DOCSLIB.ORG

National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory 2009

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory 2009 National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory 2009 George Washington Memorial Parkway - North George Washington Memorial Parkway Table of Contents Inventory Unit Summary & Site Plan Concurrence Status Geographic Information and Location Map Management Information National Register Information Chronology & Physical History Analysis & Evaluation of Integrity Condition Treatment Bibliography & Supplemental Information George Washington Memorial Parkway - North George Washington Memorial Parkway Inventory Unit Summary & Site Plan Inventory Summary The Cultural Landscapes Inventory Overview: CLI General Information: Purpose and Goals of the CLI The Cultural Landscapes Inventory (CLI), a comprehensive inventory of all cultural landscapes in the national park system, is one of the most ambitious initiatives of the National Park Service (NPS) Park Cultural Landscapes Program. The CLI is an evaluated inventory of all landscapes having historical significance that are listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, or are otherwise managed as cultural resources through a public planning process and in which the NPS has or plans to acquire any legal interest. The CLI identifies and documents each landscape’s location, size, physical development, condition, landscape characteristics, character-defining features, as well as other valuable information useful to park management. Cultural landscapes become approved CLIs when concurrence with the findings is obtained from the park superintendent and all required data fields are entered into a national database. In addition, for landscapes that are not currently listed on the National Register and/or do not have adequate documentation, concurrence is required from the State Historic Preservation Officer or the Keeper of the National Register. The CLI, like the List of Classified Structures, assists the NPS in its efforts to fulfill the identification and management requirements associated with Section 110(a) of the National Historic Preservation Act, National Park Service Management Policies (2006), and Director’s Order #28: Cultural Resource Management. Since launching the CLI nationwide, the NPS, in response to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), is required to report information that respond to NPS strategic plan accomplishments. Two GPRA goals are associated with the CLI: bringing certified cultural landscapes into good condition (Goal 1a7) and increasing the number of CLI records that have complete, accurate, and reliable information (Goal 1b2B). Scope of the CLI The information contained within the CLI is gathered from existing secondary sources found in park libraries and archives and at NPS regional offices and centers, as well as through on-site reconnaissance of the existing landscape. The baseline information collected provides a comprehensive look at the historical development and significance of the landscape, placing it in context of the site’s overall significance. Documentation and analysis of the existing landscape identifies character-defining characteristics and features, and allows for an evaluation of the landscape’s overall integrity and an assessment of the landscape’s overall condition. The CLI also provides an illustrative site plan that indicates major features within the inventory unit. Unlike cultural landscape reports, the CLI does not provide management recommendations or Cultural Landscapes Inventory Page 1 of 149 George Washington Memorial Parkway - North George Washington Memorial Parkway treatment guidelines for the cultural landscape. Inventory Unit Description: The cultural landscape of the north section of George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP – North) comprises a total of 1,139 acres along Virginia’s Potomac River shore that create a corridor to the north and west of Washington, DC. It is a component landscape of the George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), a scenic, landscaped roadway that encompasses approximately 7,146 acres and extends along 38.3 miles adjacent to the Potomac River in Arlington and Fairfax Counties, Virginia, Washington, DC, and Montgomery County, Maryland (Figure 1). The southern portion of this roadway is along the western shore, or Virginia side, of the Potomac River and was the first to be built. This section was historically known as the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway (MVMH), and extends 15.2 miles from the Arlington Memorial Bridge in Washington, DC to President George Washington’s former home, Mount Vernon, in Virginia. The section of the GWMP located to the north and west of Washington, DC and along the eastern shore, or Maryland side, of the Potomac River is referred to as the Clara Barton Parkway (CLBA), and extends approximately 6.6 miles from the Chain Bridge in Washington, DC north to MacArthur Boulevard in Maryland. The section of parkway that runs parallel to this one, on the Virginia side of the river, is for the purposes