The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-06 Civil War Preservation Trust Info.a 05/23/2008 16:06 FAX 202 367 1865 CIVIL WAR PRES TRUST Theodore Sedgwick Chairman To: Fax: From: X Urgent Comments: 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. Tod Sedgwick CIVIL WAR PRESERVATION TRUST Eric Lawrence 540 665 -6395 Tod Sedgwick X For Your Information Please Reply Review WASHINGTON OFFICE 1331 R Street NW Suite 1001 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202)3674861 or (800) 298 -7878 Fax: (202)367-1865 Saving America's Hallowed Ground Company: Pages: Date: May 23, 2008 Frederick County Planning Department 3 (including cover page) MAY 232008 L. _1 Z001 James Llghthizer President HAGERSTOWN OFFICE 11 Public Square Suite 200 Hagerstown, MD 21740 Phonc: (301)665 -1400 or (888)606-1400 Fax: (301) 665-1416 05/23/2008 16:07 FAX 202 367 1865 CIVIL WAR PRES TRUST Theodore Sedgwlck James Lighthizer Chairman President WASHINGTON OFFICE L 1331 1-1 Street N'W Suite 1001 Washington, DC 20005 'hone: (202) 367-1861 or(800) 298 -7878 Fax: (202) 367-1865 I May 23, 2008 CIVIL WAR PRESERVATION TRUST Saving America's Hallowed Ground 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 Tricord 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 54 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. Z002 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 ri Letter to Chairman Richard C. Shickle Page Two May 23, 2008 CIVIL WAR PRES TRUST 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 ECS MID ATLANTIC, LLC 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 Wouglas J. Finch Environmental Services Manager February 7, 2008 Revised March 6, 2008 ECS Project No. 21:9244 R DE/I:`Cuhuml R sources\Prujects'4000- 4999 '4966 ()n NI inenls Cern DeIinealionikeport\Revixd Final Repo/1.00c 915 Maple Grove Dri t ,Suite 206, Fredericksburg, VA 22407 (540) 785 -6100 FAX (540) 785 -3577 www.ecslimited.com Aberdeen, MD I3a n1 hre, 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) 1 696 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 Tablet and Nisewander family cemeteries west of Middletown, in Frederick County, Virginia. The delineations were conducted on behalf of O -N Minerals (Chcrostone) 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 'fabler family cemetery was found to contain at 5 individual interments from the late ,9 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 TABLE OF CONTENTS iii LIST OF FIGURES iv I. INT'RODUCT'ION A. Description of Project Area B. Geology and Topography 5 C. Hydrology 5 11. 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 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 1. Map of Virginia Showing the Approximate Location of the Project Area. Figure 2. Location ofthe Project Area 2 Figure 3. Location of the Nisewander Family Cemetery 3 Figure 4. Location of the Tabler Family Cemetery. 4 Figure 5. Troop Positions During the Late Morning of October 19, 1864. 14 Figure 6. Vicinity of Tabler Family Cemetery 18 Figure 7. Nisewander and Tabler Cemetery Areas on Historic Mapping 19 Figure 8. Historic Mapping of the Area 20 Figure 9. 1885 Map ofthe Opequon Magesterial District 21 Figure 10. Nisewander Family Cemetery on Historic Mapping 22 Figure 11. Photographs ofNisewander's Fort 24 Figure 12. 1986 Land Plat 29 Figure 13. Schematic Planview of Tabler Family Cemetery 34 Figure 14. Schematic Planview of the Nisewander Cemetery 37 Figure 15. Map of the O -N Minerals Parcels, 2008 40 Figure 16. Northeast Oblique of 1 -louse 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 I. 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 I). 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 Tablet 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 (V Inca sp.) roses, vines, ivy, and other undergrowth. Mature hardwoods included Locust, Ash, Oak, Cherry, and Sycamore. Vegetation at the 'fabler family cemetery included a few Cedars and Osage Orange trees. No ornamental groundcover was noted at this cemetery. 8002 Annigod ttZ6: i Z loatoad sag Z ftIn9I3 wv loofa'," Jo suorlsoo' SNOIlValOrlaa s1VIaNINI N -o N I E MO r N i NM M I MR NM IN MN MI r 800Zii ntga3 H Z6 i Z ToaCoJd SOH alifl9L4 ismoup 4 Alawma3 linuu3 iapuUMasTN alp Jo uoppao7 SNIOLLV3N111aa Attainva3 S'IVIIHNIIAi u O a�!S I.TOd mapuUmasIN Jo TUTOT1 OM M IM N I IIIII NM I MI I OM MN NM MI MI 8002 lamucto3 1 6 :1 Z Polak' SOH 7 31111914 b Pro i(I mao AEUIg3 iajge,i, a42 Jo uofuoo1 SNOLLVINI'IfQ )UIi.Lll%iaD sgvuaMWJ u O NM MO NM MI IN NM NE N r IS M 0 -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 situatcd 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) II. 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: (I) 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 (VDHR), the Library of Virginia, Library of Congress, Handley Regional Library, and the Central Rappahannock Regional Library. B. FIELDWORK The primary purpose of the cemetery delineation was to identify the location and extent of the cemetery thought to be associated with the historic occupations of the landforms. This locale was 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 plowzone down to sterile subsoil in an attempt to delineate any graveshafts that might be present at each cemetery. Field notes were made of the process, and the exposed graveshafts were mapped and photographed. Scaled drawings of the investigated locales were made, as well as the limits of the suspected cemetery. C. REPORT PREPARATION The results of the archival review, fieldwork, and analysis were synthesized and are summarized in this report. The report describes the results projcct and is illustrated by selected maps and drawings. Appendix I presents representative photographs of the cemetery locales. 6 O -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 identified in the region at contact. Exploration and Early Settlement, 1716 -1783 The Shenandoah Valley was first seen by European trappers in the early 1 8 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 thc 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 1 790 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 thc agricultural reform movement in Virginia. Binns' (1803) Treatise on Practical Farming, 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 thc first half of the 19 century, and the agrarian character of the county remained much as it had been in the late 1 8 century. The War of 1812 found the citizens of Frederick County ready and willing to protect their new country from English aggression. and three companies were raised, including one raised by Willoughby Morgan, thc son of Revolutionary General Daniel Morgan. Following the war, the Town of Winchester continued to become more urbanized, and by 1829, iron water pipes were being laid through the town, drawing water from the springs that issued forth from the limestone formations on the town's north side, near the site of colonial Fort Loudon. The earlier north /south trending native American trail, known as the Warrior Path, was improved and soon became known as the Great Wagon Road. Regular stagecoach service along this road was instituted in 1817, and, in 1834, the Valley Turnpike Company was founded. Canals vied for the trade along the James and the Rappahannock 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 I0 O -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations RCS 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 Jedcdiah Hotchkiss climbed Signal Knob on Massanutten Mountain to reconnoiter the disposition of the Federal forces along Cedar Creek. They devised a daring but risky plan to turn the Federal left flank (Whitehorne 1987). In the late evening of the 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 the Valley Pike south of Strasburg, awaiting the news of the infantry assault so that they could quickly be brought to bear on the most vulnerable portions of the Federal lines. Confederate Brigadier General Thomas Rosser's cavalry division advanced along the Back Road to Cupp's Ford, and Confederate Brigadier General Lunsford Lomax's cavalry division was ordered to advance on the Front Royal /Winchester Road and cross over the Valley Pike near Newtown (modern -day Stephens City). For reasons that are still unclear, Lomax did not advance as ordered (Whitehorne, personal communication 2006). 