The Geographical Review

V C >LUME 88

April 1998

NUMBER 2

T H E ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSFORMATION O F AN APPALACHIAN VALLEY, 1850-1 90 6 *

GEOFFREY L. BUCKLEY
ABSTRACT. The physical environment of the Georges Creek Valley in western Maryland was altered dramatically during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as coal mining and associated activities expanded and intensified. Although mineral extraction was the chief agent of change, forest and water resources were also affected by other industrial and commercial activities, as well as by the regions growing population. Examining the environmental alteration that took place in the valley, this work also considers attitudes and motivations that contributed to the transformation. Keywords: Appalachia, coal mining, deforestation, landownership, water pollution.

I n 1906 State Geologist William Bullock Clark and his staff at the Maryland Geological Survey produced a Report on the Physical Features ofMaryland (Clark and Mathews 1906). Like other such reports, the document recounts events of the geologic past and catalogs the natural resources of a given area as though they were items on a supermarket shelf. In at least one important respect, however, this report stands apart, for it draws attention to and suggests a possible remedy for the environmental alteration then taking place across the state. Though a geologist by training, Clark, who was also a professor of stratigraphy and paleontology at Johns Hopkins University, maintained an enduring interest in Marylands forests, an interest that is reflected in the work of the Geological Survey from its inception in 1896 until Clarks death in 1917. More obviously, it is evident in his role in the establishment of the Maryland State Board of Forestry in 1906 and in his position as that boards first executive officer (Reger 1996). As might be expected, then, in addition to describing the rock formations and minerals commonly found between the coastal plain and the Appalachian plateau, the report provides a cautionary evaluation of the condition of Marylands forests. What Clark found, especially in Marylands most heavily forested area-the Appalachian Region-alarmed him. In western Allegany County, in particular, where
I would like to thank Robert D. Mitchell, Craig E. Colten, Adam Rome, and Eugene McCann for their comments on an earlier draft of this article. I also thank Betsy Robinson of the Smithsonian Institution for her assistance in obtaining prints of the historical photographs.

% DR.BUCKLEYis an assistant professor of geography at the Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 45701-2979.
7 h e Geographical Review 88 ( 2 ) : 175-198, April 1998 Copyright 0 1999 by the American Geographical Society of New York

176

T H E GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

The Georges
P E N N SY LVANI A

FIG. 1.-The Georges Creek Valley, western Allegany County, Maryland. Source: Adapted from Maryland Geological Survey 1900.(Cartography by Bryan C. Kelley, Cartographic Center, Ohio University)

TRANSFORMATION OF A N A P P A L A C H I A N VALLEY

177

coal-company control of natural resources was all but complete, the forest cover had been largely removed. With regard to recovery, Clark was pessimistic, so much so that he recommended transferring ownership of large portions of western Maryland from private to public hands so ample time could be provided for regrowth. Only under state protection, Clarks report suggested, could acute shortages of valuable timber be avoided. Clark was not the sole individual to sense that something had gone seriously wrong in western Marylands forested areas. Beginning in 1906, newly appointed State Forester Fred W. Besley reviewed Marylands forest resources county by county. By 1908 he had surveyed Allegany County, site of the states most important coal basin, the Georges Creekvalley. Like Clark, Besley found cause for concern: The quest for valuable kinds of wood has led to a systematic culling of the forests in all parts of the county, until most of the merchantable material has been cut.. ..Excessive cutting and fires have almost eliminated, in some places, certain species that were of the most value years ago, notably white pine and yellow poplar (Besley 1gog,1912,6-7). Fearing a future shortage of wood, the Maryland State Board of Forestry recommended the establishment of a system of state forest preserves. As if to reassure the more fiscally minded, the report noted that the purchase of such lands would be an investment and not an expense since they would eventually pay back all costs from the revenue derived (Besley 1909, 8-9). Although one would hardly know it by perusing the reports of the Maryland Geological Survey and the State Board of Forestry, western Marylands waters were also suffering. Contemporary newspapers show that as early as the 1870s the purity of drinking water supplied by the North Branch of the Potomac River and its tributaries was being called into question. Water-pollution problems in the Maryland coal region had become so severe by the 1890s that residents downriver in Cumberland and even in Washington, D.C., concerned about risks to their own health, began to take action (U.S. Department of the Interior 1898; U.S. War Department
1898).

Despite the considerable attention that has been directed toward Appalachia over the past thirty years, relatively little research has focused specificallyon the historical environmental impacts of mining, lumbering, and other activities associated with expanding industrialization (exceptions include Eller 1982; Quinn 1993; Lewis 1995, 1998). Yet these remain important issues today in Appalachia, where the effects of past large-scale environmental modification are still being felt (Appalachian Land Ownership Task Force 1983). Llkewise, western Maryland has been largely overlooked by historians and geographers studying southern Appalachia. Given the valleys earlyexperimentation with new forms of transportation and its early experience with large-scale coal mining, and considering that it was here that the Consolidation Coal Company (later to become the largest bituminous coal company in the United States) began its operations, the omission is puzzling. Only Harry M. Caudill, whose work centered on Kentucky, seems to have recognized the significance of western Marylands unique position within Appalachia: The juggernaut that would over-

178

THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

whelm Kentucky was born in Maryland. . . . The capture of Appalachia and the rendering out of its wealth for the benefit of absentee owners began in the coal-rich hills and valleys of Marylands Allegany County (Caudill1983,36). By studying the Georges Creek Valley we are, in practice, studying a slice of Appalachia truly at the forefront when it came to confronting the impacts of the Industrial Revolution, whether the positive effects of economic growth or the negative effects of environmental degradation. How was this almost virgin territory converted into a land of stumps and severely polluted waters (Scharf 1968, i439)? More important, who was responsible for the transformation? THEGEORGES CREEK VALLEY Flowing in a southwesterly direction from the Maryland-Pennsylvania border, Georges Creek enters the North Branch of the Potomac River at the town of Westernport in present-day western Allegany County (I:igure I ) . The valley through which the stream flows is some 25 miles long and 5 miles wide and is bounded by Big Savage Mountain to the west and Dans Mountain to the east. The geologic structure of the valley is a basin, or syncline. The most common rock types in the vicinity are from the Dunkard and Monongahela Groups, the Conemaugh Group, and the Allegheny and Pottsville Groups (Schmidt 1993). It is here, in the Georges Creek Valley, that Marylands most complete sequence of coals is found, a feature noted earlyon by area visitors (Figure 2 ) . The renowned British geologist Charles Lyell, who visited compared the shape of the successive beds of coal to western Maryland in the 1840% a great number of canoes placed one within another (Lyell 1845,14).Of particular interest to many was the existence of the 14-foot-thick Pittsburgh seam, renowned as the Big Vein (Clark 1905). The presence of coal so near the Atlantic Seaboard aroused interest among economic boosters and land speculators, both local and otherwise. Beginning in the 1820s, English and American geologists and civil engineers, hired by businessmen from the East, compiled scientific reports on the Georges Creek Valley, emphasizing the quality of its mineral deposits and the potential for development of the coalfield (Ware 1995). Favorable reports attracted the attention of interested investors. One such report was registered by George W. Hughes. Surveying the area for the Maryland Mining Company, Hughes stated: It seems as if nature, in a freak of prodigality, had bestowed, with a lavish hand, her choicest blessings in the county of Alleghany [sic].She has given her a magnificent river for a boundary; a climate mild, equable, and healthy; a soil rich in fruits and agricultural productions; luxuriant ranges for vast herds of cattle; water wholesome and abundant, and mineral treasures almost immeasurable in extent and incalculable in value (Hughes 1837,16-17). Among the most vivid descriptions of the region were provided by Benjamin Silliman, a professor of chemistry, metallurgy, and geology at Yale University, who surveyed much of the valley for the presidents of the Maryland Mining Company and the Maryland and New York Iron and Coal Company. In painting a general, albeit romantic, picture of the valley, Silliman wrote:

