2008
19
Source: Gillespie (1864)
NORTH
O -N MINERALS
CEMETERY
DELINEATIONS
Historic Mapping of the Area
urauu f
FIGURE 8
ECS Project 21:9244
February 2008
20
4
Nisewander's Fort
O -N MINERALS
CEMETERY
DELINEATIONS
1885 Map of the Opequon
Magesterial District
ciiirc
AaPtiaa
NORTH
1
t ar:
14 R e4
F 41
1 67.
aLA
FIGURE 9
ECS Project 21:9244
February 2008
21
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
(PatriOrme u.It.
LL $/JERIPAN 7rA61
4 :3o PM RErA
FIELD. coN EOER TES
eciR.VEG A Ro
CEDAR CR fi
T H
amvel Mc Cvh
(co /85'04
0
J
fide
h eat
RoAr/ rt.
v
John M. Mil r
(c/. 1980)
f
V 1 aRidings
Grave.ardj
n\
(Whitehe.
\�r11 �,akcln
4 r* u
Benton Strap,
(ca.ltaa
'V/NION
01 /1/ US. (ca. 4 a N
r d Fai rfa
f2p)� James Wif
(ca. /e Vo
per (Wm
pie) ?Ply-) s Tenn (IB4•.-)
Walter
S 19=
vJiIi
/0 (/B5J
an (19/
�o-
Herbert L rricJr
F
c
E yt
rnelivt D'a /dwin4 Mil/
(a. /B /S)
t 5olomorr
(/922)
197)
'pwar
rs
13
1
N
lgortUrrre "f (1919
5)
R -I' )AMP
0
FREDE
Source: Scheel
Ge ra1,1 Walters
(late
F
r' Qai�� Js
r, o
J
4.f er00. /a'o)
(hat Fes W. Ilea
NSA Mawr
71 n n Frr/ °ra to ndvo
C o uNT
.'WALTE.ATO
�Jak= Walters (earl -.409 arva S
a Cc
ogrran Wise
ac Heise
1 6
Byrd W /lams (ca.19
(1
House of PUb c
Tourist CaSind the
q ?rc t brave 2r
(Mt. Zia Gra•cyard)
Sperry- RinkerG -ra 4rd
W in Lee
(/73 8)
!/NION ARMY
REGROUP:,
/OA.M.'4'P.
C eorie W. H
(Penes/ N.7
(I,id -Itth)
NORTH
George n:re (ca. /f2o)
r1/2
Christ
Din
Jonah
(c. C.
(early
oWrt
ntsry 1
001
-r' RE bR P�.fir (rr
Prr. i.6 /79
J
met G, verstone (ea
k gr er Graveyard
9
0
9 L a,
f �pP
aSRCRFOAN
�p ATTACKI seph
61)
k enva tr-
/3 owen)
(f 1,)
Ja
1 mile
,I1
es Steele
(ca. /too)
orr (Hatt Niton
Attho
l !tee
(s
40.1870)
5 1■11
10
1 Ro
4'7a Herbert Stickle•
4 de. C /9 *darn
W ARRE N
1000 2400 3000 fee s000 6000
1!z
7000
Ie70)
A h 6r
Ow,
8
1
O -N MINERALS
CEMETERY
DELINEATIONS
Nisewander Family Cemetery nn
Historic Mapping
Uitlo® va uc
22
I
FIGURE 10
ECS Project 21:9244
February 2008
O -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations
ECS 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 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 facade
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 Niscwander is sparse. Christian and Mary Magdalena
Nisewander were a part of a group of settlers that arrived with Jost Hite in the Frederick
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 Niscwanders 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 Niscwander, 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 I -lite 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
O -N MINERALS
CEMETERY
DELINEATIONS
Photographs of Nisewander's Fort
J
1n5ID 119- AR740C
FIGURE 11
ECS Project 21:9244
February 2008
24
O -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations
ECS Project No. 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 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 16 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 2 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 Ccnsus 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 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 20 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).
26
0 -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations
ECS Project No. 21:9244
February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008)
Stickley had large landholdings extending from Cedar Creek to Opequon Creek. He 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 11 tl 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 30 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 29
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 235:1 14-
115). United States Steel sold the tract along with three other tracts to Chemstone
Corporation on June 27 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 the parcel did
not note the cemetery (Figure 12). It is unclear exactly who is buried in the cemetery. A
minimum 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 1 9 th 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).
28
1.
a 43
l
N�
IL1
h k r i s
ola
Tabler Family C
R
ft
+z J4ia �O at®,f�rowr�+W.0
Qu: 01(4' 4:14 it dt AtiCe t 4a
.ifti+W6PTP 7 .{a14ir1 e'd JPS,Cd der 4.19:aRo,, m 4'!!
rat+ vas IP, EI TFa
$or,r�4
sari
O -N MINERALS
CEMETERY
DELINEATIONS
1986 Land Plat
Y
ind 1 110 al
2Ce4 4
44174`
alb him
A4�4dl
b PPP Ti
Mr 61,17
WIDD,.A4I 4 VIJC
41 aa�'�010!'we oT .O4
1 t.1 1 $14,21,1111 rtd .AV `AGE' r1f J1'
*Pi 4 J'C71? t'd0.
0 14 100,.
Cemetery yy
fin
T +J C&44' vat 1
IP A 00 W Sitars'
vie 44:00 Aso..
otecitr„ 40
q
!f 'd'9''+
14
d
24.700 0110.0140
t: oR
ja ei
F yJ r �p
1a 19
I oti t
111 Nisewander (r'
Family Cemetery
1
e4caroti 4. M G, 'q .t Y. 4
tk
s
44
fr,4 -U
q/ e
4'11
le 14 b il i 3 44.
r 14
W
Ith s.
,saay .01.7413 a
T J .ddrdVfcs+.r;�' eat Yu, rQ tikto .aI'`
aar
J
Source: FCDI3 620:192
NORTH
Yfe r I
0. WIe.
eliOrrrag
M: 1418 %14nl: Fai
FIGURE 12
ECS Project 21:9244
February 2 008
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 ofJacob I- lottel of Shenandoah County, Virginia. Jacob
"Snitz I- lottel 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 carne 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 (I- fuddle 1982:13 -15).
Jacob "Snitz Hottel died prior to March 12` 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 Baker, 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
O -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, I -lenry 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 26 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 I 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 117:171).
Oliver B. Ritter increased his landholding in the early 20 century with the addition of
two parcels to the 42+ -acre tract acquired from George Borden. On November 15 1912,
B.F. Watson and M.F., 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 0(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 28
1947, ordered the sale of his lands. Emma Ritter and Ina K. Dalton, executor of 0.13.
Ritter, deceased, sold to J.J. Pickeral a 1 73.6-acre tract, which included the three land
transactions that Oliver Ritter made in the late 19 and early 20' centuries. The sale of
the land was made March 12 1947 for $12,550 (FCDB 199:511-512).
31
0 -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations
ECS Project No. 21:9244
February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008)
J.J. Pickeral and his wife, Dorothy W., sold the tract on January 29 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 27 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 I- landley 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 "Fabler
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 Funkhouser
Tabler on May 3 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 Funkhouser. 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 Funkhouser 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
I- landley 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
ECS Project No. 21:9244
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. ninca 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. 1 -leavy
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 anomalies 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 1 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
MMNIIM MOM=
I
rnrrr
10 ft.
