DOCSLIB.ORG

Great Smoky Mountains NATIONAL PARK Great Smoky Mountains NATIONAL PARK Historic Resource Study Great Smoky Mountains National Park

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Service National Park Great Smoky Mountains NATIONAL PARK Great Smoky Mountains NATIONAL PARK Historic Resource Study Resource Historic Park National Mountains Smoky Great Historic Resource Study | Volume 1 April 2016 VOL Historic Resource Study | Volume 1 1 As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historic places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. GRSM 133/134404/A April 2016 GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 FRONT MATTER ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................. v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER TWO: SETTLEMENT AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN THE GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS, 1790–1933 ......................................................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER THREE: EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES IN THE GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS, 1820– 1944 ............................................................................................................................................................ 41 CHAPTER FOUR: RECREATION AND TOURISM IN THE GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS, 1900– 1942 ............................................................................................................................................................ 69 CHAPTER FIVE: THE INITIAL DEVELOPMENT OF GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, 1926–1942 ...................................................................................................................................... 81 CHAPTER SIX: EARLY NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PRESERVATION PHILOSOPHY, CA. 1930– 1960 .......................................................................................................................................................... 119 CHAPTER SEVEN: MISSION 66 ERA OF NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, 1945–1972 ................................................................................................................. 141 CHAPTER EIGHT: NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES EVALUATIONS ................. 161 CHAPTER NINE: MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 193 HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................................... 203 VOLUME 2 – APPENDIXES APPENDIX A: RELEVANT EXISTING DOCUMENTATION APPENDIX B: LISTED, DETERMINED, AND RECOMMENDED ELIGIBLE HISTORIC DISTRICTS APPENDIX C: LISTED AND RECOMMENDED ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES APPENDIX D: RESOURCES DETERMINED OR RECOMMENDED INELIGIBLE FOR LISTING APPENDIX E: RESOURCES INCLUDED IN HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY Great Smoky Mountains National Park Historic Resource Study i FIGURES Chapter 1 Figure 1.1 Location of the Great Smoky Mountains NP in Tennessee and North Carolina. Figure 2 Map of Great Smoky Mountains NP showing major developed areas and roads. Chapter 2 Figure 2.1 Detail from the 1814 state map of North Carolina showing future location of Great Smoky Mountains NP, indicated as “Haywood” (Samuel Lewis, North Carolina from the Latest Surveys, Philadelphia, PA: Mathew Carey, 1814. Courtesy of the State Archives of North Carolina). Figure 2.2 Detail from the 1818 state map of Tennessee showing future location of Great Smoky Mountains NP in Blount, Sevier, and Cocke counties (John Melish, Map of Tennessee, Philadelphia, PA: John Melish and Samuel Harrison, 1818. Map reproduction courtesy of the Norman B. Leventhal Map Center at the Boston Public Library). Figure 2.3 Detail from 1861 state map of North Carolina (Joseph Hutchins Colton, J.H. Colton’s Topographical Map of North and South Carolina, New York, NY: Lang & Laing, 1861. Map reproduction courtesy of the Norman B. Leventhal Map Center at the Boston Public Library). Figure 2.4 Detail from 1856 map of Tennessee (Joseph Hutchins Colton, Kentucky and Tennessee, New York, NY: J.H. Colton & Co., 1856. Map reproduction courtesy of the Norman B. Leventhal Map Center at the Boston Public Library). Chapter 3 Figure 3.1 Partial view of Proctor ca. 