Rezoning request on Cedar Creek Battlefield

[Dignann]

Re: Rezoning request on Cedar Creek Battlefield

The National Trust for Historic Preservation takes a hard stand. Below is their press release.

Drastic Expansion of Mining Operations Threatens Belle Grove Plantation and Cedar Creek Civil War Battlefield
Blasting, Quarry Truck Traffic, Noise and Multi-Story High Waste Piles Will Alter Historic and Rural Gem of the Shenandoah Valley

Washington, DC – June 18, 2008 – The National Trust for Historic Preservation today reaffirmed its strong opposition to radically expanded mining operations proposed in and around Cedar Creek & Belle Grove National Historical Park. Cedar Creek and Belle Grove are situated in a rural landscape whose centuries of historical and cultural significance include 18th century Shenandoah Valley settlements, 18th-19th century plantation lands and Civil War battle grounds. The Belgian mining conglomerate Carmeuse Lime & Stone has recently won county approval to move ahead with mining activities, including blasting and increased quarry truck traffic, which could destroy the character of the visitor experience at Belle Grove Plantation, a National Trust Historic Site and National Historic Landmark, and the Cedar Creek Civil War battlefield.

“The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which has owned Belle Grove Plantation for 44 years, is dismayed that intrusive mining activities could destroy the character of sites of tremendous national and regional significance,” said Richard Moe, president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. ”Preservation of these irreplaceable cultural landscapes and buildings, rich in our nation’s history, is one of the highest priorities of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and we will do everything we can to protect them from irreparable harm.”

Recently, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, by a vote of 4-3, approved Carmeuse’s destructive proposal despite opposition from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Belle Grove Inc., (which manages the plantation site), and a broad coalition of partners and local residents, alarmed that the quarry operations will destroy the tourism industry and their way of life. Experts agree expansion of the quarry will harm Belle Grove, which dates to the late 18th century, and the Cedar Creek battlefield, the region’s most significant Civil War site. Already, multi-story high mounds of mining waste are intruding on the site’s world-class vistas. Each year tens of thousands of visitors come to the area because of its history. Proposed blasting would damage historic structures, bulldozers would destroy acres of core battlefield land adjacent to the National Historical Park, and dust clouds, noise, and increased quarry truck traffic would diminish the visitor’s experience.

The threat is so severe, the Civil War Preservation Trust in 2007 and again in 2008 listed the Cedar Creek battlefield as one of America's most-endangered Civil War battlefields. The National Trust for Historic Preservation and Belle Grove, Inc., longtime stewards of the 18th-19th century plantation and the Cedar Creek Civil War battlefield, fully intend to pursue avenues that will mitigate, reduce and avoid harm to Belle Grove, and the cultural and historic resources within and adjacent to the National Historical Park, but hope that congressional action can halt the mining expansion altogether.

As one signal of their opposition, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and Belle Grove, Inc. are suspending any involvement with the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation and prohibiting their use of Belle Grove for their annual Civil War re-enactment. Although the two non-profits recognize the value of Civil War commemorative activities, including re-enactments, as dynamic educational and tourism programming, they are suspending their relationship with the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation because of the Foundation’s sudden reversal on the mining issue. On April 17, the president and executive director of the Foundation assured the National Trust for Historic Preservation and Belle Grove of their opposition to quarry owner Carmeuse’s mining proposals. Yet on April 23, without notifying the National Trust for Historic Preservation or Belle Grove, the foundation publicly testified before the Frederick County Board of Supervisors they “took no exception” to the quarry expansion, essentially approving the proposal. On the same day, the Foundation struck a deal to accept a gift of 8 acres of land from the quarry owner. The Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation's conduct has undermined generations of work to protect the historic plantation and battlefield and has strained the public - private partnership that was established by Congress in 2002 to plan the future management of the National Historical Park.

"We certainly respect the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation's past contributions to the stewardship of the battlefield. But we cannot silently and passively overlook the Foundation’s recent actions, which were taken unilaterally and without the prior knowledge of its partners in the overall preservation effort,” said Anne Buettner, president of Belle Grove, Inc.’s Board of Directors. “As a result, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and Belle Grove, Inc. cannot host the Foundation’s October 2008 re-enactment on Belle Grove lands, when they have taken actions that tend to undermine the efforts of their partners and that jeopardize the region's treasured historic sites and Civil War heritage. Belle Grove and the National Trust will, as always, commemorate the anniversary of the 1864 Battle of Belle Grove or Cedar Creek with a weekend of special events, speakers and interpretive programs in the historic Manor House and on its lawns and surrounding fields, hosted separately from any other events."

The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a non-profit membership organization bringing people together to protect, enhance and enjoy the places that matter to them. By saving the places where great moments from history – and the important moments of everyday life – took place, the National Trust for Historic Preservation helps revitalize neighborhoods and communities, spark economic development and promote environmental sustainability. With headquarters in Washington, DC, 9 regional and field offices, 29 historic sites, and partner organizations in all 50 states, the National Trust for Historic Preservation provides leadership, education, advocacy and resources to a national network of people, organizations and local communities committed to saving places, connecting us to our history and collectively shaping the future of America’s stories. For more information, visit www.PreservationNation.org.


Eric

[Busterbuttonboy]

Re: Rezoning request on Cedar Creek Battlefield

Thanks Eric
Just as an update I have been unable to the foundation to respond to my inquires. As posted above.
On an Aside (mods feel free to delete if you feel fit) there is a small movement right now from some progressive units to pull from the event and make a point. The foundations stewardship is funded by our registration monies. It is our job as first preservationists to make a stand when our monies and times are being misused. Thats comes before having olde timey shoot em ups.

If anyone is interested in helping in this effort please contact me.

Drew A. Gruber

[Emmanuel Dabney]

Re: Rezoning request on Cedar Creek Battlefield

Drew,

This is one moderator who feels that that is a sound idea. As the phrase goes "Put your money where your mouth is" we should also uphold another phrase "Let your feet do the talking!"