FIG. s-The George's Creek and Southampton coalfields, Maryland. Source: Kahler 1892. (Reproduced courtesy of the U.S. Library of Congress)

180

T H E GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

The extremely varied surface of this beautiful region produces great richness of scenery, presenting bold and picturesque views that change with every movement of the observer. High mountain ridges form the outline, finished by dense slopes and crests of forest trees, and the vast swelling hills often cultivated in meadows and fields of corn and grain, delight the eye by the beauty of the surface while they rarely give any distinct information of the mineral treasures that lie beneath the soil. (Silhman 1838,4-5) Turning to the areas timber resources, Silliman opined that the forests would satisfy a growing populations needs well into the future. Concluding his report, he remarked that the valley is not excelled by any coal field in our country, while it is equalled by few, if any, in the world (Silliman 1838,zo).Similar judgments were rendered by several other surveyors (Alexander and Tyson 1837; Daniel1 1839; Mushet 1839; Weld 1839; Cruger 1840;Aiken 1842).In addition to commenting on the superior quality of Georges Creek coal, most surveyors mentioned the regions inexhaustible supply of timber. The quality of Georges Creek coal deposits notwithstanding, without the aid of a more reliable transportation link to the East-improved navigation on the upper Potomac River, the construction of a railroad, or the digging of a canal-coal could not be mined profitably on a large scale (National Magazine and Industrial Record 1845; Detmold 1849; Reizenstein 1897).Although the coal trade had become commercially important by 1810, shipment down the Potomac River via raft was a seasonable, not to mention unpredictable, venture (Harvey 1969).For those who were interested in meeting industrial Americas increasing demands for coal by developing the coalfields of western Maryland, assistance lay just around the corner. On 4 July 1828 construction of both the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (B&O) and the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal (C&O) began in earnest, the goal of each transport system being the connection of ports of the Atlantic Coast to the waterways of the West (Dilts 1993). Since colonial times land speculators have played a central, though not always positive, role in the settlement and development of North America (see, for example, Billington 1945; Land 1953; Murray 1954; Mitchell 1977; Dunaway 1995; Lewis 1995). Harmful or not, recent research has shown that speculators, local and carpetbagging, played a significant role in designing the late-eighteenth- and early-nineteenthcentury settlement pattern of western Maryland. More significant, the speculators actions-spurred by anticipation of government-funded improvements in transportation-resulted in the accumulation of property rights and the consolidation of natural resources by outside interests (Buckley 1998). Indeed, from approximately 1789 through the 1840s ownership of land and control of natural resources in the Georges Creek Valley shifted from primarily squatters and local agricultural interests to speculators and early industrial interests. When the railroad reached Cumberland in 1842, most of Marylands coal region was controlled not by local residents but by nonlocal, corporate interests. In the next era, roughly from the time the B&O and C&O reached Cumberland (especially after the

T R A N S F O R M A T I O N OF A N A P P A L A C H I A N VALLEY

181

FIG.3-Corporate landownership i n the George's Creek Valley, Maryland, ca. 1871. Source: Hodge 1871. (Repro duced courtesy of the U.S. Library of Congress)

Civil War) to the first decade of the twentieth century, corporate control of the Valley's mineral and timber resources was expanded and consolidated (Ware 1995). By 1871,coal companies had strengthened their hold on the region's mineral and timber resources (Figure 3). The Consolidation Coal Company, in particular, had risen to prominence, moving into the lead among shippers of George's Creek coal (Beachley 1934).By 1880, Consolidation controlled 15,000 acres of land, much of it covered with valuable timber. Nearly all of this property was underlain with workableveins of coal, including the famous Big Vein, which yielded an estimated 10,ooo tons per acre (Scharf 1968,1444). Just as important, Consolidation Coal possessed multiple outlets for shipment of its products and owned a fleet of schooners to tranship coal from its wharves at Georgetown, Alexandria, and Baltimore to other seaboard cities. During 1926-1927, having long since penetrated the coalfields of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky, Consolidation Coal became the largest commercial producer of bituminous coal in the United States. On the eve of the arrival of the railroad to Cumberland, 1,708 tons of coal were yielded by the Cumberland region (Beachley 1934).And with the arrival in Cumber-

182

T H E GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

land of the B&O in 1842 and of the C&O in 1850, output from western Maryland mines increased sharply. Improvements in the transportation network, including an extension and double tracking of the B&0, the construction of other railroads, and the addition of numerous company-operated connectors, helped boost production figures further (CumberlandAlleganian, 29 March 1851;Mellander 1981;VanNewkirk 1993). By 1850, the year the C&O canal reached its western terminus, 170 miners extracted 242,517 tons of coal from western Maryland (Christiansen 1948; Harvey 1969). By 1869, Georges Creek coal had gone to all parts of the world, with the Pacific coast receiving a considerable supply and a very large portion being transported north to feed the fires of the forges, factories and mills of New Engminers, most land (Cumberland Alleganian, 13 January,7 April 1869).In 1906~6,436 extracting Georges Creek coal, were employed in the mines of western Maryland (Wiseman 1976).The following year, a record 5,532,628 tons of coal (nearly twentythree times the total of 1850) was exported (Christiansen 1948; Lacoste and Wall 1987). Of course, industrial success did not come without a price. Along with the control of property came the control of natural resources and an ever-increasing capacity for modification of the physical environment. In 1970 Homer Aschmann identified what he considered to be the four inevitable stages in the development of a mine. The first stage can best be described as a period of prospecting and exploration; the second, investment and development; the third, stable operation; and the fourth, decline (Aschmann 1970).He might have added that each of these stages was accompanied by alteration of the forest and water resources of the mining region.

