1933–1941, a New Deal for Forest Service Research in California

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

1933–1941, a New Deal for Forest Service Research in California The Search for Forest Facts: A History of the Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1926–2000 Chapter 4: 1933–1941, A New Deal for Forest Service Research in California By the time President Franklin Delano Roosevelt won his landslide election in 1932, forest research in the United States had grown considerably from the early work of botanical explorers such as Andre Michaux and his classic Flora Boreali- Americana (Michaux 1803), which first revealed the Nation’s wealth and diversity of forest resources in 1803. Exploitation and rapid destruction of forest resources had led to the establishment of a federal Division of Forestry in 1876, and as the number of scientists professionally trained to manage and administer forest land grew in America, it became apparent that our knowledge of forestry was not entirely adequate. So, within 3 years after the reorganization of the Bureau of Forestry into the Forest Service in 1905, a series of experiment stations was estab- lished throughout the country. In 1915, a need for a continuing policy in forest research was recognized by the formation of the Branch of Research (BR) in the Forest Service—an action that paved the way for unified, nationwide attacks on the obvious and the obscure problems of American forestry. This idea developed into A National Program of Forest Research (Clapp 1926) that finally culminated in the McSweeney-McNary Forest Research Act (McSweeney-McNary Act) of 1928, which authorized a series of regional forest experiment stations and the undertaking of research in each of the major fields of forestry. Then on March 4, 1933, President Roosevelt was inaugurated, and during the “first hundred days” of Roosevelt’s administration, Congress passed his New Deal plan, putting the country on a better economic footing during a desperate time in the Nation’s history. Many foresters at the time looked forward to a New Deal in forestry as well. But before that story can be told, a brief description of some of the key New Deal programs that would affect their desires for a new day in forestry research is necessary. New Deal Programs Roosevelt’s New Deal contained several relief programs for the unemployed that were designed to bring immediate assistance to the millions of native-born unem- ployed and to restore their morale and health. The first of these programs was the creation of the Civil Works Administration (CWA) on November 9, 1933, a tempo- rary agency to employ millions of people to help them survive the winter of 1933– 34. By January 1934, the CWA had provided employment to more than 4 million Americans, and in California, the CWA employed more than 150,000 Californians 167 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-233 in a wide variety of activities, such as building airports, bridges, roads, schools, and other public structures. The CWA remained in operation until March 1934, when the federal government terminated the program owing to its tremendous costs. With the pending expiration of the CWA, Congress established other relief projects. There was the Public Works Administration (PWA), created on June 16, 1933, under the authority of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA).1 It called for a comprehensive program of public works and channeled special allotments to fund capital improvements for federal projects. As a result, the Forest Service received funding for a great many improvements. Projects ranged from the development and improvement of roads, to a wide range of much-needed Forest Service buildings, the most common being ranger stations, fire lookouts, garages, residences, and maintenance shops. Then there was the Works Progress Administration (WPA)2 created in 1935 to supersede NIRA and other short-term programs. The WPA funding was used to construct schools, post offices, and other public structures.A program closely related to the CWA, PWA, and the WPA was the popular Civil- ian Conservation Corps (CCC), which combined relief and conservation and put millions of unemployed young people to work in national forests. The CCC evolved from the Emergency Conservation Work (ECW) program, an interagency effort established on March 31, 1933, involving the Departments of Labor, Army, Interior, and Agriculture and administered by an interagency advisory board. From the beginning, the CCC program was intended as a temporary emergency measure, and therefore required reauthorization periodically. Camps of CCC enrollees, young men between the ages of 19 and 28, carried out emergency conservation work on each national forest. The Army was placed in charge of all CCC camps themselves, and controlled the enrollees when they were in camp. Alternatively, the Forest Service handled all the men while they were on the job, including their transporta- tion between camp and work points. A total of 166 camps were eventually autho- rized for California national forests and the enrollees set out to build a variety of building types, such as ranger stations, guard stations, offices, and large and small warehouses (Godfrey 2005). 