315°
ME Inscribed Headstone
Footstone
MI Whitewashed Wooden
Marker
Graveshaft
0) Osage Orange Tree
Cedar Tree
G -1: Henry Brewer
G -2: James D. Tabler
G -3: Catharine Tabler
G -4: Joana Tabler
G-5: Unknown
0
G-4
G -3 G -2
i
G -5
G -1
Extent of Stripped Area
O -N MINERALS CEMETERY
DELINEATIONS
Schematic Planview of the Tabler Family Cemetery
FIGURE 13
ECS Project 21:9244
February 2008
34
O -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 foams, 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 I reads:
The footstone from this grave is inscribed,
The headstone from Grave 2 reads:
The headstone from Grave 3 reads:
Our Father
HENRY BREWER
Born
Aug. 20,1803
Died
June 15 1880
Rest in Peace
In Memory of
Our Father
James D. "Fabler
Born June 6, 1801
Departed this life
April 20 1876
Aged 68 Years 10 months
11 days
In Memory of
CATHARINE
wife of tilde' James D. Tabler
Born July 28, 1803
AND
departed this life
35
Albin Bro.
Win FA
O -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations
ECS Project No. 21:9244
February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008)
The headstone from Grave 4 reads:
May 17,1871
Aged 67 years 9 months
19 days
A. Eagan
The footstone from this grave is inscribed, "C.T"
JOANA
daughter of
James 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. at the cemetery locale to
delineate the layout and number of graves present. The soils at this cemetery are
somewhat loose clayey and silt foams, 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.
36
N
M
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 fieldstones 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 20 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 19 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 Creek 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 Creek.
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 Creek Battlefield
38
O -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations
ECS 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 Brook. 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
N
r1 O
N CV
a U
O
F.* p' N
6T0 V) PIA
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 Marsh Brook, appears to date to the late 19 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.
41
It;
:tN NV 4' ifr
Ill
kto
`1
9r
a o
04
ia. s
,A)`'v�r` 32
�g
rt "1-_'
�.s
O -N MINERALS
CEMETERY
DELINEATIONS
Northeast Oblique of House on
Tabler Tract, 2008
GUN h
FIGURE 16
ECS Project 21:9244
February 2008
42
O -N MINERALS
CEMETERY
DELINEATIONS
Views West and South from Middle
Marsh Brook and Tabler Cemetery
NA ICINATLANITlltC
FIGURE 17
ECS Project 21:9244
February 2008
43
O -N MINERALS
CEMETERY
DELINEATIONS
Views North and East from Middle
Nlarsh Brook and Tabler Cemetery
FIGURE 18
ECS Project 21:92
February 2008
14
44
O -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
ECS 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 Tabter and Nisewander Family
Cemeteries
The Tabter 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 Tabter and Nisewander
family cemeteries during the late 18 -early 19' century and the late 19 century and
include restoration of the ornamental vegetation and the markers themselves.
Fill and Landscape Contouring
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.
46
O -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations
ECS Project No. 21:9244
February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008)
Cleaning and Repair of Headstones and Footstones
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.
I. Use a non -ionic soap. One of the most readily available soaps is Orvus
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® 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 'Fabler 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
I:CS Project No. 21:9244
February 7. 2006 (Revised March 6, 200H)
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 firm 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 alter being reset. For 19`
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.
48
O -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations
GCS Project No. 21:9244
February 7. 2008 (Revised March 6. 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 tills 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 minor (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 (lowers. 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 dowers 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.
49
O -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations
ECS 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 "fabler 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 bulk 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 sccond 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 Fabler cemetery is from the west.
50
O -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
ECS Project No. 21:9244
February 7. 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008)
VI. REFERENCES CITED
Archives of the Handley 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 Berrying 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
O -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations
ECS 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 V irginia,
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 Stale Enumerations 1782
to 1785 Virginia. Accelerated Indexing Systems, Inc. Bountiful, Utah.
Kalbian, Mara! 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 Oueen
County. Cadamus Fine Books, Richmond, Virginia.
King, George H. S.
1961 The Register of Overwharton 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 Caont. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
McLearen, Douglas C.
1989 Phase 111 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
ECS 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, Volnnte
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 Rccords
1884 The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and
Confederate Armies. Series 1, vol. XI, Part I: Reports. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
Poland, Charles Preston, Jr.
1976 From Frontier to Suburbia. Walsworth Publishing Company, Maraline, Missouri.
Studebaker, Marvin F.
1959 Free Stone from Aquia. Virginia Cavalcade IX(1):35 -41.
Titus, James
1991 The Old Dominion al War: Society. Politics, and Warfare in Late Colonial
Virginia. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina.
Umstattd, Elizabeth Madison Colas
1999 Hite Family homesteads: Neklar 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: .9 History of the John Wilkins Family and some Related
Families of Virginia: Tarok- Hite -Wall -Winn and others: 1618 -1979. Published
by author, Winchester, VA.
54
NM NM NM r NM MI UN MI M MI MO MN MI MN MI OM M
MITLANTIC
Tabler Family Cemetery, View East
Stripping at the Tabler Family Cemetery, View North
Project No. 21:9244
Tabler Family Cemetery, View Northwest
Stripping Grave Shafts at the Tabler Family Cemetery
Project Name:
0 -14 Minerals (Chemstone) Cemetery Delineations/Restoration
Ell r r r r r r EN NS r r r r r r r
lalat
MDATIANTIC
Inscribed Headstones at the Tabler Family Cemetery
Tabler Family Cemetery After Stripping and Backfilling, View
East
Project No. 21:9244
Wooden Marker near James and Catharine Tabler Graves
Archeological Study Restoration of Unknown Cemetery
Ls�citm Woad bana3lN6sraader lady ?lo4u many ast
pas mtr tclk let Itc )g oresligalad andrxadiml nclRaymoed
aaorkeiviola a at eteECSND $LM(TIC:LLrOnxinataligavons ar e
mom owls d resiaethemiry'oaIradili aalappea'ance
;,Y:56M4:E4A0r 'tT c E.ASE CO ,QT nlSTU98 THE HISTORIC STUD r$
O•N N)inerals (Chemstone)
Public Notice Erected by O -N Minerals at the Nisewander
Family Cemetery, View East
Project Name:
O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Cemetery Delineations/Restoration
Groundcover at the Nisewander Family Cemetery, View East
Nisewander Family Cemetery After Debris Removal, View
Northeast
Project No. 21:9244
Stripping at the Nisewander Family Cemetery
MN MI NM MN N UP MI I I NM MI S NM I
Nisewander Family Cemetery During Clearing, View
Southwest
Project Name:
O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Cemetery Delineations/Restoration
ma on L ow m in as um ilk am m mal a M I _p
IIIIN►TaNne
Stripped Area Lacking Graves at the Nisewander Family
Cemetery
Exposure of Fieldstone Grave Markers at the Nisewander
Family Cemetery
Project No. 21:9244
Graves Layout at the Nisewander Family Cemetery
Project Name:
O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Cemetery Delineations/Restoration
MI 1E111 M r NM M w= NM MN NM MI E M s
Graves Layout at the Nisewander Family Cemetery
Project No. 21:9244
Graves Layout at the Nisewander Family Cemetery
Project Name:
O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Cemetery Delineations/Restoration
They should show future quarry expansion location and berms locations and
maximum elevations of berms should be established as well as types of
screening.
