ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER TWO: A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
CHAPTER THREE: THE PEOPLE OF THE BLUE RIDGE
CHAPTER FOUR: THE GROUNDHOG MOUNTAIN INCIDENT
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS
ENDNOTES
SOURCES
PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION INDEX

This report was funded independently by a grant from the Institute for Human Rights Research located in San Antonio, Texas. All opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the author. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those who assisted me in the preparation of this study, namely the staffs of various Congressional, State, and local offices as well as officials from the National Park Service. Most of all, however, this study could not have been possible without the generous cooperation of the kind people of the Blue Ridge mountains. I have received so much more from them than I shall ever be able to return.

This is a report about people; people who live near or along the Blue Ridge Parkway National Park. The General Accounting Office, in a December 1979 report, stated that, in general, the Federal efforts to acquire lands for such areas as national parks should be reassessed to include alternatives to the most common method of acquisition, direct fee purchase. The GAO also recommended that each individual park or area carefully study the impact of its acquisition policy on the local landowners, or inholders. This study attempts to discover same of that impact with specific reference to the Blue Ridge Parkway. The GAO report also devoted a few pages to the Parkway, but, obviously, due to its effort to cover a great many parks and recreational areas, could not investigate aspects of life along this scenic motorway. It is interesting to note that the GAO field researchers for the section on the Blue Ridge Parkway did not talk to any inholders. This study attempts to fill that void and, in a sense, might be considered as a supplement to the GAO report.

A few comments are necessary regarding terms and sources. In this report the term "inholder" will be used in the broad sense (not in the more narrow definition of the National Park Service), that is, a property owner whose land adjoins, or is significantly affected by government park land. Most of the field research conducted in this report was confined to the Southwestern Virginia counties of Carroll and Patrick although a few inholders in other counties were interviewed. In the section on Sources a few people listed will not appear in specific endnotes following each chapter. The knowledge gained from such sources was of a general nature.

To reiterate; this report will focus on people; not parcels of land and land law, not trees and rivers, not mountains and trails, but people and how they have been affected by the land acquisition policies of the National Park Service and, perhaps more importantly, their perceptions and feelings as to how land acquisition has affected their cultural heritage, their future, and their quality of life on their land.1

The scenic motorway which come to be known as the Blue Ridge Parkway was a product of the Public Works Administration, a large component of the New Deal's efforts to provide jobs to the needy unemployed of the Great Depression by the construction of large public works projects. In one sense, then, the Blue Ridge Parkway was a "make-work" project designed to employ a projected 10,000 construction workers for at least two years.1

In another sense, the demand for a paved motorway and better access through the Blue Ridge Mountains as well as for preservation of the area for scenic enjoyment of tourists had been around for decades. The Blue Ridge Mountain area was, in many ways, the "last frontier" in the continental United States. There was virtually no electricity in the area until after World War II. Most of the people of the Blue Ridge in the 1930's had rarely seen a telephone or a radio. In addition to road conditions, sanitary and educational facilities were abysmal. In the face of such poverty, what made the Blue Ridge Mountains the "last frontier" was the people not the land; a people fiercely proud and independent; a people so isolated that the appearance of the land acquisition officers prior to the construction of the Blue Ridge Parkway was the first governmental contact for most of the descendants of the Scotch-Irish settlers who first came to the region in the 17th and 18th centuries. Their mountain heritage had been maintained literally untouched by the modernization which had swept through the rest of the nation.2

One of the best descriptions of the people of the Blue Ridge comes from Richard C. Davids' excellent history, The Man Who Moved A Mountain:

A young man and his woman could start life with little more than a skillet and a hoe. They would go up to the mountain where the trees were so big there was no underbrush and where folks said you couldn't hear a cowbell for the birds a-singin'. Together the young couple would settle in a fern-shadowed hollow where water was close by, deaden the trees by cutting off a ring of bark, then hoe dawn kernels of corn between. No need to plow the soil, it was that loose and mellow. After harvest they had the corn ground at the flutter mill, and in the embers of the fireplace they baked it into johnny ashcake 3

Of special interest to this report is how the land was acquired for the Blue Ridge Parkway, particularly within the state of Virginia. The Parkway was to be a joint cooperative effort between the Federal government and each-affected state with the former funding 90% of the project. Land acquisition, however, was left primarily to the states. Virginia used the methods of simple fee acquisition, condemnation, and the less-than-fee acquisition process known as scenic easements, a term which will be discussed in greater detail later. More important for the moment was the fact that, in their haste to acquire land for the Parkway, the Virginia state land acquisition officers made a false promise to the people of the Blue Ridge Mountains. "They promised that they would get us out of the mud," was how one local official described it. Since the new motorway was to be the first lengthy paved road in the area, many residents willingly sold their land with the assurance that the Parkway would be a farm-to-market access road for local commercial and agricultural uses as well as for the primary recreational use. All of these promises made by the land officials were verbal. A written document would not have been highly regarded to the largely unlettered mountain people, but a man's word counted for something. During the first year of the Parkway's operation farmers were able to drive their trucks freely along the new highway to market. During the second year a special permit was required. By the fourth year all commercial traffic was prohibited from the Blue Ridge Parkway. The newly improved road promised the farmers and citizens of the mountains had been a very short-lived benefit, indeed. There is little documentation on the "farm-to-market" promise about the Parkway made during the land acquisition process in the mid-1930's. All that one has are the statements of people who were there at the time. This apparent deceit by several Virginia officials not only weakened the anticipated economic revival, but it had a profound socio-psychological effect on the communities of the mountains. It sowed a deep seed of mistrust of government into a people who initially welcomed the Parkway; a mistrust which soon was transferred to the National Park Service.5

By a 1936 Act of Congress the administration and maintenance of the Blue Ridge Parkway was turned over to the National Park Service within the Department of Interior. This signified no immediate change in top personnel since the Public Works Administrator, Harold L. Ickes, was also the Interior Secretary. The next few years saw the states of Virginia and North Carolina acquire additional thousands of acres of land necessary for the approximate 200 foot-wide swath of highway under construction. The states then deeded over their lands to the Federal government. Many private and public road accesses were granted until July, 1938 when Secretary Ickes ordered the Governors of the respective states not to allow any further accesses to be built to the Parkway. The great majority of today's private road crossings on the Parkway were established and reserved for the local population prior to that order. 6

The Blue Ridge Parkway was an oddity within the National Park Service. Its elongated path allowed for few National Park camping facilities although Virginia and North Carolina established several state parks near the Parkway. Even more unusual was the fact that Congress never truly defined the boundary for the Parkway. Boundaries were to be adjusted by the Park Service when deemed appropriate. Compared to other National Park areas with Congressionally-defined or legislative boundaries, the Blue Ridge Parkway with its administrative boundaries gave great power to the Park Superintendent and Interior Secretary for the acquisition of additional lands.