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations GCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) The weather favored the Confederates, and the entire area was blanketed in dense fog in the pre -dawn hours, masking the Confederate movements and their positions. Flush with their recent success in the burning of the Valley, the Federal troops had prepared defensive positions to defend their camps from attack from the east, using Cedar Creek as a natural obstacle. At 5 A.M. on the morning of October the 19 Kershaw's division opened the attack with intense volleys of fire on Thoburn's division, followed immediately by the assault which overran the surprised Federal troops (Whitehorne 1992). The initial Confederate attack by Kershaw on Thoburn's division was successful, and the Confederate forces quickly pushed northward through the hastily- abandoned Federal XIX Corps camp. The Federal 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. 1 learing 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 3 /4 of a mile northeast of Middletown. The Confederate forces paused along Old Forge Road on the northern edge of Middletown to reorganize and prepare for the next phase of the battle. So far, the battle had been a stunning victory for General Early, resulting in the capture of over a thousand Federal soldiers, nearly two dozen field guns, and enough food and supplies to sustain them for the next few weeks. At 1:00 P.M. the Confederate forces reformed, and continued north to Miller's Mill Road for their final assault on what they believed to be a disorganized and broken Federal force. The area adjacent to Lord Fairfax Community College was described by Dr. Joseph W. A. Whitehorne (1992) as the extreme northeastern portion of the battlefield. Having already been forced to hastily move his remaining guns north and east to prevent their capture, Artillery Captain Henry A. DuPont requested permission to move Gibb's Battery onto the turnpike. Crook replied "I can give you no support," to which I answered that I did not need any support, as there was a body of our cavalry there. 1-le gave me the desired permission and 12 O -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) 1 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." 1 said: "No, 1 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:1921:17). 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 Dingcs farm and re- assumed command of the Federal force (Figure 5). Sheridan then ordered Custer's cavalry division to ride west towards the left Clank 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 tlank 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 1 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 y J I f r s A. yy I U z i y 1 Y hydSr y am... .r I i Y }S�yM1i.1VJy 4. XIX CORPS 'w U l YN t j V "�li+ $!V4 d�f tvt:o Y£32 d t Sheridan's command post, mormng of October q tl late 19 s A L 4 m a 'r V I C O R P S PS L p M1 'S xi� ]n "f I. 4 �t i y Y �j Ol 1<t 't IA�6 �I d iC a d 8 y�r �'�p u I4A Y i 5 ^1Y 91' prlf 1 P 1 J? -I r�yF R y� A�'a' S' 1rs !i 4 4 4 4 r, !WON Captain DuPont s batteries, afternoon of October 19 LIGHT BA'f"1LRY L, Br OHIO ARTII I LRY !!!�i F• ,�'3?�' ([J' S`„ r, r Ida .•So -1 J a•'�+ 4, T it `t vs x914' r t F ,g Kt:RSIlA k, n LIGH 7 Srn US `h d I f BATE B AR I ILLERY n fah "(F -r 4 ti `!1 T J4 t "V iTIYi 4 RAMSI I a I. 4. F� 1 R 4 y� .t S h p L �l l hll s* Pft e'S s e.0 ,gg x 1 tt} i PtCiRA� `rS r �1'' flJ J 1 1 Y f Y, j q} f t S s A r {{$$[[5 r e yy I Y+ab A e F or °'-iA yay t a Y J r n' Y 1 k ?L l f t 1-" 1�PAI: I WI IAR IO[s4 Wi #"T' p W y li A 11 U E y C. 1 n f a s Nrr. ^v flJCt Y u u+._ r Jr x ,ii t� 4 U flt a3 nA F I 4 tc. .ra L4 Y itk 'if .iyr f 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 U S WIllEktAlrIARIMIC 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. Lec to defend Petersburg in December, while General Early remained in the Valley in command of a skeleton force. His force was nearly destroyed at Waynesboro, and Early barely escaped capture with a few members of his staff. General Lee finally relieved Early of his command in March, 1865, because he had doubts about Early's ability to inspire confidence in the men he would have to recruit to continue operations. Lee wrote to Early of the difficulty of this decision: 15 0 -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) While my own confidence in your ability, zeal, and devotion to the cause is unimpaired, I have nevertheless felt that 1 could not oppose what seems to be the current of opinion, without injustice to your reputation and injury to the service. I therefore felt constrained to endeavor to find a commander who would be more likely to develop the strength and resources of the country, and inspire the soldiers with confidence.... [Thank you] for the fidelity and energy with which you have always supported my efforts, and for the courage and devotion you have ever manifested in the service (Eicher Eicher 2001). By 1864. Frederick County residents had learned that large troop concentrations of either Federal or Confederate forces meant great loss of food, provisions, and livestock, and many farmers moved their livestock as far away from troops as was possible, to save them from being appropriated by either side. Many of the larger antebellum houses, used by both sides as headquarters and field hospitals survived, but all were damaged during the conduct of the war. The greatest impact to Frederick County was the near total loss of all livestock and crops to military raids by both sides in the years of combat. By the end of the war. most of the farms in the county had been pillaged, losing livestock and hundreds of valuable horses to both sides, taken with the promise of later payment. Four years of war had a devastating effect on Virginia, and Frederick County was no exception. The combined loss of manpower and draft animals, the neglect of agricultural land, and the emancipation of the slave population had a detrimental effect on the county's economic and social landscape in the postwar era. 16 O -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) 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. Nisewander Family Cemetery IV. RESULTS The Nisewander Family Cemetery is believed to be associated with the David Nisewander family and subsequent owners of the property. The Nisewander family was one of the original twenty families that traveled with Jost Hite to the Shenandoah Valley from Pennsylvania in 1731. Christian Nisewander (b. 1685) and his wife, Mary Magdalena, purchased 435 acres from Hite's 3395 -acre land patent granted from Lord Fairfax, proprietor of the Northern Neck. The Nisewander descendents purchased and received land grants in the region for numerous tracts and settled in Frederick County north of Cedar Creek (O'Dell 315 -316). The name Nisewander was seen as many forms in records from the 18 century and early 19 century. Alternate spellings were found as, Nighswander, Niswanger, Nicewanger, Nieswander, Nieswanger. and Nicewanker. The parcel on which the cemetery lies was part of a tract of land purchased by David Nicewanker (Nisewander) on May 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 "9ying...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 ofthe 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 O-N MINERALS CEMETERY DELINEATIONS Vicinity of Tabler Family Cemetery M310-Am-ANTac FIGURE 6 ECS Project 21:9244 February 2008 Source: Hotchkiss (1864) Scale: NTS NORTH 18 Source: Gillespie (1864) NORTH O -N MINERALS CEMETERY DELINEATIONS Nisewander and Tabler Cemetery Areas on Historic Mapping blUt0Rav voce FIGURE 7 ECS Project 21:9244 February 2008 19 Cemetery Locales Source: Gillespie (1864) NORTH O -N MINERALS CEMETERY DELINEATIONS H istoric Mapping of the Area FIGURE 8 ECS Project 21:9244 February 2008 20 O -N MINERALS CEMETERY DELINEATIONS 1885 Map of the Opequon Magesterial District NORTH kil00w TL& i1 UtC FIGURE 9 ECS Project 21:9244 February 2008 21 ry 761 1 (M esFt)a•f (41 d -let H. Walter o Lq P riSPER1pAN tl Arr9el c 1 c 4. -4,30 P^ K o z is fedrr I. a a.r tte •K1o). J ames W u -I84o pfrer Per (W'm.tOev.'d �)C p /e)(ia..iP Di ex' Ten (189 es 6-rave are/ vie/ Dines,Jr. (Whitehall) (183 I a keman (191 T H amve(Nc/Lon (C4• (c4.100 Vu Herbert L L Patty N G1i ne S NEA1DA A7 rALXt S` -r: 3o vN1 ,Era S' FIELD. eONFeDER P✓RSUEL Aea° rnelivt (ialdwintr Mi /I Ca• /8 /S.) 7) al*fr7OM (172 1 79 /Monument (1919/ t _g1 (hatlef W. Hea 4. 