DOCSLIB.ORG

Fort Bragg 3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fort Bragg 3 FORT BRAGG 3: AN ARCHAEOWGICAL SURVEY OF THE 29.57 HA CAMP MACKALL SPECIAL FORCES TRAINING AREA AND 776.55 HA, RICHMOND, CUMBERLAND, AND HARNETT COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA CHICORA FOUNDATION RESEARCH SERIES 193 © 2001 by Chicora Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, or transcribed in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherWise without prior permission of Chicora Foundation, Inc. except for brief quotations used in reviews. Full credit must be given to the authors, publisher, and project sponsor. FORT BRAGG 3: .. AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE 29.57 HA CAMP MACKALL SPECIAL FORCES TRAINING AREA AND 776.55 HA, RICHMOND, CUMBERLAND, AND HARNETT COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA Prepared For: National Park Service Southeast Region 75 Spring Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 With funds provided by the Department of the Army Under: Contract Number 1443CX500095043 Purchase Order Number 1443PX502096064 Prepared By: Michael Trinkley William B. Barr and Debi Hacker Chicora Research Contribution 193 Chicora Foundation, Inc. P.O. Box 8664 • 861 Arbutus Drive Columbia, South Carolina 29202-8864 Email: [email protected] September 12, 1996 This report is printed on permanent paper o:i. ABSTRACT This study represents an intensive c an examination of changing archaeological survey of 11 areas under the prehistoric and historic land use; oversight of Fort Bragg, North Carolina totaling 806.12 ha. One is designated as the Camp Mackall c the effects of clear-cutting and Special Forces training area. This tract, located in long-term exposure on Richmond County, North Carolina, contains archaeological sites; approximately 29.57 ha. The survey tracts within the boundaries of the Fort Bragg Military c the effectiveness of 30 m Reservation were given alphabetical designations interval transects at locating between "A" and "J" and are situated in significant resources; Cumberland County, North Carolina. Survey tract "A" contains 1.62 ha, survey tract "B" contains c changing lithic material 11. 75 ha, survey tract "C" contains 18.63 ha, survey preferences; and tract "D 11 contains 41.72 ha, survey tract "E" contains 14.58 ha, survey tract "F" contains 10.53, c site function/duration based on and survey tract "G" contains 30.38 ha. Survey artifact content. tracts ''H", "I", and "J" are located in Hamett County, North Carolina. Survey tract "H" contains These investigations incorporated a review 314.20 ha, survey tract "I" contains 119.53 ha, and of the site files at the North Carolina Office of ·survey tract "J" contains 213.62 ha. State Archaeology. Although a number of surveys have been conducted in adjoining areas only one This work is being done in order to fulfill site, in tract "C", was previously recorded. No compliance with the National Historic Preservation previously recorded sites were found to exist Act (Public Law 89-665, as amended by Public Law within any of the other survey tracts. 96-515), Guidelines for Federal Agency Responsibilities, under Section 110 of the National Only one site was identified within the Preservation Act, Army Regulation AR 420-40, Camp Mackall survey tract. Within survey tract and 36CFR800 (Protection of Historic and "C" one site was re-identified and one site, known Cultural Properties). The project is administered to exist but not recorded, was identified. In survey for the United States Army by the National Park tract "F' one site, an isolated occurrence, was Service (NPS), Southeast Regional Office. The identified. Six sites and five isolated occurrences scope of work specified that certain tracts within were identified in survey tract "H", one site and the project area be surveyed as low probability five isolated occurreuces were identified.in survey using transects and shovel tests spaced at 60 m tract "I", and one site a"nd four isolated occurrences intetvals, whereas other tracts were to be surveyed were identified in survey tract "J". Of the 26 as high probability using transects and shovel tests archaeological sites identified, only one, a historic spaced at 30 m intervals . graveyard, is recommended eligtble for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The The primary purpose of this investigation remaining 25 sites are recommended as not eligtble is to identify and assess the archaeological remains for inclusion on the National Register of Historic present at Camp Mackall and Fort Bragg for the Places. National Register of Historic Places. There were also a number of secondary goals which included: Tweuty-three of the 26 sites have prehistoric components and three have historic components. Twenty-one of the 23 sites with prehistoric components exhibit only lithic debitage or other non-diagnostic material. Prehistoric pottery from one of these sites would indicate a Woodland Period occupation. Of the three