1 One of the express purposes of the National Industrial Recovery Act was to conserve natural resources. Toward this end, NIRA set up lumber codes for industrial forests requir- ing practices based on sustained yield that would keep the land from becoming wholly unproductive, which was thought of as a great gain over the destructive methods previously in general use. Meanwhile, the Forest Service offered its knowledge and research experi- ence to industry through a lumber code that set forth minimum standards of logging with a conservation theme. However, on May 27, 1935, the Supreme Court declared NIRA’s code system unconstitutional because it unreasonably stretched the Commerce Clause of the constitution (Silcox 1934). 2 In 1939, the WPA changed its name to the Works Projects Administration. 168 The Search for Forest Facts: A History of the Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1926–2000 As will be seen, the California Forest and Range Experiment Station (CFRES) took advantage of the New Deal “alphabet” relief and recovery programs such as CWA, NIRA, PWA, WPA, and the CCC to obtain lands and construct many of its research facilities at a number of experimental forests that it would acquire during the New Deal years. These programs contributed indirectly to a new era for forestry research in California by supplementing the appropriations available through the Forest Service budget. However, these programs cut like a two-edged blade. They certainly helped build up needed CFRES facilities and bought experimental forest lands, but in some respects, regular dollars needed for research were forgone at the expense of these federal activities. Ironically, because these emergency programs dollars could not be used for research activities, CFRES was left at times with excellent facilities with no funding for conducting investigations. A National Plan for American Forestry: Copeland Report On that March morning of President Roosevelt’s inauguration in 1933, Earle Clapp, head of the Forest Service Research Branch, perhaps hoped that Congress and the president would move just as quickly on forestry issues as they seemed to be willing to attack the relief and recovery of the Nation from the Great Depression. Opportu- nity was not wanting. Shortly after Roosevelt’s inauguration, Agriculture Secretary Henry Wallace submitted for the president’s consideration A National Plan for American Forestry (USDA FS 1933) (known more commonly as the Copeland Report)—a two-volume nearly 1,700-page report on the state of forestry in America with recommendations.3 Beside calling for planned forestry development through cooperative arrangements with forest industries for sustained yield and to build up 3 On March 27, 1933, A National Plan for American Forestry was transmitted to the Senate. The idea for this report, according to Clapp, developed during a meeting of a small group of people in the fall of 1931. While reviewing the forest situation from the standpoint of the responsibilities of research organizations in general, and of the research organization of the Forest Service in particular, they came to the conclusion that one imperative need was for an entirely fresh examination of the whole forestry situation in the United States as a basis for clarification and reorientation. This opportunity came “out of a clear sky” on March 30, 1932, months before the 1932 presidential election, when Senator Royal S. Copeland from New York called for a congressional investigation of forestry under Senate Resolution 175. The central purpose of Copeland’s investigation was to outline a coordinated plan that would “insure all of the economic and social benefits which can and should be derived from productive forests by fully utilizing the forest land” (Clapp 1934, Godfrey 2005). In July of that year, Earle Clapp wrote to all experiment station directors that the Copeland resolution offered a “great opportunity” to restate American forestry in a positive fashion, much like the Capper Report had done a decade earlier (Steen 1998). Regional Forester S.B. Show, along with Director Edward Kotok and his staff, responded to Clapp’s letter by preparing a lengthy, detailed, and very comprehensive report on California’s forestry situation including research (USDA FS 1932a). 169 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-233 public forests (Stuart 1933), the Copeland Report brought together the latest forestry information and included two sections on Forest Service research.4 The first section written by Clapp himself provided a history of the BR, which Clapp portrayed as a “nearly heroic struggle for independence from the administrative side of the agency.” Clapp’s chapter contained an impressive list of accomplishments. It also criticized previous Forest Service administrations for “routinely using Research as a dumping ground for those who did not fit well in Administration.” The second section, written by Earl Frothingham,5 provided a recommended research program for the future.