14 House of Pvbli c e l; Tovrisr Cabins •rs h ip M r th A re c t OF 4ravey ar Mt Zia 4ravey0.rc/)(1801) 0 Sperry- Rinker. Gra 1 rd cK G 0U N Gerald Walters (late -191h) M,. r• 44 <s c/ J4. eg, ?Lite 9 Reply filer ([a 1890) r ,Byrd W /Iiamr (ca.!?� MEN anfrdPrato Arius rte e WAL7ERroWN ek= Walters (earl -tom) ti G JNIoal A RE m A, H P. M 6e.orseW.A/ (Pencil 1.11/ (mid -/9th) »sell /92o) (ca. /8 to) 3 0 er 1 0 Marvel/a. Sc re orman Din (quT -1- Orville Willey, Se 4 Jr. `Q 1 9/ 3 1 /am/ 0952) Q) Jonah W (C. c• (ear 1000 2000 3000 feet awn n to rY oi 1Y o RE bRO O Gr P M C LA OM? M un i f Ca 1yE e J 9 e r nes Coverstone e k 8?-1 er (-ra ver4rd .reph 6 1) yP •Herber/ Stickle! ea 1810) Ja k elna.n l3o wen) itch) �a 1 mi /e its c....46 ,1890) es Stee /e (ea /coo) l Va OH (Haft- e Mean 4 »d Arrher li atte (du/plr. Sprin) SP 1 e FO RaA o) A h a alv11 5000 600o 7000 Source: Scheel NORTH O -N MINERALS CEMETERY DELINEATIONS Nisewander Family Cemetery on Historic Mapping Et1019.4aTLANTEIC FIGURE 10 ECS Project 21:9244 February 2008 22 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 Rcagley purchased from William Evans. The 1 33-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 thc asymmetrical fenestration pattern on the facade elevation. It appeared from thc 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 thc 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 thc 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 arca. 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 Nisewanders to Virginia. The known sons of Jacob, son of Christian and Mary Magdalena Nisewander, and Mary Nisewander were John, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, and Jacob. It is not clear as to the relationship of David Nisewander within these lines. He could have been a second generation descendent and appeared to have been the relative age of Jacob and Mary Nisewander's children based upon approximate death dates. It is unknown if he was a descendent of Christian, son of Christian and Mary Nisewander, or another possible progeny of Christian and Mary Nisewander. It is known that Mary Magdalena Nisewander married Jost Hite in 1741 after the 1738 death of Christian Nisewander. There were no progeny of the Jost Hite and Mary Magdalena Nisewander union (O'Dell 1995:315 -316). David Nisewander appeared to have been a wealthy man, due to availability of money illustrated in loans made and the size of the house known as Nisewander's Fort. The size of the house was quite large, having three full stories and an attic story. Similar stone houses that remain or were documented were two stories or one story with a full- height basement and an attic. The large size of this building indicatcs that Nisewander was quite prominent within thc region. 23 O -N MINERALS CEMETERY DELINEATIONS Photographs of Nisewander's Fort �aa�,avu,mo-�vu�c 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 Census records, they most likely had a son between the ages of 20 and 30, a daughter between the ages of 15 and 20, a son between the ages of 10 and 15, a son between the ages of 5 and 10, and a daughter under 5 years in age (US Census 1830). John Tice and his wife, Barbara Ann, sold the tract, which had decreased in size to 380 acres on May 18 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 [CS 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 Sticklcy'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 t 1867 outlined his large landholdings and the division of his landholdings (FCWB 28:354). I -lis heirs divided his estate very similar to the wishes in his will, which outlined thc 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 thc "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 thc 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 Nannic D. 27 O -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations GCS 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 Nannic Stickley Kline inherited in 1894 (FCDB 235:1 14- 115). United States Steel sold the tract along with three other tracts to Chcrostone Corporation on June 27 1986 (FCDB 620:186 -195). Chcrostone 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 19 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 Elite 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 I -lite, was buried on his other side in 1769 (Gordon 1996). 28 -}1 11 4ta t e l liter el at* Aht Oita r4 .Ca der c ZAP ;du7 I p TJQ al" P414' \j a40.tJ r r 4 1rc' t'a.L1t JOJtt A 4q eb J s icoe t dr rto 41 'a', `ll ioosao ;ti a lad' ract 14:14. r t44 'b oW aasd t 10 044.0' c ,4 1 Let attrerf 1 04 Nisewander Family Cemetery Source: FCDB 620:192 O -N MINERALS CEMETERY DELINEATIONS 1986 Land Plat J :fir' a rca e0' caveg 4 d'ras nT r tria, Maw; NORTH Tabler Family C emetery MIEMA aAIATvat FIGURE 12 ECS Project 21:9244 February 2008 0. tan, of wawa 4 I 29 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) Tabler Family Cemetery The Tabler Family Cemetery is situated on a parcel of land that was owned by Jacob Hottel of Shenandoah County, Virginia. Jacob Hottel was also known as Jacob "Snitz Hottel- Huddle, Jr. He was the son of Jacob Hottel of Shenandoah County, Virginia. Jacob "Snitz 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 came to own the Tabler tract of land as there are no transfers of land to Jacob "Snitz Hottel to indicate his acquisition of the Tabler tract. He did purchase the mill on Cedar Creek from Jost Hite and had interests in the region and knowledge of the region associated with the Tabler tract (Huddle 1982:13 -15). Jacob "Snitz 1 -lottel died prior to March 12 1845, and his heirs divided his estate. On September 19` 1846, the heirs, who included Abraham Sticklcy 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 Mclker 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. "fabler occupied the farmstead. In the 1880 US Census, George F. Tabler and his wife, Susanna A. (Brewer), resided at the farm with their daughters, Elizabeth, Anna and Amy. In addition, Henry Brewer, Susanna's father, and a nephew named, Henry A. Brewer resided with George F. Tabler and his family. Interestingly, Thomas M. Tabler, son of James D. and Catherine Tabler, and his family resided on an adjacent farmstead (US Census 1880). James D. Tabler's heirs were unable to amicably divide his estate after his death in 1873 and filed two Chancery Causes to divide the land holdings. Resolved by 1883, George F. Tabler and his wife, Susan A. sold two tracts of land to George H. Borden. The sale of October 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 1 1896 when he sold a 42 acre, 3 rod. and 16 pole tract of land to A. Taylor Ritter and Oliver B. Ritter for $1714. The tract of land is described as being located on Buffalo Marsh 1.5 miles north of Middletown. The notations include that the tract was purchased from the heirs of James D. Tabler. Additional notations within the deed stated that there are improvements on the land including a barn (FCDB 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 of4 acres, 1 rod, and 8 square poles was made to O(liver). B. (011ie) Ritter from R.E. and Mary C. Brumback, husband and wife, on May 1 3 th 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 O.B. Ritter, deceased, sold to J.J. Pickeral a 173.6 -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 O -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations GCS 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 Handley Library in Winchester, Virginia, there are purported multiple burials in this family cemetery. A listing from the file is provided below. Tabler Family Cemetery Burials (from Handley Library archives) Name Caroline Virginia Tabler Catherine Myers Tabler 1 -larry Clifford Tabler James Daniel Tabler Joanna Tabler Mary Clara Tabler Susana Tabler William Davidson Tabler 15 July 1881 28 July 1803 7 November 1872 6 June 1801 28 March 1839 7 November 1872 6January 1828 15 July 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 'fabler 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 Handley Library Archives for the burials