DOCSLIB.ORG

An Archaeological Survey of the 230 HA Camp Mackall Drop Zone, 70

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Additional compliance with the National Historic Preservation information concerning this previous suxvey, and Act (Public Law 89-665, as amended by Public Law the sites identified by Loftfield, can be found in 96-515), Guidelines for Federal Agency the Research Strategy and Methods section, as Responsibilities, under Section 110 of the National well as the Conclusions. No previously recorded Preservation Act, Army Regulation AR 420-40, sites were situated within the Manchester Road and 36CFR800 (Protection of Historic and survey tract. Cultural Properties). The project is administered for the United States Army by the National Park A total of 15 sites and 4 isolated Service (NPS), Southeast Regional Office. The occurrences were found or re-identified within the scope of work specified that the entire project area Camp Mackall Drop Zone area. Two sites and be surveyed as high probability using transects and one isolated occurrence were discovered in the shovel tests spaced at 30 m intervals. Manchester Road survey tract. Of the 22 archaeological sites identified, one (31SC88) is The primary purpose of this investigation recommended as potentially eligible for inclusion is to identify and assess the archaeological remains on the National Register of Historic Places. present at Camp Mackall and Fort Bragg for the National Register of Historic Places. There were Twenty-one of the 22 sites have prehistori<> also a number of secondary goals which included: components and five have historic assemblages. Thirteen of the 21 sites with prehistoric • an examination of changing components exhibit only lithic debitage or other prehistoric and historic land use; non-diagnostic material. A Yadkin component is found at six of the 21 prehistoric sites, representing • the affects of clear-cutting and the most conunon cultural assemblage identified. long-term exposure on Other Woodland assemblages, however, include archaeological sites; Hanover materials at two sites, the occurrence of Adam's Creek material at one site, and a Caraway • the effectiveness of 30 m projectile point (probably temporally associated interval transects at locating with the Yadkin pottery) at another. Archaic significant resources; assemblages include four sites with Morrow Mountain materials, two with Guilford, and one • changing !ithic material each of Hardaway, probable Big Sandy, Kirk, preferences; and Savannah, and Gypsy. i The historic materials are ephemeral and consist entirely of materials consistent with n1id­ nineteenth through mid-twentieth century occupation, typified by whiteware ceran1ics and clear bottle glass. It is recommended that additional testing take place at the potentially eligible site, 31SC88, as soon as possible. If this site is found to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register, then data recovery should be perfom1ed in the near future. This urgency is based not only on the exceptional data losses which have taken place at the survey tract since it was first examined by Coastal Zone Resources in 1979, but also on the fact that landscape modifications seem to be taking place on a daily basis since Chicora's survey in March of 1996. Military activities have already affected the integrity of one site (31SC87) while this report was being produced and it is suspected that any further delays in testing and data recovery will ahnost certainly result in the further losses. The recommendation of not eligible for the remaining 21 sites precludes the requirement of additional management activities. The Base Archaeologist, however, may wish to continue collecting these deflating sites using the previously established collection strategy for consistency. The additional data may prove useful to our understanding of settlement and, in particular, site density. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures v List of Tables vii Acknowledgements viii Introduction 1 Sun'ey Background 1 Curation 7 Natural Setting 9 Physiography and Drainage 9 Geology and Soils 11 Climate 18 Floristics and Paleoenvironnzent 18 Prehistoric and Historic Overview 21 Previous Research 21 Prehistoric Ove111iew 25 Historic Oven.1ie»' 36 Research Strategy and Methods 45 Research Goals 45 Archival Research 51 Field Swvey 51 Laboratory Methods 56 Results of Survey 59 Introduction 59 Revisited Archaeological Sites 59 New(v Identified Archaeological Sites 78 Isolated Occurrences 96 Unlocated Sites 99 Conclusions 101 Introduction 101 Site Attrition 102 Site Size and Identification 103 Prehistoric Land Use 104 Site Density and Function 106 Lithic Resource Use 107 Artifacts 108 Recon·unendations 112 Sources Cited 113 Appendix 1. Catalog of Recovered Materials 123 iii lLllS'f OJF' lF'llGURJES Figure l. Location of the project areas in North Carolina 2 2. Location of the Camp Mackall and Manchester Road sUivey tracts 3 3. The Camp Mackall Drop Zone survey area 4 4. The Manchester Road survey area 5 5. Green Farm area of the Camp Mackall survey area 6 6. View of the Manchester Road survey area 6 7. Physiographic setting of the survey areas 10 8. Photograph of a partially filled in drainage in the Camp Mackall area 12 9. Soils in the Camp Mackall Drop Zone survey area 14 10. Soils in the Manchester Road survey area 15 11. Windstorm at Camp Mackall showing the loss of soil 17 12. Sites identified by Loftfield in the Camp Mackall Drop Zone survey area 22 13. Sites identified by Loftfield in the Manchester Road survey area 23 14. Cultural sequence for eastern North Carolina 26 15. Paleoindian projectile points in the Carolinas 28 16. Projectile point traditions of North Carolina 29 17. Mouzon's 1775 map of the Fort Bragg area 37 18. Colonial settlement along the upper Cape Fear 37 19. The Revolutionary War in North Carolina 40 20. The Civil War in North Carolina 42 21. Vicinity of Fayetteville and Fort Bragg in 1865 42 22. Location of survey transects for the Camp Mackall Drop Zone survey 53 23. Location of survey transects for the Manchester Road survey 54 24. Sites recorded in the Camp Mackall Drop Zone survey area 60 25. Sites recorded in the Manchester Road survey area 61 26 Map of 31SC66/31SC66** and test unit profile 63 27. Map of 31SC68 and test unit profile 65 28. Map of 31SC71 and test unit profile 68 29. Map of 31SC72 and test unit profile 70 30. Map of 31SC75 and test unit profile 72 31. Map of 31SC87/31SC87** and test unit profile 74 32. Map of 31SC88 and test unit profile 76 33. Map of 31SC91 and test unit profile 80 34. Map of 31SC92 and test unit profile 82 35. Map of 31SC93 and test unit profile 83 36. Map of 31SC94 and test unit profile 85 37. Map of 31SC95 and test unit profile 87 38. Map of 31SC96/31SC96** and test unit profile 88 39. Map of 31SC97 and test unit profile 90 40. Map of 31SC98/31SC98** and test unit profile 92 41. Map of 31CD455** and test unit profile 94 42. Map of 31CD456 and test unit profile 95 43. Map of isolated occurrences 97 v 44. Projectile points from the Camp Mackall survey 109 45. Projectile points and other tools from the Camp Mackall survey 110 46. Pottery recovered from the Camp Mackall survey 111 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Metric conversions 1 2. UTM coordinates for archaeological sites using GPS 55 3. Correlation of accession numbers with site numbers 56 4. Archaeological sites identified in the smvey 59 5. Artifacts recovered from Collection Units at 31SC71 67 6. Artifacts recovered from Collection Units at 31SC88/31SC88 .. 78 7. Artifacts recovered from Collection Units at 31SC96/31SC96•• 86 8. Sites in the survey areas 101 9. Artifact density 107 vii ACJK.NOWlLIEDGIEMIEN'fS While the work at Camp Mackall and Fort Pfeiffer, and Mr. Shawn T. Small. The surveys Bragg was conducted in compliance with various were conducted from March 13 to March 23, 1996 national historic preservation requiren1ents, we and we appreciate their dedication and hard work. wish to thank all of those involved for their Thanks also to Ms. Windi O'Connor and Ms. support and interest in the project. In particular, at Rachel Brinson who cataloged and processed the Fort Bragg Mr.
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]
  • 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.
    [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]