Archaeology should be performed at Nieswanger Fort.
Core areas of Battlefield and union encampments existed on the land to be
rezoned.
Areas not to be quarried should be kept in agricultural use or put under
protective easements.
Old quarry areas should be reused as much as possible for overburden.
Could the old Meadows Mills Road be reopened to mitigate traffic on U.S route to
Shenandoah County.
Areas that were campgrounds and battlefield should be surveyed by
professionals for establishing the significant areas of the battlefield for future
interpretation at the adjacent Natural Park.
pu l CS cp,s
Department of Historic Resources
W.Tayloe Murphy, Jr. 2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23221
Secretary of Natural Resources
Administrative Svcs.
10 Courthouse Avenue
Petersburg, VA 23803
Teb (804) 863-1685
Fax: (804) 862-6196
Petersburg Office
19-11 Bolingbrook Street
Petersburg, VA 23803
Tel: (804) 863-1620
Fax: (804) 863-1627
COMMONWEALTH of VI
TO: Frederick County History Advisory Board
FROM: David Edwards, Director, Winchester Regional Office IA% 6,0204
DATE: December 20, 2005
RE: Chemstone Rezoning Request
In reference to the Chemstone— Middletown property rezoning of 691 acres from RA to
EM (Extractive Manufacturing District), DHR requests that a Phase 1 archaeological and
architectural survey of the entire 691 acres be conducted to identify and document
historic resources in that area prior to granting a rezoning. This type of study will
probably be required as part of the Federal and State Mining permit process under
Section 106 of the National Preservation Act of 1966. This survey would provide detailed
recommendations for the treatment of historic resources, which at this point have not
been identified.
Portsmouth Office
612 Court Street, 3 Floor
Portsmouth, VA 23704
Tel: (757) 396 -6709
Fax: (757) 396-6712
l
QINIA
Kathleen S. Kilpatrick
Director
Tel: (804) 367 -2323
Fax: (804) 367 -2391
TDD: (804) 367-2386
www.dhr.state.va.us
Roanoke Office Winchester Office
1030 Penmar Avenue, SE 107 N. Kent Street, Suite 203
Roanoke, VA 24013 Winchester, VA 22601
Tel: (540) 857 -7585 TeL (540) 722-3427
Fax: (540) 857 -7588 Fax: (540) 722-7535
Marshall Brown
Councilman, Town Of Middletown
7994 Main Street
Middletown, VA 22645
Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board
After careful review of the Impact Analysis Statement provided by Global ChemStone Corporation,
request that the Historic Resources:
Advisory Board strongly oppose
any rezoning efforts until a more
suitable transportation option is
adopted.
According to data provided by
Chemstone in their June 2005
Impact Analysis Statement, the
expansion of their Middletown
facility will generate a total of
1305 vehicle trips per day or
nearly one per minute, 24 hours
a day, six days a week, directly
into the historic district of
Middletown. Half of this traffic will continue through Middletown's historic district, in front of the
Wayside Theater Wayside Inn, while the other half will proceed along the Cedar Creek
Battlefield and Belle Grove National Historic Park. Even with the addition of an uncertain future
conveyor system, this would still put 693 vehicles through the 5 Main streets intersection every
day or one every two minutes around the clock. This continuous heavy industrial traffic will:
Increase the potential for damage to historic structures and viewscapes
Decrease the quality of life for our residents by harming the air quality and
increasing noise pollution
Permanently harm any attempts by Middletown to generate income through tourism
in southern Frederick County and adversely affect current businesses
Increase the potential for death or injury in our nation's newest national park and
Middletown's residential areas
Oranda
-Cedar Creek
Wa ide
298)
05 MicrosoR Cotp 02004 NAY1EQ. and forGDT.Inc
Aztb
a'
Plea dow cW:
1
0
Meadow Mills.
N.
Or i
ergi
20 December 2005
Chemstone Corporation must revisit the
transportation options outlined in their
June 2005 Impact Analysis Statement and
eliminate all vehicular traffic though the
historic district of Middletown. Rather
than utilizing separate vehicle entries for
the Strasburg processing facility and the
Middletown quarry, an upgrade of their
existing internal road system would
completely eliminate the need to use
Routes 757, 625 and 5 Street. This can
be accomplished by rerouting all truck
traffic internally to I -81 exit 298.
This additional option hinges on Chemstone replacing the existing low water bridge which crosses
Cedar Creek adjacent to tax parcel 90 -A -23, which they destroyed some years ago in order to deny
access to their properties.
Marshall `Mark" Brown
Councilman, Town of Middletown
ask that Frederick County officials reject the ChemStone rezoning until a firm commitment is
made to redirect all heavy industrial vehicle traffic away from Cedar Creek, Belle Grove and
Middletown's historic district prior to any expansion of operations.
9 T iZ
I
1
1
ctia
09
co
tPR _s_ Opo
otcot
r eLeS Y n
,c
J ro b(p Mnl0 LA C�
V �lv C' atm
l i
bU cA bU
n CAA`S icy
Dom«— J
\o- D'AA 1 plc
Ex. 73
Rt. 55
U.S. 11
Frederick Co.
1ty of Strasbur
1 H5221 .,-1
(warren Co.
Ex. 77
Rota bin In t.aruy
Lost Integrity
Study An. Boundary
Core Ana Boundary
Roads
Wean. and Rtr.n
County or City Boundary
2.1mi.
Front RoyaI
f'
r
f
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
The Standards (Department of Interior regulations, 36 CFR 67) pertain to historic buildings of all
materials, construction types,sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and the interior,
related landscape features and the building's site and environment as well as attached, adjacent,
or related new construction. The Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in
a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new
use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the
building and its site and environment.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved.
The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property shall be avoided.
3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time,
place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical
development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural
elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.
4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired
historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples
of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced.
Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive
feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and
other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of
missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or
pictorial evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause
damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of
structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means
possible.
8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be
protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation
measures shall be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall
not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new
work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with
the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic
integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be
undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential
form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be
unimpaired.
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Board of Supervisors
540/665 -5666
540/667 -0370 fax
Richard C. Shickle Chairman
Bill M. Ewing Vice Chairman
Opequon District
Gene E. Fisher
Shawnee District
The Honorable Frank R. Wolf
United State Congress
House of Representatives
241 Cannon Building
Washington, D.C. 20515 -4610
Dear Congressman Wolf:
Thank you for sharing Ms. Clevenger's concerns with me.
First and foremost, O -N Mineral Chemstone has a current mining operation that straddles
the boundaries of Frederick and Shenandoah counties. The company owns 600 plus acres in
Frederick County and has owned same for 51 years (U.S. Steel acquired the property in 1955 and
sold same to O -N Minerals Chemstone in 1986). New development in this area of the county has
occurred around this company's land and includes the National Park Service Land. Thirdly, the
Company is now filing a rezoning petition with the County to now utilize said land that they own.
With the aforementioned facts outlined, it is now the County's responsibility to hear the
merits of the application, perform its due diligence based upon the facts presented, and render a
decision. As you know this is a very public process that will involve both the Frederick County
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. This will not be an easy process, but I can
assure you it will be a fair one.