in the Tabler Family Cemetery. It appears that assumptions about the number of Tabler family members buried in the Tabler Family Cemetery are based upon the genealogical record of the family. Based upon the archeological evidence and delineation, there are only five burials in the Tabler Family Cemetery. Thomas Melker Tabler and his descendants resided on an adjacent farm and it is possible that his family members are buried on that adjoining tract. It is unknown 32 Born Died 15 October 1881 17 March 1871 12 December 1883 20 April 1873 25 December 1858 7 November 1872 6 January 1829 17 October 1 881 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. R. DELINEATION FIELDWORK Fieldwork for the historic cemetery delineations consisted of a pedestrian survey of the cemetery locales and a careful inspection of the cemetery areas for any visible grave markers (headstones footstones); grave depressions or disturbed soils, as well as introduced perennials commonly associated with historic cemeteries (e.g. vinca sp. cedars, lilies, etc.). The initial reconnaissance of the Nisewander family cemetery revealed several native fieldstone grave markers within a dense stand of mature mixed hardwoods and a ground cover dominated by Vinca sp. Flowering evergreen perennial groundcover is commonly associated with historic Christian burial grounds. Based on topographic relief, landform configuration, and indicator species criteria, this landform was perceived to retain a high potential for the location of several unmarked historic graves. Visual reconnaissance of the Tabler family cemetery revealed a total of 4 formally inscribed grave markers (headstones and footstones) or large fragments thereof, a whitewashed wooden grave marker (partially gnawed), and several possible native fieldstone markers situated in two north /south oriented rows. No flowering evergreen perennial groundcover was noted at the Tabler cemetery; however, cedars and other hardwoods were located within the cemetery limits. Following the initial reconnaissance and consultation with the representatives of O -N Minerals (Chemstone) heavy equipment was brought to the project area. Heavy equipment under the direct supervision of ECS archaeologists carefully removed the topsoil from adjacent to and within the cemetery locale. The machine stripping was conducted by a backhoe equipped with a smooth blade, under the direct supervision of a professional archaeologist to identify any unmarked graveshafis 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. 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 MI I OM N i MN I NM MN I MN MI 111111•=111 II III 10 ft. ti 315° Insscribed Headstone Footstone ME 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 G -3 G -2 No En G -5 A 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 loams, and they contain dense pockets of rock residuum. Areas along the western, northern, and southern margins of the cemetery area had large amounts of fieldstone present just below the historic plowzone, and may have been where spoil from graveshafts was placed at the time of one or more burials. The naturally rocky soil in the cemetery area made the identification of graveshafts somewhat difficult even with the assistance of mechanized stripping. Identification of graveshaft locations was made primarily by a combination of soil stripping, examination of soil compaction, soil discoloration, and location of in situ grave markers. The three possible fieldstone markers at this cemetery were inspected and the underlying soils were stripped to beneath the plowzone. These areas were determined to be free of historic graves. The fieldstoncs 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 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 The footstone from this grave is inscribed, "H.B." II /in NA In Memory of Our Father James D. Tabler Born June 6, 1801 Departed this life April 20 1876 Aged 68 Years 10 months 11 days In Memory of CATHARINE wife of Elder James D. fabler Born July 28, 1803 AND departed this life 35 Albin Bro. O -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7. 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) A. Eagan The footstone from this grave is inscribed, "C:r." The headstone from Grave 4 reads: Nisewander Family Cemetery May 17, 1871 Aged 67 years 9 months 19 days JOANA daughter of .lames D. Catharine 'FABLER Born March 28 Departed this life Dec 25 1858 Aged 19 Years 8 months 27 days The formal markers for James fabler, Catharine fabler, 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. Flenry Brewer's marker was manufactured by Albin Brothers of Winchester; while, Catharine Tabler's marker was manufactured by A. Eagan. 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 loams, and they contain isolated pockets of rock residuum. This cemetery delineation revealed a minimum of 22 historic graves (Figure 14). A total of 17 of these appeared to be those of adults and 5 appeared to be subadults (based on distances between markers). Cemetery stripping was made more difficult and was slowed tremendously by the numerous trees, stumps, and large roots on the surface and buried below grade. After stripping began and in order to meet the project schedule, the decision was made by the archaeological principal investigator to strip only within the top 1.5 ft. to avoid any potential for buried human remains to be dislodged by pulled trees in the lightly compacted soils. This alteration of methodology proved useful and discovered numerous fieldstone grave markers (headstone /footstones) buried just beneath the ground surface. However, since time constraints on the fieldwork did not allow for stripping completely down to subsoil, additional undocumented graves may be located within the cemetery area. 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 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 A O -N MINERALS CEMETERY DELINEATIONS Northeast Oblique of House on Tabler Tract, 2008 1 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 FIGURE 17 ECS Project 21:9244 February 2008 43 4 O -N MINERALS CEMETERY DELINEATIONS Views North and East from Middle Marsh Brook and Tabler Cemetery dLC FIGURE 18 ECS Project 21:9244 February 2008 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 O -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations FCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CEMETERIES RESTORATION Any cemetery restoration carried out by O -N minerals should be conducted in close consultation with appropriate professional experts in the fields of archaeology /anthropology, history, and landscape design. The following section provides recommendations for O -N Minerals (Chemstone) to implement if one or both of these cemeteries is anticipated to be avoided by quarry acitivities and preserved for the benefit of the general public and residents of Frederick County. Restoration Recommendations for the Historic Tabler and Nisewander Family Cemeteries The Tabler family cemetery is small and reflects the interment of several members of a single family. Four formally inscribed headstones, and 2 inscribed footstones are present at this cemetery. The Nisewander family cemetery is large and may reflect the interment of several members of several extended families who once occupied this property. There are at least 22 individual interments here. Given its large size, there may be as many as 60 individuals interred at this cemetery. Field delineation at the Nisewander family cemetery placed wooden stakes at the heads of graves and blue pin flags at the feet of graves. Restoration of the cemeteries should emphasize the appropriate historic elements and features and should be congruent with the past use of the cemetery locales. Restoration should show obvious continuity with the historic fabric of the Tabler and Nisewander family cemeteries during the late 18 -early 19 century and the late 19 century and include restoration of the ornamental vegetation and the markers themselves. Fill and Landscape Contouring I. 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. 1. 