historic period sites only one was found to contain an artifact assemblage. These materials are ephemeral and consist entirely of materials consistent with late-eighteenth through early-twentieth century occupation. ii 'fAJ31LlE OF CON'fJENTS List of Figures v List of Tables Vil Acknowledgements viii Introduction 1 Survey Background I Curation I7 Natural Setting 19 Physiography and Drainage 19 Geology and Soils 22 Climate 32 Floristics and Paleoenvironment 33 Prehistoric and Historic OveIView 37 Previous Research 37 Prehistoric Overview 41 Historic Overview 53 Research Strategy and Methods 63 Research Goals 63 Archival Research 69 Field Survey 69 Laboratory Methods 78 Results of Survey 81 Introduction 81 Revisited Archaeological Sites 86 Newly Identified Archaeological Sites 89 Isolated Occurrences 108 Conclusions 115 Introduction 115 Site Attrition 117 Site Size and Identification 118 Prehistoric Land Use 119 Site Density and Function 121. Lithic Resource Use 122 Artifacts 122 Recommendations 124 Sources Cited 125 Appendix 1. Catalog of Recovered Materials 137 iii JLilST OJF lFilGURJES Figure 1. Location of the project areas in North Carolina 2 2. Location of Camp Mackall and Fort Bragg in the Richmond, Cumberland, and Hamett County area 3 3. The Camp Mackall Special Forces Training Area survey tract 4 4. Fort Bragg general survey tract "A" 5 5. Fort Bragg general survey tract "B" and "G" 6 6. Fort Bragg general survey tract "C', "D", "E", and "F' 7 7. Fort Bragg general survey tract "H" 8 8. Fort Bragg general survey tract "I" and "J" 9 9. View of the Camp Mackall Special Forces Training Area survey tract 10 10. View of Fort Bragg general survey tract "A" 10 11. View of Fort Bragg general survey tract "B" 11 12. View of Fort Bragg general survey tract "C" 11 13. View of Fort Bragg general survey tract "D" 12 14. View of Fort Bragg general survey tract "E" 12 15. View of Fort Bragg General survey tract "F" 13 16. View of Fort Bragg general survey tract "G" 13 17. View of Fort Bragg general survey tract "If' 14 18. View of Fort Bragg general survey tract "I" 14 19. View of Fort Bragg general survey tract "J" 15 20. Physiographic setting of the survey tracts 20 21. Slope to drainage at 31HT215*, view to the north 22 22. Soils in the Camp Mackall Special Forces Training Area survey tract 25 23. Soils in Fort Bragg general survey tract "A" 26 24. Soils in Fort Bragg general survey tract "B" and "G" 27 25. Soils in Fort Bragg general suivey tract "C', "D", "E", and "F' 28 26 Soils in Fort Bragg general survey tract "H" 29 27. Soils in Fort Bragg general survey tract "I" and "J" 30 28. Sites identified by Braley in association with Fort Bragg general survey tract "H" 39 29. Sites identified by Braley in association with Fort Bragg general survey tract "I" and "J" 40 30. Cultural sequence for eastern North Carolina 42 31. Paleoindian projectile points in the Carolinas 44 32. Projectile point traditions of North Carolina 45 33. Mouzon's 1775 map of the Fort Bragg area 53 34. Colonial settlement along the upper Cape Fear 53 35. The Revolutionary War in North Carolina 56 36. The Civil War in North Carolina 58 37. Vicinity of Fayetteville and Fort Bragg in 1865 58 38. Survey transects; Camp Mackall Special Forces Training Area survey tract 71 39. Survey transects; Fort Bragg general survey tract "A" 72 40. Survey transects; Fort Bragg general survey tract "B" and "G" 73 41. Survey transects; Fort Bragg general survey tract "C', "D", "E", aud "F' 74 42. Survey transects; Fort Bragg general survey tract "H" 75 iv 43. Survey transects; Fort Bragg general sutvey tract "I" and "J" 76 44. Sites recorded. in the Camp Mackall Special Forces Training Area sutvey tract 82 45. Sites recorded in Fort Bragg general survey tract "C" and "F' 83 46. Sites recorded in Fort Bragg general sutvey tract "H" 84 47. Sites recorded in Fort Bragg general snrvey tract "I" and "J" 85 48. Map of 31CD106** and 31CD528** 87 49. Map of 31RH287* and test unit profile 90 50. Map of 31HT210* and test unit profile 92 51. Map of 31HT211 * and test unit profile 94 52. Map of 31HT212* and test unit profile 96 53. Map of 31HT213* and test unit profile 98 54. Map of 31HT214* and test unit profile 100 55. Map of 31HT215* and test unit profile 102 56. Map of 31HT225* and test unit profile 104 57 Map of 31HT231 * and test unit profile 106 58. Map of 31CD529*, isolated occurrence 108 59. Map of isolated occurreuces, Fort Bragg general survey tract "H' 109 60. Map of isolated occurrences, Fort Bragg general survey tract "I" 111 61. Map of isolated occurrences, Fort Bragg general survey tract "J" 113 62. Artifacts recovered from the Fort Bragg General Survey 123 v JLKS'Jf' OJF 1f'ABJLJES Table 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NCPHS Journal Issue 69 (Fall 1999)