Frederick County stands ready to listen to and address all concerns raised by its citizens
to the best of its ability.
I look forward to the dialogue and if Ms. Clevenger has further questions she may contact
our Planning Department at 540- 665 -5651
RCS /jet
to
Sincerely,
May 12, 2006
Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to respond.
Richard C. Shickle
Chairman of the Frederick County
Board of Supervisors
107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601
80&S S 1
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.
Stonewall District
Gary W. Dove
Gainesboro District
Barbara E. Van Osten
Back Creek District
Philip A. Lemieux
Red Bud District
Civil War Preservation crust
BATTLE OF
CEDAR CREEK, VA
OCTOBER 19, 1864
SHERI
ARMY OF THE SHENANROAH
i/e
�7
t Yall Pihe
Stickley
KERSHA
'060
EMORY
X-IX, CORPS
—1 r
O'g•
:rs Jennings
`j rear
te
K AW s,•
Bowman's i
Miii
�ys
Hite
it
o�
rCMILLAN BeiieGGrove
I
r t C Q e9
CROOK
VIII CORPS
et-
d iZ�tii
ti
i
A
CROOK
Vldl CORPS
IOL•n2ganiLedr
GORDON
SECOND CORPS
Legend
Conl
1st Phase
Intermediate
Ingr and Phase
r� internledtate
3rd Phase
M Battery Positions gig
,Logan
N
0
Union
I l
19th -Century Woodlice
lath-Century Strucluns
19th Century Roads
Ia h- Century Roads
ne longer In existence
Modern Roads
Protected
Battlefield Properties
/IPS Authorized Boundary
APP Care Battlefield
Study Area
Current Mining
Operations
Proposed Mining
Operations
Az!. peepae.edfd• the Civil Il;:,,
Preeerwt ion That by Stnrn Stahl y
1
Cedar Creek and Belle Grove Na 1 Historical Park
Virginia
tIcnI Park Servicie
S. Department of the Interior
111
CEBE Land Status
It
Strasburg
Legend
Status
MOO
Park eourclary
Park Service
Partner Preberved
Prrtsta
C EBE Tollal Acres
3470,75
Park Serve: 7.44 Acres
Partner Preserved 1040.24 Acres
Private 2423.07 Acres
0 0.250.5 1 1.5 2
Icilomoters
s;.
22
Recommendations for Local Planning
Significant intensification of uses should be avoided in the undevel-
oped core battlefield areas of Cedar Creek, Third Winchester, and
Kemstown, except where current Comprehensive Plans call for
such an intensification.
Undeveloped core battlefield areas currently outside of the Urban
Development Area or other development designations should not be
designated for urban development in Comprehensive Plans.
Rezonings should be avoided in undeveloped core battlefield areas
where those rezonings would result in uses not normally found in
rural areas.
Changes to more intensive uses in and around pristine battlefield
core areas should involve the inclusion of the land in a historic
overlay zoning district to control the appearance of such uses and to
protect viewsheds.
Special care should be taken to protect the key battlefield sites iden-
tified by this plan and to avoid unnecessary distractions from the
historic character of those sites.
?�1
I1
a
a
u
a
a
Cedar Creek
pristine areas where very significant battlefield events occurred.
24
Frederick County, there are approximately 12,000 acres of battlefield
core areas that retain historic integrity. These core areas include some
After the Confederate defeat at the Third Battle of Winchester on Sep-
tember 19 and at Fisher's Hill on September 22, 1864, Jubal Early
knew that he must successfully engage General Philip Sheridan. Early
knew that he needed to prevent Sheridan from returning detachments
of his force to General Grant, who at the time was opposing General
Robert E. Lee at Petersburg,. He knew that to accomplish this task, he
would have to mount an offensive against Sheridan at Cedar Creek.
In October of 1864, General Philip H. Sheridan was called to Wash-
ington, leaving General Horatio G. Wright in command of a Union
force of 45,000 men. General Jubal A. Early's Confederate force, now
18,000 strong, was monitoring the movements of the Union troops.
Early on the morning of the 19th, hidden by fog, the Confederate
forces attacked the Union VIII Corps with a terrifying rebel yell. The
Union troops were quickly routed, with their southern flank battered
by General J. B. Kershaw's Confederate troops coming north from
Bowman's Mill. From the west, General G.C. Wharton's Confederate
Table 4
Battlefield Stud) and Core Areas in Fredel ick County ith and Ny in
Battlefield
Study Area
(acres)
Core Area
(acres)
Retaining
Integrity
(core acres)
Retaining
Integrity
(core area)
Integrity
Lost
(core acres)
Integrity
Lost
(core area)
Cedar Creek
15,607
6,252
5,601
89.6%
651
10.4%
Opequon
11,670
4,914
2,321
47.2%
2,593
52.8%
2nd Winchester
22,274
3,113
1,624
52.2%
1,489
47.8%
2nd Kemstown
5,861
2,203
1,098
49.8%
1,105
50.2%
lst Winchester
4,041
1,393
301
21.6%
1,092
78.4%
lst Kernstown
4,029
1,554
1,097
70.6%
457
29.4%
Total
63,482
19,429
12,042
62.0%
7,387
38.0%
Source: National Park Service, Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of
September, 1992
Virginia,
?�1
I1
a
a
u
a
a
Cedar Creek
pristine areas where very significant battlefield events occurred.
24
Frederick County, there are approximately 12,000 acres of battlefield
core areas that retain historic integrity. These core areas include some
After the Confederate defeat at the Third Battle of Winchester on Sep-
tember 19 and at Fisher's Hill on September 22, 1864, Jubal Early
knew that he must successfully engage General Philip Sheridan. Early
knew that he needed to prevent Sheridan from returning detachments
of his force to General Grant, who at the time was opposing General
Robert E. Lee at Petersburg,. He knew that to accomplish this task, he
would have to mount an offensive against Sheridan at Cedar Creek.
In October of 1864, General Philip H. Sheridan was called to Wash-
ington, leaving General Horatio G. Wright in command of a Union
force of 45,000 men. General Jubal A. Early's Confederate force, now
18,000 strong, was monitoring the movements of the Union troops.
Early on the morning of the 19th, hidden by fog, the Confederate
forces attacked the Union VIII Corps with a terrifying rebel yell. The
Union troops were quickly routed, with their southern flank battered
by General J. B. Kershaw's Confederate troops coming north from
Bowman's Mill. From the west, General G.C. Wharton's Confederate
N
a
E
v
V
SSHHMr1a
0
Fresh from his trip from Wash-
ington the night before, Sheridan
rode from Winchester to the bat-
tlefield and arrived about 10:30
a.m. He established his com-
mand post near the Valley Pike
and began to reorganize his
forces. The VI Corps was on the
left, adjacent to the Valley Pike
with the XIX Corps on the right.
Sheridan rode along the reestab-
lished battle line as the troops re-
sponded with a mighty cheer.
troops swept the Union XIX Corps to the northeast. At the far western
end of the battle, General T. L. Rosser's cavalry encountered Custer's
unit and drove them to the east.
Colonel T. H. Carter's artillery, positioned on Hupp's Hill, bombarded
Union positions. Most of the Union army panicked and fled. The only
organized resistance the Confederates encountered was the Second Di-
vision of the Union VI Corps led by General George W. Getty. The
Second Division made three valiant stands: first at the southern end of
the ridge at Cemetery Hill, then along Old Furnace Road running west,
from where Lord Fairfax Community College is today, and eventually
holding a line half a mile north of Old Furnace Road. Confederate
victory seemed certain at this
point.