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 Tabler 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 GCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) 10. Replacement of the fieldstone head /foot markers at the Nisewander cemetery is recommended. Given that an additional 3 -6 inches of soil will be placed on this cemetery, it will be very likely to bury many stones that are broken /worn off near the existing ground surface. 11. Replacement fieldstone markers should be of a similar parent material and have regular surfaces. Replacement head markers should be approximately 13 -15 inches long x 10 -12 inches wide x 2 -3 inches thick. Replacement foot markers should be 13 -15 inches long x 6 -8 inches wide x 2 -3 inches thick. (30% of the head /foot markers should be set into the ground. Sce 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 after 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 ECS 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 fills and ensure that the screenings are tamped down between lifts. 8. Refill the excavation using the original or clean spoil. It may be necessary to use bricks or gravel to hold the stone upright. Gravel may also assist in drainage around the stone, especially in heavy, clay soils. Tamp this material every few inches to ensure that it is well settled. 9. Fill to encourage drainage away from the stone and reset the sod. Replacing Ornamental Plants and Groundcover The restoration of historic cemeteries is not complete without the reintroduction of ornamental plants that would have been utilized during historic times. It is the use of these types of plants that on many occasions signified the use of such areas as burial locations. Ornamentals include trees, shrubs, flowers, and groundcover. I. 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 flowers. Vinca sp. should be planted both in between and on top of graves at intervals of about 5 feet. 2. The cemetery area should be reseeded with standard contractors blend grass to avoid erosion. The vinca will take 2 -3 seasons to begin to spread, and once it has reached maturity, it will begin to choke out the grass. Eventually, the vinca will replace all the grass in the cemetery. 3. Lawn maintenance should be done with string trimmers and hand tools only with grass being kept from growing around the markers to prevent surface staining. Care should be used during trimming to avoid damage to headstones and inscriptions. 4. Ornamental flowers should also be introduced to the area and be planted along the margins of the cemeteries and /or over each grave. Typical ornamental plants include roses, lilies (e.g. day lilies, lilies of the valley, tiger lilies). gardenia, or prickly yucca. Lilies and roses are preferred in this context. 5. Oaks, Locusts, Sycamore, Ash, Cedars, and Osage Orange trees have been purposefully introduced and have grown to maturity in these cemeteries. If trees are to be transplanted to these cemeteries, care should be taken to place them far enough away from markers, fencing, and other elements that may be damaged or displaced over time from tree growth and root runs. 49 O -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations GCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7. 2008 (Revised March 6. 2008) 6. If desired, these types of trees should be planted as border or perimeter species to mark the boundaries /corners of these cemeteries. 7. The Tabler cemetery contains trees that appear to have been planted over several of the graves. Planting of new trees over existing graves is not recommended. Installation of Fencing Iron fencing is typically found on historic cemeteries in Virginia. Iron fencing should be used in conjunction with stone /brick corner columns and be placed approximately 10 -15 feet outside any perimeter or boundary trees at either cemetery. I. 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 second coat is essential and works better than a second topcoat since it is designed to inhibit rust from breaking through the final paint coat. 6. Paint should be an alkyd rather than latex and should be designed for use with the primer. In no case should the paint be applied thickly, this obscures detail and does not appreciably lengthen the lifespan of the paint. Gloss enamels should be avoided. 7. Gates or entrances in fencing at both cemeteries should be from the proper approach aspect. The approach aspect of the Nisewander cemetery is from the west or south. The approach aspect of the Tabler cemetery is From the west. 50 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) n.d. Opequon File VI. REFERENCES CITED Archives of the Handley Library, Winchester, Virginia. n.d. Tabler Cemetery 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 I3oundauy 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 1- louse, Winchester, Virginia. 1801 -1807 Personal Property Tax Records. On tile, Frederick County Court House, Winchester, Virginia. Gordon, C. Langdon 1996 The Old Burying Grounds of Opequon Presbyterian Church: 1736 1938. Published by author, Winchester, VA. Gretag Macbeth Corporation 2000 Mansell Soil Color Charts. Gretag Macbeth, Little Britain Road, New Windsor, Ncw York. 52 O -N Minerals Cemetery Delineations 13CS Project No. 21:9244 Pebnmry 7, 2008 (Revised March 6. 2008) Hillier, Richardson 1931 The Hite Family and the Settlement of the Wesi. Thesis, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. Huddle, Rev. W. D. and Lulu May Huddle 1982 The history and descendents of John Hotel. C. J. Carrier Co., Harrisonburg, PA. Jackson, Ronald Vern 1978 First Census of the United States, 1790: Records of the Stale Enumerations 1782 to /785 Virginia. Accelerated Indexing Systems, Inc. 13ountilul, Utah. Kalbian, Maral S. 1 999 Frederick County, Virginia: History through Architecture. Winchester-Frederick County Historical Society, Winchester, VA. Kaplan, Barbara Beigun 1993 Land and Heritage in the Virginia Tidewater: A History of King and Queen County. Cadamus Fine Books, Richmond, Virginia. King, George H. S. 1961 The Register of 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. Ncw York. Manarin, Louis H., and Clifford Dowdcy 1984 The History of Henrico County. University Press of Virginia. Charlottesville, Virginia. McLcaren, Douglas C. 1989 Phase III Archaeological Investigations of the 522 Bridge Site (44WR329), Warren County, Virginia. Prepared by Virginia Commonwealth University Archaeological Research Center. Prepared for Virginia Department of Transportation. Moore, Larry E. 1991 A Little History of the Doeg. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 46(2): 77 -86. 53 O -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, Volume 1: 1623 -1666. Virginia State Library and Archives, Richmond. O'Dell, Cecil 1995 Pioneers of Old Frederick County, Virginia. Walsworth Publishing Company, Marceline, MO. Official Records 1884 The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Series 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 -4 I Titus, James 1991 The Old Dominion at War: Society, Politics, and Warfare in Late Colonial Virginia. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina. Umstattd, Elizabeth Madison Coles 1999 Mite Family Homesteads: Nektar to Shenandoah, Rev. Ed. Published by author, Villanova, PA. Vogt, John and T. William Kethley, Jr. 1984 Virginia Historic Marriage Register, Frederick County Marriage. 1738 -1850. Iberian Press, Athens, GA. Wayland, John W. 1980 A History of Shenandoah County, Virginia. Baltimore Regional Publishing Company, Baltimore, MD. Whitehorne, Joseph W. A. 1987 The Battle of Cedar Creek. The Wayside Museum of American History and Arts, Strasburg, VA. Wilkins, James Richard 1980 Pioneers and Patriots: A History of the John Wilkins Family and some Related Families of Virginia: Tuok Hite -Wall -Winn and others: 1618 -1979. Published by author, Winchester, VA. 54 me am I ow EN m on ow ow a III la MO la 1. IU E• OM MI MI MB MI M MI M MI MI M r- 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: O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Cemetery Delineations/Restoratio S i MN MI i I E I MI I NM MN I I oaiCIRAnAaTC Inscribed Headstones at the Tabler Family Cemetery Tabler Family Cemetery After Stripping and Backfilling, View East 1 Project No. 21:9244 1 Wooden Marker near James and Catharine Tabler Graves Archeological Study Restoration of Unknown Cemetery NI year =My 6 lEfNRd za beMeal kegler/1r WO root as many 3s 75. mere:a Fez a befgalre510 PEW st daft' cl fr<ryrerd Ezell, PR Sew kawaexaggaffit CSAlKWIC, Ottetregjalans :wage.