A long term relationship being dissolved totally would be damaging I think to the future, but a short term "smack in the head" to remind the Foundation how important and powerful a partnership with the National Trust is more than necessary and I'm glad to see Mr. Moe taking a stand.

[Dignann]

Re: Rezoning request on Cedar Creek Battlefield

Plantation, foundation part ways due to disagreement over quarry

By Eric Beidel

The Winchester Star [Winchester, Va.]
June 19, 2008


Middletown — A longtime preservation partnership has been threatened by a beef over expanded mining operations near the Cedar Creek Battlefield.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation and Belle Grove Inc. have announced that they will end any involvement with the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation.

The Belle Grove Plantation, located on the battlefield south of Middletown, dates to the 18th century, and its board of directors had allowed the use of its property by the Battlefield Foundation for its annual Civil War re-enactment activities.

Belle Grove will no longer allow the use of its property by the foundation because of the foundation’s position on the quarry expansion, according to a press release issued Wednesday by the National Trust.

"We certainly respect the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation’s past contributions to the stewardship of the battlefield," said Anne Buettner, president of Belle Grove Inc.’s Board of Directors. "But we cannot silently and passively overlook the foundation’s recent actions, which were taken unilaterally and without the prior knowledge of its partners in the overall preservation effort."

The Belgian mining conglomerate Carmeuse Lime and Stone recently won rezoning approval from the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to expand its limestone mining activities at its Chemstone quarry, located near the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park south of Middletown.

Belle Grove Inc. claims that in April, the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation reversed its opposition to the quarry expansion, then cut a deal with the quarry owner to accept a land gift of 8 acres.

"We took no stance" on the quarry expansion issue, said Linden "Butch" Fravel, who serves on the Battlefield Foundation’s board. "There was no communication with Belle Grove on this, that was the problem."

Fravel said his board voted two months ago to not use the plantation’s property for this October’s re-enactment of the Battle of Cedar Creek in an effort to save money.

He said, the foundation had spent about $70,000 over the past five years renting land from Belle Grove for three days each October.

The foundation will still hold re-enactments on its more than 300 acres of battlefield property.

"I’m disappointed," said Mike Kehoe, another member of the foundation’s board.

The gift from the quarry owner "deals with a lot more than 8 acres," he said. "We did what was best to protect the property."

Preservationists have argued that the expanded mining operation would harm views and eat up historical land. Blasting from the mine could damage historical structures, they say.

Buettner said that Cedar Creek Battlefield representatives took actions that "undermine the efforts of their partners and that jeopardize the region’s treasured historic sites."

Belle Grove will continue to use its site to host events commemorating the 1864 battle, but will do so independently of the Battlefield Foundation.

"I’m sorry they took that position," Kehoe said. "We certainly don’t want to alienate ourselves from any of our partners. I guess there’s a lot of fence-mending to do, because there’s still a lot of battlefield to preserve."

A phone message left for the Battlefield Foundation’s executive director, Suzanne Chilson, was not immediately returned on Wednesday night.

http://www.winchesterstar.com/article_details.php?ArticleID=7480

Eric

[Emmanuel Dabney]

Re: Rezoning request on Cedar Creek Battlefield

[B][SIZE="3"]
"We took no stance" on the quarry expansion issue, said Linden "Butch" Fravel, who serves on the Battlefield Foundation’s board. "There was no communication with Belle Grove on this, that was the problem."

Seems to me the problem is not the lack of communication but the lack of a stance "on the quarry expansion issue."

[Dignann]

It's starting to get kinda ugly.


Councilman spurs battlefield boycott

By Robert Igoe

The Winchester Star [Winchester, Va.]
June 21, 2008

Middletown — As the celebration of an important local Civil War battle approaches, a civil war of sorts involving historic preservation groups and elected officials continues to escalate.

Middletown Town Councilman Marshall J. "Mark" Brown said he is asking Middletown business owners to boycott the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation’s Oct. 18-19 re-enactment of the Battle of Cedar Creek.

Brown’s call for the boycott stems from an agreement the foundation reach with Chemstone during the company’s efforts to rezone 394 acres to the north and south of its Middletown quarry from Rural Areas to Extractive Manufacturing.

The Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved the request on May 28, despite the Frederick County Planning Commission’s recommendation that the request be turned down in 2006.

Chemstone sought the new zoning to allow the company to mine high-grade limestone from this property.

Several organizations, including the CCBF, were part of an effort to oppose the rezoning out of fears that it would mean increased truck traffic and threaten historical landmarks such as the battlefield and the Belle Grove Plantation.

To address these concerns, the company changed its application and proffer statements to reduce the rezoning area from 639 acres to 394 acres, eliminating 245 acres along the perimeter of the property.

The company also agreed to a general limit of 86 truck trips per day.

But in addition to the proffer changes, the company reached an agreement with the CCBF to provide vegetation on the 30-foot-high berms between the battlefield and the quarry, to turn over an eight-acre tract of property as a historic preserve and to pay for an architect and historian of the CCBF’s choice to examine the company’s property for artifacts and other historical significance.

All artifacts found will be turned over to the CCBF and property deemed of great historic importance could be added to the preserve.

"We’re extremely dissatisfied with the foundation’s actions," he said. "There’s an old story about 30 pieces of silver and I think it applies well here."

Foundation officials say their actions compromised no one’s position, and was vital in protecting the battlefield’s historic resources.

"Sooner or later, we felt that this rezoning would be approved due to the amount of high-grade limestone on this piece of land," said CCBF Executive Director Suzanne Chilson. "We saw (the agreement) as a win-win situation and something that was not against anyone else’s interests."

Chilson said that many of the foundation’s critics do not have all the facts and she is preparing a statement on the agreement that she hopes will resolve their concerns.

In a letter to the Board of Supervisors, Chilson said "the mission of the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation is to acquire, preserve, and interpret the land upon which the Battle of Cedar Creek was fought, and to collect and preserve documents and artifacts related to the battlefield. In that respect, the concerns of the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation were satisfied."