During the early afternoon, Early
attacked along the Union line.
His failure to defeat the Union forces ear-
lier in the day proved fatal as his troops were thrown back. At about
4:30 p.m., Sheridan ordered General Getty to lead an attack with the
VI Corps. After much desperate fighting, Getty's troops broke the
Confederate line. The entire Confederate army fled south back across
Cedar Creek to Strasburg and beyond. The Union pursuit continued
after dark, ending at Fisher's Hill.
The Confederates suffered 2,910 casualties: 320 killed, 1,540
wounded, and 1,050 missing. The Union forces snatched victory from
the jaws of defeat that day, but the price was high. The Union suffered
5,665 casualties: 644 killed, 3,430 wounded, and 1,591 missing.
Early's defeat at Cedar Creek ended Confederate efforts to invade the
north, and Sheridan's string of victories in the Shenandoah Valley
26
Belle Grove, on the Cedar Creek Battlefield
continued. The victory at Cedar Creek, along with the fall of Atlanta,
helped reelect President Lincoln.
The Cedar Creek battlefield area incorporates a long stretch of land
along Route 11 South, from Cedar Creek to the north of Middletown.
Focal points of fighting were at Belle Grove, the Heater House, Ceme-
tery Hill, Dinges Farm, and the D. J. Miller House. The Cedar Creek
Foundation has purchased 158 acres of the battlefield sites including
land surrounding and to the immediate north of Belle Grove. This site
includes the Heater House. Additional land to the south of Belle
Grove has been targeted for possible preservation to protect view
sheds, remaining earthworks, and other significant areas. Other sig-
nificant areas include the historic Town of Middletown and areas to
the west and north of Middletown. The Mount Carmel Cemetery on
Cemetery Hill is a particularly significant.
Much of the Cedar Creek core area remains undeveloped, rural and
pristine. Scattered single family residential development has occurred.
The Chemstone Corporation quarry is located and operated in the
Strategies For Cedar Creek
Provide funding and other support to the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation in their
efforts to acquire, preserve and use battlefield land.
Do not rezone land in the Cedar Creek battlefield core area for uses that are not nor-
mally found in rural areas.
Work closely with the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation to prepare a resource man-
agement plan for the Cedar Creek battlefield which describes appropriate preservation
treatment for structures, earthworks and other features. Such planning should include
a professional evaluation of appropriate stabilization and preservation treatments.
Work closely with the Town of Middletown to promote the Town as a center of visitor
services and as a vital part of the historic interpretation.
Work closely with the Chemstone Corporation to enlist their support and to address ap-
pearance issues.
Use Cedar Creek as an important demonstration area to show the type of progress that
can be made.
27
19"
11
southwestern portions of the core area. The Town of Middletown is
central to the core area and retains significant historic character.
Third Winchester Opequon
On September 19, 1864, Union soldiers under the command of Gen-
eral Philip H. Sheridan crossed the Opequon Creek along Berryville
Pike with the hopes of destroying General Jubal Early's Confederate
troops. General Early had sent General John Gordon and General
Robert Rodes and their divisions to Martinsburg to launch attacks in
Maryland, leaving the Confederate forces in Winchester at less than
half strength.
General Sheridan planned to have two cavalry divisions strike from
the north and the VIII Corps from the south. The main attack was to
come from the east, with the VI and XIX Corps, who had to navigate
the narrow Berryville Canyon. The Un-
ion infantry, with their wagons bogged
down in the narrow confines of Berry-
ville Canyon, dashed Sheridan's hopes of
quickly taking Winchester. This kept
the XIX Corps in the canyon until after-
noon. By this time, General Early had
discovered the Union plans and had re-
called both Gordon and Rodes.
The currently pristine areas to the east of
the Hackwood House were the scene of
intense fighting in the Third Battle of
Winchester. At about noon on the 19th,
a Union division of four brigades
led by Birge, Molineux, Sharpe, and
Shunk launched its attack from the
First Woods, on the Nash, Caleb
Heights, Huntsberry, and Regency properties, across the Middle Field,
on the Huntsberry and Caleb Heights property, toward the Second
Woods, where General Gordon's Confederate troops waited.
Confederate artillery north of Redbud Run played havoc with the
flanks of the Union attacking line. Birge's brigade reached the Second
Woods, on the Hackwood, Caleb Heights, and Regency properties, and
came upon General Gordon's main line and were staggered.
29
First Woods at Third Winchester
/14 k J I l e ry n
(26 /07/
Pre cleric `f (our)
S-4-e) az. —?2-78-
5 647. 0370
06/07/2006 14:45 8043672391
Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Historic Resources
2801 Kensington Avenue
Richmond, Virginia 23221
Telephone: (804) 367 -2323 Fax: (804) 367 -2391
TDD: (804) 367 -2386
.dhr.virginia gov
FAX TRANSMISSION SHEET
TO:
DATE:
ORGANIZATION:
TELEPHONE:
FAX:
?,6 t�Rvfeh
DEPT OF HISTORIC RES PAGE 01/04
(804)- 367 -2323 Per
KoLer Ccty ia- d hr, v yJena eve
(804) 367-2391
J
S, L
(/�d C4-,1`h a re veJ� vop a
�Tc faC re /Yeiu1-g ffPdp-cef
FROM:
PHONE:
E -MAIL:
FAX
RE:
P r e n. .&rm 0 in-, a Gf7t�fi�(
91,7,4„, 7t r'e o lYni c yu da PT ct, ,_a
C
L. Freston Bryant
ecrerany of Natural Reieurces
Ms. Julie Clevenger
451 «'estemview Drive
Mid :II- town, VA 22646
Dear Ms. Clevenger:
COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA
Office of the Governor
April 26, 2006
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 within an approximately 639 -acre tract in the vicinity of Cedar Creek
and Meadow 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 Enviromnental Quality (DEQ) has not received any permit
applications, including air and wetlands, for the proposed quarry expansion by O-N 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.
1 have asked the Virginia Depammem of Game and hniand Fisheries (DGIF) 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 13. 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.
Army 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 would 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.
Fau:ck Henn Building 1111 Ean Broad Sreet Richmond, Virginia 23219 (524) E$- TTY c::-CA;) S2.9-111.:
Ms. Julie CIevenger
April 26, 2006
Page 2
You also expressed concern that bald eagles, currently a federally threatened species, may nest
on the tract as well. Any information that you can provide to DGIF about eagle nests in this
location would be greatly appreciated. DGIF'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.
AdditionalFv. 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 lo 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 BeIIe Grove
Plantation.
Further, the Department of' Conservation and Recreation has identified, in its 2002
Virginia Outdoors Plan, Cedar Creek 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 ]rope 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 County'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 Mr. Ron Stouffer of the Corps
(703 -221 -6967) for fiwther 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 Chemstone'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 water supplies are vital to the
Ms. Julie Clevenger
April 26, 2006
Page 3
LPBJricbd
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
forward 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 Wildlife
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. Mr. Whitehurst may be reached at
804-367-4335 or via e -mail at David.Whitehurst deifvireinia.gov.