VAST FIELDSOF UGLY STUMPS

For the most part the mineral-producing operations in Appalachia have been carried out on land that is forested or on land suited to forestry purposes (Presidents Appalachian Regional Commission 1963). Historically, it was the practice of commercial coal-mine operators to remove all overlying timber before subsurface mining was begun. As one forester put it, Wherever coal lands bearing considerable useful timber are controlled by ownership, the usual plan is to remove all usable timber before the coal is mined. This takes all sound trees down to about three inches in diameter (Sudworth 1900,282).Where the control of natural resources fell into the hands of large coal corporations, large tracts were swiftly cleared of timber. Arrival of the B&O and the C&O in western Maryland set the coal companies, which had for years been accumulating and consolidating property rights, to mining and logging in earnest. The physical environment of the Georges Creek Valley would never be the same. Although Maryland was never a major timber-producing state, the wood requirements associated with expanding settlements, coal-mining operations, iron-processing operations, and railroad lines devastated its western forests (Harvey 1967,1969,1975).As earlyas 1865, residents feared that if the pace of cutting persisted, nothing but vast fields of ugly stumps would be left (Cumber-

TRANSFORMATION OF A N APPALACHIAN VALLEY

183

land Union and Allegany County Gazette, 23 September 1865).Those fears were realized by 1900: Marylands mature western forests had been thoroughly and industriously culled. In the words of George B. Sudworth, a dendrologist in the Forestry Division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, It would be difficult to find a region in which the useful timber has been more generally removed than in this county (Sudworth 1900,279). In 1900 Sudworth examined the forests of Allegany County for the Maryland Geological Survey. He estimated that the original forests of the region probablyproduced an acre-yield of 8,000 to 10,ooo board feet, possibly more in some places. The approximate acre-yield of the forest had dropped considerably, ranging from less than 500 board feet to about 2,000 feet, with isolated stands yielding more. Pines, especially white pine, were no longer to be found in abundance (Sudworth 1900, 276-277). The introduction of the portable sawmill, Sudworth suggested, resulted in the nearly complete culling of the areas forests (p. 273). Indeed, in western Maryland the impact of portable sawmills was great. Over time, the axe and the whipsaw gave way to the water-powered sash saw, which gave way to the steam-powered circular saw and ultimately to the band saw. As technology improved, the amount of wood that could be cut increased tremendously. Whereas two able-bodied workers could cut about 100 feet of plank per day using a whipsaw, a crack team of sawyers using a band saw could cut 60,000 to 80,000 feet per day (Clarkson 1964; Kline 1976). What became of the cut wood? State Board of Forestry papers indicate that in 1909 alone, 47,000 railroad ties and more than 1,000,ooo cubic feet of mining props were cut in Allegany Coun ty (Besley1912,15-16). In addition, a great deal of wood was consumed by the tanbark industry. Given that an estimated 2,650 cross ties were required per mile of railroad and that a steady supply of mining props was always needed, the pressure on local forest resources did not relent (Whitesell 1960;Raitz and Ulack 1984).In Sudworths report, the countys stands of young timber could provide a yield of just thirty-five to fifty props per acre by 1900. He calculated that this represented an annual culling of approximately 28,000 acres (Sudworth 1900, 277-278). To meet the ongoing demand for props and ties, coal companies often operated their own sawmills (Figures 4 and 5). The cutting of props and ties usually resulted in a great deal of waste. Perhaps no one knew more about wasteful cutting practices than Besley, who had been trained in forest conservation and scientific management at Yale University. In Besleys expert opinion, the problem of wasteful cutting could be overcome with the application of sound forest-management principles:
Under the methods now in use, it has been found that in cutting trees from 12 to 2 0 inches (stump diameter) for railroad ties, that at least 50% of the usable stem length of the tree is wasted. The parts of the tree now wasted could be converted into additional railroad or mine ties and fully utilize the trees that are cut. The waste in cutting mine props, while not so great as it is in the case of railroad ties and lumber, is still a serious one that can be largely avoided by adopting better methods of utilization. (Besley 1912, 2 4 )

184

T H E GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

FIG.4-Consolidation Coal Companys Mine No. 7, with the lumber yard to the left, ca. 1914.(Photograph courtesy of the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of American History)

Supply problems were also the result of a forest taxation system substantially in need of overhaul. As timber became increasingly scarce and, therefore, increasingly valuable, land with valuable timber stands was assessed at a higher rate. Landowners could fell timber before it reached maturity to avoid higher tax assessments. The result was a premium . . . on forest destruction and a penalty on forest conservation (Besley 1909,ii). The removal of enormous amounts of timber affected the land in several ways. Extensive tracts were left vulnerable to forest fires,which, in addition to eliminating any standing timber that may have remained, also left topsoil exposed and vulnerable to erosion. Increased flooding and erosion, in turn, swept sediment into the regions streams. Fires-whether caused by railroad and logging engines, hunters, sawmills, or brush burners-made the surviving trees more susceptible to pest infestation (Besley 1909,1912). Such problems were worsened by the practice of repeatedly felling valuable species down to small diameters, leaving only valueless or cull material behind. In 1910,62percent of Allegany County was described as wooded. Of this wooded area, an estimated 1percent was consideredvirgin forest; the remainder had been cut once if not several times since the arrival of Euroamerican settlers (Besley 1912,6). Besleys forest-use map from 1910 is stunning, considering how little merchantable

TRANSFORMATION OF A N APPALACHIAN VALLEY

185

FIG. 5-Consolidation Coal Companys Mine No. 3, with mine props in the foreground, ca. 1914. (Photograph courtesy of the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of American History)

hardwood remained in western Allegany County (Figure 6). With the exception of minuscule patches of merchantable hardwood forest, the map depicts nearly all of western Allegany County as unforested, culled, or covered by saplings. By 1910, coal companies had to turn beyond the valley for adequate supplies of wood (Wiseman 1976). During the first decade of the twentieth century, forest conservation became a topic of national import, thanks in large part to the efforts of President Theodore Roosevelt and his staff. Articles pressing the cause of forest preservation and conservation appeared on the front page of Cumberlands largest newspaper several times during 1905 and 1906 (CurnberlandAIleganian, 21 December 1905,i February, 1 March, 8 March 1906). A formal vision of the conservation of resources was beginning to take hold among influential state officials (Johnson 1996). Sparked by a donation to the state of 1,917 acres of mountain land in Garrett County, just west of Allegany, lawmakers drafted the Maryland Forest Conservation Act of 1906.In addition to the establishment of the State Board of Forestry and the appointment of Besley as state forester, the Act of 1906 introduced the Forest Laws of Maryland (Besley 1916).The State Board of Forestry was charged with the protection, management, and improvement of the states forested areas. The board was also given the authority to condemn lands under eminent domain and to purchase lands for conservation purposes.