In the early 1960's Park Service officials perceived the threat of development along the Parkway. Therefore, to accommodate this end, a 1961 Act of Congress was passed granting the Interior Department the following authority:

... in order to consolidate ... the land forming each such parkway, to adjust ownership lines, and to eliminate hazardous crossings of and accesses to these parkways, the Secretary... is authorized to acquire, by purchase or exchange, land and interests in land contiguous to the parkways.

It was not until after passage of the 1965 Land and Water Conservation Act that land acquisition along the Blue Ridge Parkway accelerated at a greater rate than at any time since the mid-1930's. This Act derived monies from off-shore oil leases and other tax sources for the purchase of land by the National Park Service, the National Forest Service, and the National Fish and Wildlife Service and has proven to be an enormous booty of funds for Park land expansion. The Federal government has the authorization to acquire land until 1990 with $4 billion from the LUC Fund. Beginning in the late 1960's and throughout the 1970's the Blue Ridge Parkway shared in this windfall of available funds specifically earmarked for new lands. with such a plethora of money, the primary method of land acquisition along the Parkway in the 1970's was fee simple or the direct purchase of title by the government, putatively on a "willing seller" basis. one method of acquiring land not used in the decade was easements which had constituted a large part of acquisition in the 1930's by the state of Virginia lover approximately 1,200 acres of Parkway). An easement is essentially a contract between a landowner and the government in which the landowner agrees to certain restrictions on his or her property such as not cutting down a tree without permission of the Park Service. For this specified control over part of the land in order to maintain the Park's esthetic mandate, the governmental agency "buys" the easement from the landowner and the landowner retains title to the land. Easements can be scenic, developmental, conservation-type, or other forms, but they all hold the similar thread of being much less costly to the government and negotiable on an individual basis with property owner and government sitting down as equals in a construction of contract law. Easements are merely one form of less-than-fee (a term preferred by the Park Service) land acquisition which includes such other options as cooperative management, leasing, and appropriate zoning laws. Obviously, land can also be procured by the ultimate government power of eminent domain in the form of straight condemnations and Declarations of Taking which have been used very rarely along the Blue Ridge Parkway during the last two decades.8

During the last two years the National Park Service has been attempting to redefine its land acquisition policy. As a part of the NPS's revised policy presented in April of 1979, each park was directed to prepare an individual land acquisition plan which would identify the exact desired parcels of land and the methods of procurement. Accordingly, in March of 1980 Blue Ridge Parkway authorities presented a Draft Land Acquisition Plan. Previously, there had been a draft "Master Plan" begun in 1968, completed in 1971, but not released to the public until 1976. This first draft of 1980 negated the earlier "Master Plan." In fact, as of the very writing of this report, a second Draft Land Acquisition Plan has been prepared by the Parkway office and should be made public at approximately the same time as this report is completed. It is the first 1980 Draft Land Acquisition Plan, however, that is of greater concern to this report as it was that plan which concerned the people along the Parkway during the field research of this study. 9

A sampling of the opinions of the inholders and other affected people of the Blue Ridge Parkway will be presented in the next chapter, but it is appropriate at this time to present the general issues of this report. most of the inholders interviewed by the Parkway expressed deep anxiety about their future, the future of their farms and homes, their children's future on the land, and the future of their cultural heritage. A special purpose of this researcher was to attempt to capture the "feelings'' of the people along the Parkway. As is often the case, the "perceived" reality of people is frequently more significant to the quality of life than the "actual'' reality. How these inholders regarded the Park Service and what they believed its impact on their communities were major questions for this study.

This chapter will be the longest in this report and probably the most important since it is a catalogue of people living in the Blue Ridge Mountains. These brief profiles, or case studies, hopefully will illuminate the human aspect of the land acquisition controversies surrounding the Parkway. Despite the variety of opinions presented, the reader should look for threads of consistency. Many comments may seem minor at first reading, but taken together as part of the entire portrait of life along the Blue Ridge Parkway they, hopefully, form an interesting and valuable human document.

Haskell Meredith has owned his farm off the Parkway for 42 years having inherited the property (Photo 12) from his father when he was in his twenties. Two of Haskell and Odessa's sons and their families have built homes on the property just across Virginia state road 685 from their parents. Meredith would like to be able to pass along his land to his sons as his father had done for him, but he is not assured of that future. At about the time the first Draft Land Acquisition Plan was released in early 1980 a couple of Park rangers came to the Merediths and explained that five acres of their farmland was a "target" area (a term which, understandably, causes considerable distress among the inholders). It was further explained that the land was needed (by fee acquisition) for a probable underpass sometime in the future to connect up with road 685. The part of 685 which came directly off the Parkway as an entrance to the Meredith farm would be closed at that connection. What the Parkway failed to realize about this acquisition, as Meredith explained, was that the proposed path of the underpass Photo 13) was to run along the current route of the creek on his farm (Photo 14). Without that creek the 28 head of cattle owned by Haskell Meredith would have no place to drink, and without his cattle, this proud man and his family would have no livelihood. Meredith felt he was in a hopeless situation. Fortunately, however, it seems that this story may have a happier ending! The new second Draft Acquisition Plan for the Parkway has deleted the five acres of Haskell and Odessa as a "targeted" area. This cannot assuage, though, the months of uncertainty the Merediths endured about the future of their land. 1

Elwood Amburn is 64 years old and has been on his land adjoining the Parkway all of his life (Photo 16). The land has been in his family for several generations, Amburn's grandfather having left the land briefly to fight in the Civil War. Saying that they have been "badgered a lot" by the Park Service, Flora Amburn described various unpleasant encounters with rangers. once they were told to remove their dairy farm milk cans from their driveway because they were called an "eyesore.'' Even more infuriating was the time in 1979 when they were in the funeral procession of a former friend, Mrs. Rector, who had lived nearby. The short procession of automobiles was halted while attempting to get onto the Parkway to proceed to the nearby cemetery. After a prolonged discussion with the rangers, the procession was forced to travel along a dirt road which approximately paralleled the Parkway. The Amburns also complained that whenever a ranger became the least bit friendly or sympathetic to the plight of inholders, he was transferred. Elwood Amburn was truly amazed at the fact that the Park Service wants several acres of his land in order to build a Los Angeles type cloverleaf and overpass in front of his property (Photo 17). In the fall of 1979, during one of the frequent thick fogs, there was a minor auto accident which was part of the reason the rangers gave to Amburn for the proposed construction. They also told the dairy farmer that this was part of the Parkway's planning for fifty years into the future and the anticipated traffic which would follow. Unlike Haskell Meredith, Elwood Amburn was very confident in his struggle against the Park Service to retain his land. He said, "We're gonna beat 'em," and explained this due to his belief that the land acquisition of the NPS will prove too costly for cloverleaves and underpasses even though he feels that the Park Service has devalued his land. 2

The daughter of Lewis Woltz Edwards, Sue Hill said that her mistrust of the Park Service is so great that she feels, "just living on the Parkway is a threat". Her father would like to give his 26 acres of land to Sue and her husband and move into the Carroll county seat of Hillsville because he is no longer able to work the land. Because the land is next to a "targeted" area, though, there is uncertainty about what the family should do. Calling the land her "birthright", Hill stated that her suspicions about the lack of good faith of the Park Service were sparked by the Groundhog Mountain incident which will be discussed in the next chapter. 3

