DOCSLIB.ORG

Open Space Plan.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Open Space Plan.Pdf TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction ............................................................………...............… 5 Overview .............................................................................….........…. 7 1. Open Space Preservation in Camden County ................ 17 State Open Space ........................................................................ 17 Wharton State Forest ...................................................................... 17 Winslow Wildlife Management Area............................................ 18 County Open Space ........................................................... 19 Camden County Park System .................................................. 19 Municipal Open Space ...................................................... 39 Municipal Open Space Inventory ........................................... 39 Municipal Greenways ............................................................. 39 2. Farmland Preservation in Camden County .................... 41 3. Historic Preservation in Camden County ........................ 43 Early History of Camden County ............................................ 43 Local Historic Preservation Efforts ........................................ 46 4. Planning Goal and Objectives ............................................. 49 5. Criteria Ranking for Site Prioritization ........................... 51 6. Application Procedures ......................................................... 57 APPENDICES PAGE Appendix A - Inventory of Municipal Open Space in Camden County ....................... 59 Appendix B - Inventory of Camden County Water Bodies and Watersheds ................................................................................................ 79 Appendix C - Inventory of Rare Species and Habitats in Camden County ......................................................................................................... 93 Appendix D - Camden County Agricultural Development Board Policies and Criteria for Farmland Preservation ......................................................................... 101 Appendix E - Application for Open Space Preservation and Recreation Funding ............................................................................................... 113 Appendix F - Application for Historic Preservation Funding ......................................... 125 Appendix G - Application for Recreation Facility Enhancement Project Funding …………………....................................…………………….. 143 Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………..….. 155 INTRODUCTION Camden County, with its proximity to Camden and Philadelphia, has been a prime target of developers since the end of World War II. Evidence of this fact is seen in the growth of the County’s population during this period. Between 1950 and 1990 Camden County’s population increased 66% from 300,743 to 502,824, making it the sixth most densely populated county in the State and the most densely populated in South Jersey. This trend is expected to continue into the first decades of the new millennium. According to projections prepared by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, at the current rate of development, by the year 2020, Camden County will lose an additional 18,531 acres of open space to development. This total represents over half of the 32,378 acres of developable land which remained in Camden County as of 1995. When the farms, fields, and forests of our youth are lost to development, we are losing much more than vacant land. Development places greater demands on our natural environment even as it lessens the environment’s ability to meet these demands. For example, development increases air and water pollution by increasing the number of automobiles and the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. At the same time development decreases the availability of natural filtration systems to absorb this pollution. Likewise, development creates an increased demand for groundwater to “feed” residential, commercial and industrial needs while reducing important recharge areas which are essential to the replenishment of groundwater supplies. Coupled with this knowledge is the fact that development results in the loss of habitats for native plant and animal species. Along with our natural heritage, Camden County’s cultural heritage suffers at the hands of development. Many a historical structure has been razed to make way for housing, businesses and infrastructure. Likewise, farms which once predominated the County’s landscape, have been eliminated from all but a handful of municipalities, taking with them a large part of our agrarian past and the physical beauty inherent to such pastoral settings. Development also brings with it a population that demands recreational facilities while diminishing the availability of open space to supply this demand. In