1925, company town of the W.M. Ritter Lumber Company (The Hardwood Bark 5: September 1925, cover, Great Smoky Mountains NP library collections). Figure 3.2 Village of Elkmont, Little River Lumber Company Logging Company (Great Smoky Mountains NP archive and library). Figure 3.3 Smokemont, company town of the Champion Fibre Company (Champion Fibre Co., The Log XV, April 1932, 2, Great Smoky Mountains NP library collections). Figure 3.4 Big Branch Camp and surrounding logging activities, 1923. Big Branch Camp was a temporary “stringtown,” or camp, of the W.M. Ritter Lumber Company (The Hardwood Bark 5: September 1925, 23, Great Smoky Mountains NP library collections). Figure 3.5 Map of principal mines and districts for massive sulfide copper ores in Southern Appalachia (Espenshade, Geology of Some Copper Deposits in North Carolina, Virginia, and Alabama, I4). Figure 3.6 Map of copper mines and prospects in Swain and Graham Counties, North Carolina (Espenshade, Geology of Some Copper Deposits in North Carolina, Virginia, and Alabama, I15). Figure 3.7 1944 view of Adams Copper Mine headworks, looking northwest (Fox et al., Geology and Ore Deposits of the Hazel Creek Land Company, Tact FR-1132, Westerfeldt Prospect, and a Portion of the Adams Mine, plate 6). ii National Park Service Figure 3.8 1942 plan of Fontana Mine with approximate boundaries of Fontana Lake (detail from TVA, Land Map, Swain County, North Carolina, Forneys Creek Township; Fontana Reservoir, Tennessee Valley Authority, May 1942). Chapter 4 Figure 4.1 Wonderland Hotel at Elkmont, Tennessee, 1921 (Courtesy of Thompson Photograph Collection, McClung Historical Collection, Knox County Public Library). Figure 4.2 Le Conte Lodge, 1936 (Photo #283, Herbert M. Webster Photograph Collection. University of Tennessee, Knoxville - Libraries). Figure 4.3 Smoky Mountains Hiking Club Cabin under construction, 1934 (Photo #Roth0283, Roth Photograph Collection. University of Tennessee, Knoxville - Libraries). Figure 4.4 Smoky Mountains Hiking Club Cabin, Kitchen (no longer extant), and Springhouse, 1934 (Photo #Roth0290, Roth Photograph Collection. University of Tennessee, Knoxville - Libraries). Figure 4.5 Voorheis Estate, 1930 (Great Smoky Mountains NP archives). Figure 20 Kress (Hall) Cabin at far left, 1953, adjacent to now-demolished Kress lodge (Great Smoky Mountains NP archives, File No. II-B-(6)-8055). Chapter 5 Figure 5.1 Stone Guardrail, Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Drawing NP-GSM 1006 (Great Smoky Mountains NP, Gatlinburg, TN). Figure 5.2 Typical Headwalls, Newfound Gap Highway. Drawing NP-GSM 1004A (Great Smoky Mountains NP, Gatlinburg, TN). Figure 5.3 Newfound Gap Developed Area. Drawing NP-GSM 60700 (Great Smoky Mountains NP, Gatlinburg, TN). Figure 5.4 Chimneys Developed Area, 1939 Master Plan (Great Smoky Mountains NP, Gatlinburg, TN). Figure 5.5 Smokemont Developed Area, 1941 Master Plan (Great Smoky Mountains NP, Gatlinburg, TN). Figure 5.6 Comfort Station – Type 1. Drawing NP-GSM 3027 (Great Smoky Mountains NP, Gatlinburg, TN). Figure 5.7 Forney Ridge Parking Area, 1941 Master Plan (Great Smoky Mountains NP, Gatlinburg, TN). Figure 5.8 Fire Lookout Tower – White Rock. Drawing NP-GSM 1126 (Great Smoky Mountains NP, Gatlinburg, TN). Figure 5.9 Administration Area, 1937 Master Plan (Great Smoky Mountains NP, Gatlinburg, TN). Figure 5.10 Administration Area, 1941 Master Plan (Great Smoky Mountains NP, Gatlinburg, TN). Figure 5.11 Oconaluftee Ranger Station (Administration Building) Area. Drawing NP-GSM 2165B (Great Smoky Mountains NP, Gatlinburg, TN). Figure 5.12 Planting Plan, Oconaluftee Ranger Station. Drawing GRSM 133-2280 (NPS Technical Information Center, Denver, CO). Great Smoky Mountains National Park Historic Resource Study iii Figure 5.13 Trailside Lean-To – Log Type. Drawing NP-GSM 2065 (Great Smoky Mountains NP, Gatlinburg, TN). Figure 5.14 Trailside Lean-To – Log Frame Type. Drawing NP-GSM 2066 (Great Smoky Mountains NP, Gatlinburg, TN). Chapter 6 Figure 6.1 Historic Buildings Survey Map, 1937 Master Plan (Great Smoky Mountains NP, Gatlinburg, TN). Figure 6.2 Cades Cove Area, 1939 Master Plan (Great Smoky Mountains NP, Gatlinburg, TN). Figure 6.3 Field Exhibit of Mountain Culture, Cades Cove, 1939 Master Plan (Great Smoky Mountains NP, Gatlinburg, TN). Figure 6.4 Composite Plan – Pioneer Development, 1949. Drawing NP-GSM
Recommended publications
  • 2010 Annual Report • Preserve

