Blue Ridge Parkway

Saunders Farm

Historic Structures Report

June 2005

Historical Architecture, Cultural Resources Division

Southeast Regional Office

National Park Service
Cultural Resources

Southeast Region

National Park Service

100 Alabama St. SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

(404) 562-3117

The historic structure report presented here exists in two 

formats. A traditional, printed version is available for study 

at the park, the Southeastern Regional Office of the NPS 

(SERO), and at a variety of other repositories. For more 

widespread access, the historic structure report also exists 

in a web- based format through ParkNet, the website of 

the National Park Service. Please visit www.nps.gov 

for more information.

2005

Historic Structures Report

Saunders Farm

Blue Ridge Parkway

Peaks of Otter, VA

LCS#: Saunders House 006493 

 Saunders Meat House 006495 

 Saunders Chicken House 006496 

 Saunders Hog House and Pen 006497 

Cover image: NPS, photo by Sam P. Weems, 9 

February 1949


National Park Service v

Table of Contents

Foreword xi

Management Summary

Historical Data 1

Architectural Data 1

Ultimate Treatment and Use 2

Summary of Recommendations 2

Stabilization 2

Repair and Rehabilitation 2

Research 3

Restoration 3

Outbuildings 3

Site Security 3

Administrative Data 4

Location Data 4

Related Studies 4

Cultural Resource Data 4

Historical Background and Context

Saunders 5

Saunders Farm 6

Chronology of Development and Use

The House 10

Date of Construction 11

Materials 11

Form and Plan 12

Finishes 12

Later Alterations 13

Utilities 15

Outbuildings 15

“Meat House” 16

Chicken House 17

Hog House 17

Barn 18

Other Outbuildings 18

Saunders Farm Chronology 19

Reconstructed Floor Plans 21

Probable Floor Plan as Originally Constructed 21

Probable Floor Plan in 1942 21
vi Saunders Farm HSR

Physical Description

Saunders House 24

Foundation 24

Cellar 25

Chimneys 26

Log Pen 27

Wood Frame 28

Exterior Finishes 29

Interior 33

Outbuildings 40

Meat House 40

Ruins 42

Plan of Existing Building 43

Treatment and Use

Requirements for Treatment and Use 45

Legal Requirements 45

DOI and NPS Policies and Regulations 46

Ultimate Treatment and Use 47

Alternatives for Treatment and Use 47

Use 47

Treatment 48

Recommendations for Treatment and Use

Main House 49

Stabilization 49

Repair and Rehabilitation 50

Research 52

Restoration 52

Outbuildings 53

Meat House 53

Ruins 53

Site Security 53

Sources of Information

Appendix A: Federal Census Schedules

1880 Census 59

1930 Census 61

Appendix B: Bedford County Deeds

1912: Book 107, pp. 127-128 65

1927: Book 149, pp. 106-107 67

1942: Book 199, pp. 517-519 69

Appendix C: 1942 Plat
National Park Service ix

List of Figures

1 Location map for Saunders Farm, indicated by arrow. (NPS map) 3

2 View to southeast of Saunders farm, 1949, showing residence, meat house, and a 

glimpse of the barn. (NPS, BLRI Coll.) 5

3 View to east of Saunders Farm, 1949. (NPS, BLRI Coll.) 7

4 View southeast at Saunders Farm, 1949. (NPS, BLRI Coll.) 9

5 View southeast of Saunders Farm, c. 1950. (BLRI Coll.) 10

6 View of house in 1974. (NPS, BLRI Coll.) 11

7 View of house in 1977. (NPS, BLRI Coll.) 12

8 View northwest of house, c. 1974. (NPS, BLRI Coll.) 13

9 View west of rear of house, 1977. (NPS, BLRI Coll.) 14

10 Detail from 1949 photograph of house, showing meat house at center and, at left, 

a building that is probably the barn. (NPS, BLRI Coll.) 15

11 View of meat house, c. 1975. (NPS,BLRI coll.) 16

12 View of meat house in 1975. (NPS, BLRI Coll.) 16

13 A glimpse of the south end of the chicken house, with its door open, c. 1950. 

(NPS, BLRI Coll.) 16

14 View west of chicken house, 1974. (NPS, BLRI Coll.) 16

15 View east of hog pen, c. 1950. (NPS, BLRI Coll.) 17

16 View northeast of chicken house in 1977. (NPS, BLRI Coll.) 17

17 View east of hog house and pen, c. 1950. (NPS, BLRI Coll.) 17

18 View of south end of hog house in 1975. (NPS, BLRI) 17

19 View to northeast of Saunders House. (NPS, 2004) 23

20 View of historic masonry near the southwest corner that has not been repointed. 

(NPS, 2005) 24

21 View of historic masonry that has been repointed with Portland cement. (NPS, 2005) 24

22 View of foundation at south end of house, showing cellar doorway. 24

24 View north in cellar, with rocks from collapsed north wall in foreground. (NPS, 2005) 25

23 View of cellar door. (NPS, 2005) 25

25 View of chimney. (NPS, 2005) 26

26 View of fireplace. (NPS, 2005) 26

27 View of kitchen chimney. (NPS, 2005) 27

28 View of northwest corner of house, showing typical V-notch corners, all three 

generations of mortar chinking, and wire lath. (NPS, 2005) 27

29 View of a portion of south wall, showing typical treatment of gap between the 

logs. (NPS, 2005) 28

30 View of floor framing in log pen. (NPS, 2005) 28

31 View of framing at southeast corner of the kitchen. (NPS, 2005) 28

32 View of typical rafters and collar beam. (NPS, 2005) 29
x Saunders Farm HSR

33 View of northeast corner of building showing typical exterior finishes. (NPS, 2005) 29

34 View of south side of house. (NPS, 2005) 29

35 View of east gable. (NPS, 2005) 30

36 View of north side of house. (NPS, 2005) 30

37 View of front of house. (NPS, 2005) 31

38 View of window in south gable. (NPS, 2005) 31

39 View of front door. (NPS, 2005) 32

40 View west-northwest of rear and south sides. (NPS, 2005) 32

41 View west in Room 100. (NPS, 2005) 33

42 View of north wall of Room 100. (NPS, 2005) 33

43 View northeast in Room 100. (NPS, 2005) 33

44 View of stairs to second floor of log pen. (NPS, 2005) 34

45 View to southwest in Room 100. (NPS, 2005) 34

46 View of stairway from Room 200 to Room 100. (NPS, 2005) 35

47 View south on second floor of log pen. (NPS, 2005) 35

48 View of junction of rafters and sill plate on west side of Room 200. (NPS, 2005) 36

49 View of junction of rafters and sill plate on west side of Room 200. (NPS, 2005) 36

50 View south in Room 200. (NPS, 2005) 36

51 View northeast in Kitchen. (NPS, 2005) 37

52 View of cook stove flue on south wall of kitchen. (NPS, 2005) 37

53 View of west wall of Kitchen. (NPS, 2005) 38

54 View southeast in Room 101. (NPS, 2005) 38

55 View of exterior of enclosed porch, showing two generations of siding. (NPS, 2005) 39

56 View west in Room 102. (NPS, 2005) 39

57 View of front and east side of meat house. (NPS, 2005) 40

58 View of west side of meat house. (NPS, 2005) 41

59 View of east side of meat house. (NPS, 2005) 41

60 View of south end of meat house. (NPS, 2005) 41

61 View north of chicken house ruin. (NPS, 2005) 42

62 View southeast of chicken house ruin. (NPS, 2005) 42

63 View southeast of ruins of hog house. (NPS, 2005) 42
National Park Service xi

We are pleased to make available this historic structure report on Saunders Farm, part of our ongoing effort 

to provide comprehensive documentation for the historic structures and landscapes of National Park 

Service units in the Southeast Region. Many individuals contributed to this work, but we would particularly 

like to thank Al Hess, the park’s NHPA specialist, and the rest of the staff at the Blue Ridge Parkway for their 

assistance. Special thanks go to Jackie Holt, museum curator at the park, for her work in searching the 

park’s collection for historic photographs. We hope that this study of Saunders Farm will prove valuable to 

park management in efforts to preserve the site and to everyone in understanding and interpreting this 

unique resource.

Dan Scheidt, Chief

Cultural Resources Division

Southeast Regional Office

Foreword
xii Saunders Farm HSR
National Park Service xiii

Project Team

Project Manager Dan Scheidt, Historical Architect

National Park Service

Southeast Regional Office

Atlanta, GA

Author Tommy H. Jones, Architectural Historian

National Park Service

Southeast Regional Office

Atlanta, GA

Document Publication/ Jay Womack

National Park Service

Southeast Regional Office

Atlanta, GA

Program Reviews Bob Blythe, History

Allen Bohnert, Curatorial & Museum

Services

Tracy Stakely, Historical Landscape Architecture

Southeast Regional Office

Atlanta, GA
xiv Saunders Farm HSR
National Park Service 1

Located just off Virginia Highway 43 near the Blue 

Ridge Parkway and the Peaks of Otter Recreational 

Area, Saunders Farm is reported to have been 

owned by three generations of an AfricanAmerican family in the late nineteenth or early 

twentieth century but has been unoccupied since at 

least 1947. The two surviving buildings on the farm 

are excellent examples of vernacular architecture, 

and the materials and craftsmanship with which 

they were constructed are a primary component of 

the site’s significance.

Historical Data

Although limited by time and budget, historical 

research has been sufficient to understand the 

nature of the historic building, if not to fully 

interpret its significance. A historic resource study 

of the site should be a high priority if the site is to be 

properly interpreted. In addition to the single oral 

interview with the Saunders’ daughter and the more 

recent interview with the Saunders’ neighbor 

William R. Wright, a cursory survey of 

documentation at the Bedford County Courthouse 

found a record for George Saunders’ birth in 1880 

and for his marriage to Bettie Ross in 1905. 

Courthouse documents also include the deed 

recorded for George Saunders’ purchase of the 22-

acre farm from his father in 1912, his sale of six acres 

to the Federal government in 1927, and the sale of 

the remainder of the farm to the Federal 

government in 1942. A plat of the property was also 

recorded in 1942.

The Federal censuses 1850- 1930 were searched 

during the course of this project. George Saunders 

was located in the Federal census in 1880, 1920, and 

1930, but he has not been located in the censuses of 

1900 and 1910 (the 1890 census schedules no longer 

exist). His father was located in the 1870, 1880, and 

1910 census but not in the 1900 census. The identity 

of George Saunders’ grandfather, who presumably 

bought the land sometime after the Civil War, has 

not been documented.

There are a number of avenues of research that 

might be pursued, but the interviews being 

conducted for the park’s currently ongoing 

ethnographic study may be the most productive. 

Children and grandchildren of George and Betty 

Saunders are still living in the area, and interviews 

would certainly yield significant amounts of new 

information.

Architectural Data

Located on the rocky southern slope of Flat Top 

Mountain above Little Stony Creek, the Saunders 

Farm site is at an elevation that ranges from around 

2,100 feet to as much as 2,500 feet. The site is completely overgrown with hardwood saplings and 

undergrowth that have grown up in the last thirty 

years. As a result, the house is almost completely 

hidden from view during the growing season and 

difficult to access at any time of the year.

See page 23 for plans illustrating the 

building’s evolution and page 45 for a plan of 

the existing building.

The site is notable for the series of sixteen manmade terraces that made agriculture possible, but 

the most prominent features are the Saunders 

House and the nearby meat house, both of which 

are of log and wood- frame construction. Two other 

outbuildings, also of log construction, are in ruins, 

Management 

Summary
2 Saunders Farm HSR

one located about fifty feet east of the house and 

another about a hundred feet north. The site of the 

barn that stood southeast of the meat house has not 

been located.

This HSR is based on an initial inspection of the site 

in April 2005. At that time, the large amount of 

debris- - including animal waste, bones, and nests, 

some of it potentially hazardous- - limited the work 

inside the house. In spite of decades of neglect and 

some vandalism, the main house and the meat house 

remain in surprisingly good condition, with most of 

their historic features intact. It is assumed that this 

HSR will be updated after a more- thorough inspection and condition assessment once the building is 

cleared of debris.

Ultimate 

Treatment and Use

Management objectives for Saunders Farm have not 

been formally established, but it is generally 

assumed that Saunders Farm would be preserved 

and restored to its historic appearance for use as a 

museum exhibit in a manner similar to the nearby 

Johnson Farm. Saunders Farm could interpret the 

African- American experience of farming the rugged hillsides of western Virginia in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, providing an 

opportunity to compare and contrast that experience with the experience interpreted at Johnson 

Farm, which was owned by a white family.

Treatment should not attempt to restore the buildings to their original appearance. Not only is the 

“original” appearance of the buildings difficult, if 

not impossible, to define, it is the larger story of the 

Saunders’ use of the land that is significant and not 

some particular event or point in time. In essence, 

the recommended approach to treatment would 

repair and preserve the buildings at Saunders Farm 

as they existed when the Saunders vacated the 

property in the late 1940s.

