civilian conservation corps buildings

7/31/2019 Civilian Conservation Corps Buildings

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civilian-conservation-corps-buildings 1/728

PROJECT NUMBER 07-357

NATIONWIDE CONTEXT, INVENTORY, AND

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT OF WORKS PROGRESS

ADMINISTRATION AND CIVILIAN

CONSERVATION CORPS RESOURCES ON

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INSTALLATIONS



Nationwide Context, Inventory, and Heritage Assessment of Works Progress Administration and Civilian Conservation Corps Resources on Department of Defense Installations

July 2009 Legacy Resource Management Program

Nationwide Context, Inventory, and HeritageAssessment of Works Progress

Administration and Civilian ConservationCorps Resources on Department of Defense

Installations

By

Dr. Susan GoodfellowMarjorie NowickChad Blackwell

Dan HartKathryn Plimpton

Prepared For:

Department of DefenseLegacy Resource Program

PROJECT 07-357

In 1990, Congress passed legislation establishing the Legacy Resource Management Program to provide financial assistance to the Department of Defense (DoD) efforts to preserve our natural and cultural heritage. The program assists DoD in protecting and enhancing resources while supporting military readiness. A Legacy project may involve regional ecosystem management initiatives, habitat preservation efforts, archaeological investigations, invasive species control, Native American consultations, and/or monitoring and predicting migratory patterns of birds and animals.

Three principles guide the Legacy program: stewardship , leadership , and partnership . Stewardship initiatives assist DoD in safeguarding its irreplaceable resources for future generations. By embracing a leadership role as part of the program, the Department serves as a model for respectful use of natural and cultural resources. Through partnerships, the program strives to access the knowledge and talents of individuals outside of DoD.

Prepared By:

engineering-environmental Management, Inc.

July 2009





THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK




July 2009 Legacy Resource Management Program i

Nationwide Context, Inventory, and Heritage Assessment of Works ProgressAdministration and Civilian Conservation Corps Resources

on Department of Defense Installations

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Project Description ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 4

1.2.1 Project Inventory ................................................................................................. 4 1.3 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ 9

CHAPTER 2: CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CORPS............................................................................... 11 2.1 Historical Overview....................................................................................................... 11 2.2 The Camps ................................................................................................................... 17 2.3 The Projects ................................................................................................................. 18

CHAPTER 3: WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION ........................................................................ 21 3.1 Historical Overview....................................................................................................... 21

3.1.1 Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) ........................................... 22 3.1.2 Civil Works Administration ................................................................................ 23 3.1.3 Work Projects Administration ........................................................................... 25

3.2 The Projects ................................................................................................................. 28 3.2.1 National Defense Projects ................................................................................ 31

CHAPTER 4: RESOURCE TYPES .................................................................................................... 47 4.1 CCC Resources ........................................................................................................... 47

4.1.1 CCC Camps ..................................................................................................... 48 4.2 WPA Resources ........................................................................................................... 53 4.3 Other Resources .......................................................................................................... 69

CHAPTER 5: APPLICATION OF THE CONTEXT FOR NRHP EVALUATION........................................... 75 5.1 Regulatory Overview .................................................................................................... 75

5.1.1 National Register Categories of Historic Properties ......................................... 75 5.1.2 Resource Identification ..................................................................................... 76




ii Legacy Resource Management Program July 2009

5.2 Resource Evaluations .................................................................................................. 78 5.2.1 National Register Criteria for Evaluation .......................................................... 78 5.2.2 Evaluating Properties within Historic Contexts ................................................. 79 5.2.3 Applying the National Register Criteria for Evaluation ...................................... 81 5.2.4 Integrity ............................................................................................................. 83

5.3 Conclusion and Recommendations.............................................................................. 88 CHAPTER 6: REFERENCES CITED.................................................................................................. 89

Appendices

A: Finding Aids for Record Groups 35 and 69

B: CCC Project Inventories

C: WPA Project Inventories and Heritage Tourism/Public Interpretation Assessments andHistoric Photographs

D: Project Documentation Reports

E: Built By the WPA and CCC: 1933-1943 New Deal Historic Resources on Department ofDefense Installations (Project Public Education Booklet)




July 2009 Legacy Resource Management Program iii

Figures

Figure 1-1. Example of a CCC Project Card. ................................................................................................ 5

Figure 1-2. Examples of WPA Project Summary Cards. .............................................................................. 8

Figure 2-1. CCC Recruitment Posters. ....................................................................................................... 13

Figure 2-2. CCC Enrollees at Conditioning Camp, Fort Sheridan, Illinois. ................................................. 13

Figure 2-3. CCC Company Organization Chart (Cohen 1980:8). ............................................................... 15

Figure 2-4. Learning Morse Code. .............................................................................................................. 16

Figure 2-5. Woodworking and Carpentry Instruction. ................................................................................. 16

Figure 2-6. CCC Work Crew on Road Construction Project. ...................................................................... 19

Figure 2-7. CCC Work Crew Clearing Land at Fort Benning, Georgia. ...................................................... 20

Figure 3-1. WPA sign in front of WPA-constructed front gates at Jackson Barracks, Louisiana. .............. 27

Figure 3-2. WPA–constructed Range, Maxwell Field, Alabama. ................................................................ 33

Figure 3-3. WPA Improvements at Lowry Field, Colorado.

........................................................................ 33Figure 3-4. Grading and Oiling Runways, Bolling Field, Washington, D.C. ................................................ 34

Figure 3-5. Academic building (now Patton Hall) under construction at Fort Riley, Kansas(Fort Riley Museum and Archives). ....................................................................................... 34

Figure 3-6. Alchesay Barracks (also known as Million Dollar Barracks), shortly after completionin 1938, Fort Huachuca, Arizona. (Fort Huachuca Museum and Archives) .......................... 35

Figure 3-7. Utilities, Roads, and Parade Ground, Camp Edwards, Massachusetts. .................................. 35

Figure 3-8. WPA-constructed Runways, MacDill Field, Florida. ................................................................. 36

Figure 3-9. WPA-constructed Tent Floors and Walls, Camp Perry, Ohio. ................................................. 37

Figure 3-10. Charleston Navy Yard in 1938. ............................................................................................... 38

Figure 3-11. Building Ways Office, Constructed by WPA, Norfolk Navy Yard, Virginia. ............................ 39

Figure 3-12. WPA Crews Constructing Drainage Ditch, Jacksonville Naval Air Station, Florida. .............. 40

Figure 3-13. WPA-constructed Aviation Cadet Quarters, Pensacola Naval Air Station, Florida. ............... 40

Figure 3-14. WPA-constructed Naval Reserve Armory, Indianapolis, Indiana. .......................................... 41

Figure 3-15. WPA-constructed Runway, Hensley Field, Texas. ................................................................. 42

Figure 3-16. WPA-constructed Runway and Hangar (extreme right), Oklahoma City Airport, Oklahoma. 43

Figure 3-17. Use of Heavy Equipment for Runway Construction, Reilly Field, Fort McClellan, Alabama. . 44

Figure 4-1. CCC Camp, Mitchel Field, New York. ...................................................................................... 49

Figure 4-2. CCC Camp, Eglin Field, Florida. .............................................................................................. 49

Figure 4-3. Typical CCC Camp Layout for 100 men, April 1933. ............................................................... 50

Figure 4-4. Pyramidal Tent, Unknown CCC Camp. .................................................................................... 50

Figure 4-5. Example of Portable Precut Building. ....................................................................................... 51

Figure 4-6. CCC Camp, Fort Knox, Kentucky. ............................................................................................ 51

Figure 4-7. CCC Camp Buildings, Camp Pomona, Illinois. ........................................................................ 52




iv Legacy Resource Management Program July 2009

Figure 4-8. CCC cabin constructed on National Forest land now occupied by MontanaARNG as a training area. ....................................................................................................... 52

Figure 4-9. Spring reservoir tank constructed by CCC for U.S. Department of Grazing(now BLM) at Indian Garden Springs, currently Naval Air Weapons Station(NAWS) China Lake, California ............................................................................................. 52

Figure 4-10. Ottumwa Coliseum and Armory, Camp Dodge, Iowa. ............................................................ 55

Figure 4-11. Sheldon Armory, Iowa. ........................................................................................................... 55

Figure 4-12. Clinton Armory, Oklahoma. .................................................................................................... 55

Figure 4-13. McAlester Armory, Oklahoma. ................................................................................................ 56

Figure 4-14. Eufaula Armory, Oklahoma. ................................................................................................... 56

Figure 4-15. Building 404, Staff Circle, MacDill AFB. ................................................................................. 58

Figure 4-16. Hangars 1 and 2, MacDill AFB. .............................................................................................. 58

Figure 4-17. Building 26 (Communications Building with Fire Station), MacDill AFB. ................................ 59

Figure 4-18. Enlisted Barracks, MacDill AFB, Florida. ................................................................................ 59

Figure 4-19. Building 28 Showing Use of Decorative Quoins, MacDill AFB. .............................................. 60

Figure 4-20. Camp Headquarters, Building 102 (1937 and 2005), Camp Edwards, Massachusetts. ........ 61

Figure 4-21. Former Williams Hospital (1937 and 2005), Camp Edwards, Massachusetts. ...................... 61

Figure 4-22. WPA Warehouses, Camp Edwards, Massachusetts. ............................................................ 61

Figure 4-23. Small Garages Constructed at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey ............................................. 63

Figure 4-24. Flood Control Features, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey. ....................................................... 63

Figure 4-25. Chip Spinner Building, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey. ......................................................... 64

Figure 4-26. Rock Crushing Plant, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey. ........................................................... 64

Figure 4-27. New Entrance, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey. ..................................................................... 65

Figure 4-28. Installation of Electric Lines, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey. ................................................ 65

Figure 4-29. Concrete Block Mess Hall, Area 12, Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania. ............................ 66

Figure 4-30. Concrete Block Mess Hall, Area 13, Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania. ............................ 66

Figure 4-31. Row of Mess Halls in 55th Infantry Area Dismantled at Mt. Gretna and Relocatedto Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania. .................................................................................. 67

Figure 4-32. Soldiers in Practice at Rifle Range Built by WPA, Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania. ....... 67

Figure 4-33. Stone Wall Along St. Joseph’s Spring, Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania. ........................ 68

Figure 4-34. WPA Crew Moving a House, Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania ......................................... 69

Figure 4-35. Federal Art Project murals decorating interior of WPA-constructed Administrative

Building, Jackson Barracks, Louisiana (1940). (Louisiana Division/City Archives,New Orleans Public Library) .................................................................................................. 70

Figure 4-36. As We Follow the Red Guidon (1943) Dean Ryerson. Currently in storage atFort Sill, Oklahoma. (Fort Sill National Landmark and Museum). ......................................... 70

Figure 4-37. Soldiers at work in the screenprinting workshop that produced posters for theNinth Service Command featuring African American soldiers. (Fort Huachuca Museum) .... 71

Figure 4-38. The Founding of Fort Huachuca (1943), Lew Davis. Originally hung in WhiteOfficers’ Mess, Fort Huachuca, Arizona. (Fort Huachuca Museum) ..................................... 72




July 2009 Legacy Resource Management Program v

Figure 4-39. Kiowa War Dance (1934) and Kiowa Peyote Ceremony (1935), Stephen Mopope.Fort Sill, Oklahoma (courtesy of Fort Sill National Landmark and Museum). ........................ 73

Figure 5-1. WPA-Constructed Hostess House at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, shortly after itscompletion in 1940. ................................................................................................................ 86

Figure 5-2. Hostess House at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, January 2009. ............................................................ 86




vi Legacy Resource Management Program July 2009





July 2009 Legacy Resource Management Program vii

Acronyms

AFB Air Force Base

AFCEE Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment

CAA Civil Aeronautics Administration

CCC Civilian Conservation Corps

CES/CEVN Civil Engineering Squadron - Environmental

CWA Civil Works Administration

DoD Department of Defense

e²M engineering-environmental Management, Inc.

ECW Emergency Conservation Work

ERA Emergency Relief Act

FERA Federal Emergency Relief Administration

LEM Local Experienced Men

NARA National Archives and Records Administration

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NYA National Youth Administration

O. P. Official Project

OCR Character Recognition Software

POC Point-of-contact

POW Prisoner-of-war

RFC Reconstruction Finance Corporation

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

WPA Works Projects Administration




viii Legacy Resource Management Program July 2009





July 2009 Legacy Resource Management Program 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

As part of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal for America, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC)and the Works Progress Administration were formed to hire skilled and unskilled labor that had beenunemployed as a result of the Great Depression. The CCC, established by a Senate Bill in March 1933,was a work relief program for young men to combat the poverty and unemployment of the GreatDepression. The CCC operated numerous conservation projects, including prevention of soil erosion andthe impounding of lakes. Other projects of the CCC included construction of buildings and trails in stateand national parks, installation of telephone and power lines, construction of logging and fire roads, fenceconstruction, tree-planting, beekeeping, archaeological excavation, and furniture manufacturing. Due tothe changing manpower and budgetary needs associated with the United States’ entry into World War IIon 7 December 1941, and the disbanding of the CCC program on 30 June 1942, all CCC work except forwildland firefighting was shifted onto U.S. military bases to help with construction there.

The Works Progress Administration (later Work Projects Administration [WPA]), was created in May1935 by Presidential order. Headed by Harry L. Hopkins, the WPA was a work relief program thatprovided jobs and income to the unemployed during the Great Depression in the United States. Unlike theCCC, which provided manpower and equipment directly to the project site, the WPA approved projects

submitted by state and local agencies and dispersed funds; the state and local agencies were responsiblefor hiring personnel from relief rolls and administering the project work, although the WPA wouldperiodically audit the progress of projects. WPA funds built many public buildings and roads, compiledenormous banks of statistical data on the internal workings of many state and federal agencies, supportedhistoric preservation initiatives, and supported numerous arts projects (e.g., Federal Writers Program,theater programs, and public art). Until it was closed down by Congress in 1943, it was the largestemployer in the country; indeed, the largest employer in most states. About 75 percent of WPAemployment and 75 percent of WPA expenditures went to public facilities such as highways, streets,public buildings, airports, utilities, small dams, sewers, parks, libraries, and recreational fields, includingfeatures on military installations.

1.1 Project Description

Between 1933 and 1943, the CCC and WPA undertook a diversity of projects throughout the nation,including a range of construction projects on behalf of the military services. Military training camps, suchas MacDill Air Force Base (AFB) in Florida, McChord AFB in Washington, Kirtland AFB in NewMexico, and Camp Edwards in Massachusetts, were initially constructed as WPA projects. Camp David,the presidential retreat, was created by converting an existing WPA camp, Camp Hi-Catoctin, in theCatoctin Recreational Demonstration Area. Military installations, such as Tobyhanna Army Depot inPennsylvania, hosted CCC camps, while some former CCC camps were later converted into militaryinstallations, such as the Tooele Army Depot in Utah. Other installations, such as Fort Indiantown Gap inPennsylvania, Jackson Barracks in Louisiana, the Ogden Arsenal in Utah, and Camp Joseph T. Robinsonin Arkansas, were the sites for WPA improvement projects. Numerous National Guard armories also wereconstructed by the WPA.

As a result, Department of Defense (DoD) installations include a number of resources (buildings,structures, infrastructure elements, landscape features) constructed by the CCC or as a WPA project.Many of these resources remain intact and a number have been determined eligible for listing in theNational Register of Historic Places (NRHP) either as individual resources or as contributing elements todistricts. Contexts developed for CCC and WPA resources range from local or statewide summariesprepared by historical societies or State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), to a more comprehensivenational inventory of CCC and WPA projects within national parks compiled by the National Park Service.




2 Legacy Resource Management Program July 2009

This project, assisted by DoD Legacy Resources Program as Project 07-357, is intended to address thelack of a national historic context for CCC or WPA projects on military installations or systematicidentification and evaluation efforts focusing on CCC or WPA resources on DoD property. Similarly, todate, few of the installations constructed as WPA projects have been evaluated as historic landscapes.Project 07-357 is sponsored by the Air Mobility Command of the U.S. Air Force, with Jason Kirkpatrick of the 6 CES/CEVN at MacDill AFB as project sponsor. The work was completed by engineering-

environmental Management, Inc. (e²M) under contract with the Air Force Center for Engineering and theEnvironment (AFCEE). Project 07-357 includes the following four primary components:

Development of a national historic context for CCC and WPA projects related to militaryinstallations (this document)

Creation of an inventory of CCC and WPA resources at current DoD installations, with notes onheritage tourism potential (Appendix B and C)

Documentation/evaluation of representative examples of extant CCC and WPA resources at fiveDoD installations (Appendix D of this document)

Development of a public education product (booklet). (Appendix E of this document)

The project brings together extensive information in the administrative histories and other records for theCCC, WPA, and DoD on file at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) as well ascontained in state-specific contexts and other sources. This historic context document includes a summaryof the formation of the CCC and WPA as part of President Roosevelt’s New Deal, the involvement of these agencies with military construction projects, a discussion of the resource types typical of CCC andWPA construction on military installations, and information on how to apply the context to the NRHPevaluation of CCC and WPA resources. Primary research for the historic context took place at the NARAin College Park, Maryland. Secondary research involved contact with SHPO offices and state archives forthose states that either have developed contexts for CCC and WPA projects or have military installationsconstructed as CCC and WPA projects. Contacts via phone, email, and written correspondence withhistorians, cultural resources managers, and historic architects working at specific facilities also were

made.

The inventories of CCC and WPA resources on DoD installations are found in Appendices B and C,Tables B-1, B-2, C-1, and C-2 of this historic context document. Table B-1 is a list of CCC projects onDoD installations based on the NARA CCC records. Table B-2 is a list of known and extant resources onDoD lands, as ascertained through archival research and interviews with installation and agencypersonnel. For extant or partially extant resources, the B-2 inventory also includes a matrix that assessesthe heritage tourism potential of the resources in terms of installation access restrictions, physicalcondition/safety, historical importance of the resource, and availability of historic records and photos forinterpretive displays. Information regarding presence/absence of CCC resources on installations, and datafor the heritage tourism matrix was obtained via phone calls, emails, servicewide data calls orquestionnaires, and correspondence between the project manager and installation contacts. The C-1 table

similarly is a list of WPA projects on DoD installations based on NARA records, and the C-2 table is aculling of projects on DoD installations that remain in DoD control today. The C-3 table provides anassessment of the heritage tourism and public interpretation potential of the WPA resources. Its majorlimitation is information about the current state of the WPA resources, some of which are not yetidentified.

The documentation/evaluation component of the project involved survey and evaluation of a sample of unevaluated CCC and WPA resources on five DoD installations for NRHP eligibility. CCC and WPAresources at the following five installations were surveyed and evaluated Fort Sill in Oklahoma, Fort





Huachuca in Arizona, F.E. Warren AFB in Wyoming, Fort Riley in Kansas, and the Naval Air WarfareCenter (NAWC) China Lake in California. The choice of the installations to be surveyed proved to besomewhat problematic because of difficulty finding resources to survey that had not been previouslyevaluated for NRHP eligibility, a project requirement. Once an installation was identified with resourcesthat had not been evaluated for their CCC or WPA significance, the NARA project summary cards forthat installation were matched to the real property inventory by the base’s Cultural Resource Manager

(CRM) according to building type, date of construction, and other criteria. Other installation recordsincluding architectural drawings in the base civil engineering records were consulted, and additionalresearch in the installation’s archives and the local town halls, state and county libraries, and localhistorical societies and museums was conducted. Unique resources such as photographic albums of completed WPA resources were found at the Fort Huachuca Museum, as was a similar album at the FortSill National Historic Landmark and Museum Archives. These sources augmented additional historicphotographs and the cards in NARA records. Armed with this information, each WPA or CCC resourcewas surveyed and photographed. Appropriate historic resource or building forms of the respective state’sSHPO were completed. A mini-report was prepared for each installation survey that presents a historiccontext specific to the installation and describes the survey and research methodology, resourcessurveyed, and evaluation of NRHP eligibility of each surveyed resource, and the completed SHPO surveyforms. The five reports are in Appendix D of this document.

The final component of the project is a public education booklet that summarizes the results of theproject. Titled Built by the CCC and WPA 1933-1943, New Deal Resources on Department of Defense

Installations, the booklet discusses the history of the CCC and WPA resources constructed under theCCC or WPA programs on military installations, and their contributions to the U.S. military and to thebroader patterns of American history. The range and typical building types of CCC and WPA resourceson military installations are described. A final section of the booklet provides a mini-guidebook tomilitary installations with CCC or WPA resources grouped in western, central, and eastern regions of theU.S. Each region has a table of information about the CCC or WPA resources and museum at eachinstallation, a map showing location of the installation within the region. The public education booklet isAppendix E of this document.

The project was conceived by Susan Goodfellow, Ph.D., currently Cultural Resources Specialist of theMarine Corps Headquarters and formerly of HDR/e2M and Jason Kirkpatrick of the 6 CES/CEVN atMacDill AFB. The historic context and inventory were completed under the direction of Dr. Goodfellow,who also completed the primary and much of the secondary research for this project. She was assisted byJayne Aaron (peer reviews), Louise Baxter (technical editing), Cheryl Myers (formatting), Elaine Dubinand Adam Turbett (microfilm research), Elizabeth Lamb and Jennifer Rose (database entry), and LoriMonahan (data entry and typing), all of HDR/e2M.

With Dr. Goodfellow’s departure from e2M in January 2008, Marjorie Nowick also of HDR/e2M directedthe inventory, resource survey and documentation, and public education booklet components of theproject. HDR/e2M’s cultural resource professionals Chad Blackwell, Daniel Hart, Kathryn Plimpton, andSteve and Linda Moffitt completed the surveys of CCC-WPA resources on the five installations andprepared the mini-survey reports and resource forms in Appendix D. Chad Blackwell and Daniel Hart

completed the field surveys at the Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Wyoming bases and prepared thereports and forms. Chad Blackwell and Kathryn Plimpton completed the booklet component of theproject. The public education booklet draws heavily on this historic context and on the surveys of theresources at the five installations. At the completion of the resource survey component, this historiccontext was updated and refined to include information from and lessons learned from the survey anddocumentation. Dr. Melissa Wiedenfeld, HDR/e²M’s senior historian, Dr. Goodfellow, Jason Kirkpatrick,and Hillori Schenker peer reviewed and contributed to the draft public education booklet. Nancy Jepsenand Yelena Johnson of HDR/e2M were responsible for the formatting of the final document.





1.2 Methodology

Primary research for the historic context and inventory was conducted at NARA in College Park,Maryland, between June and November 2007. Researchers reviewed project lists, correspondence files,administrative records, and photographs from Record Group 35 (Records of the Civilian ConservationCorps), Record Group 69 (Records of the Works Progress Administration), and Record Group 407

(Records of the Office of the Adjutant General). Project summary cards for all WPA projects, availableonly on microfilm, were reviewed in their entirety and the cards for military-related projects were printedor photographed. Copies of the finding aids for Record Groups 35 and 69 are provided in Appendix A,but can also be downloaded from NARA’s online research catalog.

Secondary research involved reviewing materials collected by authors of published works on New DealPrograms in the United States, including the following:

Nature’s New Deal: The Civilian Conservation Corps and the Roots of the AmericanEnvironmental Movement (Maher 2008)

Civilian Conservation Corps: A Selectively Annotated Bibliography (Sypolt 2005)

The Tree Army: A Pictorial History of the Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933–1942 (Cohen1980)

The Civilian Conservation Corps: Contributing to the Defense of the Nation (GovernmentPrinting Office 1941).

It was considerably easier to find published materials regarding the CCC and its members, particularlygiven that many former CCC members or their children participate in commemorative societies.Published materials about the WPA construction program are rare; it is more typical to find works aboutthe WPA Writers, Theater, or Arts programs, or works produced by these latter programs. A progressreport on the WPA was issued in 1937 in paperback format, but this document does not includesubstantive information relating to military construction apart from the armory construction program,since the bulk of the national defense projects were not initiated until 1940–42.

Secondary research also involved phone calls, emails, and questionnaires sent to historians and culturalresources managers at specific installations, military museums, and commands. The responses to thequestionnaire were typically mixed; those installations with dedicated cultural resources managers andknown CCC or WPA resources tended to respond with more alacrity and provide more detail. Someprovided photographs and copies of reports or contexts developed for their resources, while othersprovided the minimal response of “no such resources present on the installation.” Some installations didnot submit responses at all.

Internet research provided links to other secondary source information, including local historical societiesand museums that maintain information on CCC camps and companies, newspaper articles from the1930s and 1940s focusing on the accomplishments of the CCC and WPA, and organizations collectingoral histories of former CCC company members.

1.2.1 Project Inventory

Development of the inventory of WPA and CCC resources has been a labor intensive and time-consuming process. Challenges associated with the respective datasets are outlined below, along with anassessment of the quality of the final inventory.





1.2.1.1 CCC Projects

The CCC records at the NARA include boxes of project cards divided into groups corresponding to thesponsoring agency or owner of the land on which the project was completed. For example, “A” typicallyrefers to projects conducted for the Department of Agriculture, while “NP” refers to projects completedfor the National Park Service. For military projects, relevant codes include “Army”, “ASCS” (Army and

Soil Conservation Service), “NP-A (National Park Service and Army), and “Navy.” Unfortunately, theproject cards include very little useful information apart from the general project location, the dates theproject was started and completed and the name of the company or companies that worked on the project(Figure 1-1Figure 1-1). Similarly, the company records include details relating to the membership andcommand of the company, the formation and disbandment dates for the company, and lists of thelocations where the company completed various projects; but provide no specific information on thenature of the projects.

Figure 1-1. Example of a CCC Project Card.

Ultimately, the list of CCC projects used as the basis for the inventory was derived from the campinspection reports, as work completed for military installations was typically completed by companiesresident in CCC camps on those installations. This resource was still somewhat imperfect and the authorscannot be confident that the resulting list of projects is comprehensive. Some camps were only inspectedonce, while others were inspected multiple times and thus had more records available for review.Inspection reports were typically completed on a standard form, which provided useful informationrelating to the location of the camp and the general types of projects being completed by the campresidents, but the information on the form was more focused on problems with unit discipline, issues withmorale, and basic living conditions. In those cases where the inspection report included the optional Work Status form or the original work proposal submitted to the CCC by the sponsoring installation, it was

possible to compile more detailed information on the projects that were completed by the CCC at aspecific installation. It is estimated that, of the 93 folders of inspection files examined from Record Group35 (Entry 115), only 40 percent contained this level of detailed information. A final issue contributing tothe incompleteness of the CCC project list is that there was no way to consistently track down records forprojects completed at military installations that were completed by CCC companies stationed off of theinstallation. For example, review of the inspection reports for Camp NP-A-1 in Maryland revealed thatsome of the company personnel from this camp were stationed at Fort Meade for various work projects,but there is little actual description of what those projects constituted.





Once the list of CCC projects completed on military installations was compiled, such as it was, the listwas sorted by state and installation (Appendix B, Table B-1). The list was then reviewed to determinewhich of the installations still remained in DoD control as of November 2007; the projects associatedwith this subset of installations then became the master list (Table B-2). The master list was sorted byservice branch (current owners) and will be sent out to installation historians and cultural resourcespersonnel in early December 2007, with a request to review the list of projects and provide information on

which of the features (built resources, infrastructure, landscape elements) still remain within theinstallation, their present condition, whether the resource had been evaluated for NRHP eligibility, andany interpretive materials that might have been developed to highlight the history of the resource. Inmany cases, the information obtained from the installations was incomplete, particularly becauselandscape features (culverts, stone walls, erosion- or flood-control features) are often not tracked in theinstallation Real Property database. In those instances, the installation respondent needed to rely oninstitutional memory or personal observation to determine whether a given feature still exists on theinstallation. Given regular rotation of personnel and lack of time to complete field checks, it was moreoften the case that respondents provided a response of “unknown” when the answers could not be readilyobtained.

1.2.1.2 WPA Projects

Unlike the CCC project files, the WPA project files are easy to locate. Before the WPA disbanded, itmicrofilmed its project files on 16-millimeter microfilm. The files are arranged by state and generally bythe Official Project (O. P.) number. They include the project application, financial information, andgeneral correspondence pertaining to the project. They do not usually contain maps, blueprints ordrawings. Unfortunately, the quality of this microfilm is poor and it is not currently available in theNational Archives microfilm reading room. In order to view the film, a researcher must first determine theO. P. number of the project in which he or she is interested and request the project file through theArchives II Reference Branch.

To determine the O. P. number for a given project, researchers can review the indices to the WPA projectfiles, which are available on three National Archives microfilm series. Microfilm series T935 covers theyears 1935–1937, T936 encompasses 1938, and T937 covers 1939–1942 (see series descriptions in

Appendix A); together, these indices compose 119 rolls of microfilm. Within each series, projectsummary cards are arranged by state, there under by county, and there under by municipality. Projectssponsored by military installations or services, the War Department, or projects related to the military(e.g., construction of armories and arsenals) are distributed among the cards for a given state, soresearchers have to review all of the cards on all of the 119 rolls (estimated at 1,000 cards per roll) to findthe relevant project cards.

The WPA project summary cards included two primary formats (Figure 1-2). Information provided on allcards included the O. P. number; the approved budget; the sponsoring agency; a brief project description;and the state, county, and town/installation where the project was to be completed. Some cards includedmore financial details. Most information was typed, but hand-written annotations regarding the rescindingof a project or reduction of funding are often present. A stamp certifying project approval and the final

approved budget appears on many cards. Cards from series T936 and T937 often feature stampsdesignating the project as a National Defense Project, meaning either that it was sponsored directly by theWar Department or Department of the Navy, or that it was of a type of project that these agencies hadhighlighted to the WPA as being essential for National Defense.

As noted above, the O. P. number is the primary link between the project summary card and the detailedproject description file (also only available on microfilm), and the NARA staff will only allow researchersto access the rolls of microfilm that have the project description files if they can provide the O. P. number.In those instances where the O. P. number could not be obtained from the project summary card, it was





not possible to access the project description file. Because of the restrictions involved in accessing theselatter files, the typically poor quality of the microfilm on which these files are preserved, and overall timeconstraints given the labor required to simply review and compile the project list from the projectsummary cards, the researchers did not regularly attempt to access the project description files for specificprojects.

The quality of the microfilm is generally poor (as noted on the finding aid provided in Appendix A).Although the federal employee responsible for photographing the cards for each roll of microfilm had tocomplete a certification that the task was done properly, there are numerous instances where cards areplaced at angles such that information was cut off in the image frame, cards are placed upside down orbackwards, or the exposure is so poor that the information on the cards cannot be discerned even withhigh magnification and backlighting. On some rolls, the microfilm itself is deteriorating; pinholes aredeveloping and contact with researchers’ fingers during the viewing process has left smudges and dirt.The cards themselves also range in quality–some are clearly original cards with clear typing, while otherswere poor carbon copies with blurred, elongated, or compressed typing. Some cards were also stained orripped.





Figure 1-2. Examples of WPA Project Summary Cards.

Nevertheless, the researchers reviewed all of the project cards on all 119 rolls of microfilm and eitherprinted a hard copy of the relevant project cards or took a digital photograph of the card and printed itfrom a PDF file once it had been edited in Photoshop to increase the image clarity. “Relevant” cards werethose for projects sponsored by a military agency or military installation, or the War Department, or thosefor projects such as armory construction that were often sponsored by agencies other than the StateNational Guard, but that directly benefited the military. Projects sponsored by the U.S. VeteransAdministration and the U.S. Treasury Department (Coast Guard) were not included in the inventory, norwere projects involving completion of personnel records or military histories. The research ultimately

focused on construction projects on military installations or construction of military buildings such asarmories or arsenals; projects such as those to track where veterans of previous wars were buried, tocompile a history of the National Guard within a state, or projects conducted by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for state and local governments (e. g., flood control projects) were typically noted, but notincluded in the final inventory.

The information that could be discerned from each card was entered into a spreadsheet, and subsequentlysorted by state and installation. This process was labor-intensive, particularly because researchers couldonly review the microfilm at the NARA during the hours of 9 am to 5 pm, Monday through Friday(except for those few days each month where NARA has extended hours). The NARA does allowresearchers to purchase copies of microfilm; however, the duplication process takes at least 4 weeks tocomplete and the cost of $65/roll could not be justified within the project budget, particularly when

project funds were still required to fund the hours needed to review each roll. The NARA does not havethe capability of scanning microfilm into digital format; doing so would have required purchasingduplicates of each roll of microfilm and then having each roll scanned (up to $100/roll additional cost).Even with digital scans of each roll, the image quality is sufficiently poor that researchers would not havebeen able to use character recognition software (OCR) or search programs to locate relevant project cardsand thereby reduce the time required to review the cards on each roll or enter the information from therelevant cards.





As with the inventory of CCC projects, it is likely that the list of WPA projects is not comprehensive. Thepoor microfilm quality, poor condition of the cards, and absence of some cards (placed backwards) allcontributed to loss of information. Additionally, the potential for human error by researchers during thedata gathering process may have resulted in missed information. Finally, the annotations regardingrescinding of projects were not always clear; some projects were not rescinded until more than a yearafter their original approval, leaving open the possibility that the projects were actually started by the

proponents. In the initial series of cards (T935), cards from disapproved projects were clearly separatedfrom the other project cards and designated as “disapproved”; in the second two series (T936 and T937),approval or disapproval was noted with a stamp on the card, but not all cards were stamped and somesimply had a diagonal pencil line drawn across them. In the end, the researchers did the best that theycould within the time frame available and given the nature of the data set. Certainly, the informationprovided in Appendix C (Table C-1) represents the majority of projects completed on militaryinstallations or sponsored by military agencies, and can be considered representative of the range of projects completed using WPA funds for National Defense projects. The list obtained from the WPAproject cards was supplemented by a list of War Department and Department of the Navy sponsoredprojects found in the text records of Record Group 69 at the NARA; this list included projects fundedthrough 10 April 1941.

Once the list of WPA projects was compiled, it was scrubbed to remove those projects not directly relatedto construction of buildings, structures, infrastructure, or landscape features on military installations, andthen sorted by state and installation (Appendix C, Table C-2). The list was then reviewed to determinewhich of the installations still remained in DoD control as of November 2007; the projects associatedwith this subset of installations then became the master list (Table C-3). The master list was sorted byservice branch (current owners) and was sent out to installation historians and cultural resourcespersonnel in early December 2007, with a request to review the list of projects and provide information onwhich of the features (built resources, infrastructure, landscape elements) still remain within theinstallation, their present condition, whether the resource had been evaluated for NRHP eligibility, andany interpretive materials that might have been developed to highlight the history of the resource. In thosecases where the installation had previously provided sufficient information on the initial data callquestionnaire, no further information was requested. In many cases, however, installation personnel had

to do further research to provide their responses to the follow-up questionnaire.

The process was further complicated by the fact that the WPA Project Cards and Project Description filesrarely provided building or structure identification numbers or photographs; if the installation did notretain good records regarding the construction date for a specific building, it was often difficult to statewith certainty that a building currently on the military installation was the one noted in the WPA projectdescription (i.e., is the vehicle maintenance garage referenced in the WPA project description the samebuilding as the garage in the current Real Property inventory?). For the National Guard, this process wasstreamlined by personnel at headquarters, National Guard Bureau, who accessed their Real Propertydatabases to generate lists of sites and training installations from the 1930s and 1940s still owned orcontrolled by the National Guard in each state.

1.3 Acknowledgements

Hillori Schenker of the DoD Legacy Resources Management Program provided assistance in reviewingdraft documents including this historic context, distributing copies of the initial questionnaire at the DoDSustainability conference in Orlando, Florida, in July 2007, and by including the questionnaire in theCultural Resources Update newsletter. The following service branch representatives provided invaluableassistance in identifying installation points of contact (POCs) and querying Real Property databases atheadquarters-level:

Dr. James Wilde, AFCEE





Dr. Paul Green, AFCEE

Jay Thomas, U.S. Navy

Alfred Foster, formerly U.S. Army, Office of the Director of Environmental Programs

Mary Hassell, formerly U.S. Marine Corps

Beth Erickson, Environmental Programs, National Guard Bureau

Kristin Leahy, Cultural Resources Program Manager, National Guard Bureau (Army NationalGuard)

Jane Yagley, formerly Cultural Resources Specialist, National Guard Bureau (Air NationalGuard)

Matt Nowakowki, NEPA and Cultural Resources Technical Advisor, National Guard Bureau (AirNational Guard)

The five DoD installations and their CRMs, museum directors and staff, and other personnel providedinvaluable assistance in researching, visiting resources, and advice on the resources on their installations

to survey and records to consult. The following DoD installations personnel are gratefully thanked fortheir participation in the project:

At Fort Sill, Kevin Christopher, Cynthia Savage, and Towana Spivey

At Fort Huachuca, Charlie Haymaker and Steve Gregory

At F.E. Warren AFB, Travis Beckwith

At Fort Riley, Ed Hooker and Bob Smith

At NAWC China Lake, Michael Baskerville

Many librarians and archivists at historical societies, archives, and libraries around the country assistedthe project and their efforts are gratefully acknowledged. In particular, many thanks go to the WyomingState Archives, Oklahoma Historical Society, Museum of the Great Plains, and the Geary CountyHistorical Society and Museum in Kansas.





Chapter 2: Civilian Conservation Corps

This chapter outlines the history of the CCC and the use of the CCC for national defense projects. Typicalprojects are described; the full list of projects and camps on military reservations is provided in AppendixB, along with photographs scanned from Record Group 35 at the National Archives Still Photographcollection.

2.1 Historical Overview

The following overview is taken from several sources, including Sypolt (2005:1–4), Cohen (1980), andthe Administrative History provided in the Preliminary Inventory of the Records of the Civilian

Conservation Corps (Helms 1980) prepared by the NARA for Record Group 35.

By 1932, more than 5 million young men were unemployed, including large numbers of World War Iveterans. These men roamed the country looking for work, went on welfare rolls, or turned to crime. Atthe same time, millions of acres of farm land were being eroded, threatened by fire or by indiscriminatetimber harvesting. Recreational opportunities were being lost because of budget and personnel problems.1 The Emergency Conservation Work (ECW), the original name for the agency that would become known

as the CCC, was authorized by the 73rd Congress under Public Act No. 5. The act, known as the“Reforestation and Relief Bill,” was approved by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on 31 March 1933. Itgave the President authority to establish a chain of forest camps in which unemployed young men couldbe placed to protect and improve our nation’s millions of acres of forest land.2 Roosevelt’s concept for theCCC is best captured in a message sent to the 73rd Congress on 21 March 1933:

I propose to create a Civilian Conservation Corps to be used in simple work, not

interfering with normal employment, and confining itself to forestry, the prevention of

soil erosion, flood control, and similar projects. More important, however, than the

material gains, will be the moral and spiritual value of such work. The overwhelming

majority of underemployed Americans, who are now walking the streets and receiving

private or public relief would infinitely prefer to work. We can take a vast army of these

unemployed out into healthful surroundings. We can eliminate to some extent at least the

threat that enforced idleness brings to spiritual and moral stability. It is not a panacea for all the unemployment, but it is an essential step in this emergency…

3

The name was officially changed to the CCC by act of 28 June 1937, which established the CCC as anofficial agency within the federal government. The new CCC agency had a stronger emphasis oneducation and vocational training than the original ECW forest camp agency.

The administration of the ECW, and later CCC, was composed of a director, originally Robert Fechner,and representatives of the four cabinet agencies involved in its makeup, namely the War Department andthe Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Labor. Each department was responsible for certainactivities in the coordination of the program.

The War Department was responsible for the physical maintenance of the camps and the enrollees. Underthe leadership of military and naval officers, this included fiscal matters, health, supplies, shelter,

1 Cohen 1980:6.

2 Ned H. Deaborn, Once in a Lifetime: A Guide to the CCC Camp(New York: Charles E. Merrill Company, 1936),5.

3 Cohen 1980:6.





transportation, communication, and cooperation from the U. S. Office of Education. The Department of the Interior cooperated in the supervision of the CCC camps in national parks, on Indian reservations, andin the territories of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Virgin Islands. It also cooperated in connection with theGrazing Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and General Land Officeactivities. The Department of Agriculture cooperated through the U. S. Forest Service, Soil ConservationService, drainage, Beltsville Research Station, plant industry, entomology, and plant quarantine programs.