186

T H E GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

1st. 2d. and 3d Class Culled Harduoak 1st. 2d. and 3d Class

Hardsod Sapling5
Culled I+rd\\sods arid h i e 1st. 2d. and 3d Class Ifard\\ood Saplingi and

0 Not Iwcstcd

1912.(Cartography by

FIG. 6-Forest use in western Allegany County, Maryland, ca. 1910. Source: Adapted from Besley Bryan C. Kelley, Cartographic Center, Ohio University)

If the states posture toward wasteful consumption of forest resources had clearly changed, general attitudes toward the physical world had not: Natural resources existed to be exploited by humankind for economic purposes. Nowhere was this made more clear than in Besleys introduction to TheForests ofAllegany County:
[I]t is.. .of the greatest importance to the county to make these lands as productive as possible. This is further emphasized by the need of a good local supply of timber to carry on the present industries and to aid in their further development. The extensive coal mines in the western part of the county require immense quantities of mine props, pit ties and mine rails; the railroads draw upon the forests for large quantities of cross ties; the telephone and telegraph companies require thousands of poles annually; the saw mills and wood-using industries, with large amounts of

T R A N S F O R M A T I O N OF A N A P P A L A C H I A N VALLEY

187

capital invested and giving employment to hundreds of men, cannot be maintained without a cheap and abundant supply of timber. (Besley 1912,5)

The intention of forest-preserve establishment was to provide a supply of wood sufficient to support reliable future industrial development and growth. Contemporary newspaper accounts and editorials considered deforested lands a sign not of disaster but of industrial progress (Cumberland Alleguniun, 22 December 1904). These attitudes were to dominate forest-management policies in Appalachia for a halfcentury to come (Presidents Appalachian Regional Commission 1963). Curiously, not until the 1950swouldland in the old Maryland coal region become part of the state system. I n some areas, particularly those where strip mining was practiced, environmental alteration continued. The persistence of such practices can best be explained in terms of extant tensions between conservation and exploitation. In 1913 one economist wrote, Merely urging the landowner or entrepreneur that he ought to conserve his land will not convince him of this sacred duty when it means business ruin and elimination from the competitive race (Gray 1913,517). As recommendations of the Maryland Geological Survey, the State Board of Forestry, and, decades later, the Presidents Appalachian Regional Commission and the Maryland Department of State Planning (1974) argue, public control of land was Considered essential to ensure the long-term health and stability of the regions forests. Today Allegany County is the most heavily forested county in Maryland, with approximately 74 percent of its land cover in forests (Perdue 1996). All size classes and all types of trees are represented, although certain types-chiefly white pine (Pinus strobus), especially prized by lumbermen, and chestnut (Custuneu dentutu), selectively cut for railroad ties and then decimated by blight-are far less prevalent now than they once were. Without a doubt, the condition of Allegany Countys forests is far better today than it was a hundred-plus years ago.
A PUBLIC SEWER

In his description of the Maryland Mining Companys properties, Benjamin Sillirnan did not mince words linking the valleys coal deposits with the location and status of its watercourses: [The streams or runs] flow in opposite directions through the whole territory, and are discharged, ultimately, into the Potomac; which, with the principal tributaries, nearly encircles the coal field. Streamlets also flow down the inclined strata of the coal; and as the mines are opened more and more, this source of irrigation will be increased (Silliman 1838, 5). Silliman reported to the president of the Maryland Mining Company that the situation is the best possible for drainage (p. 8). Such drainage, however, would have a devastating impact on the water quality of the North Branch of the Potomac River and its tributaries, once coal companies began extracting minerals on a large scale. This was especially true where mines were opened near streams (Figures 7 and 8). Historical evidence corroborates that by the second half of the nineteenth century, Georges Creek was little more than a receptacle for industrial and domestic

188

THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

FIG. 7-Consolidation Coal CompanysMine No. 1, ca. 1914. (Photograph courtesy of the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of American History)

waste. No fish survived in it; no vegetation withstood its acidic waters. Its main purposes were patently to carry away the effluent from coal mines and to serve as a public sewer for the valleys inhabitants (U.S.Department of the Interior 1898,27).Acid mine drainage, wastes from slaughterhouses, tanneries, distilleries, paper mills, stables, and sewer systems, all with ashes and cinders from the B&O, combined to poison the areas streams well before the turn of the twentieth century (Cumberland Evening Times, 25 September 1897; U.S. Department of the Interior 1898; U.S. War Department 1898; Scharf 1968; Swift 1982). Today, acid mine drainage continues to pose one of the greatest and most expensive problems facing former mining areas in Appalachia (Smith 1987; Uram and Benhart 1996). In western Maryland, for example, the state Bureau of Mines has spent some $12 million on land-reclamation, mine-sealing, and water-treatment projects since 1977 (Lyons 1997). During the first three-quarters of the nineteenth century, few people worried about the impacts of various industries on the quality of western Marylands waters. Not until the 1870s, when the very potability of Cumberlands drinking-water supply was called into question, did widespread concern surface. According to the environmental historian Martin V. Melosi, the period from 1870 to 1930 was one of environmental crisis for many American cities that were experiencing the effects of industrialization and urban growth, and Cumberland was no exception (Melosi

TRANSFORMATION OF AN APPALACHIAN VALLEY

189

FIG. 8-Consolidation Coal Companys Mine No. 7, ca. 1914, viewed from the dirt dump. (Photograph courtesy of the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of American History)

1985,1993).From the 1870s on, water pollution became a critical and divisive issue in Allegany Countys largest city. Newspaper reports, in particular, brought the critical issue to public attention. There was much to declaim against: In midsummer the bayou of the river near the waterworks resembles a great bowl of thick gravy. It is apparent that the mortality of the city will go on increasing unless something is done to purify this water before it reaches consumers (Cumherland Alleganian and Daily Times, 3 June 1876).An editorial a few days later suggested that The Committee on Water Works of the Council should take up the matter of our water supply. . . . The reflection is enough to sicken one; the taste should kill (Cumberland Alleganian and Daily Times, 8 June 1876). And a local official, Dr. C. W. Chancellor of the State Board of Education, called the condition of the areas streams a disgrace to the intelligence of the age (Cumberland Daily Times, 25 June 1881). By 1896 the Cumberland situation had deteriorated. An officer of the State Board of Health was called on to inspect the Potomac River as a source of drinking water for Cumberland and to ascertain the source of the pollution of the river (Cumberland Evening Times, 20 February 1896). In response to that request, Arthur Lee Browne submitted a formal report to the State Board of Health. To everyones surprise, Browne pointed an accusatory finger toward the town of Cumberland itself. In

