DOCSLIB.ORG

Spring 2010 Hugh West and the West Family’S Momentous Role in Founding and Developing Alexandria and Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, Virginia by Jim Bish

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Spring 2010 Hugh West and the West Family’S Momentous Role in Founding and Developing Alexandria and Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, Virginia by Jim Bish Editor: Linda Greenberg Spring 2010 Hugh West and the West Family’s Momentous Role in Founding and Developing Alexandria and Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, Virginia by Jim Bish There has been much written about the founding Within a few years after Hugh’s birth, his grand- and development of the city of Alexandria and the Fairfax mother, Sarah (Pearson) West died.6 By 1710 Hugh’s County region. Most writers give credit to the Fairfaxes, grandfather, Major John West, married again, this time to Washingtons, Masons, Alexanders, and Carlyles. Elizabeth (Semmes) Turley.7 She was the widow of John However, I contend that, and, this paper explains why, the Turley and had young children. When Hugh was about most critical family in establishing Alexandria and devel- seven years of age, in 1712, his father John West died and oping the region’s commercial interests were members of his mother Ann (Harris) West married John Wheeler and the West family and the most important member of that possibly moved to land that Wheeler had received as a 1 family in establishing Alexandria was Hugh West. land grant farther north on Pohick Creek.8 Probably by 1712, Major John West had no surviv- EARLY YEARS: 1705 ing sons because both John West and his brother Pearson Hugh West was born March 18, 1705 in Stafford West had died. Not long after that, Major West -- Hugh’s County, Virginia (now Fairfax County, Virginia) to John grandfather -- and his new bride, Elizabeth, probably at and Ann (Harris) West.2 Hugh was born into a frontier least twenty years his junior, had a son also named John. society where land meant wealth and power, and those Hugh now had a half-uncle about seven years his junior. who assembled landholdings could build significant fam- Both Hugh and his uncle John became very influential in ily fortunes. Hugh was fortunate in that his grandfather, the region between 1730 and 1775.9 Major John West, took the first step in acquiring land by In 1715, Hugh’s grandfather Major John West purchasing over 2,000 acres of some of the best land in died and was probably buried on plantation lands, earlier the region. West descendants also married into families granted to John Matthews and later acquired from John with considerable landholdings, such as the Pearson, Waugh just south of Great Hunting Creek, that Major Harrison, Owsley, Harris, and Broadwater families3 West probably called West Grove. The primary benefici- Hugh’s father, John West, appears to have followed aries of the estate were his minor son John who received in his father’s footsteps in Stafford County.4 John West almost 2,000 acres and his minor grandson Hugh West married Ann Harris about 1703. Hugh seems to have who received 700 acres. Not long after her husband’s been the first of possibly four children born to the couple death, Major John West’s widow, Elizabeth (Semmes) over the next few years.5 [Turley] West, married again, this time to Charles 1 Broadwater. It appears that after their marriage, Charles north of Great Hunting Creek, was chosen for the inspec- and Elizabeth continued to live on the West land of West tion station because its deeper harbor allowed the largest Grove at Great Hunting Creek. It was probably there that ships to navigate and dock. This point of land was part of young John West, half uncle to Hugh West, grew to adult- the 100-acre property owned by Simon Pearson, soon to hood.10 It is not known, but it seems probable that he be purchased by Hugh West.15 lived with his mother on the John Wheeler homestead.11 On December 29, 1725, Hugh married Sybil Harrison, daughter of William Harrison and Sarah (Halley) Harrison.12 It is not known where they lived, but they probably started out on the 300 acres purchased by his grandfather, Major John West, from William Green on July 6, 1686 and which Hugh’s grandfather had willed to him. He began married life as a gentleman planter. Another piece of land later obtained by Hugh was the 100-acre parcel on the Potomac River first obtained by his grandfather as a Northern Neck land grant on February 16, 1703. Although the land was willed by Major John West to John and Benjamin Blake and later sold to Hugh’s cousin Simon Pearson, Hugh acquired it in the 1730s. It appears that once Hugh obtained this 100- acre tract near the Potomac he moved his young family there. Between the years 1725-1740, Hugh and Sybil had five known children: John Jr., Hugh Jr., George, Sybil, and William. Their property became an important piece of land as on it Hugh developed the first commercial business activities north of Hunting Creek including tobacco warehouses, a Potomac River ferry, and eventu- ally an ordinary. This site, then known as West’s Point, later became the city of Alexandria.13 TOBACCO: 1730 It appears that Hugh developed a reputation for diligence and industry. He supplemented the income he earned as a gentleman planter by becoming an attorney. Then, by the mid-1730s, he became heavily involved in Virginia’s most important economic enterprise — tobac- co and the industries that served the