The Department of Agriculture also was responsible for work done on private lands and in state forests.The Department of Labor was responsible for the selection of enrollees, upon recommendations of thestate relief agencies. Need and population quotas determined who and how many were to be selected.4

The initial call was for 250,000 “boys” to be enrolled by 1 July 1933 (Figure 2-1). They were to beunemployed, between 18 and 25 years old, and unmarried. They were to come from families on relief. On14 April 1933, enrollment of 14,000 American Indians was authorized because of chronic unemploymentand soil erosion on the reservations. These men stayed on their reservations and lived at home under the jurisdiction of the Office of Indian Affairs. On 22 April, enrollment of 24,000 “Local Experienced Men”(LEM) was authorized; these were usually older men who had experience in woodcraft and were hired tosupervise the work crews. The Forest Service, which was responsible for most of the camp projects, didnot have the manpower to manage the thousands of youths enrolling. On 11 May, 24,000 veterans of

World War I (men in their 30s and 40s) were authorized for enrollment. Due to severe unrest andunemployment among the veterans, a partial solution to the problems was the enrollment of veterans intheir own conservation camps. By 4 July 1933, approximately 275,000 youths, L.E.M., American Indians,and veterans were enrolled in the CCC.5

The enlistment period was 6 months with the option of re-enlistment for another 6 months up to amaximum of 2 years. The enrollee was paid $30 a month, of which $25 was sent to his family. Theremaining $5 could be used by the enrollee at the camp canteen or for personal expenses of his choice.Room, board, clothing, and tools were provided by the government. The enrollee was expected to work a40-hour week and adhere to camp rules.6

Initially, the enrollees were sent to conditioning camps at existing Army posts (Figure 2-2). Here theenrollees went through days of exercise before being sent to their assigned camps. The War Departmentran the camps and by 1 July 1933, the Army had 3,000 regular Army officers, 1,890 reserve officers, 556Navy and Marine officers, and 300 contract surgeons on active duty.7

4 Sypolt 2005: 1-2.

5 Cohen 1980: 6-8.

6 Ibid. 8.

7 Ibid. 8.





Figure 2-1. CCC Recruitment Posters.

(Cohen 1980:11)

Figure 2-2. CCC Enrollees at Conditioning Camp, Fort Sheridan, Illinois.

The administration of the CCC was divided into nine Army Corps areas, following the division of theU.S. Army, which administered the program. Later on in the program, a tenth division corresponding was





added to cover camps in Alaska and Hawaii. The states’ Corps area jurisdiction and the headquarterslocation are as follows:

First–Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut. HQ: ArmyBase, Boston, Massachusetts

Second–New Jersey, Delaware, New York. HQ: Governors Island, New York

Third–Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, District of Columbia. HQ: U. S. Post Office and CourtHouse, Baltimore, Maryland

Fourth–North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi,Louisiana. HQ: Post Office Building, Atlanta, Georgia

Fifth–Ohio, West Virginia, Indiana, Kentucky. HQ: Fort Hayes, Columbus, Ohio

Sixth–Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin. HQ: Post Office Building, Chicago, Illinois

Seventh–Kansas, Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Missouri.HQ: Federal Building, Omaha, Nebraska

Eighth–Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming (less YellowstoneNational Park). HQ: Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, Texas

Ninth–Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Nevada, California, Yellowstone NationalPark (in Wyoming). HQ: Presidio of San Francisco, California.8

Each corps area was subdivided into administrative districts. Each had a district commanding officer who,along with his staff, saw to the needs of each CCC camp in his district. Enrollees were divided into juniorenrollees, war veterans (chosen by the Veterans Administration), American Indians, colored enrollees,and other groups. Within each district were numerous companies, each assigned to a CCC camp. EachCCC company consisted of a commanding officer, typically either a regular Army or Reserve officer; anexecutive officer; a staff doctor provided by the War Department; and enrolled “overhead” leaders,assistant leaders, company clerks, storekeepers, supply officers, infirmary attendants, stewards, cooks,

chauffeurs, mechanics, and assistant educational advisors. The project superintendent, usually employedby the technical service the camp was under, was in charge of all work projects away from camp and had8 to 10 foremen under him. The foremen were usually L.E.M. The work sections were divided into crewsunder foremen and assistant foremen.9 Figure 2-3 provides a typical organizational chart for a CCCcompany.

Between 1933 and 1939, the CCC functioned primarily as a relief agency, under President Roosevelt’soriginal vision to provide occupation for the nation’s unemployed youth for the benefit of themselves aswell as the nation’s natural resources. The program was generally a success, reducing unemployment andproviding invaluable conservation benefits. As events progressed towards World War II, however,defense spending in the United States increased and unemployment declined dramatically. In 1939,Congress passed an act ensuring continuance of the CCC through 30 June 1943, but under the control of the Federal Security Agency. Improvements in pay rates and uniforms increased morale initially, as did

the reduction of the War Department’s role in administration, but gradually, issues related to racialsegregation, ineffective leadership, inadequate living conditions, and a reduction in the enrollment age to17, all led to increasingly high rates of desertion.

8 Happy Days CCC Directory, 5.

9 U. S. Congress. Senate. Civilian Conservation Corps. 77th Cong. 2nd Session, Document No. 216, 1–3.





Figure 2-3. CCC Company Organization Chart (Cohen 1980:8).

Roosevelt proclaimed a limited national emergency in 1940 after Hitler’s troops overran France and, as aresult, the CCC became more involved in national defense work. Camps were established at manymilitary posts, and more defense-related subjects, such as radio training and aircraft maintenance, were

offered in the training program (Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5). Military drill was installed and each enrolleewas required to take first-aid training. After 7 December 1941, the CCC offered all its camps to the Armyfor work on military projects, and offered the American Red Cross help with war emergencies. Except forforest fire fighting, all conservation work off military reservations was canceled on 1 January 1942. Twohundred camps were on military reservations and 140 were assigned to fire-fighting duty in the West. Themanpower drain was enormous as thousands of enrollees and camp administrators left the CCC to entermilitary service. Under pressure to abolish the CCC due to the cost of the program and difficulty inmaintaining it alongside the war effort, the House voted to halt the program as of 30 June 1942.





(NARA, RG 35, Image VI-255-B23)

Figure 2-4. Learning Morse Code.

(NARA, RG 35, Image VI-252-B23).

Figure 2-5. Woodworking and Carpentry Instruction.





2.2 The Camps

By the peak of the CCC program, there were more than 4,000 permanent and side or spike (temporary)camps across the continental United States and Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Eachcamp had a letter designation that indicated what type of camp it was, and under what jurisdiction it fell.These camp designations or symbols were as follows:

A Agriculture (Bureau of Animal Industry), U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of AnimalHusbandry, Department of Agriculture

Army Military Reservations, U.S. Army, War Department

BF Federal Game Refuge (Biological Survey), Bureau of Biological Survey, Department of Agriculture

BR Bureau of Reclamation

BS Biological Survey

C of E State Land (Corps of Engineers), U.S. Army, War Department

CP County Park

D Private Land (Drainage), Bureau of Agriculture Engineering, Department of Agriculture

DG Public Domain, Division of Grazing, Department of the Interior

F National Forests, U.S. Forest Service; Department of Agriculture

GLO General Land Office

L State and Federal Land (Levee), U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture

MA Metropolitan Area Municipal Park, National Park Service

MC Private Land (Mosquito Control), U.S. Forest Service and State, Department of Agriculture

MP Military Park, National Park Service, Department of the Interior

NA National Arboretum (Bureau of Plant Industry), U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture

Navy Naval Military Reservation, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Navy (except Navy-I-VA, byNational Park Service and Navy), Department of Agriculture

NHP National Historical Park, National Park Service, Department of the Interior

NM National Monument, National Park Service, Department of the Interior

P Private Forest, U.S. Forest Service and State, Department of Agriculture

PE Private Land Erosion, U.S. Forest Service and State, Department of Agriculture

S State Forest, U.S. Forest Service and State, Department of Agriculture

SCS Private Land, Soil Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture





SP State Park, State Park Division of National Park Service, Department of the Interior

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority, U.S. Forest Service and Tennessee Valley Authority,Department of Agriculture

TVA-P Tennessee Valley Authority, State Park Division of National Park Service and Tennessee

Valley Authority, Department of the Interior.10

Each CCC camp was composed of one company of approximately 200 men. Except for a few installationsin northern states, camps were racially segregated: white, colored, and Indian. An effort was made tointegrate the camps for war veterans, but it did not work out. Several camps for women were said to havebeen established in New Hampshire and New York, but the CCC was mainly a man’s organization.11 Theenrollees were eligible to become “rated” men to help with the camp administration, usually a seniorleader, mess steward, storekeepers, and two cooks. Assistant leaders were the company clerk, assistanteducation advisor, and three second cooks. These men were picked from the company and were paid $45and $36 a month, depending on the rating, compared to $30 a month per enrollee.12

2.3 The Projects

The CCC performed more than 150 types of work. Most projects involved the protection, restoration,improvement, utilization, and maintenance of natural resources of federal and state lands and waters. TheCCC reported the following general types of work performed by enrollees:

Forest culture

Forest protection

Erosion control

Flood control

Irrigation and drainage

Transportation improvements

Structural improvements

Range development

Aid to wildlife

Landscape and recreational development.13

In its early years, projects were confined to forestry, park developments, and soil erosion control, but laterthey included disaster relief, historical restoration, and national defense. For the Department of Agriculture, CCC projects included fighting fires, planting trees, thinning timber stands, forest recreationprojects, insect and plant disease control, road building, soil erosion control, levee repairs, and installation

10 Happy Days CCC Directory (Washington: Happy Days Publishing Company, 1937), 3; and, Colorado StateArchives, Colorado Civilian Conservation Corps Records at Colorado State Archives web: http://governo. co.us/gov_dir/gss/archives/.

11 Cohen 1980: 8.

12 Ibid. 30-31.

13 Helms 1980:1.

http://governo.co.us/gov_dir/gss/archives/








of drainage tile (Figure 2-6). Within the national and state parks systems, the CCC supplied manpowerand materials to build shelters, picnic areas, swimming pools, recreational facilities, water and sewagesystems, administrative structures, museums, historic restorations, and roads, and manpower forreforestation and soil erosion control work. Work for the Bureau of Reclamation involved repairingirrigation systems, building dams, clearing reservoir sites, excavating canals, and building other watercontrol structures. For the Grazing Service, the CCC built water holes, reseeded burned lands, built roads

and fences, completed surveys and made maps, and worked on control of insects and predatory animals.Fish and Wildlife Service work was comparable, including construction of water control features,planting of cover vegetation, soil erosion control, construction of fire lookout towers and fences andfirebreaks, and installation of phone lines.

Figure 2-6. CCC Work Crew on Road Construction Project.

Work for the War Department was initially focused on CCC camp construction and work for the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers on construction of dams on the Winooski River in Vermont and channeling andlevee construction on the Walkill River in New York. By 1940, however, CCC projects generally had anational defense orientation and, by the CCC’s disbandment in June 1942, most of the remaining campswere on military reservations. On the reservations, enrollees were put to work building airfields, artilleryranges, ammunition storage buildings, and many other military structures (Figure 2-7).14 The NationalDefense Act of 1940 changed some of the educational policies of the CCC as well, increasing the numberof training programs in vocational subjects such as radio operation, welding, aircraft maintenance, automechanics, and clerking-typing. When the United States entered World War II, former CCC menprovided a great pool of trained manpower for the armed services.15 Appendix B, Table B-1, provides alist of the CCC projects completed on military reservations.

14 Ibid. 129.

15 Ibid. 116.





(NARA, RG 35, Neg. 35-SU-16-2)

Figure 2-7. CCC Work Crew Clearing Land at Fort Benning, Georgia.

The list of projects completed at Camp Ord in California is typical of CCC work on military reservations.This list includes fence repairs, construction of retaining walls, construction of truck trails and artillerytrails, water development (wells, repairing water mains), soil erosion control (ditches, culverts, curbs,gutters, earth dams, sidewalks), planting sod and trees, fire hazard reduction, cutting poles for corralfences, civil surveys, hauling gravel, tear down and replacement of target butts, cleanup of camp areas,building medical sanitary area for maneuver camp, rebuilding the old Spanish fort, paving the road infront of post headquarters, and grading of parade grounds and riding pens. The CCC cleared and gradedareas for anti-tank and firing ranges on a number of installations, repaired or constructed targets, builtaccess roads and parking areas, completed general landscaping, and often worked to improve drainageproblems created by earlier construction. Although the CCC built structures such as recreational shelters,lookout towers, and latrines, construction work largely focused on infrastructure and landscape elements.





Chapter 3: Works Progress Administration

This chapter outlines the history of Federal Emergency Relief programs, including the precursors to theWPA. A discussion of the projects completed under the WPA follows the historical overview, andspecific details regarding national defense projects are provided from the WPA’s internal 1944 summaryreport. Appendix C includes an inventory of all projects completed in support of national defense,compiled from a review of the WPA project cards.


The following summary is adapted from the “Administrative History of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the Civil Works Administration, and the Work Projects Administration”,16 which wasdeveloped as part of the descriptive information for Record Group 69: Records of the Works ProgressAdministration. Footnotes are presented verbatim from that document.

Until the creation of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) in May 1933, theresponsibility for the administration of relief rested almost entirely on state and local governments, aidedto some extent by private agencies and individuals. With the stock market crash of 1929 and the period of

widespread economic depression that followed, however, the volume of unemployment mounted sorapidly that existing public and private relief agencies found themselves unable to bear the increased loadwithout assistance. To meet this need, local emergency relief organizations were created, but their limitedresources soon proved inadequate and state aid became imperative. The first state emergency relief administration was established in New York in November 1931 and by the summer of 1932, similarorganizations were functioning in every state, except Wyoming.17

Gradually, however, the demand for federal aid increased as the states found it difficult to carry the vastrelief burden and as more and more people came to believe that widespread unemployment was anational, not merely local, problem. The first federal agency created to deal with the unemploymentproblem was the President’s Emergency Committee for Employment, set up by President Hoover inOctober 1930, with Colonel Arthur Woods as its chief. In August 1931, the Woods Committee wassupplanted by the President’s Organization of Unemployment Relief, headed by Walter S. Gifford.18 Both

of these committees, however, were restricted to advising and encouraging state, local, and privateagencies concerning ways of meeting relief needs. These efforts failed to curb mounting distress resultingfrom unemployment.

The first definite step taken by the federal government toward assuming at least partial responsibility forunemployment relief was the passage of the Emergency Relief and Construction Act, which wasapproved by President Hoover on 21 July 1932.19 This act made $300 million available to theReconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) for the purpose of advancing money to states and theirpolitical subdivisions. These advances were to be used in furnishing both direct and work relief todestitute persons. As the RFC considered itself only a banking agency, it did not try to supervise theadministration of relief made possible by these loans. Instead, the RFC concerned itself only withattempting to determine the amount each state actually needed for relief purposes, and how much of this

amount the state could itself furnish. The RFC loan was intended to make up the difference between these

16 Bourne and Herscher, 1946.

17 Edward A. Williams, Federal Aid for Relief, 18-19 (New York, 1939).

18 The records of both the Woods and Gifford Committees are in the National Archives (Record Group 73).

19 47 Stat. 709.





two sums. In order to get first-hand information concerning the relief situation throughout the country, theRFC sent representatives into the states, some of whom were later hired by the FERA because of thespecialized knowledge and experience they had acquired in this field. Much of the data collected by thesefield representatives, as well as that contained in the applications for loans submitted by state governors,were later made available to FERA officials who found it valuable for determining the amounts of thefirst FERA grants that were made to the states.20

The total sum made available under the Emergency Relief and Construction Act was ultimately notadequate for relief needs, and the amount of employment stimulated by state and local construction madepossible by the act fell far short of expectations. The ever-increasing volume of unemployment, togetherwith the business failures of March 1933, brought about a crisis that finally forced the federal governmentto participate directly in the administration of relief.

3.1.1 Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA)

On 12 May 1933, President Roosevelt approved the Federal Emergency Relief Act of 1933, whichappropriated $500 million for outright grants to the states for relief purposes and created the FERA tocarry out the provisions of the act.21 There were several reasons for setting up the FERA as a grantagency. The relief situation had become so critical that it seemed advisable to use existing state and local

relief agencies at once, rather than to take the time to set up a new federal agency for this purpose.Furthermore, the grant method was judged likely to prove a less repugnant form of federal intervention tothose who were convinced that relief was properly a state and local responsibility. Finally, the belief insome quarters that the need for federal aid might quickly pass had a certain influence in the decision thatit was not desirable to establish a strong centralized relief agency as an integral part of the federalgovernment. As it turned out, therefore, the chief function of the FERA was to allocate federal funds tothe states for direct and work relief and, in connection with these allocations, to issue such rules andregulations as were necessary to ensure the maintenance of minimum relief standards and the proper useof federal funds in the states, and also to serve as a coordinator and clearinghouse of information on relief problems, policies, and procedures.

The administrative machinery created to carry out the provisions of the act was comparatively simple.

Harry L. Hopkins was named Federal Emergency Relief Administrator by the President and wasauthorized to appoint a staff. As had been the case with RFC loans, the states made application for FERAfunds through their governors, who were required to furnish certain information concerning the amount of federal money needed, the purposes for which it was to be used, and the provisions made for adequateadministrative supervision and the maintenance of suitable relief standards. The act also required thegovernors to submit a monthly report of the disbursement of federal funds to the Administrator, who, inturn, was directed to prepare a monthly report concerning his activities and the expenditures made underthe act.22

Of the $500 million made available by the act, $250 million was to be allocated on the basis of grantingone dollar of federal money for every three dollars spent by the state for unemployment relief during the

20 Some of the reports of these field representatives are among the WPA records now in the National Archives.

21 48 Stat. 55. For a useful outline of the history of the FERA, see Chronology of the FERA, May 12, 1933 toDecember 31, 1935, by Doris Carothers, WPA Division of Social Research (Research Monograph VI, Washington,1937). The best source of information concerning the administration of the FERA is its central files, which aredescribed in this checklist.

22 The monthly reports of the Federal Emergency Relief Administrator were printed as public documents, of whichcopies, covering the period March 1935 – June 1936, are among the FERA records now in the National Archives.





preceding 3 months. This “matching” provision was abandoned in November 1933, however, as itoperated to preclude the granting of federal aid to those states needing it most.

The administrative organization of the FERA is difficult to describe in general terms because of theconstant changes that took place during its brief period of existence. During the first year, administrationof the FERA was highly centralized, and almost all important decisions were made in the Washington,

D.C. office, although field representatives visited the states and submitted reports.23

Early in May 1934,however, the Administrator set up a number of regional offices, each staffed with a field examiner, asocial worker, an engineer, and sometimes a rural rehabilitation expert.24 The staffs of these regionaloffices were appointed by the heads of the Washington, D.C. office divisions, with the approval of theAdministrator. The regional officers, consequently, looked primarily to the Washington office divisionchiefs, rather than to the field representatives, for orders and advice. As the FERA drew to a close in thesummer of 1935, however, the field representatives were achieving a greater degree of control over theregional offices, partly because of the greater degree of control over the regional offices, partly because of the preoccupation of Washington officials with the new WPA program, and partly because of the growingrealization of a need for greater decentralization.

3.1.2 Civil Works Administration

The Civil Works Administration (CWA) was created by an Executive Order of the President on 9November 1933, under the authority of the National Industrial Recovery Act, for the purpose of providingwork for approximately 4 million unemployed persons during the winter months of 1933–34.25 Althoughthe CWA and FERA functioned simultaneously for several months and, to some extent, with the samepersonnel, administratively they were entirely separate organizations. Unlike the FERA, the CWA dealtdirectly with the unemployed person, and complete authority for the operation of the CWA program wasvested in the Washington, D.C., office, which exercised its power through its own field organization inthe states and localities. The Federal Emergency Relief Administrator was renamed the Federal CivilWorks Administrator, and on 10 November 1933, he notified all state emergency relief administrators of their appointment as state civil works administrators. They were to function in this dual capacity for theduration of the CWA.

During the period from November 1933 through March 1934, in which the CWA functioned, the work relief activities of state and local relief agencies were greatly curtailed and many of the persons who hadbeen engaged in planning and carrying out the work programs were transferred to CWA field offices asfederal officials. About 2 million employable persons on relief rolls were placed on CWA projects, aswell as an equal number of self-sustaining unemployed persons. Perhaps the most important differencebetween the FERA and the CWA was that the latter was designed to relieve unemployment through apublic works program and no attention was paid to the relief status of the persons employed, while the

23 Correspondence with the field representatives, instructions to them, and reports from them are included in both the“General Subject” and “State” series of the FERA central files.

24 Correspondence with regional officers, their reports, and minutes of regional conferences are included in the“General Subject” and “State” series of the FERA central files.

25 Monthly Report of the FERA, May 1 through May 31, 1936, p. 14. See also Report Upon the CWA, submitted byJacob Baker to Harry Hopkins on 30 December 1935; “A Description of Civil Works Program Statistics,” preparedby Pamela Brown in 1939; and Analysis of Civil Works Program Statistics (Washington, June 1939). Copies of these three reports are in the National Archives.





FERA was created primarily to provide direct relief. There was also an important difference in themethods of financing the FERA and the CWA.26

Although control of the CWA program was centered in Washington, a rather high degree of decentralization was practiced in its administration. Broad policy rulings were issued by the Washington,D.C., office, but the responsibility for the initiation and approval of projects was placed almost entirely on

the state administrators. While state and locally sponsored projects accounted for the bulk of the CWAprogram, those sponsored by federal agencies proved to be among the most useful projects undertakenand provided work for a number of professional and white-collar workers.27

Approximately 90 percent of CWA projects were those involving manual labor, such as road constructionand repair, construction of schools and other public buildings, maintenance of parks and playgrounds,pest control, and water and soil conservation. The number of CWA projects allotted to each state wasdetermined as a rule on the basis of its population and the number of cases on its relief rolls, although astate’s quota of projects might be exceeded if a definite need for more employment could be shown.28 With the liquidation of the CWA in March 1934, most of the relief workers left on the program and themajority of incomplete CWA projects were transferred to the new emergency work relief program, whichwas put into operation on 1 April 1934, under the jurisdiction of the FERA.28

Under this new program, the supervision of work projects came under the jurisdiction of work divisionsthat state and local relief organizations were required to organize, subject to regulations established by theWashington office. All work projects were financed under the same grant-in-aid system that hadcharacterized the early FERA work program. Most of the projects operating under the emergency work relief program, as under the CWA, were of the construction and maintenance type; only about 10 percentof all persons on work relief during the period from August 1934 through April 1935 were employed onwhite-collar projects.29

Following the creation of the WPA in May 1935, the emergency work relief program was graduallybrought to a close, and it was practically terminated by 1 July 1935.30 The formal liquidation of the FERAprogram as a whole, originally provided for by the Emergency Relief Appropriation (ERA) Act of 1935,was postponed by the ERA Act of 1937, which made the liquidation the responsibility of the WPA

Administrator and provided funds for this purpose until 30 June 1938.31

26 CWA “investigations” cases were transferred to the WPA Division of Investigation.

27 One of these federally sponsored white-collar projects was the Public Works of Art Project, the records of whichare in the National Archives.

28 The relative weight given these two factors in determining the amount to be allocated to the States was 75 percentto the population factor and 25 percent to case load. Report Upon the CWA, p. 7.

29 Copies of the final State reports on the CWA program are now in the Federal Works Agency Library.

30 Copies of the final State reports on the FERA work relief program are in the Federal Works Agency Library. Acopy of the over-all report, “The Emergency Work Relief Program of the FERA, April 1, 1934–July 1, 1935,”prepared by the Work Division of the Washington office and submitted to the Administrator in December 1935, is inthe National Archives.

31 49 Stat. 1611 and 50 Stat. 357. See also Final Statistical Report of the FERA (Washington, 1942).





3.1.3 Work Projects Administration

Although the FERA continued to function through December 1935, the Works Progress Administration,established by Executive Order of the President on 6 May 1935, under the authority of the ERA Act of 1935, henceforth assumed the dominant role in work relief activities.32 This new organization was maderesponsible to the President for “the honest, efficient, speedy, and coordinated execution of the work

relief program as a whole, and for the execution of that program in such manner as to move from therelief rolls to work on such projects or in private employment the maximum number of persons in theshortest time possible.”33

The WPA differed from its predecessors in two important respects. Whereas the FERA had granted fundsto states and localities for both direct and work relief, the WPA program was restricted to financing work relief activities. Aid to unemployables remained primarily the responsibility of state and localgovernments, which might obtain federal grants-in-aid under the categorical relief provisions of the SocialSecurity Act. Also, unlike the policy followed under the CWA program, eligibility for employment onWPA projects was based entirely upon relief status.

In the process of establishing the WPA, a conscious effort was made to profit by the knowledge andexperience acquired in the operation of the FERA program. Under the provisions of the Executive Order

creating the WPA, the Federal Emergency Relief Administrator was designated to serve also asAdministrator of the WPA, and many persons assigned to the Washington office staff of the FERA, aswell as a large number of qualified persons in the work divisions of state emergency relief administrations, were transferred to the WPA.

Although the WPA, like the CWA, was set up as a federal program in contrast to the grant-in-aid systemthat characterized the FERA, state and local governments were expected to cooperate with the federalgovernment in financing and supervising work projects. From the start, the WPA functioned through fourorganizational levels: (1) a central administration in Washington, D.C.; (2) regional offices; (3) stateadministrations; and (4) district offices, which usually embraced several counties. The organizationalpattern of the WPA provided for two types of relationships between offices at the four levels of administration: “a line of administrative or direct authority, and a line of technical instruction and

advice.”34

Although the Washington office made no attempt to define the extent of administrative controlthat state offices could exercise over district offices, it ruled that state administrators must not interferewith the direct line of technical instruction linking the functional divisions of operating units at all levels.This policy of dual authority within the WPA organizational hierarchy resulted in a certain amount of rivalry between administrative and technical supervisors that was evident not only in the field of projectoperation, but also in the Washington office.

The functions of the central office were apportioned among several major divisions, each of which wasunder the direct supervision of an Assistant Administrator appointed by and immediately responsible tothe Federal Administrator. The number and names of these divisions changed frequently, but theyembraced such functions as administration, employment, project control, finance, statistics, research, andthe supervision of engineering and professional and service projects.

32 The name of the agency changed to the Work Projects Administration on 1 July 1939, when it was incorporated inthe newly established Federal Works Agency under the provisions of Reorganization Plan No. 1. The title of Administrator of the WPA was changed to Commissioner at that time.

33 Executive Order No. 7034, 6 May 1935.

34 WPA Manual of Rules and Regulations, Vol. I, “Organization and Administration,” p. 1. 1. 011.





Immediately below the central office in the WPA hierarchy were regional offices, each under thedirection of a regional field representative and staff consisting of a regional engineer, a regional examiner,a regional director of employment, and a regional director of the Division of Women’s and ProfessionalProjects.35 As originally established, the WPA regional organization took over the five FERA regionaloffices with practically no change in geographical boundaries or personnel. As the WPA programexpanded, however, it became necessary to increase the number of regions to nine in 1939. In December

1940 the number was reduced to eight because of the drop in WPA employment and the need to curtailadministrative expenses. When even more severe limitations were placed upon the funds that could beused for administrative purposes in 1942–43, pressure was brought to bear by members of the Senate forabolition of the entire regional set-up in preference to the consolidation of some of the stateadministrations.36 The latter action was taken in a few cases, and in September 1942 the WPA regionaloffices became part of the Federal Works Agency field organization.

Regional officials were responsible for giving advice and instructions to state and district WPA offices,for making reports and recommendations to the Washington office, and for approving the appointment of certain key personnel in state and district offices. By 1940, regional directors were empowered tointerpret and supplement instructions of the Washington office, to review state programs andadministrative budgets before they were submitted to Washington, to recommend changes in state

employment quotas, and to approve the location of state and district offices. The result of this policy of increasing the power of regional officials at the expense of the Washington office was a certain measureof decentralization, which tended to diminish the consciousness of dual command that had confused manystate administrators.

Funds for the operation of the WPA program were provided in the annual ERA Acts of 1935 through1943, and in supplementary measures passed to provide additional funds.37 The fact that the WPA had todepend on annual appropriations prevented its officials from planning work more than one year inadvance or from making long-term commitments to public agencies or institutions that might otherwisehave sponsored worthwhile projects of an extensive character. During the last few years of the agency,program planning and project operation became increasingly difficult.

Before funds made available to the WPA under the ERA Acts could be allocated to the states, specificproject proposals had to be reviewed and approved by the proper district and state officials, the ProjectControl Division in the Washington office, the President, and the Comptroller General.38 The types of projects that the WPA could undertake were specified in the ERA Acts, with some variation from year to

35 Handbook of Procedures for State and District Works Progress Administration, Ch. 2, sec. 2 (Washington, 1936).See also Williams, op. cit. , 250, and Arthur W. MacMahon, John D. Millet, and Gladys Ogden, The Administrationof Federal Work Relief, 230-36 (Chicago, 1941). Administrative correspondence between the central office and eachof the regional offices is classified in the 130 classification of the “General Subject” series of the WPA central files.

36 The state administration of Nevada was combined with that of Northern California from September 1941 toAugust 1942. The Administrations of Delaware and the District of Columbia were consolidated with that of Maryland on 1 August 1941, but Delaware was reestablished as a separate administration in August 1942, and theDistrict of Columbia was made directly responsible to the central office in December 1942. These consolidations of state administrations are reflected in the filing of records in the “State” series of the WPA central files.

37 Prior to 1940 the title of each ERA Act included the year in which it was passed, but in 1940 and subsequent yearsand title included instead the fiscal year for which the money was being appropriated.

38 The records of the Project Control Division have been microfilmed and the film is in the custody of the FederalWorks Agency. For a description of the procedure for approval of projects, see MacMahon, Millet, and Ogden, op.cit. , 100-102.





year. As under the CWA and FERA programs only those projects were eligible that were designed tobenefit the public health and welfare. The majority of WPA projects were planned, initiated, andsponsored by cities, counties, and other public agencies (Figure 3-1). Figures available for total WPAexpenditures in the early part of 1940 reveal that about one-half of the projects were sponsored bymunicipal agencies and about one-fourth by county agencies. The remaining one-fourth was sponsored bystate, federal, or other public agencies.39 The so-called “federal” projects, which were sponsored either by

the WPA itself or by other federal agencies, accounted for only about 3 percent of the estimated cost of allWPA projects.40 The percentage of sponsors’ contributions ranged from 10 percent of the total cost of allWPA projects in 1936 to 30.1 percent in 1943, or an average of 21.9 percent for the entire 8-year period.41

Figure 3-1. WPA sign in front of WPA-constructed front gates at Jackson Barracks, Louisiana.

When a project was ready to begin operations, the sponsor was called upon to furnish the contributionsthat had been pledged in the project proposal and application. The degree of control exercised by asponsor over a project varied, depending largely upon the type of work performed. At first, the WPA wasinclined to consider that its primary function was to supply labor and that the responsibility for carryingthe project through to completion belonged to the sponsor. Gradually this view changed, and the WPAprovided trained supervisors and foremen who were to follow the wishes of sponsors as closely aspossible. In the case of the white-collar projects, especially in the federal arts program, qualified persons

were asked to serve on advisory committees created for the purpose of making available expert technical

39 Donald S. Howard, The WPA and Federal Relief Policy, 144-145 (New York, 1943).

40 Williams, op. cit., 251. Two-thirds of these “Federal” projects were sponsored by the WPA itself.

41 ”Operations and Employment of the WPA,” table 3, p. 11 (H. Doc. 392, 78 Cong., 2 sess.).





experience and advice.42 Likewise, trained engineers on the staffs of local and state departments of publicworks were often able to assist WPA supervisors in planning and operating construction projects.

The formal order for the liquidation of the WPA was contained in a letter of 4 December 1942, addressedby the President to the Federal Works Administrator.43 Stating that the WPA rolls had decreased to apoint where a national work relief program was no longer necessary, the President requested that project

operations be closed out in as many states as possible by 1 February 1943 and in all other states as soonthereafter as possible. Steps were taken immediately by WPA officials to carry out the President’s order,with the result that the WPA program ceased operation on 30 June 1943, except in Puerto Rico and theVirgin Islands, where it continued until 30 November 1943, with funds provided by the SecondDeficiency Appropriation Act approved 12 July 1943. Under this same act, funds in the amount of $1,065,000 were appropriated to the Federal Works Administrator for use in liquidating the WPA fromunobligated balancing remaining under appropriations of the ERA Act of 1943. A Division for theLiquidation of the WPA, set up within the Federal Works Agency on 1 July 1943, functioned until 30June 1944, when all remaining matters pertaining to the liquidation of the WPA became the responsibilityof the Office of the Federal Works Administrator.44

3.2 The Projects

As under the FERA and CWA programs, most WPA projects (approximately 75 percent) were of aconstruction nature and as such came under the jurisdiction of the Engineering Division of theWashington, D.C. office.45 Immediate supervision of the projects, however, was the responsibility of stateand local WPA officials under the general oversight of the regional engineer. In terms of relative cost thetypes of construction projects undertaken by the WPA ranged all the way from the 40-million-dollarNorth Beach Airport project in New York City to minor repairs on public buildings involving theexpenditure of only a few hundred dollars. Many projects, such as the improvement of Pennsylvania’sentire highway system, covered wide areas while others were confined to remote rural localities. Amongthe most outstanding achievements of the WPA during its 8-year period of operation could be theconstruction or repair of more than 650,000 miles of highways, roads, and streets, including farm-to-market roads and access roads to defense plants and military establishments; the construction of nearly40,000 new public buildings and the repair or improvement of more than 85,000 existing buildings; the

construction or improvement of thousands of parks, playgrounds, and other recreational facilities; theinstallation or improvement of public utilities service and sanitation facilities; the extension of flood and

42 Records relating to the National Advisory Committee are filed under the 210.11 and 211 classifications in the“General Subject” series of the WPA central files.

43 A copy of this letter with related correspondence and instructions to State Administrators is filed under the “100”classification in the “General Subject” series of the WPA central files. Other instructions to State administratorsconcerning the liquidation of the program are filed in the “600” classification, while their reports on the progress of liquidation in their respective states are filed under the “610” classification in the “State” series. Final state reportson the administration of the program over the entire 8-year period are still in the custody of the Federal WorksAgency.

44 The records of the Division for the Liquidation of the WPA were filed according to the classification scheme of the WPA central files and so have been made an integral part of the WPA central files described in this checklist.Records pertaining to the liquidation of the WPA after 30 June 1944 form a part of the records of the Office of theFederal Works Administrator, which are filed according to an entirely different scheme.

45 The majority of project files of the Engineering Division are incorporated in the appropriate classifications in the“State” series of the WPA central files. The classified files of the Engineering Division, as well as other records of the Highway and Conservation Section, the Airport and Airways Division, and the Project Application Section, weremaintained separately from the WPA central files.





erosion control, irrigation, and conservation; the construction or improvement of thousands of airportsand airways facilities; and the collection of thousands of tons of scrap metal and rubber for the salvagecampaign.46

When the crisis of war approached, large numbers of WPA workers were employed on constructionprojects certified as necessary for defense purposes by the Secretaries of War and the Navy, and the

nationwide vocational training project was set up in July 1940 to train workers for manual occupations indefense industries.47 In the latter part of 1940 a nationwide project for the training of WPA workers asairport servicemen was established under the defense training program. In July 1941 a Division of Training and Reemployment was created within the central office of the WPA, with operating units on theState and district levels as well.48 Large numbers of women and men were transferred from other WPAprojects to defense training during 1941–42, with more than 38,000 persons, or 5.5 percent of all WPAemployees assigned as defense trainees in June 1942.

The WPA also participated in the formulation of a vast 6-year program of public works and services thatcould be undertaken at the close of the war to ease the transition from a war to a peacetime economy. In aletter dated 24 May 1941, the President approved the establishment of the Public Work Reserve project,to be operated with WPA funds and staff under the sponsorship and general supervision of the Federal

Works Agency and the co-sponsorship of the National Resources Planning Board.

49

By the time thePublic Work Reserve project closed on 1 April 1942, considerable progress had been made by state andlocal governments in planning future capital improvements and new or expanded public servicesprograms.

While construction and engineering projects accounted for approximately 75 percent of federal andsponsors’ funds expended under the WPA program, public service projects employing white-collarworkers accounted for the remaining 25 percent.50 Of this latter type of project, one of the earliest andmost prominent was the federal arts program, which was approved as WPA Sponsored Federal ProjectNo. 1 within the Division of Professional and Service Projects on 12 September 1935, in order to provideemployment for qualified artists, musicians, actors, and authors on local relief rolls. Federal Project No. 1consisted of the Federal Art Project, the Federal Music Project, the Federal Theatre Project, and theFederal Writers’ Project, of which the Historical Records Survey was a part until October 1936, when itwas set up as an independent unit.51 Five other federally-sponsored projects were created within the

46 House Document No. 392, table 2, p. 6-10.

47 Report of the Progress of the WPA Program, June 30, 1940, p. 20; Report of June 30, 1941, p. 29-36; Report of June 30, 1942, p. 14-18. Many records pertaining to the defense training program are filed under the 045classification in the “General Subject” series and the 645 classification in the “state” series of the WPA central files.A large quantity of press releases and publicity material relating to the program are included among the WPAInformation Division records in the National Archives.

48 Miscellaneous records of the Division of Training and Reemployment, including correspondence, interofficememoranda, weekly statistical reports on the number of defense trainees, and organizational charges, are in theNational Archives.

49 Some miscellaneous records relating to the Public Work Reserve project are included in the WPA central files, butthe main body of files has been retained by the Federal Works Agency. Some press releases and newspaperclippings concerning the project are included in the WPA Information Division records in the National Archives.

50 Report on Progress of the WPA Program, June 30, 1942, table XII.





Division of Professional and Service Projects: No. 2–Historic American Buildings Survey, No. 3–Staffingof State Planning Boards, No. 4–Survey of Federal Archives, No. 5–Inspection of Plumbing Installations,and No. 6–Historic American Merchant Marine Survey.52

Besides these arts projects, numerous other white-collar projects were set up under the sponsorship of state and local governments or other public agencies for the purpose of improving and expanding

community services. Under the research and records program a variety of surveys were made, relating totraffic, land use and housing, social and economic conditions in particular localities, climatology,topography, and natural resources.53 Many research studies were conducted under the sponsorship of universities and other public institutions. Public administration projects reorganized files, indexedrecords, and rendered clerical assistance to state and local governments. Other clerical projects indexedvital statistics and immigration and naturalization records. State library service projects not only enabledmany libraries to expand their services, but also operated libraries in some localities where none hadbefore existed. Newspaper indexing, translating, and bibliographical projects were also undertaken.54

The education program of the WPA continued the work of the FERA emergency education program,providing classes in adult education, vocational training, and parent and workers’ education and setting upnursery and rural schools.55 The field of workers’ education was expanded under the WPA and became

known as the workers’ service program.

56

In 1940 most of the vocational training classes were taken overby the new nationwide vocational training project. The college student aid program, which had been setup under the FERA, was enlarged and reorganized under the National Youth Administration (NYA),created by Executive Order No. 7086 on 26 June 1935. The NYA functioned as a part of the WPA, underthe direction of the Deputy Administrator, until 1 July 1939, when it was made an independent agencyunder the provisions of Reorganization Plan No 1.57

51 Within the WPA central files there are specific classifications for records relating to the Art, Music, Theatre,Writers, and Historical Records Survey projects both in the “State” and “General Subject” series. In addition,records of each of these projects maintained apart from the central files are also in the National Archives. Apreliminary checklist of the records of the Historical Records Survey has been prepared by the National Archives.