Summary of 

Recommendations

Adaptation and stabilization of Saunders Farm to 

allow for public access will require a considerable 

investment, as will the additional historical research, 

building investigation, restoration, and reconstruction needed for interpretation. Following is an outline of the necessary work, presented in the general 

order in which it should be accomplished.

Stabilization

■ Clear access into site

■ Clear trees and underbrush from on and around 

the historic structures

■ Clean interior and re- evaluate

■ Map, catalog, and store building detached 

artifacts inside and outside structures

■ Cover holes in floors

■ Secure exterior by closing opening on north 

side

■ Install vented covers at windows and front door

■ Install temporary door at east end of Room 102

■ Clear roof of debris and cover roof of Room 102 

with a tarpaulin

■ Monitor site and maintain building security

Repair and Rehabilitation

■ Repair and repoint foundation on north and 

east side of house

■ Avoid reconstruction and repoint foundation 

under Room 102

■ Monitor foundation at southwest corner for 

continuing movement

■ Devise means to tie south and west foundation 

together without reconstruction

■ Repair sills on north and east side

■ Repair floor and roof framing of enclosed porch 

(102)

■ Locate source of and repair damage to 

northeast corner of log pen
National Park Service 3

Management Summary

■ Repair siding, soffit, and fascia, replacing 

material only as necessary using quarter- sawn 

pine as a replacement material

■ Repair existing window sash; replace missing 

window sash

■ Replicate five- panel front door and install at 

east end of enclosed porch (102)

■ Install vertical rim locks with brown mineral 

knobs at front and back door

■ Repair standing- seam metal roof covering

■ Rework surface grade surrounding house to 

insure rapid rain water run- off away from 

house

■ Repair and clean flooring as necessary

■ Recreate stairs to front door

Research

■ Develop a comprehensive historic resource 

study for Saunders Farm

■ Re- evaluate interior of house after cleaning

■ Establish construction date through 

dendrochronological analysis

Restoration

■ Develop historic furnishings plan

■ Recreate wall coverings in Rooms 101 and 201

■ Whitewash interior of log pen

Outbuildings

■ Repair roofing on Meat House

■ Reconstruct Meat House door

■ Replace missing flooring in Meat House

■ Reconstruct shed on Meat House

■ Preserve stone foundations of ruins in place

■ Reconstruct ruined buildings only if deemed 

necessary for interpretation

Site Security

■ Implement vandalism control measures 

outlined in Vandalism Control Management for 

Park Districts

FIGURE 1. Location map for Saunders Farm, indicated by arrow. (NPS map)
4 Saunders Farm HSR

■ Prohibit smoking at the site

■ Maintain site to reduce risk from wild fire

■ Maintain fire extinguishers in both buildings

■ Consider installation of solar- or batterypowered security system

Administrative 

Data

Location Data

Name: George Saunders Farm

Location: Va. 43 near Blue Ridge Parkway and Peaks 

of Otter Recreation Area; Bedford County, VA.

LCS#: Saunders House 006493 

 Saunders meat house 006495 

 Saunders chicken house 006496 

 Saunders hog house and pen 006497 

Related Studies

Firth, Ian J. W. “Parkway Profiles: Brief Background 

Statements on the Major Cultural Resources of 

the Blue Ridge Parkway.” Athens, GA, School of 

Environmental Design, 1992.

Cultural Resource Data

National Register of Historic Places: eligible for designation

Period of Significance: c. 1900- c. 1947

Proposed Treatment: Preservation.
National Park Service 5

Located on the old Bedford- Buchanan Turnpike 

near Peaks of Otter in Bedford County, Virginia, the 

George Saunders Farm is significant as one of a few 

African- American farmsteads on the Blue Ridge 

Parkway. The site, which is considerably overgrown, 

includes a log and wood- frame house dating to the 

late nineteenth or early twentieth century, a contemporaneous log outbuilding called the “meat 

house,” the ruins of two other log outbuildings, and 

at least sixteen rock- walled terraces. According to 

Saunders’ daughter Mabel, who was interviewed by 

the park in 1975, her father was the third generation 

of the family to farm the land, although a chain of 

title has been proven only through two generations 

of the Saunders family.

Saunders

Saunders is one of the more common names in 

Bedford County, with as many as thirty- two African- American households (and almost as many 

white households) in Bedford County with that 

surname shown in the 1880 Federal census.1

 George 

Saunders, whose middle name may have been 

Edward, was born in Bedford County on 16 March 

FIGURE 2. View to southeast of Saunders farm, 1949, showing residence, meat 

house, and a glimpse of the barn. (NPS, BLRI Coll.)

Historical Background 

and Context
6 Saunders Farm HSR

Historical Background & Context

1880.2 He was the son of Edward Saunders, whom 

the census reports was born about 1853, and his wife 

Mary E. Saunders, reportedly born about 1854.

Edward may have been the same Edward Saunders 

whom Bedford County birth records show was 

born to Anzoletta and Frances Saunders in August 

1854, but the 1870 Federal census of Bedford County 

indicates that he was the son of Edward or Edmund 

Saunders, born about 1824, and his wife Mary, born 

about 1830. Additional research is necessary to 

definitively prove George Saunders’ ancestry and 

particularly to prove the tradition that the Saunders 

Farm was owned by three generations of the Saunders family.

Copies of deeds, a plat, and selected census 

schedules may be found among the 

appendices to this report.

The 1870 census appears to show George’s parents 

living with his grandparents, both couples named 

George and Mary. The younger Saunders couple are 

shown with a single, un- named child, who was 

probably their oldest son John, born in 1869.3

 When 

the census was taken again in the summer of 1880, 

the younger Edward and “Mollie” Saunders are 

shown in a separate household with a son Albert 

and a daughter Poky. Their eldest son John Saunders is also in the household, but the census taker’s 

notation of a second John Saunders, born in March 

of 1880, must surely have been a mistake and was, in 

fact, the infant George E. Saunders.

Nothing is known about George’s childhood, 

although he apparently learned to read and write, 

while his parents remained illiterate.4 He cannot be 

located in the 1900 Federal census (the 1890 census 

schedules have been lost), but he was certainly in 

Bedford County in 1905 when he married Bettie 

Pearl Ross at her grandmother Polly Ross’ house on 

the tenth of May. Bettie’s mother, whom the marriage license identifies as Laura Ross, was apparently still alive, but her father was not identified on 

the license. The marriage ceremony was performed 

by T. H. Cunningham, a minister in the Missionary 

Baptist Church, probably Antioch, the historic African- American church nearby.5

The Saunders raised nine children in the house, 

beginning with daughter Mabel Pulver, who was 

born in 1908. Seven sons followed: Ervin Hagan in 

1910, Russell Edward in 1912, Cory Sander, in 1914, 

Elmer Johnson in 1916, Homer Roy in 1918, Willie 

Nichols in 1920, and Hilton Hamilton in 1924. In 

1928, their last child, a daughter named Katherine, 

was born.6

Saunders Farm

When interviewed in 1975, George Saunders’ 

daughter Mabel stated, “My daddy bought it [Saunders Farm] from his dad and he bought a part of it 

from his father.”7

 In both the 1870 and 1880 Federal 

censuses, Edward Saunders, whose occupation was 

listed simply as “laborer,” was living in Staunton 

township, which is on the south side of Bedford 

County, so it is assumed that he had not yet 

acquired the farm near the Peaks of Otter. Unfortunately the 1890 census has been lost, the Saunders 

cannot be identified in the 1900 census, and no 

record of Edward Saunders’ purchase of land in 

Bedford County has yet been located.

Mabel Saunders Swain indicated that the farm was 

her parents’ home for around forty- five years, as 

she recalled it, probably meaning that they occupied 

the house their entire married life, which began in 

1905. Significantly perhaps, George Saunders’ occupation was listed as “laborer,” not farmer, when he 

married in 1905. It is not clear if this is an indication 

that they were not yet farming their own land or 

simply were laboring elsewhere while maintaining a 

farm on the side.

Bedford County’s record of deeds and mortgages 

1. Images of the Federal census schedules were documents George Saunders’ purchase of his farm researched on line at <www.ancestry.com>. Saunders 

was enumerated as George P. Saunders in 1920 and 

George E. Sanders in 1930.

2. Bedford County Birth Records confirm the date and 

place of birth.

3. 1870 Federal Census, Bedford County, Staunton 

Township, p. 27.

4. Federal census documents literacy.

5. Bedford County Marriages, 2-412.

6. Interview with Mabel Saunders Swain documents 

children’s names; 1930 census documents birth dates.

7. There are two transcripts for the interview. Transcript 

B omits reference to George’s grandfather’s 

ownership of part of the land.
National Park Service 7

Part I: Developmental History

from his father. On 8 May 1912, Edward and Mary E. 

Saunders sold him twenty- two acres of land on Little Stony Creek for $200, although George and his 

family were probably living on the farm for several 

years before that. The irregularly shaped tract was 

described as being located in the Central District of 

Bedford County on the Bedford- Buchanan Turnpike near the Peaks of Otter. The elder Saunders 

reserved “a 16 foot Right of Way Through the above 

Described land to the B & B Pike,” suggesting that 

the elder Saunders’ house, which Mabel Swain said 

was where George grew up, was somewhere east or 

northeast of George’s land.8 The right- of- way 

noted in the deed probably followed the trace of an 

old road that runs in a southeasterly direction 

across the south side of Saunders’ Farm.

It is likely that George Saunders had already made 

most if not all of the major improvements to the 

land by the time he took title to the property in 1912. 

In addition to the house, which he built himself with 

the help of a neighbor, Saunders also apparently 

built the “meat house,” which is still standing, and a 

“corn house” and a “chicken house,” both of which 

are in ruins. His daughter remembered a barn as 

well, “for his horse,” but the structure is no longer 

extant.9

The Saunders’ neighbor, William R. Wright, who 

was a contemporary of their older children, characterized the Saunders’ farm as a subsistence farm, but 

that should not be taken as implying grinding poverty. They grew much of their own food, but Saunders had cash crops, too, or did work for hire and 

was able to afford to put a standing- seam metal roof 

on his house, which was no small investment. One 

source of cash, according to Wright, was tomatoes 

grown on the terraced hillside above the house. 

These Saunders sold to the cannery that was located 

further down the mountain, with the proceeds, 

Wright said, used for “Christmas money.”10

On 10 January 1927, the Saunders sold 6.57 acres to 

the U. S. for $42.70 under authority of the Weeks 

Law.11 The law, which was signed by President Taft 

in March 1911, authorized the federal government to 

purchase land for stream- flow protection and to 

maintain the acquired lands as national forests.12 In 

8. Bedford County, VA, Deed Book 107, p. 127.

FIGURE 3. View to east of Saunders Farm, 1949. (NPS, BLRI Coll.)

9. Mabel Swain interview.

10. Interview with William R. Wright by Philip E. Coyle, 15 

May 2005.

11. Bedford County, VA, Deed Book 149, p. 106.
8 Saunders Farm HSR

Historical Background & Context

1924, the Clarke- McNary Act was passed amending 

the Weeks Law and authorizing purchase of forest 

land for timber production, in addition to streamflow protection.13

On 16 December 1942, George E. and Bettie P. 

Saunders of Route 2, Bedford, VA, sold the remainder of their farm, encompassing 15.6 acres, to the 

Federal government for $2,000. The deed gave 

George and Bettie Saunders

the right to occupy and use for residential and 

agricultural purposes the following described 

premises, to- wit: the house, barn and other farm 

buildings, the cleared land on the hillside above 

the house and the land under fence below the 

house for a period of five (5) years from the date 

of recordation of this deed. The parties of the 

first part [George and Bettie Saunders] also 

reserve the right to gather from land not covered 

by this reservation fuel wood, the type and 

location of which shall be designated by an 

authorized representative of the United States.14

The property was designated Tract 463a on a plat 

that was recorded at the same time (Figure 4, opposite).15

According to the Saunders’ youngest daughter, 

Katherine, the family moved away from the farm in 

1940 or 1941.16 The earliest photographs that have 

been located of the property date to 1949, and the 

farm’s condition at that time suggests perhaps that 

the house may have been occupied until 1947, as 

specified in the deed.

After they sold their farm to the government, the 

Saunders moved to Thaxton, a small community 

about six miles west of Bedford.17 Bettie Ross Saunders died in 1961 at the age of 75, and George Saunders apparently spent the last few months or years 

of his life in Suffolk, in southeastern Virginia, where 

he died in January 1969, almost 90 years old. He is 

apparently buried near the house he built at Thaxton after he moved from Peaks of Otter.18

12. Mar. 1, 1911, ch. 186, Sec. 11, 36 Stat. 963).

13. See <http://www.lib.duke.edu/forest/Research/

usfscoll/policy/Agency_Organization/NF_System/

weeks_law>.