tobacco trade. The growing, warehousing, and marketing of tobacco eventu- This illustration shows how tobacco was processed ally brought Hugh and his family significant influence.14 after harvesting, Virginia Historical Society In 1730, Virginia’s House of Burgesses passed a Tobacco Inspection Act which regulated the developing Passage of the 1730 Tobacco Inspection Law was tobacco trade. The act was intended to improve the qual- truly a brilliant move by Virginia Governor William ity of tobacco shipped from Virginia and to control fraud Gooch. At a time when tobacco prices had been plum- and smuggling. (The royal government had tried to pass meting, he was able to stabilize prices by assuring tobac- such legislation for over 50 years.) The law called for the co purchasers in England of the better quality of building of an inspection station on the Potomac River Virginia’s tobacco. However, in Virginia, many of the near the mouth of Great Hunting Creek on the land of smaller tobacco farmers, who raised tobacco on marginal Elizabeth [West] Broadwater, which was on the land of land, feared that their crops would not meet the new West Grove settled by Hugh West’s grandfather south of inspection standards and that large plantation owners Great Hunting Creek, but the shallowness of the water from rich river valleys would produce better crops. They there, as reported to the House of Burgesses, made this also feared that the tobacco inspectors would use their site “very inconvenient.” As a result, a point of land new authority against them. Marginal land was primari- extending out into the Potomac, located about one mile ly in counties settled in the early 1700s, such as Stafford and Prince William. This was also the area from which 2 the colonial government feared resistance to the new act. develop his advantage. All tobacco had to be delivered Those fears were justified. By 1732 some tobacco to the West warehouses, then the northern most ware- inspections warehouses were burned in Northumberland, houses in the colony. The closest warehouses to the south King George, and Prince William Counties, the latter the were at Quantico Creek, almost 30 miles away. To use very county where Hugh West lived. Prince William was West’s warehouses, existing roads had to be improved one of only five Virginia counties that petitioned the and new roads built. Tobacco was shipped in round House of Burgesses to repeal the inspection act.16 wooden kegs called hogsheads; the name derived from their resemblance to the snout of a hog. These hogshead barrels were packed with tobacco leaves. The barrels round shape allowed them to be rolled down roads, called rolling roads, towards waterways for delivery to inspec- tion warehouses. Hogsheads were commonly seen rolling along the crude roads of the day. It did not matter how the hogsheads of tobacco arrived, but that they did arrive, so that the tobacco could be inspected and approved for sale. That meant that a stream of people vis- ited the inspection station yearly.18 In colonial Virginia, tobacco was the basis of the economic system. Tobacco served as credit and currency. Because of the indeterminacy of ship arrivals, tobacco sometimes had to be stored for long periods of time. That necessitated the warehousing of tobacco after it was inspected. Each tobacco owner was given an unique, identifying brand known as a tobacco mark. Usually it was made up of the tobacco owner’s initials. These marks were used during the inspection, storing, and ship- ping processes.19 Virginia Historical Society Despite the troubled times, a tobacco warehouse was built on Simon Pearson’s land by John Summers and his slaves. Shortly after its completion in 1732, John Awbrey and Lewis Elzey were appointed tobacco inspec- tors and soon after Hugh West purchased that land from Pearson. The first tobacco warehouse was a plain struc- ture, probably about a 50-foot square, hewn, timber- framed building. As simple as the building might seem, the establishment of this tobacco warehouse at West’s Point not only set in course a secure fortune for Hugh West but provided the catalyst to establish the location of the future city of Alexandria, Virginia.17 1744 survey showing the house of Hugh West and his public tobacco warehouses. These were the primary Hugh West certainly realized the importance of structures on the land that became the new town of having the tobacco warehouse on his land and being its Alexandria in 1749, Alexander v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UPPER SHENANDOAH RIVER BASIN Drought Preparedness and Response Plan
    UPPER SHENANDOAH RIVER BASIN Drought Preparedness and Response Plan Prepared by Updated June 2012 Upper Shenandoah River Basin Drought Preparedness and Response Plan (This page intentionally left blank) June 2011 Page 2 Upper Shenandoah River Basin Drought Preparedness and Response Plan Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 Historical Background .................................................................................................................. 6 3.0 Drought Response Stage Declaration, Implementation and Response Measures.......................... 8 Drought Declaration .................................................................................................................... 10 Drought Indicators ....................................................................................................................... 10 Drought Response Stages and Response Measures ..................................................................... 10 4.0 Drought Response Stage Termination .......................................................................................... 11 5.0 Plan Revisions ............................................................................................................................... 11 Appendix A Locality Drought Watch, Warning and Emergency Indicators Appendix B Drought Watch Responses and Water Conservation Measures Appendix C Drought Warning Responses