52 Records relating to these projects are included in the WPA central files. A preliminary checklist has been preparedby the National Archives on the Survey of Federal Archives records maintained apart from the central files.

53 Records relating to the research and records program are filed under specific classifications in both the “GeneralSubject” and “State” series of the WPA central files. Other records maintained apart from the central files, includingadministrative correspondence, manuals, and the Research and Records Library, are also in the National Archives.The library contains record copies of most of the surveys and reports published by the many research and recordsprojects. These reports are listed in three printed index volumes and eight mimeographed bibliographies issued bythe WPA from 1936 to 1943.

54 In addition to records in the WPA central files pertaining to these projects, other records on library service andnewspaper indexing projects are in the National Archives, filed separately. Some of the publications of these latterprojects are included in the Research and Records library.

55 Most of the records pertaining to the education program from 1935–39 are filed as part of the emergencyeducation program records according to a classification scheme different from that of the WPA central files. Recordsrelating to the specific classifications are in the “General Subject” and “State” series.

56 A considerable quantity of records relating to this program, which were maintained as a separate file in theDirector’s office, is now in the National Archives.

57 The records of the National Youth Administration are now in the National Archives (Record Group 119).





In addition to programs mentioned above, which were established to provide new or improvedcommunity services, there were others designed to promote social welfare. This group included suchprograms as sewing, health, feeding, child care, and the distribution of surplus commodities.58 Almost allthe workers on the welfare projects were women, and the percentage of noncertified and skilled workerswas considerably lower. Of the total cost of the welfare projects, sponsors contributed slightly more than25 percent. The accomplishments of the welfare projects during the 8-year period of the WPA program

were impressive. More than 383 million garments were produced on sewing projects for distribution toneedy men, women, and children; a large quantity of army clothing and equipage was mended andreclaimed at the request of the Army; more than 32 million visits were made by housekeeping aides tohomes of needy families to provide assistance in domestic emergencies; more than 1 billion hot luncheswere served to school children; millions of quarts of fruits and vegetables were canned, most of the foodhaving been produced on WPA gardening projects; and valuable assistance was given to public healthagencies in the operation of clinics that made medical and dental service available to thousands of personswho otherwise could not have afforded them.59

In order that the work of the white-collar projects might be coordinated more closely with the war effort,a reorganization was effected within the WPA in February 1942. A Service Division was created toexercise jurisdiction over two new projects, the War Services Project and the Defense, Health, and

Welfare Project.60

The arts, research, and records projects were made a part of the War Services Projectand continued to operate on a reduced scale until the end of the WPA program, with most of theiractivities directed towards entertaining or providing services for the armed forces and renderingassistance to civilian defense organizations. The operation of nursery schools for the children of defenseworkers and a school lunch program were two of the most important war-related activities of the Defense,Health and Welfare Project. While most of the war service programs drew to a close in January andFebruary 1943, these two welfare programs continued until the termination of the WPA in June 1943,following which they were carried on as War Public Service projects with Lanham Act funds, under the jurisdiction of the Federal Works Administrator.61 Likewise, many construction projects certified asessential to the defense and war program were continued as War Public Works projects with Lanham Actfunds.

3.2.1 National Defense ProjectsThe WPA contribution to the cause of national defense, through work of benefit to the War and NavyDepartments, dates back to the beginning of the program. In 1935 and in each succeeding year until theliquidation of the program, there were in operation WPA engineering and construction projects andservice projects sponsored by both departments. Prior to 1 July 1940, the engineering and construction

58 Records relating to the administration and operation of these welfare projects are filed under specificclassifications in the “General Subject” and “State” series of the WPA central files. A few fragmentary recordspertaining to the sewing, household workers’ training, and school lunch projects are filed separately.

59 Report on Progress of the WPA Program, June 30, 1942, 46-49; House Document No. 392, table 2, p. 4-5, 10.

60 In mimeographed memorandum of December 30, 1942, the National Director of the Service Division requested

state administrators to submit a “Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment” for every Service Divisionprogram that operated within their respective states. Copies of these final state reports and a few of the nationalreports, filed separately from the WPA central files, are in the National Archives.

61 A bill introduced by Representative Fritz G. Lanham of Texas making $300 million available for defense housingand defense public works was enacted by Congress and approved 14 October 1940 (54 Stat. 1119). Towards the endof the WPA program, the Federal Works Administrator designated WPA state administrators and district directors toact as his representatives for the purpose of reviewing applications for Lanham Act funds made by localgovernments or other public agencies.





projects sponsored by the War Department provided for the construction and rehabilitation of facilities atvarious military posts, reservations, and air bases; and those sponsored by the Navy Department providedfor similar reconstruction and rehabilitation of facilities at various navy yards, naval air stations, and othernaval establishments.

In addition, national defense was aided directly or indirectly by considerable work accomplished under

other WPA projects, including those for the improvement of strategic highways, extension of power andsewer lines from towns to military reservations, and improvement of water and sewage systems. Nationaldefense projects could be directly sponsored by the War or Navy Departments, but also could besponsored by state and local agencies, who then requested certification of the project by the War or NavyDepartment as important to the national defense effort.

Construction on Military Installations (Non-Navy). Construction of buildings for military and naval usewas done throughout the course of the WPA program. At the time when the WPA was created, thebuildings at practically all of the military and naval establishments were in a badly run-down condition,which in some instances, amounted to dilapidation. No funds were available for new construction orimprovements, and funds for repairs were below ordinary maintenance requirements. WPA projects were,therefore, sponsored by the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, the Maritime

Commission, and public institutions maintaining facilities for training reserve officers. The purpose of these projects was to expand housing and training facilities.

Prompt, extensive and continuous construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, repair, and improvementwork was done at almost every regular army post and naval establishment in the country. The value of this work was attested by the highest military and naval officials.62 An article in the Army and Navy

Register noted “in the years 1935 to 1939, when regular appropriations for the armed forces were someager, it was the WPA worker who saved many Army Posts and Naval Stations from literalobsolescence.”63

Among the military installations in this category were Maxwell Field in Alabama(Figure 3-2), Fort Winfield Scott and March Field in California, Lowry Field (Figure 3-3) and FortLogan in Colorado, Bolling Field (Figure 3-4) and Fort Humphreys in Washington, D.C., Fort DuPont inDelaware, Camp Dodge in Iowa, Fort Sheridan in Illinois, Camp Atterbury in Indiana, Fort Lewis inWashington, Fort Sill in Oklahoma, Fort Riley in Kansas (Figure 3-5), Fort Huachuca in Arizona(Figure 3-6), and Forts Hood, Bullis, Bliss, and Sam Houston in Texas.

62 Works Progress Administration, Division of Engineering and Construction, Final Report. Washington, D. C.,January 1944, pp. 43-44.

63 Army and Navy Register 16 May 1942.





(NARA, RG 69, Neg. 24310) Figure 3-2. WPA–constructed Range, Maxwell Field, Alabama.

(NARA, RG 69, Neg. 21182-C)

Figure 3-3. WPA Improvements at Lowry Field, Colorado.





(NARA, RG 69, Neg. 8843-C)

Figure 3-4. Grading and Oiling Runways, Bolling Field, Washington, D.C.

Figure 3-5. Academic building (now Patton Hall) under construction atFort Riley, Kansas (Fort Riley Museum and Archives).





Figure 3-6. Alchesay Barracks (also known as Million Dollar Barracks), shortly aftercompletion in 1938, Fort Huachuca, Arizona. (Fort Huachuca Museum and Archives)

In addition to the rehabilitation and reconstruction work completed on existing military reservations,WPA funding also was used to augment construction of completely new reservations and air basesauthorized under the National Defense Act of 1935. Among the military reservations constructed usingWPA funds and labor were Camp San Luis Obispo in California; Camp Blanding, MacDill AFB, andEglin AFB in Florida; Camp Keyes in Maine, Fort Borinquen in Puerto Rico, and Camp Edwards inMassachusetts (Figure 3-7). WPA projects completed between at these installations typically includedclearing of land for cantonment areas, roads, and ranges, construction of all major roads and training

trails, construction of runways and hangars, construction of utilities (water, sewer, electric, telephone),construction of tent pads around the cantonment area, and construction of the administrative buildings,mess halls, and latrines.

(NARA, RG 69, Neg. 7901-C)

Figure 3-7. Utilities, Roads, and Parade Ground, Camp Edwards, Massachusetts.





The National Defense Act of 1935 also authorized the selection of seven air bases and depots butprovided no funding. The Army Air Corps would construct the facilities when it received the funding.The act proposed that seven bases be established in the following locations:

1. Air Base at Fairbanks, Alaska (Eielson Air Force Base)

2. Air Depot at Ogden, Utah (Hill Air Force Base)

3. Air Base at Westover, Massachusetts (Westover Air Force Base)

4. Air Depot at Mobile, Alabama (Brookley Air Force Base)

5. Air Base at Tampa, Florida (MacDill Air Force Base)

6. Air Base in Puerto Rico (Borinquen Air Force Base)

7. Air Base in Panama (Howard Air Force Base).

The majority of these projects, excluding the air base in Panama, were eventually constructed in part withWPA funds and labor. The WPA funds and labor were used to clear and grade the site, install drainage,build roads, erect fencing, lay railroad tracks, and install sanitary systems. In general, the ConstructionQuartermaster Corps possessed the equipment and the WPA had the manpower to complete the tasks.

At MacDill Field (now MacDill AFB), work was also conducted simultaneously with the cutting andclearing of trees. To facilitate the process, a small sawmill was set up near the MacDill Avenue Gate. Thesaw mill cut the logs from MacDill's trees into lumber, which was then used to build temporary buildingsand for sheathing as well as being used in the construction of sewers and underground utility conduits. Itis believed that the Base mill cut over one million feet of lumber. Construction of MacDill AFB includednot only the runways and associated infrastructure to operate the field (Figure 3-8), but the majority of the flight operations facilities and housing. Many of these buildings and associated infrastructure remainextant today, and are included within the MacDill Field Historic District.

(NARA, RG 69, Neg. 272-D)

Figure 3-8. WPA-constructed Runways, MacDill Field, Florida.





After war was declared, the Commissioner of the WPA at once placed the administrative staff and allfacilities at the service of the War and Navy Departments to meet local needs. Numerous requests werereceived from Post Commanders and other Army officials for assistance in providing special facilities thatwere urgently needed for national defense. A large amount of such work was undertaken in this manner at81 Army posts or air bases located for the most part near the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. In general, thefacilities were designed to afford increased protection of military property and installations or to provide

temporary housing of troops in those areas to which they had to be moved on account of the emergency.Portable buildings were fabricated, transported, and erected. Tent floors and frames were constructed(Figure 3-9). Heating, lighting, and plumbing facilities were installed. Existing buildings were remodeledand rehabilitated. Numerous blackout assemblies were made. Chairs, tables, lockers, cabinets, bunks, andother furnishings were made and installed. Materials were packed and loaded, transported to theirdestination, and unloaded for use or storage. Military infrastructure, such as gun emplacements, dumps,and landing fields, were camouflaged. Barbed wire and sand bag barricades were placed. Slit trencheswere dug and rifle pits, machine gun nests, and anti-aircraft gun emplacements complete with ammunitionplatforms and projectile racks were constructed. Some two million sand bags were filled and placed inrevetments for the protection of aircraft. Lookout stations, searchlight towers, and listening posts wereerected. Vital areas were fenced. Emergency landing fields, strips, and taxiways were constructed. Roadswere built or improved and aid was given in the construction of bomb target areas.64

(NARA, RG 69, Neg. 21445-C)

Figure 3-9. WPA-constructed Tent Floors and Walls, Camp Perry, Ohio.

Naval Construction. The Final Report of the WPA Engineering and Construction Division (January1944) highlights the following projects of benefit to the Navy Department65:

64 Works Progress Administration, Division of Engineering and Construction, Final Report. Washington, D. C.,January 1944, pp. 79.

65 Ibid. 80-81.





Great Lakes Naval Training Station. Work included the construction of administration buildings,hospitals, infirmaries and dispensaries, nurses’ quarters, a post office, swimming pools andrecreational halls, officers’ quarters, barracks, mess halls, shop buildings, garages and storagebuildings, power plants, greenhouses, host houses, drill halls, and a guard house. In addition tothese major buildings, the WPA constructed roads, streets, curbs and gutters, sidewalks and paths,bridges and viaducts. Sewer and power lines were installed, and the grounds were graded and

landscaped.

Charleston Navy Yard. The hospital at the Charleston Navy Yard was in large part a WPAproject. The hospital complex included an administration building, a subsistence building, andfour ward buildings. In addition to this facility, the WPA constructed officers’ quarters, a messhall, recreation buildings, a transformer vault, and sanitary sewers; and laid out railroad tracks(Figure 3-10).

(NARA, RG 69, Neg. 14682)

Figure 3-10. Charleston Navy Yard in 1938.

Boston Navy Yard. Work included such items as the construction of reinforced concrete galleriesfor air and steam lines; installation of water lines and hydrants, floodlights, and traffic signs;construction of sidewalks, fences, sewers, and cable ducts; building of concrete ramps,rehabilitation of buildings; filling and placing of sand boxes and bags for revetments;construction of machine foundations; demolition of wooden piers; repointing of a dry dock; andlaying of railroad tracks.

Norfolk Navy Yard. Buildings were rehabilitated; streets, sidewalks, and fences were repaired orreconstructed; and railroad tracks were repaired (Figure 3-11).





(NARA, RG 69, Neg. 24124)

Figure 3-11. Building Ways Office, Constructed by WPA, Norfolk Navy Yard, Virginia.

Treasure Island Airport, San Francisco. Roadways, runways, and aprons were constructed. AnAdministration building and a hangar were erected. In addition to these major operations, fenceswere built; curbs, sidewalks and catch basins were constructed; and general improvements weremade to grounds.

U. S. Naval Ammunition Depot, Burns City, Indiana. The major item of work here was theconstruction of 15. 7 miles of roads, together with retaining walls, gutters, and drainagestructures. Approximately 80 miles of drainage ditches were provided in connection with generalground improvements and landscaping.

U. S. Navy Yard, Washington, D. C. Work included a similar scope as that done at other navyyards, but also included construction of a transportation building for the repair of engines and carsas well as trucks and other transportation vehicles.

Auxiliary Air Fields, Florida. In addition to improvements made at the Jacksonville andPensacola Naval Air Bases in Florida (Figure 3-12 and Figure 3-13), a number of auxiliary landfields were constructed or further developed within the training radius of these stations.





(NARA, RG 69, Neg. 22682-C)

Figure 3-12. WPA Crews Constructing Drainage Ditch, Jacksonville Naval Air Station, Florida.

(NARA, RG 69, Neg. 24325)

Figure 3-13. WPA-constructed Aviation Cadet Quarters, Pensacola Naval Air Station, Florida.

National Guard Armories. A special feature of the building construction program was the armory

construction work carried out on a nationwide scale. The assistance of the WPA was sought by theNational Guard Association the United States. It was found that in many localities a building couldcombine all the features of an armory with those of a community meeting place or recreation center; and acombination armory and community center was very widely adopted in local plans. Some hundreds of these buildings were constructed (Figure 3-14), varying in cost from a few thousand to several hundred





thousand dollars, and many more old armories were reconstructed or renovated to meet advanced militaryneeds.66

(NARA, RG 69, Neg. 9677-C)

Figure 3-14. WPA-constructed Naval Reserve Armory, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Many of these armories were located in small communities where sufficient skilled labor was notavailable from relief rolls, and where the sponsors’ financial means were not sufficient to cover the costof hiring the skilled workers required. As a result, many armories were finished only after considerabledelay. In larger cities, delays also were common, but related more to the fact that the sponsors submittedprojects that were beyond their actual means, relying upon further federal assistance to effect thecompletion of work in which the federal government had a special interest.67

Local Airfields and Airports. At the beginning of the WPA program, airport work was in the category of “reservoir projects” – those projects that could employ large numbers of workers and from which workerscould be withdrawn in accordance with the current unemployment situation. Airport projects couldemploy large numbers of workers because of the large amount of grading, drainage, paving, and groundimprovements that they included. Work could be curtailed or suspended on such projects because, at thattime, they were not regarded as of pressing importance.68

At the outset, these projects were considered especially desirable by the WPA, chiefly with respect totheir capacity to provide sufficient and prompt employment. The applications presented by local and statesponsors did not generally include carefully prepared and fully detailed estimates of costs, and theengineering review of these applications in the central office was not stringent. As it became increasingapparent that the work performed at some sites was ill-advised, however, the WPA moved to coordinate

all of the local airport work under a centralized airport program. Accordingly, in July 1936, an Airwaysand Airports section was set up as part of the Engineering Division. Given the general absence of standardized facilities for airport construction, it appeared that the WPA might make an important

66 Ibid. 43.

67 Ibid. 43.

68 Ibid. 38.





contribution to the development of a system of facilities that would meet national requirements.Procedures were adopted that required full use of the information available from what was then theBureau of Air Commerce (later the Civil Aeronautics Administration [CAA], and now the FederalAviation Administration); this agency reviewed all airport projects with respect to their technicalaeronautic features. The WPA itself, in its now more stringent engineering review of airport projects,made use of the standard plans of the CAA, including designs and specifications for drainage and paving,

and the CAA criteria for selection of airport sites.69 It should be noted that WPA projects sponsored bythe War Department and the Navy Department were not subject to CAA requirements, but to those of thesponsoring department.

The WPA airport program, after it was organized, had two primary phases of activity: that whichpreceded and that which followed the declaration of a national defense emergency. In the earlier phases of activities, civil airport projects were subjected to the same requirements as all other WPA projects.Airports were built throughout the country on this basis, including those with the highest type of runwaypavements, hangars, and administration buildings. Large projects were usually planned for gradualconstruction over a period of years; and the choice of the items that were constructed at any time wasgoverned by the need of particular facilities to meet the demands of commercial aviation, the availabilityof WPA labor possessing the requisite skills, and the ability of sponsors to finance the local share of the

costs. The method of construction involved the use of much hand labor (Figure 3-15 and Figure 3-16),and the unit costs were higher than they would have been if heavy equipment had been used to its utmostextent. These projects served the purposes of providing work relief while creating facilities of publicvalue.70

(NARA, RG 69, Neg. 7519)

Figure 3-15. WPA-constructed Runway, Hensley Field, Texas.

69 Ibid. 38.

70 Ibid. 39.





(NARA, RG 69, Neg. 4516)

Figure 3-16. WPA-constructed Runway and Hangar (extreme right),Oklahoma City Airport, Oklahoma.

In the second phase of the airport program, the defense and war phase, the WPA was called upon to carryout an accelerated program of airport construction and improvement in the strategic areas all over thecountry. Projects certified by the War or Navy Department as of importance to national defense could begranted exemption by the Commissioner from certain regular WPA requirements. These exemptionsmade possible longer working hours and larger monthly earnings for WPA workers, and permitted thehiring of non-relief workers to any necessary extent. In addition, it was no longer required, for suchprojects, that the sponsors contribute a certain proportion of the total costs. The CAA was provided byCongress with funds that, in many instances, were used to supplement sponsors’ contributions.71

In this new phase, more heavy equipment was used (Figure 3-17). Such equipment might be rented, andthe rental contracts might include the service of skilled operators. All civil airport plans were reviewed bythe CAA and a certificate of air navigation facility necessity was a prerequisite to project operation. Alarge part of this program comprised the further development of existing airfields; however, many newairfields were constructed in their entirety by the WPA. The airport work sponsored directly by the Warand Navy Departments also accelerated. On 31 December 1942, 202 airport projects were in operation.During the whole of the preceding 7 years, projects had been carried on at 1,045 airport sites. This work was divided almost equally between the earlier civil phase and the later defense phase of the program; forin the defense phase, about as much work was done in 2 years as in the preceding 5 years.72

71 Ibid. 39.

72 Ibid. 40.





(NARA, RG 69, Neg. 18795-C)

Figure 3-17. Use of Heavy Equipment for Runway Construction, Reilly Field,Fort McClellan, Alabama.

Communications. Assistance was given to the Federal Communications Commission in the constructionand extension of radio monitoring stations. This work was early considered to be sufficiently important towarrant its certification by the Secretary of War as being of military importance. Operations included theconstruction, reconstruction, and remodeling of station buildings; the construction of roads, walks, andparking areas; the installation of underground telephone, transmission, and antenna cables; the erection of timber poles and steel towers for antenna; the erection and installation of fences and floodlights; and themaking of general improvements to the grounds.73

Other Construction. Other types of construction projects completed under the auspices of national

defense included construction of National Cemeteries; construction of, or improvements to, Soldiers andSailors Homes and other Veterans facilities; and construction, improvement, or maintenance of infrastructure related to the support of military facilities. For example, in 1940, there was an emergencycall for a greatly increased water service near Baltimore, Maryland, to meet the doubled needs of abomber plant. The War Department assisted the WPA in making arrangements for the financing of thework in collaboration with the city and county of Baltimore, and in securing priorities for the pipe andfittings for a 16-inch main, 4 miles in length. The drain was laid by the WPA, with 250 men from therelief rolls, in 35 days.74

Scrap Program. Similarly, in the summer of 1941, when increased production of steel required therecovery of available scrap steel from all sources, a nationwide survey (made by the WPA) disclosed theexistence of abandoned street car rails in 799 cities in 45 states, amounting to approximately 607,000 tonsof scrap steel. The WPA, which had previously worked on removal of such rail systems under the civil

program, increased its removal work. When title to the rails was publically held, projects sponsored bythe City for rail removal and subsequent repavement were made eligible for WPA assistance and WarDepartment certification. When title was privately held, it was acquired by the Metals Reserve Company,and WPA assistance in removal and repavement was carried on as part of a nationwide project for scrap

73 Ibid. 78.

74 Ibid. 37.





metals and rubber recovery sponsored by the War Production Board and given certification by the WarDepartment.75

Conservation and Survey Work. Other categories of national defense projects sponsored by theEngineering Division included conservation work, both on military reservations and large-scaleconservation programs undertaken by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (flood control, soil erosion,

reservoir construction), engineering surveys and maps (geodetic surveys, boundary surveys, topographicsurveys, underground and surface structures [utilities] surveys, maps produced from aerial photographs,and planning and layout surveys for construction projects); and the scrap collection program. Nationaldefense projects were also sponsored by the Records and Research Division and the Statistical ResearchDivision; these included compilation of military histories and National Guard yearbooks, preservation of maps and other military records, compilation of statistics relating to veterans of previous wars, andrestoration of old military parks and monuments (e. g., historic Fort DuPont, Gettysburg, and St.Augustine).

Emergency Disaster Aide. National defense projects also included those falling under the heading of Emergency Disaster Relief. Projects such as the flood control and soil erosion work sponsored by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers fell under this category, but also included emergency response for national

defense situations. Shortly after the attack at Pearl Harbor, the WPA central office sent out instructions tothe states to organize WPA forces of men, equipment, and tools so that they would be ready foremergency action in case of attack or sabotage by the enemy. As a result, in some states charts of theorganization were developed and practice sessions were held so that all workers knew exactly where theirassembly points would be. The WPA, with its trained supervisory and safety personnel, workers,equipment, and tools, was in a position to lend valuable services in case of attack.76

Administrative Undertakings. In addition to the above work performed by the Division of Engineeringand Construction, the WPA gave assistance to the War Department on several occasions in anadministrative capacity. In the summer of 1942, the Map-Chart Division of the Army Air Force requestedthe WPA to secure information as to the facilities available at all civil airports, landing fields, andseaplane bases in the United States. This information was urgently needed. Lists of known airports,questionnaire forms and instructions were prepared in cooperation with the Map-Chart Division, and weredistributed to the state administrators with the request that the information be secured as rapidly aspossible through the use of both administrative and supervisory personnel. Within a little more than 2months, the desired information on some 3,800 sites was turned over to the Army Air Force.77

The other example resulted from the request of General DeWitt, Commanding Officer of the Ninth CorpsArea to the Regional Director of WPA Region 7, for assistance in the evacuation of German, Italian, andJapanese aliens and people of Japanese ancestry from strategic areas on the Pacific Coast. The U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers was to construct assembly and reception centers for the Japanese, and General DeWittwanted the WPA to take the responsibility for managing these centers and of housing and feeding theevacuees until a permanent setup could be worked out by the War Relocation Board. The WPA RegionalDirector and his staff, augmented by the state WPA personnel, immediately went to work. They aided inthe selection of suitable sites and worked out a plan that called for the maximum servicing of each camp

by the Japanese themselves under the supervision of the WPA. In all, the WPA supervised 18 suchcamps.

75 Ibid. 38.

76 Ibid. 75.

77 Ibid. 79.





Chapter 4: Resource Types

This chapter provides further discussion of the buildings, structures, and landscape elements constructedon military installations by the CCC and WPA. To the extent possible, photographs of documentedresources are provided as examples; however, the sheer number of resources makes it difficult tocomprehensively discuss all styles and variations on a given resource type. The intent of this discussion,therefore, is to outline the major resource types associated with each program, typical building materialsand designs, and the probable range of variation present within the extant inventory on current DoDinstallations.

4.1 CCC Resources

CCC resources located on DoD installations fall into three categories: projects or improvements directlyrelated to military purposes, resources funded by the WPA and built by the CCC enrollees at a trainingand deployment camp as skill-building exercises, and resources built by the CCC for a non-militaryfederal agency (such as the Department of Agriculture or Bureau of Reclamation) on lands that were latertransferred to DoD. As noted in Chapter 2, the primary focus of the CCC was conservation. Even whenthey completed projects associated with national defense, typical CCC projects involved land clearing,

fire break construction, landscaping, and planting. Accordingly, the property types associated with CCCprojects on military reservations are related predominantly to infrastructure improvement, soil erosion anddrainage control, or landscaping. The following are examples of typical CCC resources of this type:

Water control features (check dams, culverts, lined irrigation ditches, irrigation canals)

Transportation features (paved and unpaved roads, tank trails, pedestrian trails, bridges)

Erosion control- features (retaining walls, terracing, sea walls)

Military training features (anti-tank ranges and railroads, firing ranges, anti-aircraft ranges,bivouac areas, targets, monitoring structures such as observation towers and bunkers)

Landscaping features (nurseries, tree plantations)

Infrastructure (tent pads, latrines, sidewalks, parking areas, telephone and utility lines)

Recreation features (picnic areas, swimming pools, shelters)

Fire breaks.

Buildings and structures, where present, are limited to shelters at picnic and recreation areas, tent pads,latrines, and look-out towers. Unlike the structures built at National Parks and within National Forests,which are often substantial buildings of wood and stone or adobe and rustic in style, buildings for militaryreservations mimicked the standardized styles and materials used for other military construction projects.

The CCC used local materials for the majority of their construction projects; hauling and transportation of materials often being one of the projects listed in the typical work proposal. To keep costs down,

materials were those that could be readily obtained in large quantities, usually from local quarries. Insome instances, the CCC operated the quarry operation entirely, or took over operation of concretemanufacturing facilities for a given area. Work quality was variable due to the varying levels of skillamong the CCC enrollees. In general, the CCC was viewed as an unskilled labor force to be used forprojects that did not require particular expertise. The CCC program published a series of 21 ProjectTraining guides to instruct enrollees in the proper way to accomplish specific types of projects, includingthe following:

No. 1. The “Why” of Block-and-Tackle





No. 2. Outline of Elementary Courses in Forestry

No. 3. Carpentry Joints and Splices

No. 4. Concrete

No. 5. Brick and Stone Work

No. 6. Landscape Conservation

No. 7. Construction of Trails

No. 8. Lumber

No. 9. Signs and Markers

No. 10. Construction of Relief Models

No. 11. Carpentry – Small Frame Buildings

No. 12. Carpentry – Four Room Frame House

No. 13. Common Range Plants

No. 14. Lawns.78

Training conferences were provided for CCC project foremen, and the various sponsors, such as theForest Service, provided other training guides related to specific conservation projects. Projects requiringgreater expertise were completed using skilled laborers, often obtained with WPA funds.

4.1.1 CCC Camps

The one exception to the focus on conservation-related construction is the CCC camp itself. Althoughmany CCC companies lived in tent camps, both during the early days of the program and while waitingfor camps to be constructed during the later years of the program, CCC policies mandated they containcertain standard features. Among those were housing and sanitary facilities for the enrollees and the

command staff, a mess facility, a recreation center, and various operations support buildings for storageand maintenance of equipment and supplies. In some instances, CCC camps made use of existing Armyor Navy buildings on the reservation; these typically were World War II temporary structures ormobilization buildings that have been covered under other contexts (Garner 1993). As the program cameof age, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers developed designs for portable buildings that could be movedwith a CCC company to successive camps as projects were completed. These buildings could also bestored as camps were liquidated.

The average camp had 24 buildings, including kitchen and mess hall, recreational building, schoolbuilding, infirmary, barracks for the enrollees, and quarters for the officers and enlisted personnel. Eachcamp was a city in itself. It had food, health, educational, religious, and entertainment facilities along withfacilities for blacksmithing, plumbing, and automotive repair.79

In the early days, most camps began as collections of army pyramid or bell tents housing 4 to 6 men each.The CCC camps at Mitchell Field, New York, and Eglin Field, FL, are shown in Figure 4-1 and Figure

4-2. A typical camp layout in 1933 and a photograph of a pyramidal tent are provided in Figure 4-3 and

Figure 4-4. These served until permanent buildings could be erected, at times by the enrollees

78 Sypolt 2005:176

79 Ibid. 31.





themselves. Meals often were served outdoors until the mess hall could be built. The sturdy, butunpretentious barracks buildings accommodated 40 to 50 men each.80

Figure 4-1. CCC Camp, Mitchel Field, New York.

(U.S. Air Force photo)

Figure 4-2. CCC Camp, Eglin Field, Florida.

80 Ibid. 31.





(Cohen 1980:21)

Figure 4-3. Typical CCC Camp Layout for 100 men, April 1933.

(NARA, RG 35, unattributed)

Figure 4-4. Pyramidal Tent, Unknown CCC Camp.





By 1936, camps were being built of portable precut buildings (Figure 4-5) so that buildings could bemoved after work was finished in an area. A standard design was adopted and each new camp consistedof four barracks, a mess hall, bath houses, a latrine, school building, and 12 other buildings to house armypersonnel and various support services.81 Side or spike camps were typically tent camps. Camps onmilitary reservations consisted either of portable buildings or unused military barracks and supportbuildings (Figure 4-6 through Figure 4-9).

(Cohen 1980:39)

Figure 4-5. Example of Portable Precut Building.

(NARA, RG 35, Army Air Corps Image 18088)

Figure 4-6. CCC Camp, Fort Knox, Kentucky.

81 Ibid. 31.





(NARA, RG 35, Spencer and Wycoff, Image 620-8)

Figure 4-7. CCC Camp Buildings, Camp Pomona, Illinois.

Figure 4-8. CCC cabin constructed on National Forest land now occupied byMontana ARNG as a training area.

Figure 4-9. Spring reservoir tank constructed by CCC for U.S. Department of Grazing (now BLM),Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS) China Lake, California





4.2 WPA Resources

As noted in Chapter 3, WPA projects in support of national defense included statistical research,administrative work, historic preservation, and general conservation work, in addition to the projectsdirected through the Division of Construction and Engineering. The primary scope of this project;however, is built resources, so the focus of the following discussion will be on the WPA construction

program.

Throughout the whole building construction program, there were notable developments in certainarchitectural features, and certain economics accomplished by the use of particular materials. The WPAfollowed in architectural style the newer tendencies towards simplification, not only for aesthetic reasons,but also because simplicity of design was best suited to the limited skills usually available from the WPA.Full advantage was taken of the information and advice available from the structural committees of engineering and architectural societies, and also from producers of materials and their trade associations.The views and the technical information received from these sources were handed on to the local sponsorsof WPA building construction projects, with the purpose of assisting them and their architects to plan forthe use of the designs, materials, and equipment best suited to WPA operations. The WPA urged theelimination of ornate architectural features, intricate structural designs, and elaborate trim. Types of

design were suggested which would not require highly skilled and specialized workers, where these werenot available from the relief rolls. Encouragement was given in the use of methods that would require theleast use of equipment consistent with efficiency in order to employ the maximum amount of WPAlabor.82

Reinforced concrete was used very extensively in new WPA construction, in designs that fitted the localarchitectural traditions (for example, in our originally Spanish southwestern communities). When otherstructural materials were used, they were generally native to the region, easily accessible, and notexpensive. All kinds of materials were carefully salvaged in WPA demolition operations (mostlyassociated with rehabilitation projects on older military reservations), and were used in new construction,with considerable savings to the community.83

Despite the encouragement of streamlined or simplified styles, designs of both public buildings (armories

and arsenals) and those on military reservations typically conformed to the styles and tastes of the region.Buildings constructed on military reservations tended to be internally consistent, but architectural stylesrange by region and overall appearance of buildings could vary depending on the types of constructionmaterials most readily available at the time of construction. Some construction, such as garages and othersupport buildings, used typical plans provided by the U.S. Army Constructing Quartermaster.

By and large, WPA construction projects on DoD installations can be categorized into one of severalgroups based on location and usage. Most of the WPA construction performed to upgrade existinginstallations or build new ones from the ground up include building types and resources common to mostinstallations: enlisted and officer housing, administration and instructional buildings, operationalbuildings for machinery, and infrastructure. Many civilian WPA projects, such as stadiums and publicparks, promoted the ideal of recreation; and some military WPA projects were also influenced by these

Depression-era ideals.The WPA also constructed a large number of military facilities not located on largeinstallations. These resources include armories and arsenals scattered across the country.

82 Works Progress Administration, Division of Engineering and Construction, Final Report. Washington, D.C.,January 1944, pp.79.

83 Ibid: 79.





Categories of buildings constructed by the WPA include the following; however, given that the WPA wasresponsible for construction of entire military reservations as well as substantial rehabilitation of existingbuildings, this list cannot be comprehensive of all resource types:

Armories and arsenals

Housing

Military operational buildings/structures (motor vehicle shops, garages)

Airfields and associated resources including hangars

Warehousing, Administrative, and Support buildings

Recreational facilities

Infrastructure (roads, utilities, ditches, sidewalks)

In addition, the WPA was responsible for likely thousands of structures and landscape features,comparable to those listed for the CCC program above. Figure 4-21 through Figure 4-28 show a typicalrange of such structures constructed at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey.

Armories. In 1935 the WPA took primary responsibility for funding the construction of small, one-unitarmories. Hundreds of utilitarian armories were built in the south and southwest, regions that were mostlytoo poor or too new to have constructed relatively expensive castellated armories without federal funding.The WPA focused on building smaller, simpler buildings constructed of locally procured materials andbuilt by unemployed, often-unskilled local men. Only a few regimental-sized armories were built duringthis period. The majority of the WPA armories were constructed in rural areas of the West, Midwest, andSouth. In these small communities, National Guard units predominantly borrowed space in commercialbuildings or community halls for drilling and storage prior to World War II. Oklahoma had over 50 newarmories constructed by the WPA, with South Carolina coming in second with 46.

Architecturally, the WPA armories are a diverse group, generally divided geographically. Art Decoarchitecture of the 1920s and Art Moderne of the 1930s and 1940s provided the basis for a standardized,modern architectural style seen in armories across the country. In stark contrast to the castellatedarmories, these buildings were more modest in design, embellished with simple cast concrete details suchas squares, crosses or an eagle. While the art deco armories continued to emphasize height over width,often through the use of a stepped parapet and vertical fluting, the Art Moderne buildings were decidedlyhorizontal, with simple banding and rounded corners.84 However, different regions favored differentarchitectural styles and building materials, leading to some interesting design combinations. For example,all of the Oklahoma armories were designed by Bryan Nolen, an architect and officer in the OklahomaNational Guard. Nolen’s design drew upon Art Deco and Art Moderne influences with horizontalemphases and simplified forms. However, many of the Oklahoma armories used native stone or acombination of native stone and brick, where the latter was more available, leading to an interesting mixof the modern and the rustic. Regional architectural styles also predominated with Classical and ColonialRevivals popular in the Southeast, the Mediterranean Revival popular in Florida and California, andMission Revival popular throughout the Southwest.

WPA armories, therefore, run the gamut of regional styles, including both small, utilitarian structures andlarger, more imposing buildings. Figure 4-10 through Figure 4-14 illustrate the range of regional stylesencompassed by WPA armories; as can be seen in these images, even armories within the same state canvary widely in appearance due to choice of brick and cast concrete or stone.

84 Still Serving: Reusing America's Historic National Guard Armories, National Guard Bureau, Arlington, VA.





Figure 4-10. Ottumwa Coliseum and Armory, Camp Dodge, Iowa.

Figure 4-11. Sheldon Armory, Iowa.

Figure 4-12. Clinton Armory, Oklahoma.





Figure 4-13. McAlester Armory, Oklahoma.

Figure 4-14. Eufaula Armory, Oklahoma.

The Clinton, McAlester, and Eufaula armories in Oklahoma (Figure 4-12 through Figure 4-14) areexcellent examples of intact WPA architecture. The materials, brick manufactured in Oklahoma or stonequarried in Oklahoma, and craftsmanship evident in masonry work, reflect both the goals of the WPABuilding Program in Oklahoma and the practical considerations of using unskilled labor to construct largepublic buildings. All three buildings exhibit the strong horizontal massing with Art Deco-influenced

vertical architectural details, particularly around the primary entrances. Oklahoma WPA armories weredesigned to have at least two principal facades each of which provide pedestrian or vehicular access to astreet. The two primary facades are marked by massive, deep piers, wing walls framing the entry,abundant windows, and decorative details. The secondary facades have almost no decoration.

Fifty-four armories were built with WPA funding in Oklahoma between 1935 and 1937. Of these, 27 arestill owned by the Oklahoma National Guard. All 27 have been listed in the NRHP. WPA armories still inNational Guard control in other states are somewhat less common, and range in evaluation status fromthose listed in the NRHP to eligible for listing, not eligible for listing, and unevaluated. The National





Guard Bureau has an historic context study on armories in multiple volumes. The volume covering WPAarmories is titled, Armories Historic Context Study, Volume IV: New Deal Era (1933-1942).85 Thiscontext includes more detail on WPA armories within the National Guard real property inventory, as wellas the history of architectural developments for armories in general.

MacDill Field. As noted in Chapter 3, MacDill Field was one of seven new air bases authorized for

construction under the National Defense Act of 1935. Because that act did not provide funding for theproposed construction, the majority of the construction work completed at MacDill Field was done underthe auspices of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with WPA funding. There were to be two types of classifications designated for the buildings constructed on MacDill Field: permanent and temporary.Structures such as hangars, the commissary, and officers housing were classified as permanent facilities.The architectural style chosen for the permanent facilities was a combination of Spanish andMediterranean influences appropriately recalling Florida’s heritage and in order to provide comfort inFlorida’s hot climate. Installations such as barracks, administrative offices, and some warehouses wereconsidered temporary. There were 31 temporary buildings planned for MacDill Field. Temporarybuildings were typically wood frame structures, one or two stories high. However, the sheer number of temporary wood structures made them the dominant building type on the base.86

Approximately four houses were already in existence on the site prior to possession by the government in1939. The most prominent building was the Benjamin House, a Spanish/Mediterranean style, cement andstucco-covered residence which would serve as the Officers Club until a new club/mess hall could bebuilt. When the new club/mess hall was completed, the Benjamin House was used for Officers’ Quarters.This house served as the model for MacDill's military housing (later demolished). The Army usuallyimplemented a policy to utilize local construction methods and architectural styles when engaged in newconstruction (Figure 4-15).

The new buildings constructed included two aircraft hangars with a support shop, four warehouses, aphotographic laboratory, and a communications building with a guard and fire house (Figure 4-16 and

Figure 4-17).

85National Guard Bureau (NGB). Armories Historic Context Study, Volume IV: New Deal Era (1933-

1942). Prepared by Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. and Architectural and Historical

Research, LLC. December 2004.

86 Wang et al. 1994.





Figure 4-15. Building 404, Staff Circle, MacDill AFB.