    2010 Annual Report • Preserve

    Friends of Great Smoky Mountains National Park 2010 Annual Report • Preserve. Protect. Provide. Photos by Genia Stadler About This Publication Our 2010 Annual Report exists exclusively in digital format, available on our website at www.FriendsOfTheSmokies.org. In order to further the impact of our donors’ resources for the park’s benefit we chose to publish this report online. If you would like a paper copy, you may print it from home on your computer, or you may request a copy to be mailed to you from our office (800-845-5665). We are committed to conserving natural resources in and around Great Smoky Mountains National Park! The images used on the front and back covers are If your soul can belong to provided through the generosity, time, and talent of a place, mine belongs here. Genia Stadler of Sevierville, Tennessee. Genia Stadler When asked to describe herself and her love for the Smokies, she said, “I was born in Alabama, but Tennessee always felt like home to me. My love for the Smokies started as a small child. My daddy brought me here each summer before he passed away. I was 9 when he died, and by then I had fallen in love with the Smokies. My husband (Gary) and I had the chance to build a cabin and move here in 2002, so we jumped at the chance. Since then, we’ve been exploring the park as often as we can. We’ve probably hiked over 300 miles of the park’s trails (many repeats), and I’m trying to pass my love for this place on to my two children and two grandchildren.
  • New Design Water Treatment Plant /'7I.E.C

    New Design Water Treatment Plant /'7I.E.C

    Final Report Potomac River Source Water ~s.ejgitllm~tsjjK.,..~IW1I~ for Marylan . Prepared by: Becker and O'Melia, LLC in association with Straughan Environmental Services, Inc. Becker and O'Melia, LLC WATER PROCESS RESEARCHERS AND CONSULTANTS POTOMAC SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENTS Introduction The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments required states to develop and implement source water assessment prograIlli to evaluate the safety of all public drinking water systems. A Source Water Assessment (SWA) is a process for evaluating the vulnerability to contamination ofthe source of a public drinking water supply. The assessment does not address the treatment processes, or the storage and distribution aspects of the water system, which are covered under separate provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) is the lead state agency in this source water assessment effort. There are three main steps in the assessment process: (1) delineating the watershed drainage area that is likely to contribute to the drinking water supply, (2) identijYing potential contaminants within that area and (3) assessing the vulnerability, or susceptibility, of the system to those contaminants. Public notification is the final component of the source water assessment report process. The goal of the source water assessment program is to provide a framework for local stakeholders and governments in developing a Source Water Protection Plan. The source water assessments for Maryland water systems utilizing the Potomac River was undertaken as a joint effort by MDE, the Washington Suburban Sanitary Conunission (WSSC), and several consultants, including The Center for Watershep Ptotection, and Becker & O'Melia, the lead consultant.
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5

    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5

    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
  • Conservation Fisheries, Inc. and the Reintroduction of Our Native Species

    Conservation Fisheries, Inc. and the Reintroduction of Our Native Species

    Summer (Aug.) 2011 American Currents 18 Conservation Fisheries, Inc. and the Reintroduction of Our Native Species J.R. Shute1 and Pat Rakes1 with edits by Casper Cox2 1 - Conservation Fisheries, Inc., 3424 Division St., Knoxville, TN 37919, (865)-521-6665 2 - 1200 B. Dodds Ave., Chattanooga, TN 37404, [email protected] n the southeastern U.S. there have been only a few fish In 1957, a “reclamation” project was conducted in Abrams reintroductions attempted. The reintroduction of a spe- Creek. In conjunction with the closing of Chilhowee Dam on the cies where it formerly occurred, but is presently extir- Little Tennessee River, all fish between Abrams Falls and the mouth pated,I is a technique used to recover a federally listed species. of the creek (19.4 km/12 miles to Chilhowee Reservoir) were elimi- This technique is often suggested as a specific task by the U.S. nated. This was done using a powerful ichthyocide (Rotenone) in an Fish & Wildlife Service when they prepare recovery plans for attempt to create a “trophy” trout fishery in the park. Since then, many endangered species. Four fishes, which formerly occurred in of the 63 fishes historically reported from Abrams Creek have made Abrams Creek, located in the Great Smoky Mountains National their way back, however nearly half have been permanently extirpated Park, are now on the federal Endangered Species List. These because of the impassable habitat that separates Abrams Creek from are: the Smoky Madtom; Yellowfin Madtom; Citico Darter; other stream communities, including the aforementioned species. and the Spotfin Chub. The recovery plans for all of these fishes These stream fishes are not able to survive in or make their way recommend reintroduction into areas historically occupied by through the reservoir that Chilhowee Dam created to repopulate flow- the species.
  • Big Butt Trail – Pisgah National Forest, NC