Thank you for taking time to let Governor Kaine know about your concerns. We
appreciate your interest in the natural resources of Virginia.
Sincerely,
L.L. Preston Bryant, Jr.
In reply refer to:
27 March 2006
Dear Mr. Lawrence:
United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Cedar Creek and Belle Grove
National Historical Park
7718 Main St., P.O. Box 700
Middletown, Virginia 22645
Mr. Eric Lawrence, Director
Frederick County Department of Planning and Development
107 North Kent St., 2 Floor
Winchester, VA 22601
We are writing to transmit our comments regarding the O -N Minerals Chemstone Property
Rezoning Request. The Chemstone property is adjacent to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove
National Historical Park (NHP).
O -N Minerals Chemstone provided us with a copy of their rezoning request and we in turn asked
the National Park Service's Geologic Resources Division to prepare an analysis of the proposal.
The Geologic Resources Division, based in Lakewood, Colorado, provides national leadership
and specialized assistance for managing geologic resources and protecting park resources from
the adverse effects of mineral development in and adjacent to national parks. The Division is
staffed with geologists, minerals specialists, mining and petroleum engineers, policy and
regulatory analysts, and natural resource specialists. They, in addition, consulted with an
agency hydrologist to provide input on the potential impacts on water quantity.
The attached memorandum references a photograph of Cedar Creek Battlefield taken in
October 2005 during the annual reenactment of the Battle of Cedar Creek. A copy of the
photograph is attached for your information.
Please feel free to call me with any questions or concerns about the attached information. I may
be reached at my office at (540) 868 -9176.
Sincerely,
Signed, DLJacox
Diann Jacox
Superintendent
Attachments:
1. Memorandum from Geological Resources Division, National Park Service.
2. Photograph taken during 2005 Reenactment of the Battle of Cedar Creek.
Cc:
Spencer Stinson, O -N Minerals Chemstone
Kris Tierney, Assistant County Administrator
Michael Ruddy, Frederick County Deputy Planning Director
TAKE PRID6t/
'NAM ERICA
To:
From:
Unit. States Department of tl Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Geologic Resources Division
P.O. Box 25287
Denver, CO 80225
TRANSMITTED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL NO HARDCOPY TO FOLLOW
L2360
March 24, 2006
Memorandum
Diann Jacox
Superintendent, Cedar Creek and Belle Grove
National Historical Park
Carol McCoy
Chief, Planning, Evaluation Permits Branch
Geologic Resources Division
National Park Service
Subject: O -N Minerals Chemstone Property Rezoning Request
In response to your request, the Geologic Resources Division (GRD) has reviewed several
documents associated with O -N Minerals Chemstone's request to rezone 691 acres adjacent
to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. Specifically, my staff reviewed
Chemstone's Impact Analysis Statement (June 2005), Chemstone's Rezoning Application
Materials (Dec. 2005), Commonwealth of Virginia mining and mineral regulations, and
Frederick County rezoning regulations and guidance.
We believe that the rezoning documents submitted by O -N Minerals Chemstone do not
adequately address Frederick County requirements or the impacts on the surrounding area,
including the park. With this in mind, we offer the following comments for your
consideration.
General Comments
The proposed rezoning and subsequent expansion of the limestone quarry on the O -N
Minerals Chemstone Property (Chemstone) adjacent to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove
National Historical Park may adversely impact park lands and resources. These resources
include the "nationally significant Civil War landscape and antebellum plantation" and the
"[t]he panoramic views of the mountains, natural areas, and waterways an inspiring setting
of great natural beauty" (see 16 U.S.C. 410iii -1). Unfortunately, we believe that
Chemstone's Impact Analysis Statement and Rezoning Application Materials do not fully
address the likely impacts of the rezoning/expansion of the quarry on these valuable and
unique resources.
TAKE PRIDE
I NAM ERICA
As you know, Congreerected the National Park Service (NF "encourage conservation
of the historic and natural resources within and in proximity of [Cedar Creek and Belle Grove
National Historical] Park by land owners, local governments, organizations, and businesses."
In accordance with this mandate and NPS policies, we recommend that you work closely with
Frederick County and the Commonwealth of Virginia in the rezoning and quarry expansion
processes in order to avoid, mitigate, and resolve potential resource conflicts.
Specific Comments
Based on our review, Chemstone's Impact Analysis Statement does not include several topics
required by Frederick County. These topics include "the use of surrounding land and
potential economic, physical, visual, nuisance, and other impacts on surrounding properties"
(Code of Frederick County 165- 12(C)(1)), "the anticipated increase in potential population
resulting from the rezoning" (Code of Frederick County 165- 12(C)(4)), "the projected
additional demand for public facilities" (Code of Frederick County 165- 12(C)(5)), and a
full discussion of the impacts on historic structures and sites (Code of Frederick County
165- 12(C)(8)).
Chemstone's Impact Analysis Statement and Rezoning Application Materials also
inadequately address the following topics:
Air quality impacts from fugitive dust and equipment emissions Chemstone's rezoning
application documents do not include any analysis of possible air quality impacts. Dust
generated from mining operations, crushers, conveyors, vehicles, or windblown dust from the
large disturbed area is not mentioned nor is possible mitigation of dust- related issues
addressed. These documents should also quantify emissions from mining equipment and
haul trucks, including the proposed increase in haul trucks and any other mobile or point
source.
Increased Haul Truck Traffic Chemstone's Traffic Impact Analysis modeling (March 2005)
suggests that the mine expansion could result in an increase of 801 truck trips per day, for a
total of 1,308 truck trips in Middletown, a town of 1,200 residents. This proposed increase
may detract from the quality of life and be a threat to public safety. Increased truck traffic
may also negatively impact those traveling to Frederick County to visit Cedar Creek and
Belle Grove National Historical Park and/or other area attractions.
Chemstone has suggested that it could construct a conveyor system that would decrease the
amount of truck traffic required by the mine expansion. Frederick County should be
encouraged to require this conveyor system as a condition of Chemstone's rezoning proposal
in order to avoid the impacts of increased truck traffic in Middletown and in Cedar Creek and
Belle Grove NHP.
Noise and vibration Sources of noise and vibration are also not quantified in Chemstone's
rezoning application documents. Noise generated by mining operations, crushers, conveyors,
and haul trucks is likely to be significant and will not be confined to the existing or rezoned
property. Blasting which may take place in quarry operations will not only generate noise
impacts, but also carries with it potential vibration issues which pose a threat to adjacent
structures. It is important to note that Belle Grove Plantation House, built in 1797, is a
Historic Landmark and is included on the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore,
TAKE PRIO
NAMERICAt
we suggest that Fred, County require that Chemstone subrridetailed noise and
vibration study as part of its rezoning application to address impacts and mitigation measures
for sensitive adjacent resources such as those found in Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National
Historical Park.
Night lighting Chemstone's rezoning application documents did not specify if quarry
operations are conducted 24 hours per day. However, if operational or security lighting is
used at the quarry site, impacts to the night sky and the historical scene may occur. Dust or
other particulate matter generated at the site will exacerbate night lighting impacts to
surrounding properties.