Like many inholders of the area the family of the widow Mabry goes back for generations into the Blue Ridge Mountains. A sacred part of the life of Lillie Mabry nowadays is to visit her late husband's gravesite at the family cemetery, hidden 20 or 30 yards from the Parkway. This is the Dickens family cemetery (Photo 18). In 1972 the Park Service informed her that they intended to close the short direct access road from the Parkway to the cemetery and said that they would construct a back access dirt road which would add about two miles in distance for a trek from Parkway to cemetery. Then the elderly Mabry asked Park officials who would maintain such a road they told her that it would be her responsibility since the cemetery was a private one. Since that time Parkway officials appear to be retreating from that specific position as it seems the second Draft plan calls for NPS maintenance of private as well as public cemeteries and their access roads. For much of the past decade, though, Lillie Mabry wondered despairingly whether she would be able to visit her family plot when she wished. 4

Adjoining the cemetery Lillie Mabry visited is the 1/4 acre lot of Bernard's son, Randy Joe, who currently resides in Jacksonville, Florida. The senior Alderman has been building a small home for his son, but the efforts by the Park Service to close the cemetery access road also would mean that the same access road to his sons property would change from a few yards off the Parkway to a lengthy, hilly dirt road. No rangers had explained anything to Alderman about what was intended for the road to his son's lot. All that Alderman had heard was what had happened to Lillie Mabry. The Park Service had convinced a small landowner nearby Alderman to sell (Photo 19). He had already built the foundation for a small house, but, with such an uncertain future, he had no idea how to proceed. 5

Coming from one of the oldest families on the Blue Ridge, George Semones has had a wealth of experience with the Park Service. About 12 years ago he voluntarily gave up his access road to the Parkway out of respect for the wishes of the NPS, but has since regretted that decision. Like some inholders, Semones leases part of his land from the government nearest the Parkway. In 1978, while cutting timber on his leased land in order to build a fence, he was accosted by a ranger on his property who told him that chopping wood on government land was illegal. After Semones informed the ranger that his lease for the few acreage had no stipulation regarding the clearing of land, the ranger disagreed violently and threatened to take the soft-spoken retired minister to jail immediately. Later, when the ranger learned that he was totally misinformed about the lease, he apologized for his actions, but the incident nevertheless has had a profound impact on his family and neighbors. Rev. Semones is convinced that the local property owners are fully capable of good home and land care, but that the Parkway officials refuse to acknowledge that possibility. He said that no one knows the local watershed and erosion problems better than the indigenous population. As proof of Park Service lack of land use skill, he cited the inaccurate government code regarding the quantity of fertilizer required for land leased from the NPS. The code specified 200 pounds per acre, but Semones stated that nothing would grow with that little of an amount adding that local land required 300 to 400 pounds of fertilizer per acre. The Reverend had only one acre under active farming, but he was very proud of the fact that it yielded 300 bushels of corn. George Semones recently signed a letter of Agreement, or, more accurately, an Agricultural Lease Permit which has became a fairly new arrangement between the Parkway and those inholders who have leased some of their frontage land from the NPS. A Letter of Agreement is a contract whereby the Park Service drops its yearly nominal fee for leasing in return for turning over the maintenance of the land to the inholder. Depending on the individual contract, the inholder would agree to such conditions as mowing the grass, harvesting the hay, and allowing periodic soil analyses. These arrangements have signified a new spirit of cooperation between the Parkway and the inholders, and Rev. Semones felt that they were a good sign, but this peaceful man was still fearful of a violent incident in the future because he is convinced that the Park Service will not retreat from its aggressive land acquisition policy until it confronts an equally determined opponent, namely the local inholders. 6

Ray is a son of George Semones and owns an auto repair shop near the Parkway. Technically, Ray and Margaret Semones are not inholders since their property does not adjoin Parkway land, but their contact with the Parkway rangers has been anything but indirect. In the spring of 1978 Semones put a 1-1/2 by 15 foot sign above his auto shop which had been a commercial property on that site for over 50 years. Shortly thereafter, two rangers told Semones that he would have to remove his sign because it was illegal. He asked the rangers for more specific details on such a law. He was given a legal citation which he discovered, after some investigation, was a state statute, not Federal, and totally inapplicable to his situation. Ray Semones then wrote a letter to his Congressman, William C. Wampler. Following that, some of the rangers returned to Ray's shop to apologize for their harassment. One of the original rangers, however, also came by later and interrupted Semones' work to loudly ask by what right he had to write his Congressman and cause the ranger trouble. Since that incident Semones has felt that the rangers have kept a close eye on his shop and activities. In the spring of 1980 Ray received a call from a stranded motorist. He informed the tourist with the disabled vehicle that he would first have to call a ranger and ask permission to drive his tow truck onto the Parkway since commercial driving had been banned from the Parkway since the late 1930's. Semones called a ranger and received authorization to assist the stranded tourist. While driving his tow truck on the Parkway, however, two different rangers pulled him over and told him that he would have to be ticketed for being on the Parkway. Neither ranger believed Ray until after heated and prolonged discussion and the verification of the original call. Ray and Margaret Semones are getting very tired of Park ranger harassment. They said they have reached the point where they feel like selling their land and leaving the area. Perpetual petty interference in the details of their lives is given as a major reason for their depression. Margaret Semones said she used to consider herself "pro-ecology" when she originally moved into the Blue Ridge Mountains from Florida. After years, though of watching tourists defile the land with beer cans tossed from their passing cars only to have Parkway rangers continually "hassle" their daily living, as if inholders were assumed to be the greater threat to the environment, her former notions of ecological protection have been shattered. 7

Like many of the youth living in the Mountains, Olen Dalton, Pam Painter, Delila Brady, and Rosie Vass enjoy horseback riding, but they complained that the National Park Service makes it extremely difficult to pursue this recreational activity. They stated that it seemed both unfair and inconsistent for the Park Service to allow bicycles to travel along the pavement of the Parkway while horses are not permitted even to go along the grassy shoulders bordering each side of the road. They understood the rangers' concern that horses occasionally act skittish near auto traffic, but the four were discouraged by this limitation on one of the more delightful aspects of living in the Blue Ridge. Even more troubling to them, was the threat by the rangers that if they were caught riding alongside the Parkway a second time (after receiving a ticket for the first offense) their horses would be taken away from them. During past winters they had often helped pull cars out of the snow on the Parkway, but then ordered to cease whenever they were seen by rangers. Once Olen Dalton was driving his horse in a trailer along the Parkway when he was stopped by a ranger. The ranger informed him that if he were taking the horse to an auction, he would be given a ticket; however, if he were taking the horse along the Parkway in order to get off at some point and go on a trail ride, there would be no penalty. In other words, if the eventual purpose of a vehicle on the Parkway, no matter what the cargo, was recreational, there was no "hassle." On the other hand, if the intent of the driver was some eventual commercial purpose, that would be illegal. Certainly the horseback riding of the quartet described here is recreational and it adds a charming pastoral ambience to the vista of the Blue Ridge Parkway as proven by the fact that many tourists driving along have stopped and asked if they might photograph them. These young people on horses have always obliged the tourists. 8