190

T H E GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

addition to waste issuing from the gashouse, tannery, brewery, distillery, cement mill, pulp mill, glass factory, soap factory, slaughterhouse, and three sewer pipes, he noted that there were at least one hundred privies . . .built on the retaining wall of the creek, [that] project so as to deliver all the excrement into the river to be washed down the Potomac above the dam (Cumberland Evening Times,20 February 1896). Browne identified other sources of pollution upriver. In addition to the pulp mill and tannery near Keyser and the Piedmont pulp and paper mills above Piedmont, Browne mentioned Georges Creek, characterizing it simply as a filthy stream (CumberlandEveningTimes,20 Februaryi896).Another report, compiled in 1897by the U.S. Department of the Interior, stated that Georges Creek assumed much the nature of a public sewer as it wended its way through the valley, collecting acid waters from the mines, sewerage, and slaughterhouse waste (U.S. Department of the Interior 1898, 27). Although harmful wastes emanated from bounteous sources, including Cumberland itself, citizens and city officials characteristically placed the blame on the shoulders of the pulp mill at Luke, Maryland (BaltimoreMorningHerald, 13September, 16 September 1897).That the mill produced organic wastes and, further, that sawdust and other debris could be easily seen no doubt influenced this opinion. Ironically, Cumberlands officials and citizens showed little interest in implicating other producers of organic waste. This is more than a little odd, considering that water-quality problems in Cumberland were already serious before 1889, the year the Luke brothers purchased the mill and expanded its operations (Wiseman 1976). Equally surprising is the concurrent lack of concern over the effects of inorganic discharges, such as acid mine drainage. Joel Tarr has shown, however, that such attitudes were typical of the day (Tarr 1985). Fearing a loss of jobs, the citizens of Piedmont, West Virginia, a number of whom were employed by the pulp mill, gathered in the fall of 1897 to discuss pollution of the Potomac River. If citizens agreed on one issue, it was that the mill should not be closed. In the words of a pulp-mill official in attendance: When the mill was built in 1889,the Cumberland people knew that the mill had to have an outlet for its drainage. Is it right to compel us to shut down?(CumberlandEvening Times, 28 September 1897). Meanwhile, on 27 September 1897the Cumberland Evening Times had described a fish kill that occurred in the bigpoo1backed up behind the dam near Cumberland:
More than a thousand people at different times lined the river and creek all day long watching fish die by the hundreds. It was a sight never witnessed before here in the history of the oldest inhabitants and as they gazed at the finny creatures fighting for life, they wondered what the water was doing to their own stomachs.. ..A more sickening sight could hardly have been witnessed. The fish by thousands, unable to get air in the depths of the slimy, oozy, filthy streams, came to the surface, and sticking their mouths above the top of the water, gasped painfully for breath. Unable to live in that way, they died in a short while, and floating along on their backs a ghastly testimonial of the unfitness of the river for a water supply.

TRANSFORMATION OF A N APPALACHIAN VALLEY

191

This and similar accounts illustrated the degradation of the Potomac River and its tributaries. Area residents understood full well how such a decline had come to pass. The point they seemed to be making, however, was that it would be foolish, economically dangerous, and perhaps even impossible to settle on one industry, let alone a single outflow source, as the prime culprit. Maintaining that the pulp mill at Luke was responsible for contaminating their water supply (although most experts agreed that a variety of sources were to blame), the City of Cumberland pursued the matter in the courts. A protracted legal battle ensued, pitting the City of Cumberland and the State of Maryland against the owners of the mill at Luke. Oddly, both parties needed to prove in court that the Potomac River and its tributaries were badly polluted. The City of Cumberland sought to prove that the pulp mill was the proximate cause for all its water problems; the Lukes tried to show that pollution derived from many sources, including municipal Cumberland itself. During the trial, witnesses for both the prosecution and the defense were called to the stand; their testimony, reproduced in the Cumberland Evening Times, was shocking and revealing. Testimony about the state of Georges Creek provides detailed evidence of regional environmental alteration. A sampling of that testimony illustrates just how badly polluted the areas water had become. James M. Sloan described catching fish in Georges Creek in 1869, a creek that thirty years later was devoid of aquatic life. David Sloan of Lonaconing stated that the Consolidation Coal Company pumped water into the creek that formerly emptied into Braddocks Run. He also recalled when a bursted mine raised the level of water in the creek by two feet, resulting in a large fish kill in the Potomac (Cumberland Evening Times, 11 March 1899). P. C. Barnes mentioned seeing carcasses of dead animals in the creek. Taylor Morrison of Barton noted that he never saw anything alive in Georges creek. George Polling reported a bad odor in the creek (Cumberland Evening Times, 13 March 1899). John Somerville recalled that Georges Creek water had ruined the fire companys hose, and he also maintained that foam was heavier . . . after slaughter days on the creek (Cumberland Evening Times, 14 March 1899).An experiment involving Georges Creek water and river water taken from the North Branch was carried out by Dr. D. A. Close. The fish he placed in Georges Creek water turned white; its scales and tail seemed to be eaten into and it died in a few hours (Cumberland Evening Times, 14 December 1899). Professor John Mallat of the University of Virginia was enlisted to examine the waters of the area. He testified that
Along Georges creek he noticed the general discoloration of the rocks-a yellowish rusty brown. At some points there were offensive smells from muds. He saw mine openings discharging water. He also saw a large pile of sawdust. The stream was practically the sewer of the population of the valley. At Lonaconing all sorts of garbage and sewage, discharges from slaughter houses, etc., sweepings from stores, old clothing, old rags, etc., found their way into the creek. At the pumping station he estimated the amounts of the discharge and took a sample of the water. (Cumberland Evening Times,15 March 1899)

192

THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

Mallat estimated that the amount of solid matter in one days flow in Georges Creek was about 337 tons, including both dissolved and suspended matter, and that 4% tons would be free sulphuric acid or oil of vitriol. He also noted that the chemicals found in the creek were corrosive, would attack and dissolve iron, and were injurious to vegetation and fish (Cumberland Evening Times, 15 March 1899). Several individuals who provided testimony mentioned an increased flow in the creek as a result of drainage from the mines. Increased flow can be accounted for, in part, by the activities of the Consolidation Coal Company. For years, Consolidation Coal had drained its mines using steam-driven pumps located at the bottom of an adit near Borden Shaft. As the mined area grew in extent, however, so too did the area that required draining. In 1889, after eight years, a system of underground drainage tunnels was finished (Beachley1934).A large portion of Consolidation Coal properties could now be drained. This, no doubt, further increased the flow in nearby streams. Before long, however, another method for draining the field was required. To address this problem, the company constructed the 2-mile-long, gravity-flow Hoffman Drainage Tunnel between 1903 and 1906. The tunnel, 8 feet high by 8 feet wide, would eventually receive water conducted from 13 miles of mine ditches. According to Jeanne Cordts, A tremendous reserve of coal heretofore unavailable was now accessible. With the water level down, working conditions improved and output of coal increased dramatically (1977, 6 ) . As the legal proceedings dragged on, efforts to settle the dispute via arbitration were initiated (Cumberland Evening Times, 27 May 1899). After haggling over the means of pollution abatement and the cost of court fees, the City of Cumberland reached an agreement with pulp-mill officials (Cumberland Evening Times, 26 March, 12 April, 27 September 1900). Although this particular case reached settlement, little changed in western Maryland. Georges Creek, the North Branch of the Potomac River, and other nearby watercourses continued to receive industrial and domestic waste from numerous outlets (Newel11900). With most of the valley controlled by corporate interests, significant change was not to be expected anytime soon. The completion of the Hoffman Drainage Tunnel only made matters worse. Five years later the results of a new U. S. Geological Survey report were reprinted in the Cumberland Evening Times. Singling out the larger effect of coal-mine waste in the Georges Creekvalley, the report noted that the water supply of the District of Columbia was being adversely affected by activities taking place upstream on Georges Creek and the upper Potomac. Although the study warned that continued development of the coalfield might cause the hardening constituents of the District of Columbias domestic water supply to reach a damaging amount, there was little to be done:
There is.. .apparently no redress in the case of this pollution because of the fact that mine water is a necessary consequence of the development of coal regions. A precedent in the case of coal mine waste has been established by the supreme court of Pennsylvania, which held that as the contaminating material is a natural product and conducted into the stream in its natural state, mine operators are immune from