    ::. NORTH CAROLINA POSTAL HISTORIAN The Journal of the North Carolina Postal History Society Volume 18, No.2 Fall 1999 Whole 69 USS Raleigh (Cruiser No.8) Affiliate #155 of the American Philatelic Society ~---P_R_Es_a_o_E_N_T_'s__ M_ E_s_s_A_G_E__ ~ I ~~--------IN_T_H_I _S_I s_s_u_e__ ____~ The North Carolina Postal History Exhibit has The Four USS Raleighs completed its showing at the North Carolina Museum of History Tony L. Crumbley .... ....... ... .. .. .. 3 in Raleigh. By all accounts, the showing was a success. All copies Ignored North Carolina History from the first printing of the map titled "North Carolina People, Tony L. Crumbley . .. ..... .. .. ..... ...9 Places and Events on United States Stamps" quickly disappeared Camp Hoffman? Where Did It Go? as they were offered to the public who viewed the exhibit. A Frank J. Nelson . .. ...... .... .... ..... 12 second, larger printing of the map was undertaken by the Museum The Mining Town of Ore Knob, Ashe County of History for future use when the exhibit travels. Plans are Scott Troutman .............. .. .... 14 underway for the exhibit to become a traveling exhibit. It will tour Fallstown, Iredell County several of the major cities in the state under the North Carolina FrankJ. Nelson ...... .. .. .... .. ....... 15 Museum of History Traveling Exhibit Program. In its most recent meeting, the North Carolina Postal History Commission voted to Volume IV of the catalog when published next year. help offset some of the expenses to travel the exhibit to locations A second project is well under way. This project around the state using commission funds. The continuing efforts involves the database recording of early North Carolina covers of the North Carolina Postal History Society members have which reside in other archives' collections.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Print Version (PDF)
    The The night of 6 December 1943 in southeastern North Carolina was cold with a nearly-full moon. Towns in Moore, Hoke, Scotland and Richmond counties were blacked out by Army request. Road networks from Knollwood Cameron to Rockingham, Eastwood to Laurinburg, West End to Raeford and Hamlet to Hoffman had been closed to all civilian traffic from 7 p.m. to 2 a.m. Approaching from the east, a large armada of C-47 Maneuver: aircraft carrying paratroopers or towing gliders was nearing the Knollwood Army Auxiliary Airfield near Pinehurst, NC. Aboard one glider was Major (MAJ) The Ultimate Robert L. Johnson, six enlisted glider artillerymen and a jeep from the 675th Glider Field Artillery (GFA) Battalion of the 11th Airborne Division. They were part of the Airborne Test airborne invasion force launched to capture Knollwood Airfield. In the early morning hours of 7 December By Eugene G. Piasecki 1943, MAJ Johnson’s glider pilot released the tow line and began the descent toward his landing zone along N.C. Route 5 between Aberdeen and Pinehurst, NC.1 After hitting the landing zone, the glider skimmed across a field hitting a farmhouse that sheared off its left wing. It stopped and settled “tail-up”. No one was injured in the farmhouse or the glider. MAJ Johnson and the soldiers scrambled out to get the tail down, lifted up the nose compartment and freed the jeep. This accomplished, Johnson drove off to locate the battalion’s twelve 75mm pack howitzers and crews. This glider landing during the Knollwood Maneuver was typical for the “Blue” Force elements.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography
    Bibliography Abbott, L. E., Jr. 2003 Quarry Studies in North Carolina: What Have We Learned in the Last 30 Years? Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 19:93-112. 1987 An Investigation of Lithic Resources within Certain Sites in Davidson County, North Carolina. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem. Anderson, D. G. 1996 Approaches to Modeling Regional Settlement in the Archaic Period Southeast. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by K. E. Sassaman and D. G. Anderson, pp. 157-176. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Anderson, D. G. and G. T. Hanson 1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the Savannah River Valley. American Antiquity 53:261-286. Andrefsky, W. J., Jr. 1994 Raw Material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity 59:21-34. Baker, M. 1980 Archaeological Investigations of Two Prehistoric Lithics Sites in Chatham County, North Carolina. Archaeological Research Consultants, Inc., Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Submitted to the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, Planning and Research Branch, State Project Number R-68, 6.803985. Bamforth, D. B. 1986 Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity 51:38-50. 1991 Technological Organization and Hunter-Gatherer Land Use: A California Example. American Antiquity 56:216-234. Baxter, M. J. 1992 Archaeological Uses of the Biplot – A Neglected Technique? In Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, edited by G. Lock and J. Moffett, pp. 141-148. 182 BIBLIOGRAPHY BAR International Series S577. Tempus Reparatum, Archaeological and Historical Associates, Oxford. 1994 Stepwise Discriminant Analysis in Archaeometry: A Critique.