Eighteen year-old David Puckett is also a young person who lives in the shadow of the Parkway. As part of one of the more famous families in the Blue Ridge, David has totally lost faith in the ability of the National Park Service to manage the land and preserve the mountain culture of the Blue Ridge. He and his brother are the last two remaining heirs of Orlena Puckett, the famed legendary midwife of the Mountains, whom the Parkway has immortalized by the preservation of Puckett's Cabin (Photo 8), a popular tourist sight. Puckett is annoyed by the fact that, in spite of the proclaimed intent of the NPS to preserve the local culture, the Parkway made several sloppy errors in establishing Puckett's Cabin as an official tourist sight. For one thing, David said that the "cabin" was not really the actual cabin used by his famous relative, but the smokehouse. Also the Parkway sign describing the cabin and Orlena Puckett spelled her name "Orlean" and states that she lived to the age of 102. About one hundred yards across the Parkway from Puckett's Cabin is the grave of the midwife which clearly spelled her name "Orlena" and indicated that she died at the age of 100 (Photo 6). More trouble some for the present for Puckett is what he called the Park Service harassment which threatens his future on the land which has been in his family for generations. In their effort to close virtually all private access roads leading to the Parkway, Park Service officials suggested to Puckett that he substitute his present access road for a formerly-maintained state road (Photo 7) which would not only force an additional 1-1/2 miles of travel (from the present few hundred yards), but the suggested road is so rough that it is suitable only for four-wheel drive vehicles and virtually impassible in winter. According to Puckett, loss of the current road would also prevent necessary bus access to a Christian retreat located just beyond his land. David Puckett stated that he has become so discouraged that he can no longer believe anything the NPS says. 9

The family of the widow Lois Harris was in the Blue Ridge as early as the 1700's. Around 1940 she purchased some land near Meadows of Dan from her mother-in-law and planted white pine seedlings. She did not live on the land, but rather used it as an investment. Now the pines are ready for harvest, but the Park Service wants to close her access road which would prevent her from realizing her investment. Even though she cannot recall an accident at the point where her road touches the Parkway, the rationale always given to her is that of prevention of auto accidents. Harris said the Parkway officials have been much more conciliatory the last couple of years, but that it has been distressing to her that rangers always emphasize that "we have the right to take it". She summed up the problem between the NPS and inholders by saying, "The Park Service seems to think that tourists would be offended by a farmer crossing the Blue Ridge Parkway with a load of hay." 10

The 86 year-old Barnard once owned land adjoining the Parkway, but the retired land surveyor sold it around 1950. Occasionally, he had worked on contract for the Park Service and his long experience in the area has convinced him that many of the people listed as "willing" sellers were harassed by Parkway rangers and officials into selling their land to the NPS. On another topic, he said many inholders get around the ban on commercial traffic by putting crops, fertilizer, and seeds in the trunks of their cars. Once, however, after returning from planting some grass, he had left his trunk lid open, making the nearly empty grass seed bag visible to whomever was behind his car. Alvin Barnard was stopped by a ranger and given a warning ticket for this "commercial" activity.11

Terry has lived and farmed on the Blue Ridge all of his 63 years. His opinion on the last two years of Parkway living is typical of a number of older inholders; namely, that the last two years have been the best ever as far as relations between the Park Service and the local people. He said that ranger harassment seems to have declined significantly although there still may be some problems. His belief that the current Superintendent of the Blue Ridge Parkway, Gary Everhardt, is a definite improvement over his predecessors is a belief shared by many others such as his friend and neighbor, Cornelius Stanley, a 77 year-old retired accountant who has lived near the Parkway for the last 14 years. Despite the apparent signs of better relations such as the recent Agricultural Lease Permits, or Letters of Agreement, both men agreed that NPS efforts to close so many access roads made no sense since there was no history of accidents at those points. They said that the Letters of Agreement prove that the NPS has neither the time, personnel, nor inclination to keep the land in as good a condition as the inholders. Stanley called recent Park Service efforts to close the access roads and eradicate the vestiges of inholdings from the sight of touring motorists on the Parkway as trying to create "a green tunnel." 12

This study does not want to suggest that the totality of all inholder comments encountered along the Parkway was a list of complaints. There have been many willing sellers of land who have stated that they never sensed any harassment or pressure from the National Park Service to sell their land. Carl Hewitt was one such willing seller. The Park Service expressed interest in his 77 acres in the vicinity of Waynesboro, in Augusta county, Virginia, near the northern entrance to the Parkway. As a part of the negotiation, Hewitt was given a life estate which meant that, even though the government had purchased his land, he was allowed to spend the rest of his life on his land with the stipulation that there would be no incompatible development. Life estates are not uncommon addenda to fee acquisitions by the NPS, particularly when the inholder is elderly. Carl Hewitt said that, at no time, did he feel harassed by the Park Service.

More complicated was the case of H.O. Woltz, Jr. Five years ago, with the land appraised at a fairly high value, his father had agreed to sell his land to the Park Service, but as the negotiations proceeded, the NPS withdrew its interest. Then about 1-1/2 years ago, after a new appraisal had devalued the land somewhat, the NPS offer to buy was rejected by the younger Woltz. Convinced he could obtain a better price elsewhere, the junior Woltz put much of his land up for auction. After 611 bids had been entered, Woltz rejected them all as being too low. He then considered going back to the NPS to sell his land, but, after working very diligently through other private negotiations, has managed to sell 46 acres of his land. Woltz said that his negotiations with the Park Service had been nothing except amicable and professional. He thought that the reason the value of his land had declined in recent years was due to the economic collapse of the Groundhog Mountain development. The "resort bubble has burst," was how he explained his decline in land value.

Though not a willing seller, Judge Foy Clark of Mt. Airy, North Carolina said that he has never felt harassed nor treated badly in his land relations with Parkway officials and land acquisition officers. The Park Service wants his land because he has a direct access road which goes onto the Parkway. After the last appraisal of his land, the Park Service sent him a contract for his property which the judge thought was somewhat aggressive, but his decline to sell at the current price and time has not agitated Parkway officials according to Clark. He was somewhat apprehensive about the future of his land due to his belief that NPS "policy" can change capriciously.