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Development in Revolutionary Virginia : Fredericksburg, 1750-1810
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 1982 Economic development in revolutionary Virginia : Fredericksburg, 1750-1810 William H. Siener College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Siener, William H., "Economic development in revolutionary Virginia : Fredericksburg, 1750-1810" (1982). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539623731. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-xkwz-4c74 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Vascular Flora of the City of Alexandria, Virginia
    Native Vascular Flora City of Alexandria, Virginia Photo by Gary P. Fleming December 2015 Native Vascular Flora of the City of Alexandria, Virginia December 2015 By Roderick H. Simmons City of Alexandria Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities, Natural Resources Division 2900-A Business Center Drive Alexandria, Virginia 22314 [email protected] Suggested citation: Simmons, R.H. 2015. Native vascular flora of the City of Alexandria, Virginia. City of Alexandria Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities, Alexandria, Virginia. 104 pp. Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Climate ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................... 3 History of Botanical Studies in Alexandria .............................................................................. 5 Methods ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Results and Discussion ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • History of Roads in Fairfax County, Virginia from 1608
    INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with with permission permission of the of copyright the copyright owner. owner.Further reproductionFurther reproduction prohibited without prohibited permission. without permission. A HISTORY OF ROADS IN FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1608-1840 by Heather K. Crowl submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of American University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts In Anthropology Chair: Richard J.
    [Show full text]
  • Pohick Creek Watershed Management Plan Are Included in This Section
    Watershed Management Area Restoration Strategies 5.0 Watershed Management Area Restoration Strategies The Pohick Creek Watershed is divided into ten smaller watershed management areas (WMAs) based on terrain. Summaries of Pohick Creek’s ten WMAs are listed in the following WMA sections, including field reconnaissance findings, existing and future land use, stream conditions and stormwater infrastructure. For Fairfax County planning and management purposes the WMAs have been further subdivided into smaller subwatersheds. These areas, typically 100 – 300 acres, were used as the basic units for modeling and other evaluations. Each WMA was examined at the subwatershed level in order to capture as much data as possible. The subwatershed conditions were reviewed and problem areas were highlighted. Projects were proposed in problematic subwatersheds. The full Pohick Creek Draft Watershed Workbook, which contains detailed watershed characterizations, can be found in the Technical Appendices. Pohick Creek has four major named tributaries (see Map 3-1.1 in Chapter 3). In the northern portions of the watershed two main tributaries converge into Pohick Creek stream. The Rabbit Branch tributary begins in the highly developed areas of George Mason University and Fairfax City, while Sideburn Branch tributary begins in the highly developed area southwest of George Mason University. The confluence of these two headwater tributaries forms the Pohick Creek main stem. The Middle Run tributary drains Huntsman Lake and moderately-developed residential areas. The South Run tributary drains Burke Lake and Lake Mercer, as well as the low-density southwestern portion of the watershed. The restoration strategies proposed to be implemented within the next ten years (0 – 10-year plan) consist of 90 structural projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014
    Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014 NY 6 NTN Stations 9 7 10 8 Susquehanna 11 82 Eastern Shore 83 Western Shore 12 15 14 Potomac 16 13 17 Rappahannock York 19 21 20 23 James 18 22 24 25 26 27 41 43 84 37 86 5 55 29 85 40 42 45 30 28 36 39 44 53 31 38 46 MD 32 54 33 WV 52 56 87 34 4 3 50 2 58 57 35 51 1 59 DC 47 60 62 DE 49 61 63 71 VA 67 70 48 74 68 72 75 65 64 69 76 66 73 77 81 78 79 80 Prepared on 10/20/15 Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: All Stations NTN Stations 91 NY 6 NTN New Stations 9 10 8 7 Susquehanna 11 82 Eastern Shore 83 12 Western Shore 92 15 16 Potomac 14 PA 13 Rappahannock 17 93 19 95 96 York 94 23 20 97 James 18 98 100 21 27 22 26 101 107 24 25 102 108 84 86 42 43 45 55 99 85 30 103 28 5 37 109 57 31 39 40 111 29 90 36 53 38 41 105 32 44 54 104 MD 106 WV 110 52 112 56 33 87 3 50 46 115 89 34 DC 4 51 2 59 58 114 47 60 35 1 DE 49 61 62 63 88 71 74 48 67 68 70 72 117 75 VA 64 69 116 76 65 66 73 77 81 78 79 80 Prepared on 10/20/15 Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Glasgow's Tobacco Lords: an Examination of Wealth Creators in the Eighteenth Century
