In this issue:
-Message from the Director: Historic Preservation's Challenge
-On the Road Again! - For Georgia Heritage Grants
-Rock Pile Research
-My house is old and full of mold!  What should I do?
-Case study – Little Five Points Commercial District, Fulton County
-The National Register of Historic Places in Georgia, Part 3
-Staff Profiles: Gretchen Brock

Message from the Director: Historic Preservation's Challenge
By Dr. David Crass, Division Director & State Archaeologist  

Part one of a three-part series
So if you’re tired of the same old story, oh, turn some pages…roll with the changes
- REO Speedwagon
I generally don’t start an editorial statement with a rock anthem lyric, but in this case it’s very appropriate.  It’s appropriate because in many ways the national historic preservation program is changing remarkably quickly—and if we don’t roll with those changes and turn them to our advantage to the best of our abilities, we’re going to be rolled over by the changes.
Here in Georgia we’ve been luckier than many State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) in working through the challenging state budget environment.  A strong leadership team in DNR has made it possible for HPD to achieve the necessary budget reductions through an internal planning process that is both strategic and very nimble.  Through this process and the hard work of our staff we’ve been able to absorb a 43% reduction in our state budget and a 22% reduction in personnel.
It would tempting to believe that the changes sweeping over historic preservation in Georgia originate solely in our budget crisis.  If that were true, once the budget crisis was over, historic preservation would be home free. That’s an easy answer—and precisely the wrong one.  It’s the wrong answer because the unfolding crisis we face is bigger than just a temporarily constricted budget.  Rather, what we are witnessing is a reconfiguration of state government that reflects a nation-wide phenomenon.
In a very real sense, historic preservation is a victim of its own success.  Over the last several decades, SHPOs nationwide have quietly done the hard work of economic development, working through Certified Local Governments, tax incentive programs, federally-mandated environmental reviews, technical assistance to downtown development authorities, and heritage tourism support.  We have gone about the business of building a preservation ethic in students and adults, helping local communities keep the things that make them unique while they revitalize their downtowns.  We’ve kept hundreds of thousands of tons of building debris out of our landfills, instead helping investors turn derelict buildings into economic engines in their local communities.  Our work has been laudable and highly successful.  Our mistake has been that, in many cases, we have left it up to others to tell our story, or even worse, expected policy makers to somehow "know" what we had accomplished using precious public tax dollars.
That laissez-faire posture is no longer viable because this budget crisis is a structural crisis that will affect historic preservation for decades.  We must meet this challenge head on.  But first, we have to understand its multi-dimensional nature.
Next month: Communicating results. 

On the Road Again! - For Georgia Heritage Grants
By Carole Moore, Grants Coordinator

The City of Cedartown (Polk County) was awarded a $15,000 SFY 2011 Georgia Heritage Grant to produce a preservation plan for its historic and still-functioning 1892 waterworks building.  Pictured L to R are Northwest Georgia RC Preservation Planner Kevin McAuliff; Carole Moore; grant project manager Amy Orebaugh; and Waterworks employee Shirley Brady.  Photo by Beth Gibson.
As Willie Nelson sings in his famous song, "I can’t wait to get back on the road again," HPD staff look forward to their annual site visits to newly-awarded Georgia Heritage grants.  Each fall the grants coordinator and architectural reviewer set out on a road trip to meet and greet the many individuals (grant writers, project managers, city managers, mayors, county commissioners, historical society members, preservation planners and others) associated with a successful Georgia Heritage grant project and to see the historic resource itself--up close and personal.  HPD thinks of itself as more than just a source of funds for preservation projects. "We consider ourselves to be partners with the grant recipient," explains Division Director Dr. David Crass, "and have a vested interest in the success of the project."

During the visit, HPD staff deliver and discuss the paperwork requirements for the grant and also offer valuable technical advice on the project.  Many grant recipients over the years have commented on how much they have appreciated these HPD visits.  "It helps them get started in the right direction, and I also have the opportunity to see the project and to really understand what is involved," says Preservation Architect, Beth Gibson. "I can be a better reviewer if I’ve visited the project," she adds.

Sometimes the site visit will reveal that the proposed project scope of work is actually not the correct one.  For example, when HPD staff visited the Lyons Woman’s Club in 2006, it was discovered, after the architectural reviewer examined the roof, that the building needed a new roof, not brick repointing, to solve the water problem.