Recommended publications
  • Basics of Management - Intensive Grazing Stephen K
    Proceedings of the Integrated Crop Management Proceedings of the 10th Annual Integrated Crop Conference Management Conference Nov 18th, 12:00 AM Basics of Management - Intensive Grazing Stephen K. Barnhart Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/icm Part of the Agriculture Commons, and the Agronomy and Crop Sciences Commons Barnhart, Stephen K., "Basics of Management - Intensive Grazing" (1998). Proceedings of the Integrated Crop Management Conference. 28. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/icm/1998/proceedings/28 This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences and Symposia at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Proceedings of the Integrated Crop Management Conference by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BASICS OF MANAGEMENT -INTENSIVE GRAZING Stephen K. Barnhart Agronomist-Extension Forage Programs Department of Agronomy Iowa State University. What Is Management-Intensive Grazing ? Management-intensive grazing is a method for regulating how often and how much to graze in order to control the quality, yield, consumption, and persistence of forage from pasture. Managed grazing attempts to optimize animal performance or limit intake to a desired level and reduce wasted forage. Depending on the grazing methods used, the amount of fresh pasture provided, the amount of forage eaten, and its quality is regulated by the size of pasture area being grazed, the duration of that grazing, and the amount of the available forage allowed for grazing. Also critical is the period that each pasture is rested between grazings.
    [Show full text]
  • PERFORMED IDENTITIES: HEAVY METAL MUSICIANS BETWEEN 1984 and 1991 Bradley C. Klypchak a Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate
    PERFORMED IDENTITIES: HEAVY METAL MUSICIANS BETWEEN 1984 AND 1991 Bradley C. Klypchak A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 2007 Committee: Dr. Jeffrey A. Brown, Advisor Dr. John Makay Graduate Faculty Representative Dr. Ron E. Shields Dr. Don McQuarie © 2007 Bradley C. Klypchak All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Dr. Jeffrey A. Brown, Advisor Between 1984 and 1991, heavy metal became one of the most publicly popular and commercially successful rock music subgenres. The focus of this dissertation is to explore the following research questions: How did the subculture of heavy metal music between 1984 and 1991 evolve and what meanings can be derived from this ongoing process? How did the contextual circumstances surrounding heavy metal music during this period impact the performative choices exhibited by artists, and from a position of retrospection, what lasting significance does this particular era of heavy metal merit today? A textual analysis of metal- related materials fostered the development of themes relating to the selective choices made and performances enacted by metal artists. These themes were then considered in terms of gender, sexuality, race, and age constructions as well as the ongoing negotiations of the metal artist within multiple performative realms. Occurring at the juncture of art and commerce, heavy metal music is a purposeful construction. Metal musicians made performative choices for serving particular aims, be it fame, wealth, or art. These same individuals worked within a greater system of influence. Metal bands were the contracted employees of record labels whose own corporate aims needed to be recognized.
    [Show full text]
  • Alphabet Agencies
    Alphabet Agencies Alphabet Who this Details Relief, agency (Initials would Recovery or and in full) help... Reform Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) • Led by Harry Hopkins, a • The government former social worker, this agency sent funds to gave each state depleting local relief $1 back for agencies. Within two hours, $5 million was every $3 spent given out . on the relief of • Gave Federal money to individual states to help poverty. Spent the homeless and $500 million in unemployed. total • Formed May 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) To help farmers to • Government increase their profits. money was used to • Schemes were pay farmers to introduced to reduce slaughter their their production and animals and to so to drive up the destroy their crops. price of their produce. • This was very • May 1933 controversial at a time when people were starving. National Recovery Administration (NRA) To encourage • Codes of practice were employers to drawn up minimum improve industrial wage, hour and conditions companies workers’ pay and that signed up to the conditions and to scheme were allowed charge fair prices to display the Blue Eagle Flag for goods From 1933-1935 This work is in the public domain because it is a work of the United States Federal Government. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) • Set up to help farmers • Provided cheap and others in the Hydroelectric Power to Tennessee valley half its the farms. population 2.5 million • 20 Dams were people were living below constructed to prevent the poverty line. flooding and provide • Farming had become cheap electricity. poor in the Tennessee • Millions of trees were valley due to over planted to prevent soil cultivating, flooding and erosion.
