The Changing Face of Cedar Creek Battlefield

[Busterbuttonboy]

Tom and All

"1) all discovered artifacts will be permanently preserved,"
- I agree.

"2) Several sites will undergo a thorough and professional archaeological study at the company's expense, "
- Yes companies should be more willing to do this.

"3) Additional lands could easily be deeded over to the battlefield if they are indeed found to be archaeologically significant, and that additional lands not owned by the battlefield could end up having usage restrictions attached to their deeds - "
- The property is within the study area and core areas of the battle. While archaeological evidence is nice, has it been hunted? Is it the location of a flanking maneuver? Will the additional lands be joined? Or islands? With berms a pit, the cultural landscape will be lost- forget about the civil war for a moment. It’s the valley.

Back to the berms.
"berms reducing the visible footprint of the existing quarry on the site."
- these berms 30 or was it 40 feet tall and vegetated will be, 1100 feet from the plantation house. Not mention yes will block the view of the quarry but then we will have berms. Unnatural, unsympathetic, berms in a second of historically, rolling valley land.
- Will the berms create any runoff or environmental issues which will cause damage to the Cedar Creek, its tributaries and the Shenandoah’s in the future? That no one can answer because the studies haven’t been done. Was it considered during the hearings?
- Will the berms be in direct violation to any conservation easements currently on the Cedar Creek battlefield? Adjacent properties? etc? Has the CCBF addressed this with their agreed proffer? No

"Of course the foundation could have continued to stonewall like the Belle Grove and NTHP and run the very real risk of being labeled by the county supervisors as being unreasonable and non-responsive."
- Cedar Creek is one of the few parks in the country which are run by multiple organizations. Were they supposed to cooperate together? Yes. Do we have evidence of this? No. Maybe this is the reason the National Trust/BG have taken the stand, to show us that the CCBF acted alone. Does this mean the CCBF presented itself at the hearings and in private as the sole steward of the property? Ahhh. All the mention the CCBF gives its counterparts are post negations and post rezoning.

I don’t debate that the situation concerning 300 M, would have won out over battlefield preservation. But by deciding to enter the negation when they did, and how they did, they may have made the county officials, the mining company feel like they were the only stewards.

Am I saying that 8 acres isn’t a victory? No. Am I saying, I don’t support the CCBF? No I have and I will continue to in the future. What I am saying is that we lost a cultural landscape. Purchasing or negotiating for acres, is not a concession. The preservation of a cultural landscape, decisions which cannot be done behind the backs of other organizations which are suppose to be together for the profit of the park.

Tom, this was not an attack on you personally. I am only trying to highlight the areas which I believe they failed.

[Anders]

IMHO one must always try to make the best of any situation.

I am worried now however, that with today's economy, fewer preservation $ will be raised and or granted, and every last resource within the country will by looked at as possibly a remedy to our current economical and energy crisis.

Really, folks have fewer dollars now than before, and are cutting back on "non essential" spending.

Like donations to any causes.

And we need to plan on how to best deal with such, as preservation groups may be, or already have reached the peak of their power and resources.

[Pvt Schnapps]

You know it's interesting once you start looking into this. One can't help but be sympathetic to a historical foundation up against a company wanting to exploit $300 million in limestone reserves, but CCBF wasn't necessarily alone.

Not only did Belle Grove and the National Trust (and now apparently Middletown) oppose the deal, but so did the Shenandoah Valley Network, which developed this study last year of Oglebay-Norton's options (apparently there's plenty of money to be made before destroying, or in lieu of destroying, battlefield property):

http://www.shenandoahvalleynetwork.o...ingOptions.doc

Since then, Oglebay-Norton has been purchased by Carmeuse Lime and Stone, an international corporation headquartered in Belgium:

http://www.carmeusena.com/Corporate/default.asp
(See the February 13 news release)

See also this story, for a comment from Carmeuse:

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local...0,186591.story

Carmeuse also appears in this Department of Justice consent decree related to operations in Kentucky:

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache...n&ct=clnk&cd=3

And in this EPA decree related to a plant in Chicago:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress...f!OpenDocument

And in this report of toxic releases in Alabama:

http://www.scorecard.org/env-release...5137DRVLM599HW

I don't know -- perhaps this sort of thing is par for the course for a company doing the work that Carmeuse does. But if I can stumble across this much in about twenty minutes of looking on-line, I wonder what else might be out there, and how well it accords with the idea of stewardship over this historic property.

