Military Historic Context Emphasizing the Cold War Including the Identification and Evaluation of Above Ground Cultural Resources for Thirteen Department of Defense Installations in the State of Georgia

• Main Authors: Nolte, Kelly, Steinback, Mark A.
• Format: Text
• Language: English
• Published: Panamerican Consultants, Inc 2006
• Subjects: Georgia State / Territory; Georgia Military Working Group; GMWG; Cultural Resource Management; GA HPO; Command Mission; Historical Reports; Georgia Historic Preservation Office; Army Terminology; Cold War Area Propoerty; Installation Histories; Cold War; Marine Corps Terminology; Army Cold War Property Types; Air Force Terminology; Navy Terminology; Navy Cold War Building Types; Navy Cold War Property Types; Army Cold War Building Types; BASEOPS; Marine Corps Cold War Building Types; Marine Corps Cold War Property Types; Air Force Cold War Property Types; Air Force Cold War Building Types; Military Landscapes; Historic Background Research; Methodology, Theory, or Synthesis; Heritage Management; Fort McPherson; Kings Bay
• Online Access: https://dx.doi.org/10.6067/xcv8vd70dn; http://core.tdar.org/document/391248

Panamerican Consultants Inc. (Panamerican) was contracted by Fort Benning Military Reservation and the Department of Defense Legacy Resources Management Program to develop an historic context emphasizing the Cold War for thirteen Department of Defense (DoD) installations in the state of Georgia, which included the identification and evaluation of above ground cultural resources (e.g., infrastructure, landscape and buildings/structures). The thirteen installations included in this investigation are: Fort McPherson (1885), Fort Benning (1918), Fort Stewart (1940), Hunter Army Air Field (1940), Moody Air Force Base (1940), Fort Gillem (1941), Robins Air Force Base (1941), Fort Gordon (1941), Naval Air Station Atlanta (1941), Dobbins Air Reserve Base (1942), Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany (1952), Naval Supply Corps School Athens (1954), and Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay (1978). The objective of this study is to establish cultural resource commonalities between these installations to aid in the timely identification of resources and the accurate assessment of their significance in order to reduce or eliminate delays to training or other mission-related activities. It is anticipated that this document will support installation cultural resource managers (CRM) in the identification, evaluation and treatment of historic properties pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, particularly Sections 106 and 110, and in accordance with service-specific cultural resources regulations.