Over the years, HPD staff have criss-crossed the state of Georgia, seeing a wide variety of historic resources in a wide variety of settings, ranging from large community landmarks, such as courthouses; to rural farmsteads; to urban city halls, jails, and libraries; to African-American schools and Masonic buildings; to cemeteries; to tiny structures, such as the bank in Surrency (now a welcome center) and the recently awarded Poulan Library.  "We found the Poulan one-room library to be particularly unique," says Ms. Gibson, "and are so glad that the small town of about 1,000 people is committed to preserving it."

For SFY 2011, four projects, totaling $50,400, were awarded in October 2010; Carole Moore and Beth Gibson traveled to these projects throughout the month of November. The projects include a still-functioning public waterworks building, a library, and two historic house museums, one of national significance. Please remember that these projects are funded only with license plate money, so buy yours today to keep the Georgia Heritage grant program going! 

Rock Pile Research
By Richard Moss, Staff Archaeologist
Historic Preservation Division (HPD) archaeologists Jennifer Bedell, Richard Moss and archaeology intern Jennifer Weber recently documented several rock piles in High Falls State Park, Monroe County.  Alerted to their presence by park manager Cliff Tippens, HPD staff archaeologists visited the area in late December to map, describe, and record the piles in advance of DNR WRD timber operations.  The mapping will help ensure the rock piles remain undisturbed during the planned pine thinning.

But what are these rock piles, and is protecting them important?  These questions have spawned decades of archaeological investigation into rock piles.  Humans have been piling rocks up for various reasons for thousands of years.  Archaeologists know that many rock piles in Georgia are the result of 19th or early 20th century farmers clearing their field.  Such features, ubiquitous in stony portions of Georgia’s mountains and piedmont, are analogous to agricultural terraces or old fence lines and have minimal archaeological research potential.  However, there are also examples of prehistoric rock mounds that served as ceremonial or mortuary sites to Native Americans.  These places are worthy of protection because of their cultural significance and importance to archaeological research.  However, distinguishing prehistoric rock mounds from historic rock piles is very difficult.

Research indicates that the origins and purpose of rock piles cannot be determined solely by their appearance and location.  Many contextual clues, such as local landforms, the presence/absence of agricultural terracing, or the presence/absence of nearby historic or prehistoric sites/artifacts, have been suggested as possible identification criteria.  Yet these can be misleading, especially when both prehistoric and historic piles are present.  Excavation remains the best method of evaluating these perplexing piles, although a lack of datable materials can make definitive answers elusive—many rock pile excavations have failed to yield any artifacts, historic or prehistoric.

In 2005, Southeastern Archaeological Services, Inc. investigated rock piles in Green County and delineated some distinguishing traits for historic rock piles and prehistoric rock mounds.  Initially, the piles were thought to be historic and the site was determined not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NHRP).  However, further excavations produced definitive evidence of prehistoric origins for at least one pile making the site eligible for the NHRP.  Dr. David S. Leigh, a geomorphologist from the University of Georgia, compared the prehistoric piles to the historic piles on the site and found that the prehistoric ones have smaller rocks, more dirt, and the soil beneath the piles has not been plowed.  Conversely, the historic piles had larger rocks on average, less dirt and were built on top of plowed soil.  Dr. Leigh hypothesized that small rocks would not pose a problem to mechanical plowing and therefore would not have been added to rock piles by historic farmers, whereas prehistoric Indians would have made use of all available rocks for mound construction.

Georgia has some famous prehistoric rock piles that are well protected and open to the public, such as the linear piles atop Fort Mountain State Park near Chatsworth, or the effigy mounds of Rock Eagle and Rock Hawk in Putnam County.  Yet smaller prehistoric rock piles, like the ones investigated by Southeastern Archaeological Services in Greene County, may have been the most common prior to land clearing in historic times.  In fact, the same historical practices that produced the agricultural rock piles may have also destroyed many prehistoric piles.  The remaining prehistoric piles are important monuments to the past and are worthy of preservation.  More information on rock piles in Georgia is available on the Society for Georgia Archaeology's website.