Figure 4-16. Hangars 1 and 2, MacDill AFB.





Figure 4-17. Building 26 (Communications Building with Fire Station), MacDill AFB.

The base also constructed several temporary facilities to house the enlisted men. Seventeen double-deckertype barracks were built to house 63 men (Figure 4-18). There were eight mess halls capable of feeding250 men each. Six recreation facilities also served as supply buildings. With the approach of thescheduled arrival of the first troops on 15 April 1940, the base decided to expedite the installation of necessary utilities as well as the plumbing, heating, and roofing of buildings by using WPA labor and therough lumber produced on the base instead of outside contractors.

(NARA, RG 69, Negatives 271-C and 24293)

Figure 4-18. Enlisted Barracks, MacDill AFB, Florida.

The majority of the buildings and structures constructed with WPA funding are included in two historicdistricts at MacDill AFB, the MacDill Field Historic District and the Staff Officers Quarters HistoricDistrict. Both districts are eligible for listing in the NRHP and documentation has been provided to theHistoric American Building Survey (HABS).

Both districts display the Mediterranean Revival architectural style. Typical features of MediterraneanRevival construction are stucco exteriors, arched openings, low pitched roofs with clay tile, and





asymmetrical facades. Most contributing buildings within the districts, especially those of lessersignificance, display a practical adaptation of Mediterranean Revival in the “Military Vernacular” style.This style typically used poured-in-place concrete or concrete block construction. Mediterranean Revival,also referred to as Spanish Colonial Revival, was an early twentieth-century adaptation of an earlierMission style. Marcus Whiffen’s guide to architectural styles87 points out that contrary to the Missionstyle, Spanish Colonial Revival frequently employed ornamentation. On MacDill AFB this appeared in

the use of quoins (decorative blocks standing out from corners or other structural points of buildings(Figure 4-19), pilasters (columns inset into exterior walls), and coping (decorative extensions on top of roof lines).

Figure 4-19. Building 28 Showing Use of Decorative Quoins, MacDill AFB.

In shape, the district approximates an arrow with the point of the arrowhead at Hangar 3 and the shaftextending along Florida Keys Avenue to terminate at Building 344. From Hangar 3, edges of thearrowhead extend out to Hangar 1 to the south and Hangar 5 to the east. Structures found along theHangar Loop complete the arrowhead and comprise the majority of facilities in the district.

Eligibility of the MacDill Field Historic District and the Staff Officers Quarters Historic District for theNRHP is based on at least two of the four National Register criteria (for description of criteria: anassociation with events that have made a contribution to American history (criterion A) and embodimentof a distinctive type, period, or method of construction (criterion C). Furthermore, the district meets theNRHP’s general guidelines in displaying integrity of location; cohesiveness of design; definable setting;and continuity of materials; workmanship; and feeling.

Camp Edwards. Between 1935 and 1940, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the federalgovernment, primarily using WPA funds, constructed 63 buildings at Camp Edwards and two, 500-footwide turf runways at Otis Field. Most of what the WPA completed at Camp Edwards falls into the rangeof clearing and infrastructure work, including road construction, trenching for utilities, construction of tent pads, and similar projects. The WPA also assisted with completion of maps and surveys in advance

87 Whiffen 1969: 225-8.





of later construction activities. Most of the buildings constructed at Camp Edwards by the WPA havelong since been demolished; however, five remain including the former Camp Headquarters (Building102), the former Williams Hospital, and three warehouses (Figure 4-19 through Figure 4-22).

Figure 4-20. Camp Headquarters, Building 102 (1937 and 2005), Camp Edwards, Massachusetts.

Figure 4-21. Former Williams Hospital (1937 and 2005), Camp Edwards, Massachusetts.

Figure 4-22. WPA Warehouses, Camp Edwards, Massachusetts.





In general, the WPA buildings at Camp Edwards feature the Military Vernacular style that would become

the hallmark of the World War II training camp. Building 102, the Camp Headquarters, is a two-story

concrete structure with a peaked shingled roof, while Williams Hospital is a single-story rectangular

building with a gabled roof. The three remaining warehouses are long rectangular, single-story concrete

buildings with gabled roofs. Both Building 102 and the former Williams Hospital have been determined

eligible for listing on the NRHP, although both have been substantively modified. In 1941, two additional

two-story buildings were constructed to either side of Building 102, and all three buildings were joinedtogether by single-story breezeways in the 1950s. The conjoined buildings were clad in transite siding in

the early 1960s. The former Williams Hospital has had various porches and entranceways added and

removed, and also has been clad in transite siding. The inside of the building has been altered for

functions ranging from the building’s original use as a hospital to subsequent use as a jail, to its current

use as office space.

Picatinny Arsenal. The list of WPA projects completed at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey between

1935 and 1937 is extensive, and includes everything from rehabilitation of existing buildings,

construction of new buildings, and construction of flood control and infrastructure elements. A sample of

the four-page project list provided in the Project Completion Report88

is as follows (Figure 4-23 through

Figure 4-28 are taken from this same document):

31, 30-foot-by-30-foot magazines completely rehabilitated, including in many cases complete

new floors and roofs

102 small buildings rehabilitated

3 sets of modern brick field officers’ quarters provided by reconstruction of old brick building

2 sets of officers quarters rehabilitated and enlarged

4 sets of wooden noncommissioned officers quarters constructed

1 recreation room and facilities provided by reconstruction of old brick building

23 permanent garages for residents of the arsenal constructed

1 central storage building (50 x 300 feet) constructed

1 greenhouse constructed (4000 square feet)

1 pyrotechnic factory constructed (8,900 square feet)

1 chip spinning and oil recovery building constructed (500 square feet)

33,200 linear feet of “climb proof” fence constructed

9,300 linear feet of 6-inch and 8-inch water main laid

20,000 linear feet of concrete road constructed

7 bridges built or rebuilt

41 concrete culverts constructed, all others cleaned and repaired

Dam, spillway, seawall, and control mechanism at lower end of Picatinny Lake completely

reconstructed

5,000 linear feet of railroad constructed and 8,900 lineal feet of railroad removed.

88 Project Completion Report, Picatinny Arsenal, National Archives Record Group 69, Entry 628, Box 2.





As can be seen in Figure 4-23, even when the function of the building was the same (e.g., small garage),

the building plan, architectural style, and even the building materials varied considerably. Buildings were

constructed using poured concrete, brick, and stone, with flat or gabled roofs, in shingled or standing

seam metal styles. In general, architectural style and materials for any given building or structure were

selected to mimic those of the existing buildings or structures in their immediate settings; hence the small

garages in Figure 4-23 show a Military Vernacular style for garages in more industrial settings within the

Arsenal, and a more cottage style in proximity to base housing units.

Figure 4-23. Small Garages Constructed at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey

Figure 4-24. Flood Control Features, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey.





Figure 4-25. Chip Spinner Building, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey.

Figure 4-26. Rock Crushing Plant, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey.





Figure 4-27. New Entrance, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey.

Figure 4-28. Installation of Electric Lines, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey.

Fort Indiantown Gap. Construction of Fort Indiantown Gap began in 1932 under the auspices of a State

Emergency Relief project. In November 1933, several CWA projects were started, including construction

of mess halls, offices, latrines, roads, water, sewer and light lines in the artillery area. The concrete block

mess halls in Areas 12 and 13 (Figure 4-29 and Figure 4-30) were the first permanent buildings built at

the Gap. During that year, additional land was purchased to extend the camp area and construct an

artillery firing range.





Figure 4-29. Concrete Block Mess Hall, Area 12, Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania.

Figure 4-30. Concrete Block Mess Hall, Area 13, Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania.

In February 1935 WPA funding was received for a number of new projects, consisting of preparation of other camp sites, sewer mains, and the grading of the parade grounds. By 1936, all work at the Gap was

consolidated under the WPA. Mess halls, latrines, and showers were removed from Mt. Gretna and

shipped to Indiantown Gap (Figure 4-31). Sufficient latrines and showers with hot and cold water wereconstructed for use by all troops. Other improvements included grading of camp sites, clearing of timber

in the artillery firing range, and numerous other projects such as clearing the firing line of the 200-yard

range for the use of 100 targets.





(NARA, RG 69, Negative 24103-C)

Figure 4-31. Row of Mess Halls in 55th Infantry Area Dismantled at Mt. Gretnaand Relocated to Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania.

WPA projects completed in 1937 included dismantling of remaining buildings at Mt. Gretna and

rebuilding them on various troop sites at Indiantown Gap. A complete Brigade camp site was constructed

with modern latrines and showers. The Medical Regiment area and a Camp Hospital of 24-bed capacity

were completed in Area 9. The artillery firing range was greatly improved for training purposes. Water,

sewer, light and power lines were extended. Roadways into new areas were built. Telephonecommunications were improved. A rifle range, consisting of 12 targets with firing points at 200 to 1000

yards, was completed (Figure 4-32). A retaining wall was constructed along St. Josephs Spring (Figure

4-33).

(NARA, RG 69, Negative 24395)

Figure 4-32. Soldiers in Practice at Rifle Range Built by WPA, Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania.





Figure 4-33. Stone Wall Along St. Joseph’s Spring, Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania.

Continued important improvements were made during 1938, including the construction of several

warehouses in the Utility Area, for storage of equipment, material, and supplies being transferred from

Mt. Gretna. In a document submitted to the Military Reservation Commission, Brigadier General Edward

Martin reported that the WPA forces had increased to a maximum strength of approximately 500 men,

and he praised the workers by stating “Their work has been outstanding and we have made rapid progress

in the development of the Reservation with their help.”89

In addition to all of the construction efforts to build the reservation, special WPA assistance was given to

Indiantown Gap between 1940 and 1942. The troops previously in training there had been moved out andanother contingent was expected to arrive shortly. Meanwhile, a recent cold spell had resulted in

extensive damage to water pipes, tanks, and other facilities. On very short notice the WPA transferred 200men to repair the damage and to put the buildings in shape to accommodate the incoming troops (Figure

4-34). Thereafter for a considerable period of time, as each contingent left the reservation, the WPA force

cleaned and renovated the buildings for the next group and maintained fires in building furnaces for the

protection of installations.90

89“Back at the Gap" is a series of articles by Major General (USAF, Ret.) Frank H. Smoker, Jr. These articles were

first published in the Lebanon Daily News. The 50th and final installment of the "Back at the Gap" series was

published on 12 October 2005.

90 Works Progress Administration, Division of Engineering and Construction, Final Report. Washington, D. C.,

January 1944, pp. 79.





(NARA, RG 69, Neg. 24003)

Figure 4-34. WPA Crew Moving a House,Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

4.3 Other Resources

Art murals are a little recognized and rare WPA resource on military installations. Artists were employed

under the Federal Arts Project, administered by the WPA, to beautify the interiors of military buildings

with murals reflecting local history and culture. Earlier attempts had been made to include artists in

Federal relief programs under the Public Works of Art Project from 1933 to 1934 and the Treasury

Department Section of Painting and Sculpture. However, the creation of the Federal Art Project in 1935

generated over 5,000 jobs for artists and produced over 225,000 works of public art. Perhaps the most

enduring and best known works produced under the Federal Art Project are murals decorating the

interiors of post offices, schools, and governmental buildings across the country. Artists were most often

put to work on mural projects in their home state or surrounding region. Less recognized are the murals

commissioned for newly constructed WPA buildings on military installations. Some remain in original

locations, while others have been transferred to installation museums or art museums. Some may remain

in place undiscovered, painted over in later remodeling. Those documented to date were constructed as

large paintings in frames that were attached to walls, allowing for easy relocation. News articles, lists of

artist works, architectural drawings, and oral histories provide clues to the existence of these murals.

(Figure 4-35 and Figure 4-36)





Figure 4-35. Federal Art Project murals decorating interior of WPA-constructedAdministrative Building, Jackson Barracks, Louisiana (1940).

(Louisiana Division/City Archives, New Orleans Public Library)

Figure 4-36. As We Follow the Red Guidon (1943) Dean Ryerson. Currently in storageat Fort Sill, Oklahoma. (Fort Sill National Landmark and Museum).





The murals for the military typically display themes from America’s military history, economic recovery

symbolism, or local cultural heritage. Murals on military bases typically involved local artists and local

schools of art. Lew Davis at Fort Huachuca and the Kiowa Five at Fort Sill are examples.

Lew Davis served as the State Art Project Supervisor for the Arizona in the late 1930s. Once World War

II began, Davis joined the Army and was stationed at Fort Huachuca for three years. During his time at

Huachuca, Davis was commissioned by the post commander to paint a mural for the White Officers’Mess in 1943 (Figure 4-38). Davis also established a silkscreen shop at Huachuca to produce Army

recruitment posters featuring African American soldiers in contrast to the blond, blue-eyed white soldiers

typically seen on recruitment posters. Several African American soldiers worked in the poster shop

(Figure 4-37) and expressed an interest in painting, so Davis began teaching mural painting. After

completing two murals for the White Officers’ Mess, Davis painted a five-panel mural in the Black

Officers’ Mess depicting The Negro in America’s Wars in 1944. In 1947, the mural was sent to Howard

University in Washington, D.C. and is on display at the Howard University Gallery of Art. Lew Davis’

work at Huachuca improved the morale of African American soldiers, for which he received Legion of

Merit award.

Figure 4-37. Soldiers at work in the screenprinting workshop that produced posters for theNinth Service Command featuring African American soldiers. (Fort Huachuca Museum)





Figure 4-38. The Founding of Fort Huachuca (1943), Lew Davis. Originally hung inWhite Officers’ Mess, Fort Huachuca, Arizona. (Fort Huachuca Museum)

In 1914, a Catholic nun began to teach three Kiowa boys art lessons at the St. Patrick’s Mission School in

Anadarko, Oklahoma. Jack Hokeah, Spencer Asah, and Stephen Mopope were invited to the University of Oklahoma by art professor Oscar Jacobson in 1927 and were joined by Monroe Tsatoke and James

Auchiah. The artists became known as the Kiowa Five and were part of a movement after World War I to

recognize Native American art as equal in artistic quality to western art. Paintings and silk-screened prints

by the "Five Kiowa Artists" were exhibited in Prague, Czechoslovakia and France during the late 1920s.

During the late 1930s, the Federal Art Project involved many Native American artists in the production of

works of public art. Several of the Kiowa Five produced easel paintings and murals in public buildings

throughout the West and Southwest, particularly in their home state of Oklahoma.

In the Fort Sill Museum and Archives are two works by Stephen Mopope (also known as Qued Koi,

Painted Robe[Figure 4-39]) commissioned by the U.S. Army at Fort Sill near Lawton, Oklahoma. Bothare currently in storage at Fort Sill awaiting reinstallation or display. Mopope was born in 1898 in Indian

Territory of a family of artists. He credited his great uncle Silverhorn (Haungooah) as his first great art

teacher and another great-uncle Oheltoint, who, with Haungooah, painted on tipis, and produced otherKiowa art pieces. Kiowa Field Agency Matron Susie Peters also provided instruction to Mopope, who

later studied under Professors Edith Mahier and Jacobson at the University of Oklahoma. In addition to

painting, Mopope also was a flute player, an avid dancer, and a farmer. His themes invariably depict

cultural aspects of Kiowa life. He was one of six Indian artists commissioned to paint murals in a new

Federal Building for the U.S. Department of the Interior in Washington, D.C., along with fellow Kiowa

artist James Auchiah. Mopope's Fort Sill murals depict a ceremonial dance and a peyote ceremony and

are painted in oils, approximately 6 by 60 feet in dimension. His work resides in the collections of the





Gilcrease Museum and the Philbrook Museum of Art in Tulsa, the Oklahoma City Museum of Art, the

Heard Museum in Phoenix, and the Museum of the American Indian in New York. Mopope died on

February 2, 1974 at Fort Cobb, Oklahoma.

Figure 4-39. Kiowa War Dance (1934) and Kiowa Peyote Ceremony (1935), Stephen Mopope.Fort Sill, Oklahoma (courtesy of Fort Sill National Landmark and Museum).





Chapter 5: Application of the Context for NRHP Evaluation

This chapter provides a discussion of the various property types associated with CCC and WPA resources

and the application of this historic context to their evaluation. The presentation format, and much of the

regulatory text in Sections 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 are adapted from Chapter 5 of the Army’s historic context

document, Army Unaccompanied Personnel Housing 1946-1989.91

A description of the property types

covered under this context is provided in Chapter 5.

5.1 Regulatory Overview

Cultural resources, including resources like those described in Section 4.1, are identified and managed by

the DoD in accordance with federal laws and internal DoD regulations. Cultural resources management

can be seen as comprising three overall phases of investigation: identification, evaluation, and treatment.

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, 80 Stat. 915, 16 U.S.C. 470, as amended,

established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as the official list of properties significant in

American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. The NRHP includes properties that

merit preservation and is an important planning tool that is updated continually to represent the many

facets of American history. The NRHP is maintained by the Secretary of the Interior and administered bythe National Park Service. The Department of the Interior has developed criteria defining the qualities of

significance and integrity for listing properties in the NRHP (36 CFR Part 60).

To qualify for NRHP listing, properties must possess significance within an important historic context

applying the National Register Criteria for evaluation and historic integrity reflective of the significance.

Resources generally should be at least 50 years old for NRHP designation. Resources that have achieved

significance within the past 50 years might be eligible if they are integral parts of an historic district or

meet one of seven criteria considerations necessary for individual designation. The Secretary of the

Interior has developed standards and guidelines for both identification and evaluation. These are found at

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation

(http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_0.htm). DoD as well as the Army, Navy, and Air Force

have further regulations and guidance regarding the identification and evaluation of cultural resources.

Under section 110 of the NHPA, federal agencies are charged with identifying and nominating properties

to the NRHP. In most cases agencies evaluate properties for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP – a

process that provides equivalent legal protection to the properties -- rather than formally nominating

them. Under section 106 of the NHPA, federal agencies identify and evaluate properties to determine

their eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP prior to assessing the potential effects of an undertaking.

Federal agencies are required to consider the effects of their undertakings on properties that are listed in

or eligible for listing in the NRHP and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an

independent federal agency, an opportunity to comment.

5.1.1 National Register Categories of Historic Properties

The NRHP includes real property of several different categories. The following definitions for the

categories of historic properties considered for listing in the NRHP are taken from National Register

Bulletin 15.92

Where applicable, examples of CCC or WPA properties are provided to illustrate thesecategories.

91 R. Christopher Goodwin Associates, 2002.

92 Ibid.





Building: A building, such as a house, barn, church, hotel, or similar construction, is created

principally to shelter any form of human activity. “Building” also might refer to a historically and

functionally related complex, such as a courthouse and jail or a house and barn.

Examples: CCC camp buildings, WPA armories, arsenals, maintenance garages,

warehouses, hangar

Structure: The term “structure” is used for constructions erected for purposes other than creating

human shelter or sheltering human activity.

Examples: levees, irrigation ditches, stone walls, reservoirs, bridges, lined walkways

Object : The term "object" is used for resources, other than buildings and structures that are

primarily artistic in nature or are relatively small in scale and simply constructed. Although it can

be, by nature or design, movable, an object is associated with a specific setting or environment.

Examples: monuments, memorials, murals

Site: A site is the location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or

a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesseshistoric, cultural, or archeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure.

Example: ruins of CCC camps

District : A district is a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings,

structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. Historic

landscapes (historic designed landscapes, historic vernacular landscapes, and historic sites) are

considered a type of District for the purposes of NRHP evaluation.

Example: CCC camp compounds, cantonment area inclusive of WPA-constructed

buildings on an installation, airfield constructed by WPA

Landscape: A cultural landscape is a geographic area, including both cultural and naturalresources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity,

or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values.93

Cultural landscapes can include

historic sites, historic designed landscapes, historic vernacular landscapes, and ethnographic

landscapes.

Example: A military reservation completely constructed by the WPA, if sufficient

features are extant; a series of ranges constructed by the CCC

5.1.2 Resource Identification

Historic properties must be located, or identified , to be included in the planning process. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716) define

the Standards for Identification as follows:

STANDARD I: Identification of historic properties is undertaken to the degree required to

make decisions

STANDARD II: Results of identification are integrated into the preservation planning process

93 Cultural Resource Management Guidelines, NPS-28.





STANDARD III: Identification activities include explicit procedures for record keeping and

information distribution.

Identification activities include the development of a research design, archival research and possibly

development of historic contexts, field surveys, and analyses. The research design describes the objectives

and methodology of the identification activities. The approach to identifying historic properties depends

upon the goals of the survey and the information available.

5.1.2.1 Objectives

The objectives of the identification activity will determine the appropriate methodology.

Identification of historic properties can be undertaken as follows:

Update existing survey information. The identification of historic properties is an ongoing

process. Inventories of an installation’s historic properties might not include all properties

associated with CCC or WPA projects. Built resources associated with CCC or WPA projects are

often difficult to distinguish from typical World War II-era construction, and some structures orfeatures, such as culverts or retaining walls, are atypical built resources that might have been

excluded in building surveys. Gather information for the planning of a particular project. An undertaking might be planned

in an area that has not been surveyed previously for historic properties. Thus, the identification of

historic properties might be limited to a single property or to a discrete area, or might encompass

an entire installation. The research design for the identification activities should indicate clearly

the objectives of the effort to identify historic properties.

5.1.2.2 Methodology

The Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Identification distinguish two categories of survey:

reconnaissance and intensive.94

Reconnaissance surveys provide general information about the location,

distribution, and characteristics of properties. The purpose of intensive surveys is to document historic

properties in sufficient detail to allow evaluation of their significance applying the National Register

Criteria for Evaluation. A reconnaissance survey can be useful in establishing boundaries of an area that

needs intensive survey or to predict the types of properties likely to be subjected to this more intensive

effort. An intensive survey is necessary to gather the information necessary for determining National

Register eligibility.

Once the objectives of the identification activities are determined, the appropriate approach can be

selected. As with all identification efforts, a research design should identify the goals for the identification

project, all properties types likely to be identified, the, research questions or goals, and the

methodological approach for accomplishing the project. The methodology should be designed to collect

data to determine all properties’ historical functions, construction date, relationship to CCC and WPA

program, relationship and contribution to other historic themes and periods, integrity including alterations

or modifications, and historical relationship to larger complexes and to surrounding properties and

landscape. Development of a historic context, discussed in more detail in section 5.2 below, would becalled for in the research design.

Archival research and field survey are the two primary means of identifying historic properties. Archival

research provides information needed for the historic context that serves as the basis for evaluation and

gives basic information on the properties to be identified, such as what was constructed, why it was

94 Parker 1985.





constructed, and when and where it was constructed. Primary sources include historic maps, historic

photographs, real property records, completion reports, and original construction drawings. These

materials are located in a variety of repositories, including installation real property offices and

engineering offices; installation, Command, or servicewide history offices; installation and local

museums or libraries; and the NARA. Secondary sources include installation or activity histories, county

or local histories, nationwide historic context studies, and previous cultural resources studies. Current

installation maps and real property lists, with building numbers and dates of construction, are basic datanecessary to conduct a field survey. These documents assist in identifying the properties that should be

surveyed and in recording their location.

Survey documentation provides a written record of the survey efforts, including maps indicating the

boundaries of the area surveyed and the location of properties identified during the survey, survey forms,

photographs of surveyed properties, and a survey report. The survey report should describe the survey

objectives, methodology, and results.

5.2 Resource Evaluations

Once properties are identified, their historic significance is evaluated. The Secretary of the Interior’s

Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716) define the Standards

for Evaluation which are as follows:

STANDARD I: Evaluation of the significance of historic properties uses established criteria.

STANDARD II: Evaluation of significance applies the criteria within historic contexts.

STANDARD III: Evaluation results in a list or inventory of significant properties that is

consulted in assigning registration and treatment priorities.

STANDARD IV: Evaluation results are made available to the public.

The objective of the evaluation process is to identify historic properties, or those resources that are worthy

of consideration for a preservation treatment. The accepted criteria used to evaluate historic properties are

the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR Part 60. 4). The Criteria are discussed below.

5.2.1 National Register Criteria for Evaluation

The National Register Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR Part 60. 4) were developed to assist in the

evaluation of properties eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, and are as follows:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and

culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:

A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns

of our history

B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past

C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or

that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a

significant and distinguishable entity whose components might lack individual distinction

D. That has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.





The National Park Service has published guidance for applying the criteria in National Register Bulletin

15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.95 To qualify for the National Register, a

property generally must be older than 50 years, must be associated with an important historic context, and

must retain historic integrity.

5.2.2 Evaluating Properties within Historic Contexts

Historic contexts provide the framework for the application of the National Register Criteria for

Evaluation and the foundation for decisions about the comparative significance of properties. Historic

contexts are organizational frameworks that assist in interpreting the qualities of significance called for by

the National Register Criteria of broad patterns or trends of history and the other significance by grouping

information related to a shared historic theme, geographic area, and time period. An individual property

or group of properties is evaluated against the historic theme, time period, and property type defined as

significant in the historic context and as applied against the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. A

historic context may be already established such as this national context, a context for CCC and WPA

resources for a specific state, a thematic military history, or a specific resource type in a given state.

These contexts are often produced by stakeholders or interested parties, such as the National Park Service,

SHPO, or federal agency. Conversely a historic context may be newly prepared for a project and be part

of the tasks called for in the project research design.

Properties may be relevant to more than one time period or historic theme and, therefore, may require

evaluation against several historic themes and time periods in more than one historic context. CCC and

WPA properties may occur as part of the larger installation that may have had an earlier history, role in

the CCC and WPA programs, as well as possibly during the World War II mobilization, World War II,

and possibly even the Cold War. It is necessary to understand the history of the installation property prior

to and after the 1930s-1940s, when the New Deal programs were in operation. The full extent of history

of the installation and the role and contributions of the WPA and CCC and their resources must be

recognized and considered. The CCC at a given installation may have had a statewide role in

administering the CCC program or possibly only have made a local contribution.

The following approach describes how to develop a CCC-WPA historic context and evaluate a resource

by applying the historic context: Translating the National Park Service guidelines on assessing thesignificance of a property within its historic context,

96

1. Identify how the CCC and WPA programs relate to the installation property – years in operation,

role on the installation, role in larger programs perhaps statewide, types of projects undertaken

(use NARA cards and other information), training and/or headquartering functions, if any. (CCC

and WPA projects may have occurred prior to the establishment of the military at the

installation).

2. Identify relevant historic themes, period (years), and property types based on #1.

3. Determine historic and current function of the resource to be evaluated and how it represents the

significant historic themes, period, and property types described in the Historic Context.

4. Determine if the resource is significant in local, state, or national history.

95 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation(National Park Service

1998)

96 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation(National Park Service

1998).





5. Determine to what extent CCC and WPA resource types are present (rare example of a common

type no longer extant, for example).

6. Determine how the extant property types and resource to be evaluated illustrate an important

aspect of CCC or WPA history. (Note that history unrelated to CCC-WPA must be considered

too).

7. Determine if the resource to be evaluated is significant for its architecture, method of

construction, or as the works of a master.

8. Determine whether the resource retains sufficient physical features to convey its WPA or CCC

significance.

5.2.2.1 Issues Related to Evaluating Properties Using Historic Contexts

Historic District versus Individual Eligibility. While CCC and WPA properties, as classes of resources,

might be significant, not every resource associated with a former CCC camp or structure built by the CCCor WPA may be eligible for listing in the NRHP. While some resources are unique representations of

American history or architecture, resources that are less significant individually may become more

significant as contributors to a cohesive group. The framework established by the historic context forCCC and WPA resources focuses on the role of specific projects within the larger New Deal Program at

the local, state, or national levels to assess its significance and the significance of its component

resources. CCC-constructed resources are more likely to be eligible as historic districts (e. g., CCC

camps) or as parts of historic landscapes (e. g., erosion and flood control features, landscaping features).

WPA-constructed resources are more likely to include individually or thematically significant resources

(e.g., armories) or historic districts (e.g., buildings within an installation associated with WPA

construction projects).

Comparing Related Properties. During the process of evaluating a property’s significance, the property

usually is compared with other examples of the property type that illustrate the selected historic context.

This is not necessary if (1) the property is the only surviving example of a property type that is important

within the historic context or (2) the property distinctly has the characteristics necessary to represent the

context (National Park Service 1998). In other cases, the property must be evaluated against other similar

properties to determine its significance. For example, a CCC camp or WPA armory should be compared

historically and physically with other former CCC camps and WPA armories to determine whether it

contains the components of a CCC camp or WPA armory and to assess its level of integrity.

Levels of Significance. The NRHP Criteria for Evaluation define three levels of significance: local, state,

and national. The level of significance is based on the selection of geographic area, one of the three

components of the framework of a historic context.97

Local historic contexts are related to the history of a town, city, county, or region. A property could be an

example of a property type found in several places, but in a local historic context the significance of a

property is assessed in terms of its importance to the local area. For CCC resources, local significance

could be attached to the contribution that the CCC work force made to the operation of the installation, orthe fact that locally significant individuals might have been members of the CCC Company that did the

work on the installation. On the other hand, a CCC camp on a military installation may have served the

state-wide training facility for all CCC inductees statewide and, therefore, may be significant at the state

level. For WPA projects, local significance is easier to establish, as construction of National Guard

armories and arsenals was often proposed by the town or city government. At a different scale, the

97 Ibid.





construction of a new military installation may have had national military purposes, even if it also had a

considerable impact upon the local economy. The original resources of the new military installation likely

are locally significant if they retain historical significance. A resource, thus, may have multiple levels of

significance.

State historic contexts or themes should be applied when a property represents an important aspect of

state history. Examples of properties significant within a statewide historic context are not necessarilyfound in every part of the state, but are important to the history of the state as a whole. SHPOs have

developed historic contexts relevant to state and local history; for example, the Colorado, Idaho, and

Kentucky SHPO include themes for WPA and CCC construction in their state contexts. The assessment

of CCC and WPA resources to the level of state importance will need to be made on a site-specific basis

as applied to the entirety of the state. Oklahoma’s evaluation of its WPA funded armories on a thematic

basis at the state level and subsequent listing in the NRHP draws on knowledge of the extent of the WPA

constructed armories statewide, and those extant today. For Oklahoma’s thematic listing of its WPA

armories in the NRHP, it is important to know that 54 armories were originally constructed with WPA

assistance and of these 27 are extant today.

National historic contexts are related to aspects of history that affected the nation as a whole. A property

that illustrates an aspect of national history should be evaluated within a national context. The CCC andWPA programs represented a huge investment in infrastructure, administration, and interagency

coordination for the federal government, the U.S. Army (command staff for the CCC), and individual

project proponents. From constructing CCC camps, and hiring and training the members of each CCC

Company, to proposing and implementing CCC and WPA projects, implementation of these programs

was a logistical challenge. Given the national significance of these programs, a national context is one of

the appropriate contexts for assessing CCC and WPA resources. Levels of significance are not mutually

exclusive. A property may be significant in one, two, or all three levels of significance.

The distinction between properties that are related to a national context and those that are nationally

significant should be noted. Nationally significant properties illustrate the broad patterns of U.S. history,

possess exceptional value or quality, and retain a high degree of integrity. Nationally significant

properties may be eligible for designation as National Historic Landmarks. The National Historic

Landmark Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR Part 65) are more stringent than the National Register Criteria.

5.2.3 Applying the National Register Criteria for Evaluation

Constructed between 1933 and 1943, CCC and WPA resources meet the 50-year standard for evaluation

under the NRHP Criteria of Evaluation.

5.2.3.1 Criterion A: Association with Events

Criterion A of the National Register recognizes properties associated with events important in the broad

patterns of U.S. history. These events can be of two types: (1) specific events or (2) patterns of events or

trends that occurred over time. CCC and WPA resources embody the former in that they were constructed

and used in direct association with the emergency relief programs of the New Deal. Specific CCC or

WPA resources might also be associated with specific events, such as construction of a new militaryinstallation or, most broadly, improvements to military installations as part of the preparation for entering

World War II.

An approach for determining if a CCC or WPA resource is significant under Criterion A within the

Historic Context is detailed as follows:

1. Determine the role of the CCC or WPA resource, its historic associations, and current purposes.





2. Determine if the resource is associated with a specific event or pattern or trend in events apart

from the national CCC or WPA program.

3. Evaluate the property’s construction and function historically to determine whether it is

associated with the national CCC and WPA program in an important way.

5.2.3.2 Criterion B: Association with PeopleProperties can be listed in the NRHP for their association with the productive lives of significant persons.

The individual in question must have made contributions to history that can be specifically documented

and that were important within a historic context. This criterion might be applicable to structures or

features created by individual CCC or WPA enrollees (e.g., famous artisans, for example muralists Lew

Davis or Steven Mopope), to CCC camps administered by historically important military personnel, or

resources used by important persons (e.g., Building 102 at Camp Edwards used by President John F.

Kennedy).

5.2.3.3 Criterion C: Design/Construction

To be eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion C, properties must meet at least one of the

following four requirements: (1) embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of

construction; (2) represent the work of a master; (3) possess high artistic value; or, (4) represent a

significant and distinguishable entity whose components might lack individual distinction. National

Register Bulletin 1598 defines “distinctive characteristics” as “the physical features or traits that

commonly recur” in properties. “Type, period, or method of construction” is defined as “the way certainproperties are related to one another by cultural tradition or function, by dates of construction or style, or

by choice or availability of materials and technology.”

The portable buildings used for CCC camps were constructed using standardized designs developed by

the Quartermaster Corps. As such, they might be considered to embody the characteristics of a type,

period, or method of construction that is unique to the CCC. In contrast, the National Guard garages, also

built to a standardized design, share characteristics with other World War II-era buildings and structures

on military installations and might not be specific to WPA construction.

Armories, arsenals, housing units, and other isolated buildings constructed with the WPA assistance may

qualify as the works of a master, in those instances where the designer, builder, or artisan was a

recognized master within his own country, or as possessing high artistic value. Certainly the works of

Oklahoma armories of Bryan Nolen or murals of Lew Davis or Steven Mopope are examples.

The term “significant and distinguishable entities” refers to historic properties that contain a collection of

components that might lack individual distinction but form a significant and distinguishable whole. This

portion of Criterion C applies only to districts. Buildings and structures constructed by the WPA as part

of the construction of new military installations are most likely to meet Criterion C as they represent

physically and functionally distinct compounds within the installation. An example of this would be the

buildings composing the MacDill Field Historic District at MacDill AFB in Florida.

5.2.3.4 Criterion D: Information Potential

Properties can be listed in the NRHP if they have yielded, or might be likely to yield, information

important in prehistory or history. Two requirements must be met for a property to meet Criterion D: (1)

the property must have, or have had, information to contribute to the understanding of history or

prehistory; and, (2) the information must be considered important. This criterion generally applies to

98 Ibid.





archeological sites, which makes it a potentially important evaluation criterion for application of the

Historic Context.

Since many CCC camps are in ruins or contain no structures, they might be considered archaeological

sites. The primary attributes by which a historic site or the historic component of an archaeological site

might be determined to be eligible for nomination to the NRHP are the temporally diagnostic

characteristics of the historic cultural material that the site contains. Generally, evaluation of a historicsite is based on the degree to which the period represented by the site has been documented at other

contemporaneous sites in the locality, region, or nation at large. Only exceptionally unique historic sites,

historic sites associated with exceptionally important persons, or historic sites that are representative of a

historic period or theme that has been identified as particularly important are likely to contribute a

significant amount of new information to the understanding of a locality, region, or the nation at large.

For example, the general history of CCC camps is well-represented in the archival record, but the

reconstruction of social and economic patterns of the CCC companies that lived at these camps will

depend ultimately on the data that can be gathered from oral histories and archaeological excavation of

the cultural deposits that represent the remains of these camps. Therefore, a historic archaeological site

that preserved sufficient data to answer research questions concerning the daily life of CCC camps likely

would be considered to be significant and eligible for nomination to the NRHP.

In summary, due to their short period of use by the CCC (1–2 years for the longest-used camps) and

frequency of reuse (for housing prisoners of war or as temporary compounds at military installations),

these sites often do not retain significant archaeological deposits (buried strata) or artifacts, making it

unlikely that the site has the archaeological record from which significant information may be gleaned in

most cases. This factor represents a serious limitation to most camp’s ability to satisfy the information

content requirements of Criterion D.

5.2.4 Integrity

To meet the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, a property, in addition to possessing significance

within a specific historic context, must have integrity. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its

significance through the retention of essential physical characteristics from its period of significance. The

National Register Criteria for Evaluation list seven aspects of integrity as follows:

LOCATION: Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where

the historic event occurred.

DESIGN: Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and

style of a property.

SETTING: Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.

MATERIALS: Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a

particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.

WORKMANSHIP: Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture orpeople during any given period in history or prehistory.

FEELING: Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular

period of time.

ASSOCIATION: Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and

a historic property.





A property eligible for the NRHP must possess several of these aspects of integrity.

The assessment of a property’s integrity is rooted in its significance. The reasons a property is important

should be established first, then the qualities necessary to convey that significance can be identified.

1. Determine the essential physical features that must be present for a property to represent its

significance –What did the property look like at the time that it was constructed by the CCC orWPA?

2. Determine whether the essential physical features are sufficiently visible to convey their

significance. –What features identify the property as of CCC or WPA construction or place it

within its specific historic context?

3. Compare the property with similar properties if the physical features necessary to convey the

significance are not well-defined. –Do other similar properties significant for CCC or WPA

associations share features?

4. Determine, based on the property’s significance, which aspects of integrity are particularly

important to the property in question and if they are intact. – Which features are more important

than others (for example, location versus design) given the related significance of the property tothe CCC or WPA?

To evaluate the integrity of a CCC camp, a complex of CCC-constructed features, or a group of WPA-

constructed buildings as an historic district or historic landscape, the majority of the CCC- or WPA-

related properties in the district must possess integrity to the identified period of significance. A sufficient

number of resources must remain from the period of significance to represent that significance. In

addition, the relationships among the districts’ components, i.e., massing, arrangement of buildings, and

installation plan, must be substantially unchanged since the period(s) of significance. A critical part of

evaluating the integrity of a district should include an assessment of whether later building campaigns

have disrupted the plan, changed configurations, or obscured the relationships between the buildings and

structures.

5.2.4.1 Buildings and Structures

Buildings (e.g., armories, warehouses, housing, office/administrative structures, garages, hangars, support

and operations buildings) and structures (e.g., drainage ditches, walls, roads, dams) may hold historical or

cultural associations that make them significant as individual historic resources. Buildings and structures

may be individually significant under Criterion A for historical associations with either the CCC or the

WPA (or both, in some cases) with a local, state, or national level of significance. Typical categories of

significance that CCC and WPA resources may fall under include Social History, for New Deal work

program associations; and Military, Engineering, or Entertainment/Recreation, depending on the type and

function of the resource. Multiple categories may fit a particular resource. For example, the Artillery

Bowl at Fort Sill, Oklahoma is significant under the Social History category as a WPA project and also

under Entertainment/Recreation as a sports and entertainment venue. CCC or WPA resources significant

under Criterion C typically fall under the Architecture or Engineering categories. A resource may besignificant under Criterion C as a unique example, but also as a typical representation, of an architectural

style, design, or method of construction. Many CCC or WPA resources fall under the latter assessment

due to the standardized nature or styles and methods employed in their construction. The WPA-

constructed armories in Oklahoma are an example of this as they were all designed by Bryan Nolen, an

architect and Oklahoma guardsman who designed standardized plans for one-, two- and four-unit

armories built by the WPA in Oklahoma.





While most of the resources in this context are CCC or WPA projects built specifically for the Navy or

War Departments and are still located on DoD facilities, some resources exist that were built for other

purposes on lands that later fell under DoD purview. These properties should be evaluated under historic

contexts related to the CCC or WPA in the respective state or ones related to CCC or WPA resources and

the original sponsoring agency. For example, agricultural water control features (e.g., irrigation ditches,

wells, tanks or cisterns) built by the CCC and WPA for the Department of Agriculture or other federal

entities may be located on current DoD facilities, particularly in the West and Southwest. As DoDinstallations acquire new lands, they may also acquire CCC or WPA resources that were constructed prior

to the military and for other purposes. These resources are better examined and evaluated for associations

with their original purpose, rather than current ownership.