TRANSFORMATION OF A N A P P A L A C H I A N VALLEY

193

injunction or damages. Inasmuch as mine waste has certain beneficial effects upon organic matter deposited in the Potomac, and as its undesirable effects upon the Washington water supply are somewhat remote, the matter need not give immediate cause for apprehension. (Cumberland Evening Times, 15 April 1905)

Of particular interest in the preceding passage are two items: the inevitable yet acceptable damage to water caused by acid mine drainage, and the alleged beneficial effects of coal-mine drainage on organic waste. Although attitudes toward water pollution were beginning to shift in this early Roosevelt era, government officials continued for the most part to disregard health risks posed by inorganic waste. When it came to water quality in general, the pulp-mill case showed that many residents were more concerned about jobs than about safe drinking water. Not until 1918 did the Maryland Geological Survey report on the condition of the states water resources, and even then, the issue was given only modest consideration (Clark, Mathews, and Berry 1918).Similarly, not until 1947 was the Water Pollution Control Commission established to control and prevent pollution in the waters of the State (Wests Maryland Law Encyclopedia 1960~61). As evidence presented in the pulp-mill case showed, the waters of Georges Creek, the North Branch of the Potomac River, and numerous other streams suffered at the hands of many polluters. Small generator or large, commercial or domestic, organic waste or inorganic, visible or invisible, the result was the same. By 1900 Georges Creek had been reduced to a sewer devoid of life. CONCLUSIONS To one degree or another, all of western Marylands inhabitants were responsible for the environmental transformation of western Maryland. Coal-mine operators routinely released acid mine waters into local streams; slaughterhouses and pulp mills dumped organic wastes; tanneries, breweries, and distilleries poured effluent into the regions waters; and residents, including those of Cumberland, discarded their domestic and human waste directly into Georges Creek and sundry other streams. All western Marylanders relied on wood. Coal and railroad companies utilized huge quantities of cross ties, and coal companies required large numbers of mine props. Meanwhile, a growing population demanded a steady supply of lumber for construction. Considering the degree to which landowners could do what they wanted to with their land-without regard for any impact on others-the extensive physical alteration ofwestern Marylands environment is not surprising (Clawson 1972;Jackson 1987). Given the public-health and legal contexts within which these environmental changes took place, it is not difficult to understand how abuses were permitted to continue for so long. Recent research has shown that the public-health community and the public in general were far more wary of the risks posed by the release of organic wastes (especially human and animal waste) into streams and water supplies than they were concerned by the release of industrial inorganic wastes (Tarr 1985; Corn 1989; Colten 1990; Rome 1996; Rosen 1997).Tied to this was a reluctance on

194

T H E GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

the part of judges, politicians, and others to impede economic growth (Colten 1990; Rome 1996). In some cases, inorganic wastes were even thought to have a beneficial effect on waters because they killed harmful bacteria (Tarr 1985).In general, this confident ignoring of organic and inorganic wastes persisted until the
1930s.

In the Georges CreekValley during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, diverse attitudes toward the physical environment are evident. State and federal government documents, like newspapers of the day, indicate that coal companies and other commercial operations treated rivers and streams as repositories for waste. The general attitude toward water was revealed by strategies adopted by both parties in the pulp-mill case. The City of Cumberland had to prove to a legal standard that effluent from the pulp mill contributed most to that citys water-supply problems, while the legal team representing the pulp mill had to demonstrate to the jury that the Potomac Riverspollution problems could be traced to myriad sources. Coal companies, by virtue of the vast acreage they controlled, had an especially great impact-not only on the areas water resources but also on its forests. Trees were obstacles to be cut and removed in preparation for mine development. Because even the youngest trees could be turned into mine props, the forests of Allegany County were never permitted to recover. Forests had no inherent value. Trees only acquired value when they reached the lumber mill. Although a range of attitudes with regard to human-environment relations could be found among western Marylands residents during the nineteenth century, most-whether they really thought about it is another matter-probably believed that development of the coal industry, regardless of its impact on the physical environment, was necessary for economic prosperity; that the use of streams and rivers for disposal of waste was an unfortunate but necessary side-effect of economic growth; and that forests existed to be cut and sold for profit or, as Besley put it, cut and turn[ed] into money (Besley 1912, 28). The statesview of the natural environment-a microcosm of the larger national picture-was more varied. At first, western Maryland was conceived of as an area to be cleared and put to work producing crops. Then it was treated as an area to be mined for the fuel that would drive Americas Industrial Revolution and generate revenue. If, in the process, forests were cut and waters polluted, here were unfortunate side-effects of progress. Only when the forests were severely depleted did the State of Maryland institute reform, and even then it was to ensure that the wheels of industry would continue to turn. The absence of environmental regulation, or its lack of distinctive enforcement, reflected these attitudes. During the early years of the twentieth century, conservation-minded individuals within the Maryland Geological Survey,led by William Bullock Clark, warned of the seriousness of western Marylands environmental problems, especially those relating to deteriorated forests. In 1906, amid the enthusiasm generated by the Roosevelt administrations campaign to conserve natural resources, the Maryland State Board of Forestry was formed. Under the direction of Fred W. Besley, who had been