My house is old and full of mold!  What should I do?
By William Hover, Tax Incentives & Rehabilitation Guidance Program Manager & Architectural Reviewer
Mold has developed a reputation such that its presence in an indoor environment is thought to be a guarantee for the development of allergies, respiratory problems, or worse.  Great lengths are taken to eliminate it, even if it requires drastic measures like the removal of historic materials where it is growing.  This reputation has been encouraged by images from disaster events, such as Hurricane Katrina (where homes were gutted because of flood damage and mold took advantage of ideal growth conditions in its aftermath), and from mistaken association with other health hazards, such as Legionnaires’ Disease (caused not by mold, but by a bacteria).  As manifestation of this reputation, anecdotal reasons given for removing plaster finishes have included: "I’ve got young children I need to protect from mold exposure" and "the plaster had so much mold, I just had to take it all out."

Fortunately, this reputation is not factually supported.  Scientific studies have concluded that the presence of mold in indoor environments is not a cause of adverse health effects, although it can be associated with triggering respiratory discomfort and also allergic symptoms in sensitive persons.  This is also good news because there is actually no practicable way to remove mold from our lives.

So just what is mold?
Mold is a type of fungi, which are organisms that include more than 100,000 species worldwide, including mushrooms and mildew that make up about 25% of the earth’s biomass.  Mold requires oxygen, moisture, food, and the right temperature range to grow.  Its other characteristics include extracting nutrients from the material it grows on (organic itself or a surface that can collect nutrients) and reproducing by means of spores.

Mold or its spores are virtually everywhere and, if conditions are right, it can grow anywhere.  This, however, is not cause for undue alarm and despair, nor does it mean mold growth should not be addressed; there are purposeful reasons for controlling mold.  From a preservation perspective, these include preventing deterioration of historic materials and treating conditions that could result in their damage.  Obviously, additional benefits to controlling mold include aesthetics (mold not being an accepted decorative or olfactory treatment) and providing a more comfortable environment for allergy-sensitive persons.

Essentially, the preservation challenge in confronting mold is combating it as one of Nature’s tools for decomposing organic materials, since there’s a longevity problem if it’s growing on a historic wood or other organic building product or finish.  The basis for winning that battle is targeting the most controllable aspect of the environment where mold can survive and thrive.  Effectively, this means identifying and fixing moisture-related problems.  For instance, if you have a water pipe or roof leak that leaves a wall wet and results in mold, removing the mold along with the wall finish isn’t going to solve the mold problem because the wall’s going to get wet again and the mold will just come back.  

Instead, when mold is evident, investigation should be done to determine the cause(s), then the problem should be fixed (repair the leaking pipe or roof), then the mold should be cleaned up.  Clean up of exposed surfaces is relatively straightforward and involves scrubbing with detergents and/or biocide solutions, then drying the affected area completely.  Even so, materials that are absorbent and porous will likely need to be discarded, but, fortunately, they are also likely to be non-historic materials such as ceiling tile and carpet.

Hidden mold, such as behind wallpaper or in stud pockets, can be more challenging.  In such cases, selective demolition may be necessary to determine the extent of the problem.  However, the associated investigation is really more to determine whether repairs to damaged framing or structural elements are necessary and to ensure that the hidden area is dried out.  Undisturbed dead or dormant mold and spores aren’t really a problem if they’re not in a growth environment; they don’t somehow manage to sneak into occupied spaces.

If investigation of the cause of mold growth doesn’t reveal any leak problems, the culprit is likely indoor humidity.  To prevent mold growth, relative humidity should be kept in the range of 30 to 50%.  While humidity control can be accomplished with HVAC system equipment, portable dehumidifiers, increasing ventilation, and using fans to increase air movement can also be selectively used as needed.  

In conclusion, mold problems are not building material or finishes problems since mold is not an inherent part of their material components.  Mold is also really not a health hazard requiring drastic material removal measures.  Rather, mold growth is an indicator of a problem with the plumbing or mechanical systems, rainwater leaks, or indoor environment problems, all of which have one thing in common – moisture!

As mold guidance publications state repeatedly, moisture control is the key to mold control.  As such, historic materials shouldn’t be targeted as the cause or enabler of mold growth and summarily removed; instead they should be retained and repaired as part of the treatment to actually address the underlying mold issues, i.e. – fix the cause of the moisture problem, then clean up the mold.

Additional information and guidance about controlling mold and mold clean up is readily available on the internet, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website (see Mold, Moisture and Your Home and other publications), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, and the Western Wood Products Association website (under the Species & Products tab find their publication: Mold, Housing & Wood).