of this inventory called GWMP – North and extends roughly 7.5 miles north to the Capital Beltway/Interstate 495. Although the 1995 National Register of Historic Places Nomination identifies the Arlington Memorial Bridge as the southern terminus of the “north section” of the GWMP, for the purposes of this Cultural Landscape Inventory (CLI) this landscape encompasses only the section of the GWMP extending from the intersection with Spout Run Parkway north to the Capital Beltway. The GWMP consists of a four-lane roadway divided by a variable-width median. Much of the parkway is set against the backdrop of Washington, DC, which can be seen across the Potomac River as the road continues along the shoreline and past the nation’s capital. After passing the capital to the east, the north section of the GWMP becomes a gently rolling, curving roadway framed with views of the Potomac River Gorge, Georgetown, the distant city center and a series of forested areas. As one of several planned parkways in the Washington, DC area, the GWMP offers a distinctive blend of natural components and designed landscape that together provide a welcome escape from the city’s urban environment. The MVMH section of the GWMP was developed as a memorial to the first president of the United States, George Washington. Although construction did not begin until 1928, the concept of a roadway from Washington, DC to Mount Vernon first appeared as early as 1888. The highway was aptly completed in 1932, a date that commemorated the bicentennial of George Washington’s birth. As plans and construction of the new roadway advanced, it served as an inspiration for further action, and on May 29, 1930, President Herbert Hoover signed what became known as the Capper-Cramton Act. This legislation authorized funds for an expanded parkway along both shores of the Potomac that would include the MVMH and be known as the George Washington Memorial Parkway. Though at first progress was slow, due in part to the impact of the Great Depression and World War II, the acquisition of land gradually stretched north along the river, and work on the GWMP advanced. Over the years, Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. (in his capacity on the National Capital Planning Commission) and other landscape architects from the National Park Service and the Commission of Fine Arts contributed to the emerging parkway, and by 1963 the last bridge of the parkway’s north section was complete. Cultural Landscapes Inventory Page 2 of 149 George Washington Memorial Parkway - North George Washington Memorial Parkway Extending from the Spout Run Parkway intersection to the Capital Beltway, the topography of GWMP – North makes for a dramatic drive characterized by gentle curves and rolling hills. Thanks to the attention given to views in the Capper-Cramton Act, planners and engineers devoted special care to the preservation of historic vistas through the management of vegetation and small-scale features along the road. Bridges, natural systems, and circulation features all contribute to the framing and context of various vistas along the corridor, although some of these views have been compromised by the energetic growth of vegetation in recent years. The Route 123 Overpass, built to span the GWMP between 1957 and 1959, was the region’s first pre-stressed concrete girder bridge, while the cloverleaf design used for the Route 123 Interchange was highly innovative for its 1950s construction. The consistent utilization of advanced engineering was thus an important theme throughout the construction of GWMP – North. The original portion of the GWMP, or the MVMH, was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1981. The section of parkway north of Memorial Bridge, including GWMP – North and the CLBA north to the Capital Beltway, was approved for listing in the National Register in 1995, as part of a multiple property nomination entitled “Parkways of the National Capital Region.” The GWMP – North cultural landscape is significant under National Register of Historic Places Criterion A, for its association with the broader planning of Washington, DC, for its engineering as a late example of parkway construction, and for its employment of early 1950s engineering and transportation innovations. It is also significant under Criterion B, for its historical and commemorative associations with George Washington. Lastly, this section of the parkway is significant under Criterion C for its thorough, well-designed landscape architecture. The period of significance for GWMP – North is 1930 to 1963, beginning with the commitment of the Federal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Corridor Analysis for the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail in Northern Virginia