    [Show full text]
  • An Archaeological Survey of the 230 HA Camp Mackall Drop Zone, 70
    AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE 230 HA CAMP MACKALL DROP ZONE AND 70 HA MANCHESTER ROAD TRACT, FORT BRAGG, SCOTLAND AND CUMBERLAND COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA CHICORA FOUNDATION RESEARCH SERIES 187 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE 230 HA CAMP MACKALL DROP ZONE 70 HA MANCHESTER ROAD TRACT FORT BRAGG, SCOTLAND AND CUMBERLAND COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA Prepared For: Nati on al Park Service Southeast Region 75 Spring Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 With funds provided by the Department of the Army Under: Contract Number 1443CX500095043 Purchase Order Number 1443PX502096008 Prepared By: Michael Trinkley William B. Barr and Debi Hacker Chicora Research Contribution 187 Chicora Foundation, Inc. P.O. Box 8664 • 861 Arbutus Drive Columbia, South Carolina 29202-8864 Email: [email protected] June 6, 1996 Thh report is printed on permanent paper oo, ABSTRACT This study represents an intensive • site function/duration based on archaeological survey of two areas under the artifact content. oversight of Fort Bragg, North Carolina known as the Camp Mackall Drop Zone and the These investigations incorporated a review Manchester Road tract. The Camp Mackall Drop of the site files at the North Carolina Office of Zone, located in Scotland County, North Carolina Archaeology. A total of 16 previously recorded contains approximately 230 ha: The Manchester archaeological sites were found within the Camp Road tract, located in Cumberland County, North Mackall Drop Zone survey boundary. All were Carolina, within Fort Bragg proper, contains initially identified by Dr. Thomas Loftfield for approximaiely 70 ha. Coastal Zone Resources as a part of a reconnaissance survey of Fort Bragg, Camp This work is being done in order to fulfill Mackall, and Sinnnons Army Air Field.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resource Survey of Cold War Properties Fort Bragg, North Carolina
    CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY OF COLD WAR PROPERTIES FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA AUGUST, 2005 Report Prepared By Thomason and Associates Preservation Planners P.O. Box 121225 Nashville, TN 37212 Tel and Fax: 615-385-4960 e-mail: [email protected] Report Prepared For the US Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia and the Cultural Resources Management Program, Fort Bragg, North Carolina Principal Investigator, Philip Thomason ──────────────────────── TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures....................................................................................................................................... iii Abstract ................................................................................................................................................. iv I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 II. The Cold War Context of Fort Bragg ...................................................................................... 8 III. The Cold War and National Register Eligibility ................................................................... 36 IV. Fort Bragg’s Cold War-Era National Register Eligible Properties ....................................... 48 V. Summary ................................................................................................................................. 66 VI. Bibliography ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • World War II in North Carolina