TRANSFORMATION OF A N A P P A L A C H I A N VALLEY

195

recommended for the position by none other than Gifford Pinchot, the State of Maryland, fearing future shortages of timber, began to set aside lands for purposes of conservation. The message was clear: Under private or corporate control, the land could not be expected to recover; only if they were controlled and managed by the state could these resources be conserved for future use. It is significant to note that no lands in the Georges Creek Valley were set aside until the 1950s when Dans Mountain Wildlife Management Area was created. Nevertheless, efforts to disseminate information to priva1.e landowners about the benefits of conservation of resources were also initiated. Although the conservation of western Marylands forests struck a chord with government officials and the public, efforts to protect the areas waters lagged. As reports in the newspapers that covered the pulp-mill case illustrate, the polluted condition of Georges Creek, the North Branch of the Potomac River, and other neighboring streams was no secret. Nor was it a new problem. Newspaper coverage of Cumberlands water problems predated the pulp-mill case by more than twenty years. Perhaps the visual impact of miles of deforested land inspired state officials to act; perhaps the emphasis Roosevelt placed on forest conservation made the protection of Marylands dwindling forests more of a priority. We must not be drawn into an argument that local residents were mercilessly vktimized by the owners of coal companies during this period. Although victimization may have been the case in other matters-labor disputes, worker health and safety, individual liberties--it clearly was not where impacts on the environment were concerned, at least not in western Maryland during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Although the coal industry played a leading role in altering the physical environment of this Appalachian valley, its use of forest and water resources was not unlike that of other industries and residents. The impacts of its actions, however, were far niore widespread. Although the most productive years of coal mining in western Maryland are now a distant memory, reminders of its past importance are indelibly stamped on the physical environment. Today the forest regenerates, while efforts to restore polluted waters continue. In the final analysis, it was at the onset of the twentieth century, amid the deforested hills and polluted streams of the Georges Creek Valley, that the roots of this recovery can be found.
REFERENCES
Aiken, W. E. A. 1842. Report ofti Geological Reexamination ofsome Tracts ofLund in Allegany Comfy, M D . rind Humpshire County, VA. Belonging to the Estate ofRobert Oliver, Esy. Baltimore: John D. Toy. Alexander, J. H., and P. T. Tyson. 1837. Georges CreekCoal and Iron Company. Unpublished manuscript on file at the Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore, Md. Appalachian Land Ownership Task Force. 1983. W h o Owns Appalachia! Landownership and Its Impact. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Aschmann, H. 1970. The Natural History of a Mine. Economic Geography 46 (2):171-190. Baltimore Morning Herald. 1897. 13 September, 16 September. Beachley, C. E., comp. 1934. History ofthe Consolidation Coal Company, 1864-1934. New York: Consolidation Coal Co.

196

T H E GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

Besley, F. W. 1909. Marylands Forest Resources: A Preliminary Report. Forestry Leaflet No. 7. Baltimore: Maryland State Board of Forestry. . 1912. The Forests ofAllegany County. Baltimore: Maryland State Board of Forestry. . 1916. The Forests of Maryland. Baltimore: Maryland State Board of Forestry. Billington, R. A. 1945. The Origin of the Speculator as a Frontier Type. Agricultural History 19 (4):
204-212.

Buckley, G. L. 1998. Converting Minerals into Merchandise: Landownership and Environmental Alteration in the Georges Creek Valley of Western Maryland, 1789-1842. Historical Geography 26:
151-175.

Caudill, H. M. 1983. Theirs Be the Power: The Moguls of Eastern Kentucky. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Christiansen, A. J. 1948. Production ofcoal: Bituminous and Anthracite, Years 1800 to 1947 by States and Producing Districts and the United States. Chicago: Northern Illinois CoalTrade Association. Clark, W. B. 1905. Maryland Geological Survey: Report on the Coals of Maryland. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press. Clark, W. B., and E. B. Mathews. 1906. Report on the Physical Features of Maryland, Together with an Account ofthe Exhibits of Maryland Mineral Resources Made by the Maryland Geological Survey. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press. Clark, W. B., E. B. Mathews, and E. W. Berry. 1918. Maryland Geological Survey Report. Vol. 10. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press. Clarkson, R. B. 1964. Tumult on the Mountains: Lumbering in West Virginia, i770--1920. Parsons, W.Va.: McClain Print Co. Clawson, M. 1972. Americas Land and Its Uses. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. Colten, C. E. 1990. Environmental Development in the East St. Louis Region, 1890-1970. Environmental History Review 14 (1-2): 92-114. Cordts, J. M. 1977. The Hoffman Drainage Tunnel: A Remarkable Underground Achievement.lournal of the Alleghenies 13: 3-7. Corn, J. K. 1989. Environment and Health in Nineteenth Century America: Two Case Studies. New York: P. Lang. Cruger,A. 1840. Extracts from A. Crugers Remarks, Sept. 1829. In The Coal andlron Mines of the Union Potomac Company (Incorporated by Virginia,) and of the Union Company (Incorporated by Maryland,) Comprising Upwards of Fifty-six Thousand Acres of Land, Situated in Alleghany County, Maryland, and in Hampshire Counfy, Virginia. Baltimore, Md.: John Murphy. Cumberland Alleganian. 1851,1869,1904-1906. Various issues. Cumberland Alleganian and Daily Times. 1876.3 June, 8 June. Cumberland Daily Times. 1881. 25 June. Cumberland Evening Times. 1896,1897,1899,1900,i905. Various issues. Cumberland Union and Allegany County Gazette. 1865.23 September. Daniell, J. F. 1839. Letter to Samuel Swartwout, 5 October 1838. In Extracts from a Report Made to the Marylandand New York Coal &Iron Company,on the Estate of Said Company, in the County ofA1leghany, State of Maryland ..., 55-60. London: Thomas C. Savill. Detmold, C. E. 1849. Georges Creek Coal and Iron Company. Lonaconing, Md. Unpublished manuscript on file at the Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore. Dilts, J. D. 1993. The Great Road: The Building ofthe Baltimore and Ohio, the Nations First Railroad, 1828-1853. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Dunaway, W. 1995. Speculators and Settler Capitalists: Unthinking the Mythology about Appalachian Landholding, 1790-1860. In Appalachia in the Making: The Mountain South in the Nineteenth Century, edited by M. B. Pudup, D. B. Billings, and A. L. Waller, 50-75. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Eller, R. D. 1982. Miners, Millhands, and Mountaineers: Industrialization of the Appulachian South, 1880-1930. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Gray, L. C. 1913. The Economic Possibilities of Conservation. Quarterly journal ofEconornics 27 (2):
497-519-

Harvey, K. A. 1967. The Civil War and the Maryland Coal Trade. Maryland Historical Magazine 62
(4): 361-380. . 1969. The Best-Dressed Miners: Life and Labor in the Maryland Coal Region, 1835-1910. Ith-