recognition of the problems created by development and the resulting loss of open space, in November 1998, the Camden County Board of Chosen Freeholders presented the voters of Camden County with an opportunity to establish an Open Space, Recreation, Farmland and Historic Preservation Trust Fund. Following the passage of this ballot question by an overwhelming majority of Camden County voters, in January 1999, the Board established the Camden County Open Space 5 Trust Fund Advisory Committee. This Committee was charged with the task of developing a plan to address the need to preserve additional open space in Camden County. This Open Space and Recreation Plan is guided by the Board’s desire to preserve the significant environmental features of Camden County; to protect areas of agricultural, historic and scenic significance; and to expand recreational opportunities for County residents where the need exists. 6 OVERVIEW The preservation of open space has become the number one environmental issue for most Americans. According to a recent nationwide survey conducted by Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation, nearly 90% of those polled feared that much of the developable open space which remains will be lost forever unless action is taken now to protect it. Testifying to this fact, on November 3, 1998, Camden County residents voted overwhelmingly in support of a referendum to create the Camden County Open Space, Recreation, Farmland, and Historic Preservation Trust Fund. Through this Trust Fund approximately two million dollars* will be raised annually to “…purchase, preserve, and maintain environmentally sensitive lands, including open space, farmland, historic sites, and recreational areas…”. This referendum was one of three open space questions on Camden County ballots, joining similar questions put before the voters by the State of New Jersey and the Township of Voorhees. Nationwide, 240 anti-sprawl questions were put before the voters in 1998. In January 1999, the Camden County Board of Chosen Freeholders appointed the Camden County Open Space Trust Fund Advisory Committee (“The Committee”). Composed of representatives of County and local government, environmental organizations, historic preservation societies, the Camden County Agricultural Development Board, the Camden County Board of Realtors, and interested citizens, the Committee was charged with the responsibility to assist the Freeholders in the development of an Open Space and Recreation Plan including the criteria by which candidate sites for preservation would be evaluated In implementing such a plan, it will become necessary to overcome the popular perception that open space is merely land awaiting development rather than a viable end use in itself. Open Space performs a variety of functions from preserving our natural, cultural and historic resources, to providing recreational opportunities, protecting surface and groundwater supplies, increasing local property values, and sustaining multi-billion dollar industries. * when assessed at the full rate of $0.01 per $100 of assessed value Open Space and the Environment As mentioned in the Introduction, the preservation of open space has many benefits for the environment. Air and water pollution are minimized, critical groundwater recharge areas are protected and habitats for indigenous plant and animal species are maintained. 7 The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s Office of Natural Lands Management (ONLM) lists no less than 112 rare and endangered plant and animal species which have been known to exist in Camden County. Many of these species have already been lost to development or other man made alterations of the County’s natural landscape. In compiling this list of rare species (Appendix C), the ONLM has identified 15 sites within Camden County which they have designated Natural Heritage Priority Sites. These sites are so designated as they represent “some of the best remaining habitats for rare species and exemplary natural communities in the State”. The criteria developed by the Committee and contained in Section 5 – Criteria Ranking for Site Prioritization, reflects the emphasis placed on open space preservation as a means of environmental protection. The protection of riparian corridors, wetlands buffer areas, rare and endangered species habitats, and mature woodlands is of primary concern. All contribute significantly to the maintenance of biodiversity. It is this sustained biodiversity which is a determining factor in the State’s establishment of the aforementioned Natural Heritage Priority Sites. Camden County should ensure the continued survival of these environmentally
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Freshwaters Where a License Is Required to Fish with Handline, Rod and Line Or Long Bow and Arrow Listed by County and Alphabetically by Name of Water