    Big Butt Trail – Pisgah National Forest, NC

    Big Butt Trail – Pisgah National Forest, NC Length Difficulty Streams Views Solitude Camping 15.5 mls N/A Hiking Time: 8 hours and 30 minutes with 2 hours of breaks Elev. Gain: 4,365 ft Parking: Park at Cane River Gap. 35.81020, -82.34838 By Trail Contributor: Zach Robbins The Big Butt Trail, despite its comical name, is a tough hike along the western peaks of the Black Mountains. Most hikers begin at the Balsam Gap trailhead on the Blue Ridge Parkway, the easier way to reach the viewpoints. This is seasonal access however, since the parkway is typically closed all winter in this section. Year-round access is possible at Cane River Gap, deep in the backcountry of the Big Ivy section of the Pisgah National Forest. You may think of the Big Butt Trail as the little cousin to the Black Mountain Crest Trail. It is shorter, not as difficult, and crosses peaks just below 6,000 feet. At the beginning you’ll face a long, switchbacking ascent through beautiful hardwood forests to the mile-high ridgeline between Big Butt and Little Butt. The Black Mountains form a U around the Cane River Valley, but all of the tall, well- known peaks are on the east side of the range. That doesn’t diminish the hike though, it provides arguably the best views of the eastern Black Mountains from Little Butt. After Little Butt the trail continues south past Point Misery then ends at Balsam Gap. From here you have the option of following the Mountains-to-Sea Trail east to a great view below the 6,320-foot Blackstock Knob.
  • Federal Register Volume 30 • Number 208

    Federal Register Volume 30 • Number 208

    FEDERAL REGISTER VOLUME 30 • NUMBER 208 Wednesday, October 27,1965 • Washington, D.C. Pages 13619-13678 Agencies in this issue— The President Agriculture Department Air Force Department Atomic Energy Commission Civil Aeronautics Board Civil Service Commission Coast Guard Consumer and Marketing Service Customs Bureau Education Office Federal Aviation Agency Federal Communications Commission Federal Maritime Commission Federal Power Commission Fish and Wildlife Service Food and Drug Administration Indian Affairs Bureau Internal Revenue Service Interstate Commerce Commission Securities and Exchange Commission Treasury Department Detailed list of Contents appears inside. / Announcing a New Information Service Beginning August 2,1965, the General Services Admin­ The Weekly Compilation carries a Monday dateline. istration inaugurated a new information service, the It includes an Index of Contents on the first page and a “Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents.” The Cumulative Index at the end. Other finding aids include service makes available transcripts of the President’s lists of laws approved by the President and of nomina­ news conferences, messages to Congress, public speeches tions submitted to the Senate, and a checklist of White and statements, and other Presidential materials released House releases. by the White House up to 5 p.m. of each Friday. The official distribution for the Weekly Compilation of The Weekly Compilation was developed in response to Presidential Documents is governed by regulations pub­ many requests received by the White House and the lished in the F ederal R egister dated July 31, 1965 (30 Bureau of the Budget for a better means of distributing F.R. 9573; 1 CFR 32.40). Members of Congress and Presidential materials.
  • Analysis of Stream Runoff Trends in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont of Southeastern United States

    Analysis of Stream Runoff Trends in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont of Southeastern United States

    Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Geosciences Theses Department of Geosciences 4-20-2009 Analysis of Stream Runoff Trends in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont of Southeastern United States Usha Kharel Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/geosciences_theses Part of the Geography Commons, and the Geology Commons Recommended Citation Kharel, Usha, "Analysis of Stream Runoff Trends in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont of Southeastern United States." Thesis, Georgia State University, 2009. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/geosciences_theses/15 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Geosciences at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Geosciences Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ANALYSIS OF STREAM RUNOFF TRENDS IN THE BLUE RIDGE AND PIEDMONT OF SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES by USHA KHAREL Under the Direction of Seth Rose ABSTRACT The purpose of the study was to examine the temporal trends of three monthly variables: stream runoff, rainfall and air temperature and to find out if any correlation exists between rainfall and stream runoff in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont provinces of the southeast United States. Trend significance was determined using the non-parametric Mann-Kendall test on a monthly and annual basis. GIS analysis was used to find and integrate the urban and non-urban stream gauging, rainfall and temperature stations in the study area. The Mann-Kendall test showed a statistically insignificant temporal trend for all three variables. The correlation of 0.4 was observed for runoff and rainfall, which showed that these two parameters are moderately correlated.
  • An Archaeological Inventory of Alamance County, North Carolina

    An Archaeological Inventory of Alamance County, North Carolina

    AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY OF ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Alamance County Historic Properties Commission August, 2019 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY OF ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA A SPECIAL PROJECT OF THE ALAMANCE COUNTY HISTORIC PROPERTIES COMMISSION August 5, 2019 This inventory is an update of the Alamance County Archaeological Survey Project, published by the Research Laboratories of Anthropology, UNC-Chapel Hill in 1986 (McManus and Long 1986). The survey project collected information on 65 archaeological sites. A total of 177 archaeological sites had been recorded prior to the 1986 project making a total of 242 sites on file at the end of the survey work. Since that time, other archaeological sites have been added to the North Carolina site files at the Office of State Archaeology, Department of Natural and Cultural Resources in Raleigh. The updated inventory presented here includes 410 sites across the county and serves to make the information current. Most of the information in this document is from the original survey and site forms on file at the Office of State Archaeology and may not reflect the current conditions of some of the sites. This updated inventory was undertaken as a Special Project by members of the Alamance County Historic Properties Commission (HPC) and published in-house by the Alamance County Planning Department. The goals of this project are three-fold and include: 1) to make the archaeological and cultural heritage of the county more accessible to its citizens; 2) to serve as a planning tool for the Alamance County Planning Department and provide aid in preservation and conservation efforts by the county planners; and 3) to serve as a research tool for scholars studying the prehistory and history of Alamance County.
  • National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory Carter Shields Homestead Great Smoky Mountains NP

    National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory Carter Shields Homestead Great Smoky Mountains NP

    National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory 1998 Carter Shields Homestead Great Smoky Mountains NP - Cades Cove Subdistrict Table of Contents Inventory Unit Summary & Site Plan Concurrence Status Geographic Information and Location Map Management Information National Register Information Chronology & Physical History Analysis & Evaluation of Integrity Condition Treatment Bibliography & Supplemental Information Carter Shields Homestead Great Smoky Mountains NP - Cades Cove Subdistrict Inventory Unit Summary & Site Plan Inventory Summary The Cultural Landscapes Inventory Overview: CLI General Information: Purpose and Goals of the CLI The Cultural Landscapes Inventory (CLI), a comprehensive inventory of all cultural landscapes in the national park system, is one of the most ambitious initiatives of the National Park Service (NPS) Park Cultural Landscapes Program. The CLI is an evaluated inventory of all landscapes having historical significance that are listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, or are otherwise managed as cultural resources through a public planning process and in which the NPS has or plans to acquire any legal interest. The CLI identifies and documents each landscape’s location, size, physical development, condition, landscape characteristics, character-defining features, as well as other valuable information useful to park management. Cultural landscapes become approved CLIs when concurrence with the findings is obtained from the park superintendent and all required data fields
  • Signal Knob Northern Massanutten Mountain Catback Mountain Browns Run Southern Massanutten Mountain Five Areas of Around 45,000 Acres on the Lee the West

    Signal Knob Northern Massanutten Mountain Catback Mountain Browns Run Southern Massanutten Mountain Five Areas of Around 45,000 Acres on the Lee the West