The former home of Rita Payne (Photo 23), who was a willing seller, gave the initial indication of a current NPS property being allowed to deteriorate; however, as explained to this researcher, the home has not been torn down by the Park Service because the widow Payne likes occasionally to return to her former homestead. As long as she lives, the Parkway will not destroy her former home. 13

The land the Barrs live on has been in their family for at least 150 years. Bula and her 74 year-old mother, Fannie, have no direct access road to the Parkway nor have they been bothered yet by the NPS, but what they have witnessed happening to their neighbors has them troubled and anxious. These two very spunky women said that they were concerned that the Park Service may one day want their land. Bula Barr said she will refuse to move and added, "I can't handle a rifle, but I'm good with a pistol," which typifies the rugged mountain independence of the people of the Blue Ridge. 14

Father of the aforementioned Delila Brady, Don Brady has a unique problem with his land vis-à-vis the Park Service. While many inholders expressed fear that they may be eventually "landlocked" by NPS efforts (such as Joe Jackson whose only route off his 50 acres is the direct access road to the Parkway which the Park Service wants to close), Brady already has 66 acres of his farmland "landlocked", totally cut off from any access roads meaning that the only way Brady can get to his land is to trespass. In the late 1930's, as the Blue Ridge Parkway was being constructed, the "old" part of Virginia state road 608 was abandoned as the access road to the Brady land south of the Parkway. A "new" road 608 was built north of the Parkway sealing off the previously mentioned 66 acres. After Don Brady's father died in the 1960's and he assumed greater control of the land, he began investigating the legality of what had occurred. He discovered a 1900 and a 1914 deed which guaranteed that the "public road" connecting Brady lands not be "obstructed. Brady's father, who was illiterate, signed, or marked, a deed which relinquished this right-of-way. Brady doubted that his father understood what he was doing at that time and further wondered how a public state road can be deeded away by a private individual. Even though it is now overgrown with weeds and grass, the roadbed of "old" 608 is clearly visible to anyone who walks along it (Photos 1-3). Although his formal education stopped at the third grade, Don Brady is one of the more articulate spokesmen for the culture and people of the Blue Ridge Mountains. He has a keen sense of the oral history of the area and the detailed knowledge needed for preservation. He took this researcher to a house owned by 76 year-old Hattie Sowers. The house was 106 years old and in excellent condition. It was clearly visible from the Parkway, near Willis Gap, and Hattie Sowers was perfectly willing to show visitors this fine example of a Blue Ridge home, but, according to Brady, the Park Service has shown no interest whatsoever in preservation of the structure. Brady said he had great sympathy for the anti-developmental attitude of the NPS. He felt that the Park Service should be notified by every county when parcels of land go on sale so as truly to insure the willing seller-willing buyer arrangement. Once he even offered to sell much of his undeveloped land to the Park Service, but the agency never responded. Brady called the recent Carroll county development off the Parkway (referred to by locals as "top of the hill", Photo 4), as "poor taste to bad," and added that he favored strict land-use restrictions similar to neighboring Patrick county. Local control was the most preferred means of land-use. While he agreed with much of the intent of the Blue Ridge Parkway, Don Brady was disturbed by the seemingly inconsistent and roughshod methods of the Park Service, especially when in contact with the people. 15

In the late 1950's and early 1960's a minister from Winston-Salem, North Carolina named Kenneth Wilson devised an enormous plan of developed properties on Groundhog Mountain situated on the border between Patrick and Carroll counties, Virginia. His original scheme called for 4,000 residential units, 300 of which would have been condominiums. Two golf courses, a ski slope, and other recreational activities were also planned for this resort community. To his credit, Wilson designed the Groundhog Mountain community in the style of a Swiss canton, making the new architecture fairly compatible with the surrounding mountainside (Photo 22). The property he acquired originally belonged to the Quesinberry family. Part of this land had one of the old easements purchased by the state of Virginia in the late 1930's and then deeded to the Parkway which allowed a direct access road (near Station 1275) onto the Parkway and across, connecting with state road 608. Today the grand dream of Ken Wilson remains largely unrealized. There are approximately only 180 units constructed with several of those being double tiered. There are another 30 to 40 undeveloped lots. The number of year-long residents of Groundhog is just under 15. Despite the fall of Wilson's expectations of the Groundhog community, the recent events in the history of the development have formed a significant chapter in the history of the Parkway.1

The National Park Service viewed Groundhog Mountain as creating a dangerous traffic hazard at the single access road leading to the expanding community. Therefore, in 1973 the NPS constructed a new access road into Groundhog Mountain (50 feet south of the initial road) and then began converting the original access road into an underpass which would pass beneath the Parkway. The underpass (or overpass as it was often called, depending on one's perspective) was completed in mid-1974 (Photo 9) and did not provide direct access to Groundhog Mountain. The residents of the new community presumed that the second access road built (Photo 10) merely took the place of the original while the Park Service fully intended the second road it built to be temporary, established primarily to provide access while the underpass was being constructed. 2

The NPS believed that it had the legal right to construct the underpass based on the 1961 Act affecting the Parkway (quoted in Chapter Two). It also thought it could close the newer access road based on the 1938 order of Interior Secretary Ickes which disallowed the construction of any new permanent access roads to the Parkway. During this time, in the mid-1970's, few of the residents of Groundhog and nearby affected inholders were aware of the "temporary" nature of the newer access road. Also at this time it was becoming more apparent that Groundhog Mountain might become an economic bust. The original investors had declared bankruptcy and the Small Business Administration was negotiating a loan for new investors. The SBA requested that the Park Service keep open the then only direct access road for at least ten years which the NPS declined to permit. It was becoming fast apparent after this decision to the local residents that, in their view, the future of the resort community was in jeopardy. The Park Service's underpass forced traffic to proceed along parallel road 608, a poorly maintained dirt road, and go nearly two miles out of the way if it were not for the substitute direct access road.

On December 20, 1976 the intent of the Park Service was made clear to all. On that day a sign was posted by the NPS at the direct access road:

At that point the inhabitants of the Groundhog Mountain community, both full-time residents and the others, became mobilized against what they felt as a threat to their homes, and, in the process of suing and fighting the Park Service, alerted a host of older inholders along the Parkway to a new thrust of land acquisition by the National Park Service.3

In the course of litigation against the Park Service, the Groundhog development corporation was joined by the Patrick County Board of Supervisors and a curious alliance started to form between the newer residents of Groundhog Mountain and the inholders who had lived alongside the Parkway for generations. For many years the Groundhog inholders were disliked and shunned by many of the older residents as "outsiders." The Groundhog community was populated by a number of Floridians who lived there only a few months of the year. Florida law allowed a resident to live in the state only one day more than six months which enabled many of the elderly and retired inhabitants to move to "second" homes in other states during the off-season, or hot summer months, and still maintain full Florida residency. To this day, there still exists deep bitterness toward Groundhog Mountain from some of the more established inholders, but during 1976-1977 many long-time residents watched the legal fight of Groundhog Mountain with increasingly less detachment.