    [Show full text]
  • Ordinances—1934
    Australian Capital Territory Ordinances—1934 A chronological listing of ordinances notified in 1934 [includes ordinances 1934 Nos 1-26] Ordinances—1934 1 Sheriff Ordinance Repeal Ordinance 1934 (repealed) repealed by Ord1937-27 notified 8 February 1934 (Cwlth Gaz 1934 No 8) sch 3 commenced 8 February 1934 (see Seat of Government 23 December 1937 (Administration) Act 1910 (Cwlth), s 12) 2 * Administration and Probate Ordinance 1934 (repealed) repealed by A2000-80 notified 8 February 1934 (Cwlth Gaz 1934 No 8) sch 4 commenced 8 February 1934 (see Seat of Government 21 December 2000 (Administration) Act 1910 (Cwlth), s 12) 3 Liquor (Renewal of Licences) Ordinance 1934 (repealed) repealed by Ord1937-27 notified 8 February 1934 (Cwlth Gaz 1934 No 9) sch 3 commenced 8 February 1934 (see Seat of Government 23 December 1937 (Administration) Act 1910 (Cwlth), s 12) 4 Oaths Ordinance 1934 (repealed) repealed by Ord1984-79 notified 15 February 1934 (Cwlth Gaz 1934 No 10) s 2 commenced 15 February 1934 (see Seat of Government 19 December 1984 (Administration) Act 1910 (Cwlth), s 12) 5 Dogs Registration Ordinance 1934 (repealed) repealed by Ord1975-18 notified 1 March 1934 (Cwlth Gaz 1934 No 13) sch commenced 1 March 1934 (see Seat of Government (Administration) 21 July 1975 Act 1910 (Cwlth), s 12) 6 * Administration and Probate Ordinance (No 2) 1934 (repealed) repealed by A2000-80 notified 22 March 1934 (Cwlth Gaz 1934 No 17) sch 4 commenced 22 March 1934 (see Seat of Government (Administration) 21 December 2000 Act 1910 (Cwlth), s 12) 7 Advisory
    [Show full text]
  • Grade 8 History Remote Learning Assignments: Week 2 for Each
    Grade 8 History Remote Learning Assignments: Week 2 For each day’s work, be sure to use all of the strategies that you have learned and answer the questions in Illuminate. Day Assignment Links Resources on Google Classroom Monday The New Deal Link to Illuminate https://www.youtube.com/w ● Read through the atch?v=0rjtOWn5mj0 3/30/202 packet and take notes Link to Google Classroom​ (LES) 0 on a separate sheet of https://www.youtube.com/w paper. *Packet is already in illuminate and on atch?v=WvcWeNf9g6A ● Answer the 2 Multiple Google Classroom Choice Questions and JOY: the Short answer https://www.youtube.com/w Response on *you must know your OSIS ID number in atch?v=hsw4B1PWZLQ order to submit your answers in Illuminate Illuminate. Tuesday Current events - Coronavirus Link to Illuminate Full article on CARES Act Stimulus Package https://apnews.com/be6a3 ● 3/31/202 Read through packet Link to Google Classroom​ (LES) 43cc5a8ee6672a135a968 0 ● Answer 2 multiple 49a4d4 choice questions and *Packet is already in illuminate and on short response Google Classroom question ● Answer bonus *you must know your ID number in order to question on Google submit your answers in Illuminate. Classroom Wednesday The Treaty of Versaille Link to illuminate Two very short and very ● Read through the helpful video clips from 4/1/2020 packet and analyze Link to Google Classroom​ (LES) Crash Course History about images The Treaty of Versaille ● Answer the 3 multiple *Packet is already in illuminate and on choice questions in Google Classroom https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=0jycVFL8CNM Illuminate ● Answer the bonus https://www.youtube.com/ question on Google *you must know your ID number in order to watch?v=vrYhLNQMRro Classroom submit your answers in Illuminate.