14. Bedford County, VA, Deed Book 199, pp. 517-519.

15. Bedford County, VA, Plat Book 2, p. 79.

16. Interview with Katherine Saunders West by Philip E. 

Coyle, July 9, 2005.

17. Interview with William Wright.

18. Social Security Death Index.
National Park Service 9

This section of the Historic Structure Report summarizes the physical construction, modification, 

and use of Saunders Farm. The text is based on historical documentation with corroboration from 

investigation and observation of the existing structures. A limited budget did not support laboratory 

analysis of materials, but dendrochronological 

analysis in the future could help establish a more 

precise date for construction of the buildings at 

Saunders Farm.

Limited historical documentation for the development of Saunders Farm has been located, and the 

earliest photographs date to 1949. Title to the property passed from Edward Saunders to his son 

George Saunders in 1912, but the deed makes no reference to buildings nor is there a record of Edward 

Saunders’ acquisition of the land. The deed does, 

however, reference Edward Saunders’ reservation 

of a right- of- way through his son’s farm, most 

likely to reach his own farm that may have been 

located where his son Elder’s farm was shown on 

the 1942 survey (Figure 4).

In an interview in 1975, George and Betty Saunders’ 

eldest daughter Mabel Saunders Swain stated that 

“[m]y daddy bought it [the Saunders Farm] from his 

dad and he bought part of it from his father.”19 She 

also stated that the farm was her parents’ home for 

“about 45 years,” probably meaning from around 

FIGURE 4. View southeast at Saunders Farm, 1949. (NPS, BLRI Coll.)

Chronology of 

Development and Use
10 Saunders Farm HSR

Chronology of Development and Use

the time of their marriage in 1905 until they vacated 

the property around 1947. 

The Saunders’ youngest daughter, Katherine, was 

interviewed in 2005 and believed that her father 

built the house with help from a neighbor George 

Vaughan and perhaps another carpenter as well. 

Because she was born some twenty years after the 

house was constructed, she could not recall its original appearance.

If the main building campaign included most of the 

present house, that does not necessarily imply rapid 

construction. It is quite likely that Saunders began 

married life living with his parents or other relatives, 

and worked on the house only as he had time and 

money. Certainly, establishing a working farm would 

have been the highest priority and, considering the 

terracing alone, would have been no small task. 

Likewise, his later alterations to the building may 

have occurred over a longer period of time than 

might have been typical for his more prosperous 

contemporaries.

The House

It has been suggested that the house was constructed in the mid- nineteenth century and that 

there were later additions, presumably including the 

wood- framed portion of the house. However, the 

log pen and the wood- framed portion of the house 

that contains the Kitchen are almost certainly contemporaneous, with the lack of nail holes in the log 

pen’s roof decking that is visible from the Rear Loft 

being the primary proof of that assumption. It is 

possible, of course, that the log pen was built, 

roofed, and occupied alone for some period of time, 

19. There are two transcripts for the interview. Transcript 

B omits reference to George’s grandfather’s 

ownership of part of the land.

FIGURE 5. View southeast of Saunders Farm, c. 1950. (BLRI Coll.)
National Park Service 11

Part I: Developmental History

and that the original roof decking or lath, perhaps 

for a wood- shingled roof, was pulled off the log pen 

when the kitchen and back porch were built at some 

later date. The similarity between the joists and 

rafters in the log pen with those in the woodframed portion of the house suggests that was not 

the case.

Date of Construction

The nature of the building materials confirms what 

the preponderance of the historical evidence suggests: that the house was not built before 1880 and 

quite probably was not constructed until around 

1905 or even as late as 1912. The use of circular- sawn 

joists, rafters, and studs; wire nails; and a fullydeveloped balloon frame in the rear part of the 

house are the best evidence supporting that 

assumption. The use of similar materials in the meat 

house suggests that it was more or less contemporaneous with the house itself. Judging from historic 

photographs and functional requirements of a 

working farm, the two other ruined buildings probably were as well.

Materials

Much of the framing lumber and logs in the house 

may be chestnut, an extremely durable wood that is 

resistant to rot and insect damage and was still 

plentiful in the early twentieth century. Saunders 

himself is likely to have cut the timber and carried it 

to a sawmill for milling.20 The tongue- and- groove 

flooring and paneling may not have utilized Saunders’ own lumber, but like the three panel doors 

that were originally present, hinges and nails would 

have been purchased from the local lumber company, probably in Bedford.

20. Dendrochronological investigation could help prove 

the building’s age.

FIGURE 6. View of house in 1974. (NPS, BLRI Coll.)
12 Saunders Farm HSR

Chronology of Development and Use

The standing- seam metal roof may have been the 

only material that Saunders himself did not install, 

since it seems unlikely that he would have had the 

necessary skill for that task. Installation of a metal 

roof was no small investment for Sanders and is one 

of the house’s more striking features.

Form and Plan

As discussed above, the house most likely was built 

to more or less its present form and plan, with the 

log pen and its second floor and the wood- framed 

kitchen and its second floor. From the beginning, 

too, the house probably had a shed- roofed porch, 

now enclosed, running across the south side of the 

kitchen. Porches were an essential space and present 

on nearly every house prior to World War II. A place 

to cool off in hot weather and to do chores in rainy 

weather, a porch would have been one of the mostused spaces in the house. Although it cannot now be 

documented and no physical evidence has yet been 

located, the house most likely was not considered 

complete until the porch was in place.21

Differences in the stone foundation under the log 

pen and the stone foundation under the south wall 

of the present enclosed porch suggest that the porch 

was constructed some time after the house was initially completed, or that the stone foundation was a 

later addition to an original porch. 

Although the original roof structure and part of the 

floor framing remain intact, because of later alterations and its generally poor condition, the porch’s 

original appearance cannot be described with any 

certainty. Most likely, however, flooring was plain 

boards, similar to those that remain in the present 

space, and there was no ceiling. Posts may have been 

sawn, around 4” by 4”, with a simple railing made 

from one or two 2” by 4” studs.

Finishes

The earliest interior finishes were whitewash, which 

was applied to the walls of Room 100 and to the ceilings of both Rooms 100 and 101. In the kitchen, 

Saunders covered the walls with a thin, fibrous, 

cardboard- like material, no more than 1/32” thick. 

The material runs behind the north end of the wall 

enclosing the stairs, suggesting that the wall covering 

21. Because the porch was enclosed before she was born, 

Katherine Saunders West did not believe the house 

ever had a porch.

FIGURE 7. View of house in 1977. (NPS, BLRI Coll.)
National Park Service 13

Part I: Developmental History

was an original or very early feature of the house. 

Most of the material has now been removed, 

although a large section remains at the north end of 

the closet under the stairs. Two layers of paint are 

evident, one a light sky- blue similar to that which 

remains visible on the ceiling. The exterior of the 

house was probably never painted. The galvanized 

metal, standing seam roof was most likely an original feature of the house and may have been painted 

when it was first installed, but probably not after 

that.

Later Alterations

There is no documentary evidence for alterations to 

the original house, but physical evidence suggests 

that a number of changes were made. When these 

might have occurred is not known, but it is likely 

that they were made in the first quarter of the twentieth century, and all of them were certainly made 

by Saunders himself.

Enclosed Porch. It is clear that the most notable 

alteration was enclosure of the back porch, and that 

it probably occurred in two stages. A straight seam 

in the siding on the south side of the enclosed porch 

suggests that the west end of the porch was enclosed 

at an early date. The shelves at the west end of the 

present space were probably part of that construction, which created a pantry for the kitchen. The 

sequence of alterations to the openings on the south 

wall of the kitchen are not clear. Neither of the two 

openings shows hinge marks or other evidence of 

whether a door or a window was originally present. 

However, the width of the western opening suggests 

that it was originally framed for a door, while that of 

the narrower eastern opening is framed in the same 

manner as the window opposite on the north wall. 

It is likely that when the pantry was created, the 

original back door was relocated to what had probably been a window opening. At a later date, the 

remainder of the back porch was enclosed, and the 

door was then relocated to the east end of the 

enclosed space.

Stove Flues. At two locations, holes were made in 

exterior siding to allow for installation of stove 

flues, a sequence of construction that appears to 

indicate that the two flues were not original features 

of the house. This is most clearly evident at the 

north end of the Front Loft, where the opening 

through the siding and into the chimney were 

FIGURE 8. View northwest of house, c. 1974. (NPS, BLRI Coll.)
14 Saunders Farm HSR

Chronology of Development and Use

clearly made after the original construction. On the 

south wall of the kitchen, the evidence is less conclusive, but it seems likely that the brick chimney at 

that location replaced a sheet- metal flue that was 

originally installed at the same location. It is also 

possible, but less likely perhaps, that the cook stove 

was originally located in the Front Room and utilized the flue that remains in the chimney breast 

there. Under that scenario, at some later date, the 

brick chimney would have been constructed and the 

cook stove relocated to the south side of the 

Kitchen. Mabel Saunders Swain mentioned no such 

circumstance. By World War II, the house had a 

conventional cast- iron cook stove in the kitchen 

and two “tin stoves,” which were made of sheets of 

galvanized steel, in the Front Room and the Front 

Loft. The Rear Loft apparently remained unheated.

Wall Coverings. As noted above, the kitchen walls 

appear to have been covered with a cellulose wall 

covering at an early date. The walls of the rear loft 

were also covered with sheets of a different material, 

but there is no way to place its installation in the 

sequence of changes to the house. Almost 1/16” 

thick, only fragments of the material remain on the 

walls, but it appears to be an asphalt- impregnated, 

cellulose- based “tar paper.” It appears to have had a 

patterned surface and is considerably heavier than 

the asphalt- impregnated material typically given the 

name “tar paper” and used as underlayment for 

roofing and siding.

Closets. As noted above, the placement of the wall 

covering in the kitchen behind the north end of the 

curtain wall that encloses the stairs indicates that the 

wall was added and the closet below the stairs created sometime after the house was finished and 

occupied. Constructed of 3’- 1/4” wide, tongueand- groove boards, the wall encloses the stairs and 

creates a closet underneath the stair. It is not clear if 

the wall enclosing the stairs and closet in the front 

room is original or if, like the kitchen wall, it was 

added after the house was constructed.

North Door Opening. The present entrance into 

the house is through a section of the north wall of 

the kitchen that has been removed. When and why 

the opening was created is unknown. It could have 

been a window, but if that were so, it is difficult to 

imagine a reason to later close it entirely. It is also 

FIGURE 9. View west of rear of house, 1977. (NPS, BLRI Coll.)
National Park Service 15

Part I: Developmental History

possible that the porch was not constructed until 

some time after the house was finished and that the 

house’s back door was at this location. When the 

house was first photographed in 1949, however, the 

opening had already been reframed and covered 

with siding.

Utilities

The house never had running water, indoor plumbing, or even an outhouse, which was not uncommon 

in the rural South prior to the New Deal’s privybuilding campaign of the late 1930s. Saunders’ 

daughter Mabel remembered that water was 

brought from “Ford Spring... up there a long way.” 

The location of that spring has not been identified, 

but it must have been near where Va. Hwy. 43 

forded Little Stony Creek, about three or four tenths 

of a mile west- northwest of the house. It might even 

have been what is now known as Big Spring. The 

house was never wired for electricity, also not 

unusual before the New Deal’s rural electrification 

program in the late 1930s. Lighting was always provided by kerosene lamps.

Outbuildings

In establishing his farm, Saunders needed not only a 

house for the family, but also a series of outbuildings 

to serve a variety of needs. It can only be assumed 

that the outbuildings were built around the same 

time as the house itself. How much family and 

neighbors helped in construction has not been 

documented, but Saunders must have had some 

help. Even so, it might have been years, perhaps as 

late as 1912 when George Saunders took title to the 

property, before Saunders Farm reached more or 

less its present configuration.

Although the other outbuildings are in ruins, the 

circular- sawn lumber, wire nails, and hinges used in 

construction of the meat house do not differ appreciably from those used in constructing the main 

house and suggest that the meat house and the main 

house were more or less contemporaneous in their 

construction.

Because different sources use different names for 

the outbuildings, it is not clear exactly how many 

outbuildings were present on the Saunders Farm. 

FIGURE 10. Detail from 1949 photograph of house, showing meat house at center and, at left, 

a building that is probably the barn. (NPS, BLRI Coll.)
16 Saunders Farm HSR

Chronology of Development and Use

Certainly there were four: the meat house, which 

may actually have been a corn crib and which is still 

extant, the chicken house and the hog house, which 

are in ruins, and the barn, which has disappeared. 

There may also have been a fifth outbuilding, noted 

as the “tack house” in Firth’s “Parkway Profiles,” but 

which is no longer extant.

“Meat House”

The only out- building still standing is the so- called 

“meat house,” a term often used interchangeably 

with “smoke house,” although rarely so in Virginia. 