@N kegs d NVoe iht angel ti Yadlorel ep ergne a.A setlAg. `-b3FS;s-::rpc; -r x r CUn_'gS /HE n6TCf6C STUDY 0-W Minerals (Chemstone) Public Notice Erected by O -N Minerals at the Nisewande Family Cemetery, View East Project Name: O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Cemetery Delineations/Restor 1 M OM NM NM OM OM 1 Groundcover at the Nisewander Family Cemetery, View East Nisewander Family Cemetery After Debris Removal, View Northeast Project No. 21:9244 NM all Nisewander Family Cemetery During Clearing, View Southwest Stripping at the Nisewander Family Cemetery Project Name: O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Cemetery Delineations/Restoratii ow N— r ■on MN am Ai us no t Om l NE OM taINATIAKTIO 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/Restor as MI EN we am no I ea M I In NE NE as u Graves Layout at the Nisewander Family Cemetery Project No. 21:9244 Graves Layout at the Nisewander Family Cemetery Project Name: n Minerals (Chemstone) Cemetery Delineations/Restorati■ 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. 3-0(49 0-10.Mirirn(s ANN 1 boy g bcg W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr. Secretary of Natural Resources Administrative Svcs. 10 Courthouse Avenue Petersburg, VA 23809 TeL (804) 863-1685 Fax (804) 862-6196 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Department of Historic Resources 2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23221 TO: Frederick County History Advisory Board FROM: David Edwards, Director, Winchester Regional Office DATE: December 20, 2005 RE: Chemstone Rezoning Request Petersburg Office 19-B Bollingbrook Street Petersburg, VA 23803 Tel: (804) 863 -1620 Fax: (804) 863 -1627 Portsmouth Office 612 Court Street, 3'd Floor Portsmouth, VA 23704 TeL (757) 396 -6709 Fax: (757) 396-6712 Kathleen S. Kilpatrick Director Tel: (804) 367-2323 Fax: (804) 367 -2391 TDD: (804) 367 -2386 www.dhr.state.va.us 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. Roanoke Office Winchester Office 1030 Penmar Avenue, SE 107 N. Kent Street, Suite 203 Roanoke, VA 24019 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. n, kt1 O 8 Oranda 2 zaa,—_Cedar Creek' c Ws side a,. Y 2981 05 MicrosoftCoip 02004 NAV1EQ.and /orGDT. Inc Pets f sfleaaow �,ps Meadow MiIts 20 December 2005 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 o Increase the potential for death or injury in our nation's newest national park and Middletown's residential areas 1A 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 c intern lly 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. I 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. Marshall ark" Brown Councilman, Town of Middletown n S v c ht c \_aw �s vh;; uoc., s 1 (p, T -c r G e •k 4• v\ ;-t+ v Th j .c, C aLs\ke_r -%`c,:. —Q pro bLo uc I V I R W ci- C ccr o rJ L f-- r S <.fL r Don K 9 c_)-' A. L) ekA\C_ Az.L— r1 f Qv.fn C_Ly_ ijl— 1-cc_cLU c.--,n,, V I i LWS'.C_' k Cl> cf 2 (gyn di. a our th.4_'- a er" 'tlas- 411.-'+! L.c T1 Cc a06kt h \s C ce;s )-c2.-1 C-1 J hro#t 3) 1 1- ov-ec Q- u •s s J oa_at 0 5 eo d u pnci ''s p(Dpo ShC_u.i a (D.ow.t\L T a.1 of _c. –c View Kt@ J aQ9ra v cam- 1 `-hi\A__Lko.ilc (Nes.; •h'or\An p A c` G i ll„ x,•-e'` \r)Ui L-kr. `i ,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 I. 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. RCS /jet 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 May 12, 2006 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. Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to respond. Sincerelly, Richard C. Shickle Chairman of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 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 Trust BATTLE OF CEDAR CREEK, VA OCTOBER 19, 1864 G ARMY OF THE SHENANDOAH SHER'IDA Stickleya Valle.Pihe i 4. k x. f yaO i' .1... Jennings <:;Eovi►»n Bowmanrs Min LAW:MCMILLAN \B d d r EMORY r;2 7:. DaVi' M, CORPS 4 ji C N Ma caa, Hite II- �r t ER GROVER WH E CROOK -11441 1.111 1 "AMMBIAls Ar(j VIII CORPS un,orFan�,:m 4y9 STS rove r! 1 .4 ��r7 ��V- ti C S t� r Q G EARI'Y, ARMY OF T14 VALLEY GORDON SECOND CORPS •••1 4g Lege,z ConIedera. 1st Pima Inlorn dials 2nd PWU M 1 Inlor ediris O N 3rd Passe M 11 Battery Positions 111 9 Union 19th Century Woodllre 19th Century Simplon; 101hranbry Roods 1919 Clmury Roads no bete la ecIstenu -0— WI IRoads -T• Preheed Oseldeld Properties PIPS Militarised Boundary APP Core Battlefield I Study Area Cunel Mining Operatons Proposed Mining Operations .11ap prga+ ra for the Civil Wirt Pr,vmvrion !t4(t G,r Street Stanley CEBE Land Status Cedar Greek and Site Gave Hsi 1 Historical Park Virginia !9titinal Park Service .S. Department of the Interior Strasburg CUE TatoI Acrex 3470.75 Park Service: 7.44 Acres Partner Preeer en:1040.24 Hoes Private 2423.07 Acres o 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 I Nilamabars y ,;sy*a k�., 1 y ^i 0 02 200,.. 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 Kernstown, 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. 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 Frederick County and Winchester 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 2,321 472% 2,593 52.8% i 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% 1st Winchester 4,041 1,393 301 21.6% 1,092 78.4% IstKemstown 4,029 1,554 1,097 70.6% 457 29.4% Total 63,482 19,429 12,042 62.0% 7,387 38 Source: National Park Service, Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of September, 1992 Virginia, 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 1 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 ra ll 12 AI 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 hal f 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 Mk 14V 1 C I1CrP7ry (2( /07 /67 G PA-device( ravri S —7 7a2—?Z18 5 4o- 6‘7. 037o 06/07/2006 14:45 8043672391 TO: DATE: ORGANIZATION: TELEPHONE: FAX: FROM: PHONE: E -MAIL: FAX RE: DEPT OF HISTORIC RES PAGE 01/04 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 WW' .dhr.virginia gov FAX TRANSMISSION SHEET 731 car (804)-367-2323 7/Or Ko2er1;L4v eR 1hre 6 a cycv (804) 367 -23911 (a cJ &C re 144 444 4 fesend 4. GeA -2 66/2- GdUYt �frie4Y7 a,, f a a077 -r In kesi's y -__an 1,f-2 T Gmcf7Grt, nyari,3 d- /e a-n t mo, cx L. Freston Bryant Sect of natural Resources_ Ms. Julie Clevenger 451 \\Testemview Drive Middletown, `:`A 23645 Dear Ms. Clevenger: COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA 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 planting 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 -1\ Chemstone. DEQ would not have a permit requirement unless the company decides to expand their crusher and conveyance systems, which would require changes to their existing air permit. I have asked the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DG1F) to help me identify potential project impacts on the local wildlife and habitats. DGIF is the state wildlife agency and has jurisdiction over the Commonwealth's terrestrial wildlife, freshwater fish and other aquatic resources, and state or federally endangered or threatened species other than insects. DGIF is a consulting agency under the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and it provides environmental analysis of projects or permit applications coordinated through DEQ, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, the Virginia Department of Transportation, the U.S. 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. Fetr:ck Henry Eulliling 11 LI East Broad Streer Richmond, Virginia 13219 U5C4) S6.9344 1 I Y (See) 4 -t Ms. Julie Clevenger April 26, 2006 Page 2 You also expressed concern that bald eagles, currently a federally threatened species, may nest on the tract as well. 