    Freshwaters where a license is required to fish with handline, rod and line or long bow and arrow Listed by county and alphabetically by name of water. A license is required upstream of each location. ATLANTIC COUNTY Oranoken Creek–Whitecar Mill, North of Beaver Dam Long Swamp Creek–Washington Street Bridge, Toms Absecon Creek–Dam at Lower Atlantic City Reservoir Oyster Creek–None–all saline water River Great Egg Harbor River–Power lines at confluence of Riggins Ditch–Route 47 Manahawkin Creek–Dams for Manahawkin W.M.A. Gravelly Run Sow and Pigs Branch Nantuxent–None–all saline impoundments bayside Middle River–None–all saline water water Metedeconk River–Rt. 70 Bridge, Laurelton Mullica River–Line between Seventh Ave., Sweetwater, Stow Creek–Buckhorn Rd. Bridge, Jericho Mill Creek–Mouth of Creek at lagoons in Beach Haven and ramp at Crowleys Landing Straight Creek–None–all saline water West Nacote Creek–Port Republic Dam West Creek–100 ft. below West Creek Lake Dam Mill Creek–Pine Beach–Ocean Gate Road Patcong Creek–Bargaintown Lake Dam (Pickle Factory Pond) Oyster Creek–Route 9 South River–Power lines immediately below Route 50 ESSEX COUNTY Parkers Run–None–all saline water Tuckahoe River–First northerly tributary downstream Passaic River–Erie Railroad Bridge between Newark Potters Creek–None–all saline water of Rt. 49 Bridge (McNeals Branch) (at Verona Ave.) and Kearny Stouts Creek–None–all saline water BERGEN COUNTY Peddie Ditch–None–all saline water Stouts Creek S. Br.–Bayside East Parkway Hackensack River–Cedar Lane Bridge between
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Pinelands Natural Heritage Trail Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan
    Southern Pinelands Natural Heritage Trail Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan Task 3: Intrinsic Qualities November 2008 Taintor & Associates, Inc. Whiteman Consulting, Ltd. Paul Daniel Marriott and Associates CONTENTS PART 1: INTRINSIC QUALITIES................................................................................................. 1 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3 Overview: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Intrinsic Qualities............................................................ 3 2. Natural Quality ........................................................................................................................ 5 Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 5 Environmental History and Context...................................................................................................... 6 Indicators of Significance...................................................................................................................... 7 Significance as a Leader in Environmental Stewardship ................................................................... 17 The Major Natural Resources of the Pinelands and Their Significance............................................. 17 3. Recreational Quality ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Places to Fish-P65
    SEGMENTS OF PUBLICLY OWNED NEW JERSEY STREAMS OPEN TO ANGLING If you’ve ever looked around for a nice stretch of stream to fish and have run into a host of “No Trespassing” signs, the following list is for you. It’s a list of stream stretches publicly owned and open to the general angler. These represent only a small percent of the approximately 8,600 miles of freshwater streams in the State, however, these waters should provide stretches of uninterrupted “hassle free” fishing. Also included is a generalized description of the major gamefish and panfish population present as well as the recreational facilities available. —GOOD LUCK— ABBREVIATIONS AGENCY N.J.D.F. & W New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife LEGEND N.J.D.P. & F. New Jersey Division of Parks and Forestry FISHING QUALITY U.S.N.P.S. United States National Park Service 1—Very good U.S.F. & W.S. United States Fish & Wildlife Service 2—Good AREA 3—Fair D.W.G.N.R.A. Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area 4—Poor or none WMA Wildlife Management Area 5—Trout Available Only During NWR National Wildlife Refuge Stocking Period FACILITIES 6—Trout Available During Entire N—No Legal Fishing Season Y—Yes Length (mi.) Av. Width (ft.) Av. Swimming Area Picnicking Cabins Campsites Trout Smallmouth Bass Largemouth Bass Largemouth Pickerel Stream Agency Area Nearest Town(s) Catfish/Eels ATLANTIC COUNTY Mullica River N.J.D.P. & F. Wharton St. Forest Sweetwater-Jackson 14.0 150 N Y Y Y 4 4 4 2 2 BERGEN COUNTY Ramapo River County Ramapo Valley Mahwah 1.0 70 N Y N N 5 3 3 3 3 Reservation Saddle River County Saddle River Park Ridgewood 0.5 30 N Y N N 5 4 4 4 3 Saddle River Municipal Lake St.
    [Show full text]
  • I-295/I-76/Route 42 Direct Connection Summary of Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites Search