Many households in the rural South smoked their 

meat, mainly for flavor, but Saunders apparently did 

not. When interviewed in 1975, the Saunders’ 

daughter stated that her father did not have a 

“smoke house,” nor did she refer to a meat house 

being present on the farm. Her father did keep hogs, 

however, and would have cured and preserved his 

meat by salting it in barrels or other containers and, 

when dry, hanging the sides of salt pork in bags until 

it was to be used. The present building shows no 

signs of use as a smoke house, nor are there any 

signs of use as a place for salting meat. Saunders may 

have hung some of his meat in the building, but the 

rather loosely constructed nature of the structure , 

suggests that it was incapable of having kept out any 

but the largest vermin.

It is possible that the meat house is the “corn house” 

Mabel Saunders Swain remembered in her interview. This building, often called a corn crib, would 

have been necessary for storing the corn which fed 

the animals and the family through the winter. With 

FIGURE 11. View of meat house, c. 1975. 

(NPS,BLRI coll.)

FIGURE 12. View of meat house in 1975. (NPS, BLRI 

Coll.)

FIGURE 13. A glimpse of the south end of the 

chicken house, with its door open, c. 1950. (NPS, 

BLRI Coll.)

FIGURE 14. View west of chicken house, 1974. 

(NPS, BLRI Coll.)
National Park Service 17

Part I: Developmental History

the internal partition and the shed on the east side, 

the structure could also have been used for general 

storage of farm implements. If the meat house was 

not in fact the family’s corn crib, then the location 

of the “corn house” has been lost.

Chicken House

Clearly, there is some confusion regarding the use of 

the buildings, with the “chicken house” being the 

only one of the present buildings mentioned by that 

name in the interview with the Saunders eldest 

daughter, Mabel, in 1975. The building is located 

about 50 feet east of the house and, unlike the Main 

House and the meat house was built entirely of logs 

except for the sawn lumber used to deck the roof 

and probably to cover the floor inside as well.

Log purlins tied together the two gables, which 

were also log, and boards were nailed perpendicular 

to the purlins for decking. Like the meat house, the 

roof would probably have been covered with sheets 

of corrugated metal, but that material was already 

missing when the structure was first photographed 

in the 1940s. Without a roof, the building deteriorated and sometime after 1977 collapsed entirely.

Hog House

Located about 50 feet north of the main house, the 

hog house was within a larger hog pen constructed 

of split rails. The hog house was entirely of log construction and, since it was meant for hogs, most 

likely did not have a floor. The building was apparently roofed only with short slabs of wood, laid and 

lapped in three tiers on each shed of the roof. When

FIGURE 15. View east of hog pen, c. 1950. (NPS, 

BLRI Coll.)

FIGURE 16. View northeast of chicken house in 

1977. (NPS, BLRI Coll.)

FIGURE 17. View east of hog house and pen, c. 1950. 

(NPS, BLRI Coll.)

FIGURE 18. View of south end of hog house in 

1975. (NPS, BLRI)
18 Saunders Farm HSR

Chronology of Development and Use

first photographed around 1950, a number of the 

slabs covering the roof were already missing, and by 

the time the next photographs were taken in 1975, 

the building was in ruins. No trace of the fence 

remains.

Barn

In her interview in 1975, the Saunders’ daughter 

Mabel also recalled that her father had a barn “for 

his horse,” and the 1942 deed also mentions a “barn 

and other outbuildings.” This building has apparently disappeared entirely. It has been suggested that 

the meat house was actually the barn, but that cannot be, since neither the meat house itself nor the 

attached shed are large enough to have housed a 

horse. In addition the family had a milk cow and, 

since it is unlikely that it would have been left without shelter, there must have been at one time a larger 

structure to house those animals.

The 1942 deed reserved the Saunders’ right to continue farming the terraced land north of the house 

and the use of “the land under fence below the 

house.” The latter was undoubtedly the pasture for 

the family’s horse and cow, and it is probable that 

the building that appears in one of the 1949 images 

of the farm is in fact the barn, which has since completely disappeared.

Other Outbuildings

There was a fifth building mentioned in Firth’s 

description of the farm in “Parkway Profiles.” 

Known as the “Tackhouse,” it was reportedly a log 

structure, 8’ by 11- 1/2’, located “below the Saunders 

Farm, beside Route 43.” It was roofless and in ruinous condition when surveyed at that time, and Firth 

was not sure that it was even associated with Saunders Farm. Its location has not been identified.
National Park Service 19

Part I: Developmental History

Saunders Farm 

Chronology

c. 1853 Edward Saunders born

c. 1854 Mary, Edward Saunders’ future wife, born

c. 1868 Edward and Mary Saunders marry

c. 1869 their first child, John, is born

16 March 1880 George E. Saunders born

c. 1881? Edward Saunders buys land at Peaks of Otter

July 1885 Bettie Pearl Ross born

1904 Introduction of blight leads to extinction of American chestnut

10 May 1905 George Saunders marries Betty Pearl Ross

1908 Saunders’ first child, Mabel Pulver, born

1910 Saunders’ second child, Ervin Hagan, born

1912 Saunders’ third child, Russell Edward, born

8 May 1912 George Saunders buys 22-acres from his mother and father

1914 Saunders’ fourth child, Cory Sander, born

1916 Saunders’ fifth child, Elmer Johnson, born

1918 Saunders’ sixth child, Homer Roy, born

1920 Saunders’ seventh child, Willie Nichols, born

1924 Saunders’ eighth child, Hilton Hamilton, born

10 January 1927 Saunders sells six acres to the U. S. government

1928 Saunders’ ninth and last child, Katherine, born

September 1935 Construction begins on Blue Ridge Parkway

January 1942 CCC construction crews phased out; two-thirds of parkway complete

16 December 1942 Saunders sells remainder of his farm to U. S. government, reserving the right to continue to 

occupy the property for an additional five years

c. 1947 Saunders vacate farm

1949 earliest photographs of the house and farm

1961 Bettie Ross Saunders dies

January 1969 George Saunders dies

1975 Park conducts oral interview with Saunders’ daughter Mabel Saunders Swain

1977 Some work is done to stabilize house, including reconstruction of part of the foundation that 

collapsed, but no work was apparently done on the outbuildings

1987 Construction of Linn Cove Viaduct completes the Blue Ridge Parkway
20 Saunders Farm HSR

Chronology of Development and Use
National Park Service 21

Part I: Developmental History

Reconstructed 

Floor Plans

Probable Floor Plan as Originally 

Constructed

Probable Floor Plan in 1942
22 Saunders Farm HSR

Chronology of Development and Use
National Park Service 23

Located just off Virginia Highway 43 near the Blue 

Ridge Parkway and the Peaks of Otter, Saunders 

Farm was developed by an African- American family in the late nineteenth and early twentieth twentieth century but has been unoccupied since at least 

1947. Located on the rocky southern slope of Flat 

Top Mountain above Little Stony Creek, the farm 

site is at an elevation that ranges from around 2,100 

feet to as much as 2,500 feet. 

The site is completely overgrown with hardwood 

saplings and undergrowth that have grown up in the 

last thirty years. As a result, the house is almost 

completely hidden from view during the growing 

season and difficult to access at any time of the year. 

The site is notable for the series of sixteen manmade terraces that made agriculture possible, but 

the most prominent features are the Saunders 

House and the nearby meat house, both of which 

are of log and wood- frame construction. Two other 

outbuildings, also of log construction, are in ruins, 

one located about fifty feet east of the house and 

another about a hundred feet north.

This physical description is based on an initial 

inspection of the building in April 2005. At that 

time, the large amount of debris- - including animal 

waste, bones, and nests, some of it potentially hazardous- - limited the work, and it is assumed that 

this description will be updated after a more- thorough inspection once the building is cleared of 

debris.

FIGURE 19. View to northeast of Saunders House. (NPS, 2004)

Physical 

Description
24 Saunders Farm HSR

Physical Description

Saunders House

The Saunders House is a small, story- and- a- half 

building consisting of a single- pen log structure 

with a loft above and a contemporaneous woodframed kitchen and loft projecting from the rear, all 

built on a stone foundation. What may have originally been a back porch on the south side of the 

kitchen was enclosed at an early date. The house 

occupies a footprint of around 640 square feet and, 

including the two lofts, has around 1,200 square feet 

of floor space.

Foundation

One of the most remarkable features of the house is 

the high, stone foundation on which the house was 

built. Constructed of stone that was no doubt gathered from the surrounding hillside, the foundation is

A plan of the house can be found at the end of 

this section.

continuous and, because of the sloping terrain, the 

house’s sills are nearly five feet above grade around 

the southwest corner while they are close to grade 

on the north side of the structure.

There has been no laboratory analysis of the mortars, but visual analysis distinguishes three separate 

mortars. The oldest that has not been repointed is 

that found on the west side of the cellar door and 

along the front of the house. This mortar is relatively 

FIGURE 20. View of historic masonry near the 

southwest corner that has not been repointed. 

(NPS, 2005)

FIGURE 21. View of historic masonry that has 

been repointed with Portland cement. (NPS, 

2005)

FIGURE 22. View of foundation at south end of house, showing cellar doorway. 
National Park Service 25

Part I: Developmental History

hard, but utilized a course aggregate that was probably taken from one of the nearby creeks and gives 

the mortar a pinkish- tan cast. It appears similar to 

the mortar used for chinking of the log pen. On the 

east side of the cellar door, the historic masonry was 

reconstructed in 1977 using a hard light- grey mortar 

that contrasts sharply with the areas that have not 

been repointed.

The rock foundation under the south side of the 

wood- framed portion of the house was constructed 

by Saunders but must have been built sometime 

after the house’s original construction. The foundation here has the appearance of having been dry 

laid, but in fact, the mortar appears to have contained much less cement and has mostly eroded 

away.

Cellar

Near the center of the foundation on the south side 

of the log pen is an opening around 2’ by 4’ that 

allows access into a cellar where Saunders probably 

stored potatoes and other produce. A board- andbatten door was originally hung in the opening, but

FIGURE 24. View north in cellar, with rocks from collapsed north wall in foreground. (NPS, 2005)

FIGURE 23. View of cellar door. (NPS, 2005)
26 Saunders Farm HSR

Physical Description

only the board on the hinge side of the door remains 

intact. 

There appears to have been some excavation to create or enlarge the cellar, but it is not clear if the floor 

was ever level. It was probably never paved. The cellar extends about 13’ under the log pen of the house 

and ends at some large boulders, some of which may 

form the foundation for the fireplace and chimney. 

The west, south, and east walls of the cellar are 

formed by the stone foundation under the log pen, 

and the north side of the cellar appears to have originally been closed by another stone wall that has 

now mostly collapsed.

Chimneys

The house was apparently always heated with wood 

stoves. Initially, there may have been a stove only at 

the fireplace in the log pen, but eventually the cook 

stove was moved to the kitchen, and wood stoves 

were added in the log pen on both the first and second floors.

Stone Chimney. A stone fireplace and chimney 

stand at the north end of the log pen. The chimney 

stack is around 30” by 60”, corbeled in to around 

30” by 36” at the top of the log pen, and rising to 

about a foot above the roof ridge or a little over 18’ 

above grade. A few brick were used in constructing 

the fire box, which is relatively small at around 30” 

by 30” by 20”. The interior of the firebox appears to 

have had few if any fires, probably because the 

Saunders must have always used a wood stove. It 

appears that a mantel was never present.

In the Front Room, a piece of terra cotta stove- pipe 

flue liner was built into the interior face of the 

chimney breast, probably originally. A similar piece 

of yellowish terra cotta flue liner was once mounted 

at the top of the chimney, but it is now lying in 

pieces at the north end of the house. Sometime after 

the original construction, an opening was made on 

the back side of the chimney to serve a flue for a 

stove at the north end of the log pen loft. The chimney is in fair condition, but some stones have been 

dislodged from the sides of the firebox inside the 

house.

Brick Chimney. The wood- burning cook stove in 

the kitchen was served by a small brick chimney 

with a flue on the south wall of the kitchen. Constructed of red, hard- fired brick with a modern 

FIGURE 25. View of chimney. (NPS, 2005)

FIGURE 26. View of fireplace. (NPS, 2005)
National Park Service 27

Part I: Developmental History

Portland mortar, the chimney is around 16” by 16” 

and is set on a small wooden platform braced off the 

wall in Room 102 with 2” by 4” lumber about 4’- 7”. 

The chimney must have risen some distance above 

the roof, but bricks have been dislodged, perhaps by 

a falling tree, so that the chimney top is now practically flush with the roof line.

Log Pen

The main body of the house is a single- pen, log 

structure measuring about 16’ north to south and 20’ 

east to west, with the walls rising nearly 11’ above the 

foundation. Logs are relatively small, probably second- growth timber cut on the site, and were only 

roughly hewn to square the logs. Logs are laid up 

with simple V- notched corners. The specie of the 

logs used has not been identified but may include 

hickory and/or chestnut, but apparently no pine, 

oak, or poplar.