Brown said the boycott is not only because of the agreement, but because the festival has been the source of safety concerns.

"We’ve asked them for many years to offer shuttle buses for the fans and re-enactors," he said. "The festival creates increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic and we’ve asked them in the past to help address this."

Aside from the boycott, two of the groups involved in opposing the rezoning, The National Trust for Historic Preservation and Belle Grove Inc., announced Thursday they were severing ties with the CCBF over their agreement.

Another CCBF official, Vice President L.A. "Butch" Fravel, declined to comment on Brown’s allegations, saying that "our aim is not to escalate any bad blood," but said that the foundation has no issue with any other organization involved.

http://www.winchesterstar.com/article_details.php?ArticleID=7537

Eric Mink

[preservecedarcreek]

Re: Rezoning request on Cedar Creek Battlefield

Greetings to you fellow reenactors and supporters~ In regards to Cedar Creek and the land rezoning in Middletown, Virginia, I hope I can reassure you by telling you that the information that has been posted to the public has been, for a lack of a better word, lopsided. The Civil War Preservation Trust and The National Trust were both aware of the situation at Cedar Creek and have done their best, like the rest of us, to spread the word about the threats to Cedar Creek. On a personal note, battlefield preservation is my paid position in Hampton Roads, and I love what I do. I work for many historic sites and battlefields and understand the tactics that developers and land acquisitioners use to get plans approved. Out of all of the sites I work with, Cedar Creek is the one I hold dearest to my heart- I applied for and had granted the APVA designation for Cedar Creek Battlefield last year as the top 10 most endangered historic sites in America-thanks to proactive citizens and community leaders working together, we've been able to spread the word of this endangered site.Ultimately, these verbal attacks on CCBF via outside uninformed sources, are taken personally by each person serving on the board, as well as our volunteer base, and our supportive community (both regionally and nationwide) . CCBF's organization has had 20 years of public service in protecting this nation's War of the States history and we are continuing to do this now.

The board members of Cedar Creek also are board members for Belle Grove Plantation, the National Park Service's Advisory Commission, town councils and the group Preserve Frederick. As the rumors are spreading from certain people in the community to the newspapers, they are not realizing that the very groups they represent who are calling on explanations, are actually intertwined with Cedar Creek and fully aware of what is happening with the rezoning, the Quarry and the movement towards preserving parcels of land adjacent to the Quarry itself.

All partners were working on their own angle of negotiations. Preserve Frederick put out their compromise of letting the Quarry taking the 'Northern' Parcel, the one adjacent to Cedar Creek Battlefield, in the Summer 2007, others continued to flatly say no, and others tried to realize that like most large land rezonings, typically, the property owner will get their approval as long as they abide by their city/county's stipulations. Below is Suzanne Chilson's response that was sent out to the reenactment community today and I wanted to be sure that you were able to read it and we welcome your questions or responses. I appreciate your long-standing support for Cedar Creek and its partners in the Valley. We don't want to lose your support or your attendance at the reenactment, the lack of support from our reenactment community would be taking a huge step backwards in trying to preserve something that all of us cherish. We do need your support in not only attendance, but verbally as well. Our group will continue to work for the better of the areas of Middletown, Cedar Creek and Strasburg and I hope that at this year's reenactment, I will have the opportunity to meet you all. Thank you again for your past support and hopefully in advance for your future strong advocacy.

Julie Clevenger
Board of Directors
Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation
P.O. Box 229
Middletown, Virginia 22645
540-869-2064

cedarcrk@visuallink.com

https://www.cedarcreekbattlefield.org

June 23, 2008



To Our Reenactor Partners, Sponsors and Supporters:


There has recently been some negative and misleading publicity about the successful efforts of the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation to secure a binding agreement from O-N Mineral’s, (Carmeuse) to support preservation efforts and contribute to the shared goals of creating a reserve of property for further preservation efforts. We felt that we owe it to all of our reenactor partners, sponsors, supporters and the public to set the record straight. Contrary to the negative and incomplete information spread by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and Belle Grove, Inc., the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation stood alone and successfully took the initiative to preserve and protect core battlefield land and artifacts.



After twenty years of intense and dedicated preservation efforts on the part of the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, (“CCBF”), we are deeply saddened and surprised that any entity would issue a public statement that so inappropriately characterizes the activities and intentions of the CCBF and its members. For this reason, we believe the facts concerning our relationship with the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and Belle Grove, Inc., (collectively designated “Belle Grove”), and Carmeuse, (the “Quarry”), need be disclosed.



Reenactments

CCBF held its first reenactment in 1990, and since that time has occasionally used additional property from Belle Grove, depending on the number of reenactors attending an event. In 1999, Belle Grove required a payment of $6,000 for the use of a few acres behind the plantation and reserved the right to cancel the agreement at anytime and for any reason. CCBF considered this unacceptable, and for the next several years, the event was held solely on CCBF lands. CCBF rented land from Belle Grove for the 140th Anniversary Reenactment in 2004, and through 2007. In addition to paying all the expenses associated with hosting the reenactments, CCBF has paid over $68,000 to Belle Grove since 1999.



First and foremost, our reenactment will continue this fall as it always has. Through the hard work of our many dedicated reenactors, sponsors and volunteers, we will continue our reenactment activities as scheduled on October 18 & 19, 2008, so that preservation, educational activities and respect for our heritage and history can continue. The reenactment will take place on the core battlefield lands owned by the CCBF, as it has for many years. The CCBF Board voted several months ago not to use the Belle Grove property this year due to the high cost of renting the land ($5,000 for 3 days).