    APPENDICES APPENDIX A Well Information APPENDIX AB KnownWell Contaminated Information Site List APPENDIX C Freshwater Fish Management Database APPENDIX D Agency Correspondence APPENDIX E Site Photographs Photo Plate 1: View looking downstream (west) from Bell Road Bridge. Photo Plate 2: View looking upstream (east) from Bell Road Bridge. Dresdner Robin Photo Plate 3: View looking east toward Wetland V data point behind noise barrier. Photo Plate 4: View looking east from AF-1 just beyond inlet. Note drop inlet. Dresdner Robin Photo Plate 5: View looking southwest toward Wetland AF from AE-2. Photo Plate 6: View looking south from Wetland Z Upland Data Point. Dresdner Robin Photo Plate 7: View looking upstream from sanitary sewer line toward Wetlands AA and AB Photo Plate 8: View looking downstream from sanitary sewer line toward Wetlands Z and AC. Dresdner Robin Photo Plate 9: Wetland K. Note skunk cabbage up slope along seep line. Photo Plate 10: Wetland K looking toward cemetery. Seep/spring along far side. Dresdner Robin Photo Plate 11: Open Water behind residential dwelling on Lowell Avenue. Photo Plate 12: View of wetland data point behind residential dwelling on Lowell Avenue. Note jewelweed is the dominant forbe. Dresdner Robin Photo Plate 13: View looking east along the I 295 north corridor at Wetland P. Photo Plate 14: Photograph of landfilled materials (glass, plastics, concrete, etc.) near TF-17. Dresdner Robin Photo Plate 15: Photograph of TF tidal wetland mud flat from TF-17. Photo Plate 16: Photograph of Wetland N from the edge of the I-295 highway. Dresdner Robin Photo Plate 17: View of the Upland Data Point 1 for Wetland TF.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmentally Sensitive Areas Guidance Document
    New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Release Prevention ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS GUIDANCE DOCUMENT Revised September 2014 Introduction This guidance on environmentally sensitive areas is intended for use as a reference and a guide when gathering information to be used in preparing the topographical maps for Discharge Prevention, Containment and Countermeasure (DPCC), and Discharge Cleanup and Removal (DCR) Plans. It gathers in one place all the citations listed in N.J.A.C. 7:1E-1.8, which establishes the definition of environmentally sensitive areas (ESA) for the purpose of developing the DPCC/DCR plan. The areas described in this document are by no means the only ESA in New Jersey, but represent those most likely to be adversely affected by a discharge of a hazardous substance. When used in conjunction with the requirements of N.J.A.C. 7:1E-4.10, Mapping criteria, it will prove useful in preparing the topographical maps and the offsite response measures that are required as part of the DCR plan. Additional information concerning the certification of ESA information is available in A Guide to the Preparation of Discharge Prevention, Containment and Countermeasure (DPCC) and Discharge Cleanup and Removal (DCR) Plans and Plan Renewals, available on the Bureau of Release Prevention website at http://www.nj.gov/dep/rpp/brp/dp/index.htm. N.J.A.C. 7:1E-4.2(b)9 requires that topographical maps be included in the DPCC plan, while N.J.A.C. 7:1E-4.10(d) requires that these maps cover all surrounding areas which could be affected by a discharge from the facility, including ESA.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Geology Sand Mineral Deposits in and Mear the Oentral
    Regional Geology sand Mineral Deposits In and Mear the Oentral Part of the Lemhl Range, Lemhi County, Itlaho tJ.S, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER Regional Geology and Mineral Deposits In and Near the Central Part of the Lemhi Range, Lemhi County, Idaho By EDWARD T. RUPPEL and DAVID A. LOPEZ U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1480 A descriptive summary of the rocks and structure in part of east-central Idaho UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1988 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director Any use of trade names in this report is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorse­ ment by the U.S. Geological Survey. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Ruppel, Edward Thompson, 1925- Regional geology and mineral deposits in and near the central part of the Lemhi Range, Lemhi County, Idaho. (U.S. Geological Survey professional paper ; 1480) Bibliography: p. Supt. of Docs, no.: I 19.16:1480 1. Geology Idaho Lemhi Range. 2. Ore-deposits Idaho Lemhi Range. I. Lopez, David A. II. Title. III. Series. QE104.L43R86 1988 557.9678 87-600492 For sale by the Books and Open-File Reports Section, U.S. Geological Survey Federal Center, Box 25425, Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Page Page Abstract ........................................... 1 Granitic intrusive rocks Continued Introduction ....................................... 2 Petrography Continued Topography and drainage ......................... 2 Early Paleozoic granite in the Beaverhead Mountains 59 Present work and acknowledgments ................ 4 Eocene granitic rocks in the Lemhi Range ....... 62 Summary of earlier geologic studies ................ 7 Descriptions of intrusive masses ..................