Case study – Little Five Points Commercial District, Fulton County
by Melina Vasquez, Environmental Review & Preservation Planning Program Assistant
Environmental Review Program case studies illustrate the Section 106 process by detailing actual projects reviewed by HPD for compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).  Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider effects to historic resources when they fund, license or permit a project.  Sometimes this planning process, which balances historic preservation values with the development needs or goals of a federal undertaking, results in mitigation of adverse effects to historic resources.  Most federal/state projects that we review have no effect or no adverse effect to properties eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).  However, when an adverse effect to historic properties cannot be avoided, mitigation is the public benefit that balances the loss (or diminishment) of the historic property. Typically, mitigation involves documentation of the historic property both in narrative and photographs, data recovery, site interpretation, and/or public outreach projects.

Cell towers are a part of the modern world.  They vary in height, design, construction, and whether their presence impacts historic properties.  Cell towers are licensed through the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), thus their construction requires compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA.

Consultation with our office regarding the construction of a 100-foot cell tower at 325 Moreland Avenue began in 2004 when the cellular communications company, on behalf of the FCC, initiated the Section 106 review process to determine the impact of the project on historic properties.  HPD reviewed the proposed project and, due to its location, requested that the cell tower company conduct a balloon test to better ascertain effects on historic properties.  The proposed tower was located in the Little Five Points Commercial District, along Moreland and Euclid Avenues.  Portions of the Little Five Points Commercial District are included in the NRHP-listed Inman Park-Moreland Historic District and the NRHP-listed Candler Park Historic District.

The balloon test was conducted in 2007 to assess the visual effects of the proposed stealth light pole tower on historic properties that had been identified in the project area.  Environmental Corporation of America (ECA), the cell tower consultant, invited representatives from the Atlanta Urban Design Commission (AUDC), the Inman Park Neighborhood Association, and the Little Five Points Business Association to attend the balloon test.  The test illustrated the visibility of the potential tower at a height of 100 feet.  Due to the visibility of the balloon, HPD concurred with ECA that the proposed tower would have an adverse effect on the Inman Park-Moreland Historic District.  Moreover, HPD was concerned about effects to nearby resources including the Bass Recreation Center, the Bass High School Lofts, and the Little Five Points Business district along Euclid Avenue.

In the Section 106 process, when projects are found to have an adverse effect, alternatives should be considered that avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effect.  The cell tower company considered alternative locations to avoid the tower’s visual impact.  When the visual impacts could not be avoided, the consulting parties negotiated and signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in 2008.  An MOA is the legally-binding document that delineates responsibility and actions agreed upon to mitigate adverse effects.

HPD proposed photographic documentation of the Little Five Points Commercial District and the preparation of a historical narrative of the Little Five Points Commercial District.  The narrative report provides a detailed developmental history of the project area differentiating between the post Civil War expansion of the city of Atlanta and the early to mid 20th century commercial boom of Little Five Points as Atlanta’s first regional shopping district.    

The cell tower company's consultant, History Incorporated, working with our office, produced an excellent report entitled Little Five Points Commercial District: Atlanta’s First Suburban Shopping District, Atlanta, Fulton and DeKalb Counties, Georgia (the full document is available here).  This historical report’s research focuses on primary and secondary documentation to construct a history of the development of this area.  Furthermore, it relates the commercial district to the historic urbanization of the city of Atlanta and contributes to a better understanding of national mid-20th century suburban development.  Although the tower had an adverse effect on historic properties, mitigation measures produced valuable information that served to balance this impact.

More information on Environmental Review and other Section 106 case studies are available on our website.