    Peters, Carolyn Marie (1990) Glasgow's tobacco lords: an examination of wealth creators in the eighteenth century. PhD thesis http://theses.gla.ac.uk/4540/ Copyright and moral rights for this thesis are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Glasgow Theses Service http://theses.gla.ac.uk/ [email protected] GLASGOW'S TOBACCO LORDS: AN EXAMINATION OF WEALTH CREATORS IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY CAROLYN MARIE PETERS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF PH.D DEPARTMENT OF SCOTTISH HISTORY SEPTEMBER 1990 @CAROLYN MARIE PETERS 1990 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In the process of writing this thesis, I have benefitted from the help and information of many people. I would like to thank the staff of the Mitchell Library and the Strathclyde Regional Archives in Glasgow, the staff of the Scottish Record Office in Edinburgh, and the staff of the Glasgow University Library and the Glasgow University Archives. In particular I would like to thank, first and foremost, my supervisor Dr. John McCaffrey who saw me through these three years, Professor Ian B. Cowan who always encouraged me, Professor Thomas Devine for his helpful suggestions, and my friends and family whose support was invaluable.
    [Show full text]
  • State Water Control Board Page 1 O F16 9 Vac 25-260-350 and 400 Water Quality Standards
    STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD PAGE 1 O F16 9 VAC 25-260-350 AND 400 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 9 VAC 25-260-350 Designation of nutrient enriched waters. A. The following state waters are hereby designated as "nutrient enriched waters": * 1. Smith Mountain Lake and all tributaries of the impoundment upstream to their headwaters; 2. Lake Chesdin from its dam upstream to where the Route 360 bridge (Goodes Bridge) crosses the Appomattox River, including all tributaries to their headwaters that enter between the dam and the Route 360 bridge; 3. South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and all tributaries of the impoundment upstream to their headwaters; 4. New River and its tributaries, except Peak Creek above Interstate 81, from Claytor Dam upstream to Big Reed Island Creek (Claytor Lake); 5. Peak Creek from its headwaters to its mouth (confluence with Claytor Lake), including all tributaries to their headwaters; 6. Aquia Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 7. Fourmile Run from its headwaters to the state line; 8. Hunting Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 9. Little Hunting Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 10. Gunston Cove from its headwaters to the state line; 11. Belmont and Occoquan Bays from their headwaters to the state line; 12. Potomac Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 13. Neabsco Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 14. Williams Creek from its headwaters to its confluence with Upper Machodoc Creek; 15. Tidal freshwater Rappahannock River from the fall line to Buoy 44, near Leedstown, Virginia, including all tributaries to their headwaters that enter the tidal freshwater Rappahannock River; 16.
    [Show full text]
  • Potomac River Water Quality and Habitat Assessment Overall Condition 2012-2014
    Larry Hogan, Governor Boyd Rutherford, Lt. Governor Mark Belton, Secretary Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment Joanne Throwe, Deputy Secretary Potomac River Water Quality and Habitat Assessment Overall Condition 2012-2014 The Potomac River watershed includes area in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Washington D.C. For the purpose of this report, the basin is divided into four regions: the Upper Potomac, Shenandoah, Middle Potomac and Lower Potomac (Figure 1). Land use in the upper Potomac River watershed was estimated to be 69% forest and 22% agriculture (Figure 1, Table 1).1 The Upper Potomac watershed is largely within West Virginia (54%), with other portions in Pennsylvania (22%), Maryland (18%) and Virginia (7%). Impervious surfaces cover 1% of the Maryland potion of the Upper river basin (Table 1).2 Land use in the Shenandoah watershed was estimated to be 56% forest and 34% agriculture. The Shenandoah watershed is almost entirely in Virginia (96%), with a small area in West Virginia (4%). Land use in the Middle Potomac watershed was estimated to be 44% agriculture, 32% forest and 20% developed. The Middle Potomac watershed includes areas in Maryland (55%), Virginia (34%), Pennsylvania (13%) and Washington D.C. (0.1%). Impervious surfaces cover 7% of the Maryland potion of the Middle river basin. Land use in the Lower Potomac watershed was estimated to be 41% forest, 30% developed, and 16% agriculture. The Lower Potomac watershed includes Figure 1 Potomac River basin Top panel shows state boundaries and the individual watersheds. Bottom panel shows the land use throughout the basin for 2011.1 Potomac River Water Quality and Habitat Assessment Overall Condition 2012-2014 1 areas in Virginia (56%), Maryland (42%) and Washington D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Public Works and Environmental Services Working for You!