The relatively large gaps that exist between most of 

the logs were filled with short lengths of milled lumber, lapped in a diagonal fashion. Chinking was 

completed using a hard cement mortar, similar to 

that used to mortar the rock foundation, and would 

have covered all of the blocks of lumber between the 

logs.

Three generations of chinking material are evident. 

The first is a reddish material that is visible at a few 

places, especially around the northwest corner of 

the house. It is composed of a fine, silt- like aggregate resembling mud along with some amount of 

cement that gives it a hardness not typical of plain 

mud chinking sometimes used for the purpose. It 

may have been formulated to facilitate filling of 

holes and gaps with the intention of immediately 

covering it with a harder material. It is also possible 

that this chinking was simply a formulation with 

which Saunders experimented and then abandoned.

The second layer of chinking, which appears to have 

have been installed at the same time as or shortly 

after the house was constructed, appears to have a 

higher proportion of cement and a much coarser 

aggregate than the first layer. The aggregate, which is 

probably sand taken from nearby, perhaps from Little Stony Creek, gives this layer of chinking a tan 

color. This material is found all over the house.

On perhaps a third of the west (front) side of the 

house, Saunders employed a rather unusual techFIGURE 27. View of kitchen chimney. (NPS, 2005)

FIGURE 28. View of northwest corner of house, 

showing typical V-notch corners, all three 

generations of mortar chinking, and wire lath. 

(NPS, 2005)
28 Saunders Farm HSR

Physical Description

nique in completing the chinking. Wire around 12 or 

14 gauge was looped over nails and run back and 

forth across the gaps of the logs to form a sort of lath 

for the cement chinking material. Although the wire 

lath appears at first glance to be associated with the 

last layer of chinking, close inspection reveals that 

the second, tan layer of chinking was placed over 

some of the wire lath. It is not clear why Saunders 

employed this technique only on part of the house, 

but he may have had second thoughts about its 

durability or someone may have informed him that 

the technique might create problems. Whatever, the 

reason for abandoning the technique, it was fortuitous, since wherever the wire was installed, nearly 

all of the original mortar apparently deteriorated 

and had to be replaced.

Deterioration of the mortar chinking was probably 

due to moisture penetration that caused the wire to 

rust or else it was due to thermal expansion and 

contraction of the metal which cracked and dislocated the mortar. The replacement chinking material, which only appears where the wire lath was 

installed, was apparently formulated using a high 

proportion of cement and a fine aggregate that gives 

the chinking a whitish color.

Wood Frame

Much of the house is framed with dimensional lumber, including the floor, ceiling, and roof of the log 

pen and most of the rear half of the house. All lumber is circular- sawn and in more- or- less standard 

dimensions. Although there is some variability, 

rafters, studs, and wall plates are generally 2” by 4” 

(actual dimension); floor and ceiling joists are generally 2” by 8”. Most framing members were placed 

with 24” between centers. Wire nails appear to have 

been used exclusively, with large iron spikes used to 

secure some sill corners and other members.

Joists and Studs. Floor joists for the log pen run 

east to west and are notched into the logs, with the 

ends of the second floor joists readily visible across 

the front of the house. Ceiling joists, which serve as 

floor joists for the second floor, are set about 7’ 

above the first floor of the log pen. Joists are crossbraced in a manner typical of the late nineteenth 

and early twentieth centuries.

The rear half of the house is essentially balloon 

framed with down- braced corners. Joists are set on 

1” by 6” ledgers and nailed to adjacent studs, all on 

FIGURE 29. View of a portion of south wall, 

showing typical treatment of gap between the 

logs. (NPS, 2005)

FIGURE 30. View of floor framing in log pen. 

(NPS, 2005)

FIGURE 31. View of framing at southeast corner 

of the kitchen. (NPS, 2005)
National Park Service 29

Part I: Developmental History

centers approximately 24” apart. Ceiling joists are 

about 6’- 10” above the first floor in the kitchen. 

Unlike the rest of the house, the floor joists for the 

old back porch are log. Around 6” in diameter, these 

are laid running east to west.

Rafters. Rafters are set on a 1” by 6” plate set on top 

of the log walls and on a standard 2” by 4” plate on 

the wood- framed walls. Rafters are joined at the 

ridge by a nailed connection without a ridge board. 

Collar beams, 2” by 4”, were used at every other 

rafter pair.

Exterior Finishes

While the structure of the house is in reasonably 

good condition, years of neglect have taken their toll 

on the finishes, both inside and outside the house. 

There is no apparent evidence that the house was 

ever painted on the exterior. However, there is some 

paint or whitewash remaining on the south wall of 

Room 102, which was originally an exterior wall, but 

that may have been applied after the porch was 

enclosed.

Siding and Trim. The wood- framed portion of the 

house, including the end gables of the log pen, are 

finished with lap siding around 5/8” thick by 6” 

wide. Siding material appears to be mostly quarterFIGURE 32. View of typical rafters and collar beam. 

(NPS, 2005)

FIGURE 33. View of northeast corner of building 

showing typical exterior finishes. (NPS, 2005)

FIGURE 34. View of south side of house. (NPS, 2005)
30 Saunders Farm HSR

Physical Description

sawn on the original outside walls of the kitchen, but 

siding used to enclose the porch is a mixture of 

straight- sawn and quarter- sawn material.

Siding was laid with an exposure of about 5- 1/2”, 

and put up with wire nails. Single boards, 2” by 4”, 

are used as corner boards against which the siding is 

butted. Siding is missing on the north side to a 

height of about two feet, and several runs of siding 

are missing from the east end of the house as well. 

Eaves extend about a foot beyond the face of the 

walls and do not have rafter returns. Eaves are 

boxed to a frieze board around 1” by 6”. Windows 

and doors are cased with plain boards about 6” 

wide.

Roofing. The rafters are decked with circularsawn lumber, generally 3/4” thick and around 4” to 

11” in width. Roofing is standing- seam metal, probably galvanized steel but badly rusted. For the most 

part it remains functional except where it has been

damaged by falling trees. On the north shed of the 

kitchen roof, a large area has been roughly patched 

with sheet metal. Significant damage has been done 

FIGURE 35. View of east gable. (NPS, 2005)

FIGURE 36. View of north side of house. (NPS, 2005)
National Park Service 31

Part I: Developmental History

to the roof of the enclosed back porch by a fallen 

tree that is still lying across the roof.

Windows. The house has only five windows, but 

only one of those still retains its original sash. At the 

front of the house is a large window measuring 

about 2’- 9” by 4’- 6”. Sash are missing, but historic 

photographs show that the window originally had 

six- over- six sash. The only surviving sash is in the 

single window on the north side of the kitchen. 

Around 2’- 0” by 4’- 4”, the window has a pair of 

sash, four- over- four. No hardware is present nor is 

there evidence that any ever existed.

At the south end of the loft of the log pen is another 

window opening, also measuring around 2’- 0” by 

4’- 4”. Sash are missing, but historic photographs 

show they were originally four- over- four like those 

in the kitchen.

At the east end of the kitchen loft is a smaller opening around 2’- 0” by 2’- 4”. There is no evidence for 

sash at this window, which may have been closed 

with a simple board- and- batten door. The fifth 

window was located on the south side of the

FIGURE 37. View of front of house. (NPS, 2005)

FIGURE 38. View of window in south gable. (NPS, 

2005)
32 Saunders Farm HSR

Physical Description

enclosed back porch. The exact size of the opening 

cannot now be determined since the sash and frame 

are missing, but the window appears to have been 

around 2’- 6” by 2’- 6”, and photographs from the 

1970s show it to have had a single sash with two vertical lights.

Exterior Doors. The house originally had two 

entrances, a front door and a door off the back 

porch. An opening in the north wall of the kitchen, 

which had been present but was then closed prior to 

1949, now provides access into the house. Framing 

and siding that once filled that opening are now laying on the ground beside the house. 

Only the front door remains in place; the back door, 

which is not in its original location, is covered with 

plywood and the door is missing. The front door is a 

pine door, 2’- 8” by 6’- 5”, with five raised panels. 

The door is hung with plain 3” butt hinges and was 

originally fitted with a vertical rim lock about 3” by 

4”, but the lock is now missing. The back door may 

have been similar.

FIGURE 39. View of front door. (NPS, 2005)

FIGURE 40. View west-northwest of rear and south sides. (NPS, 2005)
National Park Service 33

Part I: Developmental History

Steps. There is no evidence that the house ever had 

a front porch, and although steps to the front and to 

the back door are now missing, a single flight of 

steps was probably originally present at the front 

door and at the east end of the back porch.

Interior

Typical of rural housing for poor farmers, black or 

white, the Saunders House was only roughly finished on the interior, and most of what wall finishes 

that were present have now been destroyed.

Front Room (100). The log pen encompasses the 

largest room in the house, which can be entered 

through the front door or through the door from the 

kitchen (101). This room probably served as both a 

living room for the family, a bedroom for George 

and Betty Saunders, and a nursery for babies and 

small children.

Flooring is tongue- and- groove pine around 2- 1/2” 

wide. It appears to be mostly intact although the 

large amount of debris in the room, particularly in 

the southeast corner, made assessment of its condition impossible.

FIGURE 41. View west in Room 100. (NPS, 2005)

FIGURE 42. View of north wall of Room 100. (NPS, 

2005)

FIGURE 43. View northeast in Room 100. (NPS, 2005)
34 Saunders Farm HSR

Physical Description

The walls are formed by the logs and chinking of the 

log pen itself, and the ceiling is the open joists and 

exposed flooring of the loft above. Walls and ceiling 

were apparently whitewashed at one time, although 

large areas of the log walls are now devoid of whitewash.

The original six- over- six sash are missing from the 

window, but the front door described above 

remains intact as does the door to the kitchen. The 

door to the kitchen measures 2’- 8” by 6’- 6” and 

has four vertical raised panels. Its original rim lock is 

missing.

Windows and doors are cased with plain boards 

around 6” wide, and a 6” baseboard runs around the 

perimeter of the room. A small wooden shelf is 

mounted on brackets in the northeast corner of the 

room and another on the west side of the chimney 

breast.

The house’s lone fireplace is located on the north 

wall. Unusually, the opening for the fire box is created by a wooden header, and there is no evidence FIGURE 44. View of stairs to second floor of log 

pen. (NPS, 2005)

FIGURE 45. View to southwest in Room 100. (NPS, 2005)
National Park Service 35

Part I: Developmental History

that there was ever a mantelpiece. The absence of 

soot or discoloration inside the fire box suggests 

that it might not have been much used, but it is also 

possible that Saunders relined the firebox when a 

wood stove was installed. Above the fire box and 

near the center of the exposed chimney breast is a 

terra- cotta flue for a wood stove, which was probably the house’s primary source of heat.

An unframed curtain wall of tongue- and- groove 

boards runs across the room about 32” from the 

south wall. Composed of tongue- and- groove 

boards 3- 1/4” wide, the wall encloses the staircase to 

the second floor and a closet beneath the stairs. The 

stairs, which have a closed stringer and rise to the 

east, are about 29” wide with steps 10” wide and a 

rise of 8”. The closet is entered by way of a narrow 

door less than 20” wide and rising to a height of 75”. 

It is a board and batten door composed of the same 

tongue- and- groove material as the adjacent wall. 

Animals have been nesting in the closet, and as a 

result, there is a large amount of debris mounded 

inside the closet.

Front Loft (200). The stairs in the front room rise to 

a loft or second floor. Knee walls around 27” high

FIGURE 46. View of stairway from Room 200 to 

Room 100. (NPS, 2005)

FIGURE 47. View south on second floor of log pen. (NPS, 2005)
36 Saunders Farm HSR

Physical Description

and formed by the log walls of the house surround 

the room, which has no partitions. Flooring is 

tongue- and- groove, 2- 1/2” or 3- 1/4” wide and covered with debris.On the front (west) wall and rear 

(east) wall, the gap between the rafters, roof deck, 

and top of the logwalls is filled with boards covered 

with the same mortar used for the chinking of the 

log walls. Where the wood- framed portion of the 

house meets the log pen, the gap was left open.

The room is open to the rafters and underside of the 

roof decking, and the wood- framed end walls are 

open as well. At the north end of the room, a flue for 

a stove was added after the building was constructed.

Kitchen (101). This room, which is part of the 

wood- framed portion of the house, served as a 

kitchen. Now entered from the outside through a 

portion of the north wall that has been removed, it 

was originally entered off the back porch (now 

enclosed as Room 102) or from the Front Room 

(101).