Quarry

FACT - After almost two years of waiting for the local preservation partnership group to negotiate a position, two weeks before the quarry rezoning public hearing, the CCBF stood alone in attempting to negotiate with the Quarry to ensure responsible preservation efforts and responsible land use. Ever since the rezoning issue appeared, our organization had opposed the application, because none of the concerns the CCBF raised had ever been adequately addressed. However, it also became clear to our board members that the “just say no” policy was not a practical position to take when we learned that the limestone vein adjacent to the Battlefield was of the highest quality valued at least $300 million dollars. With the prospect that the Quarry operations would continue as planned, CCBF alone sought to intercede, negotiate and obtain commitments from the Quarry that would enhance and continue our preservation efforts. We were able to secure such an agreement from the Quarry and, more importantly, secured an agreement that would bind the Quarry whether or not its rezoning efforts succeeded.



On April 23, 2008, just hours before the Frederick County Board of Supervisors public hearing, CCBF President Hirschberg signed an agreement with the Quarry guaranteeing the following:



Ø Berms: To improve and enhance the viewshed, the Quarry will reduce the height of the berms around the pits that are visible from the Heater House fields and main battlefield. In addition, the Quarry will landscape the berms with a mixture of deciduous and coniferous plantings. The agreement reached between the Quarry and CCBF was crafted to eliminate or significantly reduce the visibility of the existing processing plant when viewed from Route 11. For two decades, the number one complaint from both reenactors and spectators has been having the processing plant as the backdrop to the battlefield. We believe protecting the viewshed is critical to the experience that our reenactors and visitors enjoy. Its mitigation will become the single most important improvement to the vista of the entire park for years to come. This was the result of simply meeting one-on-one with the Quarry, and sharing our concerns. Berm construction will not occur in areas identified as historically significant.



Ø Cultural Resources: An eight acre tract previously identified as historically significant will be donated to CCBF within sixty days of the signing of the agreement. The Quarry and the CCBF have also agreed that there exists other historical resources, (U.S. VI Corps camp area), immediately adjacent to the eight acre parcel which may encompass an additional twenty acres more or less. These acres will also be deeded to the CCBF upon the completion of an archaeological study to confirm its significance. A joint archeological survey by Dr. Clarence Geier and Dr. Joseph Whitehorne, (both noted experts on the Civil War), will be conducted on all other properties under consideration for rezoning and such studies will be paid for by the Quarry.



Ø Artifacts: All artifacts discovered will become the property of the CCBF and will be held in trust for the public benefit.



Ø Additional Land Donation: As part of the agreement, other newly discovered areas of historical significance, (such as an area known locally as the Middletown Woods), may also be deeded to the CCBF. As a result, more core battlefield may/will be donated to CCBF pending the conclusion of the archeological survey.



In addition to the items mentioned above, the Quarry decreased the acreage in the rezoning application, (from 639 acres to 394 acres), restricted the number of truck loads to 86 per day, and instructed drivers to avoid Belle Grove and Chapel Roads. Also, CCBF has begun discussions with the Quarry concerning the possible placement of preservation easements on substantial amounts of core battlefield land.



In summary, CCBF has at all times acted honestly, responsibly and in a manner believed to be in keeping with the Foundation’s mission statement. Our efforts have always depended on the sustained goodwill and dedicated efforts of our many reenactors, sponsors and volunteers who have enabled us to preserve this important national treasure known as the Cedar Creek Battlefield. Our actions were intentionally designed to ensure that the preservation efforts of the past are enhanced, additional battlefield land is immediately secured, and strategies are implemented that will lead to future battlefield and artifact protection.



We look forward to seeing you on October 18 & 19.



Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation,



Suzanne Chilson

Executive Director

Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation

P.O. Box 229

Middletown, Virginia 22645

540-869-2064

cedarcrk@visuallink.com

https://www.cedarcreekbattlefield.org

[Dignann]

Re: Rezoning request on Cedar Creek Battlefield

Business owner will boycott re-enactment

By Alex Bridges

The Northern Virginia Daily [Strasburg, Va.]
June 25, 2008

MIDDLETOWN — A local Civil War battlefield group refutes claims it switched sides in a controversial quarry expansion proposal in exch-ange for some land from a mining operation.

In fact, the Cedar Creek Battlefields Foundation never came out in support of a rezoning request by Carmeuse Lime & Stone to increase its Middletown operation, according to the group's executive director, Suzanne Chilson, as well as board member Julie Clevenger. Chilson said Monday she planned to issue a statement this week outlining the foundation's position on the issue.

But the fallout continues from the 4-3 vote by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that allows the Belgium-based firm to expand its quarry by 640 acres. The National Trust for Historic Preservation announced June 18 that it and Belle Grove Inc. would sever their long-standing relationship with the Cedar Creek Battlefields Foundation over a perceived reversal from opposition to support for Carmeuse's rezoning.

Then last week, Marshall "Mark" Brown, co-owner of Why Not Antiques, called on fellow proprietors to boycott their support of the Battle of Cedar Creek re-enactment put on by the foundation in October.

"I think that the board for the Cedar Creek Battlefield is just going about this all wrong, and I think it's time they got a new board in there," Brown said Monday.

Brown claims the foundation entered into talks with the quarry operators about six to eight months ago "to get that [8 acre] piece of land in ... what seems to be return for not voicing opposition for the rezoning."

"But you look at the number of businesses in Middletown, it's not going to make an impact," Brown said. "But we'll see what happens ... when they start asking for donations for checks for their cannons or for advertising their program in October."

Chilson doubts the call for a boycott will gain steam.

"I don't know if a lot of businesses on the busiest weekend of the year for Middletown would think this was a really good idea or not," she said.

The 8 acres was to come to the foundation regardless of rezoning approval, Clevenger said.

"I can say for a fact that the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, we never voted on taking a stand, in favor or against or even maintaining neutrality when it came to O-N/Carmeuse proposal," Clevenger said Monday.

Chilson tried to relay that message in a May 23 letter to supervisors in which she cites comments made by Tim Stowe, a spokesman for the foundation, during the April 23 public hearing on the rezoning request. But Thomas "Ty" Lawson, an attorney for Carmeuse, misinterpreted Stowe, Chilson said.