    [Show full text]
  • Records of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1891-1957, Record Group 85 New Orleans, Louisiana Crew Lists of Vessels Arriving at New Orleans, LA, 1910-1945
    Records of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1891-1957, Record Group 85 New Orleans, Louisiana Crew Lists of Vessels Arriving at New Orleans, LA, 1910-1945. T939. 311 rolls. (~A complete list of rolls has been added.) Roll Volumes Dates 1 1-3 January-June, 1910 2 4-5 July-October, 1910 3 6-7 November, 1910-February, 1911 4 8-9 March-June, 1911 5 10-11 July-October, 1911 6 12-13 November, 1911-February, 1912 7 14-15 March-June, 1912 8 16-17 July-October, 1912 9 18-19 November, 1912-February, 1913 10 20-21 March-June, 1913 11 22-23 July-October, 1913 12 24-25 November, 1913-February, 1914 13 26 March-April, 1914 14 27 May-June, 1914 15 28-29 July-October, 1914 16 30-31 November, 1914-February, 1915 17 32 March-April, 1915 18 33 May-June, 1915 19 34-35 July-October, 1915 20 36-37 November, 1915-February, 1916 21 38-39 March-June, 1916 22 40-41 July-October, 1916 23 42-43 November, 1916-February, 1917 24 44 March-April, 1917 25 45 May-June, 1917 26 46 July-August, 1917 27 47 September-October, 1917 28 48 November-December, 1917 29 49-50 Jan. 1-Mar. 15, 1918 30 51-53 Mar. 16-Apr. 30, 1918 31 56-59 June 1-Aug. 15, 1918 32 60-64 Aug. 16-0ct. 31, 1918 33 65-69 Nov. 1', 1918-Jan. 15, 1919 34 70-73 Jan. 16-Mar. 31, 1919 35 74-77 April-May, 1919 36 78-79 June-July, 1919 37 80-81 August-September, 1919 38 82-83 October-November, 1919 39 84-85 December, 1919-January, 1920 40 86-87 February-March, 1920 41 88-89 April-May, 1920 42 90 June, 1920 43 91 July, 1920 44 92 August, 1920 45 93 September, 1920 46 94 October, 1920 47 95-96 November, 1920 48 97-98 December, 1920 49 99-100 Jan.
    [Show full text]
  • Livestock and Landscapes
    SUSTAINABILITY PATHWAYS LIVESTOCK AND LANDSCAPES SHARE OF LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION IN GLOBAL LAND SURFACE DID YOU KNOW? Agricultural land used for ENVIRONMENT Twenty-six percent of the Planet’s ice-free land is used for livestock grazing LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION and 33 percent of croplands are used for livestock feed production. Livestock contribute to seven percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions through enteric fermentation and manure. In developed countries, 90 percent of cattle Agricutural land used for belong to six breed and 20 percent of livestock breeds are at risk of extinction. OTHER AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION SOCIAL One billion poor people, mostly pastoralists in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, depend on livestock for food and livelihoods. Globally, livestock provides 25 percent of protein intake and 15 percent of dietary energy. ECONOMY Livestock contributes up to 40 percent of agricultural gross domestic product across a significant portion of South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa but receives just three percent of global agricultural development funding. GOVERNANCE With rising incomes in the developing world, demand for animal products will continue to surge; 74 percent for meat, 58 percent for dairy products and 500 percent for eggs. Meeting increasing demand is a major sustainability challenge. LIVESTOCK AND LANDSCAPES SUSTAINABILITY PATHWAYS WHY DOES LIVESTOCK MATTER FOR SUSTAINABILITY? £ The livestock sector is one of the key drivers of land-use change. Each year, 13 £ As livestock density increases and is in closer confines with wildlife and humans, billion hectares of forest area are lost due to land conversion for agricultural uses there is a growing risk of disease that threatens every single one of us: 66 percent of as pastures or cropland, for both food and livestock feed crop production.