Flooring is a mixture of boards, including tongueand- groove flooring 3- 1/4” wide, plain 6” boards, 

FIGURE 48. View of junction of rafters and sill 

plate on west side of Room 200. (NPS, 2005)

FIGURE 49. View of junction of rafters and sill 

plate on west side of Room 200. (NPS, 2005)

FIGURE 50. View south in Room 200. (NPS, 2005)
National Park Service 37

Part I: Developmental History

and even some double- beaded tongue- and- groove 

pine, which was typically used for walls and ceilings 

and not for flooring. None of the flooring runs the 

full width of the room, with some boards only 24” 

long. Some of the material differences may be the 

tresult of repairs, but it is possible that Saunders was 

simply using up all of the material that he had on 

hand.

Walls are open stud walls with the back side of the 

exterior siding fully exposed. Historically, however, 

the walls were covered with a fibrous material, much 

like cardboard, but only fragments of the material 

remain on the studs. An unframed curtain wall similar to the one on the south side of the Front Room 

runs parallel to and about 32” from the east side of 

the Kitchen. As in the Front Room, it encloses a 

staircase to the second floor and a closet beneath 

the stairs and was constructed with 3- 1/4” tongueand- groove boards like those used in the Front 

Room.

As in the Front Room, the ceiling of the kitchen is 

simply the exposed joists and underside of the 

flooring of the floor above. The ceiling was whitewashed at one time.

FIGURE 51. View northeast in Kitchen. (NPS, 2005)

FIGURE 52. View of cook stove flue on south wall of 

kitchen. (NPS, 2005)
38 Saunders Farm HSR

Physical Description

In addition to the four- panel door opening into the 

Front Room (see above), there are four other door 

openings in this room. On the north wall, part of the 

wall was cut out to create what is now the only 

entrance into the house, but historically entrance 

from the outside into the kitchen was through the 

opening at the eastern end of the south wall. The 

door at that location, which is now missing, was 

apparently around 2’- 4” by 6’- 6”.

At the west end of the south wall, there is a large, 

uncased opening, measuring 2’- 8” by 6’- 7”. There 

is no evidence that a door was ever hung at this 

opening, which appears to have provided access to 

the pantry that occupied the west end of the back 

porch.

The door to the closet under the stairs is a boardand- batten door about 2’- 3” by 6’- 0”. It was hung 

with plain 3” butt hinges but is now detached and 

leaning against the wall.

The door into the Front Room is cased with plain 

boards, 1” by 6” and the eastern opening on the are 

FIGURE 53. View of west wall of Kitchen. (NPS, 

2005)

FIGURE 54. View southeast in Room 101. (NPS, 2005)
National Park Service 39

Part I: Developmental History

not cased. Additional building investigation might 

be able to determine how these openings were 

trimmed originally.

The stairs to the second floor rise to the north 

against the east wall of the room. They have a closed 

stringer and the same 10” run and 8” rise as the stairs 

in the Front Room.

Between the two door openings on the south wall is 

a flue opening for the Saunders’ cook stove. The 

terra- cotta flue liner lies in pieces on the floor.

Old Porch (Room 102). The evolution of this space 

is uncertain, but it seems most likely that it was originally an open porch with a small pantry at the west 

end that was accessible from the Kitchen. The room 

is now in nearly ruinous condition, with much of the 

flooring missing and serious damage from a leaking 

roof. Sash for the window opening on the south wall 

and the door on the east wall are both missing.

At the west end of the room, three shelves, roughly 

made, run the width of the space. The two lower 

shelves are around 10” wide; the upper shelf is 

around 6” wide. An L- shaped shelf, is mounted on 

the southeast corner of the room and consists of a 

7”- wide shelf on the east wall and a 10”- wide shelf 

running about 5’- 3” along the south wall. 

FIGURE 55. View of exterior of enclosed porch, showing two generations of 

siding. (NPS, 2005)

FIGURE 56. View west in Room 102. (NPS, 

2005)
40 Saunders Farm HSR

Physical Description

Rear Loft (201). The stairs from the kitchen rise to 

a second loft at the rear of the house. Much like the 

front loft, it has no real interior finishes other than 

the tongue- and- groove flooring, which is a mix of 

2- 1/2” and 3- 1/4” material.

Outbuildings

One outbuilding, the meat house, remains standing 

south of the house about a hundred feet down the 

hill. The ruins of two smaller outbuildings remain as 

well, one about fifty feet east of the house and the 

other about one hundred feet north of the house. 

The historic functions of these buildings are not 

clear. Mabel Saunders mentioned only three outbuildings when interviewed in 1975. She reported 

that her father had a “chicken house” and a “corn 

house” and stated that there was a barn where her 

father “kept his horse” (and perhaps the Holstein 

cow she said the family also owned).

Ian Firth’s study of the major cultural resources 

along the Blue Ridge Parkway in conjunction with 

drafting an historic resource study for the park in 

1992 stated that “there was a chicken house made of 

hewn logs near the meat house in 1976 but this has 

now disintegrated.” The study also notes “a hog 

house and pen about 50 feet east of the main house 

[that] were in ruins in 1976.” A small log “‘tack 

house’, below the Saunders Farm, beside Route 43” 

was also mentioned, but it is not clear if it was part 

of the Saunders Farm or was associated with one of 

the other adjacent farms. There is no mention of the 

log ruins north of the house.

Meat House

Saunders Farm did not have a smokehouse, according to the interview with Saunders’ daughter, nor 

was a “meat house” mentioned in the interview. The 

terms “smoke house” and “meat house” are used 

interchangeably in some locales, although rarely so 

in Virginia.22 It is not clear, however, if the building 

was historically known as a meat house, or if that is a 

modern designation for the structure. There is none 

of the accumulation of soot in the rafters that is typical of a smoke house, nor is there the degradation of 

flooring and joists typical where salt curing of meat 

had been conducted.

Saunders kept chickens and hogs for meat, and 

although the former would have been killed and 

eaten fresh, hogs were typically butchered in late 

fall, and he would have preserved at least part of the 

FIGURE 57. View of front and east side of meat house. (NPS, 2005)

22. “Smokehouses,” The Journal of the Colonial 

Williamsburg Foundation, Winter 2004/2005, viewed 

on line at <http://www.history.org/Foundation/

journal/Winter04-05/smoke.cfm>, 18 April 2005.
National Park Service 41

Part I: Developmental History

meat by some means. Smoking could have been 

done, at least on a small scale, in the fireplace inside 

the house, or in some other container that could 

expose the meat to heat and smoke. Most likely, 

Saunders relied more on salt- cured methods of 

meat preservation, which entailed packing the meat 

in salt for a number of weeks, then removing the 

meat from the salt, covering it with black pepper 

(which would also discourage insects), and hanging 

it in cloth bags in a well- ventilated area to continue 

curing. Since the existing building shows no evidence of being used for smoking meats nor for the 

initial brine curing of the meat, it is likely that the 

present building, if in fact it was used as a meat 

house, was used only for storage of cured meat.

Structure. Facing north, the meat house is a simple 

end- gabled structure measuring around 13’- 6”, 

north to south, and around 11’- 3” east to west. The 

structure is set on low, stacked, stone sills that elevate it about 6” above grade on the front or north 

side and around a foot on the south side.

Like the other outbuildings on the farm, the meat 

house was constructed with hewn log walls that are 

relatively small, averaging less than 10” in diameter. 

Walls are laid up with simple V- notch corners and 

rise. Walls rise about 6’- 7” above the tops of the 

floor joists.

Floor joists are log, around 6” in diameter and running east to west. The end- gabled roof is framed 

with circular- sawn rafters rising to a ridge a little 

over ten feet above the building’s sills. End- wall 

studs are 2” by 4”, and the roof is decked with circular- sawn boards 10”- 12” wide. 

Finishes. There is no evidence for chinking 

between the logs, which would be somewhat 

unusual if the building were actually used as a meat 

house. It is possible that moss or some other organic 

material originally filled the space between the logs 

but has now disintegrated. 

The roof is covered with 24”- wide panels of corrugated steel, which are badly rusted but still without 

major leaks. The end gables are finished with vertically installed, circular- sawn boards, 6” to 8” wide 

and attached with wire nails. Floor boards are circular sawn, 10”- 14” wide, but several are missing or 

only loosely attached to the joists.

FIGURE 58. View of west side of meat house. 

(NPS, 2005)

FIGURE 59. View of east side of meat house. 

(NPS, 2005)

FIGURE 60. View of south end of meat house. 

(NPS, 2005)
42 Saunders Farm HSR

Physical Description

The building has one door opening, which is about 

3’- 7” wide by 4’- 3” high. The badly deteriorated 

door itself is lying on the ground in front of the 

building, but was composed of vertical boards, 6” to 

8” wide, with two horizontal 4” battens on the 

inside. It was hung with 6”, steel, strap hinges nailed 

to the face of the door and to the frame of the door 

opening.

Shed. The ruins of a shed remain along the east 

side of the meat house. Remains of a rafter as well as 

a series of stones that appear to have formed a foundation for the shed indicate that the shed extended 

about eight feet from the meat house. The pitch of 

the two remaining rafters indicates that the outside 

wall of the shed would have risen less than four feet 

above grade. 

There are also the remains of a floor system for the 

shed. It was composed of six log joists, running east 

to west and floored with circular sawn boards, but 

only about three feet of each joist and a single floor 

board remain intact. The shed was also enclosed 

with vertical boards, but only a few of these remain 

next to the main structure at the front and rear of 

the shed. Like the boards in the end gables, the 

boards are attached with wire nails.

Interior. The interior of the building is open to the 

rafters. Irregularly placed boards above the front 

door have nails on which items could be hung, but 

as noted above there is no clear evidence that these 

were used for hanging meat. On the east side of the 

interior, a roughly made partition is set about 6’- 8” 

from the door and extends about three feet into the 

space. Why the space was partitioned in this manner 

is not known.

Ruins

The ruins of two structures remain visible on the 

site. Both were log buildings, around 8’ by 10’, with 

V- notched corners. Historic photographs show 

that both buildings had wood- framed, end- gabled 

roofs.

The ruin north of the house was reportedly used as 

a hog house and was associated with a hog pen. The 

other ruin, which is reported to have been a chicken 

house, is located about a hundred feet east of the 

house. What appear to be two stone steps are 

apparent on the south side of the ruins, where the 

door into the structure was originally located.

FIGURE 61. View north of chicken house 

FIGURE 62. View southeast of chicken 

house ruin. (NPS, 2005)

FIGURE 63. View southeast of ruins of hog 

house. (NPS, 2005)
National Park Service 43

Part I: Developmental History

Plan of Existing 

Building
44 Saunders Farm HSR

Physical Description
National Park Service 45

The primary purpose of this historic structures 

report is to begin documentation of the buildings at 

the Saunders Farm and to provde preliminary recommendations for stabilization, treatment, and use 

for the structures. The buildings date to the early 

twentieth century, when George Saunders began 

developing his farm on the slopes of Flat Top 

Mountain, but there were alterations to the buildings as late as the 1920s or 1930s. The property was 

acquired from the Saunders family in 1942, although 

they appear not to have vacated the property until 

around 1947. The structures are excellent examples 

of vernacular architecture, and the materials and 

craftsmanship with which they were constructed 

are a primary component of the site’s significance.

The immediate environs of the buildings were kept 

clear of underbrush, but little or no work was done 

on the structures until 1977, when part of the foundation, which had collapsed, was reconstructed. 

Since that time, two of the smaller outbuildings have 

fallen into ruin, but the main house and the socalled “meat house” remain in relatively good 

structural condition and much of the historic fabric 

remains intact.23

Requirements for 

Treatment and Use

Good stewardship of an historic structure requires 

careful control over treatment and use, beginning 

with basic, common- sense guidelines. The building 

should be carefully monitored, particularly after 

storms or heavy rains, and should be thoroughly 

inspected at least once a year. Data documenting 

the building’s condition should be recorded and 

analyzed to determine any necessary treatment or 

changes in use. Any ground disturbance around the 

buildings should always be cleared or monitored by 

an archeologist.

Any work on the buildings, including routine 

maintenance, should be done by qualified people in 

conformance with approved plans and 

specifications or work procedures. All maintenance 

personnel who work in, on, or around the building 

should be given appropriate training, and the entire 

park staff should be made aware of the significance 

of the buildings and the major threats to their 

preservation.

Legal Requirements

A number of laws, regulations, and functional 

requirements circumscribe treatment and use of the 

the historic structures in our National Parks. While 

not formally listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the buildings at Saunders Farm are 

clearly eligible for listing. In addition to protecting 

the cultural resource, these requirements also 

address issues of human safety, fire protection, 

energy conservation, abatement of hazardous 

materials, and handicapped accessibility. Any treatment must be carefully considered in order that the 

historic fabric of the structure be preserved.

National Historic Preservation Act. The National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended 

(NHPA) mandates Federal protection of significant 

cultural resources. In implementing the act, a number of laws and authorities have been established 

that are binding on the NPS.