aca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

TRANSFORMATION OF A N APPALACHIAN VALLEY

197

. 1975. Building a Frontier Iron Works: Problems of Transport and Supply, 1837-1840. Maryland Historical Magazine 70 (2): 149-166. Hodge, J. T. 1871. Plan Showing the Areas ofthe 14 Ft. Bed of the Cumberland Coal Field Georges Creek Valley, Maryland Belonging to the Consolidation Coal Company and others The Cumberland and Penn. Railroad Co. and Cumberld. Division R.R. with Their Connections. New York Major and Knapp. Hughes, G. W. 1837. Extractsfrom Reports of an Examination of the Coal Measures Belonging to ihe Maryland Mining Company, in Allegany Counly: And ofa Survey for u Railroud from the Mines to the Chesapeake and Ohio Cunal, at Cumberland. Washington, D.C.: Gales and Seaton. Jackson, R. H. 1987. Land Use in America. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Johnson, 0. 1996. Marylands State Forests and Parks: Remembering Ninety Years of Accomplishment. Patapsco Valley News, Spring-Winter, 1-2. Kahler, C. P. 1892. Map of the Georges Creek and Southampton Coal Fields. Baltimore, Md., n.p. Kline, B. F, G., Jr. 1976. Tall Pincs and Winding Rivers: The Logging Ruilrouds of Maryland. Lancaster, Pa.: B. F. G. Kline Jr. Lacoste, K. C., and R. D. Wall. 1987. An Archaeological Study ofthe Western Maryland Coal Region: The Historic Resources. Baltimore: Maryland Geological Survey. Land, A. C. 1953. A Land Speculator in the Opening of Western Maryland. Maryland Historical Magazine 48 (3): 19i-zo3. Lewis, R. 1995. Railroads, Deforestation, and theTransformation of Agriculture in the West Virginia Back Counties, 1880-1920. [n Appalachia in the Making: The Mountain South in the Nineteenth Century, edited by M. B. Pudup, D. B. Billings, and A. L. Waller, 297-320. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. . 1998. Transforming the Appulachian Countryside: Ruilroads, Lkforestution, and Social Change in West Virginia, 1880-zgzo. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Lyell, C. 1845. Travels in North America: With Geologicul Observations on the United States, Cunudu, and Nova Scotia. London: 1. Murray. Lyons, C. 1997. Telephone interview with the author. 15 January. Maryland Department of State Planning. 1974. Forest Vegetation in Maryland. Baltimore: Maryland Department of State Planning. Maryland Geological Survey, in Cooperation with U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Soil Survey. 1900. Mup of Allegany County Showing the Geological Formations and Agricultural soils. Allegany Baltimore: Maryland Geological Survey. County West Sheet. Scale: 1:62,500. Mellander, D. 1981. The Cumberlund & Pennsylvania Railrond: Western Marylands Historic Coal Carrier. Newton, N.J.: Carstens Publications. Melosi, M. V. 1985. Environmental Reform in the Industrial Cities: The Civic Response to Industrial Pollution in the Progressive Era. In Environmental History: Critical Issues in Comparative Perspective, edited by K. E. Bailes, 494-515. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America. ___ . 1993. The Placeof theCityin Environmental History.EnvironmentalHistory Review17 ( 1 ) : 1-23. Mitchell, R. D. 1977. Comrnercialism and Frontier: Perspectiveson the Early Shenandoah Valley Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Murray, E. 1954. Early Land Companies and Titles of Northumberland County. Northumberland County Historical Society 20: 16-33. Mushet, D. 1839. Analysis of the Coal and Iron Ores in England: Extracts of a Letter from David Mushet, Esq. to Samuel Swiirtwout, Esq. 20 September 1838. In Extractsfrom a Report Made to the Maryland and New York Coal &Iron Company, on the Estate of Said Company, in the County ofAlleghany, State of Maryland ..., 52-53. London: Thomas C. Savill. National Magazine and Industrial Record. 1845. The Coal Field of Allegany County, Maryland. Nutional Magazine and Industrial Record, 1 October, 431-443. Newell, F. H. 1900. The Hydrography of Allegany County. In Muryland Geologicul Survey: Alleguny C o u n y , 233-251. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press. Perdue, J. 1996. Telephone interview with the author. 20 September. Presidents Appalachian Regional Commission. 1963. Appalachias Forest Resources: Timber. A Task Force Report on the Timber Resources of Appalachia. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Quinn, M. L. 1993. Industry and Environment in the Appalachian Copper Basin, 1890-1930. Technology and Culture 34 ( 2 ) : j75-612.

198

T H E GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

Raitz, K. B., and R. Ulack. 1984. Appalachia, A Regional Geography: Land, People, and Development. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Reger, J. P. 1996. A History of the Maryland Geological Survey. In Studies in Maryland Geology, in Commemoration of the Centennial of the Maryland Geological Survey, edited by D. K. Brezinski and J. P. Reger, 3-45. Baltimore: Maryland Geological Survey. Reizenstein, M. 1897. The Economic History of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, 1827-1853. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press. Rome, A. W. 1996. Coming to Terms with Pollution: The Language of Environmental Reform, 1865-1915. Environmental History 1 (3): 6-28. Rosen, C. M. 1997. Noisome, Noxious, and Offensive Vapors, Fumes and Stenches in American Towns and Cities, 1840-1865. Historical Geography 25: 49-82. Scharf, J. T. 1968 [1882]. History of Western Maryland.... Baltimore, Md.: Regional Publishing Co. Schmidt, M. F. 1993. Marylands Geology. Centreville, Md.: Tidewater Publishers. Silliman, B. 1838. Extracts from a Report Made to the Maryland Mining Company on the Estate ofsaid Company, in the County of Allegany, Maryland. New York: Scatcherd and Adams. Smith, D. A. 1987. MiningAmerica: TheIndustryand theEnvironment, 1800-1980.Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Sudworth, G. B. 1900. The Forests of Allegany County. In Maryland Geological Survey: Allegany County, 263-290. Baltimore. Md.: Johns Hopkins Press. Swift, M. C. 1982. Effects of Coal Pile Runoffon Stream Quality and Macro-Invertebrate Communities. Technical Report No. 68. College Park: University of Maryland, Water Resources Research Center. Tarr, J. A. 1985. Industrial Wastes and Public Health: Some Historical Notes, Part I, 1876-1932. American Journal of Public Health 75 (9): 1059-1067. Uram, J., and J. E. Benhart. 1996. Coal as a Natural Resource: The Long-Term Environmental Impacts: A Case Study of Carbondale, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Geographer 34 (I): 38-63. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1898. Drainage Basin of the Potomac. Senate Document 90. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. U.S. War Department. Surgeon Generals Office. 1898. Water Supply ofthe District ofColumbiu. Senate Document 89. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. VanNewkirk, M. E. H. 1993. Windows to the Past. Frostburg, Md.: Frostburg Museum Association. Ware, D. M. 1995. Rails, Resources, and Resorts: The Opening of Marylands Coal Region. Maryland Humanities, Spring-Summer, 11-13. Weld, H. T. 1839. Letter to John Wright, Esq., n.d. In Extractsfrom a ReportMade to the Marylandand New York Coal &Iron Company, on theEstate ofSaid Company, in the County ofAlleghany, State of Maryland ..., 62-72. London: Thomas C. Savill. WestsMaryland Law Encyclopedia: Based on Maryland Statutes; Case Law; State and Federal; Attorney General Opinions and Law Review. 1960. Vol. 22. Brooklyn, N.Y.: American Law Book Co. Whitesell, C. D. 1960. Maryland Forests. Educational Series No. 43. Annapolis: Maryland Department of Research and Education. Wiseman, J. B. 1976. The Whirligig of Change, 1865-1920. In Allegany County:A History, edited by H. Stegmaier and others, 201-297. Parsons, W.Va.: McClain Printing Co.

Copyright of Geographical Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.