    [Show full text]
  • Ch 15 the NEW DEAL
    Ch 15 THE NEW DEAL AMERICA GETS BACK TO WORK SECTION 1: A NEW DEAL FIGHTS THE DEPRESSION I. Americans Get a New Deal A. The 1932 presidential election show Americans ready for change 1. Republicans re- nominated Hoover despite his low approval rating 2. The Democrats nominated Franklin D Roosevelt Election of 1932 Roosevelt Hoover ROOSEVELT WINS OVERWHELMING VICTORY a. Democrat Roosevelt, known as FDR, was a 2- term governor of NY b. reform-minded; projects friendliness, confidence B. Democrats overwhelmingly win presidency, Senate, House • Greatest Democratic victory in 80 years FDR easily won the 1932 election Election of 1932 Roosevelt’s Strengths • http://www.history.com/topics/1930s/videos #franklin-roosevelts-easy-charm C. Roosevelt’s Background 1. Distant cousin of Theodore Roosevelt. Came from a wealthy New York family. 2. Wife Eleanor was a niece of Theodore Roosevelt. • Charming, persuasive. • ServeD as secretary of the navy anD New York governor. Franklin and Eleanor Franklin as a young man 3. Polio a. In 1921 Roosevelt caught polio, a crippling disease with no cure. b. Legs were paralyzed and he wore steel braces and a wheelchair later in life. Roosevelt in a wheelchair D. Inauguration (March 4, 1933) 20th Amendment =January 20, ratified Jan 23, 1933 1. Between the election and his inauguration, the Depression worsened. 2. High unemployment, more bank failures. Roosevelt Inaugural speech Roosevelt Inaugural speech "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." The New Deal • http://www.history.com/topics/1930s/videos #the-new-deal-how-does-it-affect-us-today E.
    [Show full text]
  • Hog Pastures and Conservation Compliance
    Illinois Grazing Manual Fact Sheet GRAZING MANAGEMENT Hog Pastures and Conservation Compliance General Information Significant problems exist in meeting conservation compliance requirements for livestock producers. These include high intensity grazing of hogs on forages in rotation with row crops, grazing crop residues, and manure injection of HEL fields. Swine pasture trials have been conducted to learn more about the interrelationships of pasture species selection, seeding rate, stocking density, grass stand (plants per sq. ft.), and per cent ground cover. These trials have networked the experience, knowledge, and skills of pro-active swine producers, the Natural Resources Conservation Service and University of Illinois Extension. Initial trials were seeded in the spring of 1992 utilizing alfalfa and grass mixtures. The grass species included were: 1) Tetraploid perennial ryegrass, 2) Matua Rescuegrass, 3) low endophyte Tall Fescue, and 4) Orchardgrass. These trial plots were intensively grazed and evaluated during 1993 with a mean stocking rate of 11.6 sows and litter per acre. Grass stands and % cover was evaluated throughout the year. Results indicated that tetraploid perennial ryegrass exhibited a very vigorous growth habit and was able to withstand high levels of grazing and trampling. It maintained higher levels of ground cover throughout the season. Tall Fescue established well, exhibited high stand counts, and even with very high grazing intensity was able to maintain over until late in the season. Tall Fescue also reduced the seed cost per acre. The use of alfalfa-orchardgrass under high intensity use, held up through mid-season but declined rapidly to only 20% cover in the fall.