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 Ioggerhead shrike, Bewick's wren, and upland sandpiper. The nearby Meadow Brook is designated a Class V Coldwater Stream capable of supporting a stockable trout fisher:. I have some concerns over potentially adverse impacts of the proposed project on these and other sensitive wildlife resources and habitats on the site. Additional information is needed so that we may further evaluate potential wildlife impacts. Additionally. the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) has been tracking the rezoning application for several months. On December 20, 2005 DHR advised the Frederick County Department of Planning through its History Advisory Board that the proposal had the potential to result in significant adverse impacts on archaeological and historic resources located directly in the parcel in question. Accordingly. DHR recommended that the County require the applicant to conduct an assessment of all archaeological and historic architectural resources within the parcel before taking action on the rezoning application. Based on follow u up discussions with the County's planning staff, it is DHR's understanding that the County is likely to require O -N Chemstone to undertake such an assessment. 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 hope that County officials consider these items as they contemplate the quarry and its potential impacts on the region's significant scenic, natural, and cultural resources. Because the authority to regulate local land use is the prerogative of local government in Virginia and the ultimate decision to approve the rezoning application is Frederick 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 farther 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 Kafue 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 region and that a balanced approach is needed to accommodate economic and environmental needs. My agencies and 1 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 DGTF'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. W hitehurst may be reached at SO4- 367 -4335 or via e -mail at David.Whitehursu deifvire *inia.Hov. Thank you for taking time to let Governor Kaine know about your concerns. We appreciate your interest in the natural resources of Virginia. LPBJrrcbd Sincerely, 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 1/2 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 PRIDE®, INAMERICA was TRANSMITTED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL NO HARDCOPY TO FOLLOW L2360 March 24, 2006 Memorandum To: From: Unit. States Department of tlltnterior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Geologic Resources Division P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225 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'± INAMERICA As you know, Congreerected the National Park Service (NPOo "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 PRIDE HAMERICA we suggest that FredeeCounty require that Chemstone subrrldetailed 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 l Qt- INAM BRICA 0 C a) a) a) a) 0 as a) a) 0 w 0 a) as a) s SIIENANDOAH IT .s1 kt a Ai UNIVERSITY Mr. Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 re. Rezoning Application #03 -06 O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Dear Mr. Ruddy: 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 (0 -N Minerals, Chemstone). In response to the request you made at the end of the meeting, I am submitting questions and comments about the application for consideration by the planning staff, the applicant, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors. These remarks are based upon my familiarity with Cedar Creek and its surrounding watershed that comes, in large part, from an ecological assessment that I conducted with four undergraduates in Shenandoah University's Environmental Studies Program in 2004. Our studies focused on evaluating water quality and on identifying ecological communities and habitats throughout the watershed in Frederick, Warren and Shenandoah Counties. We conducted these investigations in collaboration with the Potomac Conservancy, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Virginia Natural Heritage Program Our findings are contained in Cedar Creek Revealed: A Study of the Ecological and Historic Context of Cedar Creek, a report released by the Potomac Conservancy this past December. I have provided copies of this report to you, to Mr. Chuck Maddox (Patton Harris Rust Associates) and to Mr. Karl Everett (Environmental Health and Safety Manager, O -N Minerals). I understand that the Potomac Conservancy has provided copies to members of the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission. Additional copies are available from the Conservancy's Winchester office, 19 West Cork St., 667 -3606. My interest in the area has continued since our 2004 project. Under my supervision, another group of Shenandoah undergraduates will begin a second round of studies in Cedar Creek and its watershed next month. The comments 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 2260 1 -5 195 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 staff's reservations (rezoning report, pp. 6 -7) about the maximum scope of operations that could take place if the proposed rezoning is approved. Recommendations: First, I recommend that maps accompanying the rezoning application should designate specific areas that will not be disturbed, including not only historic sites but also stream beds, riparian zones, flood plains, steep slopes and distinctive ecological communities. Second, the applicant should be required to guarantee conditions that assure that the impacts resulting from the rezoning (if approved) will be limited to and consistent with those discussed in the SAIC Impact Statement and the additional impacts identified through further analyses I recommend in Item 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 concems are that the eventual impacts on surface water quality and stream habitats could be much greater than those identified in the rezoning application if actual excavation and associated operations extend beyond the areas "projected" 4 and "estimated" by the applicant. If the steep cliffs above Cedar Creek, for instance, are disturbed, the riparian zone and Cedar Creek could be severely compromised. If mitigation and erosion sedimentation control measures along Watson Run and Middle Marsh Brook are inadequate, these streams could be compromised as well. Questions: What government agencies (local, federal, state) will monitor the construction, operation and reclamation of the quarrying operations on these two sites? How often will on -site inspection and environmental monitoring occur? Recommendations: First, if the applicant will not limit industrial operations to the type and extent described in the application (see p. 6 of the planning staff's rezoning report, and Item 3a above), then the applicant should evaluate the maximum potential impacts on water quality and other characteristics that could occur after the rezoning, if approved. Second, the applicant should guarantee conditions that assure that the impacts resulting from the rezoning will be limited to and consistent with those discussed in the application. Without these evaluations and guarantees, it does not appear possible to assure that streams and other features on and adjacent to the site will be adequately protected. 4. Impacts on the viewshed of Cedar Creek. Impacts on the viewshed from historic sites and the surrounding community are discussed in several parts of the application materials including the planning 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 f Ms. June Wilmot, Frederick County Planning Commission 6 WHEREAS, town and that are commerce base; and TOWN OF MIDDLETOWN, VIRGINIA RESOLUTION OPPOSING PROPOSED O —N MINERALS REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL TO EXTRACTIVE MANUFACTURING LAND USES. WHEREAS, O —N Minerals Chemstone) has filed an application in Frederick County to rezone 639 acres from rural agricultural (RP) 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 18 months, adding to air pollution from small particulates; and WHEREAS, the 2005 Middletown Comprehensive Plan calls for retaining the community's character by more fully developing Main Street "with 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 the 2005 Middletown Comprehensive Plan calls for the county to identify and develop economic opportunities unique to historic Middletown, including compatible and light industry, in order to broaden the local tax RESOLUTION PAGE TWO WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning of 639 acres from agricultural to heavy industrial uses close to town will generate