A routine step in the park’s planning process for the 

treatment of historic structures is compliance with 

Section 106 of NHPA, which requires Federal agencies “to take into account the effect” of any undertaking involving Nation¦al Register properties. To 

23. “Historic” fabric includes but is not limited to the 

original features and materials. All features and 

materials in the present buildings should be 

considered part of the historic fabric.

Treatment and 

Use
46 Saunders Farm HSR

satisfy the requirements of Section 106, regulations 

have been promulgated (36 CFR Part 800,"Protection of Historic Properties") that require, among 

other things, consultation with local governments, 

State Historic Preservation Officers, and Indian 

tribal representatives. Prior to any undertaking at 

the Main House, the NPS is required to “afford the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation established under Title II of this act [NHPA] a reasonable 

opportunity to comment with regard to such 

undertaking.”

In 1995, in an effort to expedite the review process, a 

programmatic agreement was made between the 

Advisory Council and the NPS that allows for a categorical exclusion of some activities from the Section 106 review process. These excluded activities 

are limited to routine repairs and maintenance that 

do not alter the appearance of the historic structure 

or involve widespread or total replacement of historic features or materials.

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. The 

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) 

establishes comprehensive civil rights protection for 

disabled Americans, both in employment and in 

their right to free, unaided access to public buildings. While people with restricted mobility have 

most frequently benefited from ADA, protection 

also extends to those with other disabilities. This 

would include visitors with impaired vision or hearing, for whom printed tour scripts and audio tours 

allow for interpretation of the site. 

Requirements for full compliance with ADA regulations are extensive and easiest to apply to new construction. Full compliance for historic buildings is 

more difficult and sometimes would require significant alterations to the historic character of the 

property. Where that is the case, ADA authorizes a 

process for arriving at alternatives to full compliance that can preserve historic character while 

maximizing a disabled visitor’s access to the historic 

building.

International Building Code. Building codes are 

generally applicable to all buildings whether they 

are historic or not. As a matter of policy, the NPS is 

guided by the International Building Code, which 

includes this statement regarding codes and historic 

buildings:

3406.1 Historic Buildings: The provisions of this 

code related to the construction, repair, 

alteration, addition, restoration and movement 

of structures, and change of occupancy shall not 

be mandatory for historic buildings where such 

buildings are judged by the building official to 

not constitute a distinct life safety hazard

[emphasis added].

Threats to public health and safety should always be 

eliminated, but because this is an historic building, 

alternatives to full code compliance are always 

sought where compliance would needlessly compromise the integrity of the historic building.

NFPA Code 914. The National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA) has promulgated codes for historic buildings, most notably NFPA 909, “Code for 

the Protection of Cultural Resources Properties - 

Museums, Libraries, and Places of Worship,” and 

NFPA 914, “Code for Fire Protection of Historic 

Structures.” Because there is no water or other utilities at the site, and none are planned in the forseeable future, protection must focus on fire prevention

through prohibiting storage of flammable materials 

and smoking in or around the buildings. Special 

care should be taken to keep the surrounding site 

clear of underbrush and other debris in order to 

protect against destruction by wild fire. Hand- held 

fire extinguishers should be maintained on site, 

especially when work is underway on the structures.

DOI and NPS Policies and 

Regulations

In addition to Director’s Order #28, which has 

guided development of this historic structure 

report, there are policies and regulations that have 

been issued by both the Secretary of the Interior 

and the Director of the National Park Service which 

circumscribe treatment of historic buildings.

Secretary’s Standards. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties have established a framework in which to plan 

and execute treatment of historic structures. 

Guidelines for interpreting the Standards have been 

issued, and the NPS has also published forty- two 

Preservation Briefs that provide detailed direction 

for appropriate treatment of a variety of materials, 

features, and conditions found in historic buildings. 

Regardless of treatment approach, the Standards

put a high priority on preservation of existing his-
National Park Service 47

Part II: Treatment and Use

toric materials and not just the architectural form 

and style. Replacement of a column, for instance, 

even when replacement is “in kind,” diminishes the 

authenticity of the building, if for no other reason 

than the elimination of the evidence of the passage 

of time, which after all is fundamental to the 

authenticity of an historic structure.

The Standards also require that any alterations, 

additions, or other modifications be reversible, i.e., 

be designed and constructed in such a way that they 

can be removed or reversed in the future without 

the loss of existing historic materials, features, or 

character.

General Management Policies. Finally, the NPS 

General Management Policies (2001) guide overall 

management of the Saunders Farm, especially 

Chapter 5 “Cultural Resource Management.” Based 

upon the authority of some nineteen Acts of Congress and many more Executive orders and regulations, these policies require

planning to ensure that management processes 

for making decisions and setting priorities 

integrate information about cultural resources, 

and provide for consultation and collaboration 

with outside entities; and stewardship to ensure 

that cultural resources are preserved and 

protected, receive appropriate treatments 

(including maintenance), and are made available 

for public understanding and enjoyment.24

Section 5.3.5, “Treatment of Cultural Resources,” 

provides specific directives, including a directive 

that “the preservation of cultural resources in their 

existing states will always receive first consideration.” The section also states that

treatments entailing greater intervention will not 

proceed without the consideration of 

interpretive alternatives. The appearance and 

condition of resources before treatment, and 

changes made during treatment, will be 

documented. Such documentation will be 

shared with any appropriate state or tribal 

historic preservation office or certified local 

government, and added to the park museum 

cataloging system. Pending treatment decisions 

reached through the planning process, all 

resources will be protected and preserved in 

their existing states.25

Ultimate 

Treatment and Use

Management objectives for Saunders Farm have not 

been formally established, but it is generally 

assumed that Saunders Farm would be preserved 

and restored to its historic appearance for use as a 

museum exhibit in a manner similar to the nearby 

Johnson Farm. Saunders Farm could interpret the 

African- American experience of farming the rugged hillsides of western Virginia in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, providing an 

opportunity to compare and contrast that experience with the experience interpreted at Johnson 

Farm, which was owned by a white family. Such an 

approach will require the kind of research that has 

gone into development of Johnson Farm, especially 

interviews with family members and development 

of a comprehensive history of the family and the 

site.

Treatment should not attempt to restore the buildings to their original appearance. Not only is the 

“original” appearance of the buildings difficult, if 

not impossible, to define, it is the larger story of the 

Saunders’ use of the land that is significant and not 

some particular event or point in time.

Alternatives for 

Treatment and Use

Consideration of alternatives for treatment and use 

is recommended for any historic structure for which 

a program of treatment and use has not already 

been established. In the process, NPS guidelines 

put the “emphasis . . . on preserving extant historic 

material and resolving conflicts that might result 

from a structure's ‘ultimate treatment’." 

Use

Alternatives to use of Saunders Farm as what 

amounts to a museum exhibit are few, since rehabilitation and adaptive use for residential use, visitor 

contact, or other such modern use would inevitably 

compromise the resource to an unacceptable 

degree. Floors would have to be restructured, modern utilities added, and the building finished to a 

degree that it never was historically. The result 

would be a significant degradation of the building’s 

historic character. 24. NPS General Management Policies (2001), p. 50.

25. NPS General Management Policies (2001), p. 56
48 Saunders Farm HSR

Treatment

At a minimum, the main house and the meat house 

must be stabilized to prevent further deterioration 

and loss of historic fabric. The other outbuildings 

must be considered lost.

There are several alternatives to treatment of the 

remaining buildings, ranging from simple preservation that would repair and conserve existing historic 

materials and features to full restoration which 

would replace missing features as an aid to interpretation of a particular period in the site’s history. 

These phases could be accomplished consecutively 

over a short period of time as a more or less single 

project or, depending on available resources, there 

could be intervals between the phases.

Restoration of the house to its original appearance 

might be considered. This would necessitate 

recreation of the open porch on the south side of 

the house, removal of the brick chimney, and 

reconstruction of the window and door openings 

on the south side of the kitchen. However, there 

would be a certain amount of speculation in 

reconstructing the porch, particularly regarding the 

configuration of the posts and railing, if any was 

present, and there seems to be no compelling 

reason to remove later alterations and eliminate part 

of the history of the Saunders time in the house. 

Preservation of the house and the meat house as 

they were when the Saunders moved out in the late 

1940s would maximize interpretive opportunities.
National Park Service 49

Adaptation and stabilization of Saunders Farm to 

allow for public access will require a considerable 

investment, as will the additional historical research, 

building investigation, restoration, and reconstruction needed for interpretation. Following is an outline of the necessary work, presented in the general 

order in which it should be accomplished.

Main House

Stabilization

This phase of the work would aim simply to prevent 

further loss of historic fabric and should be implemented immediately. In effect, the house would be 

mothballed as outlined in Preservation Brief #31.

26

Access. Nothing can be accomplished without first 

providing access from Va. Hwy. 43 so that workmen, 

materials, and equipment can be brought into the 

site. The historic roadways are being identified in 

the Cultural Landscape Inventory (CLI) that is 

being conducted in conjunction with this Historic 

Structures Report, and presumably, clearing of 

some of these roads would provide adequate access. 

The immediate environs of the historic structures 

should also be cleared of the trees and undergrowth 

that have sprung up over the last thirty years, with 

the extent of clearing consistent with the findings of 

the CLI.

Artifacts. As this work proceeds, the numerous 

artifacts, including portions of doors and other 

building features, that litter the ground around the 

buildings must be mapped, catalogued, and 

archived. All building- related artifacts should be 

tagged and stored in the front room (100) of the 

house. The entire area should be posted against 

trespassing until such time as the site is ready for 

presentation to the public.

Interior. The interior of the house must be cleared 

of the large amount of debris that covers the floors 

in every room. Holes in flooring on the first floor 

should be covered temporarily with plywood, 

anchored without the use of nails or screws but 

secured against animal entry. Plywood can also be 

laid over the loose boards on the enclosed porch 

(102).

Exterior. The portion of the north wall of the 

kitchen that has been removed should be repaired 

and the opening closed, using as much as possible of 

the existing material now lying on the ground outside the opening, or by simply covering the opening 

with plywood. The front door and the window 

openings should be secured with vented plywood 

panels screwed to the frames at the outside of each 

opening. A temporary door should be installed at 

the east end of the old porch (102) to provide access 

into the building.

The roof of the enclosed porch (102) has been badly 

damaged by a falling tree. The tree should be 

removed and the area covered with a tarpaulin to 

prevent water entry. Rafters can be temporarily 

braced up on the interior. The remainder of the roof 

appears to be generally shedding water, but if additional leaks are found they should be closed. Since 

the entire roof covering will have to be replaced, 

cold asphalt patching compound could be used if 

necessary.

Once these temporary measures are taken to stabilize the structure, there must be regular inspection 

of the site and, at a minimum, continuous mainte26. Available on line at <http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/

briefs/brief31.htm>.

Recommendations for 

Treatment and Use
50 Saunders Farm HSR

nance to keep it secure from the elements, nesting 

animals, and vandals.

Summary of recommendations for stabilization. 

■ Clear access into site

■ Clear trees and underbrush from on and 

around the historic structures

■ Clean interior

■ Map, catalog, and store building detached 

artifacts inside and outside structures

■ Cover holes in floors

■ Secure exterior by closing opening on north 

side

■ Install vented covers at windows and front door

■ Install temporary door at east end of Room 102

■ Clear roof of debris and cover roof of Room 102 

with a tarpaulin

■ Monitor site and maintain building security

Repair and Rehabilitation

Once a program of use and interpretation for the 

site is firmly established and as resources become 

available, more permanent repairs and rehabilitation can be commenced. These would aim to preserve the historic form and features of the building 

as they exist today.

Foundation. The foundation on the west and south 

sides of the log pen is in relatively good condition, 

but once the site is cleared, the remainder of the 

foundation will need repointing and, on the east 

and north sides, minor repairs. Care should be 

taken to use a mortar that is formulated to match the 

visual qualities of the historic mortar. The mortar 

for the foundation under the enclosed porch (102), 

which was added sometime after the house was 

constructed, should have an appearance that is 

slightly different from that used on the rest of the 

foundation.

At the southwest corner of the house, the west 

foundation and the south foundation walls have 

separated. Crack monitors should be installed to 

determine if the separation is stable. If not, poor 

drainage is probably destabilizing the foundation 

and drainage problems should be corrected. The 

walls should not be reconstructed but a means 

should be devised to tie the two walls together and 

prevent further separation.

Structure. Structural repairs should be made as 

necessary to replace deteriorated members, but 

damage to the framing of the building appears to be 

limited, probably because of the use of chestnut 

and/or hickory in the original construction. Repairs 

will be probably need to made to the sills on the 

north and east sides of the house and to the floor 

and roof framing of the enclosed porch, which have 

been damaged by water penetration. Repairs should 

not seek to restructure the building’s framing to 

meet modern codes, since that could severely compromise the historic character of the building. If 

public access to the interior is ever contemplated, 

the floor structure can be braced from below without replacing the entire floor system.