Property values and historical scene Chemstone's rezoning application documents fail to
address the existing and expanded project's impact on adjacent property values and the
historic scene for which this area is well known. The "historic impact assessment" contained
in the December 2005 Rezoning Application Materials document states that "[w]e cannot,
and have not, and do not want to save all land where history `happened. Such a sweeping
statement fails to analyze the impacts of Chemstone's quarry operations on the historic and
natural resources of Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. A photograph
obtained by GRD of the October 2005 historic battle reenactment at the park clearly shows
the Chemstone quarry in the background, dramatically illustrating the striking impact of
modern, large scale mining operations on historic properties. We believe that the "historic
impact assessment" in Chemstone's rezoning application documents should fully analyze
these impacts and present acceptable methods for mitigating them.
Ground and surface waters The section of the Rezoning Application Materials pertaining to
groundwater impacts does briefly mention the subject of aquifer drawdown due to possible
interception of groundwater from quarry operations, but fails to address possible surface
impacts associated with aquifer drawdown other than sinkhole formation. This document
also does not discuss possible impacts on water rights or groundwater quality. Further, the
text of the Rezoning Application Materials implies that only the 30 wells and septic systems
within 1500 feet of the Chemstone property would be affected by aquifer drawdown.
However, Plate 4 of this same document indicates that a 10 foot aquifer drawdown could
occur at least 9,600 feet from the potential quarry areas. For all of these reasons, we believe
that the groundwater analysis as it relates to off site impacts is extremely inadequate
Possible impacts due to the disposal of the anticipated large amount of intercepted
groundwater into surface waterways should also be analyzed in detail.
Proffer Statement Based on my staff's interpretation of Virginia's mining and mineral
regulations, most of the conditions included in Chemstone's proffer statement would likely
be required by the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy as part of the mine
expansion permit or by existing agreement. With the exception of the 8 -acre "historic
reserve," we do not interpret the proffer statement as providing additional protection for the
area's historic resources.
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 either Kerry
Moss or Julia Brunner of my staff at 303 969 -2634 or 303 969 -2012, respectively.
TAKE PRIDE'S
INAMERICA
SHENANDOAH
Fr N3/411
UNIVERSITY
Dear Mr. Ruddy:
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)
APR 2 5 2006
April 22, 2006
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 Conunission. 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 that 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.
Question: 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.
Question: 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 Chemstone 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 staffs 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 1 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
3
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 staffs 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 staff's 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...."
Question: 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?
5
Thank you for considering these observations, questions and recommendations. Please contact
me if you would like further information.
Singerely,
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
,J Ms. June Wilmot, Frederick County Planning Commission
6
TOWN OF MIDDLETOWN, VIRGINIA
RESOLUTION
OPPOSING PROPOSED O -N MINERALS REZONING
FROM AGRICULTURAL TO EXTRACTIVE MANUFACTURING LAND USES.
WHEREAS, 0 -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 Grove National
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 -hours 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 Chemstone quarry site at Clearbrook
in northern Frederick County, where two cement plants have opened
in the past 19 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 Hmore 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 839 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 Common Council
for the Town of Middletown, Virginia, that we hereby call an the
Frederick County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to
deny in its current form the application for rezoning of the 0 —N
Minerals (Chemstone) site.
Adopted this 8th day of May, 2006
Patricia J. M
Clerk
Martha H. Ingram'
Council Member Council Members
Marshall J. Brown
Council Member
John A. Copeland
Council Member
Gene T. Dicks
Mayor
Gerald D. Sinclair, Jr.
Donald E. Breeden
Council Member'
Mary L. Shull
Council Member
ASS
April 5, 2006
Front ntuunta in lop lo moimlain. top...'
'Mr. Michael T.
Deputy Planning Director
Frederick County Department of Planning and Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000
Dear Mr: Ruddy and Members of the Planning Commission,
The Greater Middletown Busiress Association would like to make the following
comments concerning the Rezoning Application' #03 -06 for O -N "Minerals (Chenmstone).
Middletown, population 1200, has no industry, with the exception of,Rt. 11 Potato Chips,
and looks to its few retail businesses as its sole source of business tax income. These businesses
range from live theater, to restaurants, hotels /motels, antique shops and gas station/convenience
stores. They derive the majority of their income from visitors to Middletown rather than the
residents themselves.. With "that in mind, it is critical to their livelihood, and ultimately to
Middletown itself, that the community continues to. be a desirable destination for people. to visit.
The. rezoning of RA, properties immediately west of Middletown would_spell economic
disaster for our member businesses. By increasing,the number of vehicle trips to 1308 per day,
that would equate to nearly one vehicle,`every- minute of the day. The,addition of these heavy,
commercial vehicles will envelop our community in a constant background roar of traffic that,
with just the current number of trucks, is already intrusive.' With the increased noise pollution
comes the'added air pollution from this commercial traffic that even now deposits a gray layer of
fine limestone particles, and diesel soot on most exterior surfaces.
Immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of Middletown lies out r nation's newest
national park, the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historic Park, established in 2002.
Tourists and Virginia residents alike come to the Shenandoah Valley to escape the urbanized
development and congestion of their cities and to -enjoy our "clean air and open vistas. Thanks to
the last, 100 years of dedicated conservationists, politicians, and landowners, we today enjoy one'
of the most incredible historical and natural "resources within the eastern United.States. W ith that
in mind, we ask that you deny this application.
June Lingwood -Brown
President
The GreaterMiddletown Business Association
P.O. Box 252
KA:AAlntnvm NT:rain:a 774AS
April 5, 2006
Frederick County Planning Commission
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000
Dear Members of the Commission,
In the 20 March 2006 Staff Report for the Planning Commission, the VDOT evaluation only
addresses transportation impacts on an uninhabited 1/4 mile stretch of rural Route 757. But,
there is a far, far greater impact.
According to data provided by Chemstone in their June 2005 Impact Analysis Statement, the
expanded strip mining at their Middletown facility will generate a total of 1305 vehicle trips per
day or nearly one per minute, 24 hours a day, six days a week, directly into the historic district
of Middletown. Most of these trips will be made by 75 feet long, 80,000 pound, 450 horsepower
diesel trucks. This continuous heavy duty industrial traffic will:
Increase the potential for damage to historic structures and viewscapes
Decrease the quality of life for our rural and town residents by harming the air
quality and increasing noise pollution
Permanently harm any attempts by Middletown to generate income through
tourism in southern Frederick County and adversely affect current businesses
Increase the potential for death or injury in our nation's newest national park and
Middletown's residential areas
A conveyor belt system to minimize traffic between the Strasburg Middletown operations is
referenced in the application. But, on 18 October, during a tour by Mr. Spencer C. Stinson,
General Manager of O -N Minerals Chemstone Operation. Mr. Stinson admitted that this was in a
conceptual stage only with no
plans for implementation in the
near future. What Chemstone
does plan is to subject southem
Frederick County to over 1300
times the level of pollution of
normal, clean air. The
Environmental Protection
Agency has stated the type of
heavy -duty vehicles transiting
Middletown account for one-
third of nitrogen oxides
emissions and one quarter of
particulate matter emissions r
from mobile sources, and is
likely to be carcinogenic to
humans. Studies show a 26%
increase in mortality in people
living in soot polluted communities and that 70 percent of the total cancer risk was due to diesel
particulate exposure. Other problems include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular
disease, aggravation of existing asthma, acute respiratory symptoms, chronic bronchitis, and
decreased lung function.