"In fact, the Foundation's spokesman neither supported nor opposed the application," Chilson states in her letter. "His final comment at the public hearing was, 'Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation takes no exception to this rezoning.'"

Chilson states in the letter that the foundation entered into talks with Carmeuse in April to address its concerns. The foundation did sign a written agreement with the firm to receive an 8-acre tract, she added, and "the compromise reached between the two parties resolved many of the Foundation's issues concerning the preservation of historical resources, viewshed protection, archeological studies, artifact recovery and disposition, as well as land donation."

Another Middletown business owner said he's not sure about the call for a boycott.

"You know, I'm in a restaurant, and I have customers from both sides of that aisle, so I've really tried to stay neutral," Rob Mangus, owner of the Civil Cricket Cafe, said Tuesday, adding that he doesn't know all the details on the issue. "Now the recent vote by the supervisors, I'm just totally PO'd about."

"I have friends in all these different organizations, and it saddens me ... for us to be divided down here, I think that gave Chemstone the fuel to win this vote and I think it was a little sneaky how they did it."

http://www.nvdaily.com/news/313224974736718.bsp

Eric

[Dignann]

Re: Rezoning request on Cedar Creek Battlefield

Cedar Creek Supporters Lose Mine Rezoning Battle

By Deborah Fitts

Civil War News
July 2008

MIDDLETOWN, Va. - In a bitter blow to supporters of the Cedar Creek battlefield, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors voted May 28 to expand a limestone-mining operation across hundreds of acres of core battlefield.

“We were horribly disappointed,” said Wendy Hamilton, president of the local group Preserve Frederick. Jim Campi, spokesman for the Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT), warned that the supervisors’ decision could cast a pall over future preservation efforts at Cedar Creek.

The 4-3 vote by the supervisors OK’d a request by O-N Minerals Chemstone to rezone 394 acres from agricultural use to mining. The approval allows Chemstone to expand both north and south of its current mining operations at Cedar Creek.

Campi, who has worked closely with Preserve Frederick and a coalition of preservation groups, noted that on the northern part of the rezoned land, Union cavalry under George Custer struck the exposed left flank of the Confederate line at the climax of the battle, Oct. 19, 1864.

But now, said Hamilton, the existing mine plus the newly rezoned areas would enable Chemstone to create “a 2.5- to 3-mile hole in the ground.” O-N Minerals Chemstone is a subsidiary of Carmeuse Lime & Stone, based in Belgium.

Hamilton’s group worked for two years to defeat the rezoning. CWPT was a strong ally, but the coalition also included the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the new Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, among others.

Preserve Frederick hired a professional planner and last August came up with “Plan B”. It called for cancelling the rezoning on the area to the north of the current operation, where much of the Union counterattack occurred.

The rezoning would have been allowed only in the area to the south, which is already heavily impacted visually by the existing mine. The plan also called for 200-foot buffers to protect Cedar Creek and screen the mining from the adjacent landowners.

Hamilton said the compromise never received serious consideration.

“We did everything by the letter,” she said. “We left the emotion out of it. We were very respectful. We let everybody know what we were doing. And we got harshly criticized.

“This will be extremely disappointing to those who truly care about preserving this hallowed ground.”

Just days before the supervisors’ vote, Chemstone reduced its rezoning request from 639 to 394, in an apparent bid to win support. But Hamilton said the acreage that was removed from the rezoning was not slated for mining anyway: “They basically put a belt around the 639 acres and sucked it all into 394 acres. It did no good.”

National Park Threat

Preserve Frederick wasn’t the only member of the coalition to attempt a compromise. Diann Jacox, superintendent at Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, was concerned about the impact of the rezoning on her park.

“Significant parts of the battlefield will be consumed,” Jacox said. “This is going to be very visible to us.” While the park so far owns 7.5 acres, its 3,500-acres boundary adjoins Chemstone. (The park does not encompass Chemstone land because the company “did not want to be within the boundary,” Jacox explained.)

In April Jacox met with Gary Lofton, the county supervisor for the district that includes the battlefield. She offered to hire a facilitator to broker a compromise between the preservation groups and Chemstone.

Lofton appeared supportive, and over the next month Jacox got pledges from coalition members totally $6,000 — enough to get started.

But Jacox said at the final supervisors’ meeting, Lofton announced that hiring a facilitator was, “a terrible idea.” He was one of the four votes in favor of Chemstone. “I think he just changed his mind,” she said.

The rezoning, Jacox said, would result in an even greater visual impact on the land within the park boundary. “The mine is not a pleasant sight to see, and now it will expand — onto acreage that could have been preserved. We have provided no protection for the battlefield.”

Howard Kittell, executive director of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, also expressed disappointment over the outcome. And the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which owns the house-museum Belle Grove, a battlefield landmark, rapped Chemstone.

In a letter to the local paper, the Trust’s Southern Field Office Director Robert Nieweg wrote that in 2006, when the Frederick County Planning Commission recommended against the rezoning, they “asked the quarry to open a meaningful dialogue” with adjacent landowners.

Chemstone, however, “didn’t follow through,” Nieweg said, “and instead essentially ignored its neighbors and their constructive objections to the quarry’s rezoning application.”

CCBF Makes a Deal

One month before the board’s vote, the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation (CCBF) stunned the other members of the coalition by striking its own deal with Chemstone. The nonprofit owns 300 acres in two parcels on either side of the Belle Grove.

Under the legal agreement, Chemstone could preserve as much as 50 acres of battlefield. It will also hand any artifacts found on the rezoned property over to CCBF. (One of Chemstone’s proffers to the supervisors was to undertake an archeological study.) The foundation intends to display artifacts as the “Carmeuse Collection”.

Chemstone also agreed to move piles of spoil and build berms as much as 30 feet in height, planted with trees, to conceal visible intrusions from CCBF land. The spoil piles and other signs of the mining have long been an eyesore for CCBF’s annual October reenactment. When it came time for the supervisors to consider the rezoning, CCBF took no position.