    Corridor Analysis For The Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail In Northern Virginia June 2011 Acknowledgements The Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC) wishes to acknowledge the following individuals for their contributions to this report: Don Briggs, Superintendent of the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail for the National Park Service; Liz Cronauer, Fairfax County Park Authority; Mike DePue, Prince William Park Authority; Bill Ference, City of Leesburg Park Director; Yon Lambert, City of Alexandria Department of Transportation; Ursula Lemanski, Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program for the National Park Service; Mark Novak, Loudoun County Park Authority; Patti Pakkala, Prince William County Park Authority; Kate Rudacille, Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority; Jennifer Wampler, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation; and Greg Weiler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The report is an NVRC staff product, supported with funds provided through a cooperative agreement with the National Capital Region National Park Service. Any assessments, conclusions, or recommendations contained in this report represent the results of the NVRC staff’s technical investigation and do not represent policy positions of the Northern Virginia Regional Commission unless so stated in an adopted resolution of said Commission. The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the jurisdictions, the National Park Service, or any of its sub agencies. Funding for this report was through a cooperative agreement with The National Park Service Report prepared by: Debbie Spiliotopoulos, Senior Environmental Planner Northern Virginia Regional Commission with assistance from Samantha Kinzer, Environmental Planner The Northern Virginia Regional Commission 3060 Williams Drive, Suite 510 Fairfax, VA 22031 703.642.0700 www.novaregion.org Page 2 Northern Virginia Regional Commission As of May 2011 Chairman Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Arlington County, Virginia (All Jurisdictions)
    VOLUME 1 OF 1 ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA (ALL JURISDICTIONS) COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER ARLINGTON COUNTY, 515520 UNINCORPORATED AREAS PRELIMINARY 9/18/2020 REVISED: TBD FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 51013CV000B Version Number 2.6.4.6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 1 Page SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The National Flood Insurance Program 1 1.2 Purpose of this Flood Insurance Study Report 2 1.3 Jurisdictions Included in the Flood Insurance Study Project 2 1.4 Considerations for using this Flood Insurance Study Report 2 SECTION 2.0 – FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS 13 2.1 Floodplain Boundaries 13 2.2 Floodways 17 2.3 Base Flood Elevations 18 2.4 Non-Encroachment Zones 19 2.5 Coastal Flood Hazard Areas 19 2.5.1 Water Elevations and the Effects of Waves 19 2.5.2 Floodplain Boundaries and BFEs for Coastal Areas 21 2.5.3 Coastal High Hazard Areas 21 2.5.4 Limit of Moderate Wave Action 22 SECTION 3.0 – INSURANCE APPLICATIONS 22 3.1 National Flood Insurance Program Insurance Zones 22 SECTION 4.0 – AREA STUDIED 22 4.1 Basin Description 22 4.2 Principal Flood Problems 23 4.3 Non-Levee Flood Protection Measures 24 4.4 Levees 24 SECTION 5.0 – ENGINEERING METHODS 27 5.1 Hydrologic Analyses 27 5.2 Hydraulic Analyses 32 5.3 Coastal Analyses 37 5.3.1 Total Stillwater Elevations 38 5.3.2 Waves 38 5.3.3 Coastal Erosion 38 5.3.4 Wave Hazard Analyses 38 5.4 Alluvial Fan Analyses 39 SECTION 6.0 – MAPPING METHODS 39 6.1 Vertical and Horizontal Control 39 6.2 Base Map 40 6.3 Floodplain and Floodway Delineation 41 6.4 Coastal Flood Hazard Mapping 51 6.5 FIRM
    [Show full text]
  • Discover the Potomac Gorge
    Discover the Potomac Gorge: A National Treasure n the outskirts of Washington, D.C., O the Potomac River passes through a landscape of surprising beauty and ecological significance. Here, over many millennia, an unusual combination of natural forces has produced a unique corridor known as the Potomac Gorge. This 15-mile river stretch is one of the country’s most biologically diverse areas, home to more than 1,400 plant species. Scientists have identified at least 30 distinct natural vegetation communities, several of which are globally rare and imperiled. The Gorge also supports a rich array of animal life, from rare invertebrates to the bald eagle and fish like the American shad. g g n n In total, the Potomac Gorge provides habitat to i i m m e e l l F F more than 200 rare plant species and natural . P P y y r r communities, making it one of the most important a a G G © © natural areas in the eastern United States. The heart of the Potomac Gorge is also known as Mather Gorge, named This riverside prairie at Great Falls, Virginia, results from periodic river flooding, after Stephen T. Mather, first director of the National Park Service. a natural disturbance that creates and sustains rare habitats. g g g n n n i i i e n m m m e r y e e e l l l a e l F F F P C . y e P P P e L y y y v f r r r r f a a a a e G G H G J © © © © © Flowering dogwood, a native forest understory species in our Specially adapted to withstand river The Potomac Gorge is home to Clinging precariously to the cliff’s edge, Brightly colored in its immature form, a reptile known as the region, is being decimated by an introduced fungal disease.