    Sherman Bamford To: [email protected] <[email protected] cc: Sherman Bamford <[email protected]> > Subject: NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage draft multi-species habitat conservation plan comments - attachments 2 12/13/2011 03:32 PM Sherman Bamford Forests Committee Chair Virginia Chapter – Sierra Club P.O. Box 3102 Roanoke, Va. 24015 [email protected] (540) 343-6359 December 13, 2011 Regional Director, Midwest Region Attn: Lisa Mandell U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990 Bloomington, MN 55437-1458 Email: [email protected] Dear Ms. Mandell: On behalf of the Virginia Chapter of Sierra Club, the following are attachments to our previously submitted comments on the the NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage (“NiSource”) draft multi-species habitat conservation plan (“HCP”) and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (“Service”) draft environmental impact statement (“EIS”). Draft of Virginia Mountain Treasures For descriptions and maps only. The final version was published in 2008. Some content may have changed between 2007 and 2008. Sherman Bamford Sherman Bamford PO Box 3102 Roanoke, Va. 24015-1102 (540) 343-6359 [email protected] Virginia’s Mountain Treasures ART WORK DRAWING The Unprotected Wildlands of the George Washington National Forest A report by the Wilderness Society Cover Art: First Printing: Copyright by The Wilderness Society 1615 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202)-843-9453 Wilderness Support Center 835 East Second Avenue Durango, CO 81302 (970) 247-8788 Founded in 1935, The Wilderness Society works to protect America’s wilderness and to develop a nation- wide network of wild lands through public education, scientific analysis, and advocacy.
  • The Origins of Camp Louise in the Settlement House Movement of Baltimore’S Jewish Community

    The Origins of Camp Louise in the Settlement House Movement of Baltimore’S Jewish Community

    1 “Fresh Air and Cheer”: The Origins of Camp Louise in the Settlement House Movement of Baltimore’s Jewish Community by Barry Kessler One day in 1921, three Baltimoreans set out to visit a potential site for a summer retreat that would serve the city’s immigrant Jewish women. Ida Sharogrodsky, a social worker, and Lillie Straus, a philanthropist, had pleaded with Lillie’s husband, Aaron, one of Baltimore’s wealthiest merchants, to consider purchasing an old hotel in the Catoctin Mountains which they envisioned as an extension of the social service work they were doing in East Baltimore. Midway on the seventy‐mile trip, Aaron Straus seized on the pretext of a storm to turn back, but the ladies were undeterred, and once they arrived, the enchanting view of forested hills and fertile valleys overcame his reluctance. 1 The story of the three founders’ trip has served as the origin myth of Camp Louise, which matured from a vacation spot for working women to a traditional Jewish girls’ summer camp and is still operating almost a hundred years later. It’s a charming tale, retold over generations by camp alumnae and counselors, staff and community leaders. But the actual history of how Camp Louise emerged from Baltimore’s Progressive era efforts to aid, acculturate, and assimilate immigrants is more complex and in many ways more interesting. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Baltimore faced the twin pressures of industrialization and immigration, which gave rise to enormous challenges as well as critical opportunities for the city, and for its Jewish community in particular.
  • B-Hikes (3 to 6 Miles)

    B-Hikes (3 to 6 Miles)

    B-HIKES (3 TO 6 MILES) = Trails maintained by MHHC ## = Designated Wilderness Area B3 Appletree Trail Loop . This is a new 5 mile hike for the Club. Moderate climbing, Start out of the campground on the Appletree Trail for 1.6 miles, then turn onto Diamond Valley Trail for 1.1 miles, the turn onto Junaluska Trail for 2 miles back to Appletree Trail and .2 miles back to trailhead. Several moderate climbs, uneven trail. Pretty cove. Meet at Andrews Rest Area, Hwy 74/19/129 B2 ## Arkaquah Trail from Brasstown Bald parking lot. An easy in and out hike of about 3 miles. Spectacular views. Some rough footing. Meet at Jacks Gap at base of Brasstown Bald on Hwy. 180. B3 ## Arkequah Trail from Brasstown Bald parking lot down. This is a moderate hike of about 5.5 miles, mostly downhill. Spectacular views. See the petro glyphs at the end. Some rough footing. Shuttle Meet at Blairsville Park and Ride B2 Bartram Trail from Warwoman Dell (3 miles east of Clayton) to the viewing platform at Martin Creek Falls. This scenic (4 mile) round trip also passes by Becky Creek Falls. Meet at Macedonia Baptist Church parking lot east of Hiawassee. B3## Bear Hair Trail in Vogel State Park. Loop hike of about 4 miles with some moderate to steep climbs. Bring hiking sticks and State Park pass or $5. Meet at Choestoe Baptist Church parking lot on Hwy 180. B1 Benton Falls, Red Leaf, Arbutus, Azalea, Clear Creek Trails in the Chilhowee Recreation Area in east Tennessee. 4.8 mile easy trail.