To assess the level of significance of a CCC or WPA resource, it must be examined in its specific historic

context. Most of the CCC and WPA resources existing on DoD installations typically hold statewide or

national significance. CCC camps and associated resources may hold statewide significance as the

training and distribution point for CCC work crews that performed work elsewhere in the state. Due to the

temporary nature of the camps and therefore few extant and intact examples, the camp resources are often

nationally significant as well. WPA resources, particularly those constructed later in the WPA era and

associated with the prewar military buildup may hold national significance. Since most of temporary

World War II resources are no longer extant, these later WPA buildings also hold national significancefor these World War II associations. Of the variety of CCC and WPA resources described in this context,

WPA-constructed armories are primarily the only ones to hold a local level of significance. As a unique

resource in a given community, armories may hold particularly high local significance. However, they

may also be significant at the state level, as in the case of the aforementioned Oklahoma armories. Not

every CCC or WPA resource may be significant when examined relative to other surrounding extantresources with similar associations.

In order to maintain historic integrity, these resources must retain the significant, character-defining

features of their original CCC or WPA design. The relative importance of the seven aspects of integrity

varies depending on the significance criteria applied. For example, a structure important for its historical

associations under Criterion A needs higher levels of intact integrity of location, setting, and association;

whereas one significant for architectural or design under Criterion C requires higher integrity of materials,design, and workmanship. Integrity of feeling is a more subjective determination, yet is important

regardless of significance criteria. Generally, a resource must not have undergone significant modification

to the interior or exterior plan, massing and major architectural elements, cladding, or fenestration. They

must also be in their original location. Some properties eligible or listed in the NRHP as significant for

architecture or design may have been relocated. However, CCC and WPA resources, even ones also

significant under Criterion C, are significant under Criterion A and require high integrity of location.

Minor modifications are acceptable, but the existence of original or similar (in design) windows, siding,

decoration, and open interior space are important in communicating integrity. Moreover, in buildings that

were built by the CCC or WPA, any evidence of unique craftsmanship contributes to their historic

integrity.

CCC- and WPA-built properties across the country exhibit many common traits, yet also variations in

design and materials derived from regional influences. Common traits include the use of labor-intensiveconstruction techniques that employed more workers for longer periods. One example is the use of regular

or irregular laid stonework, usually of locally quarried materials. Modern materials were used when such

materials did not significantly reduce the amount of labor required. The Oklahoma armories were

constructed of locally quarried stone, brick, or both in some cases, with a geographical dividing line

through the state marking the transition between the materials. Reinforced concrete poured into forms was

used extensively by the CCC and WPA for structural elements in combination with stonework, due to its

low material expense and high labor intense nature. When assessing integrity of CCC or WPA buildings,





a comparison of similar CCC or WPA projects locally or statewide often yields information on the

regional design cues employed and materials used.

Figure 5-1. WPA-Constructed Hostess House at Fort Sill, Oklahoma,shortly after its completion in 1940.

Figure 5-2. Hostess House at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, January 2009.

The Hostess House at Fort Sill, Oklahoma (Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2), is used here as an example of

evaluation of CCC or WPA historic integrity. By comparing the current state of the building to a historic

photograph taken shortly after its completion by the WPA, the aspects of historic integrity can be

examined. The building has not been moved, so integrity of location remains high; the original recessed

porch has been filled in with exterior walls and the original design is no longer readable; the setting has

changed from the World War II–era training camp, however little new construction has occurred nearby

since; many of the windows and doors have been in-filled or replaced with modern metal framed ones,

negatively impacting the integrity of materials, workmanship, and feeling; and finally, the original





purpose of the building, as a recreational building, does not remain, nor does the integrity of association.

Even as part of a largely intact grouping of CCC or WPA era buildings, the Hostess House would not

contribute to the district’s significance nor would it retain historic integrity on an individual basis.

Buildings that have lost integrity individually might still retain sufficient integrity as part of a historic

district as long as they contribute to the feeling of the district as a CCC camp or complex of WPA

buildings or to the landscape as a CCC or WPA project area.

5.2.4.2 Historic Districts and Landscapes

Due to the nature of work performed by the CCC and the WPA, many resources built by these groups

may contribute to a greater significance as a component to a historic district or are integral components of

a historic landscape. Historic districts are significant as a composed group of resources that may not be

individually significant, but hold a greater collective significance. Historic landscapes are ones that

humans have left an impression, either deliberately or accidentally, and are composed of diverse features,

both manmade and natural. The CCC was involved in erosion control, forestry, earth moving,

landscaping, and other activities that shaped the mid-century landscapes of military installation across the

nation. Likewise, the WPA laid roads and sidewalks and built buildings and structures that are still part of

the landscape and its viewsheds. These became elements of ihstallation historic districts or landscapes.

When assessing the significance of a CCC or WPA associated historic district or landscape, the criteria

used above for individual buildings or structures also applies. When assessing the integrity of a historic

district or landscape, a majority of the resources or features included in the district or landscape must

contribute to the overall integrity. The integrity of each resource must be assessed individually on its

ability to relate to the overall significance of the district or landscape. Historic landscapes are categorized

as historic districts under the National Register property types, but differ from districts in a few ways.

National Register Bulletin 18, How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes99, provides

insight into the unique characteristics of historic landscapes and unique approaches for their evaluation.

First, landscapes are composed of both manmade and natural resources, termed features.100

Features may

include, but are not limited to, spatial relationships, vegetation, original property boundary,

topography/grading, site-furnishings, design intent, architectural features, and circulation systems.

Second, as partially composed of living organisms, landscapes are always in a state of flux and thesignificance of a landscape must be evaluated for its original or altered character or both.

With the possible exception of larger engineering structures, such as dams or bridges, some of the kinds

of landscape features built by the CCC or WPA may hold sufficient significance or integrity for

individual eligibility. However, more often, these features contribute to the significance of historic

landscapes. On military reservations or properties that began with the WPA constructing the majority of

the buildings and infrastructure, the probability for an extant historic landscape associated with the WPA

is much greater. Integrity must be examined in terms of the individual features from the construction

period, as well as the connections between, and potential intrusions from subsequent infill and

development by more recent landscape features.

On military reservations that existed before the WPA or CCC period, the historic districts and landscapes

associated with the CCC and WPA period are often interspersed amongst resources with different periods

of significance. A number of solutions for evaluating and recognizing these “districts within districts” are

available. For CCC and WPA resources or features that contribute to an historic district already

99 National Register Bulletin 18: How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes(National Park

Service 1987).

100 Ibid.





determined NRHP eligible, the period of significance for the existing district may be revised to include

the later CCC or WPA resources as contributing structures. This solution may also be advisable where the

WPA or CCC made renovations to existing structures; by revising the period of significance to include

the later WPA or CCC period, the historic nature of these alterations would be recognized. If the pre-

existing district draws its significance from an earlier, narrowly defined period, a new district for the CCC

or WPA period may be established that overlaps or overlays the existing one. This may be the best

solution where a district of preeminent significance already exists, such as a National Historic Landmark District.

Fort Huachuca in Arizona provides an interesting case for each of the two options. At Fort Huachuca, the

WPA remodeled existing structures, built new construction from the ground up, and updated

infrastructure. WPA-built stone-lined ditches parallel the historic parade ground and run between

buildings dating to the 1880s in a listed National Historic Landmark District. In the midst of buildings

and structures holding greater significance, the modest WPA ditches pale in comparison. However, a

concentration of WPA-built ditches, walls, and garages exists along a service road behind the officers’

quarters fronting the parade ground. This concentration of resources adjacent to the National Historic

Landmark district would be a good candidate for a stand-alone district. Additionally, the WPA made

renovations to the existing officers’ quarters along the parade ground, which are also contributing

structures to the National Historic Landmark district. While the effects of revising a period of significancefor an existing district must be examined closely, the period of WPA renovations could be added to

recognize the historic significance of the renovations and their contribution to the history of Fort

Huachuca.

5.3 Conclusion and Recommendations

DoD installations in the United States include resources constructed by the CCC and WPA programs

between 1933 and 1943. Some of these resources exist only in ruins or in installation records, like former

CCC camps; or exist as landscape elements (e.g., flood control features, retaining walls, sidewalks). Many

others are quietly in everyday use while others help to establish the central identity of a given military

base. The U.S. military had a large role in the CCC and WPA programs, providing critical logistical

support and training to these large-scale social and economic programs. The CCC and WPA programs,

likewise, made enormous contributions by constructing needed facilities and infrastructure that were thematerial basis for our nation’s mobilization for World War II. The resources of this period represent an

important facet of history on the home front. The lists of projects summarized in Appendices B and C that

the CCC and WPA demonstrate the many buildings, structures, and landscape features constructed or

rehabilitated on military reservations in anticipation of the United States’ entry into the war. The training

of CCC inductees, in many cases, contributed to the next generation of military leaders.

Many WPA and CCC resources on DoD installations nationwide are listed in the NRHP and have been

determined eligible for listing in the NRHP both on individual basis and as historic districts. Others

remain undiscovered and unidentified. Some CCC and WPA resources are in our nation’s communities

were once on DoD installations that have since been closed. It is important to recognize the historicalcontributions of these resources, and their connections to their military past. Appropriate management of

CCC and WPA resources on DoD installations requires a thorough appreciation of the contributionsnationally, in a given state, a military base, or a locality. Likewise, a better understanding of CCC and

WPA resources on DoD installations by the general public and throughout the military will foster

appreciation of the contributions of these programs to our nation’s well-being and national defense, and

promote their preservation for future generations. Through partnerships between the military and local

historical institutions and groups, the public and military can gain a greater appreciation of DoD’s CCC

and WPA resources is the necessary requisite for the wise management of this rich national legacy.





Chapter 6: References Cited

Bourne, Frances T. and Betty Herscher

1946 “Administrative History of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the Civil Works

Administration, and the Work Projects Administration.” On file at the National Archives and Records

Administration, College Park, Maryland.

Cohen, Stan

1980 The Tree Army: A Pictorial History of the Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933–1942. Pictorial

Histories Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana.

Garner, John S.

1993 World War II Temporary Military Buildings: A Brief History of the Architecture and Planning

of Cantonments and Training Stations in the United States. USACERL Technical Report CRC-93/01.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Technical Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois.

Government Printing Office

1941 The Civilian Conservation Corps: Contributing to the Defense of the Nation. Government

Printing Office, Washington, D. C.

Helms, D.

1980 Preliminary Inventory for Record Group 35. National Archives and Records Administration,

Washington, D. C.

National Guard Bureau (NGB)

2004 Armories Historic Context Study, Volume IV: New Deal Era (1933-1942). Prepared by Burns &

McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc., and Architectural and Historical Research, LLC. December2004.

National Park Service (NPS)

1998 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.

National Park Service, Washington, D. C.

1987 National Register Bulletin 18: How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes.

National Park Service, Washington, D. C.

Sypolt, Larry N.

2005 Civilian Conservation Corps: a Selectively Annotated Bibliography. Bibliographies andIndexes in American History, Number 52. Praeger Publishers, Westport, Connecticut.

Wang, Charissa Y., Donald M. Durst, and Douglas A. Jacobs.

1994 Historic Building Survey for MacDill Air Force Base Florida. Prepared by Hardlines: Design &

Delineation for Computerized Industrial Measurements, Columbus, Ohio.





Whiffen, Marcus

1969 American Architecture Since 1780: A Guide to the Styles. Massachusetts Institute of

Technology Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Works Progress Administration

1944 Final Report. Works Progress Administration, Division of Engineering and Construction,Washington, D.C.




July 2009 Legacy Resource Management Program A-1

APPENDIX A

FINDING AIDS FOR RECORD GROUPS 35 AND 69




A-2 Legacy Resource Management Program July 2009





July 2009 Legacy Resource Management Program B-1

APPENDIX B

CCC PROJECT INVENTORIES




B-2 Legacy Resource Management Program July 2009




Nationwide Context, Inventory, and Heritage Assessment oand Civilian Conservation Corps Resources on De





B-4 Legacy Resource Management Program





TABLE B‐2. LIST OF CCC PROJECTS ON MILITARY INSTALLATIONS STILL UNDER DOD CONTROL

STATE CAMP INSTALLATION Service Still DOD? DATES PROJECTS

WA Navy‐1 U.S. Navy Air Base (Ostrich

Bay, Bremerton)

Navy Yes 11/2/1935 Landscaping and general cl

WI ASCS‐1 Camp McCoy Army Yes 7‐2‐42 to 8‐10‐42 Unknown; no Camp Inspec

WY NA‐2 Fort F.E. Warren Air Force Yes 7‐31‐35 to 6‐29‐42 Unknown; no Camp Inspec




July 2009 Legacy Resource Management Program C-1

APPENDIX C

WPA PROJECT INVENTORIES AND HERITAGE TOURISM/

PUBLIC INTERPRETATION ASSESSMENTS AND HISTORIC PHOTOGRAPHS




C-2 Legacy Resource Management Program July 2009





C-212 Legacy Resource Management Program

Table C‐1. List of WPA Projects on DoD Installations

State County City Location Description of Project O.P. Number Total Al

WY Natrona Nr. Casper Municipal Airport Improve municipal airport 665‐83‐2‐87 92,

WY Sheridan Sheridan Municipal Airport Improve municipal airport 165‐1‐83‐6 87,

WY Sheridan Sheridan Municipal Airport Improve municipal airport 265‐1‐83‐24 256,

WY

Sheridan

Sheridan

Municipal

Airport

Improve Sheridan Municipal Airport by extending and

paving

runways,

taxiways,

sanitary

sewers,

cattle

guard

and gate, drainage, lighting. 265‐

1‐

83‐

24

9,

WY Natrona Carper National Guard ‐unknown

Convert a frame barn into a garage, grade and seed land,

and make the entire property more pleasant and

serviceable

165‐83‐2‐810 3,

WY Weston Newcastle National Guard ‐unknown

Paint and repair Cavalry Barn, and complete basement and

floor 65‐83‐458

WY Lock National Guard ‐unknown Construct building Construct building. 165‐83‐X0XX 1,

WY Big Horn Lovell Range Improve rifle range 865‐85‐2‐6 3,

WY Carbon Rawlins Range Construct a target pit on rifle range 65‐83‐442





Table C‐3. DoD Installations with CCC‐WPA Resources and Heritage Tourism/Public Interpretation Potential

State County City Location Heritage Tourism/Public Interpretation Potential

AIR FORCE INSTALLATIONS

AL Autauga Autaugaville Maxwell FieldDesignation 1, Maxwell Field includes WPA resources; potential partnership with Air ForceHistorical Research Agency.

AL Montgomery Montgomery Gunter Field Designation 4

CA Los Angeles San PedroLos Angeles AFB-FortMacArthur (MiddleReservation)

Designation 1, potential partnership with Fort MacArthur Museum and Museum Association tointerpret CCC-WPA history.

FL Hillsborough Tampa MacDill Field Designation 1, two historic districts include CCC-WPA resources, hangars & housing.

FLWalton, SantaRosa

ValparaisoEglin Field/ ValparaisoBombing Base Designation 4

HI Honolulu Nr. WaichinuHickam & WheelerFields

Designation 1

IL St. Clair Nr. Belleville Scott Field Designation 4

LA Bossier Shreveport Barksdale FieldDesignation 3, Barksdale had a CCC camp and some ranger stations, has a historic district of 254buildings from 1931-1941 including CCC-WPA related resources.

MI Macomb Mt. Clemens Selfridge Field Designation 4

MS Harrison Nr. BiloxiAir Corps TechnicalSchool (Keesler AFB)

Designation 4

NE Sarpy Nr. Omaha Fort Crook (Offutt AFB) Designation 4

NM Bermalillo AlbuquerqueAlbuquerque Air Base

(Kirtland AFB)

Designation 4

OH Montgomery Nr. Dayton Wright Patterson FieldDesignation 3, potential partnership with National Museum of the U.S. Air Force at Wright-Patterson AFB.

SC Charleston Nr. CharlestonMunicipal Airport(Charleston AFB)

Designation 4

SC Sumter Sumter Shaw Field (Shaw AFB) Designation 3

TX Bexar San AntonioRandolph Field(Randolph AFB)

Designation 3, Randolph Field Historic District and WPA resources; potential partnership withmuseum at Lackland AFB.

TX Taylor Nr. AbileneMunicipal Airport(Dyess AFB)

Designation 4

TX Tom Green San Angelo Goodfellow Field Designation 4

TX Wichita Wichita FallsMunicipal Airport(Sheppard AFB)

Designation 4

UT Weber & Davis Ogden Hill Field (Hill AFB)Designation 1, WPA resources; potential partnership with Hill Aerospace Museum to interpret CCC-WPA resources. Relocated, rehabilitated structures of the era at the museum.

VA Elizabeth City Hampton Langley Field Designation 1

WA Pierce Nr. Lakeview McChord Flying FieldDesignation 1, McChord Flying Field Historic District, hangars and other structures along theflightline; on-site interpretation at base museum.

WY Laramie Nr. Cheyenne Fort Francis E. WarrenDesignation 1, two base museums and State Historical Society in Cheyenne for partnering oninterpretation of CCC-WPA history, historic buildings include NYA log building, warehouses, andgymnasium.

AIR RESERVE INSTALLATIONS

CA KernMarch AFB, EdwardsAFB

Designation 4

GA Cobb Marietta Dobbins Air Base Designation 4

MA Hampden WestoverWestover Air ReserveBase

Designation 2. Historic district composed of WPA Colonial Revival buildings

WI Lake MilwaukeeAuxiliary Flying Field(General Mitchell Field)

Designation 4

AIR NATIONAL GUARD INSTALLATIONS

AL Jefferson Birmingham Municipal Airport Designation 4,

AL MontgomeryAuxiliary flying field(Dannelly Field)

Legend:Designation 1: Known CCC-WPA resources, base or local museum present for partnering on CCC-WPA interpretationDesignation 2: Known CCC-WPA resources, base or local museum for partnering on CCC-WPA interpretation is unknownDesignation 3: Unknown or suspected CCC-WPA resources, base or local museum present to interpret base CCC-WPA historyDesignation 4: Unknown or suspected CCC-WPA resources, unknown or no base or local museum to interpret base CCC-WPAhistoryNote-Many installations have been designated 4 due to lack of information. Installations are coded as designation 3 or 4 if theyhave a historic district with a period of significance that includes 1933-1943 (years when CCC-WPA resources were constructed)but specific CCC-WPA resources are not known but are suspected.







CA Santa Clara Sunnyvale Moffett Field

GA Chatham SavannahMunicipal Airport(Savannah IAP)

IA Polk Des Moines Municipal AirportDesignation 2, WPA combined hangar-administrative building constructed 1940 and is NRHPeligible. Potential for small interpretive display at base or signage and at military museum at Camp

Dodge.ID Ada Boise Municipal Airport

IN Allen Fort Wayne Municipal Airport

MI CalhounNr. BattleCreek

Municipal Airport

NY Onondaga Nr. SyracuseMunicipal Airport(Hancock)

OR Multnomah Portland Portland Air Base

TX Dallas DallasLove Field (Dallas FortWorth IAP)

WI Volk FieldDesignation 1, potential partnership with Army National Guard Camp Williams to interpret WPAhistory; WPA buildings extend across both ANG and Army National Guard property.

ARMY INSTALLATIONS

AZ Cochise Tombstone Fort HuachucaDesignation 1, base museum with CCC-WPA books of historic photos; historic district with MillionDollar Barrack, also reservoir, ditches, garages, warehouses; murals; historically both CCC campand WPA.

CA Monterey Monterey Presidio of Monterey Designation 2

DC Washington Army Medical Center

DC WashingtonFort Humphreys (FortBelvoir)

Designation 3

GA Bibb Macon Hunter AAF Designation 3

GA Fulton Atlanta Fort Gillem Designation 3

HI Honolulu Honolulu Schofield Barracks Designation 3

IL Rock Island Rock Island Rock Island Arsenal Designation 3

KS Geary Junction CityFort Riley and MarshallField

Designation 1, several base museums and local historical society for partnering on interpretation ofCCC-WPA history; extensive historic district with barracks and other housing, CCC-constructedmonument, airfield levee, extension to rifle range, and warehouses.

KS LeavenworthNr.Leavenworth

Fort LeavenworthDesignation 1, base museum and local museum/historical society for partnering on interpretation ofCCC-WPA history; historic district with CCC-WPA buildings.

KY Hardin, Meade, Nr. Fort Knox Fort Knox Designation 3

LA Vernon Lessville Camp Polk Designation 3

MD Anne Arundel Nr. Annapolis Fort Meade Designation 3

MD Harford Edgewood Edgewood Arsenal Designation 3

MD HarfordHavre deGrace

Aberdeen ProvingGround

Designation 3

MO Pulaski Rolla Fort Leonard Wood Designation 3

NCHoke &Cumberland

Nr. FayetvilleFt. Bragg and PopeField

Designation 3

NJ Burlington Wrightstown Camp Dix Designation 3

NJ Monmouth Sandy Hook Fort Monmouth Designation 2

NY Albany Watervliet Watervliet Arsenal Designation 2

NY Kings New York City Fort Hamilton Designation 2

NY Orange Newburgh U.S. Military Academy Designation 2

OK Comanche Nr. Lawton Fort Sill

Designation 1, base museum and local historical society for partnering on interpretation of CCC-

WPA resources; CCC-WPA resources include artillery bowl, theatre, likely ditches, warehouses,Hostess House, and others. Base has National Historic Landmark district and NRHP-eligiblehistoric districts.








SD Meade Sturgis Fort Meade Designation 4

TX Bell Camp Hood Designation 4

TX BexarNr. SanAntonio

Camp BullisDesignation 3, base is sub-unit of Fort Sam Houston so partnership for interpretation of CCC-WPAhistory is likely.

TX BexarNr. SanAntonio Camp Stanley

Designation 3, base is sub-unit of Fort Sam Houston so partnership for interpretation of CCC-WPAhistory is likely.

TX Bexar San Antonio Fort Sam HoustonDesignation 3, active community “friends” group, base museum & local historical society/museum,extensive historic district with National Historic Landmark, CCC-WPA resources.

TX Dona Ana Berino Fort Bliss Designation 3, base museum; extensive historic district with CCC-WPA resources.

TX El PasoIn & Nr. ElPaso

Municipal Airport (BiggsAAF?)

Designation 3

VA Arlington Rosslyn Fort Myer Designation 3

VA Fairfax Alexandria Fort Belvoir Designation 3

VA Prince George Nr. Petersburg Camp Lee Designation 3, base museum;

VA Princess Anne Fort Story Designation 4

WA Yakima Yakima Yakima Proving GroundDesignation 3, associated with Fort Lewis so partnership for interpretation of CCC-WPA history islikely.

ARMY RESERVE INSTALLATIONS

CA Monterey Jolon Fort Hunter Liggett Designation 4

GA Fulton Atlanta Fort McPherson Designation 4

IL Lake Nr. Savanna Fort Sheridan Designation 4

NE Douglas Omaha Omaha QM Depot Designation 4

NY Queens New York Fort Totten Designation 4

WA Clark Vancouver Vancouver Barracks Designation 4

WI Monroe Nr. Sparta Camp McCoy Designation 4

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ARMORIES AND INSTALLATIONS

AL Calhoun Anniston Fort McClellan Designation 4

AL Montgomery Mobile Fort Whiting Designation 4

AR Clark Arkadelphia Armory Designation 4

AR Pulaski Little Rock Camp RobinsonDesignation 1, WPA resources; potential partnership with the Arkansas Military Museum tointerpret CCC-WPA history of Arkansas National Guard.

AR Sebastian Fort Smith Camp Chaffee Designation 4

AZ Coconino Flagstaff Navajo OrdnanceDepot

Designation 4

AZ Maricopa PhoenixArizona MilitaryMuseum/ FormerArsenal

Designation 1, WPA Mission Revival adobe arsenal; potential partnership with the Arizona MilitaryMuseum to interpret CCC-WPA history of Arizona National Guard.

CA Monterey Monterey Camp Ord Designation 4

CASan LuisObispo

Rural Camp San Luis ObispoDesignation 1, potential partnership with California Conservation Corps State Museum in 1930sCCC barrack building and Army National Guard.

CA Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Armory Designation 1, WPA Spanish-Colonial Revival armory; potential partnership with

CT Hartford Hartford Armory (Brainard OMS) Designation 4

CT Hartford Windsor Locks Camp Hartell Designation 4

CT New Haven East Haven East Haven Rifle Range Designation 4

CT New London East Lyme Stones Ranch Designation 4

DC Washington Armory Designation 1

DE Sussex Milford Armory Designation 4

FL Clay Nr. Starke Camp Blanding Designation 4








FL Hillsborough Tampa Armory Designation 4

FL Polk Winter Haven Armory Designation 4

FL Seminole Sanford Armory Designation 4

FL St. Johns St. Augustine National Guard HQ Designation 4

IA Des Moines Burlington Armory Designation 4

IA Polk Des Moines Camp DodgeDesignation 1, WPA building complex, potentially partner with Iowa’s state military museum tointerpret CCC-WPA history of base and Iowa National Guard.

IL Champaign Urbana Armory Designation 4

IL Cook Chicago Armory Designation 4

IL Jackson Carbondale Armory Designation 4

IL Jefferson Mount Vernon Armory Designation 4

IL Kane Elgin Armory Designation 4

IL La Salle Streator Armory Designation 4

IL Lake Sion Armory Designation 4

IL Lawrence Lawrenceville Armory Designation 4

IL Lee Dixon Armory Designation 4

IL Livingston Pontiac Armory Designation 4

IL Marion Salem Armory Designation 4

IL Sanganon Springfield Camp Lincoln Designation 4

IL Taswell Delavan Armory Designation 4

INBartholomew,Brown

Camp Atterbury Designation 4

IN Boone Lebanon Armory Designation 4

IN Henry New Castle Armory Designation 4

IN Howard Kokomo Armory Designation 4

IN La Porte Michigan City Armory Designation 4

KS Kingman Kingman Armory Designation 4

KS Pottawatomie St. Marys Armory Designation 4

LA Orleans New Orleans Jackson BarracksDesignation 1, WPA resources; potential partnership with the Jackson Barracks Military Museumand Library.

LA Rapides Alexandria Camp Beauregard Designation 4

MA Barnstable Bourne Camp Edwards Designation 1, WPA-CCC resources;

MA Bristol Fall River Armory Designation 4

MA Essex Lynn Armory Designation 4

MA Middlesex Framinghan Armory Designation 4

MA Plymouth Brockton Armory Designation 4

MA Plymouth Hingham Armory Designation 4

MA Worcester Worcester Armory Designation 4

MD Baltimore Towson Armory Designation 4

ME Kennebec Augusta Camp Keyes Designation 4

ME Penobscot Bangor Armory Designation 4

MI Calhoun Battle Creek Camp Custer Designation 4








MNDakota,Ramsey

Pasting, St.Paul

Armory Designation 4

MN Harrison Little Falls Camp Ripley Designation 4

MO Adair Kirksville Armory Designation 4

MO Gentry Albany Armory Designation 4

MO Howell West Plains Armory Designation 4

MO Lawrence Pierce City Armory Designation 4

MO Livingston Chillicothe Armory Designation 4

MO Mississippi Charleston Armory Designation 4

MO Newton Neosho Armory Designation 4

MO Peniscot Caruthersville Armory Designation 4

MO Ripley Doniphan Armory Designation 4

MO Scott Sikeston Armory Designation 4

MO Stoddard Bernie Armory Designation 4

MO Stoddard Dexter Armory Designation 4

MO Vernon Nevada Camp Clark Designation 4

MO Carrollton Armory Designation 4

MS Forrest Battlesburg Camp Shelby Designation 4

MT Gallatin Bozeman Armory Designation 4

MTLewis andClark

Helena Fort Harrison Designation 4

MTLimestone Hills TrainingArea (U.S. ForestService)

Designation 1, CCC-constructed structure at former CCC camp on US Forest Service land used byMontana Army National Guard for training; local historical society interprets the camp.

NC Vance Henderson Armory Designation 4

NC Warren Warrenton Armory Designation 4

ND Foster Carrington Armory Designation 4

ND Ramsey Devils Lake Camp Grafton Designation 4

NE Saunders Ashland Camp Ashland Designation 4

NJ Bergen Teaneck Armory Designation 4

NJ Morris Morristown Armory Designation 4

NJ Hudson Jersey City Armory Designation 4

NJ Cumberland Vineland Armory Designation 4








NM Dona Ana BerinoDona Ana TargetRange

Designation 4

NM Eddy Nr. Carlsbad Carlsbad Training Site Designation 4

NM Quay Tucumcari Tucumcari Training Site Designation 4

NY Broome Binghamton Armory Designation 4

NY Erie Buffalo Armory Designation 4

NY Queens New York Armory Designation 4

NY Westchester Peekskill Camp Smith Designation 4

OH Franklin Columbus Armory Designation 4

OH Franklin Columbus Fort Hayes Designation 4

OH Ottawa Fairfield Camp Perry Designation 4

OK Alfafa Cherokee ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource; signage on-site, guide to Oklahoma historic armories, and potentialpartnership to interpret CCC-WPA history at the 45

thInfantry Division Museum in Oklahoma City

and local institutions.

OK Blaine Watonga ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource; signage on-site, guide to Oklahoma historic armories, and potentialpartnership to interpret CCC-WPA history at the 45



OK Caddie Anadarko ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource; signage on-site, guide to Oklahoma historic armories, and potentialpartnership to interpret CCC-WPA history at the 45



OK Carter Healdton ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource; signage on-site, guide to Oklahoma historic armories, and potentialpartnership to interpret CCC-WPA history at the 45



OK Garfield Enid ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource; signage on-site, guide to Oklahoma historic armories, and potentialpartnership to interpret CCC-WPA history at the 45



OK Grady Minco ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource; signage on-site, guide to Oklahoma historic armories, and potentialpartnership to interpret CCC-WPA history at the 45



OK Greer Mangum ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource; signage on-site, guide to Oklahoma historic armories, and potentialpartnership to interpret CCC-WPA history at the 45



OK Johnston Tishomingo ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource; signage on-site, guide to Oklahoma historic armories, and potentialpartnership to interpret CCC-WPA history at the 45



OK Kay Blackwell ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource; signage on-site, guide to Oklahoma historic armories, and potentialpartnership to interpret CCC-WPA history at the 45



OK Logan Guthrie ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource; signage on-site, guide to Oklahoma historic armories, and potentialpartnership to interpret CCC-WPA history at the 45



OK McIntosh Eufaula ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource; signage on-site, guide to Oklahoma historic armories, and potentialpartnership to interpret CCC-WPA history at the 45



OK Murray Sulphur ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource; signage on-site, guide to Oklahoma historic armories, and potentialpartnership to interpret CCC-WPA history at the 45



OK Oklahoma Oklahoma City45

thInfantry Museum/

Former Armory

Designation 1, WPA resource; signage on-site, guide to Oklahoma historic armories, and potentialpartnership to interpret CCC-WPA history at the 45

thInfantry Division Museum in Oklahoma City,

State Historical Society, or other local institutions.








OK Osage Hominy ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource; signage on-site, guide to Oklahoma historic armories, and potentialpartnership to interpret CCC-WPA history at the 45



OK Ouster Clinton ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource; signage on-site, guide to Oklahoma historic armories, and potentialpartnership to interpret CCC-WPA history at the 45



OK Ouster Weatherford ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource; signage on-site, guide to Oklahoma historic armories, and potentialpartnership to interpret CCC-WPA history at the 45



OK Pawnee Pawnee ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource; signage on-site, guide to Oklahoma historic armories, and potentialpartnership to interpret CCC-WPA history at the 45



OK Payne Cushing ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource; signage on-site, guide to Oklahoma historic armories, and potentialpartnership to interpret CCC-WPA history at the 45



OK Pittsburg McAlester ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource; signage on-site, guide to Oklahoma historic armories, and potentialpartnership to interpret CCC-WPA history at the 45



OK Seminole Konowa ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource; signage on-site, guide to Oklahoma historic armories, and potentialpartnership to interpret CCC-WPA history at the 45



OK Muskogee Braggs Camp GruberDesignation 1, Greenleaf Lodge, potential partnership with State Park to interpret CCC-WPAhistory.

OR Clackamas Nr. Clackamas Clackamas Rifle Range(Camp Withycombe)

Designation 4

OR Clatsop WarrentonCamp Clatsop (CampRilea)

Designation 4

PA Adams Gettysburg Armory Designation 4

PA Alleghany Coraopolis Armory Designation 4

PA Berks Hamburg Armory Designation 4

PA Blair Altoona Armory Designation 4

PA Clearfield Lawrence Armory Designation 4

PA Dauphin Harrisburg Armory Designation 4

PADaupin &Lebanon

East Harrison& Union Twp.

Fort Indiantown GapDesignation 1, CCC-WPA resources present. Potential partnership with Pennsylvania NationalGuard Military Museum to interpret the CCC-WPA history.

PA Lancaster Columbia Armory

Designation 1, WPA resource. Potential on-site signage and guide to historic armories in the state,

potential partnership with Pennsylvania National Guard Military Museum and other institutions tointerpret the CCC-WPA history.

PA Lawrence New Castle ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource. Potential on-site signage and guide to historic armories in the state,potential partnership with Pennsylvania National Guard Military Museum and other institutions tointerpret the CCC-WPA history.

PA Lehigh Allentown ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource. Potential on-site signage and guide to historic armories in the state,potential partnership with Pennsylvania National Guard Military Museum and other institutions tointerpret the CCC-WPA history.

PA Luzerne Plymouth ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource. Potential on-site signage and guide to historic armories in the state,potential partnership with Pennsylvania National Guard Military Museum and other institutions tointerpret the CCC-WPA history.

PA Mifflin Lewiston ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource. Potential on-site signage and guide to historic armories in the state,potential partnership with Pennsylvania National Guard Military Museum and other institutions tointerpret the CCC-WPA history.

PANorthumberland

Sunbury ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource. Potential on-site signage and guide to historic armories in the state,potential partnership with Pennsylvania National Guard Military Museum and other institutions tointerpret the CCC-WPA history.

PA Philadelphia Philadelphia Armory

Designation 1, WPA resource. Potential on-site signage and guide to historic armories in the state,

potential partnership with Pennsylvania National Guard Military Museum and other institutions tointerpret the CCC-WPA history.








PA Tioga Wellsboro ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource. Potential on-site signage and guide to historic armories in the state,potential partnership with Pennsylvania National Guard Military Museum and other institutions tointerpret the CCC-WPA history.

PA Union Lewisburg ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource. Potential on-site signage and guide to historic armories in the state,potential partnership with Pennsylvania National Guard Military Museum and other institutions tointerpret the CCC-WPA history.

PA Washington Canonsburg ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource. Potential on-site signage and guide to historic armories in the state,potential partnership with Pennsylvania National Guard Military Museum and other institutions tointerpret the CCC-WPA history.

PA Westmoreland Ligonier ArmoryDesignation 1, WPA resource. Potential on-site signage and guide to historic armories in the state,potential partnership with Pennsylvania National Guard Military Museum and other institutions tointerpret the CCC-WPA history.

PRMunicipality ofVega Baja

Nr. Town ofVega Baja

Camp Santiago Designation 4

RI KentEastGreenwich

Camp Fogarty Designation 4

RI Providence ProvidenceArmory (BeaconArsenal)

Designation 4

RI Providence ProvidenceArmory (Armory ofMounted Commands)

Designation 4

RI Providence Providence Armory (USPFO) Designation 4

RI Providence Woonsocket Armory Designation 4

RI Washington Narragansett Camp Varnum Designation 4

SC Richland Columbia Camp Jackson Designation 4

SD Pennington Nr. Rapid City Camp Rapid Designation 4

TN Hamilton Chattanooga Armory Designation 4

TN Knox Knoxville Armory Designation 4

TN Rutherford Murfreesboro Armory Designation 4

TX Brown Brownwood Camp Bowie Designation 4

TX Palo Pinto Mineral Falls Camp Wolters Designation 4

TX Travis Nr. Austin Camp MabryDesignation 1, WPA entrance and other resources. Potential partnership with Texas Military ForcesMuseum at Camp Mabry.

UT Hillard Fillmore Armory Designation 4

UT Salt Lake

Nr. Salt Lake

City Camp Williams Designation 4

VA Campbell Altavista Armory Designation 4

VT Chittanden Bolton Fort Ethan Allen Designation 2,

WA Lewis Centralia Armory Designation 4

WA Pierce Camp Murray Designation 4

WA Whitman Pullman Armory Designation 4

WI Dane Stoughton Armory Designation 4

WI Grant Platteville Armory Designation 4

WI Monroe Sparta Camp WilliamsDesignation 1, potential partnership with Air National Guard Volk Field to interpret WPA history;WPA buildings extend across both Air National Guard and Army National Guard property.

WV Preston Nr. Kingwood Camp Dawson Designation 4

WY Platte Nr. Guernsey Camp GuernseyDesignation 1, CCC-constructed cantonment historic district eligible for the NRHP. Potential to

interpret at base welcome center and nearby state park with CCC resources and museum.








ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS INSTALLATIONS

ILJo Davies &Carroll

SavannaSavanna OrdnanceDepot

Designation 4

MI Wayne Detroit Fort Wayne Designation 4

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY DEPOTS

PA Philadelphia Philadelphia Philadelphia QM Depot Designation 4

PA York HarrisburgCumberland GeneralDepot

Designation 4

NY Albany Voorheesville Voorheesville Depot Designation 4

NAVY INSTALLATIONS

AL Baldwin Lillian NOLF Silverhill Designation 4

CA San DiegoSan ClementeIsland

San Clemente IslandNAS Designation 4

CA San Diego San Diego San Diego NAS Designation 4

CA San DiegoSan DiegoNAS

Naval Air Station, NorthIsland

Designation 4

CA China Lake NAWCDesignation 1, CCC-construction water tanks associated with pre-military history; potentialpartnership with base and local museum.

CT New London GrotonNew London

Submarine Base

Designation 4

DC WashingtonBolling Field (nowhelicopter only, stillsome hangars)

Designation 2,

DC Washington Washington Navy Yard Designation 2, potential partnership to interpret CCC-WPA history with museum at Navy Yard.

FL Duval Jacksonville Jacksonville NAS

FL Monroe Nr. Key West Key West NAS Designation 3

FL Santa Rosa Pensacola Pensacola NASDesignation 3, National Museum of Naval Aviation is on base with potential to interpret WPAhistory.

IL Lake WaukeganGreat Lakes NavalTraining Station

Designation 3

MD Anne Arundel AnnapolisAnnapolis NavalAcademy

Designation 3

ME York Kittery Portsmouth Navy Yard Designation 4

NE Douglas Omaha Fort Omaha Designation 4

NJ Hudson Jersey City Naval Militia Armory Designation 1, WPA resource. On-site signage and potential partnership with state militarymuseum.

RI Newport NewportNewport Naval TrainingStation

Designation 4

TX Mueces Corpus Christi Corpus Cristi NAS Designation 4

VA James Yorktown Naval Mine Depot Designation 4

VA King George Dahlgren Naval Proving Grounds Designation 4

VA Norfolk NorfolkNaval AmmunitionDepot

Designation 3, potential partnership for interpretation at Hampton Roads Naval Museum.

VA Norfolk NorfolkNorfolk Naval OperatingBase

Designation 3, potential partnership for interpretation at Hampton Roads Naval Museum.

VA Norfolk Portsmouth Norfolk Navy Yard Designation 3, potential partnership for interpretation at Hampton Roads Naval Museum.

WA Clallan Port Angeles Whidbey Island NAS Designation 4

WA Kitsap Nr. BremertonPuget Sound NavyYard

Designation 3, National Historic Landmark and several historic districts. Potential partnership withthe Puget Sound Naval Museum.