    [Show full text]
  • 46 Pola Negri in 1927
    Courtesy LofC, Prints & Photo Div, LC-DIG-ggbain-37938 Pola Negri in 1927 46 ARLINGTON HISTORICAL MAGAZINE Pola Negri Slept Here? Unraveling the Mystery of a Screen Siren's Stay in Arlington BY JENNIFER SALE CRANE With Arlington having few Hollywood connections to boast of, save For­ rest Tucker, Warren Beatty, Shirley MacLaine, and Sandra Bullock, the story about a modest stone bungalow nestled in the Gulf Branch stream valley off of Military Road is curious indeed. According to a long-held local legend, silent film star Pola Negri once stayed there. Local accounts have varied- some say the house was rented by Negri as her "Virginia hideaway," others think it was built as Negri and Rudolph Valen­ tino's love nest, and played host to Hollywood-style pool parties. The cozy bungalow at 3608 N. Military Road, 1 with quite a few additions and alterations, is now home to the Gulf Branch Nature Center, established in 1966 and operated by Arlington County Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources. The swimming pool, filled in and planted with a garden, can still be identified by the exposed segments of its curved concrete walls. The Nature Center's connection to the early Hollywood star was investi­ gated in the 1970s by ComeliaB. Rose, Jr., a founding member of the Arlington Historical Society. Rose's documentation leaves a few questions unanswered. But despite the lack of unequivocal primary source evidence, the story of Pola egri and the Gulf Branch Nature Center has become an important part of the oral tradition of Arlington County.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 5-4B: List of Virginia Non-Shellfish NPS TMDL Implementation Planning Projects Through 2019
    Table 5-4b: List of Virginia Non-Shellfish NPS TMDL Implementation Planning Projects through 2019 EPA Hydrologic Impairment TMDL IP NAME Approval Impaired Water Unit Cause Year Basin: Atlantic Ocean Coastal Mill Creek, Northampton County NS Mill Creek AO21 Dissolved Oxygen, Mill Creek, Northampton County NS Mill Creek AO21 pH Basin: Albemarle Sound Coastal North Landing Watershed (including Milldam, Middle, West NS West Neck Creek - Middle AS14 Bacteria Neck and Nanney Creeks) North Landing Watershed (including Milldam, Middle, West NS Milldam Creek - Lower AS17 Bacteria Neck and Nanney Creeks) Basin: Big Sandy River Knox Creek and Pawpaw Creek 2013 Knox Creek BS04 Bacteria, 2013 Knox Creek BS04 Sediment 2013 Guess Fork BS05 Bacteria, 2013 Guess Fork BS05 Sediment 2013 Pawpaw Creek BS06 Bacteria, 2013 Pawpaw Creek BS06 Sediment 2013 Knox Creek BS07 Bacteria, 2013 Knox Creek BS07 Sediment Basin: Chesapeake Bay-Small Coastal Piankatank River, Gwynns Island, Milford Haven 2014 Carvers Creek CB10 Bacteria Basin: Chowan River Chowan River Watershed Submitted Nottoway River CU01 Bacteria Submitted Big Hounds Creek CU03 Bacteria Submitted Nottoway River CU04 Bacteria Submitted Carys Creek CU05 Bacteria Submitted Lazaretto Creek CU05 Bacteria Submitted Mallorys Creek CU05 Bacteria Submitted Little Nottoway River CU06 Bacteria Submitted Whetstone Creek CU06 Bacteria Submitted Little Nottoway River CU07 Bacteria Submitted Beaver Pond Creek CU11 Bacteria Submitted Raccoon Creek CU35 Bacteria Three Creek, Mill Swamp, Darden Mill Run 2014 Maclins
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds Within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
    Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Appendix Table I. Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay watershed that have a priority score ≥ 0.79. HUC 12 Priority HUC 12 Code HUC 12 Name Score Classification 020501060202 Millstone Creek-Schrader Creek 0.86 Intact 020501061302 Upper Bowman Creek 0.87 Intact 020501070401 Little Nescopeck Creek-Nescopeck Creek 0.83 Intact 020501070501 Headwaters Huntington Creek 0.97 Intact 020501070502 Kitchen Creek 0.92 Intact 020501070701 East Branch Fishing Creek 0.86 Intact 020501070702 West Branch Fishing Creek 0.98 Intact 020502010504 Cold Stream 0.89 Intact 020502010505 Sixmile Run 0.94 Reduced 020502010602 Gifford Run-Mosquito Creek 0.88 Reduced 020502010702 Trout Run 0.88 Intact 020502010704 Deer Creek 0.87 Reduced 020502010710 Sterling Run 0.91 Reduced 020502010711 Birch Island Run 1.24 Intact 020502010712 Lower Three Runs-West Branch Susquehanna River 0.99 Intact 020502020102 Sinnemahoning Portage Creek-Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.03 Intact 020502020203 North Creek 1.06 Reduced 020502020204 West Creek 1.19 Intact 020502020205 Hunts Run 0.99 Intact 020502020206 Sterling Run 1.15 Reduced 020502020301 Upper Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.07 Intact 020502020302 Kersey Run 0.84 Intact 020502020303 Laurel Run 0.93 Reduced 020502020306 Spring Run 1.13 Intact 020502020310 Hicks Run 0.94 Reduced 020502020311 Mix Run 1.19 Intact 020502020312 Lower Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.13 Intact 020502020403 Upper First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek 0.96
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resources Management Plan Background…