On January 23, 1978 U. S. District Court Judge James C. Turk ruled in favor of the Park Service in their desire to close permanently the access road it had constructed in the early 1970's. The decision said that the underpass allowed for eventual access to the Parkway and direct access to road 608 for the Groundhog residents. The lawyers for the resort community filed for appeal on March 20, 1978. At the same time, the new Superintendent of the Parkway, Gary Everhardt, announced that the Park Service would go ahead and close the direct access road as allowed by the Court's decision despite the pending appeal of Groundhog Mountain and Patrick County. 4

The confrontation between Parkway officials and an outraged citizenry now appeared close at hand and it carried the threat of physical violence. A large contingent of Groundhog residents and a number of their supporters outside the community announced that they would place their bodies in front of the bulldozers scheduled to destroy the access road on April 17, 1978. Efforts by U. S. Senator Harry Byrd, Jr. and Congressman Dan Daniel got the Park Service to agree only to close the road, not bulldoze it. Still the protesting residents said they would prevent the road closing by the NPS. When April 17th arrived about 100 protestors stood in front of the access road for most of the day. At about 5:30 in the evening a large garbage truck rolled up and the ubiquitous Park Rangers unearthed five barricades from underneath the garbage and quickly put them in front of road. Just as quickly, several young people of the Parkway kicked over the barricades and proceeded to lay on the road. Wisely, Superintendent Everhardt had previously ordered his rangers to leave if confronted by the angry landowners and this order was obeyed as the rangers then withdrew. The following day Interior Secretary Cecil Amdrus cancelled the Park Service order to close the access road to Groundhog Mountain pending the outcome of the appeal. 5

The attorney for Patrick county and the Groundhog denizens, Robert Mann, argued the appeal of June 5, 1978, but the long process of judiciary appeal would not render a verdict until well into 1979. In the meantime, the Groundhog Mountain Incident (as it was coming to be called) had shocked a number of people up and down the Blue Ridge Parkway. Never had so many inholders threatened civil disobedience in order to halt a Park Service action. The confrontation alerted other inholders who may have lightly regarded the determination and intent of the Parkway when it resolved to carry out the specifics of what it believed to be its mandate. Additionally, the incident marked the beginning of a spirit of cooperation between many of the older and newer inholders. Present among the youth of the Blue Ridge who put their bodies on the road that April afternoon were some from families who had lived in the Mountains for generations as well as young people who had only recently moved to the area. The determination of the new coalition of inholders increased as 1978 wore on.

After Secretary Andrus announced formulation of a revised land acquisition policy in August, notice was given for public comment and participation to be concluded by September 20, 1978. A hearing was scheduled for the public to be held in Washington, D. C. September 15. There was no communication of this fact to the concerned inholders of the Parkway until the very last moment and even that occurred because of an accidental reading of the Federal Register, an uncommon document in the Southwestern counties of Virginia. with only a few days notice for comment to the National Park Service, the inholders faced a panicky situation. Had it not been for the fact that inholder Odell Webb worked for the Trailways bus lines and was able to charter a bus on such short notice, the NPS might never had heard from the people of the Blue Ridge. Many inholders and local political figures testified before NPS officials, but one particular comment might be used to typify the anger and intense feeling of the inholders. The secretary-treasurer of the Groundhog Mountain Property Owners, Roseann MacKenzie who had moved into the community as a full-time resident ended her appearance before the Park Service with this statement:

I am only second generation in this country. My parents came here because their homeland, their government took their property away. It wasn't the Blue Ridge Parkway and it wasn't a bureaucrat named Gary Everhardt or a political appointee like Cecil Andrus; their property was in Warsaw, Poland and it was a tyrant by the name of Joseph Stalin who took their property away. My father is dying of a slow death to see that his daughter's property is being taken by his Government.6

The appeal of Groundhog Mountain residents to retain direct access to the Parkway was decided on April 20, 1979, over a year after the protest. The appeals court ruled against the Park Service and in favor of the new community. A thorough examination of the original Quesinberry easement deed revealed a right of intersection or crossing of the Parkway "at grade" to connect to state road 608, a right of access which, of course, was legally transferable to all future heirs or owners of the land. The new access road was to remain open. The only course of action left to the NPS to close the road was condemnation, which is the course the government has last indicated that it intends to follow.

Thus, the Groundhog Mountain "incident" has yet to run its course. Condemnation would, of course, involve just compensation for the residents of the community, a price tag which could run into millions and millions of dollars; all for the purpose of closing an access road which the Parkway had deemed to be a hazardous crossing; in spite of the lack of evidence that traffic accidents-had occurred at that location. 7

Who are the people of the Blue Ridge Parkway? How each opposing party answers this question determines the basis for virtually all future courses of action and explains much in the way of Park Service and inholder behavior. To the National Park Service, it appears that the primary people of concern of the Blue Ridge Parkway are the millions of tourists and motorists who use the Parkway as a leisurely drive along the crest of a beautiful range of mountains. These are the people for whom the Parkway exists and the people first in the minds of NPS officials when decisions are made regarding the scenic highway. As a small part of this study, a number of tourists were interviewed and a public opinion poll was compiled. Tourists were questioned at such popular stopping points as Mabry Mill, The Fences, and the Overlook on Groundhog Mountain. Admittedly, this is not a scientific sample, but, nonetheless, here are the results of that poll:

  l. Have you noticed the scattered homes and farms along the Parkway during your travels?

2.Do you think these homes and farms significantly detract from the vista of the Parkway?

3. Have you noticed the smaller access roads that connect to the Parkway?

4. Do these access roads appear hazardous to you?

In view of these figures, it would seem advisable for the Park Service to seek out further opinions of tourists along the Parkway on matters of concern to inholders. The leaders of various environmental groups and wilderness societies presume to speak for countless tourists for whom the National Park Service functions, but what the actual opinions are of average tourists is a subject for greater scientific sampling.

To the inholders, they, themselves, are the people of the Blue Ridge Parkway. Since they are the people who live and work on and near the Parkway, they feel that their daily living and their basic rights as citizens should not be relegated to a secondary status in the eyes of a Federal agency. While the perceptions about the people of primary concern along the Parkway may differ sharply, the ultimate aims of the two groups are very similar. Neither inholder nor ranger wants to see fast-food franchises springing up along the Parkway. Both truly love the beauty of the area and both, unfortunately, perceives their group as best able to preserve, protect, and maintain the unique nature of the Parkway and its surrounding mountains.

As of this writing, the second Draft Land Acquisition Plan for the Blue Ridge Parkway has just been released. Unfortunately, for the timing of this report, this newer draft cannot be addressed specifically. Even though time did not allow this researcher to examine this draft, from the sketchy information available, it appears the draft will include the creation of a local citizens board to determine what is compatible or incompatible land-use near the Parkway with respect to any future attempts by the Park

Service to condemn land. If these citizens boards are, indeed, instituted, this structure would go a long way toward furthering communication and cooperation between Park Service and inholder. Such a formal apparatus of inholder input and, more importantly, the placement of an actual land-use power in the hands of the local citizenry would seem to be much more productive than the usual haphazard communications links such as public meetings and workshops which have often turned into unpleasant shouting matches in the past. This structure has the potential to guarantee that, not only would the voice of the inholder be heard, but that his power to determine land-use would be felt.