    [Show full text]
  • New Jersey Future Van Abs 2014 Pinelands Growth Area Water
    Effects of Land Development on Water Resources of the Pinelands Region Prepared for New Jersey Future by Daniel J. Van Abs, PhD, PP/AICP Principal Investigator Rutgers – The State University of New Jersey School of Environmental and Biological Sciences Department of Human Ecology 55 Dudley Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08903 e: [email protected] p: (848) 932-9432 June 2014 Cover photo credit: Van Abs Effects of Land Development on Water Resources of the Pinelands Region Daniel J. Van Abs, Oliver Stringham, Yuling Gao and Tim Evans June 2014 Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... v Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... vii Overview of Target Area Results.............................................................................................................xiii Evesham/Medford Target Area ..........................................................................................................xiii Hammonton Target Area .................................................................................................................... xiv Little Egg Harbor/Tuckerton Target Area ............................................................................................ xiv Changes in Subwatershed Integrity .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Great Egg Harbor River Boat Dock
    1 likit4( _________ NOV 15 nal Supt. Exec /C (40r' (NF'S/PHSO/S&P-C) CI-15014%LS° Supt. Re: Gregory Norell Permit Application 315 Old River Road; Mays Landing, NJ Frank Cianfrani, Chief Regulatory Branch Department of the Army - Phila. District Wanarna.ker Building 100 Penn Square East Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390 Dear Mr. Cianfrani: We have received information from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. regarding an application to legalize and extend the dock located at 315 Old River Road in Mays Landing. The proposed structure would be approximately 165 feet channelward for the mooring of private boats in the Great Egg Harbor National Scenic and Recreational River. We have reviewed the above referenced permit pursuant to section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended (P.L. 90-542) which states "no department or agency of the United States shall assist by loan, grant, license, or otherwise in the construction of any water resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which such river was established, as determined by the Secretary charged with its administration." National Park Service authority under Section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has been upheld in federal district court. In the case of the United States versus Kenneth Harris in 1992 a decision was rendered that upheld the removal of an illegal dock on the Little Miami River. In 1998 in Sierra Club, et al., versus United States, the federal district court clarified what constitutes a "water resources project" and also upheld the authority to review such projects under Section 7(a).
    [Show full text]
  • New Jersey Estuaries Finfish Resource Assessment
    .. """ . Technical Report New Jersey Estuaries Finfish Resource Assessment Phase I: Literature Summarv.., Kenneth W. Able and Susan C. Kaiser Det.-ember l W4 Marine Field Statiun . d Coastal St:tences [nstitute ot Manne a_n .. f New Jersey 1 Rumers. The State U mverstty l K087 • Tuckenon. New Jersey 0 Contribution g4-xx TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ii LIST OF FIGURES ii I?'JTRODLCTION SCOPE RESULTS 2 Finfish Literature Summaries by Estuary Fiufish Literature Re'View.~ by E~tullfy LITERATURE CITED 60 APPENDIX 1: Checklist of New Jersey Estuarine Fishes 69 APPENDIX II: List of Unavailable and/or Marginal Literurure 77 LIST OF T.-\BLES TJble i. List llf estuanne syo.;rems ror finfish literature summaries 3 Table 2. List ot common and scientific.: names of fishes in summaries 5 Table 3-1: Finfish literature summary for Hudson River 9 Table 3-2. Finfish literature summary for Newark Bay 17 Table 3-3. Finfish literature summary for Raritan River & BayiNew York Harbur 18 Table 3-..J.. Finfish literature summary for Sandy Hook Bay 20 Table 3-5. Finfish literature summary for Shark River 23 Table 3-6. Finfish literuture sununary fm Manasquan Ri'fer 24 Table 3-7. Finfish liter..tture summary for Barnegat Bay 26 Table 3-X. Finfish liter..tture summary for Little Egg Harbor 34 Table 3-lJ. Finfish literature summary for Mullic.:a River & Great Bay 38 Table 3-10. Finfish litemture summary for Brig-..tntine 45 Table 3-ll. Finfish literature :mmll14lry for Great Egg Harbor 47 Table 3-12. Finfish literature summary for Corson\ fnlet ..J.X Table 3-13.