Either the sill or the foundation or both at the 

northeast corner of the log pen have been damaged, 

allowing the lower portion of the wall on the east 

side of the chimney to settle as much as two inches. 

The area will need some excavation to determine 

the cause of and to repair the damage, which will 

include raising the lower half of the log wall on the 

east side of the chimney back to its original position.

Exterior Finishes. Most of the exterior finishes 

remain intact but are in need of significant repairs. 

Most of the existing siding on the north and east 

sides can be re- nailed where necessary and preserved. Siding is entirely missing from the lower half 

of the north wall and some is missing from the east 

end. Much of the siding on the south side of the 

enclosed porch, which is not contemporaneous 

with the other siding, may require complete 

replacement. If that is necessary, the vertical seam 

on the west side of the window opening should be 

replicated. Most of the soffit is intact and can be 

preserved, but some of the fascia will need replacement.

The exterior woodwork will remain unpainted, and 

it is therefore necessary that particular care be taken 

in selecting replacement material. Since chestnut is 

no longer available, quarter- sawn pine might be the 

most appropriate substitute. All material should be 
National Park Service 51

Part II: Treatment and Use

graded clear and better. Common wire nails are the 

appropriate fasteners.

Windows and Doors. All but one window is missing its sash and one of the two exterior doors is 

missing. New six- over- six sash will need to be replicated for the front window and installed in the 

existing frame. The upper sash will be fixed in place; 

the lower sash will be movable but without hardware. Four- over- four sash should be installed in 

the window in the south gable in the same manner 

as the front window. The existing four- over- four 

sash in the kitchen window can be repaired. Frame 

and sash will have to be recreated for the window 

on the south wall of Room 102, using a pair of fourlight sash that match the sash used in the window on 

the north side of Room 101.

The front door can be preserved, but a new door 

will be needed at the east end of the enclosed porch 

(102). Since there are no historic photographs of the 

east side of the house, it can only be assumed that 

the door there was similar to the existing front door, 

which can then be used to recreate the back door.

All locks are missing, but a vertical rim lock is 

ghosted on the front door and would be an appropriate substitute for the original. Brown mineral 

knobs were most typically used with rim locks during the period in which the house was constructed.

Roofing and Drainage. The standing- seam metal 

roof covering should be repaired if possible, but if 

upon close inspection it is determined that leaks 

cannot be repaired, then it should be replaced in 

kind. The house never had gutters, and there has 

been no control of rain water run- off from the roof. 

This has probably precipitated the differential settlement of the foundation around the southwest 

corner of the house and, with uncontrolled surface 

runoff, the collapse of the stone wall on the north 

side of the cellar. Since the ground may be too rocky 

to consider a subterranean French drain, the surface 

grade should be such that water is turned away from 

the house on all sides.

Exterior Stairs. The back door can be entered 

from the ground without a step, but wooden stairs 

to the front door were present at one time. These 

should be recreated with open stringers and no 

landing. Cedar might be the most appropriate 

material for the steps since it will rapidly age to a 

color that would be compatible with the rest of the 

house.

Interior Finishes. Interior repairs would be quite 

limited, beginning with a thorough cleaning of the 

interior to clear it of the large amount of debris 

presently in the building. As on the exterior, care 

must be taken to ensure that any artifacts remaining 

in the building are preserved.

Missing or rotted pieces of flooring should be 

replaced in kind, maintaining the patchwork nature 

of the kitchen floor and material differences in all 

the floors. The flooring will not be varnished or 

painted but can be scrubbed with water and detergents, as it would have been cleaned historically. 

Alternatively, the floors might be sanded using finemesh screen, although that approach risks excessive 

removal of wood and/or creation of a raw look that 

would clash with the patina of other interior surfaces.

Summary of Recommendations for Repair and 

Rehabilitation. ■

■ Repair and repoint foundation on north and 

east side of house

■ Avoid reconstruction and repoint foundation 

under Room 102

■ Monitor foundation at southwest corner for 

continuing movement

■ Devise means to tie south and west foundation 

together without reconstruction

■ Repair sills on north and east side

■ Repair floor and roof framing of enclosed 

porch (102)

■ Locate source of and repair damage to 

northeast corner of log pen

■ Repair siding, soffit, and fascia, replacing 

material only as necessary using quarter- sawn 

pine as a replacement material

■ Repair existing window sash; replace missing 

window sash
52 Saunders Farm HSR

■ Replicate five- panel front door and install at 

east end of enclosed porch (102)

■ Install vertical rim locks with brown mineral 

knobs at front and back door

■ Repair standing- seam metal roof covering

■ Rework surface grade surrounding house to 

ensure rapid rain water run- off away from 

house

■ Repair and clean flooring as necessary

■ Recreate stairs to front door

Research

Archival research for the present project has been 

very limited, and if interpretation of the farm is to go 

beyond the barest outline of the site’s history, additional historical research will be necessary. Development of a historic resource study for Saunders 

Farm should be a high priority if there is to be a 

serious effort to interpret the site. Potential sources 

of documentation include the county courthouse, 

the local historical society, the Federal census, and 

memories and family traditions gathered from 

interviews with family members and others.

A cursory survey of documents in the Bedford 

County Courthouse produced a chain of title to the 

property stretching back to George Saunders’ 

acquisition of the property in 1912. Courthouse 

records should be exhaustively researched which 

might prove successful in documenting ownership 

of the farm by three generations of the Saunders 

family as well as providing additional documentation of the Saunders family.

The oral history project now underway has begun 

to locate Saunders family members, although none 

have been interviewed as of this writing. The 1975 

interview with Mabel Saunders mentioned the 

existence of a family Bible, and family members may 

have other useful sources for documenting the family’s history. This line of research should be vigorously pursued while some of the Saunders’ children 

remain alive.

Finally, dendrochronological analysis of the wood 

used to construct the Saunders’ house and outbuildings could help establish a more precise date 

for construction of these buildings.

Summary of Recommendations for Research. ■

■ Develop a comprehensive historic resource 

study for Saunders Farm

■ Re- evaluate interior of house after cleaning

■ Establish construction date through 

dendrochronological analysis

Restoration

The treatments outlined above would preserve the 

house and make it presentable to the public. For 

interpretive purposes, additional restoration work 

might also be considered after the historical 

research outlined above has been completed.

A historic furnishings plan would need to be developed if the house is to be fully restored and the 

interior opened and interpreted. The oral history 

work noted above should include questions that 

would elicit information on the historic interiors of 

the house. 

If the interior of the house is to be refurnished and 

opened to the public, an appropriate substitute for 

the wall coverings in the kitchen (101) should be 

located. Analysis of surviving fragments can determine the original color so that it can be repainted 

appropriately. Whitewashing the interior of the log 

pen could also be considered but, like the kitchen 

wall covering, would not be warranted unless the 

house were being refurnished and opened as a 

house museum.

A replacement for the missing wall covering in the 

rear loft (201) would be more difficult to locate, but 

may not be necessary if, as will probably be the case, 

the public is not allowed access to the lofts. If 

replacement is deemed necessary, common 

asphalt- impregnated building paper commonly 

used for underlayment might be substituted, but it 

would not be durable and would give a somewhat 

misleading appearance to the room.

Summary of Recommendations for Restoration. ■

■ Develop historic furnishings plan
National Park Service 53

Part II: Treatment and Use

■ Recreate wall coverings in Rooms 101 and 201

■ Whitewash interior of log pen

Outbuildings

The meat house and the ruins of the other two outbuildings are critical to site interpretation. All 

should be preserved.

Meat House

Although the existing corrugated metal roofing 

continues to shed water, one panel at the southeast 

side of the structure is detached from the decking 

and in danger of being torn completely off with high 

winds. It should be reattached and the entire roof 

system carefully monitored for leaks.

The remains of the door to the building are lying on 

the ground in front of the structure. Using these 

remains and the historic photographs of the building, the door should be recreated and re- installed. 

Missing flooring should be replaced, using material 

similar to that which remains in place. The existing 

partition should be preserved.

The shed on the east side of the structure has all but 

disappeared. Like the ruins of the chicken house 

and hog house, little can be done to preserve its 

ruins. It would be helpful to interpretation of the 

site if the shed were reconstructed before all evidence for its structure and finishes is lost. Surviving 

elements and historic photos would support accurate reconstruction.

Ruins

The chicken house and the hog house are in ruins 

and little can be done to preserve what remains. 

Shelters could retard deterioration but the 

advanced state of decay and the nature of the structures does not warrant such intervention.

Care should be exercised in preserving the stone 

foundations of the buildings in place, although 

these are little more than stones placed on the surface of the ground. Historic photographs of the 

structures would support reconstruction of both 

buildings, if that would be necessary for interpretation of the site.

Summary of Recommendations for Outbuildings. 

■ Repair roofing

■ Reconstruct door

■ Replace missing flooring

■ Reconstruct Meat House shed

■ Preserve stone foundations of ruins in place

■ Reconstruct ruined buildings only if deemed 

necessary for interpretation

Site Security

There has already been some vandalism of the site, 

including breaking of windows and, apparently, 

gunshot destruction of the terra- cotta cap on the 

main chimney. Proposed improvements in access to 

the site will bring a dramatic increase in visitation, 

but also a corresponding increase in the risk of vandalism. To some degree vandalism is an ongoing 

problem at virtually all parks, and while it can be 

controlled, it can rarely be eliminated entirely. 

Monty Christiansen’s Vandalism Control Management for Park Districts, developed for the NPS in 

1982, provides a series of common- sense guidelines 

for minimizing the threat of vandalism.27

As noted above, because there is no water or other 

utilities at the site, and none are planned in the forseeable future, protection must focus on fire prevention through prohibiting storage of flammable 

materials and smoking in or around the buildings. 

Special care should be taken to keep the surrounding site clear of underbrush and other debris in 

order to protect against destruction by wild fire. 

Hand- held fire extinguishers should be maintained 

on site, especially when work is underway on the 

structures.

The park might also consider installation of a totally 

wireless, solar- or battery- powered alarm system, 

but design and placement of sensors could prove 

27. Monty L. Christiansen, Vandalism Control 

Management for Park Districts (Philadelphia: National 

Park Service, Technical Services Program, 1982; on line 

at <http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ip840120.html>.
54 Saunders Farm HSR

difficult. Such a system could prove useful in 

detecting fire, and its mere presence might help to 

reduce, if not prevent, vandalism.28

Summary of Recommendations for Site Security. 

■ Implement vandalism control measures 

outlined in Vandalism Control Management for 

Park Districts

■ Prohibit smoking at the site

■ Maintain site to reduce risk from wild fire

■ Maintain fire extinguishers in both buildings

■ Consider installation of solar- or batterypowered security system

28. For an example of these systems see <http://

www.smartersecurity.com>.
National Park Service 55

Bedford County, Clerk of Superior Court, Records of 

Births, Marriages, Deeds and Mortgages.

Firth, Ian J. W. “Parkway Profiles: Brief Background 

Statements on the Major Cultural Resources of the 

Blue Ridge Parkway.” Athens, GA, School of 

Environmental Design, 1992.

Swain, Mrs. Mabel Saunders. Interview by Rosemary 

Johnson, 21 April 1975. Original transcripts and oral 

history tape located in BLRI archives collection, 

catalogued.

Wright, William R. Interview by Philip E. Coyle, 13 May 

2005, contractor for BLRI oral history project. CD of 

recording, no transcript, in HSR project files, SERO.

United States Federal Census, 1850- 1930.

Sources of 

Information
56 Saunders Farm HSR
National Park Service 57

Appendix A:

Federal Census Schedules
58 Saunders Farm HSR
National Park Service 59

1880 Census
60 Saunders Farm HSR
National Park Service 61

1930 Census
62 Saunders Farm HSR
National Park Service 63

Appendix B:

Bedford County Deeds
64 Saunders Farm HSR
National Park Service 65

1912: Book 107, pp. 127-128
66 Saunders Farm HSR
National Park Service 67

1927: Book 149, pp. 106-107
68 Saunders Farm HSR
National Park Service 69

1942: Book 199, pp. 517-519
70 Saunders Farm HSR
National Park Service 71
72 Saunders Farm HSR
National Park Service 73

Appendix C:

1942 Plat
74 Saunders Farm HSR
National Park Service 75
76 Saunders Farm HSR
As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the 

Department of the Interior has responsibility for most 

of our nationally owned public lands and natural 

resources. This includes fostering sound use of our 

land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, 

and biological diversity; preserving the environmental 

and cultural values of our national parks and 

historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of 

life through outdoor recreation. The department 

assesses our energy and mineral resources and works 

to ensure that their development is in the best 

interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship 

and citizen participation in their care. The 

department also has a major responsibility for 

American Indian reservation communities and for 

people who live in island territories under U.S. 

administration. 

NPS D- 738 June 2005