Many of the proposed acquisitions on the new draft are the less-than fee acquisitions of the scores of direct access roads in Southwest Virginia between Meadows of Dan and Fancy Gap. Perhaps, the most persistent question heard by this researcher in talking to inholders was "Why?" in regard to the necessity for all these road closings. There was almost unanimous agreement among the people closest to the roads that they were not at all hazardous nor did they pose a future threat to traffic safety. No one could recall a serious accident at any access point. It appears that the Park Service's rationale for all the proposed closings is that they are "potentially" hazardous. The 1961 Act (quoted in Chapter Two) which authorized the "elimination of hazardous crossings and accesses"; however, did not include the word potentially. This is a crucial point because had that word appeared in the actual mandate, We NPS would have much greater justification for that part of its current plan of action. The present Governor of Virginia, John Dalton, has criticized the Park Service on just this point, the presumptive use of the idea of "potentially hazardous" access roads. It would seem a truly hazardous crossing or point of access onto the Parkway would necessitate a proven record of accidents or near-accidents. There are some inholders who are so mistrustful of the NPS that they are convinced that the proposed road closings supposedly for the reason of safety is merely an excuse for the Park Service to gain eventual acquisition of the land behind the road. In other words, a loss of direct access to the Parkway will, hopefully, create more "willing sellers". Such speculation, though, is beyond the scope of this report to accurately investigate.

There is a definite retrenchment in land acquisition by the Park Service along the Blue Ridge Parkway. The "targeted" acreage has been reduced, the primary method has been reversed to that of less-than-fee acquisition, and other reforms appear to be proposed for the future; perhaps, even including a final legislative boundary for the Parkway beyond which no future acquisition could occur by administrative means. In spite of this lull in activity, though, much of what the National Park Service still proposes for the Parkway seems needless and costly such as the closing of private access roads and the conversion of those state roads which cross the Parkway into underpasses. Some inholders still fear that the current decline in acquisition is merely a lull before a storm, a new storm of NPS aggressiveness and a return to the abuses of years past. Much needs to be done to assure the inholders that their land and heritage will not be needlessly threatened, both psychologically and in terms of actual land loss. The inholder must be brought into the decision -making process regarding the use of land along the Blue Ridge Parkway. It appears that the initial steps on this long road have been taken and, in a comparative sense for relations between the Park Service and inholders, the near future looks brighter than the past. 1

1 Interview with Martin Landry, General Accounting Office sub-team leader, April 30, 1980; U.S. General Accounting Office. The Federal Drive To Acquire Private Lands Should Be Reassessed (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979), pp. ii-viii.

1 Harley E. Jolley, The Blue Ridge Parkway (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1969), pp. 33, 44.

2 Ibid., pp. 11-20, 50-51; Interview with Don Brady, May 6, 1980.

3 Richard C. Davids, The Man Who Moved A Mountain (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970). p. 4.

4 Jolley, p. 11.

5 Interview with Alvin Barnard, May 8, 1980; Jolley, pp. 45-47, 55-56; Interview with Arley Terry, Secretary Treasurer, Patrick County (Virginia) Property Owners Association, May 8, 1980; Interview with E. M. "Major" Turner, Jr., Patrick County Administrator, May 8, 1980; U. S., Department of Interior. National Park Service, Blue Ridge Parkway, Land Acquisition Program Briefing Statement March 1979 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing 1979), p. 1; U. S., Department of Interior. National Park Service, Problem Statement Blue Ridge Parkway Plan of Access, October 18, 1977 (Asheville: prepared by the Blue Ridge Parkway office, 1977), p. 1.

6 Robert W. Mann, Opening Brief, Patrick County, Va. v. United States Record No. 78-1215, pp. 4-7; U. S., Department of Interior. National Park Service, Blue Ridge Parkway (Draft #1) Land Acquisition Plan, March, 1980 (Asheville: Prepared by the Blue Ridge Parkway Office, 1980), p. 2; Blue Ridge Parkway Act, Statutes at Large, XLIX, part 1,2041 (January, 1935-June, 1936).

7 Interview with Steve Berry, Special Projects Assistant to Cong. William C. Wampler, April 28, 1980; Blue Ridge and Natchez Trace Parkways Land Acquisition, Statutes at Large, LXXV, 196 (1961).

8 Interview with Gary Everhardt, Blue Ridge Parkway Superintendent, May 5, 1980; Interview with Robert Hope, Chief Parkway Planner, Blue Ridge Parkway, May 5, 1980; General Accounting office Report, pp. 3-5, 23-25.

9 Blue Ridge Parkway (Draft) #1 Land Acquisition Plan; Letter from Gary Everhardt to Jimmy Wallace, Community Development Planner, Mount Rogers Planning District Commission, Nov. 17, 1978; U. S., Department of Interior. National Park Service, "Revised Land Acquisition Policy," Federal Register, XLIV, No. 82, April 26, 1979, 24790, 24792-24793.

1 Attachments to letter from Gary Everhardt to Cong. William C. Wampler, March 13, 1980; Hope interview; Interview with Haskell and Odessa Meredith, May 3, 1980.

2 Interview with Elwood and Flora Amburn, May 3, 1980.

3 Interview with Sue Hill, May 7, 1980.

4 Interview with Lockie Webb, May 12, 1980.

5 Interview with Bernard Alderman, May 7, 1980.

6 Amburn interview; Everhardt interview; Hope interview; Interview with the Rev. George Semones, May 4, 1980.

7 Interview with Ray and Margaret Semones, May 6, 1980; Statement of Ray Semones before National Park Service Public Hearing, Washington, D.C., September 15, 1978 (Washington, D.C.: Acme Reporting Co., 1978), pp. 159-162.

8 Interview with Delila Brady, Olen Dalton, Pam Painter, and Rosie Vass, May 4, 1980.

9 Interview with Davie Puckett, May 6, 1980.

10 Interview with Lois Harris, May 8, 1980.

11 Barnard interview.

12 Interview with Cornelius Stanley, May 8, 1980; Terry interview.

13 Interview with Judge Foy Clark, May 21, 1980; Interview with Carl Hewitt, May 14, 1980; Hope interview; Interview with H. 0. Woltz, Jr., May 21, 1980.

14 Interview with Bula and Fannie Barr, May 4, 1980.

15 Don Brady interview; Interview with Joe Jackson, May 7, 1980.

1 Interview with Duncan and Roseann MacKenzie, May 7, 1980; Vann Brief, pp. 4-7; Patrick County, Va. v. United States, 78-1215 (4th Cir. Ct. of App. 1978); Memorandum from K. M. Wilkinson, Virginia Dept. of Highways, to H. G. Blundon, February 3, 1971.

2 MacKenzie interview; Patrick County v. U. S.

3 Letter from James R. Brotherton, Blue Ridge Parkway Acting Superintendent, to E. Leo Burton, August 2, 1976; Letter from E. Leo Burton to James R. Brotherton, August 12, 1976; Letter from J. C. Dwight, Small Business Administration, to Joe Brown, Blue Ridge Parkway Superintendent, July 16, 1976; MacKenzie interview; Mann Brief, pp. 4-7; Patrick County v. U. S.