WA Kitsap Bremerton Navy Yard Designation 3, Potential partnership with the Puget Sound Naval Museum.








NAVAL RESERVE INSTALLATIONS

FL Dade Miami Naval Reserve Armory Designation 4

IN La Porte Michigan CityIndiana Naval MilitiaArmory

Designation 4

IN Martin Burns City Naval Storage Area Designation 4

NY Bronx New York City Naval Reserve Center Designation 4

TX Tarrant Fort WorthMunicipal Airport (FortWorth NAS)

Designation 4

MARINE CORPS INSTALLATIONS

CA San Diego San DiegoMarine Corps Base(Miramar)

Designation 1, five buildings likely constructed with WPA funding according to original design bynoted architect Bertram Goodhue are in the MCRD San Diego Historic District, which is listed in theNRHP; partnership for interpretation with Flying Leatherneck Aviation Museum on base (occupiesWPA building) or San Diego Historical Society is recommended.

NC Beaufort WashingtonMunicipal Airport(MCAS Beaufort)

Designation 1, a former county commercial airfield then naval air station, MCAS Beaufort hasWPA-funded runway and a few minor buildings and infrastructure elements evaluated as noteligible for NRHP; WPA history could be interpreted on-site or at local institutions.

NC Onslow Holly RidgeCamp Davis (now partof MCAS New River)

Designation 1, taxiways and runways and dirt roads still extant.

NC Onslow JacksonvilleMarine Corps AuxiliaryAirfield Camp Lejeune

(MCAS New River)

Designation 1: two minor WPA buildings exist; can interpret WPA history.

SC Beaufort Paris IslandParris Island MarineBarracks

Designation 4: 18 buildings in installation’s historic district were constructed during 1933-43 periodand projects were listed in WPA cards.

MULTIPLE SERVICE INSTALLATIONS

CA San Diego San Diego Fort Rosecrans

IN MarionNr.Indianapolis

Stout FieldDesignation 1, several WPA built aviation buildings including control tower in Moderne style;headquarters of the Indiana National Guard.

KY Hardin Fort Knox Godman Army Air Field Designation 4

MAWorchester,Middlesex

Ayer Fort DevensDesignation 4

MA Hampden Chicopee Westover Field Designation 4

MD Anne Arundel BaltimoreCurtis Bay OrdnanceDepot

Designation 4

NJ Cape May Cape May Lakehurst NASDesignation 3, potential partnership with the Navy Lakehurst Historical Society to interpret CCC-

WPA history.

NJ Morris Dover Picatinny ArsenalDesignation 1, WPA resources; potential partnership with the Dover Area Historical Society and/orCommunity Children’s Museum.

TX Bexar San Antonio

Kelly Field/NormoyleQM Depot/San AntonioAir Depot/Duncan Field(Kelly Annex/Kelly AFB)

Designation 1, WPA resources in Kelly Field Historic District; potential partnership to interpret WPAhistory at Lackland AFB.

WA Pierce Nr. Tacoma Fort LewisDesignation 1, WPA resources; potential on-site interpretation and partnership with Fort LewisMilitary Museum to interpret CCC-WPA history.

Legend:Designation 1: Known CCC-WPA resources, base or local museum present for partnering on CCC-WPA interpretationDesignation 2: Known CCC-WPA resources, base or local museum for partnering on CCC-WPA interpretation is unknownDesignation 3: Unknown or suspected CCC-WPA resources, base or local museum present to interpret base CCC-WPA historyDesignation 4: Unknown or suspected CCC-WPA resources, unknown or no base or local museum to interpret base CCC-WPAhistoryNote-Many installations have been designated 4 due to lack of information. Installations are coded as designation 3 or 4 if theyhave a historic district with a period of significance that includes 1933-1943 (years when CCC-WPA resources were constructed)

but specific CCC-WPA resources are not known but are suspected.




July 2009 Legacy Resource Management Program D-1

APPENDIX D

PROJECT DOCUMENTATION REPORTS




D-2 Legacy Resource Management Program July 2009






CCC-WPA Resources Legacy Grant Case Study:

Fort Huachuca, Arizona





1 Introduction Fort Huachuca is situated in western Cochise County, southeast Arizona and encompasses

73,272 acres. It is located in the middle San Pedro River valley in a basin-and-range geographic

setting within the Lower Sonoran Zone of the Chihuahua Desert (Van West et al 1997). The base

rests on the slopes of the Huachuca Mountains for which the base is named, approximately 15miles north of the Mexico/United States border.

The fort was a centerpiece in the Indian Wars of the 1870s and 1880s and was later important for

its role in border protection, the Punitive Expedition, and the presence of Buffalo Soldiers

through World War II. Since that time the base has become home to communications and

intelligence commands for the U.S. Army.

2 Field and Research Methods Research and field survey were conducted at Ft. Huachuca 3-5 September 2008 by Daniel Hart

and Chad Blackwell.

2.1 Research Research was conducted at the Fort Huachuca Museum and Archives, Real Property Office, and

Cultural Resources Office. Historic maps, photographs, and documents were collected as well as

real property data, technical reports, and oral histories.

2.2 Field Survey Surveyors met with Cultural Resource Manager Charles Slaymaker, who provided a list of

buildings constructed during the target period or believed to have WPA or CCC associations. Mr.

Slaymaker also identified buildings not previously surveyed nor evaluated for NRHP-eligibility.

This list was cross-referenced with information from WPA project cards at the National Archives

to narrow the list further to those with available documentation. A windshield survey of the base

and its resources was conducted on 3 September with Mr. Slaymaker and Fort Huachuca

Museum technician Steve Gregory. During the windshield survey, prospective buildings were

identified and assessed briefly to form a snapshot of the variety of WPA/CCC-era building types

and structures present at Huachuca. Further research at the Fort Huachuca Museum and Archives

revealed further documentation for some buildings and new documentation on others. Through

this process, a list of buildings to survey was compiled which reflected a representative sampleof the variety and types of WPA- and CCC-related buildings at Fort Huachuca. Resource types

built by WPA and CCC at Fort Huachuca included water-related structures, recreational

facilities, water conveyance infrastructure, bridges, renovations to existing buildings, and new

construction, primarily barracks and garages at officers’ quarters. Examples of all of these

resource types are extant at Fort Huachuca and had yet to be surveyed or evaluated with the

exceptions of the Million Dollar Barracks and the Brock Field enlisted men’s grandstand.





Surveyors recorded the selected buildings on Arizona Historic Property Inventory Forms,

through photography with a Canon EOS Digital Rebel 7 megapixel camera, and assigned a UTM

(Universal Transverse Mercator) number with a geographic positioning system (GPS) receiver

3 Historic Context 3.1 General Historical Overview Fort Huachuca was established in 1877 to protect settlers in the southern portion of the Arizona

Territory, only 15 miles north of the United States/Mexico border. Cavalry and Infantry stationed

at Huachuca continued a frontier pacification and protection mission until the 1890s. As frontier

posts throughout the West were consolidated or decommissioned, Fort Huachuca remained

active due to its proximity to the international border and favorable location. Permanent

buildings constructed during this period reflect the growth in size and importance of Huachuca.

The Buffalo Soldiers of the 10th Cavalry Regiment called Fort Huachuca home for eighteen years

beginning in 1913, and the post acted as the staging area and supply base for the PunitiveExpedition of 1916-17 (Smith 1978:174-6, 198). Drastic troop reductions after World War I

resulted in the 10th Cavalry being transferred in 1931, while Huachuca became the home of the

25th Infantry from 1928 to 1942 (Smith 1978:198). Fort Apache was deemed surplus to

requirements in October 1922 and one of the few remaining Indian Scout detachments was

transferred to Fort Huachuca. The Indian Scouts remained activated, dwindling in number until

only four remained and the detachment was deactivated along with the post in 1947 (Smith

1978:273).

During the depression, construction by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), Works Progress

Administration (WPA), and Civil Works Administration (CWA) modernized and upgraded

Huachuca, replacing or renovating existing buildings and building newfacilities. These groups

were integral in rehabilitating existing or building new roads, wells, buildings, bridges, and other

infrastructure critical to the survival of the base. These work projects continued to the beginning

of World War II when the base turned its focus to training soldiers headed to Europe and the

Pacific. This new and largely temporary construction centered near the East gate of Fort

Huachuca (Van West et al. 1997).

Following World War II, the base closed in 1947 in an effort to curb post-war spending, was

reactivated in 1951 for the Korean War, and again shut down in 1953 when operations for thewar subsided (Smith 1978:311). However, in 1954 the base was returned to permanent use and

became the site of the U.S. Army Electronic Proving Ground. As a result the fort saw another

growth spurt during the 1950s and early 1960s that put it at the forefront of military research and

development for electronic warfare. Other related army organizations were sited at Fort

Huachuca during the 1960s and 1970s. These include the U.S. Army Strategic Communications

(Stratcom) command in 1967 and the U.S. Army Intelligence Center and School (USAICS) in





1971. These major commands operate at the base and are the main focus of activity through the

present time (VanWest et al. 1997).

3.2 WPA/CCC Era at Fort Huachuca The CCC was formed in March 1933 to provide work for a quarter of a million unemployed men

across the country. In his papers, Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Tomlinson, commander of the

25th Infantry and Fort Huachuca, remembered that in 1933 and 1934 “the only important work

performed…was the organization of the CCC camps in central and southern Arizona” (Finley

1996:52). The War Department was responsible for administering CCC camps at the local level

and Fort Huachuca had a CCC training camp and acted as the distribution center for CCC camps

in Arizona. Tomlinson recalls the locations of many of the early camps in the region, but

remarked in the early days of the CCC in southern Arizona not much was accomplished due to a

lack of work and the uncertainty of the longevity of the program (Finley 1996:52). Four CCCCompanies (832, 841, 1841, and 2871) were active near Fort Huachuca from 1933 onward, all

on Department of Forestry or National Forest projects (http://www.ccclegacy.org/arizona1.htm)

except for 2871 assigned to Huachuca (CCC Camp Inspection Report, 1 November 1935). The

Huachuca CCC camp (named Army-1-A) performed work at Huachuca that included erosion

control, construction of check dams, stream confinement, road construction, and fire break

construction (CCC Inspection Report, 1 November 1935).

Figure 3-1. Photograph of CCC camp at Fort Huachuca (courtesy of Fort Huachuca Museum)

http://www.ccclegacy.org/arizona1.htm








From 1934 to 1936, the first major appropriations for the WPA at Fort Huachuca resulted in

work to bring the post into the twentieth century. In the fall of 1936, the supervisor of the early

appropriations, Maj. S.J. Raymond, Quartermaster Corps, wrote a summary of work completed

between 1934 and 1936. According to the Quartermaster’s summary, the post was first advised

of the availability of funds on July 8, 1934 and work began at Fort Huachuca almost immediately

(Finley 1996). Appropriations were split between improvements and new construction with the

Post Quartermaster (Maj. Raymond) supervising the former and the Constructing Quartermaster

supervising the latter. Under these early works, electrical and plumbing systems were upgraded

in existing structures, repairs were made to existing structures, roads were paved, and

improvements made to the training camp area that housed workers hired to perform the work

(Finley 1996). By July 18, 1934, eight men were hired through the Bisbee Employment Office

and work had started. By April 1936, the number of workers supervised by the Post

Quartermaster had swelled to 358 men. Similarly, 60 men were placed on the ConstructingQuartermaster’s payroll in September 1935 and by May 1936 the payroll included 257 workers

(Finley 1996).

The availability of water at Fort Huachuca had been one of the most important factors in the

long-term viability of the post since its inception. A number of the WPA projects undertaken at

Fort Huachuca attempted to address the problem of a reliable water source and secure the long-

term future of the post. One of the first projects was the drilling and construction of a well at the

east gate. Two more wells were constructed with WPA funding near the east gate in 1936 and

1940, along with a treatment plant (1938) and a second reservoir (1939), both on “Reservoir

Hill.”

Raymond’s description of the aim of the paving projects at Huachuca sums up the overall

philosophy of the WPA: “Use of as many workers as possible and simultaneously to use what

machinery was available efficiently, to give the post a good, durable, paved highway, was the

aim” (Finley 1996). Highlights of the work completed between 1934 and 1936 mentioned in the

Quartermaster’s report included: drilling of a well at the emergency landing field to provide

water for the post, construction of two schools (segregated), paving and rerouting of existing

roads, reconstruction of the reservation fence with barbed wire and metal posts, construction of

garages for garrison personnel, and addition of improvements to allow the establishment of a

summer training school for local military accessory schools. The report concluded with a

description of the CCC camp established to house the workers and the provisions they were

given (“a cot and blankets, and mess equipment”).

In the spring of 1936, the U.S. Congress authorized appropriations for military posts nationwide

that included $1,641,828 in appropriations for Fort Huachuca (U.S. Senate 1936). According to





the accompanying report, the appropriations were largely designed to modernize the

installation’s late nineteenth century structures and infrastructure. Modernization upgrades

included those to the adobe hospital built in 1882, reconstruction of the water supply system, and

motorization infrastructure to support the military’s move to motorized forces. Also included in

the appropriations was money for paved roads, recreational facilities, and garages for personal

automobiles. From these appropriations came the bulk of the WPA funded work at Fort

Huachuca (HR Report No.2654 to accompany H.R.12511, May 14, 1936).

WPA and CCC projects completed at Fort Huachuca between 1936 and 1940 included some of

the largest undertakings. The “Million Dollar Barracks” (31122), a three-story, poured concrete

Spanish Colonial Revival structure, was completed in 1939 and is the most visible reminder of

this period at Fort Huachuca (Van West 1997:305). Two new wells (Well No. 1 in 1936 and

Well No. 2 in 1940) were drilled at the Emergency Landing Field (now the East Gate) and the

success of Well No. 1 precipitated the construction of Reservoir No. 2 in 1939 on Reservoir Hill,

which is the ridge overlooking the Old Post (Van West et al. 1997:305). Improvements to theofficers’ quarters along the parade ground were also made during this period (Van West et al.

1997:305). Grierson Street directly behind Officers’ Row contains a number of WPA/CCC

improvements including: stone garages for officers’ automobiles, servants’ quarters, retaining

walls, and drainage ditches. Drainage ditches were also added to the front and rear of the row of

the four double barracks fronting the north side of the parade ground.

Figure 3-2. Million Dollar Barracks, 1938. Courtesy of Fort Huachuca Museum and Archives.





Most of the WPA projects constructed before 1940 consisted primarily of infrastructure upgrades

and repairs to buildings not related directly to prewar personnel increases and mobilization. The

prime exception, construction of the “Million Dollar Barracks”, marked the beginning of a shift

towards projects addressing expansion of both the post and its mission that would continue into

the early 1940s (Van West et al. 1997:305). WPA work at Fort Huachuca between 1940 and

1942 saw the construction of the officers’ mess (43002), one of the largest buildings constructed

during the World War II period. A number of storage buildings (22526, 22528, and 22530) were

overhauled between 1940 and 1942, but by 1942 WPA funds had largely been reallocated

towards the impending conflict.

4 Survey Results Ten resources (Table 1) were surveyed at Fort Huachuca on 5 and 6 September, 2008. The

surveyed resources represent a cross-section of resource types from the WPA-CCC era at Fort

Huachuca. No resources associated with the CCC training camp are extant at Huachuca and littledocumentation was found associating the CCC camp with extant resources. However, this does

not suggest that no labor from the CCC training camp was used to construct any of the

improvements at Huachuca. It is likely enrollees at the CCC training camp worked on various

projects at Huachuca, particularly those requiring less skilled labor such as road grading, ditch

digging, and wall building. Since work performed using WPA funding included renovations,

infrastructure, and new construction, an attempt was made to survey resources falling in each of

these categories. Table 4-1 is a summary of the resources surveyed.

Table 4-1: Table of Surveyed CCC-WPA Resources at Fort Huachuca

Historic Name Building#

ConstructionDate

Original Use Current Use Notes

West (Canelo)Gate Guardhouse

11510 c1938 Guardhouse Guardhouse WPA New Construction

Double Latrine atTarget Range

15331 1938 Latrine Vacant WPA New Construction

Bridge overHuachuca Creek

Transportation TransportationInfrastructure theme;Second lane (width doubled)at later, unknown date

Officers’Grandstand 31123 1937 Recreation Recreation Recreation theme; Canopynot extant

Enlisted Men’sGrandstand

31124 1937 Recreation RecreationRecreation theme;Previously surveyed





StoneEmbankment atSPRR Crossing

1936-7 Transportation Transportation Infrastructure theme

Garage behindAllen House

42021 1936 Garage GarageAll garage doors replaced,metal fascia added alongroof eaves

Drainage Ditchesand Walls alongGrierson Street

c1936-9 Drainage Drainage

Infrastructure theme;Features include flagstonefaced walls and ditches withcoal boxes and culvertsunder driveways

Reservoir No. 2 22002 1939 Water storage Water storage Water management theme

Water TreatmentPlant

22004 1938Watertreatment

Watertreatment

Water management theme

Water Management Resources

Several of the WPA/CCC-era projects at Fort Huachuca were constructed to establish a regular

source and storage of water for the post. Resources associated with WPA water source and

retention projects include Reservoir No. 2 and the Water Treatment Plant on Reservoir Hill to the

south of the Old Post parade ground. From the founding of Fort Huachuca, the securing of a

reliable water source has been paramount to the viability of the post. Therefore, it is no surprise

that a considerable amount of the WPA funding and labor expended at Huachuca related to

sourcing and storing water. Collectively, these two structures are similar in their utilitarian

design, with the reservoir constructed of poured concrete structural walls and the water treatment

plant reflecting the fieldstone construction typical of many WPA and CCC projects. Whileneither of these structures are individually significant, together they represent a concerted effort

to secure and store water at Fort Huachuca through WPA funded construction projects. Both

retain high integrity in all aspects and are recommended NRHP-eligible.





Figure 4-1. Reservoir No. 2 (22002).





Figure 4-2. Reservoir No. 2 under construction. From WPA Photo Album, Fort Huachuca

Museum and Archives.





Figure 4-3. Water Treatment Plant (22004)

Recreation Resources

Several WPA projects at Fort Huachuca related to the recreation of soldiers stationed there.

Huachuca holds a prominent place in Army athletics, from equestrian and polo events to track and field, and perhaps most notably, baseball (Smith 1978: 245). The 25th Infantry “Wreckers”

baseball team in the Teens and the 9th U.S. Cavalry team in the Twenties both featured players

who later played professionally in the Negro Baseball Leagues. Players such as Charles Wilbur

“Bullet” Rogan, Oscar “Heavy” Johnson, Moses Herring, Robert Fagan, and Lemuel Hawkins

played on the 25th Infantry baseball teams and had distinguished professional baseball careers.

The 9th Cavalry baseball team won the Army Baseball League Championship in the 1920-21

season (Fort Huachuca Museum & Archives). Therefore, it is not surprising that two of the WPA

projects at Fort Huachuca were to construct grandstands at Brock Field located at the rear of the

Million Dollar Barracks. The Enlisted Men’s grandstand along the first base line included a

dugout, canopy, wood bleachers and storage rooms along the rear façade. The Officers’

grandstand located behind the home plate backstop originally had a canopy and folding stadium

chairs. The Enlisted Men’s grandstand was surveyed in 2000 and evaluated individually eligible

for NRHP listing with architectural significance associated with WPA design and workmanship

(Real Property records, Fort Huachuca). This evaluation remains justifiable in 2009. The

Officers’ grandstand was constructed at the same time as the Enlisted Men’s grandstand and also

holds architectural significance for WPA associations. Both grandstands were constructed after





the period of significance that would associate them with the notable baseball teams of the 25th

Infantry and 9th Cavalry. Evaluating integrity based on its architectural significance only, the

Officers’ grandstand is evaluated not eligible for NRHP listing due to alterations and missing

features. Historic photos show a canopy structure over the Officers’ grandstand similar to the

extant structure on the Enlisted Men’s grandstand, stadium-style folding seats, and hand railings.

The original railings are extant though modified where originally connected to canopy supports

and neither the canopy nor the seats are extant.

Figure 4-4. Enlisted Men’s Grandstand (31124), Brock Field





Figure 4-5. Officers’ Grandstand (31123), Brock Field

Figure 4-6. Officers’ Grandstand under construction. From WPA Photo Album, Fort Huachuca






Infrastructure Resources

A number of WPA projects at Huachuca are related to water or drainage conveyance and

transportation. These infrastructure resources were built using WPA funding, but also may have

used CCC labor under the direction of a skilled mason hired out of the Bisbee employment

office. The bridge over Huachuca Creek is constructed of poured concrete and stone masonrypiers with a poured concrete deck. The bridge was expanded to two lanes at an unknown date,

evidenced by the flat underside and masonry piers on the downstream side and the arched

openings and concrete piers on the upstream side. The addition has impacted the historic

integrity; however the original design, materials, and workmanship are still visible. The bridge

does not have sufficient individual significance, but rather is representative of the collective

drainage infrastructure projects at Huachuca. The SPRR embankment on Whiteside Road was

constructed to raise the Southern Pacific railroad spur out of a low-lying area. The raised

embankment has poured concrete and rubble wall construction with fieldstone veneer facing.

Although originally intended to convey railroad traffic, the embankment now has asphalt-paved

Whiteside Road on top. The SPRR embankment is significant under Criterion A for its

association with the WPA and CCC era at Huachuca and has sufficient integrity of design,

materials, workmanship, setting, location, and feeling. The system of drainage ditches and access

structures along Grierson Road to the rear of the Officers’ Quarters Row is another WPA

infrastructure resource at Huachuca. Other WPA projects constructed garages and maid housing

along Grierson. The stone lined drainage ditches, culverts, stairs, and coal boxes were

constructed in conjunction with the other projects. A stone-faced retaining wall was also

constructed between Grierson and an earlier officers’ pool. The system of ditches and access

structures along Grierson are significant under Criterion A as representing WPA and CCC

projects at Huachuca. The ditches and access structures retain high levels of integrity and stillserve to convey storm runoff and allow access to garages and backyards from Grierson. The coal

boxes are the only feature no longer in use, but most are extant. Therefore the SPRR

embankment on Whiteside Road and the system of ditches and access structures along Gierson

are recommended NRHP eligible.





Figure 4-7. Bridge over Huachuca Creek.

Figure 4-8. SPRR Embankment.





Figure 4-9. SPRR embankment under construction. Courtesy Fort Huachuca Museum and

Archives.





Figure 4-10. Ditches along Grierson Street

WPA New Construction

Along with upgrades and renovations to existing buildings at Huachuca, the WPA funded new

construction projects enabled the fort to meet its growing needs. The Million Dollar Barracks

was the largest and most visible of these new construction projects, but many other smaller,

support buildings were also built. The largest concentration of these structures is located along

Grierson Road, to the rear of the row of Officers’ Quarters facing the main parade ground, and

includes the maid quarters and garages. The WPA funded the construction of one-, two-, four,

and nine-bay garages, with the largest located behind Allen House, the bachelor officers’

quarters. Typically, the garages were constructed with concrete slab foundations, irregular stone

masonry walls, and wood frame shed roofs. Work was directed by skilled masons from the

Bisbee employment office and likely performed by CCC enrollees who received “on the job”

training. Alterations to the nine-bay garage located behind Allen House include replacementmodern roll-up doors, replaced roof, and replaced roof metal fascias. The nine-bay garage retains

historic integrity of location, design, workmanship, setting, and association, but modern

alterations have negatively affected the integrity of materials and feeling. The garage does not

have sufficient significance for individual listing, but would be NRHP-eligible as a contributing

structure to a district composed of the infrastructure and service resources along Grierson Street

or as an associated outbuilding of Allen House.





Figure 4-11. Nine bay garage (42021) behind Allen House.





Figure 4-12. Garage behind Allen House shortly after completion. Courtesy of Fort Huachuca


The WPA also provided funding for a new guardhouse at the Canelo Gate, the west entrance into

the post. The guardhouse is a rectangular stone masonry structure with a side gable roof and shed

roof porch supported by two stone masonry columns. From the “as built” description of the

guardhouse in a 1941 WPA completion report, the only major alteration is the replacement of the

slate roof with one of composition shingles. The Canelo guardhouse retains high integrity of

location, design, workmanship, setting, feeling, and association and is significant under Criterion

A for its associations with the WPA and CCC era at Huachuca and under Criterion C as a typical

representation of the style and level of workmanship exhibited in WPA and CCC projects at the

post. It is recommended eligible for the NRHP.





Figure 4-13. West (Canelo) Gate Guardhouse (11510)

Another new construction project under the WPA at Huachuca is a double latrine at the firingrange. The building has stone masonry construction on a slab concrete foundation and a side

gable roof. While the double latrine retains high integrity of location, design, materials, and

workmanship, it has been abandoned for a number of years as demonstrated by the deteriorated

wood elements and surrounding overgrowth of vegetation. The building is also exposed to the

elements with no doors or windows extant and the plumbing has been capped. The double latrine

does not hold sufficient significance and is recommended not eligible for NRHP listing.





Figure 4-14. Range Latrine

WPA Renovations

In the 1930s, Fort Huachuca still used a number of buildings remaining from its frontier postdays and the turn of the century. A number of WPA-funded projects focused on bringing these

buildings up to modern standards. Most of the earliest buildings were constructed of adobe brick,

while those from the turn of the century were predominantly wood frame. One building was

surveyed and evaluated based on the significance and integrity of the WPA renovations. The

Utilities Warehouse, located on the south side of Butler Road and to the west of the main parade

ground, was constructed in 1920 as a utilities warehouse. It was built at the terminus of the

Southern Pacific Railroad spur at Huachuca. A historic photo taken prior to WPA renovations,

shows a wood frame structure with wood siding and wood decked loading docks with a hollow

tile firewall and the midpoint. The WPA renovations to the building included adding stone

masonry walls and poured concrete loading docks. A steel inset in the concrete reading “USA-WPA” remains today, as does a remnant of the wooden loading docks on the west side. Along

with the improvements to the SPRR spur at Whiteside Road and upgrades to other existing

warehouses, the WPA renovation of the Utilities Warehouse reflected the need to modernize the

transportation of supplies to the post in a pre-war buildup. Although the renovations to the

Utilities Warehouse are historic and increase the significance of the structure, other alterations

since then have substantially impacted the building’s historic integrity. All of the original loading





dock bay doors have been bricked-in or replaced with single modern metal pedestrian doors. The

interior has also been modernized and sub-divided for use as training classrooms. These

cumulative later alterations have significantly impacted the building’s integrity of design,

materials, workmanship, and feeling; while the removal of the railroad spur and change in use

have impacted the building’s integrity of setting and association. The Utilities Warehouse,

despite its significance as representing WPA renovations to existing buildings at Huachuca, is

recommended not eligible for the NRHP due to loss of integrity.

Figure 4-15. Former Utilities Warehouse (22414)





Figure 4-16. Utilities Warehouse before and after WPA renovations.





5 Conclusions Table

Table 5-1 provides a summary of NRHP eligibility recommendations for the surveyed CCC-

WPA resources at Fort Huachuca.Table 5-1: Table of NRHP Eligibility Recommendations and Status for Surveyed CCC-WPAResources at Fort Huachuca

Historic Name Building#

ConstructionDate

Original Use Current Use NRHP EligibilityRecommendation

West (Canelo)Gate Guardhouse

11510 c1938 Guardhouse Guardhouse NRHP eligible

Double Latrine at

Target Range

15331 1938 Latrine Vacant Not NRHP eligible

Bridge overHuachuca Creek

Transportation Transportation NRHP eligible

Officers’Grandstand

31123 1937 Recreation Recreation Not NRHP eligible

Enlisted Men’sGrandstand

31124 1937 Recreation Recreation NRHP eligible-surveyed in2000, no change toevaluation

StoneEmbankment atSPRR Crossing

1936-7 Transportation Transportation Not NRHP eligible

Garage behindAllen House

42021 1936 Garage Garage Not NRHP eligible

Drainage Ditchesand Walls alongGrierson Street

c1936-9 Drainage Drainage NRHP eligible

Reservoir No. 2 22002 1939 Water storage Water storage NRHP eligible

Water TreatmentPlant

22004 1938 Watertreatment

Watertreatment

NRHP eligible





6 Referenced Cited

Civilian Conservation Corps Inspection Report.

Camp No. A-1-A, Fort Huachuca, Arizona, Co. 2871, 7 November 1935. National

Archives and Record Administration.

Finley, James P.

1993 Huachuca Illustrated: A Magazine of the Fort Huachuca Museum. Volume 1, 1993.

Buffalo Soldiers at Huachuca. The first of three issues. Military Events in the American

Southwest from 1910-1916 . Fort Huachuca Museum Society. Arizona.

1996 Huachuca Illustrated: A Magazine of the Fort Huachuca Museum. Volume 3, 1996.

Buffalo Soldiers at Huachuca. The third of three issues. The End of an Era: Military Life

Along the Border from 1930-1939. Fort Huachuca Museum Society. Arizona.

HR Report No.2654

1936 U.S. Congress. House Committee on Military Affairs. Report No. 2654 to

accompany H.R. 12511. 74th Congress, 2d Session. May 14, 1936.

Smith, Cornelius C. Jr.

1978 Fort Huachuca: The Story of a Frontier Post. University of Michigan Press, Ann

Arbor.

U.S. Senate

1936 Senate Bill S.4722, May 12, 1936.

Van West, Carla R., Mark T. Swanson, and Jeffrey H. Altschul

1997 Cultural Resources Management Plan for Fort Huachuca Military Reservation,

Arizona. Statistical Research, Inc. Technical Series No. 67 1997. U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Los Angeles District.






Fort Riley, Kansas





1.0 Introduction

Fort Riley was established in north-central Kansas in 1853 where the confluence of the Smoky

Hill and Republican Rivers form the Kansas River. It was one in a series of frontier posts

established by the U.S. government to protect settlers, travelers, and traders on the overland trailsthrough what would become the Kansas Territory, established a year later. In its many changing

roles, Fort Riley has been an important part of the U.S. Army and its development through the

present day. Today the post is situated near Junction City nearly halfway between Salina and

Topeka along U.S. Interstate 70 (I-70). It is 125 miles west of Kansas City and 10 miles

southwest of Manhattan, home of Kansas State University. The post is currently home of the

venerable First Infantry Division, known as the “Big Red One,” which is the oldest continuously

serving unit in the U.S. Army. It is home to various other units and tenants as well.

2.0 Field and Research Methods

Fieldwork and research were conducted by Daniel Hart and Chad Blackwell of e2M between 5-8

May 2009. The research team met with Mr. Ed Hooker of the Fort Riley environmental division

and took a tour of the base. Following the tour, Mr. Hooker and the team developed a strategy to

help determine buildings that were related to the Works Progress Administration (WPA) or

Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and had not been previously surveyed or evaluated. This

determination was made by examining WPA and CCC project cards from the National Archives

and Records Administration (NARA) and comparing them with existing survey reports,

HABS/HAER records, and other technical reports on file in the environmental office. Buildings

or resources that appeared to be possible candidates for survey were further researched in the

museum archives. To be selected for the survey, a resource had to be verifiably associated withthe WPA or CCC and not have been previously evaluated for National Register eligibility.

Exceptions to the latter were made if a pre-existing evaluation was not based on WPA or CCC

significance.

2.1 Research Methods

Research into general WPA/CCC and Fort Riley history as well as history pertaining to

individual resources or buildings was conducted at the Fort Riley Museum, the Fort Riley

Museum Archives, the Fort Riley environmental offices, and at the Geary County Historical

Society in Junction City, Kansas. Materials collected include magazine articles and books,

historic photographs, historic aerial photographs, historic maps, technical reports, newspaper

articles, WPA publications, survey forms, National Register forms, WPA project cards, Fort

Riley building cards, and other miscellaneous material from the Fort Riley Museum Archives

files.

2.2 Field Methods

The resources chosen for survey and recordation were examined by the survey team. A





Canon EOS Digital Rebel 7 megapixel camera was used to photograph survey resources. Each

resource was located with a geographical positioning system (GPS) receiver and assigned a

geographic coordinate (longitude and latitude in decimal degrees format, as requested on the

Kansas State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Inventory form). Finally, the size, function,

form, and other general attributes of each resource were described. The information was used to

complete the appropriate Kansas SHPO building or archaeological survey forms. Landscape features were

more appropriately described using the Kansas archaeological forms.

3.0 Historic Context

3.1 Chronological Overview

In 1851 Colonel Thomas Fauntleroy advocated the construction of a new army post at the

confluence of the Smoky Hill and Republican Rivers; a strategic location due to the navigability

of the adjacent rivers and the proximity of the Santa Fe Trail. The trail allowed troopers to patrolduring the travel season. Congress agreed and provided $65,000 for construction of the post

which began May 17, 1853. While the post would continue to expand, the bulk of the original

post was completed by 1856. This initial frontier policing role lasted a short time before shifting

to meet armed hostilities with the Kiowa and Comanche in 1860 and then again with the

beginning of the American Civil War.

The early days of the post were occupied with territorial defense, both from within the United

States due to the anti- vs. pro-slavery conflict and from those who chose to break peace treaties

with the regional Native American groups, as well as from unsettled Native Americans unhappy

with the encroaching Anglo settlers. Troopers at the post were the regional policemen responding

to conflicts between the territorial government and regional militias, to Native American threats,

and to ethnic conflicts between Native Americans and Anglos. They also continued to patrol and

escort travelers heading west along overland trails to the gold fields. By 1860 the relative peace

experienced the first few years of the fort’s existence had faded to mounted campaign against

hostile groups like the Kiowa and Comanche.

During the Civil War, westward expansion continued to accelerate, and the post remained

responsible for frontier policing, keeping the peace with Native Americans, and countering

threats from Confederate forces, guerillas, and bushwhackers out of neighboring Confederate

states. The post also hosted Confederate prisoners of war captured in New Mexico for a time in

1862. As the Civil War ended, the country again focused on settling the West and Fort Riley

became one of the preeminent frontier posts. Following the war, Fort Riley became the home and

headquarters of the Seventh U.S. Cavalry. In 1867, the 10th Cavalry headquarters was reassigned

to Fort Riley with its celebrated African American “Buffalo Soldiers.” The 10 th Cavalry outfitted

there for duty on the frontier; however the headquarters was relocated elsewhere the following





year. In 1878, a skirmish between Fort Riley troops and Cheyenne Dog Soldiers marked the

post’s last battle with Native Americans.

During the 1870s and 1880s the post transitioned from a frontier outpost to a permanent fort.

Cavalry units were dominant at the post due to the distances required for an effective military

force. Through the 1880s the transfer to a post-frontier army led to post consolidations and

closures, with Fort Leavenworth and Fort Riley the only former frontier posts left in Kansas.

Beginning in 1885, over 30 new buildings including a hospital, a modern water works, and a

modern electrical system were constructed. This modernization made way for the establishment

of the Cavalry and Light Artillery School which began operation in 1892. The new school gave

the former frontier post a new role in the military establishment that would define it for decades

to come.

Conflicts around the turn of the century, including service in the Cherokee Strip in Oklahoma,

the Spanish American War in 1898, and the Boxer Rebellion in 1900 contributed to Fort Riley’sCavalry and Light Artillery School instruction being replaced. In 1906 the post was made a

regimental post due to its central location and good rail connections for ease of troop

deployment, which led to even more growth. The school’s name at Fort Riley was also changed

to the Mounted Service School. With a civil war in Mexico breaking out and hostilities in Europe

beginning in 1914, Fort Riley saw even more recruits coming to the post to be trained for combat

in various disciplines. As America entered World War I in 1917 the post ballooned further as a

wartime training center. It became the largest basic training post in the country during the war.

Its troop strength was estimated to be between 30-50,000 soldiers strong, an astonishing number.

This had deadly consequences as the first reported U.S. cases of the global 1918 influenza

pandemic were at Fort Riley and eventually affected over 18,000 soldiers with 900 mortalities.

Following the war, the Mounted Service School was renamed the Cavalry School in 1919 and

focused on producing balanced officers and cavalrymen who could ride well and tackle any

situation. New equipment and tactics involving the tank and airplane made the cavalry’s role

somewhat more tenuous than it had been before. As a result of technological changes and the

tactical advantages afforded vehicles, the cavalry began to teach courses on mechanized cavalry

along with traditional horsemanship courses. The mechanized cavalry training of the 1920s and

1930s would be critical just a few years down the road. This transition was occurring at a hard

time for the country. The Great Depression had struck in 1929 and forced many out of work.

“New Deal” relief programs were passed to stem the tide of the catastrophic economic downturn.

Despite the state of the country, Fort Riley greatly benefitted from these programs, gaining many

new buildings and a wholly modernized post. With war on the horizon these work and relief

programs became geared toward defense projects and served as a recruiting tool as well.





World War II again found Fort Riley as a major training facility due to its expansive acreage and

existing infrastructure. Congress authorized the construction of a Cavalry Replacement Training

Center in 1940 to train soldiers in mounted and mechanized warfare seen in European theatres of

war. In the spring of 1942 the post annexed 32,370 acres of land to bring its size to nearly 53,000

acres to provide an adequate training area. During World War II nearly 125,000 soldiers trained

at Fort Riley for overseas combat, which included the integrated Second Cavalry Division

composed of the 9th and 10th Cavalry Regiments (Buffalo Soldiers) and the Second and

Fourteenth Cavalry Regiments. In 1943 the fort received 1000 German prisoners of war (POWs),

who were engaged in construction and labor details in and around the fort.

Following World War II, the Cavalry School was permanently closed in 1946 and replaced by

the Ground General School. The various limestone stables were converted into offices to house

this new activity. The Ground General School trained officers in such basic courses as map

reading, company administration, and military law. Fort Riley also operated the Army’s only

officer’s candidate school until 1953. The 10

th

Infantry Division was assigned to Fort Riley in1948 to train new recruits for impending conflicts like the Korean War. The Aggressor School

operated at Fort Riley until 1963. This school consisted of a fabricated opposition military force

created for training U.S. Army forces. The Army General School replaced the Ground General

School in 1950. In 1954 the 10th Infantry Division was sent to Germany to assume occupation

duties, replacing the 1st Infantry Division who became the new tenant of Fort Riley in the

summer of 1955. At this time Custer Hill was developed to accommodate the many new troops

arriving with the 1st Infantry Division.

In 1965 the Big Red One left the post for duty in Vietnam. In 1966 the post was again expanded

by 50,000 acres to enhance the fort’s training capabilities, allowing two divisional brigades totrain simultaneously. In 1970 the 1st Infantry Division returned to the post after five years of

combat in Vietnam. The Third ROTC Region Headquarters was located at Fort Riley from 1973

to 1992. The fort also was home to the U.S. Army Correctional Training Brigade at Camp

Funston which re-trained soldiers with minor offenses to return to active duty or civilian life. In

1990 the 1st Infantry Division was shipped to Kuwait to oppose Iraq in Operation Desert

Shield/Storm. 14,000 soldiers and 6,000 pieces of equipment left Fort Riley for combat duty.

3.2 WPA and CCC Era at Fort RileyWith federal relief money being released for use throughout the country in 1932, the Kansas

Federal Relief Committee, later the Kansas Emergency Relief Committee (KERC), was put in

charge of distributing money received from the government. The state was divided into eleven

districts which organized their own relief committee, as did counties within each district. With

the election of Roosevelt in 1933, many more “New Deal” projects were initiated from which

Kansas benefitted greatly. KERC immediately began distributing money throughout Kansas. It





provided money for early relief project which included employing workers to do road

improvements, and building “farm-to-market” roads, bridges, overpasses, lakes, farm ponds, and

airports. These projects preceded the creation of the WPA which eventually replaced earlier

federal relief organizations as well as the KERC in Kansas. At its peak in Kansas the WPA

employed more than 50,000 workers (Novak 2003). Kansas was the recipient of two large CCC

projects, a soil erosion and flood control project (Lyon State Lake) on White Creek in Jewell

County and the State Park at Hays, KS (Junction City Union 1933) in addition to other smaller

projects around the state.