[tompritchett]

Tom, this was not an attack on you personally. I am only trying to highlight the areas which I believe they failed.

I understand and do not take any of what you say in the above post personally. Indeed, I believe that you raised some very valid points on the matter.

[electrichorseman]

I don't beleive a word of this. For the last 10 years I have lived within 1,400 yards of a small cement mixing plant. Although screened by trees I can hear every "beep! beep! beep!" of the trucks backing into the loading area and the thumping and pounding of the bucket lift. I can go out into the backyard right now, reach up to a tree branch and shake the gravel dust off it. And I don't even want to talk about how the property value has declined since that place opened.

Preservationists may regret this decision, but the locals who live nearby will one day loathe it.

I can't believe that either!

Somethings rotten here!

[Busterbuttonboy]

Tom & All
Thank you. There is a lot to this story as Mike pointed out. The rezoning was looked into over a year ago and is thought to possibly have been postponed until this year, when board members correlated between the two organizations. Now I'm not a theorist. However, the fact that the legislation calls for 5 groups to work together, and the fact that one went ahead without talking to the others PRIOR to the case is obvious. The fact that the CCBF ignored the wishes and warning of a plethora of preservation/battlefield organizations is also obvious.

In short, my whole stick is this: Campaigner, Mainstream, Progressive etc. We are historians, people who are responsible for interpreting the turmoil of the mid 19th century to the public. Within those duties, we must forever be vigilant that our moneys and support (as Chris said) are wisely given to organizations which are cooperative with its partners, open, honest, and without personal agenda.

There are still some possible preservation tricks left to combat the issue. The Army Corps of Engineers may need to be called in. Easements may have been broken. I'm sure somewhere someone who cares is working on it.

Drew

[Che]

I am worried now however, that with today's economy, fewer preservation $ will be raised and or granted, and every last resource within the country will by looked at as possibly a remedy to our current economical and energy crisis.

Really, folks have fewer dollars now than before, and are cutting back on "non essential" spending.

Like donations to any causes.

Things may not be as gloomy as they seem.

Charitable Giving Hits Record Despite Slowing Growth
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Wall Street Journal

Mounting economic worries haven't stopped Americans from donating to charities. Charitable giving hit a record in 2007, topping $300 billion for the first time, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Giving to charities increased steadily in the past decade, though lately the pace of growth has slowed. The latest figures show an increase of only 3.9 percent over 2006, compared to spikes of roughly 10 percent and 13 percent in 2004 and 2005, respectively.

Americans donated $306 billion last year, according to preliminary figures contained in the closely watched annual report from the nonprofit Giving USA Foundation. After adjusting for inflation, donations rose only 1 percent from the roughly $295 billion donated in 2006.

The relative slowdown in giving is attributable to increasing economic uncertainty in the second half of 2007. Economic woes intensified last summer amid high gasoline prices, real-estate market turmoil and a burgeoning credit crunch, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Less-robust giving could continue throughout 2008, as the economy has worsened.

Still, on an absolute basis, charitable giving set another record. Researchers cited a healthy stock market in the first half of 2007, measured economic growth and increases in corporate and personal income as factors that kept giving up.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,371025,00.html

[Dignann]

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]

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

[kayjay]

...hmm and glad I don't do the Cedar Creek reenactment. I'm sorry this under the table deal is a slap in the face to historic preservation.

I hope should these people interact with soldiers in another life they can somehow explain themselves out of what possibly could be an interesting talk with the veterans who fought on these battlefields where it is just sooo necessary to build, build, build and then abandon some years later.

Did you read the post [Anders] preceding yours by a few minutes?