4 Letter from Gary Everhardt to Cong. William C. Wampler, March 20, 1978; Motion for Expedited Appeal, Patrick County v. United States Civil Action No. 77-0011(D); Resolution of the Patrick County Board of Supervisors, August 18, 1976; Interview with Bob and Evelyn Randolph, May 3, 1980.

5 Interview with Carol Gardner, May 7, 1980; MacKenzie Interview; Roanoke Times, April 15, 1978, pp. A-4 & A-5; Stuart (Va.) Enterprise, April 12, 1978, pp. 1 & 4; Ibid., April 19, 1978, pp. 1 & 3.

6 Delila Brady interview; Carroll County (Va.) Times, April 13, 1978, p. 1; Gardner interview; Statement of Roseann MacKenzie before National Park Service Public Hearing, Washington, D.C., September 15, 1978 (Washington, D.C.: Acme Reporting Co., 1978), p. 75; Patrick County v. U. S.; Remarks of E. M. Turner, Jr. at a meeting of the Patrick County Property Owners Association, September 13, 1978; U.S. Department of Interior. National Park Service, "Land Acquisition Policy," Federal Register, XLIII, No. 156, August 11, 1978, 35752-35754; Webb interview.

7 Patrick County v. U.S.; Roanoke Times, April 24, 1979, p. 1; Letter from E. Montgomery Tuck, Asst. U. S. Attorney, to Robert W. Mann, September 10, 1979.

1 Letter from John N. Dalton, Governor of Virginia, to Gary Everhardt, April 18, 1980; Hope interview; MacKenzie interview; Webb interview.

Brotherton, James R. Letter to E. Leo Burton, August 2, 1976.

Burton, E. Leo. Letter to James R. Brotherton, August 12, 1976.

Dalton, Governor John N. Letter to Gary Everhardt, April 18, 1980.

Dwight, J. C. Letter to Joe Brown, July 16, 1976.

Everhardt, Gary. Letter to Jimmy Wallace, November 17, 1978.

__________. Letter to Congressman William C. Wampler, March 20, 1978.

__________. Letter and attachments to Congressman William C. Wampler, March 13, 1980.

Tuck, E. Montgomery. Letter to Robert W. Mann, September 10 1979.

Turner, E. M. "Major", Jr. Remarks at a meeting of the Patrick County (Virginia) Property Owners Association, September 13, 1978.

Wilkinson, K. M. memorandum to H. G. Blundon, February 3, 1971.

Blue Ridge and Natchez Trace Parkways Land Acquisition. Statutes at Large, Vol. LXXV (1961).

Blue Ridge Parkway Act. Statutes at Large, Vol. XLIX (January, 1935-June, 1936).

Mann, Robert W. Opening Brief. Patrick County v. United States 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, Record No. 78-1215.

Patrick County Board of Supervisors. Resolution, August 18, 1976.

U. S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Patrick County v. U. S., Record No. 78-1215.

______. ______. _________. _______________. Motion for Expedited Appeal, Civil Action No. 77-0011(D).

______. Department of Interior. National Park Service. Blue Ridge Parkway (Draft #1) Land Acquisition Plan, March, 1980. Asheville: Prepared by the Blue Ridge Parkway Office, 1980.

_______. Department of Interior. National Park Service. Blue Ridge Parkway, Land Acquisition Program Briefing Statement, March, 1979. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979.

_______. _________. __________. "Land Acquisition Policy.'' Federal Register, XLIII, No. 156, August 11, 1978, 35752-34754.

_______. _________. __________. Problem Statement Blue Ridge Parkway Plan of Access, October 18, 1977. Asheville: Prepared by Ge Blue Ridge Parkway Office, 1977.

_______. _________. __________. Public Hearing, September 15, 1978. Washington, D.C.: Acme Reporting Co., 1978.

______. __________. __________. "Revised Land Acquisition Policy." Federal Register, XLIV, No. 82, April 26, 1979, 24792-24793.

______. General Accounting Office. The Federal Drive To Acquire Private Lands Should Be Reassessed, December 14, 1979. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979.

Alderman, Bernard. May 7, 1980.

Amburn, Elwood and Flora. May 3, 1980.

Barnard, Alvin. May 8, 1980.

Barr, Bula and Fannie. May 4, 1980.

Berry, Steve. April 28, 1980.

Brady, Delila. May 4, 1980.

Brady, Don. May 6, 1980.

Clark, Foy. May 21, 1980.

Dalton, Olen. May 4, 1980.

Everhardt, Gary. May 5, 1980.

Fleegle, Chuck, May 12, 1980.

Gardner, Carol. May 7, 1980.

Harris, Lois. May 8, 1980.

Hewitt, Carl. May 14, 1980.

Hill, Sue, May 7, 1980.

Hope, Robert. May 5, 1980.

Jackson, Joe. May 7, 1980.

Landry, Martin. April 30, 1980.

MacKenzie, Duncan and Roseann. May 7, 1980.

McBride, Pat. May 1, 1980.

Meredith, Haskell and Odessa. May 3, 1980.

Painter, Pam. May 4, 1980.

Puckett, David. May 6, 1980.

Randolph, Robert and Evelyn. May 3, 1980.

Semones, Rev. George. May 4, 1980.

Semones, Ray and Margaret. May 6, 1980.

Stanley, Cornelius. May 8, 1980.

Terry, Arley. May 8, 1980.

Turner, E. M. "Major", Jr. May 8, 1980.

Vass, Rosie. May 4, 1980.

Voss, Ralph. May 8, 1580.

Webb, Lockie. May 12, 1980.

Whitlock, Ira. May 20, 1980.

Woltz, H. 0., Jr. May 21, 1980.

Wright, David. April 28, 1980.

Carroll County (Virginia) Times. April 13, 1978.

Roanoke Times. April 15, 1978.

_____________. April 24, 1979.

Stuart (Virginia) Enterprise. April 12, 1978.

____________________________.April 19, 1978.

Davids, Richard C. The Man Who Moved A Mountain. Philadelphia Fortress Press, 1970.

Jolley, Harley E. The Blue Ridge Parkway. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1969.
 
 

Photo number	Subject
1	Don Brady in roadbed of "old" state road 608
2	"Old" road 608 near Bluemont Church
3	"Old" road 608 as it curves toward the Blue Ridge Parkway
4	"Top of the Hill" development
5	David Puckett
6	Gravesite of Orlena Puckett
7	Formerly maintained state road
8	Puckett's Cabin
9	State road 608 underpass
10	Groundhog Mountain access road
11	Haskell and Odessa Meredith
12	Meredith home
13	Underpass area proposed in first draft Land Acquisition Plan
14	Creek on Meredith farm.
15	Elwood and Flora Amburn
16	Amburn home
17	Proposed cloverleaf area
18	Dickens family cemetery
19	Vacated willing seller near Alderman property
20 & 21	Some youth of the Parkway
22	Groundhog Mountain community
23	Former home of Rita Payne