    [Show full text]
  • LOOKOUT NETWORK (ISSN 2154-4417), Is Published Quarterly by the Forest Fire Lookout Association, Inc., Keith Argow, Publisher, 374 Maple Nielsen
    VOL. 26 NO. 4 WINTER 2015-2016 LLOOKOOKOUTOUT NETWNETWORKORK THE QUARTERLY PUBLICATION OF THE FOREST FIRE LOOKOUT ASSOCIATION, INC. · 2016 Western Conference - June 10-12, John Day, Oregon · FFLA Loses Founding Member - Henry Isenberg · Northeast Conference - September 17-18, New York www.firelookout.org ON THE LOOKOUT From the National Chairman Keith A. Argow Vienna, Virginia Winter 2015-2016 FIRE TOWERS IN THE HEART OF DIXIE On Saturday, January 16 we convened the 26th annual member of the Alabama Forestry Commission who had meeting of the Forest Fire Lookout Association at the Talladega purchased and moved a fire tower to his woodlands; the project Ranger Station, on the Talladega National Forest in Talladega, leader of the Smith Mountain fire tower restoration; the publisher Alabama (guess that is somewhere near Talladega!). Our host, of a travel magazine that promoted the restoration; a retired District Ranger Gloria Nielsen, and Alabama National Forests district forester with the Alabama Forestry Commission; a U.S. Assistant Archaeologist Marcus Ridley presented a fine Forest Service District Ranger (our host), and a zone program including a review of the multi-year Horn Mountain archaeologist for the Forest Service. Add just two more Lookout restoration. A request by the radio communications members and we will have the makings of a potentially very people to construct a new effective chapter in Alabama. communications tower next to The rest of afternoon was spent with an inspection of the the lookout occasioned a continuing Horn Mountain Lookout restoration project, plus visits review on its impact on the 100-foot Horn Mountain Fire Tower, an historic landmark visible for many miles.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of the Arôhitecture Of
    United States Department of Agriculture A History of the I Forest Service Engineering Staff EM-731 0-8 Arôhitecture of the July 1999 USDA Forest Service a EM-731 0-8 C United States Department of Agriculture A History of the Forest Service EngIneering Staff EM-731 0-8 Architecture of the July 1999 USDA Forest Service by John A. Grosvenor, Architect Pacific Southwest Region Dedication and Acknowledgements This book is dedicated to all of those architects andbuilding designers who have provided the leadership and design expertise tothe USDA Forest Service building program from the inception of theagencyto Harry Kevich, my mentor and friend whoguided my career in the Forest Service, and especially to W. Ellis Groben, who provided the onlyprofessional architec- tural leadership from Washington. DC. I salute thearchaeologists, histori- ans, and historic preservation teamswho are active in preserving the architectural heritage of this unique organization. A special tribute goes to my wife, Caro, whohas supported all of my activi- ties these past 38 years in our marriage and in my careerwith the Forest Service. In the time it has taken me to compile this document, scoresof people throughout the Forest Service have provided information,photos, and drawings; told their stories; assisted In editing my writingattempts; and expressed support for this enormous effort. Active andretired architects from all the Forest Service Regions as well as severalof the research sta- tions have provided specific informationregarding their history. These individuals are too numerous to mention by namehere, but can be found throughout the document. I do want to mention the personwho is most responsible for my undertaking this task: Linda Lux,the Regional Historian in Region 5, who urged me to put somethingdown in writing before I retired.
    [Show full text]
  • Hotel Worker Safety Ordinance
    Information Item Date: August 8, 2019 To: Mayor and City Council From: Anuj Gupta, Deputy City Manager / Director of Policy Subject: Analysis of hotel housekeeper safety protections, overtime compensation and required training for human trafficking, sexual and domestic violence, and public health and safety Introduction Santa Monica has long been at the forefront of both supporting the visitor industry that is a key part of our local economy as well as promoting the wellbeing and rights of the workers in our hotels and restaurants. In October 2017, the advocacy efforts of the #MeToo movement rose to prominence, spurring national conversations around protecting workers from sexual harassment and assault in the workplace. The #MeToo movement has touched almost every industry, bringing increased pressure to policy- making bodies to adopt legislation to protect employees in various sectors from workplace harassment and assault. With over eight million visitors annually, 41 hotels and motels anchor Santa Monica’s robust tourism industry, employing about 2,100 hotel housekeepers. As the national discussion around protecting individuals from sexual assault and harassment in the workplace continues, the City of Santa Monica’s Commission on the Status of Women (COSW) spearheaded efforts to bring a hotel housekeepers’ safety policy on the local level that is in line with policies adopted in other cities such as Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle and Chicago. Last October, the Santa Monica City Council (Council) unanimously directed City staff to prepare a draft ordinance on hotel worker safety for consideration and adoption. Staff 1 anticipates introducing an ordinance for first reading at the August 27, 2019 meeting.
    [Show full text]