3.2.1 The CCC at Fort Riley

Fort Riley was the headquarters for the CCC, Kansas City District (USACERL1993). The two

large federal CCC projects in Kansas were administered by Brigadier General Abraham Lott,

post commander of Fort Riley. In addition, Fort Riley was in charge of supplying all of the CCC

camps in Kansas (Junction City Union 1933).

Fort Riley hosted the statewide training camp for the CCC in Kansas. The state quota for Kansas

was set at 3750 men, who were trained at Camp Whitside within Fort Riley during the months of

May-July 1933 (Junction City Union 1933b). The first Kansas CCC recruits arrived at Camp

Whitside for conditioning in early May 1933, just two short months after the formation of the

CCC (Junction City Union 1933a). By May 25 1,264 men had arrived at Camp Whitside for

training (Junction City Union 1933c). Shortly thereafter, two companies of World War I

veterans, composed of 750 men, arrived at Camp Whitside, marking the highest capacity of the

training. In 1933, the CCC training camp hosted and trained 2600 CCC recruits, African

American CMTC recruits, ROTC boys, and the World War I veterans (Junction City Union1933d).

On June 14 the first of the initial recruits trained at Camp Whitside were shipped out to

Minnesota for work in National Forests. Companies 784, 785, 786, and 787 along with their

army officers, embarked on trains for different CCC camps in Minnesota (Junction City Union

1933e). Ten days later on June 24, Companies 1784 and 1789 also left for camps in Minnesota.

Two days later on June 26, the remaining seven companies shipped out. Companies 1785, 1786,

1787, 1788, 2784, and 1785 were sent to camps in Minnesota and Company 2786, an African

American company, was sent to Lyon County, KS to build the dam for Lyon State Lake

(Junction City Union 1933f). The two companies of World War I veterans arrived as the last

seven companies were leaving for their various camps. These veterans had trained for over

slightly less than a month’s time. Companies 1778 and 1779 were conditioned and sent to Hays

and Esbon, KS to work on flood control projects. The last of these recruits embarked for their

permanent CCC camps on July 21, 1933.





Fort Riley’s commanding officer and others had high praise for the conduct of the CCC while at

the fort as well as for their beautification projects completed at Fort Riley (Junction City Union

1933g). The only CCC project in Geary County was located at Fort Riley, where a camp for

African American men (Company 786, established in October 1934) performed landscaping, soil

conservation, and tree planting (Geary County Museum 2003).

3.2.2 The WPA at Fort Riley

The WPA also played a significant role in the development of Fort Riley. Fort Riley benefited

more than any other Geary County entity from WPA funding and labor. Over the six year period

that the WPA did work on the post (1936 to 1941) the post received $1,281,318 for

improvements and new construction (Geary County Museum 2003). One of the commanding

generals indicated as much as $ 4 million may have been spent by the WPA at Fort Riley. The

WPA workers were housed at Camp Whitside initially and then moved to abandoned CCC

buildings until the program ended. The WPA improved the CCC camp and added buildings of their own at the camp including Building 315, 317, and 319, used as warehouses and shops. The

projects completed by the WPA in this era were part of a larger Army building program initiated

in 1927 and concluded in 1940 (USACERL 1993).

The first WPA projects at the post were started in 1936 and included water system improvement,

construction of a new road through post, repair and rehabilitation of buildings and utilities,

construction of rock dikes along the Kansas River at Marshall Field, and construction of a dining

hall and kitchen (WPA 1936). Additional projects in 1937 included improving existing target

range facilities at the national rifle range, building an earthen levee system with a rock core for

the protection of Marshall Field, improving surface drainage and storm water drainage systems,improving and expanding the chapel and building well houses along with projects previously

listed (WPA 1937). In 1938 road improvements, landscaping, sidewalk repair and construction,

parks and recreation facility construction and upgrades, garage construction, construction of

Patton Hall (academic building), and “airport improvement” (presumably at Marshall Field) were

among the new and existing projects (WPA 1938).

In 1939 the WPA built fourteen additional officer’s quarters at the main post including ten non-

commissioned officer’s quarters of native limestone at Stone Court, three brick duplexes at Riley

Place, and a stone duplex along Brick Row (USACERL 1993). They built numerous other

structures and buildings and operated a plant nursery to use the plants for erosion control,

reforestation, and landscaping. 1939 marked the most prolific building year for the WPA at Fort

Riley (WPA 1939). 1940 was mainly occupied with continuing general improvement projects

and had no significant construction projects (WPA 1940b). In 1941 the last WPA project began

at Fort Riley. This project involved improving the grounds around the Cavalry Replacement





Figure 3-1. WPA-built academic building, later renamed Patton Hall.

Figure 3-2. WPA-built Officers’ Quarters and garages on Stone Court.





Training Center by grading, seeding, laying sod, and planting trees, hedges and shrubs,

landscaping, and building sidewalks.

During their tenure at Fort Riley the WPA accomplished an impressive amount of work. They

had modernized nearly all the barracks, stables, and other buildings, as well as roads, and utilities

on post. They had constructed numerous new buildings such Patton Hall and various quarters

such as those at Stone Court and others scattered at Carpenter Court, Marshall Field, and

elsewhere. They had rebuilt Camp Funston and through it all maintained a quarry where the

limestone used in new construction and repairs was extracted.

4.0 Survey Results

Seven resources were examined for their WPA and/or CCC significance at Fort Riley (Table 4-

1). These resources reflect both CCC and WPA projects of various types. Six WPA resources

were recorded including a flood control levee around Marshall Field, stone lined ditches, threewarehouses, and additions to a firing range. The older portion of the firing range had been

evaluated previously for NRHP eligibility; however the WPA-constructed additions have not

been evaluated for WPA associations and significance. The single CCC resource was the

monument to General Leonard Wood, composed of landscaping walls and the reconstructed

foundation and chimney of the general’s quarters overlooking Camp Whitside.

Table 4-1: Surveyed Resources at Fort Riley

Historic

Name

Building

#

Construction

Date

Original

Use

Current

Use

Notes\Theme

Marshall Field

Leveen/a 1937-1940 levee levee

WPA New Construction; water

control/ flood prevention theme

Rock-lined

ditchn/a 1935-1941 ditch ditch

WPA New Construction; water

control/ flood prevention theme

General

Leonard

Wood

Monument

n/a

Pre-World War I,

foundation

reconstructed ca.

1935

General

Leonard

Wood HQ

monument

CCC reconstructed foundation

as a commemorative

monument

Firing Range n/a WPA additions-1937 firing range abandoned Recreation theme

Building 315 315 1935shoe repair

shopwarehouse Infrastructure theme

Building 317 317 1935 unknown warehouse Infrastructure theme

Building 319 319 1936auto repair

shop

general

instruction

building

Infrastructure theme





4.1 Water Control/Flood Prevention Resources

4.1.1 Earthen Levee

Perhaps the largest scale individual WPA project completed at Fort Riley was the construction of

a large earthen levee surrounding Marshall Army Air Field (Figure 4-1) which is situated in the

flat Kansas River flood plain. According to 1937 WPA project cards, project 10764 was to“Construct flood control earth levees with masonry core, and perform appurtenant work, for the

protection of Marshall Field, warehouses, and hay storage area, at Fort Riley Military

Reservation…” The project was approved on June 24, 1937 and was allotted nearly $40,000. Its

completion date is unknown. This project was done in conjunction with other WPA flood control

projects at Fort Riley, namely the rock “spur” or “wing” dikes, designed to capture sediment and

stabilize the east riverbank, constructed adjacent to Marshal Field (Figure 4-3).

Figure 4-1: Marshall Field location map and levee section detail.

The levee is slightly over four miles in length and surrounds Marshall Army Air Field (refer to

Figure 4-1 throughout this description to identify each section being discussed). The elevation of

the top of the levee remains constant, but the overall height tapers from its tallest point, about 40

feet near the east bank of the Kansas River, down to as shallow as 6-8 feet near the first major

river terrace to the southeast . It is approximately 30 feet wide at its base and 10-12 feet wide at

the top. It is entirely accessible via vehicle by a one-lane unimproved road (Figure 4-2) on the





northwest and northeast sections and by a two-lane improved road on the southwest and

southeast sections.

The northwest section of the levee follows the Kansas River bed in a shallow southeast arc along

one of the river elbows. The base of the levee appears to be situated (and possibly cover) where

the historic WPA-built rock dikes were constructed to stabilize and prevent bank erosion. The

northeast levee section diverges from the river course to the west toward I-70 and the Whiskey

Lake Road frontage road. This section ends at the I-70 frontage road and connects with the

southeast levee expanse. The southeast levee section trends southwest from its north end along

the I-70 frontage road. It is unclear how much of this section is original since a paved two-lane

road now rests on it. This section is the shallowest of any due to its location on the high side of

the airfield near the toe of the first major river terrace. The southwest levee section begins at the

intersection of the frontage road and the Henry Gate road. At this point the main gate road

(Henry Road) travels along the top of the levee which trends northwest. Approximately 3000 feet

northwest of its starting point, the road and original levee diverge. The levee continues north-northwest and crosses Ray Road which crosscuts it and arcs to the northeast and connects with

the northwest expanse, completing the levee.

To date, the levee has been unrecognized as a WPA resource. The levee played a critical role in

making Marshall Field a viable and reliable airfield by securing it against the unpredictable

flooding of the Kansas River. Its importance was first proven in the flood of 1951 when it

maintained against the flood. It was also perhaps the most significant WPA project both in scope

and scale as well as for its utility as a critical piece of infrastructure for preventing potential

catastrophic damage to buildings, infrastructure and equipment such as expensive aircraft. The

Marshall Field Levee is evaluated as significant under Criterion A for its association with theWPA period at Fort Riley. The levee retains sufficient integrity, particularly along the northwest

and northeast sections, and is recommended NRHP-eligible. Additionally, although no WPA

constructed rock dikes were observed during the survey, if these dikes adjacent to or possibly

under the levee remain undisturbed and unaltered, then they would be considered as features that

contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the levee resource.





Figure 4-2: Marshall Field Levee with Marshall Field behind fence at left. Kansas river off picture to right.

Figure 4-3: Photo of Marshall Field cantonment area showing WPA rock dikes along Kansas River,

December 1940. Levee now rests along inland base of buried rock dikes. Photo courtesy of the Fort Riley

Museum Archives.





Figure 4-4: Location and detail map of surveyed rock lined ditch.





Figure 4-5: Y-junction of the rock-lined ditch.

Terminus of the south arm of the ditch at upper left.

Figure 4-6: North arm of ditch. Building 430 at

upper left.

Figure 4-7: Stem of ditch which terminates in the drain under Godfrey Avenue.

4.2 Monument

One monument at Fort Riley constructed by the CCC was recorded for its CCC association. The

location was the site of General Leonard Wood’s headquarters during his tenure overseeing the

training of soldiers at Camp Funston in preparation for World War I (Figure 4-8). The wood

frame headquarters building once overlooked Camp Funston on a terraced hill. Sometime after

abandonment a fire destroyed both the building and its stone fireplace and chimney. It was

reportedly stabilized and landscaped by the CCC sometime after it burned. This was confirmed

by the survey team upon discovery of a graffiti inscription in the concrete of one of the terrace

walls at the base of the hill. It can be inferred from the concrete inscription that CCC Company





786 accomplished the work during their training at Camp Whitside. The stabilization and

landscaping included adding mortar to the limestone rock foundation wall and rebuilding the

stone fireplace and chimney using new limestone. Sidewalks and a bench were added within the

foundation of the former building. It also appears that the terraces below the foundation were

stabilized by the CCC.

Figure 4-8: Location map of General Leonard Wood HQ

Today the site consists of a sign and historical limestone marker with a brass plaque describing

the history and significance of the site (Figure 4-9) surrounded by a lower curved stone terrace

wall, an upper stone terrace wall, concrete stairs from the historical marker to the foundation, and

the stone foundation bulk where the chimney, sidewalks, and bench are located. Both terrace

walls are capped with concrete along their full length. The lower terrace wall is approximately

two feet high, 200 feet long, and is oriented northeast-southwest with a short curved section at

the southwest end. The concrete CCC inscription is immediately next to the curve on the straight

portion of the lower terrace wall (Figure 4-10). The inscription (Figure 4-11) reads:

Louis K____.

Wichita, Kan.

Jan 8, 1935-37

C.C.C. 786

The upper terrace is also approximately two feet high, 90 feet long, and (Figure 4-12) parallelsthe lower terrace just below the foundation wall. The three-foot wide northwest-southeast

trending concrete stairs begin at the lower terrace and end at the top of the foundation wall, a

distance of 160 feet. The foundation platform at the top of the stairs is 65 x 60 feet, oriented

northeast-southwest. The foundation wall is approximately eight feet high at its highest point at

the southeast corner. Two parallel sidewalks run along the long axis of the foundation. One

sidewalk continues in the center of the foundation along the path of the concrete stairs,





perpendicular to the two parallel sidewalks. The limestone and concrete bench rests in the

southeast quadrant of the foundation platform (Figure 4-13).

As a commemorative property, the Leonard Wood Monument must be evaluated under Criteria

Consideration F, which requires that a commemorative property holds significance beyond itscommemorative nature. As a work project performed by the CCC at Fort Riley, the Leonard

Wood Monument holds significance for its CCC associations, in addition to its commemorative

aspect. Therefore, the site is significant under Criterion A for its association with the CCC. It is

perhaps the only remaining CCC resource on post that can be definitely attributed to the CCC.

Despite its association with General Leonard Wood, the monument is not significant under

Criterion B using Criteria Consideration F. It also does not appear eligible under Criterion C or

D. As a protective measure the concrete inscription should be further documented and possibly

sealed using appropriate sealants that will not harm the concrete. Additional research may

provide further information into the identity of the individual named in the inscription.

4.3 Infrastructure Projects

4.3.1 Firing Range Improvements

The firing range is located in the former Camp Forsyth area (Figure 4-14). The target pit area is

oriented northwest-southeast as are firing line berms. From the firing line berms, shooters faced

northeast and fired at the targets. The target range consists of various elements including: a target

pit area with a retaining wall, bathroom, and storage facilities; center dividing berm; and firing

line berms set every 100 yards. The target range was originally constructed in the first decade of

the 1900s for national rifle competitions. The WPA tripled the size of the range in 1937, whichincluded adding additional retaining wall sections on either side of the original section, concrete

storage bunkers, restrooms, drainage features, a concrete bench along the entire length, a

concrete cap along the retaining wall to both unify height and enhance stability, and the center

dividing berm and firing line berms set at various distances from the target pit. Based on recent

aerial photographs, part of the open range area (with the firing line berms) appears to have been

bisected by Venable Drive, a large storage facility of some kind constructed, and an outdoor

recreation center built on part of the range (Figure 4-14).

The target pit is the area between the retaining walls and the hillside (Figure 4-15) which runs

parallel behind it and was used as a backstop for projectiles being fired at the targets. The pit is

below firing line level and was designed to shield the target frames and range workers allowing

them to raise and lower the target frames during competition, score targets, and move freely to

accomplish other tasks while matches were in progress. The target pit retaining wall (Figure 4-

16) is approximately 2780 feet long consisting of the original, stone wall center section flanked

by the WPA-built concrete wall sections to either side. There are four subterranean reinforced





concrete target storage bunkers (Figure 4-17), two in each new flanking section added by the

WPA. They have steel I-beams supporting the concrete roof which is covered with earth. In the

older, center portion of the range, a reinforced concrete restroom (Figure 4-17) was also added

by the WPA. A two-foot high concrete bench lies along the entire length of the pit wall, except

where there are entrances for the storage bunkers and restrooms (Figure 4-15 through 4-17). The

bench was incorporated into the new sections added by the WPA and laid against the original

limestone rock section in the center. A variable height concrete cap along the entire length of the

retaining wall also appears to have been added by the WPA. A concrete gutter was built between

the wall and the hillside to provide controlled drainage for a natural spring located at the

northwest end of the pit (Figure 4-15).

The center, stone wall portion of the range has previously been evaluated NRHP-eligible;

however no determination has been made to date on the WPA additions. The WPA additions to

the target range are significant under Criterion A for their association with the WPA construction

program at Fort Riley. The target range retains integrity of design, materials, workmanship,location, setting, association, and feeling and is recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP.





Figure 4-14: Location map of Ft. Riley target range.





Figure 4-15: Target pit area. Wall and bench at right, concrete gutter at right of two-track dirt road,

and hillside at left.

Figure 4-16: Retaining wall in target pit showing transition. Original section at left and WPA addition at

right. Note concrete bench at bottom of wall and concrete cap on original section over limestone capstones.





Figure 4-17: Concrete target storage bunker at left and concrete restroom at right.

4.3.2 WPA Camp Buildings Three warehouses built as part of the 1935 WPA camp were surveyed. All three had previously

been documented in the 1993 report Historical and Architectural Documentation Reports for

Fort Riley, Kansas (USACERL 1993). The 1993 documentation included brief descriptions,

condition assessments, and significance statements. These three structures were re-surveyed for

this project because of their direct association with the WPA Camp and to update the prior

documentation and to evaluate the structures using the WPA-CCC specific historic context.

4.3.2.1 Building 315

Building 315 was originally built by the WPA in 1935 as a shoe repair shop and is currently used

as a general purpose warehouse (USACERL 1993). It is southwest of Buildings 317 and 319.

The single-story rectangular building covers 11,210 square feet and is oriented northeast-

southwest along the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. It has a medium pitch, front gabled roof clad

with composition shingles. Vent stacks rise from the roof along with a single central brick

chimney with a corbelled cap. There is a louvered vent in each gable end. The southeast and

northwest façades have a loading dock with concrete piers and deck along the entire façade. The

dock along the northwest, or railroad side, appears to be original while the dock on the southeast

façade appears to be a later replacement. The northwest and southeast facades each have a

central bay door, four single-leaf doors, and ten double-hung windows. The southwest façade hasa single-leaf door and two double-hung wood sash windows. The northeast façade has a boarded

up window and door.





Figure 4-18: South and west facades of Building 315

This building is in fair condition and retains integrity of design, materials, workmanship, setting

and feeling. It is significant under Criterion A for its WPA associations, more specifically direct

ties to the WPA camp at Fort Riley, and under Criterion C as a representative example of

warehouse building design followed by the WPA at Fort Riley in the late 1930s. This report

concurs with the previous evaluation of Building 315 as NRHP-eligible.

4.3.2.2 Building 317

Building 317 was originally built by the WPA in 1935 for an unknown purpose and is currently

used as a general purpose warehouse. It is situated between Buildings 315 and 319. The single-

story rectangular building covers 11,210 square feet and is oriented northeast-southwest along

the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. It has a medium pitch, front gabled roof clad with compositionshingles. Vent stacks rise from the roof along with a single central brick chimney with a

corbelled cap. The southeast façade has a concrete loading dock along their entire length. There

is also a central bay door, four single-leaf doors, and nine wooden double-hung windows. The

northwest façade also has a loading dock along the entire length. It has two single-leaf doors and

nine wooden double-hung windows. The southwest façade has a wooden double-hung window, a





modern metal frame storefront inset with windows. The main entrance is flanked by three

double-hung windows on either side. A former single leaf door entryway has been boarded up.

The northeast façade has two double-hung windows on either side of an in-filled bay door that

now has a glass and metal double door in it. The southeast and northwest elevations have double-

hung windows and a pedestrian door.

Figure 4-20: South and east facades of Building 319

This building is in good condition, but has impacted integrity of design, materials, workmanship,

feeling, and association due to the replacement of windows throughout, in-filling of windows

and doorways, and replacement of garage doors. What presumably were originally garage bay

doors on the north and south facades have been replaced with aluminum frame and glass double

door entrances. No entrance on the building currently relates to its original use as a motor repair

shop. It is significant under Criterion A for its WPA associations, more specifically direct ties tothe WPA camp at Fort Riley, and under Criterion C as a representative example of warehouse

building design followed by the WPA at Fort Riley in the late 1930s. However, due to the

impacted integrity, this report disagrees with the previous evaluation of Building 319, and

recommends the building as not eligible for NRHP listing.





5.0 Conclusions Various CCC and WPA constructed resources were recorded at Fort Riley, KS. Resources

included buildings, structures, and objects. The WPA constructed numerous buildings at Fort

Riley, but many were not included in this survey due to prior evaluations of NRHP-eligibility or

NRHP-listing as contributing structures to the existing historic district. The majority of unevaluated WPA and CCC resources at Fort Riley include landscape and infrastructure features.

Table 5-1 summarizes the buildings surveyed at Fort Riley and NRHP evaluations.

Table 5-1: NRHP Eligibility of Surveyed Resources

Historic

Name

Building

#

Construction Date Original

Use

Current Use NRHP Eligibility

Marshall Field

Leveen/a 1937-1940 levee levee NRHP eligible

Rock-lined ditch n/a 1935-1941 ditch ditch NRHP eligibleGeneral

Leonard Wood

Monument

n/a

Pre-World War I;

monument established

ca. 1935

General

Leonard

Wood HQ

monument NRHP eligible

Firing Range n/a WPA Additions-1937 firing range abandoned NRHP eligible

Building 315 315 1935shoe repair

shopwarehouse NRHP eligible

Building 317 317 1935 unknown warehouse NRHP eligible

Building 319 319 1936auto repair

shop

general

instruction

building

Not eligible





6.0 References Cited Geary County Museum

2003 AASLH Award Nomination: Alphabet Soup and Geary County. Geary County

Museum exhibit including scripts, photos, and related newspaper articles.

Junction City Union (newspaper)

1933 Mrs. McCarthy A Visitor, Congresswoman Discusses C.C.C. Project With General

Lott . Junction City Union 1933. Date illegible.

1933a Men Arrive at Fort Riley. May 5, 1933.

1933b Send More Men to Fort Riley. May 16, 1933.

1933c Expect 2,400 Men at Post: One Group of 318 Men to Arrive at Riley Today. May 25,

1933.

1933c War Veterans to Fort Riley, Expect 750 Men for CCC Training. June 10, 1933.1933d C.C.C. Men to North Woods, More Than 800 Men Will Leave This Evening. June 14,

1933.

1933e C.C.C. Groups to Minnesota, Two Companies Leave Camp Whitside This Evening.

June 24, 1933.

1933f C.C.C. Leaves Camp Whitside. June 26, 1933.

1933g C.C.C. Men Leave Friday, Men Will Work on Western Kansas Projects. July 20,

1933.

Novak, Susan S.

2003 WPA Kansas in Kansas Heritage, Autumn 2003.

U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (USACERL)

1993 Historical and Architectural Documentation Reports for Fort Riley, KS .

Julie Webster and Keith Landreth, Champaign, Illinois.

Works Projects Administration (WPA)

1936 WPA Project Cards. Project numbers 4440, 4441, 4442, 5393, 82-3-47-6067, 10001,

10003, 10006.

1937 WPA Project Cards. Project numbers 10--- (illegible), 10764, 10766, 65021, 20519.

1938 WPA Project Cards. Project numbers 30041, 30156, 30203, 75030, 30391.

1939 WPA Project Cards. Project numbers 40035, 40036.

1940a May 20-25, 1940: Visit the Kansas WPA, Professional and Service Projects in Your

Own County. On file at the Geary County Museum Works Projects Administration

Folder 1940-1942.

1940b WPA Project Cards. Project numbers 50001, 61004, 50024.

1941 WPA Project Cards. Project numbers 50025, -----, ----- (illegible).





1942 Kansas War Services, Service Division, Works Projects Administration, 1942.

Booklet providing a summary of work carried out by the War Services section of the

WPA in Kansas. On file at the Geary County Museum Works Projects

Administration Folder 1940-1942.






Fort Sill, Oklahoma





1 Introduction Fort Sill Army Reservation is located in southwest Oklahoma in Comanche County, approximately 3

miles north of the central business district of Lawton, and encompasses 94,000 acres. Fort Sill was

founded in 1869 to diminish and prevent Indian raids on nearby settlements in present-day Texas and

Oklahoma. In June 1874, the U.S. Army launched a military campaign to relocate the Comanche, Kiowa,

and Southern Cheyenne tribes to reservations in Indian Territory. The Red River War lasted 12 months

and concluded with the surrender of Quanah Parker and his band of Quahadi Comanche at Fort Sill in

June 1875. In 1894, Geronimo and other Chiricahua Apache prisoners of war were transferred to Fort Sill

where they lived in villages on the range. In 1911, the School of Fire for the Field Artillery was founded

at Fort Sill and continues to operate today as the U.S. Army Field Artillery School.

2 Field and Research Methods On 14-16 January 2009 research and field survey were conducted at Fort Sill by Daniel Hart and Chad

Blackwell of e2M.

2.1 Research Research was conducted at the Fort Sill National Historic Landmark Museum Archives, base Department

of Public Works (DPW), the Fort Sill Cultural Resources Office, and the Museum of the Great Plains in

Lawton. Historic maps, photographs, and documents were collected as well as real property data, and

previous cultural resource reports.

2.2 Field survey On 14 January, researchers met with Cultural Resource Manager Kevin Christopher and staff architectural

historian Cindy Savage who provided a list of buildings constructed in the target period (1933-1943).

Research conducted at the National Archives and base archives narrowed the list of buildings to be

surveyed to those buildings with documentation as CCC or WPA projects — in this case, either WPA

project cards or blueprints. Most structures had previously been evaluated for historic districts, but no

evaluations on significance specifically with WPA or CCC associations had been made. The narrowed list

of prospects represented a cross section of building, structure, and object types built by the WPA.

Research was conducted at the Fort Sill Museum Archives on 15 January to document WPA and CCC

projects and construction at Fort Sill. The survey of identified buildings was performed on 16 January.

Prospective buildings were recorded on Oklahoma SHPO survey forms and photographed with a Canon





EOS Digital Rebel 7 megapixel camera, meeting Oklahoma SHPO photographic documentation

requirements. Their locations were recorded using a geographic positioning system (GPS) receiver.

3 Historic Context This historic context is organized as a chronological overview of Fort Sill with a portion (section

3.1) devoted to the CCC-WPA era.

3.1 Chronological Overview

The Fort Sill Military Reservation has been an enduring presence in southern Oklahoma since

1869. This area of the southern Plains has been inhabited by American Indians at least since

Paleoindian times, as much as 10,000 years ago. The installation itself has gone through a

number of phases in its development into the current U.S. Fires Center of Excellence. These

phases have included acting as an agent of military control of American Indians, providing a

centralized location for artillery training, acting as a materiel and equipment testing facility, and

providing a centralized location for more advanced artillery and guided missile training.

In its first phase, Fort Sill served as a garrison to protect the U.S. frontier, civilian and military

interests and activities in the southern Plains, and as an agency to monitor the activities of

American Indians living nearby. Founded by General Sheridan in 1869 to provide protection for

American settlers on the then-frontier, Fort Sill also acted as an internment facility for Apache

prisoners of war (POW) from 1894 to 1913. By the turn of the twentieth century, the mission of the installation changed dramatically.

The opening of the former Kiowa-Comanche-Apache and Wichita-Caddo reservations in 1901 to

settlement marked the end of the need for Fort Sill as a frontier police and law enforcement

agent. Fort Sill was still charged with the responsibility of the Apache POWs because as late as

the 1890s the expectation existed that the post would be closed and converted to an Apache

reservation. The post had lost its strategic importance until the location of the 29th Battery of

Field Artillery at Fort Sill in January 1902. In 1905, the first of several artillery batteries began

arriving, and by 1907 the headquarters and three batteries of the 1st Field Artillery were

stationed at Fort Sill. As the military force continued to outgrow the Old Post (the original group

of stone masonry buildings associated with the frontier mission), the need for a new series of

buildings was noted. It was decided to build a new post, and a site west of and adjacent to the





Old Post was selected. Construction commenced on this new portion of Fort Huachuca on 20

June 1909.

On 5 June 1911, the School of Fire for Field Artillery was established at Fort Sill. Despite theconstruction that began in 1909, accommodations remained scarce at the fort. In 1913, when the

Infantry School of Musketry moved to Fort Sill, the School of Fire was forced to operate from an

old trader’s store and tents (Nye 1969:326).

The ensuing years saw numerous changes to the fort as the 1st Aero Squadron arrived in 1915 to

conduct the first use of aerial photos for field reconnaissance and to take part in the first

squadron cross-country flight. Field artillery school war classes began at Fort Sill in 1917 to train

student officers for duty in World War I. In that year, the number of students graduated jumped

from 30 to 1,200 per class (Nye 1969:328–329). Also in 1917, Camp Doniphan, a U.S. Army

cantonment, was established at Fort Sill. That same year, Post Field was established as an

aerodrome for the Air Service, the School for Aerial Observers and the Air Service School were

established at Fort Sill, and the Infantry School moved out of Fort Sill. After 1918, Camp

Doniphan was a field artillery brigade firing center. Most of the camp was torn down after World

War I (Nye 1969:330–331). In 1919, the Field Artillery School of Fire became the Field Artillery

School (Nye 1969:332).

The Field Artillery School was permanently established at Fort Sill in 1930. The Field Artillery

School reported 1,362 enlisted men housed in temporary quarters (Parker 1934), and students

had to live in Lawton until 1933-1934, until funds became available for much-needed new

construction (Nye 1969:333–334). Funds had previously been withheld for a number of reasons.

War Department funds were scarce after World War I, limiting expenditures at existing

installations, and the expectation that Fort Sill would not be the permanent home of the Field

Artillery School. Coinciding with the dearth of funding, Fort Sill witnessed a rash of arson cases

resulting in dozens of Ft. Sill buildings being destroyed. The government would not release

funds for construction projects at Ft. Sill until they could be reasonably sure the new buildings

wouldn’t be torched by the arsonists. Eventually, MPs arrested 17 soldiers for the arsons, 13

were eventually convicted in U.S. District Court, 4 of whom were court martialed. This building





push in 1933 and 1934 immediately preceded the CCC and WPA conducting work on base.

These groups were responsible for much of the building construction, landscaping, and other

construction at Ft. Sill during the mid to late 1930s building push. Also during the 1930s, Fort

Sill was the site of significant developments in “the realm of gunnery, fire detection, and

mobility[,] . . . methods for quickly adjusting fire and massing the fire of several units on a target

without physically moving the guns . . . [and] reconnaissance, occupation of position, and march

techniques,” all of which benefitted the U.S. in World War II (WWII) (Nye 1969:335). In

response to the possibility that the United States would become involved in WWII, the post was

expanded in 1940 to include some 130,109.41 acres. This acreage would later be reduced to the

current size of 94,221 acres. From 1940 to 1941, the number of officers in courses at Fort Sill

jumped from 575 to 9,000 (Nye 1969:336–337). During WWII, there was a replacement training

center at Fort Sill, and from 1941 to 1946, an Officer Candidate School. In 1942, a Department

of Air Training was established at Fort Sill to train artillery flyers (Nye 1969:338).

After WWII, Fort Sill continued to expand in number and variety of missions. In 1945, the Army

Ground Forces Air Training School (later named the Army Aviation School) was established at

Fort Sill, and remained there until 1954, when it was moved to Fort Rucker, Alabama (Nye

1969:340). The United States Army Artillery Center was established in 1946 to include testing of

material and equipment and was for a while the Artillery and Guided Missile School, now

located at Fort Bliss, Texas. During the Korean War, activity at Fort Sill expanded. New

classrooms and a new library were built during the 1950s, and in that same decade, missile

training began at Fort Sill (Nye 1969:340). In 1969, the U.S. Army Artillery and Missile Center

became the U.S. Army Field Artillery Center. The U.S. Army Field Artillery Center continues to

operate at Fort Sill. Today, Fort Sill continues to play a significant role in military history as it

has for more than 125 years.

3.2 WPA-CCC Era at Fort Sill

Fort Sill had an active and important role in Oklahoma’s CCC program beginning in 1933, and

saw much expansion and development of its facilities between 1935 and 1942 with assistance of

the WPA program. The CCC and WPA were used in combination with each other, as both labor





and funding sources for projects at Fort Sill. Both were perhaps responsible for as much total

construction at Fort Sill as at any other installation nationwide due to the building requirements

of the Field Artillery School and other programs. Like other larger installations serving as CCC

training camps, the specific work performed by CCC labor is not as well-documented as WPA

projects. Earlier WPA projects at Fort Sill had a focus on recreation and on completing

construction already in progress. Projects between 1935 and 1937 were largely recreational in

nature, infrastructure-related, or completions of already underway building projects. After 1938,

the nature and types of WPA projects at Fort Sill reflected the drive to build facilities to rapidly

bring large numbers of personnel to readiness in anticipation of war.

Like many of the larger military installations around the country Fort Sill served as the CCC

district headquarters for Oklahoma, acting as a station camp for enrollees waiting on pending

physical examinations and project assignments (Holland 1970:227). In addition to acting as the

district headquarters, Fort Sill hosted several CCC work camps between 1933 and 1942

(http://www.ccclegacy.org/oklahoma.htm 2009). As in other areas around the country, CCC

crews could be composed of all-white, all-black, or mixed enrollees. All-black CCC companies

were typically assigned to military installations and not projects located in municipal areas. One

of the all-black camps at Fort Sill was camp A-1-O, established on July 1, 1935 by company

2827. Camp A-1 was reformed on 21 October 1941 by company 2830. Camp A-3-O was formed

by company 2830 on 26 November 1941. Work performed by CCC crews at Fort Sill included

construction of roads, bridges, culverts, and fire breaks. Company 2827 also worked on restoring

the Old Stone Corral at Fort Sill, a project funded by the WPA (WPA Project Card dated 4

November 1936, CCC Camp Report for Co. 2827 dated 18 September 1937).

Table 3-1. Ft. Sill CCC Companies.

Project Date Formed Company # Railroad Stop Nearest PostOffice

distance fromRR stop

Forest-2 5/27/1933 812 Cache Ft. Sill

Army-1 7/1/1935 2827 -C Ft. Sill Ft. Sill .5 mi E

Army-3 11/26/1941 2830 -C Ft. Sill Ft. Sill 2 mi SWArmy-1 10/21/1941 4823 -C Ft. Sill Ft. Sill 2 mi SE

*“-C” indicates an all-black company. (Table created from info at www.ccclegacy.org/oklahoma.htm)

Although Fort Sill was designated as the permanent home of the Field Artillery School in

December 1930, funding for constructing facilities to support this new role did not become

available until Depression-era recovery programs were formed (Rushing 1997:16). The need for

http://www.ccclegacy.org/oklahoma.htm












additional facilities was noted in a 1930 Housing Board report that was released almost as the

fort was designated officially as the home for the Field Artillery School. The Board called for

the following:

An administration building, two artillery barracks on the west side of the New Post,Infantry barracks opposite the ball park, Medical detachment barracks, Materiel building,Animal Transport building, six stables, Nurses’ quarters, Veterinary hospital, Sixty-bedaddition to hospital, Officers’ mess, Post quarters, Twenty-nine field officers’ quarters,Twenty-six apartments, Three bachelor officers’ quarters, laundry, bakery, warehouses,shops, etc. [Sunderland 1942 in Kane 1998:48]

The Board recommended the location and phasing of new facilities including initial emphasis on

housing and other facilities to come gradually later. The Board called for the replacement of

housing with permanent quarters for Air Corps personnel at the Post Field and new housing in

the revamped World War I-era Academic Area, to be followed by new hospital buildings,

administrative and housing for the Field Artillery School. Even with the construction of this new

housing, Fort Sill’s housing supply continued to be lacking through the late 1930s. A 1937

revision of the 1930 Housing Plan recommended a post theater, quartermaster detachment, 72

sets of noncommissioned officers quarters at Post Field; drill and riding hall; reproduction plan;

children’s school; gymnasium; and reaction call. Amid budget concerns, the 1937 program saw

several revisions and compromises as the some facilities were constructed and others were on the

chopping block. Political events in Europe in 1939 prompted new realism. Fort Sill like other

U.S. military installations saw temporary facilities become the order of the day.

Although initially funded by the Public Works Administration (precursor to the WPA), McNair

Hall, a new library, and hospital addition were completed by 1935 with completion WPA funds.

WPA projects in 1936 included adding concrete curbs and gutters to roads in the Academic Area

and concrete pavement and curbs along Bateman Road in the New Post area. Additionally, funds

were provided for an officers’ and an enlisted men’s swimming pool, neither extant. Also in

1936, spillway and excavation projects in the Wichita Mountain Wildlife Refuge were listed in

WPA project cards as Fort Sill projects, perhaps indicative of the use of CCC labor.





Another early project funded by the WPA at Fort Sill was to restore the Old Stone Corral just to

the south of the Old Post. The labor was provided by the newly arrived all-black CCC Company

2827 who completed the restoration by September 1937 (CCC Camp Report for Co. 2827 date

18 September 1937).

A WPA labor camp was constructed at Fort Sill in 1938 to house the 500 men working there

(Barton 2008:97). An additional 325 men commuted to work at Fort Sill. WPA laborers at Fort

Sill were provided medical and dental care, housed, fed, and paid 52 cents per day (Barton

2008:98). Post quartermaster, Lawrence S. Woods, requested bids in cooperation with PWA and

WPA totaling $2.5 million to renovate existing buildings and to construct limited temporary

buildings to support the Field Artillery School mission (Rushing 1997:19). Barracks and NCO

quarters were constructed in the New Post area, south of Old Post. The row of duplex quarters

along Knox Street was constructed from 1938 to 1939 along with the grading and paving of

Knox Road (WPA Photo Album 1938-9).

Figure 3-1. Two photos from WPA Photo Album 1938-39 (courtesy of Fort Sill National Historic

Landmark & Museum). Captions read “The WPA Relief Personnel were housed in tents.” and

“Temporary Mess Halls of the National Guard were utilized.”





The Oklahoma Army National Guard leased land from the Army south of the railroad tracks,

until 1927. By 1939, construction efforts were focused on the National Guard Concurrent Camp

in an effort to modernize and give some permanence to this area of the post (Rushing 1997:20).

These projects included a post exchange, mess buildings, HQ buildings, repair shops, and the

Artillery Bowl venue. The Artillery Bowl project employed 100 WPA workers, used $40,000 in

WPA funds and was completed in just five months (Rushing 1997:20-24). The rapid, prewar

motorization of the Army and specifically the artillery was reflected in the renovations of stables

into motor repair shops, again using WPA funding. The Lawton Constitution reported in April

1939 that the stable conversion projects added another 100 WPA workers to the existing 1,500

employed at Fort Sill (Rushing 1997:20). 1941 saw the construction of rifle ranges and

armament buildings for the Field Artillery School as projects focused on the impending war.

Figure 3-2. Artillery Bowl under construction (Fort Sill National Historic Landmark & Museum).





Figure 3-3. Artillery Bowl, January 2009.

The majority of WPA-funded construction projects at Fort Sill occurred in the Concurrent Camp

and New Post areas. Both of these areas have been evaluated for NRHP eligibility as historic

districts by Fort Sill’s architectural historian in 2007-2008, the former for its association with

World War II mobilization and modernization at Fort Sill and the latter for its association withthe founding of the Field Artillery School at Fort Sill. The Concurrent Camp was evaluated as

not retaining sufficient integrity for a historic district. However the Artillery Bowl was identified

as individually eligible for NRHP listing. The New Post area was first evaluated for significance

and integrity as an expansive Field Artillery Historic District in 1998. A re-evaluation in 2008

divided this expansive district into several smaller districts with discrete areas and periods of

significance. While some of the buildings surveyed for this case study had previously been

evaluated under one of these two districts, it was determined that a re-evaluation based primarily

on significance associated with WPA and CCC projects at Fort Sill was appropriate.





4 Survey Results and Evaluation Five structures were surveyed 15-16 January 2009 and represent the variety of work performed

at Fort Sill between 1935 and 1942 using WPA funding, CCC labor, or both. These structures

were built for recreation, operational support, and armaments and reflect the changing direction

of WPA/CCC-era projects as World War II drew ever closer.