The National Register of Historic Places in Georgia
By Gretchen Brock, National Register & Survey Program Manager

Upon receipt at HPD, proposed nominations are entered into our National Register logging/tracking database and a checklist is completed to verify that requested supporting documentation is submitted (See Section 5 in the HPIF and HDIF for the checklist).  If information critical for a review, such as current photographs, floor plans, site plans, and/or district maps, is not included, we will notify the applicant in writing and the proposed nomination is put “on-hold” until the requested information is submitted


Upon receipt at HPD, proposed nominations are entered into our National Register logging/tracking database and a checklist is completed to verify that requested supporting documentation is submitted (See Section 5 in the HPIF and HDIF for the checklist).  If information critical for a review, such as current photographs, floor plans, site plans, and/or district maps, is not included, we will notify the applicant in writing and the proposed nomination is put “on-hold” until the requested information is submitted


Upon receipt at HPD, proposed nominations are entered into our National Register logging/tracking database and a checklist is completed to verify that requested supporting documentation is submitted (See Section 5 in the HPIF and HDIF for the checklist).  If information critical for a review, such as current photographs, floor plans, site plans, and/or district maps, is not included, we will notify the applicant in writing and the proposed nomination is put “on-hold” until the requested information is submitted


Upon receipt at HPD, proposed nominations are entered into our National Register logging/tracking database and a checklist is completed to verify that requested supporting documentation is submitted (See Section 5 in the HPIF and HDIF for the checklist).  If information critical for a review, such as current photographs, floor plans, site plans, and/or district maps, is not included, we will notify the applicant in writing and the proposed nomination is put “on-hold” until the requested information is submitted

level review process level review process  thghghtytytyttttttttttgggggggggggg
Part 3:  HPD’s Review Process of Proposed Nominations
Teel-Crawford-Gaston Plantation, Sumter County - listed in the NRHP October 27, 2004
This is the third in a series of articles about the National Register process in Georgia that began in November 2010.  For parts one and two, please see the past editions of Preservation Posts available on our website.

This month I will explain the state-level review process for a proposed nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).  As Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), HPD is responsible for nominating eligible properties to the NRHP.  The SHPO’s responsibilities, the NRHP, and the nomination process are outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 60).

The state-level review process begins when a property owner(s) and/or sponsor makes an official request for nomination by submitting a completed Historic Property Information Form (HPIF), Historic District Information Form (HDIF), or National Register Registration Form with the required supporting documentation to HPD. 

Upon receipt at HPD, proposed nominations are entered into our National Register logging/tracking database and a checklist is completed to verify that requested supporting documentation is submitted (See Section 5 in the HPIF and HDIF for the checklist).  If information critical for a review, such as current photographs, floor plans, site plans, and/or district maps, is not included, we will notify the applicant in writing and the proposed nomination is put "on-hold" until the requested information is submitted.  Proposed nominations that do include critical supporting documentation are then scheduled for review by HPD’s National Register staff during an in-house meeting.  Federal regulations give a timeline of 60 days for review but we generally review proposed nominations within 30 days. 

HPD’s National Register staff consists of architectural historians and historians under the direction of the National Register Program Manager and the Historic Resources Section Chief.  Proposed nominations of archaeological sites are also reviewed by HPD’s deputy state archaeologist(s).  A staff list is available on our website.

HPD’s National Register staff reviews proposed nominations and is charged with determining:
1. Whether or not the property is adequately documented (a "property" is defined as a building, structure, site, object, or district)
2. Whether or not the property appears to meet the National Register Criteria for Evaluation
Reviews of proposed nominations follow guidance set forth by the National Park Service in the National Register Bulletins.

Our staff reviews the written description and compares it to the current and historic photographs, floor plans, site plans, and maps for accuracy and completeness.  Some of the things we look for are: 
- Does the description provide a current "verbal photograph" of the entire property?
- Is the description cross-referenced to the photographs?
- Are all changes, alterations, and/or additions over time thoroughly described? 
For individual properties, exterior and interior changes to materials, design, floor plan, setting, and workmanship are reviewed.  For historic districts, loss of historic buildings; new construction; and changes in design, materials, setting, and workmanship to historic buildings, sites, structures, and/or objects in the district are evaluated.

Next, we review the developmental history and all additional supporting documentation for accuracy and thoroughness.  Some of the things we look for are:
- Is the developmental history a concise, factual account of the history and development of the property, from its origins to the present time?
- Is the information presented chronologically and organized by major historical periods or eras associated with the property with specific dates provided?
-  Does the developmental history document specific important persons, events, and activities associated with the property?
- Are original, subsequent, and current uses and functions of the property identified?
- Is the acquisition of land, the construction of buildings and other structures, the development of landscaping, and any major changes to the property over time, with specific attention to extant buildings, structures, and landscape features thoroughly discussed?
- Are any known architects, engineers, builders, contractors, landscape architects, gardeners, and/or other artists or craftsmen identified with basic biographical information?
- Were critical primary and secondary sources of information researched and properly cited?