    ALLEGHANY CURRITUCK CAMDEN Weeksville Naval SURRY NORTHAMPTON GATES ASHE E World War II ELL Air Station (LTA) WARREN STOKES C P ASQUOTCG N Chatham Manufacturing HERTFORD P CASW PERSON E N ROCKINGHAM VA R Q Consolidated Vultee Principal Installations, Camps, Fairchild Aircraft HALIFAX U A WATAUGA WILKES C I NK GRANVILLE M Aircraft Corporation FORSYTH GUILFORD Company H A YADKIN O N Camp Butner BERTIE S Industries, and Facilities C A MW MITCHELL C A AVERY N FRANKLIN USMC YA CALDWELL Army Air Force National NASH Air Station Manteo N N DAVIE A DURHAM C ORANGE EDGECOMBE Naval Air Station ALAMANCE Munitions E National Carbon Overseas Y ALEXANDER MADISON Electrode Plant VIDSON Replacement Company MAR WASHINGTON TYRRELL IREDELL DA Raleigh-Durham TIN HA Depot (O.R.D.) DARE U-85 CHATHAM Army Airfield C YWOOD WILSON April 14, 1942 BUNCOMBEC MCDOWELL BURKE CATAWBA H ROWAN RANDOLPH WAKE USS Roper Seymour Johnson Field BEAUFORT HYDE AIN CLEVELAND JOHNSTON SW MECKLENBURG RUTHERFORD LINCOLN LEE A GREENE PITT Dayton Rubber MONTGOMER Company A CABARRUS MOORE GRAHAM HENDERSON A HARNETT JACKSON GASTON Carolina Aluminum Co. Cape Hatteras ANIA V POLK STANLY WAYNE A Y A Pope Field CRAVEN N Knollwood Field LENOIR MACON FORT BRAGG CG U-701 RICHMOND Camp Battle PAMLICO TRANSYL Army Air Force CUMBERLAND July 7, 1942 CHEROKEE CLAY Ecusta UNION Ocracoke Redistribution Camp Mackall JONES Barbour Boat Works American Hudson Paper Co. HOKE SAMPSON Naval Air Morris Field ANSON M Aircraft Rest Camp DUPLIN Cherry Point Station Aluminum Company Camp Sutton A of America - Marine Air Base ONSLOW Hydroelectric Plant CARTERET Fort SCOTLAND U-576 Laurinburg-Maxton Camp Lejeune Macon ROBESON July 15, 1942 Army Air Base BLADEN Morehead City Camp Davis 2 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Camp Mackall 1943–1945
    Camp Mackall 1943–1945 by Cherilyn A. Walley Camp Mackall began its ongoing life as a training center for the U.S. Army’s elite in 1943, amidst the excitement and turmoil of World War II. Carved from the pine forests of the North Carolina Sandhills, just miles away from bustling Fort Bragg, the spacious installation was the ideal place for training airborne and glider infantrymen. Built in a record six months, Camp Mackall boasted a mind-boggling array of facili- ties: more than seventeen hundred buildings, sixty-five miles of paved road, sixteen post exchanges, twelve chapels, two large guest houses, five movie theaters, a twelve hundred-bed hospital, and enough barracks to house twenty-five thousand troops. While initial parachute training took place at Fort Benning, Camp Mackall was where newly minted paratroopers came for advanced parachute infantry train- ing and airborne maneuvers. The 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions trained at Fort Bragg, and the 11th, 13th, and 17th Airborne divisions trained at Mackall, all preparing for battle in the Pacific and Europe. The famous “Triple Nickel” 555th Parachute Infantry Battalion, the first all-black paratroop unit, also trained at Camp Mackall before they deployed west in May 1945 as “smoke jumpers,” fighting forest fires started by balloon-borne Japanese incendiary bombs. When peace came in Europe and then the Pacific, Camp Mackall’s heyday as an airborne training center came to an end. The Airborne Center and support troops transferred to Fort Bragg in November 1945, and the camp was placed on inactive status in December. Because the camp had been built according to con- tingency standards, it would cost some $56 million to make the camp suitable for a permanent base.