Foundation board member Tim Stowe said it was his idea to approach Chemstone. The foundation didn’t support Plan B. While the plan would have blocked the rezoning at the northern end of the existing mine, it would have allowed mining to expand at the southern end- adjacent to foundation property.

“Our deal that we cut with the quarry was independent of the rezoning,” Stowe said. “We didn’t have any strong feelings one way of the other (about the rezoning), so long as we took care of our interests.”

He added, “I don’t know why the other groups didn’t sit down with the quarry. Our goal was to move preservation forward for the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, and my feeling is that we did.”

By the agreement, Chemstone was to donate to the foundation within 60 days an 8-acre parcel near Belle Grove that had long been identified as historic due to associated mills and other structures no longer standing. "We did not go asking for the 8 acres,” Stowe said. “They wanted to donate it to a preservation group, and they chose to give it to us.”

(CWPT’s Campi said Plan B would have provided “a generous buffer” at the southern end, to protect adjoining properties. The 8-acre parcel would have fallen inside the buffer.)

Chemstone also agreed to undertake an archeological study of Middletown Woods, an area at the north end of the quarry. Although it is more than a mile from the closest CCBF land, Stowe said, their board had done archeology there previously and were familiar with it. Stowe described it as “a triage area” during the battle, where the wounded were laid out for medical attention.

The agreement also calls for Chemstone to pay for a cultural resource study to be led by Dr. Clarence Geire, with students from James Madison University. Chemstone agreed that if there is additional property near the 8-acre parcel and at Middletown Woods that is deemed to have “historical significance,” Chemstone will donate the land to the foundation. Stowe estimated the total possible donation at 50 acres.

“This is the richest limestone deposit in the country,” said Stowe. “We felt that sooner or later it was going to get rezoned. This way at least we get something preserved, and the mounds removed, and archeological studies done.”

Hamilton, of Preserve Frederick, said she was “truly disappointed” with CCBF. She said their deal with Chemstone “weighed very heavily” in the supervisors’ decision (Stowe disagreed, contending it had no effect).

“However many acres they get,” Hamilton said of CCBF, it was not an “acceptable exchange” for the acres of core battlefield that will now be lost due to rezoning. If the board had turned Chemstone down, she noted, the Civil War Preservation Trust would have stepped in with an offer to purchase.

CWPT Makes Offer

Indeed sensing that supervisors might opt for the rezoning, CWPT made a last-ditch offer five days before the vote.

“As part of a potential compromise,” Trust Chairman Todd Sedgwick wrote to the Board of Supervisors, if they tabled or rejected the rezoning, “CWPT would be willing to consider acquisition of all or part of the property in question.”

But now, said Campi, Chemstone has no incentive to sell. The value of the limestone on the rezoned land is estimated at $300 million.

Still, with days of the vote CWPT wrote to Chemstone asking to sit down and discuss a purchase. Campi said the Trust would likely focus on Chemstone land that had not been rezoned.

All in all, said Campi, the rezoning represents “one of the bigger losses” in recent years by the Civil War preservation community. The effect at Cedar Creek will be insidious and far-reaching, he suggested.

“It’s going to have a significant impact on the battlefield,” Campi said. But equally important, “It’s going to affect future preservation efforts at Cedar Creek,” since preservationists may be reluctant to acquire battlefield land in the shadow of a mining operation.


Eric

[Dignann]

Re: Rezoning request on Cedar Creek Battlefield

JMU students dig for Civil War information

By Drew Houff

The Winchester Star [Winchester, Va.]
July 16, 2008

Middletown— Carmeuse Lime and Stone officials continue to work with the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation in an attempt to ensure that as much of the battlefield can be protected — or at least examined for Civil War relics — as possible.

Several James Madison University students, under the tutelage of anthropology professor Clarence Geier, have spent the past two weeks examining Carmeuse land that includes remnants from the Oct. 19, 1864, Battle of Cedar Creek.

Tim Stowe and other members of the battlefield foundation took a tour of the area under study by about a dozen JMU students Tuesday.

“There’s a lot of historical significance on the grounds ...,” he said. “It’s great to have the students study this.”

Stowe said the foundation and Carmeuse are trying to be good neighbors, working together to learn more about the land owned by the quarry.

JMU’s involvement turns the process into an on-site lab for students.

Geier, in a telephone interview Tuesday, said the project has allowed the students to study the land and conduct actual field research.

“We get to look at the land from an archaeological perspective when we walk over it,” he said.

Geier said the students have found rifle points, a road that probably dates to the late 18th century, and other artifacts.

Shovel-test pitting, he said, helps to find possible locations for military debris without the use of metal detectors.

Geier said several local citizens, many of whom are members of the Archeological Society of Virginia, joined the students in trying to find Civil War artifacts.

“They wanted to help look for evidence of historical activity,” he said.

Geier said the cooperative agreement with Carmeuse offers a rare opportunity for students to conduct field research with few limitations by the landowners.

“We have been able to do what we have wanted, which is fun for us,” he said. “It’s rare you get that kind of carte blanche to conduct research. They have gone over and above anything we could have asked.”

Geier said the students are researching 25 acres that have been cleared of vegetation. He said initial reports on items found there will be available in late August or early September, but research likely will continue over all of the Carmeuse site — almost 400 acres — until next summer.

JMU student and part-time staff member Alyson Wood, Tuesday’s team leader, said the archaeological survey provides some additional historical evidence of what happened on the site, which is near the official battlefield property.

“We’re not sure what actually happened here — we’re just finding a lot of Civil War artifacts,” she said, adding they had found bullets, musket balls, and lead that was to be melted down to make ammunition. “This is a Civil War area, and we expected to hopefully find Civil War stuff.

“We will be here as long as it takes us to do a really thorough job.”

Linda Zuckerman, a member of the Northern Shenandoah Valley Chapter of the Archeological Society of Virginia, said students and volunteers found some remnants of Union and Confederate encampments, and evidence of a possible skirmish at the site.