    American Council of Engineering Companies of Metropolitan Washington Water & Wastewater Business Opportunities Networking Luncheon Presented by Matthew Doyle, Branch Chief, Wastewater Design and Construction Division Department of Public Works and Environmental Services Working for You! A Fairfax County, VA, publication August 20, 2019 Introduction • Matt Doyle, PE, CCM • Working as a Civil Engineer at Fairfax County, DPWES • BSCE West Virginia University • MSCE Johns Hopkins University • 25 years in the industry (Mid‐Atlantic Only) • Adjunct Hydraulics Professor at GMU • Director GMU‐EFID (Student Organization) Presentation Objectives • Overview of Fairfax County Wastewater Infrastructure • Overview of Fairfax County Wastewater Organization (Staff) • Snapshot of our Current Projects • New Opportunities To work with DPWES • Use of Technologies and Trends • Helpful Hyperlinks Overview of Fairfax County Wastewater Infrastructure • Wastewater Collection System • 3,400 Miles of Sanitary Sewer (Average Age 60 years old) • 61 Pumping Stations (flow ranges are from 25 GPM to 25 MGD) • 90 Flow Meters (Mostly billing meters) • 135 Grinder pumps • Wastewater Treatment Plant • 1 Wastewater Treatment Plant • Noman M. Cole Pollution Control Plant, Lorton • 67 MGD • Laboratory • Reclaimed Water Reuse System • 6.6 MGD • 2 Pump Stations • 0.750 MG Storage Tank • Level 1 Compliance • Convanta, Golf Course and Ball Fields Overview of Fairfax County Wastewater Organization • Wastewater Management Program (Three Areas) – Planning & Monitoring: • Financial,
    [Show full text]
  • Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy
    Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy Introduction Brook Trout symbolize healthy waters because they rely on clean, cold stream habitat and are sensitive to rising stream temperatures, thereby serving as an aquatic version of a “canary in a coal mine”. Brook Trout are also highly prized by recreational anglers and have been designated as the state fish in many eastern states. They are an essential part of the headwater stream ecosystem, an important part of the upper watershed’s natural heritage and a valuable recreational resource. Land trusts in West Virginia, New York and Virginia have found that the possibility of restoring Brook Trout to local streams can act as a motivator for private landowners to take conservation actions, whether it is installing a fence that will exclude livestock from a waterway or putting their land under a conservation easement. The decline of Brook Trout serves as a warning about the health of local waterways and the lands draining to them. More than a century of declining Brook Trout populations has led to lost economic revenue and recreational fishing opportunities in the Bay’s headwaters. Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy: Brook Trout March 16, 2015 - DRAFT I. Goal, Outcome and Baseline This management strategy identifies approaches for achieving the following goal and outcome: Vital Habitats Goal: Restore, enhance and protect a network of land and water habitats to support fish and wildlife, and to afford other public benefits, including water quality, recreational uses and scenic value across the watershed. Brook Trout Outcome: Restore and sustain naturally reproducing Brook Trout populations in Chesapeake Bay headwater streams, with an eight percent increase in occupied habitat by 2025.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NOV 0 ·~ 2013 National Register of Historic Places NAT. Re018TiR OF HISTORIC PlACES Registration Form NATIONAL PARK SERVICE This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional certification comments, entries, and narrative items on continuation sheets if needed (NPS Form 10-900a). 1. Name of Property historic name George Washington Birthplace National Monument other names/site number Wakefield. Popes Creek Plantation , VDHR File #096-0026 2. Location 1732 Popes Creek Road not for publication street & number L-----' city or town Colonial Beach ~ vicinity state Vir inia code VA county Westmoreland code _ _;_:19'--=-3- zip code -"'2=2:....;.4"""43.;;...._ ___ 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this _!__nomination_ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property .K._ meets __ does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance: x_ b state ' Ide "x n J.VIA.rVI In my opinion, the property .x..._ meets_ does not meet the National Register criteria.
    [Show full text]