    ARLINGTON COUNTY NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE INVENTORY AND NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN BACKGROUND… PUBLIC SPACES MASTER PLAN (2005) “CREATE A NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY AND TO DEVELOP A MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION” • Bring together various plans & practices to protect the County’s natural resources. • Develop a classification system of the various types of natural resources. • Define lines of authority & responsibilities among various agencies. • Create an additional GIS Layer to identify significant natural resources. NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE INVENTORY: LAYING THE GROUNDWORK…2005-2008 ARLINGTON’S FIRST COMPREHENSIVE NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY…. Partnership development… PROJECT ELEMENTS: WATER RESOURCES GEOLOGY NATIVE FLORA TREE RESOURCES INVASIVE PLANTS URBAN WILDLIFE GIS WATER RESOURCES… SPRINGS AND SEEPS STREAM MAPPING WETLANDS CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS GEOLOGICAL FEATURES… SCENIC WATERFALLS OUTCROPS HIGH VALUE EXPOSURES HISTORIC QUARRIES NATIVE FLORA… LOCALLY-RARE PLANTS NATIVE FLORA STATE-RARE PLANTS SPECIMEN PREPARATION NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES & TREE RESOURCES… CHAMPION TREES SIGNIFICANT TREES FOREST TYPES PLANT COMMUNITIES INVASIVE PLANTS… 500 acres of parkland mapped… GOOSEBERRY FIVE-LEAVED AKEBIA ENGLISH IVY “Invasive plants represent the greatest current threat to the natural succession of local native forests in Arlington County” URBAN WILDLIFE: LEPIDOPTERA AVIFAUNA AMPHIBIANS ODONATA REPTILES MAMMALS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) … Mapping Examples: Native Plant Communities Donaldson Run Park
    [Show full text]
  • Mills and Mill Sites in Fairfax County, Virginia and Washington, Dc
    Grist Mills of Fairfax County and Washington, DC MILLS AND MILL SITES IN FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA AND WASHINGTON, DC Marjorie Lundegard Friends of Colvin Run Mill August 10, 2009 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Most of the research for this catalogue of mills of Fairfax County was obtained from the owners, staff members, or neighbors of these mills. I want to thank all these persons who helped in the assembling of the history of these mills. Resource information was also acquired from: the library at the National Park at Great Falls, Virginia; the book, COLVIN RUN MILL, by Ross D. Nether ton; brochures from the Fairfax County Park Authority; and from the staff and Friends of Peirce Mill in the District of Columbia. Significant information on the mill sites in Fairfax County was obtained from the Historic American Building Survey (HABS/HAER) reports that were made in 1936 and are available from the Library of Congress. I want to give special thanks to my husband, Robert Lundegard, who encouraged me to complete this survey. He also did the word processing to assemble the reports and pictures in book form. He designed the attractive cover page and many other features of the book. It is hoped that you will receive as much enjoyment from the reading of the booklet as I had in preparing it for publication. 0 Grist Mills of Fairfax County and Washington, DC Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................................................... 0 GRIST MILLS of FAIRFAX COUNTY and WASHINGTON, DC .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Status of Water Quality in the Rivers and Tributaries of the Shenandoah River Watershed
    The Status of Water Quality in the Rivers and Tributaries of the Shenandoah River Watershed Final Report (Third Edition) August, 2007 A paper prepared by Charles Vandervoort of the Friends of the Shenandoah River with the cooperation of the Volunteer Monitors of the Shenandoah River Watershed. Table of Contents Foreword .............................................................................................................................................................................................v Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................................................................vii Acknowledgments..............................................................................................................................................................................xi Chapter 1: Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................................1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................................................1 Background..................................................................................................................................................................................1 Methodology ...............................................................................................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • CHAIN BRIDGE a HISTORY of the BRIDGE and ITS SURROUNDING TERRITORY 1608 -1991 by Jim Pearson
    CHAIN BRIDGE A HISTORY OF THE BRIDGE AND ITS SURROUNDING TERRITORY 1608 -1991 By Jim Pearson Most modern day Arlington commuters who use Chain Bridge in their daily trek to and from the District would be astonished to learn how prominent the area at Pimmit Run at the Virginia end of the bridge was in the early days of our fledgling country. At the mouth of the Pimmit was an early river crossing; two Indian trails from the interior country met at this spot and it is believed there was an Indian settlement and fishing ground here. 1 This spot, the first break in the palisades below Little Falls supported among other endeavors: Indian gatherings, taverns, ferries, a tobacco warehouse, the first industrial park in Northern Virginia, an extensive stone quarry operation, a Civil War outpost in the defense of the City, a sleepy crossroads settlement that came alive each spring during the herring and shad runs, and finally a high volume traffic artery to the City. It is also the site of a proposed town that failed to materialize. The area on the Virginia side of the river at Chain Bridge is rich in history, its past now noted only by a small roadside historical marker. The area was explored as early as 1608 "as high as the Falls" by Captain John Smith. An Indian settlement was believed to be at Pimmit Run with two trails that correspond approximately to the Fairfax Road (Route 123) and the other following Pimmit Run turning south and joining what is the present day Glebe Road at Walker Chapel.
    [Show full text]