“We found some lead, some brass, iron,” she said. “[We also found] some camp stuff, too, like melted lead. They dropped things.”

Stephens City Tim Stowe, a member of the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, looks over an old farm tool that he found Tuesday on the Carmeuse Lime and Stone property.

Geier said maps of the land will be plotted to determine the source and location of the artifacts.

He said work conducted by Lord Fairfax Community College professor Joseph W.A. Whitehorne will provide additional information about the soldiers, which can be matched with the archaeological survey to better determine what happened at the site.

Carmeuse, Geier said, is paying all the expenses of the group from JMU, including small salaries for some of the workers.

“In exchange, they are going to find a very thorough, very honest, and very vigorous end product,” he said of the students’ geological survey.

http://www.winchesterstar.com/showarticle_new.php?sID=6&foldername=20080716&file=civil_article.html

Eric

[FlatLandFed]

Re: Rezoning request on Cedar Creek Battlefield

I wonder how much one of those aerial mapping surveys would cost? Might help them get more done, more quickly?

Paul Hadley

[GRyan]

Re: Rezoning request on Cedar Creek Battlefield

It is intersting that my wife and I were just reviewing the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation website yesterday to check on this year's reenactment. On the Foundation's home page (www.cedarcreekbattlefield.org) they have a link to a statement by the Foundation Board discussing the quarry issue. I would recommend all interested in this topic review this document.

In short, it highlights what the Foundation has done and not done from their perspective. The document talks about the public hearing and states the Foundations position which is somehwat different from what I've been reading here.

I'm not taking sides just interested in both perspectives.

Gary Ryan

[Emmanuel Dabney]

Re: Rezoning request on Cedar Creek Battlefield

Hmm...and just to think some said that land in that area is insignificant? Sounds like Criterion D of the National Register would apply; but we know how that process is what's insignificant to "progress."

[preservecedarcreek]

Re: Rezoning request on Cedar Creek Battlefield

Greetings gentlemen-

I serve on the board for Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, and I'm a professional preservationist who serves Hampton Roads and the Valley. I have been reviewing the statements and points and I'm very disconcerted by what I'm reading. The facts that I can attest to in response to some comments above are:

*The Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation was never approached by anyone to take a stand or even a vote on our approval or disapproval of this quarry rezoning. We were given the same speech by the quarry representatives that they gave to all the partners and community. We were staying neutral, as was Belle Grove, the NPS and Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation. The American Battlefields Protection Program was not involved in the quarry rezoning or as part of the non-profit partners involved in the fight. The Civil War Preservation Trust was asked to take a backseat in this fight due to their controversial relationship with the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. That is why they were staying relatively low keel on the subject.

*We, the CCBF, did not 'settle' for a 4+ acre 'secret agreement'. We have (2) members of Belle Grove/National Trust serving on the Foundation's board. We have (2) members of the NPS Advisory Committee serving on the Foundation's board, and we had (3) members of Preserve Frederick serving on the Foundation's board. There was no secret anything occurring- that was only made up AFTER the rezoning hearing was over to point fingers. There was very little lack of communication amongst the partners, we were all aware of each other's standpoints, positions, goals and objectives. In addition, Belle Grove was the original recipient of the (8) acres from the quarry. The quarry took the 8 acres and reassigned it to Cedar Creek, not contingent on the rezoning. In other words, it was ours to do what we wanted,whenever we wanted, despite the outcome of the rezoning & certainly NOT in exchange for our approval or cooperation with the quarry- something they did not receive from CCBF.

*Preserve Frederick, a group of local citizens, proposed in the Fall of 2007, that the southern parcel of land adjacent to Cedar Creek Battlefield be considered a 'compromise' property to quarry in exchange for saving the Northern end, closer to rural housing. The southern end is where the majority of the battle was fought. The northern end is only where Union cavalry, led by George Custer moved to make a flank attack against the Confederates. My home was located on the northern parcel as well, just to give you my perspective. Furthermore, one of the biggest problems was that Preserve Frederick did not provide a viable alternative use for the northern end, simply asking for the southern to be sacrificed. This compromise, which was sent to the headquarters for O-N Minerals/Carmeuse and to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, did in fact, put CCBF, and preservationists, in a precarious situation. We, as a group, were asked to go along with a proposal that would in fact, if approved, give up the areas closest in to the battlefield and core areas. As a result of this proposal, there were several people who removed themselves from Preserve Frederick and there were large divisions in the sand -coming from both the public and the preservationists.

*CCBF does not need a smack in the head to show how powerful the National Trust is- that is an organization that we have worked with for years successfully and will continue to work with in the future once the facts are correctly laid out. No one lied or misrepresented themselves and certainly no one on our board had anything to gain from secret liaisons with an industrial company.

What we do need is our reenactment & preservation community to realize that what we have and what we will continue to have is a precious jewel of the Valley. Infighting only dissipates our effort to make Cedar Creek a tremendous example of landscape, historic and view shed preservation. What we did manage to gain is that there are 400+ acres being archaeologically surveyed and artifact retrieval is being done right now to find, research and catalog the remaining relics from the battle.

I would be happy, and would love to arrange a tour for any reenactors to view the battlefield, what is being saved by CCBF, and how we are working towards the betterment of Cedar Creek Battlefield. I hope I have given some clarity to the issue.

Ms. Clevenger, thank you for your report here. I must point out, however, that users of the forum must sign their full name to all posts on the forums. Thank you and I look forward to further posts from you.

Mike Chapman - Moderator

[Dignann]

Re: Rezoning request on Cedar Creek Battlefield

Cedar Creek Preservation Coalition Suffers Bitter Split

By Deborah Fitts

Civil War News
August 2008

MIDDLETOWN, Va. — In the wake of a decision to expand mining on the Cedar Creek battlefield, anger and recriminations have split the coalition of preservation groups that own portions of the fought-over land.