    [Show full text]
  • Quaternary and Late Tertiary of Montana: Climate, Glaciation, Stratigraphy, and Vertebrate Fossils
    QUATERNARY AND LATE TERTIARY OF MONTANA: CLIMATE, GLACIATION, STRATIGRAPHY, AND VERTEBRATE FOSSILS Larry N. Smith,1 Christopher L. Hill,2 and Jon Reiten3 1Department of Geological Engineering, Montana Tech, Butte, Montana 2Department of Geosciences and Department of Anthropology, Boise State University, Idaho 3Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Billings, Montana 1. INTRODUCTION by incision on timescales of <10 ka to ~2 Ma. Much of the response can be associated with Quaternary cli- The landscape of Montana displays the Quaternary mate changes, whereas tectonic tilting and uplift may record of multiple glaciations in the mountainous areas, be locally signifi cant. incursion of two continental ice sheets from the north and northeast, and stream incision in both the glaciated The landscape of Montana is a result of mountain and unglaciated terrain. Both mountain and continental and continental glaciation, fl uvial incision and sta- glaciers covered about one-third of the State during the bility, and hillslope retreat. The Quaternary geologic last glaciation, between about 21 ka* and 14 ka. Ages of history, deposits, and landforms of Montana were glacial advances into the State during the last glaciation dominated by glaciation in the mountains of western are sparse, but suggest that the continental glacier in and central Montana and across the northern part of the eastern part of the State may have advanced earlier the central and eastern Plains (fi gs. 1, 2). Fundamental and retreated later than in western Montana.* The pre- to the landscape were the valley glaciers and ice caps last glacial Quaternary stratigraphy of the intermontane in the western mountains and Yellowstone, and the valleys is less well known.
    [Show full text]
  • Crossroads of the American Revolution in New Jersey
    The National Park Service Northeast Region Philadelphia Support Office Crossroads of the American Revolution in New Jersey Special Resource Study National Heritage Area Feasibility Study Environmental Assessment August 2002 This report has been prepared to provide Congress and the public with information about the resources in the study area and how they relate to criteria for inclusion within the national park system and for feasibility of a national heritage area. Publication and transmittal of this report should not be considered an endorsement or a commitment by the National Park Service to seek or support either specific legisla- tive authorization for the project or appropriation for its implementation. Authorization and funding for any new commitments by the National Park Service will have to be considered in light of competing priorities for existing units of the national park system and other programs. This report was prepared by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Philadelphia Support Office. For additional copies or more information contact: National Park Service Philadelphia Support Office Planning and Legislation Program 200 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 597-6479 Abstract Special Resource Study National Heritage Area Feasibility Study Environmental Assessment Crossroads of the American Revolution, New Jersey August 2002 This Special Resource Study (SRS), National Heritage Area (NHA) Feasibility Study and Environmental Assessment examines the resources within a fifteen-county
    [Show full text]
  • The Armewamus Band of New Jersey: Other Clues to Differences Between the Lenopi and Lenape
    West Chester University Digital Commons @ West Chester University Anthropology & Sociology Faculty Publications Anthropology & Sociology Fall 2010 The Armewamus Band of New Jersey: Other Clues to Differences Between the Lenopi and Lenape Marshall Joseph Becker Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wcupa.edu/anthrosoc_facpub Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons Pennsylvania Archaeologist Bulletin of the SOCIETY FOR PENNSYLVANIA ARCHAEOLOGY, INC. ISSN: 0031-4358 Printed by: Prestige Color Lancaster, Pennsylvania Volume 80 Fall 2010 No. 2 Table of Contents The Discovery of Fort Morris, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania Stephen G. Warfel and Paul G. Marr 1 The Enigmatic Vestal Phase of the Late Archaic .... Laurie Miroff 30 Birdstones: Some Clarifications from Maryland Dennis C. Curry 50 The Armewamus Band of New Jersey: Other Clues to Differences Between the Lenopi and Lenape Marshall Joseph Becker 61 Human Head Effigy Found at the Ebbert Spring Site (36FR367), Franklin County, Pennsylvania Ronald D. Powell 73 Artifact 78 ©2010 The Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology, Inc. 61 THE ARMEWAMUS BAND OF NEW JERSEY: OTHER CLUES TO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE LENOPI AND LENAPE MARSHALL JOSEPH BECKER ABSTRACT During the Contact era, the Lenape and Lenopi occupied southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey respectively. The dozen or more bands of Lenape, all living west of the Delaware River in southeastern Pennsylvania, are rarely identified by band name in the colonial records. However, colonial documents often identify band names of the Lenopi, who lived just across the Delaware River from the Lenape in southern New Jersey. Lenopi band names derive from specific locations; for example, the people called Armewamus who lived at Armewomink, an area north of Big Timber Creek.
    [Show full text]