air, water, traffic, noise and dust impacts that are clearly not compatible with the Town of Middletown's economic development and other community goals; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mayor and Common Council for the Town of Middletown, Virginia, that we hereby call on the Frederick County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to deny in its current form the for rezoning of the O —N Minerals (Chemstone) site. Adopted this 8th day of May, 2006 c ep Tr. ez Patricia J. M ns, MC' Clerk Martha H. Ingram` Council Member Marshall J. Brown Council Member John A. Copeland Council Member Gene T. Dicks Mayor Gerald D. Sinclair, Jr. Council Members Donald E. Breeden Council Member' Mary L. Shull Council Member "Prom mountain iop to moiuLain.txgi...' April 5, 2006 -'Mr. Michael T :Ruddy 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 Business Association would like to, make the following comments concerning. the Rezoning Application#03 -06 for O -N Minerals (Chemstone). Middletown, pop 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/convenierice '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 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 souther boundary of Middletown lies our. nation's newest national park; 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 conservationist's, politicians, and landowners, we today enjoy. one "of the most incredible historical and natural resources within the eastern United States. With that in mind, we ask that you deny this application: June Lingwood- Brown President The Greater Middletown Business Association' P.O. Box 252 AAL411ntnum V:rn:n:o 27AAS 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 Conunission, 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 southern 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 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 5th 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. nuns lid s11s1 nnnl no flhI IMO !IOE DUI :AT 11111 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. I strongly urge you to recommend disapproval of this application. Sincerely, arshall Town Co.rcil Town of Middletown MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director RE: O -N Minerals (Chemstone) RZ #03 -06 Proffer Statement Revision Received April 18, 2008 DATE: April 18, 2008 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. Please contact me if you have any questions. MTR/bad Attachments 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 LAWSON AND SILEK, P.L.C. 120 EXETER DRIVE, surrE 200 POST OFFICE Box 2740 WINCIIESTER, 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: 1 April 18, 2008 Re: O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Our File No. 462.006 REZ #03 -06 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. TML:jk Enclosure cc: O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company APR 1 8 THOMAS MOORE LAWSON TLA W SONOO.LSPLC.COM ER0NT ROYAL ADDRESS: POST OFFICE Rox 602, FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA 22630, TELEPHONE: (540) 635 9415, FACSIMILE: (540) 635 9421, E- MAIL: SILEKJ@LYNXCONNECT.COM FAIRFAX ADDRESS: 10805 MAIN STREET, SUITE 200, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030,TELEPIIONL: (703) 352 2615, FACSIMILE: (703) 3524190, E MAIL: THOMASO.LAUSON®VERILONNET Benefits of Middletown Mining Rezoning Alternative t iNo,Confederate Morning Positions JFederal Morning Positions Nine where FederaIs Regrouped di r artherst Confederate Advance A/Custel's Flank Attack 'Federal Vltty Corps Trenches i Federal Camps Edinburg Limestone Lincolnshire Limestone New Market Limestone fir• /dd:: v`ill 'r 9�A D•N Properties Ceder Croak and Belle Wore National Historical Perk Frederick County, *nlnle Historic Resource, MM. 0.11 .n.».• Nurr n.r. rrd w arr.... r. .1111 O.Y MM Scele: 1:16,000 ti SO.). P t.d.rOr County NPS 1505 Valley Study V.1.1.1 01 Was tail gaseureas gas• ltap: uSOS 1.0 Minute Carlos 9basbure d 11Iddlablen tlu.dren5l.s• 1050. 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. 6 Y 4 5 r 4 i. "S 0 1' .4g t.- 1 1 \b d5, L.. !g 2 o Map Features 0,,,,,...., Ae wo o B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) MG (Medical Buypod Distii t) REZ 03 06 Ncw.,, 0 B2 (Business, General District) Rd (Residential. Planned Community Dietrich m H.� Wwm B3 (Business. RS(ReaidentialRacreatiana1 Community Dietrict) ON Minerals Chemstone M W Road Centerlines EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) 0 RA (Rural Areas District) p HE (Higher Education District) 0 RP (Residential Performance District) A -109, 90 A 23 Oa,, Ari... MI (Industrial.LlghlDistrict) W.E. :)..ell. mas e us. 0 M2 (Industrial, General District) 0 750 1.500 3,000 MB) (Mobile Homo Community District) S Fee( .J s 83 A 80 ENGLISH, DAVID P {e d 0 11iP t 4i 89 A 79 Ur c Chemstone ENGLISH, DA5 D Y /�F 4 dy o o h 63 A 109 a J s �C en v' Dr ocer•L n DR47 'V' *Ph s? A 4 E' so- m al- C t v A 1:) 0¢ Chemstone 6 d+p, 83 A 109 Q. V a %Sh, s n erg k o �y o r 0 R, 5A it L s 1 r A .4�NFTS Mot fP Pk S3 A 1119 l7 ¢tiD�SU 0-N MINERALS {CXFJISTONE)COYPANY ev� N ei 09 1 l.Te_ °�ffi 4. 94 a17 HaE,LC 99 A 1 r 7oninn :I III 0. I:" Ai 6 6�y t �4' Cedar Creek and Belle Goy( tio.nI Hislorical Park Virginia National Park Service Fib U.S. Department of the Interior CEBE Land Status Strasburg CUE Tgl Acre% 3470.75 Park Service: 7.44 Acres Penner Preserved: 1040.24 Acres Private 2423.07 Acres 0 250.5 1 1.5 2 Kilonitors 02 2006t Cedar Greek and Belle Gt OrY Thtional Historical Park National Park Service Virgini U Department of the interior 11111 CEBE Land Status Strasburg GEN Total Acres 3470,7S Park Service: 7.44 Acres Partner Preserved: 1040.24 Acres Private 2423.07 Acres 0 D25 0,5 1 1.5 2 Kirner 5 1 1 1 7 1 1, 1 WV I Middlet Belle Gr.:we -1?z I A: 1 August 15, 2006 O-N MINERALS CHEMSTONE OPERATION 1696 ORANDA ROAD PO BOX 71 STRASBURG. VA 22657 TEL 540-465-5161 FAX 540-465-5150 www.ogLebaynortoR0Om Gary A. and Priscilla L. Lofton 711 Buffalo Marsh Rd Middletown, VA 22645 AUG 2 2 2006 Dear Neighbor: There have been a lot of concerns about the Middletown Quarry's planned rezoning. We received a lot of comments at the public hearing, and we intend to answer every one of them with new proffers. As a nearby neighbor of the quarry, these new proffers will give you specific legal rights, such as an unconditional guarantee of your well water. I'd like to invite you to meet with us in the Senseney Room at The Wayside Inn to discuss these guarantees and answer your questions about our plans. We will be holding three of these meetings during the last two weeks of August. You are free to attend whichever meeting is most convenient for you. Whether you are a new neighbor or have lived next to the quarry for years, you will want to attend one of these meetings. Among the new proffers we will present include limits on truck traffic, well and water guarantees, and blasting guarantees. We also intend to proffer out uses within the E -M zoning that are not connected with the current quarry operation, such as cement kilns or asphalt plants. You will also have a chance to ask questions about the use of the quarry by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, sightlines from various properties, and the phasing of quarry operations. I'd like to reassure everyone that the pace of quarry operations will not change at Middletown. We are merely following the same limestone vein that we have followed for the past 50 years, with the same people, at the same pace. A lot has been written about limestone lately. For those of you who are not familiar with it, it is a very safe and environmentally friendly material, and the vein at Middletown is one of the purest in the country. We've scheduled three dates in the Senseney Room at The Wayside Inn: Wednesday, August 23, Monday, August 28, and Wednesday, August 30. Attend whichever meeting is convenient, or come to all three. The meetings will start at 6 p.m. with snacks, dessert and coffee. We'll have a short presentation at 6:30, followed by a question and answer session. We'll be there as long as you need us. If you have any questions, please call us at (540) 465 -6807. I look forward to seeing you at The Wayside Inn. Sincerely, Smcza- Spencer C. Stinson General Manager O -N Minerals Chemstone Operation