“In my 20-plus years in historic preservation, I’ve never seen anything like this before,” said Howard Kittell, executive director of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation. “I hope we can figure out how to move forward and work together.”

At issue are the actions of the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation (CCBF), which in April surprised the rest of the coalition by striking a solo deal with the mining company that owns much of the battlefield’s core area.

In May the Frederick County Board of Supervisors voted 4-3 to rezone 394 acres of battlefield from agricultural use to mining. At the hearing, CCBF did not oppose the expansion. (See July CWN story.)

Kittell said CCBF’s deal with the quarry, Belgium-based Carmeuse Lime & Stone (formerly O-N Minerals Chemstone), not only gave the supervisors a reason to approve the expansion, but it also gave Carmeuse an excuse not to work with the coalition.

“I am really disappointed in what happened here,” Kittell said. What CCBF did “basically stopped any opportunity for compromise.” The coalition had worked for months to promote a plan that would have allowed Carmeuse to expand in one area, but not in an area where key fighting took place.

CCBF’s deal with Carmeuse requires the mining company to foot the bill for archeological and cultural-resource studies, hand over any artifacts found to CCBF, move piles of spoil and build berms as high as 30 feet, planted with trees, to conceal the mining operation from foundation land. CCBF owns about 300 acres in two tracts on either side of historic Belle Grove manor.

The legal contract also requires Carmeuse to give to CCBF an 8-acre parcel long earmarked for preservation that includes the remnants of mill buildings associated with Belle Grove. And, depending on archeological discovery, Carmeuse may give the foundation another 40 acres or so if it is deemed to have “historical significance.”

“In our opinion it was a win-win situation,” said Suzanne Chilson, executive director of CCBF.

In a four-page press release June 26 defending their position, CCBF asserted that the deal with Carmeuse “was a very significant, unconditional preservation achievement that has been ignored or overlooked by the entities who could have assisted, but choose now to disparage the efforts.

“Other organizations had the opportunity to meet with the quarry but they declined to do so,” the release went on, adding, “CCBF stands as the only organization that moved rapidly and firmly to secure preservation concessions that would otherwise not have been secured.”

Chilson asserted that a first rough draft of the foundation’s agreement with Carmeuse was obtained by Preserve Frederick, a key member of the coalition, “and they spread it around to everyone.” Asked why CCBF made no attempt to discuss the deal formally with the rest of the coalition members, she replied, “There really wasn’t time.”

The foundation earned the special enmity of coalition members Belle Grove Inc. and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The former operates the 1797 house-museum and the latter owns it.

The Trust announced June 18 that CCBF would no longer have the use of Belle Grove property for the foundation’s annual October reenactment, for many years a major event on the reenacting calendar and fundraiser for the foundation.

Because of CCBF’s deal with Carmeuse, said Robert Nieweg, director of the Trust’s Southern Field Office, “The National Trust and Belle Grove felt we had no choice but to distance ourselves from CCBF and from involvement in their event.

“We regret if it causes them hardship, but the public should understand that the approval of the quarry expansion threatens our mission. It poses a very significant threat to our property and the ability to interpret the plantation.”

He added, “When backroom deals are being struck without any notice to us, and when they directly, adversely impact our mission, we have no choice but to distance ourselves from the foundation.”

CCBF’s Chilson, however, noted that the foundation board had voted months ago not to use the Belle Grove land this year anyway. (Belle Grove estimates the total land leased to CCBF at about 70 acres, including Belle Grove’s 50-acre front pasture and a 20-acre site used for cavalry camping and parking.)

Since 1999 CCBF had paid over $68,000 to Belle Grove, Chilson said, and the cost was too steep. Asked why CCBF had not told Belle Grove of the decision not to use the land this year, she replied, “They didn’t ask.”

The CCBF reenactment will go ahead as usual, Oct. 18 and 19. Belle Grove will also offer its usual events that same weekend, when the manor house will be interpreted to the time of the battle. The Frederick Ladies Relief Society and other units will occupy the lawn to demonstrate camp and social life. The house will be open for tours.

The rent that CCBF paid annually for the three-day weekend “didn’t cover our cost,” stated Belle Grove’s executive director, Elizabeth McClung.

McClung said Belle Grove had set a flat yearly rate of $5,000. CCBF kept all admission fees for the weekend, plus reenactor and vendor fees, so Belle Grove did not make its usual $8 per person, according to McClung.

“It is a very lucrative operation for them [CCBF] and probably their main source of income throughout the year,” she said. This October Belle Grove will charge admission, but reduce the ticket to $5, “to make it affordable.”

McClung added that it was “very disappointing when one nonprofit that is part of a partnership acts unilaterally and without communication” to the others. “We feel CCBF sadly neglected to call on the resources and strengths of their partners, and did not communicate during a crucial time when we were all working to provide comprehensive protection of the battlefield and the viewshed.”

As for CCBF’s assertion that coalition partners were aware of the foundation’s deal before it was completed, McClung said that wasn’t true. “It came as a complete shock to all of us.”

“CCBF took away the quarry’s motivation to talk with other preservation groups,” McCung added. “We think that really they settled for crumbs from the table, instead of sitting down with all of us to come up with an equitable solution for everyone.”

Nieweg, of the National Trust, offered a hope that two prominent Virginia legislators, Sen. John Warner and Rep. Frank Wolf, might get involved and “take whatever steps are available” to stop the mining expansion.

“This is obviously a crisis situation,” Nieweg said. “This is a foreign-based company stepping in and destroying our heritage.”

Several representatives of the nonprofits offered a hope that the coalition could be mended. Together, five groups — the National Trust, Belle Grove Inc., CCBF, the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation and Shenandoah County — preserve 1,100 acres inside the new Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. They have agreed to manage those lands and help shape the park’s future.

Stepping into the turmoil, park superintendent Diann Jacox said she was working to schedule a meeting in September at which the partners will sit down with a three-member team of facilitators.

http://www.civilwarnews.com/archive/articles/08/aug/cedar_aug08_804.htm

Eric