Building 2943, Hostess House

The Hostess House is located in the World War II-era Concurrent Camp area and listed as a

WPA-funded project on a WPA project card dated September 1940 (FY 1939). It has a

rectangular plan and is constructed on a concrete slab foundation. Structural walls are ceramic

tile block clad in stucco and the building has a hipped roof. Original plans dated March 1940

show a recessed porch and a L-shaped plan. Changes to the original structure include filling in

the porch, alteration of fenestrations and replacement of windows and doors. This building does

not retain sufficient integrity of materials, design, workmanship, and association and is evaluated

not eligible for NRHP listing.

Figure 4-1. Hostess House, January 2009





Figure 4-2. Hostess House, from WPA Photo Album 1938-39 (courtesy of Fort Sill National Historic

Landmark & Museum)

Buildings 1505, 1506, and 1507, Gun Sheds

Buildings 1505, 1506, and 1507 are nearly identical buildings constructed in a row along

Bateman Road, just to the west of the New Post parade ground. The buildings have L-shaped

plans and low-pitch gambrel roofs with concrete slab foundations and fieldstone exterior. The

three buildings were constructed using native stone and salvaged metal from airplane hangars

(Kane et al 1998:169). The buildings are listed as “Gun Sheds” in the “WPA Construction 1938-

1940” photo album on file at the Fort Sill archives. The gun sheds were redesignated as vehicle

maintenance shops after World War II. A fieldstone retaining wall is located just north of

Building 1505 and appears to be constructed along with these three buildings using the same

fieldstone.

Changes and additions to the buildings include: 1958 addition of concrete block chamber on east

facades to house utilities, replacement of garage door on south façade with modern roll-up and

single pedestrian door (date unknown), replacement of original corrugated metal roof with

composite shingles, replacement of corner windows with aluminum frames and sashes, (date





unknown), and addition of bars over corner windows (date unknown). The windows along east

and west facades that sit at the eaves are tripartite, metal-framed with a center pivot casement

window with fixed windows to either side. Interiors were not accessible at time of survey. While

not individually significant, these structures are collectively significant under Criterion A as

WPA-funded projects at Fort Sill during the prewar mobilization and architecturally significant

under Criterion C as representatives of the use of native fieldstone in early 20th century

architectural designs to complement earlier structures at Fort Sill. Although later alterations to

update utilities and convert them to general vehicle maintenance shops have slightly impacted

the integrity, these three buildings retain integrity of location, design, workmanship, setting and

feeling. Therefore, they are evaluated eligible for NRHP listing.

Figure 4-3. View of completed Gun Shed (1507) dated April 1940 (courtesy of Fort Sill National Historic

Landmark & Museum).





Figure 4-4. Building 1507, Gun Shed

Figure 4-5. Rear of Buildings 1505, 1506, and 1507





Figure 4-6. Retaining wall at rear of Building 1505

Building 2037, Top and Body Shop

The Top and Body Shop was constructed in 1939 and its construction is documented in the WPA

1938-39 Photo Album at the Fort Sill Museum Archives. The ten-bay, fieldstone building is

rectangular in plan and is aligned on an east-west axis. With a side gabled roof of corrugated

metal, the building’s the primary (south) façade is marked by garage bays. The primary façade

has 8 garage bays flanked by a paired window opening at each end and battered buttresses at the

east and west corners. The westernmost garage door is the original design consisting of two

hinged garage doors with transom lights and a single pedestrian door within the right garage

door. Six of the remaining garage bays have replacement roll-up wooden garage doors and one is

in-filled. The north façade had 10 window openings (all boarded up) with battered buttresses

between, the west façade has four window openings (all boarded up) with a battered buttress

centered on the façade, and the east façade has three window openings and one garage bay with a

modern roll-up door with a battered buttress centered on the façade. There is a small concrete

block addition on the west façade, presumably for utilities.





The Top and Body shop is significant under Criterion A as a WPA-funded construction project at

Fort Sill during the prewar mobilization and in particular reflects the effort to motorize Army

artillery before World War II. It is also architecturally significant under Criterion C for

representing the Rustic style common to WPA projects and its adaptation to native stone found

in earlier buildings at Fort Sill. Alterations to the building include the replacement of garage bay

doors on the south façade with only one original remaining and the concrete block addition on

the west façade. Original windows may exist behind the boarded up fenestrations, but access was

unavailable to confirm the presence. The top and body shop retains integrity of location, setting,

and feeling; but has low integrity of materials, association, design, and workmanship. Therefore,

it is recommended not NRHP-eligible due to lack of historic integrity.

Figure 4-7. Building 2037, Top & Body Shop





Figure 4-8. Garage Bay Doors of Top & Body Shop

5 Summary and Recommendations Table Table 5-1 presents summary and recommendations for surveyed CCC-WPA resources at Fort Sill.

Table 5-1. Summary and Recommendations for Surveyed CCC-WPA Resources at Fort Sill.

Building

Number

Building Name NRHP Eligibility Recommendation

2943 Hostess House Not NRHP eligible

1505 Gun Shed NRHP eligible




2037 Top and Body Shop Not NRHP eligible





6 Bibliography Barton, Marjorie

2008 Leaning On A Legacy: The WPA in Oklahoma. Oklahoma Heritage Association.

Oklahoma City.Holland, Reid A.

1970 “Life in Oklahoma’s Civilian Conservation Corps”. The Chronicles of Oklahoma.

Volume 48, No. 2. Summer 1970. Oklahoma Historical Society, Oklahoma City.

Kane, Kimberly et.al.

1998 Historic Context for the Field Artillery Historic District at Fort Sill, Oklahoma,

1909-1940. Geo-Marine, Inc.

Rushing, William P.

1997 Fort Sill Military Reservation Historic Context: World War II-Era Concurrent

Camp/Officer Training School, 1939-1945. Geo-Marine Inc.

unknown.

1940 WPA Construction 1939-1940. Photo album on file at Fort Sill Archives.






F.E. Warren AFB, Cheyenne, Wyoming





1 IntroductionF. E. Warren Air Force Base is located in southeast Wyoming in Larimer County, approximately 3 miles

west of the central business district of Cheyenne and encompasses 5 square miles. Fort D.A. Russell was

founded in 1867 to protect the Union Pacific Railway. Troops from Fort Russell participated in the Great

Sioux Indian Wars of 1876. Consolidation of western frontier posts caused the expansion of Fort Russell

to house an entire brigade by the early twentieth century. After World War II, the post was transferred to

the U.S. Air Force and became F.E. Warren AFB. The base became the first operational ICBM wing in

the United States controlling Atlas, and later Minuteman III, missiles across 12,600 square miles in

Colorado, Nebraska and Wyoming.

2 Field and Research Methods

Research and field survey were conducted at F. E. Warren AFB 12 November 2008 by Daniel Hart,

Kathryn Plimpton, and Chad Blackwell.

2.1 Research

Research was conducted at the F. E. Warren AFB Museum, Base Archives, and Cultural Resources

Office and the Wyoming State Archives. Historic maps, photographs, and documents were collected as

well as real property data, and previous cultural resource reports.

2.2 Field survey

On 12 November, researchers met with Cultural Resource Manager Travis Beckwith who provided a list

of buildings constructed in the target period. Research conducted at the National Archives and base

archives narrowed the list to buildings with documentation that confirms their WPA or CCC association.

This documentation consisted of either WPA project cards or blueprints stating WPA or CCC association.

All prospective buildings had been inventoried in 1984, but no evaluations on significance with WPA or

CCC associations had been made. No CCC-associated resources were identified. The narrowed list of

prospects represented a cross section of building, structure, and object types built by the WPA.

Prospective buildings were recorded on Wyoming SHPO survey forms and photographed with a Canon

EOS Digital Rebel 7 megapixel camera, meeting Wyoming SHPO photographic documentation

requirements. The locations of the surveyed buildings were recorded using a geographic positioning

system (GPS) receiver.

3 Historic Context


F.E. Warren Air Force Base (AFB) has its earliest roots as a frontier outpost, Fort D.A. Russell,

established in 1867 to protect construction and operation of the Union Pacific Railroad and the

Overland Trail. In 1871 the post was headquarters to the famous Pawnee Scout Battalion and

much of the post was involved in the Sioux War of 1876 and the Ute Campaign of 1879. Due to

its prominent location on the Union Pacific line, Fort D.A. Russell remained active and expanded

as other small frontier posts were closed. In 1885, the post was expanded and many buildings





were added to accommodate eight infantry companies. During the Spanish American War, the 8th

Infantry stationed at Fort D.A. Russell fought in Cuba and the Wyoming National Guard

mustered at the post and shipped to the Philippines. After the Spanish-American War, Fort D.A.

Russell was again expanded to accommodate an entire brigade, part of an Army-wide

reorganization to maintain a larger standing force. The ensuing expansion program included

erecting a large number of red brick quarters, offices, and stables between 1902 and 1910. The

buildings constructed between 1855 and 1910 are similar in architectural character and form the

core of the “old post”, designated a National Historic Landmark.

Fort D.A. Russell acted as a training facility and mobilization point for forces headed to Europe

for World War I. Though the Army reorganized again after World War I, Fort D.A. Russell

remained active due in no small part to the efforts of Wyoming’s Senator F. E. Warren and

chairman of the Committees on Appropriations and Military Affairs. During the interwar period,

efforts were made to modernize and expand Fort D.A. Russell with Depression-era work

programs like the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and Civilian Conservation Corps(CCC). It was also during this period that the post was renamed Fort Francis E. Warren in 1929

in honor of the first territorial governor and U.S. Senator. As part of the prewar mobilization,

Fort F.E. Warren became a quartermaster training facility with 387 new buildings erected to

accommodate 20,000 new personnel between December 1940-1941. An officer’s candidate’s

school was established in 1942 and in 1943 a prisoner of war camp constructed to house first

Italian and then German prisoners.

Following the war, Fort F.E. Warren was transferred to the newly formed United Stated Air

Force (USAF) and renamed F.E. Warren AFB. In 1958 the base became part of USAF’s

Strategic Air Command (SAC) and a year later the host to the 4320 th Strategic Missile Wing andthe nation’s first entirely tactical intercontinental ballistic missile base deploying 24 Atlas

missiles. In 1963 the base became host to the 90th Strategic Missile Wing which deployed

approximately 200 Minuteman missiles in hardened underground silos within 150 miles of the

base. Despite major command changes from SAC to Air Combat Command to Space Command,

missiles remain the primary mission of the base and the 90th Strategic Missile Wing.

3.2 WPA and CCC at F.E. Warren

The CCC era at F.E. Warren lasted from approximately 1933 to 1942. The post’s training campalso acted as the CCC enrollee distribution point for Wyoming camps (USFS CCC) and was part

of the War Department’s Eighth Army Corps Area, headquartered at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.

A number of CCC project camps were active around the Cheyenne and Ft. F.E. Warren area

between 1933 and 1941 and engaged in a variety of work. These are enumerated in Table 3-1.





Table 3-1: CCC Camps Active in Cheyenne/Ft. Warren Area

Project Company No. Camp Occupied Nearest RR Nearest PO Distance from RR/Notes P‐20 804 5/16/1933 Russell Ft. Warren

NA‐2 3824 7/31/1935 Russell Ft. Warren 3 mi. W

NM‐2 3024 ‐V 7/31/1935 Russell Ft. Warren Cheyenne Horticultural Station 3 mi. W

SP‐4 2556 10/25/1935 Russell Ft. Warren Round Top 3 mi. W

SP‐4 3888 10/22/1936 Russell Ft. Warren Round Top 3 mi. W

MA‐2 2126 7/13/1938 Cheyenne Ft. Warren Horticultural Station 6 mi. W

NA‐2 4809 10/12/1940 Cheyenne Ft. Warren Horticultural Station 6 mi. W

“‐V” denotes WW1 veterans camp. Project codes are: P=Private Forest, NA=National Arboretum, NM=National Monument, SP=State Park,

MA=Municipal Area. Information compiled from Hanson 1973 and CCC Camp Listings Index at http://www.ccclegacy.org/camp lists.htm

(accessed November 21, 2008).

The primary CCC labor camp in the vicinity of Ft. F.E. Warren was devoted to the construction

of an arboretum just west of the post to supply trees and shrubbery for landscaping projects at the

intermountain camps. Two CCC “experimental” camps were established for this purpose under

the guidance of the National Arboretum, Bureau of Plant Industry through the U.S. Forest

Service (Hanson 1973:73). Camp NA-2, first occupied August 17, 1935 by Company 3824 and

in 1940 by Company 4809, did not output any plants immediately due to the time requirements

to produce seedlings from seed. However, by 1936, 3 million usable seedling units were

produced, increasing to 9 million in 1937 and 10 million in 1938 (Hanson 1973:237). In

subsequent years, the production dropped to 1 million annually until the closure of the camp.

The built environment associated with the CCC training camp at Fort F.E. Warren was, like most

CCC camps in Wyoming, largely temporary in nature. As one of the main aims of the CCC was

to produce men with fit minds and bodies and to prepare enrollees for strenuous labor, intenseexercise programs were implemented at training camps like Fort F.E. Warren. Physical activity

and recreation extended beyond the training period as many camps organized baseball teams,

competed in track meets, and even held a boxing tournament at F.E. Warren in September 1934

(McWilliams 1992:11).

WPA projects at Fort F.E. Warren primarily consisted of the rehabilitation of existing and

construction of new structures to bring the post up to modern standards. WPA project cards for

Fort F.E. Warren were found from August 1936 through October 1941. As at many installations,

the majority of projects detailed in the cards included rehabilitating and improving existing

buildings; constructing new or repairing existing roads; and water and sewer lines; landscapingand grading; and the construction of new facilities. Notable new construction during this period

included a base theatre, base gym, and medical detachment barracks. A gas valve plant and a gas

station also were constructed with WPA assistance.

http://www.ccclegacy.org/camp%20lists.htm








4 Survey Results and Evaluation F.E. Warren AFB has two historic districts, one that is listed in the NRHP and the other a

designated National Historic Landmark District, both associated with the late nineteenth century

frontier era of Fort D.A. Russell. The NRHP district was listed in 1969 and the NHL in 1975.Additionally, a base structures inventory was conducted in 1984. The NRHP and NHL district

boundaries vary slightly, but are generally confined to the central old post with some exceptions.

WPA projects were interspersed among and sometimes renovations of the nineteenth century

buildings composing the old post. The CCC training camp at F.E. Warren is thought to have

been located south of the old post and no structures are extant. Both historic districts focus on a

period of significance between 1885 to circa 1910. None of the original post buildings are extant;

however the oldest remaining buildings date to 1885. The base structures inventory from 1984

resulted in uneven evaluations. While some structures were extensively documented through

photography and research, others received only a cursory description and no evaluation. In

general structures from outside the period of significance for the districts were evaluated ascontributing structures to the district. None of the WPA-era structures were evaluated for WPA

associations or significance. One result of the base inventory is that all inventoried buildings

received a site trinomial from the Wyoming SHPO regardless of the level of evaluation.

Six WPA-era structures were surveyed at F.E. Warren AFB on November 12, 2008. Although

each of these structures has a record with the Wyoming SHPO and a site trinomial, all are either

insufficiently documented or have not been evaluated appropriately for significance. While the

CCC was active at F.E. Warren, particularly as a training camp and labor distribution center, no

associated structures are extant on base property. Surveyed and evaluated structures were chosen

based on documentation supporting WPA associations and to represent a variety of building

types. These are enumerated in Table 4-1 below.

Table 4-1: Table of CCC-WPA Resources Surveyed at F.E. Warren AFB

Building #

Site # Construction Date

Original Function Current Function

150 48LA1858 1939 Base Theatre Base Theatre

151 48LA1859 1940 Base Gym Base Gym

152 48LA1860 1939 Medical Detachment

Barracks

Education/Training

153

48LA1861

1939

Boy Scout

Lodge Boy

Scout

Lodge

360 48LA1944 1941 Gas Valve Facility Vacant

364 48LA1946 1938 QM Gas Station #1 Vacant

The surveyed buildings reflect a cross-section of types of WPA projects at F.E. Warren between

1936 and 1942. The base theater (Building 150), base gym (Building 151), and medical

detachment barracks (Building 152) are large, monumental structures related to modernizing and





expanding F.E. Warren during the immediate prewar years. The boy scout lodge (Building 153)

constructed in 1939 is an example of a civilian structure built on the post with an architectural

style pulled from CCC work elsewhere in Wyoming. Buildings 360 and 364, a gas valve facility

and gas station built 1941 and 1938 respectively, both represent the infrastructure built under the

WPA required to modernize F.E. Warren into a modern military facility.

Warren Theatre, Building 150

The Warren Theatre, constructed in 1939 and apparently the earliest large WPA project at F.E.

Warren, appears on a WPA project card dated 16 July 1938. The original blueprints dated 21

March 1938 list a capacity of 898 persons. The theatre, along with the gym and medical

barracks, are the largest and most visible WPA buildings at F.E. Warren. Sited along the north

side of the main entrance road (Randall Avenue) and across from the Base Gym, these two

buildings together also represent the recreational connection to Depression-era work projects.

The original blueprints show an open colonnade across the front façade and the 1984 base

inventory photo shows double door entrances with rectangular transoms and side lights, makingthe aluminum double doors with arched transoms a significant departure. While the replacement

of the primary entrance significantly impacts the integrity of design, materials, and

workmanship, all other aspects of integrity remain high. What significance the theatre may have

had architecturally has been diminished with these changes, however historical associations with

the WPA-era at F.E. Warren remain well-represented by the building in its current form.

Accordingly the Warren Theatre is evaluated NRHP-eligible based on its associations with the

WPA era at F.E. Warren between 1936 and 1942.





Figure 4-1. Warren Theatre, Building 150, view to southwest

Base Gym, Building 151

The Base Gym, facing the Base Theatre across a manicured lawn and memorial garden, is part of a central “recreation” hub situated between the barracks and officers housing. The first mention

of the gym at F.E. Warren in WPA project cards is 1939, along with the Medical Barracks. A 1

July 1939 project card lists “Completion of construction of medical detachment barracks and

gymnasium”. One of the last WPA project cards, dated 8 October 1941 (FY 1942), describes

work to “provide recreational facilities in basement of gymnasium”. While construction of the

gym likely began at the same time as the Medical Barracks, it was not completed until nearly the

end of the WPA era at F.E. Warren. The Base Gym is an impressive structure with a two-story

primary façade facing the theatre, rising to a three-story height with clerestory windows in the

main gym area, and a two-story rear wing. The base gym draws many architectural inferences

and reflects a modernized and streamlined style with Classical cues reflected in the rusticatedbrick pilasters and simplified door pediment. The base gym is evaluated as individually

significant under Criterion A for associations with the overall WPA period at F.E. Warren from

1936-1942 and under Criterion C as an example of a streamlined modern style with Classical

details prevalent in Depression-era municipal architecture.





Figure 4-2. Base Gym, Building 151, view to east

Medical Detachment Barracks, Building 152

The Medical Detachment Barracks, constructed between 1938 and 1939, is mentioned on severalWPA project cards from 30 June 1938 to 1 July 1939. An “as built” set of plans lists several

modifications to the original structure including the addition of an elevator shaft to the rear (later

removed) in 1953 and conversion of part of the interior to a dining hall in 1968. Renovations

made in 1984 and 1995 largely reversed any material changes and restored original features and

interior spaces. Along with the base theatre and gym, the Medical Barracks represents the large-

scale projects needed to bring F.E. Warren into to modern era. The barracks were constructed in

a Colonial Revival style with red brick and concrete that complemented the red brick

construction and understated Classical details on most of the old post buildings from the

nineteenth century. Although listed in the 1984 base inventory as a contributing structure to the

NRHP and NHL districts, the Medical Detachment Barracks structure is individually significantfor associations with the WPA era at F.E. Warren and as a representative example of Colonial

Revival style at F.E. Warren.





Figure 4-3. Medical Detachment Barracks, Building 152, view to southwest

Boy Scout Lodge, Building 153

The Boy Scout Lodge is unique among the other buildings surveyed at F.E. Warren in that it wasconstructed with funding and labor from the National Youth Administration, a Depression-era

program under the auspices of the WPA. The post diary (October 1925-April 1947, available at

Wyoming State Archives) has an entry for October 1939 that reads “The Scout Cabin,

headquarters for Boy and Girl Scouts and other junior activities, financed and built by the War

Department and National Youth’s [sic] Administration, was completed 31st .” Although under the

WPA, the NYA operated independently at the state level and usually pulled local student labor

for its work projects. The design of the cabin relies heavily on the Rustic Style, predominant

among CCC and WPA projects at National Parks and Forests. Historic integrity of the Boy Scout

Lodge remains extremely high with virtually no exterior changes between the current structure

and the March 1939 blueprints. The Boy Scout Lodge is evaluated as NRHP-eligible here underCriteria A and C for its associations with the WPA era at F.E. Warren from 1936-1942 and its

association with the NYA and as representative of the Rustic Style of architecture.





Figure 4-4. Boy Scout Lodge, Building 153, view to northwest

Gas Valve Facility, Building 360

The Gas Valve Facility, along with the QM Gas Station, differs from the other surveyedbuildings as it represents the more mundane, but no less important, WPA projects intended to

bring F.E. Warren up to date. Projects such as road improvements and upgrades to utilities were

just as important as the large building projects. Although WPA project cards from the National

Archives do not specifically mention a “gas valve facility”, nearly half do mention upgrading

“utilities” or “public utility systems”. Constructed in 1941, later in the WPA period at F.E.

Warren, the gas valve facility has a utilitarian style, drawing on vernacular forms using

simplified construction. The exposed rafter tails, low pitched roof and windows built flush with

the roof sill all reflect simplified construction designs. One feature unique to the structure is a

metal beam running along the exterior of the roof ridge and capped on either end with a

decorative metal sphere, assumed to be part of a lightning rod system. Although no longer used

to house natural gas infrastructure, the structure retains high integrity of materials, design,

workmanship, setting and feeling. While not individually significant, it does hold significance as

representing the WPA utility upgrades performed at F.E. Warren between 1936 and 1942 and is

one of the few surviving resources at Warren that does so.





Figure 4-5. Gas Valve Facility, Building 360, view to northwest

QM Gas Station #1, Building 364

The Quartermaster Gas Station #1, like the Gas Valve Facility across 15th

Cavalry Avenue fromit, represents the infrastructure upgrades performed by WPA at F.E. Warren to modernize the

post. As mechanized cavalry increased in importance and dominance, new facilities were

required to service and repair these new machines. Blueprints for Building 364 dated 21 January

1937 show a standardized and simplified form with a function driven design with two chambers,

an office and oil storage room. Also like the Gas Valve Facility, the plans and current structure

show a simplified construction design, with exposed rafter tails and a low-pitch, hipped roof.

WPA project cards do not mention construction of the gas station, but a card dated 26 October

1938 lists work to “Install gasoline storage tanks and gasoline pump at the QM Motor repair

shop and garage.” The pumps are no longer extant and the road appears to have shifted from its

original alignment running directly adjacent to the station. The loss of the pumps impacts the

historic integrity of feeling and association, the relocation of the road impacts the integrity of

setting, and the replacement of the original windows impacts design and workmanship.

Considering these changes to the structure, associated features, and surroundings, it does not

relate its original purpose and use. Therefore, it is evaluated as not eligible for the NRHP due to

a lack of historic integrity.





Figure 4-6. Quartermaster Gas Station #1, Building 364, view to north northwest

5 Summary and Recommendations Table Table 3 presents NRHP eligibility evaluation recommendations for the CCC-WPA resources

surveyed at F.E. Warren AFB.

Table 5‐1: Table of NRHP Eligibility Evaluation Recommendations

for CCC‐WPA Resources Surveyed at F.E. Warren AFB

Building

#

Site # Construction

Date

Original Function Current Function NRHP Evaluation

150 48LA1858 1939 Base Theatre Base Theatre Eligible; Criterion A151 48LA1859 1940 Base Gym Base Gym Eligible; Criterion A152 48LA1860 1939 Medical Detachment

Barracks Education/Training Eligible; Criteria A and C153 48LA1861 1939 Boy Scout Lodge Boy Scout Lodge Eligible; Criteria A and C360 48LA1944 1941 Gas Valve Facility Vacant Eligible, Criteria A and C364 48LA1946 1938 QM Gas Station #1 Vacant Not Eligible, integrity





Bibliography “Civilian Conservation Corps Legacy Web site. http://www.ccclegacy.org (accessed November

21, 2008).

Hanson, James Austin. “The Civilian Conservation Corps in the Northern Rocky Mountains”.

Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wyoming. 1973.

“History of the Civilian Conservation Corps: Colorado and Wyoming District” O’Brien Printing

Company. Pueblo, Colorado. 1938.

McWilliams, Carl. “Administrative Buildings and Structures on the Bighorn National Forest”.

USDA, Forest Service. Sheridan, WY. November 1992.

Otis, Alison T. et. al. “The Forest Service and the Civilian Conservation Corps: 1933-42”.

USDA, Forest Service. August 1986.

http://www.ccclegacy.org/








CCC-WPA Resources Legacy Grant Case Study:Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California





1. Introduction Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake is located in southeast California in Kern, Inyo, and SanBernardino counties, just north of the town of Ridgecrest, 150 miles northeast of Los Angeles, and is

composed of two non-contiguous ranges encompassing 1.1 million acres total. A Naval Ordnance Test

Station (NOTS) was established at the site in November 1943 to test and evaluate rockets being

developed for the Navy by the California Institute of Technology. After World War II, NOTS projectsincluded testing and development of a variety of air-to-air missiles, aircraft rockets, free fall weapons, andtorpedoes. In July 1967, NOTS China Lake and the Naval Ordnance Laboratory at Corona merged to

form the Naval Weapons Center. In 1992, the Naval Weapons Center China Lake and the Pacific Missile

Test Center Point Mugu were combined as a single command, the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons

Division, with each designated a Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS).

2. Field and Research Methods Research and field survey were conducted at NAWS China Lake on 23 June 2009 by Steve and Linda

Moffitt of e²M.

2.1. Research The research team began its research by contacting the China Lake Cultural Resources Manager (CRM)

Michael Baskerville. He provided an email with historic data about the CCC activities at China Lake from

the CCC records group at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)-Denver. Mr.

Baskerville also provided a copy of a book titled “Before the Navy” that provided an overview history of

the area prior to the Navy. The research team also visited the China Lake base museum and the

Maturango Museum regarding pertinent materials but none were identified.

2.2. Field Survey On 23 June, researchers met with Mr. Baskerville who arranged for an escort to structures/sites known to

have been constructed by the CCC. These were four sites with ranch-related irrigation/fire tanks

constructed by the CCC under the sponsorship of the Department of Grazing prior to the Navy’s

acquisition of the property. The team recorded the CCC structures/sites on California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) survey forms and photographed them with a digital camera consistent with

SHPO photographic documentation requirements. Measurements of the structures were taken with simple

tapes, and overall site maps were prepared. The locations of the surveyed structures were recorded using a

geographic positioning system (GPS) receiver.

3. Historic Context 3.1. Historical Overview The military history of China Lake begins in 1943 with the Navy’s acquisition of the land now

known as the North and South Ranges of the Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake. Prior to

that date the area had a rich history associated with mining, homesteading and ranching, andtransportation. The area contains historic roads and trails associated with early westward

expansion, including the Old Spanish Trail dating back to 1776 and the Mormon Road to Salt

Lake City dating to 1840s (Dept. of Navy 1997:4-6). The Old Spanish Trail connected theSpanish colonies in New Mexico and Arizona with those in California. The Mormon Trail was

initially used by Mormons returning to Utah from California after the Mexican-American War.By the 1850s, the route had become well-established and known as the Salt Lake Road.

Beginning in 1860, mining operations varying from solitary miners to scattered settlements





began in the areas now occupied by the installation’s North and South Ranges. Gold mining inthe Mojave Desert went through several boom and bust cycles between 1860 and the 1920s.

During the Great Depression, many individuals returned to gold mining to make ends meet,

marking a “second gold rush” in the California fields. With the removal of the Gold Standard in1933, large-scale gold mining once again became a profitable enterprise, and a number of small

companies established mining operations there until the onset of World War II (Dept. of Navy1997:16). Early homesteads were constructed in the Indian Wells and Etcharren Valleys in theNorth Range and in the Superior Valley and scattered locations in the South Range. Homesteads

were located generally near reliable water sources and established transportation routes. The

federal government opened the Indian Wells Valley for homesteading in 1908. By 1919, the

valley had 350 registered voters, but only 800 acres under cultivation despite 12,250 patentedacres and another 49,800 acres entered for patenting in 1916 (Dept. of Navy 1997:44). In 1934,

the Taylor Grazing Act opened portions of the public domain to leasing by stockmen for the

grazing of livestock.

With the onset of World War II, several projects combined to establish a weapons training

facility at China Lake. The Navy had enlisted the assistance of scientists at the CaliforniaInstitute of Technology to develop rockets, and adequate facilities were needed for the testing

and evaluation of these new weapons. The Navy was also looking for a site to test all aviation

ordnance (Global Security-China Lake 2009). Dr. Charles Lauritsen of the California Institute of

Technology (CalTech) and Cdr. Sherman Burroughs combined their efforts to find a suitable siteto accommodate both needs. Dr. Lauritsen found a site near Inyokern, California with an

established two-way landing strip. It was surrounded by desert and only a short driving distance

from CalTech’s Pasadena facilities. The Naval Ordnance Test Station (NOTS) was establishedon 8 November 1943 with the mission of “a station having for its primary function the research,

development and testing of weapons, and having additional function of furnishing primarytraining in the use of such weapons.” The sparsely populated desert and practically unlimited

visibility provided the perfect conditions for testing, evaluation, and training of naval aviation

ordnance. The partnership between CalTech and the Navy established a pattern of poolingcivilian scientists and engineers with military personnel that would lead to China Lake becoming

one of the preeminent Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation (RDT&E) institutions in

the world (Global Security-China Lake 2009).

The Pasadena “annex” of the NOTS was staffed by CalTech professors who had left their

classrooms to support the war effort. Their first project was to increase the effectiveness of the

Navy’s air-dropped Mark 13 torpedo, resulting in the improved torpedo being used by navalaviators in the 1944 Battle of Leyte Gulf. After World War II, China Lake projects included the

development of the Sidewinder air-to-air missile, the Shrike anti-radiation missile, the Zuni

rocket, aircraft rockets, a variety of free fall weapons, torpedoes, and the TV-guided Walleyeglide bomb (Global Security-China Lake 2009). NOTS and its successors also served as

technical directors for all of the Navy’s lightweight torpedoes, each running deeper and farther

with more sophisticated guidance systems to keep up with Soviet submarine advances. NOTSalso played a major role in the development of the Navy’s ballistic missile program, eventually

solving the problem of surfacing a missile from a submarine before its ignition engine fired

(Global Security-China Lake 2009).





control valve to the troughs at a later date when the side camp is disbanded, this developmentmade to serve a double purpose.” (Kaldenberg 2009). A 400-foot pipeline was also constructed

at the site to convey water from the springs to the storage tank, requiring 160 man days of labor.

In December 1939, work began at the Crystal Springs site under CCC project No. 519. This

storage tank was designed for 500 cattle and use by 3 stockmen, although the allotment was for“Mark Lacy and others in common”. The storage tank required 806 man days of labor and againa pipeline was constructed to convey spring water to the tanks, requiring 217 man days to

complete. The project report noted “this spring formerly developed and used for mining

operations was headed into an old existing tunnel, having a good flow and left open to erosion

was almost lost by trampling and caving.” (Kaldenberg 2009).

At China Garden Springs, a pipeline and two storage tanks were constructed between January

1940 and March 1941. Each storage tank was designed to accommodate 500 cattle each, and theallotment was again for Mark Lacy, noted in this project order as the owner of the Cabin Bar

Ranch. The first storage tank was completed on 29 February 1941 and required 774 man days of

labor. The construction of the 150-foot pipeline to this storage tank required 56 man days of labor. The second storage tank at China Garden Springs was completed on 3 March 1941.

Initial work began at Cole Springs in November 1938, with the area around the spring cleared

and dug out and a cement pox and water pipe constructed. Apparently a dispute over claims tothe surface water rights broke out shortly thereafter, delaying construction of the storage tank.

Joe Ward filed claims for water and all surface privileges for mining purposes, while the allottee

of the CCC grazing work was again Mark Lacy. Apparently the conflicting claims were clarifiedin Lacy’s favor as work began on 3 April 1941 on the storage tank and 400 feet of conveyance

pipeline. The work was completed on 16 April 1941, requiring 261 man days of labor.

4. Survey Results and Evaluation Four CCC-era sites were surveyed at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake on 23 June 2009.

The sites are masonry stock tanks, corrals and other associated features constructed near natural

springs built between 1939-1941, prior to the acquisition of the land by the Navy in 1943. Some

site features likely pre-date the CCC-era due to early grazing activities in the area. These sitesare enumerated in Table 2 below.

Table 4-1: Table of CCC-WPA Resources Surveyed at NAWS China Lake.

Site # Construction Date Original Function Current Function

Crystal Springs 4 Dec 1939-15 March 1940 CCC Stock tank and corral Abandoned

Indian GardenSprings

1-29 November 1939 CCC Stock tanks and corral Abandoned

China GardenSprings

31 Jan 1940-29 Feb 1941,10 Feb 1941-3 March 1941

CCC Stock tank, cabin and corral Abandoned

Cole Springs 3-16 April 1941 CCC Stock tank, cabin and corral Abandoned





Crystal Springs

The Crystal Springs site consists of a masonry stock water tank measuring 18x18x6 ft. The tank was made with locally quarried stone. A pipe between the Crystal Springs and the tank was

buried one foot underground to prevent freeze damage to the line during the winter. A corral was

located approximately 110 feet to the east of the stock tank. The corral, measuring approximately

15x30 ft, was constructed of milled lumber, tree branches, live trees, and metal stakes usingdouble twisted, double tied barbed wire. An earthen overflow reservoir, metal trough, bed

frames, glass fragments, metal cans, and flaked stone debitage were also recorded at the site. Thesite is surrounded by a five strand barbed wire fence. The Crystal Springs stock tank was

constructed by the CCC at the request of the Division of Grazing in Reno, Nevada from 4

December 1939 – 15 March 1940. It was used as a gathering point for stock traveling on the trailto Owens Valley. The e2M team evaluates the site as locally significant under criterion A for its

association with the CCC. The site has retained its historic integrity, and is recommended here as

eligible for NRHP listing.

Figure 4-1. Crystal Springs Stock Water Tank, view to east.





Indian Garden Springs

The Indian Garden Springs site consists of two masonry stock water tanks, the first measuring9x9x2 ft while the second is 10x10x5 ft. Both tanks were made with locally quarried stone and

the second tank has a wood framed gable covering the open top tank reservoir. It is unclear if this

covering was constructed by the CCC or added later. A round corral is located approximately

120 feet east of tank #2 and 30 feet west of tank #1. The circular corral, measuringapproximately 50 ft across, is constructed of milled lumber and railroad ties using a double

twisted, double tied barbed wire. Metal and wooden troughs, water pipes, glass fragments, metalcans, and flaked stone debitage were also recorded at the site. There are remnants of barbed wire

fence on the north side of the site. The Indian Garden Springs stock tanks were constructed by

the CCC from 1-29 November 1939. A CCC camp, the Darwin side camp, was located at theIndian Garden Springs site. The stock tank also served as water storage for the camp. A cement

slab foundation on the north side of the spring is reported to be all that is left of the camp. The

foundation was not relocated. This site is evaluated here as locally significant under criterion A

for its association with the CCC and criterion D as it may yield information about the Darwinside camp. The site has retained its historic integrity, and is recommended here as eligible for

NRHP listing.

Figure 4-2. Indian Garden Springs Tank #1, view to north.





Figure 4-3. Indian Garden Springs Tank #2, view to southeast.

China Garden Springs

The China Garden Springs site consists of a masonry stock water tank measuring 9x9x2 ft. Thetank was made with locally quarried stone. An earthen overflow reservoir is located northeast of the tank and a corral is located approximately 50 feet east the tank. The corral, measuring

approximately 70x100 ft, is constructed of milled lumber, railroad ties, and tree branches using a

double twisted, double tied barbed wire. Wooden troughs and metal water pipes were alsorecorded at the site. There are remnants of barbed wire fence outside the site boundaries. A wood

frame structure is also located at the China Garden Springs site. The structure has an extended

front gable roof with horizontal wood frame siding. There is a wood framed screen door on the

east façade and an opening on the west facade. The structure measures approximately 10x15 feet,and is in deteriorated condition. It is not clear if the structure pre-dates the CCC-era. It may be

associated with earlier grazing in the area. A previously recorded prehistoric site (CA-INY-5369)

was located 300m south of stock water tank. The site was recorded in 1998 and included a RoseSpring projectile point. The artifacts found were consistent with those used during the Haiwee

period (1350-650 B.P). This site was not relocated during the current survey. The China Garden

Springs stock tank was constructed by the CCC from 31 January 1940- 3 March 1941. This siteis evaluated here as locally significant under criterion A for its association with the CCC. It has

retained its historic integrity, and is recommended eligible for NRHP listing.





Figure 4-4. China Garden Springs Tank, view to east.

Figure 4-5. China Garden Springs wooden structure, view to west.





Cole Springs

The Cole Springs site consists of a masonry stock water tank measuring 18x18x6 ft. The tank was made with locally quarried stone. The tank serves as the northeast corner of a wooden

holding pen. The pen measures approximately 50x50 ft and is constructed of milled lumber,

railroad ties, metal stakes using a double twisted, double tied barbed wire. A loading chute is

located on the south side of the holding pen. A large corral that measures approximately 150x200ft is located approximately 80ft southeast of the stock tank. This corral has the same construction

as the holding pen. It is possible that the corral is associated with Joe Ward, who had miningclaims in the area. He had claimed all water and surface privileges including the corral

(Kaldenberg 2009). An arrester and cabin are also located at the site but associated with earlier

mining. An earthen overflow reservoir is located 60 ft to the northeast of the tank. In addition,metal and wooden troughs, water pipes, metal cans, metal stoves, and flaked stone debitage were

recorded at the site. The Cole Springs stock tank was constructed by the CCC from 3-16 April

1941. This site is evaluated here as locally significant under criterion A for its association with

the CCC. It has retained integrity, and is recommended here as eligible for NRHP listing.

Figure 4-6. Cole Springs Tank, view to east.





5. Summary and Recommendations Table Table 3 presents NRHP eligibility evaluation recommendations for the CCC resources surveyed

at China Lake.

Table 5-1: Table of NRHP Eligibility Evaluation Recommendationsfor CCC-WPA Resources Surveyed at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake.

Site # Construction DateOriginalFunction

CurrentFunction

NRHP Evaluation

Crystal Springs 4 Dec 1939-15 March 1940CCC Stock tankand corral

Abandoned NRHP Eligible criterion A

Indian GardenSprings

1-29 November 1939CCC Stock tanksand corral

AbandonedNRHP Eligible criterion Aand D

China GardenSprings

31 Jan 1940-29 Feb 1941,10 Feb 1941-3 March 1941

CCC Stock tank,cabin and corral


Cole Springs 3-16 April 1941CCC Stock tankand corral


6. Bibliography “Civilian Conservation Corps Legacy Web site. http://www.ccclegacy.org (accessed July 20,

2009).

“Global Security Web site. “China Lake.” http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/china-

lake.htm (accessed July 20, 2009).

1997 Department of the Navy

Before the Navy: A Contextual Overview of Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake

Kern, Inyo, and San Bernardino Counties, California Prior to Its Acquisition by the U.S.

Navy. Prepared by JRP Historical Consulting Services, Davis, California. June 1997.

2009 Russ Kaldenberg

Email communications between Russ Kaldenberg and Michael Baskerville, CRM at

NAWS China Lake. June 2009.




http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/china-lake.htm










July 2009 Legacy Resource Management Program E-1

APPENDIX E

BUILT BY THE WPA AND CCC: 1933-1943 NEW DEAL HISTORIC RESOURCES

ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INSTALLATIONS

(PROJECT PUBLIC EDUCATION BOOKLET)




E-2 Legacy Resource Management Program July 2009


civilian conservation corps buildings

Documents