The average truck produces 40 decibels of noise as it passes on the highway. But, in the
confined historic district of Middletown, it has a totally different impact. Shifting through 12
forward gears as they accelerate from a standing stop at 5 and Main Street, these vehicles are
producing upwards of 90 decibels. What's the impact? According to Washington Hospital
Center's Hearing and Speech Center, hearing loss for anyone continuously subjected to sounds of
80 decibels or higher.
Even with walls packed with R19 insulation and modern doubled -paned windows, my wife and I
cannot enjoy uninterrupted sleep we're often roused throughout the night by this heavy
industrial traffic. Other Middletown residents already complain of sleep loss at the current level
of trips. The National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine reports that this lack of sleep
increases the risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and heart attacks.
Sincerely,
arshall
Town Co ff cil
Town of Middletown
1 strongly urge you to recommend disapproval of this application.
U
rroo =�nndn
Woos ii eaei
Bt 1 u1ae nu e�ei
oouo no� �oai
not= i1
In rural southern Frederick County, overloaded limestone trucks are already using narrow, back
roads to avoid the scales on Route 11 and 1 -81. This dangerous activity can only increase with
the increased strip mining. Of interest, Chemstone has identified an additional crushing facility
to be built on Chapel Road which was not part of the VDOT study. This will generate 100's of
more trips directly into historic Middletown.
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP
Deputy Director
DATE: April 18, 2008
Please contact me if you have any questions.
MTR/bad
Attachments
MEMORANDUM
RE: O -N Minerals (Chemstone) RZ #03 -06
Proffer Statement Revision Received April 18, 2008
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665 -5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
Please find attached for your information a revised copy of the Proffer Statement for the O -N
Minerals (Chemstone) Rezoning Application. This latest version of the Proffer Statement that was
submitted by the Applicant arrived today, April 18, 2008. The Board's Agenda was compiled earlier
in the week and distributed earlier today. Although this submission was not done in a timely fashion,
we thought it important to provide you with this information; even though it is currently incomplete
as it has not been signed and notarized by the Applicant, and does not contain a valid revision date.
Staff has been in contact with Mr. Bob Mitchell who, along with staff, will provide an additional
review of this information prior to your 04/23/08 meeting. It is extremely important to recognize that
this latest Proffer Statement was not in your agenda, has not been reviewed by Staff, has not been
reviewed by the County's Attorney, and has not been made available to the general public for their
review prior to the Public Hearing at this time. The Staff report in your agenda is based upon the
Proffer Statement that is in your agenda, not this latest submission. As noted previously, the revised
proffer statement has not been executed, signed, and notarized by the Applicant at this time. Further,
it does not contain a valid revision date.
The Applicant has also provided a marked up version of the Proffer Statement which depicts the
changes made to the Proffer Statement since the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial.
Please note that this mark up does not identify which changes have been made to the Statement since
the March 18, 2008 version.
1
LAWSON AND SILEK, P.L.C.
120 EXETER DRIVE, SUITE 200
POST OFFICE BOX 2740
WINCHESTER, VA 22604
TELEPHONE: (540) 665 -0050
FACSIMILE: (540) 722 -4051
Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director
Planning and Development
County of Frederick
107 North Kent Street, 2 Floor
Winchester, VA 22601
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Dear Mike:
April 18, 2008
TML:jk
Enclosure
cc: O -N Minerals Chemstone) Company
APR 18
Re: O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company
Our File No. 462.006
REZ #03 -06
11:
THOMAS MOORE LAWSON TLAWSONn.LSPLC.COM
As requested enclosed please find forty (40) clean revised proffer statements and forty
(40) red -line proffer statements which reflect all of the changes to the proffers in the current
revised state that have been made subsequent to the proffer statement which was presented to the
Planning Commission. Please note that in paragraph 2 we have attached and incorporated the
drawings which had previously been submitted and representations of the Generalized
Development Plan. I believe you have already received approximately forty (40) copies of those
in color for distribution to the Board Members. With all of this I believe you should have a
complete package of all documentation. If after you have reviewed this you believe otherwise
please contact me immediately so that we may provide you with all other information you
believe is required.
Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to give me a call.
FRONT ROYAL ADDRESS: POST OFFICE Box 602, FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA 22630, TELEPHONE: (540) 635 -9415, FACSIMILE: (540) 635 -9421, E -MAIL: SILEKJ@LYNXCON.NECPCOM
FAIRFAX ADDRESS: 10805 MAIN STREET, SUITE 200, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030, TELEPIIONE: (703) 352 -2615, FACSIMILE: (703) 352 -4190, E -MAIL: THOMASO.LAN:SON@VERILON.NET
Benefits of Middletown Mining Rezoning Alternative
S
'?Confederate Morning Positions
/F' ederal Morning Positions
M ine where FederaIs Regrouped
where Federals Regrouped
4` artherstConfederateAdvance
A/ Custer's Flank Attack
4 /Federal VIM Corps Trenches
A Federal Camps
Edinburg Limestone
n Lincolnshire Limestone
New Market Limestone
IH
O.N Properties
Coder Creek and
Bele Grove
National Historical P erk
rrederick County, Virginia
Historic Resources
Muse oleaMan,r
Seale: 1:10,003
Houeas: Fred,rbl Covnty
UPS 1603 Vdlley Study
Va. Dlrkion of Wove; Reoauroes
Rasa Hap: USOS 7.6
1111r,d• Sedu
Seas burg and 1.1.1elern
quadrangles. 1086.
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.
R IF
r
D bAe
oa..
F
bL
7s3nrr xrwu m o
ea V
Ir a\N
y'
a
Arks.
o
67y,�
1
%oJ
B
f
Aso b dy s
0,
c m
VII
o
l
xv
it
Cedar Creek and Belle Gron )Itional Historical Park National Park Servee
U.S. Department or the Interior
Virginia
CEBE Land Status
Strasburg
Legend
Park Boundary
Park Service
Partner Preserved
PRYJra
CEBE Toisi Acres
347075
Park Service: 7.44 Acres
Partner Preserved: 1040.24 Acres
PUvate. 2423.07 Acres
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
Kibmaters
Ceder Creek and Belle Groy T vtional Historical Park
Virginia
Notional Park Service
Department of the /interior
CEBE Land Status
Status
CEBE Tctrfl Acres
3470.75
Park Service: 7.44 Acres
Partner Preserved: 1040.24 Acres
Prate 2423.07 Are
Strasburg
Legend
J Park Boundar
Park Seayioe
Parhier Preserved
Prr,rsAa
4 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
krIOrtet+ars
r
t�rl
���li FYn f f
4 016 A
er
Mid dleto',°.
044 MINERALS
CHEMSTONE OPERATION
1696 ORANDA ROAD
PO BOX 71
STRASBURG, VA 22657
TEL 540465 -5161
FAX 540 -465 -5150
August 15, 2006
Dear Neighbor:
www.ogiebaynonon.com
Gary A. and Priscilla L. Lofton
711 Buffalo Marsh Rd
Middletown, VA 22645
AUG 2 2 2006
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 co
question and answer fee'
We'll
session. We'll as short presentation 30
Il be there at 6:
se ein question gas you need us. followed by a
g You at The Wayside Inn.
If you have any please call us at
(540) 465 -6807 I look forward to
S incerely,
Spencer C. Stinson
General Manager
O Minerals
Chemstone Operation