    [Show full text]
  • Division E—Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agen- Cies Appropriations Act, 2009
    [House Appropriations Committee Print] Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (H.R. 2638; P.L. 110–329) DIVISION E—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGEN- CIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009 (703) VerDate Aug 31 2005 04:29 Oct 22, 2008 Jkt 044807 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A807P6.XXX A807P6 rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING VerDate Aug 31 2005 04:29 Oct 22, 2008 Jkt 044807 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A807P6.XXX A807P6 rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING CONTENTS, DIVISION E Page Legislative Text: Title I—Department of Defense ...................................................................... 709 Title II—Department of Veterans Affairs ...................................................... 721 Title III—Related Agencies .............................................................................. 732 Title IV—General Provisions ........................................................................... 734 Explanatory Statement: Title I—Department of Defense ...................................................................... 736 Title II—Department of Veterans Affairs ...................................................... 748 Title III—Related Agencies .............................................................................. 756 Title IV—General Provisions ........................................................................... 757 Earmark Disclosure .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Calendar No. 892
    Calendar No. 892 110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! 2d Session SENATE 110–428 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BILL, 2009 JULY 22, 2008.—Ordered to be printed Mr. JOHNSON, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 3301] The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 3301) mak- ing appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass. Amounts in new budget authority Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $119,742,925,000 Amount of 2008 appropriations 1 ............................. 108,391,250,000 Amount of 2009 budget estimate ............................ 115,344,081,000 Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— Amount of 2008 appropriations 1 ..................... ∂11,351,675,000 Amount of 2009 budget estimate ..................... ∂4,398,844,000 1 Excludes $4,761,684,000 in emergency supplemental funding provided in Public Law 110–252. 43–609 PDF CONTENTS Page Background: Purpose of the Bill ............................................................................................ 4 Comparative Statement ................................................................................... 4 Committee Recommendation ........................................................................... 4 Overview and Summary of the Bill ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office Ramona M
    North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator Governor Pat McCrory Office of Archives and History Secretary Susan Kluttz Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry April 24, 2015 Gregory G. Bean [email protected] Director of Public Works US Army Installation Management Command 2175 Reilly Road, Stop A Fort Bragg, North Carolina 28310-5000 RE: Evaluation of the Little Muddy Lake Dam, Camp Mackall, Scotland County, ER 15-0864 Dear Mr. Bean: Thank you for your letter of April 7, 2015, concerning the above-referenced undertaking. We have reviewed the materials submitted and offer the following comments. We understand the spillway of the Little Muddy Lake Dam is slated for demolition due to structural problems and potential failure. Beach houses, piers and other recreational infrastructure previously surrounding the dam are gone, compromising the context of the dam, as well as, its integrity of setting. Thus, we concur the dam is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and we have no further comment on the proposed undertaking. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or [email protected]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number. Sincerely, Ramona M.
    [Show full text]
  • The Postal History of Fort Bragg, North Carolina
    THE POSTAL HISTORY OF FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA by Charles F. Hall, Jr. ort Bragg, one of the largest military installations in the first 50,711 acres of land, at an average cost per acre of United States, is located 10 miles northwest of $18.45. FFayetteville, North Carolina. It is comprised of parts of The selected area was named “Camp Bragg” in recognition Cumberland, Hoke and Harnett Counties. Camp Mackall, its of Lt. General Braxton Bragg, a native of the Tar Heel State sub-installation, is approximately 40 miles west in Moore, from Warren County and a prominent, if not controversial, Scotland and Richmond Counties. Fort Bragg grew out of the Confederate General who had been a field artillery officer in need for additional training areas for the United States Army the Mexican War. The designation “Camp Bragg” rather than field artillery forces in the latter stages of World War I. After “Fort Bragg” was used since it was not envisioned to be a per- the United States declared war on Germany on April 6, 1917, manent facility at that time. the nation’s military swelled from The first post commander, approximately 200,000 in 1914 to a Colonel Maxwell Murray, arrived in combined army and navy of January 1919. Construction of post 4,355.000 as it grew to maturity in facilities had already begun in 1918 the “Great War” or the “War to and by the early 1920s construction End All Wars.” The War Department of facilities accelerated. By 1922, required additional training areas existing roads were improved and for the greatly enlarged army.
    [Show full text]
  • North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office Ramona M
    North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator Governor Pat McCrory Office of Archives and History Secretary Susan Kluttz Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry January 26, 2016 Gregory G. Bean [email protected] Director of Public Works US Army Installation Management Command 2175 Reilly Road, Stop A Fort Bragg, North Carolina 28310-5000 Re: Determination of Eligibility of the Smith Lake Dam, Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, ER 16-0003 Dear Mr. Bean: Thank you for your letter of December 18, 2015, concerning the above-referenced undertaking. We have reviewed the Determination of Eligibility Report and offer the following comments. Fort Bragg plans to demolish and replace the Smith Lake Dam spillway and construct a low-level outlet and emergency spillway to decrease the risk of downstream flooding. The dam was recently evaluated for its association with military recreational activities at Fort Bragg and was determined ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The current report explores the dam’s potential eligibility for its association with the Field Artillery Replacement Training Center and its construction by soldiers in the 981st Engineer Construction Battalion during World War II. We concur with Fort Bragg’s determination that Smith Lake Dam is not eligible for listing in the National Register under Criteria A and C and the demolition of the spillway will have no effect on the property. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
    [Show full text]