After our in-house review, we notify the property owner(s) and/or sponsors of the result in writing.  The four possible outcomes of our state-level review are:

1. The property is fully documented to National Register and HPD standards and the property appears to be eligible for listing in the National Register.  The proposed nomination moves to the next step in the process.

2. The property is not fully documented but appears to be eligible for listing.  This is very common and a majority of proposed nominations need additional research and documentation so be prepared to follow up.  We will send a letter requesting additional information and provide guidance on what is needed, why it is needed, and where to find the information.  It is the responsibility of the property owner/sponsor to provide the additional information.  The proposed nomination is put "on hold" in our office until we receive the requested information.  There is no deadline or expiration date and proposed nominations are kept in our office indefinitely until we receive the additional information. 

3. We cannot determine whether a property appears to be eligible for listing based on the information submitted.  In this case, we will request a site visit to the property or additional information.

4. We determine that the property is not eligible for listing in the National Register.  In this case, we will send a letter explaining the basis for our decision.  If you want to appeal our decision to the Keeper of the National Register, the appeals process is available online in the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 60.12).

Throughout the National Register nomination process, we encourage you to contact our National Register staff by email or phone if you have any questions.  We can also suggest sources of information and provide examples of similar National Register nominations that may be useful to you.

Next month in Preservation Posts:  Part 4:  Additional Information Review, Site Visits, and Scheduling for Review Board.

-For questions or more information about the National Register process, please contact:
Gretchen Brock, National Register & Survey Program Manager at 404.651.6782 or
Lynn Speno, National Register Specialist at 404.651.5911 or
-The official National Register of Historic Places website is
-The National Register of Historic Places has a series of publications and guidelines for evaluating, documenting, and listing different types of properties available at 

 Staff Profiles
Gretchen Brock, National Register & Survey Program Manager

Gretchen has worked for HPD since 1998. She began her career at HPD as the Survey and Register Unit Specialist and, in 1999, became the Georgia/National Register Coordinator.  In 2010, Gretchen became the National Register and Survey Program Manager.  She administers and promotes the National Register of Historic Places and Georgia Register of Historic Places programs in Georgia.  From 1999 to 2010, she was the chair of Georgia’s Centennial Farm Program.  Gretchen graduated with Bachelors of Arts degrees in English and Anthropology from the University of Georgia in 1993 and completed coursework for a Masters in Historic Preservation at the University of Georgia in 1997.

How did you become involved in the field of historic preservation?
 I think subconsciously I’ve been interested in historic places since childhood.  My parents collected antiques and enjoyed traveling to small towns, state and national parks, and historic sites so I grew up with an appreciation of historic places and material culture. In college, I originally thought I would continue graduate studies in anthropology, particularly in forensic anthropology, but then decided that historic preservation combined a lot of my interests in history, architecture, and culture.

What do you do on a typical day?  What do you like most about your job?
There rarely is a typical day at the office or out in the field.  A majority of my time is spent administering the National Register of Historic Places program for Georgia—answering questions, maintaining our databases, scheduling reviews of proposed nominations, site visits, correspondence, and writing and editing nominations.  Most of the programs in our office relate to the National Register in some way so I also work with HPD staff in the grants, tax incentives, archaeology, and environmental review programs.  I am writing a series of Preservation Posts articles about the National Register process in Georgia and plan to begin a series of "how to" articles on different aspects of documenting historic places.

The best part of my job is helping Georgians document and preserve historic places that are important to them.  I am continually amazed by the wonderful historic places in the state and the people who care so much about them. 

What do you like to do outside the office?
Until recently I worked as a barista and shift supervisor at Starbucks.  I am currently on a hiatus from making coffee and so I am really enjoying my free time!  I am an avid reader of early 20th-century history and biographies and also an avid quilter. 

Please send your comments or suggestions to

Like us on Facebook  Follow us on Twitter  Find us on Flickr

Not a member? Subscribe now!

Our mailing address is:
DNR Historic Preservation Division
Jewett Center for Historic Preservation
2610 GA Hwy 155, SW
Stockbridge, GA 30281

Add us to your address book

Copyright (C) 2011 DNR Historic Preservation Division All rights reserved.

Title image: The National Register